FAA Notification on Large Model Rockets

How do you know that? Sounds flaky to me. Why would he make "practice" approaches at a non-airport location when he could easily do it at an airport?

How do you know he was in violation of the rule?

Reply to
Steven P. McNicoll
Loading thread data ...

What were the issues?

Reply to
Steven P. McNicoll

problems. I

Jerry claimed to have the waiver, it was his responsibility. Chuck was in the same boat as everyone else at that launch.

Reply to
raydunakin

Actually, you don't tend to find a lot of air traffic in the middle of nowhere, that's one reason it's called the middle of nowhere. You don't tend to find much of anything at all.

Would have any qualms over a waivered launch near a VOR?

Share it.

Reply to
Steven P. McNicoll

The presence of the VOR is the issue. The lack of a waiver is the issue.

Reply to
Steven P. McNicoll

If I remember correctly,

some had bad gas, bad manners, nanny state syndrome, over ego, and otherwise bew-ro-cratic problems.

Reply to
AlMax

If only they had BREW-o-cratic problems, they would have ROCKED!

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Lucerne for example is not "near a VOR", however it IS in a lane of above average traffic. Hence the 15,000 foot limits. Lucerne as a launch site should be good for 20 miles+, but as an airspace FAA format factor, it is 15,000 feet. I for one would prefer Lucerne be upgraded to 15,000 blanket and 200,000 feet real-time.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

You mean, he too was required to stay within 15000 feet MSL? Yes I agree.

Chuck's problem in hindsight was when he realized he violated the waiver and any known waiver in the past, rather than declaring his record, but otherwise staying silent, he needed a scapegoat to DECLARE in violation so he could say it wasn't his fault he KNOWINGLY went 25,000 feet after he stated to Jerry Irvine and Bill Wood the pre-flight estimate was

13,000 feet.

I couldn't care less he broke the law. But blame it om me and I get pissed and I NEVER forget.

Ever.

Jerry

It seems this is NOT the only issue on which he "took liberties with the truth."

"> So the AIAA Technical Committees have spoken. These nozzles are > aerospikes.

BATF has spoken. They were wrong. TRA has spoken. SU motor manufacturing requires a LEMP. They were wrong. You have spoken. All AT 18mm reloads are certified. You were "wrong". Question authority. They seem imperfect. I noted you snipped my suggestion. To simply coin more specific terms to address the obvious debate. It worked for me: MRT It worked for Mike Nelson: HPR magazine It worked for Gary Rosenfield: Restricted Access. :)"

"It appears (in many more examples than just this), that Mr. Rogers was having extreme difficulty understanding the very obvious, purely fiduciary, and clearly moral obligation to the trust granted to him by the *members* he was obligated to represent." - John Cato

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Even if you know to an absolute certainty he was in violation, FAA could care less unless there was an "incident".

Fact.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Exactly.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Good point.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Beg.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Strictly and actually false.

The preflight estimate was 13,000 feet. Did you miss that statement 100 times in a row??

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

BS gets no reply.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Why a no Chicken?

Reply to
Roy Green

jerry you're an IDIOT. Lucerne dry lake is directly under the approach for Ontario and LAX. Way to much air traffic.

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

No, I mean he was dependent on your word that an appropriate waiver had been obtained. Fifteen years, one fraud judgement and $40k in DOT fines later, we all know better than to take your word for anything.

violation

Too bad the FAA doesn't back up your story.

Reply to
raydunakin

Viaduct, viachicken, vie am I speaking vis an accent?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

It's 42 nautical miles from ONT and 79 nautical miles from LAX.

Reply to
Steven P. McNicoll

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.