FAA Notification on Large Model Rockets

Yes? It wasn't a yes or no question.

Got me. I'm just saying that if the occasion were to arise, I would be willing to try to accomidate a reasonable request. What's so bad about that?

I'm not a pilot so, I don't pretend to know a fraction of the situations that might occur. I think I have the common sense to know a stupid request when I hear one. (there's Jerry's queue) How about if they want to make an emergency landing on out flying field?

Any request from any FAA facility having airspace control of the area being used. Example: "We have a situations that may be impacted by your activities and we need you to stop your activities until further notice. We will get back to you as soon as the situation is resolved". In that situation, nothing more, I repeat, nothing more is required, nor should be expected, for us to "right now" stop our activities. We should assume the request is for safety of flight operations. Any attitude, such as, "give me a better reason or you don't have the authority", is counterproductive to our continued activities, in the short and long run. Also, in the short run, a distraction to the FAA controller, he or she, can do without.

Just my opinion.. Fred

At Lucerne, it is not all that uncomon for aircraf to land ON THE FLYING FIELD.

In that situation the controlling rule (and practice) is VFR. Visual flight rules. Both the airplane pilot and the rocket "pilot" (operator) have an obligation to watch for OTHER aircraft (rockets are CLEARLY aircraft) and avoid both crashing into them and frightening them with close calls.

In practice this means not flying rockets when aircraft are in visual range (ie ~ 5 miles).

YMMV at a ROC-LDRS launch.

Jerry

I reasonably request you get a LEUP for any rocket over 62.5g propellant. Please ignore the (NFPA/NAR) CONSUMER 125g and FAA 125g limits behind the curtain.

ATF agrees, so hurry up and get that LEUP. Log those CONSUMER rockets on an EXPLOSIVES log and IGNORE that they literally CANNOT explode.

Thanks.

Ray will help you.

That is not a situation as originally posited of two equal status folks asking each other.

If an AHJ says stop you stop.

That is dissimilar authority.

Like what TRA wields to FORCE all EXEMPT motors to be BORN ATF REGULATED for example.

Jerry

Exactly what does TRA "Wield"?

Are your motors "born regulated?

What's TRA and their power over you have to do with the subject post, jerry?? Don't bother answering, i know the answer.

Good judgment as it relates to him; evidenced by his DOT regulatory experience, and resulting punitive action taken against him, based on facts in evidence.. In other words, TRA was right and JI was wrong.

His motors? "No, but his a$$, yesssss; now by DOT". #! rnews 1849 Xref: xyzzy sci.energy:127050 talk.environment:223302 talk.politics.misc:2956216 Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.global-warming,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.inventors Path: xyzzy!nntp From: "Fred McGalliard" Subject: Re: Are nukes the answer to global warming? X-Nntp-Posting-Host: e056750.nw.nos.boeing.com Message-ID: X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Lines: 19 Sender: snipped-for-privacy@news.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access) Organization: The Boeing Company X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 References: You can bet your bippi I would be looking for improvements to my extraction

Well actually isn't that one of the reasons they talked about running a nuke to provide the extra heat energy for the extraction?

#! rnews 1620 Xref: xyzzy sci.energy:127051 talk.environment:223304 talk.politics.misc:2956225 Newsgroups: sci.energy,alt.global-warming,talk.environment,talk.politics.misc,alt.inventors Path: xyzzy!nntp From: "Fred McGalliard" Subject: Re: Are nukes the answer to global warming? X-Nntp-Posting-Host: e056750.nw.nos.boeing.com Message-ID: X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Lines: 12 Sender: snipped-for-privacy@news.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access) Organization: The Boeing Company X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1409 References:

Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:20:50 GMT

I thought, more to the point, the counter flow saves heat energy but increases the requirements for filtering and cleaning and to drive the gas motion. The stack has to disperse the effluent gas fast and high, so we may really not want to take too much of the heat energy out.

I too attended TRA launches where they continued to launch into clouds when it was OBVIOUS that everything would vanish. Like 800' ceiling complete overcast, and drizzling. But they wouldn't let me fly my D12 happy meal that would have gone about 100'. But HPR rockets continued thrusting after vanishing in the clouds. Who knows where they were landing.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Well, that's ONE stupid rule I managed to keep out of the HPR safety code. The first draft of the NAR code did not use the same wording as the MR code. Instead it said that you can't launch if any aircraft is in sight. Well, NARAM-33 and the first NAR HPR launch were to be held UNDER ORDs class B air space. it's unlikely there would EVER be a time you couldn't see an aircraft somewhere, maybe 25 miles away at 37000'. Our waiver was 1700'. I made it VERY clear to Bunny and then Prez pat Miller that if the rule was not changed, it would be enforced to the letter and we would not fly ANY HPR rockets all week. They fixed the rule.

If you've got a waiver to 5K or even 10K and you see a jet flying at 37K you don't need to hold or wait for the guy to be out of sight. Now if a Cessna is headed for the range at 1000', it's a different story.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Remember the Alamo.

I was pretty sure I did.

Well, if you don't know what a reasonable request is you can hardly accommodate it.

Isn't that situation already covered in the regulation?

I wish they would fix the HPR offset distance in NFPA-1127 to near MR distances (per your and my tables) and back to 1/4 the expected altitude for HPR to allow for BDR.

Jerry

From an FAA perspective, the reason why that rule violation is "unsafe" is that you are operating VFR (no instruments) and instrumented aircraft are allowed to enter that cloud.

No collision control.

Jerry

That implies it happened a long time ago. Nope, happens regularly now.

One would assume that they have some sort of radio tracking beacon, have FAA permission to use that airspace, and that no other craft are known (observed via sight or radar) to be the sport rockets airspace.

Alan

Why should we assume the request is for safety of flight operations? Since FAR 101.23 already prohibits the operation of an unmanned rocket in a manner that creates a collision hazard with other aircraft isn't it logical to assume the request is for reasons OTHER than safety of flight operations? After all, if the reason is safety of flight operations the request would amount to asking that the regulation be complied with. Since compliance with the regulation is required anyway the request must be for some other reason. So again I ask, what situation, not already covered by FAR Part