FAA Waiver question

well the good news is I got a callin standing 18K waiver at our Sims farm site. The bad news is I am having trouble getting a 5K waiver for the MSP
site. At first the FAA guy said he was going to ok it. Then his supervisor said NO as its in the ILS Flight path or very close to it.
SO I explained to the FAA guy that ALL we were planning on actually launching there in the first place were Model Rockets (which are exempt,up to a point, more on this in a minute) and Large Model Rockets which only require notification.(NOT PERMISSION)
The reason I decided to apply for a FAA waiver at this site was to try and be viewed as a responsible and good neighbor to the local airport. Back in April Per FAR I did the notification to the Airport manager and the ATC at Bluegras Airport that we would launching model and large model rockets.
To make a long story short, the Bluegrass Airport ATC manager went ballistic on me and told me that I could not launch model or large model rockets there as it would cause a collision hazard with his aircraft. Itreid to inform him that according to FAR I was resposnsible for doing a 360 sky sacn prior to any lauches so as not to cause these potential aircraft collision hazards, and well didn't agree that was enough safety in his mind.
I tried to point out to this ATC manager that I was asking for his authority to lauch, I was provdiing notification and he had no authority to deny my model rocket or large model rockets launch.
SO he called a FAA Supervisor in Louisville , who then called me and told me in not so many words, that true, the FAA had no authority to disallow this model rocket/large model rocket launch BUT if we needed any FAA waivers in the future from the Louisville office, if we didn't comply, they would take their time okaying any future faa waivers on our behalf......
So I decided to comply and called off the launch.
SO I then made the recent decsiion to apply for a FAA waiver at this MSP site, even though we would still ONLY be flying model rockets and large model rockets. I know a FAA waiver isn't required per FAR, but I thought from a enhanced safety POV, if I got a FAA waiver, a NOTAM would be issued warning aircraft of where and what we were doing, and I even suggested that I call the local ATC provide them launch notification 30 min prior to us launching.
You are probably asking, well why apply for a waiver when you don't need one. My reasoning was that G powered model rockets and large model rockets can easily hit 5,000 ft.
So heres my question:
Sec. 101.1 Applicability.
(a) This part prescribes rules governing the operation in the United
States, of the following:
(3) Any unmanned rocket EXCEPT:
(i) Aerial firework displays; and,
(ii) Model rockets:
(a) Using not more than four ounces of propellant;
(b) Using a slow-burning propellant;
(c) Made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic, containing no substantial
metal parts and weighing not more than 16 ounces, including the propellant;
and
(d) Operated in a manner that does not create a hazard to persons,
property, or other aircraft.
Ths tells me that Model Rockets are totally exempt from FAA regulation as long as (d) is not violated. At that point they lose their exemption from FAA oversight. If this is true, who's responsiblity is it to determine that I might be operating a model rocket in such a hazardous way? If I am following the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code to the T, then theres no way I could possibly be in violation of operating a model rocket in a hazardous way towards aircraft as :
Flight Safety. I will not launch my rocket at targets, into clouds, or near airplanes, ....
Then aren't I taking full resposnsibility and making the safety determination myself? I mean no rockets will ever be lauched if there is any aircarft within eyesight.
I might add that Iam between 4-5 miles from the airport in question, and its a small regional airport .
Finally, the FAA person who is doing these waivers is in agreement with me that 1. no faa waiver is actually required to fly model rocket or large model rockets as long as I do the subpart C LMR notoification procedures.
shockie B)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Back when the new FAA regulations were released that increased the 1 pound limit and created the 3.3 pound limit LMR category, we were all told to NOT apply for waivers for LMR, because the regulations were revised to specifically define them and their requirements. There is nothing to waive.
Waivers cost time and money to process. Please do not waste their budget.
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
shreadvector wrote:

For fear of being flamed, why not push in the future getting rid of the notification baloney for models less than G impulse and less than 3.3lbs? I've had people give me the mis-information that as long as the model weighs less than 3.3lbs. and less than G impulse, don't bother with notification. Well heck don't have a less than a nominal flight or terrorize someone in a Cessna 150 and get caught as one could get fried. For higher weight and impulse, I agree with limits/waivers as the last thing I want to do is scare the flying public and send spurious returns on the radar screens. Am fortunate as I do have access to a club site with a waiver but it is a hassle to fly my modified Super Big Bertha at 750grams on a G38-7 which only just clears 1300'
Kurt Savegnago "not yet certified" Well maybe next season!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you terrorize any aircraft you may have a problem weather you have a waiver or not. The waivers I've gotten clearly start that we are not to cause any 'situations' with any aircraft. I'm not sure if the NOTAM attracts sight seers or if people never read them. I'm sure it's one of the two. Anyway my point is that as long as everyone is playing by the rules, there shouldn't be any problems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's both.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
NOTAMS always attract sight seers. At 12 noon exactly you can see some small piece of crap aircraft flying over the exact center of our launch site. When we had our waiver active, you did not see this. But when it was NOTAM, we saw it pretty much every month. So notification can be a 2 edged sword.
--

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com


"Bob Kaplow" <kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phil Stein wrote:

I agree there Phil but with the "advice" I am receiving above, I suspect there are a lot of folks who don't bother with the notification rule. If they are called to question, they're cooked. True, I could get into trouble with my Apogee Aspire going up on an F10-8 or breaking mach on a G80-10 if I don't clear the area first! :)
Kurt Savegnago
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kurt wrote:

Only if the weight exceeds 1 pound...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IMO it's simply a matter of following the rules and having the balls to take these guys on when you know you're right.
There is now restriction on breaking mach. I'm not sure where a G80 falls into the propellant weight limitation but if it's below, then don't sweat it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:32:14 -0500, Phil Stein

There is know restriction on breaking Mach.

It's a MR motor, you can even fly two of them.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alan Jones wrote:

There is "no" restriction..
Or
I "know" of "no" restriction
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or

It's a - know - restriction, you have to... know how.
; )
Randy www.vernarockets.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Thanks for the hellp but if I were clarifying it, I would have said 'no.'

This depends on propellant weight. I just checked. a G80 is 47.9g of propellant.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is? Please explain. I have never heard of any such thing.
--

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Typo - no has an extra w on it. Remove dubya. 8-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Cisko wrote:

Only Mach restriction I know is for full sized aircraft. Look up an Apogee Aspire. Only 125gm empty weight.
Kurt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Excuse me? What do you mean people don't bother? If your rocket is between 16 ounces and 3.3 lbs in weight you *MUST* notify. It is the law. There is no interprutation here. If you are not doing so, or know people who are not doing so, you are the problem or part of the problem.

Not sure what "called into question" means.

If you are saying what I think you are saying, you have violated the NAR safety code, if you are even a NAR member. So no insurance. Should be drummed out of the corps as far as I am concerned.
Also there is some urgency to determine why we are now having safety problems with model rockets. If you are really saying what I think you are saying, then the problem is that people are simply ignoring the law and rules/safety code. We really do not have to modify the safety code, we need to somehow police our own. I am really hoping I have not understood what you are saying here. Please elaborate.
--

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Cisko wrote:

Duh. That doesn't change the fact that there are probably a lot of people who don't do it. Either they don't know they're supposed to, or as Kurt suggested, they simply don't bother. Just as there are a great many people who don't obey speed limits, for instance. And unlike speed limits, notification has no bearing on safety. One could argue that speeding is inherently dangerous -- but a large model rocket flown in clear skies with no aircraft present is safe regardless of whether the flyer has notified the FAA.
Even high power waivers have very little to do with safety. They are merely permits. The only safety issue addressed by the waiver requirement is that the FAA can deny a permit if the applicant is requesting permission to fly in an area (or altitude) where it would conflict with other air traffic. Other than that, having a waiver doesn't make the flight any safer -- the waiver doesn't clear the airspace of other traffic for your launch.

Really? What problem is that?

I think Kurt is speaking hypothetically here. Also, since when does an F10 or even a G80 automatically require notification?

We are? Since when? What "safety problems" are you referring to, and what do they have to do with someone allegedly flying LMR with notification?

You're jumping to conclusions, and you're also confusing two separate issues (what's safe, vs what's legal).

No, but it would be nice if we could get the FAA to eliminate useless requirements that even their own personnel don't understand.
m
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17 Nov 2005 22:58:26 -0800, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"

True, but ATC can clear the airspace, or confirm that the airspace is clear.
In part, the FAA is like a public park ranger or commissioner. They just want to know how the public facility (airspace) is being used so that they can better manage the facility for public use.

Excellent history question. Exactly when did the FAA start requiring only notification for LMR? It has been many years. Of course flying a G80 in MR requires only following the safety code and common sense.

Yes, do tell!

Some FAA personnel could use some more training, regardless of how you feel about the usefulness of the requirements.
I suspect one day that the FAA will revisit LMR notification and decide if it helps them manage the airspace, or if it is just a useless nuisance. If the FAA were to simply eliminate the LMR notification, would that not put LMR flights back under the HPR waiver requirements? What specific limits on sport rockets and motors would you propose for exemption from all FAA regulations and why? How would you expect the FAA to come up with limits if they do not know how sport rocketeers are using the airspace? LMR notification gives the FAA some indication of sport rocketry use of the airspace, and it can consider the record of notifications and waivers when revising regulations. LMR notification is a minor inconvenience and much better than required waivers.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

November 1994.

Depends on what they do. If they simply eliminate FAR 101.22, we're right back where we were before the lawsuit. What they SHOULD do is what we asked for in first place: change the MR limts in FAR 101.1 from 113/453g to the 125/1500g limits we requested in 1985. Then the only time we'd have to deal with them at all is for HPR waivers. Less work for them, less hassles for them, less confusion for them.
But they aren't going to do this on their own.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.