FAA Waiver question

It's simple Ray, and I'm surprised you don't understand it. It's not only for the saftey of your lanch, but also for the saftey of those in the plane. If the proper paperwork is filed, some planes will stay out the the area. For small planes, you might not see them as they are only a speck in the sky when you want to launch, but by the time your birds reach 5000' AGL, the plane could be close.

Then it's THEIR problem and not yours!

But without the proper FAA approval, any problem is 100% the responsibility of the launcher and not the responsibility of the folks in the plane.

Ray, all I've read seems to be your way of justifying your own flights without proper notification and/or waivers from the FAA. Face it Ray, while you might get neat photos of launches, you need to play by the rules, and not just launch at "a neat place" when you find one.

The FAA waiver allows you to fly unmanned rockets "No person may operate an unmanned rocket-- . . . (b) In controlled airspace;"

Other sections of 14 CFR Part 101 allow for model rockets and large model rockets to be flown without the need for a waiver.

If you happen to find a piece of airspace where the boundry between controlled and uncontrolled airspace is high enough, you can fy HPR without a waiver so long as the other restrictions at 14 CFR 101.23 are complied with. But in most parts of the country controlled airspace starts at 1200' AGL or lower.

I've seen it done about 25 years ago by some perps in Medina, OH. I voiced an objection, but I was a 135 Lb. visitor, not in enforcement, and the gang of perps was on their home turf. I strongly objected to the taped on styrofoam fins. Those perps seemed to know exactly what they were doing, and made a safe flight. They were also alleged to have flown an uncertified G motor, but I did not see that. I don't think there was any FAA notification or waiver.

OTOH, I have never seen "kids" fly such models, although many draw sketches. I think they all know the rules, and almost all abide by them. I suspect there are some violations simply because they do not have or use scales, rely on manufacturers weights, and underestimate the weight of glue and paint, etc. I don't think the FAA cares if a flight is inadvertently a couple ounces over the limit. The FAA is not all about enforcement, conviction, and confiscation of spoils, they just want voluntary compliance with the rules.

I think your cavalier attitude and "facts" on compliance borders on foolishness.

The ATF is an entirely different kettle of fish. These are the JBGTs that may be out to get us. Those guys are all about enforcement, fee collections, confiscation of property without due process, etc. Their careers are not advanced by safety, but by headline busts and confiscation of spoils. I will not say that ATF is evil, or that their demands are useless and unrelated to safety. However, by comparison, the FAA are the good guys, who impose rules that can be complied with at little or no cost, and who are worthy of voluntary compliance.

Alan

Some? Unless it keeps every plane out of the area, it's still going to be the flyer's responsibility to make sure their are no aircraft in range before launching.

Maybe if you're blind and deaf.

Yeah, tell that to the FAA if you are stupid enough to launch when there is an aircraft in the way. It won't matter whether you have a NOTAM or a waiver -- it will be your butt that gets nailed to the wall, not the pilot's.

Even WITH the FAA's approval, it is the responsibility of the person launching the rocket to make sure that there are no aircraft in range. If you don't believe me, PLEASE, ask the FAA!

So, anyone who questions a law is automatically guilty of violating it? You need to take a remedial course in basic logic. That's not too surprising though, coming from someone who thinks we should all bend over for the ATF.

P

Exactly where and how have I demonstrated a "cavalier attitude" in these posts? I have not expressed any attitude at all, and have repeatedly stated that I was not advocating or condoning violating the regs. I have merely stated that the safety of a launch is entirely up to the individual doing the launch, and does not hinge on compliance with the regs. With or without NOTAMs or waivers, the person conducting the launch is ALWAYS responible for making sure that they are not endangering any aircraft. If this is not a fact, please explain how.

Yes, the FAA is much better and easier to deal with than the ATF. That doesn't mean that their regs are perfect or above criticism. And it certainly does not negate my right to point out the flaws in their regs, and I will continue to do so no matter how politically incorrect it may be.

Sorry, I'm unwilling to cut and past from all your other posts.

There you go again... You continue to make public statements that the FAA rules are flawed, the personnel are ignorant, notification and waivers have no bearing on safety, and that many people just fly without them. You are sending the message to readers, especially the younger less responsible readers, that compliance is not important, and that they can fly without notification as you say others do. Instead you should be telling readers that FAA rules are important, and to comply with the FAA notification and waiver applications like responsible rocketeers do. You should send a letter directly to the FAA to add dress your perceived flaws in FAA regulations and personnel, and not marginalize the importance of complying with the FAA regulations in a public forum.

Alan

About 25 miles from ORD. But wait. You are the expert and know better.

Then get into the loop :-)

OK. Well during one launch, there was a plane flying over our site when the waiver was active. I called the tower. They chased him/her out. The net result sure looked to me like exclusive use of the airspace. Also I forgot to call the tower one month to let them know our waiver activities were concluded . They called my cell an hour after the waiver was supposed to be over, and informed me that they were still holding that airspace off limits and did I still need the waiver in place. So in spite of this, you apparently have better information. Amazing - and genuis!!!!

Good for you.

Jim M... Who the hell is Jim M anyway and why should I care?

One thing I think may be confusing the issue is the difference between VFR & IFR flight rules. Air traffic control works primarily with IFR aircraft, except within 3 miles of an airport. A waiver might cause ATC to block an area to IFR aircraft (which usually operate at altitude, or under the direct radar control of ATC as they near an airport), but they are not even going to know if an aircraft operating under VFR is in your area. If you are operating within a TCA (terminal control area) this is a bit different, hence the "permission of the airport manager if within 5 miles..." clause in the notification requirements.

All rocketry operation are under VFR flight rules, far as I can tell :)

Kevin "used to be a controller a looong time ago" OClassen

VFR = visual flight rules IFR = instrument flight rules ^ ^ apples oranges

Fred - I am sure you are correct. What you describe here certainly sounds like the most reasonable explaination.

Well their radar told them the little crap airplane in question was at

1180ft and traveling at 130 knots. They also assured me the aircraft would not be back. So maybe my perception was because of my conversation with the person at the other end of the phone (in the O'hare tower).

But yes VFR aircraft certainly were a concern for the officials at a local airport 5 miles from our launch site.

No. Several folks have asked you to describe the conditions under which you took PUBLIHED photos. Now set aside the "attitude", and simply decribe those conditions so everyone will move on.

Unless TRA calls the FAA after you.

In short, you're unwilling to back up your accusation with facts.

These are facts, whether you like them or not. Can you prove that all FAA regs are absolutely perfect and can't possibly be improved? Can you prove that every FAA official always understands every rocketry-related reg? Can you prove that it is impossible to launch a LMR safely without notification? Can you prove that there are no people who are unaware of the requirements for notification?

Bull. I have said repeatedly that I do NOT advocate violating the FAA regs. I have never said that compliance is not important, nor have I said or implied that non-compliance is legal.

That was not the issue under discussion. The issue is whether or not LMR notification has anything to do with the safety of a LMR launch. It is patently clear that a LMR can be launched safely regardless of notification, therefor notification is not a safety matter. It is a legal issue only. To insist that it is automatically "unsafe" to fly LMR without notification is a lie. If you want people to comply with the regs, stick to the facts and don't lie to them about it. People can tell when they are being lied to, and will tend to ignore your warnings.

First off, my complaint is not so much with the FAA as it is with those who lie or exaggerate about safety and try to force poltical correctness on others. I can live with flawed regs, but I can't stand BS.

Secondly, any hope of change is more likely to come from a concerted effort by the hobby. That can't happen if no one is allowed to discuss it in an open and honest manner.

If they are doing that, it is something in addition to the waiver. The waiver itself only grants permission to launch.

Do you care about the FAA? Next time you have them on the phone, ask them whether or not a waiver automatically grants exclusive use of the airspace.

2

No, Ray, you tap-dance around the issue when we all know what you're doing.

It's as simple as this... The FAA is one government agency that works well with us. When people launch without following the (painfully simple) process, it puts ALL of us at risk of having problems with the FAA in the future. It's even worse when people publish information making it obvious as to what they're doing.

Play by the rules, whether you like them or not, or don't be surprised when it starts causing YOU problems.

-Kevin

Wow, published photos -- there must have been a crime involved! Better check the hobby magazines a little more carefully. You'll find that there are "published photos" and reports of LMR and high power launches in every issue, yet none of them include proof that the launches were conducted 100% legally.

Ask for proof of legality from everyone who posts or publishes a launch report. When you demand and get documented proof from everyone in the hobby that every rocket flown has been 100% legal, then maybe I will consider your request.

i

I was surprised and very grateful for the Principal Operations Inspector person I spoke with. He had no earthly idea what models rockets, large model rockst or high power rockets were. He told me this was the first time he worked on waivers for rockets although he had done so for everything else.

We went over the FAR 101 regulations line by line and and I explained the diferences in propellant weights and overall weights so he clearly could see the difference. He finally agree that as long as model rockets were flown in accordance with the NAR Model Rockety Safety Code, that Model rockets were indeed totally exempt from FAA purview.

He also agree that all that was needed in my case was the LMR notification procedures to my local airport. And he didn't have to, but he went to his supervisor to verify everything (and they agreed ) and finally he actually called up the TAC manger at the local airport and informed him of their decsision and their reasoning.

This guy was willing to listen to me all the way and even took up for me. You can't get much better service from a federal agency than this. now if only the BATFE were as willing to talk and discuss.

shockie B)