FAA Waiver question

Kevin Trojanowski wrote:


You are so right. In any dealings I have ever had with the FAA, they have been professional, courteous, and went out of their way to help me.
A waiver gives us the right to use the airspace, and deos not give us sole access to it. Planes always have the right to enter the airspace we are using. I have never been concerned about inadvertantly hitting an airplane while launching a rocket, but I have always been concerned about a small plane running into a rocket while it is drifting down on a chute. An small palne might not be detected upon launch, but could possibly fly into the path of a rocket decending from a high apogee deployment, causing an accident. If a waiver is in place alerting pilots of the possible hazard and an accident occurs, it would place the blame on the pilot that should have heeded the NOTAM.
Bottom line, it is stupid and dangerous to fly without a waiver in place when required by the FAA, being that it is so easy to obtain, and really, really stupid to publish articles and photographs depicting such events.
Jeff Barnes TRA #2267
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dynapython wrote:

It's funny how so many of the folks insisting that it's easy to get a waiver also insist that an individual flying independently couldn't possibly have had one. Maybe they think the FAA only hands out waivers for dry lakes and sod farms?
BTW, if you're really so concerned about safety, my perfect 20 year record of flying LMR and high power speaks for itself. In fact, my private, unaffiliated launches are far safer than any club launch. At least when I'm flying solo I know I won't risk killing someone in the event of a recovery failure or other anomoly. The biggest real danger in this hobby is club launches with hundreds of inattentive kids, spectators and non-participants.

I've read hundreds of published launch reports and none of them included proof of a waiver. Many don't even mention the word at all.
l
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22 Nov 2005 19:21:45 -0800, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"

Did you have a waiver?
I'll post a copy of mine if you post a copy of yours.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ray, in speaking from my volunteer capacity for TRA, it is really stupid to fly without a waiver. Period. It violates the rules established by the FAA. In no way was I implying that flying solo was safer than flying at a club launch. I think you are wrong in trying to justifying flying solo with out a waiver is safer than flying at a club launch with a waiver absolves you of having a waiver at all.
The way you tap dance around the issue reminds me of Jerry Irvine tap dancing arond the issue of whether or not he sells rocket motors or owns US Rockets.
Jeff Barnes TRA #2267
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Just to play devil's advocate here, there's been quite a bit of discussion over the past couple of years about those 'signed agreements'. IIRC, they read something like 'I agree to conduct my sport rocketry activities by the XXX safety code'. It was explicitly discussed that these agreements are not meant to preclude, for example, 'amateur' rocketry.
Putting my armchair lawyer hat on here, all Ray (or anyone else) has to do is declare himself a business (and in Ray's case, he is in fact selling his rocketry photos), and he's not doing 'sport rocketry', he's doing rocketry as part of a business, and is not violating any 'association' agreements. Whether or not he (or others) have violated any FAA requirements, or BATFE, or DOT, is between those individuals and the government...
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Erbas-White wrote:

Correct. Otherwise, anyone member of TRA/NAR who is involved in an amateur launch, or an ARSA launch, would have to be thrown out of TRA/NAR for violating the codes of those organizations.

Correct again. My private launches are unaffiliated with TRA or NAR, and are nobody's business but my own. That's not to say they are conducted illegally, just that I have no obligation to justify them to anyone other than the appropriate government agencies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23 Nov 2005 15:12:42 -0800, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"

Please all knowing master - tell us if you get waivers. Yes or No.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Motoworks wrote:

LOL! Please, please show me anything in my post that said, or even hinted, that I do not contact the local AHJ.
o
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ray wrote:

AZ Woody wrote:

Woody, This does not address the question. In fact, it muddles it. Does notification keep aircraft clear of a launch site? The answer is "no", one word. It "may encourage some" pilots from flying in the area, but it clearly does not "eliminate the potential" of aircraft in the area.

Holy Crap!! This is the most cavalier attitude I've seen since shipping motors labeled as "model aircraft parts"!! You could have a waiver, a notam, and permission from the President of the United States of America his-self and it would STILL be your responsibility ("problem", your word) to ensure your rocket did not in any way endanger an aircraft.
steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
default wrote:

Correct! That's what I've been saying all along, and got flamed for it. I guess some rocketeers just don't like having to accept responsibility for the safety of their launch. It's just so much easier for them to say, "Well I got me a notam and/or waiver, so if I hit a plane it's someone else's fault."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23 Nov 2005 12:04:50 -0800, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"

Do you get waivers for those desert launches? Yes or No
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phil Stein wrote:

Why should he get a waiver to fly a rocket in uncontrolled airspace?
Should he also contact Ghostbusters because he's flying over ghost towns?
steve
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Do you know exactly where he has flown? If he doesn't need waivers, why doesn't he just say 'No - I fly in uncontrolled air space so they are not needed.' I'm asking because I don't know. Considering Ray's reluctance to part with the facts, I doubt that you know any more than I do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 18 Nov 2005 11:58:48 -0800, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"

Sure, that may be your experience, but the guys I fly with are not perps causing incidents. ;)

The Bush administration, HS, post 9/11 hysteria, Chicken Little...

Heh, heh, heh. I could drive 120 MPH safely, and argue to the judge that I was not driving too fast for conditions..., but with a posted speed limit it is a slam dunk conviction. When you and your perps have an incident, and it is revealed that you were flying LMR without required notification, the case against you is more easily made. No judge is going to buy your ignorance of the law argument.

Interesting, I think smaller aircraft that fly at lower altitudes (unpressurized, no oxygen, no turbo/supercharger) are more vulnerable Than larger aircraft that fly above 10,000 feet. An ultra light at 500 feet is even more vulnerable.

Sure it's easy to spot. But I've also seen launches where someone has to point out an approaching aircraft to the RSO. Incidents happen. The waiver makes the investigation easier for the FAA and investigating agencies.
I agree that a waiver does not ensure or increase safety. However, I also think that when you apply for a waiver, you will behave more safely and responsibly, and that behavior will increase safety.

Sure, except that the data accumulates, pasterns change, and even names change.

Just fax in the notification so you do not have to confront them.
Don't think of notification as an inconvenience, think of it as a curtesy. You can not use most HPR launch sites without the curtesy of notification either, at least not for very long. I don't mind notification, if that keeps them happy. Still, if we jam up their fax machines with notifications maybe they will decide that they are happier without notification. I'd be inclined to have more notifications, at the cost of fewer waivers. I don't even find waivers to be too burdensome, so long as they are approved without difficulty. That brings us back to FAA personnel training, and possible new limits that the FAA may decide on as being in the best interests of all users of the airspace rather than just what sport rocketeers think is best for rocketry.
Alan

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

Really!!! oh oh oh Mr BIG TIME EXPERT!!!!
I happen to know they will clear the airspace when the waiver is only 5250ft. This would be because I have seen it done at one of my sections launches. But hey you are the big timer expert.
So whatever. You are awesome.
--

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com




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

Well I 'm sure there are exceptions to everything. Where was that launch? Out here in the southwest, the FAA does not generally clear the airspace for a launch. We routinely have to hold for aircraft. You don't have to take my word though, you can ask the FAA.
.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com



> airspace for a launch. We routinely have to hold for aircraft. You
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This statment is big time wrong!!! When you recieve a waiver, that is exactly what you get - a temporary waiving of the rules prohibiting HPR that is constrained by time, altitude, place, etc. You do NOT get exclusive use of this airspace with the deal! If you did, there wouldn't be just a NOTAM issued by ATC (a notam is just that-a notice of an activity going on, they are regularly issued for migratory bird flight, un-lit towers, etc), there would be an Temporary flight restriction issued, with specific lateral boundrys and altitudes and times. Many areas not associated with class B airspace, do not require any "control" or even communication with any ATC facility at all. I wonder how they can clear the airspace without any communication? ATC will likely re-route Instrument traffic around the area, but they have no say with VFR traffic, nor is it against the rules for VFR traffic to use the airspace.

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

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?
--

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com



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.