FAA Waiver question

I take that as a no. People will harass you endlessly now and I am moving on. You are slippery Ray.

Yes, the FAA folks are great to deal with.

My contact, in Minneapolis, goes way beyond what one would expect, as well. I've contacted him to find out who I need to get in touch with for a notifcation launch only to have him tell me he'll take care of it for me.

This past June I actually learned something interesting... March through June, the folks in Minneapolis were taking it on faith that we had a waiver when I called in to activate it, because they couldn't find their copy. It wasn't until June that they let me know they couldn't find it; I gave them the info on who had signed it, they called around, and finally found their copy.

You don't get that kind of treatment without a history of working with them. We've been launching at the same site for years, so they know us.

-Kevin

Wow, I absolutely must agree with Ray here. I have read all these posts and I've seen nothing that I would consider a "cavalier attitude". I've seen nothing where he said or implied that anyone should break any of the laws or rules for anything. The fact that Alan won't prove his statement and I can't find anthing in his support by reviewing all the posts in this thread seems to me to show that it's all Alan's mind.

I have only been reading this newsgroup for 3-4 weeks now so if there's a history, I don't know about it. However in regard to THIS thread I see nothing that would be considered anything "cavalier" about breaking rules.

The fact that Ray thinks there may be people out there doing illegal launches (mostly out of lack of knowledge) may be his opinion, but I would have a tendancy to believe it to be true, and I have seen no proof given otherwise. The fact that Ray thinks this and expresses it, doesn't mean that he thinks it's OK, just that it happens.

Where in this thread has he said that... Oh, yes, you don't think it's important to prove what YOU say.

Again, I have not seen Ray "marginalize marginalize the importance of complying with the FAA regulations in a public forum". Where did you do that? Also as Americans we can question the usefulness of any law, it's one of our rights.

By your use of the term "perceived" it looks like you're implying that there are absolutely no flaws in FAA regs or personnel of any kind. Do you really believe that? Every FAA employee knows everything about all the regs? Are you kidding?

Firt hand experience.

Fred seems to be right on with this response. I was just trying to point out that the mistaken notion that you "own" the airspace during a waivered launch is a common misconception. (and could be a dangerous one) The fact that you launch in close proximity to ORD, under the mode C veil (altitude reporting transponders required) and possibly even underlying the class B airspace (formerly known as a TCA, it changed about 7 years ago, Kevin :) ) makes it that most, if not all traffic is under positive control. It is a mistake, however to assume that that translates to all, or even most situations, and that the controlers can or even would "clear the airspace" Have a nice launch!!

Thats punny!! Plain old plane common sense!

THere is a history.

THis is exactly what I've got from my contact at ORD and IKK.

Amen, brother!

Fine! it is a fact that you posted the following earlier in this thread:

"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.

No, but it would be nice if we could get the FAA to eliminate useless requirements that even their own personnel don't understand."

End of cut and pasted Ray speak.

Don't be silly Ray, those were never my tasks in responding to your request.

Stop lying Ray.

More bull. Nobody is telling you to shut up. You can even start a new thread on proposed FAA rule changes. I had to prompt you to get you to mention any sort of FAA rule change, and then you promptly dropped that discussion.

Alan

We HAVE had waivered launches under ORDs class B (TCA) airspace where they DID reroute commercial traffic in and out of ORD around us all weekend.

The only way these days to "own" the air space is to fly on a military base where they do own their air space, or get a TFR to go with your waiver.

I stand by those statements. Exactly how do they demonstrate a "cavalier attitude"? What exactly is cavalier about admitting there are probably many people who fly LMR without notification? What is cavalier about saying that LMR notification is unrelated to safety? Or that the FAA personnel often don't understand their own requirements (a fact which others in this forum have complained about)?

The dictionary defines cavalier as "Showing arrogant or offhand disregard; dismissive". If I had said, "People shouldn't bother complying with the notification requirement", that would be cavalier. If I had said "Screw safety, do what you want", that would be cavalier. If I had said, "If there are aircraft over the launch area and you've got a waiver, go ahead and launch -- it's the pilot's problem not yours", that would be cavalier.

But I didn't say any of those things, and there is no way even you could twist my statements enough to get that meaning out of them.

Then what was your "task", if it was not to challenge the facts I posted? Was it simply to sling a little mud?

I guess you have a short memory. Here's the post I replied to:

*MUST* notify. It > is the law. There is no interprutation here.

--------------------------

As you can see, Kurt made a simple statement that there are probably a lot of folks who don't obey the notification requirements. Greg made replied that you "must" notify -- a fact that is utterly irrelevant to whether or not there are people who don't obey that reg.

My response was to point out that it is very likely there are people launching LMR without notification, regardless whether or not it is required. I also pointed out the fact that even with notification, it is still up to the individual to make sure the flight does not endanger anyone, and that the notification does nothing to eliminate this necessity.

You specifically told me that I should not post the statements I've made, and that I should instead say nothing other than parrot your little speech about how important it is to comply with the notification requirements. And you told me that if I think any FAA regs are less than perfect, that I should write to the FAA instead of posting here.

Gee, do I actually have your permission? Will I be allowed to say that LMR notifications don't make a flight safe?

As I said before, my main objection is to the misinformation being spewed in this forum. I strongly believe that falsely telling people that something is inherently unsafe simply because it is illegal, is the wrong way to get them to heed your warning. People can tell when they're being fed BS. Saying that it is impossible to launch LMR safely without FAA notification is on par with saying, "Never try to make your own motors because it's impossible to do it without blowing yourself up". Both statements are proveably false, and serve only to instill a truly cavalier attitude in those you are trying to warn.

Ray has posted links to his pics on many forums. Some of these pics have been from HP birds, by his own admission. I know what it takes in time to get a waiver, and unless Ray planned his flights (and launchsite) well in advance, he's been flying without the proper waivers. In the same way that another poster (who will remain nameless) sponsored launches without waivers. Be it one bird, or 100, launching without a waiver, when one is required, is wrong....

"no one will notice if I only launch one or two" is not a reason to ignore the law...

Accusations... Facts... Are you actually contributing anything here?

Actually this is the least of my worries.

I have a great relationship with the FAA. Especially the people in DC who are the keepers of the FAR regulations. I think I would have more appropriate topics of discussion for them. Sorry.

Yeah well it seems in my case it certainly translated into into what I said it did. Is this the same everywhere??? I think I do not care. But please do not pretend to tell me what my circumstances are, especially when I am living them!

You go girl...

Ray,

This discussion is not helpful to anyone. A few simple questions that only require a yes or no answer -

1- Do you notify the FAA when launching in the desert when required by FAR 101?

2- Do you get waivers when required by FAR 101 when you launch in the desert? If so, why don't you post your waivers to prove the nay sayers wrong?

Remember what I said in my email - ignoring the question is also an answer.

Nothing like a bunch of rocket nerds in a pissing match. This must be a new low for the Internet...

I'll bet we could find something lower if we looked hard enough, but that's definitely the wrong direction for rocketeers to be going.

I remember back when I still thought it was important to "beat" people in arguments on the internet. I probably did learn something from some of those arguments, but not nearly enough to justify the time I spent in them. And I'll bet that the people I was arguing with learned nothing at all. And of course once you get into a "pissing match" (as you so aptly describe it), you're a guaranteed loser anyway. As the (terribly non-PC) joke goes, arguing on the internet is like competing in the Special Olympics: even if you 'win', you're still a retard.

Not to mention our sport is in serious jeapordy. The last thing we need is a bunch of dolts hiding behind what they percieve as the relative anonymity of the Internet to beat their chests.

Are you driving a Chevy now?

; )

Randy