FAA Waiver question

I had one of those from a rental place. What a POS!! (Piece Of S...)

I have a friend that has one and it was a lemon to say the least. For months he wanted it to catch fire, be stolen, anything to get rid of it. One day he called me the happiest I had ever seen him. It had been stolen.

He called back the next day to say it had been returned. They actually brought it back. I thought he was going to cry.

Randy

Those are all your statements, not mine. You seem to want to have an argument with yourself. You seem to be fixated on the word "cavalier". Maybe I did not make the perfect choice of phrases. OTOH, I think I would call your musings above "irresponsible", rather than "cavalier". Get over it. Fly two LMRs with proper notification; you'll feel better.

No, I was simply responding to your posts and questions. If you want mud slinging, you should address those messages by others that you personally have flown LMR without FAA notification, and possibly HPR as well.

Alan

You left out a few questions, like "Who flew the G?" and "Are you now, or have you ever been, a 'basement bomber'?" If you're going to conduct a witchhunt, at least get it right. ;)

Check with some of the early members of TRA for tips on witchhunts. TRA was formed to get away from that crap in the NAR. Let's hope we haven't gone full circle and become what we once detested.

Ray,

If you are not going to answer the question, just say so. That will end most of the noise anyway.

Last thing we need is the first and most prevelant thing we have.

That's what I (and everyone else) thought. If that's not bad enough, you've stolen one of Jerry's answers.

Sad, jerry, sad.

Great, In that case, I don't think we need another FAQ.. :)

Actually, out where Greg and I fly, we're a few steps out, and we do have uncontrolled air space immediately over our head. Air space that gets traffic as VFR aircraft go around ORDs controlled airspace.

We've never had waiver issues with ORD. Our problems many years ago, and Greg's current problems all come from DPA.

Only Mach restriction I know is for full sized aircraft. Look up an Apogee Aspire. Only 125gm empty weight.

Kurt

Yeah I know that.

Means have an adverse event get caught and get into trouble when it is discovered they didn't notify.

YOU IDIOT. I'm not doing it. I only called the rule to question. I fly out of a waivered field. I note that my 530 gm model and my Super Big Bertha at 750gms. fly to 900' and 1300' respectively. Seems like the rule is a nuisance for the 453gm to 1.5kg models.

Blasphemer! Heretic! Take your cavalier attitude and get thee back to the fiery netherworld from whence thou came! ;)

I thought it was interesting. Didn't realize Shockie's dilemma would stir up much sentiment.:) Made the current rules very clear to me. I still would propose that it would be nice if the rules were changed to anything under 1.5kgs. and less than G would require no notification. Anything above, requires a waiver. I have a waivered field I attend and fly my 530gm, 750gm and 850gm models legally. Computer says 900', 1200' and 1200' respectively in anything from F to G motors. Would be nice if I could fly from in my field 2 minutes from my house on the spur of the moment but just do the less than 453gm. models with less then G power. I could fly the models above that but don't

Kurt Savegnago

Oh my gosh! :) My apologies oh holy one. :) (tongue in cheek no offense meant.) I apologize for my utopian ideals!

I still think it would be nice to not have to notify for below 1.5kgs. and G impluse. Would be a good rule change if it could be had.

Kurt

I've gotten and activated waivers and called in notifications. After seeing how easy it was and how helpful the FAA people were, I don't see why this should be a big deal to anyone. If you really feel that the weights should be changed, go for it. My only concern is that you might encounter a moron that wants to make us 'more safe' and do the opposite of that you are trying to accomplish.

Greg,

Not wanting to pick a fight but a fellow here once posted that the FAA nixed a launch even with notification and gave the reason the launch was too close to an approach path to a runway. They insisted they had the final say as in there eyes it was a safety issue. Am only repeating what I read and not stating an opinion. Kurt Savegnago

Wow, you guys sure don't need Jerry to have a rousing argument amongst yourselves!

;-)

-- David

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