Kind of shoots the impression that people there are realitively smart, right
between the eyes.
If it happens that often, you need to get yourself a video camera and stake
out a busy intersection. You could make some money providing crash footage
to the local tv station.
My reaction to this is so what. It is not regulated. Better to not be a
squeeky hinge. It seems you have been oiled. Welcome to the party.
My section went though this last year as you probably know from
when you were on NAR Sections.
The fly in the ointment... Do you have any real confirmed reports of
near misses or safety violations on your part? Or is the airport manager
operating under paranoia? I will assume the latter.
Yep. Welcome to the party pal.
So simply notify and launch your low/mid power rockets. If you even
have any HPR to do, deal with it at that time. But do not screw the
pooch if it isn't needed. And frankly it sounds like you did yourself in
on this deal.
I suggest you go higher rather than be a victim of these threats. ANd report
them to their superiors.
For 101.22 notification, I usually use 3000', as that's about the peak for
an AT kit with an AT motor. Sure, a G25 in a minimum diameter bird can go
higher, but that's not what we encounter at our launches. Giving them an
absurdly high ceiling just makes your problem worse.
It doesn't say no aircraft in sigth. It says you can't create a hazard to
them. A let at 37000' over your Alpha is not a hazard.
The original draft of the NAR HPR code did have the "aircraft in sight"
clause. I got it removed by insisting that I would enforce it at NARAM-33,
which was NAR's first ever HPR launch, 19 miles from O'Hare field. There
would NEVER be a window we could fly under that rule.
We have had more problems with random individuals at small regional airports
than at ORD.
Get in touch with my FAA contact in the Chicago area. He's helped with
problems like this before. There is also someone at the Kankakee FSS who is
actually writing an FAA document on rocket launches. He's L1 certified!
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
I am not sure what is going on with kankakee. Many time this year when
we called them to notify, they wanted to do a waiver. The problem is that
is not why we were calling them. IMHO they seem totally confused on the
whole deal. And the L1 guy is sort of not in the loop as far as I can tell.
He used to work for TRACON... So he was associated with your
FAA contact in chicago.
well I just got off the phone with the Principal Operations Inspector at the
Louisville FSDO office and he agreed that the waiver was not needed as we
will be flying ONLY model rockets and Large Model Rockets and he also is
going to have an "education" talk with the Bluegrass Airport ATC Manager.
SO it looks like we will now be able to launch MR/LMR at MSP without any
further interference from the ATC guy. MAybe after we get in a few MR/LMR
at MSP later next year we will try for a %K waiver to do small H HPR.
thanks for everybody that contributed
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.
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.
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
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.