What is the position of the ATF, Congress, and the HSA people with model
It would seem with all of the problems we have been having, and with the
statements about model rockets being made into guided missiles, what about
radio controlled airplanes which are much more of a threat I would think, as
they can be powered all of the time they are in the air, and fly against the
wind and be kept up much longer than any model rocket could, even a rocket
glider. They would be a better choice for any terrorist for use against a
building or aircraft than a rocket.
I think we get the bad press as a model rocket just looks like any other rocket
or missile to some people.
Does any one have any info or thoughts?
What possible reason would the ATF have any position on RC?
If they eliminate RC I would guess they would also have to eliminate
wireless cell phones.......their tones can start remote sequences. But
the boyz on the hill will not relinquesh their cell phones anytime soon.
We got bad press because a senator from New Jersey and New York came out
with uneducated dribble and an outright lie pertaining to model
rocketry. It is not difficult to spin a tale based on lies, but it is
hard to refute it once the wheels are set in motion. I firmly believe
96% of the country have very little idea about model rocketry, they
could care less.
Yeah, some common sense in government.
After the HSA was formed, they met with AMA pres. Dave Brown.
They discussed the problems and proved to them that regular model
airplanes were not a problem.
The AMA conceeded to self controled, self guided UAVs not being called
So , more restrections are around if you want to fly an atonomous self
controled self guided airplane or UAV, since the AMA does not support
Not much more mind you, and you don't need any AMA blessing to fly
planes since they have no ties to government. the NFPA 1127,1122 tied
rockets to NAR/TRA. nothing like that for planes.
Alan Jones wrote in
Senators Schumer and Lautenberg asserted that this was possible and thus
the proposed relaxation of regulation was a very bad thing. While they
did not assert that it ever had been done, they did insist we shouldn't
"make it easier" for someone to do this.
If senators S & L wish to make it "difficult" for terrorists to manufacture
missiles, they should act now to ban or strongly restrict microprocessors, CCD
chips, aluminum tubes, machine tooling, math books, servos, batteries, computers,
and anything else that "might" be used to develop such a device.
Ironically, any group with the technical know-how to develop, test and perfect
something of this nature would find it an absolute *cakewalk* by comparison to
manufacture their own rocket motors. Without all of the aforementioned things,
a rocket motor is about as much of a threat to an aircraft as is a boomerang -
something which is apparently lost on this pair of malinformed luddites.
There is NO relaxation of regulation by SB724. It's ALL in 55.141
(exemptions). To wit:
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 27, Volume 2]
[Revised as of April 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
TITLE 27--ALCOHOL, TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND FIREARMS
CHAPTER II--BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS, AND EXPLOSIVES,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PART 555--COMMERCE IN EXPLOSIVES--Table of Contents
Sec. 555.141 Exemptions.
(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 555.180 and 555.181,
this part does not apply to:
(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or
propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or
distributed for their intended purposes.
(b) Black powder. Except for the provisions applicable to persons
required to be licensed under subpart D, this part does not apply with
respect to commercially manufactured black powder in quantities not to
exceed 50 pounds, percussion caps, safety and pyrotechnic fuses, quills,
quick and slow matches, and friction primers, if the black powder is
intended to be used solely for sporting, recreational, or cultural
purposes in antique firearms, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(16) or
antique devices, as exempted from the term ``destructive devices'' in 18
Sec. 555.11 Definitions.
Propellant actuated device. Any tool or special mechanized device or
gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases
and directs work through a propellant charge.
Have senators dipstick and dumbfuck read that?
S's S&L asside, even a guided 1500 gram paper and plastic LMR is not
very effective as a missile against targets. Furthermore, there is a
big difference between "being made into", and "aserting that this is
Not at this time.
However, depending on wieght, you might need to file an FAA waiver to
fly it if it was really big.
However, this was posted in a forum about controlled flying machines
I am currently involved with the Naval Reasearch Labratory which is
doing a study on the threat that small (96" wingspan & above) UAVs
pose and how to counter them. There is concern on the hill that these
vehicles can, in fact, carry agents or devices that have the potential
of doing some damage. The threat is real enough that the governent is
ready to put some serious money into trying to counter it. It will be
interesting to see what the outcome is but they hope to be able to
bring down a UAV without firing a projectile of any kind. Work can be
Looks to me like a waste of my taxpayer money. An SUV can carry more
then a 96" airplane and cause more harm. FUD mongers on the hill again
only concerned with symbolisim over substance.
If you read their statment per other posted info , they were stating that a
model rocket could be made into a missel which could fly 5 miles and strike a
target, so they feel it is ok to regulate model rockets to counter the efforst
of Senator Enzi. See prior postings on this.