Is a fiberglass rocket a FAR 101 Class 1 rocket?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

boatgeek

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2014
Messages
7,292
Reaction score
7,700
I need help from the hair-splitters. I can read the FAA's definition of FAR Class 1 rockets (<3.3 lbs, <4.4 oz propellant, no substantial metal parts, made of paper, wood, and/or "breakable plastic"). I have a FWFG rocket and a FAR 101 site near the house. Can I launch the one on the other without being in violation of the law? In other words, is fiberglass "breakable plastic?"

Thanks!
 
In my non-legal opinion: "Yes".

I believe most, perhaps all, composites that we currently use in the hobby should be understood as falling under the rubric of "breakable plastic".

Greg
 
My feeling is no. For no other reason than I interpret "breakable plastic" as items such as molded nosecones, transitions and tailcones as I believe that was the spirit in which it was written. Many people have bragged in the past that their fiberglass rocket has fallen "X" thousands of feet without damage after a recovery train failure. Breakable plastic would, well break under the same conditions. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time but that's my story and I am sticking to it.
 
What is this "unbreakable plastic" of which you speak? I would really, really, really like to get my hands on the formula.

Tip-to-tip fins with carbon and fiberglass are getting pretty close to unbreakable when you consider rockets falling from the sky. And any rocket that needs T2T is probably using more than 4.4 ounces of propellant.

Perhaps a solid plastic nose cone would be someone's idea of unbreakable.
 
Fiberglass breaks, it is considered a plastic so, it is a breakable plastic.

As far as I know there is no official interpretation of breakable plastic. I agree with the person above that maybe a solid plastic nose cone would be considered unbreakable. However, what if you made a solid oak nose cone?
 
I can totally break FG. It doesn't say under what force. That stuff breaks. So good to go.
 
FWIW I asked the NAR Safety Committee Chairman a similar question in March. His answer was, "Construction materials do not determine whether a rocket is a high power model or a model rocket. The determination is based on launch weight, total installed impulse, and the rocket motors used."
 
FWIW I asked the NAR Safety Committee Chairman a similar question in March. His answer was, "Construction materials do not determine whether a rocket is a high power model or a model rocket."
It might have been a similar question, but it wasn't the question of how an FAA Class 1 rocket is defined, which clearly has to do with construction materials -- see the FAR 101 language quoted above.

My opinion is that the fiber-reinforced thermosetting plastic used in rocketry (G10, G12) is breakable plastic.
 
Would the construction materials be the same for a class 2 or class 3 as they are for class 1?
 
Fiberglass is not a plastic, as such it does not meet the letter of the law. "Breakable" plastic is a whole other argument.
 
We recently flew exactly one fiberglass rocket under FAR 101 rules after closing the formal waiver due to wind. It lightened up later in the afternoon so we let a couple of small rockets loose. The prefect and his wife were supervising the fellow flying fiberglass so I imagine it was up to par with rules.
 
Laws are only for the "little people"...

Become a protected high profile "elected official"...

And you can do anything you want...

Regardless of "the law"...
 
I don't get this whole "if it breaks your head then it's not breakable" argument. If a 3.2 pound LOC rocket lawn darted into my head I think I would have a broken head. So that argument is kinda invalid...
 
FWIW I asked the NAR Safety Committee Chairman a similar question in March. His answer was, "Construction materials do not determine whether a rocket is a high power model or a model rocket. The determination is based on launch weight, total installed impulse, and the rocket motors used."

The use of "substantial metal parts," however, makes a rocket "high power."

- - Roger
 
I just broke some steel pieces today at work. Pulled them right apart on the Instron machine. I think I will make some of my next project from this "breakable steel". They will not be substantial because they will be less than 25% of the total rocket weight.

Sorry I just had to play with this. Words that are qualitative instead of quantitative should not be used in specifications like that......
 
Fiberglass is not a plastic, as such it does not meet the letter of the law. "Breakable" plastic is a whole other argument.

Fiberglass is also referred to as FRP, or Fiber-Reinforced-Plastic. I would say that it is plastic, at least by some definitions.
 
I once saw a 67 Corvette that had hit a tree. Fiberglass definitely breaks.
 
Let's use some common (and less common) sense.

The law is written in a manner that allows for interpretation. If it was cut and dry, we wouldn't be seeing the good arguments (on both sides) that we see in this thread.

Ambiguity in written laws is not uncommon. When there is ambiguity, it is up to the authorities to determine how THEY interpret the law, and then go enforce that interpretation. When someone is prosecuted using this interpretation, it is up to the courts to make the final interpretation. If the courts disagree with the authorities interpretation, the courts offer clarity and gives the COURTS interpretation. A court's interpretation trumps the authorities. And the only thing that trumps a courts interpretation is a higher court's interpretation (I.E. NAR/Tripoli vs. BATFE).

But this question of how the FAA interprets the law and how the courts interpret it, won't be answered clearly until someone flies a FG rocket that meets all other Class 1 definitions, and that rocket causes an incident that gets the FAA involved. After all, I don't see FAA officials driving around neighborhood fields looking to find violators of Part 101. It will take an incident/accident to get them involved, and then see how they, and the courts, react. That is the only way this argument will get defined clearly.
 
Then I hope its never defined clearly! good points
 
Fiberglass is not a plastic, as such it does not meet the letter of the law. "Breakable" plastic is a whole other argument.

That's true "fiberglass" is not plastic.

However, epoxy or polyester are plastics which would have little strength without something to reenforce them. If you were to pour out a thin layer of epoxy or polyester and allow to cure they would easily break like potato chips.

You could use almost any fabric to strengthen epoxy or polyester.

Actually, it is not a fiberglass rocket, it is a glass fiber reenforced plastic rocket or carbon fiber reenforced plastic or burlap reenforced plastic...
 
Fiberglass is a fiber reinforced plastic, as is carbon fiber....and it breaks.

Cheers,
Michael
 
Let's use some common (and less common) sense.

The law is written in a manner that allows for interpretation. If it was cut and dry, we wouldn't be seeing the good arguments (on both sides) that we see in this thread.

Ambiguity in written laws is not uncommon. When there is ambiguity, it is up to the authorities to determine how THEY interpret the law, and then go enforce that interpretation. When someone is prosecuted using this interpretation, it is up to the courts to make the final interpretation. If the courts disagree with the authorities interpretation, the courts offer clarity and gives the COURTS interpretation. A court's interpretation trumps the authorities. And the only thing that trumps a courts interpretation is a higher court's interpretation (I.E. NAR/Tripoli vs. BATFE).

But this question of how the FAA interprets the law and how the courts interpret it, won't be answered clearly until someone flies a FG rocket that meets all other Class 1 definitions, and that rocket causes an incident that gets the FAA involved. After all, I don't see FAA officials driving around neighborhood fields looking to find violators of Part 101. It will take an incident/accident to get them involved, and then see how they, and the courts, react. That is the only way this argument will get defined clearly.

And we have a winner! :gavel:

It is the same with the Chinese e-matches you can get on Amazon. Most likely they are intended to be ATF-regulated; but the wording in the law is so ambiguous that I think it would take a judge to straighten it out.

Meanwhile, as someone points out every so often -- DON'T BE STUPID! Neither the ATF nor the FAA nor the FBI nor DHS nor any other govt. regulation is going door-to-door or field-to-field looking for violators. If you don't ATTRACT THEIR ATTENTION THROUGH STUPIDITY, you won't see them.
 
Let's use some common (and less common) sense.

The law is written in a manner that allows for interpretation. If it was cut and dry, we wouldn't be seeing the good arguments (on both sides) that we see in this thread.

Ambiguity in written laws is not uncommon. When there is ambiguity, it is up to the authorities to determine how THEY interpret the law, and then go enforce that interpretation. When someone is prosecuted using this interpretation, it is up to the courts to make the final interpretation. If the courts disagree with the authorities interpretation, the courts offer clarity and gives the COURTS interpretation. A court's interpretation trumps the authorities. And the only thing that trumps a courts interpretation is a higher court's interpretation (I.E. NAR/Tripoli vs. BATFE).

But this question of how the FAA interprets the law and how the courts interpret it, won't be answered clearly until someone flies a FG rocket that meets all other Class 1 definitions, and that rocket causes an incident that gets the FAA involved. After all, I don't see FAA officials driving around neighborhood fields looking to find violators of Part 101. It will take an incident/accident to get them involved, and then see how they, and the courts, react. That is the only way this argument will get defined clearly.

And we have a winner! :gavel:

It is the same with the Chinese e-matches you can get on Amazon. Most likely they are intended to be ATF-regulated; but the wording in the law is so ambiguous that I think it would take a judge to straighten it out.

Meanwhile, as someone points out every so often -- DON'T BE STUPID! Neither the ATF nor the FAA nor the FBI nor DHS nor any other govt. regulation is going door-to-door or field-to-field looking for violators. If you don't ATTRACT THEIR ATTENTION THROUGH STUPIDITY, you won't see them.

Exactly!!!!!

Like so many of the question surrounding our hobby as it relates to regulatory agencies, it won't get straightened out until it goes to court and a judge rules on it.

I would consider any rocket that met the weight and propellant limits and didn't have a metal BT to be a Class 1 rocket. The reason the FAA eliminated the Model Rocket and Large Model Rocket designations and combined them into Class 1 is because they didn't have any problems or issues with Large Model Rockets and the notification requirement was more costly and troublesome then it was worth.

As long as you don't become a problem for the FAA, like down a plane, with your non-metal body tube Class 1 rocket, you should be fine.
 
Exactly!!!!!

Like so many of the question surrounding our hobby as it relates to regulatory agencies, it won't get straightened out until it goes to court and a judge rules on it.

I would consider any rocket that met the weight and propellant limits and didn't have a metal BT to be a Class 1 rocket. The reason the FAA eliminated the Model Rocket and Large Model Rocket designations and combined them into Class 1 is because they didn't have any problems or issues with Large Model Rockets and the notification requirement was more costly and troublesome then it was worth.

As long as you don't become a problem for the FAA, like down a plane, with your non-metal body tube Class 1 rocket, you should be fine.
Furthermore, the definition of the FAA Class 1 rocket now matches the rest of the world's definition of a model rocket....

Bob
 
A lot of laws are there so that the authorities have an avenue toward prosecution when something really bad happens. Or to protect innocent parties when a conflict arises. For instance, they don't usually arrest people for jaywalking. But if you are jaywalking and get hit by a car, the driver of the car is afforded some protection based on you being in violation of the law.

So if you have some BP and igniters, and you take care of them and keep them safe, no one is going to be knocking on your door asking to see your containment box. But if you blow up your garage (or worse yet, your neighbor's garage), then you can expect to get cited.
 
A lot of laws are there so that the authorities have an avenue toward prosecution when something really bad happens. Or to protect innocent parties when a conflict arises. For instance, they don't usually arrest people for jaywalking. But if you are jaywalking and get hit by a car, the driver of the car is afforded some protection based on you being in violation of the law.

So if you have some BP and igniters, and you take care of them and keep them safe, no one is going to be knocking on your door asking to see your containment box. But if you blow up your garage (or worse yet, your neighbor's garage), then you can expect to get cited.

Try jaywalking in Hawaii. You will get a ticket. If you are hit by a car the driver is considered at fault regardless if you are in a crosswalk or not. It will depend on situation if the driver is charged or not but the pedestrian still has the right of way even if they are jaywalking.
 
Try jaywalking in Hawaii. You will get a ticket. If you are hit by a car the driver is considered at fault regardless if you are in a crosswalk or not. It will depend on situation if the driver is charged or not but the pedestrian still has the right of way even if they are jaywalking.

Not over a blind rise, or any other of a dozen situations. Pedestrians have responsibility by the law too. Come out from between two parked cars and get wacked? Not the drivers fault.
 
Back
Top