A Rocketry Scenario

Bat-mite said:

And one could make a case that TRF's "no religion" rules are a violation of the First Amendment.

Click to expand...

I honestly don’t know why you believe this to be the case.

neil_w said:

I honestly don’t know why you believe this to be the case.

Click to expand...

I'll PM you.

Bat-mite said:

I know that's what we all say and think, but if a case went all the way to the Supreme Court, I'm not so sure what the outcome would be.

Anyway, in the scenario, Bob is being criticized for two things: breaking the club rules, and violating federal law. While we all agree that Bob is being an anti-social jerk for violating the club rules, there is the much larger issue of FAA-controlled airspace and FAR regulations. TRF doesn't have any such federally mandated regulations. And one could make a case that TRF's "no religion" rules are a violation of the First Amendment. That would be up to a judge to decide, were someone to push it.

Click to expand...

I challenge you to find where TRF is listed as any part of government at any level. The text of the first amendment is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

A private entity can establish any rules regarding speech, religion or assembly that they wish.

Bob is a jerk and should be booted from the club after the 2nd obvious, willful violation. If he doesn't like it, he can form his own club and get his own site and his own waiver.

JStarStar said:

And when people intentionally bust waiver and impulse limits, that’s a one-strike and out situation at pretty much any field, Real or hypothetical, for exactly the reason everybody else has cited: you’re risking an FAA shutdown of your whole field and pretty much deep sixing your chances for future waivers.

So the answer is, s****w ‘em. Play by the rules or go home.

Click to expand...

The FAA gives real pilots one chance in court to dismiss a airspace busting occurrence against FAA radar data. At the brightest sunniest side of the spectrum the FAA isn't investigating and the club sternly tells Bob to go home and fly right. At the other end your looking at FAA closes the flying field, removes the waiver privileges, the TRA/NAR strip the flyer of certifications, flyer gets an FAA investigation with federal law enforcement on an official court date and a ride in the back of an FBI car. With the super serious extremely unlikely but not impossible outcomes ranging to criminal downing of a civilian aircraft or a close suspicious encounter with a rocket propelled object (whether intentional or not) and at worst I'd imagine some kind of Air Guard not cop interference with harsh consequences beyond the court of law at worst. There were laws, regulations, training, and policies in place on the aviation side where pilots could report coordinates of laser strikes against aircraft up to procedures for armed intervention by Air Guard. I fear live ordinance dropped on American soil isn't out of the question by enough stupidity or mischief havoc. Aircraft intercepts with armed escort are routine protocols that are practiced.

There are protections in place to reduce and impede terrorism. Your looking at military reaction protocols nobody's seen at worst. I don't mean to be a fear monger. I hope nobody ever crosses that line of wreckless bob into provoking military response.
What Bob thought was fun and games could get innocent bystanders and others hurt.

What happens if a civil aircraft takes airframe or passenger/pilot damage/injury and accuses hypothetical bob of an alleged rocket or missile attack with direct coordinates to the launch location of object and requested armed escort by protocols? The boundaries escalate harshly as absurd as it sounds and I can't tell you where those bounds end. There's a point past a court date and FBI slap on the wrist. And Bob could be an Arson too for burning a place with a skidmark on top of all that. Sorry if I over-react. It's hard to know how harsh Bob could wind up in trouble, but it doesn't look good for Bob or others.

Bat-mite said:

I know that's what we all say and think, but if a case went all the way to the Supreme Court, I'm not so sure what the outcome would be.

Anyway, in the scenario, Bob is being criticized for two things: breaking the club rules, and violating federal law. While we all agree that Bob is being an anti-social jerk for violating the club rules, there is the much larger issue of FAA-controlled airspace and FAR regulations. TRF doesn't have any such federally mandated regulations. And one could make a case that TRF's "no religion" rules are a violation of the First Amendment. That would be up to a judge to decide, were someone to push it.

Click to expand...

OHHHH... I see what your saying...

Is that like signing up for the military and telling the DI that he is infringing on your beliefs and that you wont do what he says? Pretty sure once you hit the agree button or sign your name.. your giving up "some freedoms" and by default your playing by their rules.

Speaking of which.. why does "BOB" still have a valid certification? Cant the managing body's revoke status hence making it difficult/impossible to acquire said sparkys?

One would think breaking the waiver intentionally would be grounds itself for revocation?

I don't want the thread to get locked, guys, so I'm out. I think we all agreed that the "Bob" in the scenario was wrong and warrants disciplinary action. As for the larger interpretation, please carry on without me.

Bob is being a jerk...

He should be more like Jesus...

Bat-mite said:

...

And one could make a case that TRF's "no religion" rules are a violation of the First Amendment. That would be up to a judge to decide, were someone to push it.

Click to expand...

One could make a case, but it would be thrown out of court. At least through district and appellate. Maybe the Supremes would take it on, if they were feeling feisty.

As usual, there's an XKCD for everything. https://xkcd.com/1357/

Also here: https://www.quora.com/Is-moderation-in-forums-violating-Americans-right-to-free-speech

And in Section 3 here: https://harvardcrcl.org/first-amendment-on-private-campuses/

And here: https://www.slate.com/articles/news...why_can_shopping_malls_limit_free_speech.html

Seriously, there's not much question about this. I suppose it's possible the Supreme Court would throw out a couple of centuries of precedent if they got a case, but it seems unlikely.

PS Bob should have flying privileges taken away after the first flight and given a stern talking to. After the second flight, he should be permanently kicked out. If he tries to come back, local cops should be called. No need to let air out of his tires, but I doubt there'd be witnesses if they mysteriously spring a leak.

boatgeek said:

One could make a case, but it would be thrown out of court. At least through district and appellate. Maybe the Supremes would take it on, if they were feeling feisty.

As usual, there's an XKCD for everything. https://xkcd.com/1357/

Also here: https://www.quora.com/Is-moderation-in-forums-violating-Americans-right-to-free-speech

And in Section 3 here: https://harvardcrcl.org/first-amendment-on-private-campuses/

And here: https://www.slate.com/articles/news...why_can_shopping_malls_limit_free_speech.html

Seriously, there's not much question about this. I suppose it's possible the Supreme Court would throw out a couple of centuries of precedent if they got a case, but it seems unlikely.

PS Bob should have flying privileges taken away after the first flight and given a stern talking to. After the second flight, he should be permanently kicked out. If he tries to come back, local cops should be called. No need to let air out of his tires, but I doubt there'd be witnesses if they mysteriously spring a leak.

Click to expand...

Well there it is. Thanks!

Bob should lose his flight privileges for the first occurrence that day, no refund. The second time? report it to NAR and Tripoli have his certs revoked ask him to leave and never come back.

As far as the first amendment issue? If someone tapes a flyer saying "Hail Cthulu" on your house, is it a violation of their first amendment rights for you to remove it?

Once air guard military protocols are triggered there are few chances for civil pilots to rebut. It generally goes like are you having serious issues that are a threat to national security (they word it differently) yes or no? If no you remain escorted by armed Air Gaurd. If yes lethal force with heavy ordinance gets authorized. Normally the military and civil pilots remain in communication. This hypothetical Bob guy may provoke a larger chain of command of military officers up to ranks of others before ordinance gets released worst case scenario. The issue is the rocketry launch site would not have a way to communicate to military aircraft unlike the civil aircraft who may claim to be under a direct threat. If you know hypothetical Bob personally or he plans to bust waivers intentionally I would suggest report to FBI before a launch. Before somebody hypothetically gets hurt, labeled a terrorist, or at worst civilians die by some eriee save that half of a city by a air strike on said target area with known acceptable loss of life as determined by Air Force.

Andrew_ASC said:

Once air guard military protocols are triggered there are few chances for civil pilots to rebut. It generally goes like are you having serious issues that are a threat to national security (they word it differently) yes or no? If no you remain escorted by armed Air Gaurd. If yes lethal force with heavy ordinance gets authorized.

Click to expand...

I'm skeptical that lethal force would be authorized against either air or ground in most circumstances*. By the time the request got to the level of brass needed, I would expect the ANG planes would be long gone. It's nice to think about the Warthogs taking Bob out, but I think they'd let the cops handle that one.

* Don't push that idea around Washington, DC, sensitive air bases, or immediately after a national emergency like 9/11.

Hijackings intervention specifically were trained for by Air Gaurd with options of lethal force on request of civil aircrews through a prologue sequence of trained communications, actions, and commands. As a civil pilot I can not confirm nor deny the full spectrums of when ordinance gets released and the horror story is we don't fully know as civil pilots. The laser attacks hit LE helicopters trained to send federal agents for arrest but it relates to ground based terror related attacks. The civil aircraft reported positions. Say an L-3 rocket by hypothetical bob busts a waiver and causes an airliner to crash and as the airliner is crashing it reports the location of object launch. In Ukraine they sent ground attack aircraft to a last known SAM site to "destroy it" after civil casualties resulted. Assume rocket is mistaken as missile by aircrew before they die. I hypothetically do not want to guess the end of Hypothetical Bob but extreme options which are lose lose options for all exist. You would have to have hypothetical bob literally kill aircrew or passengers with a ground launch object. No one has hypothetically questioned this in general aviation in the US. The consequences once military aircraft intervene skyrocket to options of lethal force are not off the table if the military computes the threat is valid and the impact to reduce human loss of life for the greater population is stronger than the minority. This topic itself creeps me out.
The Air Gaurd has plenty of air to ground weapons. And tactics if determined needed.
Absurd yes. Impossible. Not at all. If Bob tells you before launch he will bust FAA waiver do not allow it. If govt starts labeling Bob a bad enough terrorist. Expect craters near bob. I don't know how if an aircrew panics and gets armed escort how this ends say if a ground based model rocket is wedged in a pilot or passenger or the wing is falling apart. You can think I'm over reacting. I'm letting you know how serious the military options get. Kick hypothetical bobs out of NAR/TRA.

Um, good to know, I think. But this thread is about someone wishing people Happy Easter on the forum.

mpitfield said:

When I read the scenario I can't help but feel I am being led to an opinion. I suspect that this hypothetical scenario, once it has enough mass moving in the intended direction, will be swapped out for a "real" world scenario.

Click to expand...

Bingo! That was obvious to me from the get go.

neil_w said:

I honestly don’t know why you believe this to be the case.

Click to expand...

Something about wedding cakes for homosexuals comes to mind

Well, it seems to be the general consensus (and by a large margin) that "Bob" is the real instigator and should be reprimanded. Especially for repeatedly doing so. And yes, this has already gone beyond theoretical and straight into "real world" scenarios. That too has been obvious from the start. I'm fine with the fact.

Bat-mite said:

Raises a question: since the FAA regs are federal law, then Bob is committing a criminal act, no? So the club could conceivably call the FBI and invite them to the next launch, and if Bob does his thing, he gets escorted off the field in handcuffs.

Sorry, but anyone who would feel sympathy for Bob and allow him to continue his lawbreaking should be removed from the club as well. Period.

I can promise you that Bob would not be launching at MDRA under these conditions.

Click to expand...

Hypothetically due to the severity of danger to aircraft and rocketeers of hypothetical bob with criminal intent of busting FAA waivers (thus posing a danger to national airspace) he would be in the act of committing criminal federal charges by setting up a rocket on the pad outside of authorization by the RSO I feel if he had made clear his intent was not accidental. The mere set up for launch of Bob's rocket by Bob on Bob's launch pad without permission and an intentional intent of incursion of airspace is a criminal act with probable cause of federal crimes. Additional federal criminal charges apply for intentional airspace busting. Additional federal charges for tampering or damaging aircraft. Additional charges for bob hypothetical killing people on board aircraft.

If this hypothetical bob shot down an aircraft with criminal intent this could easily escalate to military response. If hypothetical bob had a detonator in his hand and made threats how do you think the FBI responds? There is no difference in my opinion here. The FBI only needs to see him in the act. Anything else like FAA radar data of actual crime is further evidence to make certain Bob never sees the sun shine again for years. The FAA and FBI were more forgiving of accidental incursions. Once it turns criminal kiss life as known it goodbye. The most dangerous part I think is if civil aircraft get response of armed military fighters to escort. It destabilizes beyond LE control then.

Sorry Andrew, Bob will not induce warheads on foreheads.

Sounds like Bob is an oxygen thief who only cares about Bob. Suspend privileges after the first violation and boot him after the second. He should also be reported to NAR/Tripoli.

Bob should be banned, at least temporarily, after the first incident. And other area clubs and NAR and Tripoli informed. If he does it again then a permanent ban. If he does not like the rules he can try to get them changed, not simply break them.

Forums set their own rules. Otherwise people could post nudes or even pornography. I am a moderator on another forum. Content is deleted and members are suspended or banned all the time.

jimn said:

Bob should be banned, at least temporarily, after the first incident. And other area clubs and NAR and Tripoli informed. If he does it again then a permanent ban. If he does not like the rules he can try to get them changed, not simply break them.

Forums set their own rules. Otherwise people could post nudes or even pornography. I am a moderator on another forum. Content is deleted and members are suspended or banned all the time.

Click to expand...

That's the way it should be.

jimn said:

Bob should be banned, at least temporarily, after the first incident.

Click to expand...

And if hypothetical Bob killed pilots or passengers first flight with his intentions to bust a waiver, how would that look if he pleads guilty to the FBI with intent to bust FAA waiver on federal crimes? He sims 20,000 ft, the waiver was a known 10,000ft, and he knew beforehand the waiver height. Let's say the RSO told him the maximum allowable waiver height was 9,500ft. Let's say post FBI search warrants and FBI/FAA joint investigation months later they find hypothetical Bob had deliberately swapped the commercial reload tubes to appear as motors downrated from actual motor reload specs and that the RSO was tricked that this was not an accidental waiver bust, but this hypothetical Bob had every 100% intention to do harm.
Let's modify this and say the FAA/FBI clear the club and RSO of all wrongdoing in hypothetical wonderland and Bob now has full blame and financial responsibility as a criminal act. Let's even add the airspace was visual optically scanned clear to 12,000ft by multiple people and determined safe. FAA radar data shows a non contrail producing light aircraft struck by object seconds later in a scattered cloud layer at 14,500ft.

Why are you all letting Bob off so softly?!?!?!?! It's one thing accidently nobody knows as a horrid accidental mishap. But when have criminal intent?!?!?!

Don't be a Bob.

It wouldn't take much of Bob's bad intentions to escalate into a media campaign against high power rocketry. The media would portray the models as "extreme high performance", videos of these punching through aircraft hulls on ground tests in slow motion when launched horizontally in a controlled crash test bunker. All it takes is one bad person and the hobby is facing going banned. Lets say certain states reduced the number of flying waivers by over half through backlash.

Screaminhelo said:

Sorry Andrew, Bob will not induce warheads on foreheads.

Sounds like Bob is an oxygen thief who only cares about Bob. Suspend privileges after the first violation and boot him after the second. He should also be reported to NAR/Tripoli.

Click to expand...

Bob has been banned or at least changed to another account name at least once, the name changes but the actions remain the same.
While I am a individual of faith I do also recognize that not everyone agrees with my views, that being said wishing some Happy Easter, Passover, St. Patricks Day, Ramadan, or National Agnostics day ( dont care if it exists as this is an example) should be taken as wishing everyone to be happy....WHATEVER THEIR BELIEFS.
Personally the biggest flame wars that I have seen occur on TRF are in the Watering Hole and caused by and between about 6 indiduals ( or less) and its always the same ones. All of them should get a time out and the one banned outright.

/RANT OFF

Someone please put Bob out of his misery and lock this thread.

Someone please put Bob out of our misery...

rharshberger said:

National Agnostics day ( dont care if it exists as this is an example)

Click to expand...

Is it still okay to be mildly amused at unintentional humour? :-D

dhbarr said:

Is it still okay to be mildly amused at unintentional humour? :-D

Click to expand...

I sure hope it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum