They supply the control servo, you supply the RX/TX; I've read the reg and I don't think it is a UAV , it's not a flight it is a parachute.
AMA #L023
GPS steer-able parachute
- Thread starter prfesser
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
They supply the control servo, you supply the RX/TX; I've read the reg and I don't think it is a UAV , it's not a flight it is a parachute.
AMA #L023
That may be. I don't know, but my impression is that even a parachute, if it's being controlled remotely, falls under the same rules as RC planes and drones and is limited to 400 ft. max altitude.
If you can definitively show it doesn't fall under those rules and can be use above that 400 ft. limit, I'm sure there are lots and lots of folks that will be very happy.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,354
- Reaction score
- 5,565
Not with a 1/3 page ad in Sport Rocketry, which is an NAR publication that rarely goes outside the US. I think what everyone is hoping for is that this somehow becomes a GPS-guided RTLS recovery system, but for the moment that isn't looking likely. R/C might work... assuming you're low enough to see the rocket on the way down, and you're a good enough pilot to be able to handle winds, control reversal, and the other challenges of any R/C aircraft, AND the 400' ceiling is somehow miraculously lifted for steerable parachutes in rocketry.
Drones can fly by themselves, not remote and are UAVs. Self Stabilizing Rockets fly themselves as well, they are not UAVs.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,354
- Reaction score
- 5,565
The difference is that a self-stabilizing rocket is STABILIZED, not STEERED. It's still not being "aimed" at a particular point. I'm hoping that the FAA and/or HSA eventually see that steerable hobby rocket parachutes are a good thing, but I'm not going to bet that's happening any time soon.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,411
- Reaction score
- 7,957
Has anyone actually asked FAA, or are we assuming that they'd say no?
I would advise against asking a government body for clarification. I think that happened around 1994 or thereabouts with BATFE.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,411
- Reaction score
- 7,957
Fair point. Since the consensus here is that steerable parachutes are regulated as RC aircraft and are therefore not allowed over 400 feet, it doesn’t seem like we have a lot to lose by asking.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,354
- Reaction score
- 5,565
Unless they come back and start requiring transponders on HPR rockets...
Or limiting the altitude.
If I was a manufacturer developing a system that I wanted to sell, I'd ask the FAA.
If I was a hobbyist developing a system I wanted to use or buying a system from a vendor I wouldn't ask the FAA. That's a ask for forgiveness situation for sure.
cheers - mark
Except right now we are regulated enough as long as our rockets comply with FAR 101. If we introduce the concept that FAR 101 doesn’t regulate us enough, we would only be hurting ourselves. As a lawyer once told me: Never ask to be regulated.
I regret that I can only give you one "like" for this comment. This is definitely a contender for the wisest comment I've ever read on here.
Calling the government's attention to an issue is only asking for trouble. Never do it unless it's the only solution to an actual problem.
It is unlikely this will ever be noticed by the FAA. The FAA strategy to enforce remote ID in RC models is, as opposed to "Release the Kraken!", is "Release the Karens!". The FAA is encouraging the public (AKA Karens) to download their remote ID app. And telling the Karens f they see a drone or RC airplane to interrogate it with the app and if they don't receive a remote ID to call the police. I doubt the Karens have the mental acumen to stake out rocket launches and interrogate for remote ID.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,411
- Reaction score
- 7,957
I’m not planning on running to FAA to ask. If I was, I would start with the premise that the 400 foot limit is intended to protect aircraft from RC vehicles. Since the established procedures under FAR 101 already provide significant protections to aircraft, could we relax the 400 foot limit inside a waiver cylinder. We’re not identifying a problem that needs further regulation, we’re asking for relaxation of one rule given the protections provided by another.
Also, asking for forgiveness rather than permission only works if the RSO lets the system fly.
I agree with your logic entirely, but when I asked if we could be designated as a CBO to relax the restrictions for RC drones to fly within our COA cylinder we were told no, without any indication they would even consider our perspective. I don’t think I’ve been turned down that quickly by any government agencies I’ve dealt with.
I asked politely using exactly the same logic, that aircraft are already protected by our compliance with the COA (and often TFR) restrictions.
This is stupid on steroids. The steerable parachute does not extend the descent time and provides the capability to steer clear should an aircraft enter the COA cylinder. Sounds like it's time for another NAR/TRA lawsuit against the federal government.
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 5,945
- Reaction score
- 589
We are caught in one of those unforeseen circumstances. When the FAA set the 400 foot limit, they assumed the vehicle or whatever was starting out from ground level.
To comply with the "UAV" rules, we could probably let the parachute fall unguided to 400 feet then control it. But, that seems kind of silly and less safe than controlling it from apogee.
Personally, I think our activities fall under FAR 101 which doesn't have such a restriction. But I am not a lawyer nor do I wish to poke the bear and become a test case.
To comply with the "UAV" rules, we could probably let the parachute fall unguided to 400 feet then control it. But, that seems kind of silly and less safe than controlling it from apogee.
Personally, I think our activities fall under FAR 101 which doesn't have such a restriction. But I am not a lawyer nor do I wish to poke the bear and become a test case.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,354
- Reaction score
- 5,565
FAA already does that... it's your club's waiver.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
Based on the current discussion, the technical challenges of a given system is the easy part. The hard part is dealing with the American bureacracy and court system.
mh9162013
Well-Known Member
What about letting it fall with a drogue parachute, then at 400 feet, the guidance/steering capability kicks in? Almost like a Jolly Logic Chute Release or dual deploy, but instead of releasing the main parachute at the programmed altitude, it deploys or activates the steerable parachute.
Or, the parachute and its guidance/control system are deployed at apogee. At that point, the parachute is set to simply descend in a giant circle. Then at 400 feet, the guidance or steering system activates. Depending on how far away it is from the launch site at activation, 400 feet may be enough height to get it back close to where it launched...or maybe not.
I'm not familiar with the relevant regulation(s), not does it matter if I was. In the end, all that matters is what an Article III federal judge says the regulation means.
boatgeek
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 7,411
- Reaction score
- 7,957
OK, that’s more than half of the relevant question for FAA. If they won’t let drones operate i the waiver cylinder, it’s unlikely that they would allow other RC vehicles. The only other question is whether the rocket would be considered an RC vehicle. That’s answer is pretty likely to be yes too.
It's pretty much the same rules internationally or worserer......new word...
NTP2
Well-Known Member
I think the FFA is in a bit of a regulatory sugar buzz thay are regulating every little bit of drones I think I speak for everyone here when I say that WE DO NOT WANT what happened to the drone people to happen to us.
a side story, I was talking to the schools SRO and he was in to drones I mentioned rockets and he was flabbergasted at what the FFA lets us do the drone people are locked down quite literally sometimes. He told the story about how he almost got arrested when his drone lost control and crashed in the town prison!
a side story, I was talking to the schools SRO and he was in to drones I mentioned rockets and he was flabbergasted at what the FFA lets us do the drone people are locked down quite literally sometimes. He told the story about how he almost got arrested when his drone lost control and crashed in the town prison!
Maybe we should let the sleeping dog lie.
NTP2
Well-Known Member
New number 1 rule don’t tell drone people about what the FFA lets us get away with? Or maybe they need to do some law suits of their own…
Maybe we should all move to Switzerland, but they might not let you fly the rocket in the first place.
Similar threads
