Do I need a waiver?

[DynaSoar]

Originally posted by Micromeister
Good grief Dyna:
Shockie just gave you EXACTLY what the FAA specifies.

AND

Nope! NFPA-1122 defines model rocketry, not to mention our buddies at DOT and BATF are pretty stuck on the 62.5gram motor situation. NFPA-1127 was written specifically to address the HPR situation. By the way WE (model rocketry) only have a seat on the NFPA board as a courtesy, the Fire protection folks write the rules with suggestions and input from our Rep. but THEY decide what goes into the finial document. I say this to remind folks WE (model rocketry) are a VERY small part of what the various agencies are looking at. Like that annoying little nat flying around your ears at the range, we too can become a little nuisance that may just get a swift swat.

A case in point of what your first line was in reply to: different rules in different places. MY point was that they come from different sources and that a sinlge source, collated from them by us, would be easier to navigate as well as illuminate contradicitions in substance and emphasis, allowing better comprehension.

As for the last part, I respectfully jump up and down and rant with my hair on fire. I refuse to accept being treated like a mere annoyance by the people who work for me. Any instance of such behavior to which I am made aware will be met with the Sysiphus treatment, and it won't be a rock rolling down hill. I say "mere" annoyance because I would become a professional grade, industrial strength annoyance, the sort that gets their say and their way due to representation by decibel level rather than accepting the sufferance of the logical fallacy typically known as "powers that be". There are no powers that be that we don't make be, and if they act contrary to that, and we allow that, that's a big problem I will not be part of except in its rectification.

OK, my hair is out.

 

[JStarStar]

Originally posted by DynaSoar
If 10K is controlled airspace (or you are in any other way encroaching on controlled airspace) then despite being below the size limitations, you must comply with all of 101.25, which is the notification clause.

The answer is: yes, if 10K is controlled, you need it. It's free for the asking, so there's no reason not to. If you need it and don't get it and fly anyway, you're violating a federal regulation. If you do that an get caught, you go to federal court. If that happens, it'll come out that you could have had clearance for the asking but didn't, and they'd be quite likely to forbid you from owning or flying rockets. At minimum.

Even when you don't "need" it, you can ask for it, if for no other reason than to offer protection to any aircraft by making notice available to them through ATC. If they don't want to bother, you tried.

Figure: mid-level legal beagles are always trying to make a name and career for themselves. They're the ones tasked with taking care of such things as this hypothetical violation. They tend to come down as hard as they can for reasons beyond simply carrying out the law. With the Patriot Act in force, they can come down much harder and with less control than they could before. Don't think they won't. They used this act to come down on a strip club owner in Nevada for license violations. It got shot down, but they caused him a great deal of trouble. You don't want this kind of trouble, much less the likely results with or without Patriot being called to use.

Here's a text copy of the unmanned rocket FAA regs.

I am not a lawyer, but I do watch them on TV.

My own inclination would be, WHEN IN DOUBT, GET THE WAIVER.


We may all agree here that model rocketry SHOULD be and probably is exempted from the regulations, but as DynaSoar notes, the governmental bureacracy is just full of junior-varsity Mussolinis who just love to throw their weight around and are just itchin' to come down on somebody who does something without a permit, to prove what a master bureaucrat they are.

All it takes is one junior-grade desk jockey at the FAA to start blowing whistles.

They may be totally misinformed if they do, but all it takes is one federal bureaucrat with a bug up his britches to give you (and many rocketeers) a ton of legal headaches. If applying for the waiver is not that difficult a deal to do, I'd say better safe than sorry and apply for it.

 

[sandman]

junior-varsity Mussolinis

hmmmm...

junior-grade desk jockey

a...ha

federal bureaucrat with a bug up his britches

oh oh...you may have gone too far with THAT one!

Quit holding back...tell us how you REALLY feel.

 

[DynaSoar]

Originally posted by JStarStar
We may all agree here that model rocketry SHOULD be and probably is exempted from the regulations, but as DynaSoar notes, the governmental bureacracy is just full of junior-varsity Mussolinis who just love to throw their weight around and are just itchin' to come down on somebody who does something without a permit, to prove what a master bureaucrat they are.

No, I was refering to lawyers who'll look for any angle to spread the liability issue resulting from a lawsuit to as many people as they can, especially to groups such as NAR who have million dollar coverage.

Goobermint adminimonsters are for the most part professional and fair. Their organizations sometimes try to carry more weight than they're tasked with, for various reasons, but they can be dealt with. Dealing with a lawyer involved in a lawsuit.... there's a reason they're called 'landsharks'.

 

[Mad Rocketeer]

Hey NAR Prez, ya out there listening to this one?

It would be a great service to the hobby to have a digested and unified sheet which would tell us what any given rocket/motor combination is clasified as and what the regulations / requirements for that combination are. Ideally, it would have an easy-to-use if-then format so the user could just answer a series of yes/no questions until arriving at a terminal point with the classification and the necessary legal/regulatory hoops to jump through. Better yet would be to also include references to the relevant regulations in each summary.

That would be a great help to us NAR members and all rocketeers in the U.S.

 

[bobkrech]

It would be a great service to the hobby to have a digested and unified sheet which would tell us what any given rocket/motor combination is clasified as and what the regulations / requirements for that combination are. Ideally, it would have an easy-to-use if-then format so the user could just answer a series of yes/no questions until arriving at a terminal point with the classification and the necessary legal/regulatory hoops to jump through. Better yet would be to also include references to the relevant regulations in each summary.

Mad Rocketeer

Have you ever gone to the NAR website https://nar.org/index.html?

NAR has this information posted on their website. along with a lot of references. Most of the established clubs also have it posted, and Tripoli has a similar set of pages for their menbers.

The differences between model and high powered rocketry and who regulates what is found at https://nar.org/NARmodeltypes.html

The NAR model rocket safety code defines what a model rocket is, how and where they may be flown, and what you have to do to be be in compliance with NFPA 1122 and the FAA regulations. https://nar.org/NARmrsc.html

The NAR high power rocket safety code defines what a high power rocket is, who, how and where they may be flown, and what you have to do to be be in compliance with NFPA 1127 and the FAA regulations. https://nar.org/NARhpsc.html

How NAR certifies motors and the list of certified motors are found at https://nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml and the certification histories are posted at https://nar.org/SandT/STchrono.html

How to apply for a waiver is here. https://nar.org/cabinet/waiverinst.html

A whole bunch of forms and instructions are here. https://nar.org/cabinet/index.shtml

Shockie B put an excellent summary earlier in this thread listed as rocketry launch restrictions.pdf

I even tried to make it simplier and shorter in my earilier post.

It's all there in plain English. There's only so many ways we can say the same thing.

Bob Krech NAR 78096
Member CMASS and NAR S&T

 

[DynaSoar]

Originally posted by bobkrech
https://nar.org/index.html?
https://nar.org/NARmodeltypes.html
https://nar.org/NARmrsc.html
https://nar.org/NARhpsc.html
https://nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml
https://nar.org/SandT/STchrono.html
https://nar.org/cabinet/waiverinst.html
https://nar.org/cabinet/index.shtml
There's only so many ways we can say the same thing.

Which is precisely the point. So many. And that's just what's at NAR.

What's so hard about understanding that people want a single document that tells them, according to a given set of conditions, what regulations from which agencies or groups apply? I don't care how many people have found the time and energy to wade through all the various sources and locations. The information does not have to be this difficult to navigate and collate/compare. There's only so many etc.

 

[Mad Rocketeer]

Yep. That's what I was getting at. I've read through a lot of these things, but it would be nice to have a single reference in a yes/no format that would lead one through.

Example:
1.) Does your prepped rocket weigh more than X ounces?
If Yes, go to step 3.
If No, go to step 5.

2). Another question.
.
.
.

18.) Queston of some sort?
If Yes, go to A.)
.

A.) Simple Model Rocket
May be flown any time during the daylight with no planes in the area and according to the NAR safety code.
Reference fire safety code THIS and FAA regulations THAT and THAT.
NAR site links: https://www.whatever.org

.
.
.

D.) Large Model Rocket
May be flown during daylight hours with proper notification of the nearest air traffic control WHATEVER, blah blah blah.
Reference fire safety code THIS and FAA regulations THAT and THAT.
NAR site links: https://www.whatever.org

.
.
.

Etc.



It would be useful to have. Not new information, just a new way to organize and access it.

 

[Rubr_Duky]

seems like you're on a roll, keep going.

After having read through all of this infomation, and all of the valid points made by everyone here, the lines seem to be less gray.


RD

 

[Micromeister]

Originally posted by DynaSoar
Which is precisely the point. So many. And that's just what's at NAR.

What's so hard about understanding that people want a single document that tells them, according to a given set of conditions, what regulations from which agencies or groups apply? I don't care how many people have found the time and energy to wade through all the various sources and locations. The information does not have to be this difficult to navigate and collate/compare. There's only so many etc.

Than why don't YOU collate/compare and make this Simple single document? IMHO Seems to me it's not the req's that need fix'in it's more a lack of understanding or wanting to understand and abid with the reg's by the users.

 

[Mad Rocketeer]

Rubr_Duky:

I've thought about doing one. I haven't yet for several reasons.
1.) Time
2.) No web site of my own to post it on.
3.) My relatively new BAR status and complete lack of experience with LMR, MPR, & HPR.

Seems like a good service for a hobby organization to do. NAR and/or Tripoli could do it more thoroughly and credibly than I could and would have the lawyers to compose an appropriate disclaimer.

It would be something of an ongoing project to fill it in with good links, handle state-specific rules, and keep it updated.

As pointed out, the information is there and not all that difficult, but it's fragmented and confusing. Part of the problem is the fact that the rules and definitions originate from several regulatory sources: Fire codes, FAA, etc.

No summary will be perfect, but a decent attempt would be useful, especially to folks like me who are interested into getting into LMR, MPR, and L1 HPR.


Micromeister:

In terms of the categories you listed, I fall into the following bin:
* Doesn't want to change the regulations (unless it's to unify the definitions somewhat).
* Wants to comply with the rules, both legal and NAR.
* Understands the LMR, HPR rules somewhat and can look them up at need.
* Isn't quite sure where to find all of the rules though.
* Could use a handy reference.