It's risky, but can we put one debate to rest....?

[TheBru]

I fully respect the potential bees nest that I am kicking here, but I attempt to do it politely and with as little extra narrative as possible.

The three images below show the conversation I had via email with the FAA and the NAR. Surprisingly, the responding FAA member is also a member of the NAR. I've redacted the FAA member's, Paul, number as it's not mine to share, but I can say it is one of the lower NAR numbers I've seen.

I am in no way saying that you can do whatever you want. The RSO has the final word, and other laws and regulations are always applicable.

tl;dr - as I understand it, if the RSO says its good and all other appropriate regulations regarding field size and safety are met, LPR and MPR are allowed to fly as high as conditions permit regardless of the waiver that is imposed on HPR rockets flying the same field. Each flight is evaluated independently; the waiver is only needed and applied when appropriate.

------------------------------------------------
Images 1 & 2: The question posed to the FAA.
------------------------------------------------



-----------------------------------------------------------

Image 3: Question posed to the NAR

-----------------------------------------------------

 

[heada]

The waiver allows for the waiver of FAA regs. Since a class 1 rocket is exempt from those regs per 101.22, there isn't anything to waive and it is basically unrestricted. You still have to get blessing by the RSO but other than that, there is no waiver for the class 1 to exceed. It doesn't exist. 1000' waiver for class 2 and your class 1 hits 10,000'? That's perfectly fine.

 

[SecondRow]

Yeah, this is what I’ve always thought. I didn’t even know this was an issue for some. Why would a waiver from a regulation be more restrictive? That makes no sense.

Of course, if the RSO says no, that’s different. The RSO is always right (even if they’re wrong).

 

[boatgeek]

OK, good to know.

 

[TheBru]

Yeah, this is what I’ve always thought. I didn’t even know this was an issue for some. Why would a waiver from a regulation be more restrictive? That makes no sense.

Of course, if the RSO says no, that’s different. The RSO is always right (even if they’re wrong).

I see it come up from time to time on threads but don't want to derail the topic but figured it was time to share. The thought is often that once there is a waiver, all launches must abide by its limitations which isn't necessarily the case.

 

[SecondRow]

I see it come up from time to time on threads but don't want to derail the topic but figured it was time to share. The thought is often that once there is a waiver, all launches must abide by its limitations which isn't necessarily the case.

Gotcha. I don’t think I’ve seen it come up, but I agree with you and the FAA interpretation. The waiver itself should not impose a burden on the rocketeer that didn’t exist before the waiver was granted.