Are there actually sites with a waiver so low this question can arise? Took a look in the NAR records and the highest altitude record I found was for a G at 2195 meters, or just over 7000 feet.
Are there actually sites with a waiver so low this question can arise? Took a look in the NAR records and the highest altitude record I found was for a G at 2195 meters, or just over 7000 feet.
At NASA Houston our waiver only goes to 2500ft. Non-dual deploy are restricted to 2000ft by NASA regulation. (NASA also restricts us to "I"motors or less, though special dispensation can be gotten for Lvl2 cert flights as long as the ceiling is not violated.)Are there actually sites with a waiver so low this question can arise?
(also to T-Rex)Yes, here east of the mississippi there are waivers as low as 1500, 3k, and 5k
I think an important point here is "Self Regulation".Spirit of the law, rather than letter of the law? I don't know. There are laws, there are NAR/TRA guidelines, there are clubs rules. A club with a 15k waiver could at some point say, "No flights over 10k today," and that would be the rule for all members, regardless of the law. There's no law against sparky motors on a hot, dry day, but many clubs disallow them on such days.
I have no dog in this fight. I think we should obey our club rules even if/when the law is more lenient.
Self-regulation = self-control applied to human beings....what could possibly go wrong with that idea?I think an important point here is "Self Regulation".
We have a lot of leeway because we as a community have demonstrated responsible self regulation.
We need to continue to do that, not push the limits out of some self-righteous desire to be right.
If those in charge at a launch disallow some activity above and beyond what the rules say then a responsible flyer abides by that. If you don't agree then you should try to find another club to fly with.
We have gained too much to throw it away.
Because I haven't had the issue come up with the flyers at our club (that I can recall). And, like I said in post #7, I think that all flights at a waivered launch must respect the waiver.But has anyone actually asked the FAA what their take is on this before? It sounds like the community is in frequent contact with them to get the waivers and permission, so why not ask?
I don't know about the present but it was certainly the case in the past.Are there actually sites with a waiver so low this question can arise?
But has anyone actually asked the FAA what their take is on this before? It sounds like the community is in frequent contact with them to get the waivers and permission, so why not ask?
We could indeed seek an answer from that portion of the FAA which is responsible for writing and interpreting the FARs, but there’s really no point to it. The entire premise is more hypothetical than practical. Launch Directors and RSOs are not going to approve Class 1 rocket flights that exceed the COA altitude. To do so could damage the trust the FAA has in our judgement. We have a great relationship with them now; as a COA holder I wouldn’t want them to think that I’m looking for ways to skirt their rules.But has anyone actually asked the FAA what their take is on this before? It sounds like the community is in frequent contact with them to get the waivers and permission, so why not ask?
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but this whole thread demonstrates the difference between knowledge and wisdom and highlights the importance of discretion. Just because something is “technically” allowed is not a sufficient reason to do it.
Good evening, Dan,
Since a waiver only applies to the Federal Aviation Regulations that are actually being waived, a rocket that's not subject to the regulation isn't bound by the terms of the waiver. For example, since an F powered rocket won't exceed the total impulse or weight limitations in FAR 101.22 (125 grams of propellant, 1500 grams liftoff weight), that rocket isn't subject to the limitations in FAR 101.25, therefore no waiver is required to fly it and the terms of the waiver don't apply.
Of course, you still have to comply with the applicable portions of the regulation and the NAR Safety Code. As always, the RSO is the final authority on the field, and he/she may be aware of landowner issues, etc. that make such flights inadvisable even if they're not restricted by the waiver.
I hope this is useful. If you have questions or would like clarification, feel free to e-mail me directly at [email protected].
All the best,
Mark Wise
NAR Secretary
While you are technically correct that a MPR doesn’t have to stay inside a club’s waiver, don’t be surprised if the launch organizers do not allow you to fly above their waiver ceiling. Here’s why. When a club activates a waiver, it usually done by coordinating by phone with the FAA air traffic control facility in charge of the airspace over the launch site. They know that rockets are flying there and how high they might be going to. Any IFR aircraft will be vectored around that cylinder if their altitude is equal to or less than the waiver altitude. Aircraft flying higher will be allowed to cross over the launch site because the FAA believes no rockets will be going above the waiver ceiling.
Then comes the guy who wants to fly a “unrestricted” Class 1 flight out the top of the waiver. While it may be legal, no one I know who is a waiver holder would allow it to happen on the off chance it “might” conflict with traffic, upset the FAA, and put their waiver at risk resulting in another loss of flying field.
Years ago when I became the prefect of the Kloudbusters I had one goal. Put simply, I didn’t want to be the last prefect of the Kloudbusters! I didn’t want to be the guy who approved something that would put our field at risk. There is no flight that is more important than the field.
Bob Brown
To pile on & hopefully not derail (or shoot myself in the foot)... I've always assumed the "breakable plastic" part of the FAA's Class 1 rocket definition to count for composite rockets. Epoxy is a plastic and fiberglass or carbon rockets are definitely breakable. Buuuut, does my thinking match the intent of the definition? Anyone know?
Also, is there a definition for "slow-burning" anywhere?
From the FAA:
§ 101.22 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this subpart:
(a) Class 1 - Model Rocket means an amateur rocket that:
(1) Uses no more than 125 grams (4.4 ounces) of propellant;
(2) Uses a slow-burning propellant;
(3) Is made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic;
(4) Contains no substantial metal parts; and
(5) Weighs no more than 1,500 grams (53 ounces), including the propellant.
I promise you can bust a lot a waivers with a rocket like this flight of mine, but my understanding has always been that no waiver is required. So, flying on a non-HPR waiver day is fine, other safety concerns noted. (Also, I really miss having dry lakebeds nearby.)
Excellent. Thanks!Your thinking is just fine...So, I don’t think you have anything to worry about there.
Once I am able to find a contact in the FAA I plan on asking them as well, if only to prove that its okay to ask questions.
Enter your email address to join: