New Rocket and Airliner incident reported

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I had wondered if anyone would make fun of this situation by pulling that one out.

Well, you know what?

It d***** well COULD!

If this sort of thing keeps on happening, some branch of the government no doubt will try to do something about it.

George, I think that's primarily in response to Mark's comment of

Start acting like your hobby is under attack (still) because it's still at risk, and we can lose everything a half century of hard work has built up.

I'm sorry, but acting like the hobby is under attack is a bit over the top.

We can walk around in paranoia and fear that the world is out to get us, or we can take what we do seriously, and we can continue to cooperate with authorities in any investigations that may or may not happen, as well during our regular activities.

We've accomplished what we have by being organized, and taking what we do seriously, as well as proving ourselves to the FAA authorities that we can work with them, and we play by the rules. Remember, it was the direct involvement of a TRA BoD member with the FAA after 9/11 that helped give us the green light to start flying rockets again. That doesn't happen without mutual respect.

-Kevin
 
I am seriously wondering if this incident involved any "Model Aircraft Parts".

This is based upon the semi-toothless hillbillies who set up about a tenth of a mile away from our Model Rocket launch at Lucerne Dry Lake on May 31 and proceeded to launch all sorts of unusual rockets propelled by gen-yoo-eyne "Model Aircraft Parts". I even have one of the bits of exploded casings with the manufacturer's logo on it.

We were conducting a Model Rocket Launch and had no waiver. i did not investigate if they had a waiver, but I seriously doubt they could spell 'waiver'.

I think the only way to buy these "Model Aircraft Parts" is to get a note from your parole officer.

ROC conducts very legitimate HPR launches out there and I would think they would be concerned with folks flying HPR (or "HPMAP") without a waiver and jeopardizing their launch site should an incident occur.

On Sundays, at Lucerne, (was the 3rd Sunday, but now the Sunday following ROC launches except June and November when ROC holds ROCstock, a 3 day event) Frank Kosdon holds his Perchloration Launch. Frank and Jerry are usually out together and Frank had to purchase a cell phone to call in the waiver. I would ask next time that you investigate first.
 
On Sundays, at Lucerne, (was the 3rd Sunday, but now the Sunday following ROC launches except June and November when ROC holds ROCstock, a 3 day event) Frank Kosdon holds his Perchloration Launch. Frank and Jerry are usually out together and Frank had to purchase a cell phone to call in the waiver. I would ask next time that you investigate first.


May 31 was does not fit the date pattern you listed.

Frank was not there.

Jerry was not there.

It was one car with what looked like a father and son.

Are you really suggesting that I investigate? Are you suggesting that if I am conducting a legal Model Rocket launch and I see someone launching high power rockets that require an FAA waiver that I contact the FAA and ask if they have a waiver in effect? After all, asking the person launching will simply get a response of "sure, I have a waiver" even if they do not.

My approach has been to ignore them as long as they did not present a danger to me or our small group. I assumed that if something they launched showed up on radar, the FAA would handle it.
 
You do not find it very strange that pretty much the same area near Houston had the same sort of incident a year ago? But this time, someone on the ground saw something come down from the sky too? Last year seemed far-fetched, but now that it has happened, AGAIN, in the same area, well, the pilots are not making this stuff up, something is happening and it is somebody flying some HPR (or amateur) rocket without a waiver, coming close enough to an airliner for the pilots to be concerned it was going to get close to them (Again, I see no point in obsessing over a report of 100 feet or 1000 feet, or whatever distance, NO ROCKET SHOULD BE NEAR A PLANE!)

This is serious, it’s NOT a “UFO Story”.

- George Gassaway

Don't you find it the least bit odd that last year's alleged "incident" and this year's alleged "incident" both involve Continental Airlines? So two "incidents" involving the same airline in two consecutive years? Are they the ONLY airline flying out of that airport or something?

It sounds to me like this irresponsible reporter is using some kind of connection she has with Continental Airlines in an attempt to make a name for herself.
 
May 31 was does not fit the date pattern you listed.

Frank was not there.

Jerry was not there.

It was one car with what looked like a father and son.

OK, I don't get it. What was the point you were trying to make exactly?
 
Don't you find it the least bit odd that last year's alleged "incident" and this year's alleged "incident" both involve Continental Airlines? So two "incidents" involving the same airline in two consecutive years? Are they the ONLY airline flying out of that airport or something?
.

Continental is not the only airline flying out of IAH, but they are by far the dominant operator there, with some 1400 aircraft landings/takeoffs each day. That is roughly 80% of all operations at the airport, so it is not unreasonable that both incidents involved Continental-branded aircraft.

James
_________________________
James Duffy
[email protected]
www.rocket.aero
 
Don't you find it the least bit odd that last year's alleged "incident" and this year's alleged "incident" both involve Continental Airlines? So two "incidents" involving the same airline in two consecutive years? Are they the ONLY airline flying out of that airport or something?

It sounds to me like this irresponsible reporter is using some kind of connection she has with Continental Airlines in an attempt to make a name for herself.

Well considering GBI is a Continental's LARGEST hub airport, i don't find it odd at all.
 
Well, being as I own the farm that Challenger 498 launches from down at Needville and am a lifelong resident of that part of the state, I'll chime in.

We're 35 miles WEST of downtown Houston, thankfully this was 35 miles EAST. At the risk of offending someone from that part of the world, once you go East of Houston and start getting into the Piney Woods, you start seeing a WHOLE DIFFERENT attitude about things... I know because half my family is from the Lufkin/Jasper/Pineland/Bronson/Center, TX area... lots of guns and chainsaws and "we don't need no gub'mint stuff goin' round here" type attitudes... :D

Given that there was a significant investigation into the event from last year, and presuming for a moment this WAS an actual rocket and that events transpired as they were reported to authorities then I'd say the most likely explanation is a lone "experimenter" launching large-ish homebrew propellant rockets. Clearly this was TOO high to be a 'model' rocket-- the impulse required WOULD necessitate HPR motor-equivalent impulse to achieve such altitudes. Assuming a minimum-diameter model flying on a home-made motor, it's certainly possible it could reach that altitude. That proximity to an airliner in flight is certainly would require either active guidance or extraordinary luck on the order of winning the lottery! You're talking about an airliner moving at a couple hundred miles an hour (at least) being approached at altitude by a (presumably unguided) rocket travelling a ballistic trajectory at several hundred miles an hour and they both come within (several most likely) hundred feet of each other?? Probabilities on that one are almost off-scale low...

Regardless, a 'rocket' that size SHOULD have been visible on radar, especially that close to the installations, and despite not having a transponder. That would at least confirm or deny the existence of a 'foriegn object' in the flightpath of the plane. A rocket of such size and impulse would require either someone with HPR knowledge and (presumably) the certifications necessary to buy the motors of the appropriate impulse, which was all fairly well investigated last year AFAIK, or else a 'maverick' "experimenter" making homemade propellants and launching illegally. AFAIK, there are NO HPR launching fields in that area being used by any Houston area clubs.

So, eliminating the probable and the possible, we're left with two possibilities-Either 1) and individual of unknown motive or intent possessing the knowledge, skills, and access to materials necessary to either procure or construct a HPR rocket motor from existing manufactured components or manufacturing them from raw materials as an 'experimental' motor/rocket, launching illegally and either a) accidentally or b) intentionally trying to hit an airliner for kicks, to create bad publicity for rocketry in general, or just abject stupidity, or 2) unknown individual(s) actually firing guided munitions at airliners in an attempt to bring one down, which have thankfully so far been unsuccessful. Such individual(s) may be using smuggled armaments or home-made components or a combination thereof. Given the proximity of the sightings (assuming the accounts are accurate and credible for a moment) then it seems a deliberate attempt IS being made by whomever is doing this to either frighten or actually hit an aircraft. Either that or supremely monumental stupidity combined with extraordinary luck in bringing the two vehicles into such proximity that the 'rocket' is observable from the aircraft.

As for enforcement-- well, outlawing legal rocketry activities will do NOTHING to prevent any 'maverick' individual from obtaining materials to illegally construct things to continue such 'stunts'. The individual(s) doing this are clearly operating outside the law, the safety code(s) and provisions of the national rocketry organizations, and the rules governing both HPR certifications and experimental rocketry activities. Apprehending such individual(s) engaged in such clandestine activities is extremely difficult, as evidenced by the time required to apprehend the Unabomber and other such 'lone wolves' engaging in illegal activities.

Hopefully law enforcement will get a break and apprehend these individual(s) as they ARE putting a bad light on legal and safe rocketry activities, and all rocket enthusiasts SHOULD cooperate fully with law enforcement to that end, as Trip mentioned.

JMHO! OL JR :)
 
[...] We're left with two possibilities-Either 1) and individual of unknown motive or intent possessing the knowledge, skills, and access to materials necessary to either procure or construct a HPR rocket motor from existing manufactured components or manufacturing them from raw materials as an 'experimental' motor/rocket, launching illegally and either a) accidentally or b) intentionally trying to hit an airliner for kicks, to create bad publicity for rocketry in general, or just abject stupidity, or 2) unknown individual(s) actually firing guided munitions at airliners in an attempt to bring one down, which have thankfully so far been unsuccessful.

3) There was no rocket involved in either incident. (This is the most likely explanation.)

-- Roger
 
3) There was no rocket involved in either incident. (This is the most likely explanation.)

-- Roger

Well, I DID preface the discussion with "presuming the reports to be accurate as reported"...

Hence I ignored that obvious and quite probable contingency in my assertions...

Later! OL JR :)
 
Just a couple of points. Air traffic control radar is designed to track transponder equipped aircraft, That does not preclude a skin paint return but this radar is NOT military radar.

The aircraft involved in the latest incident was a Continental Express aircraft. I have not seen the type of aircraft but it could have been a turboprop, thus traveling slower than a larger jet.

It seems to me that NAR may have information that is not public.
 
Jerry was not there but his "Model Aircraft Parts" were. Didn't I state that? I'll go check to see if I was unclear....

Yup. I was pretty clear:
https://www.rocketryforum.com/showpost.php?p=33044&postcount=38

:confused2:

No. You were not clear. You called what turned out to be a father and son "toothless hillbillies". That's the only reference you gave other than "genuine Model Aircraft Parts". Anybody that's been around knows what/who those "parts" are associated with.
 
No. You were not clear. You called what turned out to be a father and son "toothless hillbillies". That's the only reference you gave other than "genuine Model Aircraft Parts". Anybody that's been around knows what/who those "parts" are associated with.


Jerry is not toothless and is not a hillbilly. He is from the foothills. And we will not talk about his feet.

The people launching were indeed stereotypical toothless hillbillies. They were not Geico insurance cavemen, but there is indeed an advertising slogan opportunity here.

They were indeed launching the infamous brand of "Model Aircraft Parts" as at least one of them blew apart and one of the bits had the famous logo on it. They were not being launched by Jerry. Maybe one of the employees sold the motors to the people doing the launching. What was that employee count again? ;)
 
FWIW, a reward for information is now being offered. https://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6479164.html

Sounds like the authorities are taking this pretty seriously!

-Kevin

That's "Crimestoppers" offering the reward, not the authorities. It's probably based on the published reports or that local sheriff (who is going to be spending a lot of time running around half the state chasing down UFO, err, rocket reports).

-- Roger
 
The aircraft involved in the latest incident was a Continental Express aircraft. I have not seen the type of aircraft but it could have been a turboprop, thus traveling slower than a larger jet.

The aircraft involved was an Embraer ERJ145, operated by ExpressJet Airlines as a Continental Express flight. At an altitude of 13,000 feet the aircraft was almost certainly in a climb configuration, so figure their airspeed was in the neighborhood of +/- 225kts.

James
________________________
James Duffy
[email protected]
www.rocket.aero
 
I called the Crimestoppers information line with additional information.

Based on the reports, "rocket being 5 feet to 7 feet long with triangular fins", I said it was most likely a 3FNC or 4FNC based on my expert knowledge.
 
That's "Crimestoppers" offering the reward, not the authorities. It's probably based on the published reports or that local sheriff (who is going to be spending a lot of time running around half the state chasing down UFO, err, rocket reports).

Yep, but my guess is "Crimestoppers" works with the authorities on where to offer rewards and where not to.

-Kevin
 
Thanks James,

I looked for the aircraft type but could not find it.

I've never flown an RJ, but I would expect a climb speed closer to the 250-280kts range. At 13k ft that would give a True airspeed around 300-350 kts.
 
Yep, but my guess is "Crimestoppers" works with the authorities on where to offer rewards and where not to.

The authority was, most likely, the local Sheriff. Unfortunately, I think the reward offer is going to have him running around chasing wild goose reports.

BTW, the Houston Chronicle is a sponsor of the local Crimestoppers. Another amazing coincidence? :)

-- Roger
 
Last edited:
Well, YOU may need extraordinary evidence, but unfortunately the two executive branch government agencies investigating the incident only need to show "probable cause" in order to take some sort of action.
Exactly! And that is why the proximity of this event so close to a recent court decision makes this whole thing smell to high heaven.
 
Exactly! And that is why the proximity of this event so close to a recent court decision makes this whole thing smell to high heaven.

I considered the same thing but I'm thinking the fact that there was a similiar incident in the same area around the Memorial Day holiday last year (same timeframe) indicates it's somebody trying to outdo last year's effort.

Hopefully the Feds are smart enough to put up a Predator over the area for the Memorial Day weekend next year. :bangbang:

Although one of the recourses suggested by Judge Watson was to petition Congress to allow them to regulate APCP. One or two more events like this and that task will probably be significantly easier to obtain. Hmm, maybe they ought to just search for a burning van? ;)

Btw, Crimestoppers is now offering up to $5K for info on the case. I have an alibi. :neener:
 
BTW, the Houston Chronicle is a sponsor of the local Crimestoppers. Another amazing coincidence? :)

What's the obsession with the Chronicle? They only picked the story up from the ABC affiliate here in Houston after it had been airing for days on TV.

*points to location*
 
Although one of the recourses suggested by Judge Watson was to petition Congress to allow them to regulate APCP. One or two more events like this and that task will probably be significantly easier to obtain..

You're assuming it was APCP propellant. I'm pretty sure Hamas uses sugar based propellant. I'm not saying that's who I think it is but it's not impossible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, great. Trip all the government keyword searches why don't ya! :cyclops:
 
Back
Top