Hello Vince,
My comments about the Nanny State were meant as the only reasonable explanation that I've heard, for the area where I've been flying rockets for the last 30 years. Out here near the Mississippi river, there has been only a minimal increase if any, in commercial air-traffic flying over our launch site. I would be happy for somebody to posit a more reasonable explanation for the 10,000 foot (40%) cut in our FAA waiver. And that's to say nothing about the total loss of our high power night launch capability. We do still do a night launch, but its limited to G motors.
The commercial air traffic flying near our launch site has not changed the altitude at which they are flying through the area. There are certainly no new commercial airports within 100 miles of our launch site in the last 25 years. There has been no explanation for the decrease in our waiver altitude other than "Sorry, that's just the way it is." And I've asked.
The closest commercial airport to us is the Quad Cities Airport and it has not moved or added any new runways and we haven't moved closer to it in the last 20 years.
To be frank with you, I think that somebody in the higher ups at the FAA office that we deal with, which is by Chicago, IL, decided that it would be less work for them if they simply cut all the waivers in our area down to this bare minimum, rather than deal with our waiver applications one at a time. And yes, they've all been cut. And I'm not talking about a cure that involves a "spoonful of sugar."
So, what's your reasonable explanation for the 10,000 cut in our waiver? Are you going to posit the complete reasonableness of the federal bureaucracy?
Still hoping to hear an actual reasonable explanation for the 40% cut in our FAA waiver other than, "Sorry, that's just the way it is."
Brad