#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
A model aircraft is defined as an unmanned aircraft CHECK capable of sustained flight CHECK (particularly because of the recovery systems, i.e. not ballistic to impact) in the atmosphere CHECK flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft CHECK flown for hobby or recreational purposes CHECK Just Jerry cite: http://www.v-serv.com/usr/ATFE-03-16-09.pdf |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quoting some retailer magazine isn't really a good way to figure out what the law is saying. I don't agree with how this thread is trying to apply 14 CFR 107 rules to model rockets. It is just wrong to do so. Model rockets are not unmanned aircraft as defined in the law. According to 14 CFR 107.1(b) Applicability - This part does not apply to the following: (2) Any aircraft subject to the provisions of part 101 of this chapter; 17 CFR 101 applies to amateur rockets. https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-i...4CIsubchapF.tpl
__________________
-Wolfram v. Kiparski NAR 28643 - TRA 15520 MTMA Section #606 President |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It may require the adoption of a new rule or a letter ruling by FAA to apply it. In any case it would eliminate waiver requirements, perhaps up to some blanket altitude like 8000 feet. Nothing is easy with the government and it didn't help one little bit there were so many naysayers for the ATF win, the adoption of LMR, and the adoption of HPR, and the clarification that sparkies are fine, and the adoption of metallic case reloadables. All done BTW. Success despite many naysayers. Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 10-06-2017 at 04:14 PM. |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Naysayer? I merely pointed out the real rules that you were misconstruing and obfuscating. Or maybe you really don't understand the laws. I suppose that might be possible.
__________________
-Wolfram v. Kiparski NAR 28643 - TRA 15520 MTMA Section #606 President |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Jerry |
#16
|
||||
|
||||
Cool!
It's always fun to learn something new. I had no idea the government had defined model rocketry. Astrowolf is correct: 14 CFR 101 et seq. defines amateur rocketry and model aircraft. Subpart A is the general definition and Subpart C is the specific for rocketry with Subpart E specific for model aircraft. Pretty standard stuff for a Code of Federal Regulation. 14 CFR 101.1(a)(3) covers "Any amateur rocket except aerial firework displays." Jerry seems to be arguing that rockets should be classified as aircraft under 14 CFR 101(a)(5): (5) Any model aircraft that meets the conditions specified in §101.41. For purposes of this part, a model aircraft is an unmanned aircraft that is: (i) Capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere; (ii) Flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft; and (iii) Flown for hobby or recreational purposes. Obviously, the government does not classify model rockets as model aircraft or there would not be two definitions. And the key probably is "sustained flight". I disagree that a parachute constitutes "sustained flight." A rocket launch is a projectile; deployment of a recovery device changes it from a low-drag projectile to a high-drag projectile. But it is a projectile nonetheless. It's not flying, it's falling. The other, related flaw in defining rockets as model aircraft is "operating". The CFR seems to assume the model aircraft is subject to operator influence while it is in "sustained flight", the "person operating the aircraft" from subsection (ii). Line-of-sight is irrelevant if you're not guiding it. A model rocket operator guides it for the length of the launch pad and then the rocket is on its own, subject to atmospheric conditions. That's not operating, that's aiming. "[O]perating" implies the ability to change attitude or direction via control surface to some external influence or at the desire of the operator; transitioning from dive to climb, for instance. An R/C boost-glider might quality under the definition but then it's a radio controlled model aircraft that the operator can change its direction or attitude. I don't think a rocket meets (i) or (ii). I like my odds in front of a federal judge.
__________________
NAR 79743 NARTrek Silver I miss being SAM 062 Awaiting First Launch: Too numerous to count Finishing: Zooch Saturn V; Alway/Nau BioArcas; Estes Expedition; TLP Standard Repair/Rescue: Cherokee-D (2); Centuri Nike-Smoke; MX-774 On the Bench: 2650; Dream Stage: 1/39.37 R-7 |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
FAA is concerned with flight safety. An unmanned rocket operated commercially or by the military is a potential hazard due to performance, construction or payload.
A hobby rocket is necessarily non-metallic, operated recreationally, and has a perfect 60 year flight safety record, whether flown in full compliance or not. My NAR number is 1/3 of yours. As I said in a prior message it would likely require negotiating with FAA to change the current regime, but there its clear justification for it. There certainly is a current trend for regulatory reduction. I say now may be the time. Jerry |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
No one is disputing that, but I suppose you are just trying to relearn the rules. You sure seem confused regarding what is law, and what you read in other places. Or are you deliberately stating a truism to try to walk back false statements so that you look like you are right? It's kind of hard to tell. Anyways, the law trumps any of those guidelines that you referred to.
__________________
-Wolfram v. Kiparski NAR 28643 - TRA 15520 MTMA Section #606 President |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
1. Further relaxation of FAA 2. Relaxation of DOT and likely eliminating hazmat entirely for consumer products. 3. Untethering Level 1 and 2 certs from continuous memberships so once approved, permanently approved. a. When I did that at Lucerne I was able to amass attendance of up to 4000 people at a single event and by my count about 20,000 overall as HPR people BEFORE HPR was officially adopted by either NAR or TRA. I would like to see HPR access up to a K be adult legal (Jet Hitch proved that 100% practical legally). Today, by comparison, there are under 5,000 approved HPR access users worldwide inclusive of NAR/TRA/CAR/UK/AUS. There has never been a better environment for these things with an Executive branch administration open to regulatory changes, contrary to the full time staff opinions, who just want to broaden their authority and jurisdiction continuously. Jerry cite: https://www.facebook.com/search/str...mFkOWMifQ%3D%3D https://www.facebook.com/Jet-Hitch-1650373405193553/ http://www.jethitch.com http://v-serv.com/FAA/BDR/index.htm I have a personal goal to see the HPR "industry" double in size in 3-4 years. I did it once from zero to 20k (4x from now), so 2x from 5000 ain't that hard. Untethering: http://www.rocketryforum.com/showth...759#post1465759 Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 10-08-2017 at 09:37 AM. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
I favor the same amount of government regulation of hobby rocketry as that for personal firearm (including full autos) regulation. NONE WHATSOEVER.
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!! Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't ! Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY. ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC ! |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|