Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > Weather-Cocked > FreeForAll
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 10-06-2017, 09:30 AM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FAA definition
A model aircraft is defined as an unmanned aircraft that: capable of sustained flight in the atmosphere, flown within visual line of sight of the person operating the aircraft, flown for hobby or recreational purposes.


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
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-06-2017, 10:19 AM
astronwolf's Avatar
astronwolf astronwolf is offline
Lost his Drifter
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Irvine
Model rockets (MR, LMR, HPR) are in fact model aircraft. Ask the AMA. They operate only in air.

http://www.modelretailer.com/en/The...unlawful .aspx

Jerry


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
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-06-2017, 12:36 PM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by astronwolf
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

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.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-06-2017, 01:08 PM
astronwolf's Avatar
astronwolf astronwolf is offline
Lost his Drifter
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Irvine
Nothing is easy with the government and it didn't help one little bit there were so many naysayers like you ....

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
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-06-2017, 04:16 PM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by astronwolf
17 CFR 101 applies to amateur rockets.
Per NFPA -1122 and NFPA-1127, NAR Safety Code, TRA Safety code, Amateur rockets /= LMR or HPR.

Jerry
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-07-2017, 07:57 AM
MarkB.'s Avatar
MarkB. MarkB. is offline
Surfrajettes Fan
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: El Paso
Posts: 1,113
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-07-2017, 09:02 AM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

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
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-07-2017, 10:33 AM
astronwolf's Avatar
astronwolf astronwolf is offline
Lost his Drifter
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Northeast Ohio
Posts: 1,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Irvine
Per NFPA -1122 and NFPA-1127, NAR Safety Code, TRA Safety code, Amateur rockets /= LMR or HPR.

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
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-07-2017, 12:38 PM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by astronwolf
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.
I don't appreciate your stalking me and I cannot understand why you cannot see the progress made, I personally spearheaded, and succeeded at, and see there is more progress to be made. That fact aside, I do see progress possible in other areas the readers might like to hear about.

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.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-07-2017, 03:52 PM
ghrocketman's Avatar
ghrocketman ghrocketman is offline
President, MAYHEM AGITATORS, Inc.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Nunya Bizznuss, Michigan
Posts: 13,443
Default

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 !
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:34 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2024