First clash with authorities
Paul
CA
Everything's cool, everyone's happy, kids are enjoying and stuff. It's my
last launch with the biggest motor (C6-5), and just about when I launch
it, a police cruiser happens to travel by on a road. So, the lady stops
the car and starts yelling into a megaphone: "Sir, you can't do that
here, you've got a police cruiser passing by, and you are launching
rockets. What the hell are you thinking? Stop it now". Now, she was
yelling so loud, megaphone distorted half what she said, so I'm running
to fetch a rocket while I still can see it, and I'm like: "I'm sorry,
what did you say?"
She steps out of the car, gets all worked up, and goes: "you can't launch
rockets here blah-blah-blah". Her partner steps out, and he's much more
calm and cool. By this time my rocket has drifted god knows where, and of
course, nobody took a notice of a landing point, since everyone's
watching the scene by now.
So I ask the female officer: "Can I get my rocket first and then talk to
you guys?". She turns red, just about to burst and starts yelling "get
your ass seated, do you have a license, yada-yada-yada". All right, the
circus has started. Frankly, I couldn't belive what I heard: what's up
with her attitude? It's really uncalled for. So, I ask her partner: did
you hear that? And he's like: yeah, pal, you better sit down. So, I sit,
the lady barks out questions like: where od you work, what's your name.
all that stuff. She then repeats it into the radio for the station guys
to check me out. Whoa! Enema of the state.
Meanwhile her partner keeps cool, moves her aside and starts talking to
me about rockets. Turns out he's a hobbyist himself, launches rockets as
well. In a courteous manner he explains Shoreline's a city park where you
can't have any flammables. However, you can launch rockets in a county
park, which isn't too far either. Finally, the nazi-lady checks me out
and says I'm free to go. I even got an apology from her for being too
aggressive (after I insisted on explaining her previous behavior in fron
of everyone).
The mood's completely ruined by now, and what's worse, I couldn't find my
rocket :(
Damn it.
Brett Buck
> Meanwhile her partner keeps cool, moves her aside and starts talking to
> me about rockets. Turns out he's a hobbyist himself, launches rockets as
> well. In a courteous manner he explains Shoreline's a city park where you
> can't have any flammables.
Because it's built on a landfill, and it's still outgassing
hypothetically flammable methane.
BTW, I don't think you are technically clear in the county park
either, because you didn't have fire marshall approval. Has nothing to
do with Homeland Security Act - these legal requirements have been in
effect for years.
Might want to check out BAYNAR ( http://www.baynar.org ) and
LUNAR ( http://www.lunar.org ) both of which have launches in the near
future, completely free of burdensome law enforcement involvment. Plus,
lots of like-minded people.
Brett
Jerry Irvine
Paul <ju...@pneyman.com> wrote:
I know of three or more rocketters who have had similar treatment except
by the Feds. The police state has arrived.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01ro...@gte.net>
Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration.
Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com
David Erbas-White
to California)? We may be visiting some folks there this summer...
David Erbas-White
Joel Corwith
"David Erbas-White" <der...@arachneering.com> wrote in message
news:3EB5F932...@arachneering.com...
> Anyone know what the rules for model rockets are in Arizona (as compared
> to California)? We may be visiting some folks there this summer...
All depends on where. And when.
Joel. phx
>
> David Erbas-White
>
> Jerry Irvine wrote:
> >
> > In article <Xns9371D6AB...@208.201.224.154>,
> > Paul <ju...@pneyman.com> wrote:
> >
madcow
They launch at the DeAnza College parking lot which was rather small.
A lot of rockets got eaten by trees plus the asphalt is pretty hard on the
landings.
I'd still rather take my chances in a wide grassy park and get scolded by a
cop rather than lose a valuable project.
"Brett Buck" <buc...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3EB5E663...@pacbell.net...
Reece Talley
California law. In the Peoples Republik of Kalipornia one must have the
written permission of the land owner, a signed permit from the local fire
authority and not have any municipal restrictions that might supercede the
state code. he in SoCal, that means no rocketry of any kind in an LA county
park...ever. So, you were lucky. She could have cited you. Sorry about the
rocket. My daughter's an LAPD cop.....chick cops tend to yell a lot. It
comes with being a woman and rather unimposing physically.
--
R. J. Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
NAR #69594
NRA #133073736
"Paul" <ju...@pneyman.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9371D6AB...@208.201.224.154...
Jerry Irvine
"madcow" <mad...@juno.com> wrote:
> I watched the BAYNAR launch last week.
> They launch at the DeAnza College parking lot which was rather small.
> A lot of rockets got eaten by trees plus the asphalt is pretty hard on the
> landings.
> I'd still rather take my chances in a wide grassy park and get scolded by a
> cop rather than lose a valuable project.
>
Which is precisely why the law needs to be changed back to "verbal
notification" of the fire authority. There was never an accident or
incident under those rules and all they need to know is you are not
operating fireworks anyway in case calls come in.
Jerry
Form a PRK rocket committee right here? You saw how effective Wickman
was in a short time.
>
> "Brett Buck" <buc...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:3EB5E663...@pacbell.net...
> > Paul wrote:
> >
> > > Meanwhile her partner keeps cool, moves her aside and starts talking to
> > > me about rockets. Turns out he's a hobbyist himself, launches rockets as
> > > well. In a courteous manner he explains Shoreline's a city park where
> you
> > > can't have any flammables.
> >
> > Because it's built on a landfill, and it's still outgassing
> > hypothetically flammable methane.
> >
> > BTW, I don't think you are technically clear in the county park
> > either, because you didn't have fire marshall approval. Has nothing to
> > do with Homeland Security Act - these legal requirements have been in
> > effect for years.
> >
> > Might want to check out BAYNAR ( http://www.baynar.org ) and
> > LUNAR ( http://www.lunar.org ) both of which have launches in the near
> > future, completely free of burdensome law enforcement involvment. Plus,
> > lots of like-minded people.
> >
> > Brett
> >
> >
>
>
--
Fred Shecter
county park...ever. " LA City Parks may be different, but I've had permits for school
launches from City of LA.
The Southern California Rocket Association (NAR Section 430) has the written permission of
the LA County Parks Department and a written permit from the LA County Fire Department to
launch up to a single G motor (160 Newton-seconds) at the Santa Fe Dam Recreational Area
on scheduled days. We are there twice a month (unless it rains or an emergency occurs -
they use the park for chemical evacuations and fire base campo for the mountains).
http://home.earthlink.net/~mebowitz/
Complete details on how to get a launch site of your own are on our website:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mebowitz/siteaid.pdf
-Fred "It can be done" Shecter NAR 20117
--
""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.
"Reece Talley" <om...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VHnta.56223$4P1.5...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Fred Shecter
State regulation say that you need to obtain "permission" from the property owner AND the
fire authority that has jurisdiction. The Office of the CA State Fire Marshal has stated
quite clearly that verbal permission is not good because there is no way to prove that you
really got permission. For instance - you are launching on a Saturday or Sunday and a
police officer shows up. They ask for your fire permit. You say "I called and got
permission". You can't prove that. The business office of the fire department is CLOSED on
the weekend.
All you need to do is get anything in writing that give fire authority permission. Most
jurisdictions require that to be a "Permit" since that is how their system works. It can
be filed and found and you get a copy. It is VERY easy.
Some locations will not give a written permit and have a policy to allow Model Rocket
launching. Mile Square Park in Fountain Valley was like that until rocket people flew
dangerously - exceeding the power limits and also crashing huge High Power Rockets onto
the golf course and active little league fields. Blanket fire department permission was
withdrawn as was permission to use the park by the Parks department.
Lucerne FD still allows Model Rocket flying on the dry lakebed with only verbal blanket
permission (they do like you to call to confirm that there are no other activities on the
lake bed - like filming/helicopter operation, etc. - and that it is dry). From what I hear
HPR requires the written permit (as well as all the fees and the FAA waivers, etc.), but I
don't engage in that so I leave that up to others, like ROC who can handle that quite
nicely.
I'm sure there are other fire regulation activities that require "permission" of the AHJ,
and that permission must be a written permit.
Without a permit process, how will we attempt to protect the general public from people
who attempt to launch rockets on top of outgassing landfills (BOOM!), or near housing
tracts and dry brush (WOOF/CRACKLE/SIZZLE/DIE!)?
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117
--
""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-2FB030...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Jerry Irvine
"Fred Shecter" <fred.e....@zorch.alum.zorch.mit.edu> wrote:
> As has been explained before (but many forget and some are new and never
> heard it), the CA
> State regulation say that you need to obtain "permission" from the property
> owner AND the
> fire authority that has jurisdiction. The Office of the CA State Fire Marshal
> has stated
> quite clearly that verbal permission is not good because there is no way to
> prove that you
> really got permission. For instance - you are launching on a Saturday or
> Sunday and a
> police officer shows up. They ask for your fire permit. You say "I called and
> got
> permission". You can't prove that. The business office of the fire department
> is CLOSED on
> the weekend.
A copy of your fax NOTIFICATION would be proof.
A phone or fax notification is LOGGED by the dispatcher specifically so
calls can be fielded, yes even by mentally ferclempt and emotionally
unstable police officers.
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
> I'm sure there are other fire regulation activities that require "permission"
> of the AHJ,
> and that permission must be a written permit.
>
> Without a permit process, how will we attempt to protect the general public
> from people
> who attempt to launch rockets on top of outgassing landfills (BOOM!), or near
> housing
> tracts and dry brush (WOOF/CRACKLE/SIZZLE/DIE!)?
Your interesting and exaggerated horribilization is evidence of why YOU
should not be on a rules commitee.
There is not a rocket abuse probem to correct thanks to widespread
compliance with the safety code itself. Rockets are flown in parks all
the time. I propose simply to make that existing popular, safe,
widespread activity legal post facto.
Jerry
David Weinshenker
> I know of three or more rocketters who have had similar treatment except
> by the Feds. The police state has arrived.
Which Feds?
-dave w
madcow
hobby... handgunning.
Seems it's a far safer hobby than model rocketry with less restrictions.
I can gather the neighborhood kids and show them the fine art or reloading.
Then I can take them to the shooting range and show them how to control
recoil hoping that the guy in the next bay isn't renting that .45 and is
about to blow his brains out because of a spat with his girlfriend. Yes it
is a much safer hobby.
"Paul" <ju...@pneyman.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9371D6AB...@208.201.224.154...
Jerry Irvine
David Weinshenker <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote:
If there was any benefit besides addressing idle curiosity I would
reply. But the fact they have not posted their stories means I likely
will not either. Federal authorities "employ" state police to effect as
much of their enforcement as prtactical and only pick up on matters
state law does not cover. I do not know of any investigated INITIATED
by state police at all.
Fred Shecter
--
""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-F73721...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> In article <HEF30...@news.boeing.com>,
> "Fred Shecter" <fred.e....@zorch.alum.zorch.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > As has been explained before (but many forget and some are new and never
> > heard it), the CA
> > State regulation say that you need to obtain "permission" from the property
> > owner AND the
> > fire authority that has jurisdiction. The Office of the CA State Fire Marshal
> > has stated
> > quite clearly that verbal permission is not good because there is no way to
> > prove that you
> > really got permission. For instance - you are launching on a Saturday or
> > Sunday and a
> > police officer shows up. They ask for your fire permit. You say "I called and
> > got
> > permission". You can't prove that. The business office of the fire department
> > is CLOSED on
> > the weekend.
The CA Fire Regulations do not say you are allowed to launch after "notification". You are
required to get "permission", which must be in the form of a written permit.
Fred Shecter
Violations of the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code and the State and Local Regulations are WHY
there are more and more restrictions and fewer and fewer friendly fire authorities. They
HAVE had incidents and fires. They have memories. As time goes by their memories contain
more incidents.
Luckily they can still be convinced to issue permits to those who demonstrate the ability
to follow the regulations and a desire to launch safely.
Constantly harping on a "1/4 expected max altitude" rule does not help. Rockets drift
during recovery and they also can 'launch badly' and not go straight up. Responsible
rocket enthusiasts should not have their rockets land outside their authorized launch and
recovery area. This is seldom a concern for the Lucerne Dry Lake flyers, but it is a real
concern in a populated or residential area. It would be bad to have a large rocket land
(ballistically or under parachute) in someone's back yard next to their 2 year old child.
Parents have been known to call the bomb squad when that happens.
-Fred "reality" Shecter NAR 20117
--
""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-66C022...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Starlord
no one cares what I fly out here, have had cops stop and watch my birds fly. One
even went to the freeway to recover one that had landed there.
--
In This Universe The Night was Falling,The Shadows were lenghtening
towards an east that would not know another dawn.
But elsewhere the Stars were still young and the light of morning lingered: and
along the path he once had followed, Man would one day go again.
Arthur C. Clarke "The City & The Stars"
SIAR
www.starlords.org
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Bishop's Car Fund
http://www.bishopcarfund.Netfirms.com/
Starlord's Personal Page
http://starlord-personal.netfirms.com
Freelance Writters Shop
http://www.freelancewrittersshop.netfirms.com
"Paul" <ju...@pneyman.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9371D6AB...@208.201.224.154...
> So, I was launching my rocket today at a Shoreline park in Mountain View,
> CA
>
> Everything's cool, everyone's happy, kids are enjoying and stuff. It's my
> last launch with the biggest motor (C6-5), and just about when I launch
> it, a police cruiser happens to travel by on a road. So, the lady stops
> the car and starts yelling into a megaphone: "Sir, you can't do that
> here, you've got a police cruiser passing by, and you are launching
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.474 / Virus Database: 272 - Release Date: 4/18/03
Jerry Irvine
"Fred Shecter" <fred.e....@zorch.alum.zorch.mit.edu> wrote:
> We need a "Horribilizer" to go with the "Dialectizer".
>
> Violations of the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code and the State and Local
> Regulations are WHY
> there are more and more restrictions and fewer and fewer friendly fire
> authorities.
I strongly disagree with this statement. If we could resolve the
ultimate truthfulness of this prior to debating that would be helpful.
I have been ON the STATE rules committee and I can tell you they give
lipservice to having minimal laws then when you are not looking they
make up a bunch of rules that "make enforcement more convenient".
> They
> HAVE had incidents and fires. They have memories. As time goes by their
> memories contain
> more incidents.
The "incidents" are from people flying rockets in dry brush because the
dry brush is in a remote area where they are not hassled. If they were
not hassled at the local park where model rockets were DESIGNED to fly
and where they were legal to fly for decades, there would be far less
incidents of people avoiding enforcement by flying in remote grassy
areas.
Hello . . . .
Can you hear me? . . . . .
A LEGAL outlet reduces the pressure to engage in illegal activities.
That is the very principal model rocketry was founded on. Do NOT throw
it away!!!
>
> Luckily they can still be convinced to issue permits to those who demonstrate
> the ability
> to follow the regulations and a desire to launch safely.
In other words one or two clubs throughout socal. Not ANY individual
flyers even though that is 99.5% of the market.
>
> Constantly harping on a "1/4 expected max altitude" rule does not help.
I am citing Centuri!!!
And 3 decades of actual EXPERIENCE by MILLIONS of rocketeers.
Jerry
> Your interesting and exaggerated horribilization is evidence of why YOU
> should not be on a rules commitee.
--
David Weinshenker
> I have been ON the STATE rules committee and I can tell you they give
> lipservice to having minimal laws then when you are not looking they
> make up a bunch of rules that "make enforcement more convenient".
And then you get situations where the state has been willing to
"over-regulate, but under-enforce (relative to the regulations
as written) in practical interpretation" - and then that gets
weird when other agencies try to get involved and reference the
regulations as written.
Example... CA code, as written, calls for HPR-sized motors to be
"possessed and used by" holders of the appropriate state pyro operator
license... in practice, this is often implemented as "used at an
authorized
launch supervised by" such a licensee. As far as I can tell, the State
Fire
Marshal's office is quite OK with this, as long as there's a licensee on
site in nominal legal charge.
(Presumably the idea is that if they _did_ have a situation where an
unlicensed person _was_ "creating a fire nuisance" by launching HPR's
in an inappropriate area, they would have grounds to make accusations
of "possessing unauthorized rocket motors" even if they didn't witness
an actual firing.)
However, it now appears that BATF may be inclined to require that every
applicant for an "Explosives User Permit" to buy rocket motors would
have to have his own state pyro license, even if only planning to launch
at an organized launch...
-dave w
Fred Shecter
1) Comply with NFPA 1122 & NAR MRSC.
2) Get permission from property owner (gee. No trespassing. What a draconian rule!)
3) Get a permit from the fire AHJ. (Let's them know where you want to launch and they can
say 'no' if conditions are unsafe and the rocket flyer was not aware of this and why).
4) age limit.
That's about it. Some areas charge fees and that should be changed. Pretty easy to comply
with.
--
""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-65EEC0...@news.bellatlantic.net...
> In article <HEF7u...@news.boeing.com>,
> "Fred Shecter" <fred.e....@zorch.alum.zorch.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > We need a "Horribilizer" to go with the "Dialectizer".
> >
> > Violations of the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code and the State and Local
> > Regulations are WHY
> > there are more and more restrictions and fewer and fewer friendly fire
> > authorities.
>
> I strongly disagree with this statement. If we could resolve the
> ultimate truthfulness of this prior to debating that would be helpful.
> I have been ON the STATE rules committee and I can tell you they give
> lipservice to having minimal laws then when you are not looking they
> make up a bunch of rules that "make enforcement more convenient".
>
> > They
> > HAVE had incidents and fires. They have memories. As time goes by their
> > memories contain
> > more incidents.
>
> The "incidents" are from people flying rockets in dry brush because the
> dry brush is in a remote area where they are not hassled. If they were
> not hassled at the local park where model rockets were DESIGNED to fly
> and where they were legal to fly for decades, there would be far less
> incidents of people avoiding enforcement by flying in remote grassy
> areas.
>
False. maybe true for some example you're thinking of, but not me. I'm thinking about
cases where teachers set the area on fire launching FROm their schoolyard and
landing/hitting the nearby hillside or vacant lot.
Ditto for the kid who launched at the end of his street in suburban OC and set a good
chunk of Carbon Canyon on fire. He managed to miss the Aerojet bunkers (or at least they
didn't go BOOM!).
> Hello . . . .
>
> Can you hear me? . . . . .
>
> A LEGAL outlet reduces the pressure to engage in illegal activities.
> That is the very principal model rocketry was founded on. Do NOT throw
> it away!!!
>
> >
> > Luckily they can still be convinced to issue permits to those who demonstrate
> > the ability
> > to follow the regulations and a desire to launch safely.
>
> In other words one or two clubs throughout socal. Not ANY individual
> flyers even though that is 99.5% of the market.
>
> >
> > Constantly harping on a "1/4 expected max altitude" rule does not help.
>
> I am citing Centuri!!!
>
> And 3 decades of actual EXPERIENCE by MILLIONS of rocketeers.
>
My real world experience is the damage controla after the bomb squad was called because
the rocket ended up in the back yard. It was not my rocket.
We need "The Church Lady" voice here. Hmmm. Who's rocket could it have been?.....
Jerry Irvine
Rick Dickinson
<fred.e....@zorch.alum.zorch.mit.edu> is alleged to have written:
>you know, the CA state fire regulations are pretty simple. Here is a rough summary:
>
>1) Comply with NFPA 1122 & NAR MRSC.
Except that CA has not adopted NFPA 1122. Instead, they have adopted
*portions* of the 1987 edition of NFPA 1122.
>2) Get permission from property owner (gee. No trespassing. What a draconian rule!)
Except that, in many areas, the parks departments don't want to issue
permits, especially to individual flyers.
>3) Get a permit from the fire AHJ. (Let's them know where you want to launch and they can
>say 'no' if conditions are unsafe and the rocket flyer was not aware of this and why).
Except that, in many areas, the fire departments won't issue permits,
especially to individual flyers.
>4) age limit.
Which age limit is that? The CPSC ones?
>That's about it. Some areas charge fees and that should be changed. Pretty easy to comply
>with.
Pretty easy *if* you can get the necessary permits, which is very
often not possible, as you, of all people, are very much aware, Fred.
Hence the massive "launch site search" when SCRA lost the Mile Square
Park site to the golfers....
Let's not pretend that California makes it easier than they actually
do.
- Rick "RocketLaws.org researcher" Dickinson
--
"Imagine standing at a street corner and spitting on people to
get their attention, then trying to sell them something.
Spamming is a better marketing method than that only in that you
get punched less often." -- Esa E. Peuha
Bill Westfield
rough summary:
3) Get a permit from the fire AHJ. (Let's them know where you want to
launch and they can say 'no' if conditions are unsafe and the rocket
flyer was not aware of this and why).
What I haven't been able to find out is just how likely the AHJ is to say
"yes" or "no." I mean, the local clubs (LUNAR, BAYNAR) have safety
procedures above and beyond those of the NAR MRSC (safety tape around the
pads, extra distance, RSO and LCO for MR launches, etc.) Is that club
paranoia, or a condition of the AHJ? Is "any building within a 1/4 mile"
a problem, even if that building belongs to the property owner who has
already given permission?
I've certainly been given the impression that an individual attempt to
get a permit is doomed to failure. Is that really the case, or not?
(Assume the SF bay area. there's the local park, where I've watched
people launch rockets without permits and without getting in trouble,
and there's my employer, with assorted large parking lots. Should I
bother trying, or is it a waste of time?)
BillW
Fred Shecter
news:kr9ebvkf092eb531b...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 5 May 2003 17:20:18 GMT, "Fred Shecter"
> <fred.e....@zorch.alum.zorch.mit.edu> is alleged to have written:
>
> >you know, the CA state fire regulations are pretty simple. Here is a rough summary:
> >
> >1) Comply with NFPA 1122 & NAR MRSC.
>
> Except that CA has not adopted NFPA 1122. Instead, they have adopted
> *portions* of the 1987 edition of NFPA 1122.
So if you comply with the NAR MRSC are you not complying with the CA regs? Is it not EASY
to follow the NAR MRSC?
>
> >2) Get permission from property owner (gee. No trespassing. What a draconian rule!)
>
> Except that, in many areas, the parks departments don't want to issue
> permits, especially to individual flyers.
And in many areas they will issue permits. The reasons for not issuing permits are usually
(but not always) sane. Some parks are inappropriate for model Rocket flying. There is no
'crowd control' for individual flyers and there are real liability concerns for launching
in a crowded park without crowd control (ropes, flag barrier rope, whatever). You cannot
fly model airplanes anywhere you desire for safety reasons as well. That's the nature of
the hobby you have chosen. You cannot force people to allow you to engage in your activity
on their land (or force officials to permit your activity on public land). You can,
however, convince them if they are at all reasonable and if you are not "scary". How many
"scary" people have you met at rocket launches. (Almost as bad as an SF convention).
;-)
>
> >3) Get a permit from the fire AHJ. (Let's them know where you want to launch and they
can
> >say 'no' if conditions are unsafe and the rocket flyer was not aware of this and why).
>
> Except that, in many areas, the fire departments won't issue permits,
> especially to individual flyers.
I have yet to find a safe launch site where they said "NO" and were absolutely unyeilding.
They often say "NO" as the first response to hearing the word "rocket". Once you explain
that you are talking about Model Rockets and that the Model Rockets will be of the
appropriate size and power level for the flying field (per the NAR MRSC), they issue the
permit. I have not only obtained permits for the club. I also have gotten MANY permits for
launches on school yards. I have gotten permits from 6 or 7 cities and several areas of LA
County. And, of course, the ever popular Orange County (that was for the club, but they
say they issue permits to scout groups and schools - I never asked about individuals).
>
> >4) age limit.
>
> Which age limit is that? The CPSC ones?
The 14 year old limit in the CA regs. It's printed on every package of Estes motors in the
USA.
>
> >That's about it. Some areas charge fees and that should be changed. Pretty easy to
comply
> >with.
>
> Pretty easy *if* you can get the necessary permits, which is very
> often not possible, as you, of all people, are very much aware, Fred.
> Hence the massive "launch site search" when SCRA lost the Mile Square
> Park site to the golfers....
>
The only reason the "massive launch site search" was massive is that people said they did
NOT want to settle for a small field and the NAR MRSC limits that a small field would
require. There are probably hundreds of Orange County launch sites available IF you are
willing to accept a B or an A motor total-impulse limit.
> Let's not pretend that California makes it easier than they actually
> do.
It's not that hard to do for Model Rockets. It is indeed VERY hard to do for High Power or
Amatuer Rockets.
What did Kennedy say about things that are hard to do?
Jerry Irvine
"Fred Shecter" <fred.e....@zorch.alum.zorch.mit.edu> wrote:
> "Rick Dickinson" <r...@notesguy.com> wrote in message
> news:kr9ebvkf092eb531b...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 5 May 2003 17:20:18 GMT, "Fred Shecter"
> > <fred.e....@zorch.alum.zorch.mit.edu> is alleged to have written:
> >
> > >you know, the CA state fire regulations are pretty simple. Here is a rough
> > >summary:
> > >
> > >1) Comply with NFPA 1122 & NAR MRSC.
> >
> > Except that CA has not adopted NFPA 1122. Instead, they have adopted
> > *portions* of the 1987 edition of NFPA 1122.
CA is a superset of NARMRSC. As you know for years there have been CA
certified MODEL ROCKET MOTORS that are not on the NAR list for one
reason or another. NAR is a silly little club and CSFM is a state
approved agency. Therefore there is no reason that a CA launch of any
kind should not allow any APPROVED CSFM motor.
In the other 49 states there is no reason to not allow any motor at a
launch and realize that any NAR member insurance only applies to NAR
certified motors, any TRA insurance applies only to TRA certified motors
IF the launch has been sanctioned in advance by TRA HQ, and that all
motors are covered by your homeowners or liability insurance.
Jerry
--
Fred Shecter
http://home.earthlink.net/~mebowitz/siteaid.pdf
Some property owners (like Parks Departments) require "supervised and controlled"
launches. That means that every motor is looked at to make sure it is legal (that includes
NAR certified since the property owners require insurance). They just don't want extra
liability concerns and they want to make sure that people agree to operate in a safe
manner.
That includes not launching a rocket with fins taped on or with wet glue or with only one
fin. Beginners don't know some things. Checking the models and motors helps keep things
safe and the beginners can learn something and be given repair parts if possible. See the
Safety Advisory for things we do to help prevent crashes and fix models so they can fly
safely. I repair models for beginners all the time. Many have no idea what is wrong or why
it could be a safety hazard. We try to explain it. Saying "NO" without an offer to
repair/fix and explain why is Bad. Offering a reason and repair parts is usually met with
many, many "Thank You"s.
http://home.earthlink.net/~mebowitz/safety.pdf
I don't know about the 1/4 mile thing. Is that for HPR? I am only talking about Model
Rockets. I have yet to see a local park with an area clear of people not involved in the
launching that is large enough for safe HPR launching. Plenty of dry lakebeds are perfect
for HPR.
It is easier for a club to get a permit for a large park launch site. It is NOT impossible
for an individual to get a permit. It just depends on how you explain what you want a
permit for and if the officials are reasonable. Put on some nice cologne - it can't hurt.
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117
--
""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.
"Bill Westfield" <bi...@cypher.cisco.com> wrote in message
news:54he884...@cypher.cisco.com...
Jerry Irvine
"Fred Shecter" <fred.e....@zorch.alum.zorch.mit.edu> wrote:
> "Rick Dickinson" <r...@notesguy.com> wrote in message
> news:kr9ebvkf092eb531b...@4ax.com...
> > On Mon, 5 May 2003 17:20:18 GMT, "Fred Shecter"
> > <fred.e....@zorch.alum.zorch.mit.edu> is alleged to have written:
> >
> > >you know, the CA state fire regulations are pretty simple. Here is a rough
> > >summary:
> > >
> > >1) Comply with NFPA 1122 & NAR MRSC.
> >
> > Except that CA has not adopted NFPA 1122. Instead, they have adopted
> > *portions* of the 1987 edition of NFPA 1122.
>
> So if you comply with the NAR MRSC are you not complying with the CA regs? Is
> it not EASY
> to follow the NAR MRSC?
>
> >
> > >2) Get permission from property owner (gee. No trespassing. What a
> > >draconian rule!)
> >
> > Except that, in many areas, the parks departments don't want to issue
> > permits, especially to individual flyers.
>
> And in many areas they will issue permits. The reasons for not issuing
> permits are usually
> (but not always) sane. Some parks are inappropriate for model Rocket flying.
> There is no
> 'crowd control' for individual flyers and there are real liability concerns
> for launching
> in a crowded park without crowd control (ropes, flag barrier rope, whatever).
Have you seen the Estes catalog? No ropes. Short offset distances.
And let me tell you from experience flying at multi-use facilities, that
people WATCH rockets. They are EXCITING and INTERESTING. And when they
recover near a person they are safe, yes even if the parachute does not
deploy perfectly.
You are applying your intertnal mental rules and sensibilities and
claiming they are either the goal or the norm, neither of which is
actually the case.
Or per the HPRSC, or the IEAS SC or frankly even the "I just made it up"
SC.
> they issue the
> permit. I have not only obtained permits for the club. I also have gotten
> MANY permits for
> launches on school yards. I have gotten permits from 6 or 7 cities and
> several areas of LA
> County. And, of course, the ever popular Orange County (that was for the
> club, but they
> say they issue permits to scout groups and schools - I never asked about
> individuals).
>
> >
> > >4) age limit.
>
> >
> > Which age limit is that? The CPSC ones?
>
> The 14 year old limit in the CA regs. It's printed on every package of Estes
> motors in the
> USA.
So let's explore this Fred.
14 to do what exactly?
Purchase? Yes.
Posess? Yes.
Discharge? Yes.
This clearly presents that minor children can legally launch. Then you
make a nonsense rule that effectively makes every citizen user a
criminal in practice. Go back to simple notification. The whole point
is for "fire dispatch" to know an activity is occuring at a place and
time.
Think of it as a fire notam without the lookiloos.
>
>
> >
> > >That's about it. Some areas charge fees and that should be changed. Pretty
> > >easy to
> comply
> > >with.
> >
> > Pretty easy *if* you can get the necessary permits, which is very
> > often not possible, as you, of all people, are very much aware, Fred.
> > Hence the massive "launch site search" when SCRA lost the Mile Square
> > Park site to the golfers....
> >
>
> The only reason the "massive launch site search" was massive is that
Jerry Irvine told me where to launch and then I did.
> people
> said they did
> NOT want to settle for a small field and the NAR MRSC limits that a small
> field would
> require. There are probably hundreds of Orange County launch sites available
> IF you are
> willing to accept a B or an A motor total-impulse limit.
>
>
> > Let's not pretend that California makes it easier than they actually
> > do.
>
> It's not that hard to do for Model Rockets. It is indeed VERY hard to do for
> High Power or
> Amatuer Rockets.
>
> What did Kennedy say about things that are hard to do?
We ignore much of what he said, so why not that too?
Jerry
>
> >
> > - Rick "RocketLaws.org researcher" Dickinson
> >
> > --
> > "Imagine standing at a street corner and spitting on people to
> > get their attention, then trying to sell them something.
> > Spamming is a better marketing method than that only in that you
> > get punched less often." -- Esa E. Peuha
>
--
Jerry Irvine
Bill Westfield <bi...@cypher.cisco.com> wrote:
> you know, the CA state fire regulations are pretty simple. Here is a
> rough summary:
> :
> 3) Get a permit from the fire AHJ. (Let's them know where you want to
> launch and they can say 'no' if conditions are unsafe and the rocket
> flyer was not aware of this and why).
>
> What I haven't been able to find out is just how likely the AHJ is to say
> "yes" or "no." I mean, the local clubs (LUNAR, BAYNAR) have safety
> procedures above and beyond those of the NAR MRSC (safety tape around the
> pads, extra distance, RSO and LCO for MR launches, etc.) Is that club
> paranoia, or a condition of the AHJ? Is "any building within a 1/4 mile"
> a problem, even if that building belongs to the property owner who has
> already given permission?
>
> I've certainly been given the impression that an individual attempt to
> get a permit is doomed to failure. Is that really the case, or not?
It is generally and initially the case. That is to say it is definitely
not "easy and convenient" even though the law presumes it is.
It is fraught with hassle and delay and expense as a culling method.
The fire department wants to do as little work as possible (they
consider your flying rockets in their jurisdiction adding work to them)
so make the process as strenuous as they can without overtly violating
the law. In THEIR opinion. But if every delayed permit applicant filed
a civil suit against the FD they would each win.
Last I checked nobody wants to spend $100,000 to save on an unreasonable
$100 and 90 day permit, or unreasonable provisions on a permit, no
matter how illegal or unreasonable it is.
Class action suit?
Jerry
> (Assume the SF bay area. there's the local park, where I've watched
> people launch rockets without permits and without getting in trouble,
> and there's my employer, with assorted large parking lots. Should I
> bother trying, or is it a waste of time?)
>
> BillW
>
--
Bob Kaplow
> What I haven't been able to find out is just how likely the AHJ is to say
> "yes" or "no." I mean, the local clubs (LUNAR, BAYNAR) have safety
> procedures above and beyond those of the NAR MRSC (safety tape around the
> pads, extra distance, RSO and LCO for MR launches, etc.) Is that club
> paranoia, or a condition of the AHJ?
I can't speak for those clubs, nor for CA regs. But for NIRA, we've got a
few conditions from our land owner (no sales of anything, club insurance
required, get a permit, fire blankets, fire extinguisher). The rest of our
club rules are mostly a result of having 100 people out there instead of 5.
When a NIRA launch was Bob, Ric, Bunny, George, and a couple others, we
didn't need pad numbers, a PA, LCO/RSO, flight cards, etc. As things grew,
we needed more infrastructure to keep things safe and organized:
http://www.nira-rocketry.org/RangeRules.shtml Another growth spurt might
result in new problems requiring new solutions.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://www.pleimling.org/le/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Jerry Irvine
"Fred Shecter" <fred.e....@zorch.alum.zorch.mit.edu> wrote:
> Read the document on the SCRA website.
> http://home.earthlink.net/~mebowitz/siteaid.pdf
>
> Some property owners (like Parks Departments) require "supervised and
> controlled"
> launches.
But that is NOT the same as NAR certified.
> That means that every motor is looked at to make sure it is legal
> (that includes
> NAR certified since the property owners require insurance).
NAR insurance is SECONDARY. Non NAR motors are covered by PRIMARY
insurance!!!!!
> They just don't
> want extra
> liability concerns and they want to make sure that people agree to operate in
> a safe
> manner.
Which can be done by any method OTHER than NAR and NARMRSC.
--
Fred Shecter
of insurance that names specific parties as insured.
Your homeowners or other insurance does not do that. The NAR Section insurance does - and
that insurance requires use of NAR certified motors. Period.
Of course, I've said this dozens and dozens of times before.
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117
--
""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply.
"Jerry Irvine" <01ro...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:01rocket-0BD02D...@news.bellatlantic.net...
Jerry Irvine
"Fred Shecter" <fred.e....@zorch.alum.zorch.mit.edu> wrote:
> Jerry is WRONG again. The property owners for our launches require a special
> certificate
> of insurance that names specific parties as insured.
I was not talking about the items you negotiated. I am talking about
the items I have negotiated or items another person can negotiate if
they wish. I am well aware you are a stickler to assure your launches
are NAR centric, which automagically imposes other things on you like
NFPA-1122, NAR insurance, NAR specific version of the safety code, NAR
only listed motors even if motors have CSFM, etc. That is a choice.
One other choice is to host a launch that uses an independent safety
code, CSFM rules ONLY, and insurance offered by traditional, popular
carriers which are incidentally PRIMARY not SECONDARY coverage.
Yet another choice is the most popular one of your alleged target
market. Go to Wal-Mart, buy a starter outfit, ignore all warning labels
and safety codes, take it to the park and launch it not knowing all the
silly new laws that now violates, and have fun! 99.5% never causing any
annoyance and not being bothered by enforcers. Non-enforcement zone.
Ray's scheme (which works) is bring your big ass rocket and motors out
to a remote location (legal in 49 states, but not PRK!), launch them
following all known safety codes, using motors legal in 49 states and in
CA ONLY if you jump through a series of expensive ($9000), abusive
(individual fees, tests, referrals, waiting periods) and arbitrary hoops
installed by the Estes coalition to add drag to HPR.
I could list others like a Pyro-Op 2 hosted launch or a FX level 1 or 2
event or even an event simply overseen by any Fire AHJ at all.
>
> Your homeowners or other insurance does not do that.
The homeowners insurance covers the responsible RSO (and all of his
associated liability) on a recreational launch.
> The NAR Section
> insurance does - and
> that insurance requires use of NAR certified motors. Period.
>
> Of course, I've said this dozens and dozens of times before.
And I have heard and understood you each time and even agreed. Can you
hear me as well?
Fred it is important to note that as wonderful as we both agree NAR is,
it is only 4500 people nationwide and such a tiny fraction of people
associated with rocket launching generally as to be entirely ignorable.
Proposals I have made to change that have been ignored, or worse,
attacked. So it is what it is.
Jerry
David Weinshenker
> I could list others like a Pyro-Op 2 hosted launch
Went to one of those recently - Left Coast Rocketry
event at the old Liberty Airfield near Petaluma.
-dave w
James L. Marino
James
"David Weinshenker" <daz...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3EB92A03...@earthlink.net...
Allen Kezer
Who was David?
Allen (the guy parked next to you asking all the questions) ;-)
"James L. Marino" <jmar...@inreachDONTSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:QFiua.799$9Q2...@news.inreach.com...
RBrigham1
the approach pattern for Palo Alto Airport, which is one of the busiest small
airports in the country. There are small aircraft flying at and below 800' in
that vicinity. (I know, technically you are Flying in Moffet's airspace, but
they have few planes, so Palo Alto routinely stacks up inbound traffic into
Moffet's airspace.) I suppose if you had a written note from the generally
friendly folks at the Palo Alto tower to wave in the face of the Mountain View
Police, it might have settled things pretty quick - who knows.
Robert Brigham
NAR 79579 L1
Words are your friends. Choose them carefully.
madcow
I know there's Moffet Field, San Jose, and San Carlos but I didn't know Palo
Alto had an airstrip.
"RBrigham1" <rbri...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:20030508210033...@mb-m20.news.cs.com...