Near Mid-air stupidity
Dean C. Pilato
>>There's a lot of difference, though, between flying R/C airplanes at up
>>to a couple hundred feet altitude and speeds under 100 mph, and flying
>>rockets at up to a couple thousand feet, and speeds up to 400 mph. The
>>former are far less likely to interfere with aircraft, even on final
>>approach, then the latter (if launched without regard to priority
>>traffic)...
Speaking as a pilot myself, I guess my take on this is screw the regs,
what the guy did was just astoundingly stupid. To get that close to an
airplane you *have* to do it on purpose. There is no way he scanned the
sky in order to avoid traffic before he launched. Indeed, he must have
timed his launch intentionally to get near the plane.
If I was flying a Cessna and a rocket came that close to me, I would
hunt the guy down, and he'd better hope the cops got to him first.
--
Dean Pilato
Email d_pi...@michsb.trw.com
====================================================================
The highway's jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive
Everybody's out on the run tonight but there's no place left to hide
-Born to Run, Springsteen
Ed
Coupla points:
1. We've heard both sides of the incident. The gentlemen
ADMITTED that he:
1. Broke a saftey rule by not scanning for planes himself,
2. Did not explain that requirement to the person "pushing the
button"'
3. None of us like to fly around airplanes, that is why we get
waivers and file NOTAMs: we don't want ANYONE to get hurt.
4. Aircraft are much larger and eaiser to see than a 3-ft cardboard
tube, yet we still have mid-air AIRCRAFT accidents. Surly you
have had near-misses (as a pilot yourself). Ask yourself, would
your reaction have been the same as you expressed here, if it had
been another aircraft? How many times have you had a
near-miss because you were distracted, or simply made a
mistake? The sky is a big, wonderful place, with room and magic
for all. We can share it, and all fly in safety, if we all
respect the rights of the others, remember a few safety rules,
and that there is a place, time, and way to do all things.
I hope this helps some, and hope you have a great, SAFE, weekend.
Just ED
Who loves to fly kites, rockets, and airplanes.
Larry Smith
Dean C. Pilato wrote:
> Speaking as a pilot myself, I guess my take on this is screw the regs,
> what the guy did was just astoundingly stupid. To get that close to an
> airplane you *have* to do it on purpose. There is no way he scanned the
> sky in order to avoid traffic before he launched.
Dean, the gentleman who was responsible for that rocket has posted his
version of the story and _stated_, point-blank, that he _had_not_scanned_
the sky before the launch - he was setting up a camera, and the person in
charge of ignition was too inexperienced to do the job properly. He ack-
nowledged that he was in the wrong, he stated, and admitted, that he had
made a mistake. Them's the facts. He and others are objecting to the
massive over-reaction to the error. There was nothing intentional about
it, and presuming someone of that is serving no legitimate purpose in
this newsgroup.
> If I was flying a Cessna and a rocket came that close to me, I would
> hunt the guy down, and he'd better hope the cops got to him first.
I see. So you would try to top an FAA violation with an assault and
battery? You aren't acting any more responsibly here with this kind
of bluster.
And there were other mitigating circumstances as well. He was flying
under a waiver, and the plane was on an unscheduled approach to a _closed_
runway, not having informed themselves of the waiver in effect. I think
the rocketeer is properly contrite and I think you, _and_ the pilot, _and_
the FAA, are way overboard on reaction. He deserves a slap on the wrist,
not public crucifixion at high noon.
RobEdmonds
>And there were other mitigating circumstances as well. >He was flying
>under a waiver, and the plane was on an unscheduled >approach to a
_closed_
>runway, not having informed themselves of the waiver in >effect. I think
>the rocketeer is properly contrite and I think you, _and_ >the pilot,
_and_
>the FAA, are way overboard on reaction.
I can't come down either way on this one. Never once have I been informed
of existing rocketry waivers or NOTAMs (of which I was aware by virtue of
being in the NAR) when receiving a pre-flight briefing for flight in the
vicinity of a rocket event (including flights into an out of NARAM cities
or over high-power meets). I don't know why they don't mention them, but
they don't. It is extremely unlikely that a model will actually hit
fullsized air traffic even when launched co-incidentally. I have to think
about though, what it would be like if my mother had to hear that I was
shot down in a perfectly good airplane by some modeler just sport-flying.
I don't think it would matter how innocent his intentions were or how much
of a mistake it was, how inexperienced the firing officer is or how many
waivers got sent in. I must admit, though, to not giving this very much
consideration when I'm behind the firing button myself.
RE
John H. Cato, Jr.
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> And there were other mitigating circumstances as well. He was flying
> under a waiver,
Not so sure about that - nor does it matter, actually.
> and the plane was on an unscheduled approach to a _closed_
> runway, not having informed themselves of the waiver in effect.
Nor does this matter, either.
> I think the rocketeer is properly contrite and I think you, _and_
> the pilot, _and_ the FAA, are way overboard on reaction. He deserves
> a slap on the wrist, not public crucifixion at high noon.
Larry, my intial reaction was similar to Dean's - and the great majority
of the reason folks out here see that is because this is from the
perspective of the pilot. I don't know if you are one or not (nor how
many other pilots may be watching this topic and have or have not chimed
in).
After getting an email from the party - as well as his public post, I
realized his attitude was rare - not many folks would have the courage
to stand up in the middle of a 'fire' and say, "I lit it". He did - and
I truly respect both his courage and his ability to do that.
As I said previously about 'slamming on the brakes', an airplane simply
cannot do it - which puts them hanging on a VERY thin 'thread'. Pilots
understand this and (mostly, I would imagine) non-pilots don't - or else
they don't THINK about it quite the same way. When you're 'low and
slow' on final approach, your options are considerably more limited than
with 10,000 feet of air between you and the ground out in the enroute
airspace. On approach, you're low, near stall speed, got to watch out
for other aircraft (since an airport is like flying into a beehive),
watching for TV towers and the like - plus, if you screw up (since most
airports are near populated areas), more than likely a LOT of innocent
humans on the ground are going to die. Is the adrenalin 'pumping' on
approach? You damn right it is! And for good reason.
Now, lets add darkness, bad weather, ground fog (that will cause a
runway to simply disappear - and I had that happen to me 10 feet before
flaring one time... at NIGHT), possible wind shear, radio problems (such
as a loss of ILS 1/2 mile from the threshold in a thunderstorm), some
student pilot taxiing out onto YOUR runway just before you touch down,
losing an engine (which will cause a twin to just about roll over into a
death spiral instantly - and a single to simply drop off the scope),
icing on the wings and a host of other 'adrenalin pumpers' and Dean's
and my intial reaction is about as human and understandable as can
possibly be.
You cannot fault a pilot for reacting as either Dean or I did. The
fault lies with knowledge and understanding. And this is the problem we
have here - a large aircraft on final (at 130 knots) and 3 miles away
(as I understand this situation was) is merely 72 SECONDS from being on
top of you. There are VERY FEW rocket flights that only last 72
seconds. However, I am not saying by this that either the rocketeer
(getting his camera ready) or this 'novice' LCO (not aware of things) is
at fault either. It is simply the lack of 'knowledge and
understanding'. Had these rocketeers knew of or reflected on the
various 'adrenalin pumpers' I noted above, I highly imagine and will
give them credit for not even *attempting* the launch that caused this
incident. They would have moved somewhere else.
The reason they didn't is that they didn't see the hazard. It's a
matter of education - for that is what 'opens' one's eyes. They cannot
be faulted for their ignorance anymore than I (or Dean) can be faulted
for not knowing a cure for cancer. The *true* fault here is allowing
ignorance to prevail and continue. The *true* fault here will be with
everyone (including the rocket organizations) if they don't USE this
incident to branch out and spend a little time and effort LEARNING about
how this thing really happened and LEARNING about the perspective of a
pilot and then SHARING that knowledge with EVERYONE in the hobby - in a
true and concerted effort to prevent it ever happening again.
There is a REASON that the FAA doesn't like rocket operations within 5
miles of an airport - and it matters NOT if there are exceptions in the
FARs that would permit such activities in limited circumstances. IT IS
NOT WISE to mix rockets and airplanes. IT IS NOT WISE to do something
just because there MAY be a legal way to do it. Personally, I think
that '5 mile limit' should NEVER be allowed to be violated or 'excepted'
- not even for an Estes Alpha. There is FAR more space OUTSIDE that '5
mile limit' (by orders and orders of magnitude) than inside it.
When folks UNDERSTAND the potential hazards of doing such, 99% of them
would never even consider asking. They won't understand until they are
educated.
The responsibilty for the cause of this little 'reality check' incident
is the same as the responsibility for making sure it never happens
again...
... it rests with ALL of us.
-- john.
Rick Taylor
John H. Cato, Jr. wrote:
> snip
> The reason they didn't is that they didn't see the hazard. It's a
> matter of education - for that is what 'opens' one's eyes. They cannot
> be faulted for their ignorance anymore than I (or Dean) can be faulted
> for not knowing a cure for cancer. The *true* fault here is allowing
> ignorance to prevail and continue. The *true* fault here will be with
> everyone (including the rocket organizations) if they don't USE this
> incident to branch out and spend a little time and effort LEARNING about
> how this thing really happened and LEARNING about the perspective of a
> pilot and then SHARING that knowledge with EVERYONE in the hobby - in a
> true and concerted effort to prevent it ever happening again.
>
> There is a REASON that the FAA doesn't like rocket operations within 5
> miles of an airport - and it matters NOT if there are exceptions in the
> FARs that would permit such activities in limited circumstances. IT IS
> NOT WISE to mix rockets and airplanes. IT IS NOT WISE to do something
> just because there MAY be a legal way to do it. Personally, I think
> that '5 mile limit' should NEVER be allowed to be violated or 'excepted'
> - not even for an Estes Alpha. There is FAR more space OUTSIDE that '5
> mile limit' (by orders and orders of magnitude) than inside it.
> snip
>
> The responsibilty for the cause of this little 'reality check' incident
> is the same as the responsibility for making sure it never happens
> again...
>
> ... it rests with ALL of us.
>
> -- john.
We're talking about reducing the probability of an encounter as close to zero as
possible by using our intelligence.
Off the end of a runway? (even inactive with a waiver and notam)
Off the side of a runway would reduce those probabilities.
Launching an Alpha to 750 feet any old place a mile or two from an airport
might not be smart, but with thought ... how about launching next to a thousand foot
radio tower? That would certainly reduce the probabilities ...
Of course even out in the middle of nowhere a cornfield or piece of playa can become
an emergency field. Scanning the skies for aircraft is obviously VERY important.
Perhaps with larger rockets this should be done by several people with binoculars.
I believe the key concept is to take EVERY precaution a prudent person would use to
avoid a close encounter with an aircraft.
I believe that where I usually launch (2 miles from a private field) in a city where
planes are not allowed to fly below 1000 feet, that my 250' to 500' model rocket
flights are reasonable, since I ALWAYS look for aircraft just before launch (even
though aircraft aren't allowed that low). I'm also only 1/4 mile from a 1000' radio
tower for the county sheriff, so planes should be cautious anyway.
Am I overly cautious? I thought so until I read the follow-up posts about this
incident. Now, I'm going to try to be more careful (which is easy and can't hurt
anything).
Ed
John H. Cato, Jr. wrote:
>
John,
Thanks. You said it much better than I tried to do. I think this is
a chance for all sides to learn more about the rest of the people we
share airspace with. Keep up the good work. You are making a
difference in the sport. Again, thanks.
Ed
John H. Cato, Jr.
Ed wrote:
>
> You said it much better than I tried to do.
Negatory, Ed - what you said was just as important and just as valid - I
just said a few different things. But ALL words on this are important.
That's another one of the problems - there just haven't BEEN enough of
such words to help non-pilots understand.
I think it's important for those of us who understand situations like
this from the *pilot's* perspective to just sit down a write a letter to
the editor of some of these rocketry mags - or an article entitled 'The
Pilot's Perspective' - so that those who have never sat in the 'left
seat' can, vicariously, SIT in that 'left seat'.
Once they were 'there' - we would see the great majority of these
problems cease.
OUR job is to do what we can to help others understand.
THEIR job is to make a REAL effort TO understand.
-- john.
Bob Kaplow
> Perhaps with larger rockets this should be done by several people with
> binoculars.
Not a good idea IMHO. With unaided eyes, I can see perhaps 50% of the
hemisphere of sky at one time. Binoculars restrice my field of view to less
than one percent. Have a pair handy for checking into specific things, but scan
for planes using unaided eyes AND EARS! Many a time, I've heard an approching
plane before I ever saw it. When I hear something, that is the time to stop and
look around until I find the source of the sound. If it's a 747 at crusing
altitude, and my waiver only goes to 2200', I'm not going to care, even if the
rocket is a Bruiser EXP on a K550. If the sound is a Cessna that is just coming
over the treeline, I'll wait for launching an Alpha. It all depends...
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Abort, Retry, Fail?"
Jerry Irvine
> Larry Smith wrote:
> >
> > And there were other mitigating circumstances as well. He was flying
> > under a waiver,
>
> Not so sure about that - nor does it matter, actually.
>
> > and the plane was on an unscheduled approach to a _closed_
> > runway, not having informed themselves of the waiver in effect.
>
> Nor does this matter, either.
>
> > I think the rocketeer is properly contrite and I think you, _and_
> > the pilot, _and_ the FAA, are way overboard on reaction. He deserves
> > a slap on the wrist, not public crucifixion at high noon.
>
> Larry, my intial reaction was similar to Dean's - and the great majority
> of the reason folks out here see that is because this is from the
> perspective of the pilot. I don't know if you are one or not (nor how
> many other pilots may be watching this topic and have or have not chimed
> in).
Are you sitting down? I disagree with John Cato!
Larry is 100% right that this incident is a result of a serie of unlikely
events coming together and resulting in a "non-event" around which
irrational attitudes are uncalled for. The emergency was the plane having
problems and HAVING to land at a wierd place. NOT the legal, waviered,
appropriate rocket flying. Now, there are some things that could have
been improved there as well. But in any case the operation was safe, even
in hindsight.
>
> After getting an email from the party - as well as his public post, I
> realized his attitude was rare - not many folks would have the courage
> to stand up in the middle of a 'fire' and say, "I lit it". He did - and
> I truly respect both his courage and his ability to do that.
YES!
> You cannot fault a pilot for reacting as either Dean or I did.
Nor should we shut the hobby down as a result.
> There is a REASON that the FAA doesn't like rocket operations within 5
> miles of an airport - and it matters NOT if there are exceptions in the
> FARs that would permit such activities in limited circumstances. IT IS
And there are reasons why they regularly make exceptions to the rules.
> NOT WISE to mix rockets and airplanes. IT IS NOT WISE to do something
> just because there MAY be a legal way to do it. Personally, I think
> that '5 mile limit' should NEVER be allowed to be violated or 'excepted'
> - not even for an Estes Alpha. There is FAR more space OUTSIDE that '5
> mile limit' (by orders and orders of magnitude) than inside it.
I strongly disagree with the entire contents of this paragraph.
This is not an area for "zero tolerance". It is an area for reasonable
precautions. The probability of hitting an airplane INTENTIONALLY is
under 1 in 20,000 (verified). The probability of hitting an airplane
accidentally is under 1 in 100,000,000 (verified by 38 years of consumer
rocketry).
This is not a problem needing to be fixed. This is proof positive once
again that we have won the battle for safety and we should declare victory
and keep up the great work!!!
Jerry Irvine
"Don't let the bastards wear you down Jerry!" -Tom Cloud
--
Jerry Irvine - jjir...@cyberg8t.com
Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing.
John H. Cato, Jr.
> > >
> > > And there were other mitigating circumstances as well. He was flying
> > > under a waiver,
> >
> > Not so sure about that - nor does it matter, actually.
> >
> > > and the plane was on an unscheduled approach to a _closed_
> > > runway, not having informed themselves of the waiver in effect.
> >
> > Nor does this matter, either.
> >
> > > I think the rocketeer is properly contrite and I think you, _and_
> > > the pilot, _and_ the FAA, are way overboard on reaction. He deserves
> > > a slap on the wrist, not public crucifixion at high noon.
> >
> > Larry, my intial reaction was similar to Dean's - and the great majority
> > of the reason folks out here see that is because this is from the
> > perspective of the pilot. I don't know if you are one or not (nor how
> > many other pilots may be watching this topic and have or have not chimed
> > in).
>
OK, I'm 'sitting' - now buckle YOUR seatbelt...
> Larry is 100% right...
Larry (and you) are 100% WRONG if he (or anyone) thinks having FUN is,
in ANY WAY, of a higher priority than human life.
> ...that this incident is a result of a series of unlikely
> events coming together...
UNLIKELY? They happened, didn't they?
> ...and resulting in a "non-event" around which
> irrational attitudes are uncalled for.
"Non-Event"? It HAPPENED, didn't it?
The ONLY 'irrational attitude' was that that gave rise to launching this
rocket assuming things were safe. As well as a complete and total
MISunderstanding and ignorance of JUST HOW FAST things can turn sour.
Pilots understand this - ignorant rocketeers DON'T.
> The emergency was the plane having
> problems and HAVING to land at a wierd place.
This is the first I have heard that this aircraft may have been on a
Declared Emergency. If that is so, that makes the TOTAL and CATEGORICAL
****INSANITY**** of flying a rocket into it's path even MORE insane.
I simply CANNOT believe, Jerry, that you would downplay the seriousness
of such a scenario and justify IN ANY WAY the pursuance of a HOBBY in
the middle of a Declared Emergency.
> NOT the legal, waviered,
> appropriate rocket flying.
BULLSHIT.
> Now, there are some things that could have
> been improved there as well.
The ignorance of the Hobbyist Rocketry community would be a good place
to start.
> But in any case the operation was safe, even in hindsight.
I hate to repeat myself... but BULLSHIT.
> > After getting an email from the party - as well as his public post, I
> > realized his attitude was rare - not many folks would have the courage
> > to stand up in the middle of a 'fire' and say, "I lit it". He did - and
> > I truly respect both his courage and his ability to do that.
>
> YES!
Don't worry, Jerry, if this rocketeer (and a LOT of others) doesn't take
this incident and get off their butts and LEARN about the issue - FROM
THE PILOT's perspective, my view expressed above will do a COMPLETE
about-face.
I am not intolerant of ignorance. I AM, however, COMPETELY INTOLERANT
of folks STAYING that way.
> > You cannot fault a pilot for reacting as either Dean or I did.
>
> Nor should we shut the hobby down as a result.
I said nothing about 'shutting the hobby down' - I said that the
complete and total *pittance* of airspace that lies WITHIN that '5 mile
limit' from an airport is an area that the hobby should seriously
consider JUST LEAVING ALONE. And for good reason.
> > There is a REASON that the FAA doesn't like rocket operations within 5
> > miles of an airport - and it matters NOT if there are exceptions in the
> > FARs that would permit such activities in limited circumstances. IT IS
>
> And there are reasons why they regularly make exceptions to the rules.
No. Not 'reasons' (plural)... "reason" (singular) - it is because the
FAA now has a rule in the FARs that give the American public a way to
conduct operations in spaces that are of higher hazard with larger
vehicles than before. But they (the FAA) doesn't have to like it when
they grant operations in such areas. Nor do we have to be like a little
child and demand our way just because we can do it. That is decidedly
immature. And, in the context of something with the hazard potential
that rocketry has, is *decidedly stupid*.
One of the key defining points of maturity is RESTRAINT.
> > NOT WISE to mix rockets and airplanes. IT IS NOT WISE to do something
> > just because there MAY be a legal way to do it. Personally, I think
> > that '5 mile limit' should NEVER be allowed to be violated or 'excepted'
> > - not even for an Estes Alpha. There is FAR more space OUTSIDE that '5
> > mile limit' (by orders and orders of magnitude) than inside it.
>
> I strongly disagree with the entire contents of this paragraph.
You are DEAD WRONG on your disagreement here, Jerry.
> This is not an area for "zero tolerance".
Like hell it isn't. When human life is on the line, I cannot imagine
any reason to waste a SECOND on an attitude that some 'kid's' (no age
limit, here) FUN even ranks in the same star system.
> It is an area for reasonable precautions.
The 'area' for 'reasonable precautions' is OUTSIDE that '5 mile limit'.
> The probability of hitting an airplane INTENTIONALLY is
> under 1 in 20,000 (verified). The probability of hitting an airplane
> accidentally is under 1 in 100,000,000 (verified by 38 years of consumer
> rocketry).
Wrong thread, Jerry - that's over on the 'HPR bring down a 747' thread.
We weren't talking about *HITTING* anything. We were talking about
rocket operations creating a HAZARD to aircraft in flight. These two
'things' are far and away completely different animals.
An aircraft on final, trying to 'dodge' an errant rocket IS A HAZARD -
and could end up crashing as a result, even IF it successfully dodged
the damn rocket. And, even IF he didn't attempt to 'dodge' it, his
concentration could be distracted just long enough that other things
could take a turn for the worse - like missing his Minimun Descent
Altitude (in Instrument Conditions), and thus flying into the ground or
hitting an object. If you have done much research of the Aftermath of
aircraft accidents, you will learn (in EVERY case) that each little
incident, taken by itself, are of no general consequence and (in other
circumstances) basically benign. Taken together as a whole, however,
the end result was pain, suffering, and death. These 'bad' events have
been shown - almost exclusively - to a continual chain of events - the
'domino theory' that just get worse until the whole house falls down.
One of those 'links' in that chain are hazardous operation of rockets
BTW, when a rocket operation creates a HAZARD (not a HIT), that is a
*violation* of Federal Law (go look it up in FAR 101). And, as they
say, "Ignorance of the law is NO excuse." And that's true - it ISN'T.
Nor is ignorance of an understanding of things that CAUSE one to violate
law an excuse, either.
> This is not a problem needing to be fixed.
The 'problem' is ignorance. That will ALWAYS need fixing.
> This is proof positive once
> again that we have won the battle for safety and we should declare victory
> and keep up the great work!!!
The 'battle' for safety is one ALL of us will NEVER win. That is
because it will NEVER be completely attained. And, therefore, we will
NEVER be able to 'declare victory'. It is the attitude of 'declaring
victory and sitting down to enjoy our spoils' and the COMPLACENCY that
is INHERENT in that view that *IS* the enemy. Rocket folks should NEVER
forget that.
-- john.
"The ROOT of 'ignorance' is 'ignorare' (to 'ignore')"-cato. Think about
it.
Jerry Irvine
> Jerry Irvine wrote:
> >
> > In article <3223FC...@almatel.net>, jc...@almatel.net wrote:
> >
> > > Larry Smith wrote:
> > Are you sitting down? I disagree with John Cato!
> OK, I'm 'sitting' - now buckle YOUR seatbelt...
> > ...and resulting in a "non-event" around which
> > irrational attitudes are uncalled for.
>
> "Non-Event"? It HAPPENED, didn't it?
^^
The "it" referred to is a report of visually spotting a rocket which DID
NOT HIT an aircraft, did not even come close to risking life or
contributing to same.
> I simply CANNOT believe, Jerry, that you would downplay the seriousness
> of such a scenario and justify IN ANY WAY the pursuance of a HOBBY in
> the middle of a Declared Emergency.
I do not believe the term "declared emergency" applies here. The
rocketeer was flying as planned legally. What happened is an aircraft had
some sort of problem requiring it to land at a quite different airport
from what I understand. Kinda like if a plane had to land on a freeway.
Bad idea, but better than crashing. If a plane were landing on a freeway
and on the way down hit a kite, a telephone wire and a bicycle, would you
blame the kite flier, the phone company and the unfortunate vehicle
owner? No. The rocket event in this case was not the emergency. It did
not contribute to nor make worse the emergency. It was an observed event.
Of course I do not in any way imply we should therefore relax the safety
precautions we use. Nor should we minimize the admissions of the operator
a poorly trained person was doing the button pushing and perhaps better
look before launch procedures should have been followed. All this is true
as well.
I just do not take as extreem a position as you. That's all.
> > But in any case the operation was safe, even in hindsight.
> Don't worry, Jerry, if this rocketeer (and a LOT of others) doesn't take
> this incident and get off their butts and LEARN about the issue - FROM
> THE PILOT's perspective, my view expressed above will do a COMPLETE
> about-face.
I doubt they will, as a practical matter.
> I am not intolerant of ignorance. I AM, however, COMPETELY INTOLERANT
> of folks STAYING that way.
Propose three specific procedures which are NOT already in place which
might reduce the possibility of this or any other incident. It seems they
already failed on the look before you launch item. This was the primary
causal event.
> One of the key defining points of maturity is RESTRAINT.
Perhaps then the request for three specific proposals might be worth
spending a couple minutes on.
> An aircraft on final, trying to 'dodge' an errant rocket IS A HAZARD -
Now that I agree with.
> BTW, when a rocket operation creates a HAZARD (not a HIT), that is a
> *violation* of Federal Law
Agreed.
> > This is proof positive once
> > again that we have won the battle for safety and we should declare victory
> > and keep up the great work!!!
>
> The 'battle' for safety is one ALL of us will NEVER win. That is
> because it will NEVER be completely attained. And, therefore, we will
> NEVER be able to 'declare victory'. It is the attitude of 'declaring
> victory and sitting down to enjoy our spoils' and the COMPLACENCY that
> is INHERENT in that view that *IS* the enemy. Rocket folks should NEVER
> forget that.
Er, uh. I said declare victory AND keep up the same HIGH level of precaution.
Just Jerry
Douglas Caskey
In article <32292F...@almatel.net> John H. Cato, Jr. wrote:
>1) I have NEVER seen an article in the 'trade press' written
>from the perspective of the PILOT that laid out some of the
>hazards of operations in close proximity to low-flying aircraft
>that would have enlightened NUMEROUS rocketeers.
With all due respect John... then quit whining about it, and put
YOUR ability to expound with such verbosity to use and write THAT
article. ;)
>3) Even tho I am not 'Tripoli' anymore, I HAVE taken that LEVEL
>2 exam - and don't remember ONE question of those 50 that even
>came CLOSE to addressing the hazards of rockets and airplanes.
>Why not?
Again... with all due respect John... it would appear simple,
the Level II exam asks/answers many questions by reference - that
is references are made to the TRA safety code, NFPA 1127, FAA
regs, etc... with what should be EXPECTATIONS that the exam taker
has READ and KNOWS what the TRA safety code, NFPA 1127, and FAA
regs are. We have enough government in our lives as it is, and if
every government, agency, and organization under the sun has to
specifically spell out everything themselves in the way of codes,
regulations, laws, protocols, etc... then we would NEVER get
ANYTHING done, and NOBODY would HAVE ANY clue what's going on. It
would also mean that when agency A changes THEIR idea of what
should be then agency B would have to make changes as well. Case
in point... the DOT and ATF never seem to be on the same page. It
IS much easier to set one's rules by reference or in the case of
the Level II exam ask questions by reference- such as, and I
quote:
15. What operating clearances must we be in compliance with for
flying high power rockets?"
a. NFPA 1122, NFPA 1127 and the FAA Regulation Part 101.
b. NFPA 1127, FAA Regulation Part 101 and applicable federal,
state, and local regulations.
c. NFPA 1122, FAA Regulation Part 101 and applicable federal,
state, and local regulations.
IMHO I would say this question does indeed address the issue of
dangers with rockets and aircraft, for if one knows the answer and
HAS actually READ the various regs, then they would know the
relevence of the question. Besides, in reality, one would think
that those taking the exam are doing so for the purpose of
certifing, having gained a "general" knowledge, and not "do you
know EXACTLY the wording of such and such regulation?" Personally
I find it more upsetting that some CHOOSE to disregard sound
design & test procedures than the fact an exam fails to be the
most comprehensive test of a rocketeers real knowledge. In
addition - the Level II exam has NOTHING to do with a person that
is a NON TRA/NAR member. It would NOT have made ANY difference if
the exam had 10,000 questions on it! - it is quite apparent that
non TRA/NAR members persons who launch rockets near aircraft
probably have NO clue what the regs are. It would appear the
burden for educating "would be" rocketeers also falls on the NFPA
& the FAA. On the same token some of the responsibility SHOULD
fall with TRA & NAR to get more non-members involved, or at
minimun to educate the local hobby dealers, so they can educate
thier customers as to what the various regs are.
>9) Why is there NOT a portion of the TRA (or NAR) Handbook that
>covers a decent (not exhaustive but not cursory) INTRODUCTION to
>the NAS (National Airspace System)?
>This just off the top of my head - with a little more thought,
>I'm sure I could come up with a dozen more.
I don't know... maybe cause NOBODY has bothered to JUST DO IT.
=;)
Doug
PS the Correct answer is... B
John H. Cato, Jr.
Jerry,
I admit I came down hard last time - but it was not directed at you
specifically. I just saw (thru my 'pilots eyes') an expression of
attitudes that I have seen time and time again from the hobby community
that I grow more and more intolerant of.
This is the complete BOTTOM LINE as I see it:
1) There is absolutely NOTHING that we do in rocketry that cannot
wait until a more appropriate time. Or a more appropriate place. We
can stop EVERYTHING. At ANY time. And move it somewhere else.
2) An aircraft in flight does not have the above luxury. From the
instant its wheels break ground UNTIL those wheels touch back down, this
aircraft is dependent on a careful balance of the laws of physics.
Things that upset those laws will cause this aircraft to be in a very
precarious position. There is HUMAN LIFE inside that aircraft - not
tracking chalk nor celluose wadding.
3) As a result of the two above realities, the aircraft has the TOTAL
and COMPLETE 'right-of-way' - ALL the time, EVERYWHERE, no matter WHAT
the cause or reason .... FOREVER. PERIOD. EVERYTHING we do (since
*what* we do is nothing more than pure and total *selfish
gratification*) is SO far down the list as to not even REGISTER on the
scale. Always. Forever.
4) Flying an airplane is NOT like driving your car. 99+% of the
planes flying do so AT LEAST TWICE the speed of a car on the
interstate. Some of them are TEN TIMES this 'interstate speed'. As a
result, things happen fast - REAL fast. If a pilot does not STAY AHEAD
OF HIS AIRPLANE - *way* ahead - he's dead. Maybe not today, but
eventually he will be.
5) The 'exemptions' in FAR 101.1 (the 'Mod-Roc' exemption) do NOT
(repeat **NOT**) apply IF such operations create a hazard to aircraft in
flight. We're NOT talking 'hit and then crash and burn'. We're NOT
talking 'punch a hole in a wing and limp home'. We're talking
*HAZARD*. If ANY (repeat *ANY*) hobbyist rocket activity causes, IN ANY
WAY, a pilot to take evasive action - and, thereby, 'adjust' that
precarious balance of the laws of physics - we have created a HAZARD.
And, we have VIOLATED Federal Law. It does NOT matter if we didn't mean
to. It does NOT matter if we were just ignorant of things and
'stumbled' into this 'situation' - launching a rocket and then wishing
we could 'pull it back'. Once you push that launch button, you will
have to LIVE with that reality UNTIL that rocket is back on the ground.
IOW, a rocketeer must, JUST LIKE A PILOT - think **AHEAD** of his rocket
- where will it be 3 seconds from now? What will it be doing? Is there
any chance it will create a hazard? Because, if it does, REGARDLESS of
how 'safe' it appeared when he started the countdown, he has violated
that Federal Law. Always. Forever. Period. Now, that is the
'Mod-Roc' exemption. Exact same thing applies for the Large mod-roc.
Even more so for the High Power.
6) FAR Part 91 (Operating Rules for Pilots) states, when two aircraft
are in close proximity in the vicinity of an airport, the one at the
LOWER altitude has the right-of-way. This is because he is in a more
dangerous situation - per my words previously. This is why flying
(rockets) near airports is so fraught with danger. I don't give two
hoots in hell if it can be done 'legally' - it is more dangerous.
Always. Forever. Period.
7) Flying off to one side of a runway? Bullshit. That is PRECISELY
where the "Downwind Leg" of a normal approach occurs - parallel to the
runway and off to one side (or the other). By that, there is NO place
in the near vicinity of an airport that is NOT a hazard to aircraft
operating from that airport. Always. Forever. Period. You are
'playing the odds' here - in a high risk environment. One of those
days, those odds are going to run out. And the higher the risk
environment you're in only means those odds will run out sooner.
8) Due to the fact that the percentage of airspace in this country
that lies WITHIN this 5 mile radius Airport Traffic Area (which is what
it's called) is so SMALL in comparison to the amount of airspace OUTSIDE
the ATA, I must take the viewpoint that folks who find a flying site in
such locales simply haven't FINISHED their search for a PROPER flying
site. My gosh, guys, can't you 'tool on down the road' and just LOOK a
little more??? This is like doing insecticide research 10 feet from a
hornet's nest - you MAY get away with it every once and awhile - but
it's a damn fool place to find out one of those insecticides DON'T work,
wouldn't you say?
9) I simply don't *HEAR* when Joe Rocketeer says, "But, John, I was
doing it 'legally'." That is a cop-out - and an EXCUSE for NOT
thinking. Never forget this: "It may be 'legal' when you launched it.
It may NOT 5 seconds later when a plane tries to dodge your rocket and
hits a house." And it will be the ROCKETEER (*NOT* the pilot) that will
be found at fault when that happens. Always. Forever. Period. And it
doesn't matter if Paul Pilot was buzzing his girlfriend's house when
this happens - it will STILL be the Rocketeer's fault. Always.
Forever. Period.
And the above is true, because, like I said at the beginning - what we
do is FUN. Selfish gratification. Not 'life and death'. It will
ALWAYS be 'life and death' when an aircraft leaves the ground until it
returns TO the ground. Always. Forever. Period.
> I do not believe the term "declared emergency" applies here.
Maybe not - I just don't have all the details - but the previous words
indicate a 'non-nominal' approach.
> The rocketeer was flying as planned legally.
This flight created a hazard situation. It WAS illegal thereby.
> If a plane were landing on a freeway and on the way down hit a kite, a
> telephone wire and a bicycle, would you blame the kite flier, the phone
> company and the unfortunate vehicle owner?
Kind of heartless, wouldn't you say? If this 'aircraft in distress' had
just about made the runway but, due to a last second evasive manuever
(to avoid hitting that rocket), crashed and killed everyone on board,
who would YOU blame? The *PILOT*????
> The rocket event in this case was not the emergency. It did
> not contribute to nor make worse the emergency. It was an observed
> event.
The pollution index out in the basin is running pretty high lately, huh?
> Of course I do not in any way imply we should therefore relax the safety
> precautions we use. Nor should we minimize the admissions of the operator
> a poorly trained person was doing the button pushing and perhaps better
> look before launch procedures should have been followed. All this is true
> as well.
>
> I just do not take as extreem a position as you. That's all.
We just need to take up a collection and get you a Private Pilot's
license (as I assume you don't have one). I will garone-damn-tee you
your 'position' will change even BEFORE you take that check ride for
your Private 'ticket'.
> > THE PILOT's perspective, my view expressed above will do a COMPLETE
> > about-face.
>
> I doubt they will, as a practical matter.
While I understand why you would say that (yes, I can be practical,
too), the point is, there is too much 'reality thinking' here (i.e.
rationalization) that, after a while, this becomes a cop-out. The
INSTANT one starts letting 'practicality' enter into the equation as it
concerns safety, you have SIMULTANEOUSLY removed the incentive to do
anything about it.
> > I am not intolerant of ignorance. I AM, however, COMPETELY INTOLERANT
> > of folks STAYING that way.
>
> Propose three specific procedures which are NOT already in place which
> might reduce the possibility of this or any other incident. It seems they
> already failed on the look before you launch item. This was the primary
> causal event.
1) I have NEVER seen an article in the 'trade press' written from the
perspective of the PILOT that laid out some of the hazards of operations
in close proximity to low-flying aircraft that would have enlightened
NUMEROUS rocketeers.
2) I have NEVER seen an article 'series' in the 'trade press' patterned
after the 'Aftermath' series going on for 20 or 30 years in Flying
magazine - that takes a particular 'deadly incident' and analyzes it -
so that other pilots (or rocketeers in our case) can UNDERSTAND *what
went wrong* and, thereby, would enlighten the reader to recognize the
'warning signs' of impending disaster in the future.
3) Even tho I am not 'Tripoli' anymore, I HAVE taken that LEVEL 2 exam
- and don't remember ONE question of those 50 that even came CLOSE to
addressing the hazards of rockets and airplanes. Why not?
4) Why is there NOT a 'Level ONE' exam that covers safety issues BEFORE
a rocketeer is allowed to fly ANY High Power Rocket - with the only
acceptable passing grade being 100?
5) I can count on one hand (maybe one FINGER) the times where there
MIGHT have been a policy of the LCO announcing over the PA a 'gentle
reminder' when a rocket does something it's not supposed to do - like
auger in, strip a chute, flight when an aircraft came too close,
etc.etc.
6) Why is there NOT YET a Certified RSO program?? This has been talked
about all the way back to LDRS 10.
7) Why has there NOT been an article in the 'trade press' discussing
and 'commentating' on FAR 101?
8) Why has this article in #7 also not included an INTERVIEW with one
of the higher ups in the FAA?
9) Why is there NOT a portion of the TRA (or NAR) Handbook that covers
a decent (not exhaustive but not cursory) INTRODUCTION to the NAS
(National Airspace System)?
This just off the top of my head - with a little more thought, I'm sure
I could come up with a dozen more.
> > One of the key defining points of maturity is RESTRAINT.
>
> Perhaps then the request for three specific proposals might be worth
> spending a couple minutes on.
I spent LESS than a 'couple of minutes' on the above 9 issues. Your
turn.
> Er, uh. I said declare victory AND keep up the same HIGH level of caution.
Just drop the 'declare victory AND' portion.
There will NEVER be a 'victory', Jerry. Never. Forever. Period.
-- john.
Jerry Irvine
In article <32292F...@almatel.net>, jc...@almatel.net wrote:
> Jerry,
> 3) As a result of the two above realities, the aircraft has the TOTAL
> and COMPLETE 'right-of-way' - ALL the time, EVERYWHERE, no matter WHAT
> the cause or reason .... FOREVER. PERIOD.
Of course I agree.
> If ANY (repeat *ANY*) hobbyist rocket activity causes, IN ANY
> WAY, a pilot to take evasive action - and, thereby, 'adjust' that
> precarious balance of the laws of physics - we have created a HAZARD.
There are exceptions to even this reasonable stance. Our waviers when
applied for over 8000 msl cause control towers to divert traffic *in a
planned fashion*. This is not a hazard. Then there are hazards which are
normal or not undue hazards. Like planes passing each other in adjacent
airlanes must watch out for each other and occasionally take corrective
action, so must a plane on an unscheduled flight (Cessna) take corrective
action to move away from a firestarter rocket launch fest. Unfortunately
there are more irresponsible pilots than rocketeers.
This factoid should be taken note of. Ever since I started filing FAA
waviers and making NOTAM's air trafffic over rocket launches has INCREASED
*substantially*. We selected a desolate and low air traffic area to
launch from. That is one of the many wonders of Lucerne. It is a mini
Black Rock. Curious pilots seek us out, fly low over us and generally
test our ability to prevent accidentally hitting them. They have no deep
respect for the fizzicks you scream so loudly about. They are daredevils!
> 6) FAR Part 91 (Operating Rules for Pilots) states, when two aircraft
> are in close proximity in the vicinity of an airport, the one at the
> LOWER altitude has the right-of-way.
Therefore the rocket has the right of way by law. Obviously we do not
force exercise of that privilidge. Keep in mind that every wavier I have
filled out results in the rockets themselves being treated as aircraft.
> rationalization) that, after a while, this becomes a cop-out. The
> INSTANT one starts letting 'practicality' enter into the equation as it
> concerns safety, you have SIMULTANEOUSLY removed the incentive to do
> anything about it.
Binary thinking? In fact most of this post has been in support of binary
thinking on this particular topic. Look. This is one of many human
experiences. Pilots are human, rocketeers are human and sometimes even
the government officials act human.
There is a range of safety. No safety, some safety, adequate safety to
prevent accidents 90% of time, 98% safety, 99.44% safety and 100% safety.
The challenge is to approach 100% safety while still engaging in the acts
which introduce danger. After almost 40 years of practice at
rocket-aircraft avoidance and operation we have evolved to the current
system. It works.
When a "near-miss" occurs, one should study the cause, reevaluate the
procedures which were broken (or missing) and suggest corrective action.
So far I only hear whining about the fact that the procedures which are in
place and were broken should have been followed. Agreed. Nothing is
broken in terms of procedure or even organized operations.
That's my position.
> so that other pilots (or rocketeers in our case) can UNDERSTAND *what
> went wrong* and, thereby, would enlighten the reader to recognize the
> 'warning signs' of impending disaster in the future.
Disasters are so rare they simply do not exist. Sorry.
> 3) Even tho I am not 'Tripoli' anymore, I HAVE taken that LEVEL 2 exam
> - and don't remember ONE question of those 50 that even came CLOSE to
> addressing the hazards of rockets and airplanes. Why not?
Now this I agree with 100%.
> 6) Why is there NOT YET a Certified RSO program?? This has been talked
> about all the way back to LDRS 10.
LDRS-3/4 actually. I proposed it. Agreed.
> 7) Why has there NOT been an article in the 'trade press' discussing
> and 'commentating' on FAR 101?
Because our "trade press" is content free?
> > Er, uh. I said declare victory AND keep up the same HIGH level of caution.
Jerry
"Jerry, you claim Tripoli is needlessly endangering HP Rocketry in their
actions at launches, then you push doing launches close to airports???
Get a grip!!" - Jack Goff
"You'll never see me arguing against safety, but not launching an Alpha
because you see a jet contrail at cruising altitude is just plain silly.
It's like not crossing the street because you see a parked car down the
block." - Bob Kaplow (Klingon pronunciation)
:)
homer101
I've been reading the thread about the "near miss" for a week or so now,
but have waited until now to wade in with my opinion. After all, we are
all expressing opinions about the incident, some exaggerated and some
minimized. The last post by John Cato was a real stretch. He stated
Declared Emergency. If that is so, that makes the TOTAL and CATEGORICAL
(Bold letters added by John Cato in original post).
John,
Just how would you expect the rocketeer to know that the plane was having
a declared emergency? I'm assuming that he isn't telepathic and that
flames weren't leaping out of the engine compartment ( he never saw the
plane so that would be highly unlikely in itself).
Bottom line. He goofed at a bad time. Ever hear the expression "Shit
Happens" ? Personally, I don't launch around airports, but with proper
waivers and notification, they seem like ideal launch sites.
At a recent airshow here in Michigan, they even had a model rocket
demonstration in the AM, prior to the Blue Angels show. I believe that
the tower coordinated flights and launches. The two don't have to be
mutually-exclusive.
Mark
The Silent Observer
Mr. James J. Cleary wrote:
>
> When did you ever fly your rocket in INSTRUMENT CONDITIONS anyway?
> (Not instrument for training, but REAL instrument conditions.)
> Jim C.
> TRA # 3996
> LIARS
> METRA
> Yes I have left seat time in Cessnas.
I've flown a lot of rockets uder IFR conditions. Remember, for daylight
operation, IFR is defined as less than a 5000 foot ceiling, and/or under
5 miles visibility. It's not uncommon here in the upperleft portion of
the United States to fly in conditions where a 1500 foot ceiling, 2 miles
visibility, and no active rain or strong winds are accepted as "as good
as it's going to get this month."
There's no significant hazard in flying rockets with normal NAR or
Tripoli safety procedures under those conditions (including not busting
the ceiling -- though I've seen that done, it usually penalizes the flyer
with Loss of Rocket), yet any airplane you see aloft had better have an
Instrument rated pilot in the left seat (or a student under instruction
for and Instrument rating), since it's the Instrument Flight Rules that
are in effect. Yes, that includes a flight plan for every flight and all
the rest -- and that means those pilots >do< know about our NOTAM; we
almost never see an airplane at those launches, where in good weather
(like today) we have to hold for aircraft at least once an hour, and
sometimes more than once in a rack!
During my stint as LCO today, I held for aircraft whenever there were
airplanes visible within five miles, unless they were clearly outbound --
including one such hold for an aircraft that was at about 5000 feet and a
couple miles out (we heard it before we saw it), when the rocket up for
launch was, IIRC, an Estes Phoenix on an E30, good for around 1500 feet.
This is an important point, because of something that happened in the
first rack after I sat down at the LCO table: I had been requested to
launch the LOC Magnum on Pad 1 last, in order to simplify tracking and
recovery (it was flying on a J motor, and expected to go high and drift
far); I started by selecting the Graduator (on a G40) next to it on Pad
2. I checked sky and range, counted down, and pressed the firing switch
-- and a tiny puff of smoke indicated the Graduator's Crapperhead had
failed in its duty...but I was about the only one who noticed that,
because the Magnum lit about 3/4 second after closing the switch, and
everyone's attention was on it immediately (hard to ignore that kind of
motor).
What happened? In the confusion of the first two minutes as LCO, with
almost a dozen people dropping launch cards on me and asking for pad
assignments, I had missed the fact that the Pad 1 selector was still
closed from the previous rack, in which Pad 1 was also launched last; it
remained closed when I armed Pad 2 to launch the Graduator, and had the
Graduator's motor lit, I would have launched two rockets "for the price
of one."
Had this sort of thing occurred with an aircraft nearby, and one of the
4000+ foot flights we had replaced a 1000 foot expectation from a model
like a Phoenix or Impulse, there could easily have been an incident as
serious as the one that started this thread...
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| It's easier to create chaos than order -- 2nd law of thermodynamics |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| sil...@ix.netcom.com http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/home.htm |
| TableTop Publications http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/ttop_pub.htm |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| All opinions expressed are my own, and should in no way be mistaken |
| for those of anyone but a rabid libertarian. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mr. James J. Cleary
George F.
>I've flown a lot of rockets uder IFR conditions. Remember, for daylight
>operation, IFR is defined as less than a 5000 foot ceiling, and/or under
>5 miles visibility. It's not uncommon here in the upperleft portion of
>the United States to fly in conditions where a 1500 foot ceiling, 2 miles
>visibility, and no active rain or strong winds are accepted as "as good
>as it's going to get this month."
You may want to check the current FAR's (Federial Air Regulations) on the
defination of IFR and VFR weather.
VFR Conditions:
With in CONTTROLLED airspace flight visibility must 3 statute miles or more,
celling 1,000'AGL or more. Inorder to maintain VFR conditions you must be
able to remain the following distances from clouds: 500' below, or 1,000'
above, or 2,000' feet horizontally. And yes you can legally fly VFR above
the clouds (atleast 1,000 above).
When in UNCONTROLLED airspace you only need 1 mile visibility and be able to
remain clear of clouds. What this means is you can be legal VFR even if the
Celling is at 501 AGL as long as I can fly at 500'AGL. Why the 500 you may
ask---> Because you may not fly an airplane lower then 500' above any
obstical (land, building, people) unless it is for the purpose of landing or
taking off.
This information can be found in the FAR's part 91.105 Basic VFR Weather
Minimums. Also I've been a pilot for 9years with over 1,200 logged hours
both VFR & IFR.
Hope this helps in clearing up what really is IFR vs VFR weather.
George
Mountainside Hobbies
http://msh.ptd.net
John H. Cato, Jr.
George F. wrote:
>
> Hope this helps in clearing up what really is IFR vs VFR weather.
Further, George, if most folks will look at their 'waivers', they will
(typically) note that one of the requirements for their operations are:
"VFR conditions". That *means* if the conditions are IFR, the 'waiver'
is NOT valid.
-- john.
Bill Nelson
John H. Cato, Jr. (jc...@almatel.net) wrote:
: > Larry is 100% right...
: Larry (and you) are 100% WRONG if he (or anyone) thinks having FUN is,
: in ANY WAY, of a higher priority than human life.
Of course not - nor are they saying that.
I am a pilot as well - of about 20 years.
: > ...that this incident is a result of a series of unlikely
: > events coming together...
: UNLIKELY? They happened, didn't they?
What happened is that an already stressed out pilot saw a rocket in the
air. The aircraft did not get hit, and I am willing to bet that the pilot
did not have to take evasive action.
: > ...and resulting in a "non-event" around which
: > irrational attitudes are uncalled for.
: "Non-Event"? It HAPPENED, didn't it?
See above.
: The ONLY 'irrational attitude' was that that gave rise to launching this
: rocket assuming things were safe. As well as a complete and total
: MISunderstanding and ignorance of JUST HOW FAST things can turn sour.
The person who launched the rocket did not know about clearing the skies.
The same thing can, and has, happened with model rockets. Fortunately, most
of them do not reach even pattern altitudes - regardless of Estes exaggerated
claims otherwise.
: Pilots understand this - ignorant rocketeers DON'T.
See above.
: > The emergency was the plane having
: > problems and HAVING to land at a wierd place.
: This is the first I have heard that this aircraft may have been on a
: Declared Emergency. If that is so, that makes the TOTAL and CATEGORICAL
: ****INSANITY**** of flying a rocket into it's path even MORE insane.
If it was intentional, I would agree. Whether it was a declared emergency,
or not, is immaterial. There has been no claim by the authorities that
the people involved intentionally launched the rocket even into the
visibility of the pilot - much less into the aircrafts flight path.
: I simply CANNOT believe, Jerry, that you would downplay the seriousness
: of such a scenario and justify IN ANY WAY the pursuance of a HOBBY in
: the middle of a Declared Emergency.
Possibly serious, true. Will any of the people involved repeat the error?
Highly unlikely. Nor are people who read/hear about the incident - if we
assume that people can learn from other's mistakes.
Whether it was a declared emergency or not is immaterial. There is no way
that the people on the ground could know that such a situation existed.
And, as I have stated before, it is irrelevant anyway.
: > NOT the legal, waviered,
: > appropriate rocket flying.
: BULLSHIT.
Why? The launch was inappropriate, due to the ignorance of the person
who launched the rocket.
: > Now, there are some things that could have
: > been improved there as well.
: The ignorance of the Hobbyist Rocketry community would be a good place
: to start.
To some extent. The owner of the rocket was not ignorant - he knew the
rules and hazards. Unfortunately, he made the error of not controlling
the launch sufficiently.
: > But in any case the operation was safe, even in hindsight.
: I hate to repeat myself... but BULLSHIT.
Did the pilot have to take evasive action? Did the rocket whiz by a short
distance directly in front of the aircraft? If not, then Jerry is correct.
While maybe not desireable, from the pilot's point of view, it was
certainly safe.
: > > After getting an email from the party - as well as his public post, I
: > > realized his attitude was rare - not many folks would have the courage
: > > to stand up in the middle of a 'fire' and say, "I lit it". He did - and
: > > I truly respect both his courage and his ability to do that.
: >
: > YES!
: Don't worry, Jerry, if this rocketeer (and a LOT of others) doesn't take
: this incident and get off their butts and LEARN about the issue - FROM
: THE PILOT's perspective, my view expressed above will do a COMPLETE
: about-face.
Well, John. It seems that you and I, both pilots, seem to disagree about
the seriousness of the incident.
If the person had deliberately attempted to hit the aircraft, I would
agree.
I fly in uncontrolled airspace, at uncontrolled airfields. I have, several
times, had other aircraft come much closer to me than desireable. It was not
ignorance on their parts - they couldn't/didn't see me. There was no attempt
on their part to intentionally fly so close.
: I am not intolerant of ignorance. I AM, however, COMPETELY INTOLERANT
: of folks STAYING that way.
Agreed. But, I suspect that everyone involved is no longer ignorant of the
potential hazard.
: > > You cannot fault a pilot for reacting as either Dean or I did.
: >
: > Nor should we shut the hobby down as a result.
: I said nothing about 'shutting the hobby down' - I said that the
: complete and total *pittance* of airspace that lies WITHIN that '5 mile
: limit' from an airport is an area that the hobby should seriously
: consider JUST LEAVING ALONE. And for good reason.
Maybe. However, in many areas of the country, that is the ONLY open space
for hundreds of miles. With proper care, it is entirely possible to launch
HPR rockets right at an active airport, and do so safely. It is argueable
that the BEST place to launch rockets is under the direct control of a
control tower.
: > > There is a REASON that the FAA doesn't like rocket operations within 5
: > > miles of an airport - and it matters NOT if there are exceptions in the
: > > FARs that would permit such activities in limited circumstances. IT IS
: >
: > And there are reasons why they regularly make exceptions to the rules.
: No. Not 'reasons' (plural)... "reason" (singular) - it is because the
: FAA now has a rule in the FARs that give the American public a way to
: conduct operations in spaces that are of higher hazard with larger
: vehicles than before. But they (the FAA) doesn't have to like it when
: they grant operations in such areas. Nor do we have to be like a little
: child and demand our way just because we can do it. That is decidedly
: immature. And, in the context of something with the hazard potential
: that rocketry has, is *decidedly stupid*.
If the FAA felt that it was going to be hazardous, then they would not
grant waivers.
: One of the key defining points of maturity is RESTRAINT.
Certainly. But what does that have to do with the launch under discussion?
: > > NOT WISE to mix rockets and airplanes. IT IS NOT WISE to do something
: > > just because there MAY be a legal way to do it. Personally, I think
: > > that '5 mile limit' should NEVER be allowed to be violated or 'excepted'
: > > - not even for an Estes Alpha. There is FAR more space OUTSIDE that '5
: > > mile limit' (by orders and orders of magnitude) than inside it.
: >
: > I strongly disagree with the entire contents of this paragraph.
: You are DEAD WRONG on your disagreement here, Jerry.
In the area where you live, and out here where I live, that may be true.
However, in the NE US, and in Southern Cal, there is little open space.
Even finding an area large enough is a challenge, much less finding one
that is not within 5 miles of an airfield.
: > This is not an area for "zero tolerance".
: Like hell it isn't. When human life is on the line, I cannot imagine
: any reason to waste a SECOND on an attitude that some 'kid's' (no age
: limit, here) FUN even ranks in the same star system.
If we go by that rule, then we cannot launch rockets - at all. Nor can we
drive an automobile - or have a house with electricity. And, we certainly
could not fly aircraft.
: > It is an area for reasonable precautions.
: The 'area' for 'reasonable precautions' is OUTSIDE that '5 mile limit'.
See above. We must accept reasonable risk. You do not feel that we can do
so with rockets close to an airports - I disagree, for the reason that I
listed above.
: > The probability of hitting an airplane INTENTIONALLY is
: > under 1 in 20,000 (verified). The probability of hitting an airplane
: > accidentally is under 1 in 100,000,000 (verified by 38 years of consumer
: > rocketry).
: Wrong thread, Jerry - that's over on the 'HPR bring down a 747' thread.
Probabilities ARE proper. It is the only way we can weigh risk.
: We weren't talking about *HITTING* anything. We were talking about
: rocket operations creating a HAZARD to aircraft in flight. These two
: 'things' are far and away completely different animals.
Agreed.
: An aircraft on final, trying to 'dodge' an errant rocket IS A HAZARD -
: and could end up crashing as a result, even IF it successfully dodged
: the damn rocket. And, even IF he didn't attempt to 'dodge' it, his
: concentration could be distracted just long enough that other things
: could take a turn for the worse - like missing his Minimun Descent
: Altitude (in Instrument Conditions), and thus flying into the ground or
: hitting an object. If you have done much research of the Aftermath of
: aircraft accidents, you will learn (in EVERY case) that each little
: incident, taken by itself, are of no general consequence and (in other
: circumstances) basically benign. Taken together as a whole, however,
: the end result was pain, suffering, and death. These 'bad' events have
: been shown - almost exclusively - to a continual chain of events - the
: 'domino theory' that just get worse until the whole house falls down.
Agreed. However, did the launch endanger the aircraft? From what I have
read, it did not. It did give a stressed pilot something over which to
vent his stress/tension.
: One of those 'links' in that chain are hazardous operation of rockets
: BTW, when a rocket operation creates a HAZARD (not a HIT), that is a
: *violation* of Federal Law (go look it up in FAR 101). And, as they
: say, "Ignorance of the law is NO excuse." And that's true - it ISN'T.
Agreed.
: Nor is ignorance of an understanding of things that CAUSE one to violate
: law an excuse, either.
Agreed.
: > This is not a problem needing to be fixed.
: The 'problem' is ignorance. That will ALWAYS need fixing.
Agreed.
: > This is proof positive once
: > again that we have won the battle for safety and we should declare victory
: > and keep up the great work!!!
: The 'battle' for safety is one ALL of us will NEVER win. That is
: because it will NEVER be completely attained. And, therefore, we will
: NEVER be able to 'declare victory'. It is the attitude of 'declaring
: victory and sitting down to enjoy our spoils' and the COMPLACENCY that
: is INHERENT in that view that *IS* the enemy. Rocket folks should NEVER
: forget that.
I can agree that complacency (and carelessness) are the problem. This is true
for just about everything we do in life.
Bill
Bill Nelson
John H. Cato, Jr. (jc...@almatel.net) wrote:
... deleted ...
: And the above is true, because, like I said at the beginning - what we
: do is FUN. Selfish gratification. Not 'life and death'. It will
: ALWAYS be 'life and death' when an aircraft leaves the ground until it
: returns TO the ground. Always. Forever. Period.
But, with rare exceptions, all flying is also "selfish gratification".
The only difference is that we pilots use large, expensive and more
potentially destructive toys.
About the only "life and death" flights are medical lifeline flights.
All others are unnecessary, although life for many would be more difficult
without them.
... deleted ...
: > I just do not take as extreem a position as you. That's all.
: We just need to take up a collection and get you a Private Pilot's
: license (as I assume you don't have one). I will garone-damn-tee you
: your 'position' will change even BEFORE you take that check ride for
: your Private 'ticket'.
Maybe. It certainly has made me more careful, with my launches. It has
also taught me when a launch might be hazardous to a visible aircraft.
: > > THE PILOT's perspective, my view expressed above will do a COMPLETE
: > > about-face.
: >
: > I doubt they will, as a practical matter.
: While I understand why you would say that (yes, I can be practical,
: too), the point is, there is too much 'reality thinking' here (i.e.
: rationalization) that, after a while, this becomes a cop-out. The
: INSTANT one starts letting 'practicality' enter into the equation as it
: concerns safety, you have SIMULTANEOUSLY removed the incentive to do
: anything about it.
If we rely on safety alone, and ignore practicality, then you and I
cannot fly. Flying is unsafe, as are many other things we do in life.
: 4) Why is there NOT a 'Level ONE' exam that covers safety issues BEFORE
: a rocketeer is allowed to fly ANY High Power Rocket - with the only
: acceptable passing grade being 100?
Good question.
Bill
Bill Nelson
The Silent Observer (sil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: What happened? In the confusion of the first two minutes as LCO, with
: almost a dozen people dropping launch cards on me and asking for pad
: assignments, I had missed the fact that the Pad 1 selector was still
: closed from the previous rack, in which Pad 1 was also launched last; it
: remained closed when I armed Pad 2 to launch the Graduator, and had the
: Graduator's motor lit, I would have launched two rockets "for the price
: of one."
Which is the reason I have been preaching for the banning of anything
except momentary toggle switches.
Bill
Larry Smith
John H. Cato, Jr. wrote:
> Larry, my intial reaction was similar to Dean's - and the great majority
> of the reason folks out here see that is because this is from the
> perspective of the pilot.
John, I frankly don't _care_ what "perspective" you are reacting
from if you are _over_reacting. Other pilots were posting to
this thread about physical violence to the rocketeer, and that
is more than over-reaction enough to me.
The sky isn't there for pilots alone. Planes should be safegaurded
but we should keep in mind we are all human beings. The rocketeer
made a mistake. Pure and simple. That mistake _might_ have caused
a real threat to an airplane, but it _didn't_. We should react to
his mistake _as_a_mistake_, a breach of protocol and worthy of some
reasonable fine or punishment. It was not a deliberate attempt to
shoot down an airliner - and nothing less than that would justify
the hyperbole the "pilots" are putting in this thread.
> As I said previously about 'slamming on the brakes', an airplane simply
> cannot do it - which puts them hanging on a VERY thin 'thread'. Pilots
> understand this and (mostly, I would imagine) non-pilots don't - or else
> they don't THINK about it quite the same way. When you're 'low and
> slow' on final approach, your options are considerably more limited...
etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum, none of it in contention, none
of it denied, and all utterly beside the point. Neither the "pilots"
in this thread nor the FAA are reacting in a calm and measured response
to a rules infraction as far as I can see. I am well aware of the vul-
nerability of an airplane. I am also aware of the fact that we have
_rules_ about these things, rules about what we do when those rules
are broken, and that these are apparently being pushed aside in order
to "make an example" of someone whose actual crime _by_the_rules_ has
been ignored in favor of the terrible horror that might have been -
a "might have been" that is in the minds of _pilots_ and not in reality,
as we have already hashed out in the "HPR to down an airliner" thread.
I said he deserved to be punished appropriately. Not crucified, not
physically assaulted, and he certainly does not deserve this kind of
on-going castigation, especially in view of his simple and straight-
forward acceptance of responsibility.
This is part and parcel of a disturbing trend Americans are developing
toward unseemly hysteria at the mere _perception_ of a possible threat.
I am calling for a measured response from gov't that takes the circum-
stances of the infraction - and the extenuating circumstances - into
full account, and I am furthermore calling for people to stop casti-
gating the man in this forum unless they can show malice or intent.
> You cannot fault a pilot for reacting as either Dean or I did.
Yeah, I can. You were both on the ground with ample time for reflection,
you are both rocketeers with experience with airspace use outside the
cockpit, and you are both human beings and fallible. And you have both
reacted disgracefully.
> fault lies with knowledge and understanding. And this is the problem we
> have here - a large aircraft on final (at 130 knots) and 3 miles away
> (as I understand this situation was) is merely 72 SECONDS from being on
> top of you.
On final into a closed runway through an area cleared for rocket flights
by the FAA. The rocketeer had every reason to presume the air would be
clear, and he muffed it only because the airliner was doing the unexpected.
And _that_ is what causes most accidents. Doing the unexpected. The
guy who unexpectedly swerves, the guy who unexpectedly forgot to put down
his flaps, the guy who unexpectedly tried to use a closed runway, or the
guy who unexpectedly forgot to scan the sky before clearing a rocket launch.
It usually requires _two_ to make an accident.
And IF an accident has occured, the blame would probably mostly lie on
the rocketeer by the doctrine of last clear chance. But _even_if_it_had_,
the result would still most likely _not_ have endangered human life.
Yes, _maybe_ the rocket could've downed that plane - but it is far, far
more likely that it could not have. It's a simple, cardboard-and-plastic
rocket, only slightly more dangerous than the birds to be found around
most airports.
But no accident occured. So what do we do?
A reasonable reaction would be to suspend the rocketeer's license for
some time, in just the same manner as they'd suspend a pilot for a
similar error.
A reasonable reaction would be to find out why the pilot of the plane
was not informed of the FAA waiver in effect when he was directed onto
that runway by the tower, and to insure that the next time a pilot is
heading into an unexpected area where he might be unaware of the waivers
in effect he can find out about them and be on gaurd for them.
An _unreasonable_ reaction is to post messages threatening assault and
battery, or an FAA "investigation" or an irate Pilot's Association
having conniptions over the incident. These people aren't interested
in "safety" with reactions like that, they are looking for a scapegoat.
Pure and simple. An over-reaction.
> There is a REASON that the FAA doesn't like rocket operations within 5
> miles of an airport
Then they should not grant _waivers_ for rocket operations within 5 miles
of an airport. It was _their_ choice whether there were going to be rockets
allowed there, no one else's.
> When folks UNDERSTAND the potential hazards of doing such, 99% of them
> would never even consider asking.
What _I_ understand is the potential hazard of an over-reaction from
a vested interest being allowed to over-ride and eliminate others from
an activity using an _excuse_ since no _reason_ presents itself. What
_I_ understand is someone using this minor incident as an excuse to
further regulate or eliminate one person's use of the sky in favor of
another's private money-making activities. What _I_ understand is some-
one frothing at the mouth in the newsgroup threatening physical harm to
someone who made a minor mistake that resulted in no damage or harm to
another person, who has acknowledged that mistake (something we _never_
see our gov't do) and who has presented himself for appropriate disc-
ipline - and what _I_ see is the FAA making a Federal Case out of it.
Literally.
What _I_ see is posturing and bluster and bullying, Sir. And being
a "pilot" is no excuse for it. Nor is being a bureaucrat.
> The responsibilty for the cause of this little 'reality check' incident
> is the same as the responsibility for making sure it never happens
> again...it rests with ALL of us.
Our "responsibility" in this matter is to see to it that the rules
for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides. The sky isn't up
there just for pilots and paying passengers. Our responsibility
extends to making ourselves aware of the situation and evaluating
it in a clear and level-headed manner, without hyperbole. I know
it's not characteristic of rmr, but I'd like to see it JUST ONCE!
John H. Cato, Jr.
> : do is FUN. Selfish gratification. Not 'life and death'. It will
> : ALWAYS be 'life and death' when an aircraft leaves the ground until it
> : returns TO the ground. Always. Forever. Period.
>
Bill, I know from my words over the last few days, folks may get the
impression that I am 'down' on 'selfish gratification'. That is not
so. There is nothing wrong with gratifying oneself - provided we are
always aware of it and do no let *that* priority take higher precedence
than other, more important priorities.
Joyriding on a Sunday afternoon in a Cessna 150 may, indeed, be
classified similarly - but it is doubtful that the President of IBM
jetting off to a business meeting in Tokyo in the company Lear would
consider his acts 'selfish gratification'. Nor would a crop-duster
earning his living. Nor would the fire-spotter planes used by the
Forestry Service. Nor would the 'lineman' planes used by the power
companies to monitor the conditions of the overland electrical 'trunk'
lines. Nor would DEA's 'spotters' trying to find hidden fields of
marijuana or intercepting other aircraft trying to sneak into this
country with kilos and kilos of cocaine. Nor is the STA (Shuttle
Training Aircraft) in its role of training America's Shuttle
astronauts. Nor would *any* businessman who has found aviation to be
central to his company's success. etc.etc.etc.
Aviation (and, particularly, General Aviation) serves mankind in many,
many ways. It is (I imagine) a multi-billion dollar industry - not as
widespread as when it was in its 'heyday' 20 years ago - but still
necessary to society's functioning.
Rocketry is a hobby - 'selfish gratification' - and one that can (and
does) serve a purpose. It may be the 'spark' that will produce a few
future astronauts, or a future scientist that discovers a way to 'plug'
the ozone hole - but it is also a way for some folks to 'get their
jollies' - a way for a 'pyromaniac' to have his eyes 'glazed over'. And
you and I have seen this 'glazed overness' at every launch. As I said,
'selfish gratification' is not wrong, in and of itself. But, when those
'glazed over eyes' *blind* that individual to what he is *really* doing
(which you and I have, again, seen on the range) and causes him to fail
to SEE rocketry's place in the bigger scheme of things and fail to SEE
what the priorities are, then that individual has become a danger to
himself and those around him - which may (and many times DOES) include
an airplane in the immediate area.
> The only difference is that we pilots use large, expensive and more
> potentially destructive toys.
The *only difference* is that we pilots (along with our passengers) are
INSIDE this 'large, expensive and more potentially destructive' toy. I
wonder how many rocketeers would trust their own abilities and thinking
enough to crawl INSIDE their own rocket creations and fly along with it?
> About the only "life and death" flights are medical lifeline flights.
> All others are unnecessary, although life for many would be more difficult
> without them.
I said nothing about 'necessary .vs. unnecessary'. From the INSTANT an
aircraft leaves the ground until it returns TO the ground - it is "life
and death" - every time... ALL the time... because there is a HUMAN on
board.
> Maybe. It certainly has made me more careful, with my launches. It has
> also taught me when a launch might be hazardous to a visible aircraft.
And that is my point, Bill. Now if you, I and the other pilots could
sit down and write a few lines to IMPRESS *other* rocketeers on what we
know - from our perspective - then we would have accomplished
something... something pretty good, IMHO.
> : The
> : INSTANT one starts letting 'practicality' enter into the equation as it
> : concerns safety, you have SIMULTANEOUSLY removed the incentive to do
> : anything about it.
>
> If we rely on safety alone, and ignore practicality, then you and I
> cannot fly. Flying is unsafe, as are many other things we do in life.
A rocketeer on the ground, with this 'burning desire' to get his rocket
in the air, and NO real concept of the hazards of flying an airplane,
and NOT having HIS life 'hanging in the balance' is NOT (repeat *NOT*)
the individual that **I** want making the decision as to what
constitutes "PRACTICAL". Not EVER!
This is like having a kid who has built something with his building
blocks writing the building code sections on structural safety for a
skyscraper. Would *you* want to take the elevator to the 70th floor of
a building built under such 'codes'???
>From what I have seen in my 8 years in the High Power hobby, the word
'practical' is absolutely **SYNONYMOUS** with *rationalization* 9 times
out of 10. Another term that comes to mind is 'conflict of interest'.
It is because of this that I make the statement that, to adopt the
attitude of something being 'practical' by one who stands to gain the
most from a 'loose' definition of that term does, indeed, remove the
incentive to *correct* things and operations that are attainable. If
you doubt my viewpoint on that, look at the attitude (and unwavering
propensity) of recovery failures that we see time and time again on the
range - something that violates FAR 101.7(b) - something that, thereby,
violates our Safety Code - thereby nullifying our insurance. And what
'attitude' have we adopted on this? "Oh, it happens." Really. 50 lbs
of 'hardware' falling in, totally uncontrolled from 5000 feet and, "it
happens." (?????) (all the while the wife and kiddies are at the same
range - playing under the sunshade)
When a launch is conducted at Wallops Island (and some of these rockets
are smaller that what *we* fly), ALL personnel must leave the island -
with the exception of one or two 'emergency personnel'.
If we want to establish something that is 'practical', then we need to
sit down with some of the airline folks, ATF, and maybe a NASA RSO or
two and get some viewpoints from a lot of different sectors (not
necessarily *bound* by them, you understand). Then, if a safety
commission were to draft some range rules and construction rules for the
hobby, I might could be convinced to the 'practicality' of it. But,
like I said at the beginning, having the definition of the word
'practical' rest solely in the mind of the guy flying his 'pride and
joy' - all nervous and excited - does not qualify as 'practical' in my
book. Nor am I satisfied when those same rules may be drafted by a
Board member who (being the politician that he, by default, IS) is
interested in not 'turning off' his electorate and the implications for
his RE-election.
And then, at LDRS 12 when Kosdon was fixing to fly his first O-10,000
there at Argonia and Tim Eiszner comments to Board Member Gerald Kolb,
"As a Board member, don't you think you ought say something and get
folks across the road?" Gerry says something to the effect that he is
not involved in the decision. Eiszner: "Well why did you run for the
Board, then???" Then (and only then) the folks get moved across the
road.
To be sure, the hobby has not killed anybody yet. I wonder how much of
that isn't because of *luck* and not by *design*. The 'angels' many
times can be generous - but one day they may be busy with some *real*
disaster over in Sri Lanka and not show up. What are we going to do
then?
-- john.
George F.
In article <322B6F...@almatel.net>, jc...@almatel.net says...
I totally agree with you. But people must also use their brains when
launching model rockets into questionable weather conditions.
Also another item that most non-licensed-pilots may not be aware of is
eventhough you are in VFR conditions on the ground with a ceiling of 1,000'
and visibility greater then 3 miles, as soon as that rocket comes withing
500 from the bottom of that cloud, the rocket is now in IFR conditions,
making the waiver invalid.
So, even if the weather is 10,000 foot overcasted ceiling and you have a
15,000 foot waiver, as soon as that rocket hits 9,500' its now considered as
being in IFR conditions again making the waiver invalid.
To make long store short (yes FAA (FAR) rules are long) just dont launch the
model into a clould, an airplane could be inside that same clould.
John H. Cato, Jr.
Jerry Irvine wrote:
>
> I just do not take as extreem a position as you. That's all.
It's all a matter of perspective, Jerry. I could state those same words
to you and it would not be inappropriate - from a certain perspective.
-----
Jerry, I've said about all I desire to on this topic - and my words were
to illustrate not only my viewpoints on these things (and the *reasons*
for those viewpoints) - but also that 'positions' can vary widely,
depending on one's perspective.
I do not deny that folks, in general, DO want to keep safety at a high
level and that, as a whole, the hobby has done a pretty good job.
However, from my experience, I feel sometimes that has happened as much
by *luck* as any real *effort* on the part of the hobby. Life is
amazingly tolerant (if it wasn't, most of us wouldn't have made it thru
our teenage years). At may age (45) I just have come to the point that
I feel it less than optimum to keep asking (unwittingly) the 'angels' to
come to our aid and 'bail us out' (which they do time and time again).
It is good and noble to 'want safety'. But 'wanting to be safe' will
not make it so. The only way to 'be safe' is to be able to SEE and
UNDERSTAND those things that ARE not and WILL not contribute to that
goal. And even THAT is not enough. Once you SEE and UNDERSTAND, you
must then ACT on that 'vision and understanding'. Safety will never
happen by chance - it will happen thru a responsible ACTION... ONLY.
You cannot 'talk' safety. You cannot 'preach' safety. You can only DO
safety.
My comments previously about certain things being a 'cop-out' and an
excuse for not thinking (i.e. "rationalization") should be taken to
heart - because it is THIS ONE THING that will result, one day, in
something happening that will not be good. You can mark my words on
that, because it is surely coming. In the aftermath, it will probably
be classified as an "accident". But, with considered thought to get at
the TRUE causes, it will be revealed that it was simply a momentary
lapse of awareness, an act taken in ignorance of the consequences, an
act taken in 'good faith' that simply was not enough. An "accident".
Had a little more 'knowledge', a little more 'experience', a little more
'awareness' been functioning, this "accident" would have been averted.
But it will then be too late. And a human body (or bodies) will be
laying lifeless.
When the Shuttle Challenger was launched on 28 January 1986, a LOT of
knowledgable minds studied the situation, weighed the data, and, for an
instant, just an instant, allowed *rationalization* to become the
deciding vote. Everybody on this planet knows the outcome of that
'deciding vote'.
A car can be repaired. A house can be repaired. A human can be
'repaired' - to a degree. But, when humans engage in 'high energy'
pursuits (whether flying airplanes, racing motorcycles, flying rockets,
or flying IN rockets, ad infinitum) the one thing that comes thru very
clearly is that the human *body* is unbelievably fragile - and it takes
an unimaginable small amount of 'energy' to damage that body beyond
repair. Once a human is dead, there is no turning back, there is NO
'repairing'.
The one thing that is (maybe) commendable about youth is that they seem
to exude the belief they'll live forever. Why else would they (blindly)
take the risks they do. As one gets older, it becomes clear at the
foolishness of some of those acts taken in youth. Adults take risks,
too. If not, we wouldn't have the world we do today. We wouldn't have
made it to the moon. What separates an ADULT risk from a CHILD'S risk
is *awareness* - the clear understanding that some things CAN happen
that can't be 'taken back' - that CAN have permanent consequences. It
is this 'awareness' that adds the adjective of *Courageous* to that
ADULT risk, instead of the word *foolish*.
Do not take all my words on this subject as indication that I live a
life of fear. I still get out of bed in the morning. I still drive a
car. I still fly airplanes. And I still fly rockets. All those
activities involve 'risk'. The difference today - as compared to my
youth - is that I *appreciate* the 'added value' to the quality of my
life such risks taken will give to it. I also *appreciate* the fact
that I have NO right to impose those 'risks' on others without their
knowledge, understanding and consent - because, as it is said, "Your
rights END where the other guy's rights BEGIN."
I *appreciate* these things - because I now *know* that it can all end
in a heartbeat - and it doesn't take much 'ignorance' nor 'momentary
lapse of awareness' to bring that 'ending' about. Thank God I've never
been in the position of having these 'momentary lapses' cause harm to
others - but it has nearly to me. As my little 'story' on flying
revealed, I *have seen* the abyss. And I know that it is real.
Some folks I see on the range remind me of those words above about the
young acting as though they will live forever. I can only hope that
they don't find out in the practice of their hobby that this is not
true.
-- john.
John H. Cato, Jr.
Larry Smith wrote:
> John, I frankly don't _care_ what "perspective" you are reacting
> from if you are _over_reacting.
That's obvious from the rest of your words.
What "perspective" is *your* _overreaction_ coming from ?
> The sky isn't there for pilots alone.
Your right. Birds, smoke, pollution, hurricanes, NASA.... and
*somewhere* down near the bottom there are rocket hobbyists.
> That mistake _might_ have caused
> a real threat to an airplane, but it _didn't_.
That mistake _might_ have caused a crash and human fatalities.
That mistake **DID** cause a "real threat" to this airplane.
> We should react to his mistake ....
... by using this MISTAKE (notice, not him) as an example to educate all
the other rocketeers as to the MUCH HIGHER potential for disaster to
occur in the near vicinity of airports and, thereby, load the odds in
our favor for it not happening again.
Notice that THAT is (truthfully) what is happening out here on RMR.
> It was not a deliberate attempt to
> shoot down an airliner - and nothing less than that would justify
> the hyperbole the "pilots" are putting in this thread.
I submit to you that not LEARNING from this incident (as this discussion
out here is doing) and committing oneself to being a little more AWARE
of things **IS** "deliberate"... 'deliberately' disregarding an
opportunity to prevent this happening again - and 'deliberately' (or,
shall I say "defiantly") choosing to REMAIN IGNORANT.
> Neither the "pilots" in this thread nor the FAA are reacting in a calm and
> measured response to a rules infraction as far as I can see.
Nor are you, as far as I can see. Just like this rocketeer, I, too,
admitted to overreacting initially (as you recall). Now, from that, I
have attempted to show some of these 'non-pilot' rocketeers how some
things really are from the 'left seat'. I'm am truly saddened that this
effort to help others to UNDERSTAND is viewed as 'over-reaction'. Pity.
It could very well be that the FAA's response is indication of the true
seriousness of this event.
> I am also aware of the fact that we have _rules_ about these things,
I will assume you are also "aware" that 'rules' have, time and time
again, been shown to have failings. It is the individual who canNOT see
beyond the 'rules' and blindly follows them - assuming all the while
that, by doing such, everything is OK - that is the MOST dangerous of
individuals.
Without the ability to THINK - and use plain COMMON SENSE, an individual
is heading for disaster.
> rules about what we do when those rules
> are broken, and that these are apparently being pushed aside in order
> to "make an example" of someone
I've already addressed this - the "example" is being made of the
*indcident* - NOT the person.
> whose actual crime _by_the_rules_ has been ignored
As Dean said, "Screw the regs..." You're beginning to sound like one of
those who only 'think on rules'.
> a "might have been" that is in the minds of _pilots_ and not in reality,
If folks cannot learn from a 'might have been' it will become an
'already has been'.
THAT... is 'reality'.
> I said he deserved to be punished appropriately. Not crucified, not
> physically assaulted, and he certainly does not deserve this kind of
> on-going castigation,
I've already addressed this, too - the *purpose* here is to utilize this
incident to help OTHERS to not make the same mistake. That is NOT
'on-going castigation', kind sir.
> especially in view of his simple and straight-
> forward acceptance of responsibility.
And I (for one) have stood up and applauded his ability to do so -
public, for all to see.
However, if I were to accidentally kill someone (by whatever cause),
just 'simply accepting responsibility' would not bring that 'victim'
back. And it would be a crime to just 'clam up' and not try to share my
'mistake' (and the analysis of that mistake) with others - again, in an
effort to prevent it happening again. That kind of 'mentality' is just
plain sick.
> This is part and parcel of a disturbing trend Americans are developing
> toward unseemly hysteria at the mere _perception_ of a possible threat.
There is also a 'disturbing trend' of ignoring some little 'reality
checks'.
What would *you* prefer, Larry - wait until we had a REAL disaster -
with pieces of bodies lying around before it is discussed?????
> I am calling for a measured response from gov't that takes the circum-
> stances of the infraction - and the extenuating circumstances - into
> full account, and I am furthermore calling for people to stop casti-
> gating the man in this forum unless they can show malice or intent.
I am calling for a "measured response" from the hobby.
> > You cannot fault a pilot for reacting as either Dean or I did.
>
> Yeah, I can.
Suit yourself.
> You were both on the ground with ample time for reflection,
If memory serves (in this midst of my alleged 'hysteria'), I believe the
SAME THING could be said of this rocketeer - he was "ON THE GROUND WITH
AMPLE TIME FOR REFLECTION."
> you are both rocketeers with experience with airspace use outside the
> cockpit, and you are both human beings and fallible.
... which puts us in a PARTICULARLY good position to SHARE that insight
with others that do NOT have such experience - in hopes that insight
would bring this one problem into the 'closed case' book.
> And you have both reacted disgracefully.
This most 'disgraceful' thing I could think of is to let this incident
just 'disappear' and NOBODY learn anything from it.
> On final into a closed runway through an area cleared for rocket flights
> by the FAA.
Which doesn't mean a TINKER'S DAMN. That RUNWAY - closed, open, paved,
dirt, painted or not, lighted or not - was PUT THERE for AIRPLANES!!!
In an emergency, declared or not, it is MOST DEFINITELY 'fair game' -
and ANYTHING that is going on in the near vicinty (on the GROUND, no
less) is DECIDEDLY secondary in importance. And the fact that this 'on
the ground' activity was FUN, that puts it AT THE ABSOLUTE BOTTOM of
this list of priorities.
> The rocketeer had every reason to presume the air would be clear,
I don't know when was the last time you ever read the Special Provisions
of ANY waiver - or, ANY part of FAR 101 (which INCLUDES operations under
FAR 101.22) - but I will set you straight on this one:
"NO (repeat **NO**) rocketeer will EVER (repeat **EVER**) have ANY
(repeat **ANY**) right to presume ANY (repeat **ANY**) 'air' is
EVER (repeat **EVER**) 'clear'. NEVER (repeat **NEVER**)."
That is FEDERAL **LAW** (repeat **LAW**), Mr. Smith.
> and he muffed it only because the airliner was doing the unexpected.
He 'muffed' it because he forgot the above.
> And _that_ is what causes most accidents. Doing the unexpected. The
> guy who unexpectedly swerves, the guy who unexpectedly forgot to put down
> his flaps, the guy who unexpectedly tried to use a closed runway, or the
> guy who unexpectedly forgot to scan the sky before clearing a rocket launch.
What cause MOST accidents is a 'brain' that switches off - sometimes for
just an instant.
"unexpectedly forgot"???
Well, I guess that lets him off the hook, doesn't it. The only time he
could be held accountable was if he "expectedly forgot" it, huh? As I
understand his accounting, he DID scan the sky - which, according to
him, he SAW the aircraft three miles away. What caused the incident was
an unAWARENESS of what 'three miles away' really MEANS to a large
aircraft on final - something just over a minute. Now, with 15 seconds
wasted in the count, 15 more for the rocket to reach apogee, we're now
down to about 30 SECONDS before the aircraft is on top of him (and UNDER
his rocket). This reeks of a *decided UNawareness* of things. Oh, and
it could *easily* be 'expected' by an experienced individual that such a
scenario would play out. If one is flying near an airport and you SEE
*any* aircraft - it is TOO CLOSE to you to safely fly a rocket. That is
'expected', also - to the initiated.
> It usually requires _two_ to make an accident.
It won't work, Larry.
> And IF an accident has occured, the blame would probably mostly lie on
> the rocketeer by the doctrine of last clear chance.
For good reason - it would be HIS fault.
> But _even_if_it_had_,
> the result would still most likely _not_ have endangered human life.
Sounds like you need to apply for a job with the FAA or NTSB, what with
your ability to 'see the future' - could save them a lot of work and
manpower investigating all these 'accidents that never would happen'.
Or, you could just help them get all the ambulances and fire trucks to
the right spot on the right runway to respond IMMEDIATELY, since you
would know which flight and which runway was going to have human life
'endangered'.
> Yes, _maybe_ the rocket could've downed that plane - but it is far, far
> more likely that it could not have.
Again, this doesn't mean a tinker's damn.
> It's a simple, cardboard-and-plastic
> rocket, only slightly more dangerous than the birds to be found around
> most airports.
The major difference here is that humans have no control over those
birds.
They DO, however, over this 'cardboard-and-plastic' rocket - and THAT is
what makes it more dangerous.
> But no accident occured. So what do we do?
That's simple.... WE LEARN FROM IT.
> A reasonable reaction would be to suspend the rocketeer's license for
> some time, in just the same manner as they'd suspend a pilot for a
> similar error.
... and say nothing to the rest of the hobby, right???
> A reasonable reaction would be to find out why the pilot of the plane
> was not informed of the FAA waiver in effect when he was directed onto
> that runway by the tower,
There was NO 'waiver' on this - as it was under FAR 101.22. As I stated
on other posts, in all the excitement, it is reasonable to assume the
'notification' to the pilot could be overlooked. Remember, pilots and
controllers are human, too (in keeping with your points above). So what
if the pilot was 'notified'?? By landing on a closed runway, this is
indication that this may have been his ONLY option. It's like I said,
and aircraft in flight ALWAYS has the right-of-way - over ANYTHING on
the ground. Always. Forever. Period.
> and to insure that the next time a pilot is
> heading into an unexpected area where he might be unaware of the waivers
> in effect he can find out about them and be on gaurd for them.
Your idealism (and naivete') about how the REAL WORLD works in aviation
and, particularly, about an aircraft in distress is showing here.
"Unexpected area"???
Call me idealistic (too?), but I have always considered LONG, FLAT,
PAVED areas as a place that airplanes MIGHT JUST land at. I know, I
know - foolish of me.
If this rocketeer was flying rockets in the near vicinity of these
'long, flat, paved' areas and was NOT "expecting" to see low-flying
aircraft - then I submit that maybe he *should* be 'crucified' - or
submitted for psychological counseling.
> An _unreasonable_ reaction is to post messages threatening assault and
> battery, or an FAA "investigation" or an irate Pilot's Association
> having conniptions over the incident.
An _unreasonable_ reaction is to COP-OUT and just adopt the attitude
"Well, shit happens," and attitude, I might add, I have seen FAR TOO
MUCH from the hobby.
> These people aren't interested in "safety" with reactions like that,
Well, it sounds like the hobby is in good company, then, doesn't it.
> they are looking for a scapegoat.
> Pure and simple. An over-reaction.
Just wait until somebody DIES because of such as this. You will then
HAVE your 'over-reaction', Mr. Smith. IN SPADES.
> Then they should not grant _waivers_ for rocket operations within 5 miles
> of an airport. It was _their_ choice whether there were going to be rockets
> allowed there, no one else's.
Copping out again. It was this ROCKETEER'S ****CHOICE**** to FLY that
damn rocket after seeing an aircraft on final 3 miles away.... and
NOBODY else's. The FAA 'granted' this permission on the assumption that
Joe Rocketeer would utilize good judgment and concern for the life of
others. I imagine THEY have learned as much from this incident as 'Joe'
has.
I swear, with all these 'excuses' and 'passing the buck', you are
sounding an AWFUL lot like Bruce Kelly - he is a MASTER of such
techniques. Has he been emailing you lately?
> > When folks UNDERSTAND the potential hazards of doing such, 99% of them
> > would never even consider asking.
>
> What _I_ understand is the potential hazard of an over-reaction from
> a vested interest being allowed to over-ride and eliminate others from
> an activity using an _excuse_ since no _reason_ presents itself. What
> _I_ understand is someone using this minor incident as an excuse to
> further regulate or eliminate one person's use of the sky in favor of
> another's private money-making activities. What _I_ understand is some-
> one frothing at the mouth in the newsgroup threatening physical harm to
> someone who made a minor mistake that resulted in no damage or harm to
> another person, who has acknowledged that mistake (something we _never_
> see our gov't do) and who has presented himself for appropriate disc-
> ipline - and what _I_ see is the FAA making a Federal Case out of it.
> Literally.
What **I** understand from the above is someone speaking without very
much 'understanding'.
> What _I_ see is posturing and bluster and bullying, Sir. And being
> a "pilot" is no excuse for it. Nor is being a bureaucrat.
I see the same thing. And, you're right, there IS no excuse for it.
> Our "responsibility" in this matter is to see to it that the rules
> for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
> lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides.
Our "responsibility" is to teach people to THINK - not blindly 'follow
rules'.
> The sky isn't up there just for pilots and paying passengers.
Your right. Birds, smoke, pollution, hurricanes, NASA.... and
*somewhere* down near the bottom there are rocket hobbyists.
> Our responsibility extends to making ourselves aware of the situation and
> evaluating it in a clear and level-headed manner
Dang, the LAST LINE and we finally see eye-to-eye on things. Imagine
that!
Now, how do you propose accomplishing this?
> without hyperbole.
It seems obvious to me that you are not a pilot. Until you log many
hours in the 'left seat', you are FAR from qualified to *properly* use
that word.
> I know it's not characteristic of rmr, but I'd like to see it JUST ONCE!
Open your eyes.
-- john.
RobEdmonds
>I've flown a lot of rockets uder IFR conditions. Remember, for daylight
>operation, IFR is defined as less than a 5000 foot ceiling, and/or under
>5 miles visibility.
If that's true, then I violated a BUNCH of FAR's on my way out to OshKosh
and NARAM. No, IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions, under which you
must fly IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) only requires 3 miles and the
ability to remain 500 feet under the ceiling (and still be 500 feet above
the ground in most cases). Or, you can go 1000 feet over the top. In
uncontrolled airspace (usually the first 1200 feet of altitude (until you
get near an airport) you only need one mile of visibility, and you must
remain outside of clouds. Still, I'm sure you could successfully fly a
model below those conditions (actually, any time one ounches through the
clouds, technically it should be on an IFR flight plan).
RE
RobEdmonds
>That mistake _might_ have caused
>a real threat to an airplane, but it _didn't_. We should >react to
>his mistake _as_a_mistake_, a breach of protocol and >worthy of some
>reasonable fine or punishment.
I keep telling you guys, if somebody's child ends up in a smoking hole, it
aint going to be a "breach of protocol". If you fire a shower of bullets
into a crowd but you miss everyone, you'd better still end up in the can.
RE
Hawk_Dsl
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> ::Major Snip of great Debate skills::
>
> Our "responsibility" in this matter is to see to it that the rules
> for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
> lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides. The sky isn't up
> there just for pilots and paying passengers. Our responsibility
> extends to making ourselves aware of the situation and evaluating
> it's not characteristic of rmr, but I'd like to see it JUST ONCE!---
I agree 1000% with everything that Mr. Larry Smith said...
Both my Father and Brother fly planes. Once my Father had a close call
like the one Cato posted. But like most things, he got over it.
As far as the FAA "Investigation" is concerned.... Well... Lets just
say that "one is born every minute."
Its really funny at this point. As I read some of these messages, I feel
as though I was reading a great dramatic Author yet unknown....
But like most things, you always should look at the bright side...
All the TRA Sucker post have found something else to chew on. I'm taking
bets on how much 'more dead can this horse get' before we put the sticks
down.
Henry.
Hawk_Dsl
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> ::Major Snip of great Debate skills::
>
> for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
> lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides. The sky isn't up
> there just for pilots and paying passengers. Our responsibility
> extends to making ourselves aware of the situation and evaluating
Hawk_Dsl
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> ::Major Snip of great Debate skills::
>
> for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
> lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides. The sky isn't up
> there just for pilots and paying passengers. Our responsibility
> extends to making ourselves aware of the situation and evaluating
Hawk_Dsl
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> ::Major Snip of great Debate skills::
>
> for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
> lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides. The sky isn't up
> there just for pilots and paying passengers. Our responsibility
> extends to making ourselves aware of the situation and evaluating
Hawk_Dsl
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> ::Major Snip of great Debate skills::
>
> for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
> lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides. The sky isn't up
> there just for pilots and paying passengers. Our responsibility
> extends to making ourselves aware of the situation and evaluating
Hawk_Dsl
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> ::Major Snip of great Debate skills::
>
> for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
> lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides. The sky isn't up
> there just for pilots and paying passengers. Our responsibility
> extends to making ourselves aware of the situation and evaluating
Hawk_Dsl
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> ::Major Snip of great Debate skills::
>
> for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
> lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides. The sky isn't up
> there just for pilots and paying passengers. Our responsibility
> extends to making ourselves aware of the situation and evaluating
Hawk_Dsl
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> ::Major Snip of great Debate skills::
>
> for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
> lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides. The sky isn't up
> there just for pilots and paying passengers. Our responsibility
> extends to making ourselves aware of the situation and evaluating
Hawk_Dsl
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> ::Major Snip of great Debate skills::
>
> for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
> lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides. The sky isn't up
> there just for pilots and paying passengers. Our responsibility
> extends to making ourselves aware of the situation and evaluating
Hawk_Dsl
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> ::Major Snip of great Debate skills::
>
> for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
> lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides. The sky isn't up
> there just for pilots and paying passengers. Our responsibility
> extends to making ourselves aware of the situation and evaluating
Hawk_Dsl
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> ::Major Snip of great Debate skills::
>
> for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
> lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides. The sky isn't up
> there just for pilots and paying passengers. Our responsibility
> extends to making ourselves aware of the situation and evaluating
John H. Cato, Jr.
RobEdmonds wrote:
>
> I keep telling you guys, if somebody's child ends up in a smoking hole, it
> aint going to be a "breach of protocol". If you fire a shower of bullets
> into a crowd but you miss everyone, you'd better still end up in the can.
Rob, Do you give seminars on saying it succinctly?? I think you *know*
who your first customer would be and who needs it the most.
"-)
-- john.
Rick Taylor
I'm curious. What is the pilot's perspective on model rocket flights under 500' AGL when
more than 5 miles from an airport?
l...@zk3.dec.com
John H. Cato, Jr. (jc...@almatel.net) wrote:
>Bill Nelson wrote:
>> John H. Cato, Jr. (jc...@almatel.net) wrote:
>> : do is FUN. Selfish gratification. Not 'life and death'.
>> But, with rare exceptions, all flying is also "selfish gratification".
>Joyriding on a Sunday afternoon in a Cessna 150 may, indeed, be
>classified similarly - but it is doubtful that the President of IBM
>jetting off to a business meeting in Tokyo in the company Lear would
>consider his acts 'selfish gratification'.
So, by your logic, anyone using the sky to make a profit is "life
or death" and not just "selfish gratification". This is certainly
a new definition of "selfish" in _my_ experience. Where I come from,
this is the _antithesis_ of "selfish". Why should an executive out
to make money somehow take precedence over a hobbiest having fun?
Just because he's in the air and we're not? Bullshit. We have a
responsibility not to put him in danger - and _he_ has the respon-
sibility to share the skies.
The skies are for _all_ of us. We _all_ have the right to use them,
and we _all_ have the responsibility to safegaurd each other's safety
while we do so. That means rocketeers should scan the sky for air-
liners before launching, but it also means that airliners should check
for other aerial users and take appropriate evasive action.
Frankly I think your attitude is reprehensible, selfish, and elitist.
>The *only difference* is that we pilots (along with our passengers) are
>INSIDE this 'large, expensive and more potentially destructive' toy.
Yes...INSIDE. Inside a metal container that has never been _demonstrated_
to be vulnerable to a model rocket. Our rockets are only slightly more
dangerous than the birds a plane plows through at nearly every landing
and take-off, and it's been _years_, maybe decades since a plane was
downed or even seriously damaged by a bird.
We _presume_ a rocket _may_ represent a danger to an airliners. That is
a reasonable and prudent assumption, but it _is_ still JUST an assumption.
You haven't a shred of evidence that that plane could've been threatened
_even_if_it_had_been_hit_.
But it wasn't hit. The rocket never even came close enough for any of
the passengers to have seen it. The only reason it was even reported
was because the pilot saw the contrail and promptly remembered _rumours_
that Flight 800 _might_ have been downed with a terrorist missile. As I
said, hysteria.
>And that is my point, Bill. Now if you, I and the other pilots could
>sit down and write a few lines to IMPRESS *other* rocketeers on what we
>know - from our perspective - then we would have accomplished
>something... something pretty good, IMHO.
What you have accomplished thus far is to convince me that pilots are,
as a class, a bunch of hysterical, possessive, selfish nitwits who get
their panties in a wad at the drop of rocket, and that those who don't
physically threaten violence will demand loudly that we treat a rules
infraction as if it were a crime. Luckily I am much less inclined to
hysteria than you and realize the pilots in question here are not a
representative sample. I expect I will eventually hear from one that
is responsible, level-headed, and willing to share the airspace. In
the meantime, I think you have damned little to teach _me_. What you
have to teach me I've already learned from the BATF, thanks.
>A rocketeer on the ground, with this 'burning desire' to get his rocket
>in the air, and NO real concept of the hazards of flying an airplane,
>and NOT having HIS life 'hanging in the balance' is NOT (repeat *NOT*)
>the individual that **I** want making the decision as to what
>constitutes "PRACTICAL". Not EVER!
More irresponsible, hysterical fearmongering. The rocketeer in question
was focusing a camera and _forgot_ to re-verify the skies - lulled, as it
were, by the closed runway and the waiver. You have not demonstrated that
he had a "burning desire to get his rocket in the air" - as near as I can
tell he had no burning desires that couldn't have waited 3 minutes for the
airliner to clear.
But this kind of image _is_ very important to demonize someone and to
galvanize the authorities into bypassing the reasonable and useful rules
in place for dealing with infractions and trying to egg them into doing
something stupid. It is irresponsibility of the first order, classic
scare tactics. It is the scurrilous, mean-spirited act of an utter
scoundrel.
>To be sure, the hobby has not killed anybody yet. I wonder how much of
>that isn't because of *luck* and not by *design*. The 'angels' many
>times can be generous - but one day they may be busy with some *real*
>disaster over in Sri Lanka and not show up. What are we going to do
>then?
Hobbies don't avoid accidents for decades by blind stupid luck. They
do it by having safety procedures and rules for dealing with infractions.
Those procedures should be followed in this case.
You and others are trying to make a federal case out of this and it is
completely unwarranted. The plane was never in any danger of being hit
by the rocket, and even if it were you have not shown that it _was_ a
clear and present danger to human life. You have only presumptions,
conjectures, GUESSES as to the degree of danger. My God, man, you're
getting what few facts you have about the incident from second-hand
postings to the net, you haven't a damned _clue_ about what happened!
I was getting tired of this group because of the politics, now I am
tiring even faster of hysterical whining that passes for reasoning
amongst "pilots" in the newsgroup. Frankly, I've heard enough from
"pilots" in this thread to give me pause ever leaving the ground
again, and not because of the "danger" from rockets.
Now I want to see some _evidence_ for this amount of concern, or I
want to see you SHUT THE HELL UP!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This article was posted to Usenet via the Posting Service at Deja News:
http://www.dejanews.com/ [Search, Post, and Read Usenet News!]
Phobos9999
Under 500' ?
500' is the lowest we are supposed to fly except during take-off or
landing and that is over sparsely populated areas, otherwise it is 1000'.
So it should not matter.
Marty
John H. Cato, Jr.
Rick Taylor wrote:
>
> I'm curious. What is the pilot's perspective on model rocket flights
> under 500' AGL when more than 5 miles from an airport?
Rick,
Inasmuch as Controlled Airspace begins at 1200 AGL when outside the
Airport Traffic Area (i.e. more than 5 miles from an airport),
technically, anyone can do whatever they want up to that altitude and
not say a word to anyone.
The concerns you have seen me express here recently center on LOW
altitude operations of aircraft and the impact (no pun intended <g>)
rocket operations could have on that. With the exeception of 1) crop
duster operations and 2) an aircraft that has lost an engine and is
'coming down', about the only time we're talking 'low-altitude'
operations are when an aircraft is approaching landing at an airport -
and this is the *reason* the FAA has set up this 5 mile radius Airport
Traffic Area - where Controlled Airspace starts at 700 AGL (instead of
the 1200 AGL mentioned previously).
It is due to the fact that *these* areas (ATA) are where aircraft are
low to the ground and, equally, at lower airspeeds (typically around 1.3
times stall speed), that - as a pilot - I would prefer the air to be as
'non-hazardous' as possible - coupled with the fact that pilot workload
is increased during this time and his attention does not need to be
divided by looking for an *additional* airborne hazard (additional to
other aircraft also landing).
All pilots understand that, outside the ATA, things are different - this
is considered the 'Enroute Airspace'. Operating altitudes are higher,
airspeeds are greater (with more safety margin) and the 'beehive' of
activity around airports is considerably more dispersed - lessening
pilot workload - which makes that 'air' considerably more safe - and
more tolerant of other activities - including Hang Gliding, parachute
drop zones, and, of course, hobbyist rocket activity.
Knowing this, it is appropriate for hobbyist rocket activity to occur in
these areas - to whatever altitude the FAA feels appropriate to grant.
A pilot will note the occurence of this activity (as published in the
NOTAMs) and will (properly) AVOID those areas - so as to not only not
interfere, but also for HIS safety.
It's just that much harder to maintain that safety margin when close to
an airport - and the aircraft is in a much more vulnerable situation
there - which means the 'safety margins' are reduced.
Enjoy your hobby to whatever extent you desire when you're out there 'in
the boonies' (i.e. outside that 5 mile limit). Just please consider the
needs of pilots when close to airports - as this is where our lives are
more 'on the line' than anywhere else.
-- john.
Jerry Irvine
> And then, at LDRS 12 when Kosdon was fixing to fly his first O-10,000
> there at Argonia and Tim Eiszner comments to Board Member Gerald Kolb,
> "As a Board member, don't you think you ought say something and get
> folks across the road?" Gerry says something to the effect that he is
> not involved in the decision. Eiszner: "Well why did you run for the
> Board, then???" Then (and only then) the folks get moved across the
> road.
>
> To be sure, the hobby has not killed anybody yet. I wonder how much of
> that isn't because of *luck* and not by *design*. The 'angels' many
> times can be generous - but one day they may be busy with some *real*
> disaster over in Sri Lanka and not show up. What are we going to do
> then?
Flying a metal rocket larger than the safety code defines as if it is just
safe as a safety code compliant rocket is really bad judgement. MTA which
has provision for such rockets has a bunker with a dozen telephone poles,
*AS A ROOF*!
Each time TRA blows off the rules they are a much bigger hazard to person
and property than any lone ranger flying before looking for aircraft.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine - jjir...@cyberg8t.com
Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing.
The Silent Observer
John H. Cato, Jr. wrote:
>
>
> is considered the 'Enroute Airspace'. Operating altitudes are higher,
> airspeeds are greater (with more safety margin) and the 'beehive' of
> activity around airports is considerably more dispersed - lessening
> pilot workload - which makes that 'air' considerably more safe - and
> more tolerant of other activities - including Hang Gliding, parachute
> drop zones, and, of course, hobbyist rocket activity.
>
> Knowing this, it is appropriate for hobbyist rocket activity to occur in
> these areas - to whatever altitude the FAA feels appropriate to grant.
> A pilot will note the occurence of this activity (as published in the
> NOTAMs) and will (properly) AVOID those areas - so as to not only not
> interfere, but also for HIS safety.
Would that they did -- the launches I attend each month have a 5500 AGL
waiver (I think that translates as 6000 MSL), yet in good weather we have
several aircraft holds each hour, typically for aircraft flying between
500 and 1500 AGL -- this past Sunday, we once had two holds for different
aircraft in one rack of less than a dozen rockets.
Far from begin aware of the NOTAMS and avoiding the area, it has seemed
to us in Monroe, WA that the pilots, if they see the NOTAM at all,
overfly us to see what we're doing! A little less than a year ago, a
small helicopter >landed< briefly on the east section of our field, less
than 200 yards from the pads (which were in the west section -- and
yes, we got his numbers and the incident was reported to the FAA; we
fly on property owned by the Dept. of Corrections, and it's off-limits
to non-emergency landings).
I think you're giving far more credit for sense than is due to the
"Sunday Pilot" who flies primarily for recreation -- these are, after
all, the same low-time pilots who account for the lion's share of General
Aviation accidents, even in absence of additional hazards such as
high-speed vertical traffic and small parachutes...
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| It's easier to create chaos than order -- 2nd law of thermodynamics |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| sil...@ix.netcom.com http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/home.htm |
| TableTop Publications http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/ttop_pub.htm |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| All opinions expressed are my own, and should in no way be mistaken |
| for those of anyone but a rabid libertarian. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
George F.
In article <322EF9...@lexis-nexis.com>, Rick....@lexis-nexis.com
says...
>
>I'm curious. What is the pilot's perspective on model rocket flights under
500' AGL when
>more than 5 miles from an airport?
As long as the ceiling is 1,000' AGL I see no problem with it. If the rocket
stays 500' under the cloud, it is then in VFR conditions, but has soon as the
rocket get closer then 500 to that cloud the rocket is now in IFR conditions
requiring an IFR clearence & IFR flight Plan, neither of which would be
issued to a model rocket.
The only problem with model rocket flight into IFR conditions is that I might
be inside that same cloud your rocket just went into, and if you have ever
flown a plane inside a cloud you will know that your visibility is zero, not
allowing the see and advoid the model rocket.
Over 1200 single engine hours without being hit by a rocket, and trying to
keep it that way.
John H. Cato, Jr.
l...@zk3.dec.com wrote:
>
(a lot of stuff that's just too much trouble to re-quote)
Dear 'lcs',
I am taking the last 'sip' on this Dr. Pepper and fixing to ride out of
town on this topic.
I will leave you with this one bit of advice:
"I dearly hope that you are never stranded on top of your house
due to a flood at night and in a thunderstorm - needing rescue
by a *pilot*, or have a heart attack or get 'banged up' on the
Interstate and need the services of LifeFlight - as I 'fear'
(no, not hysteria) your attitude will betray you to that *pilot*
who is saving your life. I would generally not recommend you
mention 'selfish gratification' to him."
... because the attitude you express is exactly what pilots fear most.
And for good reason. But you don't understand that, do you?
-- john.
BTW, next time you jump down my throat, be a MAN and sign your name to
it, OK?
RobEdmonds
>I'm curious. What is the pilot's perspective on model >rocket flights
under 500' AGL when
>more than 5 miles from an airport?
Do those to your hearts content. We aren't really supposed to be down
there (except in unpopulated areas). Whenever I'm below1000 (for
photographs or something) I am in constant vigilance for any sort of thing
that might leap up at me (whether it is attached to the ground or not),
and am more or less prepared for most foreseeable encounters. When
you're maneuvering down low, you kind of learn to expect that kind of
thing, you know your deliberately exposing yourself. When your cruising
along on a victor airway high up, or shooting an approach, it's quite
different.
RE
RobEdmonds
>So, by your logic, anyone using the sky to make a profit is >"life
>or death" and not just "selfish gratification".
He is making a profit by hauling your friends and family around in his two
hundred seats! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!!????!!
RE
RobEdmonds
>Our rockets are only slightly more
>dangerous than the birds a plane plows through at nearly >every landing
>and take-off,
Birds get out of the way. I've seen seriously bent airplanes when they
didn't. I probably wouldn't be writing this if I had hit the Bald Eagle
I narrowly missed a couple of years ago, and there are rockets that weigh
plenty more than that. I wish you would feel some of the "metal" that our
"containers" are made of and see what you think could hit them at 150
miles an hour.
RE
RobEdmonds
>Luckily I am much less inclined to
>hysteria than you and realize the pilots in question here >are not a
representative sample.
You're right that we are not a representative sample, in that we have any
sympathy for the hobbyist at all. The rest of the aviation community
would probably be quite happy to see Tripoli and the NAR shut down
entirely. There is no time when it's going to be acceptable to have any
member of someone's family killed in an airplane because someone was
flying a rocket. It will always be acceptable to restrict rocket flying
to avoid killing that person. You cannot change that.
RE
RobEdmonds
>Far from begin aware of the NOTAMS and avoiding the >area, it has seemed
>to us in Monroe, WA that the pilots, if they see the NOTAM >at all,
>overfly us to see what we're doing!
As I say, never once during a briefing have I been told about any form of
rocket activity, even when I knew it was taking place in the vicinity of
my route of flight from NAR or Tripoli connections. I'm not sure what
they do about those waiver zones, to tell you the truth, because they make
it such a bear to get them, and yet never even seem to inform the aircraft
that they're there. It may be more a legal thing than a safety thing.
RE
Cochran, Ted
I finally got trolled back in to this discussion by this patently false
and logically ridiculous paragraph. I'll be brief [for me :-) ].
In article <8419408...@dejanews.com>, someone using l...@zk3.dec.com
as a lame id tag oozed:
> Yes...INSIDE. Inside a metal container that has never been _demonstrated_
> to be vulnerable to a model rocket. Our rockets are only slightly more
> dangerous than the birds a plane plows through at nearly every landing
> and take-off, and it's been _years_, maybe decades since a plane was
> downed or even seriously damaged by a bird.
>
1) As I mentioned in a previous (way previous :-) post, an AWACs plane
crashed shortly after takeoff earlier this year, killing all aboard, after
ingesting birds. A B1 bomber struck a single bird, which penetrated the
leading edge of the wing and caused catastrophic system failures, bringing
down the aircraft. And birds try to get out of the way!
2) There have been threads in this group enjoying stories of backhoe
recoveries of intact lawn darted rockets from under 20 feet of earth,
craters made from supersonic impacts, and near misses caused when children
didn't listen to "heads up!" warnings. Yet some of those same folks seem
to think that the sport is virtually risk free, or at most that rockets
are only slightly more dangerous than birds. This contradiction puzzles
me.
3) The perception that planes plow through birds on a routine basis is
not true. The implication that planes are built to routinely plow through
large feathered things, so why worry about them plowing through rockets as
well, fails to warm my heart.
4) A distinction should be made between risk and safety. Rocketry has an
enviable safety record, and, when practiced in accordance with accepted
practices,it is a safe sport. No quarrels there. However: It is NOT free
of _risk_.
Reducing risk requires that we practice safety procedures. As a
_practice_. That means we understand and observe the spirit of the
practice, not just the letter of the law. It means that we at least in
theory treat every launch as a potential lawn dart, and not treat every
lawn dart as an acceptable cost of the sport. It means that we increase
our safety margins as the potential energy of our vehicles increases. It
means that we contribute to the practice by continually learning from
events and improving our techniques. It does not mean that we stop flying
entirely. It may mean that we choose not to fly the big stuff within 5
miles of an airport.
Most (not all, but the vast majority) of pilots understand what it means
to follow procedures as a _practice_ of safety. They understand that
checklists have been developed for a reason, and that creativity in their
application is not helpful. They know that any time people are involved,
errors will happen, and that procedures and practices are there to reduce
the potential consequences of those errors. They understand that
checklists could be ignored and 99.99...% of the time nothing bad would
happen. They still read the checklists, to prevent that last .00...1%.
Some of the emotion in this long thread may have come from the reaction of
some pilots to the apparent ad hoc (shall I say haphazard?) treatment of
safety by some rocketeers. It is not something that is practiced because
you think something might go wrong this time, or because some authority is
watching, or because its the first time you've flown the model, or because
its a qualification flight. It's done every time, because sooner or
later--and you can't predict when--something bad will happen.
In article <jjirvine-050...@host52.cyberg8t.com>,
jjir...@cyberg8t.com (Jerry Irvine) wrote:
>
> Flying a metal rocket larger than the safety code defines as if it is just
> safe as a safety code compliant rocket is really bad judgement. MTA which
> has provision for such rockets has a bunker with a dozen telephone poles,
> *AS A ROOF*!
>
> Each time TRA blows off the rules they are a much bigger hazard to person
> and property than any lone ranger flying before looking for aircraft.
>
> Jerry
Precisely.
--tc (not a pilot, btw).
Troll more if you want, I'm outa this thread!
Dr. Ted Cochran
Sr. Technology Program Manager
Honeywell Technology Center
The Silent Observer
RobEdmonds wrote:
>
> >Our rockets are only slightly more
> >dangerous than the birds a plane plows through at nearly >every landing
> >and take-off,
>
> didn't. I probably wouldn't be writing this if I had hit the Bald Eagle
> I narrowly missed a couple of years ago, and there are rockets that weigh
> plenty more than that. I wish you would feel some of the "metal" that our
> "containers" are made of and see what you think could hit them at 150
> miles an hour.
> RE
To clarify this for those who aren't long-time aircraft freaks and may
not be familiar with the construction of a Cessna or other light General
Aviation two- or four-seater:
A "modern, all-metal" airframe like that in the Cessna 172 is based on a
design created just after WWII; all the metal in a typical airframe is
aluminum sheet, and much softer aluninum than the 6061-T6 your RMS
casings are made of. The wing and fuselage skins are typically in the
neighborhood of 1 mm thick, while ribs, bulkheads, and formers are
thicker material, up to 2 or 2.5 mm. It's quite possible to punch a hole
in a wing with a child's BB gun, with a slingshot firing either steel
shot or gravel, with a ball-point pen; you see very few gravel landing
strips because of the damage the gravel can do to the tail surfaces after
being thrown up by the tires (not to mention what it does to a
propeller).
An old-fashioned fabric-covered airplane may have either a steel-tube
frame or a wooden one; either way, the wing ribs are laminated wood,
skinned over with a single layer of fairly heavy linen or (for aircraft
covered in the last 20 to 30 years) dacron fabric, sealed and tautened
with nitrate dope or a couple more modern, less flammable alternatives.
This material can be holed by a determined fist, and the standard test of
whether it's become brittle enough to require replacement is to punch a
hole in a non-stress area, and measure the force needed to do so. Worse,
once holed, it tends to rip under stress; it wasn't unheard of for
fighters in WWI (whichh were constructed this way, in the main) to shed
the fabric, more or less entire, from the upper wing in a dive (this
usually killed the pilot, as most of these aircraft wouldn't fly on only
the lower wing).
There are still a number of fabric-covered designs in relatively common
service; the Piper Cub and Tri-Pacer, the Stearman, and even the Pitts
and Christen Eagle biplanes (designed around 1970); nearly all planes
build for General Aviation before the second world war had this kind of
construction.
All-metal airplanes include most of the Cessnas now flying (the old 195
was fabric covered, but the 140 and all newer models were all-metal or
metal with fabric tail surfaces), everything made by Beech and Piper in
the last 35 or so years, and Ercoupes (not to mention nearly every
commercial plane made in the last 50 years).
More modern designs use composite construction, usually fiberglass, often
over foam. They are more robust than either metal or fabric, and of
similar or less weight...and still none to sturdy. You can punch a crack
and dent into glass/foam construction with a boot heel that will cost a
couple thousand dollars to repair.
Any one of these can be brought down by a bird strike -- as happened not
long ago to an American military plane in Guam, killing several American
military personell...this, mind you, was a jet-powered, all-metal
transport capable of lifting several tonnes of cargo and flying at over
600 mph, destroyed by hitting a bird at under 200 mph. Think about it...
Larry Smith
John H. Cato, Jr. wrote:
> Larry Smith wrote:
> > John, I frankly don't _care_ what "perspective" you are reacting
> > from if you are _over_reacting.
> That's obvious from the rest of your words.
> What "perspective" is *your* _overreaction_ coming from ?
Me? Oh, I see. By pointing out _your_ hysteria and suggesting
we let the incident be handled like the rules infraction that it
was and not the potential megadeath-dealing disaster that exists
only in your imagination, _I_ must be over-reacting.
This is pitiful, John. You haven't got a case, you haven't got
an argument, and now you've proven you don't have a clue.
> > That mistake _might_ have caused
> > a real threat to an airplane, but it _didn't_.
> That mistake _might_ have caused a crash and human fatalities.
You know what your _real_ problem is? You are as innumerate as
most of the population of the US. You have no ability to distin-
guish between a statistically significant danger and a statistically
insignificant one. The likelihood of that rocket downing that air-
craft was _thousands_ of times _less_ than the likelihood of a micro-
burst taking it out, tens of thousands of times less than the likeli-
hood of the pilot forgetting to lower his landing gear, thousands of
times less than the pilot being too damn drunk or stoned to land the
airplane properly, thousands of times less than having it blown out
of the air by a bomb. We have lost dozens of large, people-filled air-
craft to those causes, and we've lost _none_, zip, nada to model roc-
kets gone astray. That's the whole damned _point_, John! The threat
was so miniscule as to be _pointless_ to worry about it! That means
it is _pointless_ to be threatening physical violence, _pointless_ to
be posting diatribes about rocket safety (especially since no one,
not even the rocketeer in question ever indicated otherwise) and
_pointless_ to waste time and resources having overpaid bureaucrats
at the FAA "investigating" the rocketeer. He violated the rules,
slap a fine on him or suspend his permit 90 days or whatever the
damned rules say to do and let it _drop_. There are about 50 million
more important things to worry about, even if you are pilot.
> That mistake **DID** cause a "real threat" to this airplane.
In your mind. A remarkably small threat, considering the vessel
that must contain it, it would appear.
> ... by using this MISTAKE (notice, not him) as an example to educate all
> the other rocketeers
>From reading this thread I have come to one inevitable conclusion:
we were all completely aware of the danger to airplanes that a model
rocket _might_ be, and none of us are the least bit inclined to test
it already. You are preaching to choir, Rev. And as near as I can
see, _every_ rocketeer, in cyberspace and out, is in that choir and
sings that hymn regularly and without your histrionics.
> I submit to you that not LEARNING from this incident
Oh, but I _am_ - I'm learning that the American tendency toward
hysteria and their ability to distinguish actual threats from pot-
ential ones is much worse than I _thought_ it was. It's been a
wonderful lesson.
> 'deliberately' [...] choosing to REMAIN IGNORANT.
Name one. Name one single person here who stated they never thought
a flying rocket _might_ be a threat to an airplane and that they would
not bother to scan the sky before launching in order to avoid it. Not
even the original rocketeer made such a claim. You have ventured into
a realm of pure imagination. Suitable for Willy Wonka, perhaps, but
_I'd_ damn sure never fly with you...
> > Neither the "pilots" in this thread nor the FAA are reacting in
> > a calm and measured response to a rules infraction as far as I can
> > see.
> Nor are you, as far as I can see.
Why? Because I think your attitude is contemptible? That's not an
_over_ reaction, that is a _re_action, and quite an understandable
one in view of your hysteria. Model rockets simply _aren't_ the
threat you make them out to be. And your assertions to the contrary
are doing a grave disservice to _all_ of us, and I damned well resent
it. And _that's_ not an overreaction. I have little doubt your more
extreme views have already hit hard copy at the FAA and some tiresome
bureaucrat is lobbying even now to further restrict the hobby because
"even pilots who fly rockets" think they are so terribly dangerous.
And do recall that _I_ have not threatened anyone with violence.
Over-reaction indeed.
> It could very well be that the FAA's response is indication of the true
> seriousness of this event.
Not in _this_ world, Bub.
> > I am also aware of the fact that we have _rules_ about these things,
> I will assume you are also "aware" that 'rules' have, time and time
> again, been shown to have failings.
Prove it. Show me proof that these rules are wrong. Don't just
assert it baldly. I'm willing to bet you don't even _know_ the
rules, never mind have made an objective analysis and determined
their failings. In fact, I don't think you can be objective about
anything.
> It is the individual who canNOT see
> beyond the 'rules' and blindly follows them
Name one. The original rocketeer has already admitted he made a
mistake in forgetting to scan the sky. So name someone, anyone,
who is "blindly" asserting they can launch on a waiver regardless
of the state of the sky. Just one, that's all it takes.
> Without the ability to THINK - and use plain COMMON SENSE, an individual
> is heading for disaster.
>From where I sit, I see _you_ thinking with your glands instead of your
brain. So is at least one other "pilot". I don't see anyone else here
demonstating that particular character flaw. I see them all exercising
"common sense", including the original rocketeer, who was neither
slavishly following rules nor is denying he was not following "common
sense" rules about the launch. You are fighting shadows in your own mind.
> I've already addressed this - the "example" is being made of the
> *indcident* - NOT the person.
Doesn't matter. You are blowing the incident entirely out of proportion
to serve a propaganda objective. This end does _not_ justify the means.
> > whose actual crime _by_the_rules_ has been ignored
> As Dean said, "Screw the regs..." You're beginning to sound like one of
> those who only 'think on rules'.
If the rules are not important they why have them? If "common sense" is
so infallible a guide, then why not rely on it for everything?
Nonsense.
One of the reasons for rules is to consider the possibilities for
infractions and to come up with dispassionate and logical consequences
for breaking them - not to fly off the handle and come after someone
with an emotional over-reaction...and then realize that maybe we
shouldn't have been so hard on them. God knows we learned a harsh
lesson at Waco about national over-reactions, and we _applied_ them
in Wyoming, and it worked. We applied the rules designed for such a
contingency, kept our tempers, worked through step by step - and we
walked away without leaving charred bodies. If the FBI can learn
that lesson WHY THE HELL CAN'T YOU?
> > a "might have been" that is in the minds of _pilots_ and not in reality,
> If folks cannot learn from a 'might have been' it will become an
> 'already has been'.
I see. So we should be properly terrified of everything we can possibly
imagine that is _bad_ and try to prevent it. A recipe for national
paralysis. Well, the gov't seems to agree with you in this respect by
and large. But I think it's pitiful.
> I've already addressed this, too - the *purpose* here is to utilize this
> incident to help OTHERS to not make the same mistake. That is NOT
> 'on-going castigation', kind sir.
Since the man cannot distance himself from the act, I see no difference
to the bottom line. You are making him out to be a airplane-threatening
terrorist lunatic with no conception of what he was doing, blindly going
ahead and launching his rocket because the "rules" told him he could -
the complete _antithesis_ of reality, in every bloody respect.
> However, if I were to accidentally kill someone (by whatever cause),
> just 'simply accepting responsibility' would not bring that 'victim'
> back.
It never does. But obviously, if you don't like the rules for dealing
with someone who launches without checking the sky, then you probably
don't like the rules for dealing with someone who causes an accidental
death. What then? Douse him with gasoline and light him on the even-
ing news?
> And it would be a crime to just 'clam up' and not try to share my
> 'mistake' (and the analysis of that mistake) with others - again, in an
> effort to prevent it happening again. That kind of 'mentality' is just
> plain sick.
No, what's "sick" is a mindless primitive beating on the scapegoat,
happy in the knowledge that _this_ time it isn't him and determined
to make the goat suffer because it _might_ be him next time.
> > This is part and parcel of a disturbing trend Americans are developing
> > toward unseemly hysteria at the mere _perception_ of a possible threat.
> There is also a 'disturbing trend' of ignoring some little 'reality
> checks'.\
I think _your_ reality check bounced at the bank, son.
> What would *you* prefer, Larry - wait until we had a REAL disaster -
> with pieces of bodies lying around before it is discussed?????
No need for melodrama. You can start by showing me that a model rocket
can take down an airplane. Don't give me maybe's and possibly's, I want
to see exactly how an impact could disable an airliner and cause it to
crash badly enough to cause deaths. Don't give me stories about how a
rocket flyby might cause the _pilot_ to do something that will cause a
crash, because that's just pilot error - the single biggest cause of all
airplane crashes. Show me some real _danger_ or go away.
> I am calling for a "measured response" from the hobby.
You've done nothing of the kind.
> > You were both on the ground with ample time for reflection,
> If memory serves (in this midst of my alleged 'hysteria'), I believe the
> SAME THING could be said of this rocketeer - he was "ON THE GROUND WITH
> AMPLE TIME FOR REFLECTION."
Not denying that you didn't _bother_ to reflect, I see. That is a red
herring, his mistake is why we are having this idiotic conversation. So
what? He made a mistake. Can you come up with some way to see to it
that no one will ever make a mistake again? Great! Let's apply it to
_pilots_, who as a class have killed more people than any number of
rocketeers.
> > you are both rocketeers with experience with airspace use outside the
> > cockpit, and you are both human beings and fallible.
> ... which puts us in a PARTICULARLY good position to SHARE that insight
> with others that do NOT have such experience - in hopes that insight
> would bring this one problem into the 'closed case' book.
You aren't sharing insights. You are castigating someone for a threat
they posed only in your imagination.
> > And you have both reacted disgracefully.
> This most 'disgraceful' thing I could think of is to let this incident
> just 'disappear' and NOBODY learn anything from it.
Oh, I think people _do_ need to learn from it. I think the original
rocketeer needed to learn to be more careful about flyovers, and he
did. I think pilots need to learn they aren't the only people who
use the sky - and they haven't. I think _you_ need to learn some
perspective - and you haven't. I think what's-his-name needs to learn
he can't just beat someone up because he's pissed at some danger they
_might_ have posed to someone - and he hasn't. And _I_ need to learn
that some people are just _assholes_ who won't learn no matter how
long you talk to them - and it's coming, but slowly.
> > On final into a closed runway through an area cleared for rocket flights
> > by the FAA.
> Which doesn't mean a TINKER'S DAMN. That RUNWAY - closed, open, paved,
> dirt, painted or not, lighted or not - was PUT THERE for AIRPLANES!!!
>
> In an emergency, declared or not, it is MOST DEFINITELY 'fair game' -
> and ANYTHING that is going on in the near vicinty (on the GROUND, no
> less) is DECIDEDLY secondary in importance. And the fact that this 'on
> the ground' activity was FUN, that puts it AT THE ABSOLUTE BOTTOM of
> this list of priorities.
>
> > The rocketeer had every reason to presume the air would be clear,
>
> I don't know when was the last time you ever read the Special Provisions
> of ANY waiver - or, ANY part of FAR 101 (which INCLUDES operations under
> FAR 101.22) - but I will set you straight on this one:
>
> "NO (repeat **NO**) rocketeer will EVER (repeat **EVER**) have ANY
> (repeat **ANY**) right to presume ANY (repeat **ANY**) 'air' is
> EVER (repeat **EVER**) 'clear'. NEVER (repeat **NEVER**)."
>
> That is FEDERAL **LAW** (repeat **LAW**), Mr. Smith.
>
> > and he muffed it only because the airliner was doing the unexpected.
>
> He 'muffed' it because he forgot the above.
>
> > And _that_ is what causes most accidents. Doing the unexpected. The
> > guy who unexpectedly swerves, the guy who unexpectedly forgot to put down
> > his flaps, the guy who unexpectedly tried to use a closed runway, or the
> > guy who unexpectedly forgot to scan the sky before clearing a rocket
launch.
>
> What cause MOST accidents is a 'brain' that switches off - sometimes for
> just an instant.
>
> "unexpectedly forgot"???
>
> Well, I guess that lets him off the hook, doesn't it. The only time he
> could be held accountable was if he "expectedly forgot" it, huh?
You are the most self-righteous creep I think I've run into so far on
the net. You really, really can't understand this, can you? Do you
have any _clue_ what "fault-tolerance" _means_? How it applies to
systems of rules and human behaviour as well as to mechanical and
electronic systems? Do you understand that the whole _point_ of a
set of rules is to guide us when they come into play so that we don't
do something wrong or idiotic, and that when we ignore them we _always_
come to grief?
We need to build systems - rules, laws, airplanes, traffic-control -
_everything_ - to be able to withstand human error. Because that is
the one thing that we cannot change. You _cannot_ eliminate human
error. The rocketeer made a mistake. You make 'em. _I_ make them
- paying any attention to you was a _big_ mistake. We design our
systems - including rules - to handle it when mistakes happen. The
rules specify what happens when someone's rocket comes too close to
an airliner. We apply them, and the incident is done. We have
_different_ rules that apply if someone damages an airliner, and
still different ones if they hurt or even kill someone on an air-
liner. That's what law is all about. And _that_ IS a sufficient
deterrent to careless behavior.
But it still can't stop _all_ careless behavior because we are
_human_, John. We are human and we make mistakes. That, in part,
is why we build rockets from cardboard and paper and not from
aluminum. Says so right in the safety code - mostly to protect
_us_ and our property and neighbors, but also to protect airplanes.
When someone forgets we apply the rules according to the severity
of the infraction. We can't punish this guy because he _might_
have killed people any more than we can punish someone _accused_
of a crime but not convicted just because he _might_ have committed
the crime. You can't punish people for "might". You punish them
for what they did. And _that_ is the closure for a fault-tolerant
rules system, the feedback we need to keep our careless behavior
to a minimum. It will never be gone. And that is something we
need to accept, or we will just make _more_ mistakes.
And that said, I have some observations about _you_, Sir.
Do you have any idea how to _debate_? Can you construct a logical
argument, can you understand another's response and formulate a reply
that acknowledges the point of view as expressed thus far and to address
the basic point in contention? It would appear not.
You get _no_where in a _civilized_ debate by accusing people of things
they have already indicated they don't believe. You get nowhere by
ignoring what has gone before, and you get nowhere by railing about
points that no one has put into contention. What you have put up in
that last quoted paragraph is simple bombast, absolutely nothing more.
It is a pointless, heated diatribe with no useful semantic content, a
pathetic attempt to override and shout down someone else that you can
no longer argue coherently with. This is a sorry, miserable, moronic
piece of idiocy that any reasonable human being should be very, very
thoroughly ashamed of.
You have failed, utterly and completely failed, to answer _any_ of
my basic points. You have permitted your emotions to overwhelm your
prior understanding of my position. You present yourself as one to
lecture _us_ about the dangers that airplanes face, yet you can present
no facts, nor even any plausible scenario, about how that danger can
present itself except by inducing pilot error. And when someone dares
to point this out, you accuse them of "overreacting" and then proceed
to further accuse them of statements and positions that they never
made, that they specifically and in no uncertain terms _repudiated_
- and not once but several times.
"Oh, I guess that lets him off the hook" indeed. If you can't put
together a coherent reply then at least have the minimal grace to
get LOST and let the rest of us talk about rocketry.
You go right ahead and vent your spleen, Mr. Cato. But for this little
piece of stupidity I can now consign you to my kill file with a clear
conscience. I can now dismiss any likelihood that you might have had
a real and reasonable point to make.
If anyone is still reading at this point, do let me know if Mr. Cato
is killed by his good twin and replaced in the near future with a
reasonable and responsible human being with a modicum of respect for
the law and a understanding of the human condition.
--
.-. .---..---. .---. .-..-. | la...@token.net
| |__ | | || |-< | |-< > / | Life may have no meaning - or worse
`----'`-^-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-' | one of which I disapprove. A. Brilliant
William
>That mistake _might_ have caused
>his mistake _as_a_mistake_, a breach of protocol and >worthy of some
>reasonable fine or punishment.
I keep telling you guys, if somebody's child ends up in a smoking hole, it
aint going to be a "breach of protocol". If you fire a shower of bullets
into a crowd but you miss everyone, you'd better still end up in the can.
Of course, it's also possible that there would not have been a problem even
if the rocket (a G motor MODEL rocket, right?) actually managed to HIT the
plane in question UNDER POWER. I was under the impression that parts of the
reason that FAA "permits" model rockets are "You couldn't hit anything if you
wanted to", and "even if you did it wouldn't cause damage", in addition to
"you'll try not to hit us, right?" (and that's also the reason that the
larger models DO require a waiver or notification.)
BillW
Dave Lyle
geo...@prolog.net (George F.) wrote:
>As long as the ceiling is 1,000' AGL I see no problem with it. If the rocket
>
>stays 500' under the cloud, it is then in VFR conditions, but has soon >as the
>rocket get closer then 500 to that cloud the rocket is now in IFR >conditions
>requiring an IFR clearence & IFR flight Plan, neither of which would be
>issued to a model rocket.
How about a Special VFR clearance? 1 mile visibility and clear of
clouds. <g> <= note the <g>.
Dave
ASMEL-IA, CFI
Larry Smith
RobEdmonds wrote:
> >That mistake _might_ have caused
> >a real threat to an airplane, but it _didn't_. We should >react to
> >his mistake _as_a_mistake_, a breach of protocol and >worthy of some
> >reasonable fine or punishment.
> I keep telling you guys, if somebody's child ends up in a smoking hole, it
> aint going to be a "breach of protocol". If you fire a shower of bullets
> into a crowd but you miss everyone, you'd better still end up in the can.
Not an appropriat analogy by a long way, Rob. What Mr. Cato advocates
is much more akin to condemning someone who runs a stop sign as a murder
because he _might_ have t-boned a school bus coming the other way and
caused a fiery crash that could've killed innocent children. Fortunately
in this country we punish people by what they did, not what _might_ have
happened. If someone accidently downs an airliner, rest assured they
_will_ be treated as murders, not as someone who just broke a regulation
- precisely the same way a careles driver who runs a stop sign _will_
face vehicular homicide charges if they _do_ t-bone a school bus going
the other way.
Personally, I think the current system works just fine. We lose many
more passengers to pilot carelessness than we do to everyone else's
put together. If we must worry about carelessness, let us start there.
--
.-. .---..---. .---. .-..-.| Larry Smith - la...@token.net
| |__ | | || |-< | |-< > / | ---------------------------------
`----'`-^-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-' | Life may have no meaning...worse, it may have a
--- My opinions alone --- | meaning of which I disapprove. Ashleigh Brilliant
John H. Cato, Jr.
Dave Lyle wrote:
>
> How about a Special VFR clearance? 1 mile visibility and clear of
> clouds. <g> <= note the <g>.
>
> Dave
> ASMEL-IA, CFI
<g> so noted :-)
I've often wondered about SVFR. What's so 'special' about it? Sure
looks pretty 'crappy' to me. <g>
-- john.
ASEL-IA
Larry Smith
RobEdmonds wrote:
> It will always be acceptable to restrict rocket flying
> to avoid killing that person.
Nobody, least of all I, have argued otherwise. I continue to maintain,
however, that it is unacceptable to restrict rocket flying because of
unsubstantiated, paranoid suppositions about how it _might_ kill some-
one. There is no activity one can indulge in on God's green Earth
that could not, with the application of sufficient imagination, kill
someone. Rockets require much less imagination than most such only
because they _look_ so much like deadly airplane-killing war machines.
A similarity that goes, quite literally, only skin-deep, if that far.
Cato is right about one thing, we need more education: we need to
educate people about the hobby.
And I find it curious that there should be such a reaction in _this_
newsgroup. At the altitude that airliner was at, any number of other
activities, many of them not even _requiring_ a waiver, could've been
legally in the area and been a far greater threat. A large model air-
plane, an ultralight - neither of these requires FAA notice in such
an area, neither is large enough for a pilot travelling at several
hundred mph to see before they are hit, and either one could easily
have enough mass to do far more damage to an engine, both are non-
profit-making "selfish gratification" uses of airspace - yet somehow
we don't seem to be worrying about these. Yet hour for hour, these
kinds of flights take up thousands, or even tens of thousands more
hours around airports than rockets do, even if one counts the entire
launch window on the actual waiver.
I think everyone here needs a good stiff shot of reality.
Larry Smith
RobEdmonds wrote:
> >Our rockets are only slightly more dangerous than the birds
> Birds get out of the way.
So do rockets. A model rocket is light enough to have an excellent
chance to avoid an airliner at speed because of the slipstream.
Furthermore a rocket in the air is always going one of two ways,
up or down, and this will spend a very tiny amount of time at an
altitude that matches an incoming airplane - something that cannot
be said of birds, model airplanes, ultralights or kites, to name
a few other hobbies that present equal if not greater danger to
planes and which are remarkably absent from this public hand-wring-
ing exercise.
If you want to argue that we need better guidelines for issuing
waivers for HPR then say so. Perhaps we do. But pointing the
quivering finger at model rocketry in general and ignoring greater
threats is simply silly. Which is not to say we won't enshrine it
in law, but it won't keep anyone alive who might have otherwise
died.
Larry Smith
RobEdmonds wrote:
> >So, by your logic, anyone using the sky to make a profit is >"life
> >or death" and not just "selfish gratification".
> He is making a profit by hauling your friends and family around in his two
> hundred seats! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT!!????!!
Every one of the people on an airliner are using the air for their own
purposes, either for profit or for "selfish gratification", and are no
more entitled to do so than a rocketeer wanting to launch a rocket.
DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND _THAT_!!????!!
And while we are talking about understanding, did you understand the
point in that same post that those people are _not_ significantly
endangered by a rocket in the same airspace? If they were, I would
feel differently, but no one has managed to convince me yet that
a) a model rocket can down an airliner and b) it is far more likely
to do so than any other personal use of airspace that is already
completely uncontrolled.
Tell me, do _all_ pilots have poor reading comprehension? It cer-
tainly explains how we can file all these waivers and find out that
pilots almost never know about 'em.
Larry Smith
"John H. Cato, Jr." <jc...@almatel.net>:
>l...@zk3.dec.com wrote: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> (a lot of stuff that's just too much trouble to re-quote)
But he did manage to quote my email address.
>Dear 'lcs',
>BTW, next time you jump down my throat, be a MAN and sign your name to
>it, OK?
Deja-News does not permit big fancy signature files, but it does
permit proper signing with From: and Reply-To: fields and a valid
email address, which you even managed to get my initials from.
That _is_ "signing", ASSHOLE, it uniquely identifies me in all
of cyberspace, there _are_ no other "l...@zk3.dec.com" people,
nor any other "la...@token.net", either, my other email address.
Sure, the big fancy signature can give you "Larry Smith" - so
could "finger la...@token.net". And you already _knew_ my name,
STUPID, I posted from both accounts with full signature files
in the rest of the thread, I used deja-news when Digital and
token's newservers were out of action at the same time. But
it _isn't_ an anonymous posting service - though I guess I'm
not surprised that if you couldn't remember the salient points
of the argument, you surely couldn't remember who you were talk-
ing to.
In the future, you might be MAN enough to try to understand the
internet and the tools people use to access it, instead of
WHINING LIKE A GOD DAMN BABY!
--
.-. .---..---. .---. .-..-.| Larry Smith - la...@token.net
| |__ | | || |-< | |-< > / | ---------------------------------
`----'`-^-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-' | Life may have no meaning...worse, it may have a
--- My opinions alone --- | meaning of which I disapprove. Ashleigh Brilliant
THERE! DID YOU GET IT _THAT_ TIME?!
Jerry Irvine
In article <50qbjs$t...@Zeus.Token.Net>, la...@Zeus.Token.Net (Larry Smith)
wrote in a condecending tone but accurately:
> John H. Cato, Jr. wrote a bit hysterically:
> > Larry Smith wrote trying to inject (gag) logic:
> > > John, I frankly don't _care_ what "perspective" you are reacting
> > > from if you are _over_reacting.
> > That's obvious from the rest of your words.
> > What "perspective" is *your* _overreaction_ coming from ?
> Me? Oh, I see. By pointing out _your_ hysteria and suggesting
> we let the incident be handled like the rules infraction that it
> was and not the potential megadeath-dealing disaster that exists
> only in your imagination, _I_ must be over-reacting.
Name calling thankfully omitted.
> You have no ability to distin-
> guish between a statistically significant danger and a statistically
> insignificant one. The likelihood of that rocket downing that air-
> craft was _thousands_ of times _less_ than the likelihood of a micro-
> burst taking it out...
> We have lost dozens of large, people-filled air-
> craft to those causes, and we've lost _none_, zip, nada to model roc-
> kets gone astray. That's the whole damned _point_, John! The threat
> was so miniscule as to be _pointless_ to worry about it!
100% correct and the main point to remember from this entire thread.
> Oh, but I _am_ - I'm learning that the American tendency toward
> hysteria and their ability to distinguish actual threats from pot-
> ential ones is much worse than I _thought_ it was. It's been a
> wonderful lesson.
> Why? Because I think your attitude is contemptible? That's not an
> _over_ reaction, that is a _re_action, and quite an understandable
> one in view of your hysteria. Model rockets simply _aren't_ the
> threat you make them out to be. And your assertions to the contrary
> are doing a grave disservice to _all_ of us, and I damned well resent
> it. And _that's_ not an overreaction.
I agree and privately John sees this light as well. So leave off the name
calling, "declare victory" and move on yourself.
> including the original rocketeer, who was neither
> slavishly following rules nor is denying he was not following "common
> sense" rules about the launch.
> I see. So we should be properly terrified of everything we can possibly
> imagine that is _bad_ and try to prevent it. A recipe for national
> paralysis. Well, the gov't seems to agree with you in this respect by
> and large. But I think it's pitiful.
Get ready for today's quote from Jerry.
> Show me some real _danger_ or go away.
> that no one will ever make a mistake again? Great! Let's apply it to
> _pilots_, who as a class have killed more people than any number of
> rocketeers.
And killed rocketeers too.
> have any _clue_ what "fault-tolerance" _means_? How it applies to
> systems of rules and human behaviour as well as to mechanical and
> electronic systems?
> We need to build systems - rules, laws, airplanes, traffic-control -
> _everything_ - to be able to withstand human error. Because that is
> the one thing that we cannot change. You _cannot_ eliminate human
> error. The rocketeer made a mistake. You make 'em. _I_ make them
> - paying any attention to you was a _big_ mistake.
:) and continuing ...
> _human_, John. We are human and we make mistakes. That, in part,
> is why we build rockets from cardboard and paper and not from
> aluminum.
Er, uh, not anymore.
> You get _no_where in a _civilized_ debate by accusing people of things
> they have already indicated they don't believe. You get nowhere by
> ignoring what has gone before, and you get nowhere by railing about
> points that no one has put into contention.
Good points.
> And when someone dares
> to point this out, you accuse them of "overreacting" and then proceed
> to further accuse them of statements and positions that they never
> made, that they specifically and in no uncertain terms _repudiated_
> - and not once but several times.
Hmmm. I recognize that. The TRA method.
So much hateful vile deleted I actually investigated what menu activates a
killfile for the first time.
Okay so Larry has no respect for John's words or interpretations. At
least he salted some real content wihtin the whinefest and I hope it makes
it to minds everywhere.
Jerry
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series
of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H. L. Mencken.
"Never try to teach a pig to sing, you waste your time and annoy the pig."
Jerry Irvine
In article <322DEC...@almatel.net>, jc...@almatel.net wrote:
> Dang, the LAST LINE and we finally see eye-to-eye on things. Imagine
> that!
> It seems obvious to me that you are not a pilot.
Take this to alt.pilots.pissed
Jerry
Hawk_Dsl
Everyone please put the sticks away... That horse has been dead for some
time now, and your just making a mess... :)
me
John H. Cato, Jr.
No long 'rebuttal' - just one point:
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> > It is the individual who canNOT see
> > beyond the 'rules' and blindly follows them
>
> Name one. The original rocketeer has already admitted he made a
> mistake in forgetting to scan the sky. So name someone, anyone,
> who is "blindly" asserting they can launch on a waiver regardless
> of the state of the sky. Just one, that's all it takes.
The 'original rocketeer' admitted that he DID scan the sky - he forgot
nothing - he just didn't understand what he was looking at.
Just one? OK, try Tripoli's *President* (Kelly) and *Vice-president*
(Lamothe) attemping - oh, about a *half-dozen* times - to launch a
rocket approaching 100 lbs mass - with power capable of reaching a MILE
of altitude (maybe more).
'State of the sky'?? 800-1000 OVERCAST (my (educated, experienced,
pilot's) guess is closer to 600 OVC).
Other 'obscuring phenomena'? Light drizzle and fog - effective
visibility between 1 and 2 miles - closer to 1.
Place? Tennessee - Sunday - January 29, 1995.
This was no 'assertion' - this is documented FACT - and I have it on
videotape.
Now, if the *President* and *Vice-president* of this organization that
everybody 'thanks' and 'touts' as THE High Power organization are the
ones doing this - what kind of *message* does that send to the rest of
the members??? How many of them are going to go back home an simply try
the same thing - because 'prez' and 'v-prez' did it?????
How about the *message* given when this 'vice-president', at the
Saturday night dinner prior to the Sunday attempt making the comment, "I
don't need no frigging waiver." This was with the cameras of National
Geographic running, BTW. Enough folks to corroborate *THAT* message,
too. THERE's your 'assertion', Mr. Smith. Was this 'blind'? You
figure it out.
Now, if you ask around, you will 'hear' the 'story' that they had some
'special' clearance - called in on the day of the flight (Sunday). To
get such 'clearance' requires an EXPLICIT waiver of SEVERAL FARs (ON
PAPER), to wit:
FAR 101.23 Operating limitations.
No person may operate an unmanned rocket --
(a) In a manner that creates a collision hazard with other aircraft;
(b) In controlled airspace;
(c) Within five miles of the boundary of any airport;
(d) At any altitude where clouds or obscuring phenomena of more
than five-tenths coverage prevails;
(e) At any altitude where the horizontal visibility is less than
five miles;
(f) Into any cloud;
(g) Within 1,500 feet of any person or property that is not
associated with the operations; or
(h) Between sunset and sunrise.
How many FARs did you count here that have applicability to this
situation, Mr. Smith? 2? 3? Try FOUR. Rots o Ruck getting ANY of
those FOUR waived, either. Not EVER.
The *problem* with this so-called 'clearance' is that, in order to waive
the FARs, that MUST come from the REGIONAL OFFICE (in Atlanta in this
case). The *problem* is that the Regional Offices are NOT 'open' on
weekends. They can't produce any *piece of paper* substantiating this
'special clearance' any more than my dead dog can, either. Now what
fool would attempt to fly such a destructive device through 4000 (or
more) feet of cloud with a 'clearance' over the phone?? No clearance -
REAL big FOOL. Those 'fools', again, were the LEADERS of this "THE High
Power Rocketry association."
That is you ONE example, Mr. Smith. I could cite others.
How about the same thing happening again - same state - in April of THIS
year - flying into clouds.
How about several instances here locally where folks were
'understanding' the VFR only restriction on their waivers to mean, "If I
can see the end of the flight line, I can fly." Some of this from
college educated individuals. Are they 'dumb'? No - just simply not
understanding. No judgment here - no assignment of blame. Just not
understanding.
Are these 'folks' *asserting* they can fly, regardless of the 'state of
the sky'? Or are they just ignorant? Or are they just belligerent?
Some of all of it - but, in *every* case, the ACT *IS* the 'assertion'.
-------------
Larry, I have been an RSO (and Launch Coordinator) here at this site we
fly at since April 1990. I have helped in RSO duties at LDRS 10, 11,
12, 13, and 14. I have seen THOUSANDS of flights over those years - BIG
ones and not so big ones. I have seen HUNDREDS of flights where it was
obvious that the LCO and rocketeer did NOT understand these 'rules' you
are so in love with. Rules are no substitute for judgment - and that
is, frankly, exactly what is lacking. I've seen it over, and over, and
over, and over again. It is obvious from your 'perspective' that you
haven't. I don't know if that means you just haven't been flying
rockets - or haven't been flying rockets long enough - but, in any
event, I'm afraid you just haven't been paying attention.
I would be tempted to counter your other 'arguments' - but I think we've
'pissed' on each other enough - my 'boots' are looking a little wet. At
any rate, it now looks like you're getting more 'hysterical' than I
(apparently) am - so it would do us both good to calm down a little and
discuss this rationally at some later time.
Just FAX me a copy of your pilot's license (912/345-2302) so I can SEE
who I'm talking to.
-- john.
BTW, I disagree with your 'solution' of 'slapping' this 'victim' on the
wrist or suspending his flying privileges for 90 days. I am of the
opinion that this 'victim' needs NOTHING done to him. Right now, this
'victim' is probably the SAFEST rocketeer out there - and needs NO
reminder of such things. And, I would imagine this 'victim' will REMAIN
the safest rocketeer out there for MANY years - maybe forever. HE is
not the problem anymore - and probably never will be again. Three
guesses where the PROBLEM is now -- jhc.
John H. Cato, Jr.
Larry Smith wrote:
> What Mr. Cato advocates
> is much more akin to condemning someone who runs a stop sign as a murder
> because he _might_ have t-boned a school bus coming the other way and
> caused a fiery crash that could've killed innocent children. Fortunately
> in this country we punish people by what they did, not what _might_ have
> happened. If someone accidently downs an airliner, rest assured they
> _will_ be treated as murders, not as someone who just broke a regulation
> - precisely the same way a careles driver who runs a stop sign _will_
> face vehicular homicide charges if they _do_ t-bone a school bus going
> the other way.
>>>> Fortunately in this country we punish people by what they did,
>>>> not what _might_ have happened.
Why do they arrest people for drunk driving and, with repeated offenses,
take their driver's license away? Is it because they are damaging their
liver? Why do they do the same thing for speeding? Is it because they
are wearing out their tires quicker? Losing a license is punishment.
Fines are punishment. Jail is punishment. Heck, for that matter, why
do they even *fine* you for running a stop sign (your example)? The
'analogy' is pretty close here - especially the 'drunk' part - because a
'drunk' individual is an *unaware* individual. And the action is
properly indicated - as it is pre-emptive.
In the context of driving, this kind of behavior is called "reckless".
"Reckless" behavior is not, of itself, a 'hazard' - it is due to what
"might have happened." And it *is* punishable. If a drunk or 'buzzed
up' teenager takes themselves out and nobody else - well, they've been
given the ultimate 'punishment' - but that is not why the 'punishment'
is on the books. That's why the more proper term used is "Reckless
Endangerment." 'Endangerment' of who?
"But, a rocket hasn't taken down an airplane yet." Birds have, balloon
static lines have, kites have, unmarked guy wires have. It is not the
'object' that is the 'defining' fact here - it is where it *is*. A
rocket is a decidedly small object to see - far harder than an
ultralight. The overpowering philosophy of all of FAR 101 (including
the balloon part or the kite part - or any other FAR that deals with
objects in the sky - such as radio towers and such) - shows a common
thread - that objects in the sky are a hazard to aircraft. Without
controls on their visibilty, they become even more so. We don't need to
wait until a rocket takes down an aircraft to correctly come to the
conclusion that an *object* in the air is a hazard. And I will
absolutely guarantee you that (pray it doesn't happen) the day a
hobbyist rocket *does* take down an aircraft - you will see this hobby
go through a *radical* realignment - and FAR 101 triple in size.
Why do they train pilots for a minimum of twenty hours of one-on-one
training - when other folks who 'use' this same air (rocketeers) can't
tell the difference between IFR and VFR conditions (and some don't even
know what those acronyms mean) - and don't need to take a test of any
kind to 'use' that same air? And when they *do* take a test (Level 2)
there is not one word about the Airspace they operate in? Nor how it
works? Would it not make sense that _all_ the folks who 'use' this air
have some semblance of similar knowledge about the very same 'air' they
both use?
The 'unaware' individual is the dangerous individual - whether it be due
to alcohol or simply not knowing. There are a lot of TV commercials
trying to spread _awareness_ of the hazards of drunk driving. We don't
need a TV commercial for the awareness we're talking about here - just
some effort by the organizations to *educate* their brethren. I *wrote*
that 'education' for Tripoli.... in 1993. Why hasn't the Tripoli
membership seen it yet? Waiting to 'fix' a problem until after several
hundred are dead just seems such a waste of the intellect we are all
graced with - and, I'll go so far as to say just a little uncivilized.
Don't 'string them up'. Just educate them. That's all. Not harsher
rules nor harsher penalties - jeez, we've got enough on our hands to
just educate folks to what is already in place - because it's obvious a
lot don't know about them.
The best 'rule' is *prevention* - not scraping up pieces of bodies after
the fact.
-- john.
RobEdmonds
>If someone accidently downs an airliner, rest assured >they _will_ be
treated as murders, not as someone who >just broke a regulation
What you miss is that you seem perfectly satisfied to have that airliner
go down before you do anything. I'm saying I know haw people feel about
having people that they know up in the air, and to get a phone call in the
middle of the night is in NO WAY mitigated by treating somebody as
murderers after the fact.
RE
RobEdmonds
>Furthermore a rocket in the air is always going one of >two ways,
>up or down, and this will spend a very tiny amount of >time at an
>altitude that matches an incoming airplane - something >that cannot
>be said of birds, model airplanes, ultralights or kites
This is a statistical fallacy. The other vehicles could be at any
altitude, the rocket passes through a series of altitudes. The chances of
the rocket being at the same altitude at the moment the aircraft gets
there is the same as the chance of the other "constant altitude vehicles"
being at the same altitude as the aircraft at that moment. Only if the
other vehicles are deliberately placed at the known altitude where the
aircraft is likely to be is a collision statistically more likely.
RE
RobEdmonds
Who's going to die Larry. Who is going to go out there and tangle
themselves up with one of those high power chutes and spiral in to prove
to you that it could happen? Who is going to pull into a sixty degree
bank at 1.3 vso and spin in to miss model so that you can no longer say
"no one has ever been killed by a rocket flight". Apparently, the only
thing you respect is accidents that have already taken place, since you
keep quoting existing statistics. Hasn't it ever occurred to you that
there is some value in preventing accidents that haven't happened yet?
RE
Jerry Irvine
In article <50gohb$p...@bashir.peak.org>, bi...@PEAK.ORG (Bill Nelson) wrote:
> Possibly serious, true. Will any of the people involved repeat the error?
> Highly unlikely. Nor are people who read/hear about the incident - if we
> assume that people can learn from other's mistakes.
This is another important point among this lengthy and mentally
distressing thread.
> Whether it was a declared emergency or not is immaterial. There is no way
> that the people on the ground could know that such a situation existed.
> And, as I have stated before, it is irrelevant anyway.
> Did the pilot have to take evasive action? Did the rocket whiz by a short
> distance directly in front of the aircraft? If not, then Jerry is correct.
> While maybe not desireable, from the pilot's point of view, it was
> certainly safe.
The pilot reported it was "in view" not "in traffic".
> Maybe. However, in many areas of the country, that is the ONLY open space
> for hundreds of miles. With proper care, it is entirely possible to launch
> HPR rockets right at an active airport, and do so safely. It is argueable
> that the BEST place to launch rockets is under the direct control of a
> control tower.
Hmmm.
> Probabilities ARE proper. It is the only way we can weigh risk.
> Bill
When will this thread die having admitted all has been said?
Jerry
alt.whine.aircraft.die.die.die
James P. Keller
In <322DEC...@almatel.net> "John H. Cato, Jr." <jc...@almatel.net>
writes:
>Larry Smith wrote:
>
>> John, I frankly don't _care_ what "perspective" you are reacting
>> from if you are _over_reacting.
>
>That's obvious from the rest of your words.
>
>What "perspective" is *your* _overreaction_ coming from ?
>
>
>
>Your right. Birds, smoke, pollution, hurricanes, NASA.... and
>*somewhere* down near the bottom there are rocket hobbyists.
>
>
>> That mistake _might_ have caused
>> a real threat to an airplane, but it _didn't_.
>
>
>That mistake **DID** cause a "real threat" to this airplane.
>
>
>
>... by using this MISTAKE (notice, not him) as an example to educate
all
>occur in the near vicinity of airports and, thereby, load the odds in
>our favor for it not happening again.
>
>Notice that THAT is (truthfully) what is happening out here on RMR.
>
>
>> It was not a deliberate attempt to
>> shoot down an airliner - and nothing less than that would justify
>> the hyperbole the "pilots" are putting in this thread.
>
>I submit to you that not LEARNING from this incident (as this
discussion
>out here is doing) and committing oneself to being a little more AWARE
>of things **IS** "deliberate"... 'deliberately' disregarding an
>opportunity to prevent this happening again - and 'deliberately' (or,
>shall I say "defiantly") choosing to REMAIN IGNORANT.
>
>
>> Neither the "pilots" in this thread nor the FAA are reacting in a
calm and
>> measured response to a rules infraction as far as I can see.
>
>admitted to overreacting initially (as you recall). Now, from that, I
>have attempted to show some of these 'non-pilot' rocketeers how some
>things really are from the 'left seat'. I'm am truly saddened that
this
>effort to help others to UNDERSTAND is viewed as 'over-reaction'.
Pity.
>
>It could very well be that the FAA's response is indication of the
true
>seriousness of this event.
>
>
>
>I will assume you are also "aware" that 'rules' have, time and time
see
>beyond the 'rules' and blindly follows them - assuming all the while
>that, by doing such, everything is OK - that is the MOST dangerous of
>individuals.
>
>Without the ability to THINK - and use plain COMMON SENSE, an
individual
>is heading for disaster.
>
>
>> are broken, and that these are apparently being pushed aside in
order
>> to "make an example" of someone
>
>I've already addressed this - the "example" is being made of the
>*indcident* - NOT the person.
>
>
>
>As Dean said, "Screw the regs..." You're beginning to sound like one
of
>those who only 'think on rules'.
>
>
reality,
>
>If folks cannot learn from a 'might have been' it will become an
>'already has been'.
>
>
>
>> I said he deserved to be punished appropriately. Not crucified, not
>> physically assaulted, and he certainly does not deserve this kind of
>> on-going castigation,
>
>I've already addressed this, too - the *purpose* here is to utilize
this
>incident to help OTHERS to not make the same mistake. That is NOT
>'on-going castigation', kind sir.
>
>
>> forward acceptance of responsibility.
>
>And I (for one) have stood up and applauded his ability to do so -
>public, for all to see.
>
>However, if I were to accidentally kill someone (by whatever cause),
>just 'simply accepting responsibility' would not bring that 'victim'
my
>'mistake' (and the analysis of that mistake) with others - again, in
an
>effort to prevent it happening again. That kind of 'mentality' is
just
>plain sick.
>
>
developing
>> toward unseemly hysteria at the mere _perception_ of a possible
threat.
>
>There is also a 'disturbing trend' of ignoring some little 'reality
>checks'.
>
>with pieces of bodies lying around before it is discussed?????
>
>
circum-
>> stances of the infraction - and the extenuating circumstances - into
>> full account, and I am furthermore calling for people to stop casti-
>> gating the man in this forum unless they can show malice or intent.
>
>I am calling for a "measured response" from the hobby.
>
>
>>
>> Yeah, I can.
>
>Suit yourself.
>
>
>> You were both on the ground with ample time for reflection,
>
>If memory serves (in this midst of my alleged 'hysteria'), I believe
the
>SAME THING could be said of this rocketeer - he was "ON THE GROUND
WITH
>AMPLE TIME FOR REFLECTION."
>
>
the
>> cockpit, and you are both human beings and fallible.
>
>... which puts us in a PARTICULARLY good position to SHARE that
insight
>with others that do NOT have such experience - in hopes that insight
>would bring this one problem into the 'closed case' book.
>
>
>
>This most 'disgraceful' thing I could think of is to let this incident
>just 'disappear' and NOBODY learn anything from it.
>
>
>understand his accounting, he DID scan the sky - which, according to
>him, he SAW the aircraft three miles away. What caused the incident
was
>an unAWARENESS of what 'three miles away' really MEANS to a large
>aircraft on final - something just over a minute. Now, with 15
seconds
>wasted in the count, 15 more for the rocket to reach apogee, we're now
>down to about 30 SECONDS before the aircraft is on top of him (and
UNDER
>his rocket). This reeks of a *decided UNawareness* of things. Oh,
and
>it could *easily* be 'expected' by an experienced individual that such
a
>scenario would play out. If one is flying near an airport and you SEE
>*any* aircraft - it is TOO CLOSE to you to safely fly a rocket. That
is
>'expected', also - to the initiated.
>
>
>> It usually requires _two_ to make an accident.
>
>It won't work, Larry.
>
>
>> And IF an accident has occured, the blame would probably mostly lie
on
>> the rocketeer by the doctrine of last clear chance.
>
>For good reason - it would be HIS fault.
>
>
>> But _even_if_it_had_,
>> the result would still most likely _not_ have endangered human life.
>
>Sounds like you need to apply for a job with the FAA or NTSB, what
with
>your ability to 'see the future' - could save them a lot of work and
>manpower investigating all these 'accidents that never would happen'.
>Or, you could just help them get all the ambulances and fire trucks to
>the right spot on the right runway to respond IMMEDIATELY, since you
>would know which flight and which runway was going to have human life
>'endangered'.
>
>
>> Yes, _maybe_ the rocket could've downed that plane - but it is far,
far
>> more likely that it could not have.
>
>Again, this doesn't mean a tinker's damn.
>
>
>> It's a simple, cardboard-and-plastic
>> rocket, only slightly more dangerous than the birds to be found
around
>> most airports.
>
>The major difference here is that humans have no control over those
>birds.
>They DO, however, over this 'cardboard-and-plastic' rocket - and THAT
is
>what makes it more dangerous.
>
>
>> But no accident occured. So what do we do?
>
>That's simple.... WE LEARN FROM IT.
>
>
>> A reasonable reaction would be to suspend the rocketeer's license
for
>> some time, in just the same manner as they'd suspend a pilot for a
>> similar error.
>
>... and say nothing to the rest of the hobby, right???
>
>
>> A reasonable reaction would be to find out why the pilot of the
plane
>> was not informed of the FAA waiver in effect when he was directed
onto
>> that runway by the tower,
>
>There was NO 'waiver' on this - as it was under FAR 101.22. As I
stated
>on other posts, in all the excitement, it is reasonable to assume the
>'notification' to the pilot could be overlooked. Remember, pilots and
>controllers are human, too (in keeping with your points above). So
what
>if the pilot was 'notified'?? By landing on a closed runway, this is
>indication that this may have been his ONLY option. It's like I said,
>and aircraft in flight ALWAYS has the right-of-way - over ANYTHING on
>the ground. Always. Forever. Period.
>
>
>> and to insure that the next time a pilot is
>> heading into an unexpected area where he might be unaware of the
waivers
>> in effect he can find out about them and be on gaurd for them.
>
>Your idealism (and naivete') about how the REAL WORLD works in
aviation
>and, particularly, about an aircraft in distress is showing here.
>
>"Unexpected area"???
>
>Call me idealistic (too?), but I have always considered LONG, FLAT,
>PAVED areas as a place that airplanes MIGHT JUST land at. I know, I
>know - foolish of me.
>
>If this rocketeer was flying rockets in the near vicinity of these
>'long, flat, paved' areas and was NOT "expecting" to see low-flying
>aircraft - then I submit that maybe he *should* be 'crucified' - or
>submitted for psychological counseling.
>
>
>> An _unreasonable_ reaction is to post messages threatening assault
and
>> battery, or an FAA "investigation" or an irate Pilot's Association
>> having conniptions over the incident.
>
>An _unreasonable_ reaction is to COP-OUT and just adopt the attitude
>"Well, shit happens," and attitude, I might add, I have seen FAR TOO
>MUCH from the hobby.
>
>
>> These people aren't interested in "safety" with reactions like that,
>
>Well, it sounds like the hobby is in good company, then, doesn't it.
>
>
>> they are looking for a scapegoat.
>> Pure and simple. An over-reaction.
>
>Just wait until somebody DIES because of such as this. You will then
>HAVE your 'over-reaction', Mr. Smith. IN SPADES.
>
>
>> Then they should not grant _waivers_ for rocket operations within 5
miles
>> of an airport. It was _their_ choice whether there were going to be
rockets
>> allowed there, no one else's.
>
>Copping out again. It was this ROCKETEER'S ****CHOICE**** to FLY that
>damn rocket after seeing an aircraft on final 3 miles away.... and
>NOBODY else's. The FAA 'granted' this permission on the assumption
that
>Joe Rocketeer would utilize good judgment and concern for the life of
>others. I imagine THEY have learned as much from this incident as
'Joe'
>has.
>
>I swear, with all these 'excuses' and 'passing the buck', you are
>sounding an AWFUL lot like Bruce Kelly - he is a MASTER of such
>techniques. Has he been emailing you lately?
>
>
>> > When folks UNDERSTAND the potential hazards of doing such, 99% of
them
>> > would never even consider asking.
>>
>> What _I_ understand is the potential hazard of an over-reaction from
>> a vested interest being allowed to over-ride and eliminate others
from
>> an activity using an _excuse_ since no _reason_ presents itself.
What
>> _I_ understand is someone using this minor incident as an excuse to
>> further regulate or eliminate one person's use of the sky in favor
of
>> another's private money-making activities. What _I_ understand is
some-
>> one frothing at the mouth in the newsgroup threatening physical harm
to
>> someone who made a minor mistake that resulted in no damage or harm
to
>> another person, who has acknowledged that mistake (something we
_never_
>> see our gov't do) and who has presented himself for appropriate
disc-
>> ipline - and what _I_ see is the FAA making a Federal Case out of
it.
>> Literally.
>
>What **I** understand from the above is someone speaking without very
>much 'understanding'.
>
>
>> What _I_ see is posturing and bluster and bullying, Sir. And being
>> a "pilot" is no excuse for it. Nor is being a bureaucrat.
>
>I see the same thing. And, you're right, there IS no excuse for it.
>
>
>> Our "responsibility" in this matter is to see to it that the rules
>> for dealing with infractions are followed and that safety is under-
>> lined while acknowledging rights on _both_ sides.
>
>Our "responsibility" is to teach people to THINK - not blindly 'follow
>rules'.
>
>
>> The sky isn't up there just for pilots and paying passengers.
>
>Your right. Birds, smoke, pollution, hurricanes, NASA.... and
>*somewhere* down near the bottom there are rocket hobbyists.
>
>
>> Our responsibility extends to making ourselves aware of the
situation and
>> evaluating it in a clear and level-headed manner
>
>Dang, the LAST LINE and we finally see eye-to-eye on things. Imagine
>that!
>
>
>
>> without hyperbole.
>
>It seems obvious to me that you are not a pilot. Until you log many
>hours in the 'left seat', you are FAR from qualified to *properly* use
>that word.
>
>
>> I know it's not characteristic of rmr, but I'd like to see it JUST
ONCE!
>
>Open your eyes.
>
>
>-- john.
>
Jesus,this could have all been avoided if the parties in question did
just two things:OPEN THEIR EYES AND USE COMMON SENSE!
I don't mean to sound offensive,but doesn't that statement sound just a
little too political?
You figure it out!
Bill Nelson
The Silent Observer (sil...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >
: > Birds get out of the way. I've seen seriously bent airplanes when they
: > didn't. I probably wouldn't be writing this if I had hit the Bald Eagle
: > I narrowly missed a couple of years ago, and there are rockets that weigh
: > plenty more than that. I wish you would feel some of the "metal" that our
: > "containers" are made of and see what you think could hit them at 150
: > miles an hour.
: > RE
: To clarify this for those who aren't long-time aircraft freaks and may
: not be familiar with the construction of a Cessna or other light General
: Aviation two- or four-seater:
: A "modern, all-metal" airframe like that in the Cessna 172 is based on a
: design created just after WWII; all the metal in a typical airframe is
: aluminum sheet, and much softer aluninum than the 6061-T6 your RMS
: casings are made of. The wing and fuselage skins are typically in the
: neighborhood of 1 mm thick, while ribs, bulkheads, and formers are
: thicker material, up to 2 or 2.5 mm. It's quite possible to punch a hole
: in a wing with a child's BB gun, with a slingshot firing either steel
: shot or gravel, with a ball-point pen; you see very few gravel landing
: strips because of the damage the gravel can do to the tail surfaces after
: being thrown up by the tires (not to mention what it does to a
: propeller).
Silent, this is bull. I AM a pilot, of about 20 years experience. I fly
various Cessna aircraft.
There is no way a BB or a slingshot will penetrate the skin covering of
the aircraft, although the slingshot might dent it.
A ball-point pen MIGHT penetrate - if stabbed at the surface hard enough.
That point is rather small and very hard. Even then, I doubt if it would
occur.
I learned to fly from a gravel strip, and have used them regularly. They
are quite common in the western part of the US. The worst damage I have
seen to the tail surfaces is paint damage, although props sometimes get
very small knicks from the gravel.
Bill
msjo...@ks.symbios.com
In article <50p4b2$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> robed...@aol.com (RobEdmonds) writes:
>You're right that we are not a representative sample, in that we have any
>sympathy for the hobbyist at all. The rest of the aviation community
>would probably be quite happy to see Tripoli and the NAR shut down
>entirely. There is no time when it's going to be acceptable to have any
>member of someone's family killed in an airplane because someone was
>to avoid killing that person. You cannot change that.
You're absolutely right about this. When the public comment period was opened
for what became FAR 101.22 for Large Model Rockets,the Air Transport
Association counter-proposed that *all* unmanned rockets be disallowed within
30 miles of *any* airport. This evidently included the currently-exempt
classic model rocket. The effect would have been to shut down model rocketry
in about 90% of the US.
Larry Smith
Cochran, Ted wrote:
> In article <8419408...@dejanews.com>, someone using l...@zk3.dec.com
> as a lame id tag oozed:
Gee, I'm so abashed that Deja News doesn't have better posting
facilities.
What is it with you people? Can't handle the concept of email or what?
> > Yes...INSIDE. Inside a metal container that has never been _demonstrated_
> > to be vulnerable to a model rocket.
> 1) As I mentioned in a previous (way previous :-) post, an AWACs plane
> crashed shortly after takeoff earlier this year, killing all aboard, after
> ingesting birds. A B1 bomber struck a single bird, which penetrated the
> leading edge of the wing and caused catastrophic system failures, bringing
> down the aircraft. And birds try to get out of the way!
Birds are flapping along at a few miles an hour trying to get out of the
way. An ascending rocket (the only threat to a punch-through) is moving
several _hundred_ mph. A bird may well "try to get away" in the same
plane as the oncoming aircraft, a rocket is going up, and will occupy
the aircraft's plane for fractions of a second. If it doesn't bullseye
the plane, it gets away clean. Doesn't apply to birds.
But, more importantly, this merely underlines my point that model
rockets,
which have never, ever, caused an airliner crash, are simply far less of
a threat than Cato is making them out to be, even compared to birds. We
already _have_ rules for keeping planes safe from rockets, rules that
must
be pretty good since this is the worst incident in a quarter of century.
You can't prove rockets are dangerous by telling us how many planes went
down because of birds.
> 2) There have been threads in this group enjoying stories of backhoe
> recoveries of intact lawn darted rockets from under 20 feet of earth,
Curious that I've read the group for years and not seen them, then.
> craters made from supersonic impacts, and near misses caused when children
> didn't listen to "heads up!" warnings. Yet some of those same folks seem
> to think that the sport is virtually risk free, or at most that rockets
> are only slightly more dangerous than birds. This contradiction puzzles
> me.
No doubt. What puzzles _me_ is why anyone thinks this is at all
relevant
here. A rocketeer made a mistake, he put an airliner in a _potentially_
harmful situation, admitted his mistake, and is being treated - by the
FAA as well as by many in this thread - as if he blasted the damn thing
to metal-and-bloody-bone shards. As I pointed out, you can't accuse
some-
one of running a stop sign of vehicular homicide if they didn't kill
anyone.
And to make one more point in the cool clear light of day (somewhat more
easily done here than when dealing with Cato's hysterical shouting) I
_don't_ think that rockets are entirely without danger. I _don't_ think
rockets are no _conceivable_ danger to airplanes. I unequivocally
assert
that we _are_ treating them as potentially dangerous _enough_, and that
this incident was exactly that - an incident. A reminder. If we don't
get reminders every now and then, _anyone_ can become lax about
_anything_.
That's what killed the Challenger. You cannot create any procedure that
is guaranteed 100% safe all the time. Even banning rockets outright
won't
accomplish that - as anyone who remembers the old "basement bomber" days
should realize.
> 3) The perception that planes plow through birds on a routine basis is
> not true.
I've seen birds at every airport I've even visited. No, planes don't
"plow" through them all the time - but there is almost never a time at
any airport I've seen where an airplane isn't in _at_least_ as much
danger of hitting one as that airliner was that day to hitting the
rocket in question. Maybe it would be otherwise if people were neater,
but that's the way it is.
> The implication that planes are built to routinely plow through
> large feathered things, so why worry about them plowing through rockets as
> well, fails to warm my heart.
It isn't meant to warm your heart, it is meant to cool your head.
Excellent discussion of risk and safety deleted. This is much of what
I've been pointing out from another point of view. It is unnecessarily
hyperbolic, but it emphasizes the same points. Except:
> It does not mean that we stop flying
> entirely. It may mean that we choose not to fly the big stuff within 5
> miles of an airport.
And I point out again that we have a Federal Agency appointed to
determine
whether and if HPR can be flown _anywhere_, not just within some
arbitrary
distance of an airport. _They_ decided to let the rocket fly. Perhaps
their confidence in the rocketeer was misplaced, perhaps they should be
a
bit more leery of HPR - but that is _their_ decision, and that's one of
the reasons they _are_ there. Let us let the system work, it hasn't
gotten
us this far without killing anyone, we must be doing _something_ right.
How many kids died this year riding bikes? How many passengers died
from
pilot error?
> Some of the emotion in this long thread may have come from the reaction of
> some pilots to the apparent ad hoc (shall I say haphazard?) treatment of
> safety by some rocketeers.
No, as near as I can tell it is coming from someone who is pissed off
that
his hyperbole isn't being accepted as gospel. I think the rocketeer in
question is quite safety conscious - but he, like any of us, will
occasionally
forget. That's why we have regulations that will punish him in an
approved,
even-handed manner, not by hysterically stringing him up with a 10Base2
wire.
And I wish we could just let the system work instead of armchair
quarterbacking
the whole thing and egging the damn FAA into overreacting even more.
g1687...@umbsky.cc.umb.edu
In Article <50p4c2$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Must be another example of how government regulations fail to provide
the benefit they purport to. I suppose the real reason is to allow governmental
control of anything potentially dangerous to governmental control (guns, cars,
rockets, radiocommunications euipment etc.)
John's
line
counter
food
is
more
nutritious
Jerry Irvine
> And I wish we could just let the system work instead of armchair
> quarterbacking
> the whole thing and egging the damn FAA into overreacting even more.
Here here.
Jerry
Jerry Irvine
In article <8419408...@dejanews.com>, l...@zk3.dec.com wrote:
"
> What you have accomplished thus far is to convince me that pilots are,
> as a class, a bunch of hysterical, possessive, selfish nitwits who get
> their panties in a wad at the drop of rocket
"
"
> Hobbies don't avoid accidents for decades by blind stupid luck. They
> do it by having safety procedures and rules for dealing with infractions.
"
"
> I was getting tired of this group because of the politics, now I am
> tiring even faster of hysterical whining that passes for reasoning
> amongst "pilots" in the newsgroup.
"
"
> Now I want to see some _evidence_ for this amount of concern, or I
> want to see you SHUT THE HELL UP!
"
How can I even add to that?
Great post.
Jerry
"One person's sacred cow is another's hamburger." - Celeste Dolan Mookherjee
"Do What You Can, with what you have, where you are." - Teddy Roosevelt
C. James Cook
In article <50qskr$2...@newsops.execpc.com>, Dave Lyle <da...@execpc.com> writes:
|> geo...@prolog.net (George F.) wrote:
|>
|> >As long as the ceiling is 1,000' AGL I see no problem with it. If the rocket
|> >
|> >stays 500' under the cloud, it is then in VFR conditions, but has soon >as the
|> >rocket get closer then 500 to that cloud the rocket is now in IFR >conditions
|> >requiring an IFR clearence & IFR flight Plan, neither of which would be
|> >issued to a model rocket.
|>
|> clouds. <g> <= note the <g>.
Deliberately flying into a cloud is against NFPA codes and NAR Safety
Codes. In states where NFPA have been adopted by reference, it is also
against the law.
You can't get a waiver.
-J
Robert K. Gormley
In article <32292F...@almatel.net> jc...@almatel.net writes:
> 7) Flying off to one side of a runway? Bullshit. That is PRECISELY
>where the "Downwind Leg" of a normal approach occurs - parallel to the
>runway and off to one side (or the other). By that, there is NO place
>in the near vicinity of an airport that is NOT a hazard to aircraft
>operating from that airport. Always. Forever. Period. You are
>'playing the odds' here - in a high risk environment. One of those
>days, those odds are going to run out. And the higher the risk
>environment you're in only means those odds will run out sooner.
I have read many posts in this thread. However, the above paragraph
implies that flying a rocket off the side of a runway is *always* a
hazard to aircriaft. Below is a perfect example of where flying
rockets near a runway was accomplished in a safe and organized manner.
NARAM-37 was held at a large field which was next to the Warplane Museum
near Rochester, NY . This museum had a runway which was used
several times at day, albeit not a paved runway. The NAR has always
emphasized safety and this is especially true at a national meet such as
NARAM. Several times during the meet aircraft entered the area and the
RSO's were quick to delay all flights until the aircraft landed or left
the area. Others helped the RSO's by making them aware of any aircraft
that they heard.
I think most people would agree with me that the NAR Board, most NAR
members and the host section are concerned about safety. During the
entire week, I did not hear a single comment such as "It is extremely
hazardous to being flying at this field," or "I do not believe anyone
would allow us to fly rockets here."
>
> 8) Due to the fact that the percentage of airspace in this country
>that lies WITHIN this 5 mile radius Airport Traffic Area (which is what
>it's called) is so SMALL in comparison to the amount of airspace OUTSIDE
>the ATA, I must take the viewpoint that folks who find a flying site in
>such locales simply haven't FINISHED their search for a PROPER flying
>site. My gosh, guys, can't you 'tool on down the road' and just LOOK a
>little more???
In the above example, I would speculate that Dan Wolf and the rest of
the MARS section spent a great deal of time finding a suitable field for
NARAM. Since the general opinion at the launch was that the field was
excellent and did not pose a hazard to aircraft, that the organziers had
looked and finished their search for a rocket field even though it was
close to a runway. Would you agree that the NAR made a reasonable and
safe decision to hold NARAM-37 where they did?
***********************************************************************
* Robert (Bobby) Gormley * NOVAAR Section #205 *
* rgor...@phoenix.princeton.edu * NAR #40847 TRA #2113 PDGA #9307 *
***********************************************************************
John H. Cato, Jr.
Larry Smith wrote:
>
> Gee, I'm so abashed that Deja News doesn't have better posting
> facilities. What is it with you people? Can't handle the concept
> of email or what?
Mr. Smith - I 'came online' with the InterNET in June of this year (after
two years over on CIS). While I understood the general concept of how it
worked (which *is* a little different than an online service), the
'details' of folks posting thru different accounts has only revealed itself
to me after becoming a part of it. To put your mind at rest, I *did*
figure out this 'unknown' author in your post to me before you reminded me
of the 'error of my ways'. Of course, the tone would pretty well serve to
do that, too.
However, I think if you pause for a second and reflect, you will note a
(uncanny) parallel in your 'lambast' of other people's ignorance of
InterNET email and newsgroup postings with your viewpoints that others of
us are (far less than you assert) 'lambasting' this unfortunate rocketeer
that started this whole thread. You accuse me and my opinions as elitist
(and several other words too numerous to mention). I daresay the above
remarks coupled with similar ones to me patently demonstrate a case of the
pot calling the kettle black.
Your 'clarifications' notwithstanding, you still have not answered to my
satisfaction why that 'arrogant' post to me still failed to simply *sign*
your name at bottom. You seemed to feel sufficiently motivated in your
other posts to do such.
> A bird may well "try to get away" in the same
> plane as the oncoming aircraft
OK. And it may well not. What 'statistical' data do you purport to have
at your disposal to substantiate such allegations?
> a rocket is going up, and will occupy
> the aircraft's plane for fractions of a second.
And a rocket, hanging under 40 feet of bungee cord, descenting at 18 fps,
will be in the plane of an aircraft for over 2 seconds (40/18). That,
coupled with the fact that this 'bungee cord' would be all but invisible to
anybody on board that aircraft. That, coupled with the fact that an
aircraft descending (as we have in the original 'situation') will see only
objects AT and ABOVE his current altitude (since objects at equal altitudes
appear ON the horizon to the pilot) - thus, if an aircraft is descending
into the plane of a rocket under canopy, it will lost in the 'ground
clutter' until the last second. That, coupled with the fact that the
invisibility of this 40 feet of 'connecting material' (i.e. bungee cord)
would give indication to the pilot that he was looking at two *different*
objects - separated vertically by 40 feet - a parachute and some kind of
cylindrical object (the rocket itself). My guess is, the pilot wouldn't
even realize the danger UNTIL he had already 'snatched' that bungee cord.
> But, more importantly, this merely underlines my point that model
> rockets, which have never, ever, caused an airliner crash, are simply
> far less of a threat than Cato is making them out to be, even compared
> to birds.
Actually my point, Larry, is that a 'rocket' is far less of a threat than a
*rocketeer* who doesn't understand the implications of his acts because he
doesn't *understand* how the National Aispace System works. Again, no
fault for ignorance - fault for remaining that way - fault for a cavalier
attitude towards *waiting* for the user organizations (TRA, NAR, whatever)
to educate oneself - fault (BIG one) for thinking that any airspace granted
by the FAA *belongs* to the rocketeer - fault for thinking that aircraft
are piloted and populated by NONliving things (as the actions and
your words indicate).
You have challenged me to 'prove' some of this threat. I have - as
witnessed by my example in Tennessee in 1995 (see other post). That was
the most blatant and the most unforgiveable, since it involved the two 'top
dogs' of Tripoli. I also cited others - and could cite still more and more
and more. Now, you allege that this 'threat' of either a rocket or
rocketeer (specifically the latter, in my view) is much less than I assert.
Prove it. Because when you cite your 'experience' in this, I will counter
with a DOZEN incidents for every 'nonthreatening' example you can come up
with.
> We already _have_ rules for keeping planes safe from rockets, rules that
> must be pretty good since this is the worst incident in a quarter of
> century.
Which categorically indicates the 'trend line' is now downward. Now, let's
add in the fact that Tripoli has gone into 'high growth' mode - active
members approaching 3000 - most of which are under two year old
memberships. Add in the fact that, for the last three years or so, we are
now seeing 1200 lb vehicles (Project 463) - vehicles with 300 lbs (+-) of
propellant on board (Stratospheric Dreams in '95, the 'OuR' project just a
month ago) and other such 'trends' upward in both vehicle mass and power
(and, therefore) destructive ability. Add in the fact that, at LDRS 8
(1989) the ENTIRE range would simply STOP when a 'J' motor flew. Today,
folks won't even bat an eye at a 'K' and just continue gabbing about what
the Banquet meal will be. Stop for a minute and just *think* on all those
facts and how they will all contribute to the threat to aircraft getting
worse and worse. Now, add in the facts that, in great majority, most of
these newer 'rocket scientists' with their more lethal 'toys' STILL do not
know about the airspace they operate in and now must take a test (wow) that
mentions NOT ONE WORD about this very same airspace.
There is *no* threat? This *threat* is not increasing? Spare me.
> You can't prove rockets are dangerous by telling us how many planes went
> down because of birds.
Neither can you refute that assertion.
> What puzzles _me_ is why anyone thinks this is at all relevant here.
I could say something here - but I won't.
> A rocketeer made a mistake, he put an airliner in a _potentially_
> harmful situation, admitted his mistake, and is being treated - by the
> FAA as well as by many in this thread - as if he blasted the damn thing
> to metal-and-bloody-bone shards.
Actually, Mr. Smith, it is YOU who just can't seem to let go of your
perceptions that we are out here 'blasting' this guy for his *ignorance* of
the threat his actions proposed. I have used that word 'ignorance'
accurately and not the more derogatory 'stupidity', as I don't consider the
party 'stupid' necessarily (I just don't know the guy). Mr. Webster
defines "ignorance" as "unaware or uninformed" - and, thereby, is the exact
proper word to use here.
Further, I am now of the opinion, that there are other things 'working' in
your mind than this particular incident. It *appears* that Scott is some
close friend that you feel strongly compelled to defend. It *appears*
(especially with some pretty pointed remarks about your perceptions of
pilots ("too drunk or stoned to land the thing", "pilot error being the
single most common cause of accidents", etc.etc.)) that you hold some
*true* prejudices towards that profession - which indicates something from
the past that you have not resolved. I don't know if some close friend or
family member was injured or killed by a 'pilot error' or what - but there
is *something* there that you are not telling us.
Scott got to me email after my very first post in this thread. I responded
back to him that I appreciated him stepping forward and clarifying the
issue from his perspective. I also publicly acknowledged and thanked him
for doing so out here - and then apologized (again, in public) for using
the 'straightjacket' comment - and, from that point onward, focused my
comments and conclusions to the problem itself - which again, truthfully
and accurately, is attributable to ignorance - and I don't use that word
with a mindset of being derogatory towards any one individual. Had Scott
had an appreciation of just how fast things can 'go sour', I have all
confidence that his actions would have been different. I am assured that
he now has that appreciation - and it is my hope that others who have
witnessed this discussion out here equally have such appreciation - which
is the most positive thing that could come out this 'incident'. If just
ONE other rocketeer has taken this discussion and reflected on it and made
the personal decision to look more closely at aviation safety and the
effect that this hobby can have on that - and, thereby, possibly averted
this very (worst case) scenario of a rocket taking out an aircraft full of
200 innocent people, then every single syllable posted by every single
person that has joined in on this discussion will have been worth it.
It just simply blows me away that you cannot seem to SEE that benefit.
> As I pointed out, you can't accuse some-one of running a stop sign
> of vehicular homicide if they didn't kill anyone.
But you CAN accuse such a person for "Reckless Endangerment" and this is
PRECISELY *WHY* there is a fine for running a stop sign.
> And to make one more point in the cool clear light of day (somewhat more
> easily done here than when dealing with Cato's hysterical shouting)
Too bad you don't have some kind of 'InterNET video' connection to
Nicholls, GA - it is highly likely you would see nothing more than someone
who simply just shakes his head every time he sees another one of your
posts. "Hysterical shouting"? Larry, I have to call it as I see it - with
your use of the words 'elitist', 'moronic', 'small vessels' (referring, I
must assume, to my cranial capacity), etc.etc.etc., I must state that you
are presenting the image of 'hysteria' and 'glandular thinking' far more
clearly than I am.
> I _don't_ think that rockets are entirely without danger.
And I _don't_ think that you feel otherwise. I _do_ think you have simply
not been 'around the track' enough and observed with unbiased and
nonprejudical eyes the true state of the attitudes and understandings of
those in this hobby.
> A reminder. If we don't get reminders every now and then, _anyone_ can
> become lax about _anything_.
True. If one does not *learn* from those 'reminders', they come around a
lot more often - and, typically, get more obvious and blatant until even
the catatonic can figure them out. And, then, before anyone can make it to
his computer to post such 'observations' out here, he's interrupted by the
sound of a DC-10 screaming in for (guess what???).
> That's what killed the Challenger.
What *killed* Challenger was merely a few seconds of *rationalization*.
And *this* was by highly trained individuals in an agency KNOWN for very
high degrees of safety and proper procedure. That wasn't enough. Now, how
much MORE dangerous is the situation and how much MORE are the
potentialities for something like this to happen when the 'go decision' is
vested in individuals who are not required to exhibit ANY knowledge about
the airspace they operate in - and are, in great majority, simply childlike
in their excitement to watch their 'baby's' fly?
> You cannot create any procedure that is guaranteed 100% safe all the
> time.
So true. But that can easily become an excuse and cop-out for letting
attitudes and levels of knowledge prevail that *will* cause safety to be
compromised - the end result of which *will* result in death one day.
> Even banning rockets outright won't accomplish that
Let's just keep it at the current level - make no changes to the 'rules',
make no changes to 'education' of folks, make no changes to anything.
Status quo. You will then GET your 'banning' of this hobby when some
smoldering ruins of an aircraft populated by *people* rests at the end of
some runway due to some rocketeer who was 'happy' with this 'status quo'.
That is the more likely scenario. The hobby may actually 'luck out',
however, and just get by with FAR 101 being a hundred pages long, the FAA
finally deciding to TAKE OVER the testing and certification of rockteers -
and requiring them to go thru some 'ground school' - on regulations, the
Airman's Information Manual (AIM), etc.etc. (which may not be a bad idea,
actually). Most definitely what will happen will be the hobby's complete
powerlessness at 'policing itself' anymore, as it regards access to the
air. Just like ATF simply 'jerked' Tripoli's 'control' over rocket motor
acquistion right out of their hands. Wonder why Tripoli was 'fighting'
this? I wonder if felons on the Board would have anything to do with it?
> And I point out again that we have a Federal Agency appointed to
> determine whether and if HPR can be flown _anywhere_, not just within
> some arbitrary distance of an airport.
On your use of the word: "arbitrary", I have already pointed out that this
is defined (and has been for decades) as the limits of the Airport Traffic
Area. Every pilot ever licensed KNOWS this. Further, even a *pilot* is
forbidden from entering this ATA without ATC approval (FAR 91.127) and must
maintain communication with the tower (FAR 91.129). The AIM even states:
"FAR 91.127 requires that unless a pilot is landing at or taking off from
an airport in the airport traffic area, or authorized otherwise by ATC,
**the pilot must avoid the area.**" (emphasis NOT mine). These
restrictions (and definition of lateral extents) are put in place because
of the much higher density of air traffic in such areas - with the much
greater hazard of mid-air collisions. That is *decidedly* NOT 'arbitrary'.
Doesn't it strike you as interesting that TRAINED pilots must avoid the
area that UNtrained rocketeers can 'play' in???
> _They_ decided to let the rocket fly.
_They_ decided to *authorize* rocket activity within that ATA - under the
assumption that this activity would be undertaken with judgment. _They_
(most *assuredly*) did NOT 'decide to let the rocket fly'. You
(continually) present this 'argument' as tho _they_ pushed the button -
and, therefore, seem forever vigilant in your desire to divert
responsibility from the rocketeer for (in complete truth) 'deciding to let
the rocket fly.' I've already pointed this out before - but apparently
once was not enough.
> Perhaps their confidence in the rocketeer was misplaced, perhaps they
> should be a bit more leery of HPR - but that is _their_ decision,
Why are you afraid of making a decision and accepting the responsibility
for it? I said to myself when I started this response, I would try very
hard to not make any *personal* statements about you, Mr. Smith. But I
must be candid in stating that the above sentence is just plain mindless.
> and that's one of the reasons they _are_ there.
A paternalistic view. A good way to get out of accepting responsibility.
> Let us let the system work, it hasn't gotten us this far without killing
> anyone, we must be doing _something_ right.
I can state with absolute certainty and from first hand experience that
there are several in this hobby that doesn't have a *clue* as to why -
which means these days of 'doing something right' (if, indeed, that is the
case) are flatly coming to an end.
With all the blatant and explicit violations of FAR 101 that I see - at
nearly EVERY launch I attend - from 'busting the altitude cap', to
launching in IFR conditions, to arrogance approaching megalomania as to a
rocketeer's RIGHT to have 'sterile airspace', to simply laughing when 50
lbs of hardware separates due to completely inadequate DESIGN of a recovery
system (violating FAR 101.7 (b)), I must tell you, Mr. Smith - such 'doing
something right' is about as FAR from *reality* as one could imagine - and
indicates, as I have stated previously, it is as much due to LUCK and
DIVINE GRACE that we have 'gotten this far'. Now, with the comments I made
above about the growth of the numbers, power, and lethality of what is
actually going on in this hobby, your 'doing something right' is rapidly
approaching needing lift support to prevent dropping into a coma.
> How many kids died this year riding bikes?
I don't know? Do you?
> How many passengers died from pilot error?
I don't know? Do you?
> > Some of the emotion in this long thread may have come from ...
>
> No, as near as I can tell it is coming from someone who is pissed off
> that his hyperbole isn't being accepted as gospel.
> That's why we have regulations that will punish him in an approved,
> even-handed manner, not by hysterically stringing him up with a 10Base2
> wire.
Here we go with the 'hysteria' (and 'pissed' and 'gospel') again. Now, why
don't you share with us your insights into *your* definition of
'hyperbole'?
You don't know me, Mr. Smith. But I will tell you little bit about John
Cato:
1) On my first waiver application (April 1990), a Mr. Roff Sasser in
Atlanta (then with the FAA and now with the NTSB) made the comment to me
that my application was, "the best application EVER to come into this
office. There was not ONE question we had that you did not answer."
2) I acquired the very *first* Controlled Firing Area designation IN THIS
HOBBY (as confirmed by TRA Board member Gerald Kolb) by nothing more than
an off-hand remark in a telephone call to the Southern Region office in
Atlanta - and they made comments to me, "We're breaking new ground here
with this, John." Why do you think the FAA would grant me this 'new
ground' without going thru meetings and proposals and discussions - and,
rather, grant this (and exhibit such trust) on such 'off-hand' remark over
the phone?
3) Two weeks later, at Jacksonville Center - talking with a Mr. Bob
Rodebush - Military Operations Supervisor there at JAX - telling me that he
had, after our discussions, NO doubt whatsoever that aircraft in our area
would be completely safe - and wanted a file copy of my (typical) waiver
applications to, "show others how it ought to be done," and was willing,
upon my query about moving beyond a CFA to a Restricted Area (much harder
to get) with, "Well, it would take a lot more paper, but I would kinda like
to work on that."
4) I have talked, face to face, with the individuals in Washington, D.C.
that were responsible for the FAR 101.1 'model rocket exemption' (that the
NAR has operated under for gosh knows how long) - in October '93 to discuss
with them about this 'new ground' of CFAs for HPR activities and they were
most positive and accepting of my viewpoints and proposals.
5) I was requested, by TRA Board member Gerald Kolb (TRA Insurance Liaison
officer for many years) in 1993 to write the Tripoli FAA portion of the
Tripoli Handbook because, "you're the most qualified individual in this
organization to do it."
6) I was the one responsible for filing for and getting the largest
airpace alotment EVER granted in this hobby's *history* (over 22,000 cubic
MILES) for Mike Ward's 'Stratospheric Dreams' flight attempt last year at
Black Rock. I did this with 3 hours work. I dealt with an individual in
Los Angeles - whom I had never spoken with before and was granted this with
not one hitch.
7) I am an Instrument Rated Private pilot and have been so for 22 years -
and the lowest test grade on any FAA exam I ever took was 88 - and that was
for the Commercial license that I never sought. The others were above 92.
Every CFI that has ever crawled in the 'right seat' with me has stated
that he has NO doubts about my abilities as a pilot. And I absolutely
NAILED my Instrument Check Ride - with a Localizer Back Course approach
(in a crosswind) that the Examiner commented that he thought the ILS
receiver was turned off (meaning the needle centered and not moving).
8) During my college years, I was considering going into Air Traffic
Control - and took the Air Traffic Controller's exam. This is not like an
Architectural State Board - but is NO slouch, either - a 4 hour 'meat
grinder' that puts many exams to shame. I made 93 on that exam - and might
have actually been with the FAA today, were it not for a little vision
irregularity - and the FAA sent me to several specialists to make
absolutely sure, because they *wanted* me badly.
9) I have been around aviation and the FAA for decades - and have been
places within that agency and talked with people that very few get a chance
to experience. I *know* how the NAS system works and I *know* what the
prime objective of the FAA is - and it is FAR, *FAR* away from these little
mindless 'prejudices' that come thru on your posts about some 'bureaucratic
enigma' that reveals nothing more than the enigma in your mind.
10) As far as your 'characterizations' about what actually 'populates' the
FAA, it is obvious that you have been around it very little, if at all -
and, therefor, do not understand why you won't find a ATC Center controller
much over 35 years of age. It is mostly because of burnout - from the
excessive pressures of having two dozen objects moving across a 2 foot
radar screen from 100 to 450 miles-an-hour (and more) - and then have a
thunderstorm hit, take out the emergency power system and have to fall back
to 'broadband' and not have the benefits of a computer to assist you from
keeping these two dozen 'objects' (some of which are ALSO in that
thunderstorm) from running into each other and killing scores and scores.
(And I was *standing* on the Control Room floor - as a civilian - when that
happened one time at Jacksonville Center.) Is there any wonder why ATC
Controllers are among the worst in marital success? And you have the
unmitigated *gaul* to refer to such individuals as 'bureaucrats'!!! You
shame yourself, Mr. Smith.
Now, thru all that, I still do not propose the words I write here are (to
use *your* characterization) 'gospel' - and this is because I have been
around it enough to know that KEEPING PEOPLE ALIVE - the FAA's primary goal
- is something that can NEVER be taken too seriously - and will require of
everyone in it to continually look for weaknesses and a better
understanding of how things go wrong. The more you know and understand,
the more you see how little all of us *truely* understand.
The 'resume' you see above is not to 'tout' anything - because a dead human
being due to a mechanical failure in a airplane or a 'attitude' failure of
a rocketeer is no laughing matter - and will always bring ALL of us back
down to earth. The 'resume' above is to let you know that I *am* qualified
to speak on these subjects - and there are *many* - within the hobby *and*
the FAA that listen to what I say. I invite you to seek out some of these
individuals (especially those within the FAA) - and I will guarantee you -
absolutely *guarantee* you - not ONE of them will accept your 'viewpoint'
if you blindly let the words 'hysterical' or 'moronic' become associated
with the my name.
'Pissed'? Well, when you see someone come forth with 'prejudicial' and
completely *stereotypical* attitudes about people (pilots and the FAA, from
what I've seen of you), exactly how would YOU act, Mr. Smith? Never mind,
I've already seen it.
"What IS it with you people??" l. smith
-- john.
Rick Taylor
John H. Cato, Jr. wrote:
>
> If just
> ONE other rocketeer has taken this discussion and reflected on it and made
> the personal decision to look more closely at aviation safety and the
> effect that this hobby can have on that - and, thereby, possibly averted
> this very (worst case) scenario of a rocket taking out an aircraft full of
> 200 innocent people, then every single syllable posted by every single
> person that has joined in on this discussion will have been worth it.
>
I think this is the point of the discussion, and I believe the benefit will be
not only aviation safety, but also other areas of safety such as spectators
may be improved by that 'one person' who will now be more careful.
(Also, I suspect that more than one person will be more careful because of
this discussion.)
Mike Vande Bunt
Bill Nelson (bi...@PEAK.ORG) wrote:
: In the area where you live, and out here where I live, that may be true.
: However, in the NE US, and in Southern Cal, there is little open space.
: Even finding an area large enough is a challenge, much less finding one
: that is not within 5 miles of an airfield.
This is also the case in the Milwaukee area. I can drive for an hour
without ever being more than 5 miles from *some* airport. Admittedly, many
of those airports will be small general aviation fields, not commercial
airports with FAA towers. Even Bong (a former Air Force B52 base where
Tripoli has a permanent waiver) which is 9 miles from the Kenosha (WI)
airport (FAA tower, etc.) is only a half mile from a privately owned
airstrip. The air here is CROWDED!
YES, the incident was significant and it *should* convince us all to be more
careful, but it really is being blown way out of proportion.
--
Mike Vande Bunt (N9KHZ) Mike.Va...@mixcom.com <*> TRA:4537 NAR:65174
Mike Vande Bunt
John H. Cato, Jr. (jc...@almatel.net) wrote:
: l...@zk3.dec.com wrote:
: >
: (a lot of stuff that's just too much trouble to re-quote)
: Dear 'lcs',
: I am taking the last 'sip' on this Dr. Pepper and fixing to ride out of
: town on this topic.
: I will leave you with this one bit of advice:
: "I dearly hope that you are never stranded on top of your house
: due to a flood at night and in a thunderstorm - needing rescue
: by a *pilot*, or have a heart attack or get 'banged up' on the
: Interstate and need the services of LifeFlight - as I 'fear'
: (no, not hysteria) your attitude will betray you to that *pilot*
: who is saving your life. I would generally not recommend you
: mention 'selfish gratification' to him."
: ... because the attitude you express is exactly what pilots fear most.
: And for good reason. But you don't understand that, do you?
: -- john.
: BTW, next time you jump down my throat, be a MAN and sign your name to
: it, OK?
Congratulations, John! I hadn't realized that you and the thousands of
other general aviation pilots in the US were actually "Flight-For-Life"
helicopter pilots in disguise. ;-)
Mike Vande Bunt
RobEdmonds (robed...@aol.com) wrote:
: >That mistake _might_ have caused
: >a real threat to an airplane, but it _didn't_. We should >react to
: >his mistake _as_a_mistake_, a breach of protocol and >worthy of some
: >reasonable fine or punishment.
: I keep telling you guys, if somebody's child ends up in a smoking hole, it
: aint going to be a "breach of protocol". If you fire a shower of bullets
: into a crowd but you miss everyone, you'd better still end up in the can.
:
: RE
Bad analogy, Rob. Do you WANT the general public to think of hobby rockets
as being the same as firearms? The risk of someone's child ending up in a
smoking hole has been with us since the hobby started in 1959 or so. This
is not the first time something like this has happened. Unfortunately, it
probably won't be the last. Aside from calling for the death penalty, what
are you (all of you, not just Rob) doing to see that this never happens
again?
Mike Vande Bunt
: When will this thread die having admitted all has been said?
: Jerry
: alt.whine.aircraft.die.die.die
: --
: Jerry Irvine - jjir...@cyberg8t.com
: Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA
: Opinion, the whole thing.
Several months from now. Possibly as soon as 1997.
Dave Lyle
I wasn't advocating flying under SVFR conditions. Just commenting on
the fact that just because VFR conditions exist does not mean it is
safe or prudent to fly. There are other things that need to be
considered.
Larry Smith
Jerry Irvine wrote:
> I agree and privately John sees this light as well. So leave off the name
> calling, "declare victory" and move on yourself.
I _am_ moving on. I'm sick of this. Actually, I'm
getting sick of the whole newsgroup. Or maybe I'm
just sick and tired of my country. First politics,
then hysteria. Rockets are a deadly dangerous threat
to innocent profitable airplanes, D&D is threat to
people's immortal souls, my refrigerator is a threat
to the environment, my car is a threat to the viabil-
ity of mass transit and social justice, fat is a threat
to my arteries, medicine is a threat to my solvency, my
swimming pool's an "attractive nuisance" threat to the
local tykes, Clinton is a threat to some of my civil
rights and Dole is a threat to the rest of them - I'm
getting so God-damned sick and tired of living in a
country where everybody sees a threat on every side
and insists that _I_ must as well.
Edward R. Murrow spoke eloquently about the "climate
of fear" that prevailed in this country during the
McCarthy era, but even he would be boggled at the
soaking feeling of unalloyed danger we must live in
today. We frighten ourselves with boogeymen on
every side in a day when actual death rates from
nearly anything are at an all-time low. Are fear
and hysteria the only tools we have left to motivate
people? Can no one put forth a reasoned argument
relying on evidence and a good cost-benefit analysis?
Does everyone now subscribe to the idea that we can
somehow achieve - and _afford_ - total and complete
safety, with no accidental deaths, no cheated or de-
frauded, no one attacked - and that even the attempt
is worth all of our freedom? For make no mistake,
even the attempt to achieve that kind of utopia admits
of no personal choice in anything.
Frankly, I'm tired of it all. Argue amongst yourselves
for a while, I'm checking out. Maybe I'll go build and
fly a rocket and play some D&D. A good rousing flight
and slaying a few monsters, and perhaps I will regain
some measure of optimism.
Greg Smith
In <32352C...@almatel.net>, "John H. Cato, Jr." <jc...@almatel.net> writes:
>Further, I am now of the opinion, that there are other things 'working' in
>your mind than this particular incident. It *appears* that Scott is some
>close friend that you feel strongly compelled to defend. It *appears*
>(especially with some pretty pointed remarks about your perceptions of
>pilots ("too drunk or stoned to land the thing", "pilot error being the
>single most common cause of accidents", etc.etc.)) that you hold some
>*true* prejudices towards that profession - which indicates something from
>the past that you have not resolved. I don't know if some close friend or
>family member was injured or killed by a 'pilot error' or what - but there
>is *something* there that you are not telling us.
John, I greatly respect and mostly enjoy reading your contributions
here, even though there are a few issues on which I disagree with your
conclusions. You do, without a doubt, know a great deal about rocketry,
aviation and architecture.
However, not even Sigmund Freud would propose to perform psychoanalysis
based on a few postings on the Internet, and it does your reputation no
service to engage in it here. This passage is characteristic of a
thread which has deteriorated far beyond enlightenment into an
unfortunate series of ad hominem attacks, and I'm sad to see that you
have become the principal aggressor, posting ever more vitriolic
responses in each new round.
To quote a little, as you are sometimes inclined to do, from my own
resume, I've operated online services for almost a dozen years, studied
the phenomenon of "flaming" as a major part of my master's degree work
in educational psychology, and currently make my living, among other
things, teaching classes in computer ethics and effective online
communications styles. I honestly believe the best way to enhance your
credibility now is just to withdraw from further discussion on this
subject. Your contributions have been valuable and thought-provoking,
but the point at which a writer has to stoop to speculation about the
internal mental states of his adversary is also a point at which the
thread has lost most of its useful information content.
I hope you'll take this in the positive spirit that is intended.
-----
Greg Smith N9LHI
NAR 15881 * TRA 1974
Director of Operations, Central Illinois Aerospace
gd-s...@uiuc.edu
Jerry Irvine
In article <515je6$f...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu>, gd-s...@uiuc.edu (Greg Smith)
wrote with constructive criticism about Cato posts:
> the phenomenon of "flaming" as a major part of my master's degree work
> in educational psychology, and currently make my living, among other
> things, teaching classes in computer ethics and effective online
> communications styles. I honestly believe the best way to enhance your
> credibility now is just to withdraw from further discussion on this
> subject. Your contributions have been valuable and thought-provoking,
> but the point at which a writer has to stoop to speculation about the
> internal mental states of his adversary is also a point at which the
> thread has lost most of its useful information content.
Hmmm. I must be doing well in comparison then?
Jerry
Substantially reduced non-content flamage.
Ed
If you decide to move to another country, try Cuba, China, and maybe
North Korea. You might come home faster than you went! <G> Don't take
things so seriously, it is the end of the world.....yet. Hope you have
a nice day and a great tomorrow.
Ed
John H. Cato, Jr.
Rick Taylor wrote:
>
>
> I think this is the point of the discussion, and I believe the benefit will be
> not only aviation safety, but also other areas of safety such as spectators
> may be improved by that 'one person' who will now be more careful.
> (Also, I suspect that more than one person will be more careful because of
> this discussion.)
Like I said, Rick, it will then have been worth it. I will admit that I have
come across strong on some of my viewpoints on this issue and Mr. Smith and I
have 'locked horns' a little. I have been, over the last day or so, been trying
to ask myself does Mr. Smith have a point with his view - and, yes, he does to a
degree - as I feel I do, to a degree. Are the probabilities small, as Mr. Smith
asserts? Yes - but they are not zero. Will the aftermath be bad if this (small
probability) event happens, as I assert? Yes, it will. There have been
incidents reported in the press over the years when some aircraft got in trouble
and some folks survived - and, maybe an incident or two where ALL folks survived.
But these incidents are decidedly in the minority - almost EVERY time something
happens in the air, people are going to die - sometimes all of them. This is
why, even with small probabilities, these 'incidents' are so serious - and is the
reason that the FAA takes such a serious approach to it. As well they should, in
my view.
In my experience in the hobby, the biggest failing I see by the rocket crowd is
an unawareness of things from the aviation perspective. I do NOT blame them for
this unawareness - life makes many demands on all of us and there simply is not
enough time to be conversant on even a small part of it. The great majority of
rocketeers DO have a responsible attitude towards their hobby, and I acknowledge
that. There are *definitely* some, however, that don't - and I have had first
hand experience at witnessing and dealing with some of those types of
individuals. But even those that *are* responsible sometimes just are simply not
aware of things - aviation-related - that would lower the odds of this
'worst-case' scenario even more - which is a valid thing to consider. It has
been said by many (and I have gotten emails recently that reiterate this view)
that, "This hobby is just one fatal accident away from simply going 'poof' and
going away." I feel reasonably confident in the truth to those words. *IF*, in
the aftermath of this fatal accident - if it concerns aviation - the FAA were to
determine that the hobby was working diligently and continually at helping
themselves to *understand* the 'other side of the fence' (the pilot side), there
is possibility we would not see the hobby shut down, or simply regulated out of
existence - as the FAA could not say we weren't trying. However, if the FAA were
to get the impression that we simply didn't care about "all that crap", they
would have NO inclination to go out of there way to save it. The simpler
approach to dealing with it would be to just 'can it' and move on. From what
I've seen - my feelings are that the latter is what the FAA would find.
It is *because* the aftermath of most aviation accidents is so bad and it is
*because* what I've seen in the hobby as to the understandings (mostly) and
attitudes (of some) in the hobby is lacking (in my view) that I have become
strong in my words and firm in my beliefs. Maybe I could (and should) be a
little less 'strong and firm' and just work to *deal* with those shortcomings I
see and would be more successful at not 'lighting the fuse' of some - such as
what happened between myself and Mr. Smith.
Education will fix a lot of it - and is, in reality, pretty dang simple to
accomplish. The 'Airman's Information Manual' (Part 1) - or 'AIM' has an awful
lot of information that would be useful to a rocketeer in understanding the
National Airspace System (NAS). This is decidedly easy to get ahold of and not
expensive at all. Actually, it can be REAL cheap - like FREE - if you know where
to look and what to ask for. This document (part 1 of it) is published every 112
days (about 3 times a year) and sent to all FAA facilities (towers, Flight
Service Stations, etc). They simply throw away the old copies - and Joe
Rocketeer, if he were to drop by and ask, would be given the old copies or they
would put his name on the current copy and would save it for him when it is
replaced with the next edition. Or, one could get it at GPO - about $20/year for
a subscription.
The AIM has a lot of stuff that would not need to be 'remembered' by 'Joe' - but
there is a gold mine of info there that could (and would) make 'Joe' a better and
safer rocketeer - the end result being lowering those odds of a rocket/airplane
conflict - and the dirty aftermath that would surely ensue could very well be
averted.
There are 'commercial' versions of the AIM - published by several private
concerns - bound with other things (like the FARs) that would cost more - but
this still isn't that much. Just spending an evening or two browsing thru this
document would go a long way towards what all my excessive verbage out here the
last week or two was trying to get across... a LONG way.
It would not be hard to get this 'awareness' I advocate. You just have to start.
-- john.
RobEdmonds
Guys, this, "the rocket is moving quickly" business holds no water, you
have an equal chance to hit it if it is standing still. It's just a same
place at same time and at any given moment the rocket is somewhere and the
airplane is somewhere. If they are the same, then collision. Motion is
not a factor other than at least one of the two must be moving.
RE
Douglas Caskey
In article <323254...@almatel.net> John H. Cato, Jr. wrote:
>to launch a rocket approaching 100 lbs mass
In the interest of being technically correct and to just bust your
chops a bit John... :)
F = MA. or M = F/A
100lbs = ~444.82 Newtons (kg*m/sec^2)
M = ~444.82N / 9.8m/sec^2
M = ~45.3898kg
Thus..."to launch a rocket approaching 45kg mass"
OR..."to launch a rocket approaching 100 lbs in weight"
Doug Caskey
Rock...@gnn.com
http://members.gnn.com/RocketWeb/RocketWeb.htm
Jerry Irvine
In article <3231D6...@token.net>, Larry Smith <la...@token.net> wrote:
> on God's green Earth
<g>
> Rockets require much less imagination than most such only
> because they _look_ so much like deadly airplane-killing war machines.
> A similarity that goes, quite literally, only skin-deep, if that far.
Correct.
> And I find it curious that there should be such a reaction in _this_
> newsgroup. At the altitude that airliner was at, any number of other
> activities, many of them not even _requiring_ a waiver, could've been
> legally in the area and been a far greater threat.
I agree with this as well. There seem to be a few paranoids here ...
> I think everyone here needs a good stiff shot of reality.
"Life may have no meaning...worse, it may have a meaning of which I
disapprove." - Ashleigh Brilliant
John Cato is obviously not perfect. He does not distinguish between a
possible event and an unlikely event. He also does not distinguish the
import of a close friend of his voting with his feet and quitting a
committee over disagreement with a decision not to stick with policy
regardless of what verbal assurances were made.
90% of what he says is right on. The other 10% is binary, wrong and paranoid.
I wonder how I appear to the outside world?
Jerry
The Silent Observer
Douglas Caskey wrote:
>
> In article <323254...@almatel.net> John H. Cato, Jr. wrote:
> >to launch a rocket approaching 100 lbs mass
>
> In the interest of being technically correct and to just bust your
> chops a bit John... :)
>
> F = MA. or M = F/A
> 100lbs = ~444.82 Newtons (kg*m/sec^2)
> M = ~444.82N / 9.8m/sec^2
> M = ~45.3898kg
>
> Thus..."to launch a rocket approaching 45kg mass"
> OR..."to launch a rocket approaching 100 lbs in weight"
Well, in fact, engineers in the US have long used units called a
"lb-mass" which are defined as that mass that accelerates at 32.2 ft/s^2
under a force of 1 lb (or alternately, a mass that weighs 1 lb in a
field of 1 standard G). These are, for some things, a lot more
convenient to work with than slugs (the official English mass unit, a
mass that accelerates at 1 ft/s^2 under 1 lb force, weighs 32.2 lbs in
1 standard G); you just have to remember to write your acceleration in G
units instead of ft/s^2.
Sorry to bust up your chop-busting -- I'm not even sure you can find a
current engineering text that deals in lb-mass units, but they certainly
did in 1980, when an engineer had to be ready to deal with whatever units
the real-world measurements came in...and those might well not be metric.
--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| It's easier to create chaos than order -- 2nd law of thermodynamics |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| sil...@ix.netcom.com http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/home.htm |
| TableTop Publications http://members.aol.com/silntobsvr/ttop_pub.htm |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| All opinions expressed are my own, and should in no way be mistaken |
| for those of anyone but a rabid libertarian. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+