MODELS LAUNCHED FROM PARK

LEXINGTON, Kentucky USA — Air traffic at Blue Grass Airport had to be rerouted for several hours Saturday because large model rockets were being launched from a city park directly into the flight path of approaching and departing airplanes.

The manager of the air traffic control tower at Blue Grass Airport sent a letter to Mayor Jim Newberry yesterday expressing concern about the incident, which he said posed "an unacceptable level of risk to these aircraft." The letter was addressed to Newberry because the model rockets were launched from Masterson Station Park off Leestown Road by the Bluegrass Rocketry Society.

In the letter, Duff Ortman, air traffic manager at the Lexington tower, said the model rockets — up to 6 feet long and able to reach an altitude of 4,000 feet — "create a collision hazard with aircraft arriving and departing Blue Grass Airport."

But members of the Bluegrass Rocketry Society say Lexington tower officials are blowing the issue out of proportion. They said they obtained a waiver in November 2006 to allow rocket launches from a Federal Aviation Administration office in Louisville. The waiver is good for a year.

Darryl Hankes, president of Bluegrass Rocketry Society, said his group has shot off rockets at Masterson Station Park for more than two years. Mark Thompson, treasurer of the group, said the Lexington control tower is over-reacting because "they're still jumpy" since the Aug. 27 crash of Comair Flight 5191.

"They're trying to make it difficult for somebody trying to enjoy their hobby," said Hankes.

According to the letter — details of which were first reported by the Herald-Leader on Kentucky.com yesterday — the model rocket issue came up once before, in 2005. The model rocketry club was advised then that the rockets could pose a hazard to aircraft, and that rocket launch was canceled.

However, the club has since resumed launches from the park, Ortman says in the letter.

In the letter, Ortman says the club might have obtained a required FAA permit or waiver for the launches, but "the local air traffic control facility retains the right to review the intended operation and determine if it poses a hazard to local aviation."

Ortman's letter says that because of the rocket launches, air traffic controllers "vectored aircraft away from Masterson Station Park for several hours" on Saturday to ensure "the safety of the flights." The planes still landed and took off from the airport, but they used a different flight path.

However, an incident report filed by an air traffic controller with the NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System states that controllers were told not to alter aircraft flight paths. That incident report says the air traffic control manager told controllers that the rocket club "had their waiver and that we were going to have normal departures."

In his letter to the mayor, Ortman also states that he spoke with Chuck Ellis, the city's director of parks and recreation, who indicated that the rocketry club did not have city permission for the launch.

In an interview, Ellis said the city has had problems for the last couple of years with the group shooting off rockets at Masterson Station. He said the city objects to the rockets because the noise bothers horses that are kept at the park.

Ellis said he plans to write a letter to the group reiterating that it needs permission from the city before any rocket launches take place. He said that since 2006, rockets were launched from the park at least two times without permission.

"My goal is to officially notify them that this will not be permitted," Ellis said. "And all the employees are on guard that if they see them, to call the police."

Ellis said that if the group asked for permission to conduct such a launch, the city would review whether houses are nearby and whether other park programming is scheduled.

"And now I would add: Is it in the flight path of the airport?" Ellis said.

According to the Bluegrass Rocketry Society's Web site, the group launched from Masterson Station on March 18 and May 12, and has launches scheduled there for July 14, Sept. 8 and Nov. 10.

Thompson, treasurer of the rocketry society, said he is the person to whom the annual FAA waiver was issued. He said that each time before the club meets, the FAA district flight standards office in Louisville must be notified 24 to 48 hours in advance.

Thompson must let them know the date, time, place, area, altitude and duration of the club's rocket launches.

Then 30 minutes prior to the first launch, Thompson has to notify the air traffic control tower at Blue Grass by telephone. "I did that," he said.

The control tower then issued a notice to aviators about the activity.

Hankes, the group's president, said he doesn't understand why the issue is coming up now.

"We've flown out there two years and haven't encountered any problem with aircraft, horses or people," Hankes said.

"If there is aircraft in the sky, we don't fire. If a plane is anywhere in the vicinity, a rocket isn't launched," Hankes said.

Michael Gobb, the airport's executive director, said he was not aware of the incident until he learned about it yesterday.

He said the airport does not control airspace or approaches; those are under the control of the FAA.

Copyright © 2007, Lexington Herald-Leader.

05-16-2007 11:33 AM  #1
Aphyle Hot HCl and rubber @ AM   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 113	Relationship building Like so many situations of this nature, communications is vital. I was conducting a teacher workshop several years ago, and we could not use a municipal park to launch without an insurance waiver. Since we were not intending to use university property, the underwriter refused to provide evidence of insurance coverage, since we were, in his words, "operating aircraft," and they refused to underwrite aircraft operations after the university plane crashed. We were okay, so long as we operated from university property. It turned out that the university owned a farm that was an ideal site for launches, except for the fact that it was 1.1 miles from the local airport and 3 miles from the local hospital's helipad. Talk about controlled airspace! Well, we followed all of the regulations, and then went further, arranging to meet in person the ATC director, sharing all of the regs and how we intended to comply with them. After a little head scratching on their part, they agreed to let us launch. We ALWAYS did our 24-48 hour advance notice, and when we did our 30-minute advance notice, calling the tower, they knew what was happening and were even chatty with us. They provided the NOTAM and then advised us to be on the lookout for approaches, etc. We were nestled directly in-between the two glide paths for the runways. They had our cell number, but never had the need to call us. No further problems were encountered, except for an overzealous phone call from the local police, when he heard "rockets" and thought we were launching skyrockets/bottle rockets. A little more clear communciation, an we never heard back from the police, either.

05-16-2007 12:17 PM  #2
Rocket hound New Member   Joined: Feb 2007 Posts: 4	Lexington, Ky. article I agree that communication between all parties involved in a launch is vital. I'd also like to add that setting up a Rocket launch is not the place for "turf wars, or stepping on toes". We could easily lose our hobby to "bad press" like this. I think the problem could have been avoided by both parties very simply. On the side of the Rocketry club, find alternative sites for launches. Four miles off the end of a departure or approach runway for jet aircraft wouldn't be my first choice. Now is not the time to crowd any rules-- FAA, NFPA, or our own organizations. On to the FAA. Not sure what they were thinking To the ATC, and his superiors. Your actions put aircraft at risk by allowing them to fly thrugh an active launch. NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!!! Admittedly, the risk is small, but this needed to be handled differently. Andrew Horton

05-16-2007 12:39 PM  #3
mrbusdriver Certified Level One   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 28	Bluegrass airport is Class C airspace, TWR owns the airspace surface to 5000 agl out to 5nm, then 2200 to 5000' out to 10nm. Only makes sense to be in constant contact with the tower (not some off site ATC manager). Now...the ATC manager, like so many others, doesn't speak rocket, needs some educating. Also should keep the cell on. Was the exact launch times (or window) and altitudes known to the Tower? I can't imagine having a blanket waiver to launch whatever/whenever I like for a 6 month period that close to a commercial airport. And waivers don't "close" airspace per se. Just sounds like they need to get together, get smart on each others' operations, and press on. But too often, there is a knee jerk "squash it" reaction. Seems like a good time for clubs everywhere to think about getting with their local FAA/ATC types and reviewing things together, regardless of where they fly. EDIT: just read the NASA form, sounds like the left hand didn't know what the right hand was doing. Having to go to FSDO and not working directly with tower is putting a lot of trust in someone very distant from the situation to coordinate the situation real-time...not good. This is a procedural nightmare.

05-16-2007 01:35 PM  #4
Stewart32 Certified Level One   Joined: Oct 2006 Posts: 25	Where can one read the NASA form?

05-16-2007 02:03 PM  #5
mrbusdriver Certified Level One   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 28	http://www.rocketryplanet....es/content/1850/ASIR.pdf Appears written by a controller that day...not certain as to the accuracy of all the comments, but a pretty lousy situation overall, controller was stuck between a rock(et) and a hard place (ATM).

05-16-2007 02:52 PM  #6
Aphyle Hot HCl and rubber @ AM   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 113	See the attached image. The likely launch site is 4.2 nm from the end of RY4, but the site is .62 nm from the glide path at the closest point. So if anyone is a pilot on this forum, could someone be outside of a 1.2 nm wide wedge and still be on the glide path?

05-16-2007 03:47 PM  #7
mrbusdriver Certified Level One   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 28	The controller's concern was that the activity was basically under the departure path of the airport, up to 5000 feet. Meanwhile, he says the ATM told them to continue straight out departures, while the rocketry contact said they would continue flying under their approved waiver. FSDO, who approved the waiver long ago, was not in the loop. There was an airspace conflict. The controllers, not knowing the details of what was being launched, rightly tried to keep aircraft out of the area, requiring vectoring after takeoff. The system broke down, approving a launch that, as it turned out, put rockets and airplanes in potential conflict. The controllers were correct in their concerns. It's a far from ideal launch site that close to an airport, and in line with the major runway. Real time contact with ATC only makes sense, as it is Tower's airspace they were "borrowing", via waiver. Dave

05-16-2007 07:29 PM  #8
Aphyle Hot HCl and rubber @ AM   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 113	One wonders if there are not some other issues at work here at this location. Isn't this the same airport where there was a Comair crash last year, when the crew took off from the wrong ramp at night?

05-16-2007 11:51 PM  #9
mrbusdriver Certified Level One   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 28	Yes, it was LEX where the accident occurred. But can ATC be faulted if they followed the rules to the letter because of it? I don't see a direct correlation here anyway. Now, the launch site was off the departure end of the runway, so the landing glideslope wasn't a factor. What's disturbing is the lack of coordination between FSDO and the Tower. The guys come on for their shift to find their departure climb path "blocked" by a NOTAM (waiver), granted by some distant office, for large model rocket activity (with whom they weren't in communications). Not all flights will plan a climb straight out through the since-NOTAM'ed launch airspace, but some may be planning to. This requires Tower coordination with the Departure controller as the aircraft will need to turn immediately after departure, either ordered by Tower before takeoff, or by Departure on contact immediately after takeoff. The latter could be hazardous in the event of a delay in establishing contact. 4 miles isn't very far for a jet accellerating to 250 kts in the climb through an unknown hazard. It's hard to say how things evolved. The controllers were rightly diverting the aircraft away from the launch activity, which had been scheduled and waived by distant office staff long before. They could not coordinate with the "launch facility". The fact that the winds required runway 4 could not have been accurately anticipated at the time the waiver was granted, but should have been considered. A built in airspace conflict waiting to happen, especially when the ATM later tells them to fly their flights through the NOTAM space. Puts "all" the responsibility on the rocket club, also determined and eager to use the airspace. It would seem from the press reports that "several hours" passed with this difficult situation unresolved. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, easy to judge events looking back. As a pilot/controller, I see the controllers doing their job. As a rocket flyer, launching LMR/HPR (waiver) in Class C airspace, perhaps the following would have helped...(think RSO here): - A receiver tuned to tower freq to know when planes were cleared to depart on runway 4. - A cell phone/radio link that was active with TWR at least when the range is hot, if not full time. This allows Tower to give heads up on traffic, any traffic, whether departing or just "passing through" the class C airspace near the launch site before the the RSO gives the go to launch. - If ATC has a problem with the situation, regardless of the waiver, don't launch. Sort things out, live to fight another day. I really hope the club finds a better place to fly...that close to a Class C airport isn't a good location, especially LMR and HPR. The idea of the FSDO, a non-controlling agency, clearing the launch activity with 30 minutes notice, and simply "informing" Tower also seems absurd, IMHO. Tower is directly responsible for safety of flight in that airspace...in real time. The probability of something happening is miniscule, but it's there, and at the forefront in a controller's mind. Just my thoughts, from both sides of the coin. This can all happen very safely with coordination and communications between those directly involved...and some education for all the players as well. There's opportunity here, as well as challenges. Dave Rocketeer, pilot, and old AWACs controller.

05-17-2007 01:32 AM  #10
Aphyle Hot HCl and rubber @ AM   Joined: Dec 2006 Posts: 113	Thanks for the details. I agree fully on the, "if you are not sure..." aspects. I had initially missed that it was departures, not arrivals, that were the main concern. So my question about the distance from the path bearing and the launch site is valid only for incoming planes, if that. With respect to the unfortunate crash of last year, I was merely suggesting that personnel at LEX might really be on their toes and trying especially hard to meet the letter of the rules, regardless of what local rocketeer's interests might be. No one wants that kind of attention once, let along twice.

05-17-2007 09:14 AM  #11
Raider Rocketry Low Power Enthusiast   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 128	I think they should find a new launch site. It is up to us what image we project so we should do our best to be good neighbors both on the ground and in the air. Disturbing horses and fraying the ATC's nerves are not the way to make friends and influence enemies. As everyone else has said, communications are key, both prior and real time. This launch site could remain intact following a good neighbor policy, but you have to go that extra mile. Compliance is mandatory of course, but listening to suggestions from your neighbors makes sense. When you have the city telling people to call the police if... that's a bad thing. Shame on us. Be a good neighbor and that will preserve both our image and perhaps help with the intrusiveness of governmental agencies intrusive regulation of a self-regulated hobby.

05-17-2007 09:20 AM  #12
Steve_Shannon Growing more clueless...   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 2067	I just went to the NAR Yahoo group. Terry Dean posted the club's side of the story there, which tells the rest of the story. These were not high power rockets. They were large model rockets - 1 to 3.3 lb, lightweight construction, no more than a G motor - which legally do not need a waiver, only notification of the airport manager (if within five miles) and notification of the FAA. They went the extra mile in communicating with the FAA and working out some special details in advance anyway, including getting a waiver to spell out special conditions which took into consideration traffic at the airport. They called ATC 30 minutes before they started launching and they shortened their flying day by an hour. They admit to making some mistakes, such as accidentally providing an incorrect phone number to the tower. They have lost the park as a flying field, the waiver has been cancelled, and they are negotiating for another place to fly.

05-18-2007 08:21 AM  #13
Raider Rocketry Low Power Enthusiast   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 128	I hope they find a new place and I am glad they own the mistakes they made. I'm very happy they went the extra mile. I'm sorry they lost the field. Sometimes it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. I hope they find a new field and use their experience gained to continue to promote the self-regulated and safe image we strive for. I'm on our side, honest. I just have to come down on us when there is a conflict is all. For my part, I've decided to stop by the local police station here and let them know when I'll be flying and before I get into mid-power with the Little Joe II's maiden flight I'll be certain to ask ya'll how to go about it and even take that extra step to ensure a lack of conflict with the neighbors and ATC.

05-20-2007 12:55 PM  #14
Steve_Shannon Growing more clueless...   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 2067	I'm wrong. I was incorrect in my previous post. It turns out that the club in question did fly high power rockets. Ten percent of their flights were high power. They flew 5 or 6 H flights, 2 I flights, and one J-350, which convinces me that they showed poor judgement. They already knew they had bad relations with ATC (since 2005) and neither side was going to budge from a position they both believed was right. They had a home phone number listed in the waiver, so when ATC tried to call they got an answering machine. I feel both sides were wrong in some ways, but ATC was erring on the side of caution. The rocket club followed the rules as far as FAR 101 and the waiver specs, but I have never felt that the waiver allows a club to contradict the needs of ATC. A waiver relaxes some rules in order to allow rocket launches but it does not remove the need to work with ATC.

05-21-2007 11:40 PM  #15
jrcoxx Certified Level Three   Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 175	ATC Well folks, it's finally my time to add to this thread. 1) I read the original article, I did not read all of the responses and theories of what should or should not have been done in this case. 2) I am a retired Air Force non-commisioned officer who spent most of my career as an air traffic control supervisor in both tower and radar facilities. I also have 12 years of experience managing airspace issues and designing terminal instrument proceedures. I have signed off or investigated my fair share of waiver requests, building permits, obstructions to airspace and many other problems that the general public have no idea that exists. 3) I have read and briefed more notams (notice to airman) to ATC and Flight crews then you could ever imagine. Hopefully at this point you may realize that I have a qualified opinion. Many times the information passed thru the Notam system is not as informative to the actual situation as you may think. I would suggest the next time you have a club launch, start checking the Notams for the area of the launch and see if the information clearly defines exactly what is going on. As an example of not understanding a routine Notam: While I was stationed in Utah, we routinely received Notams regarding Parachute flares being tested. The Notam include the Time, altitudes and location, what we (ATC) and the flying squadrons on the base did not understand was the physical size and flight hazard that existed by these flares. From memory I estimate that the cansiter was about 20" long and 3-3.5" in diameter. I was on site at a fighter squadron when the flight crews were shown the flares. We were all amazed at what was really being dropped. Fortunetly the company testing the flares was acting very responsible and observing the area for aircraft before releasing the tests. Plus they decided to come to us and show us what they were using. Afterwards, we all reacted differently when we had a notam for flares. My point here is to get together with your local ATC guys that you need to talk to when having a launch. Setup an informal meeting, give them a presentation and do a show-n-tell. These guys (and women) are aviation enthusist, they like things that fly and go fast, that is why they have a job. Use the opportunity to have them help you get higher waivers or improve a communication process. If they understand that we can really control what happens at a launch and not send uncontrolled missiles into the sky, they can be very helpful. FWIW John Cox, USAF Retired ex ATC Guy, and oh ya, TRA L2 dude