In a recent exchange on Compuserve, it appears that interaction between CATS Prize Board member, David Anderman, and the FAA have waiver procedures up in the air for upcoming CATS prize launch attempts. Numerous Tripoli Prefects have questioned Bruce Kelly about changes coming from the FAA, necessitating a public response from Kelly online.

#: 35204 S1/General Information [ROCKETRY]
11-Mar-98 12:37:04
Sb: FAA - someone screwed up
Fm: Bruce E. Kelly 71161,2351
To: All

It looks like things are coming into focus. In response to Ky Michaelson's post, David Anderman (CATS Prize Board) posted the following:

"What was largely discussed at the Washington meeting was the establishment of a process to determine whether the competitors have indeed cleared the way to launch legally. Although the DoT regulators define "amateur" rockets fairly clearly, there is no process now for DoT to rule prospectively on whether a rocket is under the Amateur rocket or requires a launch license.

Also, we discussed the role of the regional FAA offices in issuing flight waivers - do they actually look at the rockets that they are issuing waivers for?"

(BK Editorial note - this is where it looks like David Anderman really screwed the pooch for all of us. It sure comes across as an arrogant question directed to the FAA.)

"I determined during the meeting that the regional FAA offices and the Washington DoT staff have different roles. The best comparison is with the world of aviation - the FAA regional offices will accept your flight plan, but do not issue pilot's licenses. That licensing process is what the Washington DC DoT office does (or else they determine that a rocket is too small to require a license).

Therefore, what will happen in the future is that the FAA regional ofices will forward waiver requests to the DoT licensing office to determine prospectively whether the rocket in question requires a license. Also, the CATS Prize staff will work w/DoT to ensure that any competitor's rocket has been reviewed by DoT for amateur rocket status.

Competitors who attempt to fly with just a waiver essentially have filled out and filed a flight plan, but still don't have a license to fly. That license - or a ruling that no license is required - is an essential part of the requirement to launch on a legal basis.

We also talked about launch sites, but that's a story for another day."

-----------------------

Of particular concern is this last statement from Anderman, which could spell additional government involvement in launch sites setups nationwide. Not only does this as well as the waiver involvement spell potential problems for the CATS prize participants, the event could bleed over with consequences for all rocketeers as well.

If you want to get more information about this "meeting" or to express your feelings on this issue to Mr. Anderman, his e-mail address is This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it . As an update to this posting on Compuserve, Bruce Kelly has posted additional information:

FYI,

I made the following post on Compuserve today. A few moments ago, Bruce Lee comfirmed that this approach was recommended by their own regional FAA person. Let me know if any of you have success using this approach.

Also, I followed up with the FAA today and did confirm that Mr. Anderman's approach had almost everything to do with the current situation.

B Kelly

----Forwarded Message(s)----

#: 35283 S1/General Information [ROCKETRY]
12-Mar-98 16:17:06
Sb: FAA - someone screwed up
Fm: Bruce E. Kelly 71161,2351
To: Phil Pryor and All

Phil (and everyone),

Take a breather - this may not be too difficult for you all to work out. First of all a few waivers are, in fact, being denied. But most of them are not - they are being routed to the FAA in DC for a decision.

Try this approach -

1. File early. If you are filing within 30 days, you are not filing early enough. Plan on a 6 to 8 week period for approval. The Regional FAA offices are supposed to forward them to DC. DC will determine if the rockets are hobby or something else. They will give their recommendation to the Regional office where you will receive notice of denial or acceptance.

2. For now, *estimate* the number of rockets that you think will be flown. Be sure when you send this in to state that it is an estimate. Do the same with the motors that you believe will be used.

3. List the kinds of airframes you expect to be used [metal (this should be very limited, depending on location, etc), phenolic, cardboard, fiberglass...]

4. List the projected altitude the average rocket is capable of obtaining with the motors you are expecting. Also, explain how you plan on keeping these rockets under the waiver you requested or they may give.

People - The FAA is confused about rocket classifications. Give them some help, that is what this is all about.

Using the guidelines above, convince your Regional FAA person to send it along to DC even if they feel it is too broad. Make sure they include your letter explaining your estimates. Kindly explain that people show up that you are unaware may be coming from out- of-state. Tell them there is no way to know exactly how many will fly. Also, explain that if the 1st flight is successful, they may want to fly the rocket again, and maybe even again.

How to estimate? You guys should have a track record of what flew last year. Use your statistics and increase by the percentage your group has grown. How may H flights did you have, and what was the average size rocket? Do the same all the way up to the largest motor flown last year. Don't forget to include hybrids and class C.

This is a rough idea of what *some* of you will find will work. Give the NAR, TRA and the trade (HPRMADA) an opportunity to work this out, face-to-face, with the FAA.

B Kelly

----End Forwarded Message(s)----