On 14 June 2007 the FAA published in the Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to essentially rewrite the parts of FAR Part 101 that deal with unmanned rockets. The document is available from the GPO web site. (Note: A correction was published on 28 June. It seems that the correct docket number is FAA-2007-27390)
For reference, you can also read the current regulations. By and large this appears to be fairly neutral in its effect on the hobby as a whole. A quick summary:
The terms model rocket and large model rocket are replaced in the process of creating four categories of "amateur rocket". The new class 1 rocket is equivalent to the old model rocket with the same operating rules. No waiver or notice required. As a bonus, the maximum propellant mass will be the same as for large model rockets - 125 grams.
Large model rocket is replaced by Class 2. It appears that the notification and other requirements are unchanged.
Class 3 covers what is now known within the hobby as High power rockets and is defined solely by the total installed impulse of 163,840 Newton-seconds. This exceeds what is allowed under NFPA 1127 and the high power safety codes of both the NAR and TRA. The FAA will eliminate the 15 second maximum burn time restriction.
Class 4 covers everything else up to the amateur rocket limitation of 889,600 Newtons-seconds total impulse or can exceed an altitude of 150 km (93.2 miles) AGL. Beyond that and you are in the realm of a launch license in accordance with 14 CFR Chapter III.
The regulations also spell out in detail the information to be provided when applying for approval of the launch of Class 3 and Class 4 rockets. While I have never applied for a waiver the requirements for Class 3 appear consistent with what is currently required. Although as it is worded it might be construed to require detailed information on each and every rocket to be flown: "A person operating one or more Class 3 High Power Rockets in controlled airspace must provide the information below on each rocket..." I guess that will be one thing to include in a comment. Along with questions about getting an approval for more than a single launch.
Speaking of comments the FAA uses the edocket system so the curious will be able to read all of the comments submitted. I wonder if that loony old lady in the northeast will submit her usual "They shouldn't be doing this." comment as she has in the past?
Hmmm. I just noticed that although there is a discussion of inconsistency in the ballistic coefficient requirement I didn't see anything in the proposed regulations about it. Good thing as it opens the whole how to calculate the coefficient of drag can of worms. (Buried in the discussion is a section where they say they are doing away with this requirement. That is one way to handle inconsistency. :-)
I have seen a few comments already whining about the inclusion of restrictions for Class 3 rockets like the prohibition on flying between sunset and sunrise and flying within 5 miles of an airport. Which completely ignores the fact that these restrictions already exist! (see 14 CFR 101.23) All you have to do is apply for a waiver to the regulations like you would now. Jeeze.
But it is refreshing to read this document in comparison to what the ATF usually publishes. This appears reasoned and thoughtful as opposed to the ATF's usual do it our way approach.
You may submit comments as directed in the notice until 12 September 2007.
Now that the dms.dot.gov website is back up, I looked at what was available from the 2000 forum that is referenced in the notice. While the notice claims that about 35 people participated and generated 150 pages of text, this text is not filed along with this docket. All that is available are those comments submitted afterwards.
In any case this forum was directed not at the high power hobby or the provisions of FAR 101 at all. Instead it was looking at creating an exemption from the extensive licensing requirements in part 400. Which appears to be covered by the Class 4 category.
I have seen at least one complaint about the inclusion of a requirement for Class 3 launches for fire suppression and reporting. Some people seem to think that this is a requirement best left to the NFPA (or more accurately, local fire authorities). However the FAA is required by law to protect the public.
Many years ago when I thought I wanted a pilots license I went through ground school and took the written exam. Knowledge of the FAA regulations was part of that study. One thing that stuck with me was the impression that the FAA was more concerned with the safety of people on the ground than of the pilot.
The one risk in this hobby that has the potential for greatest impact on the non-involved public is fire. While the effects of a ballistic recovery are limited to the impact area a fire could spread over a very wide area. Sensible precautions to control that risk are obviously in order. This includes providing fire extinguishers at the launch site and having the ability to notify the local fire department.
The docket is now closed. While a few snail mail submissions may dribble in over the next few days, as of now there are only 32 items on the docket. Including the proposal. NAR, TRA, a couple of clubs, and several individuals submitted comments. Alas most complained about the non-problem of the 5 mile restriction. The worst comments were from the Rocketry Organization of California. (ROC)
ROC proposed that class 1 and 2 be combined and that an impulse limit of 160 Newton-seconds be imposed. In arguing for this they got the facts wrong twice.
First they claimed that any rocket with more than 160 N-s impulse is generally considered to be a high power rocket. They have apparently failed to read the definitions for model and high power rockets in NFPA 1122 and 1127. The limit in the definition there is 320 N-s, along with limits on total and propellant mass.
ROC's second error was in claiming that a motor with more than 125 grams propellant mass could be a model rocket motor. The definition of a model rocket motor in NFPA 1122 and 1127 clearly states that this limit is not more than 62.5 grams.
So in arguing for a 160 N-s limit, ROC got the facts wrong. If the FAA uses 160 N-s you know who to blame when you need a waiver for that two G80 cluster rocket.
A few more comments were posted today including one from the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). They are concerned about the FAA issuing Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) for amateur rockets. I am not aware of a TFR ever being issued for an amateur rocket launch. I suspect that they might have been issued for launches like CSXT a few years ago but I don't know why the AOPA would be annoyed at that.
What is interesting is that an aviation company submitted a comment that effectively asks for just that. Planehook Aviation Services wants the notice requirements modified to include the phrase "in order to afford required separation from air traffic in accordance with 14 CFR Part 91.143".
14 CFR 91.143 says:
Flight limitation in the proximity of space flight operations.
When a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) is issued in accordance with this section, no person may operate any aircraft of U.S. registry, or pilot any aircraft under the authority of an airman certificate issued by the Federal Aviation Administration, within areas designated in a NOTAM for space flight operation except when authorized by ATC.
While this isn't a TFR, the effect is the same and would effect even class 2 rocket launches as notice is required for them as well. I can see that this would go over real big with the aviation community.
The FAA has migrated this docket from the DOT docket management system where it started over to the system at regulations.gov. Interestingly this lists a closing date of "nulldate".
The regulatory agenda published today indicates that the FAA estimates that they will publish the final rule in December of 2009.
4 December 2008
The FAA pushed the publication date up a bunch. The Fall 2008 agenda (published in late November) changed the estimated date to November 2008 but they missed that. It was instead published on 4 December. You can read the text here. (The new rules are on the last two pages and they take effect on 2 Feb. 2009.
There are several changes from the proposed rules. The change affecting the most people is the combination of proposed classes 1 and 2. The result of this will be that all rockets with a launch mass of no more than 1500 grams and no more than 125 grams propellant require no notification or waiver to fly. This combines the current model and large model rockets into a single class with requirements just like we currently have for model rockets.
One change that I predict will cause some heartburn is the impulse limit on Class 2 which encompasses most of high power rocketry. The impulse limit for this class was reduced to 40,960 N-s (the proposal was for 163,840 N-s) on the basis of several comments. I searched the docket to see who recommended this and only found one. Mr. Littmann appears to be the only person to have proposed this specific change.
Rockets with more than 40,960 N-s total impulse require much more documentation.
I noticed a complaint in a couple of places that this rule is just amendments to the regulations so it is hard to track what the regulations actually are. I find this hard to believe since with only a few exceptions they replace entire sections of code. But if it will help, here is what I think it looks like. The official version will have to wait until the GPO page is updated. Since this happens around January, it will not be long.
After reading a comment about the FAA estimating only 2 applications for a Class 3 launch per year, I took a closer look at the numbers provided. They do not make sense. Table C-1 shows what the FAA claims is happening under the current rules. They claim that for each waiver application they require 347 hours. With 200 applications per year that is almost 35 man-years of effort. (54+ man-years if you use the FAA definition of a full time person.) I am sorry but I do not believe that the FAA spends that much time on this.
Even better is the claim that the applicant spends 200 hours on the process.
The icing on the cake is Table C-2 which is the way they think it will be under the new rules. They think that there will be only two Class 3 applications. Since these are specific to a particular rocket, each Class 3 rocket requires its own application. More if it flies more than once. They didn't ask anyone from LDRS or BALLS or they would have used a more realistic number.
Once again the hours of labor required are grossly inflated.
I decided to take a look at the documentation the FAA filed with the Office of Management and Budget during the last review of the form used to apply for a waiver. It claims a completely different (and much lower) time burden. Just one half hour per waiver application and one half hour per notification. Strangely they claim 2,500 annual LMR launch notifications whereas this final rule only claims 100.
An editorial written by Pat Gordzelik was recently published on Rocketry Planet. In this editorial Pat discusses the new FAA requirements for Class 3 rockets. Although there are a lot of data requirements Pat focuses on number 7:
All nominal impact areas, including those for any spent motors and other discarded hardware, within three standard deviations of the mean impact point,
Meeting this requirement requires a bit of number crunching but I believe that it does not apply to rockets flown under the TRA safety code. The reason is simply that a recovery sytem is required so the term "impact" does not apply.
The FAA did not discuss this requirement but did state that this was simply the current practice. Therefore a look at the 14 CFR Chapter III requirements should provide some clarification. In the definitions at section 401.5 we find:
Instantaneous impact point means an impact point, following thrust termination of a launch vehicle, calculated in the absence of atmospheric drag effects.
This is pretty simple. Ignoring drag calculate where the rocket will impact. This implies a ballistic trajectory. If drag is ignored then so is any recovery system like a parachute because it operates by atmospheric drag.
For a suborbital ELV or RLV launch, launch ends after reaching apogee if the flight includes a reentry, or otherwise after vehicle landing or impact on Earth, and after activities necessary to return the vehicle to a safe condition on the ground.
Here we see a distinction between landing and impact.
(3) An unplanned event occurring during the flight of a launch vehicle resulting in the impact of a launch vehicle, its payload or any component thereof: (i) For an expendable launch vehicle, outside designated impact limit lines; and (ii) For a reusable launch vehicle, outside a designated landing site.
Here we see clearly a separation between parts of an expendable launch vehicle impacting the ground and a reusable launch vehicle landing. Since we fly reusable rockets (if all goes well anyway) then clearly the term "impact" does not apply.
Nominal means, in reference to launch vehicle performance, trajectory, or stage impact point, a launch vehicle flight where all vehicle aerodynamic parameters are as expected, all vehicle internal and external systems perform exactly as planned, and there are no external perturbing influences other than atmospheric drag and gravity.
Here we see that nominal indeed means what we think it means. Everything functions as planned. This means that failure modes that would result in a ballistic recovery do not generate a need to estimate impact areas.
Additional insight can be had from reading section 437 which covers the launch license "light" requirements.
Although these definitions do not apply to Part 101, the FAA did borrow heavily from Chapter III so the definitions there should give a good idea of what their intent was. Of course nothing beats asking them directly and hopefully getting an answer in writing.
Home