Re: LOCAL FAA on our case AGAIN!



Scott Schuckert wrote:
In article <xLN2i.316021$7g3.271258@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, David Erbas-White
<derbas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

As for the argument that "I'm the public, therefore I own this land, therefore I can make the rules," I'd like to see you make that argument in regards to access to forest service land without permits, harvesting flowers from the local arboretum, or taking animals home from the local public zoo. Life doesn't work that way -- the 'public' has delegated responsibility for 'public lands/works' to groups of people who are supposed to be 'responsible' for those lands. If you want to play the "I'm the public, so I make the rules" card, let me know how it works out the next time you get pulled over and you tell the officer "I pay your salary, so you'd better listen to me..."

Oddly (for you) you missed the point - all of the actions you mention
are specifically forbidden. As far as I can tell, launching rockets was not. Granted, the "I pay your salary" thesis is actually, and
ridiculously, used at times; but that wasn't the case here.


I may not have been clear, but I'll try again. The examples I gave are ones that (in general, but with exceptions) are indeed generally illegal, but not usually 'posted' as such. I've occasionally seen a 'no logging' sign, once in a while a 'don't pick the flowers' sign, and NEVER seen a 'don't take home an animal from the zoo' sign.

My point (perhaps poorly made) was that these are things that are generally assumed to be not allowed, because of their nature, or because of societal issues. Rocketry is 'unusual' enough that it doesn't come into play in most folks minds, and if it does, it kind of enters the 'fireworks' category (which is the whole reason G. Harry got the ball rolling in the first place -- because of the 'normal' response of folks to rocketry).

One of my hobbies (admittedly rarely these days) is archery. I've never seen a prohibition at any public park I've been to that would prevent me from doing it. I don't hunt, so my arrows are pure 'target' arrows. I am (or was, until age started catching up) a damned good shot, and I don't think I've missed a target (unintentionally <G>) in over 3 decades. But if I started practicing at a local park, I would (best case) expect some questioning from the local police, and (worst case) expect to be arrested.

The REALITY is that most folks are scared of rockets. The reality is also that most folks are 'sheeple' enough to be satisfied that it's safe if you can wave the proper form in their face (at least in regards to 'soccer moms' and their ilk). I'd really like that to change, but it WON'T change unless we follow the rules sufficiently to proof to folks how safe, educational, and fun rocketry is.



As for "reasonableness", you're probably right. This hobby should just
accept that its activities are INHERENTLY suspect, and must cross every
t and dot every i to avoid trouble. But I don't have to like it.


I don't like it, not one little bit. But I'm resigned to it as part of the 'cost of doing business', and (at the same time) hope that we can work towards a time and it ISN'T automatically assumed to be a dangerous sport -- but that's only going to come about from PROVING to folks, over and over again, that we do things safely and properly.

I really don't think we're in any disagreement here. I'm fully against the FAA actions that were taken in this case by the local office, but it has become very apparent that the folks involved INTENTIONALLY launched at a site where the 'landowners' (or their representatives) has made it clear they weren't allowed to launch. That kind of crap doesn't help anyone -- it simply adds fuel to the perception of rocketeers as 'renegades' of some sort. There are TWO SEPARATE issues involved in this problem -- the FAA issue and the landowner issue. The FAA issue appears to be mostly 'resolved', and the only 'real' issue I see was that the contact information was (mistakenly) messed up. But the landowner issue appears to be a major problem. I'm really curious as to who the club thought was going to be providing insurance if there had been an accident -- it's real clear (to me, at least) that they would have had their butts hanging in the breeze if anything had happened.

David Erbas-White

P.S. Thanks (I think <G>) for the compliment at the beginning of your message...
.