Fellow Rocketeers:

My decision to desist from contacting our regional FAA folks with respect
to our DF23/SCST event on Oct 20-21 appears to have been the correct one,
as you will see by reading President Kelly's message below. I am happy
Bruce sent this message - in a telephone conversation I had with him
yesterday, I had expressed the need for some central guidance as opposed to
the anecdotal, and regional, information we were getting (even on ROL).
Bruce was already thinking this way, which is why he had previously
assigned TRA VP Dick Embry to work on a more direct way of really
ascertaining what was going on, and why we were seeing some waivers being
cancelled. I also offered Bruce my services as a Board member and national
Secretary in whatever capacity I could serve to assist in these matters.

In any case, while Bruce's information is not immediately encouraging, it
is good to know what is driving our launch situations. We are at least not
guessing as much as we were before. I'll stop here, and let you read the
message, but please look for my comments following the message,
particularly regarding impact on our DF23/SCST event....

Ken Good

Forwarded by Kenneth J Good

BRUCE KELLY
Subject: Sept 21 Update 09/21/2001 01:49 PM

21 September 2001

To All Prefects (and other persons)

Yesterday morning the situation began to look more positive as the FAA
began slowly lifting restrictions on recreational waivers. But as time
moved forward it became a long day for me and others trying to gather more
current information. Our efforts have been directed toward obtaining
"original sources" for actions which have been attributed to the FAA.
Original sources may include official communications between different
government departments, official communications generated within a specific
agency, and intra- and inter-office memorandums and notices.

I hesitate to post information that is incomplete or without the
documentation that we are seeking in hand, but circumstances warrant this
second post. All of our communications so far with the FAA have been word-
of-mouth, with only two exceptions. The exceptions originate from regional
offices; they are not the original documents we have been requesting. One
of these was hand-written and troubling, stating: "There is no word as to
when, if ever, rocket waivers will be approved again." Of course, the
wording on a handwritten letter more reflects the FAA's frustration than
official policy.

At this moment it appears the FAA has nothing to do with the ban on
rocketry waivers at all. All roads point to the Department of Defense (DOD)
acting under orders from the White House. The reason given for the lack of
a "paper trail" is that the original sources appear to be "classified." I
have specifically asked for (a) the inter-FAA memos directing regional
offices to cancel existing waivers or memos denying waiver applications and
(b) written documentation showing the DOD's directive to the FAA to cancel
or deny waivers.

This morning I have asked our attorneys in Washington to exercise all
available rights under the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) to obtain this
information. However, the DOD may have certain protections from the act in
circumstances such as these. (See http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/)

The DOD currently has instructions, from the President, to order military
aircraft to patrol the skies and escort high risk flights - or rather
flights in high risk and high profile locations - into their destinations.
You can see F16's doing this over Salt Lake City, and perhaps over your
city. Additionally, any aircraft deviating from its flight path will be
intercepted with an attempt to communicate, directing the straying aircraft
back onto its filed flight path. If the aircraft fails to do this, DOD has
instructed intercepts to shoot the aircraft down.

How does this affect rocketry? High power rockets are routinely spotted on
radar - both civilian and military radar installations. The DOD has
directed that anything appearing on the radar screen that does not have a
filed flight plan to be investigated. The DOD does not want to devote
resources to policing rocketry activities right now, nor do they want
rockets in the air while patrolling the skies under these emergency
conditions. Once again, this is all word-of-mouth. We have yet to receive
any of this in writing.

Though I understand the situation and the stress and strain on security
resources, I must also strongly disagree with this ban on our activity on
these grounds. First, a filed waiver constitutes a "controlled" area. As
such, the activity is in a controlled area and the activity is known. The
activity has geographic and altitude limits. Secondly, this is the example
of yet another arbitrary restriction on the hobby based on knee-jerk
reactions. A couple of days ago restrictions were more even, effecting many
other interests, as far as restrictions are concerned. But since then
restrictions have been lifted on ultra light aircraft as well as crop
dusters. Restrictions have been lifted on other activities, but a few
others remain restricted "indefinitely."

I do have sources working on this and will have word on those efforts,
some information by tomorrow and some on Monday.

Here is what I do know, from sources located in Denver and directly with
Washington D.C. FAA Control:

1. Rockets weighing LESS THAN one (1) pound, INCLUDING PROPELLANT WEIGHT,
- or - rockets with only four (4) ounces of propellant ARE ALLOWED.

2. Rockets falling under the 3.3-pound rule ARE NOT ALLOWED AT THIS
TIME.

3. Rockets in any other category, including all High Power, ARE NOT ALLOWED
AT THIS TIME.

I am directing all Tripoli Prefects who have been telling their people that
their launch is "go" for this weekend or for next weekend to cease telling
them so. This is not going to be fair to those traveling long distances who
will ultimately be disappointed to learn the launch has been scrubbed when
you call in your waiver for activation. That is when you are going to learn
your regional office misinformed you.

If you are getting this information from your regional FAA offices, they
are in error and the error will cost both you and them considerable
discomfort if you launch any high power rockets until this nationwide ban
on rocketry has been lifted. If you are still being misled, please contact
me. I will see to it your office is on the same page as Washington.

Last weekend at one of our east coast sites (on a small airfield), the FBI
showed up in several vans. The airport manager was on the field observing a
crop duster that had just taken flight. An agent pointed to the aircraft
while talking to the manager and said, "Get that plane on the ground
immediately." When the plane landed, all crop dusters that could fit into
hangars were locked in by the agents. At least one plane that was too large
for hanger confinement had the battery removed. While all of this was going
on the rocketeers were escorted off the field by some of the other agents.

When Washington says an activity is off, it is off! These people are not
messing around. Again, it is not the FAA. The numerous phone calls they are
getting is, understandably, wearing them thin. If you keep pestering them,
you may find the waiver process different even after the restrictions have
been lifted.

Please allow us to do this from one focal point. We are approaching this
using legal resources you have paid for. Let's allow these people do their
work without hounding the FAA. They are the least of our worries right now.

Even though this sounds grim, this could still clear itself up without our
involvement. As the DOD continues to slowly lift restrictions, the FAA has
been quick to respond. Even though I cannot just sit back and rely on a
resolution to occur on its own, I still have hope that it will.

We will continue to post updates as they become available.

Bruce E. Kelly, President
Tripoli Rocketry Association

At the Sept. 15 joint TRA Pittsburgh/Pittsburgh Space Command DF23/SCST
planning meeting, it was agreed that if our event's FAA waiver was pulled,
we could probably still conduct a limited event under the conditions of the
3.3 pound rule. In essence, the rule states that with proper advance
notice to the FAA, you can fly rockets weighing no more than 3.3 lbs. (full
flight weight) and with no more than 125 g of propellant. No waiver is
required for such flight operations if the requisite notice is given.

However, if the Dept. of Defense has, as Bruce indicates, claimed the
airspace for now (whether or not this is an overreaction), then the 3.3
rule won't necessarily apply. If our event were held this weekend, we
could do no more than fly model rockets under the 1 pound rule.

Of course, this could still support the competition and sport model
rocketry component of this event, as well as (presumably) the monocopter
event. BUT, one would have to question whether any monocopter weighing in
at more than one pound, and/or flying with greater than 113 g. of fuel
should be considered as compliant. While this seems ridiculous - has
anyone seen a monocopter fly more than a few hundred feet? - I don't think
any of us can assume that a monocopter, at least one which uses
rocket-motive-power, would necessarily be exempt.

War hysteria is an ugly thing - I have scenes of "1941" rolling in my mind
right now - but it's pretty clear we are in a time when our government and
DoD are taking no chances. One can sympathize with what they are facing,
but I also agree with Bruce's sentiment that our existing waivers, which
believe me are painstaking and thorough to obtain and to follow to the
letter, constitute a "controlled air space" agreement between us and the
FAA. But if the DoD is not yet ready to fully cede airspace control to the
FAA and those with whom the FAA has negotiated controlled airspace
agreements, then we have little option but to ride things out, while
pressing our case in Washington through TRA's attorneys and government
contacts.

It comes down to this - we are one month away from DF23/SCST, and we will
continue to be vigilant to developments. At some point, perhaps within a
couple of weeks, the executive committee of TRA Pittsburgh and the officers
of the Pittsburgh Space Command will need to meet to determine what the
nature of the event can be, and whether indeed we should still plan to
conduct such an event. In the absence of any HP or even "mid-power"
rocketry, I have some ideas along the lines of a "Tripoli Tech" kind of
meeting, but to really do something like this properly would take more
planning than a couple of weeks. I'll keep everyone posted, and any
feedback you have is welcomed.

Ken Good
TRA Secretary
Prefect, Tripoli Pittsburgh