SpaceShipOne News Coverage just a little rough on the edges

Herb Schaltegger wrote:

I'd have to look up the enabling legislation again to give you a
precise quote, but generally speaking, the FAA has jurisdiction over
pretty much any civilian activity in the atmosphere over the U.S., it
territories and possessions, from 5,000' above ground level up,
except over airports where control goes down to ground level, and in
certain other restricted areas.


Funny airport story- when I was a kid, the FAA got very concerned about
obstructions in the area of airports; this occurred at the same time our
airport underwent an upgrade to handle Northwest Orient's 727 jets
(these replaced their Lockheed Electras).
One of the new rules was that a inverted "cone of danger" extended out
from the airport in regards to obstructions- the closer you got to the
airport, the shorter the height of an object became in regards to it's
perceived threat and need for a red marker light on top of
it...unfortunatly, the streetlights leading up the road to the airport
were high enough to meet that threat level, and each of them had a red
warning light on top.....so...when the Cessna approached the airport one
night, and the runway lights weren't on.... well, all in all he did a
pretty good job on the landing- he was lucky that there were only lights
on one side of the road, as it is pretty skinny, and it would have been
an interesting thing to see whether the distance between the
streetlights or the Cessna's wingspan was greater. He ended up in the
field next to the road with no harm- other than to his ego. :-D

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
Funny airport story- when I was a kid,

They had airports back then? That's pretty funny, yeah

A Merpati Air 767 tried to land on the road which leads to Perth Airport
once - it has better lighting than the runways. But it's not even close to
straight, so it would have been a weird old evening.

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article
,
"Neil Gerace" wrote:

Would the FAA even be allowed to ban private spaceflight?

I'd have to look up the enabling legislation again to give you a
precise quote, but generally speaking, the FAA has jurisdiction over
pretty much any civilian activity in the atmosphere over the U.S., it
territories and possessions, from 5,000' above ground level up,
except over airports where control goes down to ground level, and in
certain other restricted areas.

Not 'allowed to ban' exactly in the sense of 'having executive power over
the issue', but 'allowed' in the sense of 'being allowed to ride roughshod
over the principle of free enterprise by magically eliminating competition
against its government-owned stablemate NASA in the process without a really
good reason'. Seems to me that any country founded on that principle
wouldn't like one of its institutions to violate it in the name of the
people.

Neil Gerace wrote:

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Funny airport story- when I was a kid,



They had airports back then?


Well we _did_ have that Sopwith Camel come through on its way to Oshkosh....
The fact that I remember Electras in airliner service sort of dates me,
doesn't it? God, but those *******s were noisy. We had a Constellation
drop by now and then also...that's one of the prettiest airliners ever
made.

Pat

In article ,
Herb Schaltegger writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In article
,
"Neil Gerace" wrote:

Would the FAA even be allowed to ban private spaceflight?

I'd have to look up the enabling legislation again to give you a
precise quote, but generally speaking, the FAA has jurisdiction over
pretty much any civilian activity in the atmosphere over the U.S., it
territories and possessions, from 5,000' above ground level up,
except over airports where control goes down to ground level, and in
certain other restricted areas.

Herb, I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK, the FAA's jurisdiction isn't
governed by altitude, but by the character of the aircraft.
Basically, if it's not an Ultralight - denoted by the nominal
capability of being foot-launched - this includes hang gliders &
powered ultralights - than it's going to need an N-Number, and a
lisenced Pilot. Tethered Balloons & kites don't count, either.
Everything else requires the FAA nod in terms of Airworthiness
certificates, required inspections, and just who can maintain it or
fly it. The pilot's have their own set of regs to go by, wrt medical
and proficiency requirements, and the proper rules of behavior.
--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article 41708b23$0$25601$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, says...
Would the FAA even be allowed to ban private spaceflight?

Certainly they have control over the in-the-air part of the flight. The
government can decree control over the entire flight (in fact, I belive
they have to under international law), and could well delegate this to
the FAA.


According to the principles of free enterprise and healthy competition,

The current Administration *isn't* a fan of free enterprise and healthy
competition. (E.g., the FCC's encouragement of near-monopoly of
broadcast media, the lack of effective prosecution of the rape of
California energy rate payers after it became obvious that Enron et.al.
had been deliberately reducing the supply of electricity to justify
hellishly high rates, any number of no-bid contracts.)

The only good news is the Administration just doesn't care about
Spaceship One and the other X-prize entries.
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

After that, I believe, I undertook to take apart and assemble the clocks
of my grandfather. In the former operation I was always successful, but
often failed in the latter. -- attributed to Nicola Tesla

Peter Stickney wrote:

Herb, I'm not a lawyer, but AFAIK, the FAA's jurisdiction isn't
governed by altitude, but by the character of the aircraft.
Basically, if it's not an Ultralight - denoted by the nominal
capability of being foot-launched - this includes hang gliders &
powered ultralights - than it's going to need an N-Number, and a
lisenced Pilot.


I think if it is going to be used commercially, it's going to have to
meet some pretty strict requirements, no matter what sort of paperwork
the prospective passengers sign in advance. Aren't passengers a no-no on
FAA "experimental" class aircraft?

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...

I think if it is going to be used commercially, it's going to have to meet
some pretty strict requirements, no matter what sort of paperwork the
prospective passengers sign in advance. Aren't passengers a no-no on FAA
"experimental" class aircraft?

I wonder, do the space shuttle orbiters have N numbers, being civilian
aircraft? Particularly the Enterprise, which was a civilian-operated
atmospheric glider, not a spaceplane.

"Kevin Willoughby" wrote in message
...
In article 41708b23$0$25601$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-
01.iinet.net.au, says...
Would the FAA even be allowed to ban private spaceflight?

Certainly they have control over the in-the-air part of the flight. The
government can decree control over the entire flight (in fact, I belive
they have to under international law), and could well delegate this to
the FAA.

But it doesn't mean they'd be allowed to ban merely it out of govt jealousy
of a private operation.

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:19:28 +0800, "Neil Gerace" wrote:

I wonder, do the space shuttle orbiters have N numbers, being civilian
aircraft? Particularly the Enterprise, which was a civilian-operated
atmospheric glider, not a spaceplane.


I found this on a page devoted to the first Boeing 737 (PA099/N73700), which was
later sold to NASA-

(from http://rbogash.com/737index.html)
"After several years of Boeing flight test work, PA099 was placed in storage by
Boeing for several years, until sold to the U.S. Government - National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) as a flight test airplane. NASA had two blue and
white color schemes over the life of the airplane. Their registration was simply
NASA 515. As a public use airplane, NASA was not required, nor did they register
the airplane with the FAA in its early service. Later, NASA decided to obtain N
numbers for their fleet of airplanes and PA099 became N515NA on the FAA registry."

An N-number search using NASA as the owner yields about 16 registrations- the
shuttles not being among them.

Dale

Maybe they use "NCC-"?