SpaceShipOne News Coverage just a little rough on the edges

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


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?

No, there are many Experimental aircraft that can and do carry passengers.
Check out the FAQ's at www.eaa.org (the Experimental Aircraft Association
website).

Pat

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 16:55:12 -0500, Pat Flannery wrote:

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.

I didn't ride in an airplane until 1969. It was an Eastern Airlines DC-8 flight
from Seattle to Baltimore (with a stop in Kansas City, as I recall). The plane
couldn't have been terribly old, but it was very noisy and rattled alot. I've
always been curious about something on that flight. The final approach into
Baltimore was a very tight, very quickly descending spiral. The oxygen masks
didn't drop, but I still remember how painful it was to my ears. My dad was a
pilot with over 5000 hours logged, and even he was alarmed by this. Is that (or
was that at the time) a normal approach into Baltimore?

Well, anyway, the next leg of the trip took us to Miami. Next to the cyclone
fence at the airport were parked several Constellations. They were Super
8s, still painted in the '50s "Fly Eastern Airlines" scheme. I suppose they
were scrapped shortly thereafter, but yeah- those were beautiful planes...

Dale

I also remember that at the beginning of the flight to Baltimore, the pilot came
on the PA and gave his name ("Pagel" or something). My dad (who was a flight
instructor during WW2) said "God, I washed out a student by that name during
the war"

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 02:56:15 -0700, I wrote:

Constellations-

They were Super 8s,

Oops, I think they were called "Super G's", not "Super 8's".
I'll look it up tomorrow

Dale

In article ,
(Peter Stickney) wrote:

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.

Yes, you're correct. I should have differentiated between powered
aircraft and balloons/kites, etc. And I shouldn't have used
"jurisdiction." "Control" would have been a more accurate phrase, as
I was speaking generally.

My point was, however, that if a suborbital craft (which is obviously
powered) is going to leave and enter the atmosphere over U.S.
territory, that craft will be subject to FAA control (and
jurisdiction, although that is - as you pointed out - another issue,
really) as it passes above 5,000' on the way up and until it touches
down at an airport at ground level.

As matters stand now, the FAA pretty much has the authority to make or
break suborbital flight from the U.S. by fiat, given the dearth of
detailed enabling legislation and detailed federal regulations.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.angryherb.net

"Herb Schaltegger" wrote in message
...

My point was, however, that if a suborbital craft (which is obviously
powered) is going to leave and enter the atmosphere over U.S.
territory, that craft will be subject to FAA control (and
jurisdiction, although that is - as you pointed out - another issue,
really) as it passes above 5,000' on the way up and until it touches
down at an airport at ground level.

Hm, I think in Australia the lower limit is 500' (except at airports, of
course).

As matters stand now, the FAA pretty much has the authority to make or
break suborbital flight from the U.S. by fiat, given the dearth of
detailed enabling legislation and detailed federal regulations.

woah - that's quite scary. In other words, even if the govt hasn't actually
banned it, it's still illegal?

In article
,
"Neil Gerace" wrote:

As matters stand now, the FAA pretty much has the authority to make or
break suborbital flight from the U.S. by fiat, given the dearth of
detailed enabling legislation and detailed federal regulations.

woah - that's quite scary. In other words, even if the govt hasn't actually
banned it, it's still illegal?

It's not that the government has or hasn't banned anything; it's that
the FAA has control over all civilian aircraft flying at 5,000 feet or
above except around airports (where it starts at ground level) or
above certain restricted military areas. Since any suborbital flight
has to pass through 5,000 feet and climb through controlled airspace,
in the U.S., the FAA would have control and jurisdiction.

There are some regulations concerning suborbital commercial launches;
the FAA has actually issued a launch license to XCOR as well. Current
active licenses (including orbital launches) are listed at:

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/current_licenses.cfm

Actually, while the website of the FAA Associate Administrator for
Commercial Space Transportation is a bit cluttered, it's full of
incredibly interesting information.

http://ast.faa.gov

Including among the info is all the current and proposed FAA regs
governing suborbital flight, such as they are now. Needless to say,
while a nice start, these regs are nowhere near comprehensive,
especially compared to those governing ordinary aircraft.

http://ast.faa.gov/lrra/stats_notices.htm

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.angryherb.net

Dale wrote:


Well, anyway, the next leg of the trip took us to Miami. Next to the cyclone
fence at the airport were parked several Constellations. They were Super
8s, still painted in the '50s "Fly Eastern Airlines" scheme. I suppose they
were scrapped shortly thereafter, but yeah- those were beautiful planes...


If it had something that marred its looks it was that the nose gear was
awfully long and stocky. but if flight it looked like a art-moderne hood
ornament.


Dale

I also remember that at the beginning of the flight to Baltimore, the pilot came
on the PA and gave his name ("Pagel" or something). My dad (who was a flight
instructor during WW2) said "God, I washed out a student by that name during
the war"


Because of his drinking problem, no doubt (cut to scene of Pagel tossing
a glass of whiskey all over his face). ;-)

Pat

Herb Schaltegger wrote:


As matters stand now, the FAA pretty much has the authority to make or
break suborbital flight from the U.S. by fiat, given the dearth of
detailed enabling legislation and detailed federal regulations.


Which was why it was just plain dumb for Rutan to come out and torque
off Lockheed, Boeing, and NASA after his successful X-Prize flight.
Lord knows that Boeing doesn't have any pull with the FAA..... ;-)

Pat

Dale wrote:


Oops, I think they were called "Super G's", not "Super 8's".
I'll look it up tomorrow



Lockheed 1049G Super Constellation; and the nose gear is stalky, not stocky.

Pat

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 23:58:02 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



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?

Paying passengers are, but the proposed experimental rocket category
wouldn't prohibit them.