Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

"Airprox" between COA B737 and "Model Rocket"?

Wikiposts
Search
Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

"Airprox" between COA B737 and "Model Rocket"?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 29th May 2008, 17:27
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Lincs,UK
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Probably the damage would be more depending on what model warhead, the model rocket was carrying.
Witraz is offline  
Old 29th May 2008, 19:58
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Witraz
Probably the damage would be more depending on what model warhead, the model rocket was carrying.
Very "witty".
Building model rockets is quite a common pastime in the US, more so than here in Europe.
The "warhead" usually contains a parachute with a timer, and if it's a student project there may be some bits of telemetry.
It's more hitting a few pounds of aluminium tubing that's going to make the mess...

CJ
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 29th May 2008, 20:10
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: England
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Angry

To hit, or to jeopardise an aircraft with any airborne FOD, regardless of its construction, would be a criminally irresponsible act, whether intentional or not.
Monty Cristo is offline  
Old 30th May 2008, 17:51
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: .
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This story seems to make little or no sense. A model rocket would never be able to reach that kind of altitude and still be burning: Just about all model rockets burn out before they reach 150ft above the ground.

And if it was a bigger one it still makes no sense, the biggest rocket I've worked with (a black brant, which can reach 250miles altitude) doesn't burn out the first stage much above 5000ft.
Either the thing had a flare attached to it or the pilots have gotten a little confused.
Nemrytter is offline  
Old 30th May 2008, 22:38
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Must have been reasonably big to have been seen a mile or two away.
cwatters is offline  
Old 31st May 2008, 02:43
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Spokane WA
Age: 51
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Finally a thread I can be an expert on.

Model rockets flown under the rules laid down by the NAR / Tripoli rocket association are generally made of cardboard or plastic with possibly some fiberglass.

High Power Rockets under similar rules laid down by the two organizations are again largely made from cardboard, plastic, fiberglass and or carbon fiber composites. No structural metal components are permitted.

Outside of these rules is amateur rocketry - here anything goes as far as materials and such go.

High power / Amateur rockets must be launched either under the provisions of FAR 101 or under a written waiver issued by the FAA. Both require NOTAMS to be issued in advance to the FAA & Airports within the vicinity.

FAA regulations limit the burn time of rocket motors to 15 seconds, specifically to avoid a rocket still under power encountering an aircraft at altitude.

As a member of a rocket club I can vouch for the fact that we go to some trouble to a) ensure that all the relevant authorities know what were doing and b) never to launch when an aircraft is in the vicinity.

We're also generally subject to VFR requirements in that we cant launch into clouds or launch in conditions where the rocket wouldn't be readily visible. Night time launches require strobes for visibility.

There have been "model rockets" sighted by pilots in the past which turned out to be meteors or military rocket launches tens of miles away, a big rocket a long way off looks a lot like a little rocket fairly close when there's no distance size reference available.

Much of the current regulations are derived from FAA tests which determined that hitting an aircraft was a near impossibillity even if you really try hard.
ribt4t is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.