Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: ConHAB Launch Update, READ THIS!!!

Expand Messages
  • Ralph Wallio, W0RPK
    Paul, All of us are very interested in how this develops. Please keep us advised. Perhaps it will help for you to compare notes with Dr. Mani Mina at Iowa
    Message 1 of 5 , Oct 8, 2005
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Paul,

      All of us are very interested in how this develops. Please keep us advised.
      Perhaps it will help for you to compare notes with Dr. Mani Mina at Iowa
      State University.

      Note new e-mail and web addresses.

      To All --

      This was to be a Part101-exempt Concordia College ConHAB flight.

      It is difficult to believe this is just a coincidence. Both ISU and
      Concordia are flying in Minneapolis ARTCC controlled airspace. Something
      has triggered this, e.g., an FAA meeting topic, an FAA memo or FAA
      directive. We need to know what has changed ... it would help to have a
      copy of a memo or directive.

      Did any of the following flights file NOTAMs:

      ORB-18 08Oct05
      ANSR-26 08Oct05
      TRAVELER 2005C 01Oct05
      CNS-005 01Oct05
      ARSAT 2005D 10Sep05
      HABITAT SkyLab HS05D 10Sep05
      ANSR-25 03Sep05

      If a NOTAM was filed was there any unexpected reaction from the FAA?

      TNX es 73 de Ralph Wallio, W0RPK
      W0RPK@...
      http://showcase.netins.net/web/wallio/
      Hubbert's Peak - The Mother of all Perfect Storms



      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Paul Seifert" <seifert@...>
      Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 10:02 AM
      Subject: ConHAB Launch Update, READ THIS!!!


      I just received a call back from the Grand Forks Flight Service Station,
      with whom I'd filed a NOTAM for our flight. They informed me that we
      may actually need an FAA waiver (instead of the notice we filed), and
      that they would not issue a NOTAM until that was resolved, even though
      we've never needed a balloon waiver before.

      Unfortuanely the Fargo office I was told to contact is closed on
      weekends. So needless to say our launch is now cancelled for tomorrow.
      I figure this is going to take a while to resolve.

      Sorry for the false alarm.

      PS
    • Zack Clobes
      In short, yes, PT 2005C DID filer a NOTAM this time. Normally, we call the local tower (class D airspace) a couple of days ahead of time and they ask me the
      Message 2 of 5 , Oct 8, 2005
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        In short, yes, PT 2005C DID filer a NOTAM this time.

        Normally, we call the local tower (class D airspace) a couple of days
        ahead of time and they ask me the standard questions (launch site,
        flight prediction, ascent rate, etc) and I'm told that they are filing a
        NOTAM for it. I never hear much back beyond a quick call to the tower
        10 minute prior to launch where they give me the go ahead.

        This time however, I apparently got someone new in the tower who had me
        call Flight Service out of Wichita where I actually filed the NOTAM with
        them. Nobody was really sure how to file the NOTAM, but in the end, the
        questions they asked were very similar to the form that EOSS has posted
        on their site for their flights.

        They didn't give me any hassles... A few flights back, we forgot to
        call the tower on Friday and when I called in Saturday morning, they
        threatened not to let me launch because of the short notice, but they
        did work with me. It didn't seem to matter to them that we were "Exempt".

        Zack Clobes, W0ZC
        Project: Traveler

        Ralph Wallio, W0RPK wrote:

        >Paul,
        >
        >All of us are very interested in how this develops. Please keep us advised.
        >Perhaps it will help for you to compare notes with Dr. Mani Mina at Iowa
        >State University.
        >
        >Note new e-mail and web addresses.
        >
        >To All --
        >
        >This was to be a Part101-exempt Concordia College ConHAB flight.
        >
        >It is difficult to believe this is just a coincidence. Both ISU and
        >Concordia are flying in Minneapolis ARTCC controlled airspace. Something
        >has triggered this, e.g., an FAA meeting topic, an FAA memo or FAA
        >directive. We need to know what has changed ... it would help to have a
        >copy of a memo or directive.
        >
        >Did any of the following flights file NOTAMs:
        >
        >ORB-18 08Oct05
        >ANSR-26 08Oct05
        >TRAVELER 2005C 01Oct05
        >CNS-005 01Oct05
        >ARSAT 2005D 10Sep05
        >HABITAT SkyLab HS05D 10Sep05
        >ANSR-25 03Sep05
        >
        >If a NOTAM was filed was there any unexpected reaction from the FAA?
        >
        >TNX es 73 de Ralph Wallio, W0RPK
        >W0RPK@...
        >http://showcase.netins.net/web/wallio/
        >Hubbert's Peak - The Mother of all Perfect Storms
        >
        >
        >
        >----- Original Message -----
        >From: "Paul Seifert" <seifert@...>
        >Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 10:02 AM
        >Subject: ConHAB Launch Update, READ THIS!!!
        >
        >
        >I just received a call back from the Grand Forks Flight Service Station,
        >with whom I'd filed a NOTAM for our flight. They informed me that we
        >may actually need an FAA waiver (instead of the notice we filed), and
        >that they would not issue a NOTAM until that was resolved, even though
        >we've never needed a balloon waiver before.
        >
        >Unfortuanely the Fargo office I was told to contact is closed on
        >weekends. So needless to say our launch is now cancelled for tomorrow.
        >I figure this is going to take a while to resolve.
        >
        >Sorry for the false alarm.
        >
        >PS
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • Mark Conner
        As a data point, but not particularly relevant to the discussion of what may have changed recently within the Minneapolis ARTCC area of responsibility: I ve
        Message 3 of 5 , Oct 8, 2005
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          As a data point, but not particularly relevant to the discussion of what may
          have changed recently within the Minneapolis ARTCC area of responsibility:

          I've filed NOTAMs with both Columbus FSS (Nebraska launch sites) and Fort
          Dodge (Iowa sites). Ft Dodge will ask if we have a waiver on file. I tell
          them we are Part-101-exempt and that a waiver is not required for our
          flight, but that I am filing a NOTAM as a courtesy. They then proceed to
          take down the information and enter it in the system. Columbus is far less
          familiar with HIBAL NOTAMs, but does enter them.

          Sometimes there is a little hesitation from the FSS to take the info w/o a
          waiver on file, and I've had to emphasize that we do not require a waiver
          because of our light weight and density, etc. Once they understand we're
          doing this as a courtesy and not as a FAA requirement, they're OK with it.

          Perhaps next time we won't be able to file the NOTAM so easily.

          73 de Mark N9XTN


          -----Original Message-----
          From: GPSL@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GPSL@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ralph
          Wallio, W0RPK
          Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 13:02
          To: Paul Seifert
          Cc: Dr. Mani Mina, ISGC ISU; Colt Wallace, HABET; GPSL
          Subject: [GPSL] Re: ConHAB Launch Update, READ THIS!!!

          Paul,

          All of us are very interested in how this develops. Please keep us advised.

          Perhaps it will help for you to compare notes with Dr. Mani Mina at Iowa
          State University.

          Note new e-mail and web addresses.

          To All --

          This was to be a Part101-exempt Concordia College ConHAB flight.

          It is difficult to believe this is just a coincidence. Both ISU and
          Concordia are flying in Minneapolis ARTCC controlled airspace. Something
          has triggered this, e.g., an FAA meeting topic, an FAA memo or FAA
          directive. We need to know what has changed ... it would help to have a
          copy of a memo or directive.

          Did any of the following flights file NOTAMs:

          ORB-18 08Oct05
          ANSR-26 08Oct05
          TRAVELER 2005C 01Oct05
          CNS-005 01Oct05
          ARSAT 2005D 10Sep05
          HABITAT SkyLab HS05D 10Sep05
          ANSR-25 03Sep05

          If a NOTAM was filed was there any unexpected reaction from the FAA?

          TNX es 73 de Ralph Wallio, W0RPK
          W0RPK@...
          http://showcase.netins.net/web/wallio/
          Hubbert's Peak - The Mother of all Perfect Storms



          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Paul Seifert" <seifert@...>
          Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2005 10:02 AM
          Subject: ConHAB Launch Update, READ THIS!!!


          I just received a call back from the Grand Forks Flight Service Station,
          with whom I'd filed a NOTAM for our flight. They informed me that we
          may actually need an FAA waiver (instead of the notice we filed), and
          that they would not issue a NOTAM until that was resolved, even though
          we've never needed a balloon waiver before.

          Unfortuanely the Fargo office I was told to contact is closed on
          weekends. So needless to say our launch is now cancelled for tomorrow.
          I figure this is going to take a while to resolve.

          Sorry for the false alarm.

          PS





          Yahoo! Groups Links
        • kc0nsr
          ... what may ... Fort ... I tell ... proceed to ... far less ... w/o a ... waiver ... we re ... with it. ... OK. Now I can post to the group since I ve finally
          Message 4 of 5 , Oct 8, 2005
          View Source
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In GPSL@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Conner" <n9xtn@c...> wrote:
            >
            > As a data point, but not particularly relevant to the discussion of
            what may
            > have changed recently within the Minneapolis ARTCC area of
            responsibility:
            >
            > I've filed NOTAMs with both Columbus FSS (Nebraska launch sites) and
            Fort
            > Dodge (Iowa sites). Ft Dodge will ask if we have a waiver on file.
            I tell
            > them we are Part-101-exempt and that a waiver is not required for our
            > flight, but that I am filing a NOTAM as a courtesy. They then
            proceed to
            > take down the information and enter it in the system. Columbus is
            far less
            > familiar with HIBAL NOTAMs, but does enter them.
            >
            > Sometimes there is a little hesitation from the FSS to take the info
            w/o a
            > waiver on file, and I've had to emphasize that we do not require a
            waiver
            > because of our light weight and density, etc. Once they understand
            we're
            > doing this as a courtesy and not as a FAA requirement, they're OK
            with it.
            >
            > Perhaps next time we won't be able to file the NOTAM so easily.
            >
            > 73 de Mark N9XTN
            >
            >

            OK. Now I can post to the group since I've finally gotten around to
            subscribing. Mark, your comments are interesting, because I did not
            say "Part 101 exempt."

            What I did do was try to file a NOTAM. He asked if I had or needed a
            waiver. I said no. They took my info, and we concluded.

            The called back about 45 minutes later and asked about the waiver
            again. I said I didn't have one, and was not required to have one.
            He said (direct quote) "My instructions say you need one." He
            referred me to the Fargo, ND FSDO, and gave me the number. I asked if
            the waiver was a new thing, as I didn't need one before, and UND has
            been flying for 5+ years without one. He repeated the "instructions"
            thing.

            Of course, Fargo FSDO is not open on weekends, so that effectively
            shut down our launch until I straighten this out. I'll post updates
            as they come in.

            Paul
            KC0NSR
            ConHAB
          • Harry M
            Yes I did file a NOTAM on Friday AM and nothing out of the ordinary from FSS or the Tulsa International airport tower proceedures manager. In fact the manager
            Message 5 of 5 , Oct 8, 2005
            View Source
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes I did file a NOTAM on Friday AM and nothing out
              of the ordinary from FSS or the Tulsa International airport
              tower proceedures manager. In fact the manager and I
              talked for over an hour about just about everything. I did
              call the tower radar super for a complimentary report today
              as we passed through 40k and the same... nothing out of the
              ordinary!

              If your flight does not fall under FAR-101 and you are just
              filing as a courtesy to air traffic, I don't see how they can
              refuse to file the NOTAM. I would get the ID of the person
              who refused to take it and call someone at the GADO office
              during buisness hours and find out why it was refused.


              -----
              Harry - KC5TRB - Tulsa
              Oklahoma Research Balloons
              http://members.cox.net/hhm_74775/orb/
              http://groups.yahoo.com/group/oklahoma_research_balloons/join
              -----
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.