Are hybrids always HPR?

NAR says you must be level 2 to fly hybrids.

If that has changed, please cite the source and then notify the NAR webmaster to update the website.

-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

And what about the existing unchanged in-place rules?

Jerry

There is a discrepency on that page.

The bulleted bit at the top of the page states level 2 is required to fly hybrids, however, Section 5, paragraph 1 specifies that hybrid technology may be used for level 1 certification.

Hopefully the detailed description is correct.

Kevin OClassen NAR 13578

Jerry,

There were no rules in place in regards to model rocket sized hybrid rocket motors.

The G motors that both West Coast hybrids and Sky Ripper Systems submitted required a new set of rules be created.

These are the first proposed rules, and have been accepted by the TRA BOD....

1. All Hybrid preparation and launch rules, as listed in NFPA1127, to be utilized for hybrid motors of any impulse class. Furthermore, unless specified in items 2, 3 and 4, all rules for H impulse class motors to be applied as a minimum for any hybrid motors, G and below.

1. All single hybrid motors, in the impulse class J and below, shall have a fill and launch minimum safe distance of 200 feet. J and below complex motors, hybrid or a mix of solids with at least one hybrid, will have the minimum safe distance of the complex distances as listed for K motors, 300 feet.

[Note: After the first public review of this rule, and subsequent discussions, the TRA BOD did decide that the 200 foot minimum was excessive, and reduced it to 100 feet.]

1. All Hybrid motors, no matter what the impulse class, shall be used and flown by persons no younger than 18 years of age.

2. G Hybrids and below will not require impulse level certification.

1. NFPA1122 and NFPA1127 to be considered for amendment, at the next rewrite meeting, with commensurate language equivalent to Proposals 1,

2 and/or 3. It may be appropriate for 1127 to continue to govern all hybrid motors, no matter what the size, to be determined in consult with our liaisons.

1. Allow immediate use of G Hybrids and below, prior to inclusion in the appropriate documents, as minimums will be satisfied.

Todd Moore Sky Ripper Systems.

Fred,

Level 1 high power certification (160.01 to 640.00 Newton-seconds impulse)

1. The modeler must demonstrate his ability to build and fly a rocket containing at least one H or I impulse class motor. Cluster or staged models used for certification may not contain over 640.00 Newton seconds total impulse. Single use, reloadable, or hybrid technology motors are permitted. The modeler must assemble the reloadable motor, if used, in the presence of a certification team member.

Todd Moore Sky Ripper Systems.

Looking a little further, it seems that HPR certification is required because hybrids are not "model rocket motors". (

Section 1, para 4c) Doesn't specify what level of certification is required.

This little bit alone makes me suspect that hybrids can't be launched as LMRs, no matter total weight or propellant.

Kevin OClassen NAR 13578

Jerry,

Enough.

Post the existing rules that cover model rocket sized hybrid rocket motors.

I'm waiting.

Put up, or shut up please.

Silly rule.

MR is about 30 feet and anything over 50 is safe and 100 is overkill.

YOU suggest they change it. Maybe then they will.

Again 100 is more than fine.

How about "or with adult supervision".

So a bypass rule rule :)

They are not treated any differently than HPR and the rule myopically specified certain power levels.

Keep in mind to make "extra-1127" rockets of any kind, all you have to do is look for one of many arbitrary rules, exploit it, then you are not subject to the code.

But that is from bad codewriting.

And no or insufficient feedback and control loop on code problems for the past 10 years, from "field practice".

Jerry

Not until the hybrid motor is certified as a "model rocket motor". But you may be able to fly without a LEUP or FAA waiver...

Alan

I completely dissagree with the need for user certification. You can even get L2 certification and buy and fly hybrid motors without ever demonstrating that you have mastered the "complexity of hybrids". The main reason for HPR user certification is to provide the list to the Feds... But some hybrids do not need a LEUP, and small hybrid motors and thier users are of no interest to the Feds...

True, but they are also free of explosives.

Ya well, there's lots 'o regs that needs fixin.

Alan

Kevin, FAA notification does not care about nar or tra classifications.

you can fly a rocket on a H128 with FAA LMR notification.

the faa specs on LMR are their own, not NFPA's, NAR's or Tripoli's

to them, a LMR is under 3.3 pounds and 125g propellent. period.

rmr threads about this abound since it was created

"5. NFPA1122 and NFPA1127 to be considered for amendment, at the next rewrite meeting, with commensurate language equivalent to Proposals 1, "

The TRA BOD DOES NOT have sole control over 1127! The TRA HP Saftey code is basically 1127, which means that to change it, NFPA 1127 needs to change!

Hate to say it, but to me the mesage indicates that non certified fliers can not fly a G (or less) hybrid without and amendment to 1122 and 1127, (Proposal 1 as indicated in the email) which are the basic rules for NAR and TRA.

It was a proposal to the TRA board, and NOT something that was passed into codes and approved.....

"Yup, we think it's a good idea, and we'll pass it on to the folks that make the rules, and see if it's approved"

There are APCP motors today that are "G's" that require L1 cert to fly. That's reality, and not a myth.

Including a totally uncertified, unclalssified motor too.

Or ATF, CPSC, EPA, NAR

And dozens of "experts" repeatedly miss the point and then attack posters who correct them.

This IS rmr.

Jerry

The only basis for it is NAR/TRA centric. That alone makes it a bad idea in light of authority overstep tendencies.

NAR/TRA should have a minimalist and exemption tactic. Jerry told you so (perhaps precisely why they do not do it??). NOT a regulation tactic.

But then they have not been historically very intelligent.

TRA membership is on a downslope and NAR is level and has been for over a decade. And their supporters are aging armchair rocketeers.

Neither org likes kids. If you read their regs.

NAR fakes it in public to a limited degree.

Jerry

Point. NAR and TRA wrote that rule (over the objections of some folks in the room). Thank them while on your knees and move on.

None of which are getting fixed.

Note that well.

However this indicates they THINK they do.

So it raises the question. Why have they not fixed the other glaring defects in the code?

Or followed the very code they authored?

I would like to know.

Or is that the very reason I am not a member, so they can claim I have no right to ask?

And really, really stupid. Especially since they expire (unpaid) certs annually and refuse to recognize "indy" (lone ranger) certs.

Jerry

1) Post the current NFPA rules as they apply to rocket motors of G or less impulse. I haven't seen them yet. Thanks in advance.

2) Reread the info that I posted from the TRA BOD decision on G impulse or lower hybrid rocket motors. You seem to be missing some of it.

3) Please try to understand point #5 from the BOD decision. It's not saying what you are trying to imply it says. (Hint: It's not about 'changing' the rules, but rather adding rules that do not yet exist, and questioning if the addition of the rules is the correct step.)

This really isn't that hard to understand, is it? There are no rules at all in regards to model rocket sized hybrid rocket motors. The BOD of TRA has stepped in to make some common sense rules until the next rewriting of NFPA 1127, where these new rules can be added.

Thank you. Todd Moore Sky Ripper Systems.

NFPA-1122.

NFPA-1127 for motors not compatible with 1122.

So are motors not covered by either simply "unregulated"? And if so, why (in hell) would you even want someone so unqualified as TRA to "regulate" them???

It is a total disconnect from law in 32+ states and with common sense in

50 states and several provinces.

Then there is the issue of non-USA users (rmr addresses them to be sure) who are either members or not members of Tripoli.

Can you say quagmire?

Pending them being added.

In short it is a "workaround".

I ask again. Why would you even want them regulated at all?

According to you (and me) they are not regulated now at all. They are freeform access. Who could even ask for more?

I submitted G monotube hybrids for cert by TRA in 1995 BTW.

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT.

Don't break it!!!

And they can be regulated out of prctical (full access) existence. At the request of the vendor of the system THEY aproved.

Hello!?!?!?

I sooooooo get it.

Can't be done, as the NPFA docs are not available on line, as they have copyrights, and will cost about $20 each when ordered from NFPA. This is why the TRA safety code isn't online (in whole) and you get a copy as part of your membership kit

No, I didn't miss anything.. The BOD agreed to submit the proposal to the NFPA, which means, if the NFPA agrees, it will be included. Until then, it's not included! Is this so hard to understand? UT woody needs a beer and then he'll understand!

The NFPA includes no provision for "model rocket Hybrids" (I really don't think they exist anyway, as no hybrid is a Model rocket motor, IMHO), so until 1127 or 1122 is modified to allow uncertified users to fly Hybrids, they are NOT allowed! It's clear if you read the NFPA docs! (spend the $40 to get copies, and give UT woody cheaper beer for a few days!)

What TMT and the TRA BOD said, is that the would submit it as a "proposal" (proposal 1) for inclusion in the next 1122/1127. They DID NOT approve this change, as they are not NPFA! (you may have thought so, but, sorry, it's a "proposal") The approved forwarding it as a proposal to include in the next

1122/1127!

Ok, lets say that I developed a Tribrid F motor.. Do I assume that since

1122/1127 don't prohibit it (even though they say exactly what they permit!), it's valid until they discount it specifically in 1122/1127? (not by saying "we allow x and y", but "we include x and y and not Z") That's the Jerry Irvine way of thinking!

Seems that TMT and the TRA BOD said they would propose your stuff at the next NFPA gathering (proposal - proposal 1!), but that's not a change to the NFPA quite yet!

Seems a missing element in the whole picture is NAR S&T, which also go by

1122/1127! Reguardless of what TMT/TRA BOD said, or what you understand they said, is it OK for an 18 YO L0 NAR member to fly it?

Also, it seems that many states have "referenced" the NPFA codes, even if not specifically in the laws, and therefore "the state/federal laws" that must be in compliance at a "sanctioned, insured launch"

You all want to change the rules... Understand then, that you must change the rules, and not just get one orgination to agree that the rules should be changed!

Like I said, the email you posted CLEARLY indicated "proposal" and clearly indicated that the "proposal" would be forwarded to the NPFA for consideration in the next version! That does NOT mean that it was approved!

You folks are trying to pull a Jerry Irvine... I don't know what else to call it! (give UT woody another beer or 3 as he needs it right now...)

Darn.. We've been trying to show the gov that we are "self regulating" for years when it comes to playing by the established rules (like 1122/1127), and a frigging motor manufacturer cant even understand 1122/1127 and asks for a copy? "I haven't seen them yet. Thanks in advance".

No wonder that the BATFE want's to clamp down on this hobby......