L2 Sugestions - Small field..

Super-premium cardboard, actually.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

Polecat is very much in business, and sells through What's Up Hobbies, at

formatting link
Lots of pre-glassed kits, and even a saucer that will handle level 2 motors.

#! rnews 1812 Xref: xyzzy rec.autos.makers.honda:436818 Newsgroups: rec.autos.makers.honda Path: xyzzy!nntp From: "ylruc21" Subject: Re: Ugly MPG surprises after tire / wheel upgrades? X-Nntp-Posting-Host: e474192.nw.nos.boeing.com Message-ID: X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1441 X-Priority: 3 X-Msmail-Priority: Normal Lines: 32 Sender: snipped-for-privacy@news.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access) Organization: The Boeing Company X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437 References: Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 16:06:09 GMT

Reply to
Ken Sparks

Alex,

I'm not sure why you say: "if your certification team approves". The current rules are quite clear in not requiring any particular recovery method (at least in NAR). For the certification team to attempt to enforce some arbitrary rule is unethical, and ranks with "I think your rocket is ugly, so I won't approve it". Of course, I suppose that individuals will decline to participate, regardless of the ethical implications, but I would suggest that for an club officer to take this position should be grounds for removal. No different than the DMV saying, you can't have a driver's license because your hair is too long.

The fact that "discussion about changing the rules" is taking place is all very interesting, but until the rules are ACTUALLY changed, its irrelevant to current certication enforcement.

Reply to
bit eimer

And how is your arbitrary suggestion that a club officer be removed if they decline to participate in a certification attempt any different? Are there rules that state that is supposed to happen? I just did my level 2, and there was a little box on the form to check off if I was WILLING to help others in a certification attempt (and let's be clear, I checked 'YES'). But if someone didn't check the box, would they then be REQUIRED to help? If someone said they were willing to help, but wasn't comfortable with some aspect of the rocket and declined, is that really grounds to 'remove' them?

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth here -- you want all loopholes in place for the certification attempt, but if someone doesn't want to be a part of that, you make up a rule to REMOVE them.

I would add that the certification procedure makes it pretty clear that a 'safe flight' is totally up to the certification team (and is a subjective judgement), and there is no method for appealing that judgement. Therefore, if a member of a certification team (in there judgement) feels pre-flight that they're not 'happy' with a chosen recovery method, they certainly would have the option to disqualify it.

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

Apples/oranges. An officer of the club is expected to conform to and enforce the rules of the national organization. If he lets a rocket fly in contravention to NAR sanctioned event rules (e.g. a rocket that will exceed waiver limits), then he should be booted. This is not making up a new rule.

Huh? Why would a random memeber be required to help in ANY case? I just said it was unethical to enforce arbitrary rules that aren't RULES at all. If one doesn't like the rules, change the rules or join an organization that has rules you like. Its really quite simple.

We're not talking about EX here. Saucers have been around a LONG time. They work. They are lauched at every sanctioned event. If an officer (not random member), but an officer, can't comply with the national rules, they shouldn't be in a position to prevent others (the certificatee) from complying - that is, using a compliant saucer to certify.

I don't think so. First, I don't consider being able to certify with a saucer a "loophole". Maybe you do, fine, change the rules. But not following the rules (by an officer) should be grounds for removal, because they ARE the rules.

We're not talking about EX here. Saucers have been around a LONG time. They work. They are lauched at every sanctioned event. If aerodrag is unsafe, then no saucers should fly.

Reply to
bit eimer

So you are telling me I do not have the right or ability to decline participation in a certification attempt for any reason? I am forced to participate? That is wrong. Nothing forces me to participate on an attempt I do not wish to participate in. And I have verified this with the NAR.

The NAR rules are clear. There is a check box for "recovery system deployed". The preflight checklist also speaks of parachutes. For optional items the checklist uses words like "if used", "if required". There is no "if" regarding the parachute check items.

I'm not such a rules zealot that I would stand >>

Reply to
Alex Mericas

Please show me the rule that says a section officer must participate as a certification team member whenever asked, regardless of circumstances. If that is national policy I will gladly resign my position.

Reply to
Alex Mericas

Welcome to Tripoli.

Why would you think that?

TRA TMT chairs have promulgated and published FALSE information on motor certs without being removed or even censured or even "asked to improve".

TRA BOD has actively ENCOURAGED the bad behavior of HPR magazine both with its "owner" on the board and off the board. Nobody was removed.

HPR magazine itself is a long saga of fraud and misappropriation of funds and Bruce Kelly has not been removed. In fact he was awarded a lifetime membership in Tripoli!

ironically those same folks deserving removal forthwith have removed OTHERS for truly arbitrary and minimal reasons.

TRA says one cannot certify a motor unless you offer an ATF permit that the regs, the agency and a judge all agree is NOT required.

No different.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

That is really common.

Don't you just love hypocrites?

Which in the past has been used to increase motor sales as it was common for the certifier to be Prefect and motor dealer too :)

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

If you believe this. live it. Enforce rules against officers in violation right now. Persistently.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Jerry, this makes absolutely, positively, no sense.

I have purchased a good deal of mid-power motors for my 'range box'. I was prevented from buying any L1 motors (except for one certification motor) until I received certification. Once certified, I then went and bought more H/I motors. The same held true for L2 -- I could buy 1 prior to certification, then once certified, I bought several for my range box.

So, exactly how does a Prefect who is a motor dealer benefitting by NOT certifying someone? They get to sell one motor at a time until a guy gives up???

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

I am a Section Officer, not a national officer. But I will gladly step down if someone will show me how my position violates any rules.

Reply to
Alex Mericas

There are no "officials" involved in ANR certification. Any 2 certified adults can form the team for any other person.

I would expect the issues would come from being nit-picked to death. You wouldn't believe the Spanish Inquisition I got the first time I brought my

*D* powered Happy Meal to a TRA launch with everyone questioning its safety. While ignoring unsafe big rockets with K motors...

The critical comment that has popped up in this thread is that your certification team should be someone you work with starting BEFORE you buy / design the rocket, up through construction, and ending up at the launch. Over and over, I'm asked to come in at the last step. More often than not the flier has chosen an inappropriate rocket and/or motor for their cert flight. But at that point all you can do is say yes or no. L3 (in both NAR and TRA) requires a formal mentoring process. While it's not written into the rules, it should be no different for L1 or L2.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

It was a practice nonetheless.

That is itself a change. Used to be there were NO requirements AT all for motor purchase.

Then Any certification (what is now L1) resulted in access to ALL motors.

It is only fairly recently there is a 3 level plan and hyper rules on motor access, none of which are required by federal or state regulations. Or serve any real purpose whatsoever.

They sell yet another M motor.

Even two doubles their profit.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I wouldn't go that far, Bob. I simply think that for certification process one should go as 'normal' as possible. For example, before I purchased a L1 or L2 rocket, I asked for what folks on rmr thought would be good to use. I received a bunch of useful suggestions and comments, including someone posting a complete list of what folks had certified on.

I think the problem arises where someone is trying to 'push the envelope' with a certification attempt (i.e., doing staging or clustering for a level 1 certification). It would be the equivalent of demonstrating a bootleg turn for your first drivers test -- you might be successful, but the odds of something going wrong go WAAAY up, and the 'inspector' is not going to appreciate the 'cowboy' aspect of what should be a 'normal' process.

I considered using a saucer for my L1, but frankly, I would view that as 'cheating'. Not in the sense of it strictly violating the rules, but the intent of the rules. Having done the level 1 and 2 (and bear in mind that I've been doing rocketry on and off since the sixties), things ARE a bit different for these bigger rockets, in terms of recovery deployment. Using a saucer doesn't really show the NAR or TRA that you know how to deploy (safely) a 'nominal' recovery system.

I'll go a bit farther (and perhaps slit my own throat ) and say that at this point I almost believe there ought to be a level 2.5 -- this is where you demonstrate the use of a plugged motor and electronic deployment. Please note that I'm not REALLY suggesting this, but I think that the step from Level 1 to Level 2 isn't as big as the step from Level 0 to Level 1 -- unless one were to factor in the electronics. This will be my own personal 'next big step', as up to this point I've been using motor ejection for deployment.

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

For level 3, maybe. For level 1 or 2, again, this makes no sense.

David Erbas-White (see, I've learned how to insert one line without trimming a message...)

Reply to
David Erbas-White

I don't know that a special certification level is needed. By the time you get to L3 you need it and will probably start using it on the way there.

I started using electronics while L1. That experience made my L2 certification go smoothly and was a big help on my L3. I prefer to fly with electronics now because I think they are less stressful and more reliable than motor ejection. This weekend I lost a 4" Loc V2 because of a bonus delay on an AT G80. The PRO38 system is better because it allows you to vary the delay to the particular rocket, but electronics are still my preferred way to go when possible.

Reply to
Alex Mericas

Here goes "boo hoo" Bob with another TRA sob story.

Where'd those corks go?

Reply to
Tweak

Alex, what I am trying to say is that I consider it to be unethical for a representative of an organization to use his positional power to further/enforce his personal position when that position is not clearly that of the organization. If you do not stand in the way of such certification, then you are not using your power in that way.

No you are cannot or should not forced to participate. But I would pose this question:

If an L3 friend of yours came to the RSO desk with a L2-level saucer, would you refuse to let him fly it on safety grounds because it used aerobraking for its recovery method? If not, then why would you not participate in an L2 cert with the same saucer?

I don't mean to be unduely contentious, but the checklist also talks of launch lugs being securely fastened to the model (no mention of "if used"). Does this mean a tower-launched rocket is not acceptable for certification?

Is your reluctance to participate because you think such a rocket (saucer) is inherently unsafe? Or because you feel that the certification ought to REQUIRE parachute recovery?

I understand your position on this.

------

It seems to me that there are two issues here:

1) is the rocket safe?

On this, I submit that just like 3FNC rockets, saucers can be, but are not necessarily, safe. They have been flown for a long time and there are several manufacturers offering them. I am not aware that saucers have a worse safety record than, say, electronically-controlled-deployment-system rockets, for which failures are common and the results often spectacular. I refer you to the 3rd item on the NAR HPR certification checklist, wherein it suggests using the manufacturer's recommendations as a starting point for determining the safety of the model with various engines. If the saucer has been built to specification and uses an appropriate engine, why should it be denied on safety reasons? And if it is, it should be denied flight whether for certification or not.

2) is the rocket satisfying the requirements for certification?

This is I think the main issue. Apparently, there is (as Will Marchant suggests) a vocal group that doesn't think saucers demonstrate HPR capability. They may be right. Of course, single-use motors don't do much to demonstrate HPR motor knowledge either, yet they are permitted for certification. So the question is: is it appropriate to deal with this issue by ad hoc and arbitrary policies at the local level or by debate at the organizational level?

One last thought - if a person just wants to fly HPR saucers, how does it benefit anyone that he can make a 3FNC rocket fly? Conversely, if someone certifies with a 3FNC, how does one know that he will be able to properly build and fly an HPR saucer?

Reply to
bit eimer

David,

I agree with your basic thrust here (as to demonstrating competence). But just because the rules are loose doens't mean that there should be "secret, unwritten" additional rules that apply.

The right answer is to make the rules reflect what everyone wants.

Reply to
bit eimer

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.