L2 Sugestions - Small field..

I don't disagree with you on this, other than:
1) NAR is a volunteer based organization. Time spent on things that are (or once were) thought to be 'common sense' require volunteer effort, detracting from other things that may need to get done.
2) It may well be that the ORIGINAL INTENT was to leave this somewhat open, and to allow the certification team members to decide. Frankly, this ultimately becomes a liability issue. If I were to certify someone as competent with Level 2 based on a saucer certification, and then later on that individual showed blatant and gross negligence in deploying a parachute recovery system that resulted in death or injury, I could (and should) expect that I'm going to be held somewhat responsible if that ever came to court. NAR doesn't cover this in their rules, nor should it. But, for me, if I'm going to certify someone to a certain level I'm going to make very sure that I can defend my actions should it ever be necessary.
3) Often these 'corner cases' aren't evident when the original rules are/were written. On a purely speculative basis, for example, what if it turns out that there is some reason that the new 'sort of' RMS motors aren't suitable for certification attempts? Should the rules be re-written every time something new comes out on the market? If it turns out that a certain manufacturer of an altimeter has a problem, should the rules be re-written to say not to use that brand of altimeter? All of these are things that rely on the 'common sense' of those on the certification team. For example, most state's constitutions were written back when there was a 'common sense' definition of marriage, so there was no need to define it as one man marrying one woman. These days, folks are running around trying to use that supposed 'oversight' or 'loophole' to completely change the definition of marriage.
4) One often runs into problems when trying to re-write the rules. I'm running into that right now (in a different venue). I'm on a high school site council (as a parent representative), and we are currently re-writing the bylaws to update some of the 'cases' we've run into. A sentence (IMHO, a fairly important sentence) was deleted, purely accidentally, during the update process. When I asked why it was deleted, it was definitely found to be accidental, but half the people in the room wanted to just accept the bylaws anyway, to simply get it done and over with. I've run into this in the past, as well -- there was a fellow I knew who spent many months fine-tuning the bylaws of an organization that I was part of, and I couldn't quite understand what a tedious process it was. Having lived through a lot of infighting in the organization since that time, and a bunch of folks trying to find these 'corner cases' and 'loopholes', I'm very glad that he DID spend so much time at it.
5) Using a saucer for level 2 certification does not, IMHO, demonstrate proper competence for using that level of motors. The argument that what if one only plans on flying saucers doesn't quite hold water -- first of all, one can't design a certification program that will handle only corner cases (especially since the numbers who would fall in that category is probably slim to none), and second of all part of the certification process (IMHO) is the proper selection of delay, which is moot with a saucer. Again, this comes back to the common sense and liability issues. The common sense part is that if someone has demonstrated competence with deploying a parachute, I will be able to assume they can properly 'deploy' a saucer recovery system (since there is nothing to deploy ). However, proving you can 'deploy' a saucer does NOT, even remotely, demonstrate competence in deploying a parachute system in a level 2 rocket. Here are some of the things that are skipped: proper shock cord selection? proper shock cord installation? proper delay selection? proper delay installation? proper parachute size? proper wadding/piston use? proper slip fit on nose cone or payload section?
I've been involved in a lot of different organizations for a long time, and I've seen all sorts of problems with 'rules'. At this point in life, I think that these types of rules should be a lot like the Constitution -- establish the framework, and only modify the framework when absolutely necessary. Allowing the certification team members to have the final say seems to be 'reasonable'. If you really want to push the envelope in a certification flight, and violate the 'spirit' of the rules, then look for two members willing to be on your certification team who share the same sentiments. Frankly, if you can't find two folks willing to be on your certification team because of how/what you've selected as your certification rocket, then you really OUGHT to rethink your plans.
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
Loading thread data ...
Like Jerry said, it's some of the best 7.5" kraft tubing around.
another Guy flew his Bruiser with a 4" motor mount internal fin can system on an M and used his airframe soley as an aero-skin.
just bolted the kraft tubing over the fin can.
Reply to
AlMax
Oh, you mean like Bruce Kelly as TRA President specifying HPR Magazine as the exclusive membership magazine while the funds were being scammed, year after yerar?
Still are BTW.
Technically yes.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
No, Jerry, it isn't -- at least not the way you're stating it.
The intent of the certification process is fairly clear. In addition to all that I've already posted on the subject, it's to demonstrate that we can properly self-regulate.
If someone is so bull-headed as to want to go 'around' the intent of the process, then they certainly can make that 'personal choice', but that will require them to find certification team members who want to make that choice with them. If they can do so, more power to them -- if it truly becomes a problem for the organization, the organization will be DRIVEN to change the rules -- and you'll end up with a MORE regulated hobby because of folks who 'insist' on creating loopholes.
For example, one could 'choose' to list HPR reload kits as 'model aircraft parts', but one would need to make sure they were willing to take the possible consequences -- since common sense indicates that is not the 'intent' of the DOT shipping regulations.
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
I have nothing against saucers, I think they're cool. There are two reasons I do not wish to participate in certification using them.
First, when someone is certified for HPR it means they have exhibited some level of competency to participate at the particular level they are flying. When I sign off on a certification I am stating that I have seen evidence that the candidate has demonstrated basic knowledge and skills required for the safe construction and operation of High Power Rockets and that I believe they are qualified to build and fly HPR at the level they are attempting. Nothing in a saucer flight demonstrates that. Now if there was some way I be sure that they would only fly saucers, I'd reconsider. But someone who certifies on a J powered saucer now can go out and fly L powered rockets of other designs. That bothers me a little. Of course the fact that someone can certify on a 3FNC rocket using a baby J with motor ejection and then turn around and fly a full L with electronics bothers me a bit too. But at least with the second example the big problem is scaling, not a completely different platform.
Second, even if someone is just going to fly saucers I don't feel qualified to assess their stability and construction (the saucer, not the candidate!). While I don't consider myself an expert in all areas of rocketry I do know a little about 3FNC type rockets with a parachute recovery. So I can usually tell if someone knows at least as much as I do. I know nothing, on the other hand, about saucers. So if I asked about the CP/CG relationship on a saucer how would I know if I got the correct answer? So personal opinion aside, I'm just not qualified to certify someone using a saucer. How does this affect my qualifications as RSO and/or safety check? Good question. While I will not accept "it's a kit so it should work" as an answer for a cert flight, that's not an unacceptable answer at safety check. I can still check construction techniques. If I'm RSO I may consider the first flight of ANY rocket a "heads up" flight if I'm not comfortable with it. That's shouldn't be taken as an insult, just a precaution.
Again you can use these arguments the other way around and say someone who certifies on a 3FNC is not qualified to fly saucers. That may be true. But under the current rules once you ARE certified you can fly anything that meets the safety code. So while I may not participate as a member of a certification team for a particular flight, once they are certified I treat them as any other certified flier.
Good question. Never had that problem. You could ask the same thing about rail buttons, although these are functional equivalents of lugs.
As I said, I think saucers are cool. I have a few and I always like watching them fly. But if I'm saying someone is qualified to fly a rocket with a deployable recovery system, I'd like to see some evidence.
Good question. The obvious solution is to have separate certifications, with an easy way to convert or add on the other. But that is a lot of trouble for what is, now, a small problem. I think the vast majority of people flying HPR fly 3FNC designs with parachutes. If that ever changes we should consider a different certification.
Another good question which I mention above.
Reply to
Alex Mericas
Cat, is it worth clarifying what certification you are trying to get e.g. Tripoli, NAR or UKRA etc? I note that you posted in UTR which implies a UK bias.
cheers
IIRC Polecat are still on the go and sell via What's Up and Acme amongst others.
Reply to
Init 6
Alex,
Funny thing is, I agree with almost everything you say. If I read you correctly, its not the safety issue of aerobraking, rather the "demostrating skills" question. And that's a valid concern. For me, it just seems so arbitrary to deny a cert based on it being a saucer. So far, I have not heard any suggestions that its "OK" to not participate in a certification because the guy's using a single-use "no assembly required" motor, or that he's not using electronics, etc.
Is that because its still 3FNC? The whole discussion often has the appearance of "oh, its a saucer, well, that's not a real rocket".
Thanks for your well-thought out and civilized discussion.
Reply to
bit eimer
There is a big difference between denying a certification and declining to participate. I am not advocating that we deny certification. I just will not participate in the certification team.
Reply to
Alex Mericas
Properly is debatable.
Agreed.
Hey!
Or (radical thought) less rules so fewer conflicts are even possible.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
I guess one other thing that needs to be fit into the general equation, is that if you are planning a cert flight, get someone lined up to do the cert before hand.
I've seen many a time where someone will show up with a bird at a launch and then try to get someone to do the cert. All they have is the bird, and they need help finding a case and a reload. More important in TRA where only Prefects and TAPS can sign off on a cert!
For even a simple 3fnc type, it can take easily an hour to do the observation, etc, and at a 4 hour launch, where that person plans to fly too, that can be a bit much. If you show up "unannounced" with an oddrock, it can take even more time! I can ask someone where CP is on an oddrock, but I'll be darned if I know they gave me the right answer!
I guess all I'm really saying is that you should contact someone before the launch if you're planning a cert, and that way a bunch of time might be saved at the launch by exchanging info before hand. This is even more important if you're planning an oddrock
One other thing I've done in the past - if I'd know that someone was planning a (more than likely) L1 and not built an RMS, I'd offer early in the day (or even at a previous launch) to watch me (or another flier) put one or more together and ask lots of questions. That way when they have a case in one hand and a bag-o-parts in the other, they don't get the good old "deer in headlights" look.
Last point, and a bit of a question - don't TRA and NAR both require electronic for recovery for L3? (even redundant for NAR)? Even folks I've heard of that certed with spools had a chute and electronics. It's been a while since I read thru the requirements, but when I did my L3 (TRA) I planned even redundant altimeters. I'm not sure how you could do a L3 with "drag" recovery....
Reply to
AZ Woody
BTW, where's Chris Taylor? Didn't he try to cert L1 on a saucer a few years back?
IIRC, didn't he wind test it by attaching it to his Jeep and "driving fast" to simulate liftoff stress?
(This was pre Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrr....)
Reply to
AZ Woody

Site Timeline

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.