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....)
I'd have to go back in google land, but I do think that Chris tried a saucer
before Grrr1 (Maybe the year Naram was close to his location in PA).
Without the timeframe, It would be hard to find...
Not to my knowledge. Just 4 attempts with Gggrrrrrrrrrrr.
Here's a photo of my "L1" Happy meal on its third flight, on an H73...
http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/PHOTOS/SUPERSIZEHAPPYMEALH2.JPG
To scale the photo, it's 18" across and about 8" high. Details about the
specifics of the size in person only.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible
resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII.
the
Boy Howdy !
I'm currently building a 5.5x Estes Streak for my Level-1 certification
attempt
at a NEFAR launch in July (hurricanes permitting) and have already
determined
to take it down with me when I go to observe their launches in May and June
firstly as a pile of un-assembled components and secondly mostly assembled
and almost-ready-for-paint and beg any high-power flyer in sight to take a
look
and let me know what he thinks.
John<==it's just silly to think I've thought of everything
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.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
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! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf
www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, except
to encourage attendance in Christian churches; or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof, except to require prayer in schools; or abridging the
freedom of speech, except for those questioning the Bush administration; or
of the press, except that not owned by Rupert Murdoch; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, except those protesting pre-emptive wars; and
to petition the government for a redress of grievance, except those we don't
like." -former U.S. Sen. Gary Hart
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 <G>) 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
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.
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.
--
...The Bit Eimer NAR 84054 L1
"My goal in life is to be the kind of person my cat thinks he is"
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 <G>). 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
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
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
