NAR/TRA Joint Active Recovery Definition

NAR Sport Services would like to announce the approval by the NAR BoT today of the Definition of Active Recovery; it had been approved
earlier this month by the TRA BoD and this was the last step to conclude what should be the first of several joint projects between the NAR and TRA.We worked closely with our counterparts at Tripoli Rocketry Association to develop a definition that serves the entire rocketry community. Moreover, we continue to work with the TRA to close the gap on other HPR procedures so there is a more common ground for those wishing to pursue high power rocketry. The definition officially goes into effect on 7-30-2006 for the NAR and reads as follows:
DEFINITION:
Active Recovery is the deployment of a primary recovery device that actively changes the physical configuration and dramatically reduces the vertical descent rate of the rocket model when deployed. This device must be of sufficient size, based on the weight of the model, so that the device is capable of safely recovering the rocket. The active recovery device can include parachutes, streamers, helicopter devices, R/C control and any other devices that are physically deployed to provide safe recovery of the model. In the event that dual deployment and secondary recovery devices are used, the deployment of a secondary recovery device must actively change the configuration of the model in order to inhibit ballistic recovery and slow the decent rate so as to allow for safe deployment of the primary recovery device.
Passive Recovery methods such as airframe drag recovery do not actively deploy a recovery device that changes the physical configuration of the model. In the event that dual deployment is used, passive secondary recovery methods such as ballistic recovery do not change the physical configuration of the model. For these reasons, Passive Recovery is not permitted to be used as a valid method of recovery for certification flights in HPR models.
The definition will be posted soon on the NAR website and while we tried to word the definition to make it as clear as possible, we will also be posting some common Q&A'a that may arise. Please feel free to distribute this announcement and pass the word to our fellow rocketeers.
Best Regards
__________________ Carl Tulanko Chairman, Sport Services National Association of Rocketry NAR L3CC Member
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There goes creativity, out the window..(:( Just what is needed more decisions, that at best appear anal retentive..(:-((
Fred
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There goes creativity, out the window..(:( Just what is needed more decisions, that at best appear anal retentive..(:-((
Fred
snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
W. E. Fred Wallace wrote:

What's needed is less double-posting.
Sorry Fred, I couldn't resist.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Back on the meds eh?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Back on the meds eh?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phil Stein wrote:

Yep.
How's that meth lab in your basement?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It really adds a kick to my propellant. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I think this leads us down the path towards loss of creativity and opens the door to "crative interpretation" of our rules by insurance companies and regulatory agencies.It is just a matter of time before someone says:
"Well Now and Gee Golly! If it is not safe enough to use as a certification vehicle, just what makes it safe enough fly once you are already certified!"
I believe this whole controversy is based not on safety issue but on personal/likeability issues and political issues within Tripoli. Sorry to see NAR follow suit on this one.
Mark Palmer
--

< snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news: snipped-for-privacy@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
crative = creative
--

"Mark A Palmer" < snipped-for-privacy@awstcharles.com> wrote in message
news:Nanzg.1164$ snipped-for-privacy@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark A Palmer wrote:

Well, there is a safety issue lurking here: a certification flight should demonstrate that the flier can safely recover an HPR. But the thuggery of bureaucracy has struck again, and a solution ("deploy") has been legislated rather than an outcome ("safe").
--
Steve Humphrey
(replace "spambait" with "merlinus" to respond directly to me)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 09:32:38 -0400, Steve Humphrey

I don't think it's an issue of saftey for that particular flight. The rocket should be gone over thourougly by the certifier(s) prior to flight. I do think that someone that doesn't know how to safely recover a rocket with active recovery can be a danger. Preventing that danger is the intent of the rule and I am in favor of it.
Phil Stein
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It's a slippery slope, but you're right. Who says they'll stop at certification flights? Personally, flying saucers don't really do that much for me, but hey, to each his own. A guy ought to be able to certify on one if he wants to. It would seem that boost gliders would fit this category as well. Wonder if I would have been allowed to certify with my upscale Estes Orbital Transport? The glider doesn't have "active recovery" but the booster does. Wonder if I could fly it at all if they decide to take this "active recovery" rule past cert flights?
--
Joe Michel
NAR 82797 L2
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't agree with your statement. Part of the cert involves understanding the science, and that included motor delays, the size of ejection charges, and the proper sizing of a chute. Using a saucer for both L1 and l2 certs, could mean that the first time someone actually uses a chute is a L3 cert, with dual electronics, and all else involved in l3.
I've not check the NAR and TRA L3 cert requirements in some time, but I recall that both groups wanted a chute and electronics for L3. Even if it's been an "unwritten rule", I can't really of hearing of any l3 flight (cert or not), that wasn't planned to use one or more chutes. Granted not all worked, some resulting in "lawndart" recovery!
I can recall the discussions on the TRA-listserv, and the guy that wanted them allowed for certs sold saucer kits, but I can't recall anybody that agreed with him, and there are a fair number of TRA members on the list.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
< Ditto >

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Part of the cert should be learning something so further flights at that level are safe! Agreed. Current cert requirements don't accomplish that. How hard is it to buy a kit designed for level 1 flight, mix epoxy, follow instructions and fly it successfully on a recommended motor? You don't need to think about the materials, the adhesives, the ejection charge, the size of the chute, the stability, maybe not even the delay if the mfr has good instructions. And there are SU high power motors and easily assembled reloadables (Cesaroni). Buy it, build it, fly it. Same with level 2. Admit it - this is true. (Yes, sometimes circumstances cause people to fail on cert flights, but if they do it simply and follow instructions, it will work sooner or later).
On TRF, someone said it is like a fraternity initiation or Boy Scouts - follow their rules and you are in. If you don't, go away.
The problem is two fold. First, we all want safe flights. Second, we want the hobby to grow. However, the hobby has a way of creating rules that really don't result in the former and haven't resulted in the latter. Simple solutions are overlooked for legalistic solutions that often either cannot or are not being complied with (but that is another subject).
Open discussion is a good thing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I would disagree, especially on a L3 certification. A cert flight should be a scaling up of procedures and processes in which the flyer is already accomplished, not a time to figure out how to do altimeter flights, drogue chutes, etc..
--
Tweak

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did not mention L3 certs for a reason. My comments applied to L1 and L2.
I think you reinforce my point - where does an L2 cert flight require use of an altimeter or dual deploy with drogue chutes? It doesn't. Certs are the appearance of having to learn without the reality of having to learn.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Part of the cert should be learning something"?
--
Tweak

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agreed. A cert flight is a place to demonstrate what you've learned on smaller models, not the time to do new and different stuff.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.