NAR/TRA Joint Active Recovery Definition

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:

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:

What's needed is less double-posting.

Sorry Fred, I couldn't resist.

"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

crative = creative

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").

I've been out of the loop for a while. I Googled the group for "active recovery" but found no relevant posts.

Can someone point me to a discussion on this?

I know its a little late, just curious as to how the issue arose and why the orgs felt it necessary to define active recovery and dictate its use in cert flights.

TIA

it was discussed to death ad nauseum on the private NAR sections yahoo group last year I do believe.

terry dean nar 16158

It started because some thought that using a saucer shaped vehicle that uses tumble recovery for Cert 1 & 2 flights did not quite live up to the intent of NAR high power cert rules and safety guidelines. So, they made the rules more specific.

Les.

It's just a lot of words to justify banning the use of saucers for certification without saying actually saying "saucers are banned for certification".

There was a ton of discussion last year on the Tripoli List-serv. That is precisely why it has been defined so as to not allow saucers for certification.

AKS

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?

They're not banned if they include a recovery device. :)

I personally think it's stupid that they had to add this to "ban" saucers and spools. If you can demonstrate the ability to build one, fly one and show why its stable and safe, then you understand the reasons for a cert. Why can't I build a rocket out of carbon fiber that is so light it can tumble-recovery on a small H motor? That is now banned as well, even if it's safer than a parachute recovery(not saything that it would be, but that it's possible)

Rocketry should be safe and fun, in that order. Too many regs start to remove the fun part.

-Aaron

I have read all these responses and tried to understand why the organizational bodies would want to take this approach. It appears to me that the NAR/TRA, in the midst of their legal battle with the BATFE, are trying to posture themselves as "self-policing" organizations. This is the same reason the certification process was put into place to begin with -- to regulate ourselves (or at least give the appearance) before Big Brother stepped up and did it for us.

Based on that, it's understandable that the NAR/TRA want to mitigate potential damage to the public's perception of the hobby. Boosting a flying saucer, or a cable spool, or an outhouse into the sky without any recovery device onboard is just asking for the media, followed by the regulatory agencies, to step in and say we are acting irresponsibly. Even with a recovery device, given the high power hobby's record of recovery failure (it's the #1 cause for flight failure), it's questionable.

If the NAR/TRA taking a stand on this insures that our grandchildren will be able to launch a rocket 20 years from now, we should all applaud.

Darrell

That was not the impression that I got from that *debate*. It was to require ANY rocket to have a active recovery system(ie, not tumble out of the sky).

Regardless one individual had a total meltdown and basically just insulted anyone that disagreed with him.

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

Back on the meds eh?

Back on the meds eh?

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.

You forget that the weight of an empty motor casing itself, falling from

This doesn't ban spools, saucers, pyramids, or other oddrocks. I've seen plenty of oddrocks fly >