NAR/TRA Joint Active Recovery Definition

Not just saucers - most monocopters too - sorry Chuck.

I don't think that will happen. See my earlier post. Saucers are cool but they don't show that you can do recovery.

I see your and AZ Woody's point of view and agree. Hopefully they stop at cert flights. The NAR "definition" could be a little more clear however. They could say what they mean with a minimum of BS.

< Ditto >

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.

Not true. Saucers can still be used to make cert flights, as long as they use active recovery. I've seen many HPR saucers -- and spools -- used for certs and non-cert flights, and they all had parachutes. No problemo.

A certain saucer kit manufacturer prefers "inactive" recovery, and has pushed his kits for cert flights for people who can't quite grasp the complexity of a parachute, some wadding and an ejection charge. ;) Apparently people in both TRA and NAR felt this was not permitted under existing cert rules, and the new rule is supposed to eliminate any confusion as to what is required -- i.e., active recovery.

Mind you, I don't entirely agree with the need for this change, nor do I entirely disagree. I'm just trying to explain what brought it about, in a nutshell.

See my previous post. There is nothing in the new rule that prohibits the use of saucers for cert flights. The rule only prohibits a single method of recovery, specifically "inactive" (aka ballistic) recovery.

=C9

It's weird how many people (on both sides of the issue) have gotten the idea that this rule "bans saucers for certs".

l

Right. The shape of the "rocket" doesn't matter. And once you've certified you can fly without the active recovery device.

My view > J.A. Michel wrote:

In our little hobby? Unbelievable.

;-)

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..

Yep.

How's that meth lab in your basement?

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.

It's interesting to compare different hobbies and the way they self regulate. It seems like rocketry and ham radio hobbies are forever ensnared in rules, and debates about rules, arguments about rules, ad nauseum.

Of course the point can be made (about rockets) that we're dealing with potentially dangerous devices and some level of regulation is needed, I'd contrast that point by mentioning the R/C hobby and it's rules and regulations. I competed on the national level as well as participating in large air shows with nothing more than a morning pilot's meeting and a single page of rules.

We flew everything from micro lite planes to giant scale, all within the same regulations. L1 and L2 certs with the same rocket? What's the real difference here- motor size? Does that require some leap of technical ability to change motors? If not, then why differentiate?

I think a dose of common sense is needed because the constant bickering about rocket rules is unnecessary and left unchecked will eventually degrade the hobby.

Mike Doyle

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com wrote:

It really adds a kick to my propellant. ;-)

Aaaaah,

I've heard several prefects who won't allow saucers for certifying. Gotta do at least 3FNC and a parachute. I don't take issue with that personally. Do the basic certifying and then fly all the K powered helirocs, saucers, boost gliders or monocopters you want. Nobody had outlawed these ships (obviously) but the basic certifying skills with parachute packing is what is being tested. (My interpretation)

Kurt

Our safety code is a one page document too.

When you get into the High Power R/C, i.e. Gas Turbines, you will find

16 documents of rules, regulations and certification procedures on the AMA web site. That's a whole lot more than what we've got and they don't go nearly as fast.

Mario

"Part of the cert should be learning something"?

I've been in high power R/C, my point is their rules don't split hairs inasmuch as rocketry seems to.

Granted rockets are faster than R/C aircraft, but the risk isn't wholly defined by speed and saying so is an oversimplification.

It just seem ridiculous to place so much emphasis on different power levels for certification when essentially you're performing the same task sometimes on the same rocket.

Can anyone define why there is a need for the differential between L1 and L2?

Mike Doyle