NAR/TRA Joint Active Recovery Definition

How many times have you volunteered as RSO?
When you are RSO, do you disassemble the motors to make sure people didn't get grease on the delay? Do you measure the delay to make sure they put the right on in? If not, you could very well be one of those "RSO's that don't know shit."
Phil
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 11:50:58 -0500, "Andrew Grippo"
  Quoted Text Here  

Phil,
With all due respect, what's your point and how is it relative to this discussion?
Andrew
  Quoted Text Here  

I don't know you. I'm trying to gauge your perspective. I also make the point that I doubt that any RSO is disassemling motors to check delays and that not even that will detect a situation where there is a problem with delay timing. The situation described happen and it doesn't mean the RSO don't know shit.
I RSO a lot and take exception to someone saying the RSO don't know shit when things get past. Also when something does get past, I know that I will think about weather there is something I could have done better to detect or prevent the situation that casued it.
Phil
On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 14:24:23 -0500, "Andrew Grippo"
  Quoted Text Here  

Andrew Grippo wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I hear ya....no worries. I think we're all on the same page.
  Quoted Text Here  
I must be spoiled as our local club the RSO does in fact ask those critical questions(as they should). But I've also heard(hearsay) horror stories about other clubs launch where the RSO is effectively 'missing'. However I think everyone here on rmr views the RSO on a whole as *the* individual who has the last say on what fly's or not.
  Quoted Text Here  
Oh I'm feeling it brutha :)
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

I always use a plugged closure with my saucers. And as far as wind, the saucers are about the only thing that can be launched on a small-ish field in the wind. They do drift with the wind, but they also weather-cock so they tend to land near the pads whether it is windy or not. And if that's still a problem, then you can place your launch area up-wind or down-wind of the spectator area as needed. That should be done whether you are allowing saucers or not.
-- David
  Quoted Text Here  

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I don't think anyone is looking to vilify saucers. They just want to be sure that people can handle recovery.
How does your buddy system work? Is it done for all flights or just some?
Phil

Phil Stein wrote: ...
  Quoted Text Here  
...
Just for high power flights. Pre-flight inspection for low power models is more traditional. When you show up at check-in with a HPR rocket you get asked who, if anyone, watched over you during preparation. If you opted not to have a buddy check the rocket guts, you pull the rocket apart for a check of recovery harness and parachute. You also get a more detailed quizzing on any electronics. Then you go on and get the traditional HPR inspection. I don't have a feeling as to whether it is making a difference or not as we haven't had this new policy for very long...

Seems like it would be easier and faster to just prep your rocket at the RSO table since you would have to take it all apart again anyway. Seems pointless to me and would really piss me off to have to have someone babysit me while I'm prepping a rocket.
Do you fly with so many incompetent flyers that they consistently forget to hook up quick links or can't pack a chute or something?
Are you guys a NAR club?
Where do you guys fly? I need to make sure I stay away from those launches...
Andrew
  Quoted Text Here  

Hi Andrew: We talked about that but the check-in area is already busy enough. It didn't seem reasonable to expect the check-in personnel to be able to distribute their attention to that degree. Also, the http://www.novaar.org/ check-in area is far enough from the parking lot that it would be a hassle to haul all of your preparation stuff out there. And it isn't a good idea to have people occupied with preparing their rockets so close to the range head.
I think the buddy system is quite pleasant. The HPR fliers just park next to each other and we set up our prep tables next to each other. As you work on your rocket you chat with the other person and watch their progress. I find it easy to multi-task to that level. And it is fun to chat and see what the other person has done with their rocket.
Skydivers buddy check each other's setup. SCUBA divers buddy check each other. It just makes sense to me that we rocketry folks do the same. But I expect there are other ways to handle the problem. We decided to try this one.     Will
Andrew Grippo wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

Will,
I reread my last post and realize I came across as a complete asshole so I apologize to you.
I agree with someone asking for help if they need it but maybe the flyers should try concentrating more on their projects and doing less chatting. I understand rocketry is about the friends and fun everyone has but rockets are being prepped and flown and that's serious business. This may only be a hobby but it's a dangerous one and it should be treated that way. Mistakes can almost always be traced back to a lack of concentration or preparation and usually it's the same flyers tearing something up. That kind of tells me something and rules won't fix it.
Andrew
  Quoted Text Here  

Hi Andrew: You're forgiven! 8) Posting is a difficult medium. Email is as bad.
I agree with you completely about distractions during assembly. Yet, we have a high failure rate in HPR and it seems that recovery is the big culprit. What to do? I'm not sure I have the answers... We decided to give the buddy system a try. We don't have the statistics yet to know if it is better, worse, or makes no difference. Maybe getting people to use checklists would help those that get easily distracted? I tend to write elaborate checklists and that works for me. But that may not be right for everyone.     Best wishes,     Will
Andrew Grippo wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

I would be interested in your results. I would agree with Andrew that it would annoy me to no end to have someone have to watch me prep my rocket. My rockets have as good a recovery rate as anyone. And, the times I have forgotten something or made a mistake, it was almost always because of a distraction caused by someone stopping by to watch. I'm not trying to critcize you for trying to solve the problem, just giving my two cents!
-- David
http://www.spaceflightsoftware.com/will/

snipped-for-privacy@amsat.org says...
  Quoted Text Here  
Ummm...ick. How in depth is this "mandatory disassembly"?

Tweak wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
As much as is necessary to satisfy the RSO that your rocket is ready to fly...

snipped-for-privacy@amsat.org says...
  Quoted Text Here  
That would indeed be a pain on a complex project that was prepared at home.

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 13:23:51 -0400, Tweak
  Quoted Text Here  
I know a few ways to do "mandatory disassembly" in way less than a second. Reassembly might be pretty difficult. ;-)
Phil

  Quoted Text Here  
Virtually all gliders have active recovery according to the definition. A wing swings, a pod seperates, canards flop, or something. It's VERY hard to amke a BG or RG that doesn't have something "happen" to transition it from boost to glide.
I'd really like to play with some HPR BGs, RGs, helicopter models and the like. But all would be active recovery.

  Quoted Text Here  
All the more reason to be sure that certified fliers have demonstrated this skill.
Perhaps there needs to be some sort of feedback on failures, where if a flier has a certain number (percentage) of failures, they lose their certification. Sort of like losing your drivers license if you collect too many tickets.
Perhaps there also needs to be some sore of current status to yoiur certification. SHould someone who certified 10 years ago and hasn't flown since retain their certification? Should thye have to recertify?
I happen to know one person who took 4 attempts to get L2, and has made a handful of HPR flights since, all failures. I'm sure others fit this category.

  Quoted Text Here  
Isn't this the same thing as decertifying rocket motors just because they're not currently being manufactured?
  Quoted Text Here  
So, what sort of process do you want for "decertifying" such an individual?
- Should the chapter prefect have the sole say in being decertified?
- If two L1 or one L2 flier say that you should be decertified, you're out?
- How do you get notified of your decertification?
- can you appeal it, or is this a "privilege" above and beyond basic Citizenship which means the constitution doesn't apply anymore?
Then you get into the whole NFPA thing about posessing motors. Lets say you lost your HPR cert. How many motors would you immediately have to get rid of?
So, here's an idea I got from watching too many "morse code vs no code" arguments in the ham radio world: have a time limit on the certification. Say, every 3 years. You have to re-certify at each level within one year of each HPR cert expiring, or you lose that certs for that HPR level and higher.
Glen Overby

Bob Kaplow wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Your reasoning is flawed Bob; see Will Marchants post and my response.
  Quoted Text Here  
That analogy is a stretch..
  Quoted Text Here  
Fred