NAR/TRA Joint Active Recovery Definition

Since, from what i've heard, Ed's saucer use a parachute, it is fine.

Notice 'TRA' in the title? TRA uses this rule too.

You are correct it has a chute. i still believ it is anal retentive to make such a rule.

News to me and nothing has been posted to the TRA web page, TRA List or to the TRA TAP List. It's possible that I missed the notice, but not likely, beings I have been one of the most vocal against such rules. There was discussion and a proposal from the TAP Chair, but to my knowledge, no vote by the TRA BOD, and from what i hear pretty much dead on arrival..

Right. As long as it meets the other rules, including the active recovery. Even without the tule change, you'd have a tough argument that any L3 saucer can safely fall to the ground with passive drag recovery and no chute.

NAR and TRA are working in synch on safety issues. Expect the recent NAR safety changes to propigate to TRA as well.

At least make this position clear before you jeopardize someone elses cartification attempt.

The safety committee study showed that 75% of HPR failures are recovery related. To allow certification without demonstrating safe recovery is absurd. If you're going to be certified to a particular level, you need to demonstrate that you can not only build a rocket, but can deploy a chute and recover it.

Do they give drivers licenses to folks who can work the gas pedal but not the brake?

I would claim that the vast majority of high power flights are flown by certified 3FNC people. Yet we still have high failure rates. Why is that? Part of it must be ignorance, complacence, or sloppiness on the part of the flyer. Part of it is RSOs not finding problems before flight. I believe that those two areas are where we need to focus.

I am afraid that by getting "tunnel vision" on a perceived, but not actual, problem with saucer certification we are completely ignoring the root cause(s) of our recovery problem.

Bob Kaplow wrote: ...

...

I agree 100 percent. The high failure rate is with what is normally used, (parachute recovery system), and has nothing to do with being an active recovery system or not. Who says that a , so called inactive recovery system, can not be designed to work?? I bet if I tried, I could up-scale a rocket powered glider to safely recover, using high powered motors, at least through a level 2 cert; no RC just free flight. In fact I know darn well I can do it.

Fred

Will Marchant wrote:

Your reasoning is flawed Bob; see Will Marchants post and my response.

That analogy is a stretch..

Fred

I don't quite agree with that, Bob. Mainly because, as I see it, there are only two differences between a cert flight and any other flight. First is the fact that there are a few specifics that must be met, such as using some form of active recovery. Second is that there is someone who will be observing the flight and signing off on it if it succeeds.

If a cert flight fails, you're no worse off than if it was a non-cert flight -- you can just try again the next time. There's no penalty for failing a cert flight (nor should there be!) By the same token, safety is not an issue. By that I mean, a failed flight doesn't magically become more dangerous simply because it's a cert flight. If anything, it could be argued that a failed cert flight is less likely to cause injury because people tend to pay more attention to cert flights.

If your only goal is to pass the cert the first time, at any cost, then yes, keeping it simple and routine is the best option. But IMHO that is placing too much emphasis on the cert.

TRA already adopted this rule. I heard it on the TRA list before I saw it here.

This rule does NOT prohibit the use of saucers, spools, oddrocs or gliders for cert flights.

Please do, I'd be curious to see it. I've never heard of a rocket glider that did not use some form of active recovery. There has to be some way of converting it from a "rocket configuration" to a "glider configuration". Whether you're releasing fin tabs, or changing the shape of the wing, popping out wings, or even just shifting a weight to change the center of gravity, it's all active recovery. It doesn't have to be R/C, it simply has to require some type of action as opposed to just letting the thing come in ballistic.

I wonder what the recovery failure rates are for people that did not have to use a parachute to certify compared to the ones that did. My guess is that the saucer people that did L1 & L2 on saucers, won't have as good a sucess rate.

Phil

When Ray, I must of missed it?? I don't remember any message that a BOD vote was taken??

Good!!

I just might give it a shot. I have a partially built Starlifter, (old Carl Goldberg free-flight design). A little redesign on the tail feathers, so the they don't get burnt from the motor burn; maybe sweep the wing about 2 degrees, build the wing without the polyhedral, and change the wing tips. Yep I bet I can make it work. Might not be as slow as an original Starlifter. Several years ago I built a 52" wing span glider that flew on a plugged F-20, without changing anything at motor burnout. The spiraling assent during take off was something to watch, but at burnout, the glider simply rolled over into a fast left turning glide, landing about 600" from where it launched from. Never going to win a duration contest with such a design, but you can design and tweak it to fly, land, and recover safely.

Fred, Rockets are my hobby, vehicles that fly on the wing are my passion....

" snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote:

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.

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.

See my responses.

OK, how about this: I have to demonstrate the ability to parallel park to get a drivers license, yet I NEVER need that skill out in the suburbs where

I have seen plans for RGs that do nothing to transition, but they are rather finicky. IIRC the Julie Bird 7 was such a glider. Plan was in an old Model Rocketeer.

Fred should go for it. He can call it Grrrrrrrrrrr2 :)

Doug

Indeed, this thread suggests that saucers are much safer than 3FNC, and hence should be encouraged! MOre to the point, saucers tend to be fail safe. How many HPR 3FNC's are fail safe? How many even have a backup chute or recovery system? You would not jump out of an airplane without both main and emergency chutes.

I don't care one way or the other about using saucers and other novelties for certification flights. Certification does not certify, prove, or demonstrate competence. The important thing is just getting the user registered and listed. The cert flight is simply jumping through hoops for appearance.

That sounds like a reasonable local policy. Still, I'd hate to see it mandated universally, and especially not for model rocket contests.

Is the HPR failure rate any higher or substantially different in any way from MR failures? Are HPR motors any less reliable than MR motors? Are reloadable motors any less reliable than SU motors? How many reloadable motor failures are due to poor user motor assembly?

Alan