NAR/TRA Joint Active Recovery Definition

Gary wrote:


Perhaps. And if someone hadn't pushed the BoT for clarification on the issue we probably would have been left with "don't ask, don't tell".
Sometimes its better to not ask for clarification on an issue.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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".
--
Darren J Longhorn http://www.geocities.com/darrenlonghorn /
NSRG #005 http://www.northstarrocketry.org.uk /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Darren J Longhorn wrote:

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

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

In our little hobby? Unbelievable.
;-)
--
Tweak

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

It's weird how many people (on both sides of the issue) have gotten the idea that this rule "bans saucers for certs".
l
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

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

Kurt,
Do you have pictures of your rocket powered ships? Are they like hydroplanes or what?
Phil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phil Stein wrote:

Correction: "These types of rockets." :-)
Kurt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was ready to make one to try out in a friend's pool. ;-) In leiu of that entertainment, maybe I'll try the Baby Ruth trick.
Phil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Darren J Longhorn wrote:

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

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You forget that the weight of an empty motor casing itself, falling from 3000' hit not be a good idea. Then add the weight of the bird.
This doesn't ban spools, saucers, pyramids, or other oddrocks. I've seen plenty of oddrocks fly in the last 10 years, but they included some type of recovery devices, other than "let it fall out the sky and hope there is enough drag!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I was thinking more along the lines of a 6 inch diameter, 5 foot long 3FNC all carbon fiber rocket using a small H motor. The amount of drag on the rocket compared to it's weight would be about the same as coming in on a smaller parachute (I think, I would have to sim, build, test this all myself first) I seem to recall a similar rocket by PML that was launched on a G motor. It was so light, it could be held up with 2 fingers. Its first flight was on an H-180 and the booster came in without a parachute (not by design) with no damage to the rocket.
http://www.publicmissiles.com/UltimateIo.htm
This is not the method I choose when I got my level 1 (I-435 with dual deploy on a 7 pound AMRAAM) or my level 2, but it doesn't mean that a good builder (read strong but light) couldn't do it.
This seems like regulation for the sake of regulation to me. If a builder can explain WHY a rocket with no active recovery is still a safe recovery, then that would mean to me that he understands the physics of flight and would be a safe flyer. If they can't explain to me why its safe, then more than likely, they don't know why its safe and in that case, I would agree that they shouldn't be flying a rocket without active recovery (cert or no cert). This feels more to the spirit of the certification process to me. Almost anyone can but a LOC or PML kit, slap on some epoxy and an H motor and cert level 1.
This may not ban any type of rocket, (spool, saucer, oddroc, what-have-you) but it does ban a type of rocket for certification, one that uses passive recovery.
I guess it really doesn't matter at this point. The time for discussion on this has already passed. The rule is in place and to change the rule would take more than just my voice.
-Aaron
AZ Woody wrote:

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

Not just saucers - most monocopters too - sorry Chuck.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Darren J Longhorn wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 31 Jul 2006 21:35:47 -0700, " snipped-for-privacy@aol.com"

But why should they need active recovery, provided that the descent rate is limited?

Yeah, I heard about that. I'm not totally in favour of those saucers that are little more than a skirt around the aft closure of a motor either.

I just think it's a pity that a potential class of vehicles that do not possess "active recovery" and yet have a safe terminal velocity has been ruled out of use for certification. What ought to matter in a cert flight is the demonstration of a safe flight, from launch to recovery.
What's next - you can't certify on a single use motor, because it's too easy? Maybe ban those Proxx motors for cert flight - they're a bit easy to assemble (except that I've seen people get it wrong) too.
Perhaps cert-flights should be like driving tests. You pass your test in an automatic, you can drive an automatic, you pass your test with a stick shift and you can drive those too. Want to drive a motorbike or truck? Different test. Is it actually like that in the US? It is over here in the UK.
Maybe the "grand certification flight" should be done away with completely - perhaps everything a flier does for the first time should be certified. You could have a membership card with little ticks for - each class of motor flown - single use flight - reload assembly - hybrid motor - streamer deployment - parachute deployment - CPR - etc...
Just kidding.
--
Darren J Longhorn http://www.geocities.com/darrenlonghorn /
NSRG #005 http://www.northstarrocketry.org.uk /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

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

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

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.