NAR/TRA Joint Active Recovery Definition

It could be worse. Long time ago you had to certify for each Motor level (i.e. H,I, etc). CAR has 4 certification levels.
At the L2 level you are expected to know and understand more about theory, operation, and regulations. If you move that down to L1 that might be a barrier to entry into the hobby. So you have L1 with a fairly easy entry level and L2 that is more of a "masters" level.
snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

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

What the various levels are really testing is your ability to design and build a rocket capable of withstanding the increased forces of a larger more powerful motor. Although I was opposed to the multi-level cert system, I must admit that it _appears_ to have reduced the rate of cert flight failures. I say this based only on my personal observations over the years, so take it with a grain of salt.
I don't think the current three-level system is particularly burdensome or onerous. We can keep it that way as long we can resist the "there oughta be law" knee-jerk reactions to every perceived problem or pet peeve.
2
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
This whole topic has got me thinking about old times...
Speaking of oddrocks, what ever happened with Chris Taylor's Grrrrrrrrrrr. As I remember it was quite a failure the first time he tried for L1, but that was a few years back.
I also recall that it was to be a glider, with no active recovery. And was tested by strapping it to his jeep, and he drove "as fast as he could".
I remember that spectators hoped that there was no wind during the launch, but it had something to due with a Kilt....
One of the things (and maybe the only one) that Kaplow and I have agreed on in the many years of RMR, is that the K.I.S.S principle should be used for all cert flights.
K.I.S.S - Keep It Simple, Stupid.
Do what you need, and don't complicate it with oddrocks, or anything the folks doing the cert might not understand. Trying for a cert where the prefect, or NAR cert team, has no clue on validating your bird (a saucer , spool, or jeep tested glider), might not be the best way to get a cert.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AZ Woody wrote: > ... [Chris Taylor's Grrr] was to be a glider, with no active recovery.
It was recovered via R/C control. Chris' possibly misplaced ambition notwithstanding, I sure hope this "NAR/TRA joint active recovery definition" includes R/C control of a glider (it seems to, though "glider" is not mentioned explicitly).
--
Steve Humphrey
(replace "spambait" with "merlinus" to respond directly to me)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Steve Humphrey wrote:

I believe that R/C is specifically listed as being an acceptable "active recovery" method.
-Kevin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin Trojanowski wrote:

And if I might add... r/c = THE most prime example of "active recovery" :)
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
But did he actually get it to work, and he got a cert? If so, when!
And how did the kilt do during the flight?
For his first cert attempt atleast, this was clearly a backing for the new rule. Based on what he was saying about his bird, and how he tested it (The jeep part was no joke), I'm still dumbfounded that any RSO allowed it!
Grrrrrrrrrr to me, only backs up why the new rule was needed...

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

IIRC, the RSO put it on a pad far away from everything else and called it a "heads up" flight, requiring everyone to stand up and pay attention. I think this was a good call on the RSO's part.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The status of the R/C control of gliders used in HPR certification flights was specifically discussed at the NAR Town Hall meeting Monday night. Mark's answer was that it met the criterion of active recovery.
Data mining of launch reports and flight cards indicated that ~75% of all flight failures involved the recovery system of the airframe. Beyond this is the belief that nearly all HPR fliers will use rockets sometime in their flight activities/history that will employ active recovery. It was also judged to be highly unlikely that a flier using a HPR non-active recovery system for their certification flight, would only fly airframes of that type as a HPR participant in the future.
The active recovery requirement only applies to certification flights, so what a flier chooses to employ as a recovery system is their choice as long as it meets the safety code requirements.
Personally, foam bowl saucers are my favorite small field rocketry demonstration tool for schools. They are inexpensive, can be quickly assembled by the students, fault tolerant, detailed/customized using white board markers, and can be flown on a wide range of motors.
John
AZ Woody wrote:

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

The fact that we point ours pretty much straight up helps a lot.
Phil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phil Stein wrote:

And you've never heard of one that failed to go straight up?
Mario
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That is extremely rare but I'm sure you know that.
Phil
wrote:

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

Good point but there does need to be some sort of feedback to decertify incompetent fliers.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There kinda is.
Bad news spreads fast and, often, discouragement spreads faster. Flyers get bad reps at launches when there are scores of witnesses to every SNAFU a flyer makes. More often than not, the bad flyer never makes it longer than a season or two before hanging up the towel OR getting his act together.
There was one of those "bench flyers" in our club several years ago. Made it a point to be in on EVERY technical conversation within earshot, especially gravitating towards ones over his head. Never flew much, and when he did, he finally got the idea that streamers don't tangle, if you follow my drift. Few of those were even found on top of that.
His L1 was so WAAAY over the top that I'm surprised the RSO even bought into it. Imagine a central compartment that, at apogee, seperated the nose cone and aft airframe while they were still tethered to this central compartment. The main was to come out at 500'. BTW, did I mention this was an *L1*? Just checking...
At apogee, the rather energetic charge blasted the rocket into unattached three parts and spit the altimeter out whole. All the parts fosberry flopped in and his altimeter sled weaponized on impact with the lone 10 square feet of asphalt for miles (literally). Never saw him again.
writes:

too
(yet)! <<<

www.nar.org
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.