NFPA 1127 Report on Proposals available

formatting link
Read it and weep.

One change proposed by the committee to take care of minor language issues. Fourteen submitted by Trip Barber for the NAR.

One from me that duplicated one from NAR. Oddly the change proposed by the NAR is not the same as what they proposed in the safety report nor what is included in this report as the revised NAR safety code for Annex C. NAR was going to recommend a minimum safe distance of 30' for both simple and complex high power rockets with 160 N-s or less of total impulse.

Some of the items approved here are at least subtly different from the recently revised NAR HPR safety code.

In particular, the NAR code says that you can't launch a HPR rocket if it _may_ recover in the spectator area or outside the launch site. Which is a bit different from the change to NFPA 1127 which says if the rocket is _likely_ to recover in those areas.

And my favorite, from the NAR code:

"I will use a 5-second countdown before launch, and will ensure that everyone in the launch site is paying attention "

From the ROP:

"An announcing system shall be provided that permits the range safety officer to immediately warn all participants and spectators of rocket flight event anomalies that might present a hazard to them."

The requirement in the ROP is at best vague on just how large an area needs to be covered by this requirement. It is certainly smaller than the NAR code and doesn't include the "ensure" bit that is nearly impossible to satisfy. (Can you hear me now? :-) It doesn't even require that the countdown be audible, just safety problems.

Reply to
David Schultz
Loading thread data ...

Why is NAR trying to add crap like this PA system requirement to the NFPA codes, instead of simply inserting it into the NAR safety code??

Just another moronic attempt to impose "one size fits all" solutions on everyone. :P

n
Reply to
raydunakin

Is NAR trying to kill rocketry?

You're going to need to launch every rocket on a minimum 2 mile square site with a minimum 1000 feet of seperation of the pad and launch control to assure that no rocket ever falls into the crowd or leaves the launch site.

Is the only suitable launch site going to be the Black Rock Desert from now on?

Brian Elfert

Reply to
Brian Elfert

I think the NFPA is tying to prevent that.

That will not assure, or insure, anything. By definition, the recovery area is where ever the hell the rocket lands. When selecting a launch site, often the most important consideration is not the site itself, but what lies beyond the site, especially down wind. Wind is effectively impossible to predict, even by experienced flyers, except in the statistical sense. IMHO, launches should not have crowds, and especially not spectators. This is not a fireworks show. The participants and observers should not be "crowded", so that they can quickly and easily move out of harms way without having to stampede through a crowd.

For some flights, perhaps so.

Reply to
Alan Jones

I believe you are incorrect on this, but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Here is the NAR HPR Safety code:

formatting link
Please point out the language you cite above. II think you'll find the Safety Code language says you can't launch on a trajectory over the spectators or outside the range; i.e., you can't _aim_ it that way. Big difference.

--tc

Reply to
tedcochran55409

I don't think the NAR is intentionally trying to "kill" rocketry, but I do think they need to better coordinate their NFPA 1127 wishlist with their TRA counterparts, before advancing that wishlist to the NFPA table level. Why don't you ask your TRA NFPA rep how he voted on these NAR proposals? It appears from the voting patterns, that the TRA rep voted YES on all of these NAr proposals. If the NAR is trying to kill rocketry, then the TRA is helping it to do so.

I'm of the opinion that everybody that is in rocketry as a NAR or TRA member, needs for its respective organizations to be more candid and forthcoming about such things as NFPA rules changes, so the memberships of both organization know whats coming, instead of learning about it after the fact. Or go the extra mile and plunk down $135 per year for membership in the NFPA and you can voice and mke your own proposals like David did.

SO goto ROL 2.0, Regulatory Affairs, and read nfpa1122.1125.1127. Get Involved! Email your BOD or BOT members and let them know what YOU think about these things. Coming here and bitching is worthless and as phil stein notes, "it just makes you look like a weenie"....

terry dean

ps I can hear phil ste>

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

The NAR safety code says '...trajectories that take it over the heads of spectators...', the NFPA has modified it to say '...trajectories that take it directly over the heads of spectators'. The funny part of all this is that the changes made (and there are others as well) will almost FORCE the NAR to change the safety code to match up with what the NFPA is now approving.

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

[As you can see, I'm trying to address these one by one, as I get time. :-) ]

The NFPA process was like watching sausage get made. NAR and TRA reps hashed out some language that changed the original proposals, and these were in turn tweaked by the committee. As a result, there were lots of alterations were made to the original change requests.

Your citation above was the original. It was changed. The final ROP language is:

"4.18.3.1 A system shall be provided that permits the range safety officer to immediately warn all participants and spectators of rocket flight event anomalies that present a hazard to them. Committee Statement: These changes to the submitter's recommendation allow for the use of warning systems other than announcing systems at smaller launches. There are a number of effective warning systems that could be used."

So, an air horn, or an agreed-upon warning signal (e.g., "HEADS UP!") is sufficient.

It's not really about the area covered, IMO, it's about making sure people can be warned wherever they are allowed to be. An air horn or an FM radio broadcast would work.

The audible countdown is in a different section of 1127, not changed by the ROP.

--tc

Reply to
tedcochran55409

Pot, meet kettle.

Sheesh.

Reply to
Tweak

I know you hate this but I have to agree with you.

Phil

ps I've already posted questions about this to the TRA BOD.

Reply to
Phil Stein

I had heard of NAR changing the NAR safety code a while back.

Today is the first time I had heard that the NFPA was adopting the same changes. Kinda hard to complain about something I never heard about until today.

I will talk to the Tripoli BOD when I see them at LDRS next week.

Brian Elfert

Reply to
Brian Elfert

They don't have to be identical; the Safety Code just ought not to be more lenient, I think.

For the information of folks here, the approximate chronology was:

Mar 05 Safety Study commissioned Oct 05 NAR Safety Study released for comments Oct 05 NAR NFPA change suggestions released for comments Feb 06 NFPA Pyro committee meeting

--tc

Reply to
tedcochran55409

phil: actually it makes me all "warm and fuzzy" insie when we agree.

The NAR /TRA has shown that they can work together as equals , taking the fight against the BATFE as an example; perhaps both org's should look at creating a permanent standing NAR/TRA nexus, so that issues that affect both org's can be looked at with common eyes? It would be used to coordinate such things as NFPA changes,etc

just an idea

terry dean

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

I think they do that. It's just that they seem to rarely make it public until it's a done deal. I think both organizations should be more open about what is happening within. I'm not saying members should be trying to micro manage the boards. I think if members are interested, they should have the ability to find out what the current issues are. As Ted said, this has been in the works fir over a year. There has been more than ample time for members to know what is happenings. The thing that gets me is that we have a bunch of talented people that could make a positive contribution if they knew what was happening.

Reply to
Phil Stein

As near as I can tell this will have no impact on TRA as they are still using the 1995 edition of NFPA 1127 as their safety code.

If membership were required in order to submit proposals or comments, the NFPA would have rejected my proposal. Membership is _not_ required.

Anyone can submit comments at this point. Just follow the instructions at the end of the ROP.

Reply to
David Schultz

  1. Recovery Safety. I will not attempt to recover my rocket from power lines, tall trees, or other dangerous places, fly it under conditions where it may recover in spectator areas or outside the launch site, or attempt to catch it as it approaches the ground.

You are thinking about item 9.

Reply to
David Schultz

I see you ignored to part about the NAR code requiring coverage of the entire launch site which is my big gripe. This is not possible with a PA system and FCC restrictions limit unlicensed FM transmitter signal strength to the point where legal systems can't either.

The recent NAR safety report discussed being able to get the attention of everyone in the launch and spectator areas in the report body. Somehow this morphed into the entire launch site in the recommended code changes section.

Reply to
David Schultz

These changes were in the safety report published by NAR last year.

formatting link
Which had a section of recommended changes to NFPA 1127. Putting that together with the fact that the report was published shortly after the closing date for change proposals on NFPA 1127 and it wasn't hard to make the connection.

Reply to
David Schultz

Ah, thank you. I see I'm getting old faster than I thought :-)

OK, so what should the language say? The NAR Safety Code can be changed, if need be, if we can come up with better language.

--tc

Reply to
tedcochran55409

OK, again, what's the fix? Say "launch area" instead of "launch site"?

I'm willing to propose changes--the NFPA takes 3 years, but the NAR code can get fixed up pretty quickly.

--tc

Reply to
tedcochran55409

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.