Really? I tried to find that language. Not having the current
versions doesn't help. I thought all mention of Hybrids were taken
out of 1122 and 1127 only covers High Power Rocket motors (i.e. makes
no distinction between BP, APCP, and Hybrid motors).
Now if you fly at a NAR/TRA launch, you must be L1 certified to fly
In nfpa 1127 and 1125 definitions for model rocket/model rocket motor/high
power rocket/high power rocket motor and hybrid motor have defintions....
later in 1125 they reference hybrid high power rocket motors, although there
is no formal definition
both 1125 and 1127 define a HPR motor as a motor having more than 160 Ns :
184.108.40.206 High Power Rocket Motor. A rocket motor that has more than 160
N-sec but no more than 40,960 N-sec of total impulse,
or that produces an average thrust of greater than 80 N, or that contains
greater than 62.5 g (2.2 oz) of propellant.
220.127.116.11 Hybrid Rocket Motor. A rocket motor in which the fuel exists in a
different physical state (solid, liquid, or gaseous)
than the oxidizer and that derives its force or thrust from the combination
18.104.22.168 Model Rocket Motor. Arocket motor that has a total impulse of no
greater than 160 N-sec, an average thrust of no
greater than 80 N, and a propellant weight of no greater than 62.5 g (2.2
It stands to reason that if you have a hybrid rocket motor that is producing
over 160 N-sec then that hybrid becomes a HPR motor under the definition.
Once it crosses into the HPR rocket motor category, all of the NFPA codes
regrading HPR rocket motors apply whether they are
solid,liquid,hybrid,single-use or reloadables... If the hybrid produces
less than 160 N-sec than it stands to reason that it is a model rocket
hybrid motor. So By extension any HPR rocket motor requires that the user
be certed and have at least a L1..... the new G impulse hybrids do not
require an L1( I was mistaken on that, BUT you must be at least 18 to
Chapter 6 Prohibited Activities
6.1 Prohibited Acts. The following activities shall be prohibited
by this code:
(9) Selling or transfer of a high power rocket motor or motor reloading kit
to any person who is not a certified user,
other than the transfer of a single high power rocket motor or motor
reloading kit for the purpose of user
(10) Possession, storage, or use of a high power rocket motor or motor
reloading kit by any person who is not a certified
user, other than the possession, storage, or use of a single high power
rocket motor or motor reloading kit
for the purpose of user certification
Now of course the above analysis is just my interpretation so it doesn't
really mean anything.....I suppose you can interpret the NFPA codes anyway
you wish...which of course makes them basically meaningless, which is why we
have the NFPA codes in the first place. The only person who has the
authority to interpret the NFPA codes are the State Fire Marshalls, and I
don't think we want to wake them up to their potential responsibilities for
regulation, now do we? Let sleeping dogs lie.......
This is why I beleive the NFPA codes are an illusionary regulatory
framework: they exist but theu have no real authority as nobody knows they
exists therefore they can not be enforced.....A master stroke of genius I
might add on the part of G. Harry Stine, although I am not sure thats what
he had in mind.....
and as I have told you each time you repost what Bill Stine said( like hes
god or something).....OUR NAR snuck Chapter 65 into NFPA 1 exactly because
the NFPA codes (especially 1125 and 1127) were not be adopted by enough
states stand alone.
Chapter 65 provides for a backdoor adoption of the 3 nfpa codes.....
I would submit just because hes on the NFPA committee, that doesn't
necessarly mean he knows whats going on with NFPA....besides Dane Boles is
the Quest Primary rep at the NFPA PYRO committe, Bill Stine is only an
alternate which means the only time hes really there is if Dane can't show
You would be surprised how many State Fire Marshalls who have no clue that
they have even adopted the NFPA 1122/1125/1127 codes.....
65-5 Model Rocketry. The design, construction, limitations of propellant
mass and power, and reliability of model rocket motors and model rocket
reloading kits and their components produced commercially for sale to or use
by the public for purposes of education, recreation, and sporting
shall comply with NFPA 1122, Code for Model Rocketry.
65-6 Rocketry Manufacturing.
65-6.1 The manufacture of model rocket motors designed, sold, and used for
the purpose of propelling recoverable aero models shall comply with NFPA
1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket
65-6.2 Permits, where required, shall comply with 1-12.16.
65-7 High Power Rocketry.
65-7.1 The design, construction, limitations of propellant mass and power,
reliability of all high-power rocket motors and motor components produced
commercially for sale to or use by the certified user for education,
and sporting competition shall comply with NFPA 1127, Code for High Power
65-7.2 Permits, where required, shall comply with 1-12.16.
why don't you call him and ask him if he knows how many states have adopted
NFPA 1 which includes Chapter 65 and therefore NFPA 1122/25/27 are adopted
by reference due to chapter 65?
You have my permission to blast him. You whould think as much as
Shockie whines, he & Jerry would be agreeing on a regular basis. 8-)
Also, you'd better be careful of who you ask to throw you a bone
around here. If given an opportunity, Jerry just might take liberties
with more than the truth.
All I can say is,
I'll take Bill Stine's advice before yours.
Until you attend a few NFPA meetings as a by stander and then as an
alternate, you need some experiance.
Your track record with real world experiance in this hobby what ?
Even Jerry knows you need this experiance before you start talking like your
an NFPA expert.
My Fire Department did. It's their job to know the codes and enforce
them. I tried to weasel out of the 25 foot provision because I
didn't think Austin had adopted 1127. But the Chief Engineer showed
me the words in NFPA-1. Of course, once we got over that we were
able to work out attached garage storage quite nicely because it is
specified in 1127. He also showed me the part about Sporting Powder
being restricted to 2lbs in a magazine (1 without) in a
non-sprinklered building. I didn't write that one down because I was
willing to live with that restriction (my 1lb can still has about 12
ounces left after 8 years).
hey jerry I have a theory about the NFPA codes and why they are basically
moot and don't really mean anything.... it goes something like this:
IF a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to see or hear it fall,
did it really fall? or better yet, if you launch rockets up and threes no
AHJ standing there watching did you really launch a rocket?
My point being that at one time I considered sending a form letter survey to
every State Fire Marshall in the US....but then I decided it would be better
not to wake a sleeping giant, in this case another layer and level of
potential bureaucracy to our hobby...
So that got me thinking that the NFPA codes are really for the most part as
far as rocketry is concerned are an illusionary regulation framework....
i.e. IF the AHJ doesn't know they exist and are responsible for their
enforcement, then they don't exist in reality ... Its sorta like the
federal government not enforcing federal immigration policy, since they
don't really enforce it, there is no immigration laws....
I mean for example, the state fire marshal in Key was not even aware that
the NFPA 1122/25/27 was adopted until I pointed out to him that he had
allowed adoption of NFPA 1 and its Chapter 65...
So its my position now that the NFPA codes are meaningless as they can and
will only be enforced by your State Fire Marshall(assuming he even knows
they exist) but what makes the NFPA codes even sillier is that potentially
we could get 50 different interpretations of what a specific part of the
NFPA code means. I was furious that I could never seem to get the NAR to
"interpret" any of the NFPA codes that they had so thoughtfully written for
our benefit, when it dawned on me that they are not an enforcement agency
and the enforecement agency in this case for the NFPA codes is the State
Fire Marshall in each persons respective state!
But if we do not ask the AHJ for an interpretation then there is no
interpretation other than what you want it to be....
Besides the AHJ (state Fire Marshals) are so busy with REAL stuff they don't
even have time to interpret the NFPA codes even if they wanted to.....
SO everybody can go out and totally ignore the NFPA codes when they fly as
they are meaningless in reality...
radical thought huh?
It is totally self-imposed and any majority of the "Sport Rocket Caucus"
could easily change the bad language (mandatory consumer cert, reference
to ATF, any limitation whatsoever on who can certify so long as the
tests are done and the data published in public for all to see.
In industry, plenty of commercial firms "self-certify" with grand
It is way too real. It is LAW.
Hence why I have advocated and begged all along to substantially
simplify it and make it 1/4 times as many words, and reference outside
Estes (any motor vendor) safety code
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org>
When appling for a LEUP isn't the first thing required that you get
local/state permit/license that would involve the State Fire Marshall's.
I don't know how many actual LEUP's there are out there but many say
they have them. If so, wouldn't these SFM's have been involve many times
In my case it was Local Fire department, they are the AHJ. No permit
required. I asked for a review of my plans, they commented and
eventually we worked out an agreeable plan. They stamped my plan
"approved" and that was that.
No reason to involved the State when the City or Town (or county or
parish) has jurisdiction.
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.