why are hybrids regulated?

The logic is that hybrids are more complicated than typical rocket motors. You are dealing with compressed gas, which involves different handling techniques. Some regulation is appropriate, in my opinion.

Nitrous oxide itself is not a cryogenic or a toxic material, and is not classified as a flammable gas. Its handling characteristics are very similar to CO-2, so the techniques for handling it safely can be derived from procedures used to recharge soda fountains and similar devices. You have to be careful not to release it carelessly, or you can get frostbite from touching metal surfaces over which it is flowing or impinging. Hoses are also a problem; they can whip around and whack you.

Then, of course, the fact that you have to use electronic deployment.

I can sell an H hybrid to someone who is planning to use it for his Level 1. Other than that, you need to be Level 1 before I can sell you a hybrid of any size.

I really don't have a problem with this setup. After all, self-regulation is what has brought us our excellent safety record. I know there has been some discussion of a separate hybrid safety code, but it was decided that it wasn't necessary. I wouldn't be averse to seeing a new safety code for hybrids from either NAR or Tripoli; I'm sure there would be plenty of chance for input and discussion. We've learned a lot about hybrids since I fired my first H70 in 1999.

Doug Pratt

Why not just email the 'elected representatives' directly?

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

You can't be serious. Hybrids are a highly energetic device that can propel a significant mass to high velocities and altitudes. They also are quite capable of exploding BTW. If the rocketry sanctioning bodies hadn't had the foresight to implement some safety standards and there was an accident, you can be sure that the feds would step in. I have that directly from at least one senior inspector at the federal level. Hybrids are not toys. If these rules didn't exist, our HPR group would not make or sell them.

Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace

360-3100 x101 Sarasota (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto

by that reasoning then , Anthony, DEF model rocket hybrids should also be regulated requiring a L1. Is that your position? I guess what irritates me most is the certifying bodies can't seem to acurrately delinate what is or isn't a model rocket motor.

why would the feds step in to regulate hybrids, if they haven't stepped in, in 50+ years to regulate Amateur Rocketry?

shockie B)

How many DEF hybrids are produced commercially? Think about why not, economics included. If someone wants to spend the time, cost and effort to go that route and keep the NFPA and CPSC happy along the same lines that are accepted for modroc motors, great. The market is almost zero for the cost involved. It's unlikely to happen. Hybrids will most likely be regulated at some point in the near future in any event.

HPR and mid power is a small niche' hobby and the participant level continues to decline. TRA membership is down to around the 3000 number and it's anyone's guess what percentage of that are active. We have seen a significant decline in sales over the past three years. Paul Robinson at AMW is a friend of mine and reports much the same thing. Fortunately HPR is not our day job. Dealers are also feeling the squeeze. My guess is that AT has also experienced similar trends.

So if DEF hybrids are sold as toys, how many do you think will sell and how will it help the sport? Hybrid sales have dropped by 60% over the past three years BTW, even though they're not regulated, so you may want to consider that as well.

In short, what's your point?

They gave it to themselves, via the NFPA.

According to industry representatives, AKA hobby associations, they feel

*someone* has to be in charge to prevent the federal authorities from *taking* charge. It's seen as a form of self-policing. But it didn't work, as evidenced by the BATFE regulatory excursion into the rocketry hobby. Some of the self-policing may be just as over-reaching as the BATFE regulatory oversight.

Back during the Louie Freeh days of ATF, there was a call to reign in duplicated agencies (or is it more accurately labeled "duplicitous"?) and all of a sudden agencies like the ATF were trying to justify their existence rather than being absorbed into other Department of Justice agencies. So they extended their reach.

Also, consider the growth of "experimental" rocketry, where hybrids grew from. Experimental rocketry groups teach that you can make your own motors (albeit with a kitchen mixer in normally crowded preparation facilities such as hotels and convention centers) and that you don't need any national hobby organization affiliation or certification level to make and launch these motors. And, we're not talking about small motors either, rather motors up to and larger than are commercially available to the hobby populace at large.

This offshoot is viewed as "non-self-policing", and the national organizations view this as detrimental to the safe growth of the hobby. On the surface, this makes sense. It is also nonsensical in the fact that it is a form of hobby censorship.

If the ATF is in charge, then they insure their survival. If the hobby organizations are in charge, they insure THEIR survival. If no one is in charge, the hobby may not have a chance for survival. Which one is best? It depends on who you ask.

Is it true some one used a weenie for fuel in a hybrid? If it is,shockie had better watch out. Sorry Shockie - I can't resist it when you troll for comments. Now, you want some cheese with that whine. 8-)

Good luck. After reading the rest of the replies to this post, I am reminded of the state of regulatory oversight back in 1998 when I wrote the special report "GETTING LEGAL: Regulatory Issues Shaping Our Hobby"

or when ROL deletes the report). It reported on vendors not wanting to sell motors to people who weren't certified with a national organization when the flyers were within their legal grounds for wanting to purchase and use them.

There are NO federal regulations that prevent you from purchasing or flying hybrid rocket motors. But, if the state you live in has adopted NFPA 1127 into its fire code, then state law may require you to abide by these seemingly arbitrary regulations.

Consider: you can purchase gasoline, a very volatile chemical, just about anywhere -- provided you put it into an approved container. But you don't have to join the American Automobile Association and be certified an AAA Level 1 Gasoline User in order to burn gasoline. Oddly enough, anyone can also purchase a nitrous oxide performance kit for their automobile. And, anyone who has done so, equipped with the approved containers, can purchase the nitrous oxide gas to put in their newly-equipped nitrous oxide-enhanced automobile. Certainly there is greater danger with a nitrous oxide-enhanced automobile (burning gasoline, no less) to have an accident than there is with a hybrid rocket, yet no one has to be certified to do so.

On the other hand, to purchase a "hybrid rocket motor" (read: a few pieces of aluminum, paper and plastic), you must belong to a national rocketry organization (i.e. pay more money) and jump through their hoops (i.e. pay even more money) to prove that you are capable of not killing yourself. It doesn't make the situation any safer for you, but it does give the industry a cushion to fall back on in the event of a lawsuit or regulatory claim.

Again, this is even more fuel for the proponents of "experimental" build-your-own motors. In the end, you will have more luck getting the federal government off hobby rocketry's back than you will repealing NFPA regulatory recommendations, since now you much sue 50 states instead of just Washington, DC. But those seeking additional regulatory oversight can always find some entity somewhere willing to do so.

The solution to the expanded growth of the hobby as well as manufacturer growth and vendor growth is reduced regulation, not more barriers to entry. If a consumer wants to purchase a hybrid rocket motor, making them 1) join a national organization, 2) gain organizational certification, and then 3) purchasing the hybrid rocket motor, are too many hurdles to benefit the user, the manufacturer or a reselling vendor. I would venture to say that the hobby trends you are discussing are primarily the result of "anticipated" additional regulatory oversight AND the national organizations' multi-leveled certification programs. Hobby rocketry enjoyed many years of positive growth until the hobby organizations tried to impliment their own version of regulatory oversight via these structured certification programs. As a result, the hobby organizations have dug themselves a deep hole that they may never recover from.

You don't enjoy sustained growth of a hobby by making it harder for the participants to enjoy.

I can't find the reference, but I know Tripoli and NAR fixed this when G hybrids became available. You do not need to be L1 to fly a G hybrid but you do have be be 18 or supervised by an adult.

Shockie

1. Hybrid motors are considered reloadables by NAR (and I assume TRA and CAR). The sale of reloadable rocket motors are restricted by federal law to adults 18 and older.

1. G-hybrids that use less than 62.5 grams of propellant (combined weight of N2O and consumed propellant) are considered model rocket motors by NAR (and I assume by TRA and CAR), so you do not need to be L1 certified to fly a model rocket weight G-hybrid, but you do have to be 18 years of age or older.

2. It is a little known fact within the sport rocketry community that hybrids present a greater safety hazard than APCP motors because N2O is a also a monopropellant as well as an oxidizer. Should the chamber pressure in a hybrid exceed the tank pressure, the flame can propagate into the N2O tank and initiate a rapid decomposition of the N2O and disassemble the tank. In a G-Hybrid, there is up to 55 grams of N2O, and if it goes, the fragments the tank will travel much further than a CATOed APCP casing where it is unikely that more than several grams of propellant will be consumed before the casing ruptures and the rapid pressure drop extinguishes the remainder of the fuel grain.

For this reason, the minimum separation distance of any hybrid is 100 feet, as compared to the 30 ft minimum separation for a APCP G-motor. This distance was set by NAR S&T after much discussion with TMT and CAR.

1. Hybrids are rocket motors. If you need insurance, then the underwriters have a legitimate authority to set requirements and the terms and conditions under which the liability coverage will be applicable. If you are a manufacturer and desire liability insurance for your products, the insurance underwriters require you to follow NFPA 1125. If you are a flyier and desire liability insurance, the insurance underwriters require you to follow NFPA 1122 and 1127.

1. A person with property and investments wants and needs liability insurance. If you don't need insurance, and if you don't live in a state that has adopted the NFPA codes as part of their requlations, you are free do do as you please, howver the vast majority of manufacturers and flyiers want the coverage and therefore are willing to comply with the underwriters requirements.

2. The NFPA requirements are based on established scientific facts and engineering principles, the goal of which is to minimize the hazards of rocket motor motor and use. I'm not sure why you would want to object to this?

Bob Krech CMASS Senior Advisor Member NAR S&T

How does a hybrid motor propel a rocket if it doesn't have any flammable solids? Nitrous Oxide only provides oxygen and not fuel. The fuel is generally plastic or cardboard which are both flammable and will burn.

Brian Elfert

May I say that I love when you post responses.

It saves the rest of use so much typing time, and we get to avoid making some errors.

Thanks!

-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

Shouldn't that read: The sale of reloadable rocket motors are restricted by federal law to adults 18 and older that contain greater than 62.5 grams of fully oxidized propellant (APCP). If I'm not mistaken hybrid reload kits that contain less than 62.5 grams of APCP, or none at all, have no hazardous material classification, at least no hazmat 1. If that is the case, and I believe it is, what federal law regulates hybrid reloads?

Fred

Bob Krech wrote:

No. I don't believe so.

The CPSC exception that allows the sale of model rocket motors to minors is quite specific.

There is no specification of propellant type, only quantity. ..(ii), The requirement for preloaded .e.g single use...(iii); and no metal in construction ...(iii)

The relevant text is below.

Title 16: Commercial Practices PART 1500-HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES AND ARTICLES; ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEMENT REGULATIONS =A7 1500.85 Exemptions from classification as banned hazardous substances. (a) The term banned hazardous substances as used in section 2(q)(1)(A) of the act shall not apply to the following articles provided that these articles bear labeling giving adequate directions and warnings for safe use: (8) Model rocket propellant devices designed for use in light-weight, recoverable, and reflyable model rockets, provided such devices:

(i) Are designed to be ignited by electrical means.

(ii) Contain no more than 62.5 grams (2.2 ounces) of propellant material and produce less than 80 newton-seconds (17.92 pound seconds) of total impulse with thrust duration not less than 0.050 second.

(iii) Are constructed such that all the chemical ingredients are preloaded into a cylindrical paper or similarly constructed nonmetallic tube that will not fragment into sharp, hard pieces.

(iv) Are designed so that they will not burst under normal conditions of use, are incapable of spontaneous ignition, and do not contain any type of explosive or pyrotechnic warhead other than a small parachute or recovery-system activation charge.

Bob

So those hybrid motors containing no hazardous substance, (some do not) would not be regulated, if I understand what PART 1500 title and contents says, (maybe after the motor is loaded with it's oxidizer). Possibly, Title 16, Part 1500 has not been revised to reflect inclusion of hybrid motors. For this section to be used to regulate hybrid motors, a banned hazardous substance must be included in the propellant grain or other part of the reload kit.

Fred

Bob Krech wrote:

I think you may be right Will, as the A/T reload kit contain a banned substance and after reviewing Bobs reference to Title 16, Part 1500, I can see why A/T would put such a statement in there directions, even though I think it is a bit of a stretch or maybe just a decision by A/T to error on the side of caution.

Fred

Will Marchant wrote: