Interesting that local directed patrol, or commonly called Metro in the old
days, needs a WMD team.
If a real WMD was found in my county, I sure would not want the county
sheriff or our metro squad taking care of it ;)
But times do change, perhaps it's the definition of a WMD ?
The legal definition of "WMD" is incredibly broad (In the US, anyway).
It includes everything from hand grenades to spud guns (rifles with
barrels larger than 1/2in). It would include many high power rockets, if
not for the 'intended for sport use' exception.
I'll see if I can dig up the actual wording.
I had not seen DD added to the WMD code before.
I wonder how "destructive device" got morphed into WMD ?
Also, some have class three licenses to own DDs like an M240, so now they
also own WMDs ?
And Spud guns like you said are now WMDs.....
ok, I'll follow my own advice, follow the money trail.
Funding for preventing WMDs will happen easier then funding for preventing
That also makes the person whose name shall not be mentioned on r.m.r.
guilty of brandishing a WMD.....
If I see the guy walking towards me I wave to make sure he sees me and the
rocket, then wait for him so we both can talk about the flights on the way
in. If I don't see anyone, I radio the LSO to let them know or get a good
bearing and let them know when I get back. If I had the room to bring it
in, I would not stick any body parts in or in front of the body tubes.
If my rocket has landed hidden in a corn field, hung up in a tree or
powerline, then I've launched under conditions which present a hazard to its
recovery and violate the safety code.
Same as the liability if the rocket falls from the sky and injures someone
or damages property (possibly less if the club rules prohibit recovery of
other's rockets, but you would still pay).
There is no power to the device when the RSO is checking my rocket, unless
he is standing at the pad with me.
What happens when your rocket has landed face down hiding the warning, screw
and vent hole.
The logical conclusion to this line of argument is that all rockets which
use a pyrotechnic device for recovery be painted red with 3" yellow
lettering indicating DANGER EXPLOSIVE HAZARD, DO NOT HANDLE on 4 sides (3
for 3 fin rockets).
I still maintain that if you are going to put anything on the outside of
a pyro equipped rocket, it should be a big "Don't Touch This, Call This
Number" with the owners cell number. Directions for disarming I see as
an invitation to both a civilian being injured and a lawsuit.
In these days of fear, paranoia, and extremism, the assumption would
be to assume that it is an unexploded terrorist bomb. To be safe, use
a robot to bring in a pound or so of HE and detonate it. Forensics
can sort it out later. :(
So, one of the themes of this thread seems to be that RF doesn't cause
ejection charge accidents, user error does, particularly reverse battery
errors. So why are we still using flight electronics that fails in a
'fire' mode when this error occurs?
Bob mentioned a idea for an altimeter which would safe itself after a time.
For some reason it made me consider that while all motor recovery has been
certified by an independent organization, none of the electronic recovery
is. Specifications and required testing on avionic packages. Now that's
starting to sound more like NASA.
Sorry, I missed something. What "independent organization" certified motor
delays? I thought that was done by TMT, S&T and CAR. Not quite
And then it's only +/- 20%.
Seems the result of this discussion is that many of the problems were
caused, not by the altimeter, but by errors by the flier. Maybe we should
certify the fliers! (Oh, wait, I think we do!)
Could be that too many people get certified long before they should...
Hey, Kaplow flies happy meals, and has minimal HP experience. (as does most
of the NARBOT, it seems). I still can't understand why he's so vocal in
this thread, other than he's just being "kaplow".
That's what you get. Fliers with minimal/no HP experience recommending
sweeping changes, some of which would serve to increase the risk of
inflight failure by adding complexity in order to "child proof" HPR. If
you can't wire a battery properly then you have no business flying
anything bigger than a happy meal.
I don't get why we want to emulate NASA, either. They can't even
convert metric to english.
Unless by emulating NASA they mean spend as much money as possible to
make failures that much more painful.
Nobody mentioned static electricity. I've seen one inadvertant firing after
impact that was probably static induced. At a night launch, one flier had his
drogue deploy, but not the main. When he picked up the rocket, the main
ejection charge fired.
Glen Overby, kc0iyt
What is the reason for thinking this was static electricity induced?
Was there a noticeable spark?
The rocket would have been lying on the ground and should have discharged
any potential it had. The flier should similarly have been slogging about
and been at Earth potential.
It seems other scenarios played out earlier in this thread were at least
as likely a cause as static electricity.
For example an altimeter that didn't arm or sense properly for deployment,
but got a pressure spike by the flier covering or uncovering a vent hole
on the ground.
It seems to me that the weak link in all of the unexpected deployment
scenarios is the electronics that are fooled into thinking "NOW" is the
time. As a microelectronics engineer, I know that chip circuitry is
susceptible to electronic noise. The amount of RF or static needed to trip
a chip's logic would be a lot less than that needed to fire an e-match. A
small transient, applied directly to a chip's sensor inputs, could make
the chip believe the sensor was seeing an event.
Similarly, altimeter design that doesn't fail safe when power is transient
could trigger the e-match. A design that powers up with a spike on the e-
match outputs could set off the charge at arm time.
I'm not saying there are altimeters that do that, I'm just stating that
the design of the system whose sole purpose is to light that match, should
be the first suspect in any match lighting. Foot scuffing static
electricity, or RF interference, directly lighting the match seems less
likely than those sources fooling the electronics into doing the job.
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.