Rocket Launches where rockets flew over or recovered over specators - past year?

[UncleVanya]

A quick poll - in the last year how many launches have you been to where at some point rockets flew over or were recovering over the spectator areas?

 

[MasonH]

I have been to quite a few, but most of them were LPR or small MPR rockets, so it was no worry.

 

[troj]

I'll confess, this poll has me scratching my head, wondering exactly what the objective is, beyond possibly embarassing one, or both, of the national organizations?

Think about it. You're asking people to publicly document potential safety issues, making them public record, and providing documentation that could quite seriously potentially bite one of the organizations in the posterior in the future.

If you have concerns, fine. Express them to the respective organization.

But putting it out publicly, where it'll get grabbed by other sites, and archived for all posterity....imagine if one of the organizations has their insurance up for review, and the insurance company happens to catch wind of it. What do you realistically think is going to happen to the insurance premiums?

-Kevin (who won't be voting in this poll)

 

[GRIFFIN]

I'll confess, this poll has me scratching my head, wondering exactly what the objective is, beyond possibly embarassing one, or both, of the national organizations?

Think about it. You're asking people to publicly document potential safety issues, making them public record, and providing documentation that could quite seriously potentially bite one of the organizations in the posterior in the future.

If you have concerns, fine. Express them to the respective organization.

But putting it out publicly, where it'll get grabbed by other sites, and archived for all posterity....imagine if one of the organizations has their insurance up for review, and the insurance company happens to catch wind of it. What do you realistically think is going to happen to the insurance premiums?

-Kevin (who won't be voting in this poll)

+1 ?!?!?

 

[MarkII]

Zero. It's a very rare event around here. But I agree with what Kevin said. How would this poll provide any practical help? NAR did study this and other safety issues a few years ago and published a comprehensive report with a list of sensible recommendations, which have been quite faithfully followed at launches that I have attended.

 

[SSenesy]

I'll confess, this poll has me scratching my head, wondering exactly what the objective is, beyond possibly embarassing one, or both, of the national organizations?

Think about it. You're asking people to publicly document potential safety issues, making them public record, and providing documentation that could quite seriously potentially bite one of the organizations in the posterior in the future.

If you have concerns, fine. Express them to the respective organization.

But putting it out publicly, where it'll get grabbed by other sites, and archived for all posterity....imagine if one of the organizations has their insurance up for review, and the insurance company happens to catch wind of it. What do you realistically think is going to happen to the insurance premiums?

-Kevin (who won't be voting in this poll)

I was going to post something, but this seems pretty sage advice.

 

[cwbullet]

I had one almost hit me this year - it was a heavy 2.5 inch fiberglass rocket. I may start wearing a hard hat - just kidding.

 

[MarkII]

But then, we don't usually have any real spectator area because we don't have spectators. Participants, yes, but spectators? Um, no. I have very rarely ever witnessed a flight at a local launch that didn't fly into the expected recovery zone though.

 

[blackjack2564]

A quick poll - in the last year how many launches have you been to where at some point rockets flew over or were recovering over the spectator areas?

Why?

 

[Aksrockets]

I saw something on the NAR facebook page related to this. Is that what this is about?

Alex

 

[bill_s]

The NAR report on high power safety:
https://www.nar.org/pdf/launchsafe.pdf

This document is very clear about the difference between flying over spectators etc., in particular "ballistic return" (crashing), vs. proper recovery.

The record is good but no doubt there possibility of improvement.

 

[jadebox]

The record is good but no doubt there possibility of improvement.

There's always room for improvement. I had a close call last weekend. I've been to more than 100 club launches watching, perhaps, 10,000 or more flights, and it's the first time that's happened to me. So, it's not common.

The site was set up well and flights were not flying over us before or after it happened. So, it was a fluke, not a safety oversight.

No one wants anyone to get hurt or for a rocket to damage a tent or vehicle. So, at every launch I've attended, everyone's been careful to position the launch pads and angle the launch rods and rails properly.

-- Roger

 

[UncleVanya]

Why? Because I want to know if what I have seen is typical or not.

What purpose? I have attended launches that seem to be inconsistent in their responses to flyovers.

Impact to the hobby? Really sick of hearing that every time something is not flatttering to the hobby. The Ostrich theory of avoiding public scrutiny seems short sighted. Let's say we don't talk about it and it continues to be an issue - when an incident occurs what then? If we don't communicate we don't have an opportunity to improve. When I asked the question I wasn't asking - how many of you have seen unsafe RSO behavior - I am assuming in most of these cases the situation was corrected - my follow up questions would relate to how that was initiated and who initiated it. Many times there are many many skilled people on site who can and should speak up and nudge the local RSO and crew to adjust things - but that shouldn't be required. Decision by committee isn't what is expected of the RSO.

I'm concerned that some RSO's are not trained adequately and that improvements in this area may be needed. There really isn't any formal requirement for RSO's in respect to this situation that I can find (recommendations but not formal requirements) and I'm laying the groundwork to understand if there is really a problem or if I'm imagining things.

If things are as they seem it may form the basis for a research paper for NAR - and I don't know of any way to get a survey across the breadth of the hobby another way.

 

[UncleVanya]

There's always room for improvement. I had a close call last weekend. I've been to more than 100 club launches watching, perhaps, 10,000 or more flights, and it's the first time that's happened to me. So, it's not common.

The site was set up well and flights were not flying over us before or after it happened. So, it was a fluke, not a safety oversight.

No one wants anyone to get hurt or for a rocket to damage a tent or vehicle. So, at every launch I've attended, everyone's been careful to position the launch pads and angle the launch rods and rails properly.

-- Roger

Roger - I think you are correct that the vast majority of the time this is corrected or it's a fluke shift in upper winds no one knew about until it happened. My follow up is going to be to ask people to contact me with details about how the situation was handled and if the RSO noticed the problem or if others had to ask for it to be addressed.

 

[mikec]

at some point rockets flew over or were recovering over the spectator areas?

There is a huge difference between "recovering over" (descending slowiy on properly deployed chutes) and "flying over" (such that if the chute failed to deploy the rocket would come in hot in spectator areas.) The first can be a lot harder to avoid than the second, but is a much lower risk. Distinguishing between the two is critically important IMHO, and this poll as stated doesn't capture the difference.

 

[UncleVanya]

I saw something on the NAR facebook page related to this. Is that what this is about?

No - that may explain the concerns some are expressing however. I am not familiar with the item you are talking about - if you have it PM me the details because I don't want to distract from the purpose here.

 

[UncleVanya]

I'll confess, this poll has me scratching my head, wondering exactly what the objective is, beyond possibly embarassing one, or both, of the national organizations?

Think about it. You're asking people to publicly document potential safety issues, making them public record, and providing documentation that could quite seriously potentially bite one of the organizations in the posterior in the future.

If you have concerns, fine. Express them to the respective organization.

But putting it out publicly, where it'll get grabbed by other sites, and archived for all posterity....imagine if one of the organizations has their insurance up for review, and the insurance company happens to catch wind of it. What do you realistically think is going to happen to the insurance premiums?

-Kevin (who won't be voting in this poll)

Kevin - see clarifications. I'm not expecting these flyover events were persistent and not addressed in a timely fashion. This is not a safety witch hunt. I also set the poll to be anonymous on purpose. I hope you reconsider - and I hope I see more low numbers. There may be a bias in who answers the poll - the one's with the most concerns may be answering and I'm well aware of that.

 

[UncleVanya]

There is a huge difference between "recovering over" (descending slowiy on properly deployed chutes) and "flying over" (such that if the chute failed to deploy the rocket would come in hot in spectator areas.) The first can be a lot harder to avoid than the second, but is a much lower risk. Distinguishing between the two is critically important IMHO, and this poll as stated doesn't capture the difference.

Actually, from the safety code perspective the two are both prohibited. But you are correct - a deployed chute pulling the rocket into the spectator area is less of a concern than a situation where rockets apogee events occur over the crowd - at least in my mind.

However at 20'/sec a large rocket under chute is pretty dangerous so both should be avoided if at all possible. Sometimes things change in mid flight or mid rack and you don't know - how we as a group react to that is important and part of what I want to learn.

Oh and the poll is limited in characters so there's a limit on my specificity - sorry about that.

 

[jadebox]

There is a huge difference between "recovering over" (descending slowiy on properly deployed chutes) ...

Granted, it's easy for a person to move away from a rocket that's coming down slowly under a parachute and small rockets under 'chute aren't going to cause any damage. But, it's not good for large rockets to land near cars or tents ... as the hole in my car's hood demonstrates.

-- Roger

 

[mikec]

Actually, from the safety code perspective the two are both prohibited.

For the NAR HPR code, it depends on how you interpret "I will not launch my rocket... on trajectories that take it directly over the heads of spectators". I could argue that "on trajectories" implies prior to chute deployment.

I agree that it would be vastly preferred that rockets not be landing on chute in spectator areas, but it can be very impractical to guarantee that in all circumstances.

 

[UncleVanya]

For the NAR HPR code, it depends on how you interpret "I will not launch my rocket... on trajectories that take it directly over the heads of spectators". I could argue that "on trajectories" implies prior to chute deployment.

I agree that it would be vastly preferred that rockets not be landing on chute in spectator areas, but it can be very impractical to guarantee that in all circumstances.

We read that code a little differently. But go beyond that and look at the NAR paper posted earlier in the thread - the intent is clearly to avoid all trajectories into the parking/prep/spectator area even under parachute.

I agree that things change during a launch and you might have a couple slip by when conditions change - but if conditions stay changed the RSO is obligated to adjust - this means reducing the height of deployment or even shutting down operations if things cannot be fixed in any other way. Most of the time this happens quickly and without any fuss - sometimes not as cleanly.

 

[Frederocket]

I'll confess, this poll has me scratching my head, wondering exactly what the objective is, beyond possibly embarassing one, or both, of the national organizations?

Think about it. You're asking people to publicly document potential safety issues, making them public record, and providing documentation that could quite seriously potentially bite one of the organizations in the posterior in the future.

If you have concerns, fine. Express them to the respective organization.

But putting it out publicly, where it'll get grabbed by other sites, and archived for all posterity....imagine if one of the organizations has their insurance up for review, and the insurance company happens to catch wind of it. What do you realistically think is going to happen to the insurance premiums?

-Kevin (who won't be voting in this poll)

Bingo--what Kevin said. This type of data needs to be kep, reviewed, and resolved in house...JMNSHO

 

[mikec]

But go beyond that and look at the NAR paper posted earlier in the thread - the intent is clearly to avoid all trajectories into the parking/prep/spectator area even under parachute.

I have read the report and it's a good report, but its overriding emphasis is on ballistic returns (as it should be). The proposed text (in bold) they present for "safe recovery" is "A high power rocket shall be launched only if it contains a recovery system that returns all parts of the rocket to the ground intact and at a landing speed at which the rocket does not present a hazard to persons."

 

[Rocketbuilder]

There's always room for improvement. I had a close call last weekend.

That was definitely a close call, even more so for me. Still, it was an unpredictable chance event, which I think is encompassed in the (relatively small, in this case) risks which we are willing to accept in order to participate in the hobby. I would like to note though that as soon as it became apparent that there was a potential danger the RSO began calling heads up and I was able to move away from the area in time to avoid being harmed.

 

[mkadams001]

I would say that most launches that I have been to over the years including LDRS have had at least one flight where a rocket landed in the spectator/parking area. This would include ballistic as well as proper recovery. However, at every single launch when a recovery appeared that it was going to land in or near a spectator area, any launch activity was stopped and everyone was alerted with a heads up and visual tracking until landing.

I would want flight hazards and safety issues to be public information. This would be for the safety of the spectators and in the case of insurance you would have a lot more problems if an incident occurred and then the insurance company found out about the unmentioned hazard. By sharing the information it helps others to develop better safety measures. If it is a persistent problem with a club then the launch area and spectator layout should be evaluated and changed which would include finding a better launch site.

 

[tightwad]

Since 1964, I have had only 3 rockets that flew into, over or landed in the spectator area. I had 1- fin shear off, 1- rod whip and 1- loose nc. All of these happened in the summer of '64. I learned to angle the rod away from people, houses, corrected for wind and my unsafe flying habits. I was young, got scared and learned the hard way. (Yes, and my father threatened to crush all my rockets if I didn't fly safely!)

As for this poll, I believe it is everyones responsibilty to fly safely, immediately correcting any launch safety problems you see, even if the RSO misses it. Be vocal and teach. If NAR and TRA see a pattern of unsafe practices, they would make the changes immediately and manditory-effecting everyone persons and club flying under their banner. SO, lets put this to bed.

 

[Obelisk]

I agree with Kevin. And the question is miss leading... Recovered over the crowd? as in came down on parachutes at normal decent rate and a heads up was called? Can't control the wind and if the rocket is coming in under normal safe recovery conditions it should be a non-issue for the most part. I think thrying to re-align the angle of attack on a a launch rod can cause more issues.

 

[JStitz]

I once attended a launch in NY as a spectator and had a G-10 finned rocket make a nice hole in the fiberglass top of a conversion van that I borrowed.
I am guilty of launching in windy conditions just because I was there and had a motel room and motors to burn. (sound familiar?)
Some smart flyers attend and chose not to fly. I really respect this.
We all know what happens when you angle your launch rod into the wind...:y:
On a lighter note...ask your old timers on what small chute to use for a streamer...they know from bad experiences.

 

[Micromeister]

A quick poll - in the last year how many launches have you been to where at some point rockets flew over or were recovering over the spectator areas?

Vary Few in all cases these were tip-off over flights caused mostly by single Launch lug models on breeze days. Our club watches for these type issues during our Monthly Sport launches.

 

[pick1e]

I'll confess, this poll has me scratching my head, wondering exactly what the objective is, beyond possibly embarassing one, or both, of the national organizations?

Think about it. You're asking people to publicly document potential safety issues, making them public record, and providing documentation that could quite seriously potentially bite one of the organizations in the posterior in the future.

If you have concerns, fine. Express them to the respective organization.

But putting it out publicly, where it'll get grabbed by other sites, and archived for all posterity....imagine if one of the organizations has their insurance up for review, and the insurance company happens to catch wind of it. What do you realistically think is going to happen to the insurance premiums?

-Kevin (who won't be voting in this poll)

Sooo, is it best for the hobby to operate in an information vacuum? Does that help make it safe?