Okay... seriously...let's get ourselves back on track.
I went ahead and sent an e-mail to the editor of Sport Rocketry on this article. I didn't go into a rant, I just stated my issues, and that I thought it was kind of a bad article, not worthy of Sport Rocketry. I will not put up the full article here, but here are the main points:
1 - Out of five launches, the author had three recovery failures. It's not a rocket problem, it's a rocketeer problem.
2 - In his report, Forty Years of Model Rocketry: A Safety Report, Mr. Stine points out that one of the four primary reasons for our hobby's fantastic safety record is the fact that model rockets are light weight and designed to "self-destruct" upon impact. The rocket in the article won't do that.
3 - The article was written by a LEVEL THREE certified rocketeer who can't get an Estes kit to work - that really casts doubt on our certification process.
4 - The NAR mambership, readers of Sport Rocketry, and th author woul dhave been far better served by an article on ROCKET REPAIR, or AVOIDING RECOVERY FAILURES.
5 - Despite all the time, effort, and money spent on this rocket, it still experienced a fin failure.
I am starting to think that parts of Stine's Handbook of Model Rocketry should be on the level one test.
I have also taken the step of writing an article promoting low power rocketry (while trying not to bash HPR). It is being proof read by some associates to be sure it's a worthy piece. Perhaps now that I am duly motivated, I'll look into common recovery failures and rocket repair (I have lots of experience with this one).