NAR implements lower membership rates for young adults, increases insurance limits

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Ted Cochran

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
537
Reaction score
221
Membership dues for young adults, especially college students, can be a financial burden, and our enrollment data for new members demonstrate a pretty drastic falloff at the age when dues are no longer discounted. At the same time, increasing numbers of young adults are participating in rocketry programs such as NASA Student Launch.

As a result, the NAR Board of Trustees decided to lower rates for members ages 25 and under to $25. This rate is only available on the NAR website sign up page. You do not have to be a student to qualify for this rate.

Also, the NAR recently increased its insurance liability limit to $5M as a result of an increasing number of requests for that level of insurance by landowners--especially schools and other governmental organizations. It seems a bit over the top, given the safety record of this hobby, but we want to make sure there are no obstacles to members and Sections obtaining use of new launch sites.

This is not an invitation to add $3M worth of risk to your next project. Remember, insurance only applies when the NAR Safety Code is followed, and there is a $5000 deductible, the first $1000 of which is the responsibility of the flyer.

Please continue to fly safely, so that we can continue to grown the hobby and the Association!

Ted Cochran
NAR 69921, L3
 
I have a question regarding the insurance deductable.
So I build a flay a $10 Estes Rocket, and the motor fails and starts a fire.
That means I am responsible for the $1000?
I've never launched at a NAR launch, none anywhere close to me.
But I've never had a problem, even if things went wrong since 1970.
 
Membership dues for young adults, especially college students, can be a financial burden, and our enrollment data for new members demonstrate a pretty drastic falloff at the age when dues are no longer discounted. At the same time, increasing numbers of young adults are participating in rocketry programs such as NASA Student Launch.

Please continue to fly safely, so that we can continue to grown the hobby and the Association!

Ted Cochran
NAR 69921, L3

So, a quick question. Can a 59 YO qualify as a young adult? I mean, folks are living much longer today...
:facepalm:
 
I don't understand your repy? I'm only 54, my son is 11, neither of are NAR members.
I was thinking of joing, it was a simple question, yes.

Harsas was making a joke to Ted, it was not to you (Thus why he quoted the OP)

Anyway to answer your question, it is just like some health insurance plans. You pay your part of your deductible ( in this case $1,000,) Your employer (Or in this case the NAR,) pays the other part (In this case 4000,) and the rest is covered by insurance. This is all assuming your launch was done in compliance of the NAR safety code, and you had permission of the landowner to be there. NAR insurance covers you if you are at a launch or not.
 
I have a question regarding the insurance deductable.
So I build a flay a $10 Estes Rocket, and the motor fails and starts a fire.
That means I am responsible for the $1000?
I've never launched at a NAR launch, none anywhere close to me.
But I've never had a problem, even if things went wrong since 1970.

TRA is similar:

Coverage Limits:
Premises Liability Each Occurrence - No Aggregate $3,000,000
Products & Completed Operations Each Occurrence and Aggregate $1,000,000
Personal Injury & Advertising Each Occurrence and Aggregate $3,000,000
Fire Damage - Any One Fire $100,000
Medical Payments - Each Person $5,000
Medical Payments - Each Occurrence $25,000
Property Damage - Per Claim Deductible $2,500

Depending on the club, you may have to pay the whole deductible.
 
I see. Well Thank You Kindly.
But I'm still confussed.
So if I join NAR, we do a NAR sanctioned launch, and my original discription happens on my son's rocket, am I responsable for any $ amount?
And all safety regs are verified and followed, it's just a bad engine, which Estes is know for in one size.
I currently, and have since I was 10, launched in the middle of the lane intersection where I started working on the hay rack.
My life long friend now runs that farm and has no quims about letting me launch, just to let everyone know. But limited to about 1000ft.
I do miss the time on the Farmall H & Cub. The best years of my life, makin a $1 an hour throwin bails of hay around all day.
Plus, a hell of a good meal at the end of the day, and scratched up forarms.
 
TRA is similar:

Coverage Limits:
Premises Liability Each Occurrence - No Aggregate $3,000,000
Products & Completed Operations Each Occurrence and Aggregate $1,000,000
Personal Injury & Advertising Each Occurrence and Aggregate $3,000,000
Fire Damage - Any One Fire $100,000
Medical Payments - Each Person $5,000
Medical Payments - Each Occurrence $25,000
Property Damage - Per Claim Deductible $2,500

Depending on the club, you may have to pay the whole deductible.

I think I am better sticking to my home farmers field that's 2 miles away.
He would gladly accept a burned field to collect on his insurance.
As long as I've known, them there fields have never been replanted.
I bet he would love to put some new seed down for all those years of paying insurance.
Especially when he can blame some idiot on the "Rails to Trails" for throwing a cig Butt.
 
I see. Well Thank You Kindly.
But I'm still confussed.
So if I join NAR, we do a NAR sanctioned launch, and my original discription happens on my son's rocket, am I responsable for any $ amount?
And all safety regs are verified and followed, it's just a bad engine, which Estes is know for in one size.
I currently, and have since I was 10, launched in the middle of the lane intersection where I started working on the hay rack.
My life long friend now runs that farm and has no quims about letting me launch, just to let everyone know. But limited to about 1000ft.
I do miss the time on the Farmall H & Cub. The best years of my life, makin a $1 an hour throwin bails of hay around all day.
Plus, a hell of a good meal at the end of the day, and scratched up forarms.

You would be responsible for the 1st $1,000 on the claim, then the NAR picks up the other 4K of the deducible before the insurance is touched.
 
I see. Well Thank You Kindly.
But I'm still confussed.
So if I join NAR, we do a NAR sanctioned launch, and my original discription happens on my son's rocket, am I responsable for any $ amount?
And all safety regs are verified and followed, it's just a bad engine, which Estes is know for in one size.
I currently, and have since I was 10, launched in the middle of the lane intersection where I started working on the hay rack.
My life long friend now runs that farm and has no quims about letting me launch, just to let everyone know. But limited to about 1000ft.
I do miss the time on the Farmall H & Cub. The best years of my life, makin a $1 an hour throwin bails of hay around all day.
Plus, a hell of a good meal at the end of the day, and scratched up forarms.

I suspect you might want to discuss that with the farmer up front. I own a farm and there is a deductible on farm insurance. You might be surprised on the amount.
 
The short answer is that if NAR insurance is invoked, yes, the flier pays the first $1K of the deductible. I imagine this could be waived by the Board of Trustees in some unusual circumstances, but don't count on it.

History shows that if we follow the safety code, we have a very safe hobby. The safety code is our biggest defense against losses.
 
I don't understand your repy? I'm only 54, my son is 11, neither of are NAR members.
I was thinking of joing, it was a simple question, yes.
Until you join the NAR, it's a moot question.
After you join, you best hope you don't burn your friend's field as you've published that scenario and no insurance company would likely pay out on that claim. :wink:

As far as the thread topic, I think that it's a good move to lower the dues for the younger seniors. And the higher insurance value will help calm the fears of more landowners - especially if we continue to not to make many claims against it.
 
Just seams to me, with all the video takin at these launches, that a Engine Failure, the deductable would be put on the engine manufacture, not the person using it.
Of coarse, I just that individual can file a seperat law suite. Which in case everyone looses except the attorneys.
So if all safety codes are followed, the failure is not the fault of the flyer, say a 11 year old using his father NAR membership, the father is liable?
If the safety code is not violated, then why is any deductable forced upon the flyer? NAR should go after the engine manufacture first, then the flyer.
I think this needs to be changed, at least for LPR.
This absolutely discourages anyone that flys only LPR's to even have a thing to do wht NAR.
Sorry, but that's the way I see it.
If they burn down a park, the same options apply to the engine manufacturer, which the city or county will go after first because of a sure settlement.
As long as there is video proof that the engine failed, and not the fault of the flyer.
I've done my fair share of violations, but it's been decades in the past.
And we only use to tape frogs to the blast deflector. Put bees in the payload section with worms.
Put mice in the payload sections with bees. Stupid kid stuff like that.
We did a few flights putting a M-80 in the payload section of rockets that should have not flown again, only because we knew that they were not recoverable again.
But that's back in the 70's. And who hasn't done stupid kids stuff like that? That has been around since then.
It was Called Experimenting back then. Hell, we use to gut frogs in science class. Catch bees in a science project bee catcher.
Just saying, it's wrong to demand deductable from the flyer for a bad engine, and make the flyer go after the manufactureer.

Edit: In fact...I looked it up in a old catelog I have, Estes incourage to do Experiments such as put mice, crickets, grass hoppers, flys, etc. into payload sections to incourage science students to investigate the G forces upon life on earth. Now this is from the 60's, during the Gemini and Apollo days. NAR did NOT discourage it.
I know this is a bit off subject. But it wheels back to when the NAR got started with the hobby, what they considereded fair and appropiate behavior. Since MPR and HPR came to being, it's when the risk become noteworthy. LPR basically with BP motors posses no problems and it needs to adjust as such.
I know many young people now are highly envolved in MPR & HPR, but what about us die hare LPR. We should not be at the same risk level as the other 2.
In all fairness...
 
Last edited:
If you fly without insurance, your exposure is far greater.

That's why NAR provides service to our members, and why TRA does the same.

Our goal is to help you fly safely, reassure landowners, and protect you against catastrophic losses in the event something awful happens.
 
So if all safety codes are followed, the failure is not the fault of the flyer, say a 11 year old using his father NAR membership, the father is liable?

The determination that the fire is not the fault of the flyer will otherwise cost you much more than $1000.

NAR is not the arbiter of fault. NAR insures you. If a fire is started when your son launches a rocket and somebody sues, it is YOU they are suing not NAR. If you are a member of NAR and you follow the safety code you are only liable for $1000 max. If you are not a member of NAR and want to argue its not my fault its the engine manufacturers fault you will need to hire an attorney to make that argument for you and then you will be out significantly more than $1000 before any judgement is even made on that argument.

Consider the NAR insurance a very good deal.
 
Real simple and to the point.

If someone gets hurt, or killed, or if some property gets destroyed...

And if the injured party thinks it's your fault - regardless of what you think - that's the hard part to understand - what you think doesn't matter

And the injured party decides to sue YOU...

>>> That's what insurance is for, to protect yourself against significant potential losses and financial hardship <<<

No matter what you think, a judge might rule against you in favor of the injured party.
 
Real simple and to the point.

If someone gets hurt, or killed, or if some property gets destroyed...

And if the injured party thinks it's your fault - regardless of what you think - that's the hard part to understand - what you think doesn't matter

And the injured party decides to sue YOU...

>>> That's what insurance is for, to protect yourself against significant potential losses and financial hardship <<<

No matter what you think, a judge might rule against you in favor of the injured party.

They are welcome to what I have, which is nothing. My back has been broken 3 times. I can't work, fighting for SSD. Coming after me would only make anyone sorry they didn't go after someone else first. Even if they get a verdict. Law provides for a reasonalbe way of life. Which I do not have now, or probably will never have. And my life long friend knows that where I launch.
I'd like to post a mat pic of wher I launch.
Can someone help me with that?
I tried to copy and print screen, but it only posts a web page addy.
 
......................and deductibles reduce the insurance rates so we all can afford it. Very cheap through NAR,TRA.
 
......................and deductibles reduce the insurance rates so we all can afford it. Very cheap through NAR,TRA.

When I had my land and house and 3 vehicles, I had 0 deductable on everything. It cost me exactly $189 a year more a year for it.
I drove at least 165 miles per day to work, went through an averate of 3 windshields a year. Never an increase of premiums, never no hastle.
I never had a home, land, or liability claim. Mostly because I I kept up the place. But I had a good job then, made good money. Until 2008. Don't Ask!!!
 
When I had my land and house and 3 vehicles, I had 0 deductable on everything. It cost me exactly $189 a year more a year for it.

Outstanding! We'll talk to the insurance company and maybe they'll let you have a zero deductible NAR membership for $249 per year.
 
Just seams to me, with all the video takin at these launches, that a Engine Failure, the deductable would be put on the engine manufacture, not the person using it.
Of coarse, I just that individual can file a seperat law suite. Which in case everyone looses except the attorneys.
So if all safety codes are followed, the failure is not the fault of the flyer, say a 11 year old using his father NAR membership, the father is liable?
If the safety code is not violated, then why is any deductable forced upon the flyer? NAR should go after the engine manufacture first, then the flyer.
I think this needs to be changed, at least for LPR.
This absolutely discourages anyone that flys only LPR's to even have a thing to do wht NAR.
Sorry, but that's the way I see it.
If they burn down a park, the same options apply to the engine manufacturer, which the city or county will go after first because of a sure settlement.
As long as there is video proof that the engine failed, and not the fault of the flyer.
I've done my fair share of violations, but it's been decades in the past.
And we only use to tape frogs to the blast deflector. Put bees in the payload section with worms.
Put mice in the payload sections with bees. Stupid kid stuff like that.
We did a few flights putting a M-80 in the payload section of rockets that should have not flown again, only because we knew that they were not recoverable again.
But that's back in the 70's. And who hasn't done stupid kids stuff like that? That has been around since then.
It was Called Experimenting back then. Hell, we use to gut frogs in science class. Catch bees in a science project bee catcher.
Just saying, it's wrong to demand deductable from the flyer for a bad engine, and make the flyer go after the manufactureer.

Edit: In fact...I looked it up in a old catelog I have, Estes incourage to do Experiments such as put mice, crickets, grass hoppers, flys, etc. into payload sections to incourage science students to investigate the G forces upon life on earth. Now this is from the 60's, during the Gemini and Apollo days. NAR did NOT discourage it.
I know this is a bit off subject. But it wheels back to when the NAR got started with the hobby, what they considereded fair and appropiate behavior. Since MPR and HPR came to being, it's when the risk become noteworthy. LPR basically with BP motors posses no problems and it needs to adjust as such.
I know many young people now are highly envolved in MPR & HPR, but what about us die hare LPR. We should not be at the same risk level as the other 2.
In all fairness...

Tell ya what...

Jam a couple of claims up Estes' backside, and let's see how much we'll get to pay for a pack of D12's.
 
Just seams to me, with all the video takin at these launches, that a Engine Failure, the deductable would be put on the engine manufacture, not the person using it.
Of coarse, I just that individual can file a seperat law suite. Which in case everyone looses except the attorneys.
So if all safety codes are followed, the failure is not the fault of the flyer, say a 11 year old using his father NAR membership, the father is liable?
If the safety code is not violated, then why is any deductable forced upon the flyer? NAR should go after the engine manufacture first, then the flyer.
I think this needs to be changed, at least for LPR.
This absolutely discourages anyone that flys only LPR's to even have a thing to do wht NAR.
Sorry, but that's the way I see it.
If they burn down a park, the same options apply to the engine manufacturer, which the city or county will go after first because of a sure settlement.
As long as there is video proof that the engine failed, and not the fault of the flyer.
I've done my fair share of violations, but it's been decades in the past.
And we only use to tape frogs to the blast deflector. Put bees in the payload section with worms.
Put mice in the payload sections with bees. Stupid kid stuff like that.
We did a few flights putting a M-80 in the payload section of rockets that should have not flown again, only because we knew that they were not recoverable again.
But that's back in the 70's. And who hasn't done stupid kids stuff like that? That has been around since then.
It was Called Experimenting back then. Hell, we use to gut frogs in science class. Catch bees in a science project bee catcher.
Just saying, it's wrong to demand deductable from the flyer for a bad engine, and make the flyer go after the manufactureer.

Edit: In fact...I looked it up in a old catelog I have, Estes incourage to do Experiments such as put mice, crickets, grass hoppers, flys, etc. into payload sections to incourage science students to investigate the G forces upon life on earth. Now this is from the 60's, during the Gemini and Apollo days. NAR did NOT discourage it.
I know this is a bit off subject. But it wheels back to when the NAR got started with the hobby, what they considereded fair and appropiate behavior. Since MPR and HPR came to being, it's when the risk become noteworthy. LPR basically with BP motors posses no problems and it needs to adjust as such.
I know many young people now are highly envolved in MPR & HPR, but what about us die hare LPR. We should not be at the same risk level as the other 2.
In all fairness...

So as you sit now, as a non-NAR member, all of the damage would be your liability if the land owner's insurance doesn't kick in. With NAR membership, you're limited to $1000 liability. But, you could try to recoup that from Estes if you can make a good case that it was there product's fault. Of course, you would have to read their legal fine print to see if they indemnify themselves against it.

You could also get a rider policy on your home-owners policy that could also help cover you. But the cold hard truth is, our hobby carries real, albeit small, risks that when we release the energy in the motor, bad things might happen. And some of these bad things are not within the control of the flyer (like a motor failure).
 
Woody, the idea that you are in the clear because your friend would never sue you or it would be Estes fault if something went wrong is faulty understanding of how a claim for an accident would work. If you burned your friend's property, he probably wouldn't be the one who would decide if you were going to be sued or not. He doesn't get to say, "Don't worry, buddy. I'll have my insurance company pay, and tell them not to bother you." If he decides to make a claim on his insurance, then his insurance company subsumes the right to sue anyone they want who they think may be responsible --- you, or Estes, or any other party. It's out of your friend's hands at that point. Another thing to consider is that your friend probably does have a deductible on his insurance, so even if he did make an insurance claim, and they did pay, your friend might still want you to pony up the deductible that he would have to pay.

You might feel that you have nothing to lose, no assets, no income, nothing that anyone can take from you. In that case, you might want to consider the insurance as a way to protect the other people you might harm in an accident, not just yourself. If you don't have the money to compensate another person for injuring or harming them, then who do you expect will compensate that person? Not you... so no one? That person is just SOL in your opinion?

Woody, aren't you working on plans for a shoulder-fired rocket involving PVC pipe launcher and a shotgun shell blank? Of course NAR insurance would not cover a claim in the case of a mishap with something like that, so maybe insurance is a waste for you. I'm just bringing it up because maybe your assessment of risk is a little different from some other members.
 
Thanks to NAR for upping the insurance coverage, that can only help with landowners. Also, good move dropping the membership rate for the younger set.

In general thanks to those at NAR and Tripoli for putting in the time to protect and support our hobby. The return on investment for my NAR membership fee is far greater than that of the professional society dues I pay.
 
Ted this is an awesome change. I moved to Tripoli after I aged out of the YA/Student program. I'll definitely be signing back up now :)
 
I have a question regarding the insurance deductable.
So I build a flay a $10 Estes Rocket, and the motor fails and starts a fire.
That means I am responsible for the $1000?
I've never launched at a NAR launch, none anywhere close to me.
But I've never had a problem, even if things went wrong since 1970.


SMASH/MMAR launch isn't really to far away from you about 80 ish miles ?

131 south / 46 w Muskegon
 
Woody, how can a 11 year old fly under his father's NAR membership? You would have to look at the definition of "who is an insured" under the policy and that is something I have yet to see. Insurance is a legal contract between the insurance company and the contractee or insured. This contract is triggered when an insurable event occurs and those events are defined in the contract. If the event that occurs is outside the agreement, no coverage exist for that loss. Think of it this way, if your 11 year old son drives your car into a busload of nuns, there may not be coverage under your auto policy. Now granted, I am sure you do not have an 11 year old son. The fictitious boy was used for illustration purposes only.
 
That's why NAR provides service to our members, and why TRA does the same.

I can't speak to how NAR deals with these issues but when my brand new car was impacted at a TRA sanctioned launch, causing thousands of dollars in damage, TRA was NOWHERE to help out. What I got from the Prefect was "we all know the dangers out here..." Perhaps things have changed since when this happened in 1999 but it severely left a bad taste in my mouth as to TRA and will never support them again. I am currently an NAR member and hope to never have to deal with this "insurance" issue again.
 
Back
Top