UKRA Proposals

the rocketry show
Onebadhawk
SilicdyneTRF
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

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

Simon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 5, 2014
Messages
136
Reaction score
0
I just wanted to canvas some opinion on the latest UKRA proposals.

It looks like they are proposing to become an arm of the BMFA (British Model Flying Association) and no longer operate as a stand alone organisation.

If this happened I would personally be very disappointed as I want to continue be a member of the UKRA something that I am proud to be, not a member of the BMFA. What are other UK rocketeers thoughts on this?
 
Last edited:
If it removes the need for 2 lots of fees then all for the good maybe?
 
Pete can you elaborate on what happened with your L1? Would like to understand what went wrong there.
 
Fascinating though it may be, I'm really not interested in the politics or the why's and wherefores of the UKRA. I have one intent in mind, to gain a level 1 for my grandson and I.
But what does it all mean?
I'm told by UKRA that we cannot have joint membership and a joint certificate. That means to achieve individual certificates it will cost me over £100 in club, UKRA, and BMFA fees alone! In addition we have to build two rockets. This will cost another £100. Add to that travelling costs to the club site, another £50. That makes a total outlay of £250. There is probably a charge for taking the level 1. I don't know what it is, just add it to the total so far. Bear in mind also that there will be extras such as "more paint" and extra tools I didn't think I needed.

I've designed the level 1 rocket which I will make into two kits.
Unfortunately I can't commence the build of the kits because I'm lacking on crucial components. I'm still awaiting delivery from the UK supplier. It's been almost a month now.

I had planned to enrol both of us with UKRA, the BMFA, and the club for January the 1st (2015). These organisations have yet to post their 2015 rates (apart from the BMFA) In fact, most of their "current" information seems to date back to the mid 2000's with very little advice on the here and now.

Furthermore, UKRA and the clubs post their membership rates as annual. By that I take it as January the1st to December the 31st. Although I am "banging on the door" to join today (Jan 1st), it seems that practically and largely due to the above reasons, I will be unable to do so until around March when the flying season starts. I wonder if I will receive two months discount?

So in summary I haven't got a clue what's going on with UKRA and club membership but am rapidly losing interest in the hobby.
I think it's about time that "Grandees" that run and control UK rocketry at club and national level realised that they are dependant upon members and not the other way round. In my opinion they have a direct responsibility to realise it. Currently it appears they preside over a declining or at best static membership and a woeful supplier base as a result.
The sooner they start promoting the hobby to attract new membership, the better for all concerned.


SO
 
Last edited:
SO seems to be echoing many of my own feeling concerning UKRA :( A look at the website still details 2014 fees, not much use to newcomers in 2015. A shame really as both my son and I are rather enjoying our initial exploration of model rocketry and would like to climb the certification ladder though we are happy to start with the modeling route initially but it seems even this may be blocked unless UKRA can make itself more accessible to those who are not already in the loop :(

PP, do FOG have a similar modeling certification program for noobs? IT seems quiet likely that over the coming year the son who is engaged in rocketry and myself will be trundling across the hills to one or more of your launch days.
 
It is my intention to apply to become a member of the UKRA council this year. Hopefully I will be able to help address these issues you have had, and ensure that this doesn't happen to anyone else.
The way to change the UKRA is from within.
I want to offer a membership for a full year for those interested, cut the red tape, and promote the hobby in the UK.
I'm hoping I can count on your votes.
BTW pyropete congrats on your 7K Level 1 flight. Way to go! Did you get mach1 + ? I'm hoping to get 11K on my level 2
 
Last edited:
Simon, you can count on my vote. I'm also considering standing for UKRA council but want to talk to a couple of other people first... Will you be at the AGM?
 
Simon & Amell,

I wish you both every success in your applications and will certainly support a new and fresh approach in increasing the profile of the hobby and the membership levels.

Out of curiosity, how do you become a member of the UKRA council? Do you have to submit a manifesto of of intent?
Who votes for council members? Do ordinary members have voting rights?

SO.
 
Pete, when you mention 7K on your level 1 flight and Simon, when you mention 11K on your planned level 2 flight, what do you mean? Are you referring to "K" feet! If not, what? Is there something else I'm missing.
This is a genuine question.

SO.

PS. When you refer to the smell of AP and BP, you're not smoking the stuff are you? It's not good for the face you know unless you want a permanent shave!
 
Last edited:
Space Oddity said:
Pete, when you mention 7K on your level 1 flight and Simon, when you mention 11K on your planned level 2 flight, what do you mean? Are you referring to "K" feet! If not, what? Is there something else I'm missing.
This is a genuine question.

SO.

PS. When you refer to the smell of AP and BP, you're not smoking the stuff are you? It's not good for the face you know unless you want a permanent shave!
Click to expand...

K means 1000, thousand

IE: 7K = 7000

I'm English so all altitude measurements are in feet.

Not smoked in 6 years after losing my daughter. I've also grown a beard and wish too keep it. The smell of launching the stuff might warm me up again.
 
Pyropetepete said:
I've had 2 mail and no notes of the AGM. Am fedup of the red tape UKRA have put in place and the destruction they have caused.

You have expressed a pretty extreme view here - I would be interested in the basis for your comment that UKRA have caused destruction. While there are clearly areas for improvement it is not clear what could underlie such a strong sentiment. What specifics can you share to justify this perspective?
Click to expand...
 
I have spoken to the UKRA about pyropete's experience and it's all pretty simple really. There is nothing hush about it.
The scenario was that the RSO that oversaw pyropete's L1 was not registered with the UKRA for that year, although had previously been an RSO registered with the UKRA, the UKRA had a debate about whether or not they should allow it to stand with an RSO not being registered with the UKRA, the decision was that they would. In the meantime pyropete did his level 1 elsewhere. This is a little strange as anyone could become a member of the UKRA for free last year.

I think there may be some undercurrent between F.O.G. and the UKRA that I am missing, and it may be because of this that the UKRA are trying to change things. Personally I believe that they are taking the wrong approach. Anyway, due to this conversation I have been invited to attend the UKRA AGM and will do so. I have already informed them of my grievances as to what is going on in UK rocketry, and would invite anyone interested to let me know of anything they would like me to bring to their attention.

Space Oddity: It would cost nowhere near what you think, as the UKRA had a free membership option last year, and will do the same this year (hopefully). I am pushing them to get the membership options up on the site ASAP.
I am personally unhappy with what is on offer as I don't belong to a club and travel around the country doing launches where a farmer will allow me to launch, or even the RAF when they're not using their base. So the UKRA membership option is exactly what I need.

I'm also unhappy that this prevarication is stopping new members getting involved in UK rocketry, we need to break down boundaries, not create them.

amell: Please stand for the council. You'll get my vote.
 
Yep - L2 certified and have a L3 project being wrapped up now which will go on an M1450.... or maybe an M1400 depending on which club I launch at.
 
Pyropetepete said:
K means 1000, thousand

IE: 7K = 7000

I'm English so all altitude measurements are in feet.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming what I'd assumed.
The reason I asked the question is that I was surprised that you launched a level 1 attempt to 7000 ft. I'm guessing you used an I motor and not an H?
I've designed my L1 entry and will start to build it soon. My main objective is to get it back undamaged. As such I've been trying to lower the risk of doing otherwise and keep the thrust and eventual altitude to a minimum. The simulation (OR) predicts that the lowest altitude I can achieve is around 2000'. This is using an H90 or an H163. I've gone for a larger 3" tube (rather than a 2.56" one) and a 4 fin design to increase drag and lower velocity, acceleration, and altitude, but maintain stability. I'm assuming it will actually reach somewhere between 1500 and 1800'.

My question is; is my approach sensible or wrong? All I want to do is pass the L1 flight, not attain altitude or go anywhere near Mach 1. I can do that once I've gained the certificate. I'm just a bit concerned that maybe I don't understand the rules correctly and I'm taking the wrong approach.
As an aside I can fly my rocket on an I motor (according to OR) but the simulation only peaks at around 3000'. What sort of design did you use to reach 7K?

All advice welcomed.

SO.
 
Pyropetepete said:
Not ignoring anyone. My club has a meet tomorrow also with Rocket & Things being present. I want to fly and see how I feel.

I had asked UKRA about doing my L2 tomorrow which was not well received. As such it's made me question having anything too do with the hobby and also rethink the import of motors is now on hold.

Blame UKRA if you want not me.

Let's hope the smell of AP and BP makes me happy.
Click to expand...

Dear Pete.

I must protest.

Your statement that your enquiry to UKRA about doing your UKRA Level 2 Certification flight at the FOG meeting on Sunday 4th January 2015 "was not well received" is incorrect, misleading, and actively prejudicial to the outside view of UKRA.

On Thursday 1st January you sent me a PM on Facebook asking about the validity of FOG Member and Chair/President, Phil Charlesworth, acting as the invigilating RSO for your L2 Cert flight on Sunday. I did not see your Facebook message until the afternoon 2nd January. As soon as I saw your message I replied to you that as Phil is not a UKRA Member he cannot so act. This was the position that you knew already from the same problem arising with regard to your UKRA L1 Certification flight last year - and which has been mentioned and discussed elsewhere on this thread. In acting to RSO and pass UKRA HPR Certification flights, said RSO's are representing UKRA, not their clubs. UKRA, as the Specialist Body for HPR in the BMFA, is the holder of the HPR Certification Scheme that the BMFA recognises, and UKRA is responsible for the good conduct of that Certification Scheme. It therefore follows that the presiding RSO's for UKRA Certification flights must be current UKRA Members.

I did point out to you in my reply that in FOG there is a member of the club who is a UKRA Member and who is also a Level 2 RSO, or at least so I believe. I had hoped to get that confirmed for you in time before Sunday, unfortunately I was not able to do so. However, having indicated that possibility to you I rather expected that you would very likely follow it up yourself within FOG.

If it is the case that there is only one RSO in FOG, and that is Phil Charlesworth (and UKRA does accept that he is suitably experienced and qualified to RSO non-Certification flights up to Level 2 - a point that I also mentioned in my reply to your Facebook message), he knows perfectly well that he cannot act as RSO for Certification flights. The solution to this situation is so obvious that I need not detail it here (t's not rocket science after all), and that initiative - which UKRA would in no way obstruct, just require compliance with the existing rules and requirements, which are not onerous - is entirely in the hands of FOG. UKRA exists to enable that solution.

I have not heard if you managed to get a valid RSO for your UKRA L2 Certification flight at the FOG meeting on Sunday, and if so, if your L2 attempt was successful. I hope so on both counts. If not attained on Sunday I wish you well for your L2 flight whenever that proves to be enabled by appropriate RSO presence, and flyable weather.

Yours faithfully,

John Bonsor, UKRA Secretary.
 
Last edited:
Pyropetepete said:
It's a tricky one as been asked too keep hush a little but it was questioned if my club at the time was legit. I then went too Midland Sky and did it again with the same rocket and then a H in my Aerotech Arrow (which broke 7K).
Click to expand...

Dear Pete.

No one on the UKRA Council, and no one so as I know representing UKRA in any valid capacity, asked you to hush-up anything about matters surrounding or related to your UKRA Level 1 Certification flights at FOG and the Midland Sky event last year. Also, no one in UKRA questioned the legitimacy of your club, FOG.

The lack of validity, as you know perfectly well, and as has been explained, was with non-UKRA Member Phil Charlesworth of FOG acting as the invigilating RSO, which he was not authorised to do. I personally took the initiative to make the arrangements whereby you were able to fly and attain your L1 Cert at the Midland Sky event in September (Sat. 13th & Sun. 14th), with Ben Jarvis, a full UKRA Member and certified & qualified RSO, invigilating. I communicated with you fully about that in a PM on Facebook on 12th September, having arranged matters with Ben Jarvis. As has been pointed out to you elsewhere, the problem that you had at FOG was not of UKRA's making, but due to Phil Charlesworth making an interpretation of the rules covering him acting as an RSO that was incorrect. He acted in this way without checking with UKRA first. If Phil had done that, some confusion, and some frustration and annoyance to yourself would have been prevented.

I don't know if anyone in FOG asked you to "keep hush" about all this, and indeed I can't think why they would want to. But again, no one in UKRA asked you to do that.

Yours faithfully,

John Bonsor, UKRA Secretary.
 
Last edited:
Well it certainly wasn't flyable weather in South Wales, I was in Monmouth this weekend attempting a demo flight and the cloud cover was about 500 ft, I did it anyway with a LOC ISIS on a G which was probably beyond the acceptable limit, but then again I'm not an RSO.
Pyropete, I got involved with this issue because I was concerned about it, if you want to leave the status quo as it is, then you are completely wrong this issue needs to be addressed, this is exactly why I'm going to the UKRA AGM to bring these issues to their attention. I'm frankly surprised at your hostility to me in trying to find out exactly what went wrong and why.
I really didn't mean to make such an issue of this, all I wanted was to be a member of UKRA from the 1st Jan this year, and also to give others the option of doing the same. These arguments damage the whole of rocketry in the UK, I just want to grow what is a fantastic hobby. So please guys, lets calm down, and pyropete if you feel so strongly about these issues go for membership of the UKRA council as I am. Let's make change from within.
 
Pyropetepete said:
Thanks, wish that was sent 1st time round by them



Hahahaha this there cause and problem. Having a club and registering it with the BMFA is good for the hobby. The above statement makes it sound like they are getting commission on it.

I think the option of being a member is there but not what they are going for. They have upped the fee for certs to make money.

I think a good 8 people voiced the issues with my L1 and the messing around and cost UKRA made me swallow.

Bye bye UKRA hello BMFA
Click to expand...

Dear Pete.

Sending of UKRA reform proposals.
The UKRA Reform proposals (and that are only proposals, not tablets of stone handed down from Mount UKRA) that Simon Heavens has linked on this thread, were sent as an attachment with the first of the two e-mails that you said elsewhere on this thread you did receive from me - specifically the "Notice of UKRA 2014 AGM" e-mail (that I sent to all UKRA Members on 24th December 2014). Simon got that attachment, and I've had many confirmations of its receipt along with the AGM notice e-mail. So, I'm pretty sure you will have received it too. May I suggest that you go back and check that?

Money.
1. UKRA is not making any commission on processing UKRA Members' BMFA Memberships. Nothing that is accurate has been said anywhere that would give that impression.

2. The UKRA Certification Fees have not been increased for years, and a few years back the UKRA Membership Fees were reduced.

Again your L1 Certification.
If around 8 people spoke as you say they did on that matter, and in the way that you say they did, none of that came to my attention, nor did I see anything of the sort on-line in the usual places - UKRA Forums, UKRA Facebook page, EARS Facebook page, and the Amateur Rocketry Society of England Facebook page. However, perhaps some people did speak as you say, in private conversations that I was not party to.

Yours faithfully,

John Bonsor, UKRA Secretary.
 
May I suggest you all continue this debate in private and inform us all when it has been amicably resolved.

Thanks,

SO.
 
Pyropetepete said:
I've had 2 mail and no notes of the AGM. Am fedup of the red tape UKRA have put in place and the destruction they have caused.

BMFA are what allow this hobby to happen in the UK.
Click to expand...

Dear Pete.

There were full notes with the two e-mails that you got on the UKRA (United Kingdom Rocketry Association) AGM notification, and UKRA Membership pending the AGM, and as stated in the first one, more relevant information will be sent out by me in good time.

The BMFA & UKRA.
With all due respect to the BMFA (British Model Flying Association), all that they provide for rocketry in the UK is their Third Party Civil Liability Insurance cover, extended to Model (A to G motors), High Power (H to M motors), and Large - Amateur/Experimental/Research (N and greater Total Impulse motors) rocketry. That insurance cover is of course very important. However the BMFA would not be extending their insurance to cover High Power and Large rocketry if it were not for UKRA. UKRA is and has been since 1997, the Specialist Body within the BMFA for High Power, and now also Large Rocketry - including hybrid propulsion rocketry as well a solid motors. The BMFA extends their insurance to rocketry because of -

The UKRA Safety Code.

The UKRA Certification Scheme.

The competency through the Safety Code and the Certification of UKRA RSO's.

The same things, created, developed and supported by UKRA, and not anything other than their insurance that the BMFA provides, are why rocket clubs in the UK can get, as a matter of routine, NOTAMS from the CAA (UK Civil Aviation Authority), and tactically on rocket flying days, Launch Windows arranged with the local Air Traffic Control Centre. It's thanks to work by UKRA Members years ago that there are clauses covering and recognising rocketry written into UK Air Navigation Law. (Personally, I am proud that the procedures for co-ordinating Model, High Power, and Large Rocketry with civil and military air traffic in UK airspace were pioneered here in Scotland in the 1990's. All that was possible because of UKRA procedures.)

The same things are why the HSE (UK Health & Safety Executive) recognise rocketry, as do Police Constabularies for the issuance of Explosive Licences, Store Licences, and RCA's. I could go on, but I think I've made my point.

The support and development of rocketry in the UK, ever since the formation and establishment of UKRA in 1996-97 (as a direct result of a meeting convened for that purpose at the 1996 International Rocket Weekend here in Scotland), has been a good partnership between UKRA and the BMFA, but by far and away the bulk of the work has been done by UKRA people, not the BMFA.

Yours faithfully,

John Bonsor, UKRA Secretary (UKRA 1023).




 
Last edited:
Space Oddity said:
May I suggest you all continue this debate in private and inform us all when it has been amicably resolved.

Thanks,

SO.
Click to expand...

Dear Space Oddity.

I take your point.

My involvement here has been in my capacity as UK Rocketry Association (UKRA Secretary) to refute some quite incorrect and misleading statements posted on this thread. I have sufficient respect for the way that UKRA is regarded by rocketeers and rocketry associations outwith the UK, to not want those misleading impressions to be left unchallenged. But I do see that there is a limit to how effective that can be, so I think I've probably said enough on this TRF thread now.

This discussion has also of course been going on within UK rocketry circles - on- & off-line, and is continuing there, which is its proper domain.

I am sure that we will get all relevant issues and problems resolved, albeit possible after a bit of a bumpy ride. :)

Thank you for the patience of non-UKRA readers here.

Yours faithfully,

John Bonsor, UKRA Secretary (UKRA 1023).
 

Similar threads

B
Opinions solicited regarding proposal for Horizontal Spin Recovery Duration as a NAR competition event
Replies
29
Views
1K
astronguy
A
CurlyFat
My first rail launch rig
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
Glasspack
Glasspack
bandman444
Bryce's Handicap Record Quest: NSL 2024
2
Replies
59
Views
2K
MClark
M
86mustang408w
My Path to Level One Certification.
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
86mustang408w
86mustang408w
OverTheTop
Automatic Antenna Tracker
2
Replies
39
Views
6K
OverTheTop
OverTheTop

Latest posts

Back
Top