Rocketry Related Thread

DizWolf said:

NAR has made it clear they don't intend to investigate

Click to expand...

I was not aware of this. Unfortunately, leaving it to the community will make it very difficult to ensure that accurate and useful information gets disseminated.

My rocketry experience is rather limited but it seems as though this incident would have likely been avoided by following exsisting published safety guidelines. My question is this: does it reveal a need for additional measures or are the current guidelines sufficient to reasonably prevent something like this if followed in their entirity? I see concern over drag races and night launches, which seem reasonable; is there a need to add specific address of these launch modes?

I dislike hose two things, and this I believe shows drags make tracking even two MPR difficult.

But with the reports that the rocket had no recovery device, that alone makes me think no, we do not NEED a change. We need to closely follow the rules that kept us safe for 50+ years.

A discussion on other things is still a good idea.

Doh. That's what I get for being up late. Thank you for the correction.

tmacklin said:

I believe FAA 101 now allows 125 grams of propellant and 1500 grams total lift off weight without written waiver. An Estes E9 contains 35.8 grams and an Aerotech E30 contains 17.8 grams. Three of each would both fall within the current FAA propellant limits. Since we don't know anything specific about either the rocket or the actual engines used to propel it we are still just speculating.

I noticed in the photo that you posted that there seemed to be very little wind at ignition as evidenced by the smoke and there there were a number of people taking pictures. If the larger of the two rockets is in fact the one that struck Mr. Bentley the large cloud of white smoke indicates a black powder engine/s while the smaller rocket is almost certainly being propelled by a composite engine. 4" thin wall PVC SDR pipe weighs about 108 lbs/100 ft so a four foot rocket would weigh at least four pounds, plus fins, engine mounts and engines. The two people who claim to have seen the rocket and commented in The Press Enterprise story both have Facebook pages. If I can determine this then so could the journalists who did the story and additional data might be gleaned.

Click to expand...

Brian Saffell
Shannon Taylor is correct about the size below, the nose cone had a an approximate 1" gash/hole/tear in it from when it had crashed the year before. the cone had fiber glass/ plastic matt protruding from this hole. The owner had stated as he walked by me that the rocket would not have a parachute, and that it had three size "E" engines, and he was expecting it to "not survive" the flight. I have my own personal comments i could make but i believe they would not serve a purpose of making this any better sooo...

Let me be Clear This was an adults Rocket, not a Scouts. It was Launched at an experimental pad for rockets of this nature. As for its place to being used at an event like this i would leave it up to the NAR and the BSA to decide how to proceed at future events. I believe this incident will help with the safety of future events as long as the reality is shown that this was NOT a typical rocket seen at these events and that the Scouts Rockets are much smaller and typically only use up to a single stage "C" rated engine. I will say that a "Rocket inspection Check" at future events for safety should be conducted for larger unconventional rockets that then could be launched further away from spectators.
Like · Reply · 1 · Nov 18, 2015 2:45pm

Brian Saffell, one of the people who claims to have been at the event, gives a fairly detailed description of the rocket in the comments that follow the original article. Specifically and with reference to the nose cone, he made note of a "...1" hole/gash/tear in it from where it had crashed the year before." This morning I again viewed the photograph that DizWolf posted and enlarged it 500% (control +). The nose appeared to me to be somewhat distorted near its tip. It also looks like it may have been launched from a rail and there appears to be a spectator in the distance who is mostly obscured by the exhaust smoke.

I agree with George Gassaway (it happens) that the body material could be some other type of polymer other than PVC. Whether it was PVC, phenolic, Blue Tube, Fiberglass, carbon fiber or other material is irrelevant. It had no recovery system and was in essence an unguided scud missile. That's just nuts, especially at a public event with children present.

Some random thoughts:

The pictures I've seen of past events (the SAD NEWS thread here https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...ounced-by-NAR-President&p=1518406#post1518406 and Google searches on "Inland Empire Council Rocket Rave") show a mis-fire alley range set-up (multiple individual launchers). I believe this arrangement was promoted by GHStine in the 1960's; there is a diagram of one variation in the Handbook. Quite different from a typical club LCO/RSO launch rack setup if you've never seen it.

I don't have any attendance figures, but councils of the BSA include multiple districts which in turn include multiple troops.

They haven't been hiding. A well publicized event within that council's community. I'm still surprised that no regular TRFer's (or NAR or Tripoli members apparently) were aware of it or had attended past events.

samb said:

They haven't been hiding. A well publicized event within that council's community. I'm still surprised that no regular TRFer's (or NAR or Tripoli members apparently) were aware of it or had attended past events.

Click to expand...

I'd bet there were. But there's a tendency to go with the flow at events. People are hesitant to stand up and say "dude this is not safe". Especially when it's good, well-intended people. At least one person who came here and posted in the other thread said he didn't feel comfortable taking his kids to this specific launch.

DizWolf said:

NAR has made it clear they don't intend to investigate past anyone sending them info, and has tried to just silence anyone from trying to learn form this.

Click to expand...

Screaminhelo said:

I was not aware of this. Unfortunately, leaving it to the community will make it very difficult to ensure that accurate and useful information gets disseminated.

Click to expand...

NAR *IS* investigating. But it's a complex thing since the NAR has no legal jurisdictional authority as opposed to the police or say DOT, NTSB, or FAA in say an aircraft accident. Just because it was not an NAR launch does not mean the NAR is not concerned and not trying to find out what happened.

NAR DOES want people to learn from this. That should be obvious.

But, there was so much S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N and jumping to conclusions WITHOUT FACTS, that the original thread had run off the rails, as well as some idiots who posted JOKES about the tragedy or thought it was "funny".

How can you LEARN from all of the details of what led to an accident, WITHOUT actually having compiled all the details about an accident? We STILL do not know all details, especially what kind of procedures were used regarding safety, who was in charge overall, and so forth (and as I warned, the person who may have been most involved with allowing it to fly may have been Mr. Bentley. Yes, speculation, doing so to err on the side of human decency right now given the odds that may be true and such info should come out eventually. So, that is why I caution against ranting right now about whoever let it fly).

It's going to take more time. Geez, most NTSB airplane crash investigations take months or over a year to determine the facts.

And some things about the launch, the NAR may have a hard time learning, if the people involved with running it choose not to say so. As again the NAR has no legal standing in this situation that I can think of (unlike say the BSA, in addition to law enforcement and relative regulatory agencies of course). Keep in mind that the people involved are also grieving, if the NAR got into people's faces demanding answers right now, because some people on rocket forums demand answers IMMEDIATELY, that would be the worst way to try to get them to cooperate with providing information.

- George Gassaway

That is a great reply George. It also gets murky as the BSA, insurance carriers and lawyers will undoubtedly get involved. And are all ahead of what is most likely an uninvolved group.

DizWolf said:

I'd bet there were. But there's a tendency to go with the flow at events. People are hesitant to stand up and say "dude this is not safe". Especially when it's good, well-intended people. At least one person who came here and posted in the other thread said he didn't feel comfortable taking his kids to this specific launch.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's true. It takes some gumption to be "that" guy. And I wouldn't expect any random attendee to be that guy, especially at a launch as big as these apparently were. I remember new member 'visigoth' posted in the SAD NEWS thread that he opted to take his scout troop to a launch conducted by ROC (NAR Section #45) [edit] actually NAR #538/Tripoli #48 https://rocstock.org/ [/edit] the same day as the Rocket Rave because of info he received from past participants. He mentioned rod height close to eye level as his main concern and the lack of range marshals with the means to announce flights over a wide area.

For myself, the info present here and on YORF, including the various links, has satisfied my curiosity about what went on. I agree with George that any official information will take time, in no small part due to the tragic nature of the outcome.

georgegassaway said:

NAR *IS* investigating. But it's a complex thing since the NAR has no legal jurisdictional authority as opposed to the police or say DOT, NTSB, or FAA in say an aircraft accident. Just because it was not an NAR launch does not mean the NAR is not concerned and not trying to find out what happened.

NAR DOES want people to learn from this. That should be obvious.

But, there was so much S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N and jumping to conclusions WITHOUT FACTS, that the original thread had run off the rails, as well as some idiots who posted JOKES about the tragedy or thought it was "funny".

How can you LEARN from all of the details of what led to an accident, WITHOUT actually having compiled all the details about an accident? We STILL do not know all details, especially what kind of procedures were used regarding safety, who was in charge overall, and so forth (and as I warned, the person who may have been most involved with allowing it to fly may have been Mr. Bentley. Yes, speculation, doing so to err on the side of human decency right now given the odds that may be true and such info should come out eventually. So, that is why I caution against ranting about whoever let it fly).

It's going to take more time. Geez, most NTSB airplane crash investigations take months or over a year to determine the facts.

And some things about the launch, the NAR may have a hard time learning, if the people involved with running it choose not to say so. As again the NAR has no legal standing in this situation that I can think of (unlike say the BSA, in addition to law enforcement and relative regulatory agencies of course). Keep in mind that the people involved are also grieving, if the NAR got into people's faces demanding answers right now, because some people on rocket forums demand answers IMMEDIATELY, that would be the worst way to try to get them to cooperate with providing information.

- George Gassaway

Click to expand...

I don't get it. Why would NAR get into people's faces demanding answers right now because some people on rocket forums demand answers IMMEDIATELY? I don't think the top men at NAR would act like that just because they read something on a stupid forum. That is some first class S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N there.

I don't get it. NAR *IS* investigating with out any jurisdiction? I guess the guys pressing the button or getting hit were not NAR members, so there is no direct insurance issues. Leave it to the authorities with jurisdiction and maybe later act as an expert adviser if needed.

If posters were making bad taste jokes on the unmentionable thread I did not see any. The mods were doing their jobs and anyone one doing that sort of thing seems like they were immediately taken care of. In this new thread it seems as if we are grasping at straws to justify shutting down conversion in this modern electronic age when the Genie was well outside the bottle. Say what it was. People were scared and it was an overreaction that did not work.

I don't get it. Why would NAR get into people's faces demanding answers right now because some people on rocket forums demand answers IMMEDIATELY? I don't think the top men at NAR would act like that just because they read something on a stupid forum. That is some first class S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N there.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure George didn't say they would. He was addressing why we haven't heard any "official report" from the NAR yet and illustrating the absurd situation if they were to rush in and try to obtain the information right now.

10fttall said:

I'm pretty sure George didn't say they would. He was addressing why we haven't heard any "official report" from the NAR yet and illustrating the absurd situation if they were to rush in and try to obtain the information right now.

Click to expand...

I don't remember seeing anyone in the previous thread asking for an immediate official report from NAR. Folks were just bringing together stuff that was out there and even chiming in eyewitness reports and asking questions. If they were flaming anyone, again, I did not see it.

georgegassaway said:

NAR *IS* investigating. But it's a complex thing since the NAR has no legal jurisdictional authority as opposed to the police or say DOT, NTSB, or FAA in say an aircraft accident. Just because it was not an NAR launch does not mean the NAR is not concerned and not trying to find out what happened.

NAR DOES want people to learn from this. That should be obvious.

Click to expand...

This was a safety incident. And from witness reports, a totally reckless flight, operated in a reckless manner.

The only thing we need to worry about is to comply with current safety policies....and make sure we do not get lax.

I fail to understand the purpose of waiting to find out what happened, as others are still out there flying, and that information can help make others safer. That should be the priority over trying to be sensitive. Also, the questions can be asked in a sensitive way. With very little effort reports from two witnesses can be found, and photos to lend credit to those reports. Calls to local authorities made, and to the BSA. There are enough people with knowledge that are not immediately close to the situation. Information on the launch can be had without getting in anyone's face.

It zeros in on showing that this was not a safe launch, and conducted in the worst possible way. I'm very sorry that the outcome was what it was. But it was preventable, and we should work QUICKLY to make that point to as many people as possible. To prevent it from happening again.

Right now, we don't know what we don't know, so 99% of what has been posted is speculation, but I'm not opposed to this provided it does not get personal. The more we are aware of proper launch safety practices, the safer our hobby will be.

What we know for sure is that a man was killed at a BSA launch in CA by a large rocket on a terminal ballistic trajectory. We know that local law enforcement was present as was medical personnel. We know that in all states, accidental deaths are investigated by the AHJ, and these investigations take time, because the facts must determined and the eyewitness testimony validated. For example the typical NTSB investigation takes over 1 year.

We know from what we have observed that the NAR/TRA mandated safety practices at our sanctioned launches were not in effect at this launch. We know that if the NAR/TRA safety codes were implemented and the safe launch practices of both organizations were observed at this BSA launch, this accident could have been prevented. It is our duty to monitor our launches (and any launches that we attend) and to remind the participants and the organizers to follow the mandated safety codes and to enforce safe launch practices. We don't want this to happen on our watch, nor at any event we participate in.

Bob

I wonder how many people who are running organized launches who aren't NAR members and who mostly get their training from YouTube? Any amount of written guidance won't help if people don't know about it or don't care. I bet BSA either adopts some 'code' or drops rocketry entirely. How's that for uneducated speculation?

Edit: I hadn't read Bob's post when I commented but he makes an interesting point that if you know of a totally indy launch not operated by NAR/TRA, it might do us all service if you attend and try to impart wisdom.

rstaff3 said:

I wonder how many people who are running organized launches who aren't NAR members and who mostly get their training from YouTube? Any amount of written guidance won't help if people don't know about it or don't care. I bet BSA either adopts some 'code' or drops rocketry entirely. How's that for uneducated speculation?

Click to expand...

The thing to remember, this isn't the first death in scouting. They'll review procedures I'm sure. They may adjust them. They don't often ban activities, especially ones with roots in advancement requirements.

Bob's writeup is the most clear reply on any of this, and should simply be copy/pasted by NAR and TRA, and then walk away from it.

rstaff3 said:

I wonder how many people who are running organized launches who aren't NAR members and who mostly get their training from YouTube? Any amount of written guidance won't help if people don't know about it or don't care. I bet BSA either adopts some 'code' or drops rocketry entirely. How's that for uneducated speculation?

Click to expand...

That there is some real good spanky speculation. I will have to mindsim on that one for awhile.

Daddyisabar said:

I don't get it. Why would NAR get into people's faces demanding answers right now because some people on rocket forums demand answers IMMEDIATELY? I don't think the top men at NAR would act like that just because they read something on a stupid forum. That is some first class S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N there.I don't get it. NAR *IS* investigating with out any jurisdiction? I guess the guys pressing the button or getting hit were not NAR members, so there is no direct insurance issues. Leave it to the authorities with jurisdiction and maybe later act as an expert adviser if needed.

Click to expand...

Safety is our business. It is the primary reason why NAR and TRA exist, and why we as hobbyists can get $5,000,000 of liability insurance for ~$10 (NAR) or ~$30 (TRA) per year. Because we are safe is the only reason why we can obtain launch liability insurance which allows us to launch from other peoples property into federally controlled airspace, so investigating the causes of a fatal hobby rocketry accident is certainly within the mandate of NAR and TRA from an institutional survival viewpoint. If our insurance rates increase substantially as a result of this accident, rest assured our hobby as we know it is kaput.

NAR doesn't have to get in people's faces to conduct an investigation, not does it have to be an AHJ to conduct an investigation. Any rocketry accident investigation benefits the hobbyist so they can understand what happened, and how to prevent it from happening at a sanctioned NAR/TRA launch.

Bob

DizWolf said:

The thing to remember, this isn't the first death in scouting. They'll review procedures I'm sure. They may adjust them. They don't often ban activities, especially ones with roots in advancement requirements.

Bob's writeup is the most clear reply on any of this, and should simply be copy/pasted by NAR and TRA, and then walk away from it.

Click to expand...

It would be easy for them just to say all BSA rocketry will adhere to our code(s). For all I know they already do.

Daddyisabar said:

That there is some real good spanky speculation. I will have to mindsim on that one for awhile.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you didn't say GDS or ekranoplan or Rudolph in that response. Do mindsims work better on cold meds or not? OK enough of this silliness. Wouldn't want to derail this thread. My apologies for all. Back to lurker mode.

bobkrech said:

Safety is our business. It is the primary reason why NAR and TRA exist, and why we as hobbyists can get $5,000,000 of liability insurance for ~$10 (NAR) or ~$30 (TRA) per year. Because we are safe is the only reason why we can obtain launch liability insurance which allows us to launch from other peoples property into federally controlled airspace, so investigating the causes of a fatal hobby rocketry accident is certainly within the mandate of NAR and TRA from an institutional survival viewpoint. If our insurance rates increase substantially as a result of this accident, rest assured our hobby as we know it is kaput.

NAR doesn't have to get in people's faces to conduct an investigation, not does it have to be an AHJ to conduct an investigation. Any rocketry accident investigation benefits the hobbyist so they can understand what happened, and how to prevent it from happening at a sanctioned NAR/TRA launch.

Bob

Click to expand...

That makes perfect sense!

One thing I like about NTSB investigations is that they typically release a list of known facts about an incident a week or two into the investigation so that we aren't stuck speculating like this over basic details. This list doesn't include anything that is analysis or in dispute, so it's a pretty decent baseline.

That said, this is a potential criminal and/or civil case, up to manslaughter on the criminal side or ~$10M on the civil side. I'm not saying that anyone is going to get charged or that a lawsuit against the scouts will be filed, but that's what everyone's lawyers are looking at. BSA and whoever owned the rocket are going to be told in no uncertain terms to shut the #$%* up and talk to nobody except through a lawyer. Unfortunately, I have to say that most of the lawyers (except possibly the DA) involved probably do not want NAR involved. Independent agencies conducting investigations can be unpredictable, and the last thing a lawyer wants is unpredictable. They want to control information as much as possible. That's not to say that NAR can't investigate, but they may be limited to what information law enforcement gathers. The local sheriff may or may not ask the kind of information NAR needs for a real investigation.

All that said, the question remains, what to do? If I may be so bold, can we have a safety section on the forum? Companies that have good safety records talk about safety and are willing to call out unsafe practices and talk about issues. I'm not thinking of "I saw DaddyisaBAR (*) launching some craaaazy train-shaped thing that shouldn't ever have gotten off the pad," but "I saw an oddroc flight go bad, and here's what I think could be done differently." I know that there are people who think that Practice A is unsafe, while others think it's fine. Heck, I've asked about a couple of those myself here. On the other hand, if we don't discuss, we can't share knowledge. If a safety section is added, I'd nominate drag races and night launches as first topics. I've seen both and really enjoy them, but I can also see the safety hazards.

* I'm specifically mentioning DIABAR here because I have seen and admired many of his build threads and think that he does an excellent job of making bizarre and wonderful rockets fly remarkably well and safely. In other words, I'm mentioning him as a compliment not as an insult.

My colleague here at work who is a scout leader and does rocketry activities believes that the BSA explicitly refers to the NAR safety code.
And he points out that a copy comes in every pack of motors.

This was a safety incident. And from witness reports, a totally reckless flight, operated in a reckless manner.

The only thing we need to worry about is to comply with current safety policies....and make sure we do not get lax.

I fail to understand the purpose of waiting to find out what happened, as others are still out there flying, and that information can help make others safer.

Click to expand...

If we're pretty sure it was against the safety code, then why can't we wait for a proper investigation? Do we care if it was built with 5 minute epoxy or 30 minute epoxy? I'm not convinced we'll ever find out much more anyway. Because of the tragic results and liability issues, any witnesses have probably been advised to keep quiet by this time. Would they really want to allow an interested, outside organization ask them questions with answers that could incriminate a friend? If any civil action comes about, is anyone really going to tell the NAR any information that would indicate even a little negligence on anyone's part? The NAR might get told to go pound sand. The NAR insurance only applies to activities within the safety code, so this almost certainly is not something the insurance company will worry too much about any more than GM would worry about someone wrecking their car while texting.

Also, what would be the endgame of receiving this information? A press release to remind everybody of the rocket that killed someone, but oh, by the way, the rules weren't being followed. That doesn't seem like a smart move to me after the public has moved on from the fast-paced news cycle. Certainly we will all follow the safety code and make sure everyone does at any launch we are at. That should be the takeaway. Beyond that, it would honestly be more curiosity than anything else to get more details than we already have.

rstaff3 said:

It would be easy for them just to say all BSA rocketry will adhere to our code(s). For all I know they already do.

Click to expand...

They do reference to the NAR for safety operations for model rocketry.

boatgeek said:

If a safety section is added, I'd nominate drag races and night launches as first topics. I've seen both and really enjoy them, but I can also see the safety hazards.

Click to expand...

While I admit that I feel a fun factor with drag races, and although I have never attended a night launch I do see the appeal in both activities. Having only been back into the hobby for 3ish years I have come to realize that I prefer the smaller launches. This is mainly because I feel more relaxed and that I have more time to prepare which for me means I am less likely to make a mistake. Another reason why I feel more relaxed is that I can stop to see each launch as it's announced, then go back to what I am doing. As a flyer this is often not possible with the large launches, that is if you're also prepping.

So for the long term benefit of the hobby I agree that drag races and night launches would be two of the first things to be discussed. However the number of launches per hour or whatever formula would also be something that I would put up for discussion.

I realize this would not go over with a lot of people including some vendors however, with safety in mind, I think it makes common sense

boatgeek said:

* I'm specifically mentioning DIABAR here because I have seen and admired many of his build threads and think that he does an excellent job of making bizarre and wonderful rockets fly remarkably well and safely. In other words, I'm mentioning him as a compliment not as an insult.

Click to expand...

Dave has an uncanny skill to design and fly his rockets. I love watching his rockets fly.

Charles_McG said:

My colleague here at work who is a scout leader and does rocketry activities believes that the BSA explicitly refers to the NAR safety code.
And he points out that a copy comes in every pack of motors.

Click to expand...

I've always just followed NAR/TRA codes when flying scout launches.... and typically a few extra rules to ensure proper "herding" of scouts.... RSO and pad managers are a must.

bobkrech said:

Safety is our business. It is the primary reason why NAR and TRA exist, and why we as hobbyists can get $5,000,000 of liability insurance for ~$10 (NAR) or ~$30 (TRA) per year. Because we are safe is the only reason why we can obtain launch liability insurance which allows us to launch from other peoples property into federally controlled airspace, so investigating the causes of a fatal hobby rocketry accident is certainly within the mandate of NAR and TRA from an institutional survival viewpoint. If our insurance rates increase substantially as a result of this accident, rest assured our hobby as we know it is kaput.

NAR doesn't have to get in people's faces to conduct an investigation, not does it have to be an AHJ to conduct an investigation. Any rocketry accident investigation benefits the hobbyist so they can understand what happened, and how to prevent it from happening at a sanctioned NAR/TRA launch.

Bob

Click to expand...

Absolutely correct sir. They will "INVESTIGATE" for internal interests or "Give expert analysis if asked by investigating authorities." That is their job as a very interested third party to the investigation. Don't want to argue semantics.

My point is they need not attempt to shut down any internet discussion they have no hope of controlling beyond their own or affiliated sites.

Forums provide a valuable service for discussion and it is the forum's job to keep unwarranted speculation, bad taste jokes or personal attacks in line. Pertinent information is out there and basically telling everyone to be quiet and to quell discussion won't work, no matter how we feel or think others will feel in the heat of the moment. It just looked bad and has received a very negative reaction from many TRF members. If the moderators where overwhelmed with wild speculation, bad jokes and personal attacks, then say that is the reason we are shutting down the thread and that you can't handle it. The sad fact is that the story has all quickly come out in the wash elsewhere, all feelings aside. That is what happens these days with eyewitnesses with cell phones. Information is going to be posted and trying to bury your head in the sand here just gives credence to the "banned," and with nothing over here you have to go over there. Sure there is going to be speculation, that is the nature of the world, but I hope it can be kept in line over here. cause it ain't over there! That is why I still love TRF, even though it is fun to refer to it as the "Terribly Run Forum" once in a while, keeps all us "Care Bears" on our toes.