My NAR Level 3 Certification Package.

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My quick review says it looks good! I like the wiring diagram. No six switch insanity, thank goodness.
 
Looks very nice enough for folks to copy for their respective projects. I was so very glad that the six switch insanity was ditched some time ago. It was totally stupid and didn't provide any extra margin of safety at all.

Six switch insanity = switches on both altimeters and each ematch circuit. 2 + 2 (apogee) + 2 (main)

Eight switch insanity = Would be if one was stupid enough to use deployment altimeters that had an on/off power switch and a separate pyro battery that required a switch. That would be 4 switches for 2 altimeters along with 4 switches for the 4 ematch circuits!!

Glad the ivory tower bastards were killed off on this one! Kurt
 
Great package! Looks like everything is in order for a good cert. flight. Only thing I would change is the rail buttons. Way overkill.

Make fun of me.

Hey, you told me to do it.....

Good luck on your flight, and say hi to Robert and Gloria when they get back home. We really enjoyed their visit.
 
Great package! Looks like everything is in order for a good cert. flight. Only thing I would change is the rail buttons. Way overkill.

I thought about using Unistrut just so I could use the hydraulic tower. :dark:

Hey, you told me to do it.....

Good luck on your flight, and say hi to Robert and Gloria when they get back home. We really enjoyed their visit.

Well, home is Massachussetts, but I'll be seeing them in MD soon. I'll tell 'em the AZ folks want them back. :)
 
Great package! Looks like everything is in order for a good cert. flight. Only thing I would change is the rail buttons. Way overkill.

I agree, for the sake of the buttons themselves. However given the motors and rockets I like to fly I keep finding the only way I get a heavy and sturdy enough rail at a club launch is by moving to the 1515 rails!

KA8breG.jpg
 
I agree, for the sake of the buttons themselves. However given the motors and rockets I like to fly I keep finding the only way I get a heavy and sturdy enough rail at a club launch is by moving to the 1515 rails!

KA8breG.jpg


Yeah, but you don't need 1515 buttons to fly on 1515 rails. Just a little secret CJ told me about. Great picture though. Wouldn't mind hearing the story behind it.
 
Yeah, but you don't need 1515 buttons to fly on 1515 rails. Just a little secret CJ told me about. Great picture though. Wouldn't mind hearing the story behind it.

Be it ever so true. I've switched to a rocket with smaller 1010 buttons when a particular 1515 rail was too gunked up with crud to allow the "appropriate" buttons to move without binding. Worked fine.

I destroyed a Mayhem rocketry rail guide when I insisted on flying from a dirty 1010 rail one time. I'll never make that mistake again! The guide bound to the rail and I was surprised the 1/3, 2/3rds, and full span fiberglass laminated, 1/8" plywood surface mounted fins only manifested a few paint chips! Rocket still went 8500'. Probably coulda' gotten 9k if it was a "clean" rail! Stupidhead strikes again!!! :bangpan: Kurt
 
I thought that for level 3 your were required to have separate switches for each of the deployment charges, not just power switches for the altimeters.
 
Not necessarily. We just had a lengthly thread about that topic.
 
Last edited:
I thought that for level 3 your were required to have separate switches for each of the deployment charges, not just power switches for the altimeters.

No longer a requirement due to it being stupid.
 
No longer a requirement due to it being stupid.

I ranted about this to no end many years ago on the TRA list-serv. The hierarchy there changed it before the NAR did. I was told discussions between the members of the two boards got the NAR to drop it too.
The so-called "safety" argument was completely bogus.

The place where I am all for a so-called safety circuit is that which prevents the premature firing of the upper stage of a multi-staged rocket. I am not so sure of the people who think parallel shunts are the total answer. They could work if they
have their electronics send current to a live igniter with a shunt in place and see if the shunt prevents the igniter from firing. Problem there is the igniter might still fire with a parallel shunt in place or if it doesn't fire, the activating electronics
might be permanently damaged. I don't have a total answer for this problem therefore I only criticize those who insist shunts work without testing. That is equally stupid as the ematch "safety switch".

A possible workable solution is remote activation of the the deployment/staging electronics from a safe distance as some devices are starting to come out for this purpose.

Kurt Savegnago
 
Yeah, but you don't need 1515 buttons to fly on 1515 rails. Just a little secret CJ told me about. Great picture though. Wouldn't mind hearing the story behind it.

No kidding! Thanks for sharing, I had no idea and assumed the rocket would fall right off.

That picture, not too much story simply my relatively lightweight L3 bird on a K780. It kicked much harder than those little pads wanted to put up with. Lost altitude and went a little far away, but it was still a good flight and recovered well. L3 success was next up!
 
No kidding! Thanks for sharing, I had no idea and assumed the rocket would fall right off.

That picture, not too much story simply my relatively lightweight L3 bird on a K780. It kicked much harder than those little pads wanted to put up with. Lost altitude and went a little far away, but it was still a good flight and recovered well. L3 success was next up!

When you're at a launch try it sometime. Works. You don't have to wait for a 1010 rail if a 1515 is empty Kurt
 
I ranted about this to no end many years ago on the TRA list-serv. The hierarchy there changed it before the NAR did. I was told discussions between the members of the two boards got the NAR to drop it too.
The so-called "safety" argument was completely bogus.

Kurt Savegnago

I have been a TRA TAP for well over 15+ years and there has never been a multi circuit safety switch requirement. The only requirement, is that the electronics used in the certification rocket, must be able to be safely powered down. There has never been a TRA requirement to safety charges by shunt circuitry of any kind...:no: On my own L-3 certification flight, I used twist and tape, although I now almost always use a simple switch of some kind. I prefer screw type switches...
 
I have been a TRA TAP for well over 15+ years and there has never been a multi circuit safety switch requirement. The only requirement, is that the electronics used in the certification rocket, must be able to be safely powered down. There has never been a TRA requirement to safety charges by shunt circuitry of any kind...:no: On my own L-3 certification flight, I used twist and tape, although I now almost always use a simple switch of some kind. I prefer screw type switches...

Sorry Fred, I know candidates who's TAPS/L3CC folks required the extra switches/shunts in the olden days of greater than 10 years ago. NAR was more notorious than TRA. Look on the cover of issue 52 of Extreme Rocketry and you can see the 6 plug switches/shunts that the TAPS required for the candidates attempt. Twist and tape and you are really showing how far back you certified. Many frown on that now and might not get away with it today but I was told twist and tape was common/accepted in the past as was single altimeter deployment for L3 certifying. Many L3 fliers once certified, do twist and tape to this day without issue.

I believe many of the so-called authorities had it fixated in their minds that the extra switches (or shunts) were an "added" safety feature and still insisted on it well after it was disavowed. If one was stuck in an area with few TAPs/L3CC you either did it
"their" way or you stayed L2 period. If one was in a geographic area with enlightened authorities as it looks like you are, then it might not have ever been required.

I very vividly remember arguing this point vehemently on the TRA list-serv around 05-06 and had a rather testy exchange with a TAP there in 2008 who required shunts on the ematch circuits. I just did a search and found some of those posts on my drive.
I agree that shunts a useless unless tested but testing can destroy ones FETs in their deployment device under examination.

There was a time when one could perhaps "get away" with single altimeter deploy L3 until it was "set in stone" that two units were needed. I argued in one posting if the hierarchy is requiring it then no one should be able to TAP shop around and
have a couple of "good ol boys" do a pass on a single altimeter attempt. There are probably a few that snuck in an L3 with single altimeters in the process of the rule change but going farther back, with deployment devices that were really pricey, it was acceptable to do so. Kurt Savegnago
 
Last edited:
A lot of the problem is that there is one set of requirements, whether you are scratch-building or kit-building, whether it's a four-inch airframe or a ten-inch, whether it's five feet long or twenty feet long. I can see the NAR being really nervous about someone certifying on a huge, scratch-built, ten-inch by 20-foot monster, with 36 gram deployment charges. If your deployment set-up was 36 and 40 for the drogue, and 24 and 28 for the main, then you essentially have a 128-gram BP bomb on the pad. Entirely different from my rocket that had a grand total of 5.2 grams in it.
 
A lot of the problem is that there is one set of requirements, whether you are scratch-building or kit-building, whether it's a four-inch airframe or a ten-inch, whether it's five feet long or twenty feet long. I can see the NAR being really nervous about someone certifying on a huge, scratch-built, ten-inch by 20-foot monster, with 36 gram deployment charges. If your deployment set-up was 36 and 40 for the drogue, and 24 and 28 for the main, then you essentially have a 128-gram BP bomb on the pad. Entirely different from my rocket that had a grand total of 5.2 grams in it.

But you know, saying that an unproven "shunt" is safing anything is false assurance. The remedy for this is on the horizon with electronics that can be
remotely activated from a safe distance.

Kurt
 
Electronics have gotten a lot better
Flyers have gotten a lot smarter
Igniters have gotten a lot more reliable and a lot less sensitive

Remember the days of mercury switches, flashbulbs, and home-brew electronics?
 
TRA is trying to stop TAPs from adding extra requirements over what the rules state. Field enforcement is something we fought the ATF over, we should not do it to ourselves.

Originally the electronic required were a single unit, and it could be the backup. A local guy did his L3 using motor ejection and a timer backup. Motor did the job. The first Aerotech 98s had delays.
 
John, I gather from another thread that you had a successful cert, congratulations!

Ari.
 
TRA is trying to stop TAPs from adding extra requirements over what the rules state. Field enforcement is something we fought the ATF over, we should not do it to ourselves.

Originally the electronic required were a single unit, and it could be the backup. A local guy did his L3 using motor ejection and a timer backup. Motor did the job. The first Aerotech 98s had delays.

Mark, I don't think that is as much of a problem anymore and a candidate could always email headquarters of their respective certifying group and query them.
Any build/safety/integrity issues say like marginal stability, the respective HQ's are going to rightfully side with the TAP/L3CC.

I believe all of the TAP's/L3CC folks these days are more of facilitators and try to help and ensure a successful attempt. I witnessed one fellows attempt where his chosen parachute was kind of ratty looking but acceptable. The TAP and some of the fliers friends volunteered to give him the use of something more suitable (and better looking) but he doggedly declined and insisted upon using his battered, surplus chute. Guy made the flight and his chute streamered which disqualified it. Had to do a second attempt several months later after repairing some minor damage.

I'm sure many certifiers out there have stories about projects that weren't inherently unsafe for flight but some minor suggestions for optimization went unheeded and a DNF resulted. The opposite might have occurred too where the flight succeeded even when some tweaks were ignored. Kurt
 
Sorry Fred, I know candidates who's TAPS/L3CC folks required the extra switches/shunts in the olden days of greater than 10 years ago. NAR was more notorious than TRA. Look on the cover of issue 52 of Extreme Rocketry and you can see the 6 plug switches/shunts that the TAPS required for the candidates attempt. Twist and tape and you are really showing how far back you certified. Many frown on that now and might not get away with it today but I was told twist and tape was common/accepted in the past as was single altimeter deployment for L3 certifying. Many L3 fliers once certified, do twist and tape to this day without issue.

Kurt Savegnago

Like I said, "there has never been a multi circuit safety switch requirement for TRA L3 certification projects, of any kind"... Beings I am not and have not been a NAR L3CC, I will not address what may or may not have been NAR's L3 certification process, as it has been and continues to be different than TRA... As for as twist and tape and depending on the presented project, I would not automatically rule out an individual using twist and tape, although I probably would discourage twist and tape in favor of a quality switch... :2: Like Mark C. indicated, TRA is attempting to address inconsistencies in the TAP basic requirement process, between different TAP members.
 
Like I said, "there has never been a multi circuit safety switch requirement for TRA L3 certification projects, of any kind"... Beings I am not and have not been a NAR L3CC, I will not address what may or may not have been NAR's L3 certification process, as it has been and continues to be different than TRA... As for as twist and tape and depending on the presented project, I would not automatically rule out an individual using twist and tape, although I probably would discourage twist and tape in favor of a quality switch... :2: Like Mark C. indicated, TRA is attempting to address inconsistencies in the TAP basic requirement process, between different TAP members.

My only point Fred is there were gross disparities in the past. Some TAPS back then seemed to have adopted NAR's specification for switches/shunts for no good reason. Again, that's nothing to worry about now and is only of historical interest.
I will relate of another flier, again 10 years in the past, where the TAP required him to bring the rocket for inspection DURING construction. Poor guy had to make seven long distance trips to the TAPs house to
present the rocket for inspection during the different phases of assembly! I'm glad those days are in the past and there's more uniformity.

I will present one current beef though. I believe NAR requires "pre-build" approval of an L3 project before construction starts? If that's true, it's asinine. I know of individuals in isolated areas who send their paperwork to prospective TAPs for perusal, show up on the appointed day, have the rocket inspected and have a successful L3 certification flight.

My opinion of "pre-build" approval is stupid, especially if the candidate is using a collection of parts or a kit that has been successfully used for L3 level flights by others in the past.

If TRA is looking at TAP disparities, that's good but I don't think it's as "bad" now than what it was years ago. Kurt
 
My only point Fred is there were gross disparities in the past. Some TAPS back then seemed to have adopted NAR's specification for switches/shunts for no good reason. Again, that's nothing to worry about now and is only of historical interest.
I will relate of another flier, again 10 years in the past, where the TAP required him to bring the rocket for inspection DURING construction. Poor guy had to make seven long distance trips to the TAPs house to
present the rocket for inspection during the different phases of assembly! I'm glad those days are in the past and there's more uniformity.

I will present one current beef though. I believe NAR requires "pre-build" approval of an L3 project before construction starts? If that's true, it's asinine. I know of individuals in isolated areas who send their paperwork to prospective TAPs for perusal, show up on the appointed day, have the rocket inspected and have a successful L3 certification flight.

My opinion of "pre-build" approval is stupid, especially if the candidate is using a collection of parts or a kit that has been successfully used for L3 level flights by others in the past.

If TRA is looking at TAP disparities, that's good but I don't think it's as "bad" now than what it was years ago. Kurt

I did pre-approval by my TAPs. Now this was in 2009 and not sure how it is today, but frankly, I didn't want to take any chances and was more than happy to share my design with them.

My real issue came after the flight. One of the TAPs had not been informed that the flight was occurring and balked at signing the papers at first (although the other TAP not only was actively observing, he inspected the rocket upon recovery). Luckily I had a video of the flight I could submit after the fact and the "doubting TAP" had in fact remembered the flight and signed off--"Whew!"
 
Wow! This is where I like the NAR's policy better. One L3CC, and one additional witness who is at least level 2.
 
It only takes one TAP to observe and sign off on the flight.
 
Back
Top