vmax PSA

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The letter is one piece of evidence. As I said previously, I am attempting to verify if CTI received this letter or other communications. To this end, I have an email out to Anthony Cesaroni. I will report back what I find out.

As to escalation, I am not trying to escalate anything. I am attempting to get the answers to the question at hand, but this might take a few days. I suggest that everyone relax a bit.
 
Let me make things clear right off because I can see where this discussion is headed . I am completely biased and non supportive of a single manufacture for the sake of this discussion. Mark the letter that you posted is from TRA / NAR . It states that THEY are aware of a growing problem with CTI's VMAX motors and delay snuffing , and require electronic deployment as a solution to a larger problem. I don't see anywhere in the letter any type of evidence that CTI either cares or knows of the problem , or even that they acknowledge the problem with a possible solution . I believe what some people are asking , especially with the MESS reports , about are the manufactures ( CTI in this case ) seeing the reports ? Also , if there is a known problem with a certain type of motor , why are they still allowed to be sold to the general market. Off the top of your head , how many people that fly vmax motors that come with a delay for motor ejection are on this form , and are able to see this message from TRA / NAR ? How many LPR flyers that are buying E/F/G motors that may not be at large launches to fly them do not know they need electronic deployment ? I believe that ALL VMAX motors should be sold as plugged only until a solution to the problem can be found .

Eric


Eric, I have an email out to the person who runs Motorcato.org to see if I can find out if the manufacturers, or a subset of them, are on the distribution list. Best I can do at the moment.

As to communications, that is always an issue to reach all people potentially involved/infected. No single method will get it done. I will use TRA as an example. For a long time the only comms would be in the form of High Power Rocketry magazine, and likely an annual mailing for the elections of BOD members. Then they started the mail list, which worked well for a time. Email lists though are not easy to archive etc making searching them a bit trying. Also, many email providers filters mass email distribution as spam so some people signed up for the list stopped getting the emails. Then came the TRA forum. A good idea in theory that likely has not panned out as intended from a volume participation standpoint.

If you have suggestions as how to improve the distribution of information such as the CTI announcement being discussed here or perhaps the how and why of MESS reports please shoot me a PM.
 
Eric, I have an email out to the person who runs Motorcato.org to see if I can find out if the manufacturers, or a subset of them, are on the distribution list. Best I can do at the moment.

As to communications, that is always an issue to reach all people potentially involved/infected. No single method will get it done. I will use TRA as an example. For a long time the only comms would be in the form of High Power Rocketry magazine, and likely an annual mailing for the elections of BOD members. Then they started the mail list, which worked well for a time. Email lists though are not easy to archive etc making searching them a bit trying. Also, many email providers filters mass email distribution as spam so some people signed up for the list stopped getting the emails. Then came the TRA forum. A good idea in theory that likely has not panned out as intended from a volume participation standpoint.

If you have suggestions as how to improve the distribution of information such as the CTI announcement being discussed here or perhaps the how and why of MESS reports please shoot me a PM.

Thank you for the work Mark . We will take this to PM's as I beleive I have a workable solution .

Eric
 
I was also one of those who had never experienced a VMAX ejection charge failure and still haven't. The restriction did seem to come out of nowhere. I was a a bit nonplussed as there did not seem to be any communication prior to the restriction going into effect. I would have liked to seen a communication out of NARHQ to the effect of "Hey folks we are hearing reports of VMAX motor ejection unreliability, we are looking into this and wanted you to be aware that this may be a problem. Please let us know if you are experiencing this kind of problem". FWIW, I asked John Lyngdal about this at TARC and he indicated that the intent was that you currently cannot use a VMAX motor's ejection charge as your sole deployment mechanism. When I asked, he did state that you could use a VMAX in a cluster where the other motors have a reliable ejection charge (e.g. a LOC Viper 4 with 2 X E75 and 2 x D12-5)
 
The letter is one piece of evidence. As I said previously, I am attempting to verify if CTI received this letter or other communications. To this end, I have an email out to Anthony Cesaroni. I will report back what I find out.
.

Thanks for for your efforts Mark.

Im gonna go draw up plans for another Optima and chill a bit.
 
The MESS Reports and who gets them. The MESS Reports go to the three testing organizations- CAR MCC, NAR S&T, and TRA TMT. The manufacturers cannot sign up for the list as it would allow manufacturer A to see the failures of manufacturer B, which could have an negative effect on manufacturer A. That said, a manufacturer can request that the failures pertaining to their motors be forwarded to them.
 
I understand it'd be difficult, or impossible. But it'd be cool if all clubs tallied flight cards and reported motors flown and the Results. Now that'd be a database. Would have its own issues. But I'd love to see it.
 
I propose that once a month , each vendor gets sent a email with only the motors that they have produced and have failed . It would be a very easy spread sheet to set up and just a simple click and send . This way there is no denying the fact that they will have real time ( to a degree ) data and other then that , there is not much more anybody can do . Mark works hard behind the scene and this hobby should not drive him away because of having to do to much after hours.

Eric
 
As I have been told it is per failure. The gentleman who handles it, and I will not name names, is really one of the people in this hobby who has been involved for a long time and has done a lot. I have A LOT of respect for him, and his contributions to the hobby.
 
I propose that once a month , each vendor gets sent a email with only the motors that they have produced and have failed . It would be a very easy spread sheet to set up and just a simple click and send . This way there is no denying the fact that they will have real time ( to a degree ) data and other then that , there is not much more anybody can do . Mark works hard behind the scene and this hobby should not drive him away because of having to do to much after hours.

Eric

Eric, thank you.
 
I propose that once a month , each vendor gets sent a email with only the motors that they have produced and have failed . It would be a very easy spread sheet to set up and just a simple click and send . This way there is no denying the fact that they will have real time ( to a degree ) data and other then that , there is not much more anybody can do . Mark works hard behind the scene and this hobby should not drive him away because of having to do to much after hours.

Eric

This ^^^
 
Adrian, thanks. It is not just me doing work behind the scenes. Mine has possibly been more visible than the work of others as I have been very involved in the motor file stuff for quite some time. Trust me when I say there are others doing various tasks that are important to the hobby, but the vast majority of flyers will never realize the time and effort commitment these folks make.
 
I do not have any further updates on the communications issue that I can share. Suffice it to say that considerable efforts were expended on communicating this to CTI. This was mentioned earlier by Steve Shannon, President of Tripoli, and expounded upon by him to me. Some might not take that as proof, but I have known Steve for 10 years under some occasionally trying circumstances, and his word is proof enough for me on the subject.
 
I do not have any further updates on the communications issue that I can share. Suffice it to say that considerable efforts were expended on communicating this to CTI. This was mentioned earlier by Steve Shannon, President of Tripoli, and expounded upon by him to me. Some might not take that as proof, but I have known Steve for 10 years under some occasionally trying circumstances, and his word is proof enough for me on the subject.

Serious question- Do TRA bylaws allow keeping information from members?

This is more academic at this point.... I don't think this info will ever be made public, for whatever reason I can't understand. If the data is so damning that the motors have to be restricted, I can't understand why it can't be shared. As to why communication with CTI about the issue is being kept secret... I also can't understand that, but I guess we'll find that info with hoffa.
 
David,
The data are just what was presented in first hand reports in this thread and complaints made directly to TMT and S&T.
When the delay problems first appeared, efforts were made to contact CTI about them. Then the fire happened which was a terrible thing for CTI and of course affected their priorities. Then this thread with several first hand reports (no longer anecdotal) of delay snuffing. Following a short discussion, NAR and TRA realized they had to act to limit how Vmax motors are used at our launches. It's that simple.
As far as wondering what the bylaws say, why don't you read them? They're on the TRA website.
There are no deep dark secrets here. We just want to make sure that correspondence between us and manufacturers is kept private so we can discuss things frankly. Companies and organizations such as ourselves communicate differently when they have an expectation that their conversations will be held confidential as opposed to having everything recorded and released publicly.
Unfortunately, by respecting that confidentiality we leave ourselves exposed to wild speculation and accusations by people who just want to stir the pot.
 
David,
The data are just what was presented in first hand reports in this thread and complaints made directly to TMT and S&T.
When the delay problems first appeared, efforts were made to contact CTI about them. Then the fire happened which was a terrible thing for CTI and of course affected their priorities. Then this thread with several first hand reports (no longer anecdotal) of delay snuffing. Following a short discussion, NAR and TRA realized they had to act to limit how Vmax motors are used at our launches. It's that simple.
As far as wondering what the bylaws say, why don't you read them? They're on the TRA website.
There are no deep dark secrets here. We just want to make sure that correspondence between us and manufacturers is kept private so we can discuss things frankly. Companies and organizations such as ourselves communicate differently when they have an expectation that their conversations will be held confidential as opposed to having everything recorded and released publicly.
Unfortunately, by respecting that confidentiality we leave ourselves exposed to wild speculation and accusations by people who just want to stir the pot.

Thank you Steve.
 
If the data is so damning that the motors have to be restricted, I can't understand why it can't be shared.

I can certainly share my info. My first record of sharing with CTI and TMT was in 2011. Based on my emails at the time, I had experienced 6 failures of the smoke grain by that time and had lost two rockets. It was my impression at the time that the Vmax issue was common knowledge among more experienced fliers (I said things like, isn't it about time you take action on this issue - that was in 2011). Since that time, I have watched the Vmax flights at the launches I go to, and noted if they worked or failed (they either make smoke or they don't, so it's easy to tell). Informally, I pegged the failure rate at somewhere around 20 to 25%. If people didn't notice this, then perhaps it was due to a larger than normal fraction of flights with electronics (people DO know) combined with the 20% failure rate on a smaller percentage of total flights. Therefore, it might not stand out to you if you weren't looking. However, the problem was obvious, and for that matter, expected based on the type of motor.

I believe that TMT would have taken action on this well before it happened, but they felt their hands were tied because it was CAR that certified the motors. Fortunately, there was the 11 rocket drag race where, statistics being what they are, 3 of 11 grains didn't burn. I suspect that did the trick. I am very glad that TMT/NAR dealt with this before their was another fatality due to a ballistic recovery, and I object to the notion that somehow CTI was blindsided by this action.

Recently, Aerotech had a recall on a few DMS motors. I happen to have one of them, the L1000. I flew one a few years ago and there was a failure, which I later learned that the vendor knew about before my flight. This time, they got the word out before I flew the motor (and before an L3 candidate of mine flew one of the other motors on the list). I really appreciate that, that the vendor would put my property and safety first.

Jim
 
Unfortunately, by respecting that confidentiality we leave ourselves exposed to wild speculation and accusations by people who just want to stir the pot.

when safety is concerned, I don't think anyone has a right or expectation of confidentiality.


Also, asking valid questions about how things work or progressed is not stirring the pot. If you're not confident in your reply, don't try to make me look like a bad guy.

There re is nothing work with asking how a restriction came to be, and how it was being handled. If you have a problem with those questions, it gives the appearance of uncertainty or something being hidden. If there are no deep dark secrets, that's cool. I hope that there are not. But when questions are asked and I get jumped on for it and told to sit in my place and stop harrassing people.... well that's not the reply of someone that's confident, in general. In this case, who knows. Maybe it's all lost in the translation of he internet.
 
David there is a reason I sold all my black red or silver hardware . I live by BLUE . Only my personal preference . Keep it local , keep it in the USA. Now lets stop this stupid back and forth BS . It will not solve anything , but it will make you look like a fool . Not a personal attack , just advice from a senior member who started when AT was the only party in town , and just the mention of Kosdon brought on the goosebumps and everybody immediatly stopped what they where doing to watch.

Eric
 
that's the thing... I'm not loving or hating on a brand.... or any person. I just asked what happened and eventually what data was used to make a choice to restrict a motor.

I was jumped on for it. I was called a pot stirrer by the president of TRA. For asking questions and not accepting "I won't give you the answer, but trust me it's cool".

I think it's safe to agree that these things should be a scientific process. meaning based off real, actual data. I'm not seeing that anywhere in this. Thats what bugs me. Yea, there's an issue. Yea, something needed to be done. But is there solid evidence to support anything? Not really. Very simply without production numbers, and without a better reporting system, it's guessing. And trying to say it's more accurate than that is simply not defendable.

Now, If CTI was contacted, and did nothing or did not engage in dialogue with the organizations.... I see that as something we as fliers should know, so we can form a full opinion of who we buy motors from.


Again, I really really want to be clear.... I'm not mad, or trying to be a pain in the ass here. I think it's an important discussion.

Personally, I think we should try to revise the NFPA to require motor manufacturers to provide data on production numbers to the testing orgs.

I think we should ask or require clubs to tally flight card data and report it. I'm going to try to talk to our BoD, and see what we have in stock, and if going forward we can do this. if not as a requirement, for our own information.
 
Last edited:
I don't see club launch record reporting as a big burden. I currently do it for our own records and information at all Tripoli Pittsburgh launches.
I use a simple Excel spread sheet, documenting each flyer, and motor designation. We pass these out at our end of the season winter meeting, showing the totals by month and by season for the each individual flyer and the club as a whole. It's a simple matter of transferring the information from all the flight cards into the Excel program.

I can see however, that whomever at TMT that would be receiving all these spread sheets from all the Prefects would have a time consuming task of consolidating all the information into one report though.
 
Personally, I think we should try to revise the NFPA to require motor manufacturers to provide data on production numbers to the testing orgs.


Dave:
Love you like a brother but I think you've gone off the deep end. We certainly don't need any more unnecessary regulations. Besides, the NFPA has no standing on how we do business. On top of that the NFPA standards don't apply in Canada, so CTI would not be impacted. Utah (AT) is a NFPA 2015 state, so good luck there, they don't automatically update. Colorado (Estes) is NFPA 2006 state. Even if you wanted to throw that into the NFPA (and you got it passed), it would be a long, long time before anyone was required to comply.

Personally, I believe that certification is purposely vague so our learned colleagues of the NAR S&T and TMT can do what they do to the best of their ability without being hamstrung by senseless regulation Most legal beagles are poorly qualified to tell us how to do what we do.
 
Back
Top