My rocket is too dangerous. Where can I launch?

the rocketry show
Shop deals on ebay
madcow rocketry
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Please stop replying until we hear more from the OP. This is a dead thread unless the OP participates.
 
jimzcatz said:
Seriously? Source? The rules as written is the source. Why complicate something so simple?
Click to expand...


You stated: "From what I understand the NAR rules were written to echo FAR 101.."

I want to confirm that. So yes, your sources would be helpful in determining the accuracy and credibility of your "understanding." How is that for simple?
 
Bat-mite said:
Please stop replying until we hear more from the OP. This is a dead thread unless the OP participates.
Click to expand...

Or free speech which does not violate TRF rules and which you are more than welcome to ignore. However you want to look at it.
 
CORZERO said:
Or free speech which does not violate TRF rules and which you are more than welcome to ignore. However you want to look at it.
Click to expand...

Or you could ignore me, and I'll use my TRF-enabled free speech to keep telling people to stop posting. Nah, I'll just go back in my hole. Carry on.
 
samb said:
I got a giggle out of this one Teddy. You're correct of course but this is TRF man ! This thread will go to 10 pages of speculation before the OP comes back with more info. :wink:
Click to expand...

hahahahahahahaha,,
yep,, for sure,,
we should get a bet going for how many pages..
It's the op's very first post..
There's no way this entire thread isn't for his entertainment purposes only...

And Jim S..
I'm with you for sure man..
The rules as written definitely don't need to be overly read into or made complex,,
they're pretty simple...

Teddy
 
Corzero, what is your interpretation of "no substantial metal parts"?
 
An aluminium motor casing is pretty substantial. And do not paint your rocket silver, it likely puts aluminium on your airframe.
 
NAR prohibits motor retainers that include metal? Or rail buttons that are screwed in? Or eye bolts for recovery? OMG everyone, you all out of compliance!
 
wardini said:
The club RSO said I cannot launch my rocket. It uses 3 metal screws to hold in the electronics bay. A clear violation of the NAR guidelines?!? Anyway, is there anywhere in the US I can launch?
Click to expand...

Were you launching at Santa Fe Dam by any chance?
 
Flyfalcons said:
Corzero, what is your interpretation of "no substantial metal parts"?
Click to expand...

My interpretation would be irrelevant as "no substantial metal parts" is not stated within the NAR Code in question.

Since I've already been labeled a troll, I challenge anyone to correct my irrationality and explain to me how my arguments are not logical. Basis for my arguments is simply line 1 of NAR Code, of which there already has been some stated confusion and uncertainty regarding the definition of the components within the code.

Line 1 of the code is just that, one line. I challenged the code with my brass knuckles statement and could not get a decent rebuttal. To any reasonable person, of course it would not be wise to fill the airframe with your moms silverware collection, but according to the code, it would not be a violation. It is for the purpose of clearing the ambiguity of the code I ask for sources and definitions, for according to some, the stated code is sufficient and any further attempt for insight and clarity would be making it more complex than necessary.

I also seem to have an issue understanding why asking for sources is shunned upon. When a person states information which they "believe" to be accurate then they need to back themselves up. Otherwise, nothing constructive can be the result from anything you "believe" or "understand". Please, I emplore anyone to help me understand why this is not a reasonable request.

Anecdotes and "17 years of experience" are no substitute for data. That a person violated line 1 of NAR Code -as it reads- for 17 years does not render the Code null and void. Definitions are the foundation on which laws, rules, statutes etc. are built. As already stated by others, uncertainty exists as to what defines said components within the code. Does a centering ring then become integral to the "body" once it is affixed to the airframe?

Some of you guys amaze me.
 
In my 46 years of attending NAR launches, I have been to ZERO launches that would not allow screws to hold a portion of the rocket together such as for an Av Bay..

Either there is one incredibly over-zealous or misinformed RSO, or we've been greatly misled. Given that the OP has never made a post before, and has not posted a clarification, I suspect the latter.

The old wording in the Safety Code was not to use "substantial" metal parts, which still is in the FAA code. Some years ago the NAR Safety Code was shortened, for the sake of....... shortening. And it seems this is a consequence or dropping the term substantial metal parts. Not a change of the actual intent, but a fuzzification of the meaning by those interpreting or have freshly sharpened splitting-hair blades.

As for the body (tube), the body itself can't be metal, as in a crash a metal body can't crush like a cardboard tube can (or shatter like fiberglass can). The rule isn't meant to ban ANYTHING metallic from being attached to the tube, like screws.

I've had many models with non-substantial metal parts, such as Batteries. And even some R/C Rocket Boosted Gliders using metal screws to hold the wings on.

Indeed the battery used for the electronics in the Av-Bay would likely be way more substantial than 3 screws.

- George Gassaway
 
Last edited:
CORZERO said:
Since I've already been labeled a troll, I challenge anyone to correct my irrationality and explain to me how my arguments are not logical. Basis for my arguments is simply line 1 of NAR Code, of which there already has been some stated confusion and uncertainty regarding the definition of the components within the code.
Click to expand...

Very simply- you are applying "body" to the entire rocket that isn't fin or nose. That definition is the basis for your problem.

Since 95% of estes rockets flown at NAR events have metal in them, either the rule is flagrantly disobeyed, or it does not mean to include "all metal".

If the rule is flagrantly disobeyed, it would be disparate treatment of one flier. It is not proper to strictly enforce the rule in one case, and not in all.

However, everyone here knows that metal screws are fine by the safety code, so I don't understand why you're picking one line and ignoring the rest of the code, and how it's enforced and interpreted.
 
I take the argument this far and not one person could close the case with this link:

https://www.nar.org/safety-information/high-power-rocket-safety-code/

As for metal, See line 2.

A futile exercise in principle. Bring your sources, people! All I wanted was one link!



And yes, Dave, troll of 400 years now, and I prefer wooden bridges :)

Addendum: For clarity, the above thread rant was created under the presumption the op was referring to HPR. Op stated "electronics bay".
 
Last edited:
Looking at the Model Rocket Safety rules, I could see how a narrow interpretation of the first item would lead to such a decision by the RSO. Maybe the first line should be changed to:

1. Materials. I will use only lightweight, non-metal parts for major components (the nose, body, and fins) of my rocket.
 
CORZERO said:
My interpretation would be irrelevant as "no substantial metal parts" is not stated within the NAR Code in question.

Since I've already been labeled a troll, I challenge anyone to correct my irrationality and explain to me how my arguments are not logical. Basis for my arguments is simply line 1 of NAR Code, of which there already has been some stated confusion and uncertainty regarding the definition of the components within the code.

Line 1 of the code is just that, one line. I challenged the code with my brass knuckles statement and could not get a decent rebuttal. To any reasonable person, of course it would not be wise to fill the airframe with your moms silverware collection, but according to the code, it would not be a violation. It is for the purpose of clearing the ambiguity of the code I ask for sources and definitions, for according to some, the stated code is sufficient and any further attempt for insight and clarity would be making it more complex than necessary.

I also seem to have an issue understanding why asking for sources is shunned upon. When a person states information which they "believe" to be accurate then they need to back themselves up. Otherwise, nothing constructive can be the result from anything you "believe" or "understand". Please, I emplore anyone to help me understand why this is not a reasonable request.

Anecdotes and "17 years of experience" are no substitute for data. That a person violated line 1 of NAR Code -as it reads- for 17 years does not render the Code null and void. Definitions are the foundation on which laws, rules, statutes etc. are built. As already stated by others, uncertainty exists as to what defines said components within the code. Does a centering ring then become integral to the "body" once it is affixed to the airframe?

Some of you guys amaze me.
Click to expand...

Just answer my question.
 
CORZERO said:
........

Addendum: For clarity, the above thread rant was created under the presumption the op was referring to HPR. Op stated "electronics bay".
Click to expand...

Not a great presumption, given that any number of mid power rockets have "electronics bays".
 
Bottom line: the RSO is the final authority on what gets to launch. The RSO may be right or wrong; he may understand the rules perfectly or imperfectly; but he still makes the call. There may be a rocket that meets all of NAR safety rules that, for whatever reason, the RSO won't approve. There is no one over his head to whom you can appeal. Likewise, an unsafe rocket might get the okay. But the RSO wins.
 
I think we are being trolled. Post a picture of the rocket and the name of the RSO.

This guy only has one post.
 
rharshberger said:
More like a bunch of people arguing with a Troll.
Click to expand...

Nope,,
No way Rich....

The op hasn't been back not even once,,,lol,,lol...
No ones arguing with him,, he's not here...

Ya know,, there is entertainment value in this,, lol..

Teddy
 
CORZERO said:
Your RSO is strictly enforcing NAR Code:

https://www.nar.org/safety-information/model-rocket-safety-code/

If you want to launch at a NAR sanctioned event, then you follow NAR rules.

Tripoli Safety Code is crafted around NFPA 1127. Although NFPA compliance is voluntary, Tripoli have adopted it as organizational safety code. Below is a breakdown of materials use as Tripoli deems acceptable based on NFPA 1127 guidelines:

https://www.tripoli.org/Portals/1/Documents/Safety Code/Metal in Rocket Construction v2.0.pdf

I believe Tripoli events allow NAR certified fliers to attend (and vice-versa) but I do not know about inter-organizational insurance. Maybe you'll have to sign a waiver or something, idk.
Click to expand...

"Materials. I will use only lightweight, non-metal parts for the nose, body, and fins of my rocket." is what the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code actually states. There is no prohibition of screw eyes, screws, motor casings or other fasteners, nor is there a prohibition on small metal parts anywhere in NFPA 1122 which the unabridged NAR Model Rocket Safety Code.

https://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/estes/k-01.pdf is the plan for the original Estes Astron Scout copyright 1963. It uses a metal motor hook!

NFPA 1127 is not optional in the 46 states that adopted NFPA 1/IFC https://www.nar.org/find-a-local-club/section-guidebook/laws-regulations/ but regardless the unabridged High Power Safety Code for both NAR and TRA is NFPA 1127.

NAR recognizes TRA High Power Certifications. TRA recognizes NAR High Power Certifications.

NAR members can launch at TRA launches. TRA members can launch at NAR launches.

NAR insurance covers a NAR member's liability. TRA insurance covers a TRA member's liability. Both insurances only apply if no safety violation occurred.

Some clubs require you to sign a hold-harmless liability waiver. That's all well and good, but a good lawyer will trump that piece of paper in most circumstances.
 

Similar threads

U
Where can I launch rockets in delaware (up to F-15-8/2 stagers)
Replies
4
Views
259
Antares JS
Antares JS
KennB
ARC & NRC Launch - CMASS - Acton, MA - 07 April 2024
Replies
6
Views
486
KennB
KennB
B
Question on allowable reuse of parts for an L3 Cert Rocket
Replies
17
Views
932
Handeman
Handeman
frogglicker
SpiderMax Too - The Return
Replies
5
Views
171
frogglicker
frogglicker
J
Questions after an ‘almost’ perfect Boosted Bertha launch. W/video
Replies
12
Views
726
bjphoenix
B

Latest posts

Back
Top