Junior certification and dual deployment?

manixFan said:

(Edited for brevity)I personally know of several flights that had GPS trackers that either went way off course or came in ballistic and were never found. So I could argue that GPS is no guarantee either.

And I'd much rather lose a $125 transmitter than a GPS unit costing 2X or more as much.

Nothing wrong with GPS but in my personal experience and many observations it's as fallible as any other tracking method. At BALLS this year my BRB GPS unit failed on 2 flights so if I had relied solely on it for tracking I would have been out of luck. But I had backup beacons in each flight and was able to recover the rockets.


Tony

Click to expand...

If one gets their units wrong on inputting lat/long into a phone or handheld GPS, sure they'll lose it. Eggfinders are on sale for $50.00 now so one doesn't have to
spend that much. Fifty bucks is easier to swallow than $259.00 from a Beeline GPS. After 7 flights with Eggfinders and TRS I haven't lost a rocket yet including
one ballistic and one completely sight unseen. The sight unseen flight the chute hung in the harness after the Jolly Logic Chute Release did its thing. There was enough drag the Madcow/RW 38 Special survived as did the EggFinder. It continued to transmit on the ground.

Everyone was looking to the East whereas I knew from the map the rocket was heading to the West. I used a patch antenna and after the rocket was down, I was still getting positions. The rocket visited 4,900 feet. Also, with the 900Mhz trackers, a Yagi antenna definitely increases the ground footprint for recovery. On the tracker "dog" rockets I was flying to feel out the system, those that came down within the limits of sight, the Yagi was giving more than 1/4 mile ground range. True, since one knows pretty much where the rocket is, the short vertical duck antenna will eventually give a final fix when one gets close enough.

I agree, if one is working under difficult conditions such as beacon failure or poor Rf propagation like that is had on the playa, GPS/APRS
is no better than RDF.

A fellow posted here one time during a survey he likes his 1 watt AP510 APRS tracker for larger projects: https://www.sainsonic.com/ap510-apr...th-thermometer-tf-card-support-aprsdroid.html.
Anyone who is a Ham and flies the BRB 70cm stuff could use one. Especially if they are using a 2meter/70cm APRS handi-talkie in the
first place. Kurt

snipped for brevity...

ksaves2 said:

If one gets their units wrong on inputting lat/long into a phone or handheld GPS, sure they'll lose it. ...

Click to expand...

I'm not talking about a simple error here. I'm talking about no data once the rocket left the pad, or even with GPS data the rocket was still not found. These are BALLS flights where the folks were very experienced with GPS trackers and were using software on laptops or HAM radios that directly decoded the packets and provided the tracking data. Way beyond manually keying in GPS data.

But having said all that I don't want you to imply that I think GPS doesn't work or isn't worth the effort. I've read your other posts - especially in the 2-stage thread - and it's clear you are very knowledgeable about GPS trackers and the associated topics. I have no issue with your arguments, they are all valid points about using GPS trackers.

I just hate it when someone (in this case 'boatgeek') makes a blanket statement without any real information or evidence to back it up.

As someone who has flown several 38mm MD rockets to fairly extreme altitudes (including 2 in excess of 15,000') I can back-up my claim that a beacon is a suitable choice for such a rocket. The size and weight are a huge advantage over many other choices.

However, from the website regarding the Eggfinder:

"We use RF radio modules that transmit on the 900 MHz license-free ISM band at 100 mW, and have attained a clear-air range of over 8,000' with no signal loss (the rocket went out of sight but starting coming down before we ran out of signal!) If you change out the included 1/4 wave "stick" antenna on the receiver for a RP-SMA connector and a directional panel antenna (under $20), you can easily double this range. "

For my extreme flights the Eggfinder would be a poor choice - I would have been right at the edge of usable range even if I followed their suggestion. The Marshal tracker I use claims a 40 mile line of sight range. I would not claim that range when used in a rocket but clearly it has more than adequate range for even extreme flights. The OP will have to decide if an Eggfinder would be suitable for his projected altitude.

Just wanting to point out to the OP that he has a variety of choices to track his rocket and each will have pros and cons.


Tony

manixFan said:

snipped for brevity...
I'm not talking about a simple error here. I'm talking about no data once the rocket left the pad, or even with GPS data the rocket was still not found. These are BALLS flights where the folks were very experienced with GPS trackers and were using software on laptops or HAM radios that directly decoded the packets and provided the tracking data. Way beyond manually keying in GPS data.

But having said all that I don't want you to imply that I think GPS doesn't work or isn't worth the effort. I've read your other posts - especially in the 2-stage thread - and it's clear you are very knowledgeable about GPS trackers and the associated topics. I have no issue with your arguments, they are all valid points about using GPS trackers.

I just hate it when someone (in this case 'boatgeek') makes a blanket statement without any real information or evidence to back it up.

As someone who has flown several 38mm MD rockets to fairly extreme altitudes (including 2 in excess of 15,000') I can back-up my claim that a beacon is a suitable choice for such a rocket. The size and weight are a huge advantage over many other choices.

However, from the website regarding the Eggfinder:

"We use RF radio modules that transmit on the 900 MHz license-free ISM band at 100 mW, and have attained a clear-air range of over 8,000' with no signal loss (the rocket went out of sight but starting coming down before we ran out of signal!) If you change out the included 1/4 wave "stick" antenna on the receiver for a RP-SMA connector and a directional panel antenna (under $20), you can easily double this range. "

For my extreme flights the Eggfinder would be a poor choice - I would have been right at the edge of usable range even if I followed their suggestion. The Marshal tracker I use claims a 40 mile line of sight range. I would not claim that range when used in a rocket but clearly it has more than adequate range for even extreme flights. The OP will have to decide if an Eggfinder would be suitable for his projected altitude.

Just wanting to point out to the OP that he has a variety of choices to track his rocket and each will have pros and cons.


Tony

Click to expand...

Just want to point out that the eggfinder with a 3db stick antenna on each end was successfully tested on a balloon to 80,000 feet and maintained connection with the ground station the entire time. The thread is on this forum somewhere.

My reason for mentioning this is range is varies greatly with setup. The RF opacity of the surrounding materials, the location of the antenna relative to objects that causing interference, and the antennas used in the flight all substantially impact the link budget of the system. For example, if you stick the antenna in the av bay between 2 pieces of allthread you will see greater signal degradation that if those allthreads were not there.

I highly recommend ground testing the link with your particular rocket configuration at the desired range with a clear LOS. If you can find someone with an RF engineering background they should be able to do the link budget calculation for you at your max range. You can then refer to the manufacturer to see what receiver sensitivity is and determine if you have enough link margin for proper operation.

Thanks for all the information on everything (including the part about GPS Vs. RDF). I think I'm just gonna use an RDF for my project after I get my HAM license. However, after this project (which is a 38mm MD), I plan on building a 54mm MD. I think I might use a Trackimo GPS for it. Does anybody have any pros and cons about it?

SkidmarkMonster said:

Thanks for all the information on everything (including the part about GPS Vs. RDF). I think I'm just gonna use an RDF for my project after I get my HAM license. However, after this project (which is a 38mm MD), I plan on building a 54mm MD. I think I might use a Trackimo GPS for it. Does anybody have any pros and cons about it?

Click to expand...

Only cons with the trackimo is you must have reliable cellphone service at your launch site. I will suggest to Tony if running at the extremes, a ham band beeline APRS tracker at 100mW is a viable option. I've noted with the Eggfinders that the dynamics of the rocket flight can affect the reception performance but in the end it has found rockets for me including two completely sight unseen flights. One will get some positions on descent depending what antenna is used on the receiving end. One will not receive "every" position on the downside. I used a patch antenna on two flights that improved the plotting on the software I was using. I will have to figure out if the software which EggTimer/Cris Cerving has nothing to do with and I'm using on my own volition, is the issue. I had indications through the EggFinder LCD beeping, I had positions coming in but again they weren't all plotted. There were enough positions on my map to tell me where to look. If the tracker is transmitting, one will be able to
find it once within the ground footprint. I found with the Yagi the ground footprint was over 1/4 mile radius.

With one flight to 4900 feet that was completely sight unseen, the patch antenna had a lock from lift off to touchdown. The chute fouled in the protector with the JLCR and didn't come out of the protector hence, the chute wasn't seen on descent.
Would have seen the rocket if the chute was out. Everyone was looking to the East where the rocket went and disappeared and the wind was blowing to the northeast. Rocket gyrated around and the winds aloft were different and the rocket
came overhead on the mapping software and come down towards the West. I asked them to turn and look in the direction the patch antenna was pointed. It was easy for me to keep the antenna oriented to the rocket by looking on the map. The last plotted position said 1100' which seemed too high but the EggFinder was still alive beeping positions. I stuck the Yagi on just in case and walked out to the recovery site. (The patch is on a 10 foot pole and it pretty heavy to go portable.)
The rocket and tracker were fine. The package deployed and the protector was partially unrolled since the Jolly Logic chute release worked fine. I have to tape the protector on the harness closer to the open end of the sustainer next time
so the chute package gets completely free from the protector.

I am still convinced the EggFinders are an excellent choice for a sport flier and I'm equally convinced that a cheap ebay 900Mhz Yagi antenna which is hand"holdable" is perfect to increase the ground footprint when one goes out for recovery.

Nate's comment about the EggFinder flying in a balloon is commendable but again with the dynamics of a rocket flight ie. the speed on ascent and the random flopping around on descent with changes in antenna polarity, the reporting stream is not so steady. A balloon is a heck of a steady platform. I drive around with an EggFinder in the car and it plots every single position that comes in.

The Marshall tracker LOS I believe is from a bird in flight with no obstructions. I would not expect 40 miles on the ground from a tracker so small. If an extreme project had the room one, could consider a low powered GPS and a Marshall tracker. If you get some positions on descent from the GPS, it could serve as an initial trend line to follow especially if one loses their bearing with their RDF tracker. Proceed in that direction to reacquire an RDF bearing.
Of course, even with an extreme flight, if one gets a visual of the rocket on descent, that's half the battle no matter what Rf tracking device they are using. Things get dicey with the completely sight unseen flights.

If you plan on RDF after you get your Ham license I suspect you might be gravitating to the Beeline RDF trackers on 70cm? If so, you'll need a handitalkie with a true signal strength meter, a Yagi antenna for the band you're using
and an attenuator. The attenuator link I posted above of Marvin West is very economical. If you study for the Ham ticket you can read up on Fox hunting and that will give you an edge with RDF tracking. Best of luck

Kurt

manixFan said:

(Edited for brevity)I personally know of several flights that had GPS trackers that either went way off course or came in ballistic and were never found. So I could argue that GPS is no guarantee either.

And I'd much rather lose a $125 transmitter than a GPS unit costing 2X or more as much.

Nothing wrong with GPS but in my personal experience and many observations it's as fallible as any other tracking method. At BALLS this year my BRB GPS unit failed on 2 flights so if I had relied solely on it for tracking I would have been out of luck. But I had backup beacons in each flight and was able to recover the rockets.


Tony

Click to expand...

Yes, no guarantee but if one gets some positions on a ballistic descent, one stands a much better chance of finding the remains. The strategy of two trackers is very good. I've seen Beeline GPS trackers fail when the battery cable is sheared off.
Last Saturday, I had an RDF lithium battery fail. I charged it but didn't put it on a cycler/discharger to test. Battery died at the launchsite before flight. Fortunately the rocket was a shakedown to test out my long dormant RDF skills. The Flis Star Lord with three E9-8's was only simmed to 1900' so I flew it anyways to a nice recovery within sight. I knew the tracker wasn't "really" needed and the Jolly Logic Chute Release did its job at 800'. Kurt

SkidmarkMonster said:

Hello everyone,
I'm currently certified as a junior level 1 for NAR. I want to build an altitude buster but all my designs I came up with need dual deployment. I already have considered jolly logic's chute release but have decided against it as there is no redundancy. I know that minors are restricted from the use of altimeter DD but I was wandering if I would be able to do it if I had adult supervision while I did it. Please let me know what I can do with this and thank you in advanced.

Click to expand...

firesalto said:

Hi skidmark I am too a junior L1. You are definetly allowed to do DD with a junior. You may have heard that you can't but that is just because you are not allowed to handle the black powder ejection charges since you are a minor. But you can have all the electronics set up in your rocket but at the launch have an adult handle the black powder charges. You are definetly allowed to use electronic DD with only a junior L1 in NAR. I'll be glad to help answer any other questions you have on DD or the legal rules of a junior L1 and I'm sure others will be glad to as well.

Click to expand...

FWIW you are technically incorrect. NAR Jr. L1 participants are not allowed to use any electronic deployment system that uses regulated external BP charges.

https://www.nar.org/high-power-rocketry-info/

https://www.nar.org/high-power-rocketry-info/formal-participation-procedure/

As a minor, you can not be legally certified as a level 1 flier due to federal CPSC hazardous material restrictions. In order to expand the opportunities available to Junior and Leader members of NAR, the Jr. HPR Participation Program is offered to Junior/Leader members ages 14 through 17 so that they may fly H and I class motors. The Level 1 Junior/Leader HPR participation program will follow the same basic procedure used for the HPR certification for Senior NAR members. However due to legal restrictions pertaining to the purchase and possession of high power rocket motors, ejection charges and related items, there are additional requirements. The qualification flight and all future flights must be single deployment only. This is due to regulatory requirements of ejection charges used in dual deployment systems. On board electronic devices are permitted as long as they are not used for deployment.

The qualified Junior HPP flier must continue to have a sponsor as the flier of record for all subsequent HP flights and the sponsor is required to follow the same rules listed for qualification (ie: the sponsor must continue to handle the motor for all subsequent flights.) This requirement expires once the Junior HPP flier reaches the full member legal age of 18, when they legally can be granted L1 status.

However it is somewhat of a moot point as flier of record must be a HP certified NAR Senior Member who is allowed to use electronic ejection.....

bobkrech said:

FWIW you are technically incorrect. NAR Jr. L1 participants are not allowed to use any electronic deployment system that uses regulated external BP charges.

https://www.nar.org/high-power-rocketry-info/

https://www.nar.org/high-power-rocketry-info/formal-participation-procedure/

As a minor, you can not be legally certified as a level 1 flier due to federal CPSC hazardous material restrictions. In order to expand the opportunities available to Junior and Leader members of NAR, the Jr. HPR Participation Program is offered to Junior/Leader members ages 14 through 17 so that they may fly H and I class motors. The Level 1 Junior/Leader HPR participation program will follow the same basic procedure used for the HPR certification for Senior NAR members. However due to legal restrictions pertaining to the purchase and possession of high power rocket motors, ejection charges and related items, there are additional requirements. The qualification flight and all future flights must be single deployment only. This is due to regulatory requirements of ejection charges used in dual deployment systems. On board electronic devices are permitted as long as they are not used for deployment.

The qualified Junior HPP flier must continue to have a sponsor as the flier of record for all subsequent HP flights and the sponsor is required to follow the same rules listed for qualification (ie: the sponsor must continue to handle the motor for all subsequent flights.) This requirement expires once the Junior HPP flier reaches the full member legal age of 18, when they legally can be granted L1 status.

However it is somewhat of a moot point as flier of record must be a HP certified NAR Senior Member who is allowed to use electronic ejection.....

Click to expand...

I think the bottom line is if a talented young person forms a relationship with a certified/rated mentor, as long as the mentor does the flight card a talented young persons project is flyable. The mentor can deal with the charges and put them in the rocket.

Now this is outside of the junior program I know and doesn't mean anything to either organization but a young person will have a leg up on certifying when they reach 18 when they legally can do so. Nothing wrong with acquiring skills with the help of
an older mentor/flier.

Wasn't there a young man who did L1 through L3 certs in one day when he hit 18? Had acquired experience at a young age and was successful all at once. Kurt Savegnago

bobkrech said:

FWIW you are technically incorrect. NAR Jr. L1 participants are not allowed to use any electronic deployment system that uses regulated external BP charges.

https://www.nar.org/high-power-rocketry-info/

https://www.nar.org/high-power-rocketry-info/formal-participation-procedure/

As a minor, you can not be legally certified as a level 1 flier due to federal CPSC hazardous material restrictions. In order to expand the opportunities available to Junior and Leader members of NAR, the Jr. HPR Participation Program is offered to Junior/Leader members ages 14 through 17 so that they may fly H and I class motors. The Level 1 Junior/Leader HPR participation program will follow the same basic procedure used for the HPR certification for Senior NAR members. However due to legal restrictions pertaining to the purchase and possession of high power rocket motors, ejection charges and related items, there are additional requirements. The qualification flight and all future flights must be single deployment only. This is due to regulatory requirements of ejection charges used in dual deployment systems. On board electronic devices are permitted as long as they are not used for deployment.

The qualified Junior HPP flier must continue to have a sponsor as the flier of record for all subsequent HP flights and the sponsor is required to follow the same rules listed for qualification (ie: the sponsor must continue to handle the motor for all subsequent flights.) This requirement expires once the Junior HPP flier reaches the full member legal age of 18, when they legally can be granted L1 status.

However it is somewhat of a moot point as flier of record must be a HP certified NAR Senior Member who is allowed to use electronic ejection.....

Click to expand...

Just to add some clarification to what Bob said:

Jr L1 is a NAR only program which requires building and flying. Bob copied the NAR rules right from the NAR website, and It's very clear, traditional Dual Deployment is not allowed.

Motor deployment with a Jolly Logic Chute release looks like it might be questionable because of the wording I highlighted above. The Chute Release is a new innovation. The rule above was written BEFORE Jolly Logic came out with this new product.

Hey Bob Krech - do you know who I should write to - to see about getting the wording changed to make it clear that the Chute Release is allowed for JR L1 Cert flights?

Hey Bob Krech - do you know who I should write to - to see about getting the wording changed to make it clear that the Chute Release is allowed for JR L1 Cert flights?

Click to expand...

I'm not Bob but try here: https://www.nar.org/about-nar/organization-contacts/

I don't think NAR will have any issue with the chute release. No pyrotechnics involved and indeed it is single deployment. It's just the computer releases the chute at a pre-determined altitude after it's out.
They might tell you the device is fine and the wording doesn't need to be changed. Though, it would be easy to add wording that an electro-mechanical or non-pyrotechic chute release is acceptable.

Kurt

ksaves2 said:

I think the bottom line is if a talented young person forms a relationship with a certified/rated mentor, as long as the mentor does the flight card a talented young persons project is flyable. The mentor can deal with the charges and put them in the rocket.

Now this is outside of the junior program I know and doesn't mean anything to either organization but a young person will have a leg up on certifying when they reach 18 when they legally can do so. Nothing wrong with acquiring skills with the help of
an older mentor/flier.

Wasn't there a young man who did L1 through L3 certs in one day when he hit 18? Had acquired experience at a young age and was successful all at once. Kurt Savegnago

Click to expand...

There is a game of semantics here.

1. Federal law prohibits a minor to possess or use high power rocket motors so legally an minor can not become a certified high power. The same federal law prohibits a minor to use reloadable motors or use black powder.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrie...&mc=true&r=PART&n=pt16.2.1500#se16.2.1500_185

§1500.85 Exemptions from classification as banned hazardous substances.(a) The term banned hazardous substances as used in section 2(q)(1)(A) of the act shall not apply to the following articles provided that these articles bear labeling giving adequate directions and warnings for safe use:

(8) Model rocket propellant devices designed for use in light-weight, recoverable, and reflyable model rockets, provided such devices:
(i) Are designed to be ignited by electrical means.
(ii) Contain no more than 62.5 grams (2.2 ounces) of propellant material and produce less than 80 newton-seconds (17.92 pound seconds) of total impulse with thrust duration not less than 0.050 second.
(iii) Are constructed such that all the chemical ingredients are preloaded into a cylindrical paper or similarly constructed nonmetallic tube that will not fragment into sharp, hard pieces.
(iv) Are designed so that they will not burst under normal conditions of use, are incapable of spontaneous ignition, and do not contain any type of explosive or pyrotechnic warhead other than a small parachute or recovery-system activation charge.
(9) Separate delay train and/or recovery system activation devices intended for use with premanufactured model rocket engines wherein all of the chemical ingredients are preloaded so the user does not handle any chemical ingredient and are so designed that the main casing or container does not rupture during operation.

2. The NAR work-around to permit Junior and Leader NAR members to build and use high power rockets is the NAR Junior High Power Participation Program. (TMT has a similar program.) In this program, the junior member can build the rocket, but a high power certified NAR member used assemble and load the high power motor and ejection charges, and be listed as the flier of record for the flight. Since many L1 rockets can be flown on single use model rocket motors which are not restricted for use by minors, the rocket must designed to use motor ejection as minors can not handle BP, and NAR Jr. L1 high power participation certification program prohibits external pyrotechnic deployments.

3. These rules make it legally possible for NAR junior members to learn about high power rocketry, and when the Junior L1 high power participant becomes 18, his membership is automatically upgraded to the L1 cert status.

There have been cases of a L1-L2-L3 certification in one day on turning 18 before the NAR Junior High Power Participation program, however NAR will not allow it today. You need to have L3CC design approval for your L3 cert rocket but you can not get it before you are L2 certified.