NFPA vs. mass launches

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
NFPA 1127 4.16.3.3 Paraphrasing to avoid copyright infringement:

When 3 or more rockets are launched the minimum safe distance shall be twice the value in table 4.16.3 for a complex rocket of the same total installed impulse.

thanks for the quote. Don't get me started on how stupid it is to have rules, but the rule book is secret.
 
The wording has changed in 1127-2018.


No it hasn't.

The NFPA Pyrotechnic Committee voted to add a rule for mass launches to the 2013 edition that treated them the same as the launch of a complex rocket of the same total impulse. Sometime between when they approved that and when it was published, the word "twice" slipped in doubling the required distance. There is a TIA in process now that would remove "twice". It should really have been fixed with an errata but this is the way they decided to go.
 
No it hasn't.

The NFPA Pyrotechnic Committee voted to add a rule for mass launches to the 2013 edition that treated them the same as the launch of a complex rocket of the same total impulse. Sometime between when they approved that and when it was published, the word "twice" slipped in doubling the required distance. There is a TIA in process now that would remove "twice". It should really have been fixed with an errata but this is the way they decided to go.

So is it too late to have them add wording to clarify total impulse means all motors, and change " double" to "triple" ?
 
No it hasn't.

The NFPA Pyrotechnic Committee voted to add a rule for mass launches to the 2013 edition that treated them the same as the launch of a complex rocket of the same total impulse. Sometime between when they approved that and when it was published, the word "twice" slipped in doubling the required distance. There is a TIA in process now that would remove "twice". It should really have been fixed with an errata but this is the way they decided to go.

So until the TIA gets published then mass launches have to be flown at 2x the complex distance of the total impulse of the launch right or not? Or mass launches high power rockets will be effectively at 1000 to 2000 feet, which is not going to happen.
 
So until the TIA gets published then mass launches have to be flown at 2x the complex distance of the total impulse of the launch right or not?

That is what NFPA 1127 currently requires. The TIA has been published but it hasn't been voted on yet. As I stated at the start of this conflagration, NFPA is accepting comments on the removal of "twice" until 23 March.
 
So is it too late to have them add wording to clarify total impulse means all motors, and change " double" to "triple" ?

No, it's not too late to petition NFPA for a rule change, or to ask that rocketry launches be restricted to one single launch at a time. If that's really what you think would be best, you should do that.
Or maybe you could just start with your local club to see if they will prohibit drag races as a local rule, and then from that base try to influence other clubs or propose a rule change to Tripoli.

I can see there are some folks here that agree with you, and some disagree. Perhaps start with your local club, and see what kind of traction you get, and go form there.

... I should probably add to clarify, I'm all for drag races. I have seen a few large high-power drag races at big regional or national launches. I like them.
 
Last edited:
Indy insured clubs may not require this but Indy insurance doesn't cover the individual flyer. So yeah, if you have little net worth and are willing to lose that, I can see you wanting to participate in mass drag races.

Good luck winning that case. Assumed risk by an injured plaintiff would be a slam dunk defense strategy. I would be surprised if my pretrial motion to dismiss was denied in a case like this. You throw any tort claim out the window simply by showing up to a launch.
Just because we have evolved into such a litigious society doesn't mean everyone who sues wins. Then again, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants proves frivolous litigation can be profitable.
 
Good luck winning that case. Assumed risk by an injured plaintiff would be a slam dunk defense strategy. I would be surprised if my pretrial motion to dismiss was denied in a case like this. You throw any tort claim out the window simply by showing up to a launch.
Just because we have evolved into such a litigious society doesn't mean everyone who sues wins. Then again, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants proves frivolous litigation can be profitable.

On they McDonald's case... I highly recommend the documentary "Hot Coffee"... It's revealing
 
That is what NFPA 1127 currently requires. The TIA has been published but it hasn't been voted on yet. As I stated at the start of this conflagration, NFPA is accepting comments on the removal of "twice" until 23 March.

NFPA has quite a process which I'm still learning. The TIA has been published because the word "twice" was somehow accidentally added in a previous ballot. If the TIA passes, the word "twice" will be removed from the 2018 version, reducing the safe distance to the distance in the complex table.

I would urge all interested parties to comment quickly, clearly, and politely using the information on the NFPA site. Comments here are not meaningful to the NFPA process.



Steve Shannon
 
Last edited:
Good luck winning that case. Assumed risk by an injured plaintiff would be a slam dunk defense strategy. I would be surprised if my pretrial motion to dismiss was denied in a case like this. You throw any tort claim out the window simply by showing up to a launch.
Just because we have evolved into such a litigious society doesn't mean everyone who sues wins. Then again, Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants proves frivolous litigation can be profitable.

the presentation of safety and claims of such in most literature distributed about events and by both organizations, along with any claim of negligence would carry a case pretty well.

Also, the claims are fear are from dropping a rocket on a road or into a non participant. You drop one on a farmhand or on a highway and forget it, you're cooked.
 
Just because we have evolved into such a litigious society doesn't mean everyone who sues wins.

No but you have to defend. And the insurance company isn't paying for that.

And I am not sure assumed risk applies if the defendant is in violation of law, regulation or code. Which will be easy to prove in this case if the launch is from close in.

PS. I enjoy watching drag races also, I appreciate the participants risking their net worth to put the show on for me.
 
Last edited:
No it hasn't.

The NFPA Pyrotechnic Committee voted to add a rule for mass launches to the 2013 edition that treated them the same as the launch of a complex rocket of the same total impulse. Sometime between when they approved that and when it was published, the word "twice" slipped in doubling the required distance. There is a TIA in process now that would remove "twice". It should really have been fixed with an errata but this is the way they decided to go.

It wasn't clear from ballot and meeting notes whether addition of word "twice" was an actual error or intended change. So the technical committee is handling it as a TIA. It's a very conservative process (as I suspect you understand better than I do) with more acronyms than I've ever experienced. I come from a background working with FERC, NERC, and WECC standards applying to energy transmission and cyber security, and a few hours into my first meeting I was wondering if I was smart enough to learn all the acronyms.


Steve Shannon
 
thanks for the quote. Don't get me started on how stupid it is to have rules, but the rule book is secret.

It's not secret. There is a cost if you wish to purchase a copy of each standard. It's no different than the National Electrical Code in that respect, but it's very easy to access for free if you don't want to shell out the money.
Also, Tripoli Rocketry Association purchased a copy of NFPA 1127 for each Prefecture.



Steve Shannon
 
This is flawed logic. It assumes watching 15 rockets makes it safe. The argument is that even if everyone is watching, having that many rockets is not safe because you cant track them all.

Whatever happens in a single launch is totally irrelevant to this point.


The arguments of "It's fun" and "you can't tell me what to do" are now being ignored.... as they hold no validity in a safety discussion.

My goal is to get people talking and thinking. There have been some scary incidents. how can we make that better?

and thanks!

I agree with about 90% of what you're advocating, but you're making it really hard to agree with you. If you want to get people talking and thinking, you have to listen and respect their point of view. Several people on this thread (including me) have proposed relatively simple changes that would address known safety problems, but I don't think you've commented on any of those. It's hard to see that you really want a discussion. Like many people said, this is a hobby and people do it to have fun. Some people skydive or bungee jump or pop wheelies on their motorcycles at highway speed. I think those are all nuts, but I'm not going to tell them they can't, even though they may put my life an at extremely small additional risk.

This is an extremely safe hobby overall. Yes, there are ways to make it better, and we should think about it. However, we should also think about the things that bring people to the hobby. Mass launches may be one of those.

Also, for the MASS LAUNCHES 4EVAH! crowd (sorry, couldn't help myself :blush:), I do think that you should recognize the issues that have been seen. I like CZTeacherMan's approach in this, and his running of a safe mass launch. In other proposals, I would actually much prefer to require everyone to be out of tents/RVs/parking lot and up at the flight line watching than ask them to leave if they feel unsafe.

As far as stats, I've only seen one "mass" launch, of 3 upscale Mad Maxes. One shredded on the way up, which I believe would have been prevented by flying on that size motor before. Thinking back, I don't think any parts landed in the spectator area. So, failure of 1/3 with relatively low risk in a sample size of one. For other comparable launches, I would say that HPR was pretty safe (ie all parts within the safe distance, most failures were CATOs), but MPR launches had about 1/50 or so that went seriously unsafe, with a CATO or ballistic into the spectator area.
 
It's not secret. There is a cost if you wish to purchase a copy of each standard. It's no different than the National Electrical Code in that respect, but it's very easy to access for free if you don't want to shell out the money.
Also, Tripoli Rocketry Association purchased a copy of NFPA 1127 for each Prefecture.



Steve Shannon

having to buy laws is just wrong in all aspects.
 
I agree with about 90% of what you're advocating, but you're making it really hard to agree with you. If you want to get people talking and thinking, you have to listen and respect their point of view. Several people on this thread (including me) have proposed relatively simple changes that would address known safety problems, but I don't think you've commented on any of those. It's hard to see that you really want a discussion. Like many people said, this is a hobby and people do it to have fun. Some people skydive or bungee jump or pop wheelies on their motorcycles at highway speed. I think those are all nuts, but I'm not going to tell them they can't, even though they may put my life an at extremely small additional risk.
.

This honestly started as a troll and turned serious, so it's not all fluid. ;)

I'd be happy seeing a little more caution taken, and less recklessness.

As for guys stunting on highways, I ride motorcycles and I think anyone blowing down the road doing wheelies should be shot ;).
 
having to buy laws is just wrong in all aspects.

Anyone can access NFPA 1127 online freely, so I'm not sure what your complaint is.
All laws cost money to make. If your representatives make them the cost ends up in your tax base, and you end up with laws made by people who are not necessarily experts in the affected activities or who have a different perspective than the people affected by the laws.
NFPA doesn't make laws. They provide a process by which interested representatives create standards which are generally considered good enough to be adopted as law by various AHJ's. NFPA has to recoup the cost somehow. Once adopted, the law is public domain, so maybe your complaint is with whatever AHJ has adopted NFPA 1127 in your area.
Would you rather each AHJ writes its own regulations regarding rocketry?


Steve Shannon
 
Last edited:
Anyone can access NFPA 1127 online freely, so I'm not sure what your complaint is.
All laws cost money to make. If your representatives make them the cost ends up in your tax base, and you end up with laws made by people who are not necessarily experts in the affected activities or who have a different perspective than the people affected by the laws.
NFPA doesn't make laws. They provide a process by which interested representatives create standards which are generally considered good enough to be adopted as law by various AHJ's. NFPA has to recoup the cost somehow. Once adopted, the law is public domain, so maybe your complaint is with whatever AHJ has adopted NFPA 1127 in your area.
Would you rather each AHJ writes its own regulations regarding rocketry?


Steve Shannon

There is an understatement

M
 
Forgoing our process of government and giving power to those running industry, just because it "works better" is stupidity. But people seem to like what's easy, so whatever.

Id rather have no NFPA or laws, believe it or not.

although, wouldn't it be cool if Remington could write all the gun laws? Man why even have a congress?
 
Last edited:
Would you rather each AHJ writes its own regulations regarding rocketry?

Indiana is one of the few states that does not adopt NFPA 1127. They list it as reference but say it is not enforced in the state.

675 IAC 22-2.2-26 NFPA 1126; use of pyrotechnics before a proximate audience
Authority: IC 22-11-14.5-3; IC 22-13-2-2; IC 22-13-2-13
Affected: IC 22-11-14-4; IC 22-12; IC 22-13; IC 22-14
Sec. 26. (a) That certain document, being titled the NFPA 1126, Standard for the Use of Pyrotechnics before a Proximate
Audience, 2001 edition, published by the National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, Massachusetts 02269,
is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set out in this rule save and except those revisions made in this rule.
(b) Thisrule is available for reference and reviewat the Fire and Building ServicesDepartment,Indiana GovernmentCenterSouth,
402 West Washington Street, W246, Indianapolis, Indiana 46204.
(c) NFPA 10, NFPA 101, NFPA 160, NFPA 495, NFPA 1122, NFPA 1123, NFPA 1125, and NFPA 1127 are:
(1) not adopted;
(2) not enforceable; and
(3) referenced for informational purposes only.

When asked why it wasn't adopted, the answer given was "who is going to enforce those rules?"

-Aaron
 
So what is the actual logic behind the "Twice the distance for a complex rocket of the same total impulse" rule in the first place? (Assuming your goal is to generate reasonable safety, and not merely make it so impractical as to be effectively impossible to follow)

I think the reasoning behind the minimum safe distance needs to be considered - my understanding was that it was to minimize chance of injury in a CATO. Which makes sense. Those really do scale up relative to the size of the rocket motor. I've also heard justifications of "lets you get out of the way faster" and "bigger rockets do more damage", but these make less sense. The takeoff speed of a rocket (and thus your ability to dodge it) doesn't scale simply with size of the rocket or motor. Nor does the likelihood of the rocket coming down ballistic outside the range - that has more to do with max altitude (and the reliability of recovery of course). And yeah, big rockets can do more damage, but any high power rocket is large enough to be a dangerous projectile.

So considering mass launches. For a mass launch, a CATO of any individual rocket (or even all of them at once) doesn't act like one big CATO of the total impulse size. It acts like a CATO of the individual rocket(s) involved. For CATO hazard, the extra minimum safe distance is not necessary (assuming the individual launch safe distance is adequate to begin with).

The other hazards can (and SHOULD!) be addressed by proper RSO and LCO procedures. Except in cases of really rare anomalies, no rockets should leave the safe landing zone at any point in flight (blase acceptance of rockets recovering over spectators is probably the number 1 ignored safety hazard). No LCO should be launching when there is a high likelihood of conditions that will take the rocket off the safe field. And no properly RSO'd rocket should shred except in case of motor failure (particularly if it's a previously flown rocket).

So if all rockets are launched in a configuration that will land them on the safe recovery field, and all rockets are properly prepped and constructed, there is no "exponential" hazard of mass launches (there is an "additive" hazard, in that 10 simultaneous launches have at least the same total hazard as 10 individual launches). Additional hazard ONLY occurs when rockets shred or leave the field - but those things shouldn't be happening in the first place, even for individual rockets!

Honestly, yeah I've seen YouTube videos of near misses in mass launches. But I've also seen near misses in individual launches, and if you cut out the part of the video showing the multiple take offs, the individual near misses look identical. Almost every near miss is a recovery failure or a heavy rocket under chute descending into the crowd. These are things that shouldn't be happening in the first place, and are just as likely for individual launches.

If you're going to posit an exponential hazard growth, rather than additive, there needs to be a unique failure mode for mass launches. The only one I can think of is "ballistic rocket that you would have otherwise been able to see and dodge hits you while you're looking at another rocket". How likely is that to occur if all the other rules are followed? How much more likely is it than an individual rocket hitting you simply because you were prepping a rocket,looking at your phone, or otherwise just not able to see it even when warned?

Ultimately I do think we need to anchor it to data. And that's the question that should be answered - is the hazard of mass launches additive or exponential? If I do a 10 rocket mass launch, is the hazard 10x one rocket (i.e. the same as launching 10 in sequence)? 20x? 100x?And if unique hazards are introduced by mass launches, can they be mitigated?If the data shows it as an additive hazard, I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to continue.

Of course the other big question is "how safe is safe enough"? That also must be quantified. Obviously the safest launch is one that never happens, or one where even the Baby Berthas are on 1000ft away pads. So clearly, we are accepting of some risk. That needs to be weighed soberly, and often the intuition of "that looks really crazy" vs."that seems safe" can steer us wrong. You need data and some math.
 
Last edited:
Very nicely put. I do see some obstacles. The rarity of mass launches compared to single launches makes good data hard to get. But without any numbers, it's all just words on a page here, I agree.

I do do think it is exponentially dangerous compared to a single launch failure, based on the belief it's safer to watch and track s single rocket, than having many in the air.

I think some drags are more prone to failure. If you mitigate that by requiring the rocket to have flown before on a similar motor, I think you can expect the same failure rate in drags or individual. It then comes down to the idea that at some number of rockets, you're likely to have at least one fail. You can't know which and can't watch them all. That's my issue with it, safety wise.

Id love to have data from every flight to compare, but how to get it?
 
Last edited:
Sure: Safe Launch Practices. I quoted from the Tripoli Research Safety Code which ought to be authoritative. Are you claiming that it isn't?

The Safe Launch Practices document includes the rules for:
A. Model Rocket mass launches, section II.E, which is from NFPA 1122,
B. High Power mass launches (commercial), section II.F, from NFPA 1127, and
C. Research mass launches, section III.E, which Tripoli created.
All are different.
 
Man, this thread is like cat-nip. I just can't help myself from commenting.

My hero Aristotle says balance is key. We have to balance safety with fun.

And it's definitely not easy:

"Anybody can become angry - that is easy, but to be angry with the right
person and to the right degree and at the right time and for the right
purpose, and in the right way - that is not within everybody's power
and is not easy.
"

Aristotle

What is a safe distance? My take: Far enough away that a ballistic rocket
is not likely to land near the flight line. I've seen "multi-rocket" launches where
two rockets came in ballistic. One (closely) behind the fight line. In this case it was
a fiberglass rocket and the rear of the fins where just barely above the ground.
And they wouldn't have been visible except that the impact made a shallow crater.
(The fins were below grade level)

I'm not a statistician, but that means to me that the distance was not far
enough for "not likely".
 
Back
Top