WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ANTI-DRAGRACE SENTIMENT???

madcow rocketry
rocket sok
Wildman Rocketry
The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
markkoelsch said:
Al, all joking aside having actual data on how far fragments can fly would not be a bad thing to have. Actual data wins.

The issue becomes one of methodology. How do you actually conduct a burst test safely? I would love to hear ideas on that.
Click to expand...

Trip Barber, I believe, did an analysis for cato safe distances years ago. I couldn't find a reference to it.

As was mentioned here, real data may show us we're really too close. This would definitely be true for fragmenting casings.

Over the past 25+ years in HPR, and 15+ in "ex", I have seen many close calls, both commercial and research. An H cato at 100ft at eye level was another case of "playing the odds".
 
Thank you Steve for getting involved and fielding questions.

Thank you all for the feedback - whether I agree or disagree. I have learned early on you can't make everyone happy.

I am always a phone call or email away where I can bring topics up at BOD meetings.
Gerald Meux, Jr.
602-472-5869
[email protected]
 
jsdemar said:
Trip Barber, I believe, did an analysis for cato safe distances years ago. I couldn't find a reference to it.

As was mentioned here, real data may show us we're really too close. This would definitely be true for fragmenting casings.

Over the past 25+ years in HPR, and 15+ in "ex", I have seen many close calls, both commercial and research. An H cato at 100ft at eye level was another case of "playing the odds".
Click to expand...

I lobbed a 5" graphite nozzle over a 1/4 mile when a vertical test of an O motor didn't go as planned. Still can remember that black dot sailing across the sky.

John
 
Johnly said:
I lobbed a 5" graphite nozzle over a 1/4 mile when a vertical test of an O motor didn't go as planned. Still can remember that black dot sailing across the sky.

John
Click to expand...

John, that motor at least failed in a longitudinal manner by launching the nozzle vertically. Did the case rupture sending shrapnel flying though?
 
Steve Shannon said:
We don't, Al, but that's not a bad idea at all.
Something to remember though is that changes to our safety codes are usually externally driven by NFPA changes or events that could affect our ability to acquire insurance. So even if we collect input from our members we may be forced by circumstances to make changes that are contrary to popular opinion. That's never going to sit well, especially for emotional subjects, but we cannot escape it.
Click to expand...

Who drove the NFPA changes? So how do mass launch distances increase fire prevention? I really have to throw the WTF flag on that BS!
 
Not meaning to derail, but following up on an earlier post.

If I let me Tripoli membership expire but renew within one year, I maintain my cert. level.

What I read earlier is that this is not the case with NAR. If I had a NAR membership and let it expire I maintain my cert.

If this is the case, it sounds like cheap insurance to become a NAR member for one year.

I get, and agree maintaining currency is important, just verifying this is correct???
 
BayouRat said:
Who drove the NFPA changes? So how do mass launch distances increase fire prevention? I really have to throw the WTF flag on that BS!
Click to expand...

That, my young Jedi, is the $64,000 question. Why would the NFPA even know about them unless it was brought up by our representatives there? Same for sparky motors and small motors that do not fit the standard for a "model rocket" motor.
 
BayouRat said:
Who drove the NFPA changes? So how do mass launch distances increase fire prevention? I really have to throw the WTF flag on that BS!
Click to expand...

Changes to NFPA 1122, 1125, or 1127 can be proposed by almost anyone, NFPA member or not; the process is well documented.
You can do your own research if you really want answers to your question about who drove changes.
I was there when we reduced the distance by half, but not when the rule was initially created. Tripoli asked me and Ken Good to be alternate and primary on the Technical Committee in Fall of 2016.



Steve Shannon
 
Last edited:
H_Rocket said:
That, my young Jedi, is the $64,000 question. Why would the NFPA even know about them unless it was brought up by our representatives there? Same for sparky motors and small motors that do not fit the standard for a "model rocket" motor.
Click to expand...

So are you saying that we should never make recommendations that improve the overall safety of our hobby? Or that we should hide the fact that sparky motors can start fires?
This seems to have taken a strange turn.
Our purpose as an organization is to contribute to safety, not enable irresponsible acts. By participating in the NFPA process we engage in self-regulation and avoid unilateral government regulations of the sort experienced elsewhere.


Steve Shannon
 
Last edited:
Steve Shannon said:
So are you saying that we should never make recommendations that improve the overall safety of our hobby? Or that we should hide the fact that sparky motors can start fires?
This seems to have taken a strange turn.
Our purpose as an organization is to contribute to safety, not enable irresponsible acts. By participating in the NFPA process we engage in self-regulation and avoid unilateral government regulations of the sort experienced elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Not in the least.

What I am saying is that I believe the leadership of the organization chose to steer what they felt was a safety driven initiative that affected a wide cross section of flyers without engaging the membership. No, I do not think there needed to be a "vote", however I do expect our opinions to be represented. What happened is it was presented as a fait accompli - and essentially dialed into law without letting the rank and file present their opinions. Yes sparky motors cause fires. Yes, they probably represent a greater possibility as they show that risk when working as designed (other motors not so much unless they fail). I feel the sparky motor reference is a bit of a red herring possibly driven by the wording of my comment. By casting the net the way it was, I have to treat an F120 VMax Or a G80 hybrid as HPR motors. Why? Because they do not fit an arbitrary definition that is decades out of date. My argument is the leadership needs to stop doing what they think is best so much and find ways to engage the membership. I would think our organizational leadership would be moving to evolve the the codes as it applies to the evolving state of our hobby as opposed to what I perceive as knee jerk reactions to situations.

Yes, changes to the relevant sections of the NFPA codes can be presented by most anyone. My thesis was that nobody except someone in rocketry would have proposed those changes. I may well be wrong, however I have a hard time believing someone from the fire protection community would have had the information or interest to do so.

As to telling us to look it up, why should we have to? If it was openly discussed beforehand, there would not be all the wondering. Or if there was a place we could review the actions of our leadership in shaping what is essentially law we could see what drove them to make decisions that are that widespread.

Just my $0.02 and , of course, YMMV.
 
I disagree this affected a wide cross section of fliers. Very few people drag race, and those that do mostly
do it infrequently.
 
You are correct. However this discussion has wandered a bit and, as I see it, also brings to light the way we create rules in the interest of safety.
 
H_Rocket said:
You are correct. However this discussion has wandered a bit and, as I see it, also brings to light the way we create rules in the interest of safety.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said for you or Whitney to look it up. The rules which drive our Safety Codes are NFPA 1122, 1125, or 1127. The NFPA changes are done with well documented submissions followed by two voting cycles and invitations for the public to comment
Some of your latest complaints had to do with the inclusion of high average thrust motors in the HPR category. That was done at least as far back as 2001, before v-max was even a thing. Sparky motors were added later, when you and I were both on Rocketry Planet, but the history, including who submitted and who voted which way, is all available at the NFPA website.
If you think that definition should change, do the legwork to come up with a proposal with documentation showing why it's the right thing.

Steve Shannon
 
Last edited:
H_Rocket said:
Not in the least.

What I am saying is that I believe the leadership of the organization chose to steer what they felt was a safety driven initiative that affected a wide cross section of flyers without engaging the membership. No, I do not think there needed to be a "vote", however I do expect our opinions to be represented. What happened is it was presented as a fait accompli - and essentially dialed into law without letting the rank and file present their opinions. Yes sparky motors cause fires. Yes, they probably represent a greater possibility as they show that risk when working as designed (other motors not so much unless they fail). I feel the sparky motor reference is a bit of a red herring possibly driven by the wording of my comment. By casting the net the way it was, I have to treat an F120 VMax Or a G80 hybrid as HPR motors. Why? Because they do not fit an arbitrary definition that is decades out of date. My argument is the leadership needs to stop doing what they think is best so much and find ways to engage the membership. I would think our organizational leadership would be moving to evolve the the codes as it applies to the evolving state of our hobby as opposed to what I perceive as knee jerk reactions to situations.

Yes, changes to the relevant sections of the NFPA codes can be presented by most anyone. My thesis was that nobody except someone in rocketry would have proposed those changes. I may well be wrong, however I have a hard time believing someone from the fire protection community would have had the information or interest to do so.

As to telling us to look it up, why should we have to? If it was openly discussed beforehand, there would not be all the wondering. Or if there was a place we could review the actions of our leadership in shaping what is essentially law we could see what drove them to make decisions that are that widespread.

Just my $0.02 and , of course, YMMV.
Click to expand...



The rule is intended to keep them from being sold "over the counter" to anybody that wants them. I don't think our leadership had much to say about that. We don't want kids playing with motors that are of that type.

Under NFPA Code 1127, “high power motors”–motors above ‘G’ power class, and any motor whose average thrust is above 80 Newtons –may be sold to or possessed by only a “certified user” (see the “user certification” heading below). One requirement for becoming such a user is to be age 18 or older. User Certification NFPA Code 1127–and the safety codes of both the NAR and TRA–require that “high power motors” be sold to or possessed by only a certified user. This certification may be granted by a “nationally recognized organization” to people who demonstrate competence and knowledge in handling, storing, and using such motors. Currently only the NAR and TRA offer this certification service. Each organization has slightly different standards and procedures for granting this certification, but each recognizes certifications granted by the other. Certified users must be age 18 or older.
 
BayouRat said:
Who drove the NFPA changes? So how do mass launch distances increase fire prevention? I really have to throw the WTF flag on that BS!
Click to expand...

Okay, I read this, and some other comments, as questioning the scope of the NFPA. "Why does the NFPA have jurisdiction over our safe launch distances at all?" Is essentially the question. This would reduces the actual regs to stuff like who can buy motors, how they are stored, and use of sparkies... Things that actually have fire risk implications. It is a good question, that leads one to wonder how "self regulating" are we really at this point?
 
Steve - I was not "complaining" so much trying to do is illustrate with other examples of how I believe that the overall sentiments of our organization are not always embodied by the actions of the elected leadership. I did repeatedly try to engage NAR leadership with respect to what I felt were overly restrictive rulings on site dimensions. After being told enough times "That's nice Al, now let the adults on the BOD deal with these important matters" I just gave up and adapted to something I had no voice on. Let me ask you this: If the BOD is working with the NFPA to adapt policy that is for all practical purposes law, and I don't know that effort is ongoing -> why would I be inclined to monitor the activities of the NFPA? And now realizing that those modifications took place and we have to adhere to them, do you really think there is a Popsicle's chance in Hades that I can engage the leadership now to take a second look?

Jeff - I think that might be confusing NFPA with CPSC rulings a bit. And what I was trying to illustrate was the fact that the definition of an HPR motor may well be out of whack. I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously say that an F120 is a HPR motor other than by the fact that it does not fit into the MR definition. So anything that is not a MR motor is automatically a HPR motor. That seems, to me, to be a an unnecessarily simplistic way of dealing with things.

And for the record, take an F120VM and compare the flight characteristics to a rocket with a G80. Tell me which one has the profile closer to HPR. Yes I zero in on that one motor as I find the idea of an F impulse motor being HPR kind of silly.
 
DavidMcCann said:
COnsidering the NFPA is mostly a sham, were still self regulated.
Click to expand...

But we are not self insured. Safety code and NFPA compliance is an offer to get carriers to write a policy for us. Without that there is no insurance, without insurance no landowner would or should let us use their property. With no place to fly there is no flying.
 
H_Rocket said:
Not in the least.

What I am saying is that I believe the leadership of the organization chose to steer what they felt was a safety driven initiative that affected a wide cross section of flyers without engaging the membership. No, I do not think there needed to be a "vote", however I do expect our opinions to be represented. What happened is it was presented as a fait accompli - and essentially dialed into law without letting the rank and file present their opinions. Yes sparky motors cause fires. Yes, they probably represent a greater possibility as they show that risk when working as designed (other motors not so much unless they fail). I feel the sparky motor reference is a bit of a red herring possibly driven by the wording of my comment. By casting the net the way it was, I have to treat an F120 VMax Or a G80 hybrid as HPR motors. Why? Because they do not fit an arbitrary definition that is decades out of date. My argument is the leadership needs to stop doing what they think is best so much and find ways to engage the membership. I would think our organizational leadership would be moving to evolve the the codes as it applies to the evolving state of our hobby as opposed to what I perceive as knee jerk reactions to situations.

Yes, changes to the relevant sections of the NFPA codes can be presented by most anyone. My thesis was that nobody except someone in rocketry would have proposed those changes. I may well be wrong, however I have a hard time believing someone from the fire protection community would have had the information or interest to do so.

As to telling us to look it up, why should we have to? If it was openly discussed beforehand, there would not be all the wondering. Or if there was a place we could review the actions of our leadership in shaping what is essentially law we could see what drove them to make decisions that are that widespread.

Just my $0.02 and , of course, YMMV.
Click to expand...

You and I should be friends.
 
H_Rocket said:
Jeff - I think that might be confusing NFPA with CPSC rulings a bit. And what I was trying to illustrate was the fact that the definition of an HPR motor may well be out of whack. I find it hard to believe that anyone can seriously say that an F120 is a HPR motor other than by the fact that it does not fit into the MR definition. So anything that is not a MR motor is automatically a HPR motor. That seems, to me, to be a an unnecessarily simplistic way of dealing with things.
Click to expand...

No confusion. I just don't think NFPA can/would write a code excluding the CPSC rulings. IMO I don't think too many certified members would vote to allow sales of motors of these type to the general public if we had a chance. I would not allow it.
 
jderimig said:
But we are not self insured. Safety code and NFPA compliance is an offer to get carriers to write a policy for us. Without that there is no insurance, without insurance no landowner would or should let us use their property. With no place to fly there is no flying.
Click to expand...

as near as I can figure, skydiving has nothing like the NFPA and manages to self regulate and be insured. And that safety code is presented as a "best practice" not actual law/regulations.

using the NFPA is not the only path. And I'm also not sure it's the best.
 
jderimig said:
But we are not self insured. Safety code and NFPA compliance is an offer to get carriers to write a policy for us. Without that there is no insurance, without insurance no landowner would or should let us use their property. With no place to fly there is no flying.
Click to expand...

That is the bottom line. The national organizations are self-regulating, but not self-insured.

People generally misunderstand NFPA. It is a private organization that writes codes that are offered as industry best practices. It has no regulatory power or enforcement power. The committees consist of members from the community and industry who understand the specifics about the activity. It is a means to self regulation without dealing directly with each law-making jurisdiction. Indirectly, the industry-driven committees influence the local and State codes through legislative adoption of the NFPA codes. The lawmakers know they are not experts in any of the code areas, so they rely upon the codes published by NFPA.

All of the activities of the NFPA committees are open to public review, and the public can submit comments as part of the review process (I've done that a couple of times). There's usually a 5-yr cycle for each of the codes (1122, 1125, 1127), staggered a couple years so the committees aren't working on more than one at the same time.

https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-stan.../list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=1122
https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-stan.../list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=1125
https://www.nfpa.org/codes-and-stan.../list-of-codes-and-standards/detail?code=1127

Access is free but requires registering.
 
DavidMcCann said:
as near as I can figure, skydiving has nothing like the NFPA and manages to self regulate and be insured. And that safety code is presented as a "best practice" not actual law/regulations.

using the NFPA is not the only path. And I'm also not sure it's the best.
Click to expand...

If you sky dive or scuba you cannot get affordable life or disabilty insurance. Read the exclusions on life insurance policies
 
DavidMcCann said:
were not talking about life insurance here.
Click to expand...

Then you do not understand why this hobby can exist. The insurance underwriter ultimately decides on the path of our "regulation" not what makes sense to "us".
 
jderimig said:
Then you do not understand why this hobby can exist. The insurance underwriter ultimately decides on the path of our "regulation" not what makes sense to "us".
Click to expand...

I understand we need insurance. But saying skydivers can't get life insurance, when skydiving companies can get liability, and we're discussing rocketry liability insurance, is totally irrelevant.

Unless someone is looking for life insurance to take a ride on a rocket, there's a logic flaw in taking the argument that direction.
 
DavidMcCann said:
I understand we need insurance. But saying skydivers can't get life insurance, when skydiving companies can get liability, and we're discussing rocketry liability insurance, is totally irrelevant.

Unless someone is looking for life insurance to take a ride on a rocket, there's a logic flaw in taking the argument that direction.
Click to expand...

The peril to skydiving companies is very small as Skydivers sign their life away and is common knowledge they know the hazards of the hobby and assume the risk.

Skydiving operators liability arises from the operation of their aircraft and complying with FAA regulations allows underwriters to give them policies under that known peril environment. Do you think FAA regulations on flight and aircraft operations are light as compared to our safety code and NFPA? Self regulating my a*s.
 

Similar threads

boatgeek
Anti-satellite warfare
Replies
23
Views
720
Bill Hanson
Bill Hanson
Bobbyg334
  • Locked
Rocket man parachutes, no response
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
cwbullet
cwbullet
Maxhiker14
L3 Project (video report)
Replies
0
Views
139
Maxhiker14
Maxhiker14
ThirstyBarbarian
  • Locked
Who would you like to see Rachel Maddow interview?
2
Replies
54
Views
1K
DAllen
DAllen
DragonRocketry
4" AT-3 Sagger Russian Anti-tank guided missile
Replies
1
Views
467
Sooner Boomer
Sooner Boomer

Latest posts

Back
Top