Will you get Level X?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The other side of the equation is well summed up in a quote by George Mallory, when asked why he wanted to climb Mount Everest: "Because it's there."

Some of us will attain everything that can be attained simply for the satisfaction of attaining it.

This. Right now I'm pursuing the L1/L2/L3 thing because I currently find that sort of challenge interesting. It's not that I think it's the be-all end-all of rocketry, it's just a particular set of goals that I have chosen to tackle for now. I expect after I burn a pile of money on L2 and L3 I'll circle back to a different set of more economical challenges. It's not like HPR is the only challenge in rocketry.
 
No one has mentioned in this thread one of the objective benefits of the L1/2/3 system. It's a small but useful framework for making sure that large motors don't easily end up in the hands of people who have no experience with smaller motors. In general it seems to be working, and it could someday help fend off additional government imposed regulation. It was never intended to be just an "achievement" system.

I would not disagree with what you are saying at all. I think the level system is a solid foundation that has been working, for the most part. I still really worry about this folks who show up at a launch and do their L1. Next launch they show up, take their L2 exam, and fly their L2 cert. Next thing you know they are talking to TAPs about a L3. This has always worried me a bit. There are a lot of things to be learned, and some of those things are better to do on smaller rockets and motors. Just my 2 cents.

if things are working properly, all this means is a harder job for RSOs. As designed, I think the main effect of level system is to reduce the amount of rejected flights by the RSOs, who in theory are the check against unsafe flights and idiots flying huge motors.
 
I would not disagree with what you are saying at all. I think the level system is a solid foundation that has been working, for the most part. I still really worry about this folks who show up at a launch and do their L1. Next launch they show up, take their L2 exam, and fly their L2 cert. Next thing you know they are talking to TAPs about a L3. This has always worried me a bit. There are a lot of things to be learned, and some of those things are better to do on smaller rockets and motors. Just my 2 cents.

I heard somewhere that statistically those people who rush through the levels as you describe don't stay in the hobby very long anyway. Saying that is not to dismiss your concern, but it does suggest the level system works in more ways than one: those who only see rocketry as levels just do the levels then move onto something else.
 
I heard somewhere that statistically those people who rush through the levels as you describe don't stay in the hobby very long anyway. Saying that is not to dismiss your concern, but it does suggest the level system works in more ways than one: those who only see rocketry as levels just do the levels then move onto something else.

I have seen what you are saying. Flyer retention is another topic, but it is the interest of all to have the hobby grow.
 
I have seen what you are saying. Flyer retention is another topic, but it is the interest of all to have the hobby grow.

Yes, agreed. It seems to me the OP's concern is about effectively encouraging some flyers to see beyond 'Level mania' without invoking more top down regulation. For example, if the Levels were originally based on pilot licensing, and if the fear here is that inexperienced flyers proceeding too quickly through the levels are a potential hazard to themselves and the hobby, and if there are also concerns over flyer retention.. then the various rocketry associations could stipulate the launch equivalent of a 'minimum flying hours requirement' between levels - ie the flyer would be required to complete a certain number of launches at L1, over a specified period of time, before proceeding to L2, etc etc. However, I expect this wouldn't be popular at all, and as with any change, there would be a justifiable feeling that those of us who certified under the present system were simply kicking the ladder away from under us, or placing another obstacle to enjoyment of the hobby at whatever level people want to fly at. So we're back to DavidMcCann's point: effective self regulation (ie good advice, good RSO'ing, sensible conversations) that must take place at club level. And if the hobby grows through those kind of clubs, the number of sensible experienced flyers (and the peer pressure to take it slow) should do too.
 
I'm always reluctant to get into conversations like this. But this appears to be a healthy discussion!!! And, I feel it really does need to be addressed by both organizations. The levels are a great way to keep the hobby safe. And it used to be an achievement simply due to the difficult nature to achieve top level. Today it is much easier. And, as such many of those necessary skills are missing and that does have an impact on safety. And my concerns for safety go back to 09/11/2001. The hobby was brought to it's knees. I really never thought it would recover and I'd hate to see us over regulated again. But, here we are today enjoying more participation that ever! And that is fantastic! But let's make sure it stays that way. Self regulated. Change is never without controversy. But we do need to have civil discussions in order to grow as a hobby and an industry.
 
I'm always reluctant to get into conversations like this. But this appears to be a healthy discussion!!!

+1. It sometimes feels like the BP and the AP aren't the most combustible things we deal with..:)


And, I feel it really does need to be addressed by both organizations.

Hey - don't forget us little guys. There are more than two organisations! :wink:
 
Last edited:
And, I feel it really does need to be addressed by both organizations. The levels are a great way to keep the hobby safe.

One could argue that there are three in North America: CAR the Canadian Association of Rocketry.

from another thread, they and NAR help define the rules for levelling. Canadian rules for level 1 require the written test, and are only for 'H' motors. level 2 is I & J, and so forth..
 
My apologies... I certainly didn't mean to leave anyone out there. After working with CAR they ARE a top notch group.
 
For the sake of throwing a cat in the dog kennel,

Sometimes I've wondered if it might make sense to slightly rejigger the cert levels. Having some great conversations while helping at SLI made me think more along these lines.

L1 would stay the same, H-I That's a real nice introductory impulse range already
L2 would narrow to J-K (w/ test) since that's still a good impulse range
L3 would be L-M (w/ design package and inspections + electronic success) There's a big difference between the power of J and L, just saying
L4(!) would be N-O (w/ similar design package/inspections, and a more technical safety/technique test or verified success history at the L3 level)

Fight!
 
Let em' do hardware mods aft closure and HEI to commercial reloads and casings at L-1 research after completing L-1 cert on a commercial only setup. That would give some an incentive to stay at L-1 longer. They can keep all the other motor mixing stuff at L-2. When you say only the next level lets you change an aft closure that won't fit a popular MD kit then of course people will rush to that level. I'll probably take a lot of flak for this approach... Would you rather a noob Cato a L-1 G motor with an aft closure mod or an L motor with own mixed fuel after just getting the cert?
 
Let's add age to the mix. Say something like this:
L1 20-29
L2 30-39
L3 30 - Till you are too old to carry your own projects unassisted

And to sweeten the pot:
You can't discuss L1 projects on the forum until you are L1
You can't discuss L2 projects on the forum until you are L2
You can't discuss L3 projects on the forum until you are L3

If caught violating any of the above, you are immediately demoted to the next lower level and your IP address is banned until approved by a board that reviews all your post for valuable contribution to the forum.
 
Let em' do hardware mods aft closure and HEI to commercial reloads and casings at L-1 research after completing L-1 cert on a commercial only setup. That would give some an incentive to stay at L-1 longer. They can keep all the other motor mixing stuff at L-2. When you say only the next level lets you change an aft closure that won't fit a popular MD kit then of course people will rush to that level. I'll probably take a lot of flak for this approach... Would you rather a noob Cato a L-1 G motor with an aft closure mod or an L motor with own mixed fuel after just getting the cert?

I certainly don’t see a vast desire for people to do aft closure mods being a driving force on certs

The levels do what they need to, and give freedom to clubs to self regulate. Remember people, we have RSOs. Use them. Yes, N and O motors are a bigger deal than a baby M. That’s why flight that size, no one is just walking out to anpad and lighting the candle no matter who they are.

And, from the other side, strict regulation based solely on motor size is silly. You can make a big dumb rocket on an O3400 and use a timer to pop the chute with very Basic techniques. You can screw up and shred a small rocket on an I600. The style of rocket should be taken into account. But that’s so widely varied you’d need 500 levels to differentiate. Even the.... RSO. That’s where our safety system lies. Not in levels.

I mean, do we need staging and cluster and electronics, and FG and CF merit badges? These are all skills to learn and explore. A million steps and talents.

I loke things the way they are. Just go fly what makes you happy
 
I have already reached the point where I'm unable to carry an L3 project unassisted never mind the retrieval hike.

On the other hand, at Black Rock I could simply drive out to the recovery location...hmmmm...
 
if things are working properly, all this means is a harder job for RSOs. As designed, I think the main effect of level system is to reduce the amount of rejected flights by the RSOs, who in theory are the check against unsafe flights and idiots flying huge motors.

Maybe L1 ought to include some basic RSO training? A few questions about computing thrust to weight, checking for prematurely armed electronics, checking that the glue is dry, that the airframe will separate where it is supposed to and not where it isn't...
 
if things are working properly, all this means is a harder job for RSOs. As designed, I think the main effect of level system is to reduce the amount of rejected flights by the RSOs, who in theory are the check against unsafe flights and idiots flying huge motors.
Which means that maybe we should have an actual RSO certification process.
RSO and LCO could both be certified positions.
Anyone can play baseball, but the umpires have to be certified.
 
Let's add age to the mix. Say something like this:
L1 20-29
L2 30-39
L3 30 - Till you are too old to carry your own projects unassisted

And to sweeten the pot:
You can't discuss L1 projects on the forum until you are L1
You can't discuss L2 projects on the forum until you are L2
You can't discuss L3 projects on the forum until you are L3

If caught violating any of the above, you are immediately demoted to the next lower level and your IP address is banned until approved by a board that reviews all your post for valuable contribution to the forum.

That is thoroughly ridiculous.

Talk is fine.
 
I personally like the idea of having to both demonstrate the candidate's practical and knowledge of rules and theory at each level.

I understand that there is a fine line when it comes to the barrier of entry, but having one test for Tripoli at the L2 level is not very challenging. I would like to see the following:

- L1 candidates have to write a basic test on rocket theory and safety, the test would be slightly less than the current L2 test
- L2 candidates would add the requirement of electronic deployment and have a slightly harder test than the current L2 test
- L3 candidates would have to accumulate a certain number of L2 flights/ newton seconds under before they are allowed to apply for the L3 certification program. A qualifying applicant would still have to document under the mentorship of their TAPs but there would be a third test which would be a partial review of the L2 test plus the addition of some more advanced topics such as, best practices, tracking, etc.

I would also like to see a certification process for RSOs. This certification should be limited to a specific term where the RSO candidate has to refresh and demonstrate their knowledge of any rule changes to recertify, kind of like CPR training.

I certainly do not want to see the barrier of entry prohibitive but a more gradual, paced approach with more theory has it's benefits, after-all it's not just rocket science, it's your life or others.
 
- L3 candidates would have to accumulate a certain number of L2 flights/ newton seconds under before they are allowed to apply for the L3 certification program. A qualifying applicant would still have to document under the mentorship of their TAPs but there would be a third test which would be a partial review of the L2 test plus the addition of some more advanced topics such as, best practices, tracking, etc.
.

I agree with much of your comment Mike, but here is a problem with just the bit above - newton seconds are expensive in terms of fuel and gasoline, motels, vacation away from work, etc. - basically: $$$. A newton-second burn requirement says, "You are not welcome" to a lot of participants. The "cert with a commercial motor" already imposes a significant cost that does not correlate perfectly with attained skills. I do not wish to see the $ factor made worse by a newton second burn requirement.

EX is a way to reduce $ for flights, and some propellants are significantly cheaper than others. Yet 2 of the three big certing organizations on the North American continent look at me like I am dangerous and about to blow up. My most commonly flown rockets use a sugar-alcohol for fuel. Would these certifying organizations allow me to count my newton-seconds? Probably not - but they should. It represents an attained skill related to rocketry.

I do like the idea of RSO-like skills being necessary to attaining levels. L3 should be able to look at a rocket design/build/motor, and know whether it should fly or not.

Last summer, I was serving as RSO at a large launch, and was asked to RSO a L3 cert project. I sent it back to the bench because a last minute, gerry-rigged motor retention was not going to work. A retaining ring had been lost or had not fit correctly. The flyer used 3 screws and some copper twist-wires to trap the motor in. The problem was the copper wires were close to, or even in, the direct line of fire coming out of the divergent motor cone. They would be vaporized. The builder did not understand that at first, but soon agreed to revise the build. It came back to the RSO table just after I had handed-off the duty to the next volunteer, so luckily my initials were not on the flight card. The aft end retention was fixed. Later, as my wife and I were seated at our tent, we watched that 98mm M-class motor case bounce 400' from our position after it had gone out the front of it's disintegrating rocket. Internals matter too!

An L3 applicant, and his L3 reviewer(s), had decided the materials, their application, and the build (no internal fillets, beyond a drizzle of thin epoxy, on through-the-wall construction) were "good enough" for a 98mm motor mount in a 6" rocket. That included a cardboard motor mount tube with no reinforcement. It survived the motor push, but not the fins trying to peel themselves off when the speed built up. Actually saw a fin depart before the sky-writing began.

Side-bar - You are RSO. You are looking at a rocket that has flown before. That means the rocket has landed before. Glue joints are hidden out of sight. What questions do you ask, and how hard do you wiggle fins before deciding that the fins are going to stay attached (appropriate to the motor in use)? Maybe we aught to be RSO mentoring. I would support a push to certify RSOs. Maybe have R-levels. I remember as a fresh L2 RSOing some guy's minimum-diameter, 75mm, waiver-tickler, L3 project thinking, "This situation is pretty much backwards. He should be asking me questions." Awesome rocket, performed flawlessly at well over Mach 2.
 
Last edited:
That is thoroughly ridiculous.

Talk is fine.
Agreed. I started at L-1 multistage scratch build with zero experience and an L0 through student projects. That inspired me to get going on an L-1. I don't think an L-1 attempt should be made on experimental motors ever.
 
I loke things the way they are. Just go fly what makes you happy
Agreed. Wish L-1 had more freedoms post certificate but I understand the rules are the rules. It's not the impulse range. It's the i inability to modify hardware with hardware that someone else makes until you scratch 640.01 and L-2. And a big no to merit badges.
 
Look at CAR (The canadian "NAR")

https://www.canadianrocketry.org/cert_level_1-3.php

L1 is only an H motor, but with a test.
L2 Is an I and ex motors
L3 is J, K, & L motors
L4 is M and above, like the NAR L3

One of the big things, is that the L1 test is like the NAR L2 test,but also includes Canadian Transport Regs, which NAR L2 kinda touches on (Not canadian transport, but other "governemtn regs" in & about model rocketry)

There was a pretty interesting discussion in this thread, about how NAR & CAR were both developing the rules & regs for leveling. CAR seems more stringent..

https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...y-the-discrepancy-in-written-test-requirement

jump to post #19 for a pretty good explanation / history lesson.
 
Back
Top