- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 14,969
- Reaction score
- 1,307
Disarmed ejection charges is a safety issue
Garmin Astro: Legal?
- Thread starter cwbullet
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
Disarmed ejection charges is a safety issue
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 2,693
- Reaction score
- 308
You have to have a HAM license to use the Com-spec stuff too.
AlphaHybrids
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2009
- Messages
- 1,573
- Reaction score
- 97
I guess the next thing will be to just turn it off until you land. Then it isn't on in the air. Where I fly I can easily drive to a hill that gives me a 10 mile view. Problem solved.
Edward
Edward
RadManCF
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 827
- Reaction score
- 0
Fair enough; I've come to feel that an RSO's job is more broad than just safety, per se, but that's a debate for another thread.
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2009
- Messages
- 3,536
- Reaction score
- 1,670
Hijack alert.
What does this entail, exactly? The only thing I could find in the NAR safety code is "The function of onboard energetics and firing circuits will be inhibited except when my rocket is in the launching position."
When my altimeter is turned off, the firing circuits are inhibited, right?
RadManCF
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 827
- Reaction score
- 0
You'd think so, but not necesarily. The firing circuits often contain capacitors, which continue to store charge, even after the altimeter has been shut off. I've also heard stories of altimeters activating their firing circuits as a result of having a battery attatched backwards. In each case, activation of ejection charges would only be prevented by an interlock between the altimeter and ejection charge.
Does this mean you now have to have another set of switches that block the flow to the matches?
Guys,
I looked up the Tripoli Policy:
https://www.tripoli.org/Launches/Safety/RSOGuidelines/tabid/184/Default.aspx
It does not appear that much has changed.
I looked up the Tripoli Policy:
https://www.tripoli.org/Launches/Safety/RSOGuidelines/tabid/184/Default.aspx
It does not appear that much has changed.
RadManCF
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 827
- Reaction score
- 0
The change to the NAR code is taken almost verbatum from the 2013 edition of NFPA 1127. I would agree that the language is kind of vague, all the discussions I've seen settled at "shunts or switches are required between the altimeter and the ejection charge".
This is getting a bit off topic, let's try to steer it back. On that note, has anyone used MURS devices for range communications?
Last edited:
We do not use MURS radios.
jamesr
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2010
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 32
you need to read how he worded it, he said
He did not say that it was forbidden to use at their launches. I read it as if they(the club), owned the radios used to track the rockets.
This is a good example of the point that Troj has been trying to make. I figured one of you would have a sense of humor and point it out again.
tfish said:
We do not enforce FCC/ATFE/BLM/USFS/citys/states laws, rules or guidelines. We assume that you as a flyer, read and understand the rules that you need to play with in your area. NAR, TRA and your local clubs can not be responsible for you the flyers actions legal or illegal. We have our set of rules and guidelines that meet or exceeds the federal regulations that govern us as a international organization at lest in this country.
An RSO needs to make sure that the rocket he or she is inspecting is safe and meets the guidelines we as an organization has outlined in our safety code. You also need to make sure that the flyer meets the requirements described by NAR or TRA(the one the flyer is a member of). If all is good and the RSO says that you are good to go,the flyer is again on his own and completely and personally responsible for his or her's actions. If this person is using a device that is regulated by the FCC or ATFE, it is not our responsibility or obligation to do anything. If this person is causing harm or is endangering people then it would be our responsibility to report it to the appropriate authority but we are not bound by any laws to take any other actions and as Troj has said several times, the ATFE has told us this several times. Just try to ask the guy you see building his ejection charges using an e-match and 4f where is ATF permit is and see what the answer would be. It will very but I am sure that most will reply to you, "who are you?", "kiss off!" or "take a hike" or worse. If the ATFE shows up, they will need to answer to them and so will you. Same would go for the FCC and the rest of the alphabet soup. I have my ATFE permit, Amateur Radio licence, TRA and NAR membership cards and an umbrella insurance policy on my home and vehicles too just in case.
Just saying
Last edited:
James,
That are great points.
I will repoint my quest to finding out if it legal for me to use the Garmin. I misunderstod some of the posts on being RSO. I have never check to see if a flier was "legal".
That are great points.
I will repoint my quest to finding out if it legal for me to use the Garmin. I misunderstod some of the posts on being RSO. I have never check to see if a flier was "legal".
Wow, well I don't know if this thread will end up answering any questions about the legality of MURS in rockets or not but it is definitely giving me a different understanding of RSOs and NAR/Tripoli. So hypothetically speaking, let's say the FCC response to Chuck's inquiry is negative. They do not approve this repurposing of dog-trackers, and just to remove all doubt the next time the federal regs are published they've added a line specifically prohibiting MURS in rocketry. Now I'm at the RSO table and either he notices I'm using a Garmin Astro or he asks me about tracking (most folks at a launch like to talk rockets, and my RSO chats certainly seem to cover more than strict safety points). So he says actually the new FCC regs are out and Garmins are illegal, and I can just tell him to "Take a hike"? And as long as I meet CP/CG and whatever other specific points are in the HPR safety code he actually can't stop me from launching my rocket? I would actually be more disillusioned and disappointed about this than if MURS really does end up being prohibited. What a joke.
luke strawwalker
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2009
- Messages
- 9,147
- Reaction score
- 40
If you want to be as safe as is possible... either grounding bars (which short the two leads together with a metal pin or something when inserted, with a "remove before flight" tag) or a pin or something inserted to open the circuit and prevent any possibility of current flowing in a complete circuit to the ignitor(s) or charge(s)... a plastic pin inserted into a "normally closed" type switch would serve the purpose... again, with a "remove before flight" ribbon.
None of which should be removed until the rocket was erected on the pad in firing position and hooked up and ready to go, and ALL of the safeties should have to be reinserted and the circuits safed BEFORE ANY repairs or de-erection of the rocket from the launcher in the event of a misfire or problem could be repaired...
I've seen a number of incidents personally that could have been 100% preventable using such a standard practice properly... and read about many more (including one in litigation)...
Later! OL JR
Initial response is back and it is inconclusive. The response was polite quoted similar information that has been posted here already. They have bounced my question to high level employee of the FCC. The emailer, who did not identify themselves, informed of two things:
1) The FCC did not consider GPS tracking when the policy was written.
2) No one has been prosecuted or fined for using a Garmin Astro in a rocket.
Our hobby is relatively small os it does not mean much, but it is a baby step. One thing is clear, the person did not know what a Garmin Astro is. Regardless, I suspect we will have an answer shortly.
1) The FCC did not consider GPS tracking when the policy was written.
2) No one has been prosecuted or fined for using a Garmin Astro in a rocket.
Our hobby is relatively small os it does not mean much, but it is a baby step. One thing is clear, the person did not know what a Garmin Astro is. Regardless, I suspect we will have an answer shortly.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2012
- Messages
- 6,349
- Reaction score
- 5,561
[Sigh] I kinda thought that might be the response...
Keep us informed as this moves up the FCC food chain. My guess is that eventually somebody will say that "it shouldn't be a problem" and that will be as far as it goes. If you original inquiry was specifically about the Garmin Astro, it might not clear up this issue in relation to any other GPS platform, however. They tend to be VERY specific about these things.
Keep us informed as this moves up the FCC food chain. My guess is that eventually somebody will say that "it shouldn't be a problem" and that will be as far as it goes. If you original inquiry was specifically about the Garmin Astro, it might not clear up this issue in relation to any other GPS platform, however. They tend to be VERY specific about these things.
RadManCF
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Messages
- 827
- Reaction score
- 0
I really wouldn't tell an RSO to "take a hike", no matter what the issue. I've always taken the attitude that, to quote G. Harry Stine, "The word of the RSO is as the word of God. Either obey or go somewhere else". If I were to run into a capricous and arbitrary RSO, I would follow their instructions, and then have a few words with the club leadership. I agree, allowing fliers to tell an RSO to "take a hike" over anything would be a bad precident to set.
jamesr
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2010
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 32
then you are not doing your job. All flyers must have a current membership to fly HPR. Most clubs hosting a large or larger launch does this at the registration table and give you a badge or wrist band to indicate your certification level and that you have been registered to fly at the event and someone has checked your card. Some seasoned flyers will have there card on a hanging from around their neck but all should have it in their pocket. If you are RSO you need to know that they are at the level needed to fly they motor in their rocket and also that they have a membership that is up to date. If not you, your club and ultimately the national organization that is insuring the event could have an issue if something would go terribly wrong. Remember, you put your name to the flight card, right? This is all about making sure that we follow all our safety rules and guidelines that we have set up so that we can keep our insurance and we can keep doing what we do and do not get written out of existence by legislation and other alphabet agencies.
beezwax said:
First off there are so many different things that have nothing to do with rockets and we as hobbyists bring so many different experience levels, skill sets and back backgrounds from so many different fields and hobbies that it would be impossible for anyone to expect the RSO to know and understand the rules and regulations of the FCC and any other regulatory agency that does not specifically deal directly within our own hobby. So when said rocketeer comes to the RSO table you are only looking at what we need to, to insure a safe launch and that we are doing our due diligence to help maintain a safe launch environment for everyone.
Secondly the FCC regulations are not clear with the use inside of a rocket and you do not want to enforce a rule that you, your self do not fully understand and can quote the reg's. Even with the answers so fare and what maybe still to come they still may not put it to paper and make things real clear. Until they have actual facts and have cases of "Harmful Interference" they may never give you a straight answer. The FCC is only going to take action when their is a reported case of interference and only then will you likely see a change in regulation. The regulations may not always be helpful when using out side of the box. As a user you should be very conscious of interference, even as a licensed user you can not cause any interference and if you find that you are, you need to stop transmitting and resolve it before transmitting again. You are responsible for any and all interference you cause and can get in big trouble if you do not. From what I here, the FCC has a big and swift wrath and you do not want them looking for you.
I think by know you have seen something constant in what people say about the different hobbies, it comes down to the individual being responsible for his or hers own actions.
You will never hear if the use of MURS is legal or not here, if you do I would still only take it as an opinion and not law. Until it is in writing it will be only a persons interpretation but may still put you in front of a judge to get his interpretation. No one wants to be there.
Who cares what kind of tracker someone is using? as long as the use is not causing any interference on the flight light or anywhere else its not your concern. If there is someone causing interference, I am sure that any HAM could find it and let the user know and if it is a problem then the FCC can be contacted. its not a joke, its how it is.
We don't see tax guys going to the FAA to check regulations on airlines to see that they are meeting all the FAA regulations, right?
H_Rocket
Death by Powerpoint
Actually the RSO's word is final at our launches. If you don't make it past the RSO, he does not take a hike, the flier does.
Years ago as an RSO I rejected a rocket because the nose cone was too loose. It was so loose it wouldn't even sit straight in the bodytube, it's own weight was enough to cause it to move. The flyer became irate, saying it flew earlier in the day just fine blah blah blah, started calling me all sorts of names, and then said he would fly it anyways. When the LSO opened the range he went out and placed the rocket on a pad, but without an approved launch card the rocket sat, the LSO wouldn't launch it. The LSO asked me about it and I said let it sit, it didn't pass the the inspection. When the HPR on the adjacent pad went the engine blast was enough to knock the nose cone off, and all the laundry came out, pulled the pad over, and lightly crushed the rocket. I had my eyes on the HPR and didn't see this happen, but started to hear the crowd behind me talking about a great static demo of drag separation and I was sort of puzzled, then looked at the pads. At first couldn't make sense of what I was seeing, then I realized I was looking at a pad on its side with the parachute flapping in the breeze. Right then the LSO made an announcement that there would be a slight delay as "XX" goes out and cleans up the mess he made. We never had an issue with anyone questioning the RSO's decision the rest of the season.
My understanding (and I'm the one who posted the TR-MN notice) is that Garmin Astros cannot be used as tracking devices at TR-MN launches. You can interpret it any way you desire, but that is my understanding from the TR-MN BOD.
jamesr
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2010
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 32
That is as it should be. That is why they sign the card once they have determined that the rocket and the flyer meet the guidelines set by NAR or TRA not FCC or any other club or organization. Have you ever wonder why they have the power they do? It is our last line of defense to make sure that the flyers are following all safety rules and guidelines. You should never question them and if you disagree with them, understand that at the RSO table is not where to have a dispute. They are doing their job the best they know how. If they need training and more education in regards to their job then help at your club level to see that all L2 and higher members understand the safety code and guidelines set by their club and organizations but an electronic payload is not a safety issue unless it is not properly secured and does not make the rocket unsafe by adding weight. You could even have the L1s and L0s learn to RSO so that they can do it better once they get their L2.
I will add that NAR does have some information in their Safety Officer Training program. It does have some info in regards to radio control equipment. You will find that D1 through D6 concern the use of radio control equipment. This is do to the Radio Control Rocket Glider Safety Code found here: https://www.nar.org/NARrcrbgsc.html last revised 1-1998
as you know it is not used as a control, just telemetry.
You can find NAR Safety Officer Training Program here: https://www.nar.org/pdf/TSO.pdf Last revised 2-10-00
This is the only cross over I have ever seen in our hobby. You need to keep in mind that these GPS devices that are being discussed are not radio control devices so again we are in an area that is outside the box. Does NAR want to control and check all users of any radio freq being used at a NAR launch regardless of the use? I don't think so but this is the only thing that I could think could poss a problem for a flyer using these dog trackers besides possible interference and FCC regulations that might prevent this kind of use.
This is something that you might want to bring to the attention of NAR's President, Safety Committee Chair or maybe their High Power Rocketry Services Chair to see if NAR would like to clarify their stand being that there have been a lot of changes and new technology.
There is so much information on NAR and TRA's websites for you to read. That is the information that you need to know and understand and not trying to keep up on FCC rules and reg to try to police what others are doing. The next thing you know they will want to check cars for firearms and try to point out HLS and other agency potential violators.
I am sure that this will bring more out of the woodwork.
funny thing, I have posted more in the last 15 hrs then my almost 5 yrs of being on this forum.
Last edited:
James,
The reason I put quotes around "legal" was because I was referring to this specific instance of "do you have an leup" or "do you have a HAM" and not are you certified. I should have been more clear.
I personally think I am a pretty good RSO. Never had an unstable flight on my watch.
The reason I put quotes around "legal" was because I was referring to this specific instance of "do you have an leup" or "do you have a HAM" and not are you certified. I should have been more clear.
I personally think I am a pretty good RSO. Never had an unstable flight on my watch.
jamesr
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2010
- Messages
- 63
- Reaction score
- 32
That is not how it reads, I see that they are trying to remove their liability and not supplying the equipment to do so but it does not at all say that you can not use your own equipment. They may have intended to mean that but it is very clear they will not support it. If they wanted to bad them they would have said you may not use any MURS device to track a rocket. I think the author of the letter chose his words wisely just to remove the club and its officers of the potential liability if any. I could be wrong though... This is a good example of people having a different interpretation or opinion of what we read.
Thank you for the clarification.
I would never tell an RSO to take a hike either of course, and if I did I would expect to be ejected from the launch, not just carry on my merry way. I was just copying dialogue from James's post, and frankly was a bit disillusioned about the efficacy of our national organizations, if the degree to which a flier could act with such impunity is accurate. If, apart from the particulars of the HPR safety code, I am so completely on my own with regard to my flights then to be honest I don't see what the point is of even debating issues like this thread here.
James much of what you're saying here I think actually echoes my initial comments in this debate. The legality of MURS tracking in rockets is not clearly defined by current FCC regs as some have argued, and in cases of muddled regs people need to use common sense to guide their actions. I don't think there has been any case of actual harm or interference shown to be caused by a Garmin Astro in flight, but if a user becomes aware that they are causing a disruption they should stop. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
The discussion around RSOs and NAR/Tripoli is a second thread here. I'd like to believe that my launch coordinators have a greater interest in my flight plan than just the explicit safety points as outlined in the HPR code. I think they can and do exercise a broader control over launch activities, and I think this is as it should be.
Last edited:
I'm sorry but I'm getting tired of clarifying this. There has been discussion of this on a private message group and I'm not going to publish those messages. Despite what your interpretation of this the intent of the TR-MN BOD is clear. The Garmin Astro cannot be used at a TR-MN launch. It doesn't matter who owns the equipment they will not allow them to used.
Well, the plot thickens. I still am interested to hear what (if any) clarification the FCC has to offer on such use. Presumably if the FCC made a definitive statement approving MURS for rocketry then Tripoli-MN would revisit their local ban?
Similar threads
