If we're going to toss out ideas about what L3 Cert should or shouldn't require, I think we should discuss what the purpose of certification is.
There may be a written statement in the TRA or NAR literature about this already (if I go and check, I'll forget to come back and finish this post).
Given the rules for certs, I had inferred that the reason for certification at all is to ensure that the rocketeer is capable of SAFELY handling motors of a given impulse. There is no altitude limit for L1 vs L2, and you can fly as high as you can with LPR. Altitude limits are dependent on the flying field.
If someone is able to construct a rocket with techniques that can withstand larger motors, then they have demonstrated that they are CAPABLE of doing so safely in the future.
With rules, the ideal is to be as simple and specific as possible to accomplish the desired purpose (no I don't work for the government). If someone is able to construct a kit rocket and launch it on an M safely, then I believe they most likely have the knowledge and skill to construct and launch a scratch design as well.
I agree with Kevin, whether or not he actually said this, that we should not inject our personal preferences and style choices into the rules to apply to all hobby members. How high you fly, how fast, whether you have a glider or buckets, whether you build a kit, scratch, or kit-bash...none of these appeals to every rocketeer. But if you want to use the big motors, you should have to show that you can launch and recover safely.
If I am misinterpreting the intent of the Certification process, then maybe we do need to revisit the criteria....your thoughts?
NAR, TRA L2
Member: CMASS, MMMSC
"Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets." Paul Batalden, MD