Rant: why have rules at all?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
What kills me with all of this is the dirty side of human nature. Some people seem to miss the fact that this is a hobby and as such it means different things to different people. We all set personal goals based on our interest and capabilities. I could care less about keeping records of my flights, I couldn't tell you how many Ns I have burned if you held a gun to my head. For me, designing rockets means making it look cool within the margins of safety. I like building from kits because there are so many that I like and need to be built, I see no reason to reinvent the wheel. When and if I ever do my L3, I want to do it with a LOC Bruiser because I think it would be cool to have done L1-L3 with LOC kits. The idea of L3 is proving you are capable of handling the power and the needs of the rocket, you can do both with a kit.

lawndart, would you rather have a rocket come in ballistic or a stack of buckets?
 
All rockets should be pretty.

Except ones meant to look scary.
 
One other thing for thought... If you were to bring a bucket rocket with a M motor in it to my RSO table, TRIP or NAR, Cert flight or not, the answer is NO. Period. It is not a rocket, it is a pile of buckets. As RSO, my opinion is the only one that counts. In my opinion, it is unsafe. It is not rocketry. Many launches are on private land. In Colorado, NCR has the only permit with the USFS in the nation, to fly rockets. They WATCH us. We must be stewards of the land. Private or Government. If you start a fire or cause damage or injure someone with a bucket rocket, you should lose your field. Tim Thomas L3

Unsafe practices with ANY rocket may cause you to lose your field. Whether you "should" lose it or not is debatable and irrelevant. The owner of the field can deny permission at any time for any reason. Doesn't have to make sense. And if you start a fire that damages property, the owner probably wouldn't care if it was a bucket, 3FNC, or a barbecue.

Just like an RSO can turn down any flight they choose. Sure, RSO's are generally expected to allow nearly aything that is safe, but if you don't like buckets, saucers, clusters, fiberglass, or whatever at your launch, you as the RSO can turn them down. The flyer does not have to understand or agree with the reason.

But this discussion is about the rules for cert flights, not the merits of buckets, 3FNC, kits, scratch, etc. in general.

As far as cert flight rules go, I would argue that they should apply the minimum necessary restrictions to achieve the purpose of certification, which I believe is safety. If you show that you CAN play safely with big motors, then you can buy them and fly them in anything that an RSO will allow. Of course, boneheaded things both within and outside the safety code are done by L3 certified flyers at times, but the cert process is not meant to prevent that or screen out people who may choose to push the envelope later on. That is dealt with in other ways.
 
short squatty rockets have been around for ever from ESTES to MADCOW to others

FATBOY (estes or public ememy)
MEGA MOSQUITO
MINNI MAGG (loc)
BULLET (loc)
V2's (take your pick)
THUMPER (polecat)
I have nothing against short squatty rockets. I flew my Fat Boy and Estes Maxi V2 at a club launch this past Saturday, though I wouldn't consider the V2 a short squatty rocket. I also like oddrocs. I would have flown my Applewhite saucer on Saturday if I had more time.

My avatar shows my Qaud Pod II rocket, which is an oddroc made out of PVC pipe with a gimballed motor controlled by electronics. I took it to LDRS a few years ago, and I wanted to fly it from the model rocket pads on an F10 motor. The RCO didn't know what to make of it so he sent me way out to the pads where they were flying level 3 rockets. I was just happy to be allowed to fly it at all, and I got some great views of large rockets launching from out there.

Ask your L3CC member how you can change your rocket to meet his approval. Maybe you just need to add another bucket or two, or maybe you need to build a more conventional rocket. Get your L3 certification and then fly your bucketroc.
 
That said, iter has a different design than me - those huge fins are a point of concern, for me, that would likely keep me from building it like that

Kevin, thank you for sharing your concern about the size of the fins. I wonder if you can elaborate on your concern, and perhaps even suggest how I might address it.

Ari.
 
Thank you for all your feedback. Those who are commenting on the "fineness ratio," the average diameter in the .ork is 11.37", which gives a ratio of 4.002:1. In reality, the average diameter is lower (I didn't bother modelling the true curvature of each bucket) and in any case, as some of you point out I can add as many buckets as I need to exceed the 4:1 requirement. All that's going to do is move the CG forward and make the rocket more stable.

I notice that most of the feedback concentrates on the rocket. That is only half of the justification for rejecting my idea. The other half is the amount of my HPR experience, which, while possibly a useful requirement, is nowhere in the rules either, not even in a vague form like "applicant shall have sufficient HPR experience." I have less experience than a lot of people on this board and in my club. At the same time, I take offense at people calling me a one-flight-under-his-belt newbie.

Ari.
 
Kevin, thank you for sharing your concern about the size of the fins. I wonder if you can elaborate on your concern, and perhaps even suggest how I might address it.

Very large fins often end up very heavy, adding weight exactly where you don't want it. They're also more prone to flutter, and finally, more prone to breaking on landing.

If you use the same motor as I did, and the same number of buckets, I suspect you're going to get more altitude (and more velocity) than I did -- I had constant transitions the entire length, which I believe created more drag. More velocity means more of a chance those big fins are going to cause a problem.

Short, squat rockets also do "funny" things in terms of stability. If you do decide to go this route, I'd suggest test flights with smaller motors, flying from far out pads, for safety reasons -- my first bucket flew on a modest K, but I flew it from the M pads, even though optimistic sims said it wouldn't go very high.

I notice that most of the feedback concentrates on the rocket. That is only half of the justification for rejecting my idea. The other half is the amount of my HPR experience, which, while possibly a useful requirement, is nowhere in the rules either, not even in a vague form like "applicant shall have sufficient HPR experience." I have less experience than a lot of people on this board and in my club. At the same time, I take offense at people calling me a one-flight-under-his-belt newbie.

Personal opinion? You're rushing through levels fairly quickly. Stop and smell the roses, and have fun along the way.

In my experience, people who go through levels quickly tend to burn out quickly, and are quickly out of the hobby.

When a TAP or L3CC doesn't know the flier personally, they have a harder time judging whether or not they think your build and/or designs kills are going to lead to a good chance of success. Without that knowledge, they're going to base it more on how long you've been at Level 2, and how many flights you've made. I suspect, based on what you've posted, that the L3CC you've talked to doesn't know you.

End of the day, it's your choice. It'll be harder to convince someone who doesn't know you that you're ready if your flight count is low. End of the day, whether or not to approve it is their choice, and you have to remember, they have to put their name on the dotted line, so they have a bit of skin in the game, too.

-Kevin
 
thats why i asked i wasnt sure you point you were making. i saw that flight of the quad pad many many cool points on that one
 
Last edited:
The other half is the amount of my HPR experience, which, while possibly a useful requirement, is nowhere in the rules either, not even in a vague form like "applicant shall have sufficient HPR experience."
Ari.

That is troubling. There is no reason to reject an application for "lack of experience." You've flown a L1, you've flown a L2 AND passed a written test on stability, dynamics, and rocket related laws. I think it's a very poor precedent to start having a sliding scale of "minimum experience."

This is, surprisingly, NOT rocket science. It's advanced modeling. Anyone who's ever put a 3000# swivel in a 30lb rocket is guilty. There are launches which really are rocket science, but they are few and far between. L3 certifications have been made with material stresses which are no higher (and in many cases lower) than B and C impulse flights. The forces are higher but often nowhere near the limit of the materials.

I hope you find an agreeable L3CC or jump the fence and find an L3 TAP. For the record, I think the biplane is a far more worthy L3 than the buckets - but that's just my opinion.
 
I have a friend who believes that an L3 rocket should be completely scratch built. By that he means no parts purchased from rocket vendors except electronics and perhaps a motor tube. His L3 was built from sonotube with a homemade nosecone.

My L3 was built from PML tubes and a PML nosecone, but it was my own design. I cut my own fins. I can't recall if I made the centering rings and bulk plates or not.
 
If you use the same motor as I did, and the same number of buckets, I suspect you're going to get more altitude (and more velocity) than I did

Short, squat rockets also do "funny" things in terms of stability. If you do decide to go this route, I'd suggest test flights with smaller motors, flying from far out pads, for safety reasons
Thank you Kevin. My experience with Open Rocket is that it keeps beating my expectations of accuracy for oddroc performance. Its numbers for the small bucket train were spot-on. As you can see, it predicts 385mph on an M1297 (and 309mph on M650 which may be a more suitable motor for this rocket). The .ork has 4, 3/8" plywood fins. do you think using more but smaller fins would help? 8 of them at half the height?

I'm happy to fly any of my designs from the away pads. This has never come up with the club so far, but I would take no offense if it does.


Personal opinion? You're rushing through levels fairly quickly. Stop and smell the roses, and have fun along the way.

In my experience, people who go through levels quickly tend to burn out quickly, and are quickly out of the hobby.

I suspect, based on what you've posted, that the L3CC you've talked to doesn't know you.

The gentleman knows me as well as anyone in the club who cares to. He's seen me fly my gliders, and he signed my L2 form. He even lent me a parachute for my L2 flight.

I see myself in this hobby long-term, but even if I burn out quicker with an L3 than without, how is that against the rules?

In my mind, one facet of commitment is getting things done. Sure, the national average may be 75 hours, but I did my Private Pilot in the FAA minimum 40 hours, and now have a instrument rating, a glider rating and a tailwheel endorsement. Some flight instructors like to drag out the process, but mine was smart enough to let me go at my pace. I expect he made more money from my rentals than if he'd forced me to pay for extra dual before my checkride. I'm still friends with him 13 years later (just saw the guy in Santa Monica last week).

For the record, I think the biplane is a far more worthy L3 than the buckets - but that's just my opinion.

I agree, and that is what I wanted to build in the first place. But it doesn't recover with pyrotechnics, and the L3CC apparently feels that I'd have it too easy if I built the first-ever L3 glider. So I said fine, I don't want to argue about that, I'll build something simple, dual-deploy, low-and-slow, and then I'll build the glider I want to build.


Ari.
 
I have a friend who believes that an L3 rocket should be completely scratch built. By that he means no parts purchased from rocket vendors except electronics and perhaps a motor tube. His L3 was built from sonotube with a homemade nosecone.

Wait a minute!! He bought pre-rolled sonotube? What a poser! Probably bought pre-made plywood too. :wink:

I plan to build my L3 starting with nothing but hydrogen atoms. I'll get back to you in a few decades.
 
Last edited:
I have a friend who believes that an L3 rocket should be completely scratch built. By that he means no parts purchased from rocket vendors except electronics and perhaps a motor tube. His L3 was built from sonotube with a homemade nosecone.

My L3 was built from PML tubes and a PML nosecone, but it was my own design. I cut my own fins. I can't recall if I made the centering rings and bulk plates or not.

Without commenting on the merits of this scratch-built requirement (I think Torj has some excellent points) I note that my proposal is about as far away from a kit as you can get. Ironically enough, the very originality of its design seems to be a problem in my case.

Ari.
 
The Tripoli TAP committee has had discussions on banning kits for L3. As already discussed here, how would they enforce the no kit rule? If a flyer brings a rocket that is 3FNC how does the flyer prove it wasn't a kit? Is the TAP committee going to require receipts for each part to prove it is not a kit?

Banning kits for TRA L3 certs will never be approved... Banning may be discussed until hell freezes over, but banning will never happen…:dark:
 
I think the idea of L3's not being allowed for kits is foolish at best. There would be no consistent way to enforce such a standard...you make one change and it's no longer a stock kit. Where or how do you draw the line?

However, the idea of a minimum number of successful flights post L2 I personally think is a valid one. Even in your example of flight ratings, you listed that you flew the minimum amount of hours required. But you still had to successfully fly those hours requirements before you could be signed off.

However, these rules should be documented somewhere. The idea of people not being able to progress just due to WOMs bothers me.

Also, judgment is always a player...the rules have to allow leeway for that. And because of that leeway, you might get different reactions from different people on the same thing. Considering those folks are signing their name to it, I can understand the conservatism in those kind of judgment calls.

FC
 
the L3CC apparently feels that I'd have it too easy if I built the first-ever L3 glider.
Don't confuse the entire L3CC with one member of it. I don't think there's an official policy against gliders, although I don't know if you can or would want to build a glider with a fineness ratio of 4:1 or higher. And you haven't really described the biplane aspect, which doesn't seem compatible with the high aero loads you would likely see.

Again, I think the right strategy is to demonstrate what you want to fly on a large L2 motor.
 
Ari, let me ask you this... Can you tell me when you got your Level 1 and Level 2, and an approximation of how many flights at each level, as well as success rates?

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, I periodically get calls from folks asking about members of our club -- they're wanting to do their Level 3, and the TAP or L3CC doesn't know them. As Prefect, they figure I do, so I get asked questions about their experience.

This was especially true for someone who wanted to do 1/2/3 right after he turned 18. Needless to say, experience very much played into that discussion.

-Kevin
 
MANNY doesn't count he's SPECIAL:dark:

Oh, Manny is special alright.... :p

But he's not the one I got the call about -- I only met Manny for the first time at AirFest last year. But, I know at least one of his TAPs, and that person knows him well, and I trust that person's judgement. Of course, if not, that person wouldn't make a good TAP....

-Kevin
 
Don't confuse the entire L3CC with one member of it. I don't think there's an official policy against gliders, although I don't know if you can or would want to build a glider with a fineness ratio of 4:1 or higher. And you haven't really described the biplane aspect, which doesn't seem compatible with the high aero loads you would likely see.
When I say "L3CC," I mean the committee rather than an individual. The L3CC rep who is the subject of my rant is telling me that L3CC has made a decision to disallow gliders for L3 certification flights, "despite his advocacy for me." I don't know if the committee plans to amend the requirements, or if it's going to be another one of these unwritten rules.

If you want to talk about the biplane, there's a mockup in this thread: https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...pport-vehicle-the-Firefly&p=457748#post457748. Biplane platrom decreases bending moments comparing to similar aspect-ratio monoplane. The reason WWI airplanes were biplanes is their builders didn't have materials to make long skinny wings strong enough, so they cut them in two and put the halves one above the other. An additional benefit is the vertical members which allow thin airfoils with tall vertical members, again increasing rigidity. In my case, I derive an additional benefit from structureal members that tie the wingtips together: instead of cantilever surfaces trying to flutter themselves apart in the airstream, I have a rigid box that aids overall structural integrity. Lastly, this configuration allows me to position the motor ahead of the CG, so that the model is overstable during boost (can fly hands-off) but the CG moves back for a controllable glide. On Vulcan, one of the limitations on size of motors I can fly is the CG shift, which make the model nose-heavy for glide--the opposite of what I want. Again, if you want to talk about the glider, I'm happy to, but it's irrelevant to this rant.

Ari, let me ask you this... Can you tell me when you got your Level 1 and Level 2, and an approximation of how many flights at each level, as well as success rates?

To give you an idea of where I'm coming from, I periodically get calls from folks asking about members of our club -- they're wanting to do their Level 3, and the TAP or L3CC doesn't know them. As Prefect, they figure I do, so I get asked questions about their experience.

This was especially true for someone who wanted to do 1/2/3 right after he turned 18. Needless to say, experience very much played into that discussion.

-Kevin

Of course I can tell you, indeed most of this information is on this very forum. My L1 is Oct 19, 2012; My L2 is Jan 5 2013. Vulcan has 9 flights on it, including 2 on G motors; DD Onyx has 3 HP flights; Castaway has 3 HP flights on it; that's 13 L1 flights, unless I'm forgetting something. On the same day when I earn my L1 with Vulcan, I attempt L2 with a spool which goes unstable--my one flight failure. Tubularity is the lesson from that failure. I have one flight on it (J540). Back in May I failed to recover a LOC HiTec when wind carried it away on its parachute in my first L1 attempt.

I'm unclear on how any of these flight statistics are relevant to my rant. I'm aware of no rules that take experience or even safety record into account one way or another for approving certification flights.

Ari.
 
I'm not surprised they're not allowing a glider for a Level 3 flight, to be honest. In addition, NFPA 1127 4.10.2 says

A high power rocket launched with an installed total impulse greater than 2560 N-sec (576 lb-sec) shall use an electronically actuated recovery system as either a primary or backup deployment method

You have one successful Level 2 flight, and one failed Level 2 flight. You're going to be hard-pressed to find an L3CC who's going to agree that you're ready to certify, and who will support it.

Your demonstrated success rate does play into their confidence that you can successfully recover an M-powered rocket. There are never any guarantees, but the demonstrated track record is something that's going to be figured in.

-Kevin
 
I applaud his desire to make a biplane but the NAR L3 requirements include a recovery systems package which specifically requires a drogue and main chute. So, make your 3fnc, cert then make your biplane. Might want to talk to your local club to see what their opinion of flying such a large odd-roc is. My personal opinion is that you need to fly it (for the first time) far, far away from the flight line. Then I'd feel good about closer. After all, every rocket has a pad. It's just that every launch might not have that pad.........you may not like the walk to that pad, but....at least it would fly.
 
Of course I have an electronically actuated recovery system. Do you think I actuate my flaps with motor ejection? :=) In addition, I proposed to install a main parachute that either the operator or an altimeter can deploy with pyrotechnics in the terminal phase of the flight (say 500' AGL). Made no difference. Sometimes I think that if I simply said I had a single-event rocket with altimeter as primary and R/C as backup deployment, I'd have gotten away with it.

But none of this is relevant to my rant. I'm not looking for someone to override my L3CC rep. I'm not looking to appeal the L3CC glider decision. Why pick a fight I can't win? My rant is about unwritten rules. You think applicants need to burn so many Ns between their certification flights? You think applicants need a minimum number of flights at the preceding certification level? You think there should be a wait period between certification flights? Fine by me. Have a rule for that, and apply it consistently. I have no problem with the FAA's 40-hour minimum for Private checkride. They have clear, uniform minimum experience requirements and rules for record-keeping. I'm onboard with that process. What I'm not onboard with is someone looking me up and down, calling me a one-flight newbie and rendering a verdict on the spot.

Ari.
 
I applaud his desire to make a biplane but the NAR L3 requirements include a recovery systems package which specifically requires a drogue and main chute. So, make your 3fnc, cert then make your biplane. Might want to talk to your local club to see what their opinion of flying such a large odd-roc is. My personal opinion is that you need to fly it (for the first time) far, far away from the flight line. Then I'd feel good about closer. After all, every rocket has a pad. It's just that every launch might not have that pad.........you may not like the walk to that pad, but....at least it would fly.

Show me that rule that requires a main and a drogue, or even one of the two.

Ari.
 
One of the biggest issues in this hobby that I have found is the different opinions of adding rules or do we have to many as it is. You are a pilot, the FAA has so many rules and regulations and if they don't have one for something then there is a rule to cover that. It is that way with all of the alphabet agency's out there. You have not been around long enough to know of all of the rules and reg's that we had to try to follow and then when you thought you understood them you were wrong. We do not need more rules, maybe some changing of wording or some clarification on some points but that would be it. Things change with time and technology advancements or FAA and NFP changes so we need to adapt as we have in the past. Having the TAP's and L3CC members being able to make judgement calls in the field allows for more flexibility then having ridged rules and reg's and can really help make things safer and still allow for imagination and individuality.

TAP and L3CC members are not suppose to be road blocks or obstacles for fliers to over come or avoid, we are hear to help fliers to achieve their goals objectives successfully and safely. It is always better to work with then then to question anything they ask of you. Despite personal opinions the TAP and L3CC work together to be consistent fair and objective across the board.

Personally I like to know what your motivations, goals or objectives are going into things but only so that I can understand where you are coming from and where you want to go. We all have different things driving us but we should not judge you only on that. I want to make sure that you have the best odds possible to be successful and are safe doing so. If it requires me to have you work on some other goals along the way to help to insure that your design, materials or technique will work then so be it. If the flier wants to fight it and try to find ways to work around things then he may not have the same ideas of being safe and successful as I do.

I might get a little heat for this but...These are rocket clubs, the certifications are High Power Rocket Certifications, you should get your certification using a high power rocket. The hobby does have some areas that cross over in to many different areas, HAM, R/C plans, Rocket Cars and others. In fact NAR has a Radio Control Rocket Glider Safety Code. I have no problems with people that fly rocket gliders, boosted gliders, planes and helicopters but for certifications I think they should be done with a rocket because that is what you are getting a certification to fly. It is like getting your motorcycle licence driving a car, it is a motor vehicle but it is not a motorcycle. I think the best advice is to get your certifications and then merge the two different hobbies. If you do not understand the forces behind high power rocketry before you start to fly high powered gliders you are not likely to be successful and the same goes for people that know high power rocketry but have no clue about gliders. There is a big difference between a J540 and an M1297, almost 5x. With the masses involved with high power rocketry I think there are some good skills to have before you move on to high power rocket gliders.

I should also add that the above is my personal opinion and not the rules or the opinion of the TAP and L3CC. I also look at things objectively and open minded as we all should in doing any certification but there are some guidelines that you need to follow.
 
If you're not set on flying with the M first (probably a good idea), you should instead build it anyway and then fly it on L's.

Then fly it on L's with ballast as if it were an M motor.

Then get your L3 with something else, and fly M's all you like with the glider.
 
The thing that's being missed is that NAR and Tripoli both allow their Level 3 certification folks to refuse to sign a certification, for any reason. It's their judgement. They're in a position to make those decisions, because they've demonstrated knowledge and the ability to exercise good judgement.

They're looking at the overall package from a safety perspective, and odds of success are part of that package. As are you, and your experience.

You also have to remember, the L3CC has to sign on the dotted line. It's not just your cert, it's their name, too.

I'll be honest, Ari. If you were in my club, and a TAP or L3CC called me and asked about you, I'd tell them your flight experience, followed by, "I don't think he's ready". You have two J motor flights. The difference between a J and an M is huge.

-Kevin
 
I'll be honest, Ari. If you were in my club, and a TAP or L3CC called me and asked about you, I'd tell them your flight experience, followed by, "I don't think he's ready". You have two J motor flights. The difference between a J and an M is huge.

-Kevin

So, if the quality of the build is in question, why not propose a staged process. Stability and reliability, at least for TRA, must be demonstrated prior to flight. that can be done by hand, using computer models, or with a scale model. Why not require that he build a scale model to verify the flight profile and concept, and that he successfully build and fly the L3 model on an L2 motor to demonstrate that the full scale is both stable and safe in flight prior to making a L3 attempt?

I was under the impression that this was a mentoring process, not just two senior fliers checking boxes on a flight sheet. Maybe there's more to the discussion from the L3CC. Maybe Ari just needs to find a like-minded L3CC. It's possible that the L3CC has no experience in these types of airframes, and is uncomfortable certifying outside of his (or her) experience. If that was the case, though, I would have hoped that he would have guided Ari to someone who was more inclined to fly that type of airframe.
 
I would expect at L3, every flight would have greater involvement by the RSO, not just the cert flight. However certification is even more critical and interpretable, and thus could be used to inflict bias. The biplane is possibly risky and the buckets ... certainly aren't the most elegant use of an M. It is the top level, not just a stepping stone to L4 ;) .

Kits and manufactured parts can increase the chance of success, which can't be ruled bad.
 
Back
Top