Level 4 Certification?

Biggest thing I've completed to date is for E, I think. Several in the works for D, E, 29mm and 1 38mm.
Now speak of a goal to look to, I can't imagine how long it would take me to get to the 20 scale Saturn V I saw in a videa less than a week ago.
I don't think I would live long enough. If I did, I would never be able to afford it.
For me, goal is equal what I can afford to build and fly. Mostly build until I find another open field to launch from.

Both SCUBA diving and sky diving are imminent death situations, you screw up and you're a dead man. Not so with a rocket. The only people I know of lately to die from a rocket is Hezbollah shooting their rockets into Israel and it ain't the rocket, per say, that causes the deaths.

The Certification does nothing to increase safety over what we had before, there's nothing to prove one way or another that being certed makes anyone more safe or less for that matter.

A 1 flight confirmation(not conformation) of skills is all that is needed, the rest is an imposition that is unnecessary. c::2:

I agree that there are two reasons to certify:
1) to be able to fly those motors at a sanctioned launch
2) the "merit badge" aspect

So maybe rather than a "level 4", we should have some system more like merit badges. The TRA altitude records are a good example of something that people care about, but it needs to be better managed. Maybe there are other aspects that demonstrate unusual skill that could be turned into a similar competitions.

dave carver said:

Please name me ONE other HOBBY that has ANYTHING like this.

Click to expand...

Being a pilot. Even after you have your pilot's license, you need certification for all sorts of things (tail dragger, single engine, multi-engine, instrument...).

FC

FastCargo said:

Being a pilot. Even after you have your pilot's license, you need certification for all sorts of things (tail dragger, single engine, multi-engine, instrument...).

FC

Click to expand...

Nope, not giving you this one Reasons for licensing a pilot are many, once again, you screw up and you're likely a dead man and in this case can take many out with you. Plus for the vast majority of pilots it's not a hobby, ask the racers at Reno if it's a hobby. What you will get from most as an answer is maniacal laughter.

I don't see additional regulation as a way to increase participation and retention. The opposite would in fact be the case.

Adding a bunch of new tests and procedures is just going to drive people out of rocketry and into something with less paperwork, particularly if it's done for no reason other than to create said paperwork.

A better way to retain people in my mind would be to eliminate the merit badges and encourage them to build and fly things they enjoy. I get irritated every time I see the regulation requiring L3 certification on a "conventional rocket" and the limits on certifying with clusters. I understand the reason for it, but to me it just means that I have to shelve all these designs I have in my head and spend money and time to build another 3FNC that will probably fly one single time.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum

dave carver said:

Both SCUBA diving and sky diving are imminent death situations, you screw up and you're a dead man. Not so with a rocket. The only people I know of lately to die from a rocket is Hezbollah shooting their rockets into Israel and it ain't the rocket, per say, that causes the deaths.

The Certification does nothing to increase safety over what we had before, there's nothing to prove one way or another that being certed makes anyone more safe or less for that matter.

A 1 flight confirmation(not conformation) of skills is all that is needed, the rest is an imposition that is unnecessary. c::2:

Click to expand...

As a hobby, we do pride ourselves in our injury and fatality rate, which I believe is zero or nearly zero. There is a reason for this, and it's not because rocketry isn't dangerous. (It is dangerous. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying both to you and themselves.) While I don't want to draw immediate conclusions, imagine what might happen if folks did their first high power cert on an O25k or a homebrew. (Hmm... homebrew is the only thing I could think of that you could reasonably add an additional cert level for (Level 2a?).)

jmattingly13 said:

As a hobby, we do pride ourselves in our injury and fatality rate, which I believe is zero or nearly zero. There is a reason for this, and it's not because rocketry isn't dangerous. (It is dangerous. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying both to you and themselves.) While I don't want to draw immediate conclusions, imagine what might happen if folks did their first high power cert on an O25k or a homebrew. (Hmm... homebrew is the only thing I could think of that you could reasonably add an additional cert level for (Level 2a?).)

Click to expand...

My Conformation flight was with an I284 in a 5 pound rocket. I had zero experience with composites at that time and the only F flight I tried ended up with the F100 FSI motor exploding 10 feet up. The first few issues of High Power Rocketry are tattered and dog-eared and taped back together I studied them so hard. I did, however consult with then prefect John Reynolds many times during construction, most 3rd level attempters never see their TAP guys as often as I saw John. The rocket was 100% scratch, I even made the parachute and cone. Bingo! Success the first flight. Confirmed. Then 7 years(or so) later we're having to certify for some odd and arcane reason, like somehow it would keep the dragon from the door...it didn't work.

Not only that it's a discriminatory wall, you don't get to play with the smart rich kids if you are not smart enough...

Tear down the wall.....

[video=youtube;phe1RV62KKs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phe1RV62KKs[/video]

wfcook said:

I don't see additional regulation as a way to increase participation and retention. The opposite would in fact be the case.

Adding a bunch of new tests and procedures is just going to drive people out of rocketry and into something with less paperwork, particularly if it's done for no reason other than to create said paperwork.

A better way to retain people in my mind would be to eliminate the merit badges and encourage them to build and fly things they enjoy. I get irritated every time I see the regulation requiring L3 certification on a "conventional rocket" and the limits on certifying with clusters. I understand the reason for it, but to me it just means that I have to shelve all these designs I have in my head and spend money and time to build another 3FNC that will probably fly one single time.


Sent from my iPhone using Rocketry Forum

Click to expand...

This goes hand in hand with the other thread I suppose. Should the cert. program even exist? If it doesn't then having some sort of "Merit Badge" or "Pin" system that is VOLUNTARY could give people something to work towards.

I'm newer to the hobby and to the me the Certification system was more of a goal rather than a hindrance. But to someone who has been around awhile I can understand the frustration with the whole thing. Heck I am going for my L2 and there are guys who have been in for a long time that are still L2's and they are way smarter than I am when it comes to rocketry. So does me obtaining my L2 put me at the same level as these guys? Not even close. My knowledge and experience isn't even close. So getting my L2 won't really prove anything.

CoyoteNumber2 said:

Tripoli San Diego does this: https://www.tripolisandiego.org/challenge.html

Click to expand...

That's pretty cool. I might suggest something like that to our club.

When did certification start?

TheSamurai said:

This goes hand in hand with the other thread I suppose. Should the cert. program even exist? If it doesn't then having some sort of "Merit Badge" or "Pin" system that is VOLUNTARY could give people something to work towards.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think it should.

My only beef with it, which is very minor, is that it requires building a specific type of rocket in which I don't have much interest and flying a single motor in it.

I am sure, however, that this rule comes from experience. The people handling the cert need to be able to understand what they are looking at, and I suppose that can be difficult with some types of rockets. So I am sure that there is a need to limit the types of things that are allowed for practicality.

dave carver said:

[/rant on/] It needs to go away, all of it. It's horsecrap and proves nothing but some people's need to be anal and in charge. It was a failed attempt to appease some unknown Gov entity and it was shoved down the membership's throat without a vote.

Please name me ONE other HOBBY that has ANYTHING like this. You can walk into any hobby store across the US and walk out with a 1/4 scale Piper Cub that will carry how much RDX into someone's bedroom window? 3rd level HO railroader? Model boat sailer 1st class?

Another point; how many 3 and out fliers do you know? Average member lasts 2-3 years and are gone. They get their 3rd level PhD., buy the pin and that's it. The 3 level process forces us all down the same basic path, my round peg is being hammered into a square hole.

It can be easily ditched, after all it only took a BoD vote to impose it[/rant off/]

If I ever ran for Tripoli BoD that would be my platform.

Click to expand...

Hi Dave,

Troj has mentioned the turbine waiver for AMA. A certain amount of skill needs to be demonstrated by the pilot before flying an R/C aircraft capable of reaching speeds over 200mph.

There are also aircraft inspections required at different levels of R/C aircraft that weigh over 55 pounds that also require flights in front of designated inspectors for airworthiness before it can be flown at public events.

The International Model Aircraft Association (IMAA) a special interest group (SIG) of the AMA has required aircraft inspections for years and a minimum number of successful flights before flying at an event.

By far the most strict requirements that I have seen were through the Unlimited Scale Racing Association (USRA) when an aircraft had to be registered, issued a log book and safety inspected before each race, every flight logged, and damage recorded, repaired, and then reinspected fro airworthiness. You also had to have a video of the pilot flying the plane to prove that he/she was capable of handling the aircraft.

Before the three level cert program as a TRA member you could fly an H in front of a prefect and then fly whatever you could find. The NAR took a different approach and didn't allow high power at all or at least discouraged its use.

Both organizations moved from their original positions, thank goodness, and now both have very similar cert programs and recognize the validity of the other's.

I agree with cwbullet that what we have now seems to be working. "Ditching" the process would be a mistake in my opinion. Refining it over time is expected.

Not sure what the answer is, if there is one, for retaining folks. I have been doing this off and on for over fifty years and flying R/C for forty. I have seen lots of folks come and go in both hobbies. I have friends who jump from one hobby to another. I am lucky to have found two that compliment each other, keep me interested, and manage to drain my wallet all of the time. Hey, what more can you ask for?

dave carver said:

Nope, not giving you this one Reasons for licensing a pilot are many, once again, you screw up and you're likely a dead man and in this case can take many out with you. Plus for the vast majority of pilots it's not a hobby, ask the racers at Reno if it's a hobby. What you will get from most as an answer is maniacal laughter.

Click to expand...

Dave, you're off your rocker here. Flying IS a hobby for many people. Your statement is similar to telling someone to ask the guys at NASA if rocketry is a hobby. (BTW: AOPA claims 20% of pilots are employed as fulltime pilots https://www.aopa.org/About-AOPA/General-Aviation-Statistics/FAA-Certificated-Pilots)

Rocketry has a good track record of safety. TRA and NAR are largely responsible for this. Look at the stupid crap people do with estes BP motors....Now imagine them doing it with J's and K's.

You put a 5 pound rocket on the pad with an I motor with no composite experience. OK, and it had to pass the prefect and RSO to get on that pad....and they looked at it closer than average because it was a cert flight. Having to pass that test is what makes rocketry safer, and anyone saying that certs are BS is seriously out of touch with that.

On the other question of a 4th level.... why is it I never see L3's bringing this up? As for Kit or scratch.... at the point of L3, the main difference between scratch and kit is someone cut a tube in half for you, slotted the end of one, and cutout some fins. Either way there are a ton of choices to make as a builder.

dave carver said:

Plus for the vast majority of pilots it's not a hobby, ask the racers at Reno if it's a hobby. What you will get from most as an answer is maniacal laughter.

Click to expand...

For many pilots it very well IS a hobby.

https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hobby

an activity or interest pursued for pleasure or relaxation and not as a main occupation

Click to expand...

Sounds like a hobby to me...the vast majority of pilots are not air racers or airline pilots. Check it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_certification_in_the_United_States

As of the end of 2013, in the US, there were an estimated 617,128 active certificated pilots.[18] This number has been declining gradually over the past several decades, down from a high of over 827,000 pilots in 1980. There were 702,659 in 1990 and 625,581 in 2000. The numbers include:

120,285 student pilots (128,663 in 1990 and 93,064 in 2000)
238 recreational pilots (87 in 1990 and 340 in 2000)
4,824 sport pilots (did not exist until 2005)
180,214 private pilots (299,111 in 1990 and 251,561 in 2000)
108,206 commercial pilots (149,666 in 1990 and 121,858 in 2000)
149,824 airline transport pilots (107,732 in 1990 and 141,596 in 2000)
20,381 glider-only pilots (9,567 in 1990 and 7,775 in 2000)
20,381 rotorcraft-(helicopter)-only pilots (7,833 in 1990 and 9,387 in 2000)

Click to expand...

Those numbers include not only those rated to fly but keep current medical certificates (in other words, active pilots). Note the two bolded numbers (the most common way to earn real money as a pilot) add up to less than half of the current pilot amount. I'll say it again...the majority of pilots are not doing this for a living...but as a hobby.

FC

For the record, I don't believe in any additional certifications. I don't think it would help retain members in clubs...there will always be 'churn' in the hobby. And it won't ever be huge because I don't think it ever has been.

I do think we should do some of our own policing, with the certification process being part of that. My thought is very simple...we police ourselves, or someone will do it for us (usually with heavy handedness). And I don't think anyone wants that.

I do have some concerns about the certification process however. There was a user on the forum who was completely in the dark as to why his rocket (shaped like a submarine) was unstable...yet he had earned a NAR Level 1 cert building only kit rockets before this happened. In my opinion, that should not have occurred, period. By the time a person reaches Level 1, they need to have a firm understanding of why and how rockets fly, including the CP/CG relationship. I'm not interested in a certification because I don't plan to go HPR, so I don't know the details of the certification process. Was there a failure here?

FC

FastCargo said:

I do have some concerns about the certification process however. There was a user on the forum who was completely in the dark as to why his rocket (shaped like a submarine) was unstable...yet he had earned a NAR Level 1 cert building only kit rockets before this happened. In my opinion, that should not have occurred, period. By the time a person reaches Level 1, they need to have a firm understanding of why and how rockets fly, including the CP/CG relationship. I'm not interested in a certification because I don't plan to go HPR, so I don't know the details of the certification process. Was there a failure here?

FC

Click to expand...

He should have discussed/shown CG/CP on his L1 rocket. Being a kit it may have been quickly done or overlooked due to be obviously stable. The written test for L2 is more comprehensive, though the process leads slightly more toward memorizing than learning. It doesn't make people qualified rocket scientists, but I think it does a good job of adding a layer of safety and understanding. As nice as a written test for L1 would be, I think it would drive people away from high power. Even with no written test, they have to demonstrate a basic understanding of rocketry and stability. (and have the CP marked on the rocket) I'd say if he didn't understand CG/CP there was a failure in the process.


------------------------------
From TRA-
Level 1 Certification allows flyers to fly High Power Rockets with a total installed impulse up
to 640 n-sec.
Airframe – The rocket must be built by the flyer. The rocket shall have a display on the
exterior identifying the calculated center of pressure. The rocket must be of “conventional
rocket design”. “Odd Rockets” including flying pyramids, saucers and flying spools will not be
allowed for any certification flight. The rocket may be either a kit or scratch built. Scratch built
rockets may contain commercially built components.
Recovery - Standard parachute recovery is required. Non-parachute recovery methods (e.g.
tumble, helicopter, gliding, etc) are not permitted for certification flights. If the rocket is using
dual deployment, the first event recovery may be via drogue-less or streamer as long as the
main or second event uses a standard parachute.
Motor – The certification flight must be with a single certified H or I motor (tested total impulse
between 160.01 and 640.00 n-sec). Staged and/or Clustered rockets may not be used for
certification flights. The flyer shall be observed by the certifying member or their designated
representative during the assembly (if a reload or hybrid) and preparation of the motor.
Electronics – Electronics are not required for level 1 certification flights.
Certification Flight – Level 1 Certification flight may take place at any insured launch. The
certifying member (i.e. Prefect, TRA Director, or TAP Member) must be present and witness
the certification flight. The certifying member must witness the rocket ascend in a stable
manner and descend in stabilized manner controlled by the recovery system.
Post-Flight Inspection – The rocket must be presented to the certifying member for
inspection. If the rocket cannot be recovered, but can be inspected in place (power lines, tree,
etc&#8230 this is acceptable. The certifying member shall inspect the rocket for excessive
damage. Excessive damage shall be considered damage to the point that if the flyer were
handed another motor, the rocket could not be put on the pad and flown again safely.
Damage caused by wind dragging will not cause a disqualification.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A lot of people that are level 3 in the hobby and aren't seen much anymore, have either gone off to pursue other hobbies or if still into rocketry, are doing amateur rocketry like RRS or PRS, FAR, etc. These are the really serious guys, maybe not professional, but certainly have enough knowledge acquired to be there. A lot of NAR/TRA members out west belong to these other groups because of more challenges offered or members can do things at these other launches that would be unheard of at NAR/TRA launches, mainly because of liability and insurance concerns.
BALLS is one launch that gets into this kind of territory. I cant remember if BALLS is its own thing or if it is affiliated with TRA.
There's people on this forum that can add more accurate info on what I'm talking about.