UncleVanya
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2009
- Messages
- 388
- Reaction score
- 0
A quick poll - in the last year how many launches have you been to where at some point rockets flew over or were recovering over the spectator areas?
I'll confess, this poll has me scratching my head, wondering exactly what the objective is, beyond possibly embarassing one, or both, of the national organizations?
Think about it. You're asking people to publicly document potential safety issues, making them public record, and providing documentation that could quite seriously potentially bite one of the organizations in the posterior in the future.
If you have concerns, fine. Express them to the respective organization.
But putting it out publicly, where it'll get grabbed by other sites, and archived for all posterity....imagine if one of the organizations has their insurance up for review, and the insurance company happens to catch wind of it. What do you realistically think is going to happen to the insurance premiums?
-Kevin (who won't be voting in this poll)
I'll confess, this poll has me scratching my head, wondering exactly what the objective is, beyond possibly embarassing one, or both, of the national organizations?
Think about it. You're asking people to publicly document potential safety issues, making them public record, and providing documentation that could quite seriously potentially bite one of the organizations in the posterior in the future.
If you have concerns, fine. Express them to the respective organization.
But putting it out publicly, where it'll get grabbed by other sites, and archived for all posterity....imagine if one of the organizations has their insurance up for review, and the insurance company happens to catch wind of it. What do you realistically think is going to happen to the insurance premiums?
-Kevin (who won't be voting in this poll)
A quick poll - in the last year how many launches have you been to where at some point rockets flew over or were recovering over the spectator areas?
The record is good but no doubt there possibility of improvement.
There's always room for improvement. I had a close call last weekend. I've been to more than 100 club launches watching, perhaps, 10,000 or more flights, and it's the first time that's happened to me. So, it's not common.
The site was set up well and flights were not flying over us before or after it happened. So, it was a fluke, not a safety oversight.
No one wants anyone to get hurt or for a rocket to damage a tent or vehicle. So, at every launch I've attended, everyone's been careful to position the launch pads and angle the launch rods and rails properly.
-- Roger
There is a huge difference between "recovering over" (descending slowiy on properly deployed chutes) and "flying over" (such that if the chute failed to deploy the rocket would come in hot in spectator areas.) The first can be a lot harder to avoid than the second, but is a much lower risk. Distinguishing between the two is critically important IMHO, and this poll as stated doesn't capture the difference.at some point rockets flew over or were recovering over the spectator areas?
I saw something on the NAR facebook page related to this. Is that what this is about?
I'll confess, this poll has me scratching my head, wondering exactly what the objective is, beyond possibly embarassing one, or both, of the national organizations?
Think about it. You're asking people to publicly document potential safety issues, making them public record, and providing documentation that could quite seriously potentially bite one of the organizations in the posterior in the future.
If you have concerns, fine. Express them to the respective organization.
But putting it out publicly, where it'll get grabbed by other sites, and archived for all posterity....imagine if one of the organizations has their insurance up for review, and the insurance company happens to catch wind of it. What do you realistically think is going to happen to the insurance premiums?
-Kevin (who won't be voting in this poll)
There is a huge difference between "recovering over" (descending slowiy on properly deployed chutes) and "flying over" (such that if the chute failed to deploy the rocket would come in hot in spectator areas.) The first can be a lot harder to avoid than the second, but is a much lower risk. Distinguishing between the two is critically important IMHO, and this poll as stated doesn't capture the difference.
There is a huge difference between "recovering over" (descending slowiy on properly deployed chutes) ...
For the NAR HPR code, it depends on how you interpret "I will not launch my rocket... on trajectories that take it directly over the heads of spectators". I could argue that "on trajectories" implies prior to chute deployment.Actually, from the safety code perspective the two are both prohibited.
For the NAR HPR code, it depends on how you interpret "I will not launch my rocket... on trajectories that take it directly over the heads of spectators". I could argue that "on trajectories" implies prior to chute deployment.
I agree that it would be vastly preferred that rockets not be landing on chute in spectator areas, but it can be very impractical to guarantee that in all circumstances.
I'll confess, this poll has me scratching my head, wondering exactly what the objective is, beyond possibly embarassing one, or both, of the national organizations?
Think about it. You're asking people to publicly document potential safety issues, making them public record, and providing documentation that could quite seriously potentially bite one of the organizations in the posterior in the future.
If you have concerns, fine. Express them to the respective organization.
But putting it out publicly, where it'll get grabbed by other sites, and archived for all posterity....imagine if one of the organizations has their insurance up for review, and the insurance company happens to catch wind of it. What do you realistically think is going to happen to the insurance premiums?
-Kevin (who won't be voting in this poll)
I have read the report and it's a good report, but its overriding emphasis is on ballistic returns (as it should be). The proposed text (in bold) they present for "safe recovery" is "A high power rocket shall be launched only if it contains a recovery system that returns all parts of the rocket to the ground intact and at a landing speed at which the rocket does not present a hazard to persons."But go beyond that and look at the NAR paper posted earlier in the thread - the intent is clearly to avoid all trajectories into the parking/prep/spectator area even under parachute.
There's always room for improvement. I had a close call last weekend.
A quick poll - in the last year how many launches have you been to where at some point rockets flew over or were recovering over the spectator areas?
I'll confess, this poll has me scratching my head, wondering exactly what the objective is, beyond possibly embarassing one, or both, of the national organizations?
Think about it. You're asking people to publicly document potential safety issues, making them public record, and providing documentation that could quite seriously potentially bite one of the organizations in the posterior in the future.
If you have concerns, fine. Express them to the respective organization.
But putting it out publicly, where it'll get grabbed by other sites, and archived for all posterity....imagine if one of the organizations has their insurance up for review, and the insurance company happens to catch wind of it. What do you realistically think is going to happen to the insurance premiums?
-Kevin (who won't be voting in this poll)