I'm not a Tripoli member, so not currently affected by this, but I expect that I will be through NAR. I'm nowhere near as experienced as most who've posted; I've certified to NAR Level II but haven't flown more than was required to do that. What strikes me most about this thread is not the vitriol, but the knowledge and wisdom that have been relayed - it may not be in the majority of the posts, but the thread (especially the questions asked and answered, and the questions asked and as-yet unanswered) should be required reading for any group that plans on touching this subject in the future.
Modern electronic devices can be remarkably robust and reliable when competently designed into a sealed and protected enclosure and operated within specified electrical, mechanical, and environmental limits. Hobby rocketry, as it's practiced at this time, doesn't meet most or all of these limitations, so I don't see how one could safely rely on them (and before you argue, please be sure to honestly tell me that you always handle your altimeter at an approved static-safe workstation using appropriate personnel procedures, that it never exceeds the vibration and G-loads spec'ed by the manufacturers of all the components used on it, and that it is always protected from mechanical, electrical, or environmental damage). The important thing to recognize when it comes to electronics is that "broken" doesn't mean "dead, inert, safe", it means "I don't know what it's going to do, could be anything from nothing to everything to going up in smoke, or perhaps combinations of all three". The problem comes in deciding how far down the rathole you want to go, how far you want to go to meet the "Must". An inline diode might be a great way to solve #2, for example; but a diode, as robust as it is, is still an electronic device subject to the previous paragraph.
I will say that it seems to me that a revision to safety codes that simply lays out what is expected out of ejection/airstart electronics is sufficient. There's no real need for TRA/NAR to get into the certification biz, the specification biz, or even the waiver of requirements as they did for the WiFi switch. A relatively small set of general requirements that the community can police should be sufficient; this thread can be distilled down to start such a list. Note that some of these will fall on equipment manufacturer shoulders, and some on the Rocketeer:
Electronics for energetics:
1. Must be designed to prevent accidental firing at power on (Mfg)
2. Must be designed to prevent accidental firing due to battery reversal (Mfg)
3. Must be designed to prevent accidental firing due to a tipped, dropped or transported rocket (Mfg, Rocketeer)
4. Must be capable of unpowered RSO inspection (Rocketeer)
- Silicon devices cannot be relied on as a means of rendering a rocket unpowered
- Magnetic devices cannot be relied on as a means of rendering a rocket unpowered
- A relay cannot be relied on as a means of rendering a rocket unpowered
5. Rocketeer SHOULD be capable of assembling and continuity testing prior to RSO inspection with (almost) NO danger of accidental firing
I think this is the beginnings of a list that is probably less than 10 items long; all it really needs to do is set out the expectations. Some of these expectations will be different than they have been in the past; some of what I've read in this thread has frankly shocked me.
I've been involved in other hobbies that had to go through wrenching changes in safety culture, due to the realization that what had been perfectly acceptable was killing people and needed to change. I don't think this needs to be as wrenching, but I do think that some well accepted building techniques are going to need to change. Some well-flown rockets are going to need major rework. But the overall changes aren't really that extensive.
I looked online for a place to order just the contacts like what is in those and I couldn’t find them. I know several people planning to embed the Fingertech contacts directly into 3D printed sleds...it’d be great to find a supplier of similar contacts.
