Certification Pass or Fail

[sharkbait]

Ummmm, is the motor a vital part of the rocket? If so, I guess that would DQ motor hooks.

technically from NAR high power code

1. Materials. I will use only lightweight materials such as paper, wood, rubber, plastic, fiberglass, or when necessary ductile metal, for the construction of my rocket.

https://www.nar.org/safety-information/high-power-rocket-safety-code/

from Apogee Rockets web site.

STANDARD ENGINE HOOKS​

• Model: 24048
• Qty per pack: 6
• Material: "Spring" Steel. Heat treated, and plated with silver.

https://www.apogeerockets.com/Build...y,or remove the rocket engine from the model.

our sorely missed Der MicroMeister was a brilliant and kindly curmudgeon, but would get his panties in a wad for low power using an aluminum can piece as an internal liner in a downsized stuffer tube to prevent burn through.

@sr205347d posted this as an opinion question. it’s all a theoretical exercise on the forum because the NAR authorities on site who preflighted the rocket, watched the flight, and did the post-mortem post-flight review . They know far more about the whole thing than anybody other than @sr205347d himself, and they passed it through all phases. it was their call to make.

strongly concur with advice that before you build ANY cert rocket would be wise (not essential, but certainly wise) to run anything non-standard/not stock by the people you hope to sign off your cert flight, as some strong opinions here that a different reviewer might not have looked so favorably on it.

FWIW, I think ”frangible” fins might be a reasonable thing to put on a rocket, but probably not the best choice for a certification rocket. I probably will be an L-0 for life, but if I did for for L1 it would probably be a helicopter, cuz I don’t think it’s been done (for certification) before. I do know someone did a successful L1 on a GLIDER.

I have used something akin to frangible fins and it worked great,

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/frangible-assisted-recovery.165724/

Must be another NAR thing as Tripoli does not allow helicopter, glider, tumble, ect ect, must be standard parachute recovery for a cert flight

 

[gldknght]

Must be another NAR thing as Tripoli does not allow helicopter, glider, tumble, ect ect, must be standard parachute recovery for a cert flight

Never mind.

 

[BABAR]

Must be another NAR thing as Tripoli does not allow helicopter, glider, tumble, ect ect, must be standard parachute recovery for a cert flight

Tripoli is a top notch organization which appears predominantly focused on high power parachute recovery rockets.

Yes, they do allow low power rockets of varying types at some launches, but it seems like they are kind of humoring the less accomplished, perhaps in hopes we will grow up and fly “real” model rockets!

 

[John Kemker]

Tripoli is a top notch organization which appears predominantly focused on high power parachute recovery rockets.

Yes, they do allow low power rockets of varying types at some launches, but it seems like they are kind of humoring the less accomplished, perhaps in hopes we will grow up and fly “real” model rockets!

While there are certainly members of Tripoli who hold that attitude, the majority of Tripoli members that I've flown with are more concerned with having fun with high power to look down on anyone else's fun.

What I *have* seen as a common attitude in many TRA members is a dislike of the NAR competition mindset. Most of us aren't out to beat anyone else, just our own past accomplishments. Yes, you do see some folks with a serious competitive streak, but it's more in the line of "My (rocket | motor) is bigger than yours!"

 

[DAllen]

While there are certainly members of Tripoli who hold that attitude, the majority of Tripoli members that I've flown with are more concerned with having fun with high power to look down on anyone else's fun.

What I *have* seen as a common attitude in many TRA members is a dislike of the NAR competition mindset. Most of us aren't out to beat anyone else, just our own past accomplishments. Yes, you do see some folks with a serious competitive streak, but it's more in the line of "My (rocket | motor) is bigger than yours!

lol wut

I am one of those "Tripoli" members that is having fun. I have not, nor do I know of anyone that looks down on anyone else for doing the hobby differently.

I will admit though the whole competition thing has always been a head scratcher for me as I look at it like pineapple on pizza. Not my thing but if others like it good for them...

 

[sharkbait]

Tripoli is a top notch organization which appears predominantly focused on high power parachute recovery rockets.

Yes, they do allow low power rockets of varying types at some launches, but it seems like they are kind of humoring the less accomplished, perhaps in hopes we will grow up and fly “real” model rockets!

I was strictly speaking to the certification process as Tripoli does not allow those types of recovery for a cert flight, and apparently NAR does as the poster said he knew of a person that certified with a glider and he intended to cert with helicopter

We probably launch as many or more low power birds at our club than high power. We keep a box of low power rockets and Estes motors in a large field box for the kids to fly and enjoy helping them have fun and learn. We also have NAR members come to our field and do TARC competition stuff and enjoy helping them out as well.

There are differences between the two organizations for sure but we just love rocketry and encourage and welcome anyone to fly Micro Max up O motors here.

 

[tsmith1315]

Yes, they do allow low power rockets of varying types at some launches, but it seems like they are kind of humoring the less accomplished, perhaps in hopes we will grow up and fly “real” model rockets!

I get that vibe from certain flyers, but not from most. Or from the organization. All of them are just toys when compared with real rockets.

And I've never been to a launch that wasn't set up for all low impulse levels. Have a look at these flight statistics for LDRS 39, there were as many C flights as K flights. At a glance, it looks like an easy 25% of the total # of flights were F and under:

 

[Antares JS]

I get that vibe from certain flyers, but not from most. Or from the organization. All of them are just toys when compared with real rockets.

And I've never been to a launch that wasn't set up for all low impulse levels. Have a look at these flight statistics for LDRS 39, there were as many C flights as K flights. At a glance, it looks like an easy 25% of the total # of flights were F and under:

View attachment 615441

Darn it, I need to bring some Micro Maxx to an LDRS one of these days if no one else is representin'.

 

[Rschub]

Little Dangerous Rocket Ships are still rockets.

 

[jadebox]

My two cents ....

I realize that some situations are different, but ...

The negative consequences of a failed Level 1 or Level 2 certification flight are usually that the flyer might have a bit of a bruised ego and will have to launch another rocket to certify.

The positive consequences of a failed Level 1 or Level 2 certification flight are that the flyer will probably learn something and will get to launch another rocket to certify.

So, in a situation like this where the people or person certifying the flight might have a question about whether it was successful, I would lean towards ruling it a failure.

For a Level 3 cert ... well, that's probably very different since so much will be or should be worked out, discussed, and documented before the flight and there is usually a much larger investment of time and money.

 

[anbhtblr]

It seems to me that any metal that holds vital (fins ARE vital. no?) parts of a rocket together would be DEFINED as substantial, regardless of weight or size!

Bending the primary definition:

adjective

1. of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.:a substantial sum of money.
2. of a corporeal or material nature; tangible; real.

 

[Frederocket]

If you sheared 5 nylon bolts, your descent rate was way too high. This is a failure.

As a flier, if this had been mine, I would've cut any discussion short and said it wasn't successful.

Back when I was a prefect, I would've told you No, this is a fail.

You either need a larger parachute or you need to resolve why your recovery system didn't fully deploy and result in a proper descent rate. Even with nylon, this had to have smacked the ground fairly solidly.

-Kevin

All of what Kevin said. However I'll add: The OP's certification flight failure was due to material failure of sub par structural fastener parts, (nylon bolts/screws), used in construction of the rocket and the resulting failed TRA or NAR certification flight, in my opinion.

For both TRA and NAR Certification flights and, in order to be compliant with the rules and their intent, I expect the following when the flyer returns with their rocket after their cert flight: "Can the rocket be prepped and flown again without any repairs being made. I sometimes make exceptions for such items as replacing damaged or a missing rail guide or a very minor zipper that still allows for a proper nosecone fit, etc., Any deviations I allow are made on my case by case basis judgement call. In my twenty five + years as a TRA and NAR certification official, I can count on one hand where I have allowed such deviations.

 

[kramer714]

Jumping in one last time..... And this is in the context of it being a cert flight. The decision tree is as follows:

If the fins are designed to break off at EVERY flight, how does the flyer know they are strong enough to not fail in flight?

• Tough to demonstrate - See requirements from NAR (Below) doesn't sound like the flyer demonstrated this.

If the fins are ONLY designed to break off in a flight that has a higher than normal landing speed;

• Did the rocket descend above the speed (safe descent rate) predicted by the flyer - above the NORMAL landing speed the fins are designed to come off at, and the fins came off,
  • Fail for having too high of a descent rate.
• Did the rocket descend at or below the speed (safe descent rate) predicted by the flyer - and the fins came off,
  • Fail for not having sufficient strength in the fin attachment.

If the flyer wanted to use a bolt on fin, i don't have any problem with that, if the design is well thought out, and justified by one or more of the following;

• they tested the design
• they analyzed the design
• they justify the design by similarity to other rockets flown with similar mass / velocity etc.

Again I dont have any issue with bolt on fins, 3d printed parts, or designs used to mitigate damage on landing (I have done all of those things), but the flyer just needs to show that it will work, every time, or at least with a high degree of certainty. To be clear, it isn't the 'cert reviewer' job to tell the flyer how to build the rocket, it is the flyers responsibility to tell the 'cert reviewer' why the rocket is safe and be able to back that up.

From NAR certification checklist
Are the fins fully secured to the model? Check for looseness or cracking at the fin to body tube junction. "Thru the
wall" construction is recommended for high power models. Is the fin material compatible with the motor thrust range
(1/8 inch minimum plywood is recommended for high power models)? Ask the modeler how their fins are mounted, what
adhesives were used (epoxy is preferred), and what fin material was used. Are the fins mounted parallel to the roll axis of
the model? Are any warps present which may cause erratic flight?

Mike K
L3CC

 

[BABAR]

While there are certainly members of Tripoli who hold that attitude, the majority of Tripoli members that I've flown with are more concerned with having fun with high power to look down on anyone else's fun.

What I *have* seen as a common attitude in many TRA members is a dislike of the NAR competition mindset. Most of us aren't out to beat anyone else, just our own past accomplishments. Yes, you do see some folks with a serious competitive streak, but it's more in the line of "My (rocket | motor) is bigger than yours!"

My ignorance is again showing. I haven’t been to a Tripoli event. ( from everything I have heard, if I am ever in an area where I have time to get to one, I’d love to rectify that.)

Most of what I “hear” about Tripoli “seemed” to suggest their primary focus is high power. Thanks to all for setting me straight.



My apologies if any part of my post came across as a criticism or complaint. I don’t know the exact details, but I understand that ALL model rocketeers L-0 through 3 owe a great debt to both Tripoli and NAR in keeping this a safe , active, and not extremely over regulated hobby.

regarding @sharkbait comment, I should have clarified that the person who did a high power cert (presumably level 1) with a glider was a NAR certification.

 

[rcktnut]

This pretty much (in bold) leaves the door wide open for the cert teams decision, in which I respect.
I respect the cert teams decision in the preflight inspection and post flight decision. The prefight inspection determines if the rocket is safe for flight, which would have determined if the recovery system is ample or not for a safe recovery. They can reject the flight if they feel otherwise.
The flights were not 100% perfect but were safe. For those applying for certs I would recommend a K.I.S.S. approach. Buy a kit build as instructed, no break-a-way fins, no big chute fouling fish fins, no DD, no scratch builds, no imagination what-so-ever.

There are too many out there that think that there are incompetent cert teams unleashing killer rockets upon us.

1. The Level 2 High Power Certification Candidate will fly their model. The flight must be witnessed directly by the Certification Team. Stability, deployment of the recovery system, and safe recovery will be considered when evaluating safety of the flight. Models experiencing a catastrophic failure of the airframe, rocket motor, and/or recovery system (e.g., shock cord separation) will not be considered as having a safe flight.
2. The model must be returned to the Certification Team directly after flight for inspection to verify engine retention and for evidence of any flight-induced damage. The Certification Team will check the appropriate blocks in the HPR Level 2 Checklist indicating that a safe flight was made and that the post-flight inspection was satisfactory. In general, the guideline for acceptable flight damage is that the model could be flown again without repair. It is left to the judgment of the Certification Team to differentiate between flight damage and “normal” maintenance to assure reliability (e.g., shock cord replacement to prevent future flight problems). “Zippering” of the body tube is another area of flight damage left to Certification Teams judgment for acceptability.

For those that do not know what an unsafe flight really looks like, here is an example:
There are tons more on video out there. Most of them are L3 flights. Lawn darts, shreds, unstable etc. If we are going to punish the cert applicants for some minor problem after the flight, maybe time to think about downgrading a persons cert a notch for serious infractions.

 

[BABAR]

Bending the primary definition:

adjective

1. of ample or considerable amount, quantity, size, etc.:a substantial sum of money.
2. of a corporeal or material nature; tangible; real.

Seems the bottom line is that there is no bottom line.

again
from NAR high power code

1. Materials. I will use only lightweight materials such as paper, wood, rubber, plastic, fiberglass, or when necessary ductile metal, for the construction of my rocket.

here’s what I stole from Tripoli safety code 1-3 Model Rocket definition

It has structural parts made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic, it has a means for returning it to the ground so it can be flown again; and its primary use is for purposes of education, recreation, and sporting competition.

well shoot, the motor casings are NON-ductile metal, the screw eyes and bolts and nuts and swivels are metal, and sure as heck the BBs in the nose cones aren’t ductile.

while the NAR wording is actually crystal clear (no non-ductile metal), the APPLICATION is equally clearly subjective as LOTS of non-ductile metal parts ARE clearly allowed. Also probably a bit inconsistent as clearly in @sr205347d case the evaluators passed the rocket and many seasoned people here are of different opinions.

not sure if Tripoli is better or worse, they throw in word “structural”…. again what determines whether a part is “structural” or not? The answer is there is no “what” that determines it, there is a “who”, and that is the RSO for regular flights and the certifying official for cert flights. In other words, completely subjective. (A big hunking steel screw eye holding a nose cone full of a few lbs (or more) of BBs sure seems structural to me. (Then again, I am an L-0!))

point is not that these rules are vague or bad, in fact experience has shown they are EXCELLENT as demonstrated by a fantastic safety record that beats many other hobbies (maybe not stamp collecting.). We have professional organizations that come up with these subjective rules, create a culture of safety first, fun second, and we deputize RSOs and evaluators to use their best judgement in applying these rules. Because human judgement is involved, almost by definition things will be inconsistent at times, and that’s okay too. For the most part it works, although the previous post to this (posted during my authoring this diatribe) has a point.

seems like the most consistent advice to would-be L-1s, 2s, and 3s is to know who will be the certifying officials and get their input BEFORE THE BUILD, at least if it is anything but a kit built stock.

 

[DAllen]

For those that do not know what an unsafe flight really looks like, here is an example:
There are tons more on video out there. Most of them are L3 flights. Lawn darts, shreds, unstable etc. If we are going to punish the cert applicants for some minor problem after the flight, maybe time to think about downgrading a persons cert a notch for serious infractions.

Ahh yes the porta potty flight I was involved in. Gotta love it when people post comments on a project like this they obviously know nothing about.

Edit: Let me educate you on that situation because you're obviously ignorant of what really happened. That flight took place in 2014. We started it in 2012 with dozens and dozens of subscale flights of varying CG and fin configurations. Yes, two years to design and build that contraption. We felt we did everything we possibly could to ensure a stable flight. We also had a huge crowd so we made sure that they were at the minimum or more clearance away that was required at the time using a Garmin GPS. Not only that but we consulted with TRA to confirm we were doing everything right. There were supposed to be 2ea 28' chutes that come out but by a stroke of bad luck one of the straps was cut on the edge of a fin and thus separated which brought it down faster than we wanted obviously. To top it off I was the LCO for that flight. While the crowd was waiting, I made NUMEROUS announcements about even the best designed rocket we don't always know what they are going to do and suggested if they don't want the risk they need to leave.

So I am going to suggest that maybe before you make ill-informed comments about someone elses project as you have above try finding out the details from the people that were actually there and were involved from the very start - like me.

 

[Frederocket]

Ahh yes the porta potty flight I was involved in. Gotta love it when people post comments on a project like this they obviously know nothing about.

Well anyone with half a brain can see the recovery trajectory and actual recovery landing was less than nominal. Having watched the video several times since it was first posted, I have wondered about the details, but not enough to make comments until now.

 

[troj]

For those applying for certs I would recommend a K.I.S.S. approach. Buy a kit build as instructed, no break-a-way fins, no big chute fouling fish fins, no DD, no scratch builds, no imagination what-so-ever.

I absolutely hate this guidance, and here's why. You're advocating someone build a one-off certification rocket, something that they may never care about or fly again, and something that may well be unlike something they actually plan to fly.

To me, a certification rocket should be the kind of rocket the flier enjoys. If you're a minimum diameter, performance flier, then build a certification rocket accordingly. If you like big, slow rockets, then that's what your certification rocket should be.

Demonstrate that you've got a clue about how to move on to the next level of the type of flying you like to do. Don't merely check a box and do the minimum effort.

If I'm someone who likes minimum diameter, high performance rockets, how does my Level 3 on a stack of 5 gallon buckets demonstrate anything about my readiness to shove an N5800 in a minimum diameter rocket? It doesn't.

It's no difference if someone does Level 1 on an H128 in a 4" airframe and their next flight is a minimum diameter 38mm with an I600.

-Kevin

 

[DAllen]

Well anyone with half a brain can see the recovery trajectory and actual recovery landing was less than nominal. Having watched the video several times since it was first posted, I have wondered about the details, but not enough to make comments until now.

With all the subscale launches we did we were convinced it was going to flight pretty much straight up utilizing the same thrust/weight ratios. But, like a lot of rockets sometimes a rocket is going to rocket and do its own thing. How many times have we seen a rocket we expect to go one way (like away from the spectators) due to the wind and yet it still manages to land next to a car? Saw that several times at NSL East this weekend. It happens. To this day with all the homework we did on this I'm still a bit mystified as to why exactly it angled off like it did.

 

[DAllen]

I absolutely hate this guidance, and here's why. You're advocating someone build a one-off certification rocket, something that they may never care about or fly again, and something that may well be unlike something they actually plan to fly.

To me, a certification rocket should be the kind of rocket the flier enjoys. If you're a minimum diameter, performance flier, then build a certification rocket accordingly. If you like big, slow rockets, then that's what your certification rocket should be.

Demonstrate that you've got a clue about how to move on to the next level of the type of flying you like to do. Don't merely check a box and do the minimum effort.

If I'm someone who likes minimum diameter, high performance rockets, how does my Level 3 on a stack of 5 gallon buckets demonstrate anything about my readiness to shove an N5800 in a minimum diameter rocket? It doesn't.

It's no difference if someone does Level 1 on an H128 in a 4" airframe and their next flight is a minimum diameter 38mm with an I600.

-Kevin

Could not possibly agree more. Very well said sir.

 

[Antares JS]

For those that do not know what an unsafe flight really looks like, here is an example:
There are tons more on video out there. Most of them are L3 flights. Lawn darts, shreds, unstable etc. If we are going to punish the cert applicants for some minor problem after the flight, maybe time to think about downgrading a persons cert a notch for serious infractions.

Not sure that's really a good example. Even before reading DAllen's response, that seems more unsafe in an "oops, things sometimes go squirrelly at a rocket launch despite our best effort," way and less an "LOL hold my beer and watch this," way.

 

[Frederocket]

Not sure that's really a good example. Even before reading DAllen's response, that seems more unsafe in an "oops, things sometimes go squirrelly at a rocket launch despite our best effort," way and less an "LOL hold my beer and watch this," way.

One of the reasons I stay away from odd rockets, especially those with larger motors, is most odd rockets lack an aerodynamic stability profile at some point in their flight profile. Look at spools and pyramid rockets as an examples. If the thrust to weight ratio is low or two high, they sometimes fly real erratic. IMO, that is because both have limited aerodynamic stability qualities. To me, successfully flying odd rockets is more of an art than science.

 

[troj]

To me, successfully flying odd rockets is more of an art than science.

Sims on anything beyond 3FNC/3FNC, or using atypical materials, is always a challenge.

Even sims on something like the Delta III was a challenge, with the simulation software available at the time.

-Kevin

 

[rcktnut]

troj- my statement on don't build anything unusual for a cert flight was sarcasm, I know, no way to recognize that it was. I used a scratch built DD rocket for my L2 cert. I've seen your build thread on the bucket rocket years ago, very neat.
DAllen- I thought the flying porta- potty was very neat, seen that years ago also. It was a perfect example though of what I call an unsafe landing. Just to prove that any well thought out, well planned flight can go not as planned in our hobby.

I'm just one that respects the cert teams decisions and trying to defend the process. To me I see the flights in question to be in the bounds of that process. Maybe it has to be changed.

 

[Frederocket]

Sims on anything beyond 3FNC/3FNC, or using atypical materials, is always a challenge.

Even sims on something like the Delta III was a challenge, with the simulation software available at the time.

-Kevin

Your right about using the simulation software available for rockets. However, designing delta configurations with aerodynamic stability throughout it's entire flight profile is doable, whereas such rocket designs as spools and pyramids, much less porta-pots, are impossible to design with a full flight profile that is aerodynamically stable. Man that was a mouth full.

 

[DAllen]

Your right about using the simulation software available for rockets. However, designing a delta configurations with aerodynamic stability throughout it's entire flight profile is doable, whereas such rocket designs as spools and pyramids, much less porta-pots, are impossible to design with a full flight profile that is aerodynamically stable. Man that was a mouth full.

Aaaaaand that's why we did all those subscale flights.

Funny someone mentioned, "hold my beer watch this" because I insisted at the start of the porta potty project that it WAS NOT going to be a "hold my beer watch this" kind of project.

And if flying odd-rocs is more of an art than science then with all those flying basket flights I've done Imma freaking Picasso.

 

[troj]

troj- my statement on don't build anything unusual for a cert flight was sarcasm, I know, no way to recognize that it was.

sigh. Fine. I'll accept it was sarcasm.

Seriously, all good.

 

[sharkbait]

This pretty much (in bold) leaves the door wide open for the cert teams decision, in which I respect.
I respect the cert teams decision in the preflight inspection and post flight decision. The prefight inspection determines if the rocket is safe for flight, which would have determined if the recovery system is ample or not for a safe recovery. They can reject the flight if they feel otherwise.
The flights were not 100% perfect but were safe. For those applying for certs I would recommend a K.I.S.S. approach. Buy a kit build as instructed, no break-a-way fins, no big chute fouling fish fins, no DD, no scratch builds, no imagination what-so-ever.

There are too many out there that think that there are incompetent cert teams unleashing killer rockets upon us.

1. The Level 2 High Power Certification Candidate will fly their model. The flight must be witnessed directly by the Certification Team. Stability, deployment of the recovery system, and safe recovery will be considered when evaluating safety of the flight. Models experiencing a catastrophic failure of the airframe, rocket motor, and/or recovery system (e.g., shock cord separation) will not be considered as having a safe flight.
2. The model must be returned to the Certification Team directly after flight for inspection to verify engine retention and for evidence of any flight-induced damage. The Certification Team will check the appropriate blocks in the HPR Level 2 Checklist indicating that a safe flight was made and that the post-flight inspection was satisfactory. In general, the guideline for acceptable flight damage is that the model could be flown again without repair. It is left to the judgment of the Certification Team to differentiate between flight damage and “normal” maintenance to assure reliability (e.g., shock cord replacement to prevent future flight problems). “Zippering” of the body tube is another area of flight damage left to Certification Teams judgment for acceptability.

For those that do not know what an unsafe flight really looks like, here is an example:
There are tons more on video out there. Most of them are L3 flights. Lawn darts, shreds, unstable etc. If we are going to punish the cert applicants for some minor problem after the flight, maybe time to think about downgrading a persons cert a notch for serious infractions.

While safety is always priority one, cert flights are more than that, they are to show your skill level and competency level are there to be able to step up to the next level of bigger, heavier rockets and larger more powerful motors. If you can’t figure out how to pack the chute and harness to get the laundry out properly without fouling then you haven’t proven your competency. And you missed the non-bold part right above the bold part that states “in general flight damage is defined by if the model could safely fly again WITHOUT repair” cracked, broken or knocked off fins would kinda torpedo it flying again without repair. We aren’t cert executioners here trying to fail someone for a scratch in their paint job but the certifying person or team shouldn’t let the grayish areas be an easy pass for everyone when the person should learn from their mistakes or mishaps and return to the next launch armed with the knowledge that they have been corrected and resolved

 

[rcktnut]

While safety is always priority one, cert flights are more than that, they are to show your skill level and competency level are there to be able to step up to the next level of bigger, heavier rockets and larger more powerful motors. If you can’t figure out how to pack the chute and harness to get the laundry out properly without fouling then you haven’t proven your competency. And you missed the non-bold part right above the bold part that states “in general flight damage is defined by if the model could safely fly again WITHOUT repair” cracked, broken or knocked off fins would kinda torpedo it flying again without repair. We aren’t cert executioners here trying to fail someone for a scratch in their paint job but the certifying person or team shouldn’t let the grayish areas be an easy pass for everyone when the person should learn from their mistakes or mishaps and return to the next launch armed with the knowledge that they have been corrected and resolved

Agree 100% The cert team has spoken ability has been proven.
With the rainbow fish rocket the fins/ sustainer snagged the chute that deployed just fine. Rocket had a bit of horizontal flight to it. No damage to rocket.
The one with the fin issue, was designed to do just what it did, everybody objecting to the results is saying the result was due to too small of a chute resulting in to fast of a decent rate. OP said it was a 36 in. chute, which is more than sufficient for that weight of a rocket including the weight added by the 3D printed add ons. Decent rate, chute sufficient. Fin reattached easily for another flight.

Rainbow fish deployment: