Dave:
Ask yourself a simple question:
If the model from this article were to strike a person or property which would suffer the most; Model or person/property?
While a good question to ask, this question alone is not part of the safety code. I am in full agreement that people should build rockets to be safe, rather than bulletproof. However, just because a model is reinforced does not mean that it should not be allowed to fly.
The way I view it is this: Would I allow the rocket to fly if the flier had brought it to me with a G motor? Absolutely. Will a D motor lift it safely? Absolutely. Therefore, there's no reason not to let it fly simply because the flier is using less power.
If we can answer the person or property then we have a problem. The third point presented in the forward of 40yrs of model rocket safety report states simply "our safety record can be directly tied to the fact that we build our models to self-destruct on impact".
I disagree. Our safety record can be directly tied to the fact that very few models have ever directly hit people or property. A great many Estes rockets could cause significant injury if they were to hit someone while ballistic or under power, despite no significant reinforcement. It's true that the reinforcement increases the severity of the injury that any particular model could cause, but as far as I'm concerned, we shouldn't be relying on the rocket to act as a crumple zone. Instead, we should focus on reliable recovery deployment and adequate stability. I would be much more concerned with the author of the article's seeming inability to achieve reliable recovery deployment than I would with his excessive reinforcement of a model rocket.
I think you and everyone can see that this not the case in ANY over-built model rocket. It's been said already the while the use of Fibreglass, carbon fibre and other exotic materials has a place in model rocketry in all its forms, it can easily be carried to extremes as was plainly done in this case. Really the SAFETY issue is the completed build not the models itself in this case. AS an RSO I've refused to let all acrylic models fly for this same reason...they are not Lightweight materials in the application presented.
Personally, I would evaluate it on a case by case basis. Certainly, there are cases when I would turn a rocket down for being too heavy/solid (and some all-acrylic models would probably fit this criterion), but a 5oz Guardian on an Aerotech D simply isn't heavy enough to warrant a rejection. I would probably question the flier as to why they had reinforced the rocket that much, but I would not turn it down when it was capable of a safe flight. If there was a good reason to believe that the flight would be unstable, or that the parachute would not deploy, then I would turn them down, absolutely. That doesn't seem to be the case here though.
Yes; it is my belief that we as a hobby MUST step in to stop the over use of legitamate materials that cuase a Potential public hazard, that is; a potential clear and present danger to life, limb and property of particapents, spectators.
I don't see the "clear and present danger", to be perfectly honest. As I stated above, I'd much rather see a greater emphasis on the reliable deployment of recovery than the obsession some people seem to have with making rockets only to the minimum necessary strength.
Believe me, I'd always rather see someone not overbuild, but I don't see it as a big enough risk to turn them down at the RSO table (unless the motor chosen is inadequate, such as a C6 for the reinforced Guardian in the article).
It's our duty to self-regulate or others will gladly do it for us. As Americans we DO NOT have the right to fly or do whatever we want whenever it suits us. We are guranteed the right to the persuit of happiness.. nothing in that statement says we're going to find or attain it
Most of us know the use of fibreglass and other exotic materials is totally unnecessary to building all but the very largest of "Hobby Rockets", while the practice has been "mainstreamed" as perfectly fine to make up for lack of Building/flying/recovery skills as can clearly be seen in the skills or lack there of reported by the article author. Really makes one wonder about the validity of both TRA & the NARS Certification process.
True, it is our job to self regulate, and I have to say, we do enough of it already. As for the validity of the certification process? I'd say it works quite well at what it was meant to do - verify that you are capable of building and flying functional large rockets. Many of the skills involved in an L3 rocket are completely different than those for low power though, and that's where the disconnect comes in (in my opinion).
