Is an economical L3 cert a bad idea?

djs said:

I think this is a really good attitude, and shows that you've got the right mindset. Regardless of how this ends up, I hope that everything gets sorted out one way or another, and that your L3 flight is successful!

Click to expand...

+1, outstanding mindset. Thanks to all the L3CC and TAP's out there, appreciate your commitment to the hobby. We all know you want our L3's to be successful, but a legitimate L3 applicant should be considered on their submitted design only.

Flyfalcons said:

Staged or cluster

Click to expand...

Both of which are harder than a Simple L3 flight, given things like ignition issues, stage separation, complex construction methods for interstage coupling, staging electronics, timing of events based on simulation and test flights.

Steve Shannon said:

Take along a resume of your rocket work, maybe even an L2 rocket or two (which probably makes it easier to do this at a launch somewhere). Ask them if they think you’re ready to start planning. Listen to what they suggest.

Click to expand...

Again not a requirement.

rcktnut said:

Again not a requirement.

Click to expand...

If they want to know that they can ask fliers who know you, thats what my L3CC did, he wanted their input as to whether I was ready/capable of meeting the requirements for L3. Most likely due to the fact that we had only talked on the phone and he had read my L3 proposal packet and due to distance were not likely to meet often. The entire build was photo documented and a in depth build thread was done on TRF where he could get up to the minute updates.

Given the size of our hobby and the number of regional launch sites the Boards of each club are likely to know most of the regular fliers and their "flight record" at least enough to give a reasonably informed opinion. Kris and Ryan regularly fly with TriCities Rocketeers and are well known to us, we can tell individuals with need to know what we think of their capabilities. There are definitely other fliers I have seen that I think need more "seasoning".

When I wanted to attempt my L2, there was a person at my club who handles most of the certifications, and that person (who is a great guy) had a few questions he would ask me every time I brought it up. How many L1 flights have you flown? How many dual deployment or electronic deployment flights have you flown? I had flown plenty of L1 flights, but I had never flown any kind of electronic deployment, and my only step in that direction was to use a Chute Release. It was clear he wanted a person to have experience with dual deployment before attempting L2, even though there are no official requirements for that, and even though I almost never fly anything over 2,000 feet and have almost no interest in using electronics.

So that was irritating to me to have an unofficial layer of rules on top of the official rules. But on the other hand, I understand why an individual might have their own set of criteria before they agree to witness your certification. In this case, I think he felt a sense of responsibility for safety at the club and wanted to be careful not to begin the L2 cert process with someone who is not experienced enough to be potentially flying up to L motors at club events. I can think of a few people who could probably pass all the official requirements for a particular cert level, but I would not personally want to be the one to put my name on the cert paperwork.

In the end I got my L2, and ironically, it was this same person who witnessed my flight and signed off my cert — he stepped forward to do it when the person I had lined up to do it was delayed by searching for his own lost rocket, and we were getting to the end of the launch operations. He signed me off and brought up dual deployment again. He said he understood I’m not interested in it, but if I ever did develop an interest, he asked that I learn about it on smaller rockets on L1 motors. Be conservative and safe about it. He didn’t want my first dual deployment flight to be on a 40-pound rocket. I think he’s mostly trying to avoid a disaster at one of his club launches, even though the cert process is no longer a barrier to me attempting such a flight if I want, and I respect that.

Anyway... This story may not have a lot of direct bearing on the OP’s specific situation, but it’s an example of why someone might have their own unofficial guidelines they use before agreeing to start down the road toward signing off on your cert.

My L3CC said that he personally thinks all L3 projects should be scratch-built, but he also knew that wasn't a rule and let me do it with a kit.

Bat-mite said:

Steve, I hear what you're saying, and I appreciate it. But these are all unwritten rules that perhaps should be codified. Maybe the whole cert process needs a revamp.

As I see it, the written rules for certification are:
Level 1 - fly safely and recover with a certified H or I motor
Level 2 - pass a written test, and fly safely and recover with a certified J, K or L motor
Level 3 - write a document, and fly safely on a certified M, N or O motor

Anything that goes beyond that, like what you future plans are, how many level 2 flights you have, etc., is an unwritten rule, and thus open to a wide interpretation.

I am not saying those are bad things. But if they are important, then they should be codified. Make there be a minimum number of Level 2 flights required before the Level 3 cert flight can be attempted. Invent a new section of the cert document that describes why you want a level 3 and how you plan to use it.

Until these things are codified, I just don't see how an L3CC or a TAP can hold them against a candidate.

As of right now, I see nothing in the cert requirements that says a person can't certify 1, 2 and 3 in six months and then quit rocketry.

Click to expand...

Emphasis above added by me. This comes up EVERY YEAR, from what I can tell of L3 threads.

For whatever reason, it has yet to change. I think that part of it is that no one wants to be "That Guy" who has to tell someone that their 20ish nose blow L2 flights aren't enough or the proper flight profile to do an L3 project, and various other factors.

It'll be hard work, and a LOT of argument in the L3 circle, but I think (as a prospective L2), that it's about time we had a 'minimum requirements' checklist to work with. NOT that such a list is all inclusive and a sole qualifier for L3, but that it needs to be a little more pinned down. I think that we not only owe it to qualified members, but also to prospective qualifiers.

If everyone on the "Minimum requirements to qualify for an L3 cert comittee" come out unhappy, chances are that we're going to get a fair product.

I'm actually a bit surprised that our insurance providers haven't mandated something to that effect......yet. Probably a positive testament to the state of the hobby overall and the people attracted to it.

Thinking about this more, it seems like the real issue is that the TAP/L3CC often wants to make sure that the person certifying has appropriate experience and judgement to fly L3 motors safely before signing off. That's not a bad thing overall because there's a lot that can go wrong with an L3 project, but it's really hard to put into rules. When I got my PE license, the test was more of a formality (in my discipline, the pass rate is ~80%), but you have to have years of experience and several references before you can take the test. Those things are more important than the test overall. I don't know how TRA/NAR should implement that kind of process. The fact that this basic concern shows up about every year here means that there's a bunch of strong feelings on all sides.

Just spitballing here, you could reasonably require that the L3 applicant have 5-10 successful L2 flights, at least some number (one, two?) of which must be K or greater and at least one of which used electronics successfully. If you wanted to write a whole new set of rules, you could get into a few equivalencies (complex K project = 2 flights, etc.). Again, this is thread drift spitballing, so maybe it needs to be taken elsewhere.

I still don't think that intentions regarding future L3 flights or rocket materials (beyond safety concerns) should have any bearing on the cert process.

boatgeek said:

Just spitballing here, you could reasonably require that the L3 applicant have 5-10 successful L2 flights, at least some number (one, two?) of which must be K or greater and at least one of which used electronics successfully. If you wanted to write a whole new set of rules, you could get into a few equivalencies (complex K project = 2 flights, etc.). Again, this is thread drift spitballing, so maybe it needs to be taken elsewhere.

I still don't think that intentions regarding future L3 flights or rocket materials (beyond safety concerns) should have any bearing on the cert process.

Click to expand...

I live in Indiana which is a state that doesn't incorporate NFPA 1127 at all and explicitly calls all the NFPA rocketry related codes out as unenforceable. Thus I could be flying personally made O motors on my own, on private land with a personally obtained FAA waiver. If I then decide I want to join NAR/TRA and get my L3 so that I can go to MWP one year, does it make sense to require me to be witnessed flying 5-10 L2 flights?

The certification rules have been in place for some time now and have served well until now. I'm not convinced they need to be modified to add a demonstrated experience requirement. The documentation requirements that are part of the L3 packet should serve to show that the required experience is there and if it doesn't, then the documentation is insufficient.

heada said:

The certification rules have been in place for some time now and have served well until now. I'm not convinced they need to be modified to add a demonstrated experience requirement. The documentation requirements that are part of the L3 packet should serve to show that the required experience is there and if it doesn't, then the documentation is insufficient.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. Write the document, do the build, make the flight. L3 achieved.

djs said:

To me, this is a perfectly fine L3 rocket, as long as you fly it safely and keep it in the waiver. It doesn't have to be a 37 foot long 18" diameter monster rocket...

Click to expand...

But we do really like these [emoji106]
Rockets are like race cars - whether you make $5/hr or $500/hr you can go broke playing with rockets and race cars

Nick@JET said:

But we do really like these [emoji106]
Rockets are like race cars - whether you make $5/hr or $500/hr you can go broke playing with rockets and race cars

Click to expand...

And if you are foolish enough to go broke over either you need your head examined.

boatgeek said:

Just spitballing here, you could reasonably require that the L3 applicant have 5-10 successful L2 flights, at least some number (one, two?) of which must be K or greater and at least one of which used electronics successfully. If you wanted to write a whole new set of rules, you could get into a few equivalencies (complex K project = 2 flights, etc.). Again, this is thread drift spitballing, so maybe it needs to be taken elsewhere.

Click to expand...

According to the new normal, that is not enough experience to attempt L3. Not kidding.

Banzai88 said:

This comes up EVERY YEAR, from what I can tell of L3 threads... For whatever reason, it has yet to change.

Click to expand...

I'm mystified by why people are always wanting to add more rules and regulations to a process that as far as I can tell is fine as it is. Are there a bunch of unsafe L3 fliers out there menacing the hobby? I haven't run across any.

Flyfalcons said:

According to the new normal, that is not enough experience to attempt L3. Not kidding.

Click to expand...

Also, what constitutes a complex flight?

krislhull said:

Also, what constitutes a complex flight?

Click to expand...

Staging or clustering(especially airstarts).

markkoelsch said:

Staging or clustering(especially airstarts).

Click to expand...

If I do both of those successfully, can I be an L3 without having to buy an M motor?

markkoelsch said:

Staging or clustering(especially airstarts).

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the official definition per NAR and TRA, but not the context given to Ryan and I...

krislhull said:

Yes, that is the official definition per NAR and TRA, but not the context given to Ryan and I...

Click to expand...

Who gave you the misinformation?

I can see a TAP wanting you to have a few L2 flights under your belt before going for L3. The power difference between a baby J motor and a baby M is close to an order of magnitude greater. This is not trivial.

That said, a L3 flight is rarely economical. Still, I think the TAPs primary function is to make sure your design is sound, your construction is sound, that you have a safe flight, and a reasonable chance of success in your L3 certification.

markkoelsch said:

Who gave you the misinformation?

I can see a TAP wanting you to have a few L2 flights under your belt before going for L3. The power difference between a baby J motor and a baby M is close to an order of magnitude greater. This is not trivial.

Click to expand...

I agree with you there. I have asked this person for clarification, figuring that he just didn't word it correctly. Waiting to hear back.

I was told stage or cluster.

heada said:

I live in Indiana which is a state that doesn't incorporate NFPA 1127 at all and explicitly calls all the NFPA rocketry related codes out as unenforceable. Thus I could be flying personally made O motors on my own, on private land with a personally obtained FAA waiver. If I then decide I want to join NAR/TRA and get my L3 so that I can go to MWP one year, does it make sense to require me to be witnessed flying 5-10 L2 flights?

The certification rules have been in place for some time now and have served well until now. I'm not convinced they need to be modified to add a demonstrated experience requirement. The documentation requirements that are part of the L3 packet should serve to show that the required experience is there and if it doesn't, then the documentation is insufficient.

Click to expand...

I agree, Aaron. Certification by our organizations has two purposes: to allow our members to advance in a controlled manner and to prevent the unsafe use or misuse of commercially manufactured high power rocket motors. It’s a means of licensing people to purchase, possess, and use an item that has great potential for misuse. Because we have a pretty good track record and because the authorities having jurisdiction (AHJs) have very limited knowledge of rocketry subjects, the AHJs recognize us (TRA and NAR) as the experts defer to us and allow us to self regulate. The downside of misuse could include greater regulation by AHJs rather than NAR or TRA. That’s the constant threat.
When it comes to licensing there are a couple different philosophies that are inversely related and of course the continuum between them. We could try to create a comprehensive rule based procedure for certification to test skills, demonstrate character, and document knowledge. Unfortunately, because everyone is different, additional rules would have to be added or existing rules modified every time someone challenges the procedure. Taken to an extreme, human judgement wouldn’t even enter into it, for better or worse. The problem with a system like that it is impossible to come up with a single body of rules that works for all people.
The extreme converse of that is a system with no rules, where certifications are granted by the people in power strictly according to their own personal opinions. That can eventually lead to unfairness and corruption.
Instead, our two organizations have chosen similar systems that have minimal sets of rules and strong vetting of L3CC members and TAPs, and which then rely on the judgement of those L3CC members and TAPs to supplement the rules. For the most part it works well.

Flyfalcons said:

I was told stage or cluster.

Click to expand...

I stand corrected in your case, then!

The definition of complex rockets is written in the safety code. So it shouldn't be debatable.

For TRA at least there is a little more to achieving L3 than writing a document and flying a motor. Electronics are brought into play. You must successfully fly at least one rocket on an L2 motor that uses electronics for primary ejection. If your L2 cert flight doesn't use electronics then you are required to fly another with electronics.

I would like to get L3 for those days when everything is just right, stars aligned, light winds and so on I could bring out my L3 and knock the dust off. Maybe once a year or every two years. Our club only has a few launches and I usually miss one or two. If a minimum number of L2 flights was in place it would take me years to get L3. Not only because of me not launching often but also the L2 motors would chip away at the rocketry (L3) budget. BUT, if that became a requirement, I would have to suck it up and carry on flying rockets until I had the required number under my belt. I wouldn't like it, but a requirement is a requirement.

When I cert it will have to be economical for sure. No hurry for me, no room either, I'll get there when I get there.

I am not really looking to make it more onerous to achieve L3 by making more rules. That said, I think it makes sense for anyone to fly a few L2 motors before advancing to L3. There are a lot of things to learn along the way- a lot of things to improve upon that will make L3 achievement easier.

markkoelsch said:

I am not really looking to make it more onerous to achieve L3 by making more rules. That said, I think it makes sense for anyone to fly a few L2 motors before advancing to L3. There are a lot of things to learn along the way- a lot of things to improve upon that will make L3 achievement easier.

Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm pretty sure 99% of the ones seeking L3 have thought it over for quite some time, and have flown enough L2 motors to know what is what. Using electronics for deployment is also a very good plus. I thought about it for years as has many of the other guys in my club. Some now have their L3's some don't. I decided that I couldn't justify spending a $150.00 or more for a few seconds of glory. It isn't that I can't afford it, I'd just rather gather up the family and take them out to dinner instead.

Bottom line: it's a hobby, different strokes for different folks. Some fly a few times a year, and for others it's fly or die. Some have a few rockets some have hundreds. What happened to the OP should not have happened. It should not happen to anybody seeking L3. Requirements are requirements set by our national organizations, no need for each individual Tap or L3CC to make up their own extra requirements and be reason for refusing certification attempt.

Hmmm. After reading this thread any temptation to get my L3 lessened. Not that it was all that big in the first place. Just an annoying itch that pops up every once in a while. Usually after a fun launch.

Bat-mite said:

My L3CC said that he personally thinks all L3 projects should be scratch-built, but he also knew that wasn't a rule and let me do it with a kit.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the correct attitude IMHO

mcderek said:

Hmmm. After reading this thread any temptation to get my L3 lessened. Not that it was all that big in the first place. Just an annoying itch that pops up every once in a while. Usually after a fun launch.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much how it is for me. I like the idea of having a large rocket, and flying a large rocket that I built on large motor. Realistically it isn't practical at all for me to buy, build and store such a rocket that rarely flies. But building is a good chunk of the fun. And a large scale SAM (currently wanting an Army Hawk) of some sort would be pretty sweet to let off the chain on occasion.

mcderek said:

Hmmm. After reading this thread any temptation to get my L3 lessened. Not that it was all that big in the first place. Just an annoying itch that pops up every once in a while. Usually after a fun launch.

Click to expand...

Do it anyways Derek, you probably already know all 3 WA L3CCs and they know you.