CTI 38mm CATO Report

I brought this up at narcon this year in the open forum, was told that based on the volume of motors most of the cases they saw were statistically insignificant...if it becomes statistically relavent then they notify the manufacturer...I did not like that answer, I'd prefer to see the data and make up my own mind based on the risk I want to take.. I commented that the number of failures reported versus failures that happened are probably very small, and most are probably dealt directly with the mfgr so we will/may never know what is significant or not...I'm glad people bring these failures up on the forums so that we are made aware of them, I was one of the early ez reload forward blow by victims and posted it here....

Frank

rharshberger said:

+1, I like to see stats, since motors with abnormal tendencies towards catos I would not buy ala Estes E9 motors are one example, anything with an AT RMS EZ delay being another.

Click to expand...

It always sounds like a NTSB investigation. I used to read those for fun.... always seems to end with "pilot error....."

I love your attitude guys. You don't report motor failures, so no one knows about them, but yet you complain the certifying authorities and the manufacturers do nothing, and don't tell anyone about motor failure rates.

As long as I have been involved with S&T, we've never received more than 200 MESS reports in a year, and that's up from the just over 100 we were receiving 10 years ago. And I must be bad luck because in some years, I probably witnessed half of them. As a rough guess, in any given year our club burns between 5,000 to 6,000 motors. If there are 50 failures in any year, that's a failure rate of ~1%. (Note that's lower than the Shuttle failure rate.)

The bottom line is that when folks don't bother to document and report a motor failure, it didn't happen, at least as far as certifying authorities and the manufacturers are concerned. More than 1,000,000 motors are burned each year and less than 200 fail? That what's reported so there are no motor problems since that only a 200/1000000 or 0.02% failure rate. Right? That's what the community tells us. There's no NSA or CIA monitoring all the clubs for reports of failures. We can only react to what we know and the reported failure rate is a non-issue.

We review the data once a year as it's too sparce to warrant more frequent review. With well over 1,000 different motor labels, many failures are digitally insignificant. One or 2 failures of a given motor label is digitally insignificant. I forgot to mention that up to half of the reports are incomplete so we can't associate the reported failure to a given lot or year or we don't know that the failure was. Really. I'd like to know how to analyze the data.

Even if we identify a potential problem motor, we do not know the production number (which are manufacturer propriety) so again it is difficult to determine how significant the problem is. As the manufacturer is responsible for the motors they manufacture, all we can do is to notify the manufacturer that we suspect they are having a problem with a certain lot of a certain motor, and it is up to them to rectify the situation. And unless there is a proven safety issue with a given motor or motor family, the certifying authorities really do not have grounds to decertify the motor.

So it is really up to you folks to report failures if you want something done about it.

bobkrech said:

I love your attitude guys. You don't report motor failures, so no one knows about them, but yet you complain the certifying authorities and the manufacturers do nothing, and don't tell anyone about motor failure rates.

As long as I have been involved with S&T, we've never received more than 200 MESS reports in a year, and that's up from the just over 100 we were receiving 10 years ago. And I must be bad luck because in some years, I probably witnessed half of them. As a rough guess, in any given year our club burns between 5,000 to 6,000 motors. If there are 50 failures in any year, that's a failure rate of ~1%. (Note that's lower than the Shuttle failure rate.)

The bottom line is that when folks don't bother to document and report a motor failure, it didn't happen, at least as far as certifying authorities and the manufacturers are concerned. More than 1,000,000 motors are burned each year and less than 200 fail? That what's reported so there are no motor problems since that only a 200/1000000 or 0.02% failure rate. Right? That's what the community tells us. There's no NSA or CIA monitoring all the clubs for reports of failures. We can only react to what we know and the reported failure rate is a non-issue.

We review the data once a year as it's too sparce to warrant more frequent review. With well over 1,000 different motor labels, many failures are digitally insignificant. One or 2 failures of a given motor label is digitally insignificant. I forgot to mention that up to half of the reports are incomplete so we can't associate the reported failure to a given lot or year or we don't know that the failure was. Really. I'd like to know how to analyze the data.

Even if we identify a potential problem motor, we do not know the production number (which are manufacturer propriety) so again it is difficult to determine how significant the problem is. As the manufacturer is responsible for the motors they manufacture, all we can do is to notify the manufacturer that we suspect they are having a problem with a certain lot of a certain motor, and it is up to them to rectify the situation. And unless there is a proven safety issue with a given motor or motor family, the certifying authorities really do not have grounds to decertify the motor.

So it is really up to you folks to report failures if you want something done about it.

Click to expand...

Is there any way to have an app built to enter this info through? It might make it more functional for everyone on cell phones(which might make reports more likely since the incident just occurred). You could also allow photos to be attached or taken through the app for a better look.

bobkrech said:

I love your attitude guys. You don't report motor failures, so no one knows about them, but yet you complain the certifying authorities and the manufacturers do nothing, and don't tell anyone about motor failure rates.

Click to expand...

If you were more open with the data, people may care enough to help report it.

When they feel it's useless and nothing will be done....why bother?



Share the info, or stop crying people aren't throwing quarters in a wishing well.

tbonerocketeer said:

Is there any way to have an app built to enter this info through? It might make it more functional for everyone on cell phones(which might make reports more likely since the incident just occurred). You could also allow photos to be attached or taken through the app for a better look.

Click to expand...

It's an online form that should work with the browsers on most gadgets. It works on my iPhone.
https://www.motorcato.org/MESSForm.aspx

DavidMcCann said:

If you were more open with the data, people may care enough to help report it.

When they feel it's useless and nothing will be done....why bother?



Share the info, or stop crying people aren't throwing quarters in a wishing well.

Click to expand...

Bob,
I disagree with David's premise that it's to cover up and aid the manufacturers, and certainly his attitude, but I do wonder if there would be a way to anonymize some of the data and reveal enough to encourage participation. What you posted helped. That might also encourage the manufacturers to share their data.

To be more specific for this thread, I believe that all 4 motors have had MESS reports filed, which is good. That said...

In particular, all 4 motors are 38mm 2 or 3 grain with manufacture dates +/- 30 days of Sept 22, 2015. I think the purpose of this thread is not to talk about motor failures in general, but to share an experience with a specific date which may have issues, and give others a head's up on the possibility. In general, the failure rate of motors that I have seen is extremely small. 4 failures in a launch of 400+ rockets is not a bad number, and I normally wouldn't be too concerned beyond the MESS reports.

However, the fact that they are clustered around a manufacturing date could turn this into a statistical anomaly, which may indicate a real problem. Any additional information (success or failure) for motors around that date would be useful information to add. Unfortunately, I usually toss the cardboard tubes after a successful flight. I do know that I flew a 3grain 38mm from a 2011 manufacture date successfully, but that's useless information in this context.

Steve Shannon said:

Bob,
I disagree with David's premise that it's to cover up and aid the manufacturers, and certainly his attitude, but I do wonder if there would be a way to anonymize some of the data and reveal enough to encourage participation. What you posted helped. That might also encourage the manufacturers to share their data.

Click to expand...

Previous discussions on the issue have lead to the reasoning behind not sharing the MESS report info because they feel it could negatively impact sales, and that fliers are unable to interpret the data themselves. Also that the manufacturers refuse to share production data. Also that without knowing how may successful flights there are, the data is insignificant.

Basically, they themselves have argued the process is scientifically useless. I agree. However, I do think there is merit in sharing what is reported. In the case of the recent VMax issue... there is nothing more than antidotal evidence of a problem.... We don't know the production numbers, or dates affected. But we can look at the failures and notice "hey man...thats a LOT of Vmax...." Or maybe "hey...motor X is having some issues more frequently than any others"


Share the info, I bet you'll get more reports. And maybe pry the production info out of the manufacturers to show how low the rates really are.

Right now, the only thing people have is rumor and whatever they see posted on forums. Giving them real numbers will not put manufacturers or vendors at risk.

DavidMcCann said:

In the case of the recent VMax issue... there is nothing more than antidotal evidence of a problem....

Click to expand...

I believe that there was also mention of a LARGE insurance settlement. Follow the money.

I would guess that was the case where a follow rocketeer was killed. May he rest in peace.

crossfire said:

I would guess that was the case where a follow rocketeer was killed. May he rest in peace.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the one where the gentleman was struck?

While tragic, as eyewitnesses reported and published reports detailed(or didn't), there were MANY more factors in play there and at fault than whether a Vmax motor may or may have been used and may not have lit the ejection charge, although it might have been contributory.

Still doesn't negate Dave's point about the data or the system.

Wait, which death was related to a Vmax?

Banzai88 said:

Are you talking about the one where the gentleman was struck?

While tragic, as eyewitnesses reported and published reports detailed(or didn't), there were MANY more factors in play there and at fault than whether a Vmax motor may or may have been used and may not have lit the ejection charge, although it might have been contributory.

Still doesn't negate Dave's point about the data or the system.

Click to expand...

We never heard of the final findings of what really happened, although it was my belief at the time NAR/TRA were going to investigate and let us know. We were left in the dark again.

We are all tasked with flying safely. And then information to do that is withheld.

Heres the the real thing. Next to no one fills out mess reports. When a motor blows up the fire. Thing people do is take it to a vendor or call AT or CTI. Those are the people with significant data on motors. I don't understand why the mess system even exists.

rcktnut said:

We never heard of the final findings of what really happened, although it was my belief at the time NAR/TRA were going to investigate and let us know. We were left in the dark again.

Click to expand...

If you are referring to the death in California at the Rocket Rave, the motors were MPR black powder in a cluster iirc, afaik there have been no deaths, but a few injuries related to HPR motors. My info may be wrong of course.

Then the REAL question is "What is the high profile failure that lead to a big insurance payout related to Vmax?" that's been referred to here? https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...ions-on-CTI-VMAX-motors&p=1590572#post1590572

I guess I should not be guessing but the post said a very large insurance claim or payout. Once again guessing but a death would be a large settlement. I have no idea what kind of motor it was.

The entire thread and that specific post is about Vmax, so either it's intentionally misleading, or Vmax. Expensive need not be death, human or otherwise. Could have been ballistic impact with commercial capital equipment.

It's stated as 'high visibility', so why all the secrecy of the data? If it's an NDA for insurance purposes, then state that and move on, no need for Jedi mind tricks, and I think everyone would appreciate at least that much transparency.

Banzai88 said:

Then the REAL question is "What is the high profile failure that lead to a big insurance payout related to Vmax?" that's been referred to here? https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...ions-on-CTI-VMAX-motors&p=1590572#post1590572

Click to expand...

As members of NAR/TRA/CAR we are not supposed to know. Being a safety issue one would think that we should be made aware of every detail of incidents like this. Names do not have to be published.

As long as the NFPA is the basis for rocketry, we will be kept in the dark and have very little say in things.

rharshberger said:

If you are referring to the death in California at the Rocket Rave, the motors were MPR black powder in a cluster iirc, afaik there have been no deaths, but a few injuries related to HPR motors. My info may be wrong of course.

Click to expand...

From what I recall, that rockets issue was being grossly underpowered and not having any recovery system installed. There was a vague report given to that effect anyways, and matches eyewitnesses who came here and posted.

DavidMcCann said:

From what I recall, that rockets issue was being grossly underpowered and not having any recovery system installed. There was a vague report given to that effect anyways, and matches eyewitnesses who came here and posted.

Click to expand...

AFAIK, it has been the only death directly related to commercial motors, and Diz, I agree with your read on that event.

As for the Vmax issues NAR has made a safety call and my club as a NAR club will observe the restrictions until such time as the are lifted.

tsai said:

To be more specific for this thread, I believe that all 4 motors have had MESS reports filed, which is good. That said...

In particular, all 4 motors are 38mm 2 or 3 grain with manufacture dates +/- 30 days of Sept 22, 2015. I think the purpose of this thread is not to talk about motor failures in general, but to share an experience with a specific date which may have issues, and give others a head's up on the possibility. In general, the failure rate of motors that I have seen is extremely small. 4 failures in a launch of 400+ rockets is not a bad number, and I normally wouldn't be too concerned beyond the MESS reports.

However, the fact that they are clustered around a manufacturing date could turn this into a statistical anomaly, which may indicate a real problem. Any additional information (success or failure) for motors around that date would be useful information to add. Unfortunately, I usually toss the cardboard tubes after a successful flight. I do know that I flew a 3 grain 38mm from a 2011 manufacture date successfully, but that's useless information in this context.

Click to expand...

That is exactly what we look for when we review the data. Unfortunately, many reports do not include the manufacturing lot data and/or do not enumerate on what the failure was.

To all the paranoid conspiracy folks here, get back on the meds.

Since we are discussing CTI motors here, I'm attaching a spreadsheet that lists all 12 of the CTI motor failure reported in 2013 to NAR/TRA/CAR. This represents a typical year's worth of reports.

View attachment 2013 CTI MESS Data.xls

1.) Please note that 6 of the 12 CTI reports leave out a very important item, the manufacturing date. Without that, it becomes really hard to track trends. See first page of the spreadsheet.

2.) Please note there is only 1 motor label that had 2 failures reported, the H410. Is that a significant difference? I don't think so.

3.) Page 2 has more details. 6 propellant types had at least 1 reported failure. Vmax has 4. Is that significant difference? Maybe.

4.) Seven of the 12 motors had some kind of ejection issue. Is that significant? Maybe, but recovery problems is the largest problem in hobby rocketry when the up part of the flight is successful.

5.) The 4 Vmax motors had ejection issues. 3 had no ejection and the other had a blown forward closure. Is that significant. Maybe.

6.) But a Red Lightning, Smokey Sam and Blue Streak also had ejection issues. Sorta clouds the pot.

Page 3 of the spreadsheet show how CTI compared with all 194 reports in 2013.

7.) Estes lead the pack with 133 reports (69%). AT came in second with 42 reports (22%) and CTI came in a distant third with 12 reports (6%). Quest, Loki, AMW and Ellis were in the noise.

8.) The most significant issue in 2013 was the Estes E failure numbers, 2/3's of the Estes reported failures. We deemed that significant enough to present the information to Estes. It's published knowledge that a Mabel can produce ~5000 motors per day, and there are many days of production per year. Estes did not observe any issues during their internal lot testing during manufacturing, and it is safe to estimate that Estes makes more than 100,000 E motors each year, so when viewed in that light, the 90 failures reported represents less than a 0.1% failure rate.

9.) The ejection failures in the 4 Vmax motors was noted and CAR initiated a dialogue with CTI on the matter. With the failure to duplicate the problems on a test stand, and lacking an uptick in failure reports from the field, the matter was closed.

10. All other failure rates are less that 10% of a given manufacturer's reported failures, and given the sparse reporting, no further action on those motors was deemed necessary.

So in summary, in 2013 potential issues were reported to Estes and CTI. They were investigated and it was concluded without more data, no further action was warranted.

The take away: If a motor fails and you don't report it, it didn't happen. At least not to the certifying authorities and manufacturers.

YMMV but please folks, please stay on the meds, and see you psychologist if you believe everyone is conspiring against you, because quite frankly we just don't care what you think. We only deal with data and facts. :wink:

Bob
I feel that are very few flyers in all of rocketry that have never heard of a MESS report. That is the reason the numbers are so low. Anybody who attends a launch knows if a Estes E9 motor is going to fly it has a very high chance of failure. But yet Estes still makes and sells this motor. I can see a true reloadable motor may have a higher failure rate due to a flyer putting it together wrong. But with a single use motor its out of the flyers hands. Do you have MESS reports from 2014 and 2015?

Thanks for your work

You just don't care what we think. That I believe



the question is, during that time period how many warranty claims did CTI field?

An. Idea.

Keep the mess reports. Have filling one out start a forum post on your own forum where people can discuss the issue and report similar issues.

Also run a tally board of all reports in a summarized table. Let the manufacturers provide warranty claim and production data as a defense if they so choose.


Everyone one is happy and you'll see a bunch of traffic

When I first started back in rocketry a couple of years ago I didn't even know that mess forms existed. If I had known that such a process existed, I would have reported the motor failures that I did have. Maybe the info for mess reports should be included with the motor info. People can't be expected to follow a process that they don't know exists.

Aaaaaaahhhh,
A bit of advice, save the motor grain paperwork in a folder until the motor is flown. If a CATO occurs, the specific manufacturers numbers are available for perusal otherwise, I'd say it's a waste of time to send in a report that doesn't identify the batch of
propellant. Kurt