An Open letter to Mark Bundick, NAR President

[cls]

regarding the rule "no crowds for unproven models", how do you, the RSO, decide a model is "unproven"?

we've all seen poorly built kits of known stable models (people put all kinds of extra glue and nose weight and plywood fins etc., make it unstable)

we've all seen known stable, experienced rockets do unexpected things (current SR71 thread on TRF)

we've all seen properly prepped rockets fail to deploy recovery systems

we've all seen poorly prepped rockets fail to deploy recovery systems

we've all seen fully deployed rockets land on people, awnings, and cars.

we've all seen recovery systems fail (separation), motors CATO, other random stuff.


bottom line: until it launches straight and lands gently, successfully, EVERY rocket is "unproven"!


until the study is complete and data about frequency of failure modes is presented, you can not correctly infer or reason about how to improve the current safety rules.

we can talk about what data to collect and how to analyze it, that might help the committee.

 

[Micromeister]

I really can't believe the excuses i'm seeing here.
Regardless of power class, it wouldn't take much to set up "Test flight" launches at ANY club field, LPR, MPR or HPR. The Launch would be a special pre selected, off normal sport launch schedule date, with special insturctions that ONLY the modeler or a minimum number of build team members and a special assigned range crew attend. Extra away pad distance should be used and very close inspections of all proposed rockets before pads are asigned. No specators should be allowed on the field at all.
Dick: At middeltown this would be a challange, but would be doable with a good deal of coopertation from the Park folks.
I'm sure the MDRA could more easily set one up this way as they don't have pedestrian traffic to contend with or frizbee golfers Novaar's, The Plains site could also easily be isolated from the GP with distance. IT's the old Can't never Could mentality, If you don't try to work things out, they never get done.
I agree most of us on the east coast don't have an easy option for testing mid and hpr models but you could if you really wanted to. Most of us know someone who knows someone with a farm, pasture or vacant lot that could be used for a single flight or two. Might not be convenient, but don't tell me "we can't. LPR models can and are tested all over on vacant lots and school ball fields everywhere...is this done legally? possibly not but it's better than taking a potential hazzard to a publicly attended launch. Rocketeers should test their designs with as few poeple around as possible. It's simply the proper procedure.
This isn't NEW, IT's not NEWS. It's just not popular! As cls mentioned all rockets contain the possibiltiy of human error. That no excuse for not follow the most basic of research precedures " Field Testing" of unproven designs, CLS that means anything that hasn't flown before. It's not a guarantee the same model won't suffer some dumb modeler packing error or a motor malfunction later, it simply removes much of the uncertain flight path possibility. Once proven flight worthy at least the RSO has some data to base a go no-go decision on at a crowded public launch.
Just to make this a little clearer, We as model rocketeers have NO constitutional right to fly anything, It's a privliage. Nope! it says "the persuit of happiness"...doesn't mean your gonna get it
Go fever is as rempant in the model rocket community as it is/was in NASA. Biggest difference is if we Kill someone that well be the end of the hobby, No quiestion.
Flying model rockets is great fun...but safety must be our first priority.

 

[prowlerguy]

Coming from a military aviation background, I was struck by a few things when I started this sport.

The first was the lack of official, validated information on incidents. I would expect the NAR (and TRA) to have a listing of all serious incidents under their purview, including date/location, rocketeer's name, rocket description, engine description, incident facts, and the investigation results. Related to this, another thing lacking is a criteria for determining severity of an incident, and a requirement to submit a report on all incidents of a given severity.

Once this system is in place, e-mail should be used to dissemenate each incident to the general membership as soon as the investigation is complete. This would allow for emerging trends to be nipped in the bud.

Also worth considering would be the implementation of a "safety stand-down" for use when an abnormal spike of incidents hit. When a stand-down is called, all chapters would be prohibited from any launch activity until some safety education had been performed.

While I appreciate your goal of decreasing incidents by a factor of 100, I don't think you can honestly do that without some "current state" metric to judge against. As long as this is a 10 year goal, it is realistic, but if this is a 2-3 year goal, we won't have time to establish a baseline, let alone get the decreases mentioned.

 

[rstaff3]

Well, I don't want to be seen as anti-safety for sure. However, I suspect I am less conservative that the majority of the NAR.

Sticking to MPR and LPR, I can see a lot of really simple things that can be done at, say at HARHAMS, to increase safety. The most obvious is to do with the distances involved. Keep the set up/tent areas MUCH further back. Don't let fliers come to the range-head unless they are flying that round. Situate the launch each time in accordance with the wind. Move the range head back so there is even more distance for the big rockets (what the call the 'away cells'). I doubt if some of this is doable since the parks dictate where the launches go off. It would require more equipment.

As for special launches, I'd love to see a small event where I could try some of my experiments. It would leave me more time for HP flying at MDRA. With Khim leaving, I don't know how scheduling this would work. I also suspect that whoever that person is, they would get annoyed setting it up for even a smaller turnout. John, maybe you can bring this up.

The one thought that made me grin is the chance to fly some odder stuff at NOVARR from the HP pads. I can easily drag my el-cheapo pad out there and get LP rods, or another 1/4 or rail that can be lugged to any of their launch positions. If the %^$# tropical storm doesn't was us out on Saturday, I think I'm going to bring a couple of odd-balls out and see what they say. It really is a great set up. About 100 yards away and I only saw at most 2 people out there.

Sorry for commentary so specific to my sites, I'll shut up now.

 

[gstarraider]

I think most clubs have a sceduled time for thier launches, SEVRA has a a start time off 12:00. If someone has a first time firing rocket that is a unproven design or has over a certain size motor or is just generally concerned maybe the clubs could set up a earlier time that day 10:00 for SEVRA were it is just for testing, no unessasary people,(spectators, people setting up, whatever), before the regular launch time. This would not end the posibility of problem but would limit some risks. Just a sugestion.

 

[tquigg]

Originally posted by wwattles
I don't think that requiring proof of CP/CG calculations would be effective or appropriate. First of all, who's going to verify that the calculations were done correctly? Second, are you going to require that every single Cub Scout and Boy Scout and YMCA and Big Brothers/Big Sisters flyer who built their rocket as part of a class, but has no other clue about rockets, provide documentation? I don't think that would go over too well, nor would it encourage participation.

This is where a second set of pads, at double or triple the standard safety distances, would be appropriate. Unproven/Untested/Uncertain design? It's going on the "Safety Pads."

WW

Our club only does RSO/signoffs on flight cards for models containing rocket motors of E impulse and above.

Years ago, we noted that we were having more and more problems with E and above rockets. The reason? Reloads. We don't nickel and dime the kids to death with RSO inspections of their A through D birds. But then again, our model rocket pads are also 50 feet out, rather than the standard NAR Safety Code distances. Even without the inspections, we very rarely have problems with model rockets going unstable. But we really hammer the mid-power and HPR rockets. We have very little problem with them as well.

We also don't use a designated RSO or an RSO table. We use the "floating RSO" method, and have been using this for the past 11 years with no problems.

So far (knock on wood) we've had no one hit or hurt by a rocket, no property damage (i.e. rockets going through windows) and no range fires.

Best Regards

 

[cls]

Micro, do you really mean we should encourage people to launch illegally? what happens when something DOES go wrong, way wrong - we're going to get MORE liability trouble and MORE "oh those crazy rockets" in the minds of the public. recently in California we've had two large acreage grass fires started by "model rockets"; those kids would have been better off launching with a club at a good facility, NOT in the dry grass.

anyways, we've all seen usually stable models go crazy under boost - stuff happens. and boost isn't the only part of flight where stuff happens. bottom line: every launch is a "test flight".

overall, we really don't know the distribution and frequency of problem areas - and we shouldn't speculate too much until that information is gathered and presented in the committee's report. Which is what Prowlerguy basically said.

 

[BrnAgainRoc]

Man what a testy subject that crosses so many lines.First off ive read every post so i could put in an honest opinion and theory about this subject. First id like to hit the head of the nail with the suv/child accident. We had week long topics about that and most of us agreed that as an accident more than likely have not been prevented. The main problem was the child/mom being in the vehicle during launch.This is a serious problem that as a BOD of our org that we have decided to put a 100% stop to.

At our launches you will not be allowed to be sitting in your vehicle during launch sequences.When the air call is made and countdown begins everyone needs to be facing the pad and paying attention to whats going on. The point of the vehicle being hit by the rocket isnt the MAIN issue its the close to life altering consequences the mother/child would have suffered for being in the suv when more than likely heads up calls were given.Now iam not saying its not ok to go to your vehicle to get something but when inside a canopy/tent/vehicle your view of that rocket is impaired.

So trying to avoid lawndarts or most call balistic rockets cant be 100% guranteed. When we launch a rocket its a scientific equation all the way through BUT we make errors in building and design and thats not something anyone can change. We have rocksim which is by far one of the greatest rocketry programs made, in turn it delivers a hands on viewable scale of our rockets and what itll do under every type of climate and weather condition and design.So yes i agree that with some iffy projects you must bring a rocksim file to the launch to be placed on a laptop ( we are implementing this as we speak) and the RSO can look over it and clear it. If its deemed protestable that it may be a heads up launch it goes all the way to the back of the launch pads and when that launch comes up a headsup safety call is given and it wont be launched till everyones attention is gotten. But no matter what you do you will not stop that rocket from hitting a house/car if the launch did go bad after all. With this said we can put ourselves in better safety conditions but we wont eliminate lawndarts or property damage.

Now for the certification rockets mentioned. This categorie is very testible and can be configured to be alot stricter or be left alone.People have said lets make there be time limits between cert launches. Example if iam lvl 1 ill have to wait 6-8 months to launch for lvl2. Well i dont see how this will help me in any form or fashion except adding a few launches under my belt before attemtping L2. To be honest iam a very fast learner. I grab detail from people i learn from and i tend to catch on to what it is their doing by listening and watching. As far as iam concerned our cert requirments are perfectly fine and well placed. If i want to LVL 1 2 and 3 in one day and i have the knowledge to explain to the RSO and everyone what it is i built how i built it and prove that it will fly than i see no apparent reason in allowing me to do it. I havent certed but i have my lvl1 2 and about to work on my lvl 3 rocket in the next few weeks. And iam sure oncei start it steve mashburn and steve burnette and alot of others will help walk me through the plans and what i need to avoid and the do's and dont's.

Our best learning tool in this hobby is from everyone in the hobby.We have websites and books and magazines, but honestly we learn everything we know from each other no matter what lvl cert they are. We make this hobby everything it is and without us it wouldnt exist.Back to the topic at hand though


To sum this up we can do everything we can to make this hobby safer. But in turn will we make it so strict that no one will or can enjoy it anymore? I agree with everyone there are things we can do to make it better but you wont ever eliminate the problem. And it will be said well we can lower the chances of an accident and thats not true it will never change. One thing that lacks on a launch field is everyones participation.Everyone does their own thing which is fine but when launching is going on everyone needs to have their attention towards the pad and eyes on the rocket at all time. We can do SO in depth whith safety rules that it would literally take out some of the fun aspects to this hobby. Drag racing is one of those things. Or wild designs or what ever other fun things you do at launches.We can push the envelope just so much then all these things will be "illegal" in our hobby. Why not just try to work on what rules and regulations we have and try not to change them so dramatically that new rules and regulations will have to be implemented. What we have in place now are perectly fine. But we need to express to spectators and participants that their involvment at launches is very crucial and them listening and their attention is always needed at all countdowns untill that rocket touches down. If we can get that at all launches we will have alot better success in the safety department.

 

[Micromeister]

Tim:
That's what I personally do now, get there with the ranger to open the park. It works for me but that' only micro to MPR stuff. I think one of the major issues is folks just are not as concerned with public safety as we should be. I ususally test all micro and lpr rocket in a little cubby hole field across from my house, by myself in as total isolation as i can muster Ie Very early morning or nearly sunset. Because of the surrounding woods I lose many of these first flight models (boiler plates ususally) but it Proves the design. When I get to a public launch I still call for heads up on these same models just to be on the safe side.
I'm working on an very large near weight limit 4 D12 cluster demo/ night flying 56" rotor helicopter model. It's first flight was marred by a cato so the model is still unproven. It will have to be Day launched at an upcoming monthly sport launch but I intent to do just as you mentioned, fly it before anyone else gets there hoping NOT to disturb the neighbors in the process... There are alway tradeoffs

Dick:
What you may not realize is the monthly sport launches at middletown were my idea when I first joined Narhams back in the late 80's, Up until that point Middletown was used only a couple time a year for ECRM and one or two other competition launchers. As Section Advisor for many years, it was I who opened the dialog with Frederick County Parks, who were unaware we had been using the park thur Middletown park recreation committee for over 10years. The committee had NO authority to allow the club to use one of middletowns (at that time) open fields. The Ring we fly from now is something new since I stepped down as Advisor in 2000 when I injured my back. believe it or not that ring is almost exactly centered in the park. Unfortunately when we requested the " center of the filed" they tried to give us what we wanted from 15 miles away in thier office...the center of the park.. TEE HE shows ya really have to be careful what you ask for
Special events can and are scheduled in our yearly use request. Adding special off day Test launch dates would be no more of a problem then requesting night launch use.
FAA night launches were also something Narhams started and I
wrote the procedure now used by my friends at FAA regional HQ in NY.
By our park permit we MUST have all launchers inside the ring...Which we fudge on now and then but still must generally abide by. Most of the other mentioned changes could certainly be done. I am completely with you on perp tent set-ups being much further back, but It's something that those running the show must enforce and that is part of the problem.
I've been accused of being Anal on Safety by many in our club and those attending as only as sport flyers. This affliction could be because I lost a friend to amateur rocketry years ago. Seeing a friend splattered all over a launch pad really changes your outlook on safety, especially when the procedure was in place but simply ignored! Let's help the other 99% of model rocket flyers NOT fall into the complacency trap. Safety First. especially in public.

 

[BrnAgainRoc]

man the whole image of the accident you just discribed just put some aweful mental pictures in my mind. We all do this as a hobby cause its what we enjoy. We all love rocketry. FOr 995 of us this is as close to NASA we will ever get so we live our dreams through model rocketry.When i started this hobby i was made clear and was forced to fully understand that this hobby can be one of the most dangerous hobbies that exist.When i put that rocket on the pad and i begin to prep the motor, my mind is on what iam doing 100%. I only allow one other person to be with me at the pad and thats usually Smash or burnette. Ive seen groups of people at the pads and imo thats not needed. Iam sorry about your friend and i wouldnt wish that upon anyone. But we all know accidents happen, so we do everything we can to prevent them.Being strict on safety isnt a problem but there is some rules that could do more damage than good. I agree in precaution changes and rule modifications but lets not take it to the point were we as friends and hobbiests cant enjoy it anymore. Just keep that in mind.

 

[Micromeister]

Prowlerguy:
No one has picked up on your observations so I'll throw this out to you.

The Nar has a publication on request "40 years of safety" I believe it was last updated in 2002?? in which all the "serious" incidents are covered, which weren't that many in the model rockety community. I do not know what the score is for HPR but it isn't as good, nor did anyone expect it would be as model rocketry. I know our insurance folks have all this data, but it is not something that would be out there for the general public. We in model rocketry have a specific set of guidelines on reporting any incident which occurs on a sanctioned model rocket range. I'd assume Tripoli's insurer required the same.

Even with all the recent "mishaps" Model rocketry is Still the Safest outdoor sport/hobby in existance. bar none. But our diligence has faltered since the inception of HPR to the mix. We've become complacent in our oversight of our smaller models, while overbuilding and changing the very things that made model rocketry a Safe hobby. I could go on and on, but I won't as it would become to some political, which it isn't... Bigger, Larger, and Heavier spells more margin for injury...More potential for injury mean Less safety. Less Safety mean closer inspecition by regulators which usually means more regulation, and on and on.....It doesn't take a rocket scientist to follow the progression.

 

[rstaff3]

The suggestion made by badboy that EVERY launch be essentially heads-up is a good one. In the one mishap that I have ever seen that caused injury, it would have been totally avoidable if that person were standing and paying attention. I guess it may be an issue for those prepping as they will spend a good portion of their time not prepping, or ignoring the rule.

 

[BrnAgainRoc]

Originally posted by rstaff3
In the one mishap that I have ever seen that caused injury, it would have been totally avoidable if that person were standing and paying attention. I guess it may be an issue for those prepping as they will spend a good portion of their time not prepping, or ignoring the rule.

That was my point Dick. All accidents with balistic rockets is that someone wasnt paying attention or something was ignored.Rocketry demands attention and detail to everything we do from organization at launches. Heres my 100% view of this:


We can sit here and say that we need safety rules to prevent rokets from busting through the windshield of a suv or through a canopy. But i dont care about that tent or canopy or that suv. This is why we are forced to have car insurance. If that rocket goes through my windshield my insurance will pay for it and ill take it up with the owner of the rocket. If the owner was careless in his rocket as far as building and prepping or launching then that person better step up to the plate and take responsibility for his rockets actions. Now if that rocket takes a life thats a different story. When i launch my rockets iam doing it for pure love for this hobby and everything involved with it.But i never want to have the feeling on my shoulders that my rocket hurt someone or even killed someone.Yes this hobby can and will take a life just as fast as launching the rocket.But we as a family of hobbiests can take care of each other and secure our safety as long as we are all willing to pay attention to detail.When that rocket leaves that pad every body on that field better be watching.When that chute dont open and that rocket is coming in, and that HEADS-UP call comes over the speaker and that bullhorn goes off i want every kid, every adult searching the skys and i want everyone looking in the same direction. If that rocket EVEN looks like its coming towards the spectator area I as a LSO will evacuate the area as fast as possible. If you all want to be safe at your launches and want to do as much as you can to prevent accidents that could effect a life or health of a man/woman or child then do what ive said and enforce it without any acceptions. No one allowed in cars and everyone paying attention at all times.You cant go wrong as long as those rules are followed and then we wont have to worry AS MUCH about losing a loved one or a close rocket friend. As far as rockets coming in balistic or catoing we cant prevent that period. We can inspect a rocket 100 times and send it through 50 RSO tables but you can and most of the time will encounter problems. So all the RSo's fault and stuff like that is nonsence. Iam not going to place the blame of a accident on the RSO just cause the rocket met all requirments to fly but something happened during launch caused that rocket to explode into the ground. You're wanting to turn a RSO into a Judge and jury and in turn leaving all resposibility on his shoulders which in the end keep people from volunteering to be RSO for the day.We all know when you launch a rocket the owner of that rocket is responsible for everything that happens once its on the pad.Its a fun safe hobby but we cant forget that we are rocket builders and fliers.No one is ever perfect and no rocket will ever beproblem free, iam sure you can ask NASA about that and they are professionals and most have PhD's in their fields.Accidents happen guys and rockets are detroyed and so forth but we shouldnt have to worry about lives being taken or people being hurt as long as people pay attention to detail.

 

[rokitflite]

Lordy these are some wordy (rhyme not intended) posts! I am not sure of my views either way. All I can say is that #1 I don't show up to public launches with unproven designs for both safety & pride reasons. I remember bringing my scratch built designs out to launches when I was a kid. The guy at check-in gave my rockets a THOROUGH examination so much so that if the rocket had legs it would be walking funny for a couple of hours afterwards. They tugged fins, checked balance points, yanked on the recovery system a bit, pulled out and checked the motor and they even had a string on hand for a swing test. I think that is why I tend to over-build my models today; harsh testing BEFORE launch. If these guys had the slightest doubt they would turn peoples models away (I am proud to say that that never happened to me). As a result I have rarely seen a mishap at a launch. Have the safety check-in guys stopped doing this? Or has my club (NARHAMS) just been far more safety minded over the years?

 

[powderburner]

Originally posted by Badboy1982
......So yes i agree that with some iffy projects you must bring a rocksim file to the launch to be placed on a laptop ( we are implementing this as we speak) and the RSO can look over it and clear it. .......

I think it's a great idea to require rocketeers to provide substantiaion of the safety of their rockets (see my earlier post).

I think it's wrong to require them to spend $100 to buy a piece of software in order to provide this substantiation. I think it's wrong, if this laptop-based approach is required of all clubs, to ask small clubs to provide expensive facilities. (Remember that everyone out there does not have such fancy toys.)

I think the worksheet pages from the back of The Handbook of Model Rocketry provide an adequate form of documentation for c.g. and c.p. calculations and rocket overall stability.

rokitflite, your pre-flight testing might seem a little extreme but this is *exactly* what the RSO is supposed to be doing. I am glad you have such a great club with such a strong emphasis on safety.

 

[rstaff3]

One of the big issues with examinations is that they are external only. No way to tell if the inside quicklinks are connected, the top CR is glued in, the motor is assembled right, the shock cord isn't mostly burned thru, etc, etc, etc.

Back to what has been said earlier. Many people (raising hand) have no opportunity to flight test on their own. This gets worse as you get into LMR and HPR. Oh I will recant. I can flight test MicroMaxx rockets on my own. Wow.

 

[powderburner]

Originally posted by rstaff3
One of the big issues with examinations is that they are external only.

The RSO is supposed to check the motor installation, the fin attachment, the recovery system installation, and anything else that 'operates' during the flight. He is not supposed to just admire the paint job.

 

[rstaff3]

I have never (except on a cert flight) seen an RSO inspect the whole recovery system, nor have I seen them inspect the insides of a reload to see if it was assembled correctly. Inspections are OK, but I've seen plenty of failures due to the type issues I listed. There should be other measures considered (safe distances, location of the crowds, attentiveness, etc) Here I mean these items should be revisited. They can be controlled, but it is not feasible to do a 100% inspection.

 

[rokitflite]

Originally posted by rstaff3
Oh I will recant. I can flight test MicroMaxx rockets on my own. Wow.

Rstaff conducts unsafe Micro Maxx flights at every launch!!! See attached picture of an unfortunate spectator who was asked BY RSTAFF to listen and see if he could hear the rocket taking off. Clem was rushed to the hospital, Rstaff walked away laughing and tearing up a copy of the safety code!!!

 

[rstaff3]

LOL, I want my rocket back too!

 

[BrnAgainRoc]

as far as the rocksim program costing to much, iam sure 1 person in every club has rocksim OR has use of a demo version.Also rocksim files can be printed out.Now i understand the point of it costing alot of money and i agree its way over priced but the program itself does help the average rocketeer. The RSO thing guys i dont really think is our problem. Everyone is in such denial that they wont look at the actual problem and quit blaming the people who look the rockets over.If you go to a launch and the RSO doesnt do his part and look over the rockets and examine all the flights then thats your launch coordinators problem for choosing such a poor RSO.But all of you blaming the RSO's at every launch you really need to get a grip and quit blaming people other than yourselves.We fly these rockets. we build these rockets.These 2 credentials will cause the accident if we didnt do our part into making these rockets as accurate and safe.I agree RSO's should do their part in checking all rockets. But they cant 100% say that rocket wont lawndart or cato once it leaves that pad. Ive seen people overload a rocket full of dogbarf and make it unstable and too heavy and when it launched it left the rod and fell over and lawndarted across the field.Thats ownership failure.As i said 100 times if a rocket lawndarts or catos or chuts down open, what happens afterwards is unavoidable except the LSO's and RSO's do their part to inform and clear the area to prepare for the rocket to explode intot he ground. and you cant say you havent sat under your tent prepping your rockets and never look out or up to make sure the chutes are open. Get off your rearends and watch the flights SO if incase that rocket flight does go bad you can prepare for the impact before it ever occurs.You guys seem to be looking for NAR/TRA to babysit everyone. And honestly thats not needed at all. If you cant organize a launch with all safety measures in place then you dont need to host a launch period.Ive been to several launches and ive watched people asleep under the tents, people in cars, and no one paying attenion. We are taking every safety measure at our launches from here on out not that we arent already but we just got started and getting better launch measures and ideas.Just quit blaming the RSO's and start blaming yourselves.Cause iam sure the RSO's dont tell you to stay under your tents and to eat and sleep in your cars while launches are going on. IF ANYTHING nar/tra should develope organized launch safety measures for example if your holding a large launch should have specially designed guidelines for holding launches. Most of them would be what we do if we were launching alone but other rules could be placed for safety in other areas.

 

[rstaff3]

I don't think anyone was blaming the RSOs. RSO procedures are in fact good and should be adhered to. They are just part of the puzzle and are not a guarantee.

Hey, if anyone can load enough dog barf to make the rocket unstable, then it was marginal at best anyway.

 

[BrnAgainRoc]

Originally posted by rstaff3
I don't think anyone was blaming the RSOs. RSO procedures are in fact good and should be adhered to. They are just part of the puzzle and are not a guarantee.

Hey, if anyone can load enough dog barf to make the rocket unstable, then it was marginal at best anyway.

Yes RSO's is just a part of the puzzle but i dont think the RSO's have been a part of the accidents in general. The main accident that keeps being brought up is the mom/child in the SUV and the rocket crashing through the windshield.RSO's couldnt prevent that nor could have anyone else. The only thing that was wrong in the entire picture was the mom/child being in the suv and possibly ignoring a headsup call or not hearing one.We cant prevent a rocket from doing what it did. But we can prevent anyone from being hurt from lawndarts and other similar type of accidents. When we plan an event the main goal is to plan it as safe as possible and keep in mind at any minute something can go wrong so you need to plan for it in advance just in case. Make people aware that no one is allowed to camp in their vehicles while launches are going on and if they argue the matter they can leave. Attention to detail is our biggest problem and people not wanting to pay attention is one of my largest concerns at any launch.At all the launches ive been too ive seen people camping in their vehicles, not paying attention to the rocket being launched.If we can fix these problems then iam sure the rest will fall into place.time for me to eat dinner

 

[mike_bar]

We have quite a few good rules in affect now.
We just need to start using them!
I wish the RSO would be a hard ***...

I am going to have to change my tag line back again...

"Build 'em, Fly 'em, Life is good... "

"Build 'em, Test 'em, Fly 'em, Life is good... Safety First..."

 

[Micromeister]

When enough "incidents" occur for these large and heavy lawndarts or someone is seriously injured by one coming in balastic, Model rockets. All sizes and shapes WILL go the same way the original Lawn Dart game went.
Badboy is so correct, If we don't take care of our models safety BEFORE heading to the launch site, we may not have anyting to fly.
Computer simulations are no substitute for actual fight. Powders suggestion is as valid as any sim. Paper work is only part of the building process, Isolated testing is the only way to minimize in public risk. No one can control spectators at a large public rocket launch, many of these folks have no ties to clubs, rocketry or the area your launching from. They are there to see a specticle, and like many auto race fans just waiting for the accident to happen. Testing your rockets regardless of size is up to the individual, but responsibility for a rocket gone bad at a club sanctioned launch is unfortuantely LEGALLY shouldered by the Club, and more importantly by the RSO on duty at the time of the mishap. This is especially true if Non-club members are allowed to fly. You folks the think RSO's have it easy better read your site insurance policy! particually the HRP community. The modeler is responsible to the club but its the club who gets sued first.
Safety is the responsibility of every single sole on the field. 40some year of safety shows we HAD a great way of flying, It's up to the hobby to bring back the right stuff. Dick greater distance is wonderful if there is distance to be had...Spectators don't want or like to be hurded into "viewing stations" miles away for the launchers...Look at the Cape! flyers don't like walking a huge distances to get to the range head and then another hike out to the away pads. It's what is required but not the popular thing. JUST like Isolated testing, where the "crowd" is removed from the mix. In a previous post it was explained how to pre test your mid and high power models before every coming to a public launch. NO you don't get the whoooo factor if you get a great or crappy flight but you do get the satisfaction of knowing the next time you bring this bird out to fly, it has the very best chance possible of making a safe and succssful flight. What distance seems save from models flying to thousands of feet? If you really want to know the safest place to be after a bird leaves the launcher is out at that pad. but we all know how silly that sounds also. Greater distance is only necessary with people are NOT paying attention. but that distance must be beyond the reach of any rocket to be flown....MILES? The parking lot at middletown?
We had an accident that should NEVER have happened, it was sloppy range management, lack of proper inspection, and plain lack of attention by the entire group of people on the field that day, myself included. We've taken steps to pervent such from occuring again. but it hasn't made the local sport flyer happy at all, We get all kinds of grief because we will no longer let folks set up shades and tents beyond a 20 foot set-back from the rangehead or downrange...I couldn't believe it when this guy complained that we were restricting his view, I had to threaten to have him removed by the park police before he would move back beyond the imaginary setback line. Distance is only important to US the flying members, spectators are wildcards that are very hard to control.
I'm sorry guys this is my last post on this subject, it's like wrestling(sp) with a pig in the mud, sooner or later you realize the pig like it! You folks are going to have to come to grips with YOUR responsibility for insuring your models will fly safely before it's seen on the open ranges with unsuspection spectators out to watch some launches and have a nap.

 

[rstaff3]

I too will quit posting after this one before I begin posting stuff that I, as a moderator, have to pull. I just hope that the NAR group comes up with reasonable recommendations. Live long and prosper.

 

[sandman]

This should be a beginning.

The first thing that needs to be done is a written set of guidelines for the RSO's to use...a checklist maybe. I would leave the details up to the comittee.

Secondly the "Heads-up" warning should be standardized and LOUD!!! Maybe an airhorn???

I have missed "heads up" warnings simply because I didn't hear them...besides...let's face it...we BAR's are getting older by the minute and our hearing is not what it used to be!

Somebody had to say that last part...may as well, come from one of the "older" TRF members.

You guys can come up with more suggestions for the comittee to look at.

 

[AlexM]

I was thinking maybe two safety checks. One before you prep the rocket so it is easy to check out the recovery system and it's condition, attachment methods, etc., then a follow up check to see if they prepped it right, check on motor retention, and just a final airwortyness inspection.

 

[powderburner]

That car-horn idea that someone posted (in this thread?) is a really great way to warn the whole field of an emergency heads-up. I am not familiar with car horn hardware but I'll bet someone here could come up with a simple circuit design for powering an 'extra' horn from a 12V battery, with some kind of control to make the horn give a rapid honk-honk-honk-honk. Anyone?

 

[jflis]

Just to chime in (been reading with interest).

There are many good ideas here and some not so good. Also, I am sure many good ideas missing. It's all a part of the process.

One suggestion/request/recommendation: Do not *require* rocksim data.

It sounds like a good idea, but it isn't for many reasons.

- I've seen designs identified as *stable* in rocksim actually be unstable or marginally stable
- The tool is too limiting (I am NOT saying it isn't *good*. It is a fine tool. But it is still too limiting). You could not, for example, sim the ACME spitfire. Nor, for that matter the Decaffeinator, the Drake, the Stingray, the Night Whisper, The Deuce's Wild, the Tres, etc, etc, etc. Limiting. Yes, you can *approximate* many of these designs, but it is just and "approximation" from a tool that isn't perfect in the first place. Limiting.
- Not everyone has it, has access to it, nor should be required to buy it. There is no requirement for me to be a NAR member to fly rockets at a NAR event. Nor is it a requirement to own rocksim, nor is it a requirement to belong to a NAR section (where a copy may be found).
- Not needed. 45+ years of rocketry supports this.

Just a pet peeve. Rocksim is a great tool, don't get me wrong. But it should not ever be a requirement to enjoy rocketry.

jim