Do you consider MPR a pre-requisite for HPR?

[Daddyisabar]

And upon the counting of three, three being the number counted, thou shalt lobst the holy hand grenade at thy inexperienced and unqualified certification candidate, whereby they shall snuff it.

Time to feast amongst AP grains, cases, fancy electronics, sloths...

 

[smstachwick]

The answer to your question is, No. They cannot legally sue you.
Checking your NAR certification level, shows you have no HPR certification. As you have not actually gone through the certification process and lived it, once you have, and have experienced the frustration of random additional rules, perhaps you might reconsider your position.

I don’t think I will. I’m currently in the middle of an L1 build, check with me when I’ve completed the cert. You can ask about it the day I announce it, I don’t mind.

This is why the rules need to be documented.

No they don’t. The decision to accept witnessing duty is entirely the witness’s prerogative.

Not made up on the day. So that anyone attempting certification has clarity of what is required.

My criteria wouldn’t be arbitrary, they’d be the very things that the certification process is designed to measure. If the candidate could not talk about the design, construction, or prep of the rocket in a way that convinced me that:

1. They did indeed build the rocket in question, and…
2. They understood enough about it that they could be relied on to conduct safe flights with it, and…
3. They displayed the good judgement necessary to conduct safe flights with other rockets at their prospective certification level

…then I wouldn’t agree to witness. Not with my name on the flight card and their certification paperwork. I might change my mind if they were to come back in a month more ready to discuss. I would also be happy to point them in the direction of another certified member to help them day-of, perhaps a club officer. I might even congratulate the new HPR flier if the cert is safe. If.

But my own evaluation wouldn’t change until I saw that they were knowledgeable and wise enough to be safe.

You can change your signature at any time should you not wish it used. That is your choice and I'd remind you that you wrote your signature. I have not said anything that you have not written yourself.

My apologies for going on the defensive. The other guy went after the “functionally 5” joke, I see now that your use of it is purely qualification-related. Hopefully my stance is more clear to you now.

 

[OzHybrid]

Some of what you say is documented in the HPR rules. I don't know what's in YOUR club rules. Some of it seems to be your personal additional rules.
How would anyone going for certification know what the standard required was if it's not documented?

 

[smstachwick]

Some of what you say is documented in the HPR rules. I don't know what's in YOUR club rules. Some of it seems to be your personal additional rules.
How would anyone going for certification know what the standard required was if it's not documented?

Here’s something I’m confused on though, and want to clear up before doing more explaining: how is any of what I have in mind “dangerous ground”? Inconvenient ground or disappointing ground or conservative/safe ground or cover-my-own-butt ground would all be better terms.

Where is the hazard in making no high-power rocket flight at all? Where is the danger in declining to be involved with an individual unprepared to be safe, and letting somebody else take the risk? What gives?

Furthermore, if refusal to work with an applicant for reasons related to a certified member’s judgement is supposedly dangerous, why are certified members allowed to act at their own discretion instead of being bound by a national organization’s rules to supervise a certification attempt? How would such a system even work or be enforced?

(Edited)

 

[OverTheTop]

I would be keeping in mind the relatively low bar to entry into HPR. Fly and successfully recover a H or I motor powered rocket. Looking at it there is very little difference from MPR to something that is H capable. If they flyer has their recovery sorted out then there is probably little to be gained by more MPR flying before going to L1. I mention recovery in particular as it is where a lot of people have trouble, especially with parachute packing for correct deployment. That is where I had troubles, and once I sorted that out L1 was a VERY easy step. L2 and L3 have progressively higher standards of flying and knowledge and skill required.

 

[OzHybrid]

Here’s something I’m confused on though, and want to clear up before doing more explaining: how is any of what I have in mind “dangerous ground”? Inconvenient ground or disappointing ground or conservative/safe ground or cover-my-own-butt ground would all be better terms.

Where is the hazard in making no high-power rocket flight at all? Where is the danger in declining to be involved with an individual unprepared to be safe, and letting somebody else take the risk? What gives?

Furthermore, if refusal to work with an applicant for reasons related to a certified member’s judgement is supposedly dangerous, why are certified members allowed to act at their own discretion instead of being bound by a national organization’s rules to supervise a certification attempt? How would such a system even work or be enforced?

(Edited)

We all have to know where the goalposts are. So we can kick the ball toward them. Taking the arbitrary setting of rules to an extreme, Shane decides that today, he'll only certify red rockets. I've got a green rocket.
To a lesser or greater extent, that's what happens when an individual can set their own certification approval rules.
And Norm might only be certifying yellow rockets, maybe gold ones at a push. 2 certifiers. 2 sets of rules. That doesn't give anyone a fair kick at the goal.
That's the problem as I see it. Arbitrary rules lead to bad results. However well intentioned.
If your version of the rules is better, get them codified by NAR or Tripoli, or the club. Otherwise, let the team kick toward the same goalposts.

 

[smstachwick]

We all have to know where the goalposts are. So we can kick the ball toward them. Taking the arbitrary setting of rules to an extreme, Shane decides that today, he'll only certify red rockets. I've got a green rocket.
To a lesser or greater extent, that's what happens when an individual can set their own certification approval rules.
And Norm might only be certifying yellow rockets, maybe gold ones at a push. 2 certifiers. 2 sets of rules. That doesn't give anyone a fair kick at the goal.
That's the problem as I see it. Arbitrary rules lead to bad results. However well intentioned.
If your version of the rules is better, get them codified by NAR or Tripoli, or the club. Otherwise, let the team kick toward the same goalposts.

You didn’t answer the questions. Look at them and try again.

Or concede. Or disengage. Or hit the report button. Or write to NAR and make your case to codify a duty to witness. Or make some other choice I haven’t thought of.

Making straw man and slippery slope arguments against individual judgement is a poor choice and I won’t entertain them further. Nor is anyone likely to at whichever range you fly at.

 

[OzHybrid]

You didn’t answer the questions. Look at them and try again.

Or concede. Or disengage. Or hit the report button. Or write to NAR and make your case to codify a duty to witness. Or make some other choice I haven’t thought of.

Making straw man and slippery slope arguments against individual judgement is a poor choice and I won’t entertain them further. Nor is anyone likely to at whichever range you fly at.

Sure, your description of it being disappointing is correct. I'm not sure how that takes things further.
You want to make up your own rules and apply them to others. Even if there is no safety issue. I don't. And I'm trying to put forward a balanced argument against that approach. You seem to be obfuscating what it is you are actually advocating. I believe it's your straw man argument causing problems.

 

[smstachwick]

That’s a little better. Let’s take a look at that.

Sure, your description of it being disappointing is correct.

Thanks. I’ll take that point.

I'm not sure how that takes things further.

It clears up your poor phrasing. I attach some importance to being characterized fairly and accurately, this accomplishes that.

You want to make up your own rules and apply them to others.

Want to? Not really. What I want is for rocket flights to be safe. The more painlessly safety precautions can be applied, the better. But I wouldn’t be (phrased this way because this is all currently hypothetical, being L0) opposed to making a judgement call and telling an applicant to study/test/fly MPR a bit more, recommend they certify with somebody else, or even simply seek out a second opinion if I felt they were questionable.

Even if there is no safety issue.

This whole discussion is predicated on the applicant’s competence and preparedness being called into question as a safety issue. Assume that the applicant is so unprepared that I strongly believe, with defensible reasons, that their unpreparedness could injure or kill somebody if granted an L1 certification and I’d like to see that addressed, or have my mind changed, before agreeing to witness.

I don't. And I'm trying to put forward a balanced argument against that approach. You seem to be obfuscation what it is you are actually advocating.

Not my intent at all, really. I’ve been doing my best to clarify. I’m sorry you feel that way.

(Minor edits)

 

[OzHybrid]

I really have no idea what exactly you are trying to say. Good luck with your L1 when you get to it.

 

[smstachwick]

I really have no idea what exactly you are trying to say. Good luck with your L1 when you get to it.

What I’m saying is that a certification witness shouldn’t have to take crap for making a judgment call on how to deal with an applicant’s lack of preparedness. It is not dangerous ground, as we’ve agreed, because there are plenty of ways to deal with being turned down. None of them are hard if the applicant spends a bit of time studying or flying or both. No applicant is held to a ludicrous standard. Your imagination sparked far more argument on the matter than anything in real life did.

 

[OzHybrid]

There is NO studying REQUIRED for the higher qualification of L1 certification. You seem to be REQUIRING that in your version of your examination of the candidate.
Build a rocket and launch it safely with an H motor, is the basic definition. By implication, the rocket structure has to be sound, parachute has to deploy, and recovery without significant damage are required.
This is a discussion about MPR certification and whether it's required, which by your examination standards seems to be getting held to a higher standard. (see your post 78 ish) than the L1 HPR test.
I agree, you as an individual do NOT have to be a witness to a certification attempt. But you are only the witness. if you want to act as a witness, do so. But don't do it and then say your rocket is the wrong colour. The RSO and the LCO, examine the rocket and make the decision whether to launch or not. Not the witness. Perhaps have a chat with your local LCO or RSO regarding variable examination standards at your next launch.
Is it a good idea if rocketeers have a higher level of knowledge, of course it is. Would I mandate it? No. The current certification REQUIREMENTS are adequate and well thought out. They allow rocketeers to learn as they go without inhibiting them. Safety distances and procedures, RSO and LCO keep things safe. And for any certification flight I've ever witnessed, HEADS UP would be announced.
my 50c worth.
I'm done on this subject now. Hooray.
Ends.

 

[OverTheTop]

I do a lot of work regarding certification of regulatory matters relating to the equipment that the company I work for produces and sells all around the world. We design to comply with the requisite standards from the start, and achieving compliance is usually straightforward. I have had a couple of occasions over the years where an inspector would ping the design for not being wired a certain way or having something different than the usual appliances (our equipment frequently runs into the laws of physics so some things are done differently, sometimes). When they say they require something to be done a certain way, I ask where in the standard it states the requirement. If they can't show where the requirement is in the standard it is just them trying to add another layer on top to make themselves feel good. They get pushback and have acquiesced every time they have tried it with me. We have also considered what they say as the design moves into production anyway, just because it is a good idea to consider others' thoughts relating to such things.

This is remarkably similar to the HPR certification for L1. As I stated back in post #95, the bar for entry is very low. If the RSO deems the rocket fit for flight and the flyer successfully flies and recovers, then he has passed the requirements. Any other requirements are peremptory.

If somebody wants to have ten attempts at L1 before they get their chute opening (and spend the money on the motors involved) then that is actually acceptable. It is not how most people would do it, but it is acceptable in the rules. Remember we have the RSO checking the rocket, and distances are controlled to get overall risk to acceptable levels.

Don't let how you might approach certifications influence how other flyers certify within the rules. Personally I always certify on a motor that is at least one level higher than required to get over the line (I, K and N). I personally don't see much challenge in barely getting over the line successfully. That is just me, and if somebody else wants to fly that way it is within the rules and I have no problems with them putting in a baby H and just squeaking in.

 

[MikeT]

There is no substitute for experience.

 

[NateB]

This is remarkably similar to the HPR certification for L1. As I stated back in post #95, the bar for entry is very low. If the RSO deems the rocket fit for flight and the flyer successfully flies and recovers, then he has passed the requirements. Any other requirements are peremptory.

I received my L1 cert at a regional launch at a field I had only been at once before. Prior to L1, I had launched plenty of LPR and MPR motors, but not every class designation. I don't recall ever launching a D or F motor prior to my L1 flight.

The cert process was easy and stress free. It was breezy, so after watching several flights land far away, I paid attention to motor selection. I had sims printed out with a variety of motor options, so I picked an appropriate one that a vendor had in stock and approached the RSO. I had the CP and minimum CG marked on the rocket and was asked a few simple questions about construction techniques, ejection (motor), delay and the kit chocie was obvious. After that I was given a pad assignment, launch, recovery and a brief post flight inspection to show a rocket in good condition. It was as uneventful as hoped and the cert was signed off.

I have to say, I would have been disappointed if there were more rules than required by TRA that I didn't know about ahead of time. If a club wants to see a flyer before a cert attempt or wants to see XX number of E-G flights before an L1 attempt, please make any additional requirements well known and consistent among everyone.

 

[jmasterj]

I'm wondering if either NAR or Tripoli publish a report on number of attempts vs ratio of success/failure.

Do they even have numbers for failures? I've never been the certifier nor did I fail either of my certs, so I don't remember whether anything gets sent in on failure.


Regarding a lot of this discussion, do a lot of people just show up at a club the first time and ask for someone to certify them? Maybe it's just me, but it seems crazy to just show up without having reached out to the club to find out how they do things, including who might be available to sign the paperwork and what they expect. Making assumptions about how a club works is just asking for disappointment.

 

[T-Rex]

The day I flew my L1 was also the day I flew my first composite MPR and the only time I have ever flown with that club. The MPR failed to eject (tangled in a steel fishing leader) and crashed popping a fin.
The only other rocket I had with me was my cert rocket and it's motor. (Thankfully I had purchased the motor in advance because the onsite vendor was not there that day).
So after I crashed my MPR, I successfully flew my L1 at a club where no one knew me. Some of y'all wouldn't have even allowed me to try.

As long as the flyer approaches the certifying member with confidence, and an inspection of the rocket shows that it should have a safe flight and survive, the flight should be allowed. (it is done all the time with members of University teams)

 

[Steve Shannon]

Do they even have numbers for failures? I've never been the certifier nor did I fail either of my certs, so I don't remember whether anything gets sent in on failure.


Regarding a lot of this discussion, do a lot of people just show up at a club the first time and ask for someone to certify them? Maybe it's just me, but it seems crazy to just show up without having reached out to the club to find out how they do things, including who might be available to sign the paperwork and what they expect. Making assumptions about how a club works is just asking for disappointment.

I don’t know of any reliable failure tracking.
I encourage people who attend our launches to communicate in advance their desire to certify, just so we’re prepared, but I try to be ready for the ones who don’t. Also, sometimes we encourage reticent people to attempt a certification. That’s how I certified. A friend and I went to Hellfire 6 with a partially finished PML Explorer. I didn’t really even know what to expect from a high power launch; I’d never been to one.
Once we got there we found another Montana rocketeer. I’m shy but I introduced myself to the guy whose Montana license plate said 321FIRE. He was Dale Emery.
While we were visiting I mentioned that I was working on a rocket. He encouraged me to finish it in the hotel that night and fly it, since we were there. When I brought it the next day he inspected it and told me that it was well built and that I could probably certify with it if I wanted. I bought an H123 (I think) and it flew perfectly.

 

[Rob Campbell]

I don't see MPR so much as a prerequisite to HPR. I see it as more of a gateway drug to HPR. If G motors are cool, how much cooler are H through O motors!

 

[bad_idea]

Making mistakes at low- and mid-power didn't make me a better flyer than if I'd made those same mistakes at high-power, but it did mean they were cheaper and less dangerous mistakes than they could have been.

As many have said, flying mid-power for a while is not a prerequisite, but good to do.

 

[lakeroadster]

 

[boatgeek]

Every club I've earned or supervised certifications at (n = 2), I've emailed ahead of time asking if there would be someone to sign off on a cert. They always wrote back to check in at the RSO table. It feels like most clubs have a stable of people who are willing to sign off on certs. When I checked in at the RSO table, they pointed me to the right person and we all went on with our days.

I rarely sign off on certs, for a couple of reasons:
I only get to one or two HPR launches a year, so I'm busy helping students get certified and flying my own projects. If I have free time, I usually help with LCO or RSO duties.
I don't like to sign off on my students' certs (for NAR Jr L1 I can't anyway) because I feel like that is a little too incestuous. I'd like to see another person's eyes on the cert flight so that I'm not too easy on the students or too hard on them to overcompensate.

I can understand disappointment if someone emails and finds that the club requires a half dozen MPR flights before making someone available for a cert flight. That's probably more so if it's several hours to the next launch site. I can also understand why clubs might do that.

 

[OverTheTop]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems crazy to just show up without having reached out to the club to find out how they do things, including who might be available to sign the paperwork and what they expect.

We sometimes have people attend from interstate so we have little knowledge of their flying history when they want to certify.

We also have a lot of students that belong to a Spaceport America Cup team building their own small rocket and certifying L1 before having flown any smaller rockets. Nearly all are successful on first attempt. There have been no safety concerns with any of the flights.

 

[jmasterj]

We sometimes have people attend from interstate so we have little knowledge of their flying history when they want to certify.

We also have a lot of students that belong to a Spaceport America Cup team building their own small rocket and certifying L1 before having flown any smaller rockets. Nearly all are successful on first attempt. There have been no safety concerns with any of the flights.

Did you misquote? Your response seems unrelated to my thoughts. Contacting the club seems doubly important when traveling a long distance to a launch you've never attended before.

I'm not advocating additional requirements for HPR certification; I only flew 3 mid-power composite motors before my L1. But it was no more complicated than an Estes model.

 

[OverTheTop]

Did you misquote? Your response seems unrelated to my thoughts. Contacting the club seems doubly important when traveling a long distance to a launch you've never attended before.

I don't think I misquoted. I would not expect them to have to be particularly concerned with additional layers of compliance when we are all operating under the same Tripoli rules. If there are additional requirements for local clubs that is normally stated to people intending on visiting to avoid disappointment. Case in point is that we fly on a farm so green motors are prohibited, and sparky mortors are prohibited due to fire risks.

I'm not advocating additional requirements for HPR certification; I only flew 3 mid-power composite motors before my L1. But it was no more complicated than an Estes model.

Doing some MPR flying on composites is a reasonably good idea, although it is not a requirement of the Tripoli Rocketry Association approved process.

 

[jmasterj]

I don't think I misquoted. I would not expect them to have to be particularly concerned with additional layers of compliance when we are all operating under the same Tripoli rules. If there are additional requirements for local clubs that is normally stated to people intending on visiting to avoid disappointment. Case in point is that we fly on a farm so green motors are prohibited, and sparky mortors are prohibited due to fire risks.

I'm not talking about additional requirements. I'm talking about club procedures, who you should talk to, etc. I'd want to know I couldn't use a green or sparky motor before I showed up.

 

[OverTheTop]

I think the requirement for no greens or sparkys is mentioned to anyone intending to visit.

 

[OzHybrid]

I think the requirement for no greens or sparkys is mentioned to anyone intending to visit.

I don't think it's on the website.... Where people would look.....
Edit
Checked. Nothing on the main page or Serpentine or Drouin site specific info on Greens or Sparkies being banned.

 

[OverTheTop]

I don't think it's on the website.... Where people would look.....
Edit
Checked. Nothing on the main page or Serpentine or Drouin site specific info on Greens or Sparkies being banned.

I'll get it added then .

[Edit] Requested to the club that it should be added.

 

[anbhtblr]

I find the LPR, MPR, HPR really confusing. I know the definitions/guidelines, but like all regulatory regimes often seem just arbitrary. I see modelers and HPR. I build mostly for I motors and above, although I have a couple of birds that are happy on F-H. I like watching for the recovery events and recovering a undamaged bird ready to be relaunched, as much as I like watching a nice straight (sufficiently powered) launch. I often fly extra electronics just to collect some, admittedly redundant, data. That is just my thing. I have great respect for modelers. I love looking at pretty, or accurate, or unusual birds, and watching them launch. Its really fun to see an accurate large scale (e.g. 1/10th scale) HPR model. However you couldn't get me to spend the time necessary to join their ranks, just not in my wheelhouse. If someone had told me I had to do some cert before NAR/TRA L1 I probably wouldn't be flying today.