Do you consider MPR a pre-requisite for HPR?

[Steve Shannon]

This entire discussion seems to have arisen out of a confusion between “should” and “can”, “dangerous” and “inconvenient”. My case is that I that I could and would impose a higher standard if I were witnessing (which I’m not), but I would only do this with what I consider good reason and not arbitrarily. If my good reason is safety or liability-related, then I should.

That stance has always been fully consistent and has not changed.

If the others can’t or won’t accept this, or disagree with me on what would constitute a very good reason…tough. Same with a flyer; lots of others would be willing to help. I’m under no obligation to come to an agreement.

I do object to being accused of breaking forum rules though. My words have been sharp but not vicious, nor is my objective to stir up trouble.

I’m not commenting on forum rules; I think highly of honest discussions as long as they don’t devolve into something less than respectful.
One reason Tripoli limits who can witness certification attempts is to try and promote consistency. We have clear cut rules and if we have a TAP, Director, or Prefect (official witnesses) who adds arbitrary rules that simply don’t exist, eventually that person will likely receive a call from one of the leaders in the organization explaining that they cannot simply make up their own rules. They are also required to adhere to the minimum rules or explain why they didn’t.
So, that means that an official witness isn’t allowed to require a certain number of MPR (which isn’t even an official category anymore) flights before agreeing to witness an L1 flight. Based on a rocket inspection an official witness could let a candidate know that they cannot fly an L1 flight, but they need to be able to cite actual deficiencies, such as “cardboard centering rings won’t withstand an H999”. It cannot be something as arbitrary as “you have never flown a G.”
Now maybe there is an argument for requiring that a person fly a particular impulse level before attempting L1, but if so, bring it to the people who write the certification rules; don’t just impose your version of the rules.

 

[smstachwick]

Is your reasoning better than the RSO or LCO, or all the rules previously debated and defined?

Good question. The RSO can clear for flight but is powerless to compel me to witness if my objections are not resolved (and may yet be proven correct in flight).

What can you show to prove your moral high-ground is the correct stance? Statistics? Something else? I am curious to know.

I don’t know if morality can be objectively proven. That’s a good question, one beyond my qualification to answer. Here’s a few more:

Do we have any philosophy or ethics experts in the room? How much does morality come into play in the case of the worst thing happening to an applicant is being inconvenienced? The same if the worst is property damage, injury?

Nevertheless, I wasn’t aware morality was at issue, I thought we were arguing over what I can and can’t do, and that it was being confused with what I should or shouldn’t do.

Was this your understanding?

 

[smstachwick]

I’m not commenting on forum rules; I think highly of honest discussions as long as they don’t devolve into something less than respectful.
One reason Tripoli limits who can witness certification attempts is to try and promote consistency. We have clear cut rules and if we have a TAP, Director, or Prefect (official witnesses) who adds arbitrary rules that simply don’t exist, eventually that person will likely receive a call from one of the leaders in the organization explaining that they cannot simply make up their own rules. They are also required to adhere to the minimum rules or explain why they didn’t.
So, that means that an official witness isn’t allowed to require a certain number of MPR (which isn’t even an official category anymore) flights before agreeing to witness an L1 flight. Based on a rocket inspection an official witness could let a candidate know that they cannot fly an L1 flight, but they need to be able to cite actual deficiencies, such as “cardboard centering rings won’t withstand an H999”. It cannot be something as arbitrary as “you have never flown a G.”
Now maybe there is an argument for requiring that a person fly a particular impulse level before attempting L1, but if so, bring it to the people who write the certification rules; don’t just impose your version of the rules.

Thank you Steve. I appreciate your expertise and ability to ground the conversation in reality that to this point has been sorely lacking as it has devolved into abstraction.

You and anyone else in Tripoli or NAR can be assured that when I frighten you all with my freshly-acquired L1 and L2, I will do my absolute best to serve as an accommodating yet responsible builder, flier, witness, and/or range volunteer who will put forth a good-faith effort to avoid causing trouble, be it injury, property damage, or hurt feelings. This is how I roll at L0 already.

In truth, if I got a call from somebody who wanted a witness and I turned them down, it would likely be for a mundane reason, such as that I cannot attend.

I’m a collaborator by nature and I like solutions and choices more than problems. Unfortunately the latter has been more the focus in this thread and I am more than ready to move to the former when everyone else is.

But yeah, HPR. Fun.

 

[OzHybrid]

It's up to the committee of any rocketry club to ensure that the certification standards are consistent. Over and above the overarching bodies CAR, NAR, TRIPOLI, UKRA, etc. At the end of the day, certification takes place at a local level. It might be forwarded up the line to headquarters, but occurs at a local level.
I'd encourage all clubs to read this thread as an example of the variation in the application of the certification rules that are being actively applied by their members and address that with their members, certifiers, prefects, and witnesses.
Perhaps Tripoli @Steve Shannon and his NAR counterpart (I don't see much NAR board presence here) might remind all prefectures of how the overarching bodies expect the rules to be interpreted and applied.

 

[OzHybrid]

Thank you Steve. I appreciate your expertise and ability to ground the conversation in reality that to this point has been sorely lacking as it has devolved into abstraction.

You and anyone else in Tripoli or NAR can be assured that when I frighten you all with my freshly-acquired L1 and L2, I will do my absolute best to serve as an accommodating yet responsible builder, flier, witness, and/or range volunteer who will put forth a good-faith effort to avoid causing trouble, be it injury, property damage, or hurt feelings. This is how I roll at L0 already.

In truth, if I got a call from somebody who wanted a witness and I turned them down, it would likely be for a mundane reason, such as that I cannot attend.

I’m a collaborator by nature and I like solutions and choices more than problems. Unfortunately the latter has been more the focus in this thread and I am more than ready to move to the former when everyone else is.

But yeah, HPR. Fun.

As you have thanked Steve for his expertise (which I fully agree with), does this mean that you accept what Steve has said, that the rules should be applied, not made up? Or are you still going with yeah, BUT, I don't need to witness if someone doesn't want to take my higher test.

 

[smstachwick]

As you have thanked Steve for his expertise (which I fully agree with), does this mean that you accept what Steve has said, that the rules should be applied, not made up? Or are you still going with yeah, BUT, I don't need to witness if someone doesn't want to take my higher test.

I’m going to require that all applicants utilize the CTI I216, fully redundant dual-deploy, and a horrible hot pink paint scheme with racist poetry scrawled on the fins

OK, that might be a little bit of trolling. In all seriousness, I don’t think I owe anybody explanation beyond this:

You and anyone else in Tripoli or NAR can be assured that when I frighten you all with my freshly-acquired L1 and L2, I will do my absolute best to serve as an accommodating yet responsible builder, flier, witness, and/or range volunteer who will put forth a good-faith effort to avoid causing trouble, be it injury, property damage, or hurt feelings.

Check back once I have cert in hand.

 

[anbhtblr]

Really ?

A first-time rocketeer shows up on the field. and flies a Micro-Maxx ( his first rocket ever ) . . . Strolls over to an on-field vendor and buys a 3" diameter LOC kit, some 5-minute epoxy, and "slaps it together" in about 30 minutes . . . Then, he goes to the Motor Vendor, buys an "H" motor and wants to Cert Level 1, with plans to take the test immediately after the Level 1 Cert and to go for Level 2, both on motor ejection ( 1 Micro-Maxx to an "H" to a "J" motor, all in about an hour ) . . . Would you be willing to allow that ?

One has to crawl before they learn to stand . . . They have to stand before they learn to walk . . . They learn to walk before they learn to run . . . A basic "progression", same for Rocketry.

The rules are the rules. Don't try to impose your world view on others just because you don't like the rules. If it's really important to you then rev up support for changing the rules.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Really ?

A first-time rocketeer shows up on the field. and flies a Micro-Maxx ( his first rocket ever ) . . . Strolls over to an on-field vendor and buys a 3" diameter LOC kit, some 5-minute epoxy, and "slaps it together" in about 30 minutes . . . Then, he goes to the Motor Vendor, buys an "H" motor and wants to Cert Level 1, with plans to take the test immediately after the Level 1 Cert and to go for Level 2, both on motor ejection ( 1 Micro-Maxx to an "H" to a "J" motor, all in about an hour ) . . . Would you be willing to allow that ?

One has to crawl before they learn to stand . . . They have to stand before they learn to walk . . . They learn to walk before they learn to run . . . A basic "progression", same for Rocketry.

Absolutely! Everyone starts somewhere and building a LOC kit, Wildman kit, PML kit, etc. is just as valid as staring with Estes. There’s absolutely nothing about building rockets that cannot be just as easily learned building an L1 kit. In fact for some the larger components make it easier.

 

[Ez2cDave]

Absolutely! Everyone starts somewhere and building a LOC kit, Wildman kit, PML kit, etc. is just as valid as staring with Estes. There’s absolutely nothing about building rockets that cannot be just as easily learned building an L1 kit. In fact for some the larger components make it easier.

Steve,

Note that I said that an absolute "noob" ( 1 - 1/8A Micro-Max, earlier the same day) wants to do L1 & L2 "back to back", on that same day.

Would you also "sign off" on him doing an L3 at the next launch ?

Dave F.

 

[Ez2cDave]

The rules are the rules. Don't try to impose your world view on others just because you don't like the rules. If it's really important to you then rev up support for changing the rules.

The "rules" have nothing to do with it . . . The only thing in question, in the hypothetical scenario I posted, is SAFETY, nothing more, nothing less !

How safe would you feel, if an absolute "noob" slapped an Estes Star Orbiter together ( on the field ), borrowed some hardware, bought an "Baby H" reload, assembled it, and decided to Cert Level 1 ?

 

[OzHybrid]

The "rules" have nothing to do with it . . . The only thing in question, in the hypothetical scenario I posted, is SAFETY, nothing more, nothing less !

How safe would you feel, if an absolute "noob" slapped an Estes Star Orbiter together ( on the field ), borrowed some hardware, bought an "Baby H" reload, assembled it, and decided to Cert Level 1 ?

The rules are the ONLY thing that has anything to do with it.

L1 -build a rocket with H/I motor launch and safely recover. Motor build supervised.
But to allay your fears, the rocket presented would have to go through the RSO and pass the usual safety inspection. The same inspection that you have to pass with your rocket. Are you suggesting that a new member should be held to a higher standard than you? The LCO could easily advise to put it on an away pad.
L2 as above,L2 test, JKL motor.
For a L2 test, they would have to have found a prefect to administer the L2 exam, passed it, obtained a motor at the launch from a vendor, had the motor build supervised, built a L2 rocket previously, had the rocket approved by the RSO, have a launch pad approved by the LCO, launched it and recovered it undamaged. If someone were able to do that, I'd call them very talented. There are so many checkpoints already built into the rules, that there is no real safety issue.
As for going for L3, you'd need multiple launches under your belt using dual deploy electronics(in the Tripoli rules). You'd then need to line up 2 prefects BEFORE you started your build. Document your approved build, submit all the paperwork and THEN undertake your assembly on the day and L3 cert flight.
In the past, there have been individuals who have done L1,2,3 certs in the same day. These were talented people who were far from NOOBS.


Mentoring of an individual would be a good idea, but is not required in the rules for L1/2. Prefect supervision is required for L3 If mentorship were ruled on, it would pose an unfair burden on existing members to implement. How would you enforce it? Would the mentors have to undergo a test? What's the scope?

So again, if you want the rules changed, get them changed so we can all be on the same page. The same level playing field.

 

[Steve Shannon]

Steve,

Note that I said that an absolute "noob" ( 1 - 1/8A Micro-Max, earlier the same day) wants to do L1 & L2 "back to back", on that same day.

Would you also "sign off" on him doing an L3 at the next launch ?

Dave F.

I don’t even think the micro-max is necessary. If they are capable of building rockets that pass inspection, and which then safely fly at those impulse levels, and then they pass the L2 test and their rocket passes another inspection with an eye towards L2 thrust and impulse levels, and flies a safe flight on that L2 motor, then yes, I would also follow our rules and certify them. I will not allow my or your personal bias towards people who haven’t built model rockets stand in the way of certification.
When it comes to L3, I have from time to time advised prospective candidates that they are not ready. That’s part of my obligation in my advisory role. When they are ready I’m delighted to see them begin work on their L3 certification, but the actual process of L3 certification simply doesn’t allow a person who built his L1 one launch to appear at the next launch with his L3 rocket. Your personal biases are causing you to manufacture specious scenarios that support your personal biases.
Once again, and for my last time in this conversation, those are the rules. If you dislike them, change them. We are always looking for volunteers who can do more than type forum posts.

 

[samb]

Both hobby organizations have judgement calls written into their published certification criteria. Neither have any prerequisite for flying rockets with lower impulse engine/motors/woosh generators.
As far as the cert flight goes, I believe that the intent has always been to have the folks with the boots on the ground make the call following the published criteria. Here is some example judgement language from both NAR and Tripoli:

NAR
The model must be returned to the Certification Team directly after flight for inspection to verify engine retention and for evidence of any flight-induced damage. The Certification Team will check the appropriate blocks in the HPR Level 1 Checklist indicating that a safe flight was made and that the post-flight inspection was satisfactory. In general, the guideline for acceptable flight damage is that the model could be flown again without repair. It is left to the judgment of the Certification Team to differentiate between flight damage and “normal” maintenance to assure reliability (e.g., shock cord replacement to prevent future flight problems). “Zippering” of the body tube is another area of flight damage left to Certification Teams judgment for acceptability.
https://www.nar.org/high-power-rocketry-info/level-1-hpr-certification-procedures/

Tripoli
Non-certification – Any of the following will result in non-certification for a certification flight:
Motor Cato
Excessive Damage (The certifying member shall inspect the rocket for excessive damage. Excessive damage shall be considered damage to the point that if the flyer were handed another motor, the rocket could not be put on the pad and flown again safely.)
No recovery system deployment or tangled recovery system deployment
Rocket drifting outside the specified launch range
Components coming down are not attached to the recovery system.
Any other violation of the TRA safety code associated with this particular flight.
Any other legitimate reason the certifying member deems merits non-certification.
https://tripoli.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=795696&module_id=468544


I certified NAR L2 a few years back with a 1 inch zipper in a LOC Doorknob (7.5 inch diameter airframe). On that day, on that field, with that cert team it was judged "acceptable" flight damage and the rocket was flyable with "normal" maintenance. Hello Level 2. How many of you would pass that?

 

[ep29030]

MPR is a good place to get experience in recovery techniques. One thing you learn is that as you move up the scale in size and mass, rockets are less forgiving. stripped two shroud lines on your model rocket and worst case might be a broken fin. Strip two on an MPR and the kit might be trashed.

MPR is a cheaper place to try out new things, like using a JLCR, an altimeter, or even a small av-bay. Better to make a $60 mistake vs a $300 one. Once you have the technique, then move up to HPR with it. MPR is also more versatile--I can't always fly my HPR kits at every launch but I can fly all my MPR kits.

 

[Ez2cDave]

I don’t even think the micro-max is necessary. If they are capable of building rockets that pass inspection, and which then safely fly at those impulse levels, and then they pass the L2 test and their rocket passes another inspection with an eye towards L2 thrust and impulse levels, and flies a safe flight on that L2 motor, then yes, I would also follow our rules and certify them. I will not allow my or your personal bias towards people who haven’t built model rockets stand in the way of certification.
When it comes to L3, I have from time to time advised prospective candidates that they are not ready. That’s part of my obligation in my advisory role. When they are ready I’m delighted to see them begin work on their L3 certification, but the actual process of L3 certification simply doesn’t allow a person who built his L1 one launch to appear at the next launch with his L3 rocket. Your personal biases are causing you to manufacture specious scenarios that support your personal biases.
Once again, and for my last time in this conversation, those are the rules. If you dislike them, change them. We are always looking for volunteers who can do more than type forum posts.

Steve,

You said, "when they are ready" . . . What are the "rules" that determine that point ? If there are no "established guidelines", who makes that determination ? Without any defined standards, it's all actually subject to "personal bias", after all, isn't it ?

Would you sign off on it, as a TAP ?

The Tripoli website says this about Level 3 . . .

Prerequisites for attempting Level 3 certification:

• The candidate must have completed their Level 2 certification BEFORE commencing their Level 3 certification process.
• The candidate must also need to demonstrate proficiency in flying Level 2 rockets with electronic recovery.
• Before beginning construction of an L3 certification project, your project design must be approved by your TAP members.
• The candidate must successfully design, build, fly and recover a rocket using a certified HPR motor in the M-O impulse range.

Electronics – Before a level 3 certification flight, the flyer shall successfully fly at least one rocket in the level 2 range using an electronic device as the primary means of recovery system deployment.

So, a Rocketeer could, then, in theory, at a "major launch" . . .

(1) Cert Level 1 and Level 2, early on the same day, using Electronic deployment on the L2 flight to meet the "Electronics Requirement" ( at least one rocket ).

(2) Submit Level 3 plans ( for a "kit" ) to 2 TAP's, "on the field", immediately after the Level 2 Cert paperwork is signed.

(3) Get the plans approved by the 2 TAP's, "on the field" ( should be easy with a "kit" ).

(4) Start building and have a TAP stop by the Pop-Up tent to view the construction, in various stages of progress. ( maybe fly a couple more L2 dual-deploy models to quell "proficiency concerns", while the epoxy is fully-curing ).

(5) Get final inspection of the rocket, buy a "Baby M" motor and assemble it, prep the rocket, head to the RSO, get a pad assignment, notify a TAP, and make the Level 3 attempt.

And, yes, I could completely construct an L3 bird, on the field, using Bob Smith 15-minute epoxy ( 2 hours for full cure, per manufacturer ) and be ready to launch before the end of the day . . . Especially, a fiberglass kit, like something from Wildman . . .

I would probably choose a "COMPETITOR 5", with a 75mm MMT modification ( direct from Tim ), rather than the standard 98mm MMT.

My motor choice would either be an AEROTECH M650W or an AEROTECH M1297W. Electronics would consist of 2 Missile works RRC3 units.

NOTE : In the images below, no "time frame" is indicated.

 

[OverTheTop]

So, a Rocketeer could, then, in theory, at a "major launch" . . .

(1) Cert Level 1 and Level 2, early on the same day, using Electronic deployment on the L2 flight to meet the "Electronics Requirement" ( at least one rocket ).

(2) Submit Level 3 plans ( for a "kit" ) to 2 TAP's, "on the field", immediately after the Level 2 Cert paperwork is signed.

(3) Get the plans approved by the 2 TAP's, "on the field" ( should be easy with a "kit" ).

(4) Start building and have a TAP stop by the Pop-Up tent to view the construction, in various stages of progress. ( maybe fly a couple more L2 dual-deploy models to quell "proficiency concerns", while the epoxy is fully-curing ).

(5) Get final inspection of the rocket, buy a "Baby M" motor and assemble it, prep the rocket, head to the RSO, get a pad assignment, notify a TAP, and make the Level 3 attempt.

And, yes, I could completely construct an L3 bird, on the field, using Bob Smith 15-minute epoxy ( 2 hours for full cure, per manufacturer ) and be ready to launch before the end of the day . . . Especially, a fiberglass kit, like something from Wildman . . .

I would probably choose a "COMPETITOR 5", with a 75mm MMT modification ( direct from Tim ), rather than the standard 98mm MMT.

My motor choice would either be an AEROTECH M650W or an AEROTECH M1297W. Electronics would consist of 2 Missile works RRC3 units.

Yes. Those are the rules. Would be an enormous amount of work but it could be done. You keep putting up scenarios that conform to the rules and expect to get different answers.

 

[ep29030]

If I recall correctly, Bill Davidson did all his Tripoli certs in 1 day after his 18th birthday.

 

[OzHybrid]

If I recall correctly, Bill Davidson did all his Tripoli certs in 1 day after his 18th birthday.

The rules have changed since then to require the electronics deployment flights experience requirement, which would make this much more difficult, but it would still be technically possible if you could line up the TAPs to take on the L3 and your L1 and L2 flight used electronics for deployment. I'm sure the L3 TAPs didn't take that responsibility lightly at the time and have no problem with this as it is done within the rules.

 

[Ez2cDave]

You keep putting up scenarios that conform to the rules and expect to get different answers.

Actually, different answers are given, by each individual TAP, and it seems to vary widely, at times ( very inconsistent ) . . .

I believe that is because there is no "set in stone" set of steps and / or minimum "timeline" throughout the Certification process, at all Levels.

Rather than have a strict set of guidelines, each TAP is, basically, free to do whatever they want. That leave the entire process open to the "biases" of the various TAP's. For the most part, it's not a major issue, but certain TAP's are "out of step", when it comes to an "orderly & timely" Cert process.

To be fair, the identical problem exists in the NAR with their "L3CC's".

 

[smstachwick]

Giving the matter further thought, it seems strange that certifying a member comes down to building one (1) high-power rocket and flying it successfully one (1) time.

However, I can also identify a few factors that organically encourage a conservative approach:

1.) Money. HPR kits and associated accessories such as chutes, electronics, motor hardware, are expensive as an aggregate whole. There is a financial incentive to not damage, destroy, or lose these things.

2.). Time. These rockets take at least a few hours (often longer) to put together and prepare for flight. There’s also the time to access the launch site, prep for flight, do paperwork for the certification, etc. Thus there is incentive to not waste time in the workshop or on the range constantly rethinking, redesigning, rebuilding, repairing, etc. There is a natural incentive to do things correctly the first time and not learn things the hard way, even in the very early stages of the certification process.

3.) Acceptance. On a range where most flights are successful and safe, nobody wants a spectacular failure. Depending on what exactly happens, it can be embarrassing.

It appears to me that the certification process for L1 specifically relies on these factors to produce a safe, conservative approach to HPR in newcomers, with no official emphasis on testing the flyer. The real test is on the pad.

So far it appears to work, for the most part.

 

[OzHybrid]

Giving the matter further thought, it seems strange that certifying a member comes down to building one (1) high-power rocket and flying it successfully one (1) time.

However, I can also identify a few factors that organically encourage a conservative approach:

1.) Money. HPR kits and associated accessories such as chutes, electronics, motor hardware, are expensive as an aggregate whole. There is a financial incentive to not damage, destroy, or lose these things.

2.). Time. These rockets take at least a few hours (often longer) to put together and prepare for flight. There’s also the time to access the launch site, prep for flight, do paperwork for the certification, etc. Thus there is incentive to not waste time in the workshop or on the range constantly rethinking, redesigning, rebuilding, repairing, etc. There is a natural incentive to do things correctly the first time and not learn things the hard way, even in the very early stages of the certification process.

3.) Acceptance. On a range where most flights are successful and safe, nobody wants a spectacular failure. Depending on what exactly happens, it can be embarrassing.

It appears to me that the certification process for L1 specifically relies on these factors to produce a safe, conservative approach to HPR in newcomers, with no official emphasis on testing the flyer. The real test is on the pad.

So far it appears to work, for the most part.

 

[smstachwick]

I mean, yes and no. You could say that I consolidated and applied separate bits of understanding that I already had.

On very rare occasion one may encounter a member going for certification who simply is not deterred by any of this, and is clearly lacking in the gray matter to conduct HPR flights safely. Asking a few questions in the hopes of convincing myself that I’m wrong, and washing my hands of the issue if I can’t convince myself, would be wise and responsible. No harm done, especially if the applicant can work out an alternate.

But this situation would, I’m hoping, be exceedingly rare. Like, rare enough that a veteran member could count the number of times they’ve made that decision on one hand and have digits left over. Not frequently enough to tick off club or national leadership. Ideally that number would actually be zero.

<wild tangent>

I suppose the hobby should count itself lucky though, that everyone entering into it seems to be constrained by money, time, or reputation. Can you imagine if someone too rich and powerful to be deterred by colossal failure got involved in, say, car manufacturing, social networks, or even HPR’s big brother, commercial space launches?

Goodness that would be awful!

</wild tangent>

 

[OzHybrid]

I mean, yes and no. You could say that I consolidated and applied separate bits of understanding that I already had.

On very rare occasion one may encounter a member going for certification who simply is not deterred by any of this, and is clearly lacking in the gray matter to conduct HPR flights safely. Asking a few questions in the hopes of convincing myself that I’m wrong, and washing my hands of the issue if I can’t convince myself, would be wise and responsible. No harm done, especially if the applicant can work out an alternate.

But this situation would, I’m hoping, be exceedingly rare. Like, rare enough that a veteran member could count the number of times they’ve made that decision on one hand and have digits left over. Not frequently enough to tick off club or national leadership.

I can live with that. Congratulations, you can now drink beer in Australia.
Fixed your sig
Shane Stachwick/NAR #112384. Allegedly 27 years old but functionally now 18.

 

[smstachwick]

I can live with that. Congratulations, you can now drink beer in Australia.
Fixed your sig
Shane Stachwick/NAR #112384. Allegedly 27 years old but functionally now 18.

The sig actually comes from my girlfriend, who will remind me of my functional age whenever I make a particularly juvenile joke. The common phrasing is “OK, you are five…”

 

[Wrightme43]

I have never launched anything larger than a C6-5, up untill a few days ago I had only ever built estes kits.

I am building a Apogee Aspire I bought right now. I was going to wait a while but Hobiedog encouraged me to build it. He has been answering my questions and helping me. I am very glad to have the advice and help of someone that knows how to build things that are stable, safe, and strong enough to work.
I don't think I am exception in the people that want to build rockets. Almost everyone wants to do a good job, and learn.

I have read every word in this thread, and even with the arguing I learned alot more.

Thank you.
Steve

 

[loopy]

The "rules" have nothing to do with it . . . The only thing in question, in the hypothetical scenario I posted, is SAFETY, nothing more, nothing less !

How safe would you feel, if an absolute "noob" slapped an Estes Star Orbiter together ( on the field ), borrowed some hardware, bought an "Baby H" reload, assembled it, and decided to Cert Level 1 ?

This is why we have people that have to witness the flight, and why the pre-flight checklist is in place. Also RSO inspection before ANYTHING is allowed to even get to a pad. These steps help to insure that a rocket that's not built correctly or sufficiently strong to handle the motor in it doesn't have a chance to fail and possibly do something really bad.

Personally, I like to see more experience, but if they demonstrate proper build techniques and build it sufficiently strong, why keep them from flying? It's not how I would do it, but my views and beliefs are mine alone, and shouldn't be used to limit others if they are showing they are capable of doing what they want to do.

There's no hard and fast rule for this - it's all relative to the skills of each individual flyer. If they show up at their second launch ever with a LOC IV built with strong fin attachments and everything looks and feels solid, why not let them fly? If it's their second launch ever, and the LOC IV in question has fins at odd angles and I'm able to wiggle them in the slots, then I'm absolutely not clearing them to fly.

Your example begs the question...a person you've never met before shows up with a high power rocket and wants to certify L1. You don't know this persons experience level, but the rocket appears to be well built. Do you let them fly?

 

[Hobie1dog]

Prerequisites for attempting Level 3 certification:

• The candidate must successfully design, build, fly and recover a rocket using a certified HPR motor in the M-O impulse range.

This rarely happens . Most people are buying a kit, all they are doing is putting it together, just like an Estes kit.

 

[loopy]

This rarely happens . Most people are buying a kit, all they are doing is putting it together, just like an Estes kit.

As someone currently using a kit for my L3 build, and from people I've talked to, I would say very few are putting it together stock like an Estes kit. Most are using their own build techniques, especially since a large number of kits that can handle L3 sized motors don't come with instructions anyway.

 

[bad_idea]

This rarely happens . Most people are buying a kit, all they are doing is putting it together, just like an Estes kit.

The quote was incomplete, as the paragraph after the one that mentions designing the rocket, says "The rocket may be either a kit or scratch-built."

 

[samb]

Tripoli is clear: "The rocket may be either a kit or scratch-built." NAR doesn't mention it either way. L3 candidates should adopt a 'no surprises' stance when dealing with your cert team.

https://tripoli.org/content.aspx?page_id=22&club_id=795696&module_id=479470

https://www.nar.org/high-power-rocketry-info/level-3-certification/