L3 build documentation and protocol

[DavidMcCann]

OK - I'll keep this brief. Not interested in starting a war with my haters when I express my opinion.
.

I'm responding with my opinion. grab some tampex and deal with it.

 

[tbonerocketeer]

I'm responding with my opinion. grab some tampex and deal with it.

😳 O 💩

TWO TAPS need to review and sign off on the rocket BEFORE the flight.

.

I actually agree with this. It is really difficult to mentor someone if the project is built. One failure I had involved a flyer that contacted me to review his project....it was built. The fins swept forward, were very thin. I advised him he should have used thicker material to which the response was-engineering data- show it is sufficient. Outcome of the flight was rapid removal of the fins during max Q. They snapped off just above the root. I was not able to suggest the thicker fins because the project was already built. He passed the second time after using a thicker fin and a standard shape.

 

[ksaves2]

😳 O 💩

I actually agree with this. It is really difficult to mentor someone if the project is built. One failure I had involved a flyer that contacted me to review his project....it was built. The fins swept forward, were very thin. I advised him he should have used thicker material to which the response was-engineering data- show it is sufficient. Outcome of the flight was rapid removal of the fins during max Q. They snapped off just above the root. I was not able to suggest the thicker fins because the project was already built. He passed the second time after using a thicker fin and a standard shape.

What if he was right and you were wrong Chris? This proves nothing unless you were able to do an engineering analysis to prove "his" numbers were wrong. Flip a coin.

Someone chooses a standard "collection of parts" to use as a candidate rocket you want them to stuff your email box? If they have voluminous construction photos/videos and the rocket is built by the time it's presented, unless it's obviously unsafe let it fly.

If Mr. forward swept smarty pants presented his data before he built it and was convinced it was going to work, you think it would have made any difference? Heck no. He'd build it the way the numbers told him and still have the failure. Kurt

 

[ksaves2]

OK - I'll keep this brief. Not interested in starting a war with my haters when I express my opinion.

TWO TAPS need to review and sign off on the rocket BEFORE the flight.
If that flight fails, I see the failure as both the candidate and the TAPs....after all two "guru's" said it was good to go....

I can see a failure once in a while due to Murphy, but you shouldn't see TAP's with multiple failures within some reasonable period of time.
Multiple failures would seem to indicate failure to properly coach/mentor/monitor and they shouldn't have signed off on the flight if it didn't have a very high probability of succeeding.

Fred,

Bill Riley posted only one L3 attempt out of 30 failed last year. What you speak might be a non-problem?

Could you mean a newly minted L3 who goes off and have multiple failures? That I have witnessed but there is no way the certification process is going to be able deal with people who go off half cocked after they get their ticket.
NAR or TRA, neither one can foresee how a flier is going to proceed after they certify.

Kurt

 

[rharshberger]

What if he was right and you were wrong Chris? This proves nothing unless you were able to do an engineering analysis to prove "his" numbers were wrong. Flip a coin.

Someone chooses a standard "collection of parts" to use as a candidate rocket you want them to stuff your email box? If they have voluminous construction photos/videos and the rocket is built by the time it's presented, unless it's obviously unsafe let it fly.

If Mr. forward swept smarty pants presented his data before he built it and was convinced it was going to work, you think it would have made any difference? Heck no. He'd build it the way the numbers told him and still have the failure. Kurt

Kurt, personally I believe this is where TRF can be a huge boon to perspective L3 candidates, by doing a build thread and there documentation here on TRF there is no need to plug a TAP or L3CCs mailbox. Not only does the TAP have a chance to observe the build in progress, but via PM or Email can ask for further clarification of certain aspects of the build. It also gives TRF'ers a chance to see whats being done in cert builds and to gain knowledge from it, if they ask questions then its an opportunity for the TAP to see how the candidate replies (which may point to a hole in their knowledge). I believe all L3 cert builds need to be documented so that if there is a failure then a root cause analysis can be confirmed.

 

[DavidMcCann]

Fred,

Bill Riley posted only one L3 attempt out of 30 failed last year. What you speak might be a non-problem?

Could you mean a newly minted L3 who goes off and have multiple failures? That I have witnessed but there is no way the certification process is going to be able deal with people who go off half cocked after they get their ticket.
NAR or TRA, neither one can foresee how a flier is going to proceed after they certify.

Kurt

It sounds more like fred has a bone to pick with a particular TAP, and is painting the whole organization with a brush. A good number of east coasters come here to pop their L3's. I've seen less than awesome designs, but all safe and successful. Soooooo. Not seeing the problem.

 

[FredA]

I'm talking about TAP's with multiple failing candidates ..
And yes, if what I speak of is a NON PROBLEM, that's great and people should get even less bent out of shape at my opinion that if it is happening then it's a problem....

No bone to pick with any TAP - just the process.
If you knew history or read a bit you would know I was a TAP for 8 years and stepped down because they dumbed down the process and took away TAP Discretion. I was TOLD directly by the TAP Chair that I was not allowed to use TAP discretion to fail a candidate who tossed the laundry at apogee on a DD flight even when I told that candidate that requirement in advance....I said that was BS and quit.
I want the process to demonstrate competency since the L3 flight is the last check available to the organizations....so that there is confidence that people are not doing the minimum to just get their ticket punched then following it up with craziness and stupid mistakes. I see no recourse in the rules. Once your ticket is punched you can fly whatever you get past the RSO.

David - Go pick a fight with somebody else and quit showing what little tolerance you have for others......

Enough said..................

 

[ksaves2]

Doesn't look like they dumped "discretion" 'cause a flier did as you described, landed within the waiver and
was denied the L3. Was in a recent thread here at an Argonia launch. Fellow was a good sport about it and looking forward to attempting again. Personally if that occurs, I do not mind if they are granted
the certification if the rocket lands within the waiver. Period. Only proves the rocket could have made an apogee only flight successfully. I doubt the person will make that mistake again.
The fact of the matter is if someone is flying a screamer, dump the main up top and especially in the Midwest the
rocket is going to drift outside the waiver and it's a DNF. If I get my candidate rocket ready, I'm not going to
fly it at my home field as the waiver radius is too close for comfort. With 20knot variable winds aloft even with
a small drogue, it could drift outside the waiver radius.
The pisser of the thing is if the individual was using a TAP of the appropriate "discretion" could have acquired the L3
and been done with it. Since he was using the "wrong" ones he has to do it again. Seems discretion is alive and well in TRA Fred even though it was discussed at the BOD level and it was determined it was O.K. to grant a certification under those circumstances.
See, you didn't have to quit being a TAP. Could have quietly given the one finger peace sign all along. Kurt

 

[FredA]

When the TAP Co-Chair followed by the TAP Chair calls you at home and tells you in no uncertain terms that I was "Not offering a level playing field" and that I needed to STOP that practice one is left with little wiggle-room.
So the "Discretion" clause is still there, I was just not permitted to use it the way I wanted.

I STONGLY feel that, at a minimum, demonstrating competence means the rocket flies the profile you predict.
The TAP gods were not giving into my "TAP discretion" argument and were firm in their assertion that I could no longer have the rule.
That's when I told them to find a new TAP for this area because I could not sign off on sloppy certs.
Wasn't about to go behind their back and do dishonest things.

Going outside the waiver is ALWAYS a fail. It's that failure that I wanted to make sure my candidates didn't do. I wanted them to show competence in DD - but note, I didn't require DD.
I wanted L3's to know how to recover.
Maybe that's a little selfish because they are flying over my friends and family.
Plus, we have a major highway 2.2 miles away - with the wrong wind, you can easily cross the highway or worse yet, drop a rocket on the highway like what happened in June.
Knowing how to DD is a key competency for our field.
It's a damn shame we can't test for that competency.

Don't miss being a TAP - don't want to sign my name that says a person knows what they are doing when they don't......

 

[Banzai88]

Knowing how to DD is a key competency for our field.
It's a damn shame we can't test for that competency.

This point seems to be a never ending bone of contention for lots of folks. Same can be said for staging and air starts.

 

[Nick@JET]

I'm sure your questions have been answered , if not this is what I did
1. Chose / Contact TAP (found on website)
2. Ask them what documentation they would like (TRA capture form , parts list, schematic, flight plan, most likely simple OR file or the like
3. Once the agree / suggest - purchase rocket components, build
4. Once u get closer ideas of weight - purchase said motor
5. Document through build

Ask TAP a question or few through the build like , would u like to see rocket prior to installing rear CR, harness , AV bay testing, recovery plan ok. At L3 level IMO basic questions will already be known, and even though you will always be learning I try not to big my TAPs very often and save up questions.

I thought this may be daunting but my TAPs are freaking awesome and want me to win, actually so far this has been my most fun build yet. Don't over think it, pick the right TAP and you will have a blast. The one thing I do suggest is build several rockets HPR before L3 since it seams like everyone built, you found a better way to do things. Maybe a save a couple new things for L3 for the fun of it, and maybe fly every motor letter up to L before L3 and document number of DD flights sucessful and not, they may want to know that you have a proven proficiency. You've already show proficiency with your last builds. Repeated success will put your advisors at ease

 

[DavidMcCann]

Fred-- as you mentioned yourself, punching the L3 ticket is not the last step. Every flight gets RSOd. If you feel the RSO system is lacking, we should fix that. It's more important to have every flight well checked then to have a hard very process and then trust people afterwards.

 

[bclark989]

It's more important to have every flight well checked then to have a hard very process and then trust people afterwards.

I would argue the opposite. In the world of process control, prevention is preferable to detection. Applied to rocketry, that means make sure people building rockets know what they are doing rather than relying on someone else to check that they did it right.

I have all of the NAR and TRA L3 documentation in a folder on my computer and I'm slowly digesting it assuming the day will come that I want to go for it, and it is surprising how much simpler the TRA stuff is.

As a relative newcomer (built my first HPR kit in January '15), it seems like there should be separate systems in place for "licensing" people to use certain size motors, and "certifying" people to build rockets of a certain size, complexity, or design. I, for example, crashed my DD Loc Hyperloc 835 on my first L2 attempt because I had a brain fart and didn't put the wingnuts on my AV-bay bulk head. This, to me, is a good case in support of having pre-flight checklists for DD rockets. After I watched the lower air frame smash into the ground, I got up the next morning and flew a J330 in a single deploy, motor eject PML Explorer. It landed a mile away, but I got my cert. It felt like cheating.

Its probably been discussed and subsequently axed, but I think it would be both informative/beneficial as well as fun/rewarding, if there were certifications for HPR Kits, HPR Scratch Builts, HPR DD Kits, HPR DD Scratch Builts, Multi Stage (Kit / Scratch), Cluster (Kit /Scratch), etc, and then subdivide those into weight classes. All of the scratch building certs could require demonstrating at least a fundamental understanding of the engineering (basic aerodynamics, basic strengths of materials, etc.).

When a rocket fails, its usually the result of an assembly error / flight prep error, not the motor, and when it comes in ballistic, its the size of the rocket, not the motor, that dictates the damage it could cause. I get that by regulating motor size, it indirectly regulates rocket size, but I think its too broad.

BC

 

[DavidMcCann]

In short, we have a BS certifying process to cover ass in court and keep the government out of the hobby. I don't know this, but looking at it, thats my guess.


It's up to RSO's and clubs to make sure people are flying safe....and just making it hard to cert isn't going to stop anyone from flying crap the next day. Those safety checks on each flight are critical. being certified is more or less meaningless.

 

[sharkbait]

In short, we have a BS certifying process to cover ass in court and keep the government out of the hobby. I don't know this, but looking at it, thats my guess.


It's up to RSO's and clubs to make sure people are flying safe....and just making it hard to cert isn't going to stop anyone from flying crap the next day. Those safety checks on each flight are critical. being certified is more or less meaningless.

Agree & disagree.

You guys do it right at your launches. I'm an L3 and I didn't get any free passes at URRF, each and everyone of my 20+ flights were throughly checked by the RSO or Dan M.

But i disagree that the certification process is meaningless. I don't think it would be wise to let a newbie have access to large L3 motors or L2 motors right out of the gate. Even a very good RSO can't see inside to confirm proper adhesives and building techniques were used during construction or that the electronics are wired solidly and correctly.

 

[cerving]

Judging by the significant number of L1 & L2's that I see actually failing, I would say that it's definitely not BS. Yes, you can get a L1 by throwing a baby H into an Estes Pro Series II rocket and you'll get it as long as you don't shred and the parachute deploys. Yes, you can get a L2 without electronic deployments, with a 38mm cardboard rocket and a baby J. That's why the L3 bar is raised so high... you must have already proven that you can launch something suitably complex first. Most L3 projects aren't really much different that a decent L2 project, just bigger. I'm looking forward to getting my L3, but I wasn't even going to consider it until I launched a decent L first.

 

[DavidMcCann]

You guys do it right at your launches. I'm an L3 and I didn't get any free passes at URRF, each and everyone of my 20+ flights were throughly checked by the RSO or Dan M.

But i disagree that the certification process is meaningless. I don't think it would be wise to let a newbie have access to large L3 motors or L2 motors right out of the gate. Even a very good RSO can't see inside to confirm proper adhesives and building techniques were used during construction or that the electronics are wired solidly and correctly.

meaningless is perhaps the wrong word, as i like the setup as it and would not get rid of it.

Theres a good balance I think between getting certs on the current requirements, and good inspections. Of course, things still shread, blowup, and fail. but keeping those events as infrequent and safe as possible is the goal. My main point is making L3 harder to get than it already is will not make us significantly safer.

As for the specific problem of blowing a main at apogee.... I'm torn. Sure it shouldn't happen. but main at apogee beats no main at all, and landing in bounds means it was a safe flight.

 

[FredA]

landing in bounds means it was a safe flight.

When a flight splatters your car or worse while parked on the flight line, I think you'll re-think this statement......

Affirming that a candidate can recover PROPERLY - following their recovery plan - is key to the L3 cert.
The up part is easy.
Getting your rocket back within the waiver is also pretty easy.
If you don't test for proper recovery, what have you tested?

 

[DavidMcCann]

To be honest, I think wiring an altimeter and having it blow properly is just as easy as the up part, and the waiver part. All parts of a flight are important. I see your side of this, I do. If you blow at apogee you messed something up- for sure. But less than perfect flights do pass on all levels. Even if a DD works right, would you fail a slightly tangled main, or o e where a shroud popped? I agree with discretion, but saying any apogee puke needs to fail seems overly aggressive on one portion of flight.

But it I do agree- some people are way too cavalier about deployment and recovery.

 

[woferry]

It certainly seems like there has to be some opportunity for leeway, as some things are simply out of control. I watched an L2 cert flight where the flight was perfect, right up until the rocket landed on the very rail it had taken off from, which impaled the airframe (a gust of wind had blown it into the rail from the side). So by the letter of the rules it seems that meant a failed L2, the rocket was destroyed and could not fly again. But I don't see how the flyer could have done anything different to avoid the rocket landing in that exact spot, had it been like 2 inches in any direction it would have been a fine landing. So do you really DQ the flyer just because of that? In this case the prefect granted the guy his L2.

 

[tbonerocketeer]

It certainly seems like there has to be some opportunity for leeway, as some things are simply out of control. I watched an L2 cert flight where the flight was perfect, right up until the rocket landed on the very rail it had taken off from, which impaled the airframe (a gust of wind had blown it into the rail from the side). So by the letter of the rules it seems that meant a failed L2, the rocket was destroyed and could not fly again. But I don't see how the flyer could have done anything different to avoid the rocket landing in that exact spot, had it been like 2 inches in any direction it would have been a fine landing. So do you really DQ the flyer just because of that? In this case the prefect granted the guy his L2.

Yea you fail it, because it was descending in an unsafe manner, hence the damage from the rail.

 

[CzTeacherMan]

... This whole thread amuses me...
Something I find funny... A basic point that most people have avoided... I don't know any L3 that doesn't carefully plan every detail of an L3 flight. And obviously so... I mean, which flyer amongst us spends that kinda money and does so sloppily? A couple hundred dollars on motor alone + cost of rocket + cost of recovery gear + cost of electronics + cost of paint...
Every L3 flight I see is done with the greatest of care and usually with lots of friends watching and helping. Occasionally, things go wrong, usually not the fault of the flyer, just Murphy. On the very rare occasion that someone is reckless, it gets stopped before it gets to the pad, especially at the smaller monthly club launches (specifically QCRS, Tripoli Wisconsin, and WOOSH). Only at MWP have I seen how sloppy projects could get through since the really knowledgeable rocketeers are busy running the launch. But even then, we've stopped launches from the LCO table just noticing a certain rocket with a certain motor not making sense...
So, at least in my neck of the woods, safety is built into the process on many levels. And I don't know anyone rich enough to be reckless with a $1000 rocket project...
...
Oh, and people responding to an opinion with their own opinion isn't an assault on your opinion... That's called conversation and it's usually how things happen. So untwist your panties and grow up.

 

[woferry]

Yea you fail it, because it was descending in an unsafe manner, hence the damage from the rail.

The rocket hit the rail broadside (as I said, the wind blew it into the rail sideways), it was only damaged because it was cardboard-on-metal (I'll give you one guess what won) with the chute continuing to pull the top of the airframe towards that side and the inertia of the bottom part of the rocket resisting the sudden change of direction once the airframe tried to pivot on the end of the rail. The vertical descent was not the issue (it was coming down very gently), it was the horizontal wind that kicked up at exactly the wrong time.

 

[rharshberger]

The rocket hit the rail broadside (as I said, the wind blew it into the rail sideways), it was only damaged because it was cardboard-on-metal (I'll give you one guess what won) with the chute continuing to pull the top of the airframe towards that side and the inertia of the bottom part of the rocket resisting the sudden change of direction once the airframe tried to pivot on the end of the rail. The vertical descent was not the issue (it was coming down very gently), it was the horizontal wind that kicked up at exactly the wrong time.

Really in my opinion this event was just plain bad luck, if the rest of the flight was nominal and everything looked good, a fluke event like this shouldn't disqualify the flier. Definitely an exception needed to be made in this particular case.

 

[DavidMcCann]

Something I find funny... A basic point that most people have avoided... I don't know any L3 that doesn't carefully plan every detail of an L3 flight. And obviously so... I mean, which flyer amongst us spends that kinda money and does so sloppily? A couple hundred dollars on motor alone + cost of rocket + cost of recovery gear + cost of electronics + cost of paint...

Believe it or not.... I don't question for a second that some people "wing" their L3....or try to.

 

[NateLowrie]

Believe it or not.... I don't question for a second that some people "wing" their L3....or try to.

I fully agree with this statement because I winged my first L3 attempt 10 years ago, back when I was younger, far more reckless, and didn't give a rat's patootie about processes or doing things right. And I know several people that have more or less winged their L3 as well. Thank God I am far more wiser today, but back then I am pretty sure I gave every RSO I presented with a rocket a massive amount of heartburn.

 

[CzTeacherMan]

Believe it or not.... I don't question for a second that some people "wing" their L3....or try to.

I fully agree with this statement because I winged my first L3 attempt 10 years ago, back when I was younger, far more reckless, and didn't give a rat's patootie about processes or doing things right. And I know several people that have more or less winged their L3 as well. Thank God I am far more wiser today, but back then I am pretty sure I gave every RSO I presented with a rocket a massive amount of heartburn.

Interesting... At QCRS, we're all kind of in everybody's rocket projects all the time anyway. We're always scuffing around to see what people are doing, and there's not much room for someone to rush out be sloppy because we tend to notice it quickly. Someone got their L2 at Mini MWP this spring and I can think of around a dozen guys that worked with him at various stages of construction leaving zero room for a reckless flight.
...
If other clubs are less... Involved... With each other's projects, yeah, I guess recklessness could happen then.

 

[Frederocket]

It certainly seems like there has to be some opportunity for leeway, as some things are simply out of control. I watched an L2 cert flight where the flight was perfect, right up until the rocket landed on the very rail it had taken off from, which impaled the airframe (a gust of wind had blown it into the rail from the side). So by the letter of the rules it seems that meant a failed L2, the rocket was destroyed and could not fly again. But I don't see how the flyer could have done anything different to avoid the rocket landing in that exact spot, had it been like 2 inches in any direction it would have been a fine landing. So do you really DQ the flyer just because of that? In this case the prefect granted the guy his L2.

:lol: I would of given the individual the certification on points alone; "for being closest to the pad"...:lol:
In all seriousness, common sense should of prevailed and the certification granted... Several years ago, I confirmed the damaged on a L3 certification flight was caused by the rocket hitting a fence post, causing damage that made the rocket unable to meet the requirement to be flyable again without major repair... Using what I believe is common sense, I signed off on the L3 certification... I have no regrets with the decision I made then, and would/will make the same decision, given similar circumstances... Don't get me wrong, rules are made to be followed... However, there are exceptions to many rules... One of the reasons human certification/evaluation officials are put in place for evaluation/certification process, is to evaluate the need for and apply an exception if warranted... Unless I see in the rules words, such as; "must not, will not, or an absolute/mandatory disqualifying statement, etc.", I as the certifying official, must be able to apply discretionary judgement in making a pass or fail decision... I could be all wrong, but it is how I do business...

 

[tbonerocketeer]

Interesting... At QCRS, we're all kind of in everybody's rocket projects all the time anyway. We're always scuffing around to see what people are doing, and there's not much room for someone to rush out be sloppy because we tend to notice it quickly. Someone got their L2 at Mini MWP this spring and I can think of around a dozen guys that worked with him at various stages of construction leaving zero room for a reckless flight.
...
If other clubs are less... Involved... With each other's projects, yeah, I guess recklessness could happen then.

A lot of people show up prepped for flight...

 

[Banzai88]

If other clubs are less... Involved... With each other's projects, yeah, I guess recklessness could happen then.

I wouldn't know how many clubs fit into the category described in the partial quote above, but I know of several. More of a 'loose association of guys that like to fly rockets and band together once in a while to do that because we need enough people to justify a field and enough members to pay dues to pay for our hobby' than a 'club', which as you describe QCRS is what I would call a club.