New Tripoli Unified Safety Code

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

BBrown

Phoenix Driver
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
515
Reaction score
511
Location
Wichita, KS
One of the questions both members new to Tripoli Rocketry Association as well as long-time members ask is “Where do I go to find out what is and isn’t allowed at a Tripoli launch?” For a Commercial Motor launch the answer was three documents, the High Power Safety Code and the Safe Launch Practices document which are available on the Tripoli website as well as NFPA 1127 which was only available on the NFPA’s website (we were not allowed to publish NFPA 1127 as it is copyrighted by the NFPA and they would prefer to sell you a copy to fund their operations even though it was rocketry folks that helped them write it!). If you were attending a Research Motor launch, in addition to the three documents above, you had to include the Research Safety Code from Tripoli’s website.

It always frustrated me that there wasn't one, single document that a flyer could reference to understand our safety code. To this end, the Tripoli Board of Directors is pleased to announce the publication and adoption of our new Tripoli Rocketry Association Safety Code which is available on the Tripoli website. This safety code will become effective May 1, 2022.

Under this safety code there are no longer Commercial launches or Research launches just Tripoli launches. There are some changes to the current safety code such as a common safe distance table, a safety code for both model rockets as well as radio controlled boosted gliders as well as other changes. Please take the time to read this document in its entirety. While your first reaction will probably be there seems to be a lot more rules under this new document, in fact almost nothing more restrictive has been adopted it’s just compiled into one document now.

The new Unified Safety Code can be found on the Safety Information page of the TRA website.

Finally, as an organization, we owe a huge thank you to Steve Shannon who undertook the daunting task of compiling the information from the original four documents and writing (in plain English not legalese) a document we can all understand and follow.
 
You mention no major changes, but the addition of a common safe distances table. I looked over the Tripoli L2 study guide and question 44 in the safety section seems like it might not be correct with the new rules. In all fairness, I am NAR L2, not Tripoli, so I am not as familiar with the research motor requirements vs commercial motor requirements, but I would have believer the answer was 100ft, not 200ft.

Just curious if I am reading things wrong or if the study guide needs to be tweaked and/or the L2 test updated. I ask, as I know of a couple of people who may try to get their L2 over the summer and thought it would be best to know that they are studying the right sources.

Sandy.
 
You mention no major changes, but the addition of a common safe distances table. I looked over the Tripoli L2 study guide and question 44 in the safety section seems like it might not be correct with the new rules. In all fairness, I am NAR L2, not Tripoli, so I am not as familiar with the research motor requirements vs commercial motor requirements, but I would have believer the answer was 100ft, not 200ft.

Just curious if I am reading things wrong or if the study guide needs to be tweaked and/or the L2 test updated. I ask, as I know of a couple of people who may try to get their L2 over the summer and thought it would be best to know that they are studying the right sources.

Sandy.
Sandy,
We have worked many hours getting the safety code to where it is now. Still on our list is updating the study guide for the L2 test. That task starts tomorrow. In all fairness, we have until May 1st before the study guide is out of date.
Bob
 
Sandy,
We have worked many hours getting the safety code to where it is now. Still on our list is updating the study guide for the L2 test. That task starts tomorrow. In all fairness, we have until May 1st before the study guide is out of date.
Bob

Understood and I wasn't trying to say something was bad, just verifying how the people who have been studying should proceed. Probably the right answer is wait for the new study guide to be published and verify that you are working with that information if you are going to take the test in the next few weeks.

I imagine it will be a year or 2 before I take it, so I'm not overly concerned for myself, just others who are planning to do it sooner.

Sandy.
 
10-8 Only the following types of propellants are allowed to be used in Research Motors at Tripoli launches. All other propellants are prohibited except as allowed by 10-8:
10-8-1 Solid propellants as listed below.
Composite propellants using ammonium perchlorate or ammonium nitrate as oxidizer.
That's probably supposed to be Potassium Nitrate
 
It's great that this has been updated and compiled into one document!

I notice some big changes for research motors... I'm going to start a thread on this in the 'Research' subforum, to avoid running afoul of forum rules.
 
So, I'm not seeing any differences in safe distances between commercial and research here? Is that the case or am I looking in the wrong spot?

thanks,

BTW: hats off to Steve and board for all this work.

TP
 
So, I'm not seeing any differences in safe distances between commercial and research here? Is that the case or am I looking in the wrong spot?

thanks,

TP
That’s the case.

That's probably supposed to be Potassium Nitrate
No, John Wickman teaches a course on making AN composite motors.
 
So, I'm not seeing any differences in safe distances between commercial and research here?

Yeah, I just noticed that too. It also separates out "A-G", "A_G HP", and "H-J" as separate classes for distance, rather than lumping everything from an 'A' to a 'J' together. These are both great changes, IMO!
 
I was able to read, digest and understand the new consolidated safety code in 20 minutes. Thank you Bob for pushing this, and thank you Steve for doing the work.

giphy.gif


I hope this thread doesn't turn into an argument on the safety code, but I know better :)
 
[snip]
I hope this thread doesn't turn into an argument on the safety code, but I know better :)
[/snip]

I imagine you're correct, but I hope you are wrong. Maybe Bob or Steve could start a different thread to discuss interpreting the nuances of the new code for clarifications and that's where all the bickering would happen. . .

I think the idea of simplifying and making a single document is awesome and at first read, I only have a few questions, which means it was a very well done effort from my perspective.

My personal opinion of rolling out a new standard on 4/27 to be implemented on 5/1 without public comment is a little less enthusiastic, but in all fairness, I'm a NAR L2, not a TRA L2, so maybe this was sent to the membership for comments and I just didn't get the email as I'm not a member. To be clear, I am not a TRA member, so my opinion does not count at all for sure. But it is not uncommon for NFPA and other organizations to put out a draft of changes and ask for peer review to hopefully address any uncertainties or specifics of wording prior to implementing the change. Also, it isn't uncommon for there to be a schedule for release of code changes vs. enforcement of code. But that's in the business world, not the hobby world, so it is understandable that things happen a bit differently at times.

Anyway, I stick by my thought that if Bob or Steve started a thread soliciting comments and having a discussion of clarifications, interpretations and/or requests for changes where practical could only be beneficial to the hobby as a whole.

I greatly appreciate the efforts of the TRA team putting together a single source document as guidance for the clubs to follow. It raises the standard we should all adhere to for safe range operations and that is the key to our hobby for sure. I can't imagine the hours spent to do it, but also encourage positive discussion on the next revision, as re-evaluation of the state of the art is always required to keep things both safe and accessible. I'm OK with the negative conversations getting lost, though. . .

Thanks for the work, guys. Well done.

Sandy.
 
I imagine you're correct, but I hope you are wrong. Maybe Bob or Steve could start a different thread to discuss interpreting the nuances of the new code for clarifications and that's where all the bickering would happen. . .

I think the idea of simplifying and making a single document is awesome and at first read, I only have a few questions, which means it was a very well done effort from my perspective.

My personal opinion of rolling out a new standard on 4/27 to be implemented on 5/1 without public comment is a little less enthusiastic, but in all fairness, I'm a NAR L2, not a TRA L2, so maybe this was sent to the membership for comments and I just didn't get the email as I'm not a member. To be clear, I am not a TRA member, so my opinion does not count at all for sure. But it is not uncommon for NFPA and other organizations to put out a draft of changes and ask for peer review to hopefully address any uncertainties or specifics of wording prior to implementing the change. Also, it isn't uncommon for there to be a schedule for release of code changes vs. enforcement of code. But that's in the business world, not the hobby world, so it is understandable that things happen a bit differently at times.

Anyway, I stick by my thought that if Bob or Steve started a thread soliciting comments and having a discussion of clarifications, interpretations and/or requests for changes where practical could only be beneficial to the hobby as a whole.

I greatly appreciate the efforts of the TRA team putting together a single source document as guidance for the clubs to follow. It raises the standard we should all adhere to for safe range operations and that is the key to our hobby for sure. I can't imagine the hours spent to do it, but also encourage positive discussion on the next revision, as re-evaluation of the state of the art is always required to keep things both safe and accessible. I'm OK with the negative conversations getting lost, though. . .

Thanks for the work, guys. Well done.

Sandy.
I imagine you're correct, but I hope you are wrong. Maybe Bob or Steve could start a different thread to discuss interpreting the nuances of the new code for clarifications and that's where all the bickering would happen. . .

I think the idea of simplifying and making a single document is awesome and at first read, I only have a few questions, which means it was a very well done effort from my perspective.

My personal opinion of rolling out a new standard on 4/27 to be implemented on 5/1 without public comment is a little less enthusiastic, but in all fairness, I'm a NAR L2, not a TRA L2, so maybe this was sent to the membership for comments and I just didn't get the email as I'm not a member. To be clear, I am not a TRA member, so my opinion does not count at all for sure. But it is not uncommon for NFPA and other organizations to put out a draft of changes and ask for peer review to hopefully address any uncertainties or specifics of wording prior to implementing the change. Also, it isn't uncommon for there to be a schedule for release of code changes vs. enforcement of code. But that's in the business world, not the hobby world, so it is understandable that things happen a bit differently at times.

Anyway, I stick by my thought that if Bob or Steve started a thread soliciting comments and having a discussion of clarifications, interpretations and/or requests for changes where practical could only be beneficial to the hobby as a whole.

I greatly appreciate the efforts of the TRA team putting together a single source document as guidance for the clubs to follow. It raises the standard we should all adhere to for safe range operations and that is the key to our hobby for sure. I can't imagine the hours spent to do it, but also encourage positive discussion on the next revision, as re-evaluation of the state of the art is always required to keep things both safe and accessible. I'm OK with the negative conversations getting lost, though. . .

Thanks for the work, guys. Well done.

Sandy.
Sandy,
We started this process about 10 months ago. The version of the Unified Safety Code that you see is probably version 52 or 53. We did put up one of the earlier versions on the Tripoli Forum for all TAP’s and Prefects to respond to. We addressed each concern that they brought back to us. In addition, we solicited input from a number of members which had specific backgrounds to vet out both our wording and ideas. As far as having a longer lead time between announcing the code and adopting it, there are only two very minor changes that are more restrictive in the new Unified Safety Code compared to the old four documents and many changes that make launches easier to manage.
TRF, while a good place for discussion, may not be the best place for Tripoli internal business. Like you said, not everyone here is a senior Tripoli member.
Bob
 
Last edited:
Sandy,
We started this process about 10 months ago. The version of the Unified Safety Code that you see is probably version 52 or 53. We did put up one of the earlier versions on the Tripoli Forum for all TAP’s and Prefects to respond to. We addressed each concern that they brought back to us. In addition, we solicited input from a number of members which had specific backgrounds to vet out both our wording and ideas. As far as having a longer lead time between announcing the code and adopting it, there are only two very minor changes that are more restrictive in the new Unified Safety Code compared to the old four documents and many changes that make launches easier to manage.
TRF, while a good place for discussion, may not be the best place for Tripoli internal business. Like you said, not everyone here is a senior Tripoli member.
Bob

Understood and agreed about TRF not being the right place to determine the direction of TRA internal business. I tried to be clear that I'm NAR at this point and not TRA, so if the TRA membership had an opportunity to review and comment but I didn't, that completely makes sense. Some random forum on the internet is not a logical place to have meaningful discussions on policy - that should be discussed on a private basis with the members of the specific community at large, of course.

I stick by my previous close, though: "Thanks for the work, guys. Well done. " I'm sure it was a ton of work and it seems to be a big improvement over a bunch of different documents and specs that aren't easily available to everyone. My comments are meant as constructive observations as an outsider, not even constructive criticism, as I'm not a member of the organization.

Again, thanks for the work, guys. I'm sure your hours of effort is missed by most.

Sandy.
 
Great job on the safety code. I have one question on useing switches to arm electronics. Is twist and tuck method still aloud to arm electronics?
 
Good work guys.

I notice that the minimum thrust to weight ratio can be below 3:1 with active stabilization. This might be OK for a thruster-based system or a gimbled motor, but for a canard-based system, I don't think this is a good idea.

Jim
 
Good work guys.

I notice that the minimum thrust to weight ratio can be below 3:1 with active stabilization. This might be OK for a thruster-based system or a gimbled motor, but for a canard-based system, I don't think this is a good idea.

Jim

Request to leave it as stated. It is not carte blanche and has to be authorized by the RSO. Less than 3:1 works perfectly fine using canards or fins if properly configured.

On another note, should discussion go on the Tripoli forums instead of TRF?
 
Thanks for doing what I am sure was a mountain of work. Consolidating and clarifying everything into one doc will make everything run smoother in the field, and make for a better launch for those putting it on and flying. Kuddos on the effort and job well done.
 
I have one question on useing switches to arm electronics. Is twist and tuck method still aloud to arm electronics?

PERSONALLY I would like to see the answer as "any electronics arming process must have a SAFE way to dis-arm".

This would exclude tucking the wires. Twist and tape to outside airframe: fine. Tucking it inside where it's not easily undone in the case of an aborted or failed launch...not-allowed.

[ I know a lot of people like twist-n-tuck. And they will say they can disarm it, but that is a more involved process, and DOES have more risk getting access to the wires. ]
 
Great job on the safety code. I have one question on useing switches to arm electronics. Is twist and tuck method still aloud to arm electronics?
Gary,
Twist and Tuck was never outlawed. You still need a way to disarm the electronics if you have to take the rocket down. Most folks I know went to the two hole method, where the wires came out the top hole and were reinserted into the bottom hole a bit below the top one. That left a bit of the switch wire exposed so that if the electronics needed to be turned off they had access to them.
Bob
 
Back
Top