Poll: Should Junior Members of Tripoli or NAR Be Given More Freedom in High Power?

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

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

More Freedom in High Power Rocketry For Juniors?

  • More Freedoms Should be Allowed

  • Less Freedoms Should be Allowed

  • Current Freedoms are Just Right


Results are only viewable after voting.
Joined
Aug 3, 2022
Messages
165
Reaction score
109
Location
Nevada
I understand that there are federal laws prohibiting the possession of high power motors to those under 18 regardless of certification. I also understand that those of us with undeveloped brains can make some poor choices. I myself have enjoyed the close interaction I had with my mentor during my junior certification and still have when I fly high power. It is extremely valuable to have someone experienced guiding you. However, I wonder if this is necessary for juniors that have been flying high power for years. I am writing an argumentative paper for school in favor of more possibilities for junior high power rocketeers and am interested to know what the public opinion is. I am personally of the opinion that juniors should have more freedoms like being able to certify level 2 and fly by themselves etc, but I am eager to hear your thoughts. I hope to hear both sides of the argument so I can have lots of input. Please consider sharing your thoughts on the subject. Should juniors be able to prove themselves responsible enough to have the same privileges as a certified adult? or are junior certifications dangerous enough as they are? Whatever the opinions, I know minors can't be in possession of high power motors but I would love to hear your views all the same. Thanks for taking the time to read this and for all responses!
 
I understand that there are federal laws prohibiting the possession of high power motors to those under 18 regardless of certification. I also understand that those of us with undeveloped brains can make some poor choices. I myself have enjoyed the close interaction I had with my mentor during my junior certification and still have when I fly high power. It is extremely valuable to have someone experienced guiding you. However, I wonder if this is necessary for juniors that have been flying high power for years. I am writing an argumentative paper for school in favor of more possibilities for junior high power rocketeers and am interested to know what the public opinion is. I am personally of the opinion that juniors should have more freedoms like being able to certify level 2 and fly by themselves etc, but I am eager to hear your thoughts. I hope to hear both sides of the argument so I can have lots of input. Please consider sharing your thoughts on the subject. Should juniors be able to prove themselves responsible enough to have the same privileges as a certified adult? or are junior certifications dangerous enough as they are? Whatever the opinions, I know minors can't be in possession of high power motors but I would love to hear your views all the same. Thanks for taking the time to read this and for all responses!
You already hit the nail on the head. Under 18 year olds are not allowed to purchase, possess, or handle high power motors. We couldn’t get insurance if we violate the law.
 
You already hit the nail on the head. Under 18 year olds are not allowed to purchase, possess, or handle high power motors. We couldn’t get insurance if we violate the law.
Concur. Under 18 years of age is just right because the law requires supervision to purchase, handle, and possess the motors.
 
Concur. Under 18 years of age is just right because the law requires supervision to purchase, handle, and possess the motors.
Saying something is right because it's the law puts the moral cart before the horse. Is it a good law?

I just did a quick (insert caveats here) comparison of TMP to firearm laws in WI. WI firearm possession for minors has exceptions going down to 12 (like TMP). But WI youth who have passed the safety program can hunt (but only hunt, things like target practice are different) on their own at 14.

To Be Clear, I'm not advocating change. But -for the sake of your class paper- you might acknowledge the current state of law, regulation, and insurance practicalities, and then attack the underlying law, not the launch field reality that flows from them.
 
Saying something is right because it's the law puts the moral cart before the horse. Is it a good law?

I just did a quick (insert caveats here) comparison of TMP to firearm laws in WI. WI firearm possession for minors has exceptions going down to 12 (like TMP). But WI youth who have passed the safety program can hunt (but only hunt, things like target practice are different) on their own at 14.

To Be Clear, I'm not advocating change. But -for the sake of your class paper- you might acknowledge the current state of law, regulation, and insurance practicalities, and then attack the underlying law, not the launch field reality that flows from them.

I am not sure I would trust a 14-year-old to hunt without supervision.
 
And hey, I sell booze. I'm accustomed to seemingly arbitrary regulation. In WI, so there are rules for minors, 18-21 and >21. There's nothing magical about the ages 18 and 21 - but they are the law. It informs how I act, not what I think. Which is why we've turned away 50+ a couple times over the years.
 
Undoubtedly there are under-18s who are mature enough, experienced enough, and knowledgeable enough to be able to fly J, K...up through P motors, probably. But in my experience those "adult teens" appear to be the exception and not the rule. Even if the law permitted it, I would be very afraid of a blanket rule that allowed under-18s to do high power without a certified and responsible mentor. The few who would not be hazards would likely be outweighed by the many who could be actively dangerous without supervision. (We have enough over-18s who can be actively dangerous, don't need to add to that.)
 
There's nothing magical about the ages 18 and 21 - but they are the law.

That is not true. As a physician, I am trained in human development. Twenty-one-year-olds have much more highly developed frontal lobes that allow them to make better decisions. The frontal lobes are key for executive functions such as planning, working memory, and impulse control, and are among the last areas of the brain to mature. They do not completely develop until age 25 in most.
 
Last edited:
As someone who had a NAR Jr L1, I feel like the level it allows is just right. It gives enough freedom and opens the doors enough to allow you to learn so that once you turn 18 you are free to progress further. I got my L2 within a month of turning 18. I had help from a mentor that did the BP charges for me before I turned 18 so I could ground test my rocket. I also bought all my motors at the field before then and would fly them that day.
 
They do not completely develop until age 25 in most.
And I'm a biochemist and statistician. I don't disagree with what you said - but I understand natural variability, too. It would be more accurate of me to say there's nothing magical about a person's 18th or 21st birth-day-.

From a pragmatic view, it's much easier to condense the distribution down to a day in legislation. I understand that.
 
That is not true. You are talking to a healthcare professional. Twenty-one-year-olds have much more highly developed frontal lobes that allow them to make better decisions. The frontal lobes are key for executive functions such as planning, working memory, and impulse control, and are among the last areas of the brain to mature. They do not completely develop until age 25 in most.

Medical folk :facepalm:... they think they know a lot more than they really do.

What is fact today, is often found to be in error tomorrow.
 
Medical folk :facepalm:... they think they know a lot more than they really do.

What is fact today, is often found to be in error tomorrow.
Live in your bubble. As an expert in human development and medicine, we know as the mind develops it is better able to handle impulse control.

Back to the topic. There is a good reason for cert flights to be limited to adults. Rocket motors are dangerous, and teenagers under 18 are much more likely to take risks than those 18 and above. You cannot individualize rules and laws or you have anarchy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You cannot individualize rules and laws or you have anarchy.
For the OP's argumentative paper, I might -argue- that individualizing law is expensive, rather than impossible. You (CW) have an individual license to practice medicine. It came at great expense to you (to acquire knowledge and skills) and society (to put appropriate licensing and testing protocols into place).

A 16 year old might chafe at being lumped into the same rules as a 12 year old. But they have an inexpensive solution. They can just wait. They -will- age. For free. Well, come to think of it, their parents might not count it as free. Society needs to be able to tell doctors from quacks with some degree of confidence. Society has no compelling need to distinguish between a 16 year old that can be trusted with pyrotechnics above a certain size from one that can't.
 
And I'm a biochemist and statistician. I don't disagree with what you said - but I understand natural variability, too. It would be more accurate of me to say there's nothing magical about a person's 18th or 21st birth-day-.

From a pragmatic view, it's much easier to condense the distribution down to a day in legislation. I understand that.
If, just once ever, I saw a piece of legislation that referenced a distribution and acknowledged how they selected the cutoffs.... that would be amazing.
 
Last edited:
For the OP's argumentative paper, I might -argue- that individualizing law is expensive, rather than impossible. You (CW) have an individual license to practice medicine. It came at great expense to you (to acquire knowledge and skills) and society (to put appropriate licensing and testing protocols into place).

A 16 year old might chafe at being lumped into the same rules as a 12 year old. But they have an inexpensive solution. They can just wait. They -will- age. For free. Well, come to think of it, their parents might not count it as free. Society needs to be able to tell doctors from quacks with some degree of confidence. Society has no compelling need to distinguish between a 16 year old that can be trusted with pyrotechnics above a certain size from one that can't.
Society does need to keep people safe. They have a system with physicians. There is no system for 12 and 16-year-olds with Rocket Motors. We have a mentor system and certification system that works. I do not think NAR or TRA would be willing to lower the age and provide a different system so we have what we have.
 
He already edited it, but I don't think "ignorant" breaks the rules. We're all ignorant of many things; for some of us that includes things for which there is a multitude of evidence. On the other hand, something like "@$$h0le" is clearly an insult and an opinion, not a fact-based assessment, and would therefore run afoul of the forum rules.

Edit: couldn't get my example word through the forum filter, lol.

Name calling, derogatory language, personal attacks, and disparaging remarks absolutely will not be tolerated. In terms of language, images, and any other communication, think in terms of what is acceptable in the typical high school. If it's appropriate in that environment, it's probably appropriate here.

Edit 2: "Ignorant" is none of those, IMO. If you can't call someone ignorant in high school without getting told to stop, what can you say?

I think @Charles_McG has made a lot of good points here. The rocketry organizations likely do not have the will nor the money (which comes from us, the members) to pursue law changes that would allow greater rocketry freedoms for minors. To me it seems pretty clear the the expense and risk (to all of us) are not worth the payoff of enabling some young prodigy rocketeers to take home high power motors.
 
Last edited:
Purely hypothetically, if the federal government had passed CPSC laws which allowed certification at a younger age, I firmly believe both NAR and Tripoli would have rules that reflected that younger age. As it is the Tripoli TMP and NAR Jr. L1 provide nearly all the same freedoms as such a lowered age would provide.

But from a purely pragmatic perspective, when you look at the cost of insurance for minors, or the ability to hold minors liable for their own actions, serious issues arise. The insurance companies, more than perhaps any other segment of commerce, pay very close attention to statistics, including the ages at which people have accidents. Perhaps the federal government doesn’t reference a distribution before passing legislation as @dhbarr pointed out, but they do pay close attention to the insurance industry.

Finally, on the thought of TRA or NAR lobbying to change the law, as 501(c)3 organizations we are compelled by tax law to limit our lobbying efforts.
 
Society does need to keep people safe. They have a system with physicians. There is no system for 12 and 16-year-olds with Rocket Motors. We have a mentor system and certification system that works. I do not think NAR or TRA would be willing to lower the age and provide a different system so we have what we have.
The minimum age for certification is specified in laws and codes within the US, that are outside of the control of both NAR and TRA. The "Jr" programs sidestep this by defining them as "participation" programs, even though many still use the term certification when referring to them.
 
That is not true. As a physician, I am trained in human development. Twenty-one-year-olds have much more highly developed frontal lobes that allow them to make better decisions. The frontal lobes are key for executive functions such as planning, working memory, and impulse control, and are among the last areas of the brain to mature. They do not completely develop until age 25 in most.
So, by your logic and training, people under the age of 25 should not even be allowed to vote? You also know that our nation deems 18 year olds suficently developed to arm and send out to kill people (ideally with supervision).
 
So, by your logic and training, people under the age of 25 should not even be allowed to vote? You also know that our nation deems 18 year olds suficently developed to arm and send out to kill people (ideally with supervision).

I do not make those decision, but there is logic to that.
 
The minimum age for certification is specified in laws and codes within the US, that are outside of the control of both NAR and TRA.
That is inaccurate. From the NAR website:

"Both the NAR and the Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) belong to the NFPA and participate in writing its codes governing sport rocketry safety."

Members sit on the committees and are voting members. They do in fact have influence on the codes that the laws are based upon.
 
That is inaccurate. From the NAR website:

"Both the NAR and the Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) belong to the NFPA and participate in writing its codes governing sport rocketry safety."

Members sit on the committees and are voting members. They do in fact have influence on the codes that the laws are based upon.
The minimum age for purchasing of metallic rocket motors is a federal law that is established in
  • Title 16, Chapter 2, Subchapter C, Part 1500, 1500.85(a)(8) – Consumer Product Safety Commission exemption for Model Rockets Motors
Although we (rocketry) have representation on NFPA (John is a pyro technical committee member like I am) the CPSC code isn't based on NFPA and is subject only to the whims of congress. As such, NFPA must conform or yield to CPSC.
 
I understand that there are federal laws prohibiting the possession of high power motors to those under 18 regardless of certification. I also understand that those of us with undeveloped brains can make some poor choices. I myself have enjoyed the close interaction I had with my mentor during my junior certification and still have when I fly high power. It is extremely valuable to have someone experienced guiding you. However, I wonder if this is necessary for juniors that have been flying high power for years. I am writing an argumentative paper for school in favor of more possibilities for junior high power rocketeers and am interested to know what the public opinion is. I am personally of the opinion that juniors should have more freedoms like being able to certify level 2 and fly by themselves etc, but I am eager to hear your thoughts. I hope to hear both sides of the argument so I can have lots of input. Please consider sharing your thoughts on the subject. Should juniors be able to prove themselves responsible enough to have the same privileges as a certified adult? or are junior certifications dangerous enough as they are? Whatever the opinions, I know minors can't be in possession of high power motors but I would love to hear your views all the same. Thanks for taking the time to read this and for all responses!
You write and argue very well, You should have no difficulty acing your paper or writing at the college level.

I think many youth are capable of certifying and flying HPR, and you might be one of them. You say that you want to certify L2 and fly by yourself. Flying HPR generally requires a larger launch and recovery area, an FAA waiver, and having another RSO is always a good idea. The ability to fly HPR by yourself is not a strong argument.

Personally, I've been flying MR since the late 60s and I have never had the need to fly HPR, Indeed, I have not had the need to fly a MR G motor, although I have one, just in case the need arises. I am also a degreed Aerospace Engineer with industry experience. I have nothing to prove. I have thought about certifying L2 just to be able to make smallish MR motors within the Tripoli framework. There are also rockteers who like the HPR certification thing because it separates them from the image of kids flying toy rockets. NAR and Tripoli Certify HPR motors and rocketeers, and they have a vested interest in maintaining membership roles. I see no reason to change the HPR certification process, but I might feel differently if I was 17 and grew up in the HPR era.
 
@Sparkyflyer14: Simply based on the way you phrased the question and posted the poll, I bet within 5 minutes of meeting you, I'd believe you as an individual to be a person who would be capable of flying HPR. I know I have met plenty of people over 18 that SHOULD NOT be allowed to fly HPR.

As many have referenced above, there are hurdles with insurance and legality, but since you're writing a paper, not specifically trying to convince a club that they should let you fly etc., I think writing your arguments as to what you believe, that would make for a great paper, even if it would not result in a change to the current rules due to money, politics etc.

Thanks for including us in your research. I hope you enjoy writing the paper.

Sandy.
 
So, by your logic and training, people under the age of 25 should not even be allowed to vote? You also know that our nation deems 18 year olds suficently developed to arm and send out to kill people (ideally with supervision).
Funny thing. The voting age used to be 21 in most or all states. Then during a little kerfuffle in the late 1960's and early 1970's, people noticed exactly the same thing that you did--young men were mature enough to be given a gun and sent to Vietnam at 18, but not mature enough to vote. Some lobbying changed the laws.

To the OP, I agree that there may be some people who are mature enough to fly L2 before their 18th birthdays, but I also agree with most people here that those people are relatively few and far between. Of the several dozen students I've seen come though the TARC group, I'd give that authority to maybe a couple of students.

If you're arguing for exemptions, you could consider modeling it on professional engineering law. To get a PE license, you have to have 4 years* of progressively increasing responsibility for engineering decisions, supervised by another professional engineer. I could imagine a similar situation for high power, where a student could gain an L2 cert aft 3-4 years of progressive responsibility, though I'm not sure how you'd handle things like black powder ejection charges. I also wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the law to change.

* There's some weird nuances in this, but 4 years of experience is the track for people with a 4-year engineering degree (BS), which is the most common approach.
 
Obviously I’m going to be a slight bit biased as I’m not quite 18, but I will try my best to make my thoughts seem organized.
I think that 18 is the appropriate age to buy motors on their own. But I feel as the junior HPR system, where it is a good idea (but I don’t know much about it), I don’t know how accessible it is. So my idea is that you don’t need to be a part of the junior high power program to get your junior L1. I think that if you are older than 14 or 16 you can just follow the normal NAR guidelines for the normal L1 and just get your L1 whenever just like the normal L1. But to buy high power motors, you should need adult supervision, or for it to bought under the supervision of a certified NAR member.
I don’t know the legality of this, but it just a thought.
Obviously this would apply to Tripoli too, but just a thought.
 
Back
Top