Quantcast

Revision to Tripoli Rule Regarding Wireless Remote Switches

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.

jbr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
395
Reaction score
165
so powered on eggtimer wifi switches are fine now?
the charges are inhibited until armed on the pad
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,466
Reaction score
3,133
Location
Butte, Montana
so powered on eggtimer wifi switches are fine now?
the charges are inhibited until armed on the pad
Yes. Last week our President, Gerald Meux Jr., announced that the rule requiring a physical break until at a safe location had been overturned.
 

tfish

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2009
Messages
2,598
Reaction score
592
I thought that was what it said but all this discussion made me stupid and believe it was not
yes, some threads here on TRF will have that affect on you..It's best to STOP reading those threads as soon as you realize..you're becoming stupider and do not go back and try to reread them..you'll truly become really stupid then !

Tony
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,466
Reaction score
3,133
Location
Butte, Montana
I thought that was what it said but all this discussion made me stupid and believe it was not
I’m sorry if my comments made it more confusing. I said it was “water under the bridge now anyway” thinking that would indicate that it had changed. I’ll go back and edit my reply to make it more clear.
 

David Schwantz

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2018
Messages
1,706
Reaction score
664
Location
MN
yes, some threads here on TRF will have that affect on you..It's best to STOP reading those threads as soon as you realize..you're becoming stupider and do not go back and try to reread them..you'll truly become really stupid then !

Tony
OMG, is that what has happened to me??
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
Wow.

Every person on the board (and I know them all personally) take the responsibility extremely seriously. They tend to be early adopters of every new rocket device that hits the market and they also tend to be the people who see incidents at Launches.
Several of us have been engineers. I am a Professional Engineer with experience in controls, software, and compliance. Almost without exception every bad incident I’ve investigated or witnessed has intimately involved someone saying “That should never have happened.” It’s our job to imagine what might happen rather than waiting until someone gets killed before making a decision. If you believe that’s us “having the audacity to question technology that (we) don’t understand” that reflects more on you than us.
All I ask is that rules and protocols are adopted based on science. Not supposition, not conjecture, and certainly not fear. I ask that analysis is thorough and timely. Almost without exception, my previous conversations in this forum seeking clarifications around safety policies have been met with incredulity. I like data. I like statistical analysis. I like hard, indisputable facts. Some people here hold their opinions too highly and refuse to have intellectual discussions about serious safety concerns. All too often I see people refuse to analyze the beliefs they have, resulting in imperfect and occasionally unsafe practices.
Safety is critical to the survival of the hobby, I am an ardent supporter of that principle, but the illusion of safety or poor rules masquerading as safety is far more dangerous.
 

Voyager1

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Oct 23, 2015
Messages
543
Reaction score
180
Location
Oz
I love the old timer attitude that permeates TRF and the hobby as a whole.

Anything anyone calls "safe" is immune from further discussion. It's the sign of an intellectually weak point.

That is how we ended up with the BOD (who cut their teeth on breakwire timers soldered in their garages and have the audacity to question technology they don't understand) passing a bogus wireless switch rule.
I do believe you are displaying your own intellectual weakness with these statements! Not at all helpful or adding anything useful to the discussion.
 

Frederocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
459
Reaction score
84
Location
Maryland
The VT rocket was never raised or lowered. It wasn’t even fully assembled. The booster was assembled with an igniter in it. The sustainer was being assembled. The motor was in it and had its igniter in it which was connected to the outputs of an accelerometer. There was no switch of any kind in series with the battery, which is a violation of NFPA and common sense. Because there was no switch the accelerometer was running.
The sustainer bottom was laying on its side ahead of the booster. Eight students were clustered around it trying to put it together. One student held a wooden block while another pounded it against the parachute trying to assemble the sustainer. We believe the repeated impacts triggered the accelerometer and timer, which then ignited the motor.
One student heard air hissing and thought the rocket was sliding together. Another noticed smoke escaping from a hole and started running. The Q motor caused the sustainer to launch horizontally directly towards another far pad that had people clustered around it. Fortunately the sustainer flew 75-100 feet and then catoed. Had it catoed where the students were assembling the rocket I’m convinced we would have had fatalities. Had it not catoed it might have struck people at the other far pad.
This is why I will always believe that the way an altimeter or other firing circuits should be inhibited until in a firing position is with a completely independent switching device, rather than logic built into the altimeter or firing circuit.
Like Steve said, "This is why I will always believe that the way an altimeter or other firing circuits should be inhibited until in a firing position is with a completely independent switching device, rather than logic built into the altimeter or firing circuit."... I believe the same and no amount of probability "efficiency, frequency, and severity analysis" can refute that logic, logically.
 
Last edited:

dhbarr

Amateur Professional
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
6,686
Reaction score
1,200
All I ask is that rules and protocols are adopted based on science. Not supposition, not conjecture, and certainly not fear. I ask that analysis is thorough and timely. Almost without exception, my previous conversations in this forum seeking clarifications around safety policies have been met with incredulity. I like data. I like statistical analysis. I like hard, indisputable facts. Some people here hold their opinions too highly and refuse to have intellectual discussions about serious safety concerns. All too often I see people refuse to analyze the beliefs they have, resulting in imperfect and occasionally unsafe practices.
Safety is critical to the survival of the hobby, I am an ardent supporter of that principle, but the illusion of safety or poor rules masquerading as safety is far more dangerous.
Have you offered your services pro bono to perform the said thorough analysis in a timely manner to agreed-upon standards?
 

jbr

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
395
Reaction score
165
I offered 3d printing info on the ban for 3d printed fin cans for cert and nothing happened
even showed empirical evidence
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,466
Reaction score
3,133
Location
Butte, Montana
I offered 3d printing info on the ban for 3d printed fin cans for cert and nothing happened
even showed empirical evidence
I haven’t forgotten. When the opportunity presents itself I’ll ask the TAP committee what they think about leaving it up to the candidate’s TAPs.
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
How does it not improve safety? What has efficiency got to do with this issue!
This is exactly the attitude I'm taking about... unwilling to look at how rule benefits the hobby. Procedures so be as least bourdonsome as possible while still achieving a goal or aim.
As to how it does not improve safety, I have still yet to see how banning power up testing (not testing charge size or things like that) of a fully configured altimeter is unsafe. There has been discussion of incidents with ejection charges in set up areas, but none of these have the nexus I am referring to - possible altimeter malfunction at power up resulting in unintended firing.
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
Have you offered your services pro bono to perform the said thorough analysis in a timely manner to agreed-upon standards?
I did actually.

I hit the forum up maybe two years ago for assistance with data collection. I wanted to know what the most common failures/safety issues were accocisted with flights and validate that against actual flight data.

At the time my hypothesis was that improper parachute packing/ill-suited recovery preparation for a given airframe resulted in the most flight failures. The issue is thate to do the analysis I wanted would have required a large data set. Data collection is tedious and time consuming so I never got anyone from other clubs who wanted to participate.
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
Like Steve said, "This is why I will always believe that the way an altimeter or other firing circuits should be inhibited until in a firing position is with a completely independent switching device, rather than logic built into the altimeter or firing circuit."... I believe the same and no amount of probability "efficiency, frequency, and severity analysis" can refute that logic, logically.
Clearly the device controlling the ignition was not capable of inhibiting firing, either through logic or a switch. VT messed up, I agree with that. Any device must inhibit unintended firing...that's my entire point! If the device fails, it's the device that needs to be banned.

But so say a switch (analog) is always better than logic (digital) is an antiquated way if thinking.

I refer back to an argument made earlier...are you willing to always say any mechanical switch (made in China sold on eBay for $23 for 500 of them) is better than a properly assembled wifi switch or magnetic switch made by our reputable vendors?
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
I haven’t forgotten. When the opportunity presents itself I’ll ask the TAP committee what they think about leaving it up to the candidate’s TAPs.
I am so have issue with this - if we are a national organization why don't we have national standards? It is one thing for a TAP to say "I am not familiar enough with 3D printing to evaluate this fin can" but it is another to allow TAPs to say "no" just because they personally don't like a particular method. Evaluation and flight worthiness should have a baseline standard that is trained and enforced. I have read on this forum about TAPs who mock and almost taunt flyers to try an L3 project under 6" that is under 75 pounds. The low and slow club still dominates TAP thinking. Pick a TAP who understands the mechanics of the flying profile you want (MD, high and fast, or big, low and slow), but there should be a baseline TRA-provided and approved set of standards.
National organizations should standardize as many procedures as possible though it's collective experience and expertise and should eliminate capricious rules.
 

dhbarr

Amateur Professional
Joined
Jan 30, 2016
Messages
6,686
Reaction score
1,200
I did actually.

I hit the forum up maybe two years ago for assistance with data collection. I wanted to know what the most common failures/safety issues were accocisted with flights and validate that against actual flight data.

At the time my hypothesis was that improper parachute packing/ill-suited recovery preparation for a given airframe resulted in the most flight failures. The issue is thate to do the analysis I wanted would have required a large data set. Data collection is tedious and time consuming so I never got anyone from other clubs who wanted to participate.
And so others should gather this type of data where you were unable to?

I'm not trying to pick a bone, only remind us that it's easy for me to state where others should spend their time to satisfy my own requests.

I am so have issue with this - if we are a national organization why don't we have national standards? It is one thing for a TAP to say "I am not familiar enough with 3D printing to evaluate this fin can" but it is another to allow TAPs to say "no" just because they personally don't like a particular method. Evaluation and flight worthiness should have a baseline standard that is trained and enforced. I have read on this forum about TAPs who mock and almost taunt flyers to try an L3 project under 6" that is under 75 pounds. The low and slow club still dominates TAP thinking. Pick a TAP who understands the mechanics of the flying profile you want (MD, high and fast, or big, low and slow), but there should be a baseline TRA-provided and approved set of standards.
National organizations should standardize as many procedures as possible though it's collective experience and expertise and should eliminate capricious rules.
Run for BoD, I look forward to voting for your concrete and measurable proposed standards modifications, both within TRA and ( where appropriate ) WRT NFPA .
 

Frederocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
459
Reaction score
84
Location
Maryland
I am so have issue with this - if we are a national organization why don't we have national standards? It is one thing for a TAP to say "I am not familiar enough with 3D printing to evaluate this fin can" but it is another to allow TAPs to say "no" just because they personally don't like a particular method. Evaluation and flight worthiness should have a baseline standard that is trained and enforced. I have read on this forum about TAPs who mock and almost taunt flyers to try an L3 project under 6" that is under 75 pounds. The low and slow club still dominates TAP thinking. Pick a TAP who understands the mechanics of the flying profile you want (MD, high and fast, or big, low and slow), but there should be a baseline TRA-provided and approved set of standards.
National organizations should standardize as many procedures as possible though it's collective experience and expertise and should eliminate capricious rules.
Make a list of all the rules you believe to be capricious and or lack organizational standards and why.
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
And so others should gather this type of data where you were unable to?

I'm not trying to pick a bone, only remind us that it's easy for me to state where others should spend their time to satisfy my own requests.


Run for BoD, I look forward to voting for your concrete and measurable proposed standards modifications, both within TRA and ( where appropriate ) WRT NFPA .
I am still willing to gather and analyze, but I need help and as of yet, I haven't found any willing participants. I would think (hope) TRA would have similar goals to make decisions with data and not in a vacuum.
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
Make a list of all the rules you believe to be capricious and or lack organizational standards and why.
Your earlier post about checking me at the RSO table is a perfect example.

What are the standards for an RSO? There is a vague baseline, nothing detailed and concrete.

I've had one RSO down check a rocket because he didn't like the rail button placement on a rocket flown successfully 5 times. It's as simple as things like that. Why is there debate on rail button placement? This may be a hobby but the science is well established so button placement should be a non issue.
 

Frederocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
459
Reaction score
84
Location
Maryland
Clearly the device controlling the ignition was not capable of inhibiting firing, either through logic or a switch. VT messed up, I agree with that. Any device must inhibit unintended firing...that's my entire point! If the device fails, it's the device that needs to be banned.

But so say a switch (analog) is always better than logic (digital) is an antiquated way if thinking.
It may well be antiquated, but for the most part, true none the less.

I refer back to an argument made earlier...are you willing to always say any mechanical switch (made in China sold on eBay for $23 for 500 of them) is better than a properly assembled wifi switch or magnetic switch made by our reputable vendors?
Did I make that exact statement? I did not. I don't use cheap switches. I do believe I mentioned, "I prefer quality screw type arming switches", way back in earlier posts.
 
Last edited:

Frederocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
459
Reaction score
84
Location
Maryland
Your earlier post about checking me at the RSO table is a perfect example.

What are the standards for an RSO? There is a vague baseline, nothing detailed and concrete.

I've had one RSO down check a rocket because he didn't like the rail button placement on a rocket flown successfully 5 times. It's as simple as things like that. Why is there debate on rail button placement? This may be a hobby but the science is well established so button placement should be a non issue.
I guess it would appear to be singling you out, but in reality, I would apply the same scrutiny to anyone with a similar presentation at the RSO table.
 
Last edited:

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,466
Reaction score
3,133
Location
Butte, Montana
Your earlier post about checking me at the RSO table is a perfect example.

What are the standards for an RSO? There is a vague baseline, nothing detailed and concrete.

I've had one RSO down check a rocket because he didn't like the rail button placement on a rocket flown successfully 5 times. It's as simple as things like that. Why is there debate on rail button placement? This may be a hobby but the science is well established so button placement should be a non issue.
Careful, your hubris is showing.
How often do you volunteer to work at the RSO table?

And by the way, each launch only has one RSO at a time who is responsible for the overall safety of the entire launch. Thode volunteers who inspect rockets give freely of their time so people like you can fly.
 

cerving

Owner, Eggtimer Rocketry
TRF Sponsor
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
3,950
Reaction score
1,190
An RSO has to make some assumptions about the competence of the flyer, and the rockets that they fly, often based on their knowledge of the flyer and their reputation. If the flyer is a Level 3, it can be assumed that they know how to safely build an fly a Level 2 rocket with electronic deployments. Ultimately, it's the flyer who is responsible for their rocket's flight... not the RSO. The RSO is there to catch things that might potentially be a safety issue, but unless it's a cert flight they're generally not going to grill you about what kind of switches you use or have you prove to them that you built your motor correctly.
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
I guess it would appear to be singling you out, but in reality, I would apply the same scrutiny to anyone with a similar presentation at the RSO table.
As I assumed - I didn't feel like I was being singled out. My point was that you probably RSO differently than me differently than RSO "x" at LDRS from UROC who RSOs differently than "y" from who flies in Kansas.
Individual fields require different points of scrutiny, but that doesn't mean that there can't be fairly thorough baseline from which everyone can operate.
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
An RSO has to make some assumptions about the competence of the flyer, and the rockets that they fly, often based on their knowledge of the flyer and their reputation. If the flyer is a Level 3, it can be assumed that they know how to safely build an fly a Level 2 rocket with electronic deployments. Ultimately, it's the flyer who is responsible for their rocket's flight... not the RSO. The RSO is there to catch things that might potentially be a safety issue, but unless it's a cert flight they're generally not going to grill you about what kind of switches you use or have you prove to them that you built your motor correctly.
Agreed. When I fly with my home club and I have friends RSO me, they know me and my skill level - they're a second set of eyes there not to grill me, but to help me and make sure I didn't make a simple mistake. Larger regional and national launches attract people from all over with unknown skills. Familiarity makes things easier, but I think a standardized checklist (from which individual deviation based on type of rocket and field constraints) would help both fliers and RSOs.
 

Frederocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
459
Reaction score
84
Location
Maryland
An RSO has to make some assumptions about the competence of the flyer, and the rockets that they fly, often based on their knowledge of the flyer and their reputation. If the flyer is a Level 3, it can be assumed that they know how to safely build an fly a Level 2 rocket with electronic deployments. Ultimately, it's the flyer who is responsible for their rocket's flight... not the RSO. The RSO is there to catch things that might potentially be a safety issue, but unless it's a cert flight they're generally not going to grill you about what kind of switches you use or have you prove to them that you built your motor correctly.
I agree with your statement. However, if you or anyone, present with beepers beeping, lights flashing or buzzers buzzing, expect scrutiny and possible rejection...:D
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
Careful, your hubris is showing.
How often do you volunteer to work at the RSO table?

And by the way, each launch only has one RSO at a time who is responsible for the overall safety of the entire launch. Thode volunteers who inspect rockets give freely of their time so people like you can fly.
No hubris here.

I had RSO 2 shifts at BALLS last year and another working as the LCO. I work my home club either RSOing or mentoring new fliers (just as critical in my opinion) every month. Had LDRS and BALLS been held in 2020 I was going to assist there as well. I don't mind helping. And I find most people in rocketry extremely willing to give their time, money, and energy to help. I am all about the safety and advancement of the hobby. That's why I'm so passionate about rules based on data and rooted in fundamentals safety principles. Far too often people use "safety" an excuse to do or not do something without thinking or understanding why. People who blindly believe in rules without understanding the why scare me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top