Quantcast

Revision to Tripoli Rule Regarding Wireless Remote Switches

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
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
100%.

I would expect no less. It is provably unsafe to walk around with an armed, powered up flight system in a rocket. But I see a risk of failure so low and consequences so minimal with getting a stationary rocket upright, in flight conditions, and turning on the electronics to confirm one final time at my table on not on the pad before heading to the RSO table. The juice is worth the squeeze.
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
It may well be antiquated, but for the most part, true none the less.



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.
There is a time and place for analog over digital...but not every time in every instance. That's all I'm saying.

Had the original wireless switch ban been written, "advances in wireless switch technology have progressed faster than testing - out of an abundance of caution their use without a conventional switch interrupt is banned until further testing can confirm their safe use" I would have been totally okay with it. I have no problem with testing and verification, I have a problem with overreaching rules that are vague and potentially unneeded, or worse, do not contribute to safety. Maybe that was TRAs intent with the initial ban...if so, the message was communicated poorly and that's the issue. But if the ban was a knee jerk reaction made without analysis, that's where I have issue.
 

cerving

Owner, Eggtimer Rocketry
TRF Sponsor
TRF Supporter
Joined
Feb 3, 2012
Messages
3,950
Reaction score
1,192
I've seen some clubs that have checkoffs on the flight cards. Honestly, they are rarely used... although it would be a nice reminder for the flyer themselves that they didn't forget anything important (like connecting quick links, for example...). Maybe a standard TRA flight card with checkoffs wouldn't be a bad idea.
 

Frederocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
459
Reaction score
84
Location
Maryland
100%.

I would expect no less. It is provably unsafe to walk around with an armed, powered up flight system in a rocket. But I see a risk of failure so low and consequences so minimal with getting a stationary rocket upright, in flight conditions, and turning on the electronics to confirm one final time at my table on not on the pad before heading to the RSO table. The juice is worth the squeeze.
Doing so as you say, (in bold), with loaded BP charges is an unexceptionable safety violation at any TRA launch.
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
Test continuity w/o BP, disarm, then add BP. Not difficult.
Adding BP and running pyro lines is the aspect of rocket loading most likely to result in a short, hence the full up test prior to getting checked by the RSO and hitting the pad just to find out a charge came loose.
 

CalebJ

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 20, 2020
Messages
463
Reaction score
286
I'm confused - how is it that you're handling safety inspections when by your own admission you're unwilling to follow the stated rules?
 
Last edited:

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
I'm confused - how is it that your handling safety inspections when by your own admission you're unwilling to follow the stated rules?
I follow the rules. I like not having motors with ignitors in them in the prep area. I don't like people walking around with altimeters powered up. The debate centers around TRA safe launch code rule K.4. and whether or not momentary, stationary, power-pp continuity testing of a full-up flight ready rocket in the prep area violates that rule.
 

Cnorm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
285
Reaction score
375
I propose a new rule:

Anyone who powers up a fully-prepped rocket including bp charges to check continuity at their prep table do so while:
1. The aft end of the rocket is butted up against something solid so the recoil doesn't push the rocket aft.
2. The pointed end of the nose cone is aimed squarely at the rocket owner's crotch. And
3. Said rocket owner is no further than 12 inches from the nose of his rocket.

The advantages of this testing procedure include, but are not limited to:
1. Stopping an accidently-discharged nosecone before it can injure an innocent bystander.or damage property.
2. A direct shot to the jimmies would hopefully eliminate the rocket owner's ability to reproduce, keeping the genes of a dangerous moron from being passed to any offspring.
3. Said rocket owner's screams of pain, writhing on the ground, and vomiting would be a helpful reminder to others of safety first.
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,466
Reaction score
3,133
Location
Butte, Montana
I follow the rules. I like not having motors with ignitors in them in the prep area. I don't like people walking around with altimeters powered up. The debate centers around TRA safe launch code rule K.4. and whether or not momentary, stationary, power-pp continuity testing of a full-up flight ready rocket in the prep area violates that rule.
It does. There’s no debate. If you’re powered up you’re not inhibited. Do the testing before adding the powder.
If adding your powder causes your wiring to short, break, or come loose you did a poor job of wiring. Imagine what flying the rocket might do.
 

Frederocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
459
Reaction score
84
Location
Maryland
I follow the rules. I like not having motors with ignitors in them in the prep area. I don't like people walking around with altimeters powered up. The debate centers around TRA safe launch code rule K.4. and whether or not momentary, stationary, power-pp continuity testing of a full-up flight ready rocket in the prep area violates that rule.
Once again, Your process is dangerous and is not safe in the pit area/your table
1. Program altimeter
2. Test e-match continuity
3. Install altimeter and connect all power and charges e-matches
4. Power up altimeter to verify continuity/altimeter self-test
5. Turn off altimeter/power and don't turn power on again until vertical on the pad.

If you don't do it in that order, your a accident waiting to happen.
 
Last edited:

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
I propose a new rule:

Anyone who powers up a fully-prepped rocket including bp charges to check continuity at their prep table do so while:
1. The aft end of the rocket is butted up against something solid so the recoil doesn't push the rocket aft.
2. The pointed end of the nose cone is aimed squarely at the rocket owner's crotch. And
3. Said rocket owner is no further than 12 inches from the nose of his rocket.

The advantages of this testing procedure include, but are not limited to:
1. Stopping an accidently-discharged nosecone before it can injure an innocent bystander.or damage property.
2. A direct shot to the jimmies would hopefully eliminate the rocket owner's ability to reproduce, keeping the genes of a dangerous moron from being passed to any offspring.
3. Said rocket owner's screams of pain, writhing on the ground, and vomiting would be a helpful reminder to others of safety first.
I love the hostility of people who incapable of critical thinking. Everyone is insisting on a process that isn't necessary.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me of a time when powering up an altimeter blew charges that was not the result of user error (reversed polarity, damaged altimeter, damaged battery).
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,466
Reaction score
3,133
Location
Butte, Montana
I love the hostility of people who incapable of critical thinking. Everyone is insisting on a process that isn't necessary.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me of a time when powering up an altimeter blew charges that was not the result of user error (reversed polarity, damaged altimeter, damaged battery).
I’ve seen it An AltAcc altimeter fired its charge right next to me after turning it on and off and back on quickly.
But it doesn’t matter; the rules are there to protect against user error as well.
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
I’ve seen it An AltAcc altimeter fired its charge right next to me after turning it on and off and back on quickly.
But it doesn’t matter; the rules are there to protect against user error as well.
Frequency and severity...fundamental principles of risk mitigation.

I'm sure you have access to TRA insurance claims for personal injury or property damage that resulted from altimeters firing in the prep area...how often has it happened? (Not being snarky, I'm legitimately asking)
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
There is nothing legitimate about your entire attitude towards safety, rules, etc.
You mean using common sense and data to set safety rules? How good is your WiFi in your survival bunker protecting you from the meteor that COULD wipe out the earth? You're not in the bunker? Oh, then you're assessing the risk using a frequency/severity argument just like I am. It's not my fault I'm more measured and analytical than you.
 

Mike Haberer

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
168
My plan has been to build my AV bays for my journey to L2 with Eggtimers, either altimeters or switches, to make arming the rocket as easy and safe as possible. I'm convinced by the arguments to include a physical switch in front of the Eggtimers. If you layout your bay thoughtfully, it adds minimal complexity for maximum safety. The engineer in me says it's a no-brainer. The age-old maxim that if something can go wrong it will go wrong applies.
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,466
Reaction score
3,133
Location
Butte, Montana
Frequency and severity...fundamental principles of risk mitigation.

I'm sure you have access to TRA insurance claims for personal injury or property damage that resulted from altimeters firing in the prep area...how often has it happened? (Not being snarky, I'm legitimately asking)
The largest insurance claim we’ve had was because of staging electronics that fired during prep (at the pad even) and injured a bystander. That one incident resulted in significantly increased premium costs for years and landed a person in a hospital.
Second, because the Safety Code and NFPA say Inhibit until at the pad and in launching position, an accident at your table would probably be rejected as a claim for violating the safety code.
 
Last edited:

Cnorm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2017
Messages
285
Reaction score
375
I love the hostility of people who incapable of critical thinking. Everyone is insisting on a process that isn't necessary.

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me of a time when powering up an altimeter blew charges that was not the result of user error (reversed polarity, damaged altimeter, damaged battery).
So test your continuity with the nosecone pointed straight at your junk already. You have nothing to worry about.
 

Adrian A

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
2,307
Reaction score
275
Why run a test if it doesn't accurately test the flight condition of the airframe?
I agree, you should do the final test in the most realistic (and safest) environment: at the pads, with your rocket on the rail and pointy end up and before you install the igniter. If the test doesn't go as you planned, then why wouldn't you rather have that happen out there than in the prep area? I just really don't understand the motivation for doing that final power-up prematurely. Are you afraid of having to walk back to the prep area after something goes wrong? Afraid of losing your spot in line? Shouldn't you be more afraid of having a charge go off near a bunch of people? Even if you ignore the cost to other people around you in terms of their hearing damage and their peace of mind, wouldn't your own self interest argue for avoiding the loss of respect you would get in that scenario? It costs you less than nothing to put off your power-up step until your rocket is on the pad.
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
The largest insurance claim we’ve had was because of staging electronics that fired during prep (at the pad even) and injured a bystander. That one incident resulted in significantly increased premium costs for years and landed a person in a hospital.
Second, because the Safety Code and NFPA say Inhibit until at the pad and in launching position, an accident at your table would probably be rejected as a claim for violating the safety code.
That all makes sense.
I am still curious if there has ever been an incident where unintentional ignition of ejection charges at power up resulted in any injury or property damage.
I'm not saying throw an ignitor in your motor and tour the flightline, I'm not even saying arm your electronics and hang out...I'm saying momentary continuity test just long enough to verify setup.
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
I agree, you should do the final test in the most realistic (and safest) environment: at the pads, with your rocket on the rail and pointy end up and before you install the igniter. If the test doesn't go as you planned, then why wouldn't you rather have that happen out there than in the prep area? I just really don't understand the motivation for doing that final power-up prematurely. Are you afraid of having to walk back to the prep area after something goes wrong? Afraid of losing your spot in line? Shouldn't you be more afraid of having a charge go off near a bunch of people? Even if you ignore the cost to other people around you in terms of their hearing damage and their peace of mind, wouldn't your own self interest argue for avoiding the loss of respect you would get in that scenario? It costs you less than nothing to put off your power-up step until your rocket is on the pad.
If altimeters are randomly blowing charges (whether on the pad or at the prep table) and causing property damage or injuring people, then I understand the rule and will support it.
But I've flown lots of rockets lots of places for a fair amount of time and I haven't seen a rash of inadvertently triggered charges.
We may not all be rocket scientist, but rocketry as a hobby is a science and as such, "just in case" is a very poor argument for a rule and anyone making it is an intellectually dishonest person.
 

Adrian A

Sponsor
TRF Sponsor
TRF Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 22, 2009
Messages
2,307
Reaction score
275
If
If altimeters are randomly blowing charges (whether on the pad or at the prep table) and causing property damage or injuring people, then I understand the rule and will support it.
But I've flown lots of rockets lots of places for a fair amount of time and I haven't seen a rash of inadvertently triggered charges.
We may not all be rocket scientist, but rocketry as a hobby is a science and as such, "just in case" is a very poor argument for a rule and anyone making it is an intellectually dishonest person.
If there's no risk that a charge might go off prematurely when you apply power, then great. No need to do the powered up test in the prep area at all. Just power up at the pads when you're ready to fly, confident that you're not going to have to take the rocket back with you. What am I missing?
 

Frederocket

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
459
Reaction score
84
Location
Maryland
Frequency and severity...fundamental principles of risk mitigation.

I'm sure you have access to TRA insurance claims for personal injury or property damage that resulted from altimeters firing in the prep area...how often has it happened? (Not being snarky, I'm legitimately asking)
What you fail to understand, is that in some situations, frequency and severity take a back seat to the severity potential of a one time operation, or do you, in this case, just simply wish to ignore that possibility???
 

Steve Shannon

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jul 23, 2011
Messages
6,466
Reaction score
3,133
Location
Butte, Montana
That all makes sense.
I am still curious if there has ever been an incident where unintentional ignition of ejection charges at power up resulted in any injury or property damage.
I'm not saying throw an ignitor in your motor and tour the flightline, I'm not even saying arm your electronics and hang out...I'm saying momentary continuity test just long enough to verify setup.
I don’t know of injuries from checking continuity, but I already related my experience next to a good friend with the AltAcc. That could have resulted in an injury. The fact that it is a credible event is sufficient to influence my design decisions.
 

Cameron Anderson

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


If there's no risk that a charge might go off prematurely when you apply power, then great. No need to do the powered up test in the prep area at all. Just power up at the pads when you're ready to fly, confident that you're not going to have to take the rocket back with you. What am I missing?
You still test power up to make sure you have everything connected. Running charges and lines has a tendency to occasionally disconnect charges from altimeters, hence the need for the test.
 

Cameron Anderson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2018
Messages
742
Reaction score
302
Location
Reno, NV
What you fail to understand, is that in some situations, frequency and severity take a back seat to the severity potential of a one time operation, or do you, in this case, just simply wish to ignore that possibility???
Because they don't. Ever. That mass between our ears allows us to think critically and weigh chance and risk. We do not avoid risks at all costs. To think otherwise is more intellectual dishonesty.
If we avoid everything based on "what if," why are we driving cars, flying in planes, putting cell phones with exploding lipo batteries in our pockets? Because we weigh risks. That's all I want in rocketry...a measured response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top