I’m not going to start another thread, but here’s a summary that combines the simplicity of the NAR announcement and the intent of the Tripoli announcement:
Wireless or magnetic non-contact switches shall be backed up with physical breaks in either the power or energetic circuits whenever the rocket is being transported, handled, or inspected.
The only thing I would request is for an area where one can safely reconnect the battery for those who use mag switches or wireless after RSO approval and don't have room in a small MD rocket to install a switch.
There are those that say once RSO approval has been given, one must go directly to the pad. The fact of the matter is at a major launch I've attended, people were milling around in line waiting for pads after RSO approval and could very easily go back to where they're parked and do whatever they want. I've checked rockets in and remembered I needed something from my locked vehicle and walked back. Got back in the pad line and flew.
Physical break from the battery? Fair enough. Must go directly to the pad after RSO approval, O.K. but provide a safe place for one to connect the battery to their deployment device otherwise a whole class of MD rockets will not be flyable
at a major launch.
I'm not talking about staging here. If I did staging, I'd have a physical switch on the electronic device that controls the igniter of the sustainer period. Wouldn't matter to me if the device was wireless or not. If it controls motor ignition there needs to be a physical break.
I personally mock up my electronics in advance before every flight. That means in the comfort of my own shop putting contained ematches on the outputs and cycle the electronics with whatever switch (system) I'm using to be certain it performs nominally. Doing that a few days or night before a planned launch will eliminate a defective device that will set off the outputs when power is applied. There have been stories posted here where a flier has had a drogue only deployment and the rocket took a hard hit on landing. Didn't test the electronics before the next launch and when he turned on the deployment altimeter, both outputs fired. That is a rare worst case scenario that would be eliminated by a test simulation as described.
It would also eliminate a device that "mysteriously" went defective. (Whatever that is.)
Making fliers resort to "twist and tape" in a small MD rocket is opening a can of worms because there have been very heated threads here on this very topic. The scenario is the flier twists, tapes and stuffs the connection through the hole back inside the rocket. If one of the charges fails to "fire" many people soil their pants arguing the rocket has a "live charge" in it with no easy way to cut power. I respectfully am not trolling here but merely pointing out the existence of differing opinions.
Kurt