Revision to Tripoli Rule Regarding Wireless Remote Switches

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm just wanting to give my GPS time to get a good fix. Maybe it's not as big of a deal as I am making it in my head, but I'd rather do that on "my time" rather than wasting everyone else's messing around up at the pad.
 
I'm just wanting to give my GPS time to get a good fix. Maybe it's not as big of a deal as I am making it in my head, but I'd rather do that on "my time" rather than wasting everyone else's messing around up at the pad.

Test the GPS on your table first to see how long it takes to lock. The first time in a new location can take longer. Then turn it off and back on to see how long it takes this time.
 
Units like the TRS don't have an extra battery to keep the GPS data fresh, lock time doesn't vary on distance from the previous lock, it's starting fresh every time it's powered-up.
 
Time to first fix for current "all in view" GPS receivers is about 30 seconds. Warm or cold. They lock onto the signal almost instantly and the 30 second delay is the time required to receive the ephemeris data which describes the satellites exact position.

If it takes longer than that, something is wrong.
 
30 seconds is probably typical for the TRS, and for the TX too. The Mini can take awhile longer... the ground plane for the GPS antenna is less than optimal, you give up TFF because of that for the small size.
 
My first priority is to have a safe flight. If Tripoli rules, introduce a point which makes the flight unsafe, I am going to ignore the rule.
 
My first priority is to have a safe flight. If Tripoli rules, introduce a point which makes the flight unsafe, I am going to ignore the rule.
If you fly with a Tripoli club, then I think the RSO and LCO might have a different opinion. Deliberately ignoring a rule is not clever. Just remember who pays the insurance to cover your hobby. As David points out, the flight is not affected.
 
My first priority is to have a safe flight. If Tripoli rules, introduce a point which makes the flight unsafe, I am going to ignore the rule.
While I have some sympathy for this reaction, you can't ignore rules and still fly with TRA and expect insurance coverage.

I continue to hope that the TRA BOD reconsiders their position, but I think we've exhausted the discussion on this forum.
 
Anticipating the questions, I'm going to put together a document telling users how to "safe" the various Eggtimer altimeters and the WiFi Switch. It should be done in a day or two... I'll link to it at the top of the Eggtimer home page.
Did this ever get produced? Don't see it on the home page. Thanks.
 
Steve, I'm curious about how this rule would apply to the Aerotech Electronic Forward Closure. Since there is no way whatsoever to electrically disable it, does that basically ban it? (Not that I've seen one in use lately... I think they're basically extinct).
 
Steve, I'm curious about how this rule would apply to the Aerotech Electronic Forward Closure. Since there is no way whatsoever to electrically disable it, does that basically ban it? (Not that I've seen one in use lately... I think they're basically extinct).
Good question. I would think so. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
 
Last edited:
Good question. I would think so. What good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
In this case the one or the other (the goose or the gander)is dead, I know of no one who has flown an EFC in the last 3-4years, they are also not conducive to modification iirc.
 
In this case the one or the other (the goose or the gander)is dead, I know of no one who has flown an EFC in the last 3-4years, they are also not conducive to modification iirc.
I bought one used since the hardware is certified -- need to weigh it at some point but it may be the lightest forward closure ever made.
 
I bought one used since the hardware is certified -- need to weigh it at some point but it may be the lightest forward closure ever made.
If the EFC, which has no way of even remotely arming it and is basically "live" when you turn it on, is "certified" and can be used at TRA launches, they why would you exclude electronic switches (WiFi, magnetic, or otherwise) or devices that are remotely armed and are essentially inert until they're explicitly armed? This does not make any sense...

Not trying to make waves, but I'd like to see some consistency and clarity in the regulations.
 
If the EFC, which has no way of even remotely arming it and is basically "live" when you turn it on, is "certified" and can be used at TRA launches, they why would you exclude electronic switches (WiFi, magnetic, or otherwise) or devices that are remotely armed and are essentially inert until they're explicitly armed? This does not make any sense...

Not trying to make waves, but I'd like to see some consistency and clarity in the regulations.
It’s certified as motor hardware. We don’t certify electronics. It was a mistake to have approved electronics in the first place so we got out of it.
I already answered that I felt we need to be consistent (the meaning of the what’s good for the goose is good for the gander) so I’m not sure what you’re objecting to.
 
If the EFC, which has no way of even remotely arming it and is basically "live" when you turn it on, is "certified" and can be used at TRA launches, they why would you exclude electronic switches (WiFi, magnetic, or otherwise) or devices that are remotely armed and are essentially inert until they're explicitly armed? This does not make any sense...

Not trying to make waves, but I'd like to see some consistency and clarity in the regulations.
Yes, I would expect my all-up-EFC rig to be denied if I tried to use it today, because it is un-dis-armable. I only use the aluminum bit, not the electronic part.
 
There's a separate thread (with a cryptic title) on this, but it should be posted here for all those following this thread:

Tripoli BOD has rescinded the rule interpretation requiring a physical disconnect for electronics controlling energetics. So wifi, magnetic switches etc. are now OK again.

Reference: Post by Gerald Meux on the Tripoli website (member's forum).

(I am not a spokesman for TRA.)
 
What took TRA 2 weeks to get the word out to the general public about the rule change? Did they need to eat a little crow? Our local prefect had the word out to some of our club members almost as quick as the decision was announced to the prefects, that was on Oct 1, 2020 and we barely hear about on TRF and FB on 18 October 2020.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top