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 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.
Once event in hundreds of thousands of flights does not a rule necessitate.
 
I have had it happen in the pits and I'll leave it at that. So I will do a power on test but not with powder. I have also seen a main deploy on the pad immediately after power was applied. It could have been bad if it happened at someone's table. Glad it was done there. Categorically the rule does contribute to safely. Safety can be improved by anticipating what could go wrong and not waiting for it to happen, especially when launches are statistically few in number compared to car trips for example.
 
Last edited:
Again, test on your bench without powder. If you are using finger charges and can't test without powder, test it in a safe place with the payload/booster not connected to the AV bay so if it pops it just makes some noise. Once you've tested, disarm everything until you're vertical on the rail. Not hard... and 100% NFPA/TRA/NAR compliant.
 
No matter the rule, someone always feels that the rule shouldn’t apply to them and therefore the rule is capricious.
Rules are written to mitigate risk. We follow those rules so we can remain safe and afford insurance. There’s a mechanism to challenge NFPA rules.
But consider this: Maybe the reason we’re not seeing injuries is because most people follow the rule. If there have been hundreds of thousands of flights with few or no injuries, while the rule has been in effect, maybe that’s proof that the rule actually works.
 
No matter the rule, someone always feels that the rule shouldn’t apply to them and therefore the rule is capricious.
Rules are written to mitigate risk. We follow those rules so we can remain safe and afford insurance. There’s a mechanism to challenge NFPA rules.
But consider this: Maybe the reason we’re not seeing injuries is because most people follow the rule. If there have been hundreds of thousands of flights with few or no injuries, while the rule has been in effect, maybe that’s proof that the rule actually works.

Entitled snowflake syndrome.
 
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.

Severity potential of a one time operation, is apparently beyond your level of comprehension. Someone may need to look at your level of competence to continue membership in this organazion, if you actually persist in violating established safety practices/rules...
 
I have had it happen in the pits and I'll leave it at that. So I will do a power on test but not with powder. I have also seen a main deploy on the pad immediately after power was applied. It could have been bad if it happened at someone's table. Glad it was done there. Categorically the rule does contribute to safely. Safety can be improved by anticipating what could go wrong and not waiting for it to happen, especially when launches are statistically few in number compared to car trips for example.
Absolutely disagree. My club alone probably flies 1,000 high power flights year. Add that up across the country and that is a statistically significant number.
 
Sad but true... Maybe it's like my dad was found of saying: Normally we can fix ignorance but stupidity most of the time is best fixed by experiencing hard lumps...
So if I am so dumb and stupid, why is there a fundamental lack of evidence to support your position? Or disprove mine? The truth is there isn't evidence for either, I'm simply asking the question and I am not satisfied with the overly cage answer of "what if."
 
Severity potential of a one time operation, is apparently beyond your level of comprehension. Someone may need to look at your level of competence to continue membership in this organazion, if you actually persist in violating established safety practices/rules...
I am questioning the rule. Nothing more. If your position is so weak as to be indefensible, then maybe it's not a great rule.
 
No matter the rule, someone always feels that the rule shouldn’t apply to them and therefore the rule is capricious.
Rules are written to mitigate risk. We follow those rules so we can remain safe and afford insurance. There’s a mechanism to challenge NFPA rules.
But consider this: Maybe the reason we’re not seeing injuries is because most people follow the rule. If there have been hundreds of thousands of flights with few or no injuries, while the rule has been in effect, maybe that’s proof that the rule actually works.
I was waiting for someone to claim that the rule is working, hence no accidents. And that is an illogical inference. There is no causal connection. The issue at hand is altimeters firing when powered up. I assert it is safe enough to do at the prep table but the counter argument is that is it is safest when done on the pad. Who is right?
So...where are all the incidents of the altimeter powering up and charges blowing on the pad that necessitated the rule?
I'm going to steal your causal argument and use it for my own - the lack of incidents, either at the prep table or on the pad, indicates to me that this is a non-issue. Altimeters simply do not pop charges in any statistically significant number, or with significant or noteworthy consequences (personal injury or property damage).
 
Better get off the forum here shortly, Matlock is on. Wouldn't want you to miss it. I'm sorry my education was better than yours and I am secure enough to ask questions.

I like you. You're fun.

What was my education?
I was waiting for someone to claim that the rule is working, hence no accidents. And that is an illogical inference. There is no causal connection. The issue at hand is altimeters firing when powered up. I assert it is safe enough to do at the prep table but the counter argument is that is it is safest when done on the pad. Who is right?
So...where are all the incidents of the altimeter powering up and charges blowing on the pad that necessitated the rule?
I'm going to steal your causal argument and use it for my own - the lack of incidents, either at the prep table or on the pad, indicates to me that this is a non-issue. Altimeters simply do not pop charges in any statistically significant number, or with significant or noteworthy consequences (personal injury or property damage).

So are you going to test your charges with your rocket aimed at your junk or not?

How about 6 inches away from your kids eye?
 
I like you. You're fun.

What was my education?


So are you going to test your charges with your rocket aimed at your junk or not?

How about 6 inches away from your kids eye?
Reductio ad absurdum.

Read my position on prep and how I do it. I'm not saying chew on a motor ignitor, I'm not saying submerge your altimeter in water, or look down your airframe with a charge in there. I'm saying prep a rocket vertically (away from people and property) and arm your altimeter. My position that the charges won't fire on power up is statistically sound, but I never said point it at someone or something. There is a difference between procedurally safe and practically safe. And safe has left and right limits. Oriented vertically the worse thing that happens is you repack a chute or scuff your paint. Safe. Smoke while handling quadruple F gunpowder...have fun living with no eyebrows. Outright ban BP because people have accidents, no.
 
I was waiting for someone to claim that the rule is working, hence no accidents. And that is an illogical inference. There is no causal connection. The issue at hand is altimeters firing when powered up. I assert it is safe enough to do at the prep table but the counter argument is that is it is safest when done on the pad. Who is right?
So...where are all the incidents of the altimeter powering up and charges blowing on the pad that necessitated the rule?
I'm going to steal your causal argument and use it for my own - the lack of incidents, either at the prep table or on the pad, indicates to me that this is a non-issue. Altimeters simply do not pop charges in any statistically significant number, or with significant or noteworthy consequences (personal injury or property damage).
I’m not sure what you would consider “statistically significant number”, but charges do go off at the pads, sometimes fairly spectacularly. Dinosaurs like both of the Freds and I have seen it happen more times than we like. Many have been captured on video. The thing is that when it does happen at the pad, there’s minimal exposure to anyone other than the flyer. When it happens on the spectator side of the flight line, unwitting bystanders are much more apt to be involved, including children.
Your problem seems to be that if you haven’t personally experienced it it’s not something you consider credible. I have a different philosophy. I feel that it’s part of my job as a Launch Director, RSO, or even just as a Tripoli member to anticipate what could go wrong and do my part to prevent it.
In any case, it’s obvious that we’ll never agree on this issue, so good night.
 
I’m not sure what you would consider “statistically significant number”, but charges do go off at the pads, sometimes fairly spectacularly. Dinosaurs like both of the Freds and I have seen it happen more times than we like. Many have been captured on video. The thing is that when it does happen at the pad, there’s minimal exposure to anyone other than the flyer. When it happens on the spectator side of the flight line, unwitting bystanders are much more apt to be involved, including children.
Your problem seems to be that if you haven’t personally experienced it it’s not something you consider credible. I have a different philosophy. I feel that it’s part of my job as a Launch Director, RSO, or even just as a Tripoli member to anticipate what could go wrong and do my part to prevent it.
In any case, it’s obvious that we’ll never agree on this issue, so good night.
I have never asserted I know everything. I have been nearly pleading for examples for the last few days. But I have been flying rockets for a long time and haven't seen it. And I don't know anyone personally who has. That doesn't mean it does not happen, but it probably means it's rare, and it's not a power up issue.

There is a difference between safe stewardship of the hobby and falling too far down the rabbit hole. Safety is an admirable goal, and all I want to know is what the data says. And for that I am being mocked and ridiculed. Which is fine, but it shows the sad state of the hobby when the guy asking for scientific, probable, relevant data is being criticized by naysayers with nothing more than marginally pithy comments as their evidence.
 
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).
Unfortunately I "liked" your post accidentally. It is quite the opposite! I don't understand why you insist on arguing over a simple safety precaution. If you wish to test a fully prepped deployment altimeter, do it in a designated safe zone if it's not installed in the rocket, or at the pad if it's installed in the rocket - not in the general prep area.
I have witnessed and experienced accidental deployment charge ignitions on a few occasions over the years. Thankfully, in my case, I was at a safe distance from the prepping area and it was not in the rocket when it happened to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top