Safety Incident from NSL:

[OzHybrid]

If our members aren’t smart enough to understand that the requirement to leave an igniter out of a motor until it’s on the pad at a launch also means that you shouldn’t have one in there at all other times, there’s truly no hope for the human race.

At least 2 didn't. And from the discussions on transportation here on this forum, it's CLEAR that the number is a lot more than 2. That's from both the approval given to the replies that said transporting inside the cab was OK and the lack of disapproval for doing it. The silence was deafening.
It's a short leap from there to having an igniter in a sustainer for a multistage because it's inconvenient to do it at the launch site.

 

[OzHybrid]

Does either organization have a mechanism to eject or suspend a member, or to suspend or reset their certifications, in such cases of gross negligence, even though the incident did not occur at or during an insured launch?

I'm not necessarily advocating for such punishment in this particular case, just curious if such is even possible.

Tripoli By-Laws Section 3 quoted above. Don't know about NAR.

 

[bad_idea]

Tripoli By-Laws Section 3 quoted above. Don't know about NAR.

Long thread, must have missed it. Will look it up.

Edit: aha missed it because I'd not refreshed the thread when I posted and you just had.

 

[Steve Shannon]

At least 2 didn't. And from the discussions on transportation here on this forum, it's CLEAR that the number is a lot more than 2. That's from both the approval given to the replies that said transporting inside the cab was OK and the lack of disapproval for doing it. The silence was deafening.
It's a short leap from there to having an igniter in a sustainer for a multistage because it's inconvenient to do it at the launch site.

Maybe you just don’t understand, Norm, but people have to take responsibility for their own actions.

 

[OzHybrid]

Maybe you just don’t understand, Norm, but people have to take responsibility for their own actions.

I don't see how, having HAD this happen, that saying specifically that " TRANSPORTING rockets with a fuse in them to the launch site must not be done", would give us any additional liability.
In no way am I expecting any organisation to accept any liability from the clearly bad decisions of these folks. But what I would expect, is a proactive approach in preventing it from happening again. If we fail to do that, we might be creating a liability issue.

"These rules apply when going to and from launches" would cover it.

Also while there is a rule that says ignitors may only be inserted at the pad or a designated area (paraphrased)

There is nothing to say the igniter must be removed if the rocket is removed from the pad or further than the designated area. That's a hole. ( And until this, I hadn't thought of it)
Norm

 

[samb]

I was shocked when I heard about this from Top Men who were at NSL and at the local launch weeks after. No names! LOOSE LIPS SINK SHIPS!

For me Daddy hits the mark as usual. This is still an open investigation right ? Those boys are certainly in a heap o trouble. I just hope this thing doesn’t become a landmark of the we-ain’t-gonna-like-the-decision variety.

 

[Steve Shannon]

There is nothing to say the igniter must be removed if the rocket is removed from the pad or further than the designated area. That's a hole. ( And until this, I hadn't thought of it)
Norm

13-10 Where possible, igniters must be removed and all sources of ignition must be disarmed before lowering a rocket from launch position.

 

[jsdemar]

I'm not sure why the discussion is wandering beyond the scope of the organizations and their insurance. The insurance coverage for both organizations comes from the same underwriter. Coverage is for launching rockets, not building rockets, not for transporting rockets, not for prepping rockets somewhere else. Just as with any insurance policy, coverage is void if the stipulations of the coverage are not followed... one cannot ignore safety codes or violate any laws or regulations. Why overly complicate this?

The other factor is that once any organization offers advice or guidelines for activities not covered by the insurance, it open up liability to those additional activities. Each person takes on additional personal responsibility and personal liability for all those activities outside the scope and venue of the insurance. For example, there are no Tripoli guidelines for *making* propellant other than the rules for using the propellant in a rocket motor at a sanctioned rocket launch. And the NAR doesn't tell you not to make propellant, just that you can only use commercially made propellant at a NAR launch.

Specific to this incident, the organizations can't tell you what you should or shouldn't be doing in a hotel room (snicker!). But, the organizations can stipulate how you must handle igniters in rockets at the launch site. Beyond that, just because boards members from the national groups gather information about the incident doesn't mean it's for the purpose of insurance coverage. It's due diligence to understand what happened. But it's also good ethics to not interfere with the individual's personal liability by disclosing unnecessary details. I think members also should respect the privacy of those involved.

(The above is my personal opinion and not that of any club or organization.)

 

[samb]

For those still discussing the fine points of NAR insurance for members I invite you to review the information presented here: https://www.nar.org/safety-information/insurance-questions/
I'm no insurance lawyer but item #5 seems pretty definitive to me.

"
5. If my rocket hurts someone at a club launch (with or without my own stupidity contributing to the accident) does the NAR insurance cover it completely? NAR insurance will cover individual members up to the existing limits in the policy (up to $5 million annually). However, “stupidity” in disregarding any part of the NAR Safety Codes is never covered. Member protection is void if you violate the NAR Safety Codes."

 

[OzHybrid]

13-10 Where possible, igniters must be removed and all sources of ignition must be disarmed before lowering a rocket from launch position.

It's open to interpretation.
The "where possible" is an exception that was probably put in for head end ignition. It also creates an area of interpretation. Even a head end ignitor could be removed. It would be really difficult, but not impossible, so possible, so no exceptions should be made. But that's going to be annoying for someone.

Putting the "where possible" at the start of the sentence makes it apply to everything following. This leaves all aspects open to interpretation of what is, or is not possible by an individual.

 

[Steve Shannon]

It's open to interpretation.
The "where possible" is an exception that was probably put in for head end ignition. It also creates an area of interpretation. Even a head end ignitor could be removed. It would be really difficult, but not impossible, so possible, so no exceptions should be made. But that's going to be annoying for someone.

Putting the "where possible" at the start of the sentence makes it apply to everything following. This leaves all aspects open to interpretation of what is, or is not possible by an individual.

I wrote it. I didn’t create the exception for head end ignition or pink book lawyers. It’s simply there because sometimes it’s safer to remove a rocket from the pad first. The meaning should be clear; remove the igniter.
Of course there’s always people who want to argue everything. You just made my ignore list, Norm.

 

[OzHybrid]

I wrote it. I didn’t create the exception for head end ignition or pink book lawyers. It’s simply there because sometimes it’s safer to remove a rocket from the pad first. The meaning should be clear; remove the igniter.
Of course there’s always people who want to argue everything. You just made my ignore list, Norm.

I apologise for upsetting you. I realise it's difficult to get rules written that account for the nuance of interpretation by others. Clearly, my interpretation could be different to yours and therefore what you wanted to convey didn't come out that way to me. Happy to work with you to make that better.

I could find very little reference to a Pink Book Lawyer on Google. So I'll only take it as a minor slap. I hope I can make it off your ignore list and that you use the "view" button in this ignored conversation.
edit:- NAR Pink Book for their contest rules. Ouch.

 

[bad_idea]

I am not a lawyer, but my vague understanding of liability law in the US makes me guess that an organization opening up rules for off-the field behavior opens up that organization's liability for members' off the field behavior, whereas the insurance company is very eager only to provide insurance for on-the-field behavior, which they know to be closely policed by the rocketry organizations.

 

[Daddyisabar]

For me Daddy hits the mark as usual. This is still an open investigation right ? Those boys are certainly in a heap o trouble. I just hope this thing doesn’t become a landmark of the we-ain’t-gonna-like-the-decision variety.

From what I heard (Double Hearsay, Gossiping Old Rocket Dudes, take with many grains of salt, unverified rumor, water cooler, HUSH HUSH KEEP IT DOWN NOW, VOICES CARRY,) it is a closed case. Certifications/Titles lost. Out of pocket costs. YIKES!

 

[SDramstad]

I apologise for upsetting you. I realise it's difficult to get rules written that account for the nuance of interpretation by others. Clearly, my interpretation could be different to yours and therefore what you wanted to convey didn't come out that way to me. Happy to work with you to make that better.

I could find very little reference to a Pink Book Lawyer on Google. So I'll only take it as a minor slap. I hope I can make it off your ignore list and that you use the "view" button in this ignored conversation.
edit:- NAR Pink Book for their contest rules. Ouch.

There are no nuances to this. Igniters installed at or near the pad. Out everywhere else. No exceptions.

 

[T-Rex]

I think what Buckeye (?) was trying to say, and I tend to agree with him, NAR should have, at the conclusion of the investigation, come out and told the membership "This is what happened in the hotel at NSL...." We should not be hearing about it from at thread on the forum, that was generated by a 'report' from a Tripoli member who seems to know more than the NAR membership. (essentially gossip)

I don't need names, but a statement from NAR to the membership would have been appropriate. (I will caveat that one may have been made, but I missed it)
I will express my concern with the NAR board.

Every event can be Monday Morning Quarterbacked. I know I have done many stupid things in my life without thinking, but this discussion leads me to believe none of you have. I am in awe to be in the presence of such perfection and greatness.

Thank you, @cwbullet , for bringing this to the attention of the Forum. While the event a violation of both organizations safety codes, (and what should be common sense), we should all use it as a learning experience.

 

[OzHybrid]

There are no nuances to this. Igniters installed at or near the pad. Out everywhere else. No exceptions.

I agree and on the whole and so does ChatGPT.

Moving to the second part because you have to look at the whole picture and this is where there is room for improvement. And this is the area of ambiguity

13-10 Where possible, igniters must be removed and all sources of ignition must be disarmed before lowering a rocket from launch position.

Chat GPT differs. Feel free to ask it your own version of the same question. I think the question I asked is reasonable. I agree with the answer. But It's agreeing with me that there is ambiguity. So I'm going to agree with an opinion that echos mine. But I feel there is no bias in the question and I have no arrangement with ChatGPT to agree with me.

Hello

Hello! How can I assist you today?

please analyze the sentence "Where possible, igniters must be removed and all sources of ignition must be disarmed before lowering a rocket from launch position. " and advise where any misinterpretation might occur.

The sentence "Where possible, igniters must be removed and all sources of ignition must be disarmed before lowering a rocket from launch position" is fairly clear and straightforward, but there is a potential for misinterpretation or ambiguity in the phrase "Where possible."
Here's a breakdown of the sentence:

1. "Where possible" - This phrase indicates that the action of removing igniters and disarming sources of ignition should be carried out if it is feasible or practical to do so. It leaves room for discretion or judgment regarding whether it's possible to remove igniters and disarm ignition sources in a given situation.
2. "Igniters must be removed" - This part of the sentence is clear. It states that igniters must be taken out or disconnected from the rocket.
3. "All sources of ignition must be disarmed" - This part also seems clear, stating that any potential sources of ignition should be made inactive or safe.
4. "Before lowering a rocket from launch position" - This specifies the timing of the actions: they must be completed before the rocket is lowered from its launch position.

The potential for misinterpretation or ambiguity arises from the discretion implied by "Where possible." Here are a couple of scenarios where misinterpretation might occur:

1. Varying interpretations of "Where possible": People may have different opinions on what constitutes "possible" in a given situation. Some might interpret it as an absolute requirement, while others might see it as a recommendation that can be disregarded if they believe there's minimal risk.
2. Assumption of safety: Depending on the context, someone might assume that the rocket is inherently safe during the lowering process and, therefore, neglect to remove igniters or disarm ignition sources, thinking it's unnecessary.

To minimize misinterpretation, it would be helpful to provide additional context or guidelines that specify when and under what conditions it is considered "possible" or "feasible" to remove igniters and disarm ignition sources. This could include specific criteria or safety protocols that must be followed. Clarity in communication is essential, especially in situations involving potentially hazardous activities like rocket launches.

 

[David Schwantz]

Hi Chuck, I know that I am just an old grumpy neighbor, my neighbor calls me that, but how do you politely tell someone on a forum to" give it a rest"? For lack of a better term.

 

[cwbullet]

I think what Buckeye (?) was trying to say, and I tend to agree with him, NAR should have, at the conclusion of the investigation, come out and told the membership "This is what happened in the hotel at NSL...." We should not be hearing about it from at thread on the forum, that was generated by a 'report' from a Tripoli member who seems to know more than the NAR membership. (essentially gossip)

I don't need names, but a statement from NAR to the membership would have been appropriate. (I will caveat that one may have been made, but I missed it)
I will express my concern with the NAR board.

Every event can be Monday Morning Quarterbacked. I know I have done many stupid things in my life without thinking, but this discussion leads me to believe none of you have. I am in awe to be in the presence of such perfection and greatness.

Thank you, @cwbullet , for bringing this to the attention of the Forum. While the event a violation of both organizations safety codes, (and what should be common sense), we should all use it as a learning experience.

I agree and I think the first step to following the safety codes is to read them.

 

[markg]

5. If my rocket hurts someone at a club launch (with or without my own stupidity contributing to the accident) does the NAR insurance cover it completely? NAR insurance will cover individual members up to the existing limits in the policy (up to $5 million annually). However, “stupidity” in disregarding any part of the NAR Safety Codes is never covered. Member protection is void if you violate the NAR Safety Codes."

I went to the web page to check and that is an actual quote. I am surprised NAR put "stupidity" there - I think it's appropriate, and also hilarious.

cheers

 

[Rob Campbell]

Those boys are certainly in a heap o trouble.

They will have to pay for the repairs to the hotel. The hotel may also bill them for "lost revenue" while the room is called off. And the county may bill them for the cost of the fire department response. That's going to hurt.

 

[Rob Campbell]

If we don't do this hobby safely, the federal government will see to it we don't do it at all.

 

[SDramstad]

I agree and on the whole and so does ChatGPT.

Moving to the second part because you have to look at the whole picture and this is where there is room for improvement. And this is the area of ambiguity

13-10 Where possible, igniters must be removed and all sources of ignition must be disarmed before lowering a rocket from launch position.

Chat GPT differs. Feel free to ask it your own version of the same question. I think the question I asked is reasonable. I agree with the answer. But It's agreeing with me that there is ambiguity. So I'm going to agree with an opinion that echos mine. But I feel there is no bias in the question and I have no arrangement with ChatGPT to agree with me.

Hello

Hello! How can I assist you today?

please analyze the sentence "Where possible, igniters must be removed and all sources of ignition must be disarmed before lowering a rocket from launch position. " and advise where any misinterpretation might occur.

The sentence "Where possible, igniters must be removed and all sources of ignition must be disarmed before lowering a rocket from launch position" is fairly clear and straightforward, but there is a potential for misinterpretation or ambiguity in the phrase "Where possible."
Here's a breakdown of the sentence:

1. "Where possible" - This phrase indicates that the action of removing igniters and disarming sources of ignition should be carried out if it is feasible or practical to do so. It leaves room for discretion or judgment regarding whether it's possible to remove igniters and disarm ignition sources in a given situation.
2. "Igniters must be removed" - This part of the sentence is clear. It states that igniters must be taken out or disconnected from the rocket.
3. "All sources of ignition must be disarmed" - This part also seems clear, stating that any potential sources of ignition should be made inactive or safe.
4. "Before lowering a rocket from launch position" - This specifies the timing of the actions: they must be completed before the rocket is lowered from its launch position.

The potential for misinterpretation or ambiguity arises from the discretion implied by "Where possible." Here are a couple of scenarios where misinterpretation might occur:

1. Varying interpretations of "Where possible": People may have different opinions on what constitutes "possible" in a given situation. Some might interpret it as an absolute requirement, while others might see it as a recommendation that can be disregarded if they believe there's minimal risk.
2. Assumption of safety: Depending on the context, someone might assume that the rocket is inherently safe during the lowering process and, therefore, neglect to remove igniters or disarm ignition sources, thinking it's unnecessary.

To minimize misinterpretation, it would be helpful to provide additional context or guidelines that specify when and under what conditions it is considered "possible" or "feasible" to remove igniters and disarm ignition sources. This could include specific criteria or safety protocols that must be followed. Clarity in communication is essential, especially in situations involving potentially hazardous activities like rocket launches.

I prefer real intelligence over artificial intelligence any day. And I work on supercomputers for a living. Again there is no grey area especially in this case.

 

[jqavins]

Never mind.

 

[SDramstad]

That page is "members only". Would someone please post a capsule summary?

Someone took the sustainer of a 2 stage rocket with motor and igniter installed and ran a firmware upgrade on the altimeter in their motel room.

 

[CoyoteNumber2]

Hi Chuck, I know that I am just an old grumpy neighbor, my neighbor calls me that, but how do you politely tell someone on a forum to" give it a rest"? For lack of a better term.

Memes.

 

[Rschub]

Someone took the sustainer of a 2 stage rocket with motor and igniter installed and ran a firmware upgrade on the altimeter in their motel room.

Well, when you say it like that.....

 

[cwbullet]

Memes.

View attachment 604335 View attachment 604336View attachment 604337
View attachment 604340 View attachment 604341

That sometimes works.

 

[cwbullet]

Someone took the sustainer of a 2 stage rocket with motor and igniter installed and ran a firmware upgrade on the altimeter in their motel room.

That is a great summary of why it is a terrible idea!

 

[SDramstad]

The most impressive part to me is the motor exhaust pressurized the room to the point it pushed a wall out a couple inches and part of the ceiling fell in. This was only a “j” motor.