[tccrockets] Re: Tripoli Rules 2012
- From: James Dougherty <jafrado@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: tccrockets@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2012 13:15:19 -0800
Hey Owen,
Didn't me to dismiss your point, taht was not my intention ...
That's true, and there are exceptions to every rule. In this case, a
broad stroke is more conservative (sic. safe) and it depends on the
fliers and launch sites. Tripoli took a more safe stance, and given
the circumstances that was probably prudent.
Anyhow, sorry to take such a hard stance on this guys - I've flown a
lot of large high-impulse rockets and I can't tell you how many times
I have people come by to
watch me prep or "help" and it really scares me when you have that
much AP on the pad and people (you don't know) are playing around with
continuity checks, tripping over wires, taking pictures, or general
horseplay at the pad ...
LDRS and the TV crew, the SONY rocket project, even other smaller
launches have this problem and it's a real bummer to haul a bunch of
gear out to a site and then just be worried to get out to the pad!
Let's all talk about this at next launch; it would be good to come to
common ground...
Best regards
-james
On 2/8/12, Owen DeLong <owen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I'm not saying there should be no limits, just saying that 2 is extreme and
> unwarranted.
>
> I think 5 would be reasonable, but, I think a better approach would be to
> let the RSO make the call on who is allowed on the range (written something
> akin to FAR 91.3) and recognize that the amount of supervision required is
> inversely proportional to the amount of knowledge/experience the person has.
> I know lots of people, for example, that have no certification but a heck of
> a lot more knowledge and experience that I would trust on the range near an
> M project being prepped on the pad than some of the "I just got my L1"
> fliers I know.
>
> Owen
>
> On Feb 8, 2012, at 7:28 AM, James Dougherty wrote:
>
>> I see your point, but the outcome would be mobs of people, thereby
>> exacerbating the problem
>>
>> Spectator area
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Feb 8, 2012, at 1:43 AM, Owen DeLong <owen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> I think requiring them to be escorted/supervised is reasonable.
>>>
>>> I think limiting it to 2 supervisees per certified supervisor, OTOH, is
>>> questionable.
>>>
>>> As a SCUBA instructor I can easily supervise 4 brand new divers in Open
>>> Water with limited visibility. Supervising more than 2 uncertified
>>> assistants on a rocket range can easily and safely be done so long as
>>> they are properly briefed before entering the range.
>>>
>>> Owen
>>>
>>> On Feb 8, 2012, at 12:42 AM, James Dougherty wrote:
>>>
>>>> Both the rules are good ones
>>>>
>>>> There's no point in having someone who doesn't understand (or even care)
>>>> about the Tripoli safety codes out on the range.
>>>>
>>>> For those of you who own firearms, this is why you dont let your
>>>> comrades traipse about on the range during a live fire exercise in
>>>> adjacent ranges, and dont even let the weapon in someones hand - you
>>>> shut the whole range down to prevent ricochet or misfires
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Feb 7, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The change seems specifically targeted at what you can use to light a
>>>>> motor and it makes sense. It seems to me that (although I would say
>>>>> it's still dangerous) you are also still allowed to use those switches
>>>>> to activate recovery pyrotechnics or anything else so long as it isn't
>>>>> lighting a motor.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a shame someone had to get injured to call attention to the
>>>>> hazards of this type of ignition system, but, really, it is a dangerous
>>>>> way to light motors and I think it's a good rule change.
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH, the updated spectator rule is unnecessary and I believe the
>>>>> existing rules were adequate and had they been followed, there wouldn't
>>>>> be an issue with "someone riding a bike that had no business being
>>>>> there just stopped by to see what was happening".
>>>>>
>>>>> Just my $0.02.
>>>>>
>>>>> Owen
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 7, 2012, at 5:22 PM, Karl Baumheckel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is a good question. I would say that you could still use a
>>>>>> breakwire for timer activation. And in my opinion this is a more
>>>>>> reliable method than the G switch for what it's worth.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "SCOTT B" <triptechb@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> To: tccrockets@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 7, 2012 2:15:59 PM
>>>>>> Subject: [tccrockets] Re: Tripoli Rules 2012
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would this include activation of avionics using a breakwire for low
>>>>>> speed/g-force launches, or just using breakwires for lighting motors?
>>>>>> Scotty B.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --- On Tue, 2/7/12, AiRobert <airobert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: AiRobert <airobert@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>> Subject: [tccrockets] Re: Tripoli Rules 2012
>>>>>> To: tccrockets@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Date: Tuesday, February 7, 2012, 11:01 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes these are switches used to for launch detect to start a second
>>>>>> stage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: tccrockets-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:tccrockets-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gene Engelgau
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 8:58 AM
>>>>>> To: tccrockets@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [tccrockets] Re: Tripoli Rules 2012
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think a launch controller is a type of ignition system. They may be
>>>>>> referring to cluster and staging ignition? But yes, the TCC
>>>>>> controller is great as is...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -G
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Jack Garibaldi <jackgaribaldi@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I still haven’t read it all but either way our launch system does not
>>>>>> use none of these
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jack G
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: tccrockets-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> [mailto:tccrockets-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gene Engelgau
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2012 5:57 AM
>>>>>> To: tccrockets@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>> Subject: [tccrockets] Re: Tripoli Rules 2012
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It references the switched in regards to motor ignition and seems to
>>>>>> refer to the launch controller:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2-12.6 A rocket motor shall not be ignited by any of the following:
>>>>>> a. A switch that uses mercury.
>>>>>> b. “Pull wires” that disconnect or complete a circuit.
>>>>>> c. “Pressure roller” switches
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does not make reference to av-bar arming switches.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -G
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 8:38 PM, Jack Garibaldi <jackgaribaldi@xxxxxxx>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> Hey All I have attached the 2012 Tripoli sanctioned rules and we are a
>>>>>> Tripoli club so everyone needs to read them, print them carry them or
>>>>>> however you want to help enforce and use our newest rules, I will get
>>>>>> time this week to really study them but I noticed a couple of quick
>>>>>> ones like
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Section 2-18 Participation now reads in part:
>>>>>> "Non-HPR Fliers are allowed in the High Power Launch Area if escorted
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> a HPR Flier. A HPR Flier may escort and be accompanied by not more
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> two (2) non-HPR fliers in the High Power Launch Area. The HPR flier
>>>>>> escort is required to monitor the actions of the escorted non-HPR
>>>>>> fliers, and the escort is fully responsible for those actions and for
>>>>>> the safety of those escorted."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are other changes. For example, the use of mercury switches,
>>>>>> pull
>>>>>> wires, and roller switches have now been banned. This means there are
>>>>>> various products by different manufactures that can no longer be used
>>>>>> for air-starts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don’t want to due a review until I have had time to look the
>>>>>> complete pages over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jack G
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> - Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gene Engelgau
>>>>>> KI6IBL, NAR 86770 / TRA 12243 - L3
>>>>>> http://fruitychutes.com - Consumer and Aerospace Recovery Solutions
>>>>>> Like us on Facebook!
>>>>>> Follow us on Twitter!
>>>>>> 408-499-9050
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> - Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gene Engelgau
>>>>>> KI6IBL, NAR 86770 / TRA 12243 - L3
>>>>>> http://fruitychutes.com - Consumer and Aerospace Recovery Solutions
>>>>>> Like us on Facebook!
>>>>>> Follow us on Twitter!
>>>>>> 408-499-9050
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>>>>> Version: 8.5.455 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/4193 - Release Date:
>>>>>> 02/06/12 19:34:00
>>>>>
>>>
>
>
Other related posts:
