BANNED by the weeenies at RP

[Jerry Irvine]

I found one way to get banned was to simply suggest flying rockets in dry grass was not compliant with the club rules, so perhaps TRA BOD members should not do it. The BOD members who post there thought such a comment by a non-member made them "look bad".

I don't know how they look to others, but the issue of the rockets being flown in direct violation of a safety protocol and rule was swept under the carpet since the ensuing discussion had a series of characterizations about the people as launch organizers, as rocketeers, as general members, and as BOD members with a "special duty of care".

The problem was solved. I was banned. Shoot not even the messenger, but one of several commenters.

Jerry

http://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6524

http://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=160256&postcount=35

[RandyT0001]

Aw Jerry, just admit it. You want us to post pictures of pretty women in your 'I was Banned" thread. That's really the reason you started it, isn't it?
:p

[Jerry Irvine]

Aw Jerry, just admit it. You want us to post pictures of pretty women in your 'I was Banned" thread. That's really the reason you started it, isn't it?
:p
I have pictures of those same subjects I could post if I didn't get banned for it and only posted links with disclaimers.

Jerry

[DAllen]

http://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=160690&postcount=17

[mycrofte]

Well, paintball and R/C magazines have hot girls in them. Why not here too!

[cas2047]

Sorry Jerry but I have to disagree with you on this one. The folks at RP, some of them are also members here too, are not weenies.

I certainly respect your opinion, I just don't agree with it. :)

And on the subject of hot Sci-Fi babes, I see no reason why they can't be part of every thread. Actually there should be a thread called Hot Sci-Fi Babes, and then we could add to it on an ongoing basis. :D

[Jerry Irvine]

http://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showpost.php?p=160690&postcount=17
Which is used as an excuse to set aside the central facts:


4.15.1 The area that encircles a launch pad shall be cleared of brown grass, dry weeds, and other easy-to-burn materials for a diameter equal to at least that specified in Table 4.15.1.

4.15.2 For a high power rocket using a motor(s) with titanium sponge, the minimum clear distance shall be multiplied by a factor of 1.5.

feet
G 0
H 50
I 50
J 50
K 75
L 100
M 125
N 125
O 125


The acreage this entails is
K 75' diameter 4418 sqft 0.107 acres
O 125' diameter 12271 sqft 0.30 acres
40960 sqft per acre
ANY farmer willing and able to host a rocket launch involving many vehicles to visit and park certainly can comply with this very necessary and unrestrictive rule. Clear a 75 foot diameter circle to launch from, sparkies included, or not.


But you know what I suggested and you and your "reading landowners" have forsaked? CLEARING SOME LAND FOR A LAUNCH SITE AS THE SAFETY CODE MANDATES.

MANDATES.

This is not Jerry being an *******, although that certainly happens from time to time. This is a case of the principals having a publicly displayed LEARNING DISABILITY and NON-COMPLIANCE with accepted norms.

I just wanted to snip most of the many ways this situation was impacted more by human judgment and error than motor characteristics.

The so-called smoking gun is clearly this, "We were at the pad and had contained the fire that we were expecting there as soon as the rocket cleared the tower. It was the little spots of fire 20-30 feet out that got away from us. Barre' immediately called the volunteer fire department, and everyone on site began stomping."

Notably the same folks are engaging in the same practices of not honoring the very rules they made up out of thin air. THAT was my point. That is the point being distracted by claims of farmer or not, value of land, alleged past events totally unrelated to the central fact.


4.15.1 The area that encircles a launch pad shall be cleared of brown grass, dry weeds, and other easy-to-burn materials for a diameter equal to at least that specified in Table 4.15.1.

4.15.2 For a high power rocket using a motor(s) with titanium sponge, the minimum clear distance shall be multiplied by a factor of 1.5.


So I ask. Does TRA, and particularly its elected officials, EVER follow its own rules?

Jerry

Ready for those "improved" photos yet?

[luke strawwalker]

Ok, here ya go...

Nothing to see here... move along... :D

Later! OL JR :)

[cas2047]

Ok, here ya go...

Nothing to see here... move along... :D

Later! OL JR :)

LOL! I really like the last one! Too funny. :D :D :D

[InFlight]

Adults acting like children on the internet is a common theme nowadays. Not much you can do about it.

[cas2047]

Adults acting like children on the internet is a common theme nowadays. Not much you can do about it.

Well I'm glad someone FINALLY said it! I've wanted to for SO long... I now feel the power to tell everyone how I REALLY feel.

I for one think that having fun and enjoying one self on-line as well as off-line is something that should be avoided whenever possible, especially if it's harming nobody and all in fun. For God sake we are dealing with model rockets here people, not toys!

What is needed in our hobby is more seriousness and less fun. I mean there is no "F" in hobby. There is an "O" in hobby, and everyone knows that “O” is also found in the word "serious", so clearly by that impeccable logic we all need to try to do a better job adhering to the "NO FUN" in hobby rule that after all is ON the books. And there’s that “O” again. ;)

Thanks for getting things back on track! I’m going to go and have an extremely serious day and I encourage all to do the same! After that very serious day I will maybe take some time to NOT enjoy my hobby by getting online and saying very serious things to other people who will hopefully reply with serious responses and keep things very, well, serious.

Seriously thanks for the dope slap! It brought me right back to reality seriously appreciate that!

Oh and by the way please don’t take this post too seriously! :D

[cas2047]

Adults acting like children on the internet is a common theme nowadays. Not much you can do about it.

Sheesh you'd figure with a long post like that I wouldn't forget anything, but I did. And here it is...

InFlight I find it hard to take you seriously. I mean here you are talking about other people acting like children on the internet when your avitar is Patrick from Spongebob Square Pants. One of my favorite kids shows by the way! You either need to change your way of thinking or your avitar my friend. :chuckle:

Seriously have some fun. It's not painful and it doesn't cost anything either. :D

[InFlight]

Sheesh you'd figure with a long post like that I wouldn't forget anything, but I did. And here it is...

InFlight I find it hard to take you seriously. I mean here you are talking about other people acting like children on the internet when your avitar is Patrick from Spongebob Square Pants. One of my favorite kids shows by the way! You either need to change your way of thinking or your avitar my friend. :chuckle:

Seriously have some fun. It's not painful and it doesn't cost anything either. :D
So, you must be one of those over on RP Jerry was talking about? :chuckle:

and I don't really care if you take me seriously, girl friend.

[cas2047]

So, you must be one of those over on RP Jerry was talking about? :chuckle:

and I don't really care if you take me seriously, girl friend.


I guess I could be a weenie. If I am a weenie I'm hoping that I'm at least thought of as a super duper weenie.

But honestly I still respect Jerry's ability to have his opinion even if I don't agree with it. I also respect the fact that you have an opinion even if I don't agree with it.

I'm not sure I really understand the "girlfriend" comment, but I'm guessing I got under your collar and I do apologize for that. I was just trying to have a little fun. :)

Patrick Rocks! :D

[pantherjon]

Ready for those "improved" photos yet?

Anyone remember Weird Science? :)

[Ltvscout]

Anyone remember Weird Science? :)
Kelly LeBrock was hot back then. She did not age well at all though, unfortunately.

[cas2047]

Kelly LeBrock was hot back then. She did not age well at all though, unfortunately.



Below is a current picture. Can you elaborate...

[Ltvscout]

Below is a current picture. Can you elaborate...
Hahaha. :chuckle: Close. She's actually really fat now and has the plastic looking face of someone with too many plastic surgeries, plus the overly filled colagen lips.

[cas2047]

Hahaha. :chuckle: Close. She's actually really fat now and has the plastic looking face of someone with too many plastic surgeries, plus the overly filled colagen lips.


Oh wait a minute... OK here's the one!

[Ltvscout]

Oh wait a minute... OK here's the one!
Aaaaaaaaaa! You're going to scare the kids!

[Jerry Irvine]

Hahaha. :chuckle: Close. She's actually really fat now and has the plastic looking face of someone with too many plastic surgeries, plus the overly filled colagen lips.
So can I post clothesless photos of 7 of 9 and Jolene Blalock? They are rated R. You could even delete the message after everyone downloads them. :D

This thread was intentionally run off the rails.

Jerry

[cas2047]

Aaaaaaaaaa! You're going to scare the kids!

There are other ways to do that! :chuckle:

[Ltvscout]

There are other ways to do that! :chuckle:
Medusa lives! Don't look in her eyes! Aaahhhh, too late!

[cas2047]

Medusa lives! Don't look in her eyes! Aaahhhh, too late!


:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:

[Rocketflyer]

There are other ways to do that! :chuckle:

cas2047, you found the missing link. :chuckle: Your famous!

[ghrocketman]

Ugh ! and DOUBLE UGH !
Kelly LeBrock sure did NOT age well !
Sheesh !

[gpoehlein]

OK - how about the late Dorothy Stratten from "Galaxina"?

I know - the movie pretty much sucked - but it was so bad it was pretty funny. Sorry - I can't post any pics, but the work-safe server here considers all her photos to be porn! :rolleyes:

Greg

[jeffyjeep]

Below is a current picture. Can you elaborate...
It's as if Osama Bin Laden and Ron Jeremy mated.

[Doug Sams]

Kelly LeBrock was hot back then. She did not age well at all though, unfortunately.She was married to Steven Seagal. That's enough to ruin anyone.

Doug

.

[Ltvscout]

She was married to Steven Seagal. That's enough to ruin anyone.

Heh, I forgot about that. :eek:

[luke strawwalker]

There are other ways to do that! :chuckle:

Is that Tammy Sue Fakker??

LOL:) Didn't know she was a baseball fan... LOL:)

OL JR :)

[luke strawwalker]

Jerry,

If you're talking about your ban because of the discussion of the Wayside incident, well, I can understand your point.

From what I understood, while you and I were having a discussion as a landowner who provides his farm as a launching field for a club, and you were asserting that burning off a few acres of pasture or crops was "no big deal", which I kindly reminded you that we WERE NOT talking about a few acres of worthless California desert, but actual crop and grazing lands upon which people's livelihoods rely upon, especially in rural Texas, I was unaware that the LANDOWNERS IN QUESTION (or other stakeholders) were reading that discussion, which was quite sensitive and the reason it was pulled.

I didn't think it was right, but I can understand why they did it... RP didn't want to be seen as, pardon the pun, fanning the flames of the situation by allowing our discussion to proceed along the lines it was going, especially in regards to the apparent value (or lack thereof) of any damage caused by the fire, or the seriousness of the situation. The last thing you want to do in delicate negotiations is denigrate or infuriate the opposition... At any rate, I didn't think that you should be banned over it, but it wasn't my call. I DID tell the mods over there that if I had in any way incited you, I apologize... didn't seem to make much difference...

As to Tripoli and their BOD, well, I can't speak to that. I'm pretty sure that if *I'm* aware of your position on that issue, you can be assured that 99.9999% of the rocketry population is also aware of it. It is what it is and we either change it if we can or accept it and move on if we can't... (and it sorta looks like "changes" butt just left town!)

At any rate, I agree with the stuff you posted earlier in the thread about properly preparing the site for sparkies... that's a no brainer... and I also agree 100% that IF FOLKS PROVE THEY CANNOT SELF-REGULATE, THEY *WILL* BE REGULATED FROM THE OUTSIDE, AND MOST LIKELY IN A MANNER NOT OF THEIR LIKING!!!!

Take it easy and have a good one!
Later! OL JR :)

[DAllen]

This thread was intentionally run off the rails.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I

Yeah because obviously no one cares and neither do I. Please keep posting as your posts add to my entertainment.

Jerry, you had posts deleted in RP on many occasions. I know it. You know it. Anyone who posted regularly with at least 2 brain cells to rub together knows it. It wasn't JUST the Wayside thread.

[Jerry Irvine]

From what I understood, while you and I were having a discussion as a landowner who provides his farm as a launching field for a club, and you were asserting that burning off a few acres of pasture or crops was "no big deal", which I kindly reminded you that we WERE NOT talking about a few acres of worthless California desert, but actual crop and grazing lands upon which people's livelihoods rely upon, especially in rural Texas, I was unaware that the LANDOWNERS IN QUESTION (or other stakeholders) were reading that discussion, which was quite sensitive and the reason it was pulled.
And I then asserted it was only 0.1 acre and was a mandatory requirement to fly HPR, which the club Prefect and TRA BOD member failed AND refused to do at all.

0.1 acre. 75 feet accross.

I got banned because my point was valid and wouldn't shut up when the "perps" kept changing the subject and blaming the commenters for commenting. I was not rude or off-topic or even inappropriate. However I was "called inappropriate".

Jerry Irvine

[luke strawwalker]

And I then asserted it was only 0.1 acre and was a mandatory requirement to fly HPR, which the club Prefect and TRA BOD member failed AND refused to do at all.

0.1 acre. 75 feet accross.

I got banned because my point was valid and wouldn't shut up when the "perps" kept changing the subject and blaming the commenters for commenting. I was not rude or off-topic or even inappropriate. However I was "called inappropriate".

Jerry Irvine

Yes, you had a point, and a good one. From the information you posted awhile back, regarding the clearing distances and stuff, sounds like you're absolutely correct, and that they fell down on the job and bent/broke their own rules against sparkies to allow those kids to fly. It was just the wrong thing to do. From what I understand, they took a sparky motor to Alabama for the final competition flights and were initially denied there, but the folks in charge bent/broke the rules and allowed them to fly anyway.

As a person who works with schoolkids on a daily basis, I think this was the TOTAL wrong message to send. Yes I understand that their flight at Wayside was the last opportunity they had for a waivered launch before the project submission deadline. BUT, they had been told by SEVERAL adult mentors/teachers/project liaisons NOT to buy/use a sparky motor-- the performance from a regular motor would be identical and it would not have the field restrictions a sparky would have. YET THEY CHOSE TO IGNORE THIS WARNING AND GO WITH A SPARKY ANYWAY. Not only did the folks in charge at Wayside "feel sorry for them" and let them launch, which led to the fire, but then the folks in Alabama "caved in" after initially saying "NO!" because "they travelled so far, and their just kids... " and all that CRAP! The opportunity here was to teach these kids a FAR more important life lesson than ANYTHING they'd learn about physics or rocket design-- that is FOLLOW THE RULES IF YOU WANT TO COMPETE, and LISTEN TO YOUR MENTORS-- THEY'RE TRYING TO HELP YOU SUCCEED, NOT SPOIL YOUR FUN! Telling the kids, "Sorry, but YOU made a stupid decision buying a sparky motor-- we don't allow them, or the field conditions are TOO DANGEROUS to allow them to fly-- sorry for ya, but unless you can come up with a regular APCP motor, you're out of luck." THAT would have taught a lesson FAR more valuable to them in the course of their life than any science experiment will...

At any rate, it boils down to what the landowner finds acceptable. If the landowner is willing to plow up the appropriate area to support sparky launches, so be it, good for them. If the landowner is willing to do it for sufficient reimbursement to replace lost production, crops, or grazing, so be it-- ya gotta pay to play! If the landowner says NO SPARKIES, sorry for ya, NO SPARKIES-- play by the landowner rules or GO SOMEPLACE ELSE! Also, you can't blame neighbors with wheat in the field for raising heck over grass fires started by irresponsible HOBBY activities that endanger THEIR crops and livelihood-- even if the farmer that owns the field didn't care about his pasture getting burned, the neighbors aren't going to sit still while some RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY that's ill-supervised possibly leads to a fire that would destroy THEIR crops and livelihood... nor should they!

Besides, if the setbacks/no vegetation rules weren't followed, and had the fire spread and destroyed hundreds of thousands of dollars of standing grain in a neighbor's field, I'm QUITE SURE that the NAR/TRA insurance in effect would have RAPIDLY wiggled off the hook and refused to pay, citing the violation of the setbacks/safety code... THEN who pays for the lost crops/damages??

Interesting question, isn't it??

Later! OL JR :)

[DAllen]

I got banned because my point was valid and wouldn't shut up when the "perps" kept changing the subject and blaming the commenters for commenting. I was not rude or off-topic or even inappropriate. However I was "called inappropriate".

How about that dandy little post you made in the thread memorializing Eric Gates that had a link to some lawyer agency? That got deleted post-haste. You were trying to be funny in THAT thread. Brilliant because that wasn't inappropriate at all. I remember the mod telling me in a pm that it wasn't the first time he deleted a post like that of yours. He had deleted dozens of posts like that one.

You were called, "inappropriate." Hey, if the shoe fits...

[Jerry Irvine]

Yes, you had a point, and a good one. From the information you posted awhile back, regarding the clearing distances and stuff, sounds like you're absolutely correct, and that they fell down on the job and bent/broke their own rules against sparkies to allow those kids to fly. It was just the wrong thing to do.

At any rate, it boils down to what the landowner finds acceptable.

Besides, if the setbacks/no vegetation rules weren't followed, and had the fire spread and destroyed hundreds of thousands of dollars of standing grain in a neighbor's field, I'm QUITE SURE that the NAR/TRA insurance in effect would have RAPIDLY wiggled off the hook and refused to pay, citing the violation of the setbacks/safety code... THEN who pays for the lost crops/damages??

Interesting question, isn't it??

Later! OL JR :)

Firstly, the sparky motor was evidence of their way of thinking about the issue, but the main point I made and am still making is ALL HPR requires a cleared area not just sparkies. The club Prefect Pat G. and TRA BOD member had launches there for YEARS while NEVER following this critically central rule for safety.

One can argue all day long about how or if the rule is enforced by the NFPA, the state using NFPA, the national club, the local club, or just some rube who shows up to the launch and shows the rule to the folks violating it. Ultimately the whole point of self-regulation is to employ COMMON SENSE procedures to AVOID problems. Like being electrocuted by a power line while recovering a rocket, or falling out of a tree, or in this case starting a brush fire. In every case the prevention methodology is well documented and well proven in practice.

When folks act as if they are above the law and also spend a great deal of time punishing others for minor or in some cases fictional infractions, the hypocracy is what motivates folks like me to simply say something.

In short to fly ANY HPR at any time or place, one MUST clear the launch pad area of flammable materials, sparky or not, BP or APCP. It's not just a rule and regulation, it is proven common sense.

As for insurance, I have been involved in that industry for many years. I feel any claim would be honored and the policy would be canceled for non-compliance then the company would make a business decision whether or not to sue the folks responsible for the procedure violations to recover their loss. All such rights flow to the insurance company when they pay the claim depending on contract language or court orders.

Since the issue at question was CLEARLY in violation of the responsibilities of either a club leader or a national club board member, it is unlikely the E&O coverage would apply, being a repeated, long term violation of a centrally critical rule.

Wouldn't it be easier to clear a 50-75 foot diameter circle and be done with it?

Jerry

[jharding58]

Adults acting like children on the internet is a common theme nowadays. Not much you can do about it.

Curious why you qualify that with "on the internet"...

[jdbectec]

Curious why you qualify that with "on the internet"...


:chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:

You made my day!

Thanks.

[luke strawwalker]

Firstly, the sparky motor was evidence of their way of thinking about the issue, but the main point I made and am still making is ALL HPR requires a cleared area not just sparkies. The club Prefect Pat G. and TRA BOD member had launches there for YEARS while NEVER following this critically central rule for safety.

One can argue all day long about how or if the rule is enforced by the NFPA, the state using NFPA, the national club, the local club, or just some rube who shows up to the launch and shows the rule to the folks violating it. Ultimately the whole point of self-regulation is to employ COMMON SENSE procedures to AVOID problems. Like being electrocuted by a power line while recovering a rocket, or falling out of a tree, or in this case starting a brush fire. In every case the prevention methodology is well documented and well proven in practice.

When folks act as if they are above the law and also spend a great deal of time punishing others for minor or in some cases fictional infractions, the hypocracy is what motivates folks like me to simply say something.

In short to fly ANY HPR at any time or place, one MUST clear the launch pad area of flammable materials, sparky or not, BP or APCP. It's not just a rule and regulation, it is proven common sense.

As for insurance, I have been involved in that industry for many years. I feel any claim would be honored and the policy would be canceled for non-compliance then the company would make a business decision whether or not to sue the folks responsible for the procedure violations to recover their loss. All such rights flow to the insurance company when they pay the claim depending on contract language or court orders.

Since the issue at question was CLEARLY in violation of the responsibilities of either a club leader or a national club board member, it is unlikely the E&O coverage would apply, being a repeated, long term violation of a centrally critical rule.

Wouldn't it be easier to clear a 50-75 foot diameter circle and be done with it?

Jerry


Interesting...

I'm not into HPR and I'm not well versed in the rules applying to it, or to the TRA or their BOD or anything else having to do with it.

SO, are you saying that ALL HPR flights require bare (plowed?) dirt for the specified distance around the pad, regardless of the propellant formulation?? Somehow I doubt that was the *intent* of the rule, because I don't think *most* (IE 98%) of the HPR launches/community would comply with it... I can certainly see the need for it with sparkies, and think it's an ABSOLUTELY essential precaution, but I for one have seen VERY few HPR launches taking place ONLY on bare dirt (desert or plowed farmland) or concrete stretching sufficiently far away from the pad to meet the requirement you stipulated.

As for the insurance, as someone who's dealt with them (unfortunately) on SEVERAL occassions in relation to agriculture, I can promise you that ANY scumbag insurance company that can find ANY reason whatsoever not to pay will use that TO THE HILT so they don't have to pay ANYTHING to ANYBODY. Insurance companies are ponzi schemes solely interested in collecting the maximum amount of premiums they can possibly get their hands on by increasing their market share and rates, while paying out the ABSOLUTE MINIMUM they can POSSIBLY get away with. I'd like nothing better than to see every insurance company in the US go broke and be outlawed...

At any rate, I was doing a little back-of-the-envelope figuring... there are roughly 5,000 NAR members, correct?? I don't know how many Tripoli has, though I'm sure it's much less, and I'm not sure how much of their dues go toward insurance... and I don't have EXACT figures for NAR membership insurance dues either... though it WAS over $20 YEARS ago when insurance was VOLUNTARY and you had to "add it on" to your membership and send in a check for it. 5,000 members paying say $20 each (probably closer to $30, but $20 will suffice for sake of argument) means that NAR is collecting about $100,000 PER YEAR in insurance dues... and Tripoli is collecting some amount to be sure, probably in this ballpark, I'd wager...

I think it'd make a LOT more sense to put that money in escrow and SELF-INSURE rather than continue to pay exhorbitant amounts of insurance premiums to some company that will probably find some way to worm off the hook if there was a serious claim anyway... Yes it'd take 10 years to get a million in the bank, but the money would be there and without all the mess of being at the mercy of the stinking insurance companies... or having the huge deductibles that leave clubs and landowners at considerable risk anyway...

I know the school districts in Texas have a "pool" self-insuring program they pay a pittance into every year to insure all the school buses on the road against accident claims... so the precedent is certainly there...

Later! OL JR :)

[Jerry Irvine]

Interesting...

SO, are you saying that ALL HPR flights require bare (plowed?) dirt for the specified distance around the pad, regardless of the propellant formulation?? Somehow I doubt that was the *intent* of the rule, because I don't think *most* (IE 98%) of the HPR launches/community would comply with it...

I think it'd make a LOT more sense to put that money in escrow and SELF-INSURE rather than continue to pay exhorbitant amounts of insurance premiums to some company that will probably find some way to worm off the hook if there was a serious claim anyway...

I know the school districts in Texas have a "pool" self-insuring program they pay a pittance into every year to insure all the school buses on the road against accident claims... so the precedent is certainly there...

Later! OL JR :)

This post is precisely on-topic and exceptionally insightful. Your figures for membership and money are close if a bit high on membership and low on premiums but the scales are close.

The actual rule for clearance is

4.15.1 The area that encircles a launch pad shall be cleared of brown grass, dry weeds, and other easy-to-burn materials for a diameter equal to at least that specified . . .

Everybody involved in the Wayside incident agreed the brush was inclined to catch fire so they were prepared for it, albiet in an ineffective and non-compliant way. So that particular incident SCREAMS for a clearance area, even if undersized as compared to some arbitrary rule made up by TRA and NAR at a NFPA meeting, by committee. It is easy to comply with that rule.

Here are a couple of examples of compliant launches:

1. Extreme low labor "safe" case

http://v-serv.com/usr/images/congrevesourced/FSgeminiDC.jpg

2. Compliant case

http://v-serv.com/usr/images/congrevesourced/29-180-80FS.TBO.SeanArrowsmith.jpg

3. Extreme low labor zero risk case

http://v-serv.com/usr/motors/images.rr29-120-FS.htm

http://v-serv.com/usr/motors/images/29-240-FS.wEgg.jpg

As for self-insuring I proposed precisely that for TRA and when they did not, I formed one myself. It was easy. It was cheap. A portion of the proceeds are used to pay a very high deductible very high limit policy akin to reinsurance. It has been around for many years so the interest pays the policy premiums now and new monies coming in just add to the self-insurance buffer in the event of multiple claims.

The reason why insurance is a necessary evil is for a small premium you insure against an impossibly large loss. The insurer takes premiums from thousands of risks but pays out only on dozens. It is a good business model. The main defect with insurance is the court system itself is so broken that unless your trial-required dispute exceeds $250,000 the cost of the lawyers (yet another racket) exceeds any likely recovery. In this country all folks pay all their own fees unless ruled otherwise. Look at the ATF case. We WON, were entitled to recovery of attorneys fees, and due to an arcane set of rules and procedures only got back something like $50k of over $600k expended, around $20k of which came from me!

Jerry

[luke strawwalker]

This post is precisely on-topic and exceptionally insightful. Your figures for membership and money are close if a bit high on membership and low on premiums but the scales are close.

The actual rule for clearance is



Everybody involved in the Wayside incident agreed the brush was inclined to catch fire so they were prepared for it, albiet in an ineffective and non-compliant way. So that particular incident SCREAMS for a clearance area, even if undersized as compared to some arbitrary rule made up by TRA and NAR at a NFPA meeting, by committee. It is easy to comply with that rule.

Here are a couple of examples of compliant launches:

1. Extreme low labor "safe" case

http://v-serv.com/usr/images/congrevesourced/FSgeminiDC.jpg

2. Compliant case

http://v-serv.com/usr/images/congrevesourced/29-180-80FS.TBO.SeanArrowsmith.jpg

3. Extreme low labor zero risk case

http://v-serv.com/usr/motors/images.rr29-120-FS.htm

http://v-serv.com/usr/motors/images/29-240-FS.wEgg.jpg

As for self-insuring I proposed precisely that for TRA and when they did not, I formed one myself. It was easy. It was cheap. A portion of the proceeds are used to pay a very high deductible very high limit policy akin to reinsurance. It has been around for many years so the interest pays the policy premiums now and new monies coming in just add to the self-insurance buffer in the event of multiple claims.

The reason why insurance is a necessary evil is for a small premium you insure against an impossibly large loss. The insurer takes premiums from thousands of risks but pays out only on dozens. It is a good business model. The main defect with insurance is the court system itself is so broken that unless your trial-required dispute exceeds $250,000 the cost of the lawyers (yet another racket) exceeds any likely recovery. In this country all folks pay all their own fees unless ruled otherwise. Look at the ATF case. We WON, were entitled to recovery of attorneys fees, and due to an arcane set of rules and procedures only got back something like $50k of over $600k expended, around $20k of which came from me!

Jerry

Very good... good points all around.

As a landowner, I think it's just easier (and safer) to ban sparkies that rely on some arcane "setback" to ensure safety that environmental conditions or rocket malfunction (cato or unpredictable flight path, pad malfunction at liftoff, etc) might render moot anyway. That's what I've done, despite the fact that our field is LPR only (at the moment)... I don't allow ANY sparkies, regardless of their availability or not, PERIOD. (Yes I know sparkies are HPR only, at the moment anyway). I also know there is a potential fire danger with ANY rocket flights, even/especially with BP, and catos of ANY type of engine, but it comes down to ACCEPTABLE RISK versus UNACCEPTABLE RISK.

Plus, I think rocket motor manufacturers should never have come out with sparkies in the first place... the rocketry hobby has had an uphill battle to seperate itself from the fireworks/pyrotechnics since it began... and the resurgence of over-regulation and widespread banning of fireworks (and model rocket activities along with it) tends to prove the point. IMHO, NOTHING blurs the hard won and constantly attacked distinction between MODEL ROCKETRY and FIREWORKS as bad as sparky motors do...

And before someone gets all huffy and says, "Ok, you're demanding that ALL "effects" motors be banned... even if it's just a different flame color...". That isn't what I'm saying at all... different color flames/smoke can be justified through different propellant chemistries, with some (like Blue Thunder) having significantly different propulsion properties than others (like Smokey Sam). Also, adding chemicals to change the flame color properties that otherwise have no effect on the fire risk created by the engine, that NEITHER NEGATE NOR ENHANCE the fire danger from a particular launch, can be defended as such... SPARKIES, however, DO enhance the risk of fire from the motor in question, for NO defendable gain in propulsion efficiency (in fact thermodynamically probably the opposite is true-- the titanium particles absorb energy that could be used to accelerate the working fluid (exhaust stream) producing the thrust.

THAT is what I'm saying...

Later! OL JR :)

[Bazookadale]

Plus, I think rocket motor manufacturers should never have come out with sparkies in the first place... the rocketry hobby has had an uphill battle to seperate itself from the fireworks/pyrotechnics since it began... and the resurgence of over-regulation and widespread banning of fireworks (and model rocket activities along with it) tends to prove the point. IMHO, NOTHING blurs the hard won and constantly attacked distinction between MODEL ROCKETRY and FIREWORKS as bad as sparky motors do...



Later! OL JR :)
I agree with that, I know it isn't a popular stance but I've never been a popular person so I don't care

[Jerry Irvine]

Very good... good points all around.

Plus, I think rocket motor manufacturers should never have come out with sparkies in the first place... I am the one who released them first and for a long time, only. E-J sizes in 29mm, 38mm, 54mm first. Vern Estes agrees with you.

Jerry

[Jerry Irvine]

In defense of sparkies.

They do decrease ISP but add mass-flow. It is a net loss, but the sparks are a side-effect. BP has smoke as an after-effect, with a far greater net loss, V-Smokey Sam another, but with a mid-range net loss. All good. The motor itself should conform to "common safety precautions" such that no RSO need remember allowed or not.

Jerry

[luke strawwalker]

I agree with that, I know it isn't a popular stance but I've never been a popular person so I don't care

Me neither... like I tell my boss sometimes-- "I'm not here to make friends and influence people... I'm here to get the job done SAFELY!"

If that leaves a few people pissed, well, WAAAHHH!!! :)

Later! OL JR :)

[ghrocketman]

I share the opinion of Vern Estes here and think sparkies never should have been made for flying MODEL ROCKETS.
Those are nothing more than adding a firework-pyrotechnic component to rocketry that would be better off left to the fireworks crowd EXCLUSIVELY.

[Doug Sams]

I share the opinion of Vern Estes here and think sparkies never should have been made for flying MODEL ROCKETS.
Those are nothing more than adding a firework-pyrotechnic component to rocketry that would be better off left to the fireworks crowd EXCLUSIVELY.I agree. The sparkies should never have been allowed. I'm sure that's not a popular opinion, but they're fireworks, and significantly greater fire hazards than other motors.

Of course, there are some who contend colored smoke and flames amount to fireworks as well. But, compared to sparkies, they're comparatively benign, although I recall one knowledgeable rocketeer making a statement that he didn't want to breathe any of the green smoke coming off an AMW motor several years ago :D So I wonder about that aspect as well. Colored motors may not be fire hazards (compared to ordinary motors) but, if the coloring chemicals present an increased health hazard, maybe we shouldn't be flying them either.

Doug

.

[ghrocketman]

I would guess breathing the exhaust of green (barium salts) or red (cadmium salts) flame motors would do one's health absolutely ZERO good since both are "heavy" metals, but the minute amount probably is NOTHING to worry about, much to the chagrin of knee-jerk alarmist enviro-whackos.

I think sparkies at BEST are nothing but a show-off less efficient motor, and usually create a MENACE that serves ZERO legitimate ROCKETRY purpose.
I have ZERO issues with danger that actually serves a purpose; sparkies seem to involve danger/risk for NO WORTHWHILE purpose.

[jetlag]

The sparkies are a real crowd pleaser, though. :D
I'm not a 'high power' guy, but I love to see someone else spend the many 100's of dollars to send off one, even more so if there is a show!

We have guys stationed near the HP pads with buckets of H2O and fire extinguishers. Don't know why others don't, but it seems like common sense to me.
With no need to plow up a 75 foot diam. circle either. I don't think the kind folks at SuperSod would like us to do that...
But we don't have the fire issues that are common out west, either.
Allen

[luke strawwalker]

I agree. The sparkies should never have been allowed. I'm sure that's not a popular opinion, but they're fireworks, and significantly greater fire hazards than other motors.

Of course, there are some who contend colored smoke and flames amount to fireworks as well. But, compared to sparkies, they're comparatively benign, although I recall one knowledgeable rocketeer making a statement that he didn't want to breathe any of the green smoke coming off an AMW motor several years ago :D So I wonder about that aspect as well. Colored motors may not be fire hazards (compared to ordinary motors) but, if the coloring chemicals present an increased health hazard, maybe we shouldn't be flying them either.

Doug

.

Yeah, I've heard that the green propellant smoke is VERY bad for you... I know *I* wouldn't want to breathe it in...

I'd say "colored" propellant is sort of a 'gray area'... many of the chemicals added to "colorize" the plume also affect the burn rates or create different propellant formulations, which CAN be quite useful for different purposes... for instance a certain type of motor with a white lightning propellant will get a very different ride than the same rocket and same motor type with a smokey sam propellant formulation, or with blue thunder or Warp 9... So the different "effect" is more a BY-PRODUCT of the different formulation than the "PRIMARY AIM" of the propellant formulation... and can be "defended" on that basis...

BUT, "different colors" for different color's sake, where the different color has NO effect on the burning rate or thrust properties or ISP of the particular propellant formulation IS a little more difficult to defend on the "by-product of the different formulation with "X" and "Y" properties VS. other propellant types" argument... I consider it neither here nor there-- no harm, no foul... "color" as the primary aim, so long as it doesn't DETRACT from the performance or safety of the formulation (and green may well violate that principle) doesn't seem particularly bad *to me*...

Sparkies, on the other hand, rob energy to heat and "burn" the titanium sponge, so actually thermodynamically ROB ENERGY from the propellant, energy that COULD have been used to accelerate the exhaust out the nozzle and increase thrust and ISP, and transfer that energy into molten oxidizing liquid droplets of metal sprayed out the back of the nozzle for the SOLE PURPOSE of creating a VISUAL AND AUDITORY EFFECT, QUITE APART FROM ACTUAL ROCKET PROPULSION EFFICIENCY, and SUBSTANTIALLY increasing the fire risks of the launch FOR NO "GOOD PURPOSE" WHATSOEVER...

I just think that it is a POOR tradeoff to make, for the rocketry community and the hobby in general... If you want a "good show" go to a public fireworks display-- it's GUARANTEED to be a lot more thrilling and showy than a rocket launch... and if you're interest is launching rockets, then LAUNCH ROCKETS and leave the pyrotechnic displays and fireworks stuff to the fireworks crowd-- don't blur that hard-won distinction between fireworks and rocketry because a FEW FOLKS want to mix-n-match the two...

All IMHO... OL JR :)

[Jerry Irvine]

Firstly model rockets ARE fireworks made by a fireworks guy, Vern Estes. What is special is model rocketry enjoys a sort of regulatory protected class (thanks Harry - bow and pray) because it is not primarily for the display of light, sound, and smoke. It does have all those things. It has the characteristics of fireworks.

It has the advantage of the primary use being to produce work, and the secondary advantage of electrical ignition from a distance. So usage wise it is differentiated from fireworks. Independent of the motor output. A BP Estes motor clearly has most of the characteristics of a bottle rocket for example, inclusive of a pop at the end of the flight.

Let's at least be real. "Firestarter"-tm is just better at it than a BP or BT motor. :D Plus FS has > 2x the ISP of BP!

Jerry

[Bill]

Firstly model rockets ARE fireworks made by a fireworks guy, Vern Estes. What is special is model rocketry enjoys a sort of regulatory protected class (thanks Harry - bow and pray) because it is not primarily for the display of light, sound, and smoke. It does have all those things. It has the characteristics of fireworks.

It has the advantage of the primary use being to produce work, and the secondary advantage of electrical ignition from a distance. So usage wise it is differentiated from fireworks. Independent of the motor output. A BP Estes motor clearly has most of the characteristics of a bottle rocket for example, inclusive of a pop at the end of the flight.



Let's all admit it. Model rocketry is a direct offshoot of fireworks, even to the point of using commonly available fireworks components for our motors - otherwise please explain how Vern just happened to decide on 18mm for the size of the motor.

If not for the excitement of the Space Race and the real problem of getting people to stop hurting themselves by "basement bombing", model rocketry would not have become legitimized. Just imagine trying to establish something like that today...


Bill

[luke strawwalker]

Firstly model rockets ARE fireworks made by a fireworks guy, Vern Estes. What is special is model rocketry enjoys a sort of regulatory protected class (thanks Harry - bow and pray) because it is not primarily for the display of light, sound, and smoke. It does have all those things. It has the characteristics of fireworks.

It has the advantage of the primary use being to produce work, and the secondary advantage of electrical ignition from a distance. So usage wise it is differentiated from fireworks. Independent of the motor output. A BP Estes motor clearly has most of the characteristics of a bottle rocket for example, inclusive of a pop at the end of the flight.

Let's at least be real. "Firestarter"-tm is just better at it than a BP or BT motor. :D Plus FS has > 2x the ISP of BP!

Jerry

My intent was NOT to compare ULTIMATE ISP of any particular propellant formulation versus any other, the INTENT was to demonstrate that the ADDITION of titanium particles to a particular propellant formulation DOES rob power from that formulation compared to an IDENTICAL formulation WITHOUT said titanium particle inclusions...

Of course APCP formulations have double the ISP of black powder, but it's also TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the conversation...

Yes, model rocketry started with much in common with fireworks/pyrotechnics... but if we intend to keep model rocketry as a legal hobby activity, we MUST keep up the good fight to differentiate it from fireworks and pyrotechnics...

The PTB simply find it easier to regulate everything as "illegal" rather than make that differentiation... in short, if we don't do it, nobody else will-- it's easier to just say "no, that's illegal" than to figure out what's hobby rocketry and what's fireworks...

All IMHO... OL JR :)

[ghrocketman]

I'm of the opposite camp regarding fireworks/rockets.
I'd like to see ALL of them LEGAL and free of ANY regulation.

[InFlight]

I'm of the opposite camp regarding fireworks/rockets.
I'd like to see ALL of them LEGAL and free of ANY regulation.
I agree with you, but there are people walking around handling fireworks with no common sense at all.

For example, two years ago on the 4th, a guy in Whitmore lake (an hour drive from you) lights a firework and drops it into a 4" tube. Waits about a minute and nothing happens... then he walks over and looks down the tube... and it goes off into his face and he died. This sad event as well as others is what allows the government to enforce regulations. :(

Perhaps you would have to take a common sense test before you can purchase fireworks that are LEGAL and free of ANY regulations?

.

[Jerry Irvine]

I agree with you, but there are people walking around handling fireworks with no common sense at all.

For example, two years ago on the 4th, a guy in Whitmore lake (an hour drive from you) lights a firework and drops it into a 4" tube. Waits about a minute and nothing happens... then he walks over and looks down the tube... and it goes off into his face and he died. This sad event as well as others is what allows the government to enforce regulations. :(

Perhaps you would have to take a common sense test before you can purchase fireworks that are LEGAL and free of ANY regulations?

.
Two people were medivaced from LDRS this year. Does that cause anybody to call for more regulation or enforcement? Not even the responding fire and medical officials felt it was necessary.

The entire solution to safer fireworks experiences is a simple safety code. They lack it, we have it, so we enjoy lessened regulations and a super safety record.

But let's not forget that despite our consumer product status, lessened regulation, and near perfect safety record, every alphabet agency on the planet is constantly looking for more ways to CODIFY their monologue view of the world.

Exemptions not regulations.

Jerry

[ghrocketman]

I know where Whitmore Lake is....
May sound cold, but anyone looking down a tube with any sort of unexploded ordnance is at BEST a FOOL. Should lowest common denominator stupidity punish those of us that are not in that class ?
I think NOT and am sick of gubmint forcing laws on us based lowest common denominator idiots. This is Darwinism CULLING THE HERD and quite frankly don't see a problem with it.

[o1d_dude]

I propose we have the Darwin Award with GHRocketman cluster that will be awarded to those individuals who succeed in doing themselves in by means of black powder.

All in favor?

I nominate Wan Hu, the Ming Dynasty astronaut, as the first recipient.

[DaveR]

For example, two years ago on the 4th, a guy in Whitmore lake (an hour drive from you) lights a firework and drops it into a 4" tube. Waits about a minute and nothing happens... then he walks over and looks down the tube... and it goes off into his face and he died. This sad event as well as others is what allows the government to enforce regulations. :(

I'd be willing to bet that in this instance, as well as many other firework "accidents" that result in personal injury and or death, alcohol is a factor. It tends to make people stupid.

"Hey Bubba, watch this!" :rolleyes:

[Feyd]

Mythbusters had an episode recently where two guys had the brilliant idea to shoot cigarette butts out of a .50 cal black powder rifle at each other. The guy who got shot by the cigarette butts died.

MB determined that in order for the butts to actually kill the guy he had to be shot at point blank range using a standard black powder load.

Apparently alcohol was involved. As you would suspect.

[cas2047]

Mythbusters had an episode recently where two guys had the brilliant idea to shoot cigarette butts out of a .50 cal black powder rifle at each other. The guy who got shot by the cigarette butts died.

MB determined that in order for the butts to actually kill the guy he had to be shot at point blank range using a standard black powder load.

Apparently alcohol was involved. As you would suspect.


We've ALL heard time and time again that cigarettes kill. When will people learn! :rolleyes:

[Rocketflyer]

Mythbusters had an episode recently where two guys had the brilliant idea to shoot cigarette butts out of a .50 cal black powder rifle at each other. The guy who got shot by the cigarette butts died.

MB determined that in order for the butts to actually kill the guy he had to be shot at point blank range using a standard black powder load.

Apparently alcohol was involved. As you would suspect.


Sorta like the last cigarette before the firing squad?

[Bill]

Yes, model rocketry started with much in common with fireworks/pyrotechnics... but if we intend to keep model rocketry as a legal hobby activity, we MUST keep up the good fight to differentiate it from fireworks and pyrotechnics...



We are different from fireworks in a very significant way - our projectiles do not go bang and are intended to safely recover to be reused. All of this concern about visual effect does not take away from that. However, we do need to address the fact that sparky motors tend to start fires.


Bill

[Doug Sams]

MB determined that in order for the butts to actually kill the guy he had to be shot at point blank range using a standard black powder load.I suspect that, even without the cigarette butt, the BP load would be lethal at close range. Not sure if it's equivalent, but the John Eric Hexum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_eric_hexum) case comes to mind.

Doug

.

[AKPilot]

Just a question for thought . . .

Does a 'safety code' have any meaning if you're NOT a member of a national rocketry organization? Is it enforceable?

For instance, as Wal-mart, Toys-R-Us, Michaels, Hobby Lobby, etc, sells model rocketry starter kits, and most of those people do not belong to a national rocketry organization, does the safety code have any meaning?

Do those people who buy from national chains read the NAR safety code? Or, for those that don't join (keeping in mind that NAR has only about 5,000 members), do they even read the enclosed NAR safety code?

Don't the NFPA guidelines have to be adopted into law to become enforceable?

Just askin . . .

[Doug Sams]

Just a question for thought . . .

Does a 'safety code' have any meaning if you're NOT a member of a national rocketry organization? Is it enforceable?

For instance, as Wal-mart, Toys-R-Us, Michaels, Hobby Lobby, etc, sells model rocketry starter kits, and most of those people do not belong to a national rocketry organization, does the safety code have any meaning? IANAL, but I believe that the code can still be held up as a standard. Even if it's not law, if an accident occurred, it could be a factor in assessing blame.


Do those people who buy from national chains read the NAR safety code? Or, for those that don't join (keeping in mind that NAR has only about 5,000 members), do they even read the enclosed NAR safety code?I can remember reading it when I was a kid. My biggest concern was the field dimensions and offset distances. We had a 20 acre field behind us, but we launched in the back yard only ~100 ft from the neighbors' houses. So I'm not sure we were fully in compliance (but we were only flying ¼A to B impulse).


Don't the NFPA guidelines have to be adopted into law to become enforceable?I'm pretty sure that's the case.

Doug

.

Just askin . . .[/QUOTE]

[AKPilot]

IANAL, but I believe that the code can still be held up as a standard. Even if it's not law, if an accident occurred, it could be a factor in assessing blame.






But, is a safety code that's inserted into a starter kit, consent to abide?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a teenager that buys a kit in Wal-mart or Michaels doesn't need to sign a safety code, or agree to it's conditions, to launch. Correct?


I'm a strong proponent of the NAR Safety Code, but what I'm finding out more and more is that the majority of people who I talk to, that pick up these Starter Kits off the shelves, don't. They simply dismiss it, with the understanding that it's not enforceable.

For me this becomes a concern, because in some aspects opinions like this (which I can't control) dismiss NAR and it's code as a governing directive.

[Rocket Doctor]

It would be shear stupidity not to follow the rules, you can call it a safetly code, but, common sense should rule.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, quoting Judy Judy. Failure to act responsibly is not the way to do things.

The problem with big box stores is that they want to deal in volume, no matter what happens, but, if there is an incident, who will they go after, the manufacturer.

Read and follow the instructions is a given as well, but, i have put on numerous youth programs where the kids are the experts and I'm just the babysitter.

They tell me, I know aht I am doing and the end product certainly doesn't look like a rocket, far from it.

I would tell the group to be careful of the hobby knife, and I got the comment from one parent not to speak to his child like that. But, if his child got cut or hurt, who would be blamed for the incident.......ME.

I have written many instruction sheets over the years, trying to go into as much detail as possible so the builder can understand and have a quality rocket. But, if you have the attitude that you know from the get go you are the expert, then, what can anyone do.

I had a novice who wanted to build a Saturn V, I suggested that they get a basic kit and work their way up, but, NO, he wanted to build a Sat V.

You can only do so much in this society, litigious at that.

RD

[Doug Sams]

But, is a safety code that's inserted into a starter kit, consent to abide?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a teenager that buys a kit in Wal-mart or Michaels doesn't need to sign a safety code, or agree to it's conditions, to launch. Correct?


I'm a strong proponent of the NAR Safety Code, but what I'm finding out more and more is that the majority of people who I talk to, that pick up these Starter Kits off the shelves, don't. They simply dismiss it, with the understanding that it's not enforceable.

For me this becomes a concern, because in some aspects opinions like this (which I can't control) dismiss NAR and it's code as a governing directive.I'm reminded of the movie Bruce Almighty which was on TV recently. In it, he could do just about anything except interfere with free will. It's pretty much the same in this case. You can insert as much safety instruction into the kit or starter set as space allows, but you can't make the user read and follow it. (Altough, the assembly and prep instructions can be interwoven with safety procedures such that the reader can't avoid learning some of it. Eg, the user can't fly without a safety key inserted in the controller - he's forced to use a safety key if he uses the set's controller. So, in some cases, the safety is intrinsic - that is, in some cases, following safe procedure is unavoidable.)

I agree no one can make them follow the code just as no one can make you follow the speed limit. While there are no "rocket cops" to write the non-code-follower a "speeding" ticket, if he does something that results in bodily injury or property damage, he could face civil and criminal penalties. By inserting the safety code into the kit/starter set, the vendor has insulated himself somewhat from that liability - he can argue the user had the code and failed to heed it. And, most caring parents will read the code and make a reasonable effort at safe operations (no horizontal flights, no kids near the pad at lunch, etc).

While the primary intent of the safety code is to prevent harm, like most other rules in this world, the code doesn't really prevent actions so much as discouraging them. The only way to make someone follow the code exactly is to pass a law then assign a cop to follow the rocketeer around (Uber Big Brother) to arrest him before he causes harm (which ain't gonna happen in a free society, I hope :) ). Same goes for speeding. The cops only catch speeders after the fact. But they don't really prevent speeding. The fear of getting a ticket discourages it. But that doesn't stop folks from doing it.

So, safe rocketry comes down to individual responsibility. Responsible fliers will make reasonable efforts to fly safely. Folks hellbent on being dangerous are going to do that no matter what.

That said (back on topic, and sorry if I'm rambling off on a tangent), what kinds of questions are you asking folks? How are you broaching the subject? Could it be they're not even aware of the safety yet 'cause they haven't had a chance to open the box and peruse the materials?

Doug

.

[tbzep]

If anything from the NAR codes is in the NFPA codes that your state goes by, then it's law. However, I don't recall what's in the NFPA codes, so the point may not be worth posting.

[cas2047]

I don't think a safety code inserted into a starter kit means much to someone who really doesn't understand the risks and methods required to mitigate those risks associated with the hobby.

I really like to be able to go out and launch whenever I want, and I have a place where I can do that where nobody is there except those folks that I choose to bring along, but many people who buy the kits from Wal-Mart or K-Mart, or Michaels will probably go down to a park to launch them, and we all know that there is a level of danger in any rocket launch. That's why I think the club launches are such a huge plus to the hobby. I think that park launches are where most of the potential problems are likely to happen.

Those problems are many, and people who just stop to observe a launch in progress at a park probably have no idea about what could happen if things were to go wrong. For example maybe the ejection charge doesn't kick the nose cone and the rocket comes in balistic and harms someone, or maybe the trajectory takes the rocket directly at someone, or maybe someone is burned, or there could be a CATO. The list of possible problems is endless... Plus the skill level of someone who just bought a starter set from Wal-Mart is probably very low.

I personally have stopped flying at local parks, even those where there are few people, because I just don't want to take the chance of having someone injured. I've seen many local park launches where there are people, kids included, standing right on top of the launch pad as the rockets are launched, and the folks doing the launching sometimes just aren't skilled enough to know how to minimize the risks.

How this is all handled is another question... I hate to see regulations, and I don't like to see people not able to do what they want when and where they want, but I also don't want my hobby further restricted or banned because some yahoo launches a rocket cruise missle style into a crowd of kids playing at a playground.

[luke strawwalker]

Mythbusters had an episode recently where two guys had the brilliant idea to shoot cigarette butts out of a .50 cal black powder rifle at each other. The guy who got shot by the cigarette butts died.

MB determined that in order for the butts to actually kill the guy he had to be shot at point blank range using a standard black powder load.

Apparently alcohol was involved. As you would suspect.

Sounds correct to me... BP can accelerate normally 'harmless' stuff to velocities capable of killing, at close range... but low density/high drag stuff RAPIDLY loses velocity, so it'd have to be REAL close (point blank).

There was a TV show years ago where the lead actor was goofing around between takes, and picked up a pistol loaded with blanks, thought it'd be funny while horsing around, and stuck it up to his temple and pulled the trigger... and promptly blew his brains out! The small plug of clay/plaster/ whatever they use to hold the powder in "blanks" came out of the barrel fast enough to penetrate his skull and kill him... under normal conditions the bits of plug RAPIDLY decelerate and disperse harmlessly, but POINT BLANK even the bit of plug remnants can kill... (can't recall the name of the TV series at the moment).

I know when I was in the police academy, we had 'live fire' exercises combined with our building search/apprehension field day... our instructors used casings with the primer alone (NO powder) and the end of the casing plugged with a tightly wadded cotton ball... the primer in the casing was sufficient to provide a good 'bang' and propel the cotton ball about 25 feet... it also ignited the back end of the cotton ball so you got a nice mark from carbon soot from the singed cotton if you got 'hit'. Sorta like paintball with REAL guns...

Later! OL JR :)

[tbzep]

S
There was a TV show years ago where the lead actor was goofing around between takes, and picked up a pistol loaded with blanks, thought it'd be funny while horsing around, and stuck it up to his temple and pulled the trigger... and promptly blew his brains out! The small plug of clay/plaster/ whatever they use to hold the powder in "blanks" came out of the barrel fast enough to penetrate his skull and kill him... under normal conditions the bits of plug RAPIDLY decelerate and disperse harmlessly, but POINT BLANK even the bit of plug remnants can kill... (can't recall the name of the TV series at the moment).



That was Bruce Lee's son, Brandon on the set of the movie, The Crow. It was just a few days before the wrap. What killed him was a dislodged "dummy" bullet from a homemade dummy cartridge (bullet pulled, powder dumped, bullet re-seated) used to show bullets in a revolver cylinder. The blank, which in movies, is usually pretty hot to show lots of flash compared to a normal blank, drove the so called dummy bullet into his side. He was shot by another actor in a live scene.

Details are on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Lee

[Bill]

How this is all handled is another question... I hate to see regulations, and I don't like to see people not able to do what they want when and where they want, but I also don't want my hobby further restricted or banned because some yahoo launches a rocket cruise missle style into a crowd of kids playing at a playground.


No new law is going to stop someone intent on doing that. There are already laws against disorderly conduct, assault, reckless endangerment, etc. they can get him on if he did.


Bill

[Doug Sams]

That was Bruce Lee's son, Brandon on the set of the movie, The Crow. It was just a few days before the wrap. What killed him was a dislodged "dummy" bullet from a homemade dummy cartridge (bullet pulled, powder dumped, bullet re-seated) used to show bullets in a revolver cylinder. The blank, which in movies, is usually pretty hot to show lots of flash compared to a normal blank, drove the so called dummy bullet into his side. He was shot by another actor in a live scene.

Details are on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_LeeNo, it was Hexum, that I cited earlier, who put the gun to his head and killed himself with a "blank". But everything else you stated about Lee is exactly as I recall it. The props master had failed to inspect the gun barrel for debris when he loaded the gun with blanks. When it was fired, the blank propelled the debris turning it into the fatal bullet.

That said, there are about as many conspiracy theories for the Bruce and Brandon deaths as there are for JFK's assassination :)

Doug

.

[Jerry Irvine]

I don't think a safety code inserted into a starter kit means much to someone who really doesn't understand the risks and methods required to mitigate those risks associated with the hobby. The safety code provides those mitigation methods to alleviate that concern.

Jerry

[AKPilot]

The safety code provides those mitigation methods to alleviate that concern.



However, keep in mind that a 'note' inserted into a box is a passive method of compliance. A more active method would be, as AMA does, you must have AMA membership to fly at their fields.

[cas2047]

No new law is going to stop someone intent on doing that. There are already laws against disorderly conduct, assault, reckless endangerment, etc. they can get him on if he did.


Bill

I'm not sure I made my point very well. I'm not talking about someone intending to point a rocket at someone, I'm talking about someone who just doesn't know any better. Maybe it's a very windy day and the angle of the rod, coupled with a gust of wind takes the rocket on a horizontal path towards someone. I just think that people who just go and buy a starter set having never seen a launch or been involved in the sport is taking much more risk when then go down to the local field than someone who understands the hobby. And not just risk to themselves, but to anyone who is in the area.

And I'm not advocating any additional rules or regulations. I'm just stating what I see as a fact.

[Rocket Doctor]

I have read reports from the CPSC about rocketry incidents. One being, that someone took a rocket motor , put it on the sidewalk and lit it off, it skirted it's way up into the air and into an open window of a house and caught the bedding on fire . Stupidity 101..

I also read reports of using model rocket motors as "bottle rockets"

I was doing a hobby convention in Ft washington PA, when a guy came up to me asking if he could put a "D" motor on a race car and use it that way. You know what my answer was ......NO.

If you use your head, you won't get into trouble, if you act less responsible, you will be heading for big trouble and the whole hobby will suffer for a few bad apples.

[cas2047]

Folks have been launching at local parks for about 50 years now, without dreadful consequences. The X-Mart starter kits are very similar to the starter kits of the 1970’s and 1980’s that I played with. The hobby of model (Low Power) rocketry has changed little in that time, but people have. We have achieved Sub-Zero Tolerance, i.e. anything that looks like it may be hazardous under the right set of ridiculously unlikely circumstances must be regulated and prohibited. (Beware the power of stupid people in large numbers)



This is why we must engage “Da YOOTS of America”, and show them (and their parents) that this is a very safe hobby - much safer than soccer or basketball, and better for kids than video games. Launching at a local park is a way to do that.

I agree that we are now a lawsuit happy society. All the more reason to not do something that may cause you to get wrapped up in one. The fact that something has been done for 50 years without dreadful consequences doesn't make it safe. Park launches are safe only when conducted by people who a. know what they are doing and b. when the park launch is setup with safety in mind, i.e. nobody within a certain distance of the pad, spectators and anyone within striking distance of the rocket are in heads-up mode, watching the launch, and the wind conditions are right.

There are far more people frequenting local parks now that ever before. There are people walking their babies in baby carrages, small kids playing, etc.. If someone with little or no knowledge sets up 25 feet from people enjoying themselves and something goes wrong then someone could be hurt and all the safety we've had in the last 50 years means nothing. We all pay when a few of these things get strung together.

I am NO advocate of any more regulation on ANYTHING. I do however acknowledge the fact that there is a level of risk in what we do, and to mitigate the risk I believe that people should know what they are doing before launching a rocket around others, and I do not think that the safety code inserted into a rocket packages is even read by 99 percent of the people who buy the rockets.

I don't claim to have the answer, I am just adding my voice to the discussion.

[Jerry Irvine]

However, keep in mind that a 'note' inserted into a box is a passive method of compliance. A more active method would be, as AMA does, you must have AMA membership to fly at their fields.However, keep in mind, this methodology has produced far superior results in actual practice. The safety record of NAR is vastly superior to AMA. I am not sure I can say the same for TRA. Probably.

Jerry

[tbzep]

No, it was Hexum, that I cited earlier, who put the gun to his head and killed himself with a "blank". But everything else you stated about Lee is exactly as I recall it. The props master had failed to inspect the gun barrel for debris when he loaded the gun with blanks. When it was fired, the blank propelled the debris turning it into the fatal bullet.

That said, there are about as many conspiracy theories for the Bruce and Brandon deaths as there are for JFK's assassination :)

Doug

.

I missed that post. :o I've never heard of Hexum. I'll have to look him up and see who he is....uh, was.

[Ltvscout]

I also read reports of using model rocket motors as "bottle rockets"

I was doing a hobby convention in Ft washington PA, when a guy came up to me asking if he could put a "D" motor on a race car and use it that way. You know what my answer was ......NO.
I did both of these, many times, as a kid.

[Rocket Doctor]

We cannot ASSUME anything, property does not have to be posted PRIVATE PROPERTY to be PRIVATE.

You cannot go onto anyones property without permission, the same holds true to public parks, playgrounds , ballfields etc.

Where I live, you have to go before the school administration, sign documents and post a $1 million insurance policy inorder to go onto school grounds. And now it's even worse, with the homeland security rules and regulation, here in NJ, school property will have to be fenced in with chain link fencing and security cameras installed.

The owner of a local hobby shop and myself went before a Mayor and council inorder to secure the right to a field for monthly launches., several of the council members were saying how unsafe the hobby was, that the town would have to provide police coverage and the fire dept. Bottom line, the Mayor knew me and spoke up saying that it was a safe and worthwhile hobby and that permission shuld be granted, and it was.

On another occasion, I went before the shcool administration, same thing, several of the board member were saying how unsafe it was so forth and so on, one of the members who was familiar with the hobby spoke up and said that he was aware of the hobby and it's safety record and that permission should be granted, and it was.

The bottom line is EDUCATION, unless we encourage potential rocketeers into a club or NAR section, we cannot police what is going on. We can only do so much.

Being such a litigious society, even if you sneeze , you might get sued.

[ghrocketman]

When I fly on my OWN private land, the only code I follow is MY OWN safety code, which follows the NON IDIOTIC portions of the NAR code.
At a group launch, I follow whatever rules they have in place. If I don't like them, I don't fly; it's that simple.

I dropped my AMA membership about 3 years ago once I became inactive in my R/C club due to way too MANY other hobbies. Now getting back into R/C.

Don't even get me started on the numerous idiotic AMA rules such as you must have AMA to fly at AMA sanctioned fields even though their insurance MUST be secondary to your homeowners. What a racket....
The top rule I have a beef with AMA in regards to is turbine operation.
Turbines should be treated NO differently than ANY other propulsion source.
Flew for about 29 years (mostly pylon and pattern type aircraft) before going inactive in R/C; thinking about getting a turbine and flying private instead of at the old club just to thumb my nose to the AMA and their moronic rules toward turbines.

[Rocket Doctor]

Speaking about the AMA, down in South carolina , there was a flying club who required that you be a AMA member or you couldn't sit under their pavillion to watch the planes fly.

And, if you wanted a discount on fod at their snack bar, you had to present a AMA membership card.

[cas2047]

The bottom line is EDUCATION, unless we encourage potential rocketeers into a club or NAR section, we cannot police what is going on. We can only do so much.

Being such a litigious society, even if you sneeze , you might get sued.

You said it much better than I could have RD and I think you are spot-on!

[Jerry Irvine]

I don't know if many of you remember the early 70's or not, but model rocketry was downright popular. Something like 3% of the population was engaged in it in a year and public awareness of it and its safety was closer to 40%. The reasons for this are many, but some of the factors were, forward leaning on getting it adopted in schools and recreation programs, in retail stores, and by mail order. Rocketry launchings at public events, the notable one being the Super Bowl, but there many others after that seminal moment. That is what is needed to lean against the fear response of councils and authorities so when someone says model rocketry is unsafe or a terrorist risk, the rest of the room laughs rather than says, hmmmmmm.

Jerry

[Bill]

Speaking about the AMA, down in South carolina , there was a flying club who required that you be a AMA member or you couldn't sit under their pavillion to watch the planes fly.

That is so wrong.


And, if you wanted a discount on fod at their snack bar, you had to present a AMA membership card.

Nothing wrong with that - same racket as other groups of letters like the AARP or AAA.


Bill

[ghrocketman]

If the liability insurance provided by the AMA was PRIMARY coverage (which would be reasonable for the dues paid) it would be worthwhile and I could see the requirement at organized flying fields. As it is secondary, the price STINKS and the only thing that should be required at ALL flying fields should be proof of ANY SORT of liability insurance from ANY company.
Most homeowners and renters insurance covers liability for model aircraft that DOES NOT distinguish from piston vs. turbine propulsion.
The AMA themselves created the idiotic distinction between propulsion via turbine vs. ALL other propulsion sources. TOTAL STUPIDITY.

The AMA provides less benefit to the typical R/C aviator than NAR does for the typical rocket flier.
The ONLY thing the AMA does for the typical R/C aviator is to provide secondary insurance that in 95+% of incidents is not needed, thus is a HUGE waste of $$$.

[sam_midkiff]

<snip>

The AMA provides less benefit to the typical R/C aviator than NAR does for the typical rocket flier.
The ONLY thing the AMA does for the typical R/C aviator is to provide secondary insurance that in 95+% of incidents is not needed, thus is a HUGE waste of $$$.

I may be wrong, but I believe that the AMA also provides primary insurance for the landowner, which is often necessary to use their land. For example, our schools are very open to letting groups use their property for various activities, but you have to show that the school is not at the front of the line in the case of an accident.

I'll agree that for individual park flyers and people flying on their own property this makes no difference, which may be what you are referring to as the "typical RC aviator".

Sam

[Jerry Irvine]

I propose we have the Darwin Award with GHRocketman cluster that will be awarded to those individuals who succeed in doing themselves in by means of black powder.

I nominate Wan Hu, the Ming Dynasty astronaut, as the first recipient.
I nominate Alex McLaughlin. Someone who was alive during our lifetimes and made his winning attempt at the award at a TRA launch.

Jerry

[luke strawwalker]

That was Bruce Lee's son, Brandon on the set of the movie, The Crow. It was just a few days before the wrap. What killed him was a dislodged "dummy" bullet from a homemade dummy cartridge (bullet pulled, powder dumped, bullet re-seated) used to show bullets in a revolver cylinder. The blank, which in movies, is usually pretty hot to show lots of flash compared to a normal blank, drove the so called dummy bullet into his side. He was shot by another actor in a live scene.

Details are on Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandon_Lee


Didn't remember that one... I was recalling the show "Cover Up" and the actor previously linked to in another post...

From reading the story, apparently the particles didn't penetrate his skull and into the brain, but struck the skull hard enough to cause the inside layer of bone inside the skull to spall off a large chunk that then perforated his brain. He was braindead so he was flown somewhere for organ donation and returned to California for cremation.

Later! OL JR :)

[luke strawwalker]

No new law is going to stop someone intent on doing that. There are already laws against disorderly conduct, assault, reckless endangerment, etc. they can get him on if he did.


Bill

Yep... no more than license requirements and drunk driving laws stop drunk drivers... or pesticide license requirements stop improper pesticide application or use...

I have a FISTFUL of laws and regs and certifications and licenses I have to carry and deal with, but it ALL basically comes down to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and GOOD SENSE... and you can't legislate that...

Waste 4 hours a night for two nights every third year sitting in some LAME cert class watching the SAME OLD 80's MOVIES of a bus parked on the RR tracks getting hit by a train... yet we STILL have idiot drivers (lots of times it's COACHES trying to get to a game on time) that drive buses under the crossbars at RR crossings trying to beat the train... fortunately most incidents don't result in collisions...

Waste of time... OL JR :)

[luke strawwalker]

I'm not sure I made my point very well. I'm not talking about someone intending to point a rocket at someone, I'm talking about someone who just doesn't know any better. Maybe it's a very windy day and the angle of the rod, coupled with a gust of wind takes the rocket on a horizontal path towards someone. I just think that people who just go and buy a starter set having never seen a launch or been involved in the sport is taking much more risk when then go down to the local field than someone who understands the hobby. And not just risk to themselves, but to anyone who is in the area.

And I'm not advocating any additional rules or regulations. I'm just stating what I see as a fact.

Sounds like the X-15 thing...

How'd that ever turn out??

OL JR :)

[Doug Sams]

Sounds like the X-15 thing...

How'd that ever turn out?? I was told, by an expert witness, that it was settled out of court. As I recall, he never testified; it was settled fairly early on.

That said, from my perspective, it was a freak accident. I hate that it happened, that the kid got hurt, and that someone had to pony up big bucks. But I'm glad the kid's medical bills got paid.

Doug

.

[cas2047]

Sounds like the X-15 thing...

How'd that ever turn out??

OL JR :)

Was that the one where the boy scout got injured by a rocket??? I seem to remember that it was discussed on the forums a year or so back, but I couldn't find anything about it...

[PaulK]

I did both of these, many times, as a kid.Didn't we all? Gee was I surprised that the car didn't go straight down the road! Now how 'bout those weenies?

[o1d_dude]

http://www.celebritiesfans.com/Pic/terigarr.jpg

Now that's what this thread needed.

Seasonal, too.

[Ltvscout]

Didn't we all? Gee was I surprised that the car didn't go straight down the road! Now how 'bout those weenies?
I'd always put my car on a ramp to get it airborn. :D

[UMRS]

:chuckle: