Ye Olde Rocket Forum

Go Back   Ye Olde Rocket Forum > The Golden Age of Model Rocketry > Model Rocket History
User Name
Password
Auctions Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts Search Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-17-2015, 03:11 PM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default Regulatory changes over time

I contacted NAR President Pat Miller to recommend and suggest the MR mass limit be increased to allow for evolving photography and electronics payloads even within the current motor and propellant limits. Remember the then 113g propellant mass limits allowed a cluster of three APCP F motors. To say I contacted him does not do it justice. We had extensive two way correspondence on the matter and my advocating for the retained safety with the proposed changes. I also suggested making the mass limit 125g to allow for two 62.5g motors, the then DOT shipping limit for Class C (1.4). I actually suggested a 5 pound mass limit since increased mass rockets are actually safer due to lower performance. He appointed Trip Barber to do a report on the subject called the Blue Ribbon Commission. I attended NARAM PA that year and showed Trip a couple of MRT (MPR) rockets I brought with me. He took measurements of the airframes and inspected the motors and documented them in his report. So that report has U.S. Rockets kits in it. Once that report showed the increased safety from an increased mass limit, NAR got behind it for MRSC and NFPA. Later FAA also conformed to the new national standard of 125g/1500g. That's where we are today.

From Flyrockets.com :

==

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulates air space which effects most rocketry activities. Model Rockets enjoy relief from FAA regulations via Federal Aviation Regulations Part 101; see FAR101 at www.access.gpo.gov

Rockets weighing less than one pound and flying on less than 4 ounces of propellant, FAR 101 rockets, do not require notification of the FAA. Large Model Rockets, weighing between 1 and 3.3 lbs and flying on not more than 4.4 ounces of propellant, while not requiring a waiver from the FAA, require a phone call to the nearest FAA tower or airport for notification of the planned activity.

Waivers from the FAA are required to fly High Power Rockets weighing more than 3.3lbs and/or flying on greater than 4.4 ounces of propellant. While anyone may apply to the FAA for a waiver, this process is normally handled by a rocketry club officer, often the Launch Director. When granting waivers, the FAA reviews the normal use of the airspace for which a waiver has been requested to determine the feasibility of rerouting airplanes while launches are being held. Waivers to high altitudes are most readily granted for airspace that is not heavily used therefore, launch sites with high waivers are often many miles from large cities and airline traffic patterns. Waivers are granted in MSL or altitude above mean sea level. Waivers are often referred to in AGL, above ground level, a figure determined by subtracting the elevation of the launch site from the MSL altitude. For more information on the FAA see www.faa.gov.

==

It would be practical for lower end HPR, say up to 1250g propellant and no mass limit since more mass is less performance, to achieve this proven notification treatment and eliminate waivers for mid-range HPR. There have been no airspace incursions associated with HPR. Notification was used for MPR while FAA was considering including it in its entirety as Class 1. In a future iteration Class 1 could be expanded to include up to 1250g and no mass limit.

Lone Ranger HPR, here we come!

Reg Changer Jerry

Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 06-17-2015 at 03:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-17-2015, 04:01 PM
Bill's Avatar
Bill Bill is offline
I do not like Facebook
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Tejas
Posts: 3,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Irvine
It would be practical for lower end HPR, say up to 1250g propellant and no mass limit since more mass is less performance, to achieve this proven notification treatment and eliminate waivers for mid-range HPR. There have been no airspace incursions associated with HPR. Notification was used for MPR while FAA was considering including it in its entirety as Class 1. In a future iteration Class 1 could be expanded to include up to 1250g and no mass limit.

Lone Ranger HPR, here we come!

Reg Changer Jerry



Do you have any indication the FAA may loosen the regulations further or are you tilting at windmills again.

The original one pound total limit was probably arbitrary along the grounds that something that small is unlikely to damage aircraft even if someone tried and got in a lucky hit. Experience has shown that what we used to know as LMR need not be heavily regulated, so the FAA decided to stop doing it.

How high can more than 125g of propellant make a rocket go? The FAA is concerned with how high and they will not easily give up on regulating that aspect of rocketry. With waiver or authorization or whatever the official lingo may be, they are keeping a handle on it.


Bill
__________________
It is well past time to Drill, Baby, Drill!

If your June, July, August and September was like this, you might just hate summer too...

Please unload your question before you ask it unless you have a concealed harry permit.

: countdown begin cr dup . 1- ?dup 0= until cr ." Launch!" cr ;

Give a man a rocket and he will fly for a day; teach him to build and he will spend the rest of his days sanding...
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-17-2015, 04:18 PM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

Bill, you seem to naysay most of my proposals. However I am clearly not tilting at windmills since I have actually achieved what I wanted. It happens slowly, but it does happen.

No the FAA didn't "decide". Proposals were brought to FAA with a track record having already been established within MRSC and NFPA. As a result of my proposing it out of thin air, and getting support from NAR for the proposals over several years. Again a person doing effort, not some magical decision by a regulator.

This proposal is from my mind, and is based on facts of how regulations have changed in the past so the precedent of the process is well established.

To answer your question, a near optimum 125g pro rocket can go about 8500 feet altitude AGL.

The modal altitude for 1250g pro (about a K) for most HPR rockets is about 4-5000 feet. While there may be a theoretical optimum rocket that goes far higher than 8500 feet with a 1250g propellant rocket, its mass at altitude is under the 1500g of a current Class 1 model rocket.

Jerry

Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 06-17-2015 at 04:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-17-2015, 04:23 PM
Bill's Avatar
Bill Bill is offline
I do not like Facebook
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Tejas
Posts: 3,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Irvine
Bill, you seem to naysay most of my proposals. However I am clearly not tilting at windmills since I have actually achieved what I wanted. It happens slowly, but it does happen.



Good. Carry on. I hope to live long enough to see it.

If you need an easy short-term project, get rid of the 128 N average thrust limit so that all G motors other than sparkies and hybrids can be Class 1. You do that and I am a believer...


Bill
__________________
It is well past time to Drill, Baby, Drill!

If your June, July, August and September was like this, you might just hate summer too...

Please unload your question before you ask it unless you have a concealed harry permit.

: countdown begin cr dup . 1- ?dup 0= until cr ." Launch!" cr ;

Give a man a rocket and he will fly for a day; teach him to build and he will spend the rest of his days sanding...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-17-2015, 04:30 PM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill
Good. Carry on. I hope to live long enough to see it.
If you need an easy short-term project, get rid of the 128 N average thrust limit so that all G motors other than sparkies and hybrids can be Class 1. You do that and I am a believer...
Bill
How about you? You don't need to "do it" to make it happen either. You can lobby the members of the NFPA committee to advocate changes to the specific rule or regulation you reference. I would start with Aerotech and CTI and NAR and make a case like I have done for my issues. They are the ones that made up the rules we referenced here "out of thin air".

I made the very first sparkys and there was considerable opposition by the model rocket lobby including Vern Estes himself and there was testing and it is now allowed. It's not all that hard and it's not even costly. It does take time.

While you are unifying G motors, also have the NAR certify motors up to 125g, the FAA exempt limit. They have an arbitrary 160 N-s power limit per motor. Those two proposals seem related in how they should be addressed.

Jerry

Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 06-17-2015 at 04:57 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-17-2015, 04:53 PM
ghrocketman's Avatar
ghrocketman ghrocketman is offline
President, MAYHEM AGITATORS, Inc.
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Nunya Bizznuss, Michigan
Posts: 13,443
Default

I would love to see HPR up to mid-K and 5Kg/12Lb mass unregulated.
This would be the free-fer-all I would liiiiiiiiiiiike.
Make it true no harm=NO FOUL rocketry.
No certs, no waivers, and NO insurance.
YUK YUK YUK.
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!!

Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL
, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't !

Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY.
ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC !
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-17-2015, 09:36 PM
luke strawwalker's Avatar
luke strawwalker luke strawwalker is offline
BAR
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Needville and Shiner, TX
Posts: 6,134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill
Good. Carry on. I hope to live long enough to see it.

If you need an easy short-term project, get rid of the 128 N average thrust limit so that all G motors other than sparkies and hybrids can be Class 1. You do that and I am a believer...


Bill


Exactly... that's what's SO stupid about the regs as they read now... NO CONSISTENCY...

Basically, TWO G motors in a rocket is still "model rocketry", while an equivalent (or less powerful even) H motor is NOT??

Either go by the propellant mass, or by the total impulse, NOT BOTH. We know full well the theoretical amount of propulsion we can get out of a given mass of a given propellant because the theoretical specific impulse of every commonly available propellant combination is well known and understood... So why then say "well, "X" amount of propellant is okay, unless it's so packaged or of a given formulation to produce more than "Y" total impulse, in which case, it's now regulated as HPR..."

Just stupid... Same thing with the shipping regs, which should line up with the propellant mass regs... but that's another kettle of fish...

Later! OL JR
__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 06-17-2015, 09:48 PM
Bill's Avatar
Bill Bill is offline
I do not like Facebook
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Tejas
Posts: 3,087
Default

Actually, I made a misteak. What I meant to say was 80 N average thrust instead of 128 N. I have been staring at hexadecimal too much in recent weeks as a result of hacking code instead of flying rockets.

Why is a G80 fine when a CTI G126 is not allowed at a Class 1 launch? That makes absolutely no sense to me. For some reason, the G126 is not considered to be "slow burning." So it requires certification and 1500 feet of separation, blah, blah, blah...


Bill
__________________
It is well past time to Drill, Baby, Drill!

If your June, July, August and September was like this, you might just hate summer too...

Please unload your question before you ask it unless you have a concealed harry permit.

: countdown begin cr dup . 1- ?dup 0= until cr ." Launch!" cr ;

Give a man a rocket and he will fly for a day; teach him to build and he will spend the rest of his days sanding...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 06-17-2015, 10:09 PM
Jerry Irvine's Avatar
Jerry Irvine Jerry Irvine is offline
Freeform rocketry advocate.
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Claremont, CA "The intellectual capitol of the world."-WSJ
Posts: 3,780
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill
Actually, I made a misteak. What I meant to say was 80 N average thrust instead of 128 N. I have been staring at hexadecimal too much in recent weeks as a result of hacking code instead of flying rockets.

Why is a G80 fine when a CTI G126 is not allowed at a Class 1 launch? That makes absolutely no sense to me. For some reason, the G126 is not considered to be "slow burning." So it requires certification and 1500 feet of separation, blah, blah, blah...
Bill
The 80N rule comes from CPSC. It is arbitrary but applies to minors. NAR/TRA could have better said for motors over 80N you have to be over 18 years old. I was in the meeting and suggested it!!

There you go. First hand info.

It is not an FAA (Class 1) restriction.

It might be a TRA Level 1 consumer cert difference however. A CLUB rule, not a law or regulation at all.

The 1500 foot madness is because it is considered HPR not MR. Compare the offset distances. Malicious rules to try to kill HPR, which frankly worked great! 20 years later 3500 worldwide certified users.

Bill, details matter on rules.

Just Jerry

"I wish I'd never even heard of HPR." - Dane Boles, Senior NFPA Committee member
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-17-2015, 10:32 PM
Bill's Avatar
Bill Bill is offline
I do not like Facebook
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: North Tejas
Posts: 3,087
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry Irvine
The 80N rule comes from CPSC. It is arbitrary but applies to minors. NAR/TRA could have better said for motors over 80N you have to be over 18 years old. I was in the meeting and suggested it!!

There you go. First hand info.

It is not an FAA (Class 1) restriction.

It might be a TRA Level 1 consumer cert difference however. A CLUB rule, not a law or regulation at all.

The 1500 foot madness is because it is considered HPR not MR. Compare the offset distances. Malicious rules to try to kill HPR, which frankly worked great! 20 years later 3500 worldwide certified users.

Bill, details matter on rules.



So are you saying it is not covered by §101.22 (a) (2) Uses a slow-burning propellant;


Bill
__________________
It is well past time to Drill, Baby, Drill!

If your June, July, August and September was like this, you might just hate summer too...

Please unload your question before you ask it unless you have a concealed harry permit.

: countdown begin cr dup . 1- ?dup 0= until cr ." Launch!" cr ;

Give a man a rocket and he will fly for a day; teach him to build and he will spend the rest of his days sanding...
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:20 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe © 1998-2024