Regulatory changes over time

[Jerry Irvine]

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

[Bill]

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

[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.

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

[Bill]

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

[Jerry Irvine]

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...
BillHow 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

[ghrocketman]

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.

[luke strawwalker]

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 :)

[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

[Jerry Irvine]

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...
BillThe 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

[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.



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


Bill

[Jerry Irvine]

So are you saying it is not covered by §101.22 (a) (2) Uses a slow-burning propellant;
Bill§101.22 (a) (2) (update, from Federal Aviation Regulations). But generally no. Details matter.

Even USR BK (H640 29mm) uses a slow burning propellant. It is an arbitrary thrust rule to protect children from CTI F120's. Duh.

cites:

http://rocketrycenter.com/showthread.php?tid=29

http://qq11ll8gaw.talkiforum.com/20150517/is-it-time-to-rethink-motor-certification-by--4781260/

[Jerry Irvine]

I find it quite interesting that NAR's premier program, TARC is squarely a MPR program. Using rockets that regularly are over a pound, carry extensive payloads and devices, powered by F ish power.

With some 1000 teams of 4 or so folks per team and all the supporters in terms of parents, teachers, administrators, sponsors, mentors, it is quite a large operation every year, year after year.

The consequences of the program are even more interesting when you see the teams in action. These are really smart, motivated people who spend a lot of their mindshare thinking about the next step, college. Some even thinking internships.

If this is the consequence of widespread LMR, one wonders what incremental benefit might be achieved by a general access category of HPR in the 1250g range.

I say let's see.

Jerry

[Jerry Irvine]

The actual motor burn time threshold for CPSC is 0.05 sec. Some micro-max motors tickle that limit due to sheer tiny scale. No model rocket motors, even AT Warp 9 or CTI V-max come close to that. Furthermore when not contained in a motor under pressure, all these propellants have a burning rate of around 2mm/s or less, a slow burning solid.

I have made commercial motors in that burn time range and even less, but even those motors used slow burning solid propellants specially configured to achieve the outcome.

Jerry

[LeeR]

This thread is a reminder to me why I gave up on HPR 10 or so years ago. All the regulation took a lot of the fun out of what was supposed to be a hobby, and an escape from the daily grind and hassles of work.

I do applaud the time and financial investment of so many to make HPR easier. I just found I wanted to get back to a simpler hobby with model rocketry.

I got started in model rocketry in the early 60s, and living in Colorado, visited Estes Industries several times back in the good old days when you could get a really great tour. We met Vern and family on one trip, and got a personal tour by Bill Simon. I still have a copy of a order I placed in 1966 while in Penrose on that tour.

For me, as a BAR, it has always been about building and creating rockets I loved in my youth.

[luke strawwalker]

Agree Lee...

I'm categorically against the idea of getting a "certification" and jumping through all those hoops for a *HOBBY*, which is supposedly a *LEISURE* activity...

I have enough hoops to jump through in real life, especially running two farms. NO WAY will I submit to MORE rigamarole just to spend more money on a somewhat bigger but less frequent "whoosh, pop"... LOL:)

Later! OL JR :)

[Jerry Irvine]

I wish the current NAR President was reading this thread.

[ghrocketman]

Quite frankly I'd like to see HPR go back to the "Wild Wild West" free-fer-all it originally was with next to zero regs.