Tripoli booting FAR?

[troj]

The wording of the announcement also makes it seem like FAR is doing something "unsafe" or has a culture of bad safety practices.

I don't take it that way at all. I take it as "FAR's practices are not compatible with Tripoli's Safety Code and thus, Tripoli's insurance."

I really wouldn't read anything more than that into it.

-Kevin

 

[tsmith1315]

@Steve Shannon said in post 67 he does not use the Tripoli landowner form but he has land owner written position. There are then comments about needing land owner permission in writing.

Steve said in that post that he does have written permission and makes sure the landowner gets the certificate. That's what the TRA Landowner form is all about, having the insurance company add the launch site to the policy and issue proof. Otherwise, you have no proof in case of an accident and the insurance company can call foul.

It is not clear if Tripoli has a process to say "no" to new launch sites that meet all the code requirements.

There's information on the form that would allow TRA to evaluate the launch site. It's simply the site location and permission from the landowner to use it.

As you are the LCO at the site, you are responsible for ensuring code is followed. If not, insurance will deny a claim and you're the one left holding the bag.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Steve said in that post that he does have written permission and makes sure the landowner gets the certificate. That's what the TRA Landowner form is all about, having the insurance company add the launch site to the policy and issue proof. Otherwise, you have no proof in case of an accident and the insurance company can call foul.



There's information on the form that would allow TRA to evaluate the launch site. It's simply the site location and permission from the landowner to use it.

As you are the LCO at the site, you are responsible for ensuring code is followed. If not, insurance will deny a claim and you're the one left holding the bag.

Agreed 100% on the code. I am just saying the form is not necessary and the information is purely technical. I do not believe from that thread there is any process to reject a site that meets the codes.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

I don't take it that way at all. I take it as "FAR's practices are not compatible with Tripoli's Safety Code and thus, Tripoli's insurance."

I really wouldn't read anything more than that into it.

-Kevin

I should have been more clear on my interpretation. For example the second paragraph has the word "culture", which usually refers to the mentality of practices and procedures. If the crux of the concern was just over bunkers, I do not think that language would have been used. What you wrote would have been a lot nicer if the issues were purely technical rather than cultural. Either way it would be nice to know more of what exactly happened and the specific concerns. I am not looking to cast a negative light on anyone and happy to discuss offline.

 

[OzHybrid]

As Tripoli has specifically excluded FAR. Does this now mean that to be covered by FAR insurance, you would have to be a member of FAR. OR.... does FAR insurance cover approved visitors?
Is there anyone from FAR on this forum who can answer these questions? Or are they still figuring out what this means?

 

[cwbullet]

GOOD MOVE based on the evidence.

 

[jsdemar]

Agreed 100% on the code. I am just saying the form is not necessary and the information is purely technical. I do not believe from that thread there is any process to reject a site that meets the codes.

Alex, the thread is old. The info on the TRA website is current. The launch needs to be "insured", which means the form to get landowner permission. I'm not going to rehash this all again.

 

[cwbullet]

Alex, the thread is old. The info on the TRA website is current. The launch needs to be "insured", which means the form to get landowner permission. I'm not going to rehash this all again.

Good point.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

I do not wish to make any more comments on this publicly nor lawyer the definition of a sanctioned launch. If anyone reading this actually plans to fly rockets at their own site, I recommend reviewing their plans directly with Tripoli whether or not it is "required". Tripoli is a good club and they will be helpful!

 

[High Desert Rocketry]

The NAR Board may be discussing the FAR site soon enough according to a post by a board member. TRA is just saying they will not insure anyone flying from the FAR site, FAR should have their own insurance (it is Kalifornia after all). TRA's insurance provider may have been the one to put their foot down, since they have to pay out if something goes wrong.

One of the reasons I heard given for the sudden change was the P motor CATO from CU Boulders Mamba 2 where pieces of propellant (which was of questionable quality aka spongy like bread according to one source which I cant confirm) actually entered through a bunker window and destroyed equipment and people were in the near bunkers not observing the required safe distances. Sounds like there were a number of bad decisions that led up to this event and maybe a lax safety culture at the site in general. The P motor CATO video was REALLY spectacular though!

I opened up FAR Friday after work and left Saturday when the waiver closed so I was not there Sunday when this happened but from what I heard talking to people there is that the forward bulkhead blew propellant up in the air and a piece fell through the Quonset skylight, not a bunker window. No one was in there at the time because they were in the bunkers. Since this was not a Tripoli launch, their insurance provider would not be involved.

 

[TheTank]

The NAR Board may be discussing the FAR site soon enough according to a post by a board member. TRA is just saying they will not insure anyone flying from the FAR site, FAR should have their own insurance (it is Kalifornia after all). TRA's insurance provider may have been the one to put their foot down, since they have to pay out if something goes wrong.

One of the reasons I heard given for the sudden change was the P motor CATO from CU Boulders Mamba 2 where pieces of propellant (which was of questionable quality aka spongy like bread according to one source which I cant confirm) actually entered through a bunker window and destroyed equipment and people were in the near bunkers not observing the required safe distances. Sounds like there were a number of bad decisions that led up to this event and maybe a lax safety culture at the site in general. The P motor CATO video was REALLY spectacular though!

That’s what I would be concerned with, a hot propellant grain or part of one flying in through the openings and creating a burn box with people inside of it.

 

[TheTank]

I don't take it that way at all. I take it as "FAR's practices are not compatible with Tripoli's Safety Code and thus, Tripoli's insurance."

I really wouldn't read anything more than that into it.

-Kevin

Exactly. It doesn't get much simpler than that yet the need to go down a rabbit hole of worry and concern just cant escape some especially when 99.9% of the time, a similar situation or risk wont exist.

 

[rharshberger]

I opened up FAR Friday after work and left Saturday when the waiver closed so I was not there Sunday when this happened but from what I heard talking to people there is that the forward bulkhead blew propellant up in the air and a piece fell through the Quonset skylight, not a bunker window. No one was in there at the time because they were in the bunkers. Since this was not a Tripoli launch, their insurance provider would not be involved.

thanks for the correction on that Rick.

 

[rcktnut]

I don't see why Tripoli is so concerned in the first place over an incident that happened and not insured by them. I'm sure there has been many more incidents out there with what they "play" with.

 

[jsdemar]

I don't see why Tripoli is so concerned in the first place over an incident that happened and not insured by them. I'm sure there has been many more incidents out there with what they "play" with.

The TRA announcement could have been clearer. It's just a reminder. There were people who assumed their Tripoli membership covered them with insurance at FAR. Also, there have been Tripoli Class 3 submissions for flights at FAR. The site doesn't have the safe distances and clear radius required for NFPA 1127 or the Tripoli Safety Code. The types of rockets flown overlaps for FAR and TRA. Both can be done safely.

 

[cwbullet]

The TRA announcement could have been clearer. It's just a reminder. There were people who assumed their Tripoli membership covered them with insurance at FAR. Also, there have been Tripoli Class 3 submissions for flights at FAR. The site doesn't have the safe distances and clear radius required for NFPA 1127 or the Tripoli Safety Code. The types of rockets flown overlaps for FAR and TRA. Both can be done safely.

I also think that it is smart for Tripoli to distance itself from FAR.

 

[shockie]

Nevermind.

 

[roc]

This has all been very informative -- thank you. As different groups and organizations -- some overlapping, some not -- attempt to be safe, insured, and communicate with one another.... how does the average flier have confidence that the organizations won't just start pointing fingers at each other to rationalize disqualifications for insurance coverage should something go wrong? It seems everyone agrees there is SOME amount of risk. And everyone works to minimize those risks as they should. Nevertheless, from time to time something surely must go wrong. This is the point of insurance in the first place, after all. But what then? If a NAR flier can't participate in a TRA launch at the FAR site... etc.

I'm not really saying anything much. Just has me thinking...

 

[OzHybrid]

This has all been very informative -- thank you. As different groups and organizations -- some overlapping, some not -- attempt to be safe, insured, and communicate with one another.... how does the average flier have confidence that the organizations won't just start pointing fingers at each other to rationalize disqualifications for insurance coverage should something go wrong? It seems everyone agrees there is SOME amount of risk. And everyone works to minimize those risks as they should. Nevertheless, from time to time something surely must go wrong. This is the point of insurance in the first place, after all. But what then? If a NAR flier can't participate in a TRA launch at the FAR site... etc.

I'm not really saying anything much. Just has me thinking...

Which insurance company are you from?

 

[bad_idea]

So if you are a Tripoli member, you will not be insured if you take some LPR rockets and the kids to a local park or school field where permitted to fly for a launch?

It is not clear if Tripoli has a process to say "no" to new launch sites that meet all the code requirements.

There is a form for the landowner to ensure they are notified to Tripoli insurance. There is nothing to say that completion of it is compulsory, but if you read between the lines, any insurance company is not going to accept liability for a risk they have not been notified of prior to a claim.

According to the TRA insurance page, the launch site has to be approved for the insurance to be valid. That page seems to imply that this approval is based on the data in the landowner form. NAR insurance does not seem to have this "approved site" stipulation, though like TRA insurance, it is only valid for activities conforming to the organization's safety code.

This announcement is TRA saying that launches at FAR that do conform to the TRA safety code (most FAR launches do not) will no longer be insured, because FAR is no longer an approved launch location. It's my understanding that in the past FAR would occasionally set up pads at distances approved by TRA and NAR for specific flights (which I'd guess were cert flights), but that this was a very infrequent event. I think everyone who is familiar with FAR is aware that the overwhelming majority of their activities would not be covered by TRA (or NAR) insurance even prior to this announcement.

 

[Tech 68]

When I left California in 2011, I possessed a California State Fire Marshall Rockets #2 License, which without FAR, I never would have been able to get (RRS seemed to not be all that interested in helping).
The dilemma is that California won't let you fly high power (Tripoli or NAR) without a Rockets #3 "ticket. A Rockets #1 lets you be a Range Master and unlicensed folks can fly under your supervision, which, to my understanding is how LDRS 29 succeeded.
Possibly things have changed, but it might be nice to maintain some sort of working relationship with FAR... this vaguely seems like NAR vs Tripoli in the early days. I understand the insurance/safety issue, but maybe we shouldn't draw lines in the sand.

 

[Frederocket]

The NAR Board may be discussing the FAR site soon enough according to a post by a board member. TRA is just saying they will not insure anyone flying from the FAR site, FAR should have their own insurance (it is Kalifornia after all). TRA's insurance provider may have been the one to put their foot down, since they have to pay out if something goes wrong.

One of the reasons I heard given for the sudden change was the P motor CATO from CU Boulders Mamba 2 where pieces of propellant (which was of questionable quality aka spongy like bread according to one source which I cant confirm) actually entered through a bunker window and destroyed equipment and people were in the near bunkers not observing the required safe distances. Sounds like there were a number of bad decisions that led up to this event and maybe a lax safety culture at the site in general. The P motor CATO video was REALLY spectacular though!

If the information in your last paragraph is true, then the action taken by the TRA BOD has some validity. However, that still does not openly/completly explain, from the TRA BOD, the details of their decision. The devil is always in the details and so for, (IMO), we have the devil, with incomplete details.

 

[rfjustin]

The NAR Board may be discussing the FAR site soon enough according to a post by a board member. TRA is just saying they will not insure anyone flying from the FAR site, FAR should have their own insurance (it is Kalifornia after all). TRA's insurance provider may have been the one to put their foot down, since they have to pay out if something goes wrong.

One of the reasons I heard given for the sudden change was the P motor CATO from CU Boulders Mamba 2 where pieces of propellant (which was of questionable quality aka spongy like bread according to one source which I cant confirm) actually entered through a bunker window and destroyed equipment and people were in the near bunkers not observing the required safe distances. Sounds like there were a number of bad decisions that led up to this event and maybe a lax safety culture at the site in general. The P motor CATO video was REALLY spectacular though!

Video link to said CATO?

Hopefully not on the BookofFace.

 

[Frederocket]

Video link to said CATO?

Hopefully not on the BookofFace.

Out of curiosity, would like to see that video also.

 

[krislhull]

Video link to said CATO?

Braden of RocketVlogs caught it....

 

[jsdemar]

Out of curiosity, would like to see that video also.

A group was about 1/2 miles or so away and took this video. You can see how far some of the grain were projected. One grain went through the skylight of the prep building and started a fire inside.

This also shows why 2000 ft is a good safe distance.

 

[Frederocket]

Braden of RocketVlogs caught it....

Times have changed, with safe distances being realized more and enforced to a greater degree. This video appears to be a good example of why.

 

[Frederocket]

A group was about 1/2 miles or so away and took this video. You can see how far some of the grain were projected. One grain went through the skylight of the prep building and started a fire inside.

This also shows why 2000 ft is a good safe distance.

Even a better video for perspective...

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

A group was about 1/2 miles or so away and took this video. You can see how far some of the grain were projected. One grain went through the skylight of the prep building and started a fire inside.

This also shows why 2000 ft is a good safe distance.

Trying to stay out of this but I have a technical questions. That video looks much closer than 1/2 mile. 1/2 mile is far enough away to barely see anything unless a good camera lens is used. Also the sound would take approximately 2 seconds to reach the observer at that distance. I could not detect much sound delay in the video but it is hard to tell. Can you provide any details or confirmation on how far that video is from?

 

[wsume99]

From the video... maybe a "heads up" instead of laughing at the massive CATO would be a better idea