Tripoli booting FAR?

[roc]

What's the explanation for TRA removing the Friends of Amateur Rocketry from the insurance? According to this, some recent video made it seem unsafe? So maybe the important question is: what was this video? It has sure seemed to me that FAR gets a lot of young people interested in rocketry....

 

[justforfun]

https://tripoli.org/content.aspx?page_id=5&club_id=795696&item_id=100661

 

[jsdemar]

Tripoli insurance was never valid at FAR. It only applies to Tripoli launches. The announcement is just a reminder.

 

[Reinhard]

Tripoli insurance was never valid at FAR. It only applies to Tripoli launches. The announcement is just a reminder.

It's my understanding that in the past it was at least theoretically possible to have a launch covered by TRA insurance by observing the safety code (e.g. safety distances, regardless of the bunkers, no biprops), but the new statement from the TRA BOD now categorically rules out the FAR site regardless how the launch is conducted.

Reinhard

 

[jsdemar]

It's my understanding that in the past it was at least theoretically possible to have a launch covered by TRA insurance by observing the safety code (e.g. safety distances, regardless of the bunkers, no biprops), but the new statement from the TRA BOD now categorically rules out the FAR site regardless how the launch is conducted.

Reinhard

NAR insurance covers you wherever you launch as long as the safety code is followed. This isn’t the case with TRA. But for the purpose of a certification flight, it can take place anywhere the safety code is followed and the waiver is valid. That doesn’t mean the insurance is active.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Tripoli insurance was never valid at FAR. It only applies to Tripoli launches. The announcement is just a reminder.

That is my understanding as well. I asked @Steve Shannon for a clarification on facebook. The announcements is a little confusing since it makes it seem as though FAR was once covered and now they are revoking it. The wording of the announcement also makes it seem like FAR is doing something "unsafe" or has a culture of bad safety practices.

This should be confirmed but the discussion on facebook suggest the main issue is FAR uses bunkers rather than distance for launching rockets.

I have personally been in those bunkers and found them to be a far safer solution than the safe distance table for most if not all situations in amateur rocketry. The bunker safety solution unfortunately is impractical for organizations that only have temporary access to their launch site so they are likely going to be rare nation and world wide.

It would be great if Tripoli would rephrase the announcement to clarify if FAR was ever covered in the past. Also assuming the main issue is the bunkers, they should just mention that Tripoli insurance is not able to cover that unique safety measure and leave it there to avoid a negative tone on FAR. There could be other safety issues not mentioned, and it would be nice to know to better understand the situation.

 

[jsdemar]

I have personally been in those bunkers and found them to be a far safer solution than the safe distance table for most if not all situations in amateur rocketry. The bunker safety solution unfortunately is impractical for organizations that only have temporary access to their launch site so they are likely going to be rare nation and world wide.

I've also been in the FAR bunkers. It's relatively safe there for certain types of failures. Their underground bunker is much safer for more situations. But, extra distance is the best way to avoid debris from a CATO (on the pad or during boost).

First, there's a debris radius which is fairly well known for the size of the motor involved. This can be seen in the recent P cato at FAR: everything fell within a 250 ft radius. The difference at FAR as compared to a TRA launch is that the FAR bunkers, buildings, vehicles, and other launch pads are all within the 250 ft radius. At a Tripoli launch, the safe distance for a P is 2000 ft. One of the videos of the recent P cato was taken from about that distance: spectacular view but well outside the debris field. Second, the extra distance equals extra time to react if a piece heads your way. There's no time to react in a bunker at 200 ft if a chunk goes through the open viewing gap or through the roof. And third, your body and other assets occupy a smaller fraction of a degree at increased distance... the probability of coinciding with the path of a chunk is reduced by 2*pi for each doubling of distance. If one includes the limits on types of metals, reducing the ballistic coefficient, the probability is further reduced.

Insurance underwriters take all these factors into consideration. So, why doesn't FAR increase the distances to allow them to get the same insurance as Tripoli? They have no choice because the land they own is about 10 acres (660 x 660 ft). Even just for an M it requires special placement of the pad and people to get 500 ft. Another requirement to meet TRA safety code (and NAR and NFPA 1127) is to have 1500 ft from occupied buildings. If people are present at the adjacent RRS site, it's difficult to comply. Even if a pad were set up at the furthest point on the south end of FAR's property, almost all the RRS site falls within 1500 ft to the north. There's little or no coordination between the two groups when scheduling. There was definitely an effort to avoid interfering before the student group's P launch because the rocket was taken down and the pad was moved further south.

With that said, FAR is a unique place to test projects that otherwise wouldn't fit in with the focus of other rocketry organizations and launch sites. The TRA announcement makes it clear that Tripoli's insurance doesn't cover a TRA member's activities there. A reminder that you're on your own liability when at FAR. That's also reinforced by having to sign a liability waiver at FAR. Hopefully, everyone who attends understands the differences and the risks.

 

[mikec]

The TRA announcement makes it clear that Tripoli's insurance doesn't cover a TRA member's activities there. A reminder that you're on your own liability when at FAR.

I'm not 100% sure from the info on the website if TRA insurance doesn't cover flying at a non-TRA-sanctioned launch being conducted fully under the safety code (NAR's does) and it would be good for TRA to clarify if that's the case.

The thing that irritates me about this is the suddenness and lack of transparency, which sadly is not unusual for TRA and definitely influenced who I just voted for in the BOD election.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

I'm not 100% sure from the info on the website if TRA insurance doesn't cover flying at a non-TRA-sanctioned launch being conducted fully under the safety code (NAR's does) and it would be good for TRA to clarify if that's the case.

The thing that irritates me about this is the suddenness and lack of transparency, which sadly is not unusual for TRA and definitely influenced who I just voted for in the BOD election.

That is precisely my question as well. Nowhere in the Tripoli statement is there a reminder or information that FAR or other non Tripoli groups were ever covered. I hope they provide some public clarification.

 

[jsdemar]

That is precisely my question as well. Nowhere in the Tripoli statement is there a reminder or information that FAR or other non Tripoli groups were ever covered. I hope they provide some public clarification.

See: https://www.tripoli.org/Insurance

Member insurance helps protect members from liabilities arising out of TRA rocketry activities held at approved launch locations.​

​

Approved insured Rocketry Organization: Any rocketry organization that TRA has insurance reciprocity with. At this writing this includes NAR only.​

​

Sanctioned Launch​

Also called Insured Launch. Any launch of a rocket that meets ALL of the following constraints:​

• Responsible person of launch shall be member of Tripoli in good standing.
• Follows the appropriate Tripoli Safety Code.
• Legal: All AHJ (e.g. FAA waiver) requirements/regulations met and any required permits secured.
• Landowner permission/constraints followed

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

I've also been in the FAR bunkers. It's relatively safe there for certain types of failures. Their underground bunker is much safer for more situations. But, extra distance is the best way to avoid debris from a CATO (on the pad or during boost).

First, there's a debris radius which is fairly well known for the size of the motor involved. This can be seen in the recent P cato at FAR: everything fell within a 250 ft radius. The difference at FAR as compared to a TRA launch is that the FAR bunkers, buildings, vehicles, and other launch pads are all within the 250 ft radius. At a Tripoli launch, the safe distance for a P is 2000 ft. One of the videos of the recent P cato was taken from about that distance: spectacular view but well outside the debris field. Second, the extra distance equals extra time to react if a piece heads your way. There's no time to react in a bunker at 200 ft if a chunk goes through the open viewing gap or through the roof. And third, your body and other assets occupy a smaller fraction of a degree at increased distance... the probability of coinciding with the path of a chunk is reduced by 2*pi for each doubling of distance. If one includes the limits on types of metals, reducing the ballistic coefficient, the probability is further reduced.

Insurance underwriters take all these factors into consideration. So, why doesn't FAR increase the distances to allow them to get the same insurance as Tripoli? They have no choice because the land they own is about 10 acres (660 x 660 ft). Even just for an M it requires special placement of the pad and people to get 500 ft. Another requirement to meet TRA safety code (and NAR and NFPA 1127) is to have 1500 ft from occupied buildings. If people are present at the adjacent RRS site, it's difficult to comply. Even if a pad were set up at the furthest point on the south end of FAR's property, almost all the RRS site falls within 1500 ft to the north. There's little or no coordination between the two groups when scheduling. There was definitely an effort to avoid interfering before the student group's P launch because the rocket was taken down and the pad was moved further south.

With that said, FAR is a unique place to test projects that otherwise wouldn't fit in with the focus of other rocketry organizations and launch sites. The TRA announcement makes it clear that Tripoli's insurance doesn't cover a TRA member's activities there. A reminder that you're on your own liability when at FAR. That's also reinforced by having to sign a liability waiver at FAR. Hopefully, everyone who attends understands the differences and the risks.

I am not following your 2*pi scaling for doubling the distance. I am getting a simple square law by assuming surface area as a cross section but I could be oversimplifying.

Also I was thinking about the underground bunkers they use. I agree that from a Cato 2000 ft of distance is plenty safe. The cross section of the underground bunkers at FAR is fairly small and they also have limited space and limit the number of people which also limits the probability of an accident.

Anyway it would be best for members of FAR to discuss or defend their safety practices. From what I have seen and calculated, their approach seems safer than NFPA codes, however I have very limited data of FAR.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

See: https://www.tripoli.org/Insurance

Member insurance helps protect members from liabilities arising out of TRA rocketry activities held at approved launch locations.​

​

Approved insured Rocketry Organization: Any rocketry organization that TRA has insurance reciprocity with. At this writing this includes NAR only.​

​

Sanctioned Launch​

Also called Insured Launch. Any launch of a rocket that meets ALL of the following constraints:​

• Responsible person of launch shall be member of Tripoli in good standing.
• Follows the appropriate Tripoli Safety Code.
• Legal: All AHJ (e.g. FAA waiver) requirements/regulations met and any required permits secured.
• Landowner permission/constraints followed

Okay now I am very confused. This suggest Tripoli members who follow all the rules are covered at a private launch. Until somebody from the Tripoli BoD clarifies I would not assume coverage unless the event itself is sanctioned by Tripoli.

 

[jsdemar]

I am not following your 2*pi scaling for doubling the distance. I am getting a simple square law by assuming surface area as a cross section but I could be oversimplifying.

Linear circumference, same size object at increased distance, equals smaller angle by 2*r*pi. Much hand waving involved.

Also I was thinking about the underground bunkers they use. I agree that from a Cato 2000 ft of distance is plenty safe. The cross section of the underground bunkers at FAR is fairly small and they also have limited space and limit the number of people which also limits the probability of an accident.

Only limits the risk for those people actually in the bunker. FAR is allowing a large number of people at the site recently.

Anyway it would be best for members of FAR to discuss or defend their safety practices. From what I have seen and calculated, their approach seems safer than NFPA codes, however I have very limited data of FAR.

I don't agree. The FAR procedures are the best they can do with their small 10 acre property. It's always safer to be be farther away from a CATO or any such danger in other walks of life.

 

[jsdemar]

Okay now I am very confused. This suggest Tripoli members who follow all the rules are covered at a private launch. Until somebody from the Tripoli BoD clarifies I would not assume coverage unless the event itself is sanctioned by Tripoli.

I don't see how that implies private launches at all. It only additionally allows NAR insured launches with a Tripoli member in charge. One should not selectively choose portions of the clarification points shown there.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

I don't see how that implies private launches at all. It only additionally allows NAR insured launches with a Tripoli member in charge. One should not selectively choose portions of the clarification points shown there.

The four bullets for what you quoted state nothing about the club/launch being pre approved or in some way being Tripoli sanctioned. I should probably go look directly at the Tripoli site but I still prefer a direct clarification from Tripoli since it is an important question.

 

[tsmith1315]

This suggest Tripoli members who follow all the rules are covered at a private launch. Until somebody from the Tripoli BoD clarifies I would not assume coverage unless the event itself is sanctioned by Tripoli.

A TRA "Sanctioned" launch is one conducted by TRA members, following TRA rules. There's no official "we want to have a launch" application. Read the definition here:
https://www.tripoli.org/Insurance

Private launches are sanctioned, landowner approval should be submitted to TRA and they will issue an insurance certificate. It's been discussed here before:

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/unsanctioned-hpr-launches.169599/post-2209357

 

[jsdemar]

The four bullets for what you quoted state nothing about the club/launch being pre approved or in some way being Tripoli sanctioned. I should probably go look directly at the Tripoli site but I still prefer a direct clarification from Tripoli since it is an important question.

Again, don't choose selectively from the information on that page. It's an insured launch if you have arranged for site insurance ("sanctioned") and it is run by a Tripoli member under all safety codes and legal requirements. The exception is a NAR insured launch with a Tripoli member in charge. (The same carrier insures both organizations, so I was told).

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Linear circumference, same size object at increased distance, equals smaller angle by 2*r*pi. Much hand waving involved.

Only limits the risk for those people actually in the bunker. FAR is allowing a large number of people at the site recently.

I don't agree. The FAR procedures are the best they can do with their small 10 acre property. It's always safer to be be farther away from a CATO or any such danger in other walks of life.

If the projectiles stay planar than doubling then distance halves the angle. If the projectiles fly in all directions then doubling the distance cuts the solid angle by a factor of 4. Distance buys you surface area so no doubt adding distance reduces probability significantly.

What I am contending about FAR is their bunkers offer even better protection than NFPA codes. Until you get to extreme distances, people are standing in the open and prepping rockets well within the impact/splash zone. I have personally been startled by rockets coming in ballistic 30ish feet from me at several launches. These were standard HPR rockets which would have been catastrophic to get hit by. I could be wrong but I believe the bunkers at FAR would easily stop almost all HPR class 2 rockets. FAR can comment more. I personally much prefer to be in a bunker when a rocket goes high enough to lose sight of it. At that point it’s an invisible dart. This is relatively rare but still a concern.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Again, don't choose selectively from the information on that page. It's an insured launch if you have arranged for site insurance ("sanctioned") and it is run by a Tripoli member under all safety codes and legal requirements. The exception is a NAR insured launch with a Tripoli member in charge. (The same carrier insures both organizations, so I was told).

Ignoring the length of the discussion we are in agreement that FAR has not been insured for awhile. (I believe in the past it was but that is besides the point.) What I am saying is the Tripoli announcement is confusing. It makes no mention of what we are in agreement on, (that FAR is not a sanctioned site), and the language makes it *seem* like they recently did something unsafe to lose their coverage. This is what I find odd. Anyway it appears I am not the only person to find this announcement strange. I hope there is some clarification.

 

[jsdemar]

If the projectiles stay planar than doubling then distance halves the angle. If the projectiles fly in all directions then doubling the distance cuts the solid angle by a factor of 4. Distance buys you surface area so no doubt adding distance reduces probability significantly.

That's valid, too. Others have done a more thorough analysis of blast safety vs distance. It's sufficient here to say that distance is a benefit.

What I am contending about FAR is their bunkers offer even better protection than NFPA codes. Until you get to extreme distances, people are standing in the open and prepping rockets well within the impact/splash zone. I have personally been startled by rockets coming in ballistic 30ish feet from me at several launches. These were standard HPR rockets which would have been catastrophic to get hit by. I could be wrong but I believe the bunkers at FAR would easily stop almost all HPR class 2 rockets. FAR can comment more. I personally much prefer to be in a bunker when a rocket goes high enough to lose sight of it. At that point it’s an invisible dart. This is relatively rare but still a concern.

The safety assessment for a CATO blast is completely different from the risk of a ballistic recovery. Some will say that the safest place is to be close to the launch pad for a ballistic rocket! Other aspects of the safety code address reducing risk for no-deploys or separations: launch angle, wind direction, stability, design of your recovery system, and ground testing deployment charges, among others.

 

[jsdemar]

Ignoring the length of the discussion we are in agreement that FAR has not been insured for awhile. (I believe in the past it was but that is besides the point.) What I am saying is the Tripoli announcement is confusing. It makes no mention of what we are in agreement on, (that FAR is not a sanctioned site), and the language makes it *seem* like they recently did something unsafe to lose their coverage. This is what I find odd. Anyway it appears I am not the only person to find this announcement strange. I hope there is some clarification.

You're not the only one who found the announcement incomplete. There's an assumption by the Tripoli BOD that the reader has seen the reports and video about the recent incident and the history of FAR attempting to have a Prefecture.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

You're not the only one who found the announcement incomplete. There's an assumption by the Tripoli BOD that the reader has seen the reports and video about the recent incident and the history of FAR attempting to have a Prefecture.

I have not seen the reports or video and I am sure plenty of Tripoli members have not either. Can you provide any links to the incident?

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

@jsdemar I had a moment and looked at the thread

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/unsanctioned-hpr-launches.169599/post-2209357

Read post 58 by Steve Shannon. That contradicts my understanding.

 

[jsdemar]

@jsdemar I had a moment and looked at the thread

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/unsanctioned-hpr-launches.169599/post-2209357

Read post 58 by Steve Shannon. That contradicts my understanding.

Again, that needs to be taken in full context of the other information on https://www.tripoli.org/Insurance . It needs to be a sanctioned launch which means landowner insurance is in place (from my interpretation).

 

[rcktnut]

Again, that needs to be taken in full context of the other information on https://www.tripoli.org/Insurance . It needs to be a sanctioned launch which means landowner insurance is in place (from my interpretation).

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?

Edit: Just seen this so it would be ok??
Sanctioned Launch
Also called Insured Launch. Any launch of a rocket that meets ALL of the following constraints:

• Responsible person of launch shall be member of Tripoli in good standing.
• Follows the appropriate Tripoli Safety Code.
• Legal: All AHJ (e.g. FAA waiver) requirements/regulations met and any required permits secured.
• Landowner permission/constraints followed

 

[OzHybrid]

NAR insurance covers you wherever you launch as long as the safety code is followed. This isn’t the case with TRA. But for the purpose of a certification flight, it can take place anywhere the safety code is followed and the waiver is valid. That doesn’t mean the insurance is active.

NAR insurance doesn't cover you for experimental, which would be one of the main reasons for launching at FAR.

 

[OzHybrid]

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?

Edit: Just seen this so it would be ok??
Sanctioned Launch
Also called Insured Launch. Any launch of a rocket that meets ALL of the following constraints:

• Responsible person of launch shall be member of Tripoli in good standing.
• Follows the appropriate Tripoli Safety Code.
• Legal: All AHJ (e.g. FAA waiver) requirements/regulations met and any required permits secured.
• Landowner permission/constraints followed

I believe the Landowner information has to be notified to Tripoli to ensure that THEY(Landowner) are covered, prior to the launch. This would mean no just turn up at a new location and launch.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

@jsdemar , @rcktnut , @OzHybrid ,@tsmith1315 I read through that older thread and the Tripoli website.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/unsanctioned-hpr-launches.169599/post-2209357

This is a bit unclear. @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. Anyway it is pretty clear Tripoli members can fly on a private field with land owner permission. There is no need for a club from what I can tell from the rules. It is not clear if Tripoli has a process to say "no" to new launch sites that meet all the code requirements.

I have long thought Tripoli required a prefecture before any insurance coverage was granted. I now believe that is not correct, but the announcement on FAR has me confused.

 

[rharshberger]

NAR insurance covers you wherever you launch as long as the safety code is followed. This isn’t the case with TRA. But for the purpose of a certification flight, it can take place anywhere the safety code is followed and the waiver is valid. That doesn’t mean the insurance is active.

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!

 

[OzHybrid]

@jsdemar , @rcktnut , @OzHybrid ,@tsmith1315 I read through that older thread and the Tripoli website.

https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/unsanctioned-hpr-launches.169599/post-2209357

This is a bit unclear. @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. Anyway it is pretty clear Tripoli members can fly on a private field with land owner permission. There is no need for a club from what I can tell from the rules. It is not clear if Tripoli has a process to say "no" to new launch sites that meet all the code requirements.

I have long thought Tripoli required a prefecture before any insurance coverage was granted. I now believe that is not correct, but the announcement on FAR has me confused.

Under Tripoli.
The establishment of a Prefecture gets you a Prefect who should be L2 certified and can then certify others up to that level.
An individual can launch anywhere they have legal permission to launch as long as they launch within the Tripoli unified code. To have legal permission, you have to ask the landowner. 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.

People do just turn up at a park and launch. The risks for a low power model rocket are low. But if they do so on their own, they NEED to fully understand ALL the rules. Not easy.

The advantage of launching at a club is that all that stuff is taken care of in the background and you as a flyer never need to worry.