fIn the most recent High Power Rocketry magazine, it features one very accomplished flier's Tripoli certification process of all three levels in one day. Situations such as this always create confusion since it's not the norm. The question was posed recently on Compuserve, to which the fact was pointed out that Tripoli doesn't have a waiting period for the certification process, so as not to penalize those with sufficient knowledge from progressing through the process at their own pace. I posted a response there on Compuserve that I wanted to share with you, and it is posted here in it's entirety for your reading.

THIS SUBJECT seems to be dictated by a matter of opinion, so I'll interject mine. First and foremost, these comments are in no way an indictment of Billy Davidson — my knowledge of Billy is that he is a very knowledgable and accomplished flier, having done most of his education in the hobby before the age of 18. I feel much more safe with Billy's safety record than that of some older fliers.

That said, I have to agree then turn around and disagree with the BOD's position on this. In my opinion, the BOD is correct in not wanting to "penalize" any flier with the capacity to safely complete a certification process. The organization exists to facilitate the organized freedom to fly.

However, I feel the organization is remiss in its responsibility if it fails to provide an environment in which safety is adequately demonstrated first and foremost not only to the membership but to the regulatory agencies which potentially rule our activities.

From the outside looking in, a period of time required between certification levels gives an opportunity for additional experience to be attained before going to the next level. Unfortunately, there is no way a multi-cert-process-in-one-day can replace the experience gained with doing it all yourself over time. Experience is vital to the promulgation of safety. Whether there is scientific data to back up that fact or if there are a hundreds rules of exception, the demonstration of logic to the regulatory agencies will always side with the waiting period as being a safer way to oversee the hobby.

I can understand how the TAP process can be an effective guage when the TAP member is the person who determines whether a project flies or not. I also understand this process makes the individual out to be the 'bad guy' when a flight is squelched. Why not let the organization be the 'bad guy'? There is room for personality conflict, personal favors and other human-induced inconsistencies by letting one person be the gatekeeper to an individual's L3 certification. Personal knowledge, misunderstanding, they all get in the way.

It wasn't that long ago we had people led to believe two people could certify with one rocket because their "TAP member told them so." Look at the confusion created when Mike Reiner was allowed to certify L3 with an all aluminum rocket that used modified forward and aft closures — by an organization that embraces NFPA 1127, which stipulates "minimal metal content". The TAP process "twisted" the rules to allow that certification. I use the word "twisted" in quotes not to indict Tripoli or any individual, but to illustrate the redefining of our own safety code to arrive at an understanding the majority of the membership couldn't reach on their own. If the membership have difficulty reaching that conclusion, as badly as we want to believe something supports our habitual actions, how much difficulty do you think the regulatory agencies are going to have when they read the very same rules and then look at our application of them? I imagine them scratching their heads as equally as the majority of the membership over the legality of these issues.

It's the appearance that things aren't as they seem that cause people to ask questions, and it's the liberal interpretations that cause them to shake their heads in disbelief. If the membership believes that we will reinterpret the rules and regulations to benefit ourselves, or to justify something, do we really think the regulatory agencies will believe we can effectively police ourselves? I think the organization has a responsibility to take a position that will insure an adequate communication to everyone that we will err to the conservative for the benefit of providing a safe environment in which we display our ability to effectively police ourselves. If we don't, "they" will.

Darrell Mobley is the editor of Rocketry Planet. You may reach him by email at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it .