THE RECENT FLAP over the Bluegrass Rocketry Society flying rockets near Lexington, Kentucky's Blue Grass Airport points out a fact that is unlikely to change as long as model rocketry exists: the perception by people unfamiliar with rockets that they are dangerous.

This perception is fueled by the public's exposure to rockets in the popular media — most movies, books and television shows depict rockets as weapons that create huge explosions when they crash.

The reality, of course, is different. Model rocketry and high power rocketry boast one of the best safety records of any hobby or sport. These hobbies are much safer than football, soccer, bicycling, kite flying or hundreds of other "safe" activities.

Yet, key public officials and decision makers continually restrict the operations of hobby rockets, mostly due to ignorance.

In the early 1960's, Vern Estes and Lee Piester worked together to get model rocketry legalized. It was quite an uphill fight, as model rocketry was often "guilty until proven innocent." Estes and Centuri spent a great deal of their time, effort and marketing materials establishing the hobby and making sure it was not confused with fireworks. By the time man landed on the moon in 1969, model rocketry was legal in most states. A whole generation of regulators and public safety officials were educated as to model rocketry's safety record and many of today's current regulations were put in place.

Slowly, that safety awareness has faded, as officials retired, rotated, or otherwise stepped aside. The regulatory atmosphere has become more and more restrictive, often in the name of greater safety (though such officials can not quantify how much safety has increased — they just "know better" by the seat of their pants).

Continuing the education of public officials as to how safe rocketry is, is a vital, on-going activity. Model rocketry's legal status is no longer challenged (even by the ATF), but restrictions and regulations have slowly encroached on our hobby. For example, why do we have to pay hazmat fees for small shipments of model rocket motors, when spray paint cans, a far more dangerous item, can be shipped as non-hazardous "Other Regulated Material - Class D"? Vern could never re-create Estes as a mail order company today — hazardous materials fees and shipping restrictions have significantly impacted mail order sales.

Rather than fighting the fire marshal issues of the past, the biggest challenge today seems to be the loss of flying fields. Public officials are reluctant to authorize rockets flying in large public areas. Private launch sites are few in number and continue to decline as development encroaches on local areas. One "NO" on a launch site can mean the difference between a thriving local club and no club at all.

Estes no longer devotes a large amount of its marketing materials to hobby safety, but they do invest in outreach efforts when needed, largely through Mary Roberts. Estes and Quest also make great in-roads presenting model rocketry as a safe hobby through their school programs.

The NAR supports education efforts, but has limited resources. The NAR's biggest safety contribution is with their $1M liability insurance policy. The ability to insure a landowner or other party involved in launches for a substantial sum goes a long way to ending discussions as to how safe the hobby is.

The continuing education of the general public as to rocketry's safety record is a grass roots campaign that starts with every flier. The NAR and the manufacturers can help, but it starts with each flier.

First, rocketeers have to continue to set a good example by following safety procedures at all times, with no shortcuts. Secondly, rocketeers need to talk to people who have concerns about the safety of rocketry. We may not always get our way, but the presentation of the facts is vital to offset the public perception. The challenge is continuous, as new fliers, fields, and officials arrive on the scene.

It is up to each one of us to continue to educate as we run into the misperception. The resources of the NAR, Tripoli, Estes, Quest and others are there to assist us, but it is the fliers on the "front lines" who must make the first impression. Be sure to do your part.

Matt Steele is formerly a NAR Trustee, President of North Coast Rocketry and marketing manager for Estes Industries. He is currently the Director of Strategy and Business Development for ATK Launch Systems, Lancaster, CA. We encourage you to engage our guest editorialists in commentary, as their contributions are what makes your hobby move forward. You may reach him by email at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it . If you would like to comment publicly, post your response below.

06-18-2007 03:56 PM  #1
shockwaveriderz Model Rocket Historian   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 36	its our own fault- we have nobody to blame but ourselves Matt asks an interesting question: "For example, why do we have to pay hazmat fees for small shipments of model rocket motors, when spray paint cans, a far more dangerous item, can be shipped as non-hazardous 'Other Regulated Material — Class D'?" Could it be that the NAR/TRA/Estes/Quest/AT/RCS,et al have all used NFPA to declare that even though model rockets are not fireworks but instead are explosives and flammable solids? When and if we win in the suit against the BATFE, and APCP is declared a non explosive, will the NAR/TRA then see fit to get rid of the regulation that model rocket motors must be either an explosive or flammable solid in order to get their "safety" brand? I will submit that a long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, the decision was made to utilize the NFPA to get model rocketry separated out from fireworks. And that goal was worthy and it succeeded. But since that initial separation, the NAR, the TRA, et al have all used the NFPA fire codes to place a "strangehold" of onerous regulation upon our hobby. Matt is correct that if Vern Estes wanted to start Estes Industries,Inc to day, there is so much regulation in place that it would not be possible. But what is even worse, is that it prevents any new competitors from coming into the marketplace, and so the whole of model rocketry is dependent on 1 major company that has a 95% market share. The NFPA regulations have been designed to keep any new competition out. I would almost go so far to say that the rocketry people on the NFPA PYRO-AAA committee have gone to great lengths to protect the industry status quo. I want to remind everybody that is reading this , that my comments are referring ONLY to model rocketry, NOT AR/EX/HPE,etc. What the hobby of model rocketry needs is a total deregulation from the NFPA fire codes, at a minimum. G. Harry Stine , Vern Estes ,et al made a deal with the devil (the NFPA) and now we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. Theres less regulation of rocketry in the former soviet bloc countries of eastern europe than there is here in the good old USA. Terry Dean I also agree with Matt strongly on his point that we need to continously re-educate the public and especially the various state and or federal agncies that have oversight of model rocketry. Perhaps an "advisory" defining rocketry terms for the media would be a useful approach? A Public Relations package? It irritates the heck out of me that the media cannot seem to get it right when talking about rocketry activities after 50 years. Perhaps we need a joint NAR/TRA/FAA "package" that can be emailed to, for example, ATC people : they have a professional society; these people really need to be educated about rocketry Pilots: I've seen pro and con here on model rockets, from their professional groups Perhaps the NAR/TRA should approach these orgs for a dialogue on the subject? Even if its just to have a contact person/liason? I think the recent FAA reorganization and the some of the content of the recent FAA NPRM, will go alomg way towards educating these diverse interested parties. Terry Dean NAR 16158

06-18-2007 05:19 PM  #2
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Amen to the status quo! Quote: Could it be that the NAR/TRA/Estes/Quest/AT/RCS,et al have all used NFPA to declare that even though model rockets are not fireworks but instead are explosives and flammable solids? [T>he NAR, the TRA, et al have all used the NFPA fire codes to place a "strangehold" of onerous regulation upon our hobby. The NFPA regulations have been designed to keep any new competition out. I would almost go so far to say that the rocketry people on the NFPA PYRO-AAA committee have gone to great lengths to protect the industry status quo. Terry has just spoken the mouthful of the decade! This perspective should be the topic of discussion for every hobby rocketeer who has a serious concern for the hobby. The national hobby organizations have used the NFPA to wrangle away the rights of independent rocketry enthusiasts nationally. Before NFPA 1122 and 1127 became the cornerstone for states across the nation, there was NO REQUIREMENT for an individual to belong to a hobby organization in order to participate in the hobby. By participating in the authoring of NFPA 1122 and 1127, the National Association of Rocketry and the Tripoli Rocketry Association have stolen the right of private citizens of the United States to enjoy the hobby of sport rocketry unless they subject themselves to the edicts of those organizations! What gives them the right to hijack MY rights? NAR and TRA knew the ATF was coming, as well as other alphabet agencies of the state, federal and local governments. They voluntarily sacrificed the hobby's present and future memberships to try and show the governments that the hobby could police itself. Did it work? Was the hobby successful in ridding itself of governmental oversight? Nope. Instead we got the same oversight we had coming PLUS MORE! I believe in my heart of hearts that the national organizational leadership openly discussed the coming governmental onslaught of regulatory oversight and consciously said, "Hey! Here is an opportunity to guarantee the future participation in our organizations, no matter what happens to the laws and/or regulations!" A vounteer serving the hobby of rocketry, such as an organization's board of directors or board of trustees, should make decisions based on what is the best for the hobby and its participants, based on preserving the rights of the individual, NOT sacrificing the rights of hobby participants to further a particular hobby organization. NAR and TRA should be held accountable for this!

06-18-2007 09:40 PM  #3
Manofsteele New Member   Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 2	NFPA? No. Terry asks: "Could it be that the NAR/TRA/Estes/Quest/AT/RCS,et al have all used NFPA to declare that even though model rockets are not fireworks but instead are explosives and flammable solids?" The simple answer is, no. In this case, it is the DOT that is the determining agency for hazards classification. The NFPA has nothing to do with it. When I was working for Estes, we tried hard to convince the DOT to permit a "ORM-D" for small quantities of model rocket motors, to no avail. When the UN regulations were adopted by the DOT, it made it even harder for national regulators to exercise leeway, as their classifications affected shipments outside borders. Making the NFPA the bad guy is off the mark. The barriers to entry in the rocket motor business (hobby or aerospace - there are only two "big" aerospace manufacturers these days, ATK and Aerojet) are incredibly high; the regulations that the NFPA have put in place are, for the most part, common sense, and anyone concerned about safety would put the same precautions in place. The problem is that with the perception of "explosive" rocket motors, no public safety official is going to stick their neck out and relax any regulations, even if the data says it is OK to do do. Unless the NAR/Tripoli/manufacturers and hobby volunteers make in-roads into those agencies, misperceptions persist. Where you can get in and talk some sense to these people, things can work out. The new FAA NPRM is a good example. We had a hell of a time with the FAA in the 1980-1990 time frame (they even shut NARAM-30 down for awhile until we got things straightened out). From the looks of things, the rocketry community pretty much got left alone this time. It took 20-25 years of work to get it to that point. We had some good people, both in the FAA and in the rocket community, that worked long and hard to get it there. Matt

06-27-2007 01:43 AM  #4
Clark Tripoli L2   Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 16	Just my opinion I have never seen so much back biting and finger pointing in anything I have been involved with in my life like I've seen it in our hobby. Let's blame NAR & Tripoli, let's blame the ATF or BATF or whatever they call themselves this week, let's blame NFPA, yada yada yada. Bottom line is there are a lot of people who have misconceptions about rocketry and how unsafe it is. Or are their misconceptions really misconceptions? I have seen NAR look the other way when it comes to certain members and what they fly on more than one occasion. Example: Rockets are not allowed to have guidance systems. Yet NAR allows a certain member to fly a rocket that uses a photo sensor to control servos that control the fins on his rocket so that it flies towards the sun. He almost crashed it a few months back and NAR publishes an article on it and writes about what a great save it was when the rocket turned from the ground and headed back to the sky. So not only do they allow it, they glorify it as well. Are these really the kind of people you want representing your hobby? Same NAR member also cores the ejection charges on Estes motors. It's okay for him to do it. I could go on about other things that I have seen NAR turn a blind eye too but I don't have time to sit here and write a book about it. Bet NAR wouldn't turn a blind eye if I did the same things as I mentioned above. Politics are ugly and have no place in our hobby. If you can't trust NAR to police itself what do you expect from the public when it comes to their thoughts about the hobby in general? We have to police ourselves period. Can't depend on NAR or Tripoli to do it for us. But then when we do police ourselves and we run across something wrong then NAR or Tripoli should back us up. Something NAR refused to do back in the spring of 2005 when myself and several others reported to NAR some severe rule breaking going on and safety concerns that we had. Never heard word one back from them about it. It's a shame that Tripoli doesn't do more for public awareness cause NAR is doing an awful job of it. But then I've learned to expect no less from NAR and the glory seeking hounds that run it on a national and some cases local level. If we police ourselves then the recent Blue Grass Rocketry Society incident never should have happened. I google earthed Masterson Station Park and the airport and the runway is aimed directly at the park and is actually just under 5 miles away from the launch site. They never should have been flying there to begin with. Sure someone at the FAA messed up by ever clearing them for a launch there. Just because someone at the FAA said it was okay doesn't make it so. You have some FAA employs who are just as in the dark about FAA regulations and rocketry as the general public. 2 wrongs don't make a right. But someone at Blue Grass apparently didn't care that they were really in the wrong by flying at Masterson Station Park to begin with. Even the local gov't claimed that that they did not have permission from the city to fly there. So they were in the wrong the minute they gathered together there and setup their launch equipment. You want the public to feel safe about our hobby then our hobby needs to prove that it can police itself without outside supervision. Something NAR obviously has failed to do, and the main reason I'am no longer a member of NAR. And until we prove we can police ourselves get used to someone outside of NAR or Tripoli wanting to police the hobby for us. Somebody needs to police the hobby. The recent actions of certain folks at bluesrocks.org, and now the owner of AMW leaving Kryptonite behind for his previous landlord, and the bomb squad having to be being called in, is just more proof that we apparently cannot police ourselves. Just what the ATF needs to help their cause. We will shoot ourselves in the foot before it's over with. So bottom line is blame it on the people who continue to vote the powers that be at NAR right back into office. Blame it on those who choose to look the other way when it's convenient. Blame it on those whose stupid actions make it into the news for the whole world to see. This do as I say, not as I do mentality I've seen at NAR and with certain individuals in the hobby, will do nothing but drag the hobby down for all involved regardless of their affiliation with NAR or Tripoli.

06-27-2007 10:19 AM  #5
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	You can forget Tripoli policing itself... I am sorry you had a problem with NAR, but you can forget TRA policing itself. TRA has a history of breaking it's own rules. When all of the impending doom of government regulation started rearing its ugly head in the mid-90's, Tripoli embraced this multi-level certification program and blood-pact with the NFPA, trying to create their own self-policing rules and regulations to show the world that they could keep themselves in line. Their litmus test came at LDRS 18 at the Bonneville Salt Flats when Dr. Michael Riener sought to certify Level 3 on an all-aluminum 98mm minimum diameter rocket that used non-certified forward and aft closures. Everyone knows NFPA states that high power rockets are to be made out of paper, wood, fiberglass or plastic with a minimum of metal parts and shall operate only on motors that are certified and contain all certified components. But because Dr. Reiner was a good old boy and a "FOT" (Friend of TRA), Bruce Kelly decided not only to allow cronyism to manifest itself (which was standard operating procedure for TRA), but to make a Tripoli standing policy allowing such activities to exist. Even today, after the infamous changing of the guard, TRA still stands by their policy of allowing all-metal rockets (http://tripoli.org/documents/use_of_metal.shtml) based on the myopic position of Bruce Kelly. His position, that the "typical mistake made by most people is to 'narrowly interpret' the Safety Code, focusing on a small part rather than the whole," is one of the only positions I know where you can look at an apple and see not an orange, but a Quaalude and that behavior is then applauded. If the basis of this unbelievably weak argument is that the rocket needed to be made out of aluminum to maintain the structural integrity of the airframe, and that no other material was more suited to accomplish this, then every RSO in the country should refuse to let G-10 fiberglass 98mm minimum diameter rockets fly ever again. Bruce Kelly said it must be made out of aluminum to withstand the impulse of an N2000, that fiberglass couldn't cut it. And the bottom line here really is, either he was lying then, or he is lying now. And Tripoli, in their reluctance to modify that "use of metal" document, is endorsing the dishonesty. I ask then, what respectable government agency is going to allow TRA or NAR to police themselves when they continue to endorse such ridiculously weak positions used to try and excuse cronyism? There are obvious failures in both organizations, and neither seems to be interested in addressing them, hoping the ostrich tactic will allow another generation of participants to come and go without either one of them having to actually take a stand for what is right. It's more important to them to let their special friends get away with whatever their special friends want to do than to toe the line of accountability. Both organizations need an enema, starting with the top position all the way to the bottom.

06-28-2007 11:38 PM  #6
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1978	Quote: Making the NFPA the bad guy is off the mark. ... the regulations that the NFPA have put in place are, for the most part, common sense, and anyone concerned about safety would put the same precautions in place. Quote: When all of the impending doom of government regulation started rearing its ugly head in the mid-90's, Tripoli embraced this multi-level certification program and blood-pact with the NFPA, trying to create their own self-policing rules and regulations to show the world that they could keep themselves in line. Crontab, There is quite a contrast between these two opinions. I understand what Matt is advocating, but what are you advocating? Not just what you think is wrong with the system, but more constructively, what the proper course should be going forward? Should there be no levels of certification? Should there be no self-imposed rules? Should NFPA be nullified? Should we all get LEUPs?

06-29-2007 12:42 AM  #7
Clark Tripoli L2   Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 16	Whatever, blame it on Tripoli NAR deserves 90 percent of the blame right off the bat. Want to argue with me about it. I host stuff for NAR you don't even know about. And I have had threats from NAR members to hack into my servers and attack my crap whic falls under Homeland Security by the way. NAR can go to where ever. Tripoli is at fault for turning their backs, NAR on the other hand wants to gloat over it. Like I said I have had felony threats, and a lawsuit by a pill head and alcoholic that NAR turned the other cheek for. SUE ME!!!!! NAR SUCKS!!!

06-29-2007 09:47 AM  #8
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1978	Quote: Rockets are not allowed to have guidance systems. I've looked and cannot find anything in either TRA or NAR HP safety codes that support this statement. I also looked in FAR 101 and found nothing. I found rules that prohibit launching rockets against targets, but no rules that prohibit "guidance systems". I may just be missing it, so if anyone can guide me (pun intended) towards the rule that prohibits a guidance system I would be grateful.

06-29-2007 11:55 AM  #9
mperdue New Member   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 7	Like Steve, I can find nothing prohibiting guidance systems on our rockets. Hell, fins are a form of guidance system. I assume the original poster meant active guidance systems, but I can't find anything that would prohibit those either. Mario

06-29-2007 03:43 PM  #10
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Quote: Crontab, There is quite a contrast between these two opinions. I understand what Matt is advocating, but what are you advocating? Not just what you think is wrong with the system, but more constructively, what the proper course should be going forward? Should there be no levels of certification? Should there be no self-imposed rules? Should NFPA be nullified? Should we all get LEUPs? I'm not advocating anything other than the inalienable rights of United States citizens. Why is it necessary for me to join a private club just so I can purchase rocket motors? You don't have to join the NRA to purchase a bullets, so why do I have to join a club to purchase motors? What I am attempting to do is point out the failure of the NAR and TRA to self-police themselves, part of which was creating multi-level certification programs and adopting NFPA 1122 and 1127 as their safety codes, including helping those become law in the majority of states in this country. Self-regulation failed to eliminate ATF regulation. We already need to all get LEUPs. Its the law. Self-regulation has produced nothing more than the extreme growth of rocket size as more and more people just had to check their egos and join the "Level 3" club. Before, when there were merely "confirmations," a person flew a high power rocket and was free to participate at whatever level they wanted. They had M motors back then, but most people flew below that level. Most people who certify Level 3 today fly one M motor in their entire hobby career: the one they certified on. They do it just to say they are in that elite group. Whether their kids ate or not, they flew an M! The hobby is more dangerous in my opinion today than it was then because more people are attempting to fly larger and larger rockets with recovery still being the primary point of failure. If you want to do something to improve NFPA, eliminate the necessity for people to join an organization to participate in the hobby. Look at the people at MDRA. They are incorporated, they have their own insurance and own safety code. Why do those people need to be members of TRA or NAR just to purchase their motors? They don't. They are better organized, better insured and better managed than NAR or TRA, and that's the point. The requirement to join TRA or NAR to purchase certified motors is also silent acquiesence that you support the stance of these organizations when in fact you might not agree with one thing the organization or its board of directors is doing. But the reality is, why should I join an organization just to purchase motors when all I really want to do is just go off by myself and fly rockets? I already have the federal laws, the FAA requirements, the knowledge to build and fly rockets. Asking a private club to "approve" me to do so is ludicrous. NFPA was a power play to insure the permanence of the NAR and TRA, and the elimination of competitors to their fiefdom. Join RRS alone and go try to buy a motor in an NFPA state. Sorry! It was a ploy to insure participation. You can build all the rockets you want, but you aren't going to fly them with safely manufactured commercial motors unless you join TRA or NAR.

06-29-2007 04:05 PM  #11
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3189	Quote: I've looked and cannot find anything in either TRA or NAR HP safety codes that support this statement. I also looked in FAR 101 and found nothing. I found rules that prohibit launching rockets against targets, but no rules that prohibit "guidance systems". I may just be missing it, so if anyone can guide me (pun intended) towards the rule that prohibits a guidance system I would be grateful. "It is already illegal to add a dangerous payload or guidance system of any kind, not to mention that such efforts would require a level of sophistication generally possessed only by government agencies." http://www.nar.org/2003/07...y_and_nj_members_for.php If this is in a sample letter on the NAR website, then there must be a source in regulations that exists. I found numerous references, but no actual links to regulations. Apparently the addition of active guidance to a model rocket changes the legal definition of said rocket into a guided missile, and guided missiles are against federal law within the U.S.

06-29-2007 05:37 PM  #12
mperdue New Member   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 7	Quote: "It is already illegal to add a dangerous payload or guidance system of any kind, not to mention that such efforts would require a level of sophistication generally possessed only by government agencies." http://www.nar.org/2003/07...y_and_nj_members_for.php If this is in a sample letter on the NAR website, then there must be a source in regulations that exists. I found numerous references, but no actual links to regulations. Apparently the addition of active guidance to a model rocket changes the legal definition of said rocket into a guided missile, and guided missiles are against federal law within the U.S. The operative word is "dangerous" - it is applied to both payload and guidance system. A dangerous guidance system - i.e. on that would carry a rocket to a target - would be illegal. I don't think that prohibits active stabilization. I'm pretty sure the sun seeker mentioned by the original poster is not a threat to the sun. Mario

06-29-2007 06:12 PM  #13
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1978	This subject of active guidance is of interest to me but I do not want to hijack the thread that Matt Steele started, which is also very important, so I took my reply to a new thread under the Research/Experimental Rocketry grouping and named the new thread "Active Guidance"

06-29-2007 07:21 PM  #14
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3189	Quote: The operative word is "dangerous" - it is applied to both payload and guidance system. Mario, I respectfully disagree. The letter says: "a dangerous payload or guidance system of any kind" The way you are reading the letter, it would mean "a dangerous payload of any kind or a dangerous guidance system of any kind." I think it means what is says, a dangerous payload or a guidance system OF ANY KIND. The FlyRockets website backs this up: "Several things must be made clear. No rocket can have any sort of guidance system, the rocket must point within 20 degrees of straight up and absolutely no animals can be launched in a rocket. " Source: http://www.flyrockets.com/levels.html It has been my understanding for years that no active guidance system is allowed although that hasn't stopped model rocketeers from doing so.

06-29-2007 07:23 PM  #15
mperdue New Member   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 7	This is easy to resolve, just show me the law... Mario

06-29-2007 07:25 PM  #16
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3189	It's easier than that to resolve. I don't care enough about the subject to waste any more time running down information on it. You win.