wingarcher

Glad to see things are being kept current.

As a NAR member who plans to certify L2 in May, I wonder- when will the pool of questions for study be updated as well? Currently the NAR page at http://www.nar.org/hpcert/hptest.html says the pool contains the questions as of a 1999 revision.



N

tedcochran55409

The link from the announcement on the front page to here
is working. That's the latest version, right there.

Every possible question, with the correct answer, and a citation or explanation is provided. If you happen to find anything that needs fixing, please let Carl or me know.

Cheers,

--tc

SpaceCowboy

Hi,

Certification! We don't need know stinkin certification!

"Fly Free!"

UncleVanya

What's the best way to contact you both for this input? I have found a couple of questions that I was mislead by already. The problems are minor and could be fixed with punctuation or minor word choice changes.

BMRflier

I took and passed the L2 test last September, but did not complete the L2 certification flight. According to NAR, the test is good for up to 12 months. I plan on making my L2 certification flight next month. Will the completed test dated September 2007 be accepted by NAR?

Steve_Shannon

Yes it will, but you will have to fly according to the new rules.

Edit: BMRFlier,
I've just been told that people will be asked to retake the test if they are in your situation. I will try to find out more about that as in my memory it has not been done that way before.
Steve

Rocket Flier

6.2.5:
"The test must be completed prior to the flight attempt. The flight attempt should be made as soon as reasonably and safely possible after successful test completion. The written test will not have to be repeated if the flight attempt is completed within one year of taking the written test. Tests should be retained until the completion of the certification flight and sent with the application form to NAR Headquarters."

http://www.nar.org/hpcert/NARhpdetails.html

fox_racing_guy

Mr Tulanko posted on his own forum the you will indeed have to re-take your L2 written test if you haven't made your certification flight.
http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?t=43160

ddmobley

That certainly isn't indicated in the section Rocket Flier pointed out. The release of new tests shouldn't invalidate the answers given on the previous year's tests.

Steve_Shannon

It's rather difficult for NAR Section leaders to hold people to rules if we don't follow the same rules. I've made my points on the NAR Section's list, but its important for all of you to notify your section leaders and presidents to let them know how you feel about this. We abide by a set of written procedures, including the safety codes, certification rules, NAR bylaws, etc. Not everybody agrees with them, but because they have been adopted and approved by people we have installed in office we have an obligation to follow them. That must be true for the leaders of NAR as well. They must also follow the written procedures. If the written procedures need to be fixed, then fix them.

The argument that is being made is that because the new safety codes reflect significant changes, our leaders feel that all people who wish to certify level 2 after this point in time should take the written test that reflects these new rules. I could live with that if our leaders proposed a change to the rules that reflected that. Instead, we still have our existing rules for certifying that Rocket Flier quoted above. Until they change those rules, they should honor them. Even if there is only one person who is midway in the L2 certification procedure, the promise made by NAR in publishing written procedures should be upheld.

ddmobley

I agree with Steve on this one — NAR should grandfather any individual who has passed the written test that has yet to make his certification flight. If they want to insure the flier understands the latest rule changes, give him a printed handout, but don't force the user to make up for the change. NAR should follow their written policy instead of making things up as they go.

heada

It seems to me like this was a process that was planned and thought out by NAR. An announcement could have been made to alert people/clubs that a change was going to be made and that older tests would no longer be accepted as part of the certification process as of a certain date. This would have given people the chance to schedule and plan their certification rather than have it sprung on them that as of now, the test they took up to one year ago is invalid.

-Aaron

hazegry

yea I am one of the people caught so to speak I am supposed to be taking my test Sat. I have been studying all week and now last night I was cramming all night wife was not happy since I have to work a 24 hour shift today I am going be in the dog house for a while due to this one thanks NAR.

agrippo

NAR is an incredible organization run by dedicated and intelligent people that do an extreme amount of good for its members but sometimes I really wonder what they are thinking. Talk about opening a can of worms.

I'm not sure the NAR board sensibly thought out the "official" response to the question of having people retake the test that haven't passed the flight portion of the L2 certification process yet.

If you go with NAR's thinking about retaking the test then all level two and level three flyers should retake the test since there are so many important and critical changes.

Since NAR has a reciprocal certification agreement with CAR and TRA, I wonder if the new test was sent to them for approval or is NAR just doing things on their own and expecting the other organizations to accept whatever they mandate.

If CAR and TRA do not bother to come up with their own brand spanking new version of the level 2 test then will NAR stop recognizing CAR and TRA certified individuals?

Per NAR thinking our cards should have certification dates on them so folks certified after a certain date can fly level 2 and up at NAR events and those before the date can't since they haven't proven they've read, understood, memorized and been tested on the newest version of said publications.

What if I'm a TRA level 1 flyer and have already taken the TRA level 2 test and plan on doing my flight at a NAR event with an attending TRA perfect present, does NAR shut me down and say go somewhere else and fly since I haven't proven I've read the new material.

NAR really needs to reconsider their ill advised position on the retaking of the test. The statement comes across to me as elitist and an "Our way or it's the Highway" thought pattern. Not good when you're already sucking the bottom of the barrel for new members and have serious problems retaining current members.

We are only talking about what amounts to most flyers as a basic "J" motor, 2 or 3 thousand foot whoosh pop flight here. In the grand scheme of things there isn't a whole lot to it and it shouldn't be harder then has to be.

Andrew Grippo
Level 3
NAR 83668 (SOLAR)
TRA 10154 (TRA-LA)

agrippo

Steve,

Where is this list located?

I'd like to review what has gone on already with this issue as well as the proposed competition rule changes.

Thanks,

Andrew

Steve_Shannon

Andrew,

The NAR Sections list is at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NAR_Sections/

I believe you have to be an officer of a section or the section advisor to belong.

Steve_Shannon

That's exactly right, especially so for anyone who will be an RSO or LCO.


I would hope it wouldn't come to that.

Nesssalco

Ted,

Question C50 seems a bit ambiguous. The answer implies use of apogee only deployment, but the question does not specifically state that condition. As stated, I'd argue for answer A - you are limited by the 20 mph wind speed. Of course, you are required to bring the rocket down on the field, which would be quite possible with various dual-deployment systems.

You can fly in winds up to 20 mph. In this situation, you should fly in winds of 6mph or less with the conditions specified, in order to comply with the Safety Code.

The fix, IMO, is easy - specify apogee only deployment in the question.

Overall, though, this is a great piece of work - Kudos to the folks who put the effort into updating the exam. I went through the questions as if I were taking the test, and had no trouble. A good refresher, actually.

Kevin OClassen

(Also under the conditions stated, it would drift 4500', not 4400'. Added by denverdoc)

UhClem

Why would they start now? The TRA test is based on the 1995 edition of NFPA 1127 that TRA still uses as their safety code.

rcktnut

I think the NAR should honor tests already taken up to the year expiration date. Also I hope every member is responsible enough to stay a-breast of the rule changes on their own. I go through the test/rules at least once a year. I like being able to get through less than half the question and already know the answer!!

Jeff

CTulanko

After hearing from some of you and others across the board regarding the requirement to retake the written exam, it was decided to accept anyone's old passed exam, provided the certifier goes over the changed sections in the new Exam keysheet verbally with the certifying individual. This holds true for anyone if their exam was taken less than one year prior to the release of the new exams on Tuesday, February 12th, 2008. We believe this method will provide the members wishing to certify a means to catch up on the latest rules without having to retake an exam and we feel this is a good compromise.

We appologize for any inconvenience this may have caused over the past day or so, but also wanted you to know that your voice is really heard and speaking up does make a difference. Thanks again to all who gave input on the subject and provided the input needed to bring fourth a positive change.

Best Regards,

Carl Tulanko
Chairman, Sport Services
National Association of Rocketry

heada

Very good answer and a great compromise. Glad to see that NAR hears our concerns and will take action on them.

-Aaron

tedcochran55409

Thanks for the feedback, both here and by PM. Keep it coming. (you can email PM me here).

The 4500 vs 4400 feet of drift depends on whether you use 20mph or the approximation, 30 fps (should actually be 29.333 feet).

Our thinking is that the answer key is supposed to do most of the educating here, so thanks for helping us to get it right (including fixes to the citations that confirm the provided answer is correct, for those who have provided them.)

As for the discussion about grandfathering the old test, thanks for that, too. While I think there might have only been a very small number actually affected, the discussion about official policy was useful.

--tc

tedcochran55409

Oops, I forgot to add this:

NAR will continue to recognize the certifications from other organizations. The NFPA requirement is:

"Certification of a user shall require proof that the user has a level of knowledge and competence in handling, storing, and using a high power solid-propellant rocket motor and high power rockets that is acceptable to the certifying organizations."

I personally don't think NAR wants to audit what "acceptable to the certifying organizations" means .

I imagine that the other organizations will fairly rapidly bring their tests in to congruence with current applicable regulations as a matter of good practice.

--tc

Just Jerry

This is a near perfect observation of what's wrong with NAR now and before.

This sort of thing, which happens over and over both at NAR and TRA, in a variety of ways, actually shys away members and prospects.

Just Jerry

CTulanko

Just Jerry...you need to look up a few posts to #21...the problem has been resolved and the NAR both accepted responsibility and produced a solution.

UncleVanya

I have a problem with this approach. For someone good at memorizing material and taking a test this is a breeze but for others this is not a good way to learn. The answer key does not educate - it only teaches people to pass a particular set of questions. The goal should be to get people to understand this material - not to get them to simply pass.

When the next revision cycle touches on cert processes again I would like to be involved. Please let me know how to do that.

Rocket Flier

"High power certification is intended to provide a measure of the modeler's competence to avoid gross violations of good modeling practice and safe model operation. The program is not foolproof. A single demonstration of a modeler's skills does not guarantee consistent safe performance. The certification program does not replace competent range personnel (note that high power range safety officers will require high power certification per NFPA 1127) to provide assurance of safe models and operating practices."

http://www.nar.org/hpcert/NARhpdetails.html

Steve_Shannon

Carl,
I don't believe an apology is needed. I never felt that your motives were less than honorable. I very much appreciate this compromise and more importantly that we can point to this as an example of NAR national leadership listening.
I absolutely agree that the new test is an important upgrade and I would urge all L2 or above, especially club officers, RSOs, and LCOs to download the new questions and answers and become very familiar with them.

denverdoc

Ted,

Maybe a note then, as in "using the approx of 30fps, drift is 4500' "

I know its nitpicking but I do a lot of physics tutoring, and there is nothing more aggravating than using numbers cited and not getting the right answer.

While we are on the subject of nits, D8 should mention that it is one maximal tube diameter in the case of rockets with transitions.

Even Rocksim can get this wrong with potentially disastrous consequences unless one is paying attn on page 1.

Finally, I took exception to the remark about not surface mounting fins on C19. How is one supposed to build an MD rocket, perhaps this could be changed to "not recommended without the provision of additional reinforcement such as fiberglass."

Thanks for the opportunity to have some input here.

agrippo

Thank you Steve!

tedcochran55409

Folks should remember that the most recent changes to NFPA 1127 were the most significant in some time. They were mostly proposed by NAR as a result of the safety study led by Jay Apt; the changes were unanimously adopted with support from both NAR and TRA.

The new exam reflects these changes, and was beefed up the most in Section C, Range and Safety Practices. A few questions were deleted, and some were moved. The following questions are new:

A: 22 & 23
C: 3, 4,6,9,10, 39-51
D: 7

Cheers,

--tc

denverdoc

Ted,

Indeed, but if your overhauling the exam and want to keep things as safe as possible, I believe my suggestions are appropos--they at least alert the examinee of circumstances where one size don't fit all.

SpaceCowboy

Hi,

Not to throw razor blades down during a barefoot race, but certification for rocketry is like trying to create certification for pickup football in your frontyard! (Ya'll be arguing about the test, what are ya juz makin this stuff up as you go along!) (Ya'll need some realistic visionaries to organize rocketry, NO WONDER the ATF, FBI, Homeland Security, etc is all in ya bidness, yous guys ain't got it figgered out, so they will regulate your mindset for ya and they DON'T KNOW AND DON'T CARE about rocketry!) Shoot they even think you can't shoot a plane with a homemade rocket, OEY!

Why is it the eggheads always gotta start coming up with how you gotta do something when ya look at their stuff and say why would I wanna follow your crappy rules look at your junk! Hey "the world is not flat", come out of the stoneage!

Why would I want to be member of something that wants me as a member, but only if I Baaaaaaaa!

As the first grader said to Einstein, no no no this is the way you do it!

OEY! I'm bein a bad wittal puddytat!

heada

If you live in a state that has adopted NFPA 1127 as law (and nearly all states have) then it is a legal requirement to be certified by a national organization in order to fly high power rockets (H class and higher). There are exceptions for groups like universities and research institutions.

If you'd like to fly high power rockets without the legal requirement to be certified then you must lobby your state to repeal NFPA 1127 from law. An example of this is Indiana. Even without NFPA 1127 in your state being law, there are very few retailers that will sell you high power motors without you being certified.

-Aaron

jsdemar

It's a fire code, not a statutory law. Like many other codes, you can get a waiver from the appropriate authority without going the the state legislature.

Bayourat

For these same reasons I have never joined NAR.