ddmobley

To those that know the truth about the reason Tom Rouse stepped down, his contributions to the position and to the hobby do not go unnoticed. While the organization has improved its image regarding favoritism, cronyism, and underhanded tactics, the facts behind Tom's decision still demands that there is work yet to be done for those brave enough to take a stand. Thank you, Tom, for your service and contributions, and hopefully those that follow in your wake will accomplish some good in your departure.

Just Jerry

I neither agree with nor disagree with the particular decision.

What I do like, is here is a guy who has a procedure he follows, states what it is, comes to a conclusion he considers reasoned and fair and PUBLISHES it for all to see.

This is a new Tripoli and I like it!

Then he steps down in the normal course of action, he already alerted leadership to, and assigns responsibility to others in a fashion that if they so wish they could reverse the decision, but if they do THEY will have to take a position and justify it.

He did not follow past TRA leader practice by holding on to the position with their dying breath, defend their decision against any and all efforts to either review or modify it. This guy has no ego.

I would vote for him as TRA President. I would nominate HIM to be on the lawsuit committee.

Ethics matters and Tom Rouse has them.

Jerry

He can be an asshole too, but with good ethics, who really cares?

Adrian A

All I can say for now is that I have been as open and transparent about both the Parrot performance and my own record attempt designs as I can possibly be, so that it should be obvious to everyone that I have been acting in good faith and doing my part to enhance everyone's enjoyment of this hobby. I even described exactly how someone can beat my 7492' flight on TRF.

There are a lot of different possible responses that I'm tempted to make to this surprising decision, but for now I'm going to hold my tongue and figure out how I can have the most fun with it.

jderimig

IMO, If a device is "approved" for contests it shouldn't matter who flys it.

If the concern is a manufacturer can tweak his device there are far easier ways to fake an altitude result.

I am not criticizing Mr. Rouse, just that it is possible that his decision was not the best one.

Just Jerry

Adrian just show your unit is "unmodified commercial product" to the new records committee, and request they review the decision. Then accept whatever decision they make. Then ask them to accept your altimeters for use by anyone without prejudice, even for the manufacturer itself.

"Show" could be a sworn affidavit. Easy and free.

If they rule in your favor I will rejoice in your success and also in a justice process at Tripoli functioning. I will be happy!

Jerry

Adrian A

I would be happy to do this. If things go well this weekend, they'll have more than one flight to review, if they should choose to do so.

Johnnie

Go get it!!

Just Jerry

Usually for concerns over "conflict of interest" which is the inference of a manufacturer using their own device to set a world record, the proper procedure is "public disclosure".

The reasoning for this is if someone wants to be alerted to proving an actual conflict as opposed to a theoretical one, anybody with special information can come forward if they wish to voice it.

Adrian and Tripoli have clearly already publicly disclosed the "potential conflict".

It would appear now that under the rules as they sit, there must be affirmative proof of a conflict for the review committee, which has already been named by the former Department chair, otherwise it seems on the face of it, the rocket flier has the "benefit of the doubt".

I suspect providing supporting evidence such as comparable units, a sworn statement, and a reflight with a different unit of the same type or even a different brand, would be strong material in support of granting the original record, and product bragging rights, well earned.

Jerry

H_rocket

I agree with John on this one. My only concern is embedded in Tom's statement that his rationale is not spelled out in the rules. If the rules do not say a manufacturer can not use their own product then, even considering the appearances argument, I am not sure applying this standard is the best response.

Just Jerry

One of the valuable things that came from both records denials is the public showing of one of Gary Rosenfield's "temper tantrums" (based on my view of his reaction to the record being denied). I have gotten several emails, revealing to me back room expanded examples of this, and the machinations of TRA board members carrying water for Gary (supporting Tom against his ruling in his position), almost independent of fact and rule, which I have seen numerous times before. But the good news is, even though that is still happening, the PUBLIC actions of a single TRIPOLI official to do the right thing came to light, and it was well received. Critically bad ethics at Tripoli will be a hard and slow thing to reverse, especially with the ultimate "actual" conflict, in my historically accurate opinion, of Aerotech apparently "packing the board".

But to the extent good news happens, even if by uphill battle or strange coincidence, we should all welcome it and encourage it to be expanded and repeated in the future. Like it or not, TRA is the major face of consumer HPR in the USA. Let freedom ring.

Jerry

denverdoc

A minority opinion I'm sure: I think Tom made the right call. Its a tough one to be sure, but after some reflection, I have to agree that manufacturers should not be allowed to use their own products for the purposes of establishing records.

It is not at all that I think Adrian would jimmy the results: I have been supportive of his efforts to bring a state of the art device in small size basically since day one. That he goes well beyond even the extra mile to build arguably the most accurate devices available in the hobby is commendable and I hope to own a couple real soon. I have every confidence that the rocket flown went just where Adrian claims.

But as I looked at this and considered say Gary flying a motor for whatever record--could be Paul, Anthony, Jeff, doesn't matter, this isn't about personalities--I decided it wouldn't sit well with me. See whether there are easier ways to fake a record than doctor software or juice propellant, it doesn't matter, the perception that another entrant might have a leg up on the field by illicit means sort of spoils the whole idea of a completely level playing field.

Its just a can of worms in the end to make exceptions. If I build 2 or 3 altimeters and cert them, am I then a manufacturer? Do you trust me not to fiddle the data?. If so what about the next guy?

Its the perception that things are not and cannot be rigged that is fundamental to maintaining a healthy interest in cutting edge designrecord trials. Maybe we need a requirement to fly two devices that need to "close" within 5 percent. Things get cramped in 29, but a picoalt could likely get squeezed in there. Beyond that its a non-issue to have two devices.

There are other problems as well--should legacy motor flights live on in the record books. Inman's fliht used a motor unavailble now, the I record seems unassailable on a legacy motor. These need to get instant asterisk status as soon as the motor is no longer certified.

UncleVanya

I'm torn. On the one hand I am certain that this F altitude record attempt is not tainted. On the other hand I can see how someone might do so.

But if this was a homemade flight computer - would this hold true? Or would the records chair just demand proof / verification that the device was functional and ask to be shown calibration data?

The question is really not do we trust this flier - it's do we trust all who follow. If not, then how do we make this lack of trust a non-issue? I'm sure that anyone with good electronics knowledge and programming skills could force an altimeter not of their manufacture to tweak the results upwards. Again - how do you validate - or how do you extend trust?

We already have to assume that motor manufacturers are not tweaking their motors and passing along "hot one's" to fliers who want to break records. The whole system is based on a certain amount of trust. If we don't want that level of trust and prefer validation - then we need a new more verifiable set of standards.

I'm on the side of those who think a little trust is ok here. But maybe I'm naive.

UncleVanya

I think motors are already off limits in this way. Not sure honestly. But altimeters are different they are not consumed in the process and can be independently verified and checked after the flight.

This is the defining difference.




Turn this around. Why ban a guy for innovation? What motive does he have for trying this again? Where goes the motivation to improve and validate the results?

denverdoc

The latter is what I had the toughest time with. We don't want to stifle innovation in the least. But I remain convinced and I think you said it better in some ways--it's not about whether we trust Adrian, it's the next guy, and the one after that. Thats why Tom made the right call--he put principles above personalities! Otherwise by default: some cronyism is Ok, so long as we like the guy, elsewhere it's not.

Thats why this really can't be about trust in the end. Bring data, and bring it redundantly--two diff makes and models of altimeters period. One could be your own. Elimnates doubt--we never did here about the other on board devices on the M record--does one fly redundantly at their own peril, i.e. decision is to take the lower of the two values?

And short of having a baro chamber there at the range desk, altimeters are just like motors. Once removed from the scene, anyones guess. I guess they could be impounded pending verification. Again do not misunderstad--this is in no way reflective of Adrian, but the somewhat shoddy, ambiguous rules we have at the moment.

Dwatkins

Maybe a way to get around this is to first fly it in paralel with another Mfg. altimeter in a friends rocket and verify the results. Then under the watchful eye's of the flights witnesses to prep and fly the record attempt.

UncleVanya

I'm ok with impound by prefect or witness etc. The point is that it can be removed by someone else and validated. Forcing a flier to use equipment they are not comfortable with - and forcing extra electronics into smaller record flights is going to ruffle everyone's feathers.

Remember what I said about model that you don't make. You can modify them if you want. Nothing stopping you except your own ethics. Validation via baro chamber is an option. Not so with motors. Imagine if you had to bring three motors and burn two (at random) to validate they were in spec! We have to extend some trust at some point.

H_rocket

With respect to the discussion about the possibility (however slim) of a manufacturer getting a leg up through cheating (although I don't know why as there is little or no profit at stake in the record); If the record is going to be denied then it should be for a stated reason in the rules, not because there might be an appearance of impropriety.

Just Jerry

Now we have a debate! I DISAGREE WITH YOU!! Tom made the absolutely right decision on the first record. Indisputable. On the second one he made a judgement call with ethics preceeding faith. He had the authority to do that, but he also left the final decision to a committee. Admittedly a rubber stamp one, but one nonetheless.

I do NOT think manufacturers should be excluded since they are members too. Maybe their records should have an asterisk, but as a former manufacturer nothing would please me more than someone else beating MY record. I did that to Lonnie Reese at NARWIN-1 in Phoenix, AZ to 1041m with an E60-0 to an F100-10, and I was competing against him at the time!! That was golden.

I later had drinks with Lonnie, Lee and Vern. I was not in heaven. I was in rocket-heaven.

I was wayyy too giddy to even take a picture!

Jerry

denverdoc

UV,
Still don't agree. No one is forcing anyone to "use equipment". It just needs to be along for the ride. This is why the NAR who tends to be a lot more geeki IME have wrestled with this issue, and came up with a very short list.

Al, It was an interpretation well within Tom's prerogative IMO.

denverdoc

I can think of a few ways where I'd be absolutely comfortable with manufacturer using ow motor/ and if some procedure was codified, bring em on! In fact as you know from prior posts that I'm all in favor of seeing motor makers do a little competition, friendly or otherwise, with state of the art statements, if not recod attempts!

Just Jerry

Sportsmanship. It should be presumed and encouraged not questioned and tested for.

To do otherwise is evidence of lack of faith.

Jerry

UncleVanya

Actually I have problems with TARC's insistence on a single altimeter that is nominally accurate vs. a much higher performing product like Parrot. My point was that requiring a pair of devices would put F and G and other record flights in trouble.




I agree that this was within his prerogative. But I think that it was the wrong decision. I think at worst - uphold that record and say that no future attempts should be made until this issue is considered at length. The fact that nothing prohibited this means that the attempt was in good faith and denied ex post facto.

Not saying Tom was grossly wrong - he made a decision that has reasonable logic behind it. I don't agree but it was done in the open with proper transparency. Tom even left it so that this decision is not to be considered final and is open to review.

denverdoc

Faith: You got it, I had it but lost mine recently.

But for a buncha wannbe rocket scientists to rely on the results of a single altimeter that may or may not be calibrated for a world record is laughable in the extreme.

Just Jerry

It's Tripoli?

It steps on THE monopoly vendor's ego?

Control is more important than rational acts?

Just observations, not opinions.

Just Jerry

"It's not right, it just is."

denverdoc

No it wouldn't. F and G rockets could be flown with a picoalt/parrot combo-might cost an inch or so, but still very doable. I don't even like TARC rules at this point, but NAR is doing its utmost to maintain a level playing field. I'd prefer to see Parrot's in them too. But as it stands getting to a predetermined altitude is not about performance so much as good mdeling, lots of test flights, and having a robust design more immune to the vagaries of conditions than the next teams. Then a lot of luck!!! The altimeter should be as precise as possible, so again. I'm all for Parrots. But the parrot wan't around when TARC evolved into it's current format, so there is inertia at work.





At the risk of sounding argumentative, this is precisely what you're saying--that Tom was wrong, just not grossly. Whether it should be appealable, undecided. Since it wasn't a high $$ motor, nor even an optimal flight, I don't think its a huge issue at this point. The question is what's to be done about future flights. Like the supreme court, issues can be argued for both sides very forcefully and with buckets full of precedent. But at some point the decisions need to be final--or we run the risk of inviting the cronyism/favoritism we all find so odious back into the room. I can only second guess that Tom was striving for the highest level of consistency with the rules he had.

In the end, my thought is it would not require very great effort at all to design and abide by a set of rules that level the field. Arguments against appear to me as strawmen--what, no trust? It's too hard. Well it wasn't eplicit....

TRA has precious little competition available, Most don't care. But for those of us who do and are keenly interested in the limited venues available, why not do all we can to make certain it's as solid as can be? Off soapbox.

jderimig

The fact that there is a debate means there is a weakness in the rules.

I ask someone who is familiar with the rules..

Q. Do the rules explicitly prohibit Adrian's flight AND/OR do the rules allow the contest director discretion in disqualification based on what he thinks the "intent" was of the rule writer's?

Does the job description of the contest director include interpreting the "intent" TRA?

UncleVanya

Actually my primary concern is that this is a condition placed on a flight after it has already flown that has never before been placed on these flights. Perhaps it never came up. As a dyed in the wool rules lawyer... (guilty!)... my immediate response is SHOW ME WHERE THIS IS PROHIBITED PRIOR TO THE FLIGHT.

But that said, Tom's intentions seem in the same vein as yours. I think it is a good point to make that this is relatively low cost for the particular flier. But if that flier is to have to fly again using a competitor's product - that's a big issue. What if it was me. What if I had flown to that launch site and spent a lot of money getting there and recording all of the data correctly only to be denied because the manufacturer of the altimeter I used was a personal friend or relative. Where does it end? Where does the trust boundary get drawn? Do we ban anyone from competition using any product that they have any relationship however tenuous to?

In any case, again altimeters can be verified post flight. The requirements will need to be thought about for a while and perhaps a couple of options will exist including multiple altimeters, verification post flight, average of three flights made with random equipment supplied from outside sources, etc. The list is endless. But my big point is that you don't change the rules AFTER the flight and invalidate the flight. You stop future flights with a freeze on any flights that stray into the area of concern until this is resolved. You let stand the one's that flew before the situation came to light.

Tom's decision is not dumb or unfounded. I just don't agree. My opinion is that this was the wrong decision but it's just that - my opinion. I cannot fault him for how he handled this in terms of public disclosure and rational thinking. We came to different conclusions but that's life.

denverdoc

I'll bet it has never come up. Tom reacted to a strange situation the best he could--the altimeter wasn't impounded. he had no assurance that the same would be provided if requested, and using the motor analogy made a ruling. Seems pretty simple, so we agree to disagree. I'm sure we beat this horse quite beyond pulp by now...

markkoelsch

The problem with this, at least in this case, is that an F motor attempt rocket is a small rocket. The Parrot is a small altimeter...at least dimensionally. Two altimeters would not fit.

I think that if Adrian has gotten the altimeter certified for contest use, and he flies a record breaking flight, the record should stand. I think that doing a second flight to prove it should be enough if it is verified by others at the field and the data is submitted.

I also do not have a problem with motor manufacturers settign altitude records with off the shelf motors. I realize a motor could be doctored, but if it was found to be doctored woudl that not do some damage to the manufacturer?

Mark Koelsch

denverdoc

Maybe but don't think so re sizing-the motor is 29mm and I have a rocket much like Adrian's that houses in addition to a Mawd, a Big red bee tracker. It sims to similar altitudes, so what we are talking about is shoehorning a third device--it might cost Adrian an inch. In my case becuz of the MAWD, I have already lost that inch. But I'm not suggesting he has to do it now--just thinking about the future, and the best way to do this.

Now what is ironiic about the pictured altimeter is that its apparently unapproved for record use--so if one should fly it and submit the record not knowing any better, it too might be disallowed. This is what Biba's committee should clean up ASAP IMHO.

JDcluster

I too feel this was right call as to not let Mfg compete in record attempts.
Most manufactures have more resources than any one person trying on their own.



JD

Rocket Flier

... and anyone that works in aerospace, or even just works with composites, or those students at universities with windtunnels,...

Make the rules, then run the contest.

SpartaChris

I disagree with the idea of disallowing manufacturers the right to compete in contests. So what if they have access to more resources, they still have to design, build and fly the rocket.

Besides, If you're going to disallow manufacturers because they have better access to resources, then you should also disallow those contestants who have a considerable amount of wealth, since they too would have better access to resources.

I think one simple solution would be for the contest committe to keep an inventory of acceptable electronics that they ship out to contestants, at the contestants expense. The electronics should be marked with some kind of decal or seal or engraving or something to verify that they are the only approved electronics to be used on the flight. And it doesn't have to be one kind of electronics- use whatever you want, and give the flier the choice of what they want to use.

Following the flight, the electronics are sent back, also at the fliers expense, to the contest committe with the paperwork, so that the data can be verified. This would render any argument over electronics irrelevant.

Adrian A

There has been a lot of good discussion by people honestly looking for the right answer. Thanks for all of the good comments (especially the ones I agree with ). I'd like to respond individually to them, but that would take a lot of bandwidth. Instead, I'd like to try to boil this down to the following simple points, which apply to my case and in general, I think:

If all of the following are true:
a) The flyer appeared to have followed all the rules, including using a certified commercial altimeter with the appropriate altitude range, having witnesses, filling out the form correctly and meeting all the rest of the requirements
b) The flyer's altimeter said that the rocket beat the record
c) The flyer put his/her own credibility and reputation on the line by signing their name to the record application form, saying that all the above is true

then one of the following is true:

1) A new record was set fair and square and the application should be approved
2) Unknown to the flyer, and despite being certified, the altimeter gave an incorrect reading
3) The flier is a lying, cheating scumbag, and they are not to be trusted when they attest, in writing, that a particular set of events is true

#2 can be determined to be true or false after the flight to a reasonably high degree of certainty, using a vacuum chamber and a reference gauge. I'm perfectly willing to provide the altimeter to resolve #2 to anyone's satisfaction. But #2 was not the reason given in Tom Rouse's explanation for the denial.

That leaves #1, or #3, and I don't see how logically there can be a middle ground.

To accuse a fellow rocketeer of being a lying, cheating scumbag requires, in my mind, more evidence than the well-advertised fact that the rocketeer in question manufactures altimeters. I don't think Tom exactly was intending to call me a lying, cheating scumbag, but by implication, that's exactly what he did. According to Tripoli policy per Tom Rouse, manufacturers cannot be trusted to tell the truth on their record application forms. I hope the community can understand why I take that personally.

To enshrine in official policy that no manufacturer shall ever be taken at his word when he or she fills out and signs a record attempt form, is a mistake, in my opinion, that deserves to be overturned. I'm sure it was a well-intentioned mistake, and I'm happy to see it published on a forum in the open, and happier that the author has the guts to put it out there publicly, but still it was a quite a whopper of an error, in my opinion.

If a non-manufacturer still wants to argue that the policy is correct, then please explain to me why I should be considered a lying, cheating scumbag, and how your non-manufacturer status makes trust a non-issue if/when you ever attempt to set an altitude record.

This is a small community, and reputations matter. I don't take it lightly when someone says that I can't be trusted not to cheat.

Rocket Flier

Your conclusion is faulty. There are more than 3 possible truths.