I think the NAR collects data of some sort (failed certifications???). IIRC, i read that a pretty strong majority are recovery failures...other than that I'm not sure

If you're looking for statistics with good data, I can't think of any comprehensive source. Certainly no one at NCR tracks this info.

For my own part, I had 4 failed L2 attempts and all but 1 failure were the result of recovery problems. The other was a mis-assembled J350 load that ended up burning through the forward closure and case. Of the recovery failures 2 were probably due to motor-well ejection charges falling out or failing to ignite for reasons of flyer error. The final 1 was due to shock cord failure or nose attachment failure.

My L1 and L3 were both flawless on the first try.

For what it is worth, in my L1 and L2 attempts, which include four failures before I was successful, all had to do with the recovery, whether it be a tangled shock cord or failure to get the chute to deploy. Yet for my last rocket flight, which was on an "F", it ended in failure when my motor adapter came apart and allowed the motor to go up inside the main motor tube, greatly restricting the thrust. The rocket failed to get to adequate altitude and pranged before the ejection charge went off. Another learning experience. As far as records go, maybe we could create a log in the forums where people are willing to document their failures and what caused these events so that we may all learn from them. Some will become common, and others will be unique, such as unknown cause, appears nose cone may have come apart at Mach 2.5. We could also document our solutions. On a couple of my successful flights, I had someone with greater experience watch me do my prep work and gave me suggestions that I chose to follow, and the result was a good flight with a good landing.

... unknown cause, appears nose cone may have come apart at Mach 2.5.

Hmmm.... I wonder who that could be 😯

Should I have asked first for permission to use this example? 🙄 I thought it was an outstanding display of rocketry and pushing the envelope. Just sometimes the envelope doesn't hold up real well. I am sure many can learn from this one. I for one, will remember this when I try to push my limits, know ing it is not what I know can go wrong, but what I do not know that can go wrong!

Heh - it's a great example to use, and it does perfectly illustrate how often, the problem isn't what you think could go wrong, but it is instead what you didn't ever think could be a problem. I know I was really concerned about the fins and motor mount with 1500 pounds of thrust, and I never even considered that the nose cone could fail.

Should I have asked first for permission to use this example? 🙄 I thought it was an outstanding display of rocketry and pushing the envelope. Just sometimes the envelope doesn't hold up real well.

I think if anyone is using "envelopes" for nose cones, they are jusk asking for failure at mach 2. 😉