Adrian, two concerns, you are the designer and programmer of the device, sending a file or posting your charts do not allow someone to verify your altitude. I am not questioning your honesty but I am questioning your participation.

For club level we have had a rule that any altitude needs to be verified by another member. I know of at lest 1 that was not and it was never questioned. At a club level it is more of a friendly competition but at the national level it is not so much.

Nothing against you but I do not feel that a manufacture of an altimeter should compete for national records using his own flight computer and data that you can tweak. I am not sure if I am the only one that sees a problem with this but I think it could give you an unfair advantage if one would make the data to your advantage. Not competing and not participating in working with someones data would be a good decision. also working with your software so that it can not be tweaked and altered by any user.

Again this is not an attack on you or questioning your honesty just telling you that it really looks funny and to prevent anyone questioning your electronics and honesty you should not submit this as a record. It would be a good idea to use a different manufactures altimeter if you do want to compete for records.

Just my opinion,

James,

I'll be happy to send the altimeter that sent the record to anyone that can calibrate it against a NIST-referenced standard. I have such a calibrated reference, and this morning, I verified that the calibration of the Parrot I used was low by about 0.3% before I posted the results here.

Anyone can tweak the data from any altimeter. The Parrot's source code is open source. Because I'm a manufacturer with a reputation into which I've invested a lot of time and money, I have more to lose by cheating than most would. I calibrate all of the altimeters in a batch at the same time, under the same conditions, using an automated calibration program. I have no way of knowing which altimeters read a little high or low in the process of producing them, and I make a point of selecting the altimeters I use at random. The first time I checked the calibration of the altimeter I just used to break the record was this morning.

The Parrot would not exist if I had not designed it for setting records with my own rockets. If I were to make an extra-low-drag nosecone for my own rocketry project, would I not be allowed to use it? How about if I made that nosecone for anyone who wanted to buy one? Would my customers be allowed to use it for records but not myself? Why should I have to use an inferior nosecone that someone else made, especially if I make them available to anyone who wants to buy one for their own projects?

I'm going to continue to carefully follow the rules, dot my i's and cross my t's on my record applications, and keep submitting record applications when I break records. If the owners of the record lists choose to allow their record lists to be inaccurate/out of date just to prevent manufacturers from participating, there's not much I can do about that. I think that such a policy would be not just unfair, but bad for the hobby because it de-incentives innovation.

But I'm glad that so far, people can come to the NCR record list if they want to see what the world's highest flights really are (the F record, for example). I hope that the NCR list remains fair and open to anyone who follows the rules, and I hope that the TRA record list adopts a fair and open policy, as well.

The Parrot would not exist if I had not designed it for setting records with my own rockets. If I were to make an extra-low-drag nosecone for my own rocketry project, would I not be allowed to use it? How about if I made that nosecone for anyone who wanted to buy one? Would my customers be allowed to use it for records but not myself? Why should I have to use an inferior nosecone that someone else made, especially if I make them available to anyone who wants to buy one for their own projects?

You can make your own nose cone, airframe and fins because you can not manipulate the out come, you can however manipulate the out come of the data. I am not saying you are but you can and if the data is not verified coming from the altimeter that came from the rocket that the witness saw fly it is not verifiable. Verifying it days later after you have filtered, manipulated or what ever is not the right way to do it. If I was the RSO I would not sign it just because you said that is the altitude. If I did not hold the rocket and count the beeps myself I would not sign off and if it was my rocket I would not ask someone to do so unless I could hand them the rocket on the field and let them hear it for them selves.

I do not think you see the point I am making, maybe someone can help me...

BTW, I am not one that is competing for altitude and have nothing to loose from your record being submitted or not and I have nothing to gain if you do not submit it. I just did not think it seemed right the way it looks.

The Parrot would not exist if I had not designed it for setting records with my own rockets.

Adrian, there lies in the nature of the skepticism. I don't fly altitude attempts but I have been around the rocket community for many decades and one thing I know about the people that set altitude records is that it takes a lot of time and experience to set and hold these records. That is why you see relatively few names on the list o record holders. And for some relatively new to come in a blow away altitude records is either very lucky or their methods will be held under a microscope.

Now NO one is accusing or even implicating you intentionally did something to try to cheat. But you have to admit that the rocket design for say a F or G altitude record has been refined down to a nat's ass over that last forty years or so and based on your quote above is the source of the apprehension, you designed the only relatively new thing on your rocket, the altimeter, and you set a new TRA record?

Sorry for sticking my nose into where it doesn't belong. But why not shut up all the critics and just fly you rocket with another altimeter? If you can set an altitude record with the parrot, why not do it with another altimeter? And if your altimeter is showing higher than other altimeters with the same rocket and motor on the same day, then I think the skepticism will continue.

Doug

Adrian, I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with James and Doug on this. TRA is just not going to accept your record attempts unless you're using someone else's altimeter. If you were flying a Missileworks, Adept, or Perfectflight, I don't think there would be an issue.

Right now, there is a huge internal debate in the TRA Records committee going on over barometric altimeters for any altitude records to begin with. With all sorts of discussions going on about the standard atmospheric model, baro sensors, temperature compensation, etc. No one is particularly standing up for baro OR accelerometer based altimeters and most of the discussion seems to lean in the direction of GPS based altitude determination and requiring 4 satellites locked during the flight as well as providing the full raw GPS data stream rather than just an altitude number in order to set a TRA world record.

No one is questioning your integrity, but given the community, they're not going to accept it when the designer/manufacturer is the one who flew the shot. One of the bigger issues around it is that the altimeter doesn't provide a direct reading, but that the data must be downloaded and processed to provide that reading. If you were providing a reading in beeps or flashes or something so it could be read right at the LCO table after the flight, there would be less of an issue, but the issue would still be there in a way it would not were you flying a Perfectflight or a Missileworks. Another part of the issue is the F and G record in particular have stood for a good many years and many people have tried to take them using the very same motors you've been playing with as well as better 24mm motors and they've yet to fall. Wilke was incredibly lucky to beat Bill Inman's G record and it took several years of attempts before he made that happen.

Warren

Right now, there is a huge internal debate in the TRA Records committee going on over barometric altimeters for any altitude records to begin with. With all sorts of discussions going on about the standard atmospheric model, baro sensors, temperature compensation, etc. No one is particularly standing up for baro OR accelerometer based altimeters and most of the discussion seems to lean in the direction of GPS based altitude determination and requiring 4 satellites locked during the flight as well as providing the full raw GPS data stream rather than just an altitude number in order to set a TRA world record.Warren

There is a big debate going on but there is not restrictions against a manf. from competing.

there is is the works 1 altimeter used for all flights as payload only, the BOD is to vote on it some time soon.

No, you're quite correct - there are no restrictions on a manufacturer competing. That said, I think folks are inclined to view a manufacturer competing with a somewhat jaundiced eye.

The two main issues I've heard brought up about Adrian's Parrot are:
- Not direct reading, data must be downloaded and post-processed to arrive at an altitude AGL.
- Significant difference between altitudes reported from the Parrot and traditional commercial altimeters such as Missileworks and Perfectflight when they've been flown together.

Now that said, I personally believe Adrian's Parrot is likely to be a more accurate altimeter than the traditional commercial units people are used to. The accelerometer data and barometric data together are likely to result in a more accurate altitude than either alone.

Warren

The last thing I want to do is stifle any innovation when it comes to new products and designs for rocketry. We definitely need new, smaller, accurate, affordable deployment altimeters - there are just too few choices out there.

That being said, I want to address the RSO/LCO witness request made earlier. It got me thinking - "what if that were me?" I think I would have trouble verifying an altitude a week later based on an email. I just would not feel comfortable putting my name down as a witness in that case. Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned but I like the way it's done now......Someone walks up to the LCO table, smiling, with a beeping rocket in hand. This is what I have no qualms about witnessing.

On a related note, what if Bdale finds his L3 bird and simply emails his TAP a digital photo of the recovered rocket, would that count for a successful certification? I hope not, but it seems like it’s a related issue.

Finally, congratulations to Adrian for what was undoubtedly a great flight (record or no record) and here’s hoping that Bdale does recover his L3.

The last thing I want to do is stifle any innovation when it comes to new products and designs for rocketry. We definitely need new, smaller, accurate, affordable deployment altimeters - there are just too few choices out there.

That being said, I want to address the RSO/LCO witness request made earlier. It got me thinking - "what if that were me?" I think I would have trouble verifying an altitude a week later based on an email. I just would not feel comfortable putting my name down as a witness in that case. Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned but I like the way it's done now......Someone walks up to the LCO table, smiling, with a beeping rocket in hand. This is what I have no qualms about witnessing.

For what it is worth, Mike found the rocket and dropped it off at the launch site when I was there hunting for lost rockets. So there was a chain of custody of the rocket up until the point the altimeter was downloaded. These are really good ethical and procedural questions, but hopefully there is a rule book with this written down that provides a clear answer

Chad, that is one of the things that TRA's new records committee is working on. Up until recently, TRA records were largely the province of Tom Rouse and his judgement ruled all. A few recent controversies, including one of Adrian's record applications, caused him to resign from the position and a new committee has been formed with Erik Gates I believe in charge. At the moment, no record applications for flights over 25K are being accepted without raw GPS data showing a minimum of 4 satellites locked. Pressure altitudes are being accepted below 25K though that may not last long according to rumor.

As for barometric altitude in the aviation industry, those altimeters are calibrated and traceable to NIST standards. This is not true of the run of the mill rocketry altimeter. I think that having individual altimeters calibrated to NIST traceable standards should be a baseline requirement for altimeters used for altitude records,

Warren

from what I understand the TAP will be assisting in some of these issues and applications of 25k but the contents chair will not except any data other then GPS 30k and above, at lest that was the last I had heard at LDRS a month ago. They are also working out were if one is going to tray to set a record they will need to request an approved altimeter that will be owned by TRA that will be shipped to them with a fee or a deposit. They will own maybe 12 of them and will send them out as needed and all records will be with the same brand and same units to prevent any issues (they hope). This is not set in stone but what is being looked at they still need to agree on a brand or see if someone would make one just for this use.