Before the old web page was lost, we had very specific rules about altitude records. In fact, there was an entire page of rules, which were written up and adopted at a club meeting. One of those rules was that records could be set at any venue, and would be honored as long as the person who set them was an NCR member in good standing.

When the web page was transferred over, this was one of the many things that was lost (along with the 1, 2, 3, and 4 mile club).

Another rule that was in play (which I disagreed with) was that you did not need clean recovery. I think birds should come back in "certifiable" condition.

Personally I lean the same way you do John, however I add that it should also include non-club members who fly at either of our two sites in addition to club members flying anywhere - The BOTH A and B approach.

Secondly, that stuff wasn't "lost" except in the sense that no one had the energy to type it in to a new page somewhere here on the new site. Most of the old site was backed up, but locating specific content within the site is difficult without someone who wrote it saying exactly where to go to look for it.

By rights, all altitude records should be filed with the Contest Director on the written Altitude Record application form along with signatures of witnesses and the LCO/RSO. I've never seen either of us do that in the last 3 years - even before the old website came down. We've been extremely informal and have relied only on flight cards or launch logs. I think we'll reinstitute the formal application requirement - especially with the expansion of altitude records beyond the single motor class.

Finally, I too think that rockets should need to be returned in certifiable-condition in order to qualify for an altitude record. No bucket of parts with a beeping altimeter should qualify.

Warren

I think birds should come back in "certifiable" condition.

I prefer the idea the rocket can be made into "flyable" condition on the same day. For example, a slight zipper could be cut off and flown that same day even though the rocket may not be a certifiable rocket anymore.

Doug

I think birds should come back in "certifiable" condition.

I prefer the idea the rocket can be made into "flyable" condition on the same day. For example, a slight zipper could be cut off and flown that same day even though the rocket may not be a certifiable rocket anymore.

Doug

I concur with that approach as well. That is always a fine line. I once saw a prefect reject a cert for a very minor, topical crack in a fin fillet. The rocket was just fine. I saw another prefect certify an L3 attempt that was lost, as in "never seen again". That flyer flew in winds that exceeded 20mph, and someone claimed they had seen the rocket under canopy. I was STUNNED that a cert was granted. So "certifiable condition" is hard to nail down. I like Doug's definition much better.

I think club records should have to be made by a club member in good standing at a club launch site. Two reasons for this. Part of the fun is for the rest of the club members to have the opportunity to witness the event. Second, I think it should be a good natured competition between people within our club. If you allowed a non-club memeber to qualify just cuz they flew at our launch, it really has no reflection on our club. I think club records say something about our club as a whole, and as such whoever holds them should be identified not only as an individual, but as an NCR member as well.

I just sorta see club records as testament not only to what great individuals we have, but what a great club we have too. Club records should stand for both.

Our newer waiver has opened up a lot of this discussion. Until a couple of years ago, we had a 16K waiver, which wouldn't have been able to contain even today's J record. Not too long before that, we were confined to 12K. It became very evident that our waiver, gracious as it was, was too restrictive for serious altitude attempts.

We have club members who I'm positive can crack 30K on an M, and most certainly on an N. We have neither a waiver nor windows to accommodate that. If an NCR member goes to Black Rock and sends an M to 31K, I'd have a hard time telling them that their shot wasn't good enough for an NCR record....

We need to bring this up at next year's meeting. Also talk about darts, the certifiable/flyable thing, etc.

That's a good point John, and in light of it, I retract my opinion that it should be at a club site. I guess I'll just have to keep track of you all making your record breaking attempts so I can be there to see them.

Ahhhhh yesss. This is what I was hoping to finally get back into. Been a few years since dualling with JW for Altitude shots.. Especially the K motor stuff. lol. Anyhow, here is what I belive. An altitude attempt must be announced at the time of flight. It cannot be slop as they say in pool. Call the shot.(not nessacarly how high but that it is an attempt) So if I want to do an attempt I would have to make sure and establish/annouce it before doing so. Next would be that it is open ONLY to NCR members in good standing. Hey just anyone could be from Texas or the black rock area and call us up and say hey I want to go for a club record with your group. Naw.. I dont buy that. There are some things that are CLUB specific. Like Club alltitude records. Hey TRA records arent up for NAR guys are they? I say an NCR member. I also agree with the recovery being in the way as Doug has stated. If a minor repair can be done and its flyable then its a clean recovery. I also belive that we should be able to do (providing wittnesses to such from NCR) the flights at any venue. Be it here or Balls or where ever. Mainly because of the waiver issues as John mentions as well. With that said and knowing what John says alot about come on in..... Hope you guys can swim.. cause the water is just about to get rough... Thats right I be back.

Good to see ya all by the way!!

Conway

I go back and forth on a lot of the issues that have been raised by this. At risk of starting an argument with my good friend John Wilke which I certainly don't want to do, I'm going to weigh in with the following statement.

I am dead set against any attempt to venue-shop so as to set records that cannot be equaled at our club launch sites. An example of this would be to fly at TC's Hartsel site because of the exceptional altitudes that can be achieved in the much thinner air. While I don't mean to downplay John Wilkie's real accomplishments taking the Tripoli F, G and almost H records at the Hartsel site, the essence is that those altitudes would NOT be possible with the same rockets and motors at either the North Site or the Atlas Site no matter what the conditions.

What does flying out of Hartsel have to do with NCR? The fact is, the only way to break those altitude records will be to go and fly out of Hartsel under better conditions than John had or to find another venue with an even greater base altitude or conditions with even thinner air. This all smacks too much to me of venue-shopping and it seems very inappropriate given that NCR does not possess a high altitude launch site. The only alternative I can see that is fair would be to devise a handicapping system that would make venue shopping unattractive to those seeking NCR club altitude records.

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about disqualifing any existing altitude records that were flown elsewhere in the past, however, given our much improved waiver situation at the North Site, I am inclined to think that it should be mandatory for all future altitude record attempts to be flown at either the North Site or Atlas Site with exceptions given for flights made that exceed the club's available waiver such as Black Rock and then only for flights that actually exceed the available NCR waivers.
Given that we'll likely have a 25K waiver with 35K call-ins for MHM and Oktoberfest, there is no reason to fly elsewhere unless you're trying for a record in excess of 35,000' or a research motor record in excess of 28,000'.

None of this is meant to knock what has happened in the past nor to denigrate the accomplishments of folks who've collected altitude records at other venues, but as NCR club records they should be based on flying from NCR fields and not elsewhere except where NCR's waivers cannot accomodate the expected altitude.

Warren

At risk of starting an argument with my good friend John Wilke which I certainly don't want to do, I'm going to weigh in with the following statement.

Warren, I genuinely appreciate your comments and certainly don't take them as anything other than constructive. Your heart is in the right place and your intent is good, and that is the bottom line for me. Having said that, I do have some thoughts, in no particular order --

-- The Hartsel F & G records were flown in 44 and 48 degree temps. On a moderately hot day, they can indeed be trumped up north. In fact, if Rocksim is to be trusted (and it was dead nuts on with the sims for these flights), then an 85 degree day at the north site equates to a 45 degree day at Hartsel for my F and G record rockets. In fact, I have two G55s that I hope to utilize to extend my TRA "G" record. I'm waiting for a hot day at the N site, and I think I'll prove my point at that time...

-- I am the only one directly affected if we disallow off-site records. I'm absolutely willing to expunge those records from the NCR books **IF** you give me back one of those F32s I gave you 🙂 I think that is a fair request, insomuch as I gave them away thinking I wouldn't have to defend my F record. Your points are worth noting, so perhaps we could have a duel - F32s at twenty paces?

-- I didn't go to Hartsel to "venue shop". I have flown there for many years, and truly believe that the N site has considerable advantages from a records standpoint. It is not at all uncommon for the N site to be 40+ degrees warmer. Plus, TCO has a one hour window in which to fly (6K until noon, higher from noon-1PM).

Perhaps two classes of records? or open up a hybrids, staged, EX, etc. section in the records section?

Good input, good points, no argument from me (so long as you don't bogart both of those F32s 😉 )

I don't in any way want to DQ your existing flights John. You earned them and the rules allowed for them and they are completely valid. That said, I think if you do the research you will find that the air at 8300' at 45 degrees F is thinner than the air at the North Site at 100 degrees F. There is a far greater fall off in pressure due to altitude than their is from the effects of temperature.

I know you didn't go to Hartsel to venue shop, but one person - who shall remain unnamed, has suggested it and has suggested that he would fly all his altitude record attempts at Hartsel in order to get the added advantage of flying from a higher base altitude. THAT's what I would like to avoid. I think this is something we should discuss more this Saturday when we're face to face before we commit to any specific course of action.

We will be opening up all the other categories that Tripoli supports except for Black Powder as I don't want to encourage folks to make large BP motors - too dangerous. There will be a Hybrid category, clustered category, staged category and a Research category.

My two cents is that is should be an NCR site webpage and NCR site records.

Like Warren I could see it both ways, but I like the teasing and taunting between you guys.

National organizations like NAR and Tripoli have their national /WW records. I have not the time and inclination do drive to where it's either really high, or really hot, just to break a record.

Then again, you could argue that we should support and recognize our members in their altitude quests.

Bottom line is that I voted for the records being local, but I see the rational for both.

Since the N-site and Hartsel are so different in terms of elevation, temp, barometric pressure, etc., how about having two club altitude records. One for Hartsel, one for the N site. That way the differences between the sites and the respective flights remain separate and distinct. It might give flyers a chance for setting two club altitude records using the same class motor, but at different sites.

Just a thought...

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about disqualifing any existing altitude records that were flown elsewhere in the past, however, given our much improved waiver situation at the North Site, I am inclined to think that it should be mandatory for all future altitude record attempts to be flown at either the North Site or Atlas Site with exceptions given for flights made that exceed the club's available waiver such as Black Rock and then only for flights that actually exceed the available NCR waivers.
Given that we'll likely have a 25K waiver with 35K call-ins for MHM and Oktoberfest, there is no reason to fly elsewhere unless you're trying for a record in excess of 35,000' or a research motor record in excess of 28,000'.

None of this is meant to knock what has happened in the past nor to denigrate the accomplishments of folks who've collected altitude records at other venues, but as NCR club records they should be based on flying from NCR fields and not elsewhere except where NCR's waivers cannot accomodate the expected altitude.
Warren

Warren, I belive I like the thoughts on this as well after reading and thinking about them. But I also agree with John on the fact that there are some shots that can be made that would be easily doable vs what has been done up to so far from out of the north site. Now with the rest of what you mentioned.... Do I ever plan attending balls, Yes. Do I plan on doing some competitive high altitude launching, you bet. Do I plan on motors and flights bigger then our waiver can accomodate.. for sure.. So with those reasons I also agree on making them open range per say on venues to be used where the Waiver are adaquate as where it cant be here.