MANY, MANY RESPONSES POSTED IN LINE
And what is wrong with any of this?!?
TRA and NAR have a long standing and favorable history of working with the NFPA, and it would be stupid to suggest they should do otherwise. The multi level certifications put in place by both organizations have been well thought and well implemented for serveral years.
And you see a problem with this?
Would you please then explain what Safety Code or process that ARSA or IEAS has in place to demonstrate launch safety or member proficiency?
I have no problem with TRA/NAR policy of requiring recertification of members after a one year lapse of membership. It can be done in one day by a reinstated member, if so desired.
If the ARSA was looking to establish insurance coverage for it's members, How do you think that statement would be received by an insurance underwriter?
So far, it's success with S724 would suggest ARSA isn't doing too well.
That is a bunch of crap. Iz, I am assuming that I have been around rocketry much longer that you have. I remembering purchasing Vulcan and several other brands of rocket motors that were not what they were advertised to be. In my opinion, motor certification helps assure that when a consumer purchases a motor certified by TRA/NAR, he can be relatively assured he is getting what he had paid for.
As far as regulatory agencies, if you are referring to educating the ATF, they have more than demonstrated their position on the regulation of rocket propellants, and their need/unwillingness to listen to anyone other than themselves. TRA/NAR certified motor manufacturers have done a very good job educating the DOT regarding the shipping of APCP as the flammable solid it is.
As far as insururance underwriters go, they base their decisions on the acceptance and pricing of a given insurance risk by the nature of the entity, saftey programs and profeciency of potential insureds, loss history, expenses, and investment income, otherwise known as the Combined Loss Ratio. After that, the future potential losses are factored in. I am certain TRA/NAR Safety Codes and Multi Level certification processes would be used in determining insurability and factor into the pricing of the insurance for the membership of those organizations.
TRA/NAR do that, as long as you do not let your membership be expired for more than on year. In my profession, a lapse of more than one day of my insurance licenses would result in retesting in seven different catagories. One hell of a lot more work than redoing L1 and L2.
That is a matter of established policy by each orgainzation, and up to the members and BOD's to change that policy, which is extremely unlikely.
Why would an incorporated entity give a NON LEGAL opinion to another business?
Any manufacturer or dealer can make their own decisions regarding who they sell to. If they choose not to sell to non TRA/NAR certified members, that is their own decision.
Like who? The ARSA? The IEAS? What successes have they had?
That would undo many years of cooperation with the NFPA.
Other than not allowing non cetified motors being flown at TRA/NAR launches, what are they trying to enforce.
Other than not allowing non cetified motors being flown at TRA/NAR launches, and the motors being flown are by certified members of their organizations, what are they trying to enforce?
Iz, if you do not want to certify by TRA/NAR rules, then just quit. You constantly whine and complain about a process several thousand members have no problem with.
I'll tell you what I am going to do this weekend: I am going to my nearest TRA launch, pull out my certification card, pay my launch fee to help defray the cost of the Prefecture putting on the launch, and fly some rockets. Maybe you should do the same thing!
Oh, my bad....you don't agree with the certification process!
I hope you have the best of luck in traveling your your nearest ARSA or IEAS launch this weekend and flying some rockets.
Jeff Barnes TRA #2267 10 year member