A modest proposal... or Jerry Irvine saves the Universe

Great post, Ted! Very rational and informative.

Maybe, but the lack of such info from the national org isn't a barrier. The person could simply go to the local club and find out from them. Local clubs are in a much better position to know the local regs (and what is actually enforced) for their area.

There's often much more than just state laws involved, which is why IMHO it's better to go to the local club for this kind of info.

Judging from Ted C.'s post, I don't think it would be simple at all. Sure, it would be simple for the _individual_ to get this from a central site, but not simple at all for anyone attempting to compile and update that info.

More specifically, he claims he was punished by NAR for volunteering. I too want to know specifically what it was that he volunteered to do, and exactly how he was punished for volunteering. Without specifics it's BS.

From one old pipe stuffer to another, sorry to have ruffled your feathers. I just see red every time I see someone supporting J.I., because of his past illegal activities.. His disregard for the law, taint his otherwise reasonable concerns and previous contributions to rocketry. I don't post here often, for the same reason you expressed...

Fred Wallace

Rocky Firth wrote:

It has? Maybe in "bizarro RMR".

just see red

contributions to

I don't have a personal interest in Jerry's past. I just see a trend towards over-regulation of the hobby, led by the two national organizations. In that regard, I think Jerry is correct and so I am in his corner. You don't have to like someone to agree with their stance.

I tend to get a little stuffy when personalities get in the way of reasonable discussion. Usually mine. :)

I have been flying a long time and just want it to continue. I am working on my 4th generation of new fliers and would like to see at least a few of them have room to grow.

Rocky Firth

Can you Pronounce "Kalifornia"?

Rocky Firth wrote in news:EI9Rb.122054$sv6.656872@attbi_s52:

Let me see if I understand this. The NAR/TRA suing the BATFE constitutes leadership in overregulating sport rocketry? You have an interesting perspective on who's doing what to whom.

And your way of doing this is to attack the organizations that are largely responsible for forty years of self regulation and who are at the forefront of the legal battle to retain that ability to self regulate?

len.

Dave Grayvis wrote in news:igaRb.971$1K3.278 @newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:

Yah, yah -- Kah-lee-four-nya

The law suit follows years of actions that have been in direct conflict with claims before the court. Actions still endorsed by both organizations.

The changes to the NFPA didn't come from out of the blue. They are clearly the work of a person or persons familiar with the hobby, not fireworks manufactures or firemen.

I challenge the current leadership, not the organizations themselves. They seem to have lost sight of what the goals were or should be. The leadership has extended their personal agendas into policy making on the legal front through the NFPA, forcing a lot of people to conform to their idea of the way the hobby should be.

I have never seen an agenda item from the NFPA put before the members for discussion or recommendation prior to it being voted on by the committe. What they do there affects all of us. I think we should have a voice in these matters.

When challenged to make changes to make flying more accessable to the general public, there are claims of lack of time, volunteers, concerned members, etc. Platitudes, in my eyes, that leave little hope that things will actually get better.

Rocky Firth

Hardly. I've been pissing off Bunny for almost 3 decades and he's never threatened me.

But it sounds like Shockie is complaining that the NAR isn't keeping the master list of NFPA states. Bunny says he doesn't have a volunteer to do so. Sounds to me like Shockie has volunteered to do so...

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

This ought to be in the FAQ......

shockie B)

bob: well I still say the NAR has had 46 years to create this list.....and they do have a NFPA Committee Chairperson......I just naturally assumed that would be his job...... I also just naturally assumed that since the nAR helps to create the NFPA codes which states then adopt into state law, that the NAR would be very interested in how many states have agreed to this ........cause = effect....?

shockie B)

Ted: according to the icc/ifc link you provided and previous correspondance with a Minnesota modeler, Minnesota has adopted the IFC which directly references the NFPA codes.....This modeler called his state fire marshall and was told that Minnesota had indeed addopted the NFPA codes 1122/1125/1127...

and you said: "Take EX activities. NFPA 1122 and 1127 says you can't launch rockets with homemade motors.

Actually 1122/1125/1127 do not say that nor imply that. The NFPA codes do not apply in any shape form or way to AR or Ex rocketry activities.They only apply to Model Rocketry and HPR rocketry activities.

As far as the difficulty of keeping this listing up to date.....there is an Organization called NASFM...National Association of State Fire Marshalls....A simple form letter to this organization, distributed as a survey to its 50 members could be used as the basis for determining this information on a periodic basis.....

shockie B)

No. Enforcing a VERBAL request of ATF (to license and magazine rocket motors) contrary to LAW (27 CFR 555.141-a-8) "constitutes leadership in overregulating sport rocketry".

They are at the forefront of self regulating alright!

VOLUNTARILY enforcing a VERBAL request of ATF (to license and magazine rocket motors) contrary to LAW (27 CFR 555.141-a-8) "constitutes leadership in overregulating sport rocketry".

len: why is it attacking the "organization" when members have questions? I am a member of the NAR because I beleive in the NAR. I don't personally want it to go away? Let me throw some facts out at you:

are you aware that in the last NAR BOT election 2% of the eligible voters voted.....which means 98% of those eligible didn't see any reason to vote.....what does that tell you? In real numbers that 2% equates to approximately 75 people.....so out of an organization with almost 5K members we have 75 people deterrining who the leadership will be.....What does it say about an organization when so many do not vote? Could it be that they think their vote will not count? That it is meaningless to vote?

does the NAR ask why only 2% of the people eligible to vote did so? does the NAR ask why 98% did not bother to vote? No they ask neither......and why don't they ask? Because they don't care. It benefits them that only the hardcore "old guard" bothers to vote to recycle the same people around into a game of musical chairs.

Did you or other NAR members realize that ONLY the Trustees are actually directly elected by the membership? and then the BOT actually elects from among themselves the NAR officers? So the BOT and the NAR Officers are one and the same. Is there any potential for conflict of interest in this arrangement? As opposed to having directly elected Offciers that are not also Trustees?. Did you realize that ONLY Trustees can be NAR Officers? They then dole out Committee assignments between themselves so all the power for decision making is concentrated into a very few people such that they all wear 2,3,4 hats at once....further concentrating power....And they will tell you this is because there are no volunteers........and of course there is no room for volunteers that disagree or hold opposing points of view from whatever status quo exists......

In fact if you read the NARAM45 NAR BOT minutes that I forced them to publish in some detail, you will see that evidently everybody agrees with everybody else about everything brought before the NAR BOT...... the reason I wanted a full minutes published was so the NAR membership could see the issues and how the various Trustees voted or stood on issues.....It appears currently that people are elected based on popularity and who knows who rather than where they stand on any specific issue..... I don't think the BOT elections should be based on "popularity" of I've been a meber of the NAR for 82 consecutive years so I obvioulsy deserve to be a Trustee....Instead they should be elected on the basis of where they stand on the important issues of the day.

Did you know there is No mechinism in place for the NAR membership to recall a Trustee or NAR Officer? The only people that can recall/remove a Trustee or a NAR officer are the other Trustees/NAR officers themselves....... Whats the odds of that happening when they are always the same people? Now I'm sure that Mark will point out that if the NAR membership wanted a NAR Officer or Trustee removed, they can always petition the other Trustees and NAR Officers to have them removed..... But whats the odds of that happening? Anybody ever seen this happen in the 46 year history of the NAR?

I was simply amazed to find out there was no direct election of the NAR officers by its membership. Essentially the same people from that 2% of people are recycled every election cycle......outsiders or dissenters have no chance of ever being elected....

Why is it when I ask the NAR leadership direct questions or ask for information I receive no response? The silence is deafening.......... I will submit that having the NAR Officers and NAR BOT separate from one another and having direct elections of both would go a long way towards improving what the NAR does.

I will also submit that having the SAME President for 10-20 years is not a very good idea for any organization ......

shockie B)

The only over-regulation I see is led by the ATF and is opposed by the two national orgs.

Does the NFPA have the info you're seeking? If not, why would you expect anyone else to have it, if even the NFPA itself doesn't have it?

Hmm... if it's that simple, what's stopping you from doing it yourself?