action: legal liason

Iz wrote:

I did answer it

I gave you the process to determine what an acceptable compromise is while simultaneously engaging in the process to achieve it

seriously

- iz

RayDunak> their concerns, educate them where they are ignorant or confused, identify

A compromise requires two or more parties to state their desires. What are _yours_, in regards to an acceptable level of regulation? Or do you not consider yourself a party to that goal?

None.

ATF: currently EXEMPT per 27 CFR 555.141-a-8. Fine

FAA: currently exempt under 453/113g, notice under 1500/125g, waiver other. I would like to see notice for non-metallic rockets under 100 pounds mass and under 20lb propellant (N) and under 15,000 feet altitude. VFR.

DOT: For any substance or article that passes the (AARR/BOE) Class 1 screening tests (non-detonable), and in shipments under 25KG per box and under 454 KG per vessel, brown box packaging (no hazmat) to reduce pilferage and treat it as it properly should be treated. As an insensitive rubber compound.

Proof this is consistent with past DOT RESULTS.

BOE test result and recommendation:

DOT issuance of classifications EXACTLY per recommendation (NEVER expires):

NOTE THE COMMENT ON RECOMMENDED EXCLUDED ITEMS FROM HAZMAT IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS BASDED ON PASSAGE OF THE AARR/BOE CLASS 1 SCREENING TESTS. Bottom of page on first link 3.3x36" items :)

Just perfectly right and well vilified Jerry.

So when is NAR and TRA going to have a fundraiser for me to persue legal claims INITIATED by NAR and TRA "narcs"???

I want to build and fly rockets

I acknowledge the need to coordinate with:

- the DoT to insure that risks that can be objectively associated with some materials are managed with respect to vehicles, passengers and infrastructure (e.g.; fires as a resukt of collisions in tunnels)

- the SFM and county Fire offcials to insure that risks that can be objectively associated with some materials are managed with respect to innocent people and property

- the FAA, so that low flying aircraft are not startled by what they might see

most everything else appears to be a matter of insurability and informed consent

- iz

RayDunak> Iz wrote:

All these agencies want (and have in place) restrictions on what you can do and how you do it. What level of restriction would you consider acceptable, how would you make them change any existing regulations that are not acceptable, and what will you do if they refuse to change or end up giving you more restrictions than you had to begin with?

What of the other government agencies that want or have restrictions on rocketry, such as ATF and CPSC? How will you remove existing restrictions or prevent new ones? If unable to achieve that, what level of restrictions from these agencies would be an acceptable compromise?

ATF rockets are exempt. CPSC says MINORS cannot have motors over 62.5g without an adult (18) present. But then they can all they want. Whenmy kid was 3 he flew a K at Ocotillo.

That's it.

Jerry