motor certification - meeting DoT requirements vs. publishing reliability and performance statistics
currently motor certification for commercial launches is a requirement in NFPA 1127. What about states where the IBC or NFPA 1127 code is not? Is mandated motor certification something we wish to see remain in the code, or is it possible revise or dispose of it?
what is the role of AHJs, like the State Fire Marshal, in constraining the use of flammable solids, or other materials used in rocketry, and how does that bear on motor certification?
and what of the DoT? How does DoT testing required for legal motor shipment relate to motor certification as it exists today?
apart from meeting specific AHJ and DoT requirements, and if the NFPA can be revised or disposed of, is there a case for continued motor certification to provide reliability and performance statistics? Apart from consumer confidence, to what extent does these statistics bear on the cost of insurance?
what is the best way to satisfy testing requirements?
you posted in another forum that you were an IT manger. as such, you know the world is made of politics, and has nothing to do with being right.
Everyone I know who is always right, never got promoted, or got fired in the corporate world and political world. It's not fair, the world is not fair, it's reality.
Perception is reality, not real reality and the sooner all of us who know we are right understand this, the beter we will be off in this world of perception keeping our rightness to ourselfs.
All the rocket hand wringers that can dig up all the laws in the world about rocketry know that if you dig them up about anything , just about everything is illegal. You can't leave the house without breaking a law, it's all about enforcement.
SO, GET Off the anti TRA thing, yes I know you and Jerry don't like the TRA, and many others don't either, but us, even those who understand you get tired of hearing about it.
and please don't start spreading FUD, like magazines at launchs and distance and blah blah blah that get the hand wringers feeding like sharks.
do someting productive. Get a few frinds interested in the hobby. get them to launch rockets. get them to join whatever organization you like.
Just quit this agenda for awhile , while the hobby has a resurgence OK ???
does that satisfy DoT? Does DoT care about "performance" at all, or just about materials hazard? What about Bureau of Mines, or State Fire Marshals Office other AHJ, do they have testing requirements that relate to rocketry materials?
Jerry Irv> Third party performance review is the only valid purpose served by motor > certs.
Currently, motor certification is both of those, plus establishing that the manufacturer is properly licensed.
Those questions really should be reversed in order, since it may not be possible, regardless of anyone's desire to remove it from the code.
Shouldn't you have looked for the answers to these questions _before_ making up your mind that motor certification should be abandoned?
As an apostle of St. Cato the Moralizer, surely you share his belief that motor manufacturers _must_ meet all legal requirements. Further, the Gospel of Cato makes it clear that it would be unethical (at best!) for a certifying organization to accept or certify motors from manufacturers who have not met these requirements.
This is of course assuming that philisophically one _must_ certify motors for the protection of others.
I for one believe that if a person has demonstrated the ability and know-how, one should be able to be _trusted_ to make good choices about said subject.
Teach and train the member, and then let the member govern his/her self.
Certification should focus on individuals more than equipment.
A specified body of equally or greater trained members would be sufficient for any needed correction.
I do not believe the governance of the group needs to be nanny to all levels of the group. There is a balance between "facilitator" and "restrictor". A governing body needs to focus on the needs of the first before assessing the second. "What is it we want to be able to do? O.K., how do we accomplish doing this safely?"
Safety precautions can never be all-inclusive. Some circumstances require more safety, and some less.
For instance, I worked on aircraft. Over the years, I gained a number certifications that led to higher and higher responsibilities, and levels of trust. Eventually I reached the point where the level of responsibility and trust made what I said carry weight, and was worthwhile. This level of trust was not restricted only to a "select few", but was, and is encouraged to be gained by all, to be a more efficient organization. Cross training is looked upon with high regard. Yes, there were guidelines and standards, but the execution and use of those guidelines were followed by trust, and by the word of the trained individual. If I were to ever get out of line, I would have deteriorated that trusted, and possibly even cost lives of those who flew on the aircraft I certified. But that didn't mean I had a nanny looking over my every word. If I could not be trusted, they would replace me with someone who could. They would not add additional levels of concern and oversight _unless_ this action "facilitated" or made easier the accomplishment of the end goal.
Motor making and use is not some magical or super-scientific thing. It can be taught, and those trained can be trusted with the lives of the onlookers, with minimal or no oversight, depending on situational needs (crowd size, motor size, expected results, anticipated possible failure modes, etc.).
A manufacturer of motors certainly would not maintain much business if the motors do not perform as advertised.
DOT classifies the inherent properties of the material (substance or article). The material is tested to long held standards (TB 700.2) and tests to determine explosivity, corrosivity, flammability, stability, and such.
It is assigned a "recommended" hazard class based on that test.
Then the nannystate DOT administrators who have never seen or touched or tested any materials assign a yet higher arbitrary hazard class to it (because they can)
ONLY CA SFM continues to want to have jurisdiction over them as well and that should be eliminated forthwith and would have had TRA simply not consumed 100% of its resources on corruption, greed, and illegal and immoral acts. The difference between the industry as experienced from
1990-2003 and how it would have gone if TRA simply had no corruption and a 4x a year magazine published on time and a policy of fewer regs and rules instead of maxing them out, and following ATF regs instead of poking them in the eye constantly is huge.
The actual losses were about 20,000 participants. It is reasonable the potential gains were at least that many again.
So compare TRA membership 2003 under Kelly/Rogers/Embry with Proven Irvine/Fest results (and many other sites nationwide) and add to that the lost potential and we have a difference between 3000 screaming corrupt whiners and 40,000 robust consumer HPR people popping off SU H's, I's, J's like they are baby wipes in a day care center.
What I think it "proper" is irrelevant to what is actually required. Personally, I'm not 100% convinced that motor certification _should_ require proof of LEMP, DOT approval, business license, etc. However, I think it's duplicitous at best for Iz to take up Cato's banner of "100% compliance at all times" and then turn around and question the need for meeting these legal requirements.
The NFPA rents a room. The sport rocket caucus unilaterally decides what to put in the code. The full committee rubber stamps it. NFPA prints copies for a dime a piece and sells them for $20 a piece (hence why NFPA-1122, 1125, 1127 are three different codes instead of combined to one rocket code). Pays for the room rental in the first 10 or so copies. EVERY local jurisdiction buys 2 or more copies. EZ money.
I agree with you - but there is no way to prove it either way.
This is like arguing whether "Trickle-down economics" works or not.
This is like arguing whether it was right to invade Iraq or not.
This is like arguing who is responsible for the stock market bubble.
People believe what they want to believe, and no amount of facts or bluster will change their mind. Can you EVER recall a case where any frequent poster on RMR changed their mind on a fundamental issue?
this is how I operated as a Avionics Instruments Systems Specialist working on Phantom fighters. I was trained, trusted and was responsible for certifying the safety of high-performance aircraft.
the certification (and safety code as it is) has a stranglehold on the market and the practice rocketry, IMO
Duane Phillips wrote:
of the group. There is a balance between "facilitator" and "restrictor". A governing body needs to focus on the needs of the first before assessing the second. "What is it we want to be able to do? O.K., how do we accomplish doing this safely?"
trust was not restricted only to a "select few", but was, and is encouraged to be gained by all, to be a more efficient organization. Cross training is looked upon with high regard. Yes, there were guidelines and standards, but the execution and use of those guidelines were followed by trust, and by the word of the trained individual.