action: motor certification

On 30 Nov 2003 20:20:40 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:


Has the NAR formed a "Blue Ribbon Panel" to investigate EX and its possible incorporation into the NAR?
Alan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They have stated they do not intend to and the consensus among board members and typical members is that is just fine.
So far.
I predict it will stay that way.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alan Jones wrote:

excerpted from the revised minutes of the NAR Board of Trustees Meeting held July 31, 2003 August 4, 2003 (sent to Section Leaders on Thu, 6 Nov 2003)
(unapproved and are subject to ratification at the Winter Board meeting now scheduled for Feb of 2004):
--
agenda item and outcome:

Consider NAREX - The Board declined to adopt a proposal submitted by
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And others of note:
Motor Acceptance for Certification - Jerry Irvine asked the Board to direct Standards and Testing to accept motor submissions from ACS-Reaction labs if
Those motors were delivered by any legal means, Documents issued by any recognized competent authority by UN were submitted prior to testing, and Appropriate fees were paid in advance,
The Board took no action on this request and noted that such motors would not necessarily meet current S&T standards. In particular, S&T requires documents issued solely by DOT in order to insure that motors accepted for certification could be legally shipped via common carrier means. Selected motors which could be classed DOT 1.1 can legally be shipped, under certain conditions, but would not meet either S&T or NFPA criteria for testing.
Legal Ruling Certification - A request by Jerry Irvine to issue a legal ruling regarding sections of 27 CFR 55 cannot be met, as the NAR has no legal authority or standing to issue such rulings.
DOT Legal Announcement - Jerry Irvine suggested the NAR could make note that certain motors are legal to transport based on information supplied to him by DOT. Again the Board noted that the Association has no legal authority or standing to issue such rulings, and in this particular case, the references provided did not appear to the Board to apply to such motors transported in commerce.
NFPA Code Changes - The Board directed the President to instruct Jerry Irvine to work with NAR NFPA representative Pat Miller to review requests to change various aspects of NFPA Codes 1122, 1125 and 1127 and report to the Board with recommendations.
USR Certification Apology - The Board found no cause to offer apologies to US Rockets regarding motor certifications as the motors submitted for certification did not meet DOT standards for shipment in DOT regulated commercial commerce.
Pursue FAA Regulatory Relief - In considering a request by Jerry Irvine to pursue changes to current FARs, the Board noted that the existing system of notification and waivered launches appears to work well, and that current legal resources necessary to pursue such changes were involved in other work. The Board declined to seek further regulatory changes from the FAA. Members who have FAA problems should contact the President for assistance.
==Subject: Re: Call for Agenda Items, NAR Board Meeting Organization: Box 1242, Claremont, CA 91711 USA Date: Sat, 07 Jun 2003 15:21:31 GMT
My prior post got alot of attention, and it was in fact legally submitted for action. GFL.
So now let's try a different, more positive and more collaborative approach.
Here are several proposals for NAR board vote. Lets see how many of them get collective SUPPORT. If you support a particular proposal, simply put your NAR number under it and the thread will be mailed to NAR before the deadline.
Feel free to add a provision!
1. NAR make an official announcement that it hereby RELIES on "27 CFR 55.141(a)(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.", and asks all members to cancel or turn in their ATF permits if the only use of such permit is for propellant. NAR members who will maintain ATF permits are asked to log-out all their propellants from any magazine.
2. NAR make an official announcement that recreational rocket motors are legal to transport under DOT regs and rulings including state to state based on, "DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Tony Alcocer said: I called the DOT this morning (909-937-3279) To see what they required in the way of permits or placarding. I did this in part becasue my ATF agent is gonna ask. I got ahold of Lee (ext 7224). I explained that I was in the hobby of sport rocketry and I wanted to know what they required in regards to DOT regs. He needed "UN" numbers which I was able to supply him with. I got them from Aerotech's web page. I gave him UN0351 which is for 38mm loads (class 1.4) I also gave him UN0275 which I believe is for 98mm loads (class 1.3) He looked them up to see what they were. He stated that since it was "for private use and not in commerce that the DOT did not require a permit or placarding."
3. Also, 18 USC Section 921 states
(4) The term ''destructive device'' means - (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and (C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled. The term ''destructive device'' shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Secretary of the Treasury finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.
This would say that a model/LMR/HPR, which is not designed as a weapon is not a destructive device. This should also be included in NFPA 1122/1127.
4. However, 18 USC Section 841 defines Explosives as
(d) Except for the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) of section 844 of this title, ''explosives'' means any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion; the term includes, but is not limited to, dynamite and other high explosives, black powder, pellet powder, initiating explosives, detonators, safety fuses, squibs, detonating cord, igniter cord, and igniters. The Secretary shall publish and revise at least annually in the Federal Register a list of these and any additional explosives which he determines to be within the coverage of this chapter. For the purposes of subsections (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i) of section 844 of this title, the term ''explosive'' is defined in subsection (j) of such section 844.
Since neither APCP nor rocket motors have "the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion" then I would be satisfied for this to be in NFPA 1122/1127.
5. Fix the offset distance tables in all places! NAR # N-s M Irvine B 2 5 2.24 5 feet C 3 10 3.16 15 feet D 4 20 4.47 15 feet E 5 40 6.32 15 feet F 6 80 8.9 30 feet G 7 160 12.6 30 feet H 8 320 17.9 30 feet I 9 640 25.3 50 feet J 10 1280 35.8 50 feet K 11 2560 51 100 feet L 12 5120 72 100 feet M 13 10240 101 100 feet N 14 20480 143 100 feet O 15 40960 202 300 feet
6. Adopt a NAR official policy of definitions:
PAD (as currently defined) and relate it as applying to SU and RL motors.
TPD and this time do it right. 125g, no thrust limit, 0.05 sec burn time limit, any hazard class it qualifies for. Using ANY CA or AHJ (UK, Canada, USA, China, NAR, IEAS). IEAS can do the high explosive testing portion BTW.
Classification: Series 1 and 2 tests and if a motor passes any test it shall NOT be subject to arbitrary rules reentering it into Class 1. If it drops from Class 1 it drops from class 1 and gets NAR's full endorsement for same with this immediate benefit:
"A specific series of tests determines the hazard classification. The manufacturer's knowledge of the material can, in some cases, substitute for some of the tests in this process. In the absence of assumptions, except a concern that the material is explosive, the material moves through Test Series 1 and 2 in that order. Test 1 looks at output ascertaining if the material exhibits explosive characteristics. If not, then for transportation classification, it exits from Class 1 consideration at this point."
7. NAR should apologize to USR for not certifying their motors despite having its OEM having Competent authority approvals, continuity of busines, ATF permits when illegally demanded by NAR and TRA, CSFM for California sales and of course local permits.
8. Make proposals to pare down NFPA-1122, 1127 very substantially and make the remaining language definitions and exemptions ONLY. Refer standards (Safety code, motor cert rules) to NAR internal policy as amended. Heck, be like NFPA and SELL those documents to fire authorities for revenue!
9. Kill 1125 and admit it was a horrible disaster.
10. Obtain a new FAA notification scheme for rockets flown under VFR and traveling to under 15,000 AGL with no propellant or mass limits. Mass-market HPR.
11. Obtain USPS aprovals for mailing the newly defined flammable solid (or 1.4 or lower) motors under 1 pound per individual segment (including in a SU or RL) and under 25kg per individual box. Get DOT to generate a CA document (applicable to any motor NAR approves) for these to travel in ANY conveyance marked brown box with no labels and perhaps some descriptive marking. Anyone can ship or reship.
12. Make all past and future motor certifications permanant.
13. Dissolve the NAR for crimes against the hobby.
14. . . .
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

Bruce Kelly Chuck Rogers Dick Embry Gary Rosenfield

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I am not assuming anything, I am asking questions
- iz
RayDunakin wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

reliability
the
code,
the
that
making up

motor
Cato
met
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.
~Duane Phillips.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tripoli and NAR are your nannystate despite the safety code itself protecting you from even motor FAILURES one after another (ie AeroTech by Ellis).
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
now, now
Jerry Irvine wrote:

if I understand Duane's intent, he is suggesting that the absence of motor certification does no compromise anything provided that the manufacturer (or EX/AM builder) understands what their doing, and acts responsibly with respect to the launch conditions
I can go along with that, but it doesn't address the casual user who only wants to buy and fly ...

but this does, IMO. So then the question that arises for me is:
is there merit in the proactive (prior to distribution) testing with the goal of preventing even a "first incident", as opposed to the situation where a manufacturer with defective materials, processes or QA produces a motor whose "first incident" results in their losing credibility, getting sued, and possibly charged with some crime.

could you elaborate on this?
- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

can
onlookers,
size,
the
When the AeroTech factory in Las Vegas, Nevada, was burned, some manufacturing was temporarily outsourced to Ellis Mountain [sic?]. From what I understand (feel free to correct me) the humidity factor of the geographic location of Ellis caused problems with the propellant recipe. Las Vegas is extremely (EXTREMELY) dry. Most of Texas is not. So the first batches of motors from Ellis Mountain had many motors that were too soft, and would literally plug up the nozzle and cause a CATO rupture. The motors had been certified and distributed, and it subsequently took some time to figure out that there was an issue. Eventually the recipe or environmental controls where handled, and a "work-around" was published for existing affected batches of distributed stock (drilling a biggler central hole in the propellant slug), and recall/replacement (I believe) was offered for others. There was much discussion about end users modifying the affected batches of motors (as directed) to effectively make the motors safe, and the subsequent legality use of those modified motors at club-sanctioned launches.
It was a great example of how club testing and certification is only a pseudo "feel-good" notion. It may help those new to rocketry to hear that testing is done as a backup to the manufacturer's say-so, but it does little for the more experienced.
The part where it gets a little more complicated is when governmental authorities/insurance industries try to hold an organization responsible for what is bought, sold, and/or used at organizational functions, *especially* if that organization stands to gain in any way from those actions. Any time money/goods/trades/services changes hands, there are rules, opinions, and complications. An organization does not usually want to appear like a "rogue" entity, but yet still must be able to facilitate its' reason for existence.
~ Duane Phillips.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What moron does not have his chemicals closed to outside air except during the moment of installation into a batch?
Ellis.

What manufacturer moron used this excuse which flies in the face of actual motor ballistic principals?
AeroTech and/or its dealers.
The foam increased the initial surface area resulting in over pressures. The core issue was to reduce erosivity caused by the higher core mach numbers. The modified motors ran at a higher pressure (same nozzles) with shorter burning times as a result of the foaminess.

And how the metric of decertifying and recalling defective product is IGNORED when it is the ONLY copies of a product the entire industy can get since their supplier burned down, killed one person, maimed yet another, due to an industrial accident with inexcusably unsafe materials, then outsources propellant exactly contrary to a ruling another prospective (return) vendor was rejected on.
This is some variation of nepotism.
Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
3IT[I>K9=C)*R![L8J&4S.T4`.P`` ` end
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I is too literate.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Nepotism is OK as long as you keep it in the family" Richard J Daley
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

I noticed that too Jerry. In fact, this particular issue was one of the final things that helped me more fully understand your comments... and the included sarcasm. Both NAR and TRA seemed to "look the other way" on this issue.
While I think the whole certification thing is sketchy, it was this departure from club protocols (yes, I know you feel they departed long ago) that for me turned your dogma into belief and understanding.
There is more to say, exceptions and otherwise, but I am out of time for now.

Evidently so.

~ Duane Phillips.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just had to clarify... by "look the other way", I meant disregard their own procedures, that they historically forced others to follow... regardless of the crisis at hand. What they should have done (even now) in this time of crisis is be making calls to every possible vendor to certify(if they must) and beef up the supply chains, and not choke the industry/hobby.
It is like telling the body to work harder with less blood. Certain parts begin to faint away...
Focus on the safety of the motors (which is/was the primary purpose of certs), and let the manufacturer worry about how to legally get the motors into the hands of hobbyists.
~ Duane "now I am late for my meeting" Phillips.

ago)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane wrote: << Focus on the safety of the motors (which is/was the primary purpose of certs), and let the manufacturer worry about how to legally get the motors into the hands of hobbyists. >>
I tend to agree with this, at least in theory. However, there may be other factors at play, such as pressure from regulators who might not approve a certification system that does not ensure the motors are legally produced and shipped.
Not to mention pressure from individuals who agree with John Cato that all such legal requirements must be followed regardless of any other considerations. ;)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

No such pressure exists.
Evidence: consumer shipping of motors from person to person.
Unless Fred Wallace somehow thinks that is legal like the allegedly (alleged by Fred Wallace) non-commercial-carrier USR motors Ken at PH carries around allthe time.
Ken told me he got specific permission from DOT to carry those. True or false?
He also said he got specific permission to ship them for return, I offered to prepay Ken to do so and send whatever boxes needed and he failed or refused.
And also didn't pay his bill.
Great guy, eh?
Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hard proof the interests of the members are NOT the goal of TRA, but the interests of the entrenched vendor AeroTech.
They would rather wait 2 years for Aerotech to partially recover than rush certs for CTI or allow renewal certs for USR.
CTI motors were in TMT testing at the time of the fire, for example.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
good point!
the purpose of a motor certification as performed by a rocketry organization is to establish some confidence the motors safety and performance, something that is impractical for a individual buyer to do
but a buyer and seller do not need a national organization to police shipping protocols.
- iz
Duane Phillips wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.