action: motor certification

That's right. They actually use the LAW as their basis for allowing motors. Makes too much sense for my north americanized brain. Sorry. I apologize.

Jerry

PRS

"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!

I agree.

You seem to be implying that motor manufacturers should not have to meet the legal requirements for shipping motors. Why else would you want to remove legal compliance as a requirement for certification, unless it was to allow unlicensed manufacturers to have their motors certified?

I would agree with that, too, as long as it didn't place the end user or the certifying organization at risk from enforcement against transporting or receiving motors that can't be legally shipped; or were illegally produced. In other words, as long as the manufacturer's neck is the only one on the line, I wouldn't object.

Of course, that's assuming that the regulating authorities (NFPA, etc) would approve a motor certification system that did not require compliance with those regulations.

I agree.

Again, that is something with which I agree. And in fact, I believe the legal system implicitly agrees too, since many of these conflicting regs go unenforced unless someone does something _really_ wrong.

Either you've misread him, or he hasn't been telling you what he's told everyone else. He has repeatedly stated that all high power and EX/AM rocketry is illegal (either at local, state or federal levels) and should be stopped until all such laws are changed or complied with.

Problem is, Cato sets himself up as sole arbiter of what constitutes a "best effort".

How is any one organization supposed to know every detail of every state and local regulation? Especially in light of the fact that "compliance" is often (almost always) open to interpretation in a wide variety of ways? How do other national rocketry organizations, such as ARSA, handle this?

If so, then he should answer these simple questions: Would his hypothetical "new organization" publicly post the details of its structure, bylaws, and insurance? Would it publicly answer questions about these details?

Apparently this is a concept that certain parties think should be applied only to those organizations with which they have an ax to grind.

nope, not implying that at all. I'm just saying that its is not a hobby orgs responsibility, no more that it is their responsibility to check if rocketeers have LEUPS before certing L3's.

so what if unlicensed (for DoT purposes) manufacturers have their motors certified? Does their lack of a license make the motors any less safe, or make them perform differently?

motor certs should not be certifying motor availability (they couldn't anyway, as they have no control over production and distribution).

Cert'ed motors could be delayed to market pending DoT liscensing ... but so what? It's in the vendors interest to handle the issue to get his inventory moving.

- iz

no, you are rephrasing what he said, and losing something in the translation

he definitely also said what I said he said ;)

that's only your impression, however he has a background which should enable him to make such judgement calls - in fact I'm sure he does all the time in his professional life. I don't believe he ever suggested that he is the only person alive who is able to make judgement calls with any degree of intelligence.

more creative interpretation

"have a handle on state regs (as a minimum)"

does not equate to

"know every detail of every state and local regulation"

think about it

join ARSA, sit back and find out or better yet, volunteer

- iz

Ray, master of the Nay Say

- iz

RayDunak> Duane Phillips wrote:

I can't see why not? but then I'm not the one inventing it. We collectively are (its a fiction, Ray). Maybe someone will know why they shouldn't be answered publically. Like a lawyer, for instance.

Nay Say, Ray! Ray, Nay Say "NaySay"! Ray, Say "Ray Say!"

the "open discussion" is in reference to the inquiry regarding what is possible, and is not being applied to any [actual] organization.

- iz

hypothetical

Ray, it doesn't even exist yet. So how could he possibly answer this? He posts, "How should we do it?"... And you say, "So, how are you going to do it?"

As to ARSA, it is apparent its' structure is not set up like the other groups. It has far fewer restrictions, NO BUDGET (at least not one paid by membership), and is still in infancy. If it had a member supported budget, then members would need to have some say in the management of such. Since not, then either people can accept the volunteer effort as is, or do something else.

What is obvious, Ray, is that many people are dissatisfied... likely enough to probably either remold a current organization, or create a new one. Either way, I hope we are all able to gain from lessons of the past, and make a better future for the hobby.

You are grinding in the middle of a set of very open-ended questions, and IMHO, is one of the most thoughtful and constructive set of postings I have ever seen in this NG, ... (unless you stick all the glue threads together... ).

If you truly believe there is nothing that can be done better, then explain why, and we can all learn from each other. If you don't wish to be a constructive part of the discussion, then you are trolling... plain and simple.

I still respect and read much of what you post.

~ Duane Phillips.

Completely changing the meaning.

But Ray Dunakin did, so now that is the only "fact" that can ever be considered hence forth.

Or whine. And lie.

Jerry

Duane Phillips wrote:

Correct.

You're welcome.

Probably because it isn't big enough to have much of one. (What does the org chart of "HAKO Ballistics" look like?)

-dave w

But doesn't that lack of DOT approval make them illegal to ship and receive? If so, then the certifying organization couldn't even legally accept them.

Furthermore, how does this square with your stated belief that all rocketry related laws must be complied with? Why would you want motors made available for purchase that were manufactured illegally or cannot be legally transported?

Nope, he has repeatedly insisted that high power and EX should NOT be engaged in "until" it can be done in compliance with all local, state and federal laws or such until such laws are changed.

I don't remember any DOT regulation that puts any burden on the package recipient, only on the shipper. Anybody know of any reg?

I believe that the DOT regs do allow the shipment of such items for testing. Also, I don't think that a LEMP is required until you begin selling them.

I haven't perused the regs in a while, so my memory may not be that good.

Bob

Nope!

Even a totally unclassified material falls into a "default hazard class" (1.3C for APCP=HTPB/AP>45u/Al>6u propellants). And is shifted lower by testing. Scarey eh?