action: motor certification

Nope, but TRA (Kelly and cronies) and NAR (Kane and cronies) sure look hard for one as an excuse to "turn in the shipper", and fail.

I bet Fred Wallace would not let that slow him down one bit to initiate an investigation 24 hours BEFORE arrival of a shipment :)

Eh, Fred?

Or at all for "exempt explosives".

Hence the word, "exempt".

ex?empt ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zmpt) tr.v. ex?empt?ed, ex?empt?ing, ex?empts

  1. To free from an obligation, a duty, or a liability to which others are subject: exempting the disabled from military service.
  2. Freed from an obligation, a duty, or a liability to which others are subject; excused: persons exempt from jury duty; income exempt from taxation; a beauty somehow exempt from the aging process.
[Middle English exempten, from Old French exempter, from exempt, exempt, from Latin exemptus, past participle of eximere, to take out. See example.]

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, (C) 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

  1. To release or deliver from some liability which others are subject to; to except or excuse from he operation of a law; to grant immunity to; to free from obligation; to release; as, to exempt from military duty, or from jury service; to exempt from fear or pain.
7 entries found for exempt. ex?empt ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-zmpt) tr.v. ex?empt?ed, ex?empt?ing, ex?empts
  1. To free from an obligation, a duty, or a liability to which others are subject: exempting the disabled from military service.
  2. Obsolete. To set apart; isolate.

adj.

  1. Freed from an obligation, a duty, or a liability to which others are subject; excused: persons exempt from jury duty; income exempt from taxation; a beauty somehow exempt from the aging process.
  2. Obsolete. Set apart; isolated.

n.

One who is exempted from an obligation, a duty, or a liability.

------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Middle English exempten, from Old French exempter, from exempt, exempt, from Latin exemptus, past participle of eximere, to take out. See example.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------ ex?empti?ble adj. [Buy it] Source: The American Heritage(R) Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright (C) 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

exempt

( P ) exempt: log in for this definition of exempt and other entries in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, available only to Dictionary.com Premium members.

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, (C) 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

exempt

( P ) exempt: log in for this definition of exempt and other entries in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, available only to Dictionary.com Premium members.

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, (C) 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

exempt

\Ex*empt"\, n. 1. One exempted or freed from duty; one not subject.

  1. One of four officers of the Yeomen of the Royal Guard, having the rank of corporal; an Exon. [Eng.]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (C) 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

exempt

\Ex*empt"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. Exempted; p. pr. & vb. n. Exempting.] [F. exempter. See Exempt, a.] 1. To remove; to set apart. [Obs.]

--Holland.

  1. To release or deliver from some liability which others are subject to; to except or excuse from he operation of a law; to grant immunity to; to free from obligation; to release; as, to exempt from military duty, or from jury service; to exempt from fear or pain.
Death So snatched will not exempt us from the pain We are by doom to pay. --Milton.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (C) 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

Listen carefully . . . .

Unincorporated association.

Acknowledge receipt of those two words into your brain.

Post my receipt.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I do not know that anything I order and recieve is legal in that sense. How do I know that he seller isn't violating USPS or interstate commerce regulations? I make the purchase in good faith.

perhaps the DoT would want to conduct compliance checks themselves, as the USPS investigates complaints of mail fraud

legal compliance as it relates to manufacturing and shipping is the responsibility of the manufacturer or shipper alone, not the certifying org, not the recipient or user

IMO, it is like saying a consumer is responsible for determining that the maker of their laundry detergent complied with the EPA regulations during its manufacture

I don't think the grocery store chain requires evidence of EPA compliance for it to carry products

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

just like I do, by individual effort (research in its many forms)

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

LOL!

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Wow, Ray, that has been answered over, and over, and over, and is readily apparent on the ARSA web site. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out. IMO, you are defending by trying to redirect the needling Izzy is giving TRA... but ARSA and TRA are not comparable, nor does Izzy's affiliation with ARSA have anything to do with a conversation about the successes or shortcomings of TRA. Just like talking about the pros and cons of NAR have nothing to do with TRA.

While there *are* many, many a volunteer in both NAR and TRA, and in fact, neither would exist without them, they are still *incorporated, and non-profit*, and are supported by paid memberships. So they fall under entirely different legal requirements.

So you seem to desire to stipulate the shortcomings (as you are postulating) of ARSA. ARSA cannot shortcome a structure which it does not have, nor does it have paid memberships. When the general membership puts time and/or money into a group, and then they have valid ground upon which to request change, even in ARSA.

Unless the attacks are neither misleading or hypocritical.

You base hypocrisy on comparing the *structure* of ARSA and TRA via Izzy's membership in ARSA to his comments on TRA. The two don't compare on a structural level. However, comparisons are wide open on matters of rocketry regulation.

As to the misleading part, I don't know that it is misleading. Yes, I do agree some statements get overkill and stretching due to writers trying to emphasize a point, but *I* believe there are valid issues there.

I know nothing of myself, only what I have seen written and spoken by others and heard (read "hear-say"), and what the organizations themselves officially distribute. When it comes to TRA, I have an outsider's point of view, having never joined TRA. I have personally met and spoke with Bruce and several others. But the whole self over-regulation bit about motors has always stuck in my "teeth"... and I have not been able to swallow it. I was with NAR for a year, a few years back, but have not gone out of my way to rejoin. I have been active with a local group for about a year and a half... but that was about a year and a half ago. I have done a lot of flying on my own, where I am free to fly what I want, and am happy to assume the risks of such, as I do fly anything that endangers anything but a few blades of grass and weeds my rockets might land in.

ARSA was a surprise, and I immediately liked the openness and freedom represented there. While I signed up for ARSA several months ago, I have yet to receive anything saying I am a member and I have yet to go to one of their launches. But I LIKE what they stand for, and after looking long and hard at JW... I chose to follow a leader I can trust. I hope he never breaks that trust. It is not whether he succeeds or fails that concerns me, only that he is heading in what I believe is the right direction WRT rocketry in general.

Despite the vim and vigor of the loud-typing specific TRA and NAR bashers, I believe they have some valid points. For the time being, I have held off joining either until I see changes in their motor certification policies, and their advancement on defending the general freedom to fly rockets. I was especially tweaked about the handling of the situation when Aerotech burned in Las Vegas. What would have happened to Aerotech, and the hobby, if they were not successful with their lawsuit against Clark County? Additionally, by their own standards, NAR and TRA should have decertified them. The fact that they did not PROVED to me that their certification rules were and are arbitrary and capricious. The hobby should not be restricted to be that reliant upon such a small number of motor vendors... it makes it too susceptible to regulation from outside. Safety, and protecting us from wrongful legislation and legally binding rules, should be the primary concern of the group... not stipulating motor manufacture/ distribution/ shipping controls and rules. It is something they *choose* to do, when it is something they should be defending against.

Motors have 99% to do with the hobby. Without motors, we have only static displays. Period. It is major bad to restrict such an essential life line. "I'm gonna *choose* to put a tourniquet around my neck and run a mile..."

THIS is where ARSA, TRA, and NAR *can* be compared...

~ Duane "please, just let me fly" Phillips.

Reply to
Duane Phillips

Personally, I tend to agree with that, at least as it applies to the end user. (If it isn't that way, it should be, IMHO.) However, law enforcement may think otherwise, and they're the ones with the big stick. Furthermore, they are are much more likely to express their disapproval with any "certifying organization" that lends its approval to illegal motors, than they would with the individual end user. In other words the certifying organization is at greater risk than the end user, so they have to be much more cautious.

Another question is, how much would it hurt their credibility with the regulating and enforcement agencies if they certify illegal motors? After all, these are the same agencies that we are seeking relief from.

Reply to
RayDunakin

it should not affect it one way or the other, as you are not certifying them as legal, but only as having certain safety and performance characteristics.

unless (theoretically) the organization has a history of acting as an extension of law enforcement in the past, and withdraws that cooperation later

>
Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Nope. There is no enabling legislation to apply criminal penalties to Tripoli for illegal motor certs and police do not get involved in civil matters, allegedly.

Past experience demonstrates conclusively your assertion is patently false. Frankly if you can say THAT to rmr knowing what you know, you are either a pathological liar, which I do not doubt, or you are mentally deranged, which I cannot rule out.

Jerry

Again evidence supports the obverse of your claim. The authorities are indeed "out to get" consumer rocketry and most especially NAR/TRA/AT through a variety of means and methods, many of which are NOT published on rmr for all to see.

For the intellectually impaired, I did just call you a liar.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Would someone please explain to me what an "illegal motor" is? I cannot find any law or regulation that would lend itself to classify a motor as "illegal".

Bob

Reply to
baDBob

Tripoli imputed reply: "Don't ask, don't tell, just ban Jerry-motors".

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I'm using it as shorthand for any motor which has been manufactured for commerce without proper licence or without DOT approval for transport.

Reply to
RayDunakin

You and I might see it that way, but will the regulatory agencies agree? They might take a very dim view of any certifying authority that approves motors which were manufactured and/or shipped illegally, regardless of whether that has anything to do with the performance or safety of the product.

Furthermore, what would be the purpose of certifying motors that cannot legally be sold or shipped?

What about those consumers who believe as ARSA does that all applicable laws and regulations must be followed at all times? Or those who don't want to "put the landowner at risk" by flying illegal motors? Or is that standard only a convenient weapon for making allegations against others?

Reply to
RayDunakin

More baseless speculation that has proven false in practice ALREADY.

There is no such thing as an "illegal motor" so your fear mongering set contains null values.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Proper license and DOT approval for transport are NOT the requirements NAR and TRA are actually using in practice so your claim is even moot.

They add a bunch of random rules that neither ATF not DOT have, nor appreciate them adding and have asked them to cease and desist, which they have not.

That is yet another can of worms about to bite those mo-fo's in the ass.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Sort of like the organizers of a bicycle tour requiring drivers' licenses, if you ask me. (Causes confusion when the police have so many bicycle riders offering a DL when asked for identification, that they come to expect it... meanwhile the DMV is wondering what to do with all the folks who want to take the driving test on a bicycle!)

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Good analogy!

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Isn't this the whole point of the arguement? Some think that motor "certification" should apply only to performance (ie - does the motor perform as claimed by the manufacturer). Others, including NAR and TRA, have extended "certification" to mean "legal compliance." Is it really necessary for rocketry organizations to dabble in law enforcement? I believe a good case for "certification" can be made for motors used in contests, but I don't think one can be made for general use. I don't have any real assurance that my Saturn 3.0L V-6 actually produces 181 hp. as claimed by the manufacturer. Why do I need assurance (by certification) that my ABCXYZ motor produces a 235 n-s total impulse as claimed? As has previously been said, if my Saturn or ABCXYZ motors don't perform as advertised, their manufacturers won't be in business very long. The speed with which news travels in the small HPR community will make sure of that. I think part of the current problem is that rocketry is stuck in the past. Sometimes my church denomination makes decisions that would have been appropriate in 1960 but are completely irrelevant (and counter-productive) in 2003. Perhaps in the "basement bomber" age of

1960 certain certification proceedures were needed (like the NFPA codes). However, in 2003 the rocketry motor environment has changed considerably (I don't mean SEA, etc) but we're still living with basic codes that were developed in the 60's and are no longer relevant to the way the sport is conducted today. I suspect we need to "grow up" and begin living in the present. Discard the codes of the 60's and from scratch develop new codes appropriate for the state of the art in 2003. Are the rocketry organizations afraid that doing this will make them obsolete and unnecessary also? Just my $00.02. Larry Lobdell Jr.
Reply to
Larry Lobdell, Jr.

They CLAIM they don't.

The enforcers demand they stop doing it anyway.

They refuse.

I wonder why the enforcers are pissed?

ESPECIALLY since they BOTH get it monumentally wrong.

Point.

THE LEADERS FROM THE 70'S (STILL HERE) ARE OBSESSED WITH WRITING TONS OF RULES TO CODIFY EVERYTHING AND ALSO DO IT POORLY.

Fixations and habbits.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Long post, Larry. Instead of cutting it up and sticking in my thoughts here and there, let me say this;

The reference to the car motor meeting it's specs. What's the worst thing that can happen if a car motor puts out 244 instead of 250 horse power? And I'm thinking that's about as big of a error you'd see coming out of Detroit (Tokyo, Belgium, Ensenada, Gnome, etc.) If it was worse than that, still no real safety problem on your part, but I really don't think it would make it out of the factory.

Now, on the other hand, a rocket motor. What happens when you put your new LOC IV on the rod with an H128 expecting impressive acceleration and the thing crawls up real slow at first, then picks up speed as it heads straight at the chili vendor? There must be a reasonable expectation that the motor will perform nearly as advertised. We make our 5:1 thrust to weight calculations based on a graph. If it isn't close, we could be in serious trouble. Also, a motor that produces 20% more thrust than advertised could bust a waiver. Not that anyone at the site would know, but if it happened enough the FAA could get involved.

But do we need to cling to the way we've always done it? I don't think so. Let's take a look at the cert process and determine what we need from it and the best way to achieve those results. Make it so, measure the outcome, modify, repeat.

steve

Reply to
system user

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.