action: motor certification

As you pointed out, it IS law in those states which have adopted it. Of the states which have not adopted it, I think it's a likely that they have their own standards which are very similar.

I don't see anything in that statement that limits "national standards of safety and reliability" to product performance alone. DOT testing and approval to insure safety during shipping fits the description of a "national standards of safety".

Again, things like DOT approval and ATF manufacturing permits fit the goal of protecting the user _and the public_, and minimizing deaths and injuries. I don't see where it says this goal is limited only to the launch site.

Don't you know? Motors manufactured for commerce without proper permits (LEMP). Motors shipped in commerce without DOT permits.

Ray, when I start suing people, I am going to sue you for saying that.

even exempt ones?

even ones who have default DOT classifications?

- iz

Which types of commercially manufactured and marketed rocket motors are "exempt" under current ATF policy? Or for that matter, under state laws?

"Default DOT classifications"??? Never heard of it. Please cite the DOT regs for obtaining "default classifications".

You never listen to fact. No point in replying. At least you share that in common with TRA leaders.

Hmmm, how do hybrids get around this requirement, since they aren't even "flammable solids"?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

How would any "certifying authority" know that motors were "manufactured and/or shipped illegally?" The only way for them to know that is to usurp the roles of ATFE and DOT by doing their work for them. Larry Lobdell Jr.

that can happen

that's about as

Gnome, etc.) If

Car engines present safety issues too. If my car engine develops only

LOC IV on the

Yes, but that's true of most everything (chain saws, lawn mowers, etc). We assume they'll perform as claimed and if not, I seem to remember there are lot's of product liability lawsuits these days. That threat makes most manufacturers reasonably certain of the performance of their product before they put it on the market.

We make our 5:1

be in serious

bust a waiver.

Keeping safe distances and using common sense (don't intentionally fly within 10% of the waiver limit?) reduces the possibility of problems. And, no offense to chili vendors, don't demand the launch provide chili! Larry Lobdell Jr.

Let's take a

This is exactly the mindset I referred to earlier. We're NOT "Back in the early days of HPR" any longer. There are too many other motor manufacturers (competition) providing reliable and consistent motors for a manufacturer to dare to market motors that perform as you describe. And if one did, that manufacturer would have little business after selling at just one launch (bad word-of-mouth publicity). You state "I'd really like to know exactly what I'm getting." I understand that, but life doesn't work that way. For the vast majority of the products we buy and use we assume (rightly or wrongly) that what the manufacturer says is true. Or we take the word of others who have used them. Or ---. Why can't we do the same with rocket motor manufacturers? And if one is concerned about safety, does one really know that the men's after shave I use doesn't contain any carcinogens? The manufacturer says no, but what if they lied? Larry Lobdell Jr. "There is no certainty in an uncertain world" - me

precisely

The dirty little secret.

The EVIDENCE this is a "jerry-mandered" system was when even a hybrid submission by me was rejected.

Jerry

I believe that it's from the current UN standards for classifying hazardous materials - apparently, even if a material doesn't exhibit the appropriate degree of intrinsic hazard to qualify by test for classification as "class

It almost sounds like this would imply that any propellant which wasn't actually dangerous enough to be considered a "class 1.2" or "class 1.1" material could be acceptably (per DOT) shipped per a default "class 1.3" classification.

-dave w

I think some hybrid fuel grains could be flammable solids.

In most cases they need not be. Why is user certification required to use hybrid motors (asside from NFPA 1127) when the user does not need a magazine to store them, and does not need a LEUP to receive them? This is unneeded regulation in NFPA 1127, to which the NAR is a party.

Alan

I doubt they burn fast enough under ambient conditions.

Standard procedure.

well don't hybrids have an equal capacity to take out airplanes at 30K feet and tanks at 5 mi.?

- iz

Thanks for the info, Dave!

If you're talking about flyer certs, that's unrelated to LEUPs or magazines. Flyer certs are to prove the user knows what he's doing (at least, to a minimal standard). It has nothing to do with the material itself but is in the fire codes because of the potential for causing fires or injuries.

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote in news:rndBb.377252$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.nyc.rr.com:

That's not the basis for "explosives" regulation. Maybe BATFE considers sport rockets "firearms"?

len.