An idea about Easy Access motors

Just a musing while considering some of the ramifications of the 62.5g rule. For those who have Easy Access motors, and plan on having them
on/after 10/10, just break them down and re-bag them as smaller (compliant) motors and 'spares'. Aerotech supplies the drawings on their website, and sells spare liners, etc., so you could even make up your own parts list to place with each of the units. For example, the grain for an H123W is two of the grains used in a G61W, and the I161W is three of those same grains. Re-package them all as G61W grains and parts (along with 'spares'), and you're completely legal!
As an assist for anyone who cares to look, I'll post a spreadsheet at abmr cross-references all of the 18mm-38mm Aerotech reloadables (accurate to the best of my knowledge)...
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Gong. Incorrect. The way they wrote the rule, even a G61 is regulated on 10-oct. it matters not how the grain is packaged. *IF* it can be assembled into a motor with more than 62.5g propellant, it's regulated. In fact, if THEY can figure out how to assemble a bunch of D13 grains into a 63g motor, then D13 reloads will be regulated. And if they can figure out how to glue 6 C6-5 grains into a single motor, then THEY too would be regulated.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In that case, a rocket that has a cluster of 3 D12 motors together could be considered a 63.3g motor...
David Erbas-White
Bob Kaplow wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AT lived through Clark County fire problems... Gary's innovation and tenaciousness prevailed, keeping a face in the scene, and a large vendor for higher power rocketry, with at times product hanging in brick and mortar retail.
It would seem these re-loads are soon to be a thing of the past? And what of AT?
~ Duane Phillips.
writes:

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

Before it's over with, the enforcement will be if the *rocket* has more than 62.5 grams of propellant in it, then it's regulated. Effectively outlawing clusters. So I guess with the new regulation, even black powder motors with more than 62.5 grams in them are regulated too now, good thing no one has any any of those old Silver Streaks left.
--
Rocketry Planet hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Before it's over, it will be the *rocket* that is regulated, motor or no motor. Payload or no payload.
The stuff about regulating propellant is just a way of using existing laws as a means to the end.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

so would that make my 3-stage D-D-D rockets a non-exempt, regulated non-pad?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Erbas-White wrote:

Interesting idea. But according to the ATF, these folks would already be illegal as the exemption is merely a continuation of a long standing policy.
The consequences of possession and use of regulated motors by a non permit holder are slim to none. If the ATF were to take an enforcement action, it would likely be minor and not involve criminal prosecution. A local permit holder was approached by the ATF a while back and asked to store materials in his magazine from a former permittee. So far as I know, the former permittee was not charged in any way.
But the chances of the ATF going on a sweep looking for these motors is unlikely in the extreme. The ATF simply doesn't have the resources to expend them on something with so little payback. They instead will just let the stock of illegally stored/possessed motors dwindle to nothing.
--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A long standing policy that the court found to be illegal rule making. Thus the rule changing on 10/10. Unregulated today. Regulated in 2 weeks.

Kind of hard for them to charge anyone with anything right now, while the whole matter is in front of a judge to see if they even have the right to regulate these things in the first place.

Then why the raids on Performance and Quickburst? I'd expect them to show up at the first big launch after 10/10. And for them to pay more dealer visits...
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Kaplow wrote:

What "Raid" on Quickburst? It was a inspection. They called to schedule an appointment. You make it sound like they came in guns blazing ala Janet Reno.
BTW, we've been faced with dates like this before. Remember the big scare about May 23, 2003? Remember the "advisory" from Izzy and Wickman that there would be major enforcements over the Memorial Day weekend. Remember how much of a damper that put on things?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Kaplow wrote:

Quickburst was manufacturing explosives without the correct permit and was selling said explosives to anyone, with or without a permit. The only surprising thing is that Quickburst did this for so long without the ATF doing something.
As for Performance Hobbies, hard to say. There is the fact that they operate in the ATF's backyard, so to speak. Then perhaps they did something in particular that annoyed the ATF. But as of yet, no one has said anything about an enforcement action being taken. Although judging by the web site, the ATF has brow beat them into towing the party line. Permit now required for all 62.5+ gram motors/reloads.
This whole question of what to do with existing motors came up several years ago during one of the periodic ATF scares. The general consensus then was what I stated. The ATF wasn't going to go searching for users with motors tucked away in a closet. Just too much effort and very little reward. Plus that tricky detail of how do you find them.
--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Erbas-White wrote:

Until you assemble a motor with more than one grain in it.
--
Rocketry Planet hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Darrell D. Mobley wrote:

The BATFE has said you can operate under others at a club launch. So, as a non-permit holder, you can bring your 'single-grain' motors to a launch, where under the supervision of a permit holder, you can perform a multiple-grain launch.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
We all know that things like this are interpreted differently by different agents. Please be careful about making generalizations...
David Erbas-White wrote:

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

Nope. The new reg says that any grain CAPABLE of being used in a motor over 62.5g is regulated. So you will need an LEUP to buy, store, or fly a G61. And who knows what else...
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Erbas-White wrote:

The ATFE has "said" that they said that. No record can be found of any group they have said that to nor does the ATFE respond to requests for documentation of this. It was simply something said in passing that has no basis in regulation. To offer something in writing to the effect would be adverse to the ATFE's position, therefore we will never see this in writing. It will always be a "he said, she said" thing, that could turn out badly for anyone doing so and who finds themselves at odds with the ATFE.
--
Rocketry Planet hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
  Click to see the full signature.
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.