anyone see this? ATF trying to say motorsa are not PADs

regulations to
You want to fix Humpty Dumpty? Good luck.
Not just Jerry told you so. I've known, and said, for nearly twenty years this day would come. I didn't know exactly when--I'm surprised it took this long. I didn't know exactly how. But I knew that the US gov't would not tolerate forever the general public building and launching large hobby rockets.
Now we have NPRM 968, the new PAD redefinition, the CPSC crackdown all happening roughly simultaneously. That coincidence cannot be "coincidence." The boot heel is descending. Even the FAA has said it intends to soon re-examine its original amateur rocketry exemption--now it will do this under arm-twisting by the Justice Dept.
The "security state" is asserting itself in this area. Rocketry is about to get royally screwed. Soon there will be a thriving black market in powdered metals, AP, and quite possibly even the polymer bases. And then Total Information Snooping will be brought to bear on rocketeers and suspected rocketeers. The downward spiral will accelerate. It is not "if" but rather "how fast?"
What can YOU do about it? Pay more money for more licenses and permits. Agree to be treated like a perpetual suspect. Fight losing, expensive legal battles against a foe with unlimited funds. Struggle to survive under each new round of regulation only to have yet more restrictions placed on the hobby. You can buy years of time this way before the inevitable end.
Others will take rocketry underground. Moles are just rats that decided they'd be safer living in tunnels.
But nowhere is safe.
I've said this radical thought before on other forums: we either play *their* game or we lose. We need to formulate and implement a long term strategy to infiltrate the ranks of government with rocketry-friendly people. A twenty-year plan to place sleeper agents inside the ATF, inside Congress, inside Justice, inside the CPSC...one Senator from Wyoming ain't enough. But we just want to launch rockets, so we're gonna lose. +McG+
Reply to
kmcgrmr
Loading thread data ...
And once again, Jerry proves he hasn't a clue in the world. ATF announces a proposal to eliminate the PAD exemption for rocket motors, and Jerry's "solution" is to change TRA/NAR rules. As if ATF would stop trying to regulate rocketry if only TRA/NAR would change their rules so that Jerry could cert his illegally manufactured motors.
Reply to
RayDunakin
including yourself?
Reply to
tater schuld
Well, yes!
So they can "conform" to something positive? !!
They are one party in the situation. There are others.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Ken is an expert.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
The value was back when I said and carefully described why, I told you so.
Seems like it happens almost every day.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
denial and complacency are our worst enemies, but you didn't hear that from me ;)
from the Biography of Theodore Geisel (aka Dr. Seuss) at
formatting link
Shortly before his death, when Ted was asked if there was anything left unsaid, he pondered the question and finally responded: "The best slogan I can think of to leave with the U.S.A. would be: 'We can . . . and we?ve got to . . . do better than this.'"
best regards to all my friends
- iz
Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed [announce only]
For years I flew under the Model rocket limits of less than 16 oz. I thought that was the legal limits! When I became aware of mid power I always wondered how they did that (or were allowed to do that) until I joined several large NAR clubs with big fields using the notification rule. I wondered how long that would last before someone decided that was enough. I'am from Minnesota where absolutely nothing is allowed.
About the time I became interested in HPR the wheels were already in motion to kill my hobby. By the time I became award of the rules they were (and still are) changing the rules. Jerry that's what I meant by state of Flux.
Looking back what could anyone do against a government agency bent on prohibition. While I watched and listened it seems that it became a wave in the last 5 years or more. By that time it was well entrenched.
Ounce of prevention better than a pound of cure I guess.
Ken
Reply to
Kenneth Jarosch
Hey, Iz, where ya been?
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
Evidently, reading Dr. Suess :)
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Reply to
nedtovak
Who cares? It certainly hasn't been long enough.
Reply to
Tweak
Ray I am not gloating nor am I one who is saying , heh, I told you so.... I'm just trying to get the discussion moving forward... I find it very ominous that the CPSC is all of the sudden deciding to crack down on banned hazardous substances, ie the pyrotech ingredients for certain fireworks which to me is just another front in the feds determintion to control all motor making materials.....I posted here years ago that the BATFe would also go after AR...I mean you can't very well make AR motor propelants if there are no retail sources for you to purchase your materials now is there?
A little history abour the CPSC and the FHSA (Federal Hazardous Substances Act)....Estes was required to submit their motors to the CPSC to get an FHSA exemption back in the early 70s.... Basically what happened was, in lieu of having to adhere to the full scope of testing as required by the FHSA, Estes agreed to the labeling we have all come to know and love)
Sec. 1500.85 Exemptions from classification as banned hazardous substances. (a) The term banned hazardous substances as used in section 2(q)(1)(A) of the act shall not apply to the following articles provided that these articles bear labeling giving adequate directions and warnings for safe use:
(8) Model rocket propellant devices designed for use in light-weight, recoverable, and reflyable model rockets, provided such devices: (i) Are designed to be ignited by electrical means. (ii) Contain no more than 62.5 grams (2.2 ounces) of propellant material and produce less than 80 newton-seconds (17.92 pound seconds) of total impulse with thrust duration not less than 0.050 second. (iii) Are constructed such that all the chemical ingredients are preloaded into a cylindrical paper or similarly constructed nonmetallic tube that will not fragment into sharp, hard pieces. (iv) Are designed so that they will not burst under normal conditions of use, are incapable of spontaneous ignition, and do not contain any type of explosive or pyrotechnic warhead other than a small parachute or recovery system activation charge.
(9) Separate delay train and/or recovery system activation devices intended for use with premanufactured model rocket engines wherein all of the chemical ingredients are preloaded so the user does not handle any chemical ingredient and are so designed that the main casing or container does not rupture during operation.
Sec. 1500.83 Exemptions for small packages, minor hazards, and special circumstances (36) Individual toy rocket propellant devices and separate delay train and/or recovery system activation devices intended for use with premanufactured model rocket engines are exempt from bearing the full labeling required by section 2(p)(1) of the act (repeated in Sec. 1500.3(b)(14)(i)) insofar as such requirements would be necessary because the articles are flammable or generate pressure, provided that: (i) The devices are designed and constructed in accordance with the specifications in Sec. 1500.85(a) (8) or (9): (ii) Each individual device or retail package of devices bears the following: (A) The statement ``WARNING--FLAMMABLE: Read instructions before use''; (B) The common or usual name of the article; (C) A statement of the type of engine and use classification; (D) Instructions for safe disposal; and (E) Name and place of business of manufacturer or distributor; and (iii) Each individual rocket engine or retail package of rocket engines distributed to users is accompanied by an instruction sheet bearing complete cautionary labeling and instructions for safe use and handling of the individual rocket engines.
this is from Bunny circa 94-96...do a google and you will find it in context...
BATF regulations attempted to reference Department of Transportation (DOT) rules. However, DOT regulations had changed to conform to UN Standards. Those standards eliminated the reference to the "Toy Propellant Device" classification for shipping. BATF thus was left to reference the only agency that had defined a model rocket motor. That agency was the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), and their definition limited motors to 80 Newton seconds, an F class motor.
When DOT realized the Toy Propellant Device classification had been deleted, their solution was the creation of new domestic shipping classifications called "Model Rocket Motors." This occurred late December 1994. The NAR, HPRMADA, and TRA presented a proposal to the BATF suggesting they use the revised DOT def> told
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
Traditionally, one uses the "four boxes", in order:
- Soap - Ballot - Jury - Ammo
I hope and pray that it never again gets to the point where the fourth box is necessary. I'm not optimistic, however.
- Rick "Worried" Dickinson
Reply to
Rick Dickinson
Yow! That's one of the most cold-hearted things I've ever seen anyone post here!
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
As usual, he has something valuable to say and he receives harassment for it.
So much for welcoming folks to rmr.
By the time ATF and TRA and AT and CPSC put the final nail in the HPR coffin, there will be barely a peep as 99% of the HPR participants have long since left the sinking ship.
Had my policies been implemented, at minimum we would at least have had at least 4-10 times as many voices opposing it. Some of them far more rational than current HPR industry "leaders". Leaders in the sense of Pied Piper.
Too bad so sad.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
gitmo I think..
shockie B)
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
I proposed LMR. It had difficulties but it is reality today in GENERAL CONSUMER MODEL ROCKETRY and is not even under attack by ATF, CPSC, NAR or TRA or even AT, who single handedly over-regulated HPR by making their practical monopoly motors be "born regulated" (Restricted Access-sm). Others simply followed suit blindly.
So really, Gary Rosenfield is the Pied Piper of HPR.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
jerry: lets assume that 62.5g etc etc all comes to pass.....what we will be left with is a few hardy souls who will still do hpr with leup,permits,licenses whatever....perhaps there will be a renaissance in model rocketry! HPR had a bastard birth to begin with....
shockie B)
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
You haven't looked hard enough!
Reply to
Darren J Longhorn

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.