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

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:


Of course!

The value was back when I said and carefully described why, I told you so.

Seems like it happens almost every day.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:54:07 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Kenneth Jarosch) wrote:

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
--
Don't knock President Fillmore. He kept us out of Vietnam.

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Kenneth Jarosch) wrote:

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
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 definitions, instead of CPSC. BATF has agreed to this change. <--- HUH?
(3) The letter "D" identifies proper shipping names which are appropriate for describing materials for domestic transportation but may be inappropriate for international transportation under the provisions of international regulations (e.g., IMO, ICAO). An alternate proper shipping name may be selected when either domestic or international transportation is involved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (8) Packaging (§173.***) (9) Quantity (10) Vessel stowage Hazardous ------------------------------------------ limitations ---------------------- descriptions and Hazard Identification Label -------------------------- Symbols proper shipping class or Numbers PG Codes provisions Passenger names Division (§172.102) Exceptions Non-bulk Bulk aircraft/ Cargo air- Location Other rail craft only ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ (1) (2)................. (3) (4) (5) (6)....... (7) (8A).......... (8B)....... (8C)....... (9A) (9B) (10A) (10B)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D Model rocket motor.. 1.4C NA0276 II 1.4C...... 51 None.......... 62......... None....... Forbidden 75 kg 06 ....... D Model rocket motor.. 1.4S NA0323 II 1.4S...... 51 None.......... 62......... None....... 25 kg 100 kg 05 .......
172.101 DOT Hazardous Materials Table:
http://www.setonresourcecenter.com/transportation/49CFR/172_101tb.pdf
The above table shows what the NAR/TRA/et al came up with in response to the TPD being deleted....Do you see any Large Model Rocket motor definition? or HPR rocket motor definition?
the regulatory patchwork house of cards that the NAR/TRA have devised is surely coming down around our heads.......
Does anybody realize that the Homeland Security Dept could approach the FAA tomorrow and for National security reasons, ask them to suspend all FAA waivers for HPR flights in the USA? An effective HPR BAN? and theres nothing we could do about it, it being "National Security", and all....Or the FAA on its own could implement a slowing down process of their waiver process for HPR, or the FAA could just come out and refuse to issue any HPR waivers?
shockie B)

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hey Ray, if monkeys do fly out your butt, be and take pictures. I'm sure you can sell them to the Inquirer.
--
Christopher Brian Deem NAR 12308 TRA 2256 Level II
"RayDunakin" < snipped-for-privacy@aol.com> wrote in message
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Ken is an expert.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

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 http://www.seussical.com/biography.html
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
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed [announce only]" wrote:

Hey, Iz, where ya been?
-dave w
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Weinshenker wrote:

Evidently, reading Dr. Suess :)
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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)

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

And there is always Hybrids. No Permit Required.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
alex: true, but it makes you wonder what the BATFE has in store for hybrids.... shockie B)

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

When they require permits for PVC pipe, we're all in big trouble.
By now it's a moot point since I have a LEUP. The 1lb of black powder sitting in my MissleWorks Magazine are a real threat to safety ;-) Don't get me started about igniter storage....
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That is next on the ATF hit parade. Intended use.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

What do they intend to do? Define the production of thrust by the release of flowing gas (however produced) as an instance of "functioning by explosion"?
I guess all the jet airplanes and kids' balloons would need User Permits then!
:)
-dave w
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They are changing 27 CFR 555.141-a-8. That reg section reads:
27 CFR 555.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.
I might have posted it before.
Reg Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Jurisdiction will be a problem. Model and High Power Rockets do not fit the definition of a weapon (particularly intended use). PVC is not on the explosives list, nor is N2O. At best you're talking about a binary explosive, which means it is only regulated at the time it is combined.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm sure the JBGTs are hard at work on that problem too.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for none.
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.