But I was told that has been attempted in the past and they refused. For
cripe's sakes, if they came up with a 25 or 50lbs. possession limit of
HPR grains, don't you think the officers of the NAR and TRA would have
brought that to the membership? When I've mentioned this issue of
negotiation in other venues I'm gently reminded that was tried and
not accepted by them.
But who defines what a modeler is? NAR/TRA membership? Remember, the
law suit started long before 9/11.
If Abdul Von Izinski Smith, your neighbor down the street, starts
building a bird, that's cool, but say his first bird has a 98mm MM, and
alt bay, and a big payload section. Is he a modeler? Maybe yes, maybe
no. He can by a motor casing with no problem, and without too much
trouble and get the stuff to homebrew a motor (maybe take classes, like
the 9/11 guys did to learn how to fly). Is is a modeler? Maybe yes,
maybe no.. He shows no interest in joining TRA or NAR. In passing, he
mentions that he plans to launch in the parking lot of a local college
stadium "one of these weekends". You mention the FAA and wavers, and he
says "not my problem..". Wouldn't you be on the horn to the TSA/HS in
minutes? Is he a modeler? Maybe yes, maybe no. Homeland security pays
him a visit. Turns out his "day job" involves designing military stuff
for the government, and the bird will be used to launch canstat devices
for his kid's college class, with full approval of the college, the FAA,
and is infact being covered by CNN. The moral of the story - can YOU
define what a modeler is?
That's why some regulation makes sense.
The point that many fail to miss in this whole regulation debate is they
have blinders on as to what non-modelers might do with the exact same
stuff! Why do I need a drivers license and pay fees to get it renewed?
I'm a safe driver with 32 years and no accidents? Am I being "over
regulated", as a "safe driver" isn't a problem?
Hey, we now live in a world where I can't take finger nail clippers on
an airplane, and the most dangerous thing I've done with one of those is
to knock it into the sink when the garbage disposal was running! It's
"intended use" does not warrant government regulation, but it is infact
The lawsuit is a joke. APCP will be regulated, I have no doubt. Some
of the funds that TRA/NAR have should be used to help local
clubs/prefectures "get legal". What ever's left should be used to find
a way where I can take nail clippers of a real tube of toothpaste on to
If APCP wasn't on the BATFE explosives list, there wouldn't be any
regulation of it by the BATFE period.
Everyone except the BATFE agrees that APCP does not meet the legal
defintion of an explosive. People here are merely reinforcing that idea
that APCP is quite safe and doesn't explode.
Oh contrare my friend: APCP, as it is legally defined does meet the
legal definition of an explosive, based on its UN classification. What
our HPR APCP does not meet, is the practical definition of an explosive,
based on burn rate and detonable characteristics.
Brian Elfert wrote:
The definition of explosive that the DOT/UN uses is much broader than
the "primary and common purpose to function by explosion" standard that
the ATF is supposed to be using in this case.
49 CFR 173.50 a) Explosive. For the purposes of this subchapter, an
explosive means any substance or article, including a device, which is
designed to function by explosion (i.e., an extremely rapid release of
gas and heat) or which, by chemical reaction within itself, is able to
function in a similar manner even if not designed to function by
explosion, unless the substance or article is otherwise classed under
the provisions of this subchapter. The term includes a pyrotechnic
substance or article, unless the substance or article is otherwise
classed under the provisions of this subchapter.
The ATF even includes this as attachment 23 of their recent attempt to
hand wave APCP into the realm of explosives. But they fail to mention
that the definition of explosive is different from the one the ATF has
David W. Schultz
None of your reference change the legal position ATF has taken, unless
the courts determine otherwise. While I agree that ATF's interpretation
is flawed at best, it is still legal in the eyes of the law, until
"successfully" challenged in court. The last time I checked, there is no
temporary injunction from the court reversing ATF's interpretation.
David Schultz wrote:
I don't believe that.
The ATF is regulating potassium nitrate composite propellant because
potassium nitrate explosive mixtures is on the list of explosive materials.
Both ammonium perchlorate composite propellant and ammonium perchlorate
explosive mixtures are on that list. You could take APCP off the list
and ATF will still say it is an ammonium perchlorate explosive mixture,
therefore within their purview.
Rocketry Planet hobby rocketry news, feature articles, news archive,
discussion forums, live chat, free auctions, launch calendar and the
I test burned a small silver of white lightning before... it just fizzles
like sparklers. Plus its tough as hell to light, you have take a bic lighter
to it for several seconds before it will light. It's like lighting sparklers
with a BIC lighter.
"Pete Pemberton" < snipped-for-privacy@DYNOMITEfuse.net> wrote in message
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.