ARSA info request for Izzy

Took a while.

You must be "slow" Izzy :)

There's a rule that should be changed.

Michael Jackson?

who knows, Ray may be an idiot savant

you care to venture a guess on what his special ability might be? Besides incessantly arguing, I mean. ;)

- iz

Jerry Irv> >

say, did MJ have any chickens in his petting zoo?

- iz ;)

Kurt Kesler wrote:

Actually that probably does apply. His rocket photography is unparalleled and I STRONGLY recommend you purchase his commercial images.

He should fly a lot more USR motors since he IS in CA and has easy access to Pyro-Op 2 launches.

No other state or country has that requirement BTW.

Jerry

Translation: "With both have a grudge against TRA and he's willing to help spread my particular brand of fertilizer."

Apparently not far enough -- you're still here.

I thought that the specifics of the NFPA 1127 etc. codes came from what the rocketry associations, in the form of "safety codes" presented to the NFPA for adoption as "NFPA codes".

-dave w

Hey Kurt,

You know they say, it's only 1 step from children, to chickens. ; ) (just a word to the wise)

Randy

As I understand it, there's a one year grace period during which one can renew with the level from previous certification.

-dave w

George was cooperative enough to answer this one without a lot of background noise. I suggested this was a rule that could use changing to make cert level achievement permanant just as motor certs should be unless as NAR claims, "pervious instances (e.g. Prodyne) where such a policy would have allowed motors whose long term performance had deteriorated below certification standards."

Just Jerry

Remember that the NFPA rocketry codes are the "product" of that organization; codes are what they sell. The more they can sell, provide support on, and the bigger the market (scope of their codes), the better for them. Bureaucratic committee operations, no matter what some would have you believe, are not simple nor one-sided; everyone on the committee has agendas and vested interests. Its exactly like getting something through Congress, to get votes, you have to please everyone. And you have to cover your ass against the slightest possibility of injury or damage occurring under your regulations; reputation is important here.

You have to ask yourself how the myriad number of rules in the NFPA codes which have absolutely nothing to do with fire safety get in there.

Certainly, the NAR/TRA provided input; they're on the NFPA. But the final codes are the fault of the process, not just individual contributors. I don't think all the pyrotechnic representatives to NFPA want their hobby over-regulated either, but they're caught in the same reality. Don't narrow your focus to the point of missing the bigger picture and the bigger problem.

The insidious part of code adoptions like this (and administrative law making, ala BATFE) is that it relieves the people we elect to make the laws from a major portion of their responsibility and duty. "The NFPA saw fit to include it and I'm not going to second guess a professional group interested only in fire protection and public safety. I vote yea on the esteemed Representative's proposal to adopt NFPA code into our state statutes."

see this excerpt from

"Safe Manufacturing And Loading Practices For Solid Propellants Commonly Used In Traditional And High Power Experimental Rocket Activities", by By Charles J. Piper III, Rocket Research Institute Inc.

True. On the other hand, it does make it easier for states to adopt codes that are fairly uniform, and without having to duplicate effort or reinvent the wheel.

Those on this newsgroup who know me from my babblings on ROL know that I'm something of a student of the history of amateur rocketry.

Recently I came into temporary possession of an original copy of the "Stapp report" issued by the American Rocket Society in 1959. This is the report often credited with being the source of the well-known "1 in 7" figure for deaths and injuries in amateur rocketry at the time. Turns out the figures they used came from the NFPA...which got its figures from researching media reports of amateur rocketry accidents. Which is NOT what some articles about the Stapp report said at the time.

Fascinating bit of history that I will be analyzing and reporting on later.

But in this ARS report they mentioned a couple of the early model rocket companies and their products. And this is the interesting part relevant here: The ARS in 1959 was skeptical of the potential safety of what would become model rocketry! They preferred to see students and rocketry enthusiasts stick to toy water rockets and similar items because of safety concerns.

Because of the problems associated with unregulated amateur rocketry practiced by people who literally had no clue how to build a rocket, and the exotic nature of rockets in that era, there was massive fear of anything rocket in the hands of non-professionals. Model rocketry had to, in effect, fight a war of independence from amateur rocketry in the eyes of the public and AHJ's. So the founders of model rocketry had no choice but to adopt strict codes through the NFPA and bad mouth the amateurs at every opportunity. The organized amateur rocketry clubs got pounded during that period. And echoes of those times affect us still.

The email address in the header is for spam only.

Ick. No, I don't know. I don't want to know.

I am sticking my fingers in my ears, closing my eyes and shouting "blah blah blah" continuously now.

This shold be in the FAQ.

A bad, broken wheel.

snip

ROFL!

That IS the correct response. ; ) Randy