With topics such as "cleaning house", and the introductory text, it's clear that those threads were thinly veiled digs at TRA.
I think it was rather pompous of Izzy to act like the moderator of an unmoderated forum. As for posting the same thing in each thread, that was George, not me.
No, his early "answers" were brief comments describing what ARSA _isn't_, without revealing much about what it _is_.
There was no "stalling". There were brief delays while pending lawyers' approval. These were fully justified and their effect on the letter writing campaign was insignificant.
Notice? What kind of notice? Were they given the text of the bill, or the specifics of the requested actions, in advance? On the contrary, even when Wickman gave his word that he would consult with them prior to requesting action, he still failed to do so.
Izzy has stated that he doesn't believe in motor certs.
Obviously, there are differences of opinion on this and probably always will be. Trashing TRA isn't going to change that.
LOL... Ray... you missed the pun entirely... it wasn't my double negative, it was your making a false positive out of my obvious cynical and negative statement... like it was a good thing.
LOL... Argh... "You can't fly that"... - and then - "You have this same freedom at event X...."
hence the "same freedom to not fly that at event X".
fuhgeddaboudit.
And besides, you further postulation just sent you backtracking (again) into hypocritical territory. And that is not necessary, because I know what you meant the first time... I was end-quipping your end quip.
Conceded, however, that the animosity during the bill introduction was a two-way problem.
I feel that fundamentally, he IZ right. And I feel there IZ a serious problem that needs to be addressed, as it is what got us here. But hey, who knows... maybe working through this struggle will be what actually propells us forward like never before. And I believe that IZ possible too. I also believe that hosting the line of questioning IZ did was best here, not hidden internally, because it is outside where you learn what is keeping people from joining. The more people there are, the more launches there are, the more stuff gets bought, the more the everyone gains all around.
Point of fact: The forum served a purpose for me. I have decided to join all three (pending funds and acceptance), as I realized during this whole line of conversation, what my particular hold-backs were, and I now find value in all three.
I will give nod to one more of your statements today:
I have read a ton on the past of rocketry, and have been in it about 4 years now, and have been watching this group for almost 3. I understood the general inferrence.
Boiled down to basics you are saying: "Any group not structured like our organization must be judged as if it were an organization like ours that is deliberately deviating from the accepted rules and procedures!"
I expect that the distinction you point out was made because the IBC/IFC which incorporates NFPA codes has specific definitions for these forms of rocketry
NFPA 1122 - Code for Model Rocketry (2002 Edition)
3.3.8* Model Rocket Motor. A rocket motor that has a total impulse of no greater than 160 N-sec (36 lb-sec), an average thrust of no greater than
80 N (18 lbf), and a propellant weight of no greater than 62.5 g (2.2 oz), and that otherwise meets the other requirements set forth in NFPA
1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors.
NFPA 1127 - Code for High Power Rocketry (2002 Edition)
3.3.17.1 High Power Rocket Motor. A rocket motor that has more than 160 N-sec (36 lb-sec) but no more than 40,960 N-sec (9208 lb-sec) of total impulse, or an average thrust greater than 80 N, or more than 62.5 g (2.2 oz) of propellant, and that otherwise meets the other requirements set forth in NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors.
these forms of rocketry are not the focus of ARSA, i.e.; "to enable US citizens to enjoy all forms of amateur rocketry"; but as ARSA allows all rockety to coexist at launches, there is no discrimination among the various forms.
in legislative areas that are common to Amateur and the other forms, ARSA efforts "to enable US citizens to enjoy all forms of amateur rocketry" benefit everyone. For example, the wording of S.724 as introduced seeks a propellant exemption that would apply equally well to APCP in motors typically associated with commercial HPR. [note: JW contributed substantively to the S.724 proposal content and wordcraft]
Tripoli Report, Vol 13 No 2 May 2002 "History of Motor Testing", by Bruce Kelly heading "Who demanded motor testing & certification and why?" (excerpted)
"At the 3rd National General Assembly, toward the close of the meeting and during Tom Blazanin's presentation to the membership about financing a new test stand, a discussion broke out between the members and the BOD about testing. I was a participating regular member of TRA, not on the Board of Directors, but I remember this meeting well. I remember it so well because I had just invested alot of money in motors at this launch, and especially in the new 38mm AeroTech motors. The discussion revolved around "verification of manufacturers claims." The members wanted TRA to test motors more for verification than for safety or for compliance issues of any regulations. The issue to the membership was one of truth in advertising. The question was, "How much and I really paying per Newton-second?" Motor testing would answer that question to the members's satisfaction and put the issue to rest."
later, the article goes on to justify the compliance aspects of motor certification as an appeasement to the ATF and other agencies, and to comply with TRA's Articles of Incorporation, saying (in part)
"Our requirement for manufacturers to comply with federal regulations offers a measure of protection to purchasers or motors. When you are inspected, you can rest assured the motors on the TAR lists are in full compliance, to the best of our knowledge, with DOT and ATF regs and, therefore, are legal.
but no reference to any actual requirements from the ATF for TRA to conduct compliance verification was cited, nor was there any indication of membership preference in favor of such verification.
there are admittedly only three of the many threads that have any relationship to TRA
action: cleaning house action: putting cards on the table action: restore talent
their purpose was to enable the discussion to be organized, rather than it prevading all threads. Readers could then choose to participate in, or ignore, those threads as they wished
the large majority of the threads are generic to rocketry at large
many RMR readers elect not to participate because of the chaos. I am seeking to bring some order to a small group of threads. It does not prevent anyone from poating anything they wish to any other threads, or even to insert noise into the 'brainstorming/action:' framework - but that be nothing less than spamming.
any newsgroup has a overriding topic, and good netizens label stray posts with "OT:" in the subjects. So also it is reasonable to expect that a thread content has some relationship with their subjects, especially when this has been stated as an express purpose.
to willfully disregard, in a consistent fashion, the stated purpose and subject of the thread framework is clearly an intent to disrupt communication and annoy participants.
they did much more than simply "stall". On many occasions they used ROL announcements and other venues to effect a 'standing order' not to take any action "at this time", which was indefinitely in some cases. At least one initiative was entirely unsupported by using this tactic.
additionally, at the most critical juncture (the Senate Judiciary Committee meeting), JW had called for rocketeers to write the Chairman and all the other committee members. This was in recognition of the FACT that committee members act on behalf of the nation as a whole, not exclusively in the interests of their home states. [otherwise every committee would require 50 members, lest the committee decisions reflect the interests of a handful of states. Which states should decide Defense issues, for example? ]
yet when the TRA/NAR alliance finally made the request to their memberships to write letters, they aked only people in Committee members particular states to take action; and strongly discouraged people from other states from participating as they would be ignored, devalued, or even be a source of "annoyance" to the Senators.
as a result of this policy, the opportunity to demonstrate to all SJC members how many were affected by their decisions, and what their specific arguments were in support of S.724 was lost.
this was the single most destructive position TRA/NAR took during the various campaigns.
another example of "undermining" that was not limited to mere "delays", was TRA's possession of the DOJ/BATFE letter to Senator Hatch, SJC Charirman. They had obtained this by whatever means, yet failed to respond in a timely fashion, failed to notify the membership of the opportunity to and importance of responding, and failed to forward it to JW so ARSA and its supporters could act.
John eventually obtained the letter through other channels, but several days later, and just 3 days before [what was to be] the final hearing. Even so, John responded substantively under the considerably shortened time he had available. His responses ultimately resulted in the DOJ withdrawing the letter, but only after the SJC was influenced to allow the Hatch-Kohl substitution to take place.
Had JW been given this letter by TRA immediately, and had TRA supported JW's call for an "all states" fax/call campaign to every SJC member, I firmly believe the outcome would be very different [i.e.; the Hatch-Kohl substitution would never have taken place, and the matter would have continued to be deliberated in the SJC, or sent to the floor of the Senate without the SJC's recommendation.
these are the sources of indignation among those who understand the reality of what actually transpired during these campaigns
this is false. They were aware of John's intent before it was drafted, but insisted that control the content. Their control would have resulted in a bill unrecognizable from SB 724, with weight limits that would constitute implicit agreement with the BATFE's position that APCP was dangerous (if not explosive), and that BATFE oversight was necessary.
SB 724's justifiable blanket exemption for non-explosive rocketry materials is the only way to expell the BATFE
no, they were acting in their best interests. A blanket exemption would have implications for the NFPA codes that maintain the TRA/NAR franchise on motor and user certifications. If rocketry materials and the rockets that house them are exempt by virtue of them not being dangerous, what would the justification for those codes be? They would be reduced to what they should be - fire codes, to provide reasonable protection to people and property from a flammable solid.
as I said earlier in this post, had TRA/NAR not undermined the effort, and had they acted to represent the interests of all rocketeers faithfully, we would have had far more control going onto the floor, and would have the grass-roots support (and the ability to weild it in a focused, responsive fashion) throughout its life in the Senate and beyond (to the HR and the President's desk).
to be perfectly candid, and I know alot of people don't want to hear this, but TRA/NAR cannot afford to see the lawsuit through to trial and possible appeals. Look at the "burn rate" we have had since the start of the suit, and it is still in preliminary hearings. It has nothing to do with the legislative initiatives, it is just a DOJ/BATFE tactic to drain TRA/NAR member resources - a battle of attrition. Mark my words. SB 724 was necessary and timely.
there also is the question that, given past misdeeds of TRA leadership (many of a fiscal nature that have yet to be presented), it is not unlikely that legal fund, just like the insurance premiums paid by members, would be subjected to some "creative accounting". Or would TRA be willing to publish an independent audit of the last ten years?
[ this is over your head, Ray, so don't evern try ]
whatever their reason, their failure to do so elicited a fair amount of criticism from their membership
how? by fraudulently certifying motors, and putting them at risk with voided insurance?
how many years Ray, how many YEARS have members complained about HPR! How has TRA catered to and protected their needs? You've seen some other 'TRA exiles' here ask what was the method by which they were going to be compensated for lost issues, since they had been deprived of any mmebership to "extend"?
no, I suggest that HPR remains a thorn in their side for the same reason that TRA HQ is still at Bruce Kelly's house, enabling his tax deductions for a liberal assortment of "facilities and services".
just perhaps it is because Bruce Kelly has the goods on them, Ray. Just perhaps they are in a deal with the devil that they can't extricate themselves from, despite years of membership outcry.
they are corrupt, Ray, and the members have to see to it that they clean house to save the organization
it is not possible with the current leadership, and the forum policies reflect their wishes. I was a hairs breadth from being ejected from the forum on at least two occassions (and will not go into the details out of regard for David W.). But clearly TRA listserv is not a venue for the kind of energetic reform that is needed.
no, I am trying to focus the attention of members and others on the problems so they can be addressed in an effort to save the organization
I said there is merit in having a safety and performance testing, analogous to a Underwriters Laboratories listing, so that consumers can have objective information upon which to base purchase decisions. I do not they should be mandatory.
I do not believe in compliance verification as a integral part of mandated motor certs. Some consumers may feel that such verification is desireable ... fine. Just don't make verification by a hobby organization a condition of allowing products to market.
focusing attention will enable people to make their own decisions as to the credibility of the information presented, and then they will either act or not as they are so inclined. But information can only benefit the process of resolving the problems.
I used to drink Coke, then they made a new Coke, which I hated. So did alot of other people, so they came out with "Coke Classic", which was supposed to be the old Coke but wasn't even close. So now there is no Coke that I like, and gues what ... I drink Pepsi.
I go to movie theaters that serve Pepsi, I eat at fast food restaurants that serve Pepsi, and when I'm at a restaurant and ask for a Pepsi and they say they only have Coke, I have an iced tea.
there is nothing evil and sinister about Cokes choices in product developement and marketing, nor is there any in my purchase decisions as a consumer. I choose what I like, and don't choose what I don't like.
I like ARSA stands for, what they have done, and what I believe they will do - so I choose ARSA.
If ARSA changes so that it stands for something I don't like, does things I don't like, and those consitions persist, I will choose something else.
Just like Pepsi.
There are no warning bells ringing for me about beverage companys either.
Precisely my intended point in bringing the issue up. Thanks for the confirmation.
...
Launch rules are considerably different from legislative activities, but thanks for the open-mindedness nonetheless.
Lacking regulatory and ARSA definitions of "amateur rocketry" (just one of the many other can of worms to be opened) which make "common areas" difficult to identify in precise legislative terms, and with no specific ARSA policies or guidelines to support or confirm, this is simply an observation on a single past effort.
Fine. However, this single example does not allow me to infer that future endeavors will be as broad in scope or intent. Specific policies and goals might.
Of course not, there are NO specific goals stated. This is a tautology (zero equals zero), not a statement of intent nor policy.
My concerns are not, primarily, about ARSA supporting AM over MR/HPR, or focusing solely on AM, or of being "unconcerned" (which I seriously doubt) with NFPA; but those issues do catch my attention as I am concerned with rocketry as a WHOLE, not as a set of mutually exclusive endeavors. And Mr. Wickman's commercial involvement in amateur rocketry skews his interests as compared to a consumer. My primary concern is that ARSA is taking and promoting federal legislative actions which will affect ME (and all rocketeers) and I am clueless as to how or why ARSA decides upon the particular issues it addresses or the manner in which they address them. When Federal LAW with which I am concerned is at stake, my support of that law, and of an organization/individual proposing it, is not simply given by stated "good intentions" and "trust me"s. I prefer to make an informed, considered decision on the matter first. As it stands, I cannot do that with ARSA/JW.
Please consider that I DO support and practice a "form", at least, of "amateur rocketry".
I don't recall seeing your post. I looked for it last night and didn't find it. But I admit I skipped over many of these multiple parallel threads tht Izzy started. Even *I* have my limits...
Point me at it (subject, date), or email it to me, and I'll respond if I can.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
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.