ATFE Anti-rocketry Video

There was a time when NAR would revoke the membership of people who flew uncertified motors at independent launches. However, I've never heard of TRA ever doing that or threatening to do that.

So what are you saying, Iz? That Estes motor packs oughtta come with a 5 cent refund on each spent motor case ?

Doug I wanna believe it, but I gotta see the video...

And if they were using J350's, why would they switch to G80's?

If the 3 stooges are ever reconstituted, I bet the ATF would make for dozens of good story ideas :)

No they picked a different poison to "seem different" but the motives were precisely the same.

Jerry

I was not aware that states had facilities and budgets for rocket motor certifications

- iz

Even CA who receives HUGE fees and has a code does not actually test the stuff, much less to NFPA-1125 standards.

Jerry

Our cans say CA. We have no can tax.

Joel. phx (AZ)

you're not paying attention (again), Ray

see todays posts on the effect of NFPA codes on non-TRA/NAR activities in adoptive states

fetch

- iz

RayDunak> Shock wrote:

>

we've established that there is nothing to prevent TRA/NAR members from flying uncertified motors in non-adoptive (NFPA) states by themselves or at indy launches, other than the membership agreement to follow their respective safety codes (which enforceability is questionable)

for TRA/NAR non-members in non-adoptive states there is _absolutely_nothing_ to prevent them from flying uncertified motors by themselves or at indy launches

so it seems you have at least that market at present

[unfortunately, NY is an NFPA state. While my neighboring NJ and CT are not IFC states, I do not know if they have independently incorporated NFPA rocketry codes. I need to do some research, and see if there are any indy sites in NJ or CT if they have not.]

- iz

Jerry Irv> >

Doesn't that depend on the exact linking language? Is there a provision in the IFC (or in legislative language adopting it) that says "anything not specifically regulated by an applicable NFPA code is forbidden outright"?

We've maybe got some buggy code here - either absurd or self-referentially self-canceling.

(IIRC from reading my "Tripoli Safety Code" copy, NFPA1127 appears to both disclaim applicability to, and to forbid, all rocketry outside its scope...)

-dave w

Which state did you contact?

Joel.phx

Would that be the requirement for EX numbers, a requirement which you claim was _your_ idea?

NFPA 1125 has very specific packaging and labeling requirements for motors. After reviewed these I can see no reason why they would bot be acceptable in NFPA adoptive states, in spite of that packaging and labeling not being required there.

So for motors meeting the NFPA packaging and labeling requirements, labeling as such does not preclude their distribution to non-NFPA adoptive states regardless of their certification status. These same motors could of course be distributed to NFPA states if they are certified.

Motors not meeting the NFPA packaging and labeling requirements could never be certified, as verification of compliance is a part of certification. Such motors could be distributed only to non-adoptive states.

to summarize:

______________1125 packaging 1125 certified ok to distribute? NFPA state yes yes yes NFPA state yes no no NFPA state no n/a (impossible) no non-NFPA state yes yes yes non-NFPA state yes no yes

yes, it was NAR I was thinking of

I stand corrected

- iz "is not perfect"

Jerry Irv> >

He said that they (NAR/TRA) should consider ASKING (that's spelled A-S-K-I-N-G). Nowhere did Jerry say anything about REQUIRING (that's spelled R-E-Q-U-I-R-I-N-G).

Do we need to get out the dictionary and show you the difference in their meanings?

Bob

Ok, so what's the point of a certifying authority "asking" for EX numbers if they don't "require" it?

You guys insist on having the same thread over and over again.

Pistols at 30 paces.

I live in California. Remind me again why I should belong to NAR or TRA...

yes, of course

- iz

David We> Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:

which did you?

since it was your idea, I figured you at least made some attempt to see if it was feasible

- iz

Joel Corwith wrote: