C6-0 make a C6-P

My point is that that is the most reliable way to make a C6-P.

I've always been confused about point number 2. Mark Bundick has evidently made statements that lead one to draw this conclusion. But the NAR and Tripoli both make you sign a statement saying that all your rocketry activities will be conducted within their safety code.
The text from the NAR membership application page at https://secure.consumersinterest.com/nar/narjoin.html is
  Quoted Text Here  
rocketry activities in compliance with the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code, the NAR High Power Safety Code, and the Radio Controlled Rocket Glider Safety Code.
Is the word "sport" the issue? Does that mean NAR sanctioned competitions or events?
The Tripoli "pledge" at http://www.tripoli.org/join.shtml says:
  Quoted Text Here  
Association's By-laws and Safety Code, and that I will be an active member of the Association to the best of my ability.
So, once again, I'm confused...     Will
shockwaveriderz wrote: ...
  Quoted Text Here  
...

Will Marchant wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I speculate (but don't know) that the NAR membership form and TRA "pledge" are simplified and/or outdated--simplified so that each is short and to the point rather than an obtuse legal document, outdated because of benign inertia.
At one point the NAR insisted that members do all non-professional rocketry activities according to the NAR safety code; to do otherwise risked ejection from the NAR. This position derived directly from the foundation of the NAR as a facilitator of a safe alternative for basement bombers. That's officially not the case anymore, based on statements I've heard the NAR president and other officers make. Shockie had it right: the NAR safety code applies to NAR sanctioned events, whether sport or competition (and whether the event participants are NAR members or not), and no further; the TRA safety codes (HP and EX) apply similarly.
NAR members can participate in EX, even though the NAR does not support EX; but not at an NAR event. The focus has turned somewhat, becoming less ideological and more practical: the safety codes are the basis for legal sanction and insurance coverage. Thus an NAR member involved in EX can't expect to use the NAR insurance in case of an accident during that involvement, and should have some other means of establishing the legality of his involvement.

will:
The NAR pledge language was changed just a few years ago.... If you google aginst this group I'm sure you will find the pro and con for the change. As Steve pointed out, the pledge langauge for the NAR used to apply to ALL your rocketry activities: whether you was doing it on your own time or the NAR's time. The NAR pledge langauge was changed to what it now, to point out that it only applies to NAR time. Mark B. has said himself numerous times, that the NAR doesn't care what you do on your own time, but does care for insurance purposes what you do on NAR time. And rightly so. For example, if you are NOT a NAR member, and you walk unto a NAR sections field to launch model rockets , you must agree to adhere to the NAR Safety Code while flying there. On the other hand, if you are flying by yourself at your local park, the NAR Safety Code has no applicability. NAR regulations obviously should not apply to Amateur Rocketry(EX) activites, or non-NAR rocketry actvities. And yes the NAR does sanction only competition events such as NARAM, other competition events down through its contest year and also NARCON and NSL are officially sanctioned NAR events. . It does not formally or informally sanction NAR "sport" launches. Keep in mind that the NAR is an organization of approximately 4500 people nationwide: now compare this to the number of actual people that are involved in model rocketry on a yearly basis. Also Obvious is the fact that is you are not a member of the NAR, and don't have to adhere to NAR regukations, you probably will have to adhere to the NFPA 1122 codes which are in your state. Obviously if you don't know them you can't adhere to them. Thats why I have advised everybody who flies model rocketry or high power rocketry to have with them when they fly, copies of NFPA 1122 or 1127 depending on what you are doing, along with a copy of your specific state law. Ignorance of the law is no defense.
As far as the TRA is concerned, the TRA Safety Code and NFPA 1127 Code for High Power Rocketry are one and the same thing. This is not so for the NAR. The NAR has its own different HPR Safety Code that is derived from the NFPA 1127 code, but they are not identical as is the case with the TRA. I do not know what the TRA ByLaws say so I cannot comment on them.
now keep in mind that all of the above is all pseudo-legal interpretations on my part and have no basis in reality.
shcokie B)
http://www.spaceflightsoftware.com/will/

  Quoted Text Here  
But most (all but the PRK?) states incorporate NFPA 1122 into their state laws, so violating the NAR safety code may convert your legal model rocket into prohibited fireworks...

bob:
do you seriously believe that anybody other than the approximate 8300 NAR/TRA members have any idea that a NAR Model Rockety Safety code even exists? The fact that the NAR has never had more than approximately 6000 members MAX even in its late 60's-early 70's "golden dayz" points out that the majority of people who do and have done model rocketry have no clue the NAR much less the NAR Safety code even exists. IF you don't know something exists, how can one "violate" it? . DO you think that the typical wal-Mart model rocket shooper is even aware that there is such a thing as NFPA 1122? I doubt it.
shockie B)
writes:
  Quoted Text Here  

shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
You can unknowingly violate a law.
-Kevin

Just as a point of order here, it would be very hard for anyone that buys an Estes kit to say they haven't seen the code. It's there every time you open the package and has been for a very long time.
Randy www.vernarockets.com

snipped-for-privacy@charter.net wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
True, but seeing the code and actually reading the code is whole other matter.
When I flying as a kid I NEVER read the code. Took too much time away from flying :)
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

  Quoted Text Here  
Agreed, me too but I did read it once and I was aware of it.
Randy www.vernarockets.com

  Quoted Text Here  
Well, let's see. It's printed in every kit and pack of motors Estes and Quest sell. It's in their catalogs. probably true for many other manufacturers as well. And it's law in 49 states.
So, yes, I think there are a few people who are neither NAR nor TRA who know what it is. Although sometimes I wonder about a few NAR/TRA members :-)

bob: the NAR Safety Code is NOT LAW in 49 states....
If you look at NFPA 1122, the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code is included in Annex B, and it states:
This annex is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only.
And don't forget that the AMA also has their own Model Rocket Safety Code that is completely differnet from the NAR code.
shockie B)
writes:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
But the points of the safety code all come from NFPA 1122. The words in the NAR code are not law. But when the NAR code says, for example, electrical ignition, it's because that's what 1122 requires. THe green fuse sold in many stores is illegal under 1122.

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
The safety code preceeded 1122 by many years. Therefore 1122 comes in part from the safety code, not visa versa.
The current version of 1122 is a kludge of rules, many of which are duplicative, inconsistent, or plain wrong, but there they are.
1127 is worse.
Jerry

To quote the esteemed Mr. Kaplow:
"In a glider 50% of your thrust is from the piston, 50% is from the motor, and 50% is from the ejection charge."
He's right. Use the ejection charge for more thrust!
Chuck W Sharc, NAR Section 613 www.flysharc.org
Sharc, the section where two out of three certification flights always work just fine!

  Quoted Text Here  
Yes, I said this, but in reference to 1/4A BG, not to C BG.

I have done this for monocopters, using ~3/8" of Devcon 2-ton epoxy (the kind sold at Wal-Mart in dual syringes) for the plug. Worked perfectly.
As others have pointed out, by doing this you're violating the NAR safety code.

CouldBeFlying wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
You don't need to use epoxy. Fill the entire end with wadding, tamp it in pretty tight, and put a few layers of masking tape over the end. This is a legal way of doing it, as you're not permanently moding the motor. YES, it works, and I've never had it fail on one of my R/C ships by doing this. I don't think it would work for a D12 tho....
chad

snipped-for-privacy@psci.net wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Boy,
That is very novel Chad and if you've proved it, that would be the way to go to stay "legal".
Kurt Savegnago

  Quoted Text Here  
Booster motor burnout is pretty violent. That's what throws the particles forward to ignite the upper stage. It will eject a parachute or kick an empty casing. I would not think that some wadding in the end of the motor would be sufficient.
BTW, that extra propellant in a booster motor was also retained by the Tandem process, providing a bit extra thrust. I don't know if anyone ever determined how much of the extra thrust came from that propellant that wasn't lost int he staging process, and how much came from booster erosion by the upper stage.