Cato was right

The current debate on the vaguries of the certification process wouldn't even exist if the NAR and the TRA weren't acting as if they
were a regulatory agency. The original concept was for the NAR to test motors so as to assure <i>the consumer</i> that they were getting what they paid for, and were in no danger. How has this become the determining factor under which motor makers are judged?
One guess is the NFPA meetings in circa 1997.
Regardless the NAR and the TRA are spending boodles of money fighting the regulatory indiscretion of the BATFE. Which is very good. But isn't it just a tad hypocritical of the NAR to _act_ like a regulatory agency...banning those motors which they don't like for what is apparently no good reason?
The entire testing regime of S&T is nonsensical. How is it that companies like Estes, which have gone through several ownership changes since their last certification, can go over ELEVEN YEARS without a test? If the idea is to protect the consumer why isn't the requirement for timely samples being made? Would you trust a company to build a road that last had it's construction techniques reviewed in 1995?
I think it's _way_ past time for the NAR to put on the Big Boy Pants and revamp the entire certification process. Admit that they have let things get partisan and slip shod, and review the whole affair. How about one static test and ten static firings to determine whether a motor will blow up? Isn't that what we were originally told? To determine whether the motor won't blow up and the average newtons is what the manufactuer is claiming? That isn't hard.
What is hard is describing special priviledges and partisan hatreds as a normal part of the system. That, Bunny, is why so many are now calling Bullshit on you and your henchmen.
You've got a lot of 'splainin to do, Bunny.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thank you QM. That's the first smart thing I've read here in a very looooooooooooooooooooong time. What you say makes perfect sense and goes right to the heart of the problem. Cato did in fact, bring this very point to the forefront almost a decade ago. Instead of hundreds of posts on some nobody's qualifications and hours of useless pontification on another's attitude, ethics, whereabouts, genetic lineage whatever, questions like these need to be addressed. Nothing, and I mean nothing of value is gained by the other discussions. In fact, childish and silly gossip mongering is worse than benign as it detracts from the real issues that beg our attention. QM has hit on one of the big ones. Thank you. Now, how do we get action on this? How do we get the NAR to change it's direction and get back to advancing the hobby while at the same time, maintaining it's aggressive defense of MR against the onslaught of Government oversight?
--
R. J. Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BOT elections are coming up correct? Run, get elected, and make a difference. I am not joking.
--

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com

> --
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Good point. Poeple complaining is a joke when year after year there are 3 positions open and only the 3 incumbents run. If it bothers anyone, they should at least run & show that they care about an issue enough to try to fix it.
This year TRA has 7 people running for 3 spots on the board because they want to contribute their talents to the organization.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
hello greg ltns:
on the face of it, this looks like a reasonable assumption to make. But is it? Lets take a closer look shall we?
Back in 90's when the TRA threanted to "run a slate" against the incumbent NARBOT, the NAR changed their bylaws to prevent a "hostile takeover" of this kind.
Assuming 1 new NARBOT was elected each year replacing an incumbent, it would take a minimum of 5 years to get a 5-4 majority. And remember its the NARBOT that chooses the President from among itself. So for the first 5 years you would get split party line votes like :
Year 1: 8-1 Year 2: 7-2 Year 3: 6-3 Year 4: 5-4 Year 5: 4-5
And now of the above take into consideration the bylaws requirements that no more 2/3 of the NARBOT can be from only 1 of 3 regions.
So any real changes would take a minimum of 5 years to take place. And remember my assumption: that 1 new NARBOT member is voted in each year? Thats unrealistic, and its unrelaistic to think that any of the new NARBOT memebrs would vote in a block against the incumbents anyway.
When you add into the mix that only 2-3% at most vote per election cycle, the odds are even dimmer.
terry dean
ps I'm gonna go out and launch my Ecee on an A10-0T-A3-4T combo!

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You had better stop playing with your toys & get to work. I'm sure you will make a great BOT member.
Phil
On Sat, 27 May 2006 15:53:10 -0400, "shockwaveriderz"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
shockwaveriderz wrote:

Your entire response could have been boiled down to just two short sentences: "It's too hard and takes to long. Complaining is easier."

How do you figure that? The odds of being elected are based on how people vote, not on how many people vote.
s
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Voters decide nothing; people who count votes decide everything."
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ah Yes Comrade.
writes:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, if people were REALLY upset about something, you could elect 3 the first year, and 3 moroe the second year, and you're done.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip
Before this thread goes off into infinity, is it possible for anyone here to give a simple answer to whatever happened to Cato and why? I had just happened on to rmr not long before the 85 page email and never fully understood the situation.
With all the usual RMR Twilight Zone explanations I never knew which "alternate universe - time line" was the correct one.
Randy www.vernarockets.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
My take on it after talking with John a few years back (in print not by voice) was that he ran afoul of the politics in TRA and called to question some motor certs as well as some of the "business" practices of the outfit. There was something more IIRC that involved some whistle blowing. John had/has an ego and not only wouldn't back down, but became increasingly vocal. Some shunned him, some were put off, some embraced him but over all, he tired of the game and moved on. That was my take on it. As to what he's doing now, well, from time to time I hear he still shows up at some rocket events but prefers to stay on the sidelines.
--
R. J. Talley
Teacher/James Madison Fellow
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Additionally I think that John Cato was saying that the games played regarding certification were hypocritical and _would_ come back to haunt the hobby. That having a private organization playing cop...requiring all sorts of information that really have nothing to do with a motors consistency...was an invitation to outside forces to become involved.
Which I believe to have happened circa 1997.
I'm sure John could do better in about 8,000 words. ;) QM
Reece Talley wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
quilly:
I agree 100% percent with your central point that the job and responsibility of motor certification should be all that the NAR or TRA does. They should act as "gatekeeper" cops, asking for USDOT paperwork,LEUP,CPSC paperwork,etc..... Their only job is to test the motors, and make sure they are safe for use by consumers. Its the job of the USDOT,BATFE,CPSC,NFPA, whoever to provide the enforcemnet function not the NAR's nor the TRA's. But as we all know, the NAR nor the TRA will say or do this, because of one person, "the person whose name shall not be spoken". Prior to "the person whose name shall not be spoken" decided he wanted to get into the illegal motor manufacturing ripoff and scam, I'm sure both NAR and TRA never asked for all of the above described paperwork, because the NAR and TRA have consistently told their membership: we are not an enforcement agency.
And now the NAR is doing just what it believes with these czech delta motors: they aren't requiring any USDOT paperwork, LEups,CPSC paperwork,nfpa compliance etc and allowing these motors to be used by selective people at selective times at selective places. But you know If I start making motors or you start making motors, or "the person who shall not be named" shows up they will still function as the Gatekeeper and will never allow our motors to be used or sold.
Basically what the NAR is telling its membership with this new policy is this: You will not be kicked out of the NAR for using uncertfied motors at NAR venues, as long as we selected the uncertifed motors to be used and who they will be used by. What they ARENOT telling its membership is this: Although you may be 100% aok with the NAR, you will still be in violation of the NFPA regulations if they are effect; you will be in violation of USDOT hazmat classification, CPSC marking and Labeling, etc. And the ONLY WAY you can be in violation of NFPA,USDOT,CPSC.BATFE or alphabet soup agency is if somebody sees what you are doing and tells on you. SO the NAR is putting its own membership at risk, at this. When the USDOT and CPSC enforcemnt comes down on these Czech delta motors( and it will), the enforcement will not be against the NAR: it will be against the individual NAR members who are caught using,selling,distributing,transporting these motors among themselves. The good news is these fed agencies will probbaly charge these people with Civil penalties al "the one whose name shall not be spoken"... but then criminal liability is also not out of the question. The NAR hasn't exactly provided its membership here with FULL DISCLOUSRE over the exposed risks they are placing their selective members at.
terry dean

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
shockwaveriderz wrote:

Therein lies the problem -- inconsistent rules, and inconsistent application of them. The playing field MUST be level.

Back to inconsistent treatment. If you're one of the golden few, you get one set of rules. Everyone else gets another. THAT is the problem.

NAR's not responsible for enforcement of those. They're responsible for enforcement of their own rules. If their rules happen to match a TLA, then so be it, but NAR is only enforcing that agency's rules, because they happen to match their own.
There HAS to be transparency, and folks have to know they'll all get treated the same. If you walk in with a special request and get turned down, then if I walk in with the same request, I should get turned down as well, as should any other member with the same request.
My guess is if you or I walked in and asked to fly those Czech motors at a NAR launch, we'd be told NO, and have the safety code waived in our face as the reason why.
-Kevin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kevin Trojanowski wrote:

So, you're condemning the NARBOT based on a guess. When you've made your request and been turned down, let us all know...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rick wrote:

OK, I'll bite.
I requested that the BOT revisit the issue of not being able to fly (for example) C5-3 motors (and soon C11-0 motors) based on the fact that the manufacturer discontinued making them, not because of any real or perceived safety issue. I was turned down, and I believe fallaciously (i.e., the arguments put forth by Mark Bundick are not salient).
http://www.rocketryforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid#855&highlight=narprez
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
david:
and whats this new policy decision even worse, is the c5-3 and c11-0 motors were both made in this country by USA known manufacturers, with liability insurance ( I'm sure the Czech Delta motor manufacturer has no such liability insurnace), and the usa motors were even priveiously certfied and passed both USDOT/CPSC requirements, which can't be said for the Czech deltas.
terry dean

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

C5-3s and a few other motors got a 2 year reprieve.
But other motors that have just been decertified (NCR, Kosdon) got no such reprieve. Yet another double standard.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip
Simply as a sidebar... I'm sure just like land mines in Europe, there are a few still floating around out there but does anyone use the C5-3's anymore, even for private launches? After the rep they acquired in the late 90's I wouldn't want one in my range box much less one of my rockets.
Randy www.vernarockets.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.