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 the consumer 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.
Reply to
Quilly Mammoth
Loading thread data ...
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?
Reply to
Reece Talley
BOT elections are coming up correct? Run, get elected, and make a difference. I am not joking.
Reply to
Greg Cisko
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.
Reply to
Phil Stein
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!
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
You had better stop playing with your toys & get to work. I'm sure you will make a great BOT member.
Phil
Reply to
Phil Stein
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
Reply to
raydunakin
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.
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
"Voters decide nothing; people who count votes decide everything."
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Ah Yes Comrade.
Reply to
nitram578
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
formatting link

Reply to
Randy
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.
Reply to
Reece Talley
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:
Reply to
Quilly Mammoth
You might add "vindictive" to your discription of John. Remember the little incident from a couple of years back, when he caused the loss of a feild in Georgia, while sitting on the didelines so to speak?
Fred
Reece Talley wrote:
Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace
There's also the detail that use of that field was based on flying certified motors, and the organizers changed the rules and didn't bother to inform the land owner.
Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Yep, that's what John claimed, in at least three vindictive paragraphs, exceeding five sentences each..(:-) Except the individuals directly involved, denied Johns version and required less than one two sentence paragraph to do so..(:-)
Fred
Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace
And four of the five clubs that used that field were NAR and didn't fly EX.
Then there were his threats against the field in Orangeburg, which is owned by the same land owner.
Then there was the unilateral meeting with the landowner about his perceived parking issues for NSL '99, which ended up with the loss of the field for that event.
I've met John, had dinner with him, and like him. He was correct on many of his points but his blood feud with the TRA leadership and high octane ego clouded his arguments and drove off most potential allies.
It reminds me of an incident with the kite flying club here in Savannah a few years ago. There was a club here that met on the beach out at Tybee Island to fly huge kites over the dunes. A new guy joined the club and he used a non-regulation string for his kites. This caused major arguments within the club and eventually led to its breakup. I remember a kite flying co-worker giving me the blow-by-blow narrative and remember the emotion he felt over the issue.
Kite string. Such disagreements seem silly to me but this is exactly the way we rocketeers look to outsiders when we get into these petty arguments. Among his many, many, many arguments with others, John had a few extremely valid points, but they were doomed to failure because of his attitude.
If there is an issue with certified motors here then we need to address it and solve it as a group of like-minded, grown up adults.
My 2 cents. But as president of a local club, if there is an issue here, I will support its resolution. I will not support infighting.
Chuck W Sharc, NAR Section 613
formatting link

Sharc, we fly rockets so you don't have to!
Reply to
ChuckW
Amen to all your comments, I could not agree more or of said it better.
Fred
ChuckW wrote:
Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace
I wonder if the landowner in McGregor,Tx knows that "selective' members of the NAR will be using uncertfied motors , with no USDOT hazmat classification or CPSC marking and labeling. Is history repeating it self?
terry dean
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
yes it is indeed petty when the NAR now can allow selective motors to be used by selctive members that haven't been thru the USDOT explosives classification process and do not adhere to the CPSC requirements. Theres "petty" an dthen theres "petty". The problem I see with th rocketry community right now is that a small group of people where allowed to do things that weren't kosher. And nothing was said or done. SO the larger rocket community started doing the same and more, using the first as an example. And nothing was said or done. SO now the majority rocket community has any ethical or moral compass anymore. SO anything and everthing goes, winks and nods are exchanged with sly grins; don't ask, don't tell reigns supreme; and all of the above was supposed to be prevented by the perpertual myth of "self-regulation". And then if anybody dares speak up, the shouts of NARC,RAT,INFORMER are shouted from the rooftops..... and nobody can even see a indirect realtionship between the rise of no self-regulation to BATFE involvement. Is it possible we bring this upon our selves because of our own behaviors? The rocketry community needs to consider sweeping reforms of its behavior before outside agencies come in and do it for us...
terry dean
Reply to
shockwaveriderz

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.