Cato was right

  Quoted Text Here  

I went through about 8-10 packs of them last fall to use them all up. All worked fine until our last launch of the year, then 2 catoed out of the same pack. I didn't fly the third one.
I found one more pack over the winter, and since their certification was extended for another 2 years, I flew one or two at the last NIRA launch, and another this weekend at CIRFF-XI. WHo knows if there's more of them hiding in my basement.
Bot if the issue is that C5-3s are failing at a high rate, the thing that should happen is NAR S&T should decertify the motor, or the problem batches. Like they did with the old E15s.
But I've got plenty of Estes, Centuri, FSI, MPC, Cox, AVI, MRC, and other long gone motors that were dropped from the cert list that still work as good today as what you cam buy brand new at your local hobby shop.
If we're going to decertify rocket motors just because the company is out of business, then why are Aerotech motors made in the 90s still certified? The company that made them went out of business, and their remaining assets were sold in a bankrupcy sale.

I still have a bunch of C5-3's, and I never have had one CATO. Now that I've said that, I'll probably never have one work right again.
Randy wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
Well, you now have 19 months to burn them up.

  Quoted Text Here  
I've read a lot of complaints about the existing motor certification policy. So, what should the motor decertification policy be?
Glen Overby

Glen Overby wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Excellent question. My mistake was in making a general statement that I'd like to see a way to allow motors (such as A10-0T) be used, since there is no rational reason not to. That essentially left the burden on Bunny to interpret my request, and he interpreted it in a why that was not consistent with my intent -- but I can't blame him, that's human nature. It's also a case of my ignoring my own advice to others, to wit: if you're going to present a proposal, write it out, present a concise summary of the problem and the circumstances, propose a solution, and anticipate the arguments it will face.
Since the fault was mine in not outlining a comprehensive request, I have just (yesterday) ordered the NFPA 1122 and 1127 codes. When I receive them, I will review them, and come up with what I believe to be a rational, reasoned recommendation. If I can find a way to recommend it within the constraints of the current codes, I will, if not, I will recommend changes to the codes that will allow this at some future time.
Anyone who has rational, reasoned comments on this is welcome to send them to me (either directly or posting them here). I'm not interested in invective, or how the BOT is a bunch of wascals, or how others have attempted this and not succeeded -- just nice, calm discussion on the pros and cons of the issue. It can be my turn to tilt at the windmill (<G>).
David Erbas-White

You may want a copy of 1125 as well.
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

Ordered, thanks.
David Erbas-White
Fred Shecter wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

the simple solution is to use USE BEFORE DATES on the motors which is already allowed by the NFPA code...
this releives the rocket manufacturer of any liability issues, which is what the NAR screams everytime the question comes up.
For example staring tomorrow if all motor shave Use before date xxxxxx and that date was lets say 10 years/15 years/20 years into the future, then any motors used after that date would be the sole responsibility of the end user. So if they take out an eye, its the end users fault because he is using it past its expiration date.
I don't think the NAR should be in the business of worrying about liability issues for Estes Industries. EI has their own lawyers and liability insuranace and if somebody gets hurt its on them not the NAR.
David: I would like to work with you on this and I know somebody else that has an interest in this also who might be interested.
terry dean
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

David Erbas-White wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Okay, I just received the 1122, 1125, and 1127 codes today. I just read through 1125, and will re-read it to make sure that I'm not missing anything, but the ONLY thing I can find in relation to decertification is the following:
"8.4 Decertification. The rocket motor or motor-reloading kit shall be decertified by the certifying entity if it is determined that the rocket motor or motor-reloading kit no longer complies with the original certification criteria or current certification criteria, with respect to safety."
I find absolutely nothing else regarding decertification, and certainly nothing regarding things such as 'contest certification', etc.
Please note that it does not grant leeway to the certifying entity to remove certification based on arbitrary decisions, such as the motor no longer being manufactured. It also places no time constraints of any sort on the certification. It also says that it shall be decertified "if it is determined... no longer complies". This does not mean that it can be arbitrarily decertified, but that a reasoned, defensible, logical argument has been put forth that the SAFETY (emphasis mine) has been compromised.
Since I was referred to the NFPA documents as reasons why NAR can't change 'their' certification requirements, can someone point me to the paragraph/section that specifically allows or specifies decertification procedures/requirements (which was my original concern/question)?
David Erbas-White

david:
what you found is all there is. the NAR S&T may have its own decertfication policies....from their 1993 policy:
Removal of Certification ---------------------- The process of decertification of a motor is based on the date of a significant event. Significant events include (but are not limited to):
* The day the manufacturer ceases operations. * The day the manufacturer informs S&T (or it becomes generally known) the manufacture of a motor has ceased. * The day the manufacturer fails to submit the motor when requested for triennial recertification.
Once the significant event has occurred, decertification begins. During the decertification period, motors manufactured after the date of the significant event are not certified. Motors manufactured before the date of the significant event remain certified according to the following timetable:
* Contest certification for that motor is dropped at the end of that contest year. A contest year runs from July 1 through June 30 and includes the NARAM at the end of that contest year, which may be after June 30.
* General certification as a model or high power rocket motor is dropped three years from the date of the significant event.
The only exceptions to the above decertification schedule is as follows:
* In the case of government regulatory action, decertification may be immediate.
* In the case of consumer complaints, safety problems, blind testing failures, or triennial testing failures, NAR certification may be suspended or withdrawn if the manufacturer fails to solve the problem within six months from the date of notification.
keep in mind the above is the 1993 policy; it may be completely different now. Why don't you contact NAR S&T and see if you can get a copy of their latest policy? I did 3 years ago and I'm still waiting.
Lately the historical reason for decertfication is "manufacturer" liability issues. I personally don't see why the NAR should have to worry about "manufacturer" liability issues. I assume that all the US motor manufacturers have the requiste liability insurance. Like I said in an earlier post, the solution to the "manufacturer" liability issue, is that the manufcaturer can place a USE BEFORE DATE on the motor. If the use before date is 10 years from date of manufacture, and its used after that time period, would not all liability be that of the end user only?
Notice in NFPA 1125 it states that a determination must be made? The only possible way this determination might be made, is if the motor(s) in question are actually tested by NAR S&T. NAR S&T really doesn't want the resposnsibility of doing this I think. As they would have to store and keep motors from different batches over many years and perform testing on them on a regul;ar basis to see if the motors are out of original spec. By the way, Micromeister over on TRF suggested just this approach, store and test motors over time now so we would have a future database....but it was denied for the "manufacture" liability rationale. The NAR wants endusers to pay for their own testing.
7.9 Motor Shelf Life.
7.9.1 When the performance of a solid propellant rocket motor or motor-reloading kit deviates from the sample test criteria
and limits detailed in 7.8.6 within 5 years from the date of manufacture, it shall be withdrawn from commercial sale and
redesigned to provide reliable operation when ignited within 5 years from the date of manufacture.
7.9.2 If the expected shelf life of a rocket motor or motorreloading kit is less than 10 years, the manufacturer shall imprint
a "use before" date on the package or motor casing.
terry dean
  Quoted Text Here  

David Erbas-White wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Okay, now I've done it (<G>).
I have 'volunteered' to correct the current NAR S&T certifications policies and procedures. I have received the latest P&P in draft form, and will be working on creating the 'current' document (which will only be corrected for typos, at the direction of John Lyngdal, S&T Secretary). Once that is done, I will be submitting to the S&T Committee and the BOT any changes that might be 'useful'.
I will add that I received information from several individuals during this process (to this point), and the current approved revisions appear to be minor changes from the copies from the nineties that some folks sent me...
I'm planning on getting rough drafts done this week, so once I have submitted those to S&T, I'll ask for them to be 'published for comment'.
Thanks to all who have participated...
David Erbas-White

  Quoted Text Here  
Motors should be added to the certification list when they pass the required testing. Motors should be removed from the list if and when they no longer meet those criteria. If they are old but still work fine, they stay on the list. If they start to cato 3 months after manufacture, they get pulled.
There is absolutely no reason that of the Sagans of blue mailing tubes I have in my basement, all made around 1970, that some should still be CONTEST CERTIFIED, a few safety certified, and most uncertified. They are all just as reliable as what you can buy today in any hobby shop in the country.

  Quoted Text Here  
That was a non-answer at best, at worst you said "certified forever" but without admitting as much.
So what are the criteria you're focusing on and how do you determine that they no longer meet the criteria?
  Quoted Text Here  
So, how do you determine which ones are not safe enough to be certified?
Glen Overby

The way I read Bob's message is that they would be certified forever until enough evidence suggests they are no longer safe. Bob can correct if not so.
That evidence collection loop would be similar to our system of innocent until proven guilty. The focus should be on keeping them certified, not the other way around.
Certified forever until proven statistically bad is not such a bad idea. Historically, the safety code and a little common sense has kept this hobby amazingly safe compared to almost any other.
~ Duane Phillips.
"the disturbing effect of new learning on the performance of previously learned behavior with which it is inconsistent" - Merriam-Webster at www.webster.com on "interference"
writes:
  Quoted Text Here  

Rick wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
No, I'm basing it on a recent event -- the NAR President was asked to consider allowing NAR members to fly CERTIFIED motors at TRA Research launches, assuming that TRA approved it. The NAR President refused, claiming that it was a violation of their Safety Code.
So, apparently it's not acceptable for NAR members to fly certified motors at a launch whose offset distances, etc are more stringent than NAR's, but it is okay for select NAR members to fly uncertified motors at a NAR launch. Without violating the Safety Code.
-Kevin

  Quoted Text Here  
It's time to impeach the NARBOT. A "vote of confidence" for the entire lot.
The NARBOT approval to allow "a few people" to fly motors made by a Czech manufacturer without any certification, which were imported and transported with the US under questionable conditions, is clearly, without a doubt, not good for NAR and is in violation of the NAR Safety Code.. I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is!
"The weenies want their contest motors, and damn the rules", seems to be how NARBOT works these days. What a shame....
NAR screwed up big time with the whole Kosdon mess, so why should this suprise me?

  Quoted Text Here  
The problem with that is who would run to take their place? Jerry Irvine? I've already submitted agenda items for Phoenix to reverse this decision, turn the matter over to NAR S&T as it should have been in the first place, to censure the baord for their improper action, and to discipline any members that violated the NAR safety code this weekend at NSL.
  Quoted Text Here  
For each instance of Czech substitute USR...
  Quoted Text Here  
Depends on who the weenie is. Plenty of other NAR weenies have been told NFW when asking for similar certification issues. But now we have a new precedence on which to get support.
  Quoted Text Here  
Perhaps. TRA screwed up worse on this one. Either the motors were legal, or they weren't. If they weren't, neither organization should have certified them. If TRA really discovered after the fact that they were illegal, they should have IMMEDIATELY pulled their certs, not given then time to be used up.

  Quoted Text Here  
That's not fair to the members, who were told by the BoT that it was okay.
Hardly appropriate for the BoT to tell someone "Yes, go ahead and do that", then a month later, "Oh, we have to discipline you for doing that."
-Kevin

  Quoted Text Here  
It's also not fair to other members who have been disciplined in the past for flying motors that weren't certified. I think that those who may have violated the NAR Safety Code in this case should be censured, just as I've called for being done to the board. I'm not looking to kick any one out at this time.
Of course, if the violations continue in the future...

writes:
  Quoted Text Here  
So you are saying that the BOT has allowed people to fly uncertified motors in the past and then disciplined them? Don't think so. So these 2 situations are different.
You see the problem is that yes uncertified motors were flown. But this time the BOT gave it's blessing "for the betterment of the hobby" as allowed by the Bylaws. Frankly I really do not like it any better than you do, but since the BOT gave the OK as allowed via the Bylaws, I think this is going to go no where.
Now... If some yeahoos are flying uncertified motors without the BOT blessing, that is different. IMHO.