Cato was right

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
formatting link

Reply to
Randy
Loading thread data ...
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
Reply to
Kevin Trojanowski
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.
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
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...
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Bob, I'm not sure this is the way to go as it's probably NOT going to be fruitful in any event.
The Bylaws state:
Section 11: For conduct prejudicial to the objectives, reputation, or property of the Association, or for failure to observe and abide by the Safety Code(s) of the Association in all model rocket activities, a member of any class may be censured, suspended, or expelled by a Committee of three Senior members in good standing appointed by the President. Notice of all charges against such member and of the time and place of the meeting at which they are to be presented shall be sent to the member by mail not less than thirty (30) days prior to such a meeting. A written summary of all evidence to be presented shall be sent to the member by mail not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to such a meeting. Such member shall be given the opportunity to be heard at the meeting in his own defense. Such member in addition to, or in lieu of a personal appearance, may present a written defense; an address to which such written defense is to be sent must be provided to the member not less than twenty-one (21) days prior to such meeting. Any member of any class charged with violation of the Safety Code(s) of the Association shall automatically be suspended from membership until the meeting of the Committee at which his case is to be decided, providing the time of suspension is not longer than one (1) year from the date of suspension until the date of the hearing. No person, once having been admitted in good faith as a member of the Association, shall be denied the right to continued membership except for the above reasons and through the above procedure, or except for non-payment of dues or other debts owed the Association.
The NAR president will appoint the 3 senior members who will do the judging. They would only be found guilty if you and I was appointed to this committee and I don't think thats going to happen.
The NARBOT is not going to rescind this policy because they would be admitting they did something wrong, and that isn't going to happen.
Mark has already said, that this policy will stand unless you come up with a suitable alternative: so the onus is on you or whoever to come up with a competing and better plan of action. Just disagreeing with the curent policy isn't going to be enough to get it rescinded.
It appears to me that NAR is a toohless tiger when it even comes to enforcemnt in their own backyard.
The NARBOT routinely , let me say that again, routinely ignores and violates its own bylaws.....so do you really think anything will come from this approach? I don't..
terry dean
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
So let me get this straight. You must believe that the Safety Code has enough flexibility to allow this to occur. If it was as black-and-white as you claim, you would never have made the request.
The problem is that someone else GOT the permission and you didn't. This sounds like an ego issue more than a safety issue. The teacher let someone else ride their bike in the schoolyard, but you couldn't. Wahhh. Deal with it.
Reply to
Flyer
I keep waiting for the foot stomping, jumping up and down, and shouting to begin.. Maybe Jerry will come along tell Bob, "I told you so"...(:-)
Fred
Flyer wrote:
Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace
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.
Reply to
Greg Cisko
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:
Reply to
Christopher Brian Deem
No, I'm saying that the buard has disciplined members in the past for violating the NAR Safety Code and the NAR Bylaws. They have added the Bylaws pledge to the membership application that every NAR member has signed and agreed to follow.
Regardless of what the board said, the members were wrong to violate the NAR Safety Code. But the board was just as wrong to authorize them all to do so. That is why both groups should be held accountable for their actions. It should be made clear to all involved, board and FAI team that "this is not to happen again".
Betterment of the hobby does not include violating the NAR Safety Code or NAR Bylaws. Especially when they could have done something else which would have accomplished the same result without violating either. It has set a dangerous precedent which must not be allowed to stand.
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Well, since it involves 8 of the 9 board members, he'll have to appoint outsiders.
Well, at least some of them want to reconsider this action. Which I think is a good sign.
From the very beginning of this discussion I proposed an alternate. One of the S&T members posted EXACTLY the same thing. Let S&T do it's job.
I don't know if they will approve the use of these motors or not. But its their call, not the boards. I trust them to do their job in a responsible manner.
That needs to be fixed.
We'll see what happens at NARAM in Phoenix.
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
bob:
I'm also concerned that NAR S&T appeaed to be "left out of the loop" on this one. I don't expect Jack Kane, a former long time trustee and current long time NAR S&T Committee chairman to make any adverse public statements about this new policy, but I agree that this should be left in the hands of NAR S&T, asuuming they require everything od these Czech Deltas as they do for all other model rocket motors, and this includes, USDOT paperwork, CPSC compliance,etc. Anything les in just totally unacceptable.
I want everybody reading this know that I make a difference betqween:
1. Czech Delta motors sans USDOT/CPSC/NFPA compliance 2. Uncertfied "speciality" motors from local manufacturers like Estes,Quest,AT/RCS(or for that matter any domestic model rocket manufacturer that have had to jump through all the regulatory hoops to be legal.) 3. Uncertfied "demo" motors from the same as above 4. Decertified motors that were previously certfied with USDOT/CPSC/NFPA compliance
I only really object to #1. And my major objections is lack of USDOT/CPSC/NFPA compliance.
terry dean
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
So, what you're saying is that if you ask permission from a law enforcement officer to do something, s/he approves it, then turns around and arrests you for it, that's okay?
Same thing, Bob.
Go ahead and try and spin it some other way; the fact of the matter is that the members asked the organization's authority if something was okay. The authority said "Yes, go ahead," so they did. That authority would be wrong to come back and punish them for it.
-Kevin
Reply to
Kevin Trojanowski
Jack hasn't but at least 2 S&T committee members have. One verified that Jack was not consulted on this decision.
That's certainly THE BIG ONE. But with the exception of the post-NARAM-38 manufacturer demo policy, which does not apply at all in this case, I object to the use of ANY motor at ANY NAR range, unless that motor is on the combined motor certification list. That's the rule that's been enforced in the past. That's the rule that should continue to be enforced in the future.
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
...And it only took him a decade or so to get to that point. I wonder how long it'll take Terry to let it go, once he finishes his transformation into Cato II and starts shutting down launches?
;)
Reply to
raydunakin

Site Timeline

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.