Cato was right

Perhaps but they were allowed to do it.

Or what? The bylaws were followed, an exception was made.

Perhaps you should re-read the bylaws. They did not violate the bylaws. The bylaws give the BOT great lattitude. And it was used.

There is nothing anyone can do about it.

I have a different perspective on this issue. First, I am sympathetic to the FAI team, and I hope that they can find a way to conduct effective competition practice. Second, I think the BOT acted inappropriately.

The Czech motors are not "model rocket motors", they are "fireworks", and the FAI team use of such uncertified motors is simply amateur rocketry. NAR S&T is rightfully not involved. It is apparent that many would prefer that NAR S&T certify the motors so that everyone can purchase and use them. This is an unreasonable expectation. Get over it. AFAIK, the FAI does not type certify model rocket motors. They test and certify specific batches of motors submitted for use at the world championship competition.

What would GHS do? Saint GHS, has in fact flown many uncertified motors, even, if I recall, G motors before they were recognized as MR motors. GHS was also a proponent of FAI competition, and would likely be sympathetic to the FAI team.

I do not think the BOT had the authority to grant the power to the President to authorize selected people to violate the NAR bi laws and Safety Code. This is a matter to take up with the NAR Legal Council, not NAR S&T. I do believe the NAR BOT has become more liberal and allows NAR members to engage in organized amateur rocket activities, without having to resign their NAR membership first, as long a reasonable separation (e.g. days and or miles) occurs between the two different activities. I think the BOT/Presidential action is intended to permit a serious violation, a commingling of these two distinct activates. Finally, the BOT/Presidential action puts the NAR finances at risk, by approving, or becoming party to this amateur rocketry activity. There has also been some question as to the legality of how the Czech motors are actually obtained and distributed. To sum up, the BOT acton may not be legal, is bad policy (or violates previous policy), and may put the association at risk.

I think the best the BOT can do is tell the FAI team that they understand the difficulty, and that they will not expel FAI team members from the NAR for using the Czech motors in appropriate (i.e. separate) FAI team practice.

Alan

Well said.

Please point to the part of the NAR bylaws or some other official document that supports your "thought". Simply saying so does not make it so.

Don't kid yourself. Yeah, if that NAR guy at a NAR launch hadn't broke down half a pecan tree out of that orchard to recover an Estes Phoenix, and if rocket after rocket hadn't gone off the field, etc. etc..

BUT, the field was indeed still available UNTIL he started his racket. Does that not fit the definition of catalyst?

unfortunately for us, kite string is not required to undergo a USDOT hazmat assessment, adhere to CPSC marking and labeling requirements, nor comply with state fire codes...... this is an apples and ornages comparsion...

terry dean

The FAA grants a waiver to FAA regulations ONLY ; The NAR is granting a waiver to USDOT,CPSCand NFPA regulations here which they have not authority to do.

terry dean

ray:

thanks for those unkind comments. Weren't you the one not long ago in this very forum who stood accused of not filing for required FAA waivers? If you review those threads, you will see that I had no comment.

I have not intention and my goal is not to "shut down launches". My intentions and goals is to prevent NAR members from violating USDOT,CPSC and NFPA regulations, even though they may be in good stead with their own NAR.

As I have tried to explain now several times in different threads, which is evidently falling on deaf ears, MINORS are not allowed to use model rocket motors if they donot adhere to CPSC marking and labeling; modelers young and old alike are violating USDOT Hazmat regs when they use non-USDOT explosives tested model rocket motors; young and old alike will be violating their state fire codes when they use these motors. All of these regulations have been put in place, for safety reason.

The worst that can happen is that selective NAR members at selective places and times, will end up getting a civil violation letter , and a cease and desist order and fine just like JI did when he shipped his model aircrft parts. If that is a cost they are willing and able to bear in order to use these motors , its fine with me. Multiple violations may of course result in criminal penalties to.

terry dean

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

Glen Overby

Who are you, hiding beind an anonymous name?

Sure. I (and others) asked that motors not be expired off the certified motor list just because they haven't been made for 5 years. I never asked to be allowed to violate the safety code. I never asked that motors be added to the certified list without testing. I asked that motors that HAD been certified and WERE legal to use remain so, unless there was some documented safety reason to decertify them.

Well, if they're going to let the older kids ride their bikes in the school yard, then tey at least need to take down the "NO BIKE RIDING ALLOWED" sign.

The problem is that all members are expected to follow the NAR Safety Code, yet the board gave its permission for selected members to violate the NAR Safety Code, which is not allowed by the NAR Bylaws.

I will. See the items I've requested be placed on the NARAM meeting agenda.

Actually, that is the way our legal system currently works. Especially when you ask permission to do something that the authority being asked doesn't have the right to grant.

When You call the IRS for advice, and what they tell you is wrong, they still stick you for the back taxes.

We have that going on right now with the BATFE. Ask the same question of 3 agents, and you will get 5 different answers. Possibley ALL wrong. And still get cited when agent 4 comes along and disagrees with all of them. That's why we're in court, to get a judge to rule.

This situation is no different. The board was asked to allow members to violate the NAR Safety Code. They said OK when they shouldn't. They didn't have the authority to make that decision. The NAR Bylaws still say that members can't fly uncertified motors. Those members pledged to follow that rule when they joined.

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 ().

David Erbas-White

You may want a copy of 1125 as well.

-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

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

Ordered, thanks.

David Erbas-White

Fred Shecter wrote:

I wasn't trying to compare certification to kite string; I was trying to point out how our arguing often looks to outsiders. I agree that this is a serious issue and it should be addressed as such.

What I am hoping to see is cooperation within group instead of the usual screaming and pointing of fingers.

Chuck W Sharc, NAR Section 613

Sharc, we fly rockets so you don't have to!

I'm gonna laugh my ass off when Ray gets busted for not having waivers. Hey Ray, according to my sources, National Guard guys that are supposedly guarding the border are actually there to catch you.

"Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics, even if you win, you're still retarded."

-Booms