Cato was right

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.

I don't know about the kite string issues alluded to. However, I suspect HS and the local AHJ may have some concerns. Hell, these days you can't even buy steel model airplane U-Control cable, like I used to use.

Alan

I'm not a lawyer, and my thoughts have no legal standing. However, my thoughts and opinions are my own, and I'm pointing to my head.

Didn't say he wasn't a catalyst. I meant that he just happened to be the straw on top of the *pile of wood* on the camel's back... If it hadn't been him vs the Ex'ers it would've been another trespasser or another rocket crashing off the field and it would've been within weeks of being the same timeframe.

Not much sense in misdirecting anger after six years, when it probably could've been dealt with, with a little PR and diplomacy.

Tweak wrote:

Before I fly off the handle, could you clarify just what you think could have been "dealt with, with a little PR and diplomacy"?

Ok, I'm going to drop it right here. There's obviously nothing to be gained by re-hashing this six years after the fact when the disparate parties' positions are so intractable and generate this much emotion.

My original point in all this was just to point out the irony in party A calling party B "vindictive" when we haven't heard a peep out of party B in years.

Roy

Tweak wrote:

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?

So, how do you determine which ones are not safe enough to be certified?

Glen Overby

What did you expect? You weren't in the loop then, or see the emails that were sent to me and others, so don't expect someone who was to just nod their head and agree with you.

You didn't do a very good job.

Maybe JC is no longer vindictive; if so that's a good thing. In any case, John did what he did and left the impression, at least at the time he did it.. (:-)

Fred

snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com wrote:

Hypocrisy?

Awesome! We can cut to the chase then... You are wrong in your "thought".

Gee, I wish I had said that. ;)

FAI team competition is still done under the AMA umbrella. Ideally, this should provide some separation and avoid commingling. The NAR has agreed to do the FAI team member selection, but presumably this will be done using only NAR certified motors, flown in accordance with the Safety Code.

Alan

Eh?

That is possible. However, the important thing is that readers are now looking to the bylaws, and perhaps legal opinions, rather than looking to NAR S&T on this matter.

Alan

No, they have not.

effective today, the AMA and the NAR signed an 5 yr agreement to turn over FAI spacemodeling competition back to the NAR; I have it on good authority that only a NAR membership will be required for USA Team Flyoffs and Practices, so only the NAR MRSC will be in effect. This, no doubt, is one reason for the recent policy shift . Once the USA Team is selected, ONLy then will a AMA membership with FAI stamp be required to actually participate in World SPacemodleing Championships (WSMC). I personally am all for growing and popularizing FAI Spacemodleing competition here in the USA. This NAR had the choice of choosing wthe "right" thing to do versus the "easy" and expedient thing to do. Unfortunately they took the easy way out.

Its my understanding that the NAR will pay the AMA $1600 per WSMC and $160 per competitior in the WSMC. Since there are 5 WSMC events and a JR and SR team that would amount to: 5 events x 3 people per event team x 2 teams =

30 x 160.= $4800 + $1600 = $5400. Over the 5 yr life of the contract this comes to: $5400 x 5 = $27,000. For this kind of money they could have got the czech delta motors legally tested for use here in the USA.

And it wouldn't be the first time the NAR used NAR membership money to "seed" fund a program. Alot of people don't realize that the NAR put up $75K seed money to get TARC off the ground. Now of course they were reimbursed by the AIA.

Theres nothing in any local,state or federal laws that says the NAR couldn't import and sell czech delta motors ONLY to NAR FAI competitiors. The reason I say ONLY, is Jiri Taborsky doesn't have the capacity nor the interest to make the quantities of motors that would be required NAR members in general could use them for NAR competition. The NAR could then sell them at a suitable markup, such that:

1. they get back their initial investment for doing the required USDOT testing
2. they actually turn a profit at some point in time such that the profit is invested back in to purchasing future motors
3. it provides a source of income dedicated to the FAI Team funding

I don't have any objection to NAR members uisng Czech Delta or any other foreign motors as long as they undergo the same USDOT paperwork that all of our USA motor manufacturing compnaies have to go through or that they have the marking and labeling required by the CPSC like all USA manufactured motors do.

terry dean

how so?

All other rocket motor manufacturers have to have USDOT paperwork and be CPSC and NFPA compliant; the czech delta motors are getting a waiver by the NAR for adhering to all of these.

from mark bundick:

"Historically, the NAR has chosen to restrict its compliance requirements to DOT paperwork only, because we were interested only in making sure that motors could safely and legally be shipped in interstate commerce (including to NAR Standards and Testing). "

The NAR in its policy decision is now waiving this historical requirement for the Czech delta motors.

from trip barber:

"Both NAR safety codes and both NFPA Codes require that fliers use only "certified motors" . This certification requires passing a rigorous static testing program specified in the NFPA Codes. The NAR safety codes and insurance require that NAR members use only NAR certified motors ; and since the NAR currently has a reciprocity agreement with TRA on motor certification, this means that TRA certified motors also have NAR certification. The NFPA Codes recognize certifications granted by any approved testing laboratory or national user organization, but only the NAR and TRA can provide this service in most parts of the country . The California Fire Marshal has his own testing program for motors in that state.

Motors made by private individuals or by companies with out proper explosives licenses , and motors not formally classified for shipment by the U.S. Department of Transportation, are not eligible for NAR certification and may not be used."

There are two foundations for the hobby's regulatory coverage: the Codes of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

The NFPA is a non-governmental public-safety organization dedicated to writing safety codes and model laws for fire prevention. These Codes are recognized nationwide as the single authoritative public safety source for fire marshals; most (but not all) states and local jurisdictions adopt them unchanged --check with your local fire marshal about your area. Both the NAR and the Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) belong to the NFPA and participate in writing its codes governing sport rocketry safety.

The Code of Federal Regulations is the multi-volume set of regulatory details produced by the various enforcement agencies of the Executive Branch that "flesh out" the implementation of laws passed by Congress .The CFR's have the force of law. As a result of decades of work by the NAR and manufacturers, special and fairly liberal rules for sport rocketry are specifically mentioned in numerous spots in the various volumes of the CFR."

The NARr in its most recent policy decision is effectively waiving both "pillars" of historical : NFPA and CFR: more specifically CFR 16 1500.83 and CFR 49 172.......

terry dean

I thought this was all answered days ago on the NAR Section leader YahooGroup.

Did they not explain something to the effect that these motors were not for retail sale or interstate transport for commerce? I may have the wording off by a bit, but the general idea (I think) is correct.

It's not like shipping motors sold to a customer and labeling them as "Model Aircraft Parts".

CPSC only relates to retail sale and proper labeling and age limits, does it not?

Oh well.

So, what is the plan? Work with the NAR to fix any communication or process problems that may have annoyed or offended certain members, or whip everyone into a hate filled frenzy and work toward the destruction of the NAR and removal of officers who work thousands of hours on efforts like TARC because of disagreement about one issue?

-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

actually thats their incorrect interpretation.... USDOT doesn't care if they were introduced into commerce or whether they are being shipped instate or interstae or not.....what they care about is the fact that they haven't undergone the USDOT testing..... USDOT doesn't care that they are not for retail or wholesale or even if they were distributed free......what they care about is the fact that they haven't undergone the USDOT testing.....

CPSC doesn't care if they were introduced into commerce or whether they are being shipped instate or interstae or not.....what they care about is the fact that they don't comply with CPSC labeling and marking requirements.....

CPSC doesn't care that they are not for retail or wholesale or even if they were distributed free......what they care about is the fact that they don't comply with CPSC labeling and marking requirements.....

CPSC main consern is that unsafe hazardous products do not get in the hands of minors.....like model rocket motors that aren't USDOT tested or CPSC compliant....the marking and labeling is required because model rocket motors are consider unsafe hazardous materials.....the labeling and marking requirements are there to ensure that the minor knows how to properly use and dispose of them; the marking and labeling is there so that model rocket motors do not have to bear the full labeling requirements that would be required by the Federal Hazardous Substances Act...

And a financial tranaction does take place between Jiri Taborsky and the person(s) shipping/importing the motors back here.... the customer in this case is the person(s) doing the shipping/importing back into the USA from the Czech republic or wherever...

Fred remember when the NARBOT raised the NAR members dues out of the blue a few years ago and the firestorm that ensued? Or Marks; attempt to push through his loyalty oath for the NARBOT members about going public about in house NAr disagreements(although i've never seen a disagreement in the past

4 years myself). Its not so much what they do as how they do it. This whole episode could have been better handled. They could have agreed to postpone the useage of the motors at NSL2006. ANd made a final decision at NARAM.... once you let the horse out of the gate, its hard to get it back in.... this policy decision is a fait accompli I do believe no wonder what anybody does.... If the NAR gets destroyed or hurt because of this policy decision, they will only have their own arrogance to blame....

terry dean