Cato was right

Just to clarify, I was not calling the NAR BOT "weenies", I was sarcastically berating those who call them "weenies" one moment, and in the next moment accuse them of being cabalistic hatchetmen.

Reply to
Malcolm Reynolds
Loading thread data ...

Oh...my...god... Let the BoT actually run an organization? Make decisions and stuff, without running everything past the membership for their approval, first?

Wow! What a novel concept! Letting elected officials do their jobs....

-Kevin

Reply to
Kevin Trojanowski

We can all see how well that's worked with GW Bush. The NSA likes the "no warrant" requirement.

All elected leaders need to be held accountable for their actions. Period.

They might make decisions with out the vote of the masses (that's why the US is a Republic and not a Democracy), but once a decision is made, the elected officials should be held accountable for those decisions.

Reply to
AZWoody

Yes, I got that. You just had the misfortune of posting your reply as a new thread. While the "redneck", had been addressed, I just wanted to address the "weenies". Now about that cabal...

OTOH, we could be led by a carpet bagger, carpet layer, err whatever...

While the NAR BOT is not perfect, and may be too slow and conservative at times, the NAR is generally in good hands.

Reply to
Alan Jones

Of course it's always nicer when they do so within the laws, be they the bylaws and procedures of the organization, the laws of the land, the constitution, etc. etc.

In ancient times, TRA had this nasty habit of ignoring their own rules and doing things that violated them. The NAR honored their own rules, until 3 months ago.

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

It is YOUR opinion that they did so.

It is MY opinion that they did not.

I'm not debating the action that they took (I think it could, perhaps, have been handled differently, but I don't have access to all of the information), but as best as I can tell the actions that they took are well within the bounds of law, the bylaws, and good taste.

I would add that I've been sitting on various Boards of Directors for the past 20 years, at the local, national, and international levels, and have sat through at least 2 bylaws creations, and 3 bylaws re-writes, along with the interminable lawyers meetings, etc., so I've learned a great deal about the process.

You MAY find a (relatively small) percentage of members who don't agree with decision, but IMHO you'll find an even smaller percentage who feel this action was 'illegal' in any way shape or form. Further, I can't see any lawyer taking this case, unless you agreed to pay them, up front, without contingency fee -- which is one way of gauging the merit of the case.

You can continue with your diatribes against the BOT, or you can calmly discuss the issues without the bomb-throwing invective. Your choice...

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

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

Reply to
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

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

Okay, now I've done it ().

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

Reply to
David Erbas-White

Cato tried his absolute best to get the owner of the Perry, GA AND Orangeburg, SC fields to throw the HPR and EX folks out. He did everything he could. But the reason the owner decided to allow HPR and Research flights - to this day - at Orangeburg but not at Perry had everything to do with neighbor complaints about rocket recovery on the neighbors' property in Perry and nothing to do with Research activity. If Research were the reason, nobody would be flying in Orangeburg and LDRS XIX would have been cancelled.

Cato is an a$$ and tried to get Tripoli banned? True Research is the reason we lost the Perry field? Urban Myth

Reply to
Tad Danley

Can you get the folks at Snopes.com to cover this?

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

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.