Certifying with Ellis Mountain motor?

Loading thread data ...
I think an insurance company would have a tough time weasling out of a claim becaus of something that nothing to do with the incident.
I still don't understand how TRA can both recognize NAR motor certs and ban NAR certified Kosdon motors. I sure couldn't get the NAR to not recognize the bogus TRA certs several years ago.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
I see them flown, even at tra launches anyway, they must be using nar insurance at them.
I don't get the idea that they can say NAR certified motors can't be flown at a tra launch.
Even Kevin will need to go on record to say something's fishy.
Reply to
AlMax
Sit back and I'll tell you the tail of the Koson Mess... It actually all started due to a hosting club for NSL (NAR's national sports launch). Without going into details (but I could), the TRA Kosdon decert happened due to an NAR Launch! (non compliance with the 1127 stuff), because a question was asked - and had to do with cert expiration and the lack of date stamps, etc., etc., etc...
The end result, is that flying any Kosdon load at a TRA insured comercial launch, violates TRA insurance. No if's, ands or buts. I was a TRA prefect at the time of a joint TRA/NAR club, and the end result was that we could no longer use TRA launch insurance in the event that someone wanted to fly a "NAR Certified" Kosdon load. And then, only NAR members could fly a NAR certified Kosdon load at a NAR insured launch!
Trust me, I spent DAYS trying to sort this one out. In my own opionion, NAT S&T screwed up and should have de-certed all Kosdon loads, as none of them met NAR's own requirements for certification.
Fly a Kosdon load at any NAR/TRA comercial launch right now, and pray that there are no insurance claims!
The thing that's "fishy" is that NAR didn't decert all Kosdon loads when they knew that they didn't comply with their regs, even after TRA made a big stink about it! (for NAR's NSL!)
Flying ANY Kosdon load at a NAR/TRA comercial launch today should be viewed no differnetly than flying "Jerry's Model Airplane Parts" at the same launch!
Reply to
AZ Woody
Anybody notice the timing? Frank went from "teacher's pet" to "black sheep" status right when the KBA stuff came out... coincidence?
I was at Black Rock in August '01 (and if I never go back, I'm glad I went then)... Gary and one of the other Aerotech guys were demoing the new KBA product; meanwhile, people were scrambling to burn their stashes of "old Kosdon" loads while they were still allowed to do it at any TRA event.
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
The sad part is that we seem to consider it necessary to make such distinctions, necessary to treat perfectly good motors as "not-kosher" (for reasons more administrative and political than technical)... this was not what "high power rocketry" was supposed to be about, folks!
The NAR/TRA "truce" seems to have ended up with TRA feeling pressured to "clean up its act" and reinvent itself "just like NAR, with Certified Motors and everything, but with bigger rockets" [and not even, any more]... some folks seem to think this is a good thing (or at least would be if TRA actually _did_ that), but I think it cost us something that could have been a valuable alternative.
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
KBA came as a result of Frank losing his cert. The cert had expired and Frank wasn't playing by the rules. He wouldn't do what was needed to get re-certified (like Jerry), and this was a way to remain in the business... I was not 5' from Frank and Gary when Frank was told of the decert by BK. It was at Springfest.. Were you there? Did you see the internal TRA emails about this mess? I did!
When Frank got "black listed", there was a few month grace period - basically until the end of the flying season in most parts of the US (6 months? March - Aug), so based on when you were at Black Rock, the KBA deal might have happened, and the KBK loads needed to be burned. I don't find it the least bit strange that anybody was burning KBK loads at that point!
Yet again, you're pulling at straws there DW... You need to realize that some others were actually "there" during these events....
Reply to
AZ Woody
No federal or state authority requested this.
It was pure Calvinball by TRA.
Ask me in person sometime how they could have overcome it in zero seconds flat.
Not based on results with HPR and Ellis and AT by Ellis and, and, and ...
So very true.
EXEMPTION based org.
Now with Lyndhal on the NAR BOT it is actually more likely NAR will head that direction, if for no other reason than to reduce legal fees in the future.
Let's face it. NAR cannot afford one or two more such lawsuits.
They are TINY.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Or stated another way, TRA refused to conform to FEDERAL LAW.
Even when requested and threatened.
Now it is cheerfully receiving its comeuppance right up it's rosy red ass.
:)
== repost warning
The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances).
The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55.
What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding?
Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption?
From: Rick Dickinson
I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written.
The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means.
and
All I have been saying is that:
1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.".
2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:"
3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number.
4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined."
5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable.
6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing
formatting link
, Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance.
7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned.
and
Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein.
Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers.
Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me.
- Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson
Dave W:
10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in implementing the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at section 141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55": this sure suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close the so-called "loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives", nevertheless intended to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact.
==
By BRUCE KELLY.
Hello!!!
By Bruce Kelly!!
The ultimate unconvicted fraud in this industry!!!
I got NO grace period!!
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
No, the truth is that we need to make these distintions to determine if a motor is "kosher" or not! It's not a "administrative or political" thing, it's if the motor is what it's claimed to be! The hobby was (is) self regulating, and things like motor certs were defined to insure that WE get what we expected! That included a buy-in from the manufacturer if a bad batch of grains got distributed, or whatever! That's why a manufacter must have a legitimate business and permits, and is something you've clearly missed on the continual "Jerry-o-thon"! The Certs are a GOOD THING, unless you're a cowboy type who doesn't care if insurance is there or not ("Go ahead and sue me - My credit history sucks and I only have $100 in the bank)
TRA needed to comply with the regs such as 1127, or would be doomed to fail, and that wouldn't be a good thing to members. If TRA didn't enact the things they did, there would be no TRA, and the only game in town would have been NAR with a limit of "F" motors! Pull your head out of your butt!
Gosh, I bet you hate that your city tests it water, and "weights and measures" insures that the gas you buy is of the proper octane too! Would you get PO'd if the pound of coffee you bought was only 12 ozs?
Dave W.. I've been reading your ramblings for many a month, and my guess is that you have zero understanding of what a certified motor means to the general folks...
(good thing I've had JI killfiled for years, as on this post, as I'm sure he'll have lots of meaningless crap to post!)
Reply to
AZ Woody
On PERFORMANCE (not "compliance"), and only with a MINIMUM of samples.
1, 3, 11 samples.
ONLY on Thrust, power and delay (ie similar to NAR MR testing.
Like the errortech J350's??
False. Legitimate in the arbitrary standard of TRA, NOT legal according to the AHJ in charge.
See above.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Therefore it is doomed.
Based on his objection to selectively violating the rules I would say he understands more than ANY TRA leader.
Like this for example?
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
It appears that "insurance" and a "buy-in from the manufacturer" (where do the cert requirements specify any warranty or assumption of liability on the manufacturer's part in the first place?) were not "part of what was expected" in the early growth years of HPR.
Insisting that motors be "listed as approved"
That's a rather sweeping statement, considering that TRA essentially went to NFPA and _asked_ them to enact the "HPR safety code" as what came to be numbered NFPA-1127.
Bullshit. NAR would have been doing what it is now... "model-rocketry-style NFPA-codified Consumer HPR with insurance and Approved Motor Lists and all that"... and TRA could have remained a venue everything beyond that limited scope.
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
Where's the coffee certification agency and NFPA codification when you need it?
After all, coffee mass has about as much to do with "structure fire safety" as motor mass.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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.