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!
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.
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
Anybody notice the timing? Frank went
from "teacher's pet" to "black sheep"
status right when the KBA stuff came
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.
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
but with bigger rockets" [and not even, any more]... some folks seem to think
is a good thing (or at least would be if TRA actually _did_ that), but I think
cost us something that could have been a valuable alternative.
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....
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
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
Let's face it. NAR cannot afford one or two more such lawsuits.
They are TINY.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
- Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson
10 year old documents like 27 CFR part 555 (recently renumbered in
the "homeland security act" updates), which contains the exemption at
141(a)(8) unchanged from when the whole part was numbered "part 55":
suggests to me that the Intent of the Legislature, in acting to close
"loophole" involving in-state transfers of actual "Explosives",
to leave the P.A.D. exemption intact.
By BRUCE KELLY.
By Bruce Kelly!!
The ultimate unconvicted fraud in this industry!!!
I got NO grace period!!
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
(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!)
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.
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
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