Ellis Mountain G35

Oops, forgot FAA.

OK, now I'm standing by for one of your normal "responders" to take a swing at that statement.

;)

No you didn't! I was there, remember? You told them you'd rather move the launch.

Bull! We had to move all the pads and the flight line.

You are so full of it, Jerry.

Yes, in a way, moving the launch off BLM land could be described as "cooperative", since that was one of only two options available (pay or leave).

normal

What "normal business"?

"livid".

He must have gotten over it because -- unlike you -- they're still holding launches at Lucerne.

That judge who told you to sit down and shut up sounded pretty livid.

Wrong, as usual. CPSC did not want high-thrust modroc motors to be available to the general public. They insisted that such motors should not be classified as modroc motors, thus limiting access to HPR-certified adults.

Grayvis

What difference does it make? You know who he is, and you know who you owe money to. The judgement spells that out very clearly.

Maybe, but that is NOT what their regs say.

Further, they ARE available to the general public anyway. Through the HPR regs with NO consumer certification required.

It is a rule withiout a purpose.

Jerry

In article snipped-for-privacy@eisner.encompasserve.org, Bob Kaplow at kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD wrote on 5/16/05 11:14 AM:

Really? The CPSC limit is a 0.05 second burn time, which for an 'F' motor would yield an F1600.

Gary

POINT.

well I don't consider myself one of the usual suspects when it comes to answering JI's posts but;

CSPC/NFPA/NAR/TRA/ATF all consider 62.5g a model rocket motor

FAA considers a model rocket < 113/125 g

CSFM defines a model rocket engine:

12520. Model rocket engine

"Model rocket engine" means a commercially manufactured, non-reusable rocket propulsion device which is constructed of a nonmetallic casing and solid propellant, wherein all of the ingredients are self-contained so as not to require mixing or handling by the user and which have design and construction characteristics determined by the State Fire Marshal to provide a reasonable degree of safety to the

12565. Classification as model rocket engines

All fireworks or toy propellent devices containing pyrotechnic compositions examined by the State Fire Marshal and found by him to come within the definition of "model rocket" or "model rocket engine" in Section 12519 or

12520, respectively, shall be classified as model rocket engines.

6) Model Rocket Motor. The same as a model rocket engine, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 12520. Model rocket motors shall not produce more than 160 Newton-seconds of total impulse power.

Seems in Kalifornia a model rocket model can be > 62.5g as long as doesn't produce more than 160NS of total impulse.

shockie B)

FAA is < 4 oz or 113g.. so in essense, most orgs consider a model rocket motor to be

there is No thrust limitation per CPSC that I can find..other than the 0.050 sec minimum.

shockie B)

"Summaries" are unhelpful.

EACH regulator has a set of differing standards. Some overlap and some do not.

Jerry

False. ATF does not have it codified tha tway.

Non-reuseable means reloads are out.

Non-metallic means most reloads are out.

Hybrids and liquids are out.

CTI delay mods are out.

Note it does NOT say DOT ATF NAR TRA NFPA

In article snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, Jerry Irvine at snipped-for-privacy@gte.net wrote on 5/16/05 3:04 PM:

Obviously they've made some selective modifications to, and interpretations of these rules.

Gary

There is no consistency.

Then you haven't mixed it properly. When done right, it should have the consistency of very thick Play-Dough...

David Erbas-White

I was criticized by both TRA and NAR for stating we were living in a world of "substantial compliance" and "non-enforcement zones".

Then subjected to a standard of full compliance to the letter. But ONLY me.

Ironically I adjusted to meet that standard so they had to change and just blatently lie about me and shun me.

In the mean time it appears even Gary Rosenfield seems to agree that most of those clubs activities are NOT in actual compliance (in CA). Which I agree with.

They are in a world of "substantial compliance" and "non-enforcement zones".

What comes around goes around.

Just Jerry

"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA."

Here is the court order that is from:

"Even Jerry tried to steer you in the right direction! (Er... sorry about the 'even' part, Jerry... but your single post showed that perhaps you, alone, are the only person here that understands the complexities of acceleration as it relates to the REAL world!)"

- "Mark"

"Actually, this entire group seem to be more interested in bashing Jerry than talking about the topic. I have never seen a bigger group of people with such a large penis envy complex."

- Bill Eide NAR 81647 L2 TRA 09812

I've never heard anyone criticize you for making that statement.

Nope, all manufacturers are required to meet the same set of standards

-- and you've never proven that the requirements are things for which enforcement doesn't exist. LEMPs and DOT EX numbers, for instance. None of the other manufacturers have been given any slack by ATF or DOT. You claim you got a special deal from your local agent, but refuse repeatedly to prove it.

As for the CSFM, although they are not so strict about motor designations, they are strict about requiring permits.

Here's a quote from the subsequent ruling:

"ORDERED, that the plantiffs' request for the Court to (1) order the ATF to recognize sport rocket motors as propellant actuated devices and (2) order that the Question and Answer sheet currently posted on the ATF's website either be removed or revised are DENIED. It is further ORDERED, that the parties shall proceed with the litigation of this case as previously scheduled by the court."

Here's another quote you should know by now:

"Unfortunately, our system of laws is set up so that an agency's own interpretation of its regulations is valid unless you show it to be otherwise. You do that by convincing a court that the agency's interpretation is arbitrary, capricious or without authority." -- Harold Gilliam, Skylighter Inc.

Is this steering in the right direction???