[F-FT] Comments on motor decertification requested

I've never quite understood the rationale behind having motors decertified for sport use, and I'd appreciate it if folks (especially
those who may have been involved in some of the decisions over the years) could contribute comments about it.
As I understand it, if a manufacturer stops making a certain motor than after time period 'A' that motor becomes decertified for contest use. After time period 'B' (where 'B' is greater than 'A'), the motor becomes decertified for sport use at sanctioned launches.
Now, I can sorta/kinda understand the rationale behind the contest use decertification, because the INTENT (as best I interpret it) is to ensure that only motors available to everyone can be used in a contest, so that an individual can't "cheat" by using a motor that is not available to the general public in order to win the contest. There is a fallacy in this argument, of course -- witness the Apogee Medalist motors. I've never used them, but just purchased my first batch, and folks indicated that one reason they are so pricey is that they are generally used for contests. I ordered some within a few days of the 'quiet' announcement that they were again available, and even then, some sizes were already sold out. So, for motors that are produced in limited runs, or only sporadically, just because a motor is certified doesn't make it generally available. Another example is what happened with the AeroTech fire -- for motors that they had just certified (but where there were only a few in the pipeline), the limited number of motors then available would have become suddenly 'premium' motors for contest use. So, the limitation for contest use has a good intent, but has some inherent problems -- but I'd have to suggest that the current system is probably the best 'common sense' solution to the (real or perceived) problem.
However, IMHO, it doesn't make sense that I can use an A8-3 made in the 60's, but I can't use an A10-0T from the 90's. The manufacturer is still in business, so the argument that protecting users against a defunct manufacturer is moot. The motors were never recalled by the manufacturer, so there is no known safety problem. To the best of my knowledge, there were never any large numbers of MESS reports filed against the A10-0T, so they were never decertified due to discovering any safety problems. Furthermore, the manufacturer's warranty on motors had long since expired prior to the certifications expiring, so attempting to protect the end-user against a defunct manufacturer for warranty purposes is moot for that reason. And lastly, the argument that age of motors creates a safety issue is moot -- for two reasons. First, we all know (and it's even in the Level 2 test) that damage to BP motors is caused by temperature cycling, not age, and second, if it were true, then we wouldn't be "allowed" to launch decades-old motors that are still being manufactured (even though, interestingly enough, said motors may have had casing, nozzle, clay, and ejection charge changes over time in the manufacturing process).
So, after all that is said, I've got two questions:
1. Is there a good argument for having motors decertified for sport use when they're no longer made?
2. How would you word a request for change?
Here's my submittal for number 2:
"Motors will not be allowed to be used for sport use if the manufacturer recalls the motor, or if the NAR decertifies the motor for cause (i.e., an inordinant number of MESS reports)."
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
During the final months of the A10-0T certification, I burned up dozens of them. At least 7% failed (blow through). They were from "pink blister packs".
That's all - no other comment.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I am pretty sure it is simple momentum of an arbitrary three year rule.
Some felt if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Others felt it was always broke, fix it now.
Bundick has been an advocate of status quo on the basis that one motor over three decades ago was the "poster child" for a motor that goes bad.
However as an advocate of non-decert, I have stated that any motor SHOWN to go bad can be separately decertified. But even in that case all it does is make a motor that was obtained legally by a general consumer and more likely than not in a motor collection (since flying it would be stupid) a "destructive device" or whatever harsh thing it might be declared as.
Even motor FAILURES are protected against by the safety code itself so there is no rational or scientific arguement for decert.
The entire arguement is tradition, regulation as exists, and politics.
Ending decert would instantly legalize all motor collections.
Ending decert would make available the option to reallow contest cert if availability were to change.
Ending decert would mean far easier renewal procedures could be empoloyed for oddball motors.
Jerry

I agree.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
david: Unless NAR S&T has changed there policies, heres what was effect in 1993.. I have emailed NAR S&T at least twice over the past couple years asking for the latest version of this document (assuming there is a more recent version in effect) and have never received a reply... perhaps you should email them and ask?
NAR S&T CERTIFICATION POLICY FOR MODEL AND HIGH-POWER NON-PROFESSIONAL ROCKET MOTORS
Types of Certification -------------------- A motor is certified by the NAR Standards and Testing (S&T) committee as a model rocket motor or as a high power rocket motor. The type of certification granted a motor (model or high power) is dependent upon the current standards of the National Association of Rocketry taking into consideration various federal regulations. Note that consumer use of all motors may be further regulated by federal, state, and local laws.
A rocket motor may also be granted certification for use in NAR sanctioned contests. This is known as contest certification. The requirements for contest certification are that a motor be a model rocket motor and that it be generally available.
Grant of Certification -------------------- Certification of a rocket motor is granted after the manufacturer has supplied all the required documentation, fees, and sample motors and these motors have passed NAR certification testing procedures. Motors may only be submitted for certification by the manufacturer unless permission is granted by the manufacturer for submission from other sources. Certification is effective the day the manufacturer has supplied all materials or the day after the motor passes S&T testing, whichever is later.
Contest certification is granted 90 days after this date, but may be delayed if S&T does not find the motors generally available by then.
NAR S&T recertifies all currently certified motors triennially. Motor manufacturers are expected to submit test samples when notified of recertification testing. If a motor received its initial certification less than three years ago, it need not be resubmitted for triennial testing.
Motors must also be resubmitted for recertification if the manufacturer makes changes to the manufacturing process including, but not limited to, propellant formulation or configuration, delay formulation, nozzle design or material, casing material, or changes to the total impulse, average thrust, thrust curve, or delay time. The NAR S&T committee chairman will consult, when requested, to determine whether recertification is required.
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.
It is against the NAR Safety Code to use decertified motors. Use of decertified motors is not covered by NAR insurance and may also be a violation of state and local laws, where applicable.
Once decertification procedures have started, a motor can only be recertified by treating the motor as if it had never been previously certified. The manufacturer must submit the documentation, fees, and motor samples that normally accompany the initial certification of a new motor.
[ST-2; revision of 12/1/93]
and did everybody notice this:
"It is against the NAR Safety Code to use decertified motors. Use of decertified motors is not covered by NAR insurance and may also be a violation of state and local laws, where applicable."

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It doesn't say test.

IF notified.

Different term testing used here.
I propose it be changed.

So even major changes do not necessarily require testing. Aerotech is good to go on casing upgrades on Econojets.

Propose to omit all the above.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hey Jerry why don't you get NAR to certify your motors? They know that time you shipped unlabeled motors to S&T wasn't your fault. The guys kid probably lost the stickers when he opened the box.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 20:39:38 GMT, "shockwaveriderz"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't know if it has to do with old motor certs, But I bet that after the NAR board meeting that was held in March, we hear some new news about motors certs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
AlMax wrote:

Why? Are you aware of anything specifically that was already requested or being discussed? I don't want to waste my time if this kind of stuff is already under consideration.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like I said I don't think it was related to extending sport certs like you wish to do, but some kind of news should be forthcomming I hope, I hope.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The board meeting was held at NARCON, a month ago...
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
People who exercise their embryonic freedom day after day, little by little, expand that freedom. People who do not will find that it withers until they are literally "being lived." They are acting out scripts written by parents, associates, and society. --Stephen R. Covey
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

Have the minutes been published anywhere yet?
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Yeah but since you are on super secret double probation....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Why are you planning to violate copyright law again?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
---snippage of great stuff-----

My spin:
"Motors used at <organization> sponsored launches are required to be certified. Certification ensures the motor will preform at its advertised levels whether used for sport or competition. The list of certified motors is maintained at www.madeupurl.org. The RSO at all <organization> sponsored launches is required to have the list available to verify each motor presented for flight at the launch is currently certified."
"Motors shall not be used for any launch whatsoever should the manufacturer issue a recall. Comply with the manufacturer's recall instructions to return or properly dispose of recalled motors. Motor certification shall be suspended automatically whenever reports of unsatisfactory performance (MESS reports) are received indicating a failure rate equal to or exceeding 5% in any one month period. The manufacturer shall be permitted a 90 day window beginning on the day of suspension of the certification to investigate and correct the deficiency. If at the end of the 90 day period the manufacturer has neither corrected the problem nor recalled the motor it shall be decertified and prohibited from further use."
John<=en reading Micro$oft license agreements too long
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Bonnett wrote:

Here's the problem with what you've written - the major reason most folks join NAR is because of the insurance coverage. As you've written it, one could ONLY use such motors at a 'sanctioned' launch, which typically would mean one that is held by a section. You completely negate the user who may have met all of the requirements to launch BY THEMSELVES, but relying on the NAR insurance.
There are TWO aspects to the decertified motor problem. Problem one is that of flying at 'sanctioned' launches (ones held by a section). If one of the NAR sections holds a launch out in the desert, it is still 'illegal' to use such a motor. The second aspect is the insurance aspect. Even for a 'lone ranger', the NAR insurance provides (at least the veneer of) some protection (particularly when talking with non-knowledgeable law-enforcement types). However, the moment you use a decertified motor, you've lost any possibility of insurance coverage.
That's why I'm trying to word this to prevent decertification of the motors in the first place...
BTW, we're going to have the same problem with the C11-0 motors, if they keep production shut off for too long...
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
maybe some/all of this could/would be solved, if the motors had : Use before xx/xxxx or : DO NOT USE after xx/xxxx dates on them? Sorta like freshness labels? I might add this is already allowed per NFPA 1125.....
shockie B)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
shockwaveriderz wrote:

Once again, black powder motors do not 'expire'. They go bad if they are temperature cycled. I can cycle a new motor in a couple of days and make it bad, or I could carefully store them for three decades and they'd still be good.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
david: ok and therin lies a major problem. There is no way to know just by lookinjg at it, if a BP motor has been temperture cycled once or hundreds of times.... Until the manufacturers devise a way to determine this , I suppose there will be motor decertifications... but whats the worse that can happen? a cato... most cato's only damage the model, nothing else....
shockie B)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There is a way to do this. You can buy temperature sensitive strips, and package one with each pack of motors. Many years ago CNA sold them to rocketeers.

Some BP motors were born bad. Some got bad as they aged, even without being temperature cycled (the Estes E15s). But there are also ways of treating temperature cycled motors so that they will work OK!
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
People who exercise their embryonic freedom day after day, little by little, expand that freedom. People who do not will find that it withers until they are literally "being lived." They are acting out scripts written by parents, associates, and society. --Stephen R. Covey
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Tell me more!
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.