[F-FT] Where is the line regarding G motors

slow day phil?
from nfpa 1127: 1.3.6 This code shall not apply to the following: (1) Model rockets as specified in NFPA 1122, Code for Model
Rocketry
3.3 General Definitions.
3.3.15.2 Model Rocket. A rocket that (1) weighs more than 1500 g (53 oz) with motors installed; and (2) is propelled by
one or more model rocket motors having an installed total impulse of no more than 320 N-sec (71.9 lb-sec); and (3) contains
no more than a total of 125 g (4.4 oz) of propellant weight.
This is all thats said about model rockets in NFPA 1127. NFPA 1127 is teh TRA Safety Code. If TRA has some TRA specific "model rocketry" rules or regs I am not aware of them, other than the fact that they sometimes CERT model rocket motors in the EFG class, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, other than the fact, that TRA motor Cert requiremenst are probably more lax than the equiavlent NAR requirements. Although I would welcome a TRA model rocketry program.
shockie B)
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Slow week. Next week too. Also, thanks to a pit bull, I can't do rocket stuff for a week or so.
Anyway, TRA's MR rules are NFPA 1122.
On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 20:21:17 GMT, "shockwaveriderz"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I've been moving toward the high end of MR myself, having launched my first G64 this weekend (at NY Power. Really cool, BTW)
I am in the same boat as Dave - several questions about why some G's are restricted and some are not. Please verify the validity of these statements....
1) A 18+ year old, non-certified flyer can fly any motor up to and including G regardless of propellant quantity and up to 80N average thrust.
2) If the SU motor or reload has more than 62.5 g of propellant you must have a LEUP to store it. (This is why Aerotech puts the G75 (106g propellant) and other motors for the same 'family' of reloads and casings for these motors in the "Easy Access" area, although five of the 29mm and the two 38mm G motors fall into MR motor classification.)
3) In general if it is not a MR motor, you will need a cert to fly it, probably an FAA nofication or waiver to fly it, and probably a LEUP to store it.
Am I missing anything?
[redundant reference/info follows]
I've gone over the Rocketry FAQ at the ATF website http://www.atf.gov/explarson/0504rocketryqa.pdf which answers the LEUP questions pretty well.
The NAR site(http://www.nar.org/hpcert/NARhpdetails.html ) uses the following for when you need cert:
Who Needs High Power Certification? A person needs high power certification if he:
1.. Launches models containing multiple motors with a total installed impulse of 320.01 Newton-seconds or more, or
2.. Launches models containing a single motor with a total installed impulse of 160.01 Newton-seconds or more, or
3.. Launches rockets that weigh more than 53 ounces (1500 grams), or
4.. Launches models powered by rocket motors not classified as model rocket motors per NFPA 1122, e.g.: 1.. Average thrust in excess of 80.0 Newtons 2.. Contains in excess of 2.2 ounces (62.5 grams) of propellant 3.. Hybrid rocket motors
--
Tom Koszuta
Western New York Sailplane and Electric Flyers
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The law?
A court order?
ALL "sport motors" are ATF exempt.
Period.
Here's the law that shows that:
27 CFR 555.11, Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge.
27 CFR 555.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.
Here's the JUDGE's words verifying it.
"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:
http://www.v-serv.com/atf/62.pdf
Just factual Jerry
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

"Those who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do."
"Alas, the problem isn't posts FROM Jerry. It's endless posts ABOUT Jerry. They come from Phil, Fred, Dave, Ray, and even occasionally from me!" - Bob Kaplow
--
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
I'm assuming that the comment refers to ATF and the ability to fly rockets. I made this statement (requesting confirmation) in regards to storage and the 62.5 g limit. Or did I miss something else entirely....
I'm just trying to get the facts straight. In particular, there are some inconsistencies with the way that Aerotech "restricts access" to some of their motors that is somewhat confusing. I've been over several documents from different sources, but none seem to put the "easy summary" together.

=massive snips

=massive snips What is a "sport motor"? MR is intended to mean Model Rocket by the accepted definitions( MR motor is G class or less, less than 62.5 g propellant, 80N or less average thrust). In particular, I am looking for information as to why certain F and G class motors are in Aerotech's "Restricted Access" list. I am thinking that this is done to simplify the steps that Aerotech and their suppliers need to follow for who can get the casings that be used in HP systems, but really has nothing to do with the definition of the MR motors at all.
--
Tom Koszuta
Western New York Sailplane and Electric Flyers
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You mean"Restricted Access"-sm.
It is an Aerotech marketing term.
It pissed off the ATF.
http://v-serv.com/atf/ATFpointauthmotsummjudg.pdf
http://v-serv.com/atf/HPR.12-03.p33.jpg

--
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
thomas: responses inline....
shockie B)

Based on your posting of this from the NAR website:
4.. Launches models powered by rocket motors not classified as model

This seems to make the G33J,G75Jand G104T motors HPR motors, the G33J/G75 because they contain >62.5 and the G104 due to its >80 Ns Avg thrust. If that is the case, then in addition to be 18 you must be certed to L1 to fly these motors. Same thing with G Hybrids... Also who other than the NAR/TRA gave itself authority over Hybrids anyway?
It seems the NAR at least wants their to be only 2 forms of rocketry: model rocketry and high power rocketry with nothing inbetween. I think the NAR/TRA needs to take a real close look the concept of Large Model Rocketry, which would be model rocket motors >62.5 <5.

I guess the answer here is it depends. As far as do you need a leup for .62.5g. I would surmise NO, as NPRM is not law yet. And the court did seem to rule that SU of any size were considered PADS and therefore exempt.

Well thats the way it seems at present. I was not aware of the special case motors described above, or that the NAR has in its infinite wisdom, decided that only model rocket and high power rockets exist.
I guess they probably do this as a swipe towards JI who helped pushed through the Large Model Rocket category into the FAA... I don't think the NAR never has or does like the concept of Large/Adult only model rocket motors.

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

This is good. The way NFPA 1122 and 1127 were written there were several motors (already mentioned) that were neither MR nor HPR. If you don't fall into one of those 2 classes, then you probably get swept up in many states bans on fireworks. We certainly don't need a thrid form or hobby rocketry to cover the few things that fall into the grey area. NFPA 1127 was clarified to make everything that exceeded any of the MR specs HPR. WHich IMHO was the right thing to do. Which makes me even more surprised that the NFPA did it!
    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
"For as adamant as my country has been about civil liberties during peacetime, it has a long history ... of failing to preserve civil liberties when it perceived its national security threatened." -- former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
comments inline
shockie B)
writes:

So are you agreeing or disagreeing that the NAR neglects Large Model Rocketry? and it is a good thing? Why can't they just come out and acknowledge the fact that there are 2 types of model rocketry: "traditional" model rocketry open to minors and adults; and "large/adult only" model rocketry?
I don't see how the NAR can classify certain FGH motors as HPR when indeede they are just noncomplying large model rockets? Which is how the CPSC sees them? Remember these FGH "gray area" motors are NOT HPR according to NFPA 1127. Nor are they covered by NFPA 1122. The NAr has never fully implemented Large Model Rockets into either of the NFPA codes.

We certainly don't need a thrid form or hobby rocketry to

But we have had a 3rd form of sport rocketry since when ? the late 80's? for Large Model Rockets per FAA. I think FAA trumps NFPA?
NFPA 1127 was clarified

So why can't sport rocketry be a continum from traditional model rocketry on the low end(for minors and adults), to adult model rocketry in the middle( remember this would be NO certs territotory, just FAA notification) to high power rocketry on the top? It makes perfect sense to me.
The NAR/TRA needs to get regulations that integrate large(adult) model rocketry into NFPA 1122/1127.
The reason they won't do it, is that large model rocketry in some cases crosses over into certified HPR activity. on the very low end. This very low end should not be HPR territory. HPR should be above the low end area. Hopefully the NAR/TRA will see the light and fully intergrate and implement Large Model Rocketry into both 1122/1127 on their next revisions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agree.
No.
They "could". They "don't"
They are imprefect. They do NOT know it. True ignorance. They have a duty of care to model rocketeers they have ignored.

Answer:
"I" proposed what is now known as LMR in CRm magazine.
I proposed LMR in correspondence to NAR.
NAR adopted 125g as the MR limit.
Yea!!
NAR worked excruciatingly hard to get 125g adopted by FAA and in a way failed resulting in the rediculous "notification requirements.

CPSC was also a "failure" but when CPSC stated their standards, NAR didn't do the right thing and say that applies to minors and "behind the counter transactions", but also to ADULTS. That was the single worst decision they have made in the last two decades as it resulted in further "codifying" 62.5g in NAR, NFPA and other places.
Weight limits.

VERY STRONGLY AGREE.
125g is THE limit.

1992 per NFPA IIRC.

That is what ATF exempt HPR should be too.
Behind the counter "sport rocketry".

Pure stupidity.
By cooperating to a limited degree, but not "fully" as needed to properly codify AND exempt ALL consumer rocketry.
Remember.
Exemptions, not regulations.
Jerry told you so.
--
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

Gee I wonder where/when I have heard that before?

Nope.
Jerry
:)
--
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

Not quite. Motors over 80n (as you mention) OR over 62.5g propellant are HPR motors, and require L1 certification for use. At least if you're flying with NAR or TRA or in an NFPA 1127 state. This would restrict the G33 and G75 among others.

Also debatable. The NAR/TRA lawsuit and the manufacturer say no. Some BATFE agents say no, some say yes. The PROPOSED, not yet implemented provisions of the recent NPRM would make this a yes, and actually go further, pending the outcome of the lawsuit.

There are several HPR motors you can fly without waiver or notification. F101, G33, G75, G125, H128, H238 and more have under 113g propellant, thus require nothing from the FAA if the rocket weight is under a pound. Those motors and the H180, H73, H123, H242, and more fall between 113 and 125g, and can be flown in rockets up to 1500g with notification only.

Note that there are several claims on this web site that are contrary to current law. As part of the law suit, the NAR requested an injunction against the BATFE to stop them from claiming requirements that are not law, and was refused. Which does NOT make their claims legal.
    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
"For as adamant as my country has been about civil liberties during peacetime, it has a long history ... of failing to preserve civil liberties when it perceived its national security threatened." -- former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

NAR/TRA misformatted the question so the statement you just made is not accurate and would make a good pleading.
--
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

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.