[FFT] Master Blasters redux

isn't launching HPR at targets against the NFPA regs?
from NFPA 1127:
4.17 Launch Operations.
4.17.1 No person shall ignite and launch a high power rocket
horizontally, at a target, or so that the rocket's flight path goes
into clouds or beyond the boundaries of the launch site.
Chapter 6 Prohibited Activities
6.1 Prohibited Acts. The following activities shall be prohibited
by this code:
(2) Use of a high power rocket or high power rocket motor
as a weapon or against a target
Houston, we have a problem....... notice it doesn't specifiy "ground" target
versus say, "aerial" target, it just says TARGET. When you paint a big
BULLSEYE on the ground and then launch a rocket at it, thats a target.
And you can't argue that they were launching in a state that hasn't adopted
NFPA 1127:
For you that don't know, NFPA 1127 IS the SAFETY CODE of the TRA. So it
appears Pat G. who is the VP of the TRA may have violated his own
organizations Safety Code.... and what about the Strouds? I assume they are
also TRA members.
also doesn't Sci-Fi have on the Master Blasters website a video showing a
"horizontal" HPR launch "at a target" in this case, some football goalposts?
hmmm the plot thickens...
yeah, I know "we don't need no stinkin laws"..... and if we do have
"stinkin laws" I'm not going to abide by them anyway, and you can't make me.
I think that attitude is the crux of the problem.... Perhaps this is one
reason why the BATFe sees a need for regulation and control of HPR?
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
Loading thread data ...
Playing devil's advocate here but are they doing it independently or as a TRA group? Is there a State or Federal law that prohibits them from doing it?
Under present circumstances I'd agree that lawn darts might not be the best thing for the hobby but what is the real jurisdiction here for what they can or can not do?
What I'm asking is, who has the real authority to say you've violated a law and these are the consequences?
Randy
formatting link

Reply to
<randyolb
Shockie the Weenie King -
1. FFT cannot apply when you start off slamming the participants and TRA - who is not even involved with the show.
2. Do you know where the launch was? Does NFPA apply there?
3. It was on private land. Does NFPA apply there?
4. If you are so worried about it, rat em out.
5. I understand there are also NAR members involved too. Can you spot them?
Why do you persist in trying to cause friction between the two orgs? Do you know there are a lot of people are members of both?
I see you were a cute kid. What happened?
formatting link
Picture Mobile#9
Reply to
Phil Stein
response inline..
shockie B) s
No the TRA itself may not be involved, but the TRA VP is a participant in the show... I wonder if everybody on the show, both MB and Challengers are even are TRA/NAR members are even certfied to use the motors they use in these stunts? Remember, you can't purchase or use HPR motors without 1. being a NAR/TRA member and 2. Having the appropriate certfication level...
No, I don't know where the launch was held. But there you go again, looking for an "out"....
NFPA 1127 applies if you are a TRA member, no matter where you are launching from anyway. ITS the TRA Safety Code....
The ONLY potential "OUT" that I can find is the following:
from NFPA 1127:
1.3.3 This code shall not apply to the design, construction, production, manufacture, fabrication, maintenance, launch,
flight, test, operation, use, or other activity connected with a rocket or rocket motor where carried out or engaged in by the
following entities:
(2) An individual, a firm, a partnership, a joint venture, a corporation, or other business entity engaged as a licensed
business in the research, development, production, testing, maintenance, or supply of rockets, rocket
motors, rocket propellant chemicals, or rocket components or parts.
I don't think the above really applies, as Master Blasters is an entertainment show....
what difference does it make if it was held on private or public land? NFPA 1127 IS the TRA Safety Code....
Did the TRA/NAR members leave their NAR/TRA cards at home during the launches. IF so, how do they purchase and use HPR motors? To use HPR motors, you have to be either an NAR/TRA member and be certfied to that level.
I'm not the police.....
ahh no, surprise me....
I am not trying to "cause friction" between the two orgs.... My questions have to do with potential violations of the TRA Safety Code....
Yes, indeed I do know that alot of members are both NAR/TRA members. What does that have to do with potential HPR Safety Code violations?
as always Phil, you can't answer my questions directly.... thats because you CAN't answer my questions....
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
The question is: How DO laws and rules apply to "special effects", stunts, etc. used in the production of an entertainment program (I.e. TV show)? I am sure it is illegal to discharge a firearm within the city limits of wherever Mythbusters is filmed, but I have yet to hear of the feds busting down their door. And what about that cannon filled with pounds of BP? Surely that wasn't legal.
I am willing to bet the producers of these shows have these things called permits.
Reply to
Tweak
Well I can tell you it was not a TRA or NAR launch!
How much trouble did KY get in for launching ballistic rockets in October Skies... Oh, it was done on a set.
How many tickets are issued for speeding and reckless driving in The Fast and Furiuos... Oh, it was done on a set.
I could go on, but these people participated in a TV show, on a set, with safety procedures in place set by a retired CSFM inspector. I think it was done safe. BATF LEUP holder Pat was on the set every Friday to handle the motors for the launch, even the weeks he was not on the team.
If you look at the posts of people who think this show is the death of the hobby, I find it to be mostly NAR members. Same who thought high power was the death of our hobby, and think EX is the death of our hobby....
We need to expose the hobby, most of the Sci Fi audience knows about model rockets, but very few know about HPR. I think this is a great way to get it out there!
Erik Gates
Reply to
Erik Gates
I guess you ain't happy unless you have something to bitch about. Your post is riddled with flames, yet you attached a "FFT" prefix to the subject? Hello?!? I've seen enough of your cry-baby BS. *PLONK*
IT'S A TV SHOW!! WHAT DID YOU EXPECT?
Lighten up, weenieboy.
Reply to
J.A. Michel
Yes PAt G & Eric Gates have the certs.
I don't see how NFPA matters when you are on private property doing your own thing. They were so far from anyone that it couldn't have had any impact outside of the filming. Also bringing up the TRA / NFPA relationship is like attaching NRA to one of it's members that murdered someone. I understand that they paid about $500,000 to buy insurance for the show. Do you think they would be able to buy ANY insurance if things were as bad as you are making them out to be?
It is only the safety code at TRA sponsered launches. What you do on your own is your busniess.
Doesn't matter. It wasn't a TRA launch.
That's why you call the poilice (if you are so worried about it)
I'd be interested in knowing if anyone reading this, disagrees with my contention that NFPA doesn't apply because it wasn't a TRA launch and it was on private land with the owner's permission.
BTW Shockie the weenie king, it was filmed in TX.
Reply to
Phil Stein
erik: I don't have a problem with trying to "expose" the sci-fi audience to HPR....
but I do have a problem with the way HPR is being presented to that audience.
I would prefer to see a show with the Gates Bros. building and launching monster rockets , then having HPR performing stupid rocket tricks....
I don't have an issue with the safety..
I don't think HPR nor EX will be the death of the hobby....I think showing HPR in a bad light will do that all on its own..
as far as being on a set, don't you still have to follow all applicable local and state and federal laws? and I doubt you will be lobbing those HPR against a ground target on a set.....
Nobody has even attempted to answer any of my intial queries in my original post.
what about launching HPR rockets against ground targets? Isn't that exactly the conculsion that the BATFE came to in their stupid tests? Isn't that one of the major reasons they want to ban and control HPR more than it is now? Can you or will you answer this central question? Was any thought or discussion ever done as to how this may make our hobby look to others? Don;t you think the BATFE and Charlie Shummer will be watching with great interest how well the lawndarts stick to their targets? They will say, see I told you so...
I think its just a mistake to try and recruit new HPR members based on cato explosions, crashes, and stupid rocket tricks.....
thanks for the rational dialogue..
shockie B)
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
It would seem to me that just because motors made for and used by the HPR industry were used, and the rockets were constructed using techniques and materials common to HPR, the activities conducted are not HPR. HPR is a "consumer activity", a "form of nonprofessional rocketry based on model rocketry" to quote NFPA 1127, a sport available to the general public when conducted under a specific set of guidelines. Associations such as TRA, NAR supply member services and insurance to those that are members and who conduct those activities under those guidelines.
Launching rockets for a television shoot is a whole other matter. They had insurance, they had landowner's permission, applicable permits etc. What they did does not fall under the jurisdiction of NFPA 1127. Just because a rocket has a total impulse >= 160 NS and Well I can tell you it was not a TRA or NAR launch!
Reply to
Mike Dennett
A. All TRA leaders are exempt from their own rules. Basis? The unwritten rules of course!
B. Those rules are for OTHER people. TRA BOD are "too important" for those rules. Important for what? Who knows. They say so and that's good enough for TRA members.
C. Where is "hang 'em high Phil" when you need him anyways?
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Maybe so, but he IS correct, right?
> > isn't launching HPR at targets against the NFPA regs? > > > > from NFPA 1127: > > > > 4.17 Launch Operations. > > > > 4.17.1 No person shall ignite and launch a high power rocket > > horizontally, at a target, or so that the rocket's flight path goes > > into clouds or beyond the boundaries of the launch site. > > > > Chapter 6 Prohibited Activities > > > > 6.1 Prohibited Acts. The following activities shall be prohibited > > by this code: > > > > (2) Use of a high power rocket or high power rocket motor > > as a weapon or against a target > > > > Houston, we have a problem....... notice it doesn't specifiy "ground" > > target versus say, "aerial" target, it just says TARGET. When you paint a > > big BULLSEYE on the ground and then launch a rocket at it, thats a target. > > > > And you can't argue that they were launching in a state that hasn't > > adopted NFPA 1127: > > > > For you that don't know, NFPA 1127 IS the SAFETY CODE of the TRA. So it > > appears Pat G. who is the VP of the TRA may have violated his own > > organizations Safety Code.... and what about the Strouds? I assume they > > are also TRA members. > > > > also doesn't Sci-Fi have on the Master Blasters website a video showing a > > "horizontal" HPR launch "at a target" in this case, some football > > goalposts? hmmm the plot thickens... > > > > > > yeah, I know "we don't need no stinkin laws"..... and if we do have > > "stinkin laws" I'm not going to abide by them anyway, and you can't make > > me. I think that attitude is the crux of the problem.... Perhaps this is > > one reason why the BATFe sees a need for regulation and control of HPR?
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
No but it involved TRA members who have taken a pledge to follow the safety code. NFPA regs in this case.
I thought he was on the BOD of TRA who successfully received a JUDGEMENT in a lawsuit against the ATF which said in relevant part:
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:
formatting link
Why would he need a LEUP for rocket motors?
I didn't think it was HPR. You said so yourself.
"Erik Gates" wrote:
Well?
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
He both claims it is not HPR and claims it is good exposure for HPR.
"Erik Gates" wrote:
"Erik Gates" wrote:
Wanna bet?
:)
Hey! I agree.
GFL
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
NAR 665 - TRA 81, does it all. So far, we are not being molested by ATF or anyone else. The enthusiasm of the club is pretty evenly devided between Model, HPR and EX. We're trying to provide all avenues of the hobby and it's all done according to the aplicable rules and codes.
That being said, it's my persoanl observation that the real threat is to HPR and EX. While ATF might want model rockets to go away too so their life will be easier, and rocketry as a whole being gone is 1 less problem for them to worry about, Models have never represented the threat to them, that HPR seems to have.
If you are only concerned about model rocketry and really think HPR is a threat, then you should want HPR & EX flyers to screw up as much as possible, so they will be outlawed. To me that's a bad atitude and hurts the hobby too.
What's best for the hobby is that Model, HPR & EX flyers all have a venue for their part of the hobby. If we lose any one of these areas, it weakens us all. There should not be any competion between the groups, instead everyone should be lining up on the same side of the issues at hand. Selfishness will only hurt us all in the end.
Randy
formatting link

Reply to
<randyolb
So where DOES NFPA apply in your misguided opinion?
Yes. The insurance is a comercial contract. The show is separately responsible for getting "permits" if any.
Then why does TRA fixate on trying to shut down launches with "uncertified" motors not affiliated with TRA or NAR?
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.