[FFT]philosophical musings: self regulation

jerry, you did it twice. some people never learn.

Yea, it means JI's mode of operation, as demonstrated over the past few years, hasn't changed and, the need for continued refusal of membership is still an appropriate measure: At least as for as TRA membership is concerned... Just my opinion; not sure if it is shared by anyone else..(:-)

Korey Kline?

Very serious for toy rockets.

Ever thought of it that way? As in, maybe plenty of people have some sense of proportion, and in the grand scheme of things toy rockets don't weigh too heavily (both literally and figuratively)?

What bad behavior (in the real world) that a whistleblower might report compares to, say, launching a rocket with a modified delay element? Illegally dumping hazardous waste? Sexual harassment? Spitting in the water fountain, maybe?

Ditto!

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

I think I already knew when I brought this question up that it would poopahhed to death, and it has been....

Its jsut as I suspected, the inmates have the run of the prison..... If anybody 25 years from now wonders what happened to that hobby of model rocketry, this thread says it all...

everybody is allowed to interpret the safety code as they see fit and as it benefits them... so much for self regulation....

only 1 person thinks that importation of uncertfied commercial model rocket motors is potentially a safety code violation, and then it depends on which way the wind is blowing that day......

While I agree that the BATfe in some regards is an agency run amonk, theres now no doubt in my mind that chaos and anarchy rules in the rocket community.

Chaos and anarchy rules the ONLINE rocket community. Or for that matter any online community.

I have yet to see chaos and anarchy rule a launch. Club launch at that.

The best way to support the rocket community is to actually fly rockets. Not to ponder endless specifics online. The sky is *not* falling.

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

shockwaveriderz wrote:

There couldn't be more than 10,000 people in the world that agree with you. Put another way a dozen or less agree with Jerry.

If you'd had enough Shockie treatments, you may think otherwise. 8-)

Shockie -- with all due respect, it works both ways. Just as my statements have given you a calibration on my thoughts and possible actions, I have to say that your statements here have given me a calibration on your thoughts and actions, that I find a bit more scary than you realize. I don't know you, and probably wouldn't recognize you at a launch, but I would probably go out of my way to avoid you if I knew you. Why? Because you seem to be searching for reasons to CREATE problems/difficulties, not searching for ways to make the hobby REALISTICALLY safer and open to a wider audience.

I recognize and respect that you may well feel the same way about my statements, but that's good -- you're probably just as eager to avoid me at a launch, as I am to avoid you.

Good luck...

David Erbas-White

shockwaveriderz wrote:

Okay. Now what are you going to DO about it?

I did my bit 2 decades ago and while I feel I was highly successful (LMR is real, HPR is real), you have also seen the backwash. The people who oposed me then have been personally attacking me ever since and working full time to add "restrictions" to HPR, none of which are justified by any law, public safety, or field practice.

YOU do something about THAT. Be useful.

Then 20 years from now they will be attacking you. BUT there will be over 50,000 rocket people opposing the federal government overreach, not

3500 like TODAY.

And the ONLY BANNED verndor supplying 20% !! of the assets to fight the good fight.

Irony or tragedy. You choose. Either choice has a high price.

Jerry

"I've dealt with Jerry, and found him to be a decent guy to deal with."

- Graham J. Platt

"Live the life style. Employ existing exemptions."

- Jerry Irvine

"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

I said essentially that same thing to him in email moments ago.

Jerry

Yeah, but this time I said it first...

David Erbas-White

The truth is worth sayoing. And you say a lot of very good things first BTW.

Jerry

I've already told him that. Get an original idea.

Poor Jerry

I don't think it's appropriate for you to keep shooting off your mouth about that. It attracts trolls and shows you to be the classless slob that you are.

You also said it better.

Jerry - wipe your face.

In my opinion, the minimal level of self-regulation that rocketry enjoys (the "anarchy" you mentioned below) seems to be more than sufficient. After all, "hobby rocketry" has been around for about 45 years or so, and there have been no deaths or serious injuries during that entire time to *anyone* following *any* of the various "safety codes" promulgated by any of the user organizations involved in the hobby of rocketry.

There has been a grand total of *one* death of an employee of a manufacturer during that same time period.

Sounds like a pretty damned safe hobby to me, and one which has absolutely *NO* need of any tighter regulation, because there is *NO* serious danger to *ANYONE* as a result of continuing to self-regulate in the same "anarchic" and "half-assed" way that we have been self-regulating for decades. If there is no hazard to mitigate, why invent new, stricter rules?

While I have no idea if there are, in fact, abbots in charge of the BATFe ("run amonk" :-), I do know that there is no reason to tighten the regulatory noose around the neck of hobby rocketry. Rocketry's safe enough as currently practiced, and more regulation will not make it safer; more regulation will simply make it harder and harder to participate in this hobby, and lead to less safety.

Less safety, you ask? Yep! Just imagine what former rocketeers will be doing *instead* of rocketry....

Adding regulations to rocketry will reduce demand for rocket launches, and will increase demand for other hobby activities, such as soccer matches. Statistically, the more people give up rocketry, and take up other, far more dangerous activities, such as soccer, the higher the

*overall* injury rate. So, regulating rocketry has, as a "negative externality" (oooh -- scary economics words!) an increase in the number of children paralyzed by soccer-induced spinal injuries....

De-regulate rocketry! Do it for the chiiiilllldruuuun!

- Rick "Why do you want to paralyze children, Shockie?" Dickinson

3

or more.

Agreed.

So why do the clubs keep tightening the noose and codifying everything?

I ask.

Ask the members of the Sport Rocket caucus on NFPA. The real answer is commercial interest in adding restrictions to keep OUT competition.

A dropping tide lowers all ships.

:)

Model Rocket motor manufacturer injuries/deaths:

IIRC, Estes had one death many, many years ago (pre-Damon?).

Centuri or Minimax had one death.

The old Quest had some deaths.

Aerotech had one death.

Cox had a bad fire and injuries.

I leave it to Bob Kaplow to correct me or fill in details (Martin Bowitz can fill in details on Cox since he was on the jury for the trial !!!!)

-Fred Shecter NAR 20117

Rick Dick> >

launches,