First Day of NSL, the space time continuum is still A-OK

Cranny Dane quipped:

Delta motors were indeed flown, safely and successfully. The only question heard from the representatives from the McGregor Fire Department was "would you like extra sauce on your sandwich?"

James __________________________ James Duffy snipped-for-privacy@mac.com

but did you inform your landowner? I also noticed that the flyoffs weren't on the website schedule....

Ask TR what he declared these motors as when he imported them James and then get back to us?

terry dean

Frankly I do not see that you all should get cocky about it. Yes these motors are apparently like 1/2 A's and their power amounts to 1/2 of a mouse fart. So big deal. I personally do not feel there can be any harm by using the motors for practice for international competition.

However the more I read the facts of how this came about, the more concerned I am. I would love to see each party involved point to the specific area of the NAR bylaws that supports their position. Both sides have claimed the NAR bylaws support their position.

Any takers?

Just posted to the section list. Article 3, section 8.

Yep saw it. Not good enough. See my reply. Sorry! It appears what was done was on the up & up after all.

greg:

I'm not even sure the NAR bylaws come into question here.

One of the precedent reasons the NAr gave for allowing these uncertfied motors to be used is that back in the early 90's I guess the NARBOT issued a new policy that allowed MANUFACTURERS to do demo flights of uncertfied motors at venues like NARAM and such. These demo motors eventually became certfied motors, and these motors did undergo the USDOT explosives testing process, adhered to the CPSC marking and labeling requirements,etc and a big PLUS: they were made by USA rocket manufactuers that holf extensive liability insurance.

I think relying on this precedent is like comparing apples and oranges.

In this new policy decision, Selective NAR members at selective times and places will be allowed to use never-certified motors, which haven't gone thru the USDOT explosives testing process nor adhere to the CPSC marking and labeling requirements. And they are made by a East Euopean person on his kitchen top, or in his basement or in his garage, who has no liability insurance, so if the motor cato's and takes your eye out..well..you do the math...

Another rationale that the NAR President cited in his response, was that these motors are "certfied" by the FAI NAC's :(National Aerosport Club- here in the US, the AMA is the NAC) , and that this "certfication" is as good as the NAR-TRA-CAR certfication tetsting regime.

Again he is comparing apples and oranges. The FAI ONLY certifies model rocket motors at their WSMC; World Space Modeling Championships, which you can think of as a super-naram. This WSMC is ONLY held once every 2 years. The so-called certfication testing process usually involves the selection of

It is TRUE, when Mark Bundick says the FAI NAC's of each country certfiy their own motors: but again this testing regime is no where near what is required by NFPA 1125. And to compare them as being equivalent, is just not factual. And finally these motors being used in FAI competition are mostly made to order : they are not availble on the retails shelves of hobby stores in the Czech republic or anywhere else.

Next year when the USA Team FAI Spacemodeling Flyoff's are held at NARAM-49, or NSL 2007, these events may be held in states in which we know for sure that NFPA 1122/1125 are in effect. (unlike this years NSL2006, where they are not in effect so no fire codes were broken). Would it be the ultimate irony that the NAr who helps make the NFPA fire codes for us all, allows these same fire codes to be broken. The NAR response to this is: we are not an enforcement agency. We do not enforce nfpa fire codes (thats for the local or state fire marshal to do), we do not enforce USDOT (thats for USDOT enforcemnt to do) and we do not enforce CPSC(thats for CPSC enforcement to do)...

This policy decision is playing with fire that just might consume us all...

terry dean

Although I have printed them out before, at the moment, I can't find the bylaws any place on the NAR website but I did get several 404 messages.

Does anyone have an active, direct link to the bylaws?

Randy

At least one board member has told me that at the board meeting, it was discussed that only site owner coverage would be in effect when these motors were used, and that individuals would ave no coverage when they flew uncertified motors.

Something that any NAR member or section thinking of hosting an NSL or NARAM should consider. Even the manufacturer demo policy, which is NOT applicable to these motors unless Jiri is here to personally fly them, still gives the event RSO the right to say "NO". Any responsible NAR member should "just say NO" to allowing "selected members" to fly any motor that is not on the combined motor certification list. That is their job.

I'm disappointed that the folks running NSL 2006 didn't do so. I'm disappointed that the participants at NSL 2006 didn't voice their disgust and walk off the range.

Bob,

The people running NSL had a letter in the right hand from the BOD stating that the motors were allowed. The same trusties that WE had elected into the BOD. In the left hand it was a few emails and internet rants from two or three NAR members.

The only real power that the Delta motors has was to twist a few panties into a really big wad. I mean geez guys... This is a hobby... and they were 1/2A motors. They flew this weekend at NSL and there were NO problem. Armageddon did not happen... Death and distruction did not rain down from the heavens. I don't even think that there was one thing said about the FAI testing going on behind us.

I really don't think this really has anything to do with the motors themselves. I think that it has to be one of two things...

1. A polital agenda by a few that have personal problem with the BOD. This is thier way of getting back at them.

1. Since Jerry Irvine is gone yall have to have someone to rant on. It looks like the BOD just happened to walk in front of the target while everyone was looking for a new box to stand on.

Tim Sapp "Wish I had gotten to see one of the Panty Wadding motors."

bob:

speaking of insurance, I sent an email to the NAR Insurnace rep and pointed out some information that he may have not been made aware of, ie the USDOT and CPSC issues,etc and here is the response I got back:

"In my opinion, the only issue that would affect the coverage would be whether or not the use of these motors constituted a violation of the NAR safety codes.

If the NAR organization has indeed approved the usage of these motors then there should be no violation and there should be no issue with coverage during an NAR sponsored activity."

His logic is that the NARBOT would ONLY do something in which there would be no violation of the NAR MRSC.

How did he come to this conculsion, simple, Mark Bundick lead him to believe that:

Q. What are the potential or actual insurance implications of this new policy?

A. Because the matter raised insurance concerns, I discussed it directly with Bob Blomster, our agent. He confirmed my reading of the policy and understanding of the coverage.

Theres no doubt in my mind, that Mark Bundick was going to implement and ok this new policy decision no matter what. I also have no doubt, that Mark Bundick mislead Bob as to the true facts, in other words, he "spun" the facts and the argument in his own favor from the beginning. He used exactly the same "spin" technique on the NARBOT when it was brought before them. If you look at the minutes of that NARBOT meeting which I will reproduce below, you will see that their was no dicussion on this issue at all:

US Team Practice with Uncertified Motors - US Spacemodeling Team Manager John

Langford asked the Board to allow use of foreign and specialty motors upon approval of

the NAR President at Team Practice sessions. US Teams previously competed at a

severe disadvantage to foreign competitors due to lack of opportunities to practice with

FAI competition motors.

The Board reviewed the testing protocols used by the FAI prior

to World Championship events. Such testing is certainly rigorous enough to insure both

performance and safety.

The Board approved the request by unanimous vote.

Motion by Jay Apt: Seconded by Joyce Guzik

The NAR board of trustee's authorizes selected members of the US Internat team to

allow use of foreign and specialty motors upon approval of the NAR President at Team

Practice sessions.

Motion approved.

It appears from the NARBOT minutes, that the only discussion was about how FAI certfication testing was on par with current NAR/TRA/CAR certfication testing, which in another post in this thread, I have already pointed out, is simply not factual. Again, It appears that Mark shaded the truth somewhat, or spun the facts to his favor, which I might add, he is a master at. You will also notice that from the above minutes, no NARBOT members raised any issues or concerns, there seems to be NO discussion of the possible impacts this policy would have to NFPA,USDOT or current CPSC regulations.

simply amazing....

terry dean

Tim,

As far as how this relates to reality, I couldn't agree with you more. However, in the NAR world, my understanding is that people have been tossed out for doing this. I think everyone should be able to agree that the same rules apply to everyone on an issue as hot as this one. If they have rules that only applied to some people, there's bound to be some consternation.

Phil

Were you there? How do you know what discussion there was or wasn't? FYI meeting minutes are a synopsis and do not include every detail of every discussion. Also, a board commonly discusses an issue and comes to a consensus - which leads to a unanimous vote.

Phil

So, all of your whining about insurance coverage is just more whining...

Since when are you qualified to read someone else's mind? How do you know that's what he's thinking?

other words, he

So, you're calling Mark a liar? Do you have a transcript of the conversation, or is this more of your mind reading talent?

It doesn't say is was equivalent or 'on par'. It was good enough to insure safety in the hands of a few qualified contest fliers in select venues. Oh yeah. That's the problem. You aren't one of the chosen.

Oh, now you're going to raise the FACT flag. Watch out, it's a two-way street. See above. No one said it was equivalent.

his favor, which I might

Oh come one. Have some balls. Call him a liar. Too bad you're not quite as good at spinning the facts in YOUR favor. Mark's a politician. It's what they do. That's why he's president, and you're an angry old man.

Probably about the same impact you sending letters and making phone calls to said agencies will have. I'm sure that if someone in the government DOES listen to you, they'll be sure an put a big gold star on your "Good Citizen" certificate.

phil:

for several years now I have been complaning to the NARBot about not following the bylaws per their minutes is concerned....and everytime you have jumped on me saying its is unimportnat:

from the NARBOT minutes:

"Specific Publication of Financials and Minutes - The Board agreed with Terry Dean's

request to formalize the reporting of NAR financial statements. The year end financials

will be made available after the mid-year meeting usually held either February or March

of each year. Additionally, the Board will also make available the meeting minutes

within the 60 day time period specified in the By-Laws."

And the quality of the minutes I am still not satified with. I would prefer they be offered ib this format:

terry dean

Sure they do.

The bylaws say that

a) the governing body of the association shall be the Trustess, and

b) the association shall establish, enforce, modify and publish standards and rules relating to the construction, operation, and safety of non-professional consumer rockets and rocket products, and

c) the association shall collaborate or affiliate with other organizations whether scientific or otherwise, in any manner and to any extent which, in the judgement of the Board of Trustees, will best aid in accomplishing its objectives, and

c) the association shall engage in and encourage organized rocket activities as ... the Board of Trustees may from time to time deem necessary or desirable.

End of discussion really...

With all due respect, you're talking about an organization that has more than an order of magnitude more members (and financial support). You get what the hobby will support -- and our hobby does not support the level of effort required to do things in the way that you would like.

The NAR BOT essentially has a thankless task, and has to take crap from all sides. I do NOT agree with all of their decisions, but AS BEST AS I CAN SEE, everything that they did was on the up-and-up. If you don't like it, submit proposals, run for the board, assist with the (all-volunteer) tasks that are necessary, etc. Whining and moaning about it doesn't help, and if it gets to the point where you feel you can't morally associate yourself with the hobby (folks, please understand, that's not my position, I'm simply positing it for the sake of argument) then get out or form a competing organization.

David Erbas-White

I'm not quite ready to go that far and call Bunny a liar.... I do beleive that he dishes alot of BS, i.e., BunnySpin.... examples of BunnySpin include, omitting facts where and when they don't benefit his conculsions; interpreting NFPA regulations incorrectly and geting caught and called on it;interpreting NFPA regulations when they benefit his position but refusing to interpret NFPA regulations when they do not; "packaging" his points to benefit his point of view.... He's been doing this for the past 4 years at least; and hes damn good at it..... He's the best PR/Spinmaster the NAR could ask for, I'll give him kudos on that.

...and "Flyer", at least I am using my real name here..I can't say the same for you.... grow some balls and a backbone and use your real name ...

terry dean

This time... You made quite the rant when you left the yahoo list. In fact as I recall you called him far worse than liar :-)