High power/ATF questions

Got back into rockets the last 2 years with my kids and have started playing with mid power rockets (F & G). I joined the local high power club (Metra)
with the intention of getting my L1 cert in 2007. With the new (and hopefully temporary) regulatory climate I have the following questions: 1- do people keep a few high power reloads "in stock" or do they order and pick up from the onsite vendor only on launch days? 2- Am I correct that all high power flyers now will need a LEUP? 3- My local Home Depot stocks a metal jobsite tool box that seems to fit the bill for a class 4 magazine; it is 16 gauge metal with provisions for fastening to the ground and for 2 protected padlocks. It is cheaper and entails no shipping charge as opposed to the ones I have seen on the net. Has anyone gone this route or is it necessary to buy one specifically labeled as a magazine? 4- Is there much difference in applying for a LEUP for use only as opposed to storing a small amount of reloads?
Thanks, Len
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm Hoping it is temporary. I have my L2 Cert but no LEUP. The vendors that come to our launches say that you can buy the motors at the launch without a LEUP with the idea that you are covered under their permit as long as you are there with them. However, if you don't use them they have to buy them back at the end of the day. You can not take them home with you. This is good if you are buying motors. But not good if you are into experimental rocketry.
I can't get a LEUP because my local jurisdiction will not allow me to have "fire works" at my house. Even sparklers are illegal. I tried to get some other LEUP holder to let me list them as contingent storage on my application but they are all scared stiff and did not even respond. So I went and bought some hybrids and stuck my tongue out at the BATF jerks.
KT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Leonard Diamond wrote:

Keeping motors "in stock" requires a magazine to store them in.

A permit is not required to fly. It is required to purchase, transport, etc. See 18 USC Chapter 40.

There are no requirements at 27 CFR Part 555 for a magazine to be labeled and sold as such. A type 4 magazine has no thickness requirements on the metal. As has been pointed out before, aluminum foil covered 1/4" plywood meets the "metal covered wood" requirement. But a minimum level of security will be required and that is up to your local ATF folks. You do not need to fasten a type 4 magazine to the ground.

There has not been a "use only" permit since 2003 when the ATF removed the clause in their regulations that allowed it. Your choices are between a User of Explosives Permit or the Limited Permit.

--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Given that the PAD exemption is still going through final changes, is it not still in place? Yes, they've changed the 62.5 gram exemption/item, but that still leaves the PAD one intact (for the moment), does it not?
David Erbas-White
David Schultz wrote:

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

The PAD exemption, such as it is, is based on the 1994 letter to Aerotech. That letter placed further restrictions on what qualified for the PAD exemption. Alas, they used the CPSC definition of a rocket motor so nothing bigger than an F motor can qualify.
http://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/customersite/resource_library/RegulatoryDocuments/ATF/letter_from_atf_4-20-94.pdf
You could try and make the case that the PAD exemption applies to all rocket motors regardless of size. While that might seem logical, the ATF does not believe it and the judge pointedly did not rule on it.
--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Schultz wrote:

But I thought the Judge DID rule that the ATF was improperly making rules when it said Rocket Motors are not PADs. IIRC there were statements about assembled motors being PADs. That's why the latest NPRM was published, to eliminate that.
Interestingly the NPRM said rocket motors are the merely the propellant that actuates the rocket. Seems to imply that fully assembled rockets are PADs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alex Mericas wrote:

The judge ruled that the ATF's changing from saying some motors were exempt under the PAD exemption to not being PADs ("inartfully drafted") was done without proper notice and comment. A footnote in the opinion notes that because of this, he didn't have to decide if rocket motors were or were not PADs.
See page 20 of: http://www.tripoli.org/documents/batfe/MemorandumOpinion-19Mar04.pdf

In spite of the ATF invoking the word "logic" in the NPRM, they displayed a striking lack of it.
--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, the 1990 orange book, question #13 said that all rocket motors were not regulated because they were PADs. to date, the BATFE has not formally changed that statement. This is yet another attempt to clean up what they didn't do, and to ramrod it through regardless of what comments might be made. Which makes it just as illegal as enforcing an illegally produced rule.
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Kaplow wrote:

Not quite.
"13. Is the rocket propellant in model rocket kits considered to be an explosive?
No. [55.141]"
The question was only about _model_ rockets and the reference was to the entire exemption section of the regulations rather than to any one part.
--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Schultz wrote:

Is the propellant considered to be an explosive? The answer was no. The proper way to answer the question would have been (if they had been of a mind to), "Yes, but it is exempt from regulation."
Since they didn't do that, their statement is that the propellant is not explosive -- and note that it is the same propellant used in the model rockets as in the high-power rockets (just more of it).
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
But black powder and APCP aren't the same thing.
-- David
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

But if I have an F25 model rocket motor, isn't it then just a matter of how much and not the composition?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Simple answer is that the NAR/TRA lawsuit started prior to 9/11. And things have gotten much more restrictive since then.
Add into the mix, that motor vendors want to sell motors (Duh!). They might skate around the legal stuff.
When it comes to getting a LEUP, the very first place to check is your local codes. You might not be able to store motors, under any condition, where you live (That's the case in Phoenix). The local guys use DOT classification here, that date back decades.
Before you expend any more time, check with your local codes, and maybe your state codes (Ill requires a state permit, IIRC)
You won't find a mag that makes the ATF happy at Home Depot.
Leonard Diamond wrote:

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

And/or talk to the Agency Having Jurisdiction (AHJ). My local Fire Marshal was very helpful.

Not as is, but it the metal jobsite boxes can be modified. First, peel off the label that says no flammable material. Then add a non-sparking liner. 1/8" plywood or Masonite works fine. Technically even cardboard would qualify.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have a LEUP and I made my own magazine from a 20mm ammunition box obtained at a local military surplus store. I added a plywood liner to meet the non-spark requirment and a pair of padlocks. When the local agents checked it out, they measured the thickness of the metal and plywood and the diameter of the padlocks. They also asked about the number of pins in the locks. Those seem to be the hot buttons. The only advantage to buying something labeled and sold as a magazine is that you know that the requirements will be met without having to try to figure them out on your own.
Larry
Leonard Diamond wrote:

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

About what I did as well. Except I used epoxy paint as my on sparking liner. Had to paint over the bolt heads I used to install the shackles. They seem to like those round padlocks that John Cato turned me on to back when I first got into this stuff.
I don't understand why they measure the thickness when there is not thickness requirement, yet they use this thingie to measure the edge thickness, where the lip that is twice as thick as the rest of the box is. Clueless bunch of ID <ten> T's

Alas, that is not necessarilly true. They definitley didn't like the one a friend of mine bought commercially. Of course, when each agent makes up the rules as they go, you end up with Calvinball...
--
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<<
Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I have a LEUP and I made my own magazine from a 20mm ammunition box obtained at a local military surplus store. I added a plywood liner to meet the non-spark requirment and a pair of padlocks. When the local agents checked it out, they measured the thickness of the metal and plywood and the diameter of the padlocks. They also asked about the number of pins in the locks. Those seem to be the hot buttons. The only advantage to buying something labeled and sold as a magazine is that you know that the requirements will be met without having to try to figure them out on your own.
Larry
Leonard Diamond wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Len,
If you don't have an apropriate area for storage you are out of luck unless you know someone with an LEUP for contingent storage. The rules are a bunch of bull crap as cored motor grains burn a little more rigorous than road flares. Uncored grains burn like road flares. Research shows that APCP can't be made to explode. The 50lbs. of BP the government allows one in the shooting sports to keep is more explosive. Yeah and like the reloaders are blowing themselves up right and left right? Not! They are getting along just fine thank you. Nonetheless, we are stuck with the crappy rules as they are and if you want onsite (read home) storage, you'll have to put up them as it doesn't look like we won't hear anything about the lawsuit until the summer. Even if the rocket guys prevail the ATFE can appeal like idiots as they don't have anyone else weaker to pick on. I am certain you will hear from LEUP holders who can help you out on the application process. You might want to get a copy of the archaic "Orange Book" that has the rules on must abide by. Folks tell me if you download the first few files of the paperwork the ATFE submitted to the court, it contains a copy of the Orange Book you could look at before deciding to go out and buy it. Try the Tripoli website or probably the NAR site might have it too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I keep reading that APCP can't be made to explode. That depends on the amount. It can be made to detonate. I work at a rocket company and we have research that says APCP motors of large diameters and quantities can detonate. But of course those motors are far larger than any us HPR people will ever make or use. Were talking about motors greater than 60" dia with several tons of APCP. Heck look at Henderson Nevada. Their AP detonated without the fuel to burn.
KT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just for grins here is a link that shows AP can detonate.
http://www.chemaxx.com/expolode1.html
The plant exploding is The Pepcon Rocket Fuel (ammonium perchlorate) Plant Explosion in Henderson, Nevada. There was a fire in the plant. while they were evacuating the fire super heated the stock pile of AP. The video shows the rest. It is obviously a detonation. You can see the blast wave go out for miles.
KT
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.