It's official. Bruce Kelly sells U.S. Rockets motors at Balls 2005

No. Here's your big chance.

I have some Jerry motors & no bill of sale - I threw it out years ago. Does that mean I stol them from TMT? It's not even worth thinking about.

I've asked Ken Good (TRA President) these points. Ken was there.

He said that Bruce was selling off motors from his motor collection. There were many that are no longer certified - not just motors manufactured by USR.

Ken said he made an executive decisions to allow a small number of certified motors to be flown Saturday, by people that were scheduled to do cert flights on Friday. The range was shut down Friday due to a dust storm.

THat's one issue. The other would be how Bruce got the motors. THey may have been legit. THey may be some of the USR motors that were submitted for testing by Jerry that 'vanished', in which case they weren't Bruce's to sell.

A nice jesture, but a bad thing to do. Once again, TRA rules are made to be broken. From the top down.

If the TRA Prez doesn't have to follow TRA rules, why should any member follow the rules?

I realize I'm lost in this (I think I'm coming in in the middle of this), but what, exactly, are the rules that were broken?

It appears that it has something to do with certain flights being allowed or not allowed on Saturday at a specific launch.

Now, it would appear that two scenarios are possible. In scenario one, the BOD of TRA specifically made a motion as to what flights would be allowed on what day. This would be an example of setting policy. If the President overruled that policy, he was acting under the color of authority of his position as the Executive of the organization, and the Board can then retroactively either validate the action, or remove the Executive. However, SINCE THE ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE EXECUTIVE, he has the authority to do things that others may not, and to have protections that others may not.

In scenario two, the BOD made a motion to hold an event, and turned it offer to a committee to organize the details. In that scenario, NO MATTER WHAT ACTIONS THE EXECUTIVE TOOK, they were within 'policy' be definition, as he undertook them as part of executing his duties.

So, please, let me know what rules were broken, and how the executive of the organization violated the rules in a manner that his position would not allow.

David Erbas-White

The rule is that EX and commercial motors should not be flown on the same day. Ken the President of TRA granted an exception. That is within his rights and is not done often. From a flyer's perspective, a few people went to this launch to get the certs and without this exception, they could not have. After traveling all the way to BALLS, it would have really sucked for them.

The rule some (TRA bashers) have alluded to is that there should never be any deviation from any rule or the bashers will raise a stink. Of course the bashers are not TRA members so no on in TRA particularly cares about their opinion.

I suggest that Jerry and Bob form an official Bashers Club and launch an official investigation to determine the source of BK's USR motors.

What's the point of having a rule that you just ignore when it's inconvenient? Isn't that why we're sueing the BATF?

What rules is it OK to violate when you have a "reason"? Separating HPR from EX? Requiring certified motors? Filing a waiver?

What is the problem about requiring an organization to follow its own rules? Maybe TRA should replace its "rules" with a list of "suggestions", that can be either followed or ignored on the whim of the launch organizer. Then we can fly Jerry motors at some TRA launches. And Kosdon motors at others. And EX motors at some non-EX launches.

In the context of a corporation or nation, a 'rule' can be changed as needed, and discretion is given to the Executive as needed. For a corporation, it is typical for the Executive to have much wider latitude than a government. In this case, lacking any further direction from the 'legislative' branch of TRA (the board), the Executive did what he deemed proper to 'execute' the rules of the corporation. In the context of a government, such discretion is not generally held to be lawful unless directly granted -- in the context of a corporation, such discretion is generally held to be lawful unless specifically revoked. So, we're suing the BATF because they are executing 'discretion' that they have not been granted.

You're not going to like this, but it is at the discretion of the Executive. That's why it's important to elect people that you trust to such positions. The only check/balance that you have on the Executive is oversight by the board of directors. If you believe the board of directors are acting illegally, then you are free to seek relief (civil) in the courts -- but courts typically will grant wide latitude to a board unless there is direct and flagrant violations of LAW, not of the corporate 'rules'.

BTW, filing a waiver is related to a 'criminal' issue, not civil -- so electing to not file a waiver when the LAW requires one is not up to the executives discretion. Requiring certified motors (or not) is NOT a legal question, it's far more in the nature of an insurance question (IMHO).

You don't get it. It's not up to the launch organizer. It's up to the Executive of the Corporation. In this case, if they were one and the same, so be it. But an individual launch organizer does not have that same discretion. You're looking for black and white in a world of gray, where the overwhelming common sense leads one to believe that the Executive carried out the goals of the organization (to hold a safe, insured launch for the participants) when an 'act of God' (inclement weather) occurred.

I come back to the same question I had before, Bob. What rule/law/regulation prevents the Executive of TRA from doing what he did? Please be specific, or else you're just blowing smoke...

David Erbas-White

You'd make a great bureaucrat, Bob. You've got the mindset for it -- no deviation from The Rules for any reason, regardless of logic and common sense. You're like the insurance company that refuses to cancel the patient's insurance after the patient has died, because The Rules say that only the patient is allowed to cancel their policy.

We're suing them because they're screwing us. If things were the other way around -- for instance, if it were somehow against the regs to exempt rocketry but they exempted us anyway, we sure as hell wouldn't be suing them over it.

If the President and/or the BOD have the power to make an exception for special circumstances, then they ARE following the rules. Just like when the FAA makes an exception to the rules prohibiting high power rockets every time they grant a waiver. That's why it's called a "waiver" -- they are waiving the rule.

Now you're exaggerating. No one is "ignoring the rules on a whim", and the decision to grant an exception is not up to the launch organizers. It's up to the officers of the org, who review the situation and make a decision based on the circumstances.

Never posted here. Everybody gets so worked up about things. The matter of Commercial and EX on the same day might be an insurance issue rather than a mgmt issue. Section 4.4.2 of the Tripoli Research Safety Code says activities are only insured where the provisions of the code are followed - and Section 9.8.1 says EX and Commercial launches must be separated by 12 hours (from the Tripoli web site, assuming it is a current document). Then the question becomes what does the insurance policy say. If it says the safety code must be followed, then insurance coverage was likely lost for the event. If it says the safety code must be followed, except when waived (by somebody specific like the board, the president, the launch director...) then the decision was a management one and the question becomes did the executive act with the proper authority as required. I don't really know what the policy says.

However IF the policy does not allow the safety code to be bypassed, then the actions at Balls exposed the Tripoli Rocket Association to substantial liability, and probably exposed the exec to personal liability and possibly the prefect that was putting on the launch as well (I don't know who hosted Balls). After all, Tripoli's web site says a prefect is a "self-governing group", whose "activities will not be controlled by the National Association except in the compliance of the Association's Safety Code..."

And if the insurance policy is silent as to compliance with the safety code, the published safety code stating there is no insurance if the code is not followed imay be sufficient for the insurance company to escape any liability.

So enough about whether rules are made to be broken, or whether the president has the authority to do such things, whether the ATF is screwing rocketry, or whether someone complaining would make a good bureaucrat - this is a simple factual question.

No, it's a rambling statement. Do you wish to pose it in the form of a question? ;)

Most organizations periodically allow exceptions to the rules. Why can't TRA? Was anyone hurt? Was there any danger of anyone getting hurt? Was any asset of the organization wasted or lost? IMO the answer to all of these is no. What's the big deal? Who cares?

Why do you keep proving my statement about TRA Bashers? Why don't you and Jerry for a club? Jerry could be Treasurer.

I heard that the AKC recently let a schnauzer compete in the same class with the Scottish terriers during a recent "fly ball" event. Perhaps you should investigate.

Don't try to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man, Bob.

It's Stein-logic.

Poor Phil

:-)

Doing a battle of wit with Bob is sometimes like listening to a broken record.; kinda like most of your posts about Phil, using the same reference as to his wealth, over and over..(:-)

Kinda like Phil's posts about Jerry, huh ?

Poor Phil

Fortunately those posts have substance.. huh?? I bet if "big fine" continues to sit down and shut up, even less will be posted.. huh??