JC, TRA and the future of rocketry

well, have TRA provide us with a copy of the policy and we'll see if that is the case. I would not count on it (either getting the policy or that that is the case)

POINT 1:

Insurance coverage is contingent upon the safety code being followed, and the safety code allows only certified motors at commericial launches.

as per

"You must adhere to the Tripoli Rocketry Association?s Safety Code, (most recent edition) and it?s Bylaws for liability coverage."

POINT 2:

If the motor is not certified, the safety code is violated, and the insurance is void for the offending launch.

as per as per

"4.I. Use only certified commercially made rocket motors"

POINT 3:

If a motor is not tested it cannot have a valid certification.

as per

"6-4.0 Motors will be declared as failed if any of the following occur:

• Complete catastrophic failure.

• Ejection of nozzle, forward bulkhead or propellant.

• Failure of ejection charge to operate.

• In motors up through G Class, overall temperature of the casing exceeds 200°C at any time during or after the test. (Small isolated spots may exceed this slightly if the rest of the case is nominal.)

• Delays exceed 20% of the stated time on the case or reload package, not to exceed three (3) seconds."

now if the motor was not tested, these conditions can not be said to have NOT occurred. Ergo the the conditions of certification could not have been met, ergo the motor is not in fact certified (by TMTs own definition), regardless of TMT representation to the contrary

note that in POINT 2 it does not say "Use only commercially made rocket motors represented as having been certified". It says "Use only

*certified* commercially made rocket motors".

of course the webpage references in POINT 2 is prefaced with the following disclaimer:

"The information listed below is for reference only, and is not a legal representation in any sense. The insurance carrier can only make final coverage determination."

so who knows what is covered at all?

I am willing to see definitive proof in a written policy that contradicts the "reference" information TRA has provided publicly.

show me

- iz

Alan J> I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that an insurance company would still

exactly

apparently not, as the bad leadership remains

- iz

Precisely. And the deeds continue too!!!

This should be in the FAQ.

Chuck Rogers remains on the board - remove him

if, as Bob K. surmised, that Dick Embry was on the TRA board during the period concerned, remove him

expel all of them from TRA for cause

then establish method of oversight so that members can maintain vigilance going forward

- iz

Deja Vu!!

Feedback and control loop! Yea team!

Chance of it happening? 2%.

BUT

If Chuck Rogers and Dick Embry RESIGNED and a special electon was held with all expelled members automatically added to the list, that would be interesting indeed.

So long as political mailings to members was allowed to bypass the propoganda machine. Special mailing. I would even advertise in it to help offset the cost!!

so you say. Consider the following email from JC

- iz

On Rocket Flyer's comments re: the other section's being 'nailed' without even a 'by your leave', I contacted the Prefect (that conducted the EX launch) and gave him the opportunity to confirm the legitimacy of the launch - which he failed to do (and, as noted, basically said "get lost"). I had no plausible reason to conclude that the other NAR sections were 'in the dark' on what was happening up there at the field. Frankly, I'm at a loss as to how they would have all reached an agreement on 'joint use' and NOT have *some* provisions that all sections would be notified as to what was going on there. To let the TRA prefecture conduct a (brand new) 'EX' launch and not even notify the other sections that this was to happen seems incredibly irresponsible and remiss (on BOTH parties side).

Maybe we should ask this TRA Prefect why he felt it necessary to ONLY notify just the 13 attendees to the launch and (absolutely) NObody else. What was he afraid to let out?

Further, when I went to Lakeland to discuss EX activities with the President of Patten, I did NOT go there to 'kill' the site -- I went there (and counseled the President) that 'EX' activities should be suspended until such time as it's legality (and concomittant insurance coverage) was on more solid ground. At NO time did I suggest to him that rocket flying should be suspended. His response to my counsel was, "I'll look into it," (i.e. he would get with the local site manager and find out more from that perspective). Next I heard, the site was 'closed'. It (subsequently) came out that some of these other 'things' played as much a role as any in the loss of the site (i.e. the misrespentation of the parking numbers for NSL, the surrounding landowner complaints about rocketeers destroying the young pecan trees retrieving rockets). That level of irresponsibility (my judgment) by the organizers there seems to indicate that the President of Patten made the right decision (because even *I* didn't know about these other 'hiccups' until after it was over). Considering the level of acrimony meted out in my direction, I am pretty much now of the opinion that Patten did the exact right thing. At the time I met with the President, I *supported* their continued use of the field (and this AFTER I found out (in that meeting) that they had (effectively) lied to the company about the EX launches over at Orangeburg for two years). Knowing what I know now, I would counsel the closure of the field -- because they have shown (me - clearly) that they didn't deserve it anyway.

It was on *my* recommendation (and assurances to the President) that both the Perry and the Orangeburg fields were opened to rocket activity. I've learned that I will never do that again - vouch for someone without knowing what their real 'constitution' and potential for good stewardship is.

I offered to 'Rocket' that he and his children (and any of their buddies) could come and fly here for free for the rest of their lives (and would probably extend that to *any* member of those sections affected) at any future launch here. The way I feel now, however, (and since this whole mess erupted), there is strong likelihood there will never be a 'public' launch again at West Green. I can't even see a private, small, invitational launch on the horizon - but I am pretty much adamant that is as far as I will extend myself to the future of the hobby. Such incredible selfishness is something I will not have on this field here.

The important message in this email is this:

I acted *with the understanding* that ALL sections flying at the field were aware and knowledgeable of what was going on there -- and I am well within my rights to assume that was the case.

My counsel to the company was NOT to cease acitivities there (therefore, why should I feel these other sections were at risk?) -- but only to curtail a certain branch of the activities.

To be sure, I went into that meeting with the clear awareness that ALL THREE sites (Perry, Orangeburg AND ours here in West Green) would be lost - and I gave that a 50% probability. There was an ethical imperative here, however -- and what I discovered in that meeting revealed the deception was greater than I was aware of when I entered that meeting.

Would I do it the same way again? I dunno. I (then and now) didn't really feel I was acting in any 'vindictive' way. I suppose - considering how much I know folks in this hobby will be secretive - I

*might* would expend the second and third effort to make absolutely sure everybody was aware - but that was THEIR responsibility to assure their agreements were structured accordingly - not mine.

I feel no guilt that I did anything wrong. What I discovered in that meeting with Patten only confirms I am correct in not feeling any guilt.

I am sorry they lost their field -- but the important (and truthful) point is, THEY lost their field.

-- john.

responses inline

- iz

RayDunak> More importantly, how is it relevant to rehash these ancient allegations, when

John did not say EX was illegal. To quote him verbatim,

"I went there [to Lakeland] (and counseled the President) that 'EX' activities should be suspended until such time as it's legality (and concomittant insurance coverage) was on more solid ground"

furthermore, John did not say that all high power is illegal. He said use of commercial motors with fraudulent certifications was illegal under NFPA rules, and the conduct of a launch with the consequently voided insurance was immoral.

IIRC he also posited that HPR 'as practiced' at the time was possibly in violation of any number of codes and regulations of various AHJs, that TRA in general and many members in specific had adopted an irresponsible scofflaw attitude, and that regulatory reaction was a predictable outcome.

[ I already have stated JW's position as I understand it ad nauseum, so I will not restate it here. The relationship is clear to me, and should be to a discerning observer as well. ]

Chuck Rogers and other guilty parties should be removed from the board or any position of influence, and all perpetrators of the fraud expelled from TRA for cause

furthermore, methods of oversight should be implemented to guard against any recurrence

IMO this is not merely a historical argument. The current presence of such dishonest persons in positions of leadership is unacceptable and must be remedied.

such a resolution is just and reasonable. To fail to do so is to have TRA, and by extension its members and their activities, continue to suffer the loss of credibility those actions have brought about

- iz

Funny thing is George, you fixate on a check I bounced and paid for almost 2 decades ago ......

1. "self-imposed" yes, but to the extent of it carrying the force of law, in states where NFPA 112x was adopted as NFPA codes stipulated motor certification as a requirement

1. I previously posted (with references) the relationship between certification, the safety code, and the insurance. I will not repeat it here. But I will say that there is no provision for any grace period, regardless of impact.

these are all consequences of TRA policy

- iz

RayDunak> Iz wrote:

These are the sort of rantings that in the face of the many "facts" posted to this thread, that lends zero credibility to most TRA members, all TRA leaders, and all "apologists for TRA".

At what point do actual documented irregularities that STILL occur matter?

For the typical TRA member the current answer is "never.

Especially including Ray Dunakin.

Jerry

irregularities: frauds, alleged crimes, and ethical disconnects.

Maybe I should expand on that futher, and ask for ARSA?s official position on John Cato?s statements? Yes, I think I will, please find that out too and post it to RMR.

I have already responded to this request in a previous post

funny, that ;o)

- iz

more from JC:

Remind Kesler (where he discredits an 'architect's interpretation') that I am, in fact, legally empowered by the State of Georgia to do that very thing. If that 'attorney' isn't well versed in construction law, I am better qualified (and will be more accurate). Same goes for an 'officer of the law' (especially those down here). Coupled with the fact that I've been doing this (i.e. interpreting codes) for over 20 years now - unless that fella at the Fire Marshal's office is an 'old-timer', I may actually be more qualified in interpreting the codes than the Fire Marshal himself (I wouldn't purport to put that to him, tho - he'd get pissed for sure and then 'go dogmatic' and that would be that).

The point is, as Ted so clearly recognizes, these codes are rife with contradictions - and it is the *judgment* of the 'ruling party' that is of utmost importance and where experience counts here in spades. Being able to (truly) grasp the *spirit* of the law is everything.

These are Fire Safety / Life Safety codes (moreso than 'building codes')

- and their purpose is to protect life and property. This is why this stuff can't be practiced in a residence or residential zone. The 'good guy' - the meticulous guy - will never have a problem and never present a hazard. That 'joe-bob' redneck rocketeer, on the other hand, is a hazard to everyone around him - and that (almost exclusively) comes back to my comment about 'rationalization' - simply talking oneself into believing a lie. A person that can't recognize the dangers with this is making a suicide pact with his KitchenAid and 10lbs of AP. It happens to the best of us -- this recent BATFE visit (talked about previously) got me 'bothered' and I saw that very same 'rationalization' trying to twist my brain and push me down the same road. It's sneaky and insidious... and everywhere.

All this 'heat' is kind of making my point (all over again). It is

*this* kind of thinking that is the problem - and why I hope the hobby wakes up and realizes if this stuff is allowed to become standard, they'll kill it themselves.

-- john.

responses inline ...

oh, what the hell! never mind!

- iz

RayDunak> Iz wrote:

... and several paragraphs of equally incoherent drivel

Be specific. What lies?

I must be deluding myself too because I think I am.

Nor deny it. So when does it die? Further I don't lie about it. If I were going to lie about anything, why not that since you cannot prove it. The documents are long gone.

Early 80's. Were these all made good or not? Plenty of rocket companies have stiffed the NAR super hard. I have it on good authority several vendors owe Sport Rocketry considerable sums right now. I owe not a thin dime. In fact I have a credit balance!!

Is that a question or a statement?

So you are saying we are STILL even and I STILL have cash flow issues in the rocket business merely because I am banned? Hmmmmm.

Unlike many people and vendors I have not stiffed NAR. I am in a business that is harsh as a human can possibly imagine and yet I am still here. I owe very little to very few people. I have lots of large uncollected judgements. Usually that results in alot of stiffed people and vendors.

There aren't any. I have asked. Right here persistently over the years now almost a decade. If you know of one, PLEASE tell me.

That's simply false. The money went to a card processing person (my Kingdom for Paypal at the time) who admits she took the money. She felt fully justified. Rmr disagreed. The credit card company disagreed and cancelled her ass. The t-shirt company didn't get the money they were promised by her.

So the deal went south.

Guess what? Somebody PERSONALLY GUARANTEED the deal and MADE GOOD to EVERYONE who was stiffed. In full.

Me.

Be specific. What lies?

What disappeared?

BS.

Be specific. What lies?

Jerry

I told you so!

get TRA to publish the insurance contract (and associated riders, definitions and other inclusions by reference) and I'll tell you.

or perhaps we should assume the TRA-authored and embraced NFPA interpretation:

Only if you try really, really hard with gross repetition not related to any statements or posts made by anyone here or related to Wickman.

Be specific. What lies?

this information is publicly available on the TRA website, as I indicated in a previous poost describing the relationship between certification, the safety code, and insurance (with references).

see earlier in this thread

- iz

RayDunak> coverage which is predicated on use of certified motors >>