JC, TRA and the future of rocketry

The info on the TRA website is an overview of the insurance, not the policy itself.

Actually, you quoted a part of the safety code for "high power" launches and attempted to apply it to EX launches, which have their own set of TRA rules.

Ray,

we are not talking discussing an EX lasunch,

we are discussing commercial HP launches using ostensibly certified motors, but whose certifications were fraudulent

this is apparent from the fact that we are discussing motor certification, which has no meaing in "EX"

- iz

"if you can't keep up with the conversation, better to just keep quiet"

- Anthony Hopkins in "Hannibal"

RayDunak> You're quoting from the wrong set of rules. That is in the rules for a "high

ah, .. no

this is because "a majority of the membership" is not aware of the facts

discussing the issue helps to change that

- iz

RayDunak> That can only be due to the fact that a majority of the membership does not

... due to the conditions under which the field was actually being used, Ray

this had nothing to do with any "agenda" other than a concern that insurance was valid, and the activities were all both legal and above board, the siteowner consented to those activities, and the risk of liability was protected for all parties concerned

it is you that has an agenda to discredit any statement JC makes, regardless of how incoherent your argument

- iz

RayDunak> sites (Perry, Orangeburg AND ours here in West Green) would be lost - and I

short of having you take a remedial reading course, I don't know how to address you inability to comprehend distinctions in language

"legality ... not on solid ground" does not equal "illegal".

it equals "sufficiently ambiguous or inconclusive so as to engender risk of civil or criminal liability"

if you don't know [has been proved] by now, you will never never never know [it], ooo, ooo ooo ooo ooo

see my above comment starting with "short of having you ..."

"possibly in violation" does not equal "illegal"

it equals "a thorough investigation of the incident, and research into the applicable codes and regulations may support a conclusion that specific actions were, in fact, in violation"

it is arguable that the Easy Access product lines were designed to exploit ambiguity in BATFE verbal [uncodified] agreement that 62.5g APCP motors would be exempt. This was, in BATFE view, not keeping in spirit with their understanding and they were consequently pissed. Hence NPRM 968.

- iz

no

see my previous post citing specific applicable NFPA rules

specific tests MUST be performed, and criteria MUST be met. Motors failing to meet the specified criteria MUST be absent from any certified motor list and ONLY motors on that list may be used in commercial launches.

while a "national user organization", or a lab contracted for the purpose, may test motors to determine eligibility for certification, they can not alter the criteria

- iz

RayDunak> Iz wrote:

John Cato did not say that EX is illegal, he said the specific practices he observed were possibly illegal

John Wickman obviously knows that EX is not illegal

so John Wickman cannot agree or disagree with a statement thatJohn Cato did not make

there is no obfuscation or refusal in this message

- iz

RayDunak> Good lord, you harder to pin down than a politician! Just answer the freaking

my position on motor certs is irrelevant to the fact that using uncertified motors (motors in fact never tested for certification) at commercial launches voids insurance

BTW, I was being making a joke. Of course these gentlemen knew of the fact.

- iz

RayDunak> Would you get a load of that!!! Hey, Bob? Jerry? Did you guys see this? >> >

so show me the policy? are you suggesting that it contradicts the overview? what kind of overview is that?

no, insurance at all commercial launches where fraudulently certified motors are used is voided. That is the point which should be painfully clear by now.

- iz

Maybe they did - before 1995. No jurisdiction adopted NFPA 1127 before 2000. Are there any motors now certified that were so called fraudulantly certified (and not retested)? If not, then cease worrying about it and just make sure it doesn't happen.

Tom

whether NFPA 1127 had effect of law in any state at that time is not pertinent to that fact that insurance was void as the safety code was violated. This put people at risk for liability.

the perpetrators sould not be entrusted with leadership positions or those of influence

yet thet are in such positions to day

what oversight is in place to "make sure it doesn't happen" again? In the absence of such oversight, or another conscientious "whistle-blower", how do we know what is going on? I can only be concerned that a leadership that did this before, may do anything they please (as they had done).

what do these actions say about the credibility of a "national user organization", where such organization is (since) responsible for conforming to NFPA rules (wherever such rules are adopted)? And where BATFE has been led to believe that such organizations support compliance?

- iz

more from John C. on this follows. Also see

Whereever TRA may represent that they test to NFPA standards - this nails them. Additionally, in those states (something like 16 as of this writing for the IFC) that have adopted the ICC codes, NFPA 1125 and 1127 are *explicitly* referenced - and this would mean, thereby, that 'testing to NFPA' is REQUIRED BY LAW in those states (disregarding what TRA may have adopted).

And, of course, since TRA's bylaws require compliance with all federal, state and local "laws, regulations, ordinances...", they really don't have a choice. They MUST test to NFPA standards.

Point (or question) 4a:

How could they 'test to NFPA' in those states that require it and 'test' to some other standard (the Calvinball / TRA standard) in the states that have not yet adopted the ICC codes?

Conclusion: obvious - they must test to the MOST STRINGENT standard adopted what whatever state that may be. Again, we haven't a clue what is in their insurance policy - but the webpage stuff seems to clearly indicate that the conditions of 'safety code and bylaws' is part of it.

==============

As to the NFPA 'ignoring' my Position Paper (on TRA's fraud), we should remember that this *entire* issue was only heard by the Rocket Caucus (i.e. TRA and NAR reps + a few others) -- NOT the entire Pyro committee. I have all reason to believe that the Fireworks Caucus (the other half of the committee) wouldn't have sat still to let Pat Miller sweep this under the rug - IF they had known about it. Miller (as chair of the Rocket Caucus) simply responded by letter, 'inviting' me to submit a proposed change to NFPA 1127 (i.e. amend the appendix to remove TRA). I could have done this, but it was clear they wanted no part of it (nor would accept any responsibility for it).

I dunno, guys - *how* does one deal with this level of politics? I've got a decent head on my shoulders - but I am at a total loss on this one (which, of course, is why I walked away from it all - the only feeling I had after all this was 'total futility').

Just more 'items'...

-- john.

Tom B> Maybe they did - before 1995. No jurisdiction adopted NFPA 1127 before 2000.

why not? Note the following:

Really... one needs to be "invited" to LDRS?

IMO NAR & TRA should get OUT of the motor testing business and leave it to an "independent" 3rd party... like hmmm - the UN agency that tests explosives?

Nothing personal to anyone concerned with SMT or TMT... but in the eyes of the law (UN, DOT, ATFE, Explosives Canada, etc... and ahem the paper pushers NFPA {1122, 1127})... it's all meaniningless. Not to mention ALL the conflicts of interests involved with party A who has problems with party B & C, and refuses to test party B & C's products.

I think I have a pretty good understanding of what the testing procedures are suppose to be, and someone correct me if I'm wrong - but I believe the testing is to based on the performance of the motors NOT the character of the person(s)/company submitting the motors? Sorry folks... but Justice in the eyes of TRA & NAR is NOT blind. In short - I'm tired of of the same ole TMT crap - year after year - with names like Lamothe, Cato, Kosdon, Areotech... ahem US Rockets.

DSC

I think your proposal is excellent! NFPA 1127 specifically provides for independent testing.

Lets submit it as Board items to both organizations and see what they say to rationalize their refusal (and insure they can maintain control)

;o)

- iz

NFPA 1127 (excerpted for editorial review)

irregularities: frauds, alleged crimes, and ethical disconnects.

So what is YOUR position as TRA BoT member......

No, these issue are all old news. They've been hashed and rehashed many times.

The fact remains that it wasn't his launch so it wasn't his business.

Ray,

you've heard them dozens of times, and even you're still not aware of them! ;o)

- iz

RayDunak> Iz wrote: