JC, TRA and the future of rocketry

Finally,a drama I have NOTHING to do with!

Finally!! We agree!!!!

BUT NEVER ADDRESSED

BUT NEVER RESOLVED

Doesn't that make him a "double expert"?

Iz,

Frankly, I have mixed feelings about all of this thread. But, when you get right down to it, I also have to ask another question when you pose something like the above.

What, exactly, is the reason/rationale for requiring more stringent testing? Why, exactly, is there a need to increase the prices on a hobby that is already teetering on the edge? What, precisely, are the accidents that have occurred through LACK of testing that we are trying to address?

What I mean is that although it seems (I stress the 'seems') that TRA has played fast and loose with motor certifications based on the present 'rules', I guess my real question is why is the situation not analyzed based on what the rules ARE, but what they SHOULD be, and modify the rules to conform to that requirement?

In the early days of both model and high-power rocketry, it would seem to make sense to test a bit more stringently, and to test all delays, etc. Once the infancy level of the products has been passed, though, how necessary is it really to test (for example) the delay time in every combination, if (in fact) the production parameters are well understood, and the manufacturer (for example) self-certifies with some kind of warrantee, etc. This seems to be commonly done for most other industries. For example, in the early days of major electronics manufacturing, the FCC required significant costs for radiation tests, etc., but once the parameters were better understood, manufacturers were allowed to self-certify. By establishing parameters beyond which the manfacturer can be fined, it then becomes very much in the manufacturers best interests to ensure (through design and/or testing) that their products meet those requirements, but at a lower cost.

I would agree that 'new' items should be tested, or 'brand new' propellant or delay formulations, but once the basics are understood, what, realistically, is gained by the level of testing that currently seems to be codified?

This is a serious question, I'm not trying to downplay it in any way (as you may have seen from my previous comments about safety). I simply don't see how (in the real world) the testing process has benefited safety. For example, I'd honestly like to know, over the years, how many motors both TRA and NAR has actually turned down as a safety hazard, and what changes were made as a result (or if the delay was too long, was it simply 'reclassified').

David Erbas-White

"They say Gary makes kick-butt motors - he's a good ol' boy, just 'list' 'em as 'certified'..."

Jerry makes kick-butt motors. I speak from experience. I've actually fired one.

They ain't vaporware, folks... in a perfect world, if the TRA membership knew what it was missin' out on, they would form a lynch mob to get their "leaders" out of the business of deciding what motors they weren't allowed to fly.

-dave w

Thank you for the supportive comments (blush).

They WERE certified. With the same paperwork too!!

Well, I neer said I didn't. And the TRA (and their bylaws and their articles of incorporation and their safety code and NFPA 1127 which they co authored) says it does. But then they ignore their silly rules when it gets in their way.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Am I missing something? Does John Wickman even participate in "EX" activities. I thought he did amateur and/or professional rocket stuff. "EX" is a TRA term to cover flying amateur rockets under cover of HPR. It exists only within the imagination of TRA.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

I give the guy a segue to iterating his personal contributions to rocketry, and he blows it!

Happy Thanksgiving right back at ja! :o))

- iz

Jerry Irv> Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:

So you believe no person should be held accountable for their previous actions. Personally, I would NEVER trust any one involved with this motor certification fraud. Chuck Rogers, Bruce Kelly, Tom Blazanin, or any one else. Certainly not to run an organization that is still responsible for such certifications.

It makes as much sense as hiring a junkie to be a pharmacy technician, a drunk to drive your kids school bus, or an embezeler and tax cheat to handle your money.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Of course you can be removed without any of the above causes at the whim of the Dicktator as I was... No hearing until 2 months afterwards. Certainly not conducted in accordance with the parliamentary procedure. And totally at the whim of Ayatollah Kelly.

Has TRA **EVER** properly removed someone for JUST cause?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

In theory, this is a great idea. But I suggest you asl an independent organization, like UL, what it would charge to "UL approve" H128-SW reloads. Then ask what it would cost to UL approve the entire line of AT motors. And compare that to what NAR / TRA charge for their certification, done by volunteers. Take that difference and divide it by the number of motors that AT sells. I doubt any one would pay the difference. It would at least double the price of every LMR & HPR motor sold today.

And since certification is the cornerstone of insurance, how do we get "EX" motors certified?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Not unless the explosives at Black Rock incident counts. But they probably didn't use correct PROCEDURE then either.

Jerry

TRA 012

David,

I agree completely! As I had said in an earlier post, I am NOT a proponent of mandatory motor certification.

I drew an analogy between voluntary motor testing and Underwriters Laboratories listing. Manufacturers who do it hope to gain market share as a result of expected increases in consumer confidence. If consumers (rocketeers) choose to fly untested motors and rely on the fact that maufacturers have not been sued or jailed out of business because of their shoddy products, then that is the consumers choice. Just as some will trust that a Chinese knock-off power tool won't zap them.

if I were buying commercial motors, I personnally would favor tested motors, so that I could have more confidence in its safety and performance; but that would be my CHOICE as a consumer. Others might have enough confidence in the manufacturer and their desire to preserve their reputation (and their business)

but IF you are going to have a certification 'program' (and require it as part of your bylaws for some reason that eludes me), and you have failed to adequately meet the requirement yourself for logistical/political reasons (or negligience), then have it performed by an independent, competent testing authority with the bandwidth and professionalism to do the job.

good question, David, thanks

- iz

David Erbas-White wrote:

Precisely.

Don't forget that those fraudulent certifications were being passed off as his. Legaly he had to make it clear that he had NOT certified all these motors, or he could have very well ended up as a defendant in a lawsuit over the bogus motor certifications.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

I believe in a third party testing motors and publishing the results for consumer disclosure, even if that third party has to BUY COMMERCIAL MOTORS to do it. Like Consumer Reports for example.

Yes, that is a critical point.