JC, TRA and the future of rocketry

the siteowner was unaware of the 'unofficial' EX activity, that was immoral as he did not subscribe to the risks

the fraudulent motor certification voids insurance wherever they are used at commercial launches, at to permit anyone to think otherwise is immoral

two separate issue which have one thing in common

irresponsible conduct perpetrated or sanctioned by TRA

can you understand now (or does short term memory loss prevent you from holding two separate thoughts in the same conversation)

- iz

RayDunak> Bob K wrote:

>
Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
Loading thread data ...

JC said the siteowner was unaware that EX was being done, or its attendant risks.

The observation you're making refers to JC's concern about EX in general, which he related to the Prefect conducting the launch in an attempt to have him stand down the launch. He refused, and JC understandably escalated the issue.

Gee, if he felt strongly enough to ask the Prefect to stand down, what would you expect JC to do when the Prefect said to go fish? "Uhh, well, ok." ?

"Fiduciary"

look it up

- iz

RayDunak> According to Iz's recent postings, Cato did not _know_ for certain that the EX

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Bullshit.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Ray the propellant maker is the "manufacturer".

The plop and chop guy just resells exempt materials.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

that is ludicrous

so I should attend a TRA launch with the presumption that my liability is covered and my medical and property damage expenses will be reimbursed by an insurance policy, when I can't see the policy stipulations to make sure I stay within its parameters?

who made this decison?

this is not the first unilateral decision that the TRA board has made for me, thank you very much ... NOT!

this practice derives from broken leadership

fix it

- iz

RayDunak> Iz wrote:

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

so don't mandate testing, shutdown the certification program and remove the language from NFPA 1127. [I have already voiced my views re: motor testing (do a search on "Underwriters Laboratories")]

do what it takes to have DOT let you ship motors (which is not the same spectrum of tests, I'm sure)

- iz

RayDunak> Iz wrote (in re: independent testing):

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

The reason why it is made secret is when they did not keep every aspect of it secret (some rogue club told someone the name of the carrier), it was possible for a proposed insured to call the carrier and directly ask what was covered and what was not and it varied WIDELY from the summaries published by TRA BOD.

So to quell that they decided to lock down information further.

One might have thought a 501-c-3 public non-profit would OPEN UP the books and tell every one what is covered and not including a full copy of the policy if asked, so there would be no accusations of fraud and no opportunities for same, since the facts alone would speak for themselves.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

if there was full disclosure by TRA regarding its history and BoD member involvement perhaps we would see the members more active in this regard. Most don't know the truth of it (they hold it as "unsubstantiated heresay"), just want to fly rockets and to hell with the politics.

It's when things like John Kyte and Dick Embry hawking Hatch-Kohl 724 that some people wake up (yes, Ray, I know all about political reality and the fantasies about a Joint Session turning an abortion back into a baby, so spare me)

I'd love to hear tape transcripts of board meetings and see what really goes on, not just outcomes and vote counts. We saw a vote count in the SJC, but you needed to see the DOJ letter to understand what really happened.

- iz

RayDunak> Dave W. wrote:

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

So like the destruction of the World Trade Center was just a single local event of no statewide or nationwide import?

So let's get over 9/11 and restore basic liberties, and ease of airline travel.

Dude, whatever.

Reply to
Alan Jones

Ummm, it would only possibly 'void' ""club"" insurance. Your personal liability coverage is still there. You do carry personal liability,.. don't you?

Joel. phx

In the case of NAR, it's only secondary anyway so who cares?

Reply to
Joel Corwith

yes, "the fraudulent motor certification voids the *club* insurance wherever they are used at commercial launches, and to permit anyone to think otherwise is immoral"

similarly, having to make a claim against my personal liability insurance would be unexpected, as would the consequences of doing so (deductible, increase in premiums, loss of insurability, etc.)

my point is that expectation that the [primary] club insurance is effective given that that is a feature of club launches is a reasonable one, and anyone who compromises that expectations fulfillment without my knowledge and agreement is committing an irresponsible and arguably immoral act.

It is certainly a breach of the fiduciary responsibility of the parties responsible for creating the condition which lead to voided [primary club] insurance in this case. TRA safety code, TRA launch, TRA insurance, TRA ostensible but invalid "certification".

- iz

Joel Corwith wrote:

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Whose bright idea was it to propose to the insurance companies that _that_ be made a condition of the policies in the first place?

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Which is why he suggested to the sod company that launching be limited to "consumer" rather than "experimental" launches, because of uncertainty regarding the insurance & legal status of the latter.

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

I received from JC, and stand corrected regarding the sequence of events at Perry field

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

A moron or a team of morons to be sure.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

It is also a crime.

Fraud Insurance fraud

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

What's that supposed to mean?

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Some folks do, some folks don't - as I understand it, such insurance is ordinarily included in homeowner's (or sometimes house-renter's) policies, which some folks are, and some aren't, in a position to have. I'm doubtful that it's valid to either assume or require that everyone would have such insurance... (To what extent _are_ such policies available on a "stand-alone" basis, anyway?)

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

Frankly, if a company complains that the cost of independent certification testing is too high, I'd be very concerned that their cost of necessary in house quality control testing is too high for them as well, and I would look to other manufacturers who I can trust to properly test and produce reliable motors that perform to the certification test specs.

I certainly do. Without motor certification testing and test report data from a trusted independent third party, I, and every other consumer with half a brain, would have to do my own motor testing. I would likely find the cost of personal motor testing prohibitive and not consume commercial sport rocket motors. By having all consumers pay a small proportionate share of the certification testing expenses (the cost of doing business passed on to the consumer), the net cost to consumers is not prohibitive.

Alan

Reply to
Alan Jones

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.