JC, TRA and the future of rocketry

Board members?

Nope. Nice try.

So, what are you trying to hide, that you won't divulge publicly yet you lambaste someone else for keeping the same information confidential?

-Kevin

Iz wrote:

Dave W. wrote:

Kevin T. wrote:

If somebody outside the TRA BOD has seen it maybe they can at least verify or deny the accuracy of the TRA website summaries on the website.

Jerry

why not, I'm a TRA member?

I would love to come to an MDRA launch! ... although you're a bit of a drive at just under 200 mi or 3-1/2 hrs from where I am (near JFK, NYC)

your "no-nonsense" waiver is quite reasonable

I had no problem with the IEAS liability waiver either, which is a bit stronger, IMHO but I have to warn you ... I won't discuss politics!

:)

- iz

I didn't call anyone a liar, I just said it is hearsay, and seeing the policy would end the argument

- iz

RayDunak> Iz wrote:

As far as I can tell, their real agenda is that they don't want to be "caught on the wrong side of the issue" - they are afraid that if people run around saying nervous things about the availability of prefabricated solid propulsion products, that it would be an unacceptable embarrassment to Our Nation's Bomb Squad if someone might accuse them of _not_ doing anything about it "in These Perilous Times!" - and they're perfectly willing to misregulate in order to cover themselves against _that_ risk to their bureaucratic credibility.

I wanna see the BATFE stuck in a position where they _can't_ protect themselves against that embarrassment. I wanna see them FORCED to just sit there and endure it, completely blocked from their instinctive response, while folks accuse them of "Not Responding To The Terrorist Threat Of Toy Rockets" - and they just have to sit there and let such things get said about them. (And if this ruins their people's ability to be perceived as Good Employees Of The Government, that's just too bad.)

This is what I want to see happen to that agency. I want this so bad it hurts.

-dave w

Both are geographically transferrable. The DOT paper is a test report for an article or substance of a particular formula with specific properties. Not about the company. It includes the process, but if then process has not changed and the formula has not changed and only stockholder ownership of the firm has changed, then it is the SAME for DOT purposes. The fact there is no NEED to issue paperwork is why it is not issued.

Your exact comment is PROOF. NO propellant was ever made by this company in Batavia OH. It was always made in KY and CA. Always. It happened to have a mailing address in OH connected with the guy doing the paperwork for the other locations. That's it.

In fact other paperwork issued since SPECIFICALLY STATES it applies to ANY LOCATION WORLDWIDE where it might be made, to kill this false NAR and TRA claim (with no legal or procedural or jurisdtictional basis whatsoever).

NAR and TRA are NOT the DOT. THEY are required to accept Competent Authority (CA) documents ON THEIR FACE and those NEVER EXPIRE.

FURTHERMORE

Aerotech has had NUMEROUS stockholder changes (Dan Meyer in then out, Melodi out, Paul Hans in then out, the recent investors from NoCal who allegedly got ripped by errortech, etc.

You simply have no leg to stand on whatsoever.

Jerry

Depends on how they word their waiver. If they specifically mention the term "high power rockets", or the NAR/TRA safety code or NFPA 1127, they sure do.

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

Good point. Those absurd HAZMAT fees and requirements from various shippers are not of their own choosing. They are the result of them getting fined by DOT for all sorts of bogus infractions. SO they pass on those fines back to us as a cost of doing business.

The only shipper that will ship some HAZMAT without the absurd surcharge fees is the one that IS the government, thus exempt from the extortion by the DOT.

Once we've cleared the BATFE from the regulatory horizon, its time to once again take on the shipping regulations.

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

I don't believe they were. But the also were not telling others (land owner, insurance company, etc) that they were NOT commercially produced certified motors. They established a relationship with the insurance company and site owner based on HPR, then stated doing EX without informing those of the increased risks.

And that still ignores the "other" status of the motors with the fraudulent certifications. These were NOT HPR motors, nor were they "EX" motors, thus their use was uninsured. But none of the users, launch organizers, site owners, or insurance companies knew of this fraud, so no one knew which motors to not allow.

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

Rocketvision did the same thing with their motors made by AT. And it's the same thing that Quest does with their motors, and the same thing AT did with several of their motors the past couple years. NAR has certified PML, Rocketvision, Quest, and Apogee motors that by policy TRA would not certify.

And TRA certified AT by Ellis motors that under their own policy they should not have certified. But if Jerry went to Ellis to buy propellant modules, TRA would NEVER certify them.

It's an anti-Jerry policy that bit them in the a$$ after the AT fire, and was conveniently ignored for a favored manufacturer. Tripoli policy is inconsistent. It's a double standard. Its hypocritical.

But what did you expect?

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

Speaking of which, who submitted CTI motors for certification? Was it CTI directly, or was it the US distributor, Black Sky? Couldn't hav been Black sky, since that would violate the Jerry Irvine rule. And what about Hypertek; aren't they now part of CTI instead of EAC?

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

I'd never sign something like this. I thought MDRA had their own insurance independent of NAR or TRA. If they have insurance then why:

"I also agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Maryland/Delaware Rocketry Association and any land owner(s) for my or my guest participation and or actions at this rocket launch. This also includes any bodily injury that I or my guest might incur."

The rest of the document other than the references to the LIABILITY WAIVER are reasonable.

I wouldn't sign this one either...

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

There's a difference between personal certification and corporate certification. Change of ownership rarely affects corporate licenses. In fact the company I work for has bought other companies jsut for their existing licenses.

If I were to buy the hospital in your town, would it retain its licenses and accreditation, or would it be immediately shut down and have to reapply for everything from its hospital licenses to its cafeteria food permit to its elevator inspections?

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

yup! there's alot more work to be done, fer shure

- iz

Bob Kaplow wrote: