JC, TRA and the future of rocketry

first let me admit my sincere admiration for the speed with which you fetch. The absence of line breaks, however, make for run-on sentences that distort the original meaning. You may want to bear that in mind for future fetches.

I apologize for the delay in my response, but intelligent treatment of the subject requires both though and wordcraft.

resp> I find it sort of hard to believe you don't do private e-mail or other

I don't know. The public feedback I've gotten here from some is "who made me {insert your favorite nemesis here}'s spokesman. Then when I say I am not a spokesman, but let the persons own words speak for themselves, you accuse me of being an individual who is 'in the "know"', and who is entrusted to represent positions faithfully yet in my own words. I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't ;o)

well, if your speculation is true, and I am privy to John's agenda and methodology, than my comment should be taken as reflective of that (should it not)? You just stated that you are incredulous that my "postings do not reflect what JW said to [me]", yet you challenge the relationship I described: that JW seeks legality and consensus, and JC insists that their results be achieved; i.e.; valid insurance, informed consent and mitigated risk (of criminal and civil liability).

I am privileged to be among many committed individuals who find JW's objectives to be consistent with their own. Many, I daresay, are far more significant than I, but I try to do my part.

this, of course, is speculative, opinion and false.

Say what? I simply made public a statement made by JC, and rigorously engaged in the ensuing discussion based on my knowledge as well as my belief.

my commitment to resolving the legality of rocketry is one I share with many rocketeers irrespective of their relationship [or lack thereof] to ARSA. The history that JC so faithfully and authoritatively preserves is pertient to the issue of legality.

legalize rocketry (or more accurately, defeat the DOJ/BATFE efforts to criminalize rocketry), and then practice legal rocketry with integrity

P.S.:

as an proponent of EX/AM I do not subscribe to the requirement of motor certification as required by TRA/NAR/NFPA. While formal testing may have merit in commercial motors for the sole purpose of establishing confidence in product safety, performance and quality, I think a situation analogous to Underwriters Laboratories would be adequate; i.e.; if the consumer chooses to purchase a non-UL listed commodity, that his is responsibility, but market access is not contingent upon such testing.

I can envision a theoretical scenario where insurance of launches where "listed" or "unlisted" (or EX, or AM) motors are in use is secured, and the siteowner be informed of the effective coverage for damage and liability. Another is where the launch principals and siteowner defer to the personal liability insurance of the participants. There are other scenarios as well. What is important is that the parties are aware of the risks, and make informed choices about managing those risks. (this is the gist of what JC was saying)

that is distinct from having a site owner deluded that coverage is effective when insurance stipulates that motors be certified (through formal testing) when they are not.

- iz

So if he says the obvious and also puts a "disclaimer" most people don't bother to readyou will stop attacking him all of a sudden?

Put that in writing and I will forward the entire message (this and the agreement in ONE message) to John.

I think the thing people support is his (our) language for SB724 and just before that, the (our) principals it was based on.

Jerry

And the "formal testing" does not stand the test of the very first hearing in court because it is documented as fraudulant over long spans of time.

Jerry

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed blurted out to Ray:

I thought you sided with the Wickman gang that thinks certifications aren't required. True or not true. So, why do you care about this issue? Just a simple answer, if you can.

-John DeMar

Go check the law about UL approved devices and local fire codes before you pretend to be an expert on yet another subject.

-JD

They ARE required for TRA and NAR insurance. It is a commercial contract with that provision added at the insane insistence of the customers (TRA/NAR).

Why would you insist on narrow coverage when standard policies offer wide coverage at the same cost?

See if you can grasp it John :)

I have my doubts.

JC is actualy a good guy who did the right thing, but with unintended consequences or colateral dammage. He probably should have handled things differently, but let's not demonize him for that.

I think Sue did a lot to restore faith in TRA motor testing and certification. Some more upstanding folks have managed to get elected to the TRA BOD. However, TRA sill needs to free itself from bad leadership. I suspect that those members who would vote them out of office have voted with thier feet instead and left the TRA, and most of the members that remain just don't care.

JC was quite outspoken and willing to engage in RMR discussions. I think the horse has been beaten to death.

I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that an insurance company would still have to pay for an accident from an insured consumer using a (possibly fraudulently) TRA certified motor. Of course the insurance company may be able to sue the actual parties perpetrating the fraud to recover their payout.

Alan

It is answered by the quote your reply contained, but let me make it more clear.

I share John Catos concern with respect to the effectiveness of insurance coverage which is predicated on use of certified motors, when in fact motors were not certified. Since such insurance is what TRA (and NAR) launches operate with, certification therefore made a requirement by the nature of that policy.

My concern, like JC's, is that the siteowner, participants and spectators have reasonable protection from safety and liability issues during such launches because that is what they were led to believe.

A more pertinent question is, why don't YOU care?

- iz

John DeMar wrote:

I am not referring to electrical fixtures in a building, John.

I have the opportunity to legally purchase 'made in China' electronics of questionable quality, which certainly do have not had UL testing or listing, and plug them into my outlets in my house.

hence my remark that purchase and lawful use is not contingent upon UL testing.

or is every device sold in the U.S. UL listed, John?

and are fire marshalls making rounds to insure only UL listed appliances are in use in my house?

but that is precisely what TRA/NAR/NFPA certification means.

- iz

John DeMar wrote:

In article , Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:

I received an email from John that he and I both feel should be posted. It is FIRST HAND WITNESS ACCOUNT BY THE OFFICIAL OFFICE HOLDER OF "irregularities or fraud".

Nobody can deny that!!!!!

Iz (Jerry), Let's make sure we are really clear on the situation of the falsified certs (and I think this needs to be stated somewhere by someone)... Tripoli 'approved' motors that were supposedly tested *by me* (per the (published) expiration date of said 'approval', which traces back to MY administration of TMT). To have carried the fraud to completion, they

*should* have (somehow) changed the expiration date to sometime other than when I was chair of TMT - but (as per usual for a stupid and foolish liar) they kind of 'forgot' to pay attention to that level of detail. There is no 'proof' that they did this - because that is proving a negative. They can only 'prove' the allegations of falsification are false by producing the data. This cannot be done, because it doesn't and has never existed. Again, Tripoli is putting words in MY mouth - saying (per there doctored lists) that these motors WERE TESTED AND APPROVED BY ME. That is false. I did NOT issue any of these approvals. Something like 120 - 140 motors, which includes ALL (repeat ALL) of the commercially available 98mm RMS motor line - every power level, EVERY delay - ALL... as well as something approaching HALF of the 54mm RMS line (we only tested (at max) two delays and we all know every one of these are available in 4 delays). This was for a period of 6+- years. These (supposed) motors didn't 'disappear' (and get converted to private ownership) because they were never submitted. Aerotech benefitted here immensely - but whether there was any 'back room deal' with them is open to speculation - considering the long-time 'relationship' between Rosenfield and Rogers/Kelly, those of us close by know this wasn't accidental - but there is no real proof of it. This was just 'helping out a buddy'. There is no other 'mechanism' of approval and certification - there is only ONE person (on the entire planet) authorized to issue approvals - and that is the TMT Chairman. The BOD can't 'override' because they are not authorized by the bylaws to do that. And, NFPA 1127 says a motor has to be tested (and found compliant) before issuing any certification. TRA simply took one test firing and made 4 (or 5) approvals out of it. Or, simply issued approvals without ANY test firing (as applies to motor TYPES that were never submitted or that failed in the (few) tests that did occur). The NFPA paper I wrote on this is over on Jerry's website (as I recall) It is as blatant a lie as I have ever seen. Incredible.

-- john. Someone needs to forward this over to Kaplow -- don't know if I have a current email for him (altho I've cc'd the address I do have). Note: I don't want anyone to 'puppet' for me -- I'm looking into maybe 'signing on' to a news service and answering some of these questions myself (my ISP doesn't offer it) - but I am quite busy at the moment and simply will not take that much time away to get into a 'firefight'. Plus, I've still got to resolve the reasons for some of this - I kind of made a pact with myself when I left to not get drug back in and I'm not sure I want to violate that.

I do not have the link he refers to but if anybody has the filename from a prior download I will reupload it.

Jerry

I have power tools with motors that are not marked UL.

Joel. phx

I tend to agree that scenario could happen. And they would sue. But if the contract is CLEAR that invalid certs invalidates the claim, they would simply deny the claim and avoid all of that work and let the victim sue to collect against the insured who in turn could sue the insurance company IF they had a VALID claim.

Based on my own P&C insurance experience that is the more likely scenario as insurance companies value the time value of money and have staff attorneys dedicated to preventing unnecessary costs.

That's why it took so long and was so difficult for Aerotech to get paid on their claim.

Jerry

You can say that again.

Chuck Rogers is definitely still on the TRA BOD, and definitely lied about motor certifications for the AT consumer reloads. I'm pretty sure the current TRA prez Dick Embry was on the board when the fraudulent TMT certs were issued. Bruce Kelly certainly was, but he's no longer onthe board, and has better ways of screwing TRA members out of their money.

And since Cato was removed from TMT, they've yet to report onthe results of delay testing for motors with delays. They just tell us that all motors comply with the specs, but we've got no idea what they actually test out to. I'd really like to know if that I161-MW has a 10 second delay, a 14 second delay, or a 2 second delay like one of mine did.

Well, yes and no. Kellys financial mess only affects those foolish enough to keep throwing money in his direction. TMT fraud affects EVERY member ofthe rocket community.

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

Hey, Jerry, have our motors made in Canada, and CAR will test them. Or perhaps Mexico or some offshore facility outside the USA.

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

Politics do indeed make for strange bedfellows. If I am not in your killfile and you see this, it looks like I am now on your side. How can I help?

If it didn't meet standards, it would have been immediately rejected. They kept bouncing it around until it was past its shelf life. Then it was worthless to anyone when they finally rejected it.

I was offered money to write an article. Not much, IIRC it would have been about $20. I wrote the requested article and submitted it as requested. I was never paid for my work.

This was NOT a free-lance article submitted in the hope of being published. This article was written specifically in response to a request from one of the editors. I did EXACTLY what I was asked to do, and even cleared the topic and the "tone" in advance. After doing what I was requested I was not paid for my work. And just as bad, I was strung along until it was too late to submit the article somewhere else, or even to post it to RMR.

I will never do business with ER, Brent, et al. No one else should either.

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