Legal Pads yet?

I see where Ellis Mountain has come out with (yet to be certified) a whole series of single use motors. Has this anything to do with the
ruling for the fully assembled PADS?
Also where is the ATF on it's correcting the wording that allowed the SU motors? Their time line was for May.
Ken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kenneth Jarosch wrote:

Alas, the NAR and TRA see that ruling one way (ALL fully assembled rocket motors are exempt as PADs) and the BATFE sees it another way. (the exemption is limited to motors with less than 62.5 grams of propellant).

The BATFE did state in their November status filing with the court that they expected this to be published this month. They also had a lot of weasel words about how since they were new to the Department of Justice they had no idea how long the internal review process would take.
I check the table of contents of the Federal Register on a regular basis (I signed up to have it E-mailed to me.) and the PAD item has not yet appeared.

--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kenneth Jarosch wrote:

All their single use motors ARE certified.

I don't know. I'm pretty sure they had these in the works before that ruling.

They still haven't even issued an NPRM on that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
" snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote:

Apparently they've even got their California papers now: one off the vendors had some for sale. (They seemed in general to be low-thrust long-burn types... not generally what I'm looking for, though; I'd rather have something like an I200 than an I69...)
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What was odd was that the E12 and F20 motors had the CSFm seal for High Power Rocket Motor. That is goofy.
I should drop an e-mail to Mr. Ellis and ask him about that. They would sell MANY more if they were classified properly.
I flew 3 E12-4 motors at NSL. One worked great. The second blew the casing apart on the pad (the igniter did not clog the nozzle). The third flew great right up until about the time the thrust should have petered out and then it blew apart just like motor number 2.
I'll post the batch number tomorrow. I will also fill out M.E.S.S. forms and submit tomorrow.
And I was just about to buy the H60 too. Bummer.
-Fred Shecter http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQfgtpZ1QQfrppZ25QQfsooZ1QQfsopZ1QQsassZshreadvector
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred I had read a WOOSH report sometime in winter about the Wisconsin group using some of the Ellis Mountain Su motors. They also reported some CATO's. I thought this might be a way around the PADS issue, a least for now.
Ken
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Kenneth Jarosch) wrote:

Doesn't CSFM have reliability rules?
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

I think the primary rule is that the fee be paid...
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They couldn't afford both fees?

That is horiffic.
That was no exaggeration.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Batch number 4080
--
-Fred Shecter
remove zorch two places to reply
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Weinshenker wrote:

certified) a

Yep, they got CSFM approvals sometime last year.
I love long burn motors -- long burns are usually best for camera payloads. To each his own. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Try the H275. No slow burn there.
wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Any word on why the Model Rocket motors have the CSFM seal indicating Classification as High Power Rocket Motors? (E12, F20, etc.)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

To answer would be incriminating and "bad" for NSL.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
i don't think so.
NSL was a Model Rocket and a high power Rocket launch.
If a motor is Classified incorrectly, it still is Classified as what it was classified as. In other words, if the manufacturer intended for the motor to be a High Power Motor and had it intentionally Classified as such by the CSFM, then that's what it is. If they did not intend to do that, and someone made a simple mistake, then it can be fixed. There is no "intent" to intentionally "under-classify" something - like calling a device that is clearly a High Power Motor a Model Rocket Motor. This is over-classified and will simply restrict/reduce sales and use of the motors.
What exactly are you saying was incriminating or "bad"? As Tom Leykis would say: "Be specific".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I disagree. If it is "misclassified" it is not legal.
In CA manufacturers can put the CSFM sticker on any motor they want. It is a "wide swath permit". Except on goods not in the class stated.
You cannot put a HP sticker on a display firework or a model rocket motor (under 160ns).
In CA, MR and HP are mutually exclusive.
It's not like the confusing NFPA or NAR or TRA rules.

Wrong. The definition of HP is controlling. 160ns+.

Let's hear the Ellis (and NAR) answer first, and see "what story they make up".
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Perhaps I was not clear.
Are you saying that Ellis intentionally put the wrong CSFM seal on the motors or that the CSFM assigned the wrong classification to those motors?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes.
No.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

I think your "made up" story would be more interesting, irrelevant, but interesting.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Grayvis wrote:

Wonder what stamp Jerry had on the motors shipped and packaged-marked as "model airplane parts"?? (;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.