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

Kenneth Jarosch wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
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).
  Quoted Text Here  
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.
  Quoted Text Here  

Kenneth Jarosch wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
All their single use motors ARE certified.
  Quoted Text Here  
I don't know. I'm pretty sure they had these in the works before that ruling.
  Quoted Text Here  
They still haven't even issued an NPRM on that.

" snipped-for-privacy@aol.com" wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
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

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

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

snipped-for-privacy@webtv.net (Kenneth Jarosch) wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Doesn't CSFM have reliability rules?

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I think the primary rule is that the fee be paid...
David Erbas-White

  Quoted Text Here  
They couldn't afford both fees?
  Quoted Text Here  
That is horiffic.
That was no exaggeration.
  Quoted Text Here  

Batch number 4080

David Weinshenker wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
certified) a
  Quoted Text Here  
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. :)

Try the H275. No slow burn there.
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

Any word on why the Model Rocket motors have the CSFM seal indicating Classification as High Power Rocket Motors? (E12, F20, etc.)

  Quoted Text Here  
To answer would be incriminating and "bad" for NSL.

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".

  Quoted Text Here  
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.
  Quoted Text Here  
Wrong. The definition of HP is controlling. 160ns+.
  Quoted Text Here  
Let's hear the Ellis (and NAR) answer first, and see "what story they make up".
Jerry

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?

  Quoted Text Here  
Yes.
No.

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I think your "made up" story would be more interesting, irrelevant, but interesting.

Dave Grayvis wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Wonder what stamp Jerry had on the motors shipped and packaged-marked as "model airplane parts"?? (;-)