More Tripoli hypocrisy?

Because this is another example of how the Tripoli BOD does what they feel like if it benefits them.

If they have a rule saying EX and certified launches cannot happen on the same day, it should apply to LDRS the same as any other launch. There are four certified days they could have done the contest on.

Our club would love to do EX and certified on the same day. As it is, we have to set up twice in one weekend and make an extra 90 minute round trip to do EX.

So, by this logic, there could never be an EX launch anywhere in the world because there is probably already a commercial day scheduled somewhere.

What is the minimum distance required between launches to be considered separate? 50 feet? 1 mile? 1000 miles? Should the Townsville Rocketeers not be allowed to have an EX launch when 50 miles away in Cityburg is scheduled a commercial launch?

In my opinion, the Discovery Channel launch is by invitation only and is not a Tripoli launch. Their insurance policy is separate, and as a condition with their underwriters they probably agreed to commercial motors only, and to follow an established safety code (ldrs22 rules).

Now, if your problem is that the main competition is encroaching on one of your EX days, whaddya gonna do? Tell a major production company (with a budget many times what Tripoli is worth that wants to give us some positive PR) that they can't film unless it's on your terms? That wouldn't be my choice.

FOR THE RECORD: I am not a Tripoli member. I think it was very wise that this filming is being done at a separate site. I can't imagine the firestorm of comments if the competition was being done on the LDRS site, but I'll bet it would be from the same people.

Kevin Rezac

I imagine as long as you set 2 separate range heads you could hold two 'separate launches' simultaneously. I think that would be 'good for rocketry' (therefore allowable) as it would conserve resources and increase attendance.

-Bruce

Not under unwritten Tripoli rules, especialy if the second launch is not TRA. Sanction or not on the first launch.

Jerry

The so-called firestorm is not against TRA having a launch or Discovery having a launch or their proximity. No you miss the point.

The point is rules at TRA are strictly Calvinball. All rules.

Jerry

I call 'em as I seez 'em, Jerry. I don't try to understand all of them. ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

how can the exposure be "positive" with the word "dangerous" in the title? I realize we "get it" but will the general public "get it".....also I keep having these nightmares about what the ATF's secret weapon is and I betcha its all the movies taken from large and dangerous rocket ships blowing up (ie cato) .....again, I know we "get it" and understand....but will the general public and congress ? I doubt it.... shockie B)

Actually this is a well made point. Also extremely harmful is the fact TRA and all its vendors, dealers and members all believe in the mantra of explosives permits for non-explosive propellants that also happen to be EXEMPT per 27 CFR 55.141-1-8. It cannot be helped when interviewing TRA members that they discuss their explosives licenses and explosives magazines and "restricted access-sm(errortech)", so that harsh, false reality will creep in and I bet you a bunch 55.141-a-8 EXEMPTION is NOT mentioned at ALL in the reports.

I suppose so. So they should either eliminate the rule that produces the problem, or change the schedule so that the event is on one of the certified motor days. What they have done here aside from being hypocritical invalidates the thousands of $$$ that LDRS participants are being ripped off for insurance coverage.

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

Not quite the same. "like" and "must" are different. If you MUST eat fish on Friday, and can not buy fish, then your only alternative is to not eat. And perhaps learn to stock a couple cans of tuna or salmon away for emergencies.

Or convert to a different religion :-)

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

I would agree with this. Except the rule in question does not include the "except" clause.

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

It has one positive side effect. Since the insurance is invalid and not paid for anyway (in full according to premiums paid) there is no risk of a claim triggering an investigation into TRA's alleged illegal insurance premium scam. They can continue to "keep the change" as usual with no risk of a well monied party calling them on it and prosecuting them for insurance fraud in 10-35 states.

Jerry

Or when it shows an organization violating its own rules.?

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

others) have it and then you can do EX and commercial

insurance cost would go down ?

Now there's an idea. Too bad it wouldn't get any consideration.

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

Doesn't one have to be licensed to sell insurance in any particular state?

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

How about one where Goddard and VonBraun are prophets? O:->

I think there's something fishy about this whole thread. Why can't someone fly a certified motor anywhere, anytime they want and have the insurance in affect? Just have a NAR member do all the flights for the Discovery Channel instead a of TRA member. ;-)

-John *trolling for dollars*

phil: perhaps but:

1. NAR has a 0 deductible whereas TRA has a 00 deductible..
2. NAR covers harm done to yourself and or others while TRA only covers harm you do to others, not yourself: "There is no coverage for Tripoli Members who cause bodily injury or property damage to themselves as a result of their rocketry activities."The policy covers injury and property damage to spectators, innocent bystanders, and Tripoli Members
3. NAR covers medical expense, TRA evidently does not: "There is no coverage for medical expenses incurred at the time of accident "regardless of fault."

SO in case 2 and 3 above, your Homeowners insurance or other insurance will have to cover those....SO the fact that the TRA is Primary means nothing if you damage yourself or your own property or have any personal or 3rd party medical expenses......NAR is secondary for 2 and 3.....

as you said, you get what you pay for.....it appears you don't get much insurance coverage from TRA either? SO why do TRA members pay so much for it?

shockie B)

If you replace the word anything with very much or very often or very likely, than it is more accurate.

It is a perception plan.