More Tripoli hypocrisy?

I don't like the $2500 deductable either but, if you compare that to having to exhaust all other possible insurance coverages before NAR (insurance) pays anything, it's a lot better. You can always go to your own insurance to try to get the $2500 covered.

Several have mentioned accountability for money in the past. If there is any proof of it. I'd like to see it. It's pretty bad when someone betrays the trust of their organization & if it's true, I for one would like to see that person prosecuted for it.

No I'm not saying TRA covers non TRA members but, some seem to think that NAR covers non NAR members at NAR launches. Neither covers non memebers. The associate member statement comes from NAR Section Charter page

it's in the

2nd paragraph of Chartering Requirements.

$70 doesn't include HPR so, we can leave that discussion out. It does include Primary Insurance.

Whoops forgot to take my medicine - oh wait this isn't the ADD Thread.

Phil

Phil Stein

In the context of NAR being secondary insurance -

1- With TRA, you dip into your insurance for a max of $2500. With NAR, you go into your own insurance for your maximum coverage before even making a claim to NAR.

2- In the secondary context, there isn't much difference.

3- TRA just doesn't cover damage to you (or your property) that is caused by you. See #2

I appreciatte your view but, I still yhink TRA coverage is better.

Phil

you do to others, not yourself:

damage to themselves as a result of their rocketry

innocent bystanders, and Tripoli Members

"regardless of fault."

have to cover those....SO the fact that the TRA is

personal or 3rd party medical expenses......NAR is

insurance coverage from TRA either? SO why do TRA members

Phil Stein

I agree with this.

Phil

Phil Stein

$70 is WITHOUT a magazine?! Why would we leave THAT discussion out? That's a $23 difference.

Joel. phx

Dare I ask how much it costs extra to pretend you're getting a magazine?

You are incorrect on both counts. Our FAQ, which the President maintains, is slightly out of date on the claims count information. We've had 3 or 4 claims for auto damange at launches from ballistic recoveries.

The insurance coverage is indeed secondary, but in the case of at least one member, that was sufficent. Becasue he had no other coverage in place (ex. renters, homeowners), NAR insurance covered the expenses associated with his accident.

Relative to the size, risks and economics of the Association, I believe that secondary coverage makes the most sense for the organization.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President

The information I got is from the web site so, I was wrong because of that.

I also made my other conclusions based on the information on the web site. If I have come to incorrect conclusions, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know. My impression from reading the insurance is that if you have insurance, it's a hassle to go through multiple companies. Also, I'm concerned about how this may effect my own insurability should a claim occur.

From what you say, I get the impression that the wen site could use some work to more accurately reflect the insurance.

Thanks Phil Stein

Phil Stein

Then why would they need to pay extra for 'primary' coverage?

Joel. phx

Nonsense. There's nothing unethical about this situation, nor is it unethical to have exemptions to certain rules. After all, that's what we're trying to get from the ATF, remember? An exemption for hobby rocket propellent, igniters, etc.

Right, and by that logic TRA should get out of the low power "business" and leave it to NAR. And NAR should get out of the high power business and leave it to TRA. Maybe you can find even more ways to split up and factionalize a simple hobby -- say, one organization for those who do high power with electronic deployment, and a seperate club for people who do high power with motor ejection.

In a sense they do already. But the main point is they do EX "wrong" and it is better to do nothing at all, than to intentioanly cause problems, for not only TRA members but the rocketry community at large.

It is NOT a polar decision. TRA has shown that if nothing else, situational ethics prevail in its culture.

Jerry

TRA member speaks in typical moronic, ignorant doubletalk:

Um, uh, well, IT EXISTS ALREADY!! 27 CFR 55.141-a-8

Hello? Earth to Tripoli. Stop asking members, vendors, dealers to use ATF permits EVER for propellants and PADS (rocket motors).

Morons. Ignorant. Proven. Factual. Self-defeating. Illegal.

Jerry

I agree.

The LACK of proof is the smoking gun.

Show me. As a member, OFICIALLY and privately DEMAND to see association records, then hire a professional to verify them. Bill me for the professional expenses based on emailed agreements we enter into.

Show me.

Well, it's not impossible to get positive media exposure despite the title of the launch. But I agree that "Large and Dangerous Rocket Ships" is a stupid name for a launch, not to mention the fact that it doesn't exactly flow off the tongue.

Sounds like a frivolous lawsuit to me. As long as they pay for any claims that are made, what difference does it make?

What does it matter then? If my insurance doesn't cover it at all, then I'm out a heck of a lot more money with the TRA deductible. If it does cover it, then I didn't need extra rocketry insurance in the first place. Either scenario, I don't get any advantage with TRA insurance. Primary or not, doesn't matter.

What I do get is NAR coverage outside of sanctioned launches. Can't argue with that one.

Have you EVER met Bruce Kelly? Lucky you.

Then it doesn't matter. Skip that point.

Leave it in the discussion, NAR gives you a regularly published magazine for less money than the TRA non-magazine price. Relevant!

Hey, I want to try to be there when you launch that thing, so don't hurry at it too much. ;)

-John

This should be in the FAQ.

Experimental and commercial launches can't be held on the same or adjacent properties unless separted by 12 hours. See

section 9.8.2. Calling it a separate event does not satisfy this rule unless it is physically separated as well. Of course the BOD is allowed to grant exemptions to any of these rules (see 10.1) if application is made in writing and goes throught the Tripoli Research Committee first.

Dave Morey

So why have any rules at all? Why not 100% suggestions?

Jerry