I hightly doubt they would go after the lower powered stuff and make it all illegal. Could happen if an Estes Alpha brings down an airliner. Too many people would be out of jobs.
What I wish for is to not be pestered if I certify at a certain level and want to keep a few engines on hand just in case I go to an appropriately waivered site and there is no engine vendor on hand.
If what I desire above is granted, I'm afraid that all the LEUP "guild" holders would get ticked off. Remember, one has to certify and for L2 take a written test. I believe we are all big responsible boys and girls here.
I've seen people here lament about the slow growth of rocketry, especially HPR. Some of that is lack of ranges to fly and ease of acquiring engines. Yes I know that folks are very helpful and the good vendors will provide engines. I also recall seeing ads from onsite engine vendors who refuse sales to all but LEUP holders. That may be smoke and mirrors but is still disconcerting. Being able to go to a waivered site without a vendors opens more possibilities and opportunities for flight.
(and most states have incorporated NFPA 1 without knowing that it also incorporates the NFPA 1122/25/27 codes also via chapter 65 , this little bit of code courtesy of the NAR NFPA rep I might add). Our NFPA rep, J.Patrick Miller, former long time NAR Prez has told me he wants to codify AR/EX into the NFPA codes! DOH?
which makes me ask the following question:
why did the NAR/TRA place these storga erequirements into nfpa 1127 and then on the other hand go to court with the BATFE, saying in essence, the storage requirements are too restrictive?
and of course I guess many of you forget that the NFPA codes will not allow rockets motors unless they are explosives? this also courtesy of our brillant NAR/TRA leaders.
I can't tell which side who anybody is on anymore. This is the old "speaks with a forked tongue syndrome" as I call it. Our leaders have done a fantatstic job of propanganding and using mis and disinformation.
On one hand, the NAR/TRA leadership wants YOU, the NAR/TRA member to donate money to the lawsuit against BATFE, and at the same time, it is making the BATFE's job for it easier by implementing the exact same oderous regs into the NFPA codes.....
Why aren't we sueing the NFPA too? Or at least placing people from our organizations that support such regulation? By the way the NAR NFPA reps are J.Patrick Miller and Mark Bundick. while the TRA reps are Bruce Kelly and Scott Bartel.
does anybody, beside sme, see the dichotomy in all of this?
we are spending a million bucks on a lawsuit to prevent the BATFE from enforcing and controlling HPR, while exactly at the same time, our own leadership has put into state codes, the exact same enforcement and control mechanisms?
The BATFe will say( and believe me they have done so in their legal papers), hey, we are just trying to institute rules and reg that have already been put into place by the NAR/TRA through their NFPA reps....sheesh......
see folks my position on this is quite clear: I support the Lawsuit against BATFE, but I am not going to donate any monies to it, while our own leadrship policies, are doing exactly the same thing we are fighting against.
when are you people going to wake up and smell the coffee? when are you people going to wake up and relaize we are doing it to ourselves? Do you want me to post the relevant passages from the NFPA codes to show you what we are doing to ourselves? while at the same time spending our selves into a financial purgatory ?
I chalenge and dare any current senior NAR/TRA member to ask their BOT/BOD why we are doing this to ourselves? See what responses you get. I betca they will try and change the subject or try to shut you up or just ignore your questions on this topic.
I think it would be in the best interest of all NAR/TRA memebrs to confront their leadership on this issue. Let them take a public stand and voice their position on this .
somebody is pulling somebodies leg here , and they better let go!
if you don't want to be "pestered" by the BATFE, why is it ok to be "pestered" with the same controls and rgs brought forth in the NFPA codes? Playing devils advocate, here, in a lot of cases, the BATFE is just wanting to implement on a federal level, what our NAR/TRA leaders have already implemebnted in the NFPQA codes.
May I suggest that everybody who is a NAR/TRA member, goto
formatting link
( or head down to your local fire marshall person, they may have a copy)and actually pay for an READ whats in those codes, concerning what is explosives, what storage is needed,etc . AND then ask yourself this simple question: why is the same stuff we are fighting the BATFE over, already in the NFPA STATE level codes, and why was it placed there by our very own NAR/TRA NFPA reps?
Somebody is playing both sides against the middle here folks...
And I wish the Texas Legislature would come up with a way to pay for public schools that is fair to the property poor districts as well as the property rich districts. Want to bet who gets their wish first? I'm willing to bet the courts will be involved in both cases.
I'm not sure, but I may qualify as a "guild" holder. Why would I be upset? Even if I didn't have to get a LEUP, I would still have a storage issue. NFPA 1127 takes care of that (and is code where I live). And don't bring up the Black Powder Issue. My FD quoted another NFPA code that says you can't have more than 1lb of BP in an unsprinklered building, 2lb if it is stored in a magazine. So even though the ATF says its ok to store 50 pounds of BP without a magazine, NFPA says 1lb. With or without a LEUP. I'm sorry but I don't have the particular NFPA #. I was willing to live with a 2lb restriction (its written on my storage approval from the Fire Department). You pick your battles....
I don't know what you are griping about here. NFPA 1127 requires that motors regulated by the ATF be stored in compliance with ATF regulations. Exempt items are to be stored in a recloseable noncombustible container. No weight limit, which is better than you get with model rocket motors which do have a weight limit.
Surely that isn't too restrictive.
Again, NFPA 1127 requires you to comply with ATF regulations when storing regulated motors.
david: so basically what you are saying, is that all the NAR/TRA is really doing is "aligning" the nfpa codes (which become state laws) to correspond with the current Federal laws?
what about the fact that the NAR is still sueing the BATFE over their definition of APCP as an explosive? IF the NAR truly thought that APCP was not an explosive material, then it wouldn't need a storage magazine and there would be no need for any language in nfpa 1127. they would not be helping the ATF, by "alignin" the NFPA codes with current federal laws.
the lawsuit is not about we being able to horde 100,000 pounds of 62.5g exempt apcp motors. the law suit is about having restrictive magazine storage for the larger HPR motors, which does have a weight limitation just like model rockets.
No I am not saying that the NAR/TRA have inserted this language. I am not a member of NFPA and I haven't asked Pat Miller about what happened so I can't make any claim to know what happened. But the code does require (redundantly) that you comply with ATF storage regulations.
If the NAR/TRA appeal succeeds and APCP is declared to be exempt from ATF explosives regulations, then you can store your motors in a recloseable noncombustible container. Or whatever your local law requires.
The ATF is a voting member of the NFPA pyrotechnics committee. Perhaps they had something to do with this part of the code.
The weight restriction on storage of regulated motors is the result of federal regulations which are repeated in NFPA 1127. If the motors are exempt from ATF regulation then there is no weight limit.
That language is in the NFPA codes because the other members of NFPA insisted on it. If you believe that TRA/NAR can write anything they want without any input or interference from the rest of the NFPA, you've been listening to Jerry too long.
When will you wake up and smell what Jerry's been shoveling?
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.