My LEUP Nightmare

Glen Overby wrote:


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.
Kurt Savegnago
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
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 www.nfpa.org ( 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...
shockie B)

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a. Need you ask? b. I told you so.

--
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
Kurt wrote:

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....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

27 CFR 555.141-a-7-v was modified to EXCLUDE "all Class C" (UN 1.4C and BELOW) and only specify I believe 5 very, very narrow UN numbers.
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
I for one find it highly ironic that the very agencies designated to "protect" us from the inherent dangers of this hobby have so often displayed that THEY themselves are collectively the most feared aspect of handling/storing these materials. I work in law enforcement, and from what I can construe from these posts, I personally feel that BATFE's efforts should be focused upon individuals engaged in ex/amateur rocketry, not the end user of the legitimately manufactured product. The processes that the manufacturers go through to attain approval and permission to market these products are structured to ensure that a safe, 'consumer-friendly' product is delivered, ultimately, to the individuals who qualify to utilize them in the manner for which they are designed. The regulations "horse" is beaten to near death by the time these motors have been produced, tested, transported, stored, sold and used. It would appear that, at least from my personal view, that more regulation is NOT going to save anyone's life (or the world, for that matter). While I do not believe that the government is out to impede or obstruct the hobby/industry, I do feel that this beaureaucratic micro-management of all aspects of HPR may do just that. However, OTH, to qualify my response to Shockie's "yes/no" thread, I feel that if one aspect of the hobby (HPR) is tightly scrutinized, then yes, I do believe that other aspects(i.e., mid-power and model) should be subjected to these policies also. Simply, it may help to disseminate a lot of the "grey area" that these agencies can't seem to apply a consistent set criteria for regulation to. For what it's worth, Rant Concluded
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
bob352 wrote:

At this point, the further regulation of rocketry has nothing to do with safety. All the safety-related regs necessary are already in place. The ATF's efforts have one purpose only, and that is to keep rocketry materials out of the hands us mere citizens.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree.
--
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

Why not improve your prospects by getting a ruling exempt goods are simply not subject to restrictions?

Do you plan to handle "non-exempt explosives"?

--
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:

Gee, good idea Jerry! Hmm, how would one go about doing that? Oh, I remember -- through the courts! Looks like someone will have to file a suit against ATF to get that ruling. In fact, that would be a real good joint project for TRA/NAR!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote: >> >> Why not improve your prospects by getting a ruling exempt >> goods are simply not subject to restrictions?
That's fine, too, but in the short term, I don't see anything wrong with just complying with the regulations.
We need to obtain landowner permission. We need to obtain insurance. We need to obtain launch approval from the FAA or Transport Canada or whatever. We need to get certified by an appropriate rocketry association. We do all that - so why not just get the LEUP, too, and be done with it?
...Rick
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. From the regional office by reading the regs to them.
Word for word. They are dense.
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
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Maybe they are, but they're not so stupid as to butt heads with ATF HQ. But if you think you could pull this off, please do so! Be sure to post the ruling when you get it. Make sure they put it in writing. Any bureaucrat who promises you something but refuses to put it in writing is blowing smoke up your nozzle, and whatever they've told you isn't worth the paper it's not printed on. Especially when it against the published policy handed down to them from HQ.
P
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.