NAR Board votes to violate Safety Code!

WTHDIMWGHSWD?

(What The He** Does It Matter What G. Harry Stine Do?)

David Erbas-White

Terry, can you quote, or point me to, the specific NAR bylaw that says the BOT does not have the authority to grant a waiver of the safety code? Seems to me, if they have the authority to write the safety code, they automatically have the authority to grant a waiver. Just like the FAA grants waivers of the regs prohibiting high power rockets.

Hmmm... I'm wondering, do these flyers already have the motors? If so, how did they get them if they can't legally be shipped here? If they were illegally shipped, why don't these guys just do their practice flying at a private, non-sanctioned launch, and not involve the NAR at all? I don't know much about NAR/FAI competition events, so I'm just curious.

Nope. Can't be anywhere on a commercial airliner.

You see correctly. Some members of the internats team has been quietly violating the safety code under the radar screen. This was an attempt to legitimize their actions. A poorly thought out attempt. Any one else who might similarly violate the safety code would be subject to expulsion. Especially if your initials were Jerry Irvine.

Mark and several other board members are a bit occupied this weekend, but I would expect to hear from him soon. I would suggest an email to him will get a faster response than a post here.

Ya, but watch out for those 1970 B14's! Those are DANGEROUS! Sheesh! You are right, a bunch of hypocrites.

All EXCELLENT questions. They have them, because the plan is to fly them next weekend at NSL in Texas. You are absolutely correct: they should go off on their own and fly their uncertified motors without NAR involvement, seperate from an NAR event. If they need insurance, they should secure their own, just as several independent clubs have done.

I have to retract that statement. It seems that issues were either overlooked or not examined sufficiently by the board. I've heard from some trustees who wish to reexamine this issue. I suspect others are busy this weekend and not aware of the furor of the past couple days.

BTW, the B14s aren't certified any more. But some of my blue tube motors are still certified and flyable at NARAM this summer. I'll be sure to fly at least one.

david:

I'm glad that at least we can keep this discussion above the wailing of the inhouse anumals. I think you are desparately seraching for loopholes, so you too, can be a believer in this policy. I don't think the NAR S&T nor the NFPA regulations recognize "a special certfication". .

A "competent Authority" is usually a governmental agency.....one of the difficulties that the bristish found in legally importing these czech delats motors into their country was that they couldn't find a competnet authority in the czech republic nor could they basically find Mr. Taborsky. Mr. Taborsky's motors have not also undergone CE marling which would be a UK certfication requirement before they could eb sold their.

THe NARbot can yes, obviously change and later the model rocket safety code. But changing or altering to the code is completely different from what they are attempting to do here: and that is allow the NAR president to ignore a section of his own organizations Safety Code, along with giving him the authority to allow "certain" select NAR members, to also ignore these same sections.

Please read in a nother post where Trip Barber basically says exactly the same thing I do, and he voted for this policy and his prior comments and views on certfication,etc and his vote on this policy is inconsistent at best.

David, I will call the US DOT monday, and I will ask them if they consider the FAI a "competent authority". Let me in on a little background that I already know, as I have had discussions in the past with the 4 recognized tetsting labs that the US DOT uses to do this testing.

THis same question was asked of all 4 and there responses very virtually identical. It is true that an external to the USA "competent authority" can perform the necessary "explosives" testing process of model rocket motors, just as they do. Remember the prerequiste to certfication is explosives testing, so they can be classified as 1.3,1.4 or 4.1. which is their UN designation number. The FAI could conceivably perform this explosives tetsting at a lab in europe. These labs told me that the US DOT would then determine if these tests carried out by the foreign comptent authority were as rigorous as the tests that were performed here. If they made the determination the foreign testing was not as inclusive or as rigorius as they require from the USAbased tetsting labs, the motors would have to be re-tested here in one of the 4 us testing labs at additional time and expense. It is for this reason that the US tetsting labs recommend that any foreign manufacturer of model rocket motors, be sent here for full tetsting, as there is no gurantee the US DOT will accept overseas paperwork.

As far as I know no explosives testing has been done by any foreign or usa based competent authority. If they had been tested and been assigned a UN designation number, they would have been issued an US DOT EX number. I have scanned repeatedly the US DOT EX numbers database which is online, and there is no mention of these motors ever having a US DOT EX number assigned to them; so my only conculsion is that they have not undergone this "prerequiste" explosives testing yet.

The NAR cannot accept certfication from other motor testing authorities unless they have all the above.....So the fact that the FAI may have at some time tested a batch of czech delta motors is moot at this point. And as I pointed out in my other response to malcolm reynolds(tony is that you lurking?) , comapring the NAR certfication process to the FAi certfication process is like compaing apples and oranges. The FAI certfication is nothing more than a process to ensure that the motors be used AT THAT PARTICULAR FAI COMPETITION EVENT, are safe to use and don't go over impulse. They aren't being certfied for use for a 3 or 5 year period. there is no concept of de-certfication in FAI. These same batch of motors if they were to be used at another FAI event a month later, would still have to undergo the FAI certication process again....and again....and again..... I highly recommend that you goto the

I look forward to further discussion.

terry dean

hi ray, long time no see...

an excellent question and the answer is NO there is no specific NAR bylaw that says the NARBOT does not have thie authority to grant a waiver of the NAR model rocket safety code. There also is no language that they authority to grant such a waiver.

I will submit, that indeed the NARBOT may have this authority: but this authority is limited to NAR members only. And such an authorization would eseentially amount to an oveeride/waiver/exemption of specific NFPA codes that are in effect in all 50 states. The NARBOT does not have the authority to do that. That is is jurisdiction of the fire chief or fire marshal. I might add that the NAR also helps write the NFPA codes as a committe member. DO you dra from that, the same conculsion then that they can also waive/override NAR members from local and state fire codes? I don't think so...

terry dean

shockwaveriderz wrote:

Terry, can you quote, or point me to, the specific NAR bylaw that says the BOT does not have the authority to grant a waiver of the safety code? Seems to me, if they have the authority to write the safety code, they automatically have the authority to grant a waiver. Just like the FAA grants waivers of the regs prohibiting high power rockets.

shockwaveriderz wrote:

Terry,

I'll keep this one short (). First, I'm not desperately searching for loopholes, I come at this from an entirely DIFFERENT perspective. I've been on several Boards of Directors, including as Chairman of the Board, and nothing frosts me more than all of the Monday-morning quarterbacks who 'decide' what an organization should be doing after all of those who actually have the responsibility (and liability!) have hashed it out. So no, I don't necessarily agree with WHY/HOW this decision was made, but I look at it from the perspective of how the BOT members would/should see it. In other words, I look at it from the perspective that, for the integrity of the organization, that we look and see if this is allowable under the bylaws of the organization. I have to presume that the Trustees are looking out for the long-term good of the organization, but as a non-BOT member, my role is to ensure that they have followed the bylaws correctly. At least, that's my perspective (and I admit it has changed radically from my pre-BOD days). It's really easy to yell/scream/shout when you haven't, yourself, spent years in the shoes of the BOT (and perhaps you have, I'm making this as a general statement, not directed at you specifically), but once you've put in all the hard work and basically thankless effort on behalf of an organization, it makes it much more difficult to put up with all the 'armchair Trustees'.

As I stated previously, I'm the one who viewed it as a 'special certification'. The NAR hasn't stated that, I've used it as my own method of 'understanding'. But, NAR S&T DOES answer to the BOT, and if NFPA refers to "NAR Certified", then "NAR Certified" means whatever the NAR says it does. I was using the term 'special certification' to simply identify it from the 'previous' classification method, but as far as NFPA is concerned, it is simply 'NAR certified'.

David Erbas-White

That's what I thought. IMO, this is a bigger problem that wether the motors are NAR certified. NAR didn't bother Jerry but DOT sure did.

Phil

That being the case, it seems pretty simple to me and answers the main point in question.

I understand Bob's objection and his feelings but I'd have to say David is right. Agree with them or not, the recognized authorities apparently followed procedure, considered the circumstances and made their decision.

Our elected politicians should be so efficient.

Randy

What is your objective in doing that? Be careful what you ask for.

Calling the DoT and raising a ruckus about model rocket motors is about as beneficial as me calling the FAA and reporting folks who seem to think they don't need to bother to get waivers.

Making that phone call is much more likely to cause a lot of harm than it is to come to a good end.

If you were a shipper and found yourself in possession of mismarked motors, or motors in a shipment that didn't have proper documentation, it would be a different situation. However, that is far from the case, and you are going to do nothing but cause problems.

If your goal is to make it difficult to ship motors, you're heading down the right path. If your goal is to get the NAR BoT to rethink a decision, you're heading down a very, very wrong path.

I, personally, have a problem with this decision, because it tells me that the NAR BoT sees the Internats fliers as more important than the average member, for whom they're not willing to make similar decisions. But I'm not about to claim that we need to call the authorites in and cause the problems that will arise from that.

-Kevin

I guess if you name is "Langford" you can do whatever you want......

If Joe Blow had asked , bet they'd a told him "NO WAY"

I don't think NFPA has been adopted by 49 STATES. Perhaps in 49 states but not by the states themselves. At least not according to

what alex says is true.

AS far as I can determine, NFPA 1122 is not a state wide fire code in the state of Texas. Nor is the IFC(international Fire Code) nor the NFPA 1 a state wide fire code, both which incorporate the NFPA 1122/1125/1127 by reference.

Having agreed with Alex on this, still doesn't make this policy decision a correct one. What if the NSL was held in such a state where the NFPA fire codes are in regulation. Would that make a difference for you Alex? Will you will informing your land owner, I beleive who is the City of McGregor, that you have decided to allow noncertfied motors to be used on their property, and that the usual individual's NAR insurance will be null and void. Does this expose the City of McGregor to any undue liability? Will you check and ensure that the "selected" NAR members, whose individual NAR insurance will be null and void, have their own personal liability insurance in case there is an accident with these uncertified motors?

what happens in 2007 at the FAI Team Flyoffs or in 2008 at that FAI Team Practice? DO we start picking the locations of NARAM and NSL based upon whether or not the NFPA fire codes are effect in that jurisdiction? We do know that these FAI events will never be held in California, due to the fact that it has its own model rocketry laws (something about model rocket motors being required to have the CSFM stamp on them).

terry dean

Why don't you take care of that for them?