NAR BoD declines Wickman leadership in legislative action

I see you "get it".

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

At least the issue would be on the table and likely Wickman would have responded more rationally to NAR than NAR in fact actually did to ARSA.

Speculation.

You obviously are NOT paying attention to those "slams" wherein specifics of NAR/TRA screwing of the effort are listed and discussed.

Since you obviously miss the point, how can you analyse it?

Perhaps education should preceed conclusion?

Need proof?

Here's proof:

  1. NAR requires ATF permits from motor manufacturers despite them being exempt per ATF's own laws, to wit 27 CFR 55.141-a-8 a. NAR legal counsel AGREES this is the case in their pleadings in the NAR vs ATF lawsuit

  1. NAR requires ATF permits from motor vendors despite them being exempt per ATF's own laws, to wit 27 CFR 55.141-a-8 a. NAR legal counsel AGREES this is the case in their pleadings in the NAR vs ATF lawsuit

  2. NAR requires ATF permits from consumers despite them being exempt per ATF's own laws, to wit 27 CFR 55.141-a-8 a. NAR legal counsel AGREES this is the case in their pleadings in the NAR vs ATF lawsuit

*plonk*

What are you going to do about it./ If YOU as a NAR BoT member can not or will not do anything about it, it will not get sone. Simple.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I went to NARCON in San Diego earlier this year. I asked Mark Bundick when he was going to CALL Mark Wickman for the first time (returning John's many calls). He put off the question and went into a monologue on an unrelated subject.

My 15 year old son was appauled by the behavior of an alleged professional and association leader. He became disillusioned with the NAR after watching Mark's replies to a half dozen questions with similar results.

I am old. I expected the act of distraction and distortion.

It was also noted Mark made a nice presentation of his experiences as a child growing up near Wallops Island Virginia and watching those experimental rocket tests (directly comparable in power and size and construction to current RRI/RRS/PRS amateur rockets). My kid could not understand how he could have such pleasant and positive memories of those rockets yet be so opposed to essentially the same types of rockets today among NAR members, or for that matter among members of other clubs, to the point he has to participate in the removal of NAR members for participaton in those rockets ever in NAR's past, and opposing them in the present.

After seeing Mark Interact with me on the subsequent 6 or so questions it was very clear indeed.

Mark Bundick, NAR President is a hypocrite, is a master of misdirection and obfuscation, and at no time, and in no way, has toleration for rockets other than those he himself chooses to endorse at the moment.

In this environment how can cooperation and success be expected?

Heck he cannot even synch NAR and NFPA policy (he has primary responsibility to author) with CPSC and ATF!!!

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

John who? What did he post?

I must have missed something ...

- iz

Reply to
izzy

Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.verizon.net:

No difference when it comes to grandstanding politicians. I'm sure these guys have their staff looking out for any opportunity to position themselves as antiterrorism.

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

Great. Then please explain this:

However unfortunate your toleration of a 0.9 lb per motor limit and 25 pound per user limit might be. No matter how unfortunate your demand that consumers, vendors, and manufacturers get ATF permits might be, despite 27 CFR 55.141-a-8, and of course that annoying NAR/ATF lawsuit wherein NAR and TRA themselves advocate the EXISTING LAW as cited above as being in full force and effect.

and

Why NAR requires ATF permits for any propellant related thing despite 27 CFR 55.141-a-8 and NAR's own position in the NAR/TRA/ATF lawsuit.

Go.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

responses inline

NAR/TRA wanted to steer the legislative effort, this was rebuffed

In Bunny's earlier post communication to me, he expressed his frustration at being grouped with TRA in John's criticism of the both orgs undermining the effort. Bunny asked for a suggestion as to how this could be reconciled. As taking such an conciliatory step would require BoD approval, in response to his call for agenda items I submitted this formally as a NAR member. While my prognosis was poor, it would at least mandate a discussion.

NAR (and TRA) "leadership responsibility" involves either endorsing, condemning, or deferring the legislative actions initiated and pursued by ARSA. The involvement of John Kyte as representative of TRA/NAR has produced precisely the effect that John feared when their offer to share stewardship of the bill was made - a castrated bill. In my arrogant opinion, both organizations would have done far less harm by offering no official position on the legislation (a stance justified by perceived implications to their lawsuit) and allowed the members to judge the merits of the legislative action and various initiatives on their own.

as I have said ad naseum, what Senator Enzi wants, and what he is at liberty to officially endorse, are very different things. TRA/NAR is only privy to what can be communicated officially, while John W. does not suffer from that limitation, being on close personal terms with the good Senator. It astonishes me that this point still needs to me made.

too many cooks, for sure. Defer to John's leadership or remain neutral.

yes, and the lockstep of TRA/NAR in their repeated undermining of various initiatives throughout this process at best confuses and alienates the membership, and at worst misdirects them and renders them impotent.

[ soapbox on ]

I concur with Jerry in his observation. I believe the national organizations are preoccupied with their survival as such, and the influence that accompanies. I do not believe that they have the best interests of either rocketeers or the technological capabiliites of the USA at heart.

A 0.9 lb limit on "model rocket motors" used in "recreational model rockets", or conversely the hardship and downright inaccessibility of the BATFE's LEUP, more dismal a stance than I ever imagined could be tolerated by any "leadership".

As John said, he would have hoped to have partners with some guts.

[ soapbox off ]

- iz

Reply to
izzy

At high financial cost to NAR no less.

This point cannot be emphasized enough.

Time after time in the past 15 years NAR or TRA or in some cases both, have been presented with statements from "influencial rocketeers" of all sorts. That input has largely been rebuffed independent of its merit or timeliness to issues at hand. NAR and TRA go in a direction that is wholly defined by internal policy, personal preference of the leader at issue, and very little influenced by either expert advise, member feedback, influencial person comments, etc. Possibly the only exception to this was when Vern Estes railed against sparky motors and actual tests were conducted to determine the actual hazard. Naturallly the particular brand he railed against was shunned and banned by both TRA and NAR, and not directly included in the test, but the tests nonetheless were made and published.

No such courtesy was afforded the 80N limit on ADULTS, or the 62.5g per motor limit despite the 125g limit being both a NAR and an FAA agreed limit.

No such courtesy was applied to the clear and obvious fact propellant is ATF exempt, or the fact that EX numbers once issued are good forever, and are not within the jurisdiction of either NAR or TRA to approve, enforce, refuse or otherwise do anything but let be.

At every inflection point where either NAR or TRA could make a policy decision or regulatory choice, it has made the wrong one.

It is no surprise whatsoever therefore, that rocketry participation has declined precipitously, that regulation has increased dramatically, and confusion over regulation has increased dramatically.

A stroke of the pen can fix this. Or a few of them. Start with the issues raised in THIS POST, with the issues I presented to the NAR BoT meeting this year, and add a few I would be more than glad to offer to a legitimate and truly motivated NAR committee to revitalize rocketry. It is time to make at least tiny positive steps forward. The easiest way to move toward success is to start. Start now. It has long since been time.

Jerry Irvine

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

If HPR dies, NAR will go the way of the dinosaur. I would see no need for membership at that point.

Rocky Firth

Reply to
Rocky Firth

Call me dense, but this makes no sense to me. Bunny says that Enzi and staff are driving the strategy and you're saying that what Enzi tells them is not what he really wants? From June 9:

(emphasis mine)

And if he can't officially endorse it, what chance does it have? Is he going to un-officially endorse something? Is he going to get some OTHER Senator to take the lead?

I also don't understand how Kyte's involvement "castrated" the bill. Are there committee transcripts to support this? Are you refuting this from 6/18:

Is this wrong? Was the original bill a shoe-in until Kyte (I highly qualified and experienced Washington insider, BTW) showed up? Do you have proof? Did Kyte cause Senators Schumer and Lautenburg to place "holds" on S.724? If they did this for the "castrated" bill, would they not have done it for the original? Do you have proof? Committee transcripts would suffice. Letters from the Senators to constituents would also work.

I have a letter from MY Senator, but I'm not telling... ;-)

Reply to
Alex Mericas

how about providing the name and number of your BATFE agent that you did that to? and then we will get Sandy and your guy in a conference call....

shockie B)

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

You are VERY wrong about the attitude of the NAR. Yes they were a bit slow to come around. But the growth of the hobby, and the NAR is centered around HPR activity. HPR is attracting far more members than competition or any other NAR program. And the NAR is VERY concerned about the future of HPR.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

TO add to that, 8 of the 9 NAR BoT members fly HPR. The one that isn't certified has probably fired more HPR motors than the rest of the BoT. He just does it horizintally in a test cell...

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Did ARSA make the request? Or did it come from ONE person?

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

But not concerned enough to do the obvious and follow 55.141-a-8.

That is not very concerned at all.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

It took less than a "M" to get me hooked again. But I agree with your point.

I also agree with Jerry that even if HPR is killed, there will still be national events that people will attend, Myself included. They will just take on a much different flavor than those of today. Please do not construe this as my desire for HPR to die. I like HPR. I'm just proceeding up the cert chart at a more liesurely pace.

Someone posted that if eveything was left well enough alone, things may have turned out better. Maybe, Maybe not. Too soon to tell.

The point I was trying to make, is that we all are getting too caught up in the politics and forgetting to have fun. Yeah, I'd like to fly bigger stuff, but I'm still having fun with my kids and A-G Powered stuff, expecially recreating Centuri kits I had as a Kid, and playing with a Video Rocket. Limiting myself to L1 and below has helped me to improve my modeling skills, too, which is a great sense of accomplishment. I'm no longer afraid I'll screw up that Satrun V kit sitting in my closet. The relentless drive to build bigger, better, faster, sems to ruin the hobby for some folks. Some folks have L1 and L2 cert'd in the same day. If I did that, then L3, then what? I'd be bored waaay too soon.

As for my comments about NAR. It took a long time for NAR and TRA to play nice in the sandbox. I suspect ARSA will meld into the fold eventually and then we'll have three sanctioning bodies, all recriprocating with each other. A bit redundant, but whatever. Just fuel for the political types to argue on RMR and ROL, I guess.

-Chr$ NAR 79536 L1 and holding. . .

Reply to
Chr$

That happens to be one thing that is NOT too soon to tell.

I have this opinion that HPR guys should make a point of doing this.

It is responsible for predictible for burnout. My advise is to find a motor size you are comfortable with flying 4-5 flights per launch and fly that power in a variety of rockets regularly. For most people that is 240 to 960 N-s.

Too long IMHO.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.verizon.net:

Just an FYI, 55.141-a-8 would only apply to APCP that was in the form of finished motors. It would NOT exempt ANYONE that has the raw form of the propellent.

You can't have buckets of raw AP powder or even the mixed propellent sitting around. BUT, under 55.141-a-8 you SHOULD be able to have buckets of MOTORS or RELOAD KITS, as they ARE (or should be) exempt as PADs.

The trick is to get the BATFE and their associated JBGTs to recognize that motors and reload kits fit the definition of a PAD almost verbatim. They did before 1999, then they just changed their mind. I have never seen an explaination from the BATFE as to why or what changed their minds.

As much as some people don't want to hear/acknowledge it, Jerry IS right. Single-use motors and the grains for reloadables (because the INTENT is to assemble them into a finished motor) SHOULD be exempt under 55.141-a-8 no matter WHAT material they are made out of. The problem is that the BATFE is saying that because APCP is on the explosives list, the PAD exepmtion doesn't apply anymore (even though they exempt PADs using BP, which is also on the explosives list).

Jeff Richardson

Reply to
Jeff Richardson

I am not snipping anything or making any inline responses.

I find this post and reply indicative of the polarization surrounding the issue, the actions processing the issue, and the prospects for the future.

I find it hard evidence that we should NOT prospectively expect cooperation between ARSA and TRA/NAR. Quite the opposite. We should expect NAR/TRA to maintain their expensive campaign to invicerate the efforts of deregulation by thrird parties and assure their position as head of the NFPA/ATF/CPSC/FAA/HSA juggernaught. NAR can be expected to use whatever resources it can muster to maintain, and to the extent practical increase, the stranglehold on regulation and control.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Jerry, you have Sandy's phone number, tell her. If you're so sure that you're right, tell it to the BATFE.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Reply to
Mark Simpson

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.