NAR HPR Safety Code

Manufacturer OK end runs around the certification process should not be allowed. The only user mods should be the ones that were certified, as in the CTI delay adjustment. And we really need tighter control on manufacturer design changes triggering recertification.

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

Why is it when field practice disregards unreasonable rules, the reply is to make "better more detailed" rules?

I have a radical suggestion. Adjust the RULES down to reality.

Sport rocketry is built on commercially avialable motors. Untrained users should not be modifying motors to fix manufacturing defects. Defective products should be returned to the vendor for replacement.

Jerry, I'd think you'd be all for that policy regarding "errortech"

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

Agreed 100%. However the user CAN adjust delays according to INSTRUCTIONS, tool or not. They can apparantly also set-up secondary ejection charges and primary ejection charges, dual deployment, staging and clustering. All within the existing safety code.

Maybe there need to be more rules about manufacturing defects so we can have 500% fewer rules on consumers. Most of the problems we have are not caused by product design or the safety code. They are caused by administrators and non-compliant manufacturers who ARE NAR/TRA certified!

Jerry

Where do you stand in regards to Estes allowing scraping of the clay cap? That is a manufacturer authorized modification.

steve

Bob, have you ever scraped the clay cap on a D12?

steve

(I aplogize if you have never flown a motor that big)

In this case it specifically changes the properties of a certified motor in at least two meaningful ways. It reduses the propellant mass and increases the initial surface area. Both modifications taken independently would clearly void any motor cert.

Unlike a delay mod, other delay mods ARE allowed. There are NO motor mods allowed at all under any rule. As such there is no jurisdiction to recommend them and as such every such modified motor was a "Dangerous Device" as defined in law and it was official TRA policy to do that. Thus TRA is a criminal enterprise and criminalized every user who listened to them. All allegedly of course.

Jerry

Which law? A modification could be considered as making it a "not-certified motor" - where is that legally declared to be "Something Else"?

-dave w

The reference to rockets over 4 ounces being regulated. The state laws that adopt NFPA "if" the motor is "properly certified".

The particular motor at issue has several "disqualifying" events:

TRA rules:

Do not modify the motor (ie drill its core)

The motor to be certified MUST be sumbitted by its original manufacturer. No AT by Ellis J350's were tested prior to them being certified for use at TRA sponsored and insured launches.

yes, but he didn't inhale

and he didn't have sex with 'that woman' either

- iz ;)

Just wait until you fly in California... you thought the definition of "have sex" was elastic? According to our State Pyro Code, the licensed pyro operator is really "using" all the HPR motors that fly in our rockets - we're just "helping" him put them in the airframes and apply the electricity to the igniters.

-dave w