NFPA 112? Questions

Then the authorities have a policy of apologizing for the buligerance of the recipient.

Neither of which did or will happen.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

Which worked perfectly!

It excludes Jerry who has dirt on Brucie and Chuckipoo.

Yet it was. Officially by a trade association (TRA) and also by a manufacturer (AT)!!!

If that is not cause for expulsion, I don't know what is!

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

The manufacturer changed from AT-NV to Ellis-TX:

2-4.0 Motors will be accepted for testing only when submitted by their specific manufacturer. Individuals, distributors, agents or other interested parties not directly involved in the specific operation of the motor manufacturing company shall not be permitted to submit, or be a part of the motor certification process.

I do not see the text that used to exist where a change in any "major aspect" of the design or manufacture would require recert. Maybe that is why that link is an excerpt, and that and many other provisions have been made secret to aid "Jerry-mandering".

9-5.0 Once approval expires, the motor is no longer legal for use at Tripoli sanctioned launches. Re-submittal and retesting are necessary for the motor to continue to remain on the "Approved" list.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Which county would that be?

Uh, how would APCP shavings be an issue for you if you're not the manufacturer? Wouldn't that be more of an issue for the subcontractor who makes your motors?

Reply to
RayDunakin

Oh man, you just keep 'em comin', don't cha? Okay Jerry, straight up question.

Do you own USR North?

Ha, Ha. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Steve

Reply to
system user

It is an arbitrary rule. I was in the room when this was written and I objected forthe very reason you cite, but it was left the "way it was" before NFPA-1122/1127.

It is a RELIGIOUS issue between pre-manufactured motors vs homebrew. Centralized risk is the goal. TRA-EX re-de-centralizes the risk fully and nobody seems to care.

People different. Equipment different. Ingredient handling and storage different.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Steve Bloom libel.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

UntilTRA realizesitand refuses tocooperate.

UntilNAR realizesitand refusestocooperate.

Have you evenbeenfollowing this discussion?

NAR even said they would not certify ACS because one cannot easily ship

1.1 by common carrier. 1.1 is the DOT class of C4 plastic explosives!!!

All ACS papers submitted to NAR (physically or electronically) were 1.3C.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

The one you are in?

I develop the procedures and processes the manufacturer implements. And dare I say they are truly impressed.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

It violated the policy that a motor had to be submitted by the manufacturer. In this case the J350s were made by Ellis not AT, and were never certified by Ellis. The At by Ellis motors were in direct violation of the anti-Jerry policy.

It requires recertification if changed. A subcontractor is certainly change. IMHO *LOTS* of changes that should trigger recert are slipped by all the time. AT reloads went from plastic delay liners to white to red back to white to -PLUS. 38mm BJ motors got fatter liners and less propellant. Seal rings were added. And I'm sure I've left out other changes...

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

One more time. TRA has such a rule. NAR (and NFPA) do NOT. NAR has certified

3rd party motors from Apogee, Quest, PML, RocketVision, and in the past many more. They even certified USR motors made by AT way back then.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

I defy you or anyone at TRA/NAR to explicitly identify all the requirements associated with shipping all the different levels of DOT/UN classifications that rocket motors could be shipped under. As you begin to investigate you'll quickly learn all the pitfalls and nuances that are not readily apparent. Unless you do it full time, it would be near impossible to see any errors.

I believe that TRA/NAR didn't know what the requirements were and used it as an excuse to not certify Jerry's motor and to put pressure on him to stop all shipments. Didn't work.

Bob

Reply to
baDBob

Nope.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Yup. Statistically 3 doesn't tell you much. 12 is a bit better. I'd really like to see sample sizes of 30 but for LMR and HPR that gets expensive real fast.

Wonder how many J350s and even H123s they static tested before shipping out all those reload slugs across the country. IMHO, this was a case of total lack of quality control by the vendor, and total lack of fiduciary duty by TRA, followed by absurd "consumer modification" after manufacture. All these motors should have been recalled and replaced. Or really never left the factory.

PERIOD.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

I think I agree with you guys here on this item.....the Ellis Mtn relabeled motors should have been re certed....both the NAR/TRA dropped the ball on this one...

shockie B)

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

That would be Bruce... And Bunny...

Reply to
Philip D.

I beg to differ. Sure, the manufacturer wasn't around long, but how many people lost rockets to bad motors. And if it had continued to today, how many accidents would it have caused with the growth of the past decade. That growth never would have happened without certified motors.

Denouncing people like Brucie and Chuckiepoo that you have dirt on...

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

The whole point is it limits the problem to a small scale of quantity and a relatively narrow geography. If they stay in business they have to correct and make good, if they fail to do that they go away and solve the problem that way.

A few consumers are out some money, but FAR less than with AT motor failures and HPR magazine ripoffs.

The safety code keeps people safe from motor failures.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

15 yards and loss of down.

Randy

Reply to
Randy

I'm sorry, Bob, but I can't just let this go. Weren't you in possesion of several "illegal" motors at a national event if this were true? If what's good for the goose not good for the gander?

steve

Reply to
system user

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.