NFPA 112? Questions



Not true of course and I posted the original documents for YEARS right here to offset the false claims. Furthermore when asked to show the alleged dcument it was in fact a FAX FROM AEROTECH. Gee I wonder how that happened?
At no time was this ever even claimed to be a document SUBMITTED TO TRA BY ME BY ANY PRINCIPAL.
However maybe now that has changed too?

--
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
wrote:

It was explained to me "typed name crossed out and handwritten name just above the crossout". How hard would it have been to request DOT issuance of corrected paperwork? It's been 5 years.

There was another case where one of the requested documents wasn't required by locality. As Phil wrote, some type of verifcation of address is necessary.

1127 talks about how motors must be stored. I'm assuming 1125 does the same for manufacturers. How would one verify that the facility is complying with the NFPAs? Certainly you could fly a boardmember out to observe the facility. To obtain an LEMP, a government agent must inspect the magazine, thus ensuring the NFPAs are being met.
Besides, one of the personalities said he had/s a LEMP so this approach is pointless.
It's been 5 years. It only took Aerotech 2 years to rebuild from the ground, how long could getting the paperwork in the right name take? Start digging through old threads. He has no interest in certifying motors.
Joel. phx

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

I'm not interested in Jerry certifying his motors. That's his problem (and/or his customers problem). I'm more concerned with aspects of the rocketry organizations that may be extending beyond their boundaries.
For example, in the example earlier in the thread, I discussed how my particular city doesn't have business licenses, so requiring such by TRA would be impossible to achieve.
For the above item, I come back to the question of how/why it is the concern of the NAR or TRA whether the manufacturer is complying with the NFPAs. I'm unaware of either NAR or TRA having law enforcement capability, and I resent the implication that they can do what is effectively law enforcement work, especially when the hobby ALREADY has too much involvement from the BATFE, etc. Is it up to the certifying organizations to check and see if my tap water meets the local drinking water standards? Does NAR or TRA validate (using Aerotech as an unfortunate example) that the manufacturer is complying with OSHA requirements? No, because they are not government organizations, and do not have powers of enforcement.
I'm not doing the above for or on behalf of Jerry, I'm questioning it because SOME of what I've seen stinks to high heaven. Perhaps these things are honest mistakes, perhaps they ought to be re-evaluated in light of the lawsuit, perhaps things should be made easier because the hobby has matured, perhaps roadblocks to manufacturing need to be removed to help grow the hobby.
I'm simply opening up the discussion to get some educated/experienced responses, and perhaps to throw a little common sense in here.
David Erbas-White
P.S. I'd like to add that the questions I had over the past couple of days, for example, about the NAR renewal form have been addressed to my satisfaction for the moment, and that I commend the NAR Board Members that I've communicated with for their openness and responsiveness. This is simply another 'question' along those same lines.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

same
with
magazine,
is
Start
I trust that was answered? If TRA is backed by insurance, would the insurance company want to get back to the manufacturer if there's an incident? That's a local 'governmental' issue, yet important to the TRA. Yes?

Ok, so let's take a step back. The certifying organization only looks at the performance of motors. Is that in the best interest of the club? Say Bob has a business license for selling widgets. Under that same license, he submits kitchensink motors for certification. Certification passes on the 3 motors, delays, pressure, thrust all OK. Bob sells 10,000 casings and 50,000 grains none of which are within spec. Board says 'hey, we did our job'. State says 'we haven't adopted 1125 so no state requriement to test batches'. State fines or shuts down "Bob the basement bomber" {as the paper reads} so no more grains produced. Everybody happy?

Well, as they say, why not go to the horse's mouth instead of here, it's backend. Fire the TMT off a note,...
Joel. phx

What was the answer?
Ok, what was the question,...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David E-W. wrote: << For example, in the example earlier in the thread, I discussed how my particular city doesn't have business licenses, so requiring such by TRA would be impossible to achieve. >>
Contrary to what Jerry claims, you don't _have_ to have a business license. Here's what the TMT rules say:
"2-2.1 Applicants must fill out and submit the completed application to the TMT Committee with at least three of the following: *    Copy of business license *    Copy of D/B/A or partnership filings *    Copy of Certificate of Incorporation filing receipt *    Copy of any permit/license granted to a company by a government agency *    Copy of the company's Certificate of Authority/Sales Tax Certificate *    Copy of company's telephone listing in white or Yellow Pages *    Copy of the first and last page of a commercial lease *    Copy of the company's catalog *    Copy of a recent advertisement from any regularly published periodical"
As you can see, a business license is only one of NINE ways that you can provide proof of being a legitimate business. You only need a minimum of three of these.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RayDunakin wrote:

I guess ads in HPR Magazine don't count then...

"Legitimate" business? Legitimate compared to what? Why should one have to meet some "minimum" threshold of "establisahed-ness" to be considered "legitimate".
Looks like the criterion was intended to grandfather in "established commercial manufacturers" while placing obstacles in the way of garage-level startups who are not at the level of having "catalogs" or "advertisments" etc.- even though that's where "established" suppliers come from.
With any other product, the hobby celebrates the existence of "cottage industry" vendors, like the rail button guy or your parallel staging hardware. But when it comes to motors, we seem to still be tainted with the primeval Model Rocket Religion - "people don't make motors; motors come from corporations..."
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

would
license.
the TMT

agency
Certificate
periodical"
three
Someone the insurance company can sue when the motor fails. Is that hard to get? If I'm living in a van down by the river, they would have a difficult time locating me.

What other "cottage industry" vendors under go a certification with an insured organization?
We're back to "do you feel I should be able to make motors in a van, down by the river and be able to certify them?". If you do, what is the point of certification?
ANYONE completing the proper paperwork can be certified. Individuals not wanting to be certified try to make it sound more difficult than it really is.
Joel. phx

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

Not if it is registered with any state DMV.

This post is so disingenuous as to be silly.
USR (or its OEM) had more compliance than errortech at the time. It was actually following the ATF regs (as now proven in a NAR/TRA lawsuit) and actually had a hazmat emergency plan in place and filed with the county that it never had to implement!
That is not a van on the river. It was the most investigated and inspected motor facility on the planet (according to FD, Hazmat, ATF, DOT).
It seems they kept getting calls from members and leaders and vendors of some silly little club that refused to list the motors and decerrtified the ones that were PROPERLY LISTED.
http://www.v-serv.com/usr/images/NARcerts.11-97.640.jpg
Just 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
Joel Corwith wrote:

Yes, it is. It sounds like pure FUD to me.
Was this "requirement to have certification policies that give them someone to sue" made a specific condition by the insurance companies when NAR/TRA applied for insurance? Can you point to any assertion of this situation (in official form), or is this just conjecture?
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

hard to

Why do you keep asking that here? Write the TMT and ask.
Joel. phx

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

Well, you sound so sure of yourself. If you make a statement like "it's so the insurance company can sue someone", I figured you had some source of info to that effect. If you said "I asked TMT for the origin of that requirement and that's what they said", that would be one thing, but as far as I can tell, you're just guessing.
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course. I try to keep my ears open and an open mind, but that doesn't mean I'm spokesman for any group. The only possible answer is to write the TMT and get your "official form" which would only be obtainable from,.... them. Anything posted here by anyone could only be considered 'questionable'.
Joel. phx
Actually the best Gov document that I've seen was a commented version of the DO178B. For each requirement, there was a paragraph or 2 of supporting statement. Why it was felt necessary. Wish that was required of ALL documentation,...

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

They refuse to answer any inquiry. That's why people post to rmr in the first place and why no TRA leader is on rmr (unlike NAR, who actually listens, occasionally acknowledges and then makes off topic and ignoring resolutions) and the official party line on TRA listserv is "ignore rmr".
If you are in full denial of any fact, claim, or demand, one need not change or reply.
Jerry
TRA012 and expert on the process both in public and backchannel. I used to BE the backchannel.

--
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

Pure FUD.
--
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
Joel Corwith wrote:

And that would be the insurance company's problem. Not the certifying organization. It is up to the insurance company to determine the cost for the risk involved. Now, if NAR (for example) wants to purchase insurance for NAR members that only covers (again for example) manufacturers that carry liability insurance, that's certainly reasonable and within their right. But otherwise, no.

If someone can successfully manufacture motors such that they meet the requirements of certification (as far as the motors are concerned), I don't really care if they live in a van down by the river. I'm interested in the results. The market place will determine who succeeds and fails, at least in America. If Joe Blow is so poor that he's living in a van by the river, but comes up with a great formulation and is able to make motors successfully enough to move up to a trailer (<G>), that's what America is all about. Word-of-mouth will determine whether he succeeds or fails as a vendor (or you haven't noticed that in the small rocket community?). I've done something similar, in another field. I started out doing HP-41 modifications in my bedroom in my spare time, and it ended up blossoming into a full-time business. And those modifications I did WERE used for critical items in industry -- process control, medical, etc. The argument that some guy in a van down by the river can't succeed is fallacious, and it is up to the certification agency to certify the PRODUCT, not the manufacturer. The only difference is things such as voluntary ISO organization certification, for example, but note the key word VOLUNTARY.
I have two big problems with what you're supporting here: 1) I don't believe that it is up to a MOTOR certification organization to be a MANUFACTURER certification organization (and note that that is not the case, as Ellis produced Aerotech motors after the fire -- you can't remotely argue that Aerotech being 'legitimate' made Ellis 'legitimate' in terms of manufacturing the same motors, as witnessed by the humidity problems -- note I'm not claiming that either is not 'legitimate', but they were NOT 'certified' to do business for each other). In other words, it's up to the manufacturer to ensure that their manufacturing methods will lead to motors that consistently meet the same parameters as those tested by the certification organization, and the manufacturer ought to be liable for that (just as Aerotech was liable for the Ellis-manufactured items). The NAR/TRA stayed out of this, and in my mind, properly should have. 2) I don't want the scant resources of the rocket organizations being used for things that their not required to do. Having additional requirements that are not in their purview requires additional resources, in all sorts of ways. Given the state of the hobby, the organizations should concentrate on what they MUST do, not ancillary things.
David Erbas-White

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

Perhaps the GOAL is to keep competitive manufacturers living in a van down by the river, or perhaps selling beers on the beach or selling posters door to door, or posting on rmr continuously about association irregularities.

--
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

Well, lahdy-frickin'-dah!
len.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

At least SOMEONE got it!
Joel. phx
God rest his soul.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Go ahead, help me. Why? Because I know that voice, and the expression is running through my head, I've heard it played many times, but it's one of those things that's right at the tip of my tongue and I can't place it. HELP!!!
David Erbas-White
Joel Corwith wrote:

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

Chris Farley.
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.