NFPA 112? Questions

A company I consult for is. Legally with the blessing of the ATF.

A similar company has done so since 1972 (not saying which one) and even when one firm (DPT) got an ATF permit purely to appease TRA circa

1998-1999 ATF insisted the propellant (about 3500 lbs in inventory) NOT be stored in a magazine.

Here is a slightly redacted version of the proof

That license was "voluntarily surrendered" by "me", as unneeded.

Frank and I do not agree on much, but we agree on that. Because it is so obvious it is in black and white (27 CFR 555.141-a-8). Even sufficiently obvious for lawyers of both NAR and TRA!!

You didn't ask about state permits so I will "take the point" and also repost that:

This also actively ignored by both NAR and TRA.

So what you have in this very post is hard evidence (government documents) showing the following:

DOT approval (never expires)

ATF permit (whether or not needed)(hard address excuse also killed)

CA state CSFM (whether or not needed)

Now I have submitted versions of these over the years all of which have been refused since 1990. I find that the refusal is "on arrival" since the submission is never followed by a checklist of missing items or any communication about what to do next.

This from a company that had the FIRST paid for certified motors in TRA. The person who allegedly (according to Blazanin) inspired TRA as a rocket association, and am the longest running continuouos supplier of composite motors to consumers in the USA/world (still today).

In addition my firm is the ONLY firm to have consumer grade APCP classified by TESTING not by analogy (until CTI very recently) and interestingly had grains under 3.3 x 36" in size recommended as not being in Class B (explosives). A careful reading of the test report and the subsequent EX number approvals shows conclusively that the recommendation was indeed followed. Therefore ACS alone has AARR/BOE tested, DOT approved APCP as an UNREGULATED PLASTIC (Effective July 1986 and NEVER EXPIRES).

All offers to share that with the industry at large have been rebuffed and then attacked agressively. I did it to make HPR accessable for 40+ suppliers not one. I have been FORCED to review/modify that plan.

Remember I got my start in HPR (that I indeed pioneered) as a magazine puiblisher and a launch host both of which are dramatically benefited by massive vendors and attendees.

Mere Jerry

Please have a Merry Christmas. I know I will. With friends and family and in preparation for christening two new (post 9/11 un-patriot act) manufacturing facilities and two new launch series.

Yeah, ok.

I didn't either until the word on the street was saying 'humidity' at the new location was a factor in the j350 issue.

Not what I meant. You send in a motor for certification. If you don't subm it a motor for de-certification, on what basis is a de-certification performed? The word of one or 2 fliers that lost rockets? Gee, that delay seemed awfully short,... decertified? Now they have to send 12 motors of that delay to be re-certified or is the whole range of delays gone too?

Interesting thought. Answers my previous question anyway. But unless it's something like a cato, it seems pretty thin to pull a cert. Sorry, I actually had a 4s delay instead of a 10s, my bad,....

The other issue is power. Gosh, that seemed weak. How weak. Too powerful? Fins fall off or did it just go higher?

Unless the package is signed for by a family member who is underaged and thus ineligible to receive said package.

Great point. Is batch testing a valid certification requriement? If yes, could a club not write a rule that says to certify, the motors must under go batch testing? Is that enforcing a law? Saying that all the suggestions in

1125 (which are not laws) must be followed is as if they had written each one in their own document. Requiring 1125 is not enforcing a law, unless it happens to be adopted as law in your state. An HOA requring the trash cans be in at 5 on trash day instead of the city's law of the next day isn't a 'law' either.

Ummm, I was agreeing with you there.....

That sounds like a darn good question to submit to both certifying boards.

Joel. phx

Here's a thought. Monitoring testing. A manufacturer tests and posts it's data. Periodically it posts batch runs as well. Board is in charge of making sure those tests are run/posted and periodic testing of motors. Instead of receiving a motor from the manufacturer (of a "good" batch), the board purchases motors off the street and tests those. Outside posted spec, pull the cert. Manufacturer pays whatever to cover cost of motors, spot checks, and decert tests (when reported). Of course, this is basically enforcing 1125.

And then you have the fact that 1125 is law in some states and it has different requirements.....

Some day someone has GOT to write all this stuff down in a chronological book. Cooler than hell...

Joel. phx

Tripoli insisted to get them out before the USR

and Vulcan systems that were developed a year earlier and actually received approval (ACS) and was about to (Vul), when TRA "blackballed" ACS and Vul and favored Errortech with their unclassified goods, uncertified goods, and with metallic cases which at the time were ILLEGAL in 45 states.

NFPA-1127 solved that several YEARS of (exclusively) RMS sales later.

Correct. Extra credit. What is the link at the Aerotech site for the earliest dated DOT approval for reloadable motors?

And ENDORSED BY TRIPOLI AND ROGERS.

Gee I wonder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Except one MINOR detail. THEY WERE PARTY TO THE ALLOWING UNCLASSIFIED PROPELLANTS IN THE MARKETPLACE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Just a minor detail of course.

Never let your mind be confused by facts when a good rant can cloud your judgement and serve the needs of the self-appointed leaders.

Never forget **I** alone am the guy saying let's not criminalize, let's not sue, let's just fix the problem with about 5 strokes of the pen. Then fly some damn rockets. For fun. Nobody excluded.

Jerry Irvine

"Life is short and the path is often unclear. It is a great sin to knowingly contribute to someone's confusion."

"It all comes down to, if you can make the flight important in some way, it's usually worth the price. I mean, the pizza afterward is going to be 10 bucks anyway, and isn't that why you really came?"

- Rob Edmonds

"Do or do not, there is no try."

-Yoda

The problem is len, that certifications should be for safety and stated performance, not shipping or manufacturing. The level to which the orgs try to control this is arbitrary. As someone earlier posted: Who is going to make sure the manufacturer/owner complies with OSHA, TAXES, WORKERS COMP, BUILDING SPECS, and etcetera? Hence, arbitrary, and capricious. The proper entity to worry about these factors is either the manufacturer/shipper, or the actual governing bodies that institute and have the power to enforce such concerns. The orgs should only be worrying about the hobby side; as in safety and performance testing, not manufacturer or shipping validity.

~ Duane Phillips.

periodical"

ROFL...

Bob, I am sick as snot, and you just make me hack out a portion of my throat...

But I'll be... you are right!

ROFL...

~ Duane Phillips.

"Motors are the life-blood of the hobby."

Are you on the TRA listserv? They've given very specific answers there regarding Jerry's inability to have his motors certified.

As a certifying authority, they _can_ be held responsible if they knowingly accept motors which have been illegally shipped. For instance, K motors sent in an unmarked box via air -- there's no way that TRA or NAR could claim they did not know those motors were shipped illegally.

No, but his refusal to date-stamp his motors made it impossible to tell pre-existing motors apart from newly manufactured motors.

Double ROFL

Including a bunch of lies. (shipping K motors to 15 year old kid at NAR for cert, crossed out DOT papers, whatever).

It's all bullshit.

Libel.

You say that as if it's fact. I understand otherwise.

What specifically is the bad policy? Which requirement should the TMT remove from the certification criteria?

I don't see where you get "right or wrong". What is right in this situation? Nothing as far as I can see. What is the specific wrong rule that prevents 'everyone' from certifying motors?

Yes, let's shut the squeaky wheel up. Put up or shut up as they say. Lay it all out on the web and submit the freakin motors, or keep pissing in the wind....

Joel. phx

Is your brain equally as confused as your postings?

The fact that he "outsources" shouldn't be a hinderance. All he has to do is get the manufacturer to submit the motors and paperwork. If they are unwilling, then there must be a reason -- either they don't want his business very much, or they themselves are unable to meet the requirements.

or 3

They did and TRA rejected it anyway. BecauseTRA Pres was a former co-partner of the OEM replaced when it cheated on contracts caused by his very own acts and he was pissed because USR switched to somebody honest.

Yes, that's the one. Kosdon was a PT partner with Jerry Irvine and Rogers and Kline and others till 1994, when it was dissolved by court action. Yet in 1991 "Kosdon Reloadables" were certified by Tripoli with CER President and under the loud objection of Powertech President Irvine and U.S. Rockets (exclusive customer of PT, OEM). USR motors were decertified 11-90 and announced 3-91 (IIRC) Coincidence? Of course! It's calvinball, every illegal action is a coincidence.

I was later awarded ALL assets of the partnership PT in court. The Kosdon certs remained illegally until they were also illegally decertified for no cause at all when Rogers got tired of Kosdon himself!!!

Rules, what rules?

Calvinball.

2-91 Tripolitan for evidence. (just a CITE)

Jerry

Bing Bada BOOM. Nice post.

Where do you get your personal insurance (if other than what is extended via homeowners insurance), and at what price?

You would think that *statistically* speaking, right now is prime time for getting into the "rocketry related activities" insurance business. I would gladly begin compiling a list of such insurers for fellow rocketeers to use. Behind all the hype and FUD, there is little liability to insurance companies... and most companies I know look at actual claims statistics, not FUD. To do otherwise is financially unsound.

~ Duane Phillips.

all those naysayers who think the fraudulent motor certification is "water under the bridge", as it was long past and since the whole lot must have been expired and retested,

take note

this is what happens when you do not hold the TRA leadership accountable for its actions

more of the same!

- iz

Bob Kaplow wrote:

Ray, did you turn off your Jerry filter?

~ Duane Phillips.

He does. Not that you apparently noticed.

From reading the rest of your answers, it would appear that you have missed (or choose to ignore) quite a bit.

~ Duane Phillips.

TOO TRUE.

Fine example of safety and performance are now the *last* considerations for certification...

Nice reversal of roles. We have here now _in_current_day_action_ that current certification policy primary use (as shown in current day action) is to regulate manufacturers, not to further the hobby and the performance and safety thereof.

Come on people... are we listening? Do we even care?

~ Duane Phillips.

"Motors are the life-blood of the hobby."

them, and some

few of the more

the -real- manufacturer

That simple, eh? Who was the -real- certified manufacturer when AT was down and outsourced to Ellis?... And subsequently had failures.

Did AT ever re-certify when they moved to Cedar City?

Seems -real- simple... as long as you're in the "in" crowd.

But no, the certification process is not arbitrary or capricious, is it?

~ Duane Phillips.

"Motors are the life-blood of the hobby."