NFPA 112? Questions

He has REPEATEDLY violated his fiduciary duty to TRA. He shouldn't be removed from the NFPA seat, he should be removed from TRA. Which would also make him inelligible for the TRA seat.

I can think of several technically qualified TRA members who could better represent TRA to the NFPA. Folks with technical training and PHDs. The first one that comes to mind is the P'refesser. The LAST one that comes to mind is Kosdon :-)

Yep.

Tiny amounts of money in exchange for huge expenses and permits that expose you to loss of rights.

I suspect it also has the pleasant side effect of taking off the pressure to ever test the motors since they are already "certified" and all.

And also since there are no published standards for interim certifications, I want all of my motors certified that way! It will simplify maters greatly!

Thank you TRA!

Jerry

Exemptions expire. EX numbers are entirely different than exemptions (E).

DOT-E-10996

This is where DOT has ignored me several times. This is why I think it is because ACS papers are exempt legally from NEEDING it. Since the test hard removed smaller units (under 3.3x36" solid cylinder) from Explosives consideration in 7-86.

By ignoring false pretense questions from morons with an agenda free of logic or reason.

Google shows you said the opposite here before. Hunt.

Have you even read NFPA codes?

Jerry

Do a search for the story of Kosdon at the San Diego NFPA meeting. You need the laugh.

Jerry

Which is a good argument for keeping your cat indoors where it can't decimate the native wildlife.

In other words DOT is like the DMV telling some kid, "no we won't give you a drivers license no matter what color tricycle you take the test on"...

-dave w

Right.

Except as a legal filing they just ignore like if you file a lawsuit in the wrong venue. They just tell you to go away unless you mail it, then they just shred it.

So now USR is blackballed

Oh? Were 3 K motors mailed by air to NAR S&T? And opened by the 15 year old son of the S&T person? I keep hearing that. Want to get a definite confirmation or denial? You seem to be "in the loop" far more than I:

The following represents a summary of the July 31- August 4, 2003 NAR Board of Trustees meeting in Henderson, KY. The Board met for 23 hours, considered 31 separate member inputs, reviewed 6 committee reports and made personnel assignments for 11 active committees.

The Meeting was called to order. Present were: Jennifer Ash-Poole Jack Kane Mark Johnson George Rachor George Gassaway Mark Bundick Steve Lubliner Stuart McNabb Trip Barber joined Saturday evening.

Administrative Matters - The Board approved the minutes of the Waco, TX and Washington, DC minutes.

Martyr or not, blackballed or not, what these so-called gullible people see is the irregularities at both TRA and NAR that if nothing else support my claim, whether or not it is factually true as I assert.

This objective truth superceeds any issue of whether the "gullibles" even support me. In fact most either are neutral toward me or dislike me for my noise and rudeness in my crusade to bring truth and justise to rocketry against the will of the policies and the personalities. The harder I try the harder they fight against it.

That energy leaves a residual trail of broken policies, promises, laws and ethical boundries. I am proud I could help.

The DOT never did shut down, unfortunately.

Take the proactive approach and get ONE USR R/C reload certified by YOU then.

And those 29mm G008's and F007's are sweet!

I dare ya, George... do it! :)

Or back up your claim that these motors "aren't legal to ship"... are you saying that the "US Rockets" motors don't in fact contain propellant from ACS of known hazmat characteristics (i.e., "not quite dangerous enough for class 1.3C unless in large pieces"), but are in fact made with a propellant that is a "new explosive" per DOT definitions (i.e., one that cannot be shipped because its safety characteristics have never yet been determined?)

'Cause that's what you seem to be saying about Jerry's motors, isn't it: that the DOT testing he has presented isn't representative of whether the motors are actually safe to ship...

Are you accusing Jerry of representing an untested "new explosive" as a propellant of supposedly known safety characteristics?

-dave w

I bet he does not engage the fact in your post but changes the subject or ignores you entirely.

Really? Then why did they test propellent for the other manufacturers?

I wrote: "...why would so many manufacturers go to the trouble and expense of meeting these requirements?"

Duane Philips replied:

You're correct, that is the key question, but you're speculating as to the answer. Why not ask the manufacturers why they went to the trouble and expense of getting LEMP's and DOT EX numbers?

NFPA is an organization. Their _codes_ are law in the states that have adopted them.

They're going to court over the fact that the law is being improperly applied. But until the court tells the ATF to stop, we're stuck with it.

When they got the answer you vilified me.

There is no example of it being "enforced" only "applied by request and intimidation". But don't be intimidated!

Cite the rules (LAW) and they are FORCED by duty to abide by them or themselves be enforced against and not by some wimpy administrative lawsuit either.

Jerry