ray: I would remove him based on his lack of performance with HPR magazine....See this is what I don't understand.....Why is JI pillaried for his T-shirt fiasco, his bounced checks, while Mr. Kelly with the consent of certain TRA BOD members has been involved in what appears to be a continuing fraud regarding HPR mag? WHy is there no outcry or acts of righteous indignation towards Mr. Kelly as there is towards JI?
I mean if it ok for one person to be dishonest in his dealings with rocketry folks, but not another? If we were consistent then both Mr.Kelly and JI should be barred from this hobby..or at least RMR...hehehehh
I did not write the text you quoted below. Your cropping/assumption error. IIRC, this was Philip D. who is NOT the same person as Duane Phillips, no matter how close that may sound.
That's a nice spin. But it lacks the details and therefore does not represent the the truth in delivery. The statement you make sounds like the DOT did not agree with his BOE testing. That is not at all what Jerry represented.
I was just trying (without putting much effort into it) to find any evidence that the document that Jerry shows people is currently valid for use by USR, or any other company or person. All of the other HPR motor makers that I am familiar with popped right up in the DOT documents, the first time that I looked. Not so for ACS or DPT. Why is this?
I agree and I have been told why offline and it has nothing to do with being "invalid". One might call it pre-computerization, or post purge of "unhelpful" approvals.
According to Fred Wallace there are a myriad of other issues as well which I happen to agree with. He doesn't seem to disagree with the EX numbers and also seems as confused as I why DPT or ACS does not appear on DOT-E-10996 despite an application, which he was privy to. About right Fred?
hobby-grade APCP is pretty much what it is, why are multiple EX numbers required at all? As previously demonstrated, AMW, Ellis, Cesaroni and AT are all "holders" of the same EX number(s). Why is USR not among these, and so benefit from the same DoT exemption?
Hadn't Jerry said that he tried to get listed on the existing EX number(s) and was blackballed by TRA, imploring DoT not to allow USR to be listed among the existing holders?
Jerry?
- iz
RayDunak> Does ACS still exist? Did they make the motors? (Jerry won't say who makes
That is actually what concerns me most of all. They were totally unwilling to respond to my normal and customary requests/disclosures (change of ownership, application for party to exemptions).
But they were willing to contact me regarding the investigation Fred alludes to where a TRA member or leader called DOT and also got Ken Allen sucked into a morass he did not bargain for.
Ken was brought before the LDRS-20 (Lucerne) TRA BOD meeting with threats on that issue (not sure if it immediately preceeded or followed the drop of the dime), but since the investigation was in no way public yet, it was sufficiently linked as to be linked.
Since I make almost no money in rocketry and very rarely ship anything at all, I cannot see how DOT could have much tracton, especially since Ken Allen picks up his goods physically. But you never know what was said by TRA or Ken leading to the DOT investigation and since my attorney is handling that negotiation I am somewhat ignorant of the outcome since I do not understand the details of administrative actions like DOT and such.
But I do know this. People PICK UP motors from the companies I associate with.
DOT has clearly stated that motors transported in pasenger vehicles in limited quantities are exempt. I do believe Ken also has some additional complainces since he drives to launches all the time with motors of the same or higher hazard classes as ACS from AT, CTI, AMW and whatever all the time.
Ya'll are confusing the DOT E exemptions and the DOT EX exemptions. Two different things are being exempted.
The EX apply to the limitation that nothing dangerous is allowed to ship on the US highways/byways. Realistically, the gov't realized that this was unacceptable. Therefore they set up an exemption system that classifies substances according to what they are and just how dangerous they are.
Based on how dangerous something is and how much of it you want to ship, there are requirements as to how it should be packaged and transported. Again, a strict set of rules would bring a lot of US commerce to a standstill. Therefore, there are exemptions to the packaging/tranportation requirements. These are the DOT E exemptions.
This is an extremely simplified introduction, but I'm sure others will correct any mistakes I may have made.
I have a problem with 1/2 truth. You believe 1/2 = whole truth? I have problem with that too. There's a web page with all the TRA required documenation for motor certification? Wouldn't it be a good thing to tell TMT and ask them if there's a problem with any of it? No, just keep complaining how only 1 manufacturer can't seem to get their 'paperwork' out of their rear.
Or do you foolishly believe that only AT receives special treatment (certification)?
I'm guessing you haven't talked to anyone on the current TMT to see whether the manufacturer has indeed contacted them or what exactly the issue is with the paperwork is (not that they should tell a third party). Well, it's obvious you haven't....
I've not asked for anyone to "post" any documentation to rmr. The manufacturer should have the data posted on their website. Business license, DOT, EX numbers, LEMP number all that crap. Then, a reasonable person might contact TMT and ask they please review said information and provide feedback. That didn't seem to be hard for a couple of new manufactures to do....
Even if they didn't want to do that, they could still have contacted the current TMT and provided the info to them incognito. But then, that's the problem, isn't it. The manufacturer's name is secret so there is no correct documentation.
I don't care if that 'manufacturer' is saying anything. I have kill files for namecalling 5 year olds, even if it was only a lapse in medication.
Joel. phx
And if they had even gone to the trouble of contacting the current TMT, I would still have volunteered to video the process and retain a copy of the data.
And you believe the TRA has control over a federal agency? I can believe the manufacturer's listed might have a problem with it. Perhaps the manufacturer should take the issue up with the DOT and get the paperwork straightened out.
Don't recall what I asked S&T, or what they said, But I did check and was told that the motors were certified and legal to fly before I used them, or gave them away.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
perhaps its because USR or whoever makes the propellant for Jerry's motors can't or won't adhere to the requiremnets of the DOT Exemption 10996 .. see section 11 Compliance... to be party to this DOT Exemption to ship these motors, you must adhere to :
49 CFR Parts 171-190
be registered per 107.601
and each employee must undergo HAZMAT training per 172.700 through
172.704
In other words the various parties to this doucment must meet those requirements prior to being party and to remain party to this document.
Evidently Jerry and his OEM motor manufacturing cannot or will not adhere to these requirements thats why his/their name is not on there..
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.