NFPA 112? Questions

It is if people are selectively removed asmembers or prevented from rejoining as a consequence of the rule allowing said person to fly rockets for pure enjoyment.

Jerry

Because TRA needed a way to explicitly ban Jerry motors from EX. Prior to this any uncertified motor was considered EX. So when they pulled Jerrys motor certifications, they immediately became EX motors. TRA couldn't have that.

IMHO TRA (finally) did exactly the right thing for exactly the wrong reason.

TRA has proven themselves very easy to manipulate. They will do ANYTHING to block Jerry, regardless of what it might be. To get them to do X all you have to do is to show them that doing (notX) benefits Jerry. It's so easy it's not even fun any more.

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

May I frame this one?

:)

******************************************************************************** ******************************************************************************** ** ** ** kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote: ** ** ** ** Because TRA needed a way to explicitly ban Jerry motors from EX. Prior to ** ** this any uncertified motor was considered EX. So when they pulled Jerrys ** ** motor certifications, they immediately became EX motors. TRA couldn't have ** ** that. ** ** ** ** IMHO TRA (finally) did exactly the right thing for exactly the wrong reason** ** ** ** TRA has proven themselves very easy to manipulate. They will do ANYTHING to** ** block Jerry, regardless of what it might be. To get them to do X all you ** ** have to do is to show them that doing (notX) benefits Jerry. It's so easy ** ** it's not even fun any more. ** ** ** ******************************************************************************** ********************************************************************************

Here, I've done it for you. Just print it out and hang it up. Happy holidays!

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

Why, thank you. And same to you.

Jerry

Jerry: wrong again... Notice that it says State and Federal Law require all rocket engines to be independently tested.... the independent tester doing the testing can be the NAR, the TRA, the CAR, The CSFM ( who has a prominent LOGO on each model rocket sold), or any other AHJ....

I assume by State Law they mean NFPA 1125, and perhaps CSPC for federal laws...

For example, the AMA, ARSA, IAES, etc etc all could be an independent tester of model rocket engines.....Each of those potential AHG would have to test according to NFPA. It would be the responsibility of each additional AHJ testing the engines to develop a reciporacal agrrement with the NAR, TRA, CAR or whoever.......

shockie B)

TMT says there is no conspiracy against USR motors. THey say they've told Jerry numerous times what has to be done. I myself have told this to Jerry. Weather or not, Jerry & I agree with it, the rules are clear & that's what must be done for TRA to certify them.

Specifically they said Jerry needs to get EX Numbers, a business license & a LEMP.

I'd like to be able to buy USR motors & use them at NAR & TRA launches. Maybe Jerry will get his motors certified some day.

Phil Ste>>> so, anyone can use USR motors at TRA EX launches, right?

Phil Stein

The CSFM does not test.

Point to the federal law that requires that. Point to the state law(s) that requires that.

the CSFM may not test BUT, being the AHJ in the PRK they can test or they could contract out to a 3rd party testing......just because they don't test doesn't mean they can't test if they so decided to shockie B)

I don't know Jerry other than from rmr. I don't do higher than LPR. I don't have a dog in this fight. But I have a couple of questions based on all the years of back-and-forth I've seen.

1. Jerry has claimed he has EX numbers from the actual manufacturer of the propellant. If this is the case, are these or are they not acceptable to TRA? If not, how does TRA handle (for example) Apogee 'manufacturing' motors that are actually made by Aerotech?
2. In the city I live in, no business license is required. That may or may not be the case for Jerry, I don't know. Regardless, what business is it of TRA as to whether or not an entity has a 'business license'? Isn't that something that is up to local enforcement officials? And how do you determine whether a manufacturer is in a jurisdication that requires such a license? What are the specific requirements, and where can they be found?
3. Recent threads here have indicated that the position of TRA and NAR in the lawsuit is that APCP is not an explosive, and thus not regulated by the ATF. Since that is the position of the lawsuit (as I understand it), why is a LEMP required? Please clarify.

David Erbas-White

Has Jerry's manufacturer met all TRA requirements like Aerotech has?

Did Apogee actually certify the motors or did Aerotech handle that for Apogee?

Brian Elfert

I have no idea. This started with the statement that the only requirements were EX numbers, a business license, and a LEMP. Are you inferring that there are further requirements? If so, what? I'm trying to understand this from a third-party standpoint. I asked a simple, direct question based on the previous statements, and you respond with further questions.

See above. You asked the same question I asked. I don't KNOW how TRA handles the Apogee/Aerotech motors, that's why I'm asking. And I'm not picking on Apogee or Aerotech, they're just a situation that came to mind. Substitute your favorite other manufacturers if you desire.

David Erbas-White

According to TMT, all companies with certified motors must meet all these requirements. That;s why USR & Kosdon motors are not certified.

Phil Stein

Phil Stein

According to TMT the EX documents were altered. Apparently someone checked with DOT & was told they're no longer valid.

Because it could be hazardous to manufacturer propellant in a residential area, they want to ensure that manufacturing is done in a commercial area with necessary permits. The info is on TRA web site.

Until told otherwise BATF claims jurisdiction in this area. It's a bad idea to push them unless you have plenty of spare time & money (& a bunch of soap on a rope.) If they can declare our motors a low explosive & make the users have LEUPs, it's logical that they entities that make the low explosives need a permit (LEMP) to manufacturer it. At any rate filling a lawsuit doesn't mean you can ignore these BATF. They have guns, badges & prisons.

Phil Stein Phil Stein

Why? The definition of an explosive is that its intended purpose is to function by explosive. Since rocket motors do not, then none of 27 CFR 555 applies. Therefore, by federal law, no LEMP is required. Additionally, NFPA is only applicable if levied by state law. What happens if the residence state of the manufacturer has not passed NFPA

1125?

Uh, no..Nobody is bound by NFPA1125. They are bound by state laws that levy NFPA by reference.

Reference to the above definition of an explosive and compare it to the function for a rocket engine. So none of the rest of this matters.

Bob

Kinda but not quite. The details matter.

TRA and NAR both claim to test to NFPA-1122/1127 standards. However BOTH add additional requirements. Thus and therefore they do NOT test to NFPA-1122/1127 requirements. I have beat this subject to death with minute details already but for purposes of this particular post I will cite an example they both fall on their face on.

Both claim to require compliance with 27 CFR (ATF) and both do NOT follow the terms of 27 CFR by demanding LEMP's where they are not required. This is perfectly evidenced by NAR and TRA's own lawsuit papers.

This is a critical and major barrier to entry to the market by LEGAL and COMPLIANT manufacturers.

Many other examples I will not repeat here.

Jerry

No, they just have guns and badges. They don't "have" prisons... they have to go through the courts to use those. There's a few things like "right to a speedy trial" and "presumption of innocence pending proof beyond a reasonable doubt" and "equal protection of the laws" and "right to counsel" that the courts have to at least appear to consider in criminal cases (but don't apply in civil actions). BATFE can't simply declare people to be criminals... they can make accusations, but the accused has the right to say "prove it NOW or leave me alone!"...

They can stall all they want in a civil suit, but once they file actual charges against someone they're "on the hot seat" to make them stick... and if they can't, it establishes a precedent that makes it harder for them to pull that shit the next time. (This is undoubtedly why they're "declaring policy" all over the place, but one has yet to hear of anyone being actually hauled up on "Mad Bomber" charges over APCP and E-matches... they're trying for more, by intimidation of the user population in general, than they may actually be able to sustain at law in any specific case.)

-dave w

In article , Phil Stein wrote with no direct knowledgeandaclearmisunderstandingofthe facts and the law:

False and false.

badbob: you forget that we are talking about the ingredients of a typical APCP rocket motor......in a manufacturing facility....these components are explosives and therefore a LEMP would be required.... shockie B)