That's good. BTW, I hope my comment wasn't too brusque. I love cats, and as far as I'm concerned they can kill all the rats and mice they want, but they have had an unfortunate impact on many songbirds and other native fauna.
Oops, sorry Duane. I know you're not Philip D., I just got mixed up.
Duane wrote:
What pressure could TRA put on DOT??? Heck, if we could pressure them to change things, we get them to make it easier to ship motors!
Those things have little to do with raising children either. So your point is?
My point is it is wrong to try to legitimize any part of the business side of the process. It doesn't say anything, it is not enforced against anyone but those they want to keep out, and it takes away from the true purpose of checking for safety and performance, which were suppose to be the original goals in the first place (now last place).
~ Duane Phillips.
The numbers belong to the material, not the owner. Period. It is automatically transferrable. Just like a patent. It goes with the formulations.
And IIRC, the way TRA allows shipment, and the way things may be legally shipped, are two different animals. You know TRA requires everything to be listed and shipped as certain classes of explosives. If Jerry has legally found that his material does not meet those stringent shipment requirements, what does that have to do with TRA? This is only one more reason TRA and NAR need to stop this garbage of trying to tell manufacturers what their version of the law is, when it is the manufacturers head on the line.
Additionally, did not they turn him in? And is he NOT in jail or under any kind of penalization other than what TRA imposes by not allowing his motors to be certified? So just *maybe* he knows what he is talking about?
~ Duane Phillips.
Humidity does not mean humid. If they're inside in Vegas and the AC is drying the air even more, opening the windows during a rainstorm to cool the building will change the humidity. If they run swampcoolers, switching to AC will do so as well.
Please explain how the TRA handled the AT J350 issue versus the same issue as JI (the labeling non-certified motors as certified).
Joel. phx
Is that a rhetorical question?
Jerry
Which ILLEGALLY includes LEMP according to TRA's own lawyers and TRA's own lawsuit papers, and of course that silly law 27 CFR 555.141-a-8.
Damn!
How many MORE times?
You are dense.
And of low intelligence Joel.
Perhaps so and I believe it could easily be true, but that is one claim I have NOT actually made because I have no proof direct or otherwise (yet).
Jerry
They presented a forged document to DOT. "for me". It was "unhelpful".
No. The same (E) exemption, NOT the same explosives (EX) numbers.
No.
TRA blackballs my (ACS's) EX numbers. DOT ignores my application for E number party status.
Hard to keep this morass straight, eh?
E = 10996 (1996) - all manufacturers can share IF the material is 1.3C - aparantly mine indeed is not :)
EX = 8611104 (1986) - SPECIFIC to ACS-Reaction Labs (as assigned). - Aerotech and Ellis and Kosdon and Vulcan and Lunatech and xyz have one as well. - I could theoretically assign mine to EVERY APCP manufacturer if I wanted to!
Izzy is not perfect!
:)
Jerry
Complaince is after approval. However . . .
Registraton and training did occur as required.
Ask the other parties if they proved such compliance as an element of the application and see what answers you get :) I know the answer BTW.
Bob is imperfect too! I corrected the explosive =EX detail in my previous post.
Do I get a Jerry corrected BadBob and Izzy T-shirt? Talk about an inside joke!
Jerry
What amazes me is that I am actually following this thread closely enough to catch this.
I need a life...
truthfulness
He posted he went personally to AZ to do so. And was refused.
My statement was inclusive and explicit enough. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know which parts do not apply to actual safety and performance.
It is TRA's turn to do something about it. At least render some signal that they are willing to help solve the situation. That has not changed, and therefore signals that the situation remains the same.
Same questions as above.
I was here two years ago. Situation is still not resolved. Additionally, the stipulations that cause the situation still exist. Until that changes, not a whole lot of headway will be made.
What has TRA done to ammend the situation? They are still requiring proof of LEMP. They are still allowing AT to do basically what AT wants to do. They are still not forthcoming with unbiased reply as to why JI cannot certify that actually meets what they claim in the current court case.
This isn't about JI. So your crying child is a lot bigger than you think. The lack of addressing these issues is hurting the hobby.
I am not Jerry. You only wish I was so you could categorically dismiss a single naysayer, and the list is growing. It is the problems that carry the extra voices, not just Jerry's personal plight.
And hey, it was your comment, not mine.
The EX number stays with the material, reguardless of current ownership, does it not? An LEMP is not required by law, as finally acknowleged and submitted via the current law suit by both NAR and TRA (too little, too late). And obviously wrong addresses/changes did not cause certification issues with AT, now did it?
~ Duane Phillips.
Er... wow Joel.
~ Duane Phillips.
Ditto. I keep seeing posts that refer back to compliance with TRA doctrine of the past, with no evidence of effort on the part of TRA, which is obviously well biased, as shown in the past and recent history of AT.
To me it has all the drippings of a deep seated feud, and after the starvation of motors after AT "lit up", I was more than perturbed about the whole certification process, be it any would be manufacturer. JI is now just the focal case. Several aspects of the process are killing the hobby, and needs to end. The ORGs of the hobby need to stand up for and live by every exemption possible.
~ Duane Phillips.
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.