NFPA 112? Questions

Pure FUD.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

Well, you sound so sure of yourself. If you make a statement like "it's so the insurance company can sue someone", I figured you had some source of info to that effect. If you said "I asked TMT for the origin of that requirement and that's what they said", that would be one thing, but as far as I can tell, you're just guessing.

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

They refuse to answer any inquiry. That's why people post to rmr in the first place and why no TRA leader is on rmr (unlike NAR, who actually listens, occasionally acknowledges and then makes off topic and ignoring resolutions) and the official party line on TRA listserv is "ignore rmr".

If you are in full denial of any fact, claim, or demand, one need not change or reply.

Jerry

TRA012 and expert on the process both in public and backchannel. I used to BE the backchannel.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

And that would be the insurance company's problem. Not the certifying organization. It is up to the insurance company to determine the cost for the risk involved. Now, if NAR (for example) wants to purchase insurance for NAR members that only covers (again for example) manufacturers that carry liability insurance, that's certainly reasonable and within their right. But otherwise, no.

If someone can successfully manufacture motors such that they meet the requirements of certification (as far as the motors are concerned), I don't really care if they live in a van down by the river. I'm interested in the results. The market place will determine who succeeds and fails, at least in America. If Joe Blow is so poor that he's living in a van by the river, but comes up with a great formulation and is able to make motors successfully enough to move up to a trailer (), that's what America is all about. Word-of-mouth will determine whether he succeeds or fails as a vendor (or you haven't noticed that in the small rocket community?). I've done something similar, in another field. I started out doing HP-41 modifications in my bedroom in my spare time, and it ended up blossoming into a full-time business. And those modifications I did WERE used for critical items in industry -- process control, medical, etc. The argument that some guy in a van down by the river can't succeed is fallacious, and it is up to the certification agency to certify the PRODUCT, not the manufacturer. The only difference is things such as voluntary ISO organization certification, for example, but note the key word VOLUNTARY.

I have two big problems with what you're supporting here: 1) I don't believe that it is up to a MOTOR certification organization to be a MANUFACTURER certification organization (and note that that is not the case, as Ellis produced Aerotech motors after the fire -- you can't remotely argue that Aerotech being 'legitimate' made Ellis 'legitimate' in terms of manufacturing the same motors, as witnessed by the humidity problems -- note I'm not claiming that either is not 'legitimate', but they were NOT 'certified' to do business for each other). In other words, it's up to the manufacturer to ensure that their manufacturing methods will lead to motors that consistently meet the same parameters as those tested by the certification organization, and the manufacturer ought to be liable for that (just as Aerotech was liable for the Ellis-manufactured items). The NAR/TRA stayed out of this, and in my mind, properly should have. 2) I don't want the scant resources of the rocket organizations being used for things that their not required to do. Having additional requirements that are not in their purview requires additional resources, in all sorts of ways. Given the state of the hobby, the organizations should concentrate on what they MUST do, not ancillary things.

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

Phil,

I've posted several times in the past (and will re-post again) that I'm not a TRA member, nor a high-power user. I'm also not in any way doing this to 'benefit' Jerry. If it helps Jerry, fine, if it doesn't, fine. My interest in this has two components: 1) TRA and NAR have cross-certification agreements. As such, even though not a TRA member, I believe I (rightfully) have an interest in how TRA conducts its certifications. 2) pursuant to number 1), I have a genuine concern (with both NAR and TRA) if they are overstepping their boundaries and acting as law-enforcement agencies. We have enough of a problem with the 'real' law enforcement agencies that we don't need to add to them ourselves.

David Erbas-White

Reply to
David Erbas-White

Perhaps the GOAL is to keep competitive manufacturers living in a van down by the river, or perhaps selling beers on the beach or selling posters door to door, or posting on rmr continuously about association irregularities.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Jerry, even you know better than this. If they provide a list of 9 things, and say you must have 3 of them, and you prove that you don't have/can't get one fo them, that doesn't 'serve' as one of the 9 things. This kind of logic would drive anyone batty...

David Erbas-White

PS Though I agree that submitting all of these others would 'meet' the

3-item test.

Reply to
David Erbas-White

Which is precisely why I provided 3 "spare menu items".

But I do believe if one item is a business license and licensees are exempt in that jurisdiction, then it should be considered "complete".

Just as if they require ATF compliance and the method of compliance is exemption per 27 CFR 555.141-a-8 should properly check off that item.

Or if they require a state license and the manufacturer is in a country with no states (ie England).

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I kinda jumped the gun there folks..... and misspoke....or whatever I was trying to say......... what I was attempting to say is that the BATFE considers APCP an explosive.....when you manufacture APCP rocket motors you have APCP "shavings", APCP dust,etc that can accumulate within the manufacturing plant...and that can explode......and APCP is on the BATFE list of explosives, so it seems to me that if APCP is on their explosives list and you are manufacturing APCP then you need a LEMP for that manufacturing plant...

shockie B)

regulations.

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

Apogee motors (and PML and Rocketvision and Quest) are NAR certified. NAR doesn't have the requirement that the motor manufacturer be the company getting the certification. In fact IIRC George Gassaway once submitted some uncertified AT motors for certification.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

So when issues were uncovered why were USR motors dropped instantly, while Kosdon motors were given a year to be used up. And Why so many years after pulling the plug on USR until they did the same to Kosdon?

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

Don't put words in their mouth. In practice (remember the fear mongers whining about enforcement and handcuffs and jail?), PADS are exempt at all levels.

Scrap is a county issue. I for one recycle all of my scrap to assure the issue does not exist, in law, in practice, or in enforcement. Every authority respects and appreciates that.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

No, that should require an HEMP.

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

David Erbas-White wrote in news:5qTBb.81793$kl6.55912@fed1read03:

First, the NFPA standards aren't themselves laws; they only have legal consequences when they are incorporated into state codes.

But, if NAR/TRA certification is to comply with the applicable NFPA documents (whereby we "get legal" in many jurisdictions), then it doesn't make much sense for either to certify motors that don't themselves comply with NFPA documents. It's not very mysterious.

And before Jerry calls me a liar, this simple consequence of logic has nothing to do with NAR or TRA complicity with or conceding to the ATF with respect to the content of the NFPA codes.

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

They do have the requirement that the original manufacturer submit them (at least when I arrived at the door). So if Gasaholic did that it violated a provision applied to me.

I suspect in hindsight and to cover their ass they will say Gary "let him". But that is not what I was told. My OEM's strongly dislike the evil actions and backbiting of the assocciations and want nothing to do with them. They want to make propellant in exchange for money and have done their homework to do it legally. Then TRA and NAR (upstart little piss-ants, with a god and authority complex) telling them they are not legal? Puuuleeze!

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Jerry Irvine wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

Well, lahdy-frickin'-dah!

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

Hmmm, I guess that last line leaves out ads in HPR as acceptable verification. So all Jerry needs is a catalog, an ad in ER, and a phone number listing in the yellow pages! Or perhaps a dog license issued to the company mascot! hey, I LIKE that one...

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

let me answer the last question 1st.. thats my QUESTION!. heheheh B) I have already in another post, posted what I personally think about manufacturing APCP motors in the state of PRK, a non signatory to NFPA 1125. and I'll copy and paste it here:

"Now the question is this: California is a NON-NFPA 1125 state.......Can the NAR require that a motor manufacturer in the state of California which doesn't adhere to NFPA 1125 as state law, REQUIRE, such motor manufacturer to subscribe and adhere to NFPA 1125, in order for the NAR to accept motors from said motor manufacturer for NAR certification. I would say NO, the NAR has no statutory authority to force a California based motor manufacturer to adhere to NFPA 1125 requirements. But the NAR is under NO obligation to accept such motors from a non NFPA 1125 compliant motor manufactuerer, because if it did, then it would be in violation of the NFPA

1125 requirements itself."

I'm not going to get myself embroiled with whether or not APCP is an explosive, blah,blah,blah....It doesn't really matter what I think , its what BATFE thinks thats more important. I know if I was going to startup a APCP motor manufacturing plant, I would have a LEMP....just to cover my ass just in case.....and here in Kentucky, it also has not adopted any of the NFPA 1122/25/27 codes.....and in KY state law it specifically states that rocket propellant is exempt from the state explosvies permit requirement.... BUT these are State laws, and if you read the Federal code cloasely, it states that being in compliance with state laws is no defense against not being in compliance with Federal laws.....although from what I have heard Federal prisons are much nicer than state ones........I'll pass......

a fine distinction......

shockie B)

Reply to
shockwaveriderz

baDBob wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Hence, the NAR and TRA are suing BATFE because the latter is acting in contravention to the above interpretation. In the meantime, if *you* act as if 27 CFR 555 does not apply, you may be visited by the BATFE.

len.

Reply to
Leonard Fehskens

exactly how much hemp does a HEMP let you have?

- iz ;)

Bob Kaplow wrote:

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

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.