My understanding of the Kosdon issue was the motors themselves were not dated so there would be no way to determine if the motor you had was actually a certified one or not. Since the produced motors were certified, they 'should have been' certified to the end of the certification period, if it could be guaranteed that the manufacture was not still flooding the market. I do not know how/why (nor care) the other motors were pulled. I certainly would have been willing to 'intermediate' on their recertification to at least prove someone is wrong (either them or him, didn't really care who).
I'm not certain it was you I was referring to. The original post listed EX numbers, a business license, and a LEMP.
I know you (or someone, I'm not sure, and not looking back in this lengthy thread) posted that it was 3 of 9, and where to look, and after looking at the website I agreed that the 3 of 9 was reasonable and acceptable (too bad it's not 7 of 9...--sorry).
David Erbas-White
Phil Ste>I said 3 things for brevity but also menttioned where to look for the
Just how are they 'enforcing law'? They are not providing arrest, nor even turning you into the authorities (though that will be argued). A homeowner's association extends their 'rules' past what the state and local laws are. They are in essence a 'club' of people who have decided these would be the rules they will follow. If NRA/TRA choose to write 1125 into their certification rules, there is no reason they can't. It seems simpler to point to 1125 instead of re-writing it.
Joel. phx
overstepping
They are NOT acting as a law enforcement agency. Did they arrest him? Did they even turn him over to the cops? It's like saying UL can't charge a fee, or make certain demands when it comes to the product submitted. We didn't have a choice when they wanted to burn up a frame. Costly as hell to have that done.
And, again, if TRA and NAR have cross-certification agreements, then as an NAR member I have an interest in how TRA conducts its certification business.
Perhaps. The key here is 'knowingly'. It seems this ought to be a "don't ask, don't tell" kind of issue. For example, are you asking members if they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol when they launch? If you ask, and they answer "Yes", then you're liable. But if you don't ask, you can't be held liable. The same holds true for 'conspiracy' types of convictions. If you ask, and gain knowledge of an illegal act, you become a conspirator. But if you don't ask, then you can't obtain guilty knowledge. In the case of the LEMP, if the TRA/NAR organizations are not law-enforcement agencies, then it is not their place to ask. It's up to the 'AHJ' to do so. The assumption by TRA/NAR ought to be (in my humble opinion) that the individual/company is operating in a lawful manner unless and until there is a conviction for NOT operating in such a manner.
This can be tricky, I agree. But there appears to be some discrepancy as to what is considered properly/improperly, and if DOT is saying that they don't re-issue names for the numbers, what is TRA's response to this? Again, if DOT is happy with the EX number, what is the legal basis? If TRA believes their not sure, then they should ask for a 'hold harmless' type of agreement with the vendor, such that the vendor will assume sole responsibility IF (and I stress the IF) DOT undertakes any punitive actions.
And I appreciate you (and others) taking the time to answer the questions I've asked.
Go ahead, help me. Why? Because I know that voice, and the expression is running through my head, I've heard it played many times, but it's one of those things that's right at the tip of my tongue and I can't place it. HELP!!!
Very simple. Unreasonably withholding services as a listed AHJ with fiduciary duty to follow NFPA-1125 (exactly) and also a fiduciary duty as a 501-c-3 public corporation.
There is more than one way to be illegal other than be a criminal.
Then there is no point in certification. Hell, even I can make 3 motors that will pass at least 1 time. Demanding the manufacturer follows 1125 is the club's duty to ensure that motors will be tested in production (to have ""some"" level of quality).
As has been pointed out to me by many an old fart 'you must be new to this game, because no-one who's been around wants to go back to the way it was'. I have been told that "word of mouth" and many manufacturers led to many motor failures and the club "members" demanded certifications to ensure the motor they were firing was going to work and as labeled.
Then who is it up to and would you agree that was the case way back when it was detrmined that motor certification was necessary?
(and note that that is not the
I have no idea the arrangements behind the Ellis deal, and I'm assuming you don't either.
Because it's good to increase the chance of motor failures at launches? Why certify them at all? TRA should have stepped up and yanked that J350 certification and never gotten to the point of the manufacturer suggesting a field motor modification.
The vendor submitting motors pays a fee for testing, so don't try to confuse the issue.
That statement only demands a list. What ways?
Given the state of the hobby 10 years ago (as I've been told) would have resulted in BATF interceding sooner. The thing they had to do was bring up the quality of "certified" motors.
David Weinshenker wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net:
So, you're certain that a jury will take your interpretation of the law rather than BATFE's? As many of us have pointed out many times, anyone who wants to do so is free to perform the experiment any time they want to. We all have our own risk management strategies.
From experience, there are some questions that TRA refuses to answer and refuses to give any reason for failing to respond. About two years ago, I took it upon myself to get answers to some of these questions regarding Jerry & USR motors. And while I have no way of knowing whether Jerry is telling the truth, or BS'ing us all, I did learn one thing from my inquiries. That is: The leadership and the NAR and TRA get very agitated and very tight lipped whenever these questions come up. And if you ask me, that stinks of impropriety.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regarding the certification process: I hold fast that the following guidelines are acceptible and proper and should be implemented without delay.
The only purpose of motor certification is to improve the safety of the membership, spectators, and others who might by potentially harmed by a given motor and it's use at a sponsored launch. Failure to certify a motor for any reason outside this scope are contrary to the purpose of the organization. Example: Failure to consistently meet specified performance criteria could aause an abnormal flight profile that results in injury or loss and would prohibit successful certification.
TRA/NRA has no authority, responsibility, or right to enforce ANY requirement (legal or otherwise) for which they cannot be held legally or financially accountable. If a motor manufacturer elects to intentionally manufacture motors in direct violation of EVERY local, state, and federal ordinance, their motors should be certified so long as those motors meet criteria 1 above. Whether the manufacturer has the appropriate equipment, permits, storage facilities, Ex numbers, USPS approved packaging material, post office approved labels, etc. is a matter to be taken up between the manufacturer and the body who seeks to regulate their behavior.
There are only two classes of motor safety. Certified and uncertified. Ex launches may not fly certified motors. Std launches may not fly uncertified motors. Manufacturer demo's are UNcertified until they have completed the approval process.
Unless a motor deviates from it's design spec as a result of aging, the chronological age of a motor will not alter it's certification status.
If there is significant evidence that a given motor deviates from #1 for any reason (know or unknown), that motor will be de-certified IMMEDIATELY pending resolution of the issue. That would include a stastically high percentage of cato's or off spec flights/burns. To minimize the impace to teh rocketry community and the vendors, it is recommended that commercial motors begin being marked with batch numbers that can be used to better track motor safety, reliability, and certification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ That said, now for some editorial license on those rules
safety of the membership, spectators...
If there is a another purpose for certification, please explain it to me.
ANY requirement (legal or otherwise) for which they cannot be held legally or financially accountable.
In the county were Aerotech resides it is illegal to employ more than
5 employees in a "value added" chemical manufacturing process unless those employees have received a 4 hours state training class on reading MSDS sheets. Don't believe that to be true? Then you PROVE IT! And while you prove that one, I will go make up another. Will it be true? Who knows. But to be on the safe side you better deny them a certification until you know otherwise. Sound crazy? Of course, it does. There are so many millions of pages of regulations that the government employs tens of thousands of enforcement agents. And lawyers study for years to become versed in their own particular specialty of the law. Yet, TRA presumes to be know-all enforcement body of rocket manufacturing legislation. Get real...
uncertified. Ex launches may not fly certified motors. Std launches may not fly uncertified motors.
This is simple people. Anything else has alterior motives that need to be uncovered. And spare me the insurance speech. I have been privately insured for 4 years at a reasonable cost... Alternately, please explain to me why Gary R can fly an un-certified, no-ex number, green something or another at LDRS 19, but Philip D cannot?
Unless a motor deviates from it's design spec as a result of aging, the chronological age of a motor will not alter it's certification status.
Logical and self explanatory. Basing any de-certification process on motor age when the safety and reliability of the motor are not timedependent does nothing to enhance the safety of the membership.
If there is significant evidence that a given motor deviates from #1 for any reason (know or unknown), that motor will be de-certified IMMEDIATELY pending resolution of the issue. That would include a stastically high percentage of cato's or off spec flights/burns. To minimize the impact to the rocketry community and the vendors, it is recommended that commercial motors begin being marked with batch numbers that can be used to better track motor safety, reliability, and certification.
certified despite everyone knownign for years thay cato _regularly_, while an Estes A10 that has no significant history of failures will be de-certified as of 12/31/2003. Or why my Kosdon L1860 that had already been tested and approved by TMT is no longer certified? It can't be because thet are afraid of taking a motor from a manufactufrer without a LEMP. They already did that, tested the motor, and approved it. Did frank's refusal to get a LEMP somehow affect the APCP grains in my magazine? Of course not.
Bottom line: The certification process as it exists now has _NOTHING_ to do with serving the membership of the organization. It has everything to do with maintaining the spoils system and power base of the leadership. If that were not true, the process would have been streamlined by now. No one puts up with the assaults, name calling, hate mail, and other crap that the TRA leadership does simply because they are born with a huge altruistic streak and feel a callign to serve rocketeers. They do it because there is a payoff for tolerating such abuse. It may not be money, but it's something other than what they wish you to believe....
Which movie? I probably haven't seen it, but there's a radio host locally who uses that 'expression' on a tape cartridge, which is why I've heard it over and over and over and over and...
David Erbas-White
P.S. Thank!
Le>David Erbas-White wrote in news:FT4Cb.61$BQ5.18
So there should be no problem in asking the NAR board what the requirements are and specific questions as to why a rule is in place. You can probably find an email on the NAR.org page.
Joel. phx
You might also ask them why they had cross-certified motors which were no longer certified by the certification party.
David Erbas-White wrote in news:hc5Cb.65$BQ5.13 @fed1read03:
It was an SNL skit, the one about the "motivational speaker" (Farley) hired by a father to motivate his kids. It's on the "Best of Chris Farley" video (VHS or DVD). "Well, lahdy-frickin'-dah" is Farley's response to David Spade's saying he wants to be a poet.
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.