NFPA 112? Questions

Shread is "that aeroplane company"'s designated web surfer.

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

He's also claimed to not own US Rockets. Now who you gonna believe?

Joel. phx

Or a web page...

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

As I understand it, "US Rockets" is more of a product line / brand name than a specific incorporated entity. As far as trademark rights to the name, you could check if he's registered it with the USPTO... that's about the only meaningful way in which "US Rockets" could be "owned"...

-dave w

manufactured

And the reason the manufacturer can't get certified?

And the reason NAR won't certify?

Joel. phx

Oh wait, that letter to the DOT says Jerry bought the company, so he is the owner and thus the manufacturer. So how does this rule impede him from certification?

2003-06-18 "

Same straight-up answer as before: No. I used to. I founded it. But not any more since USR North took it over and transferred it.

Jerry "

Joel. phx

No. That their new personel policy for executives.

Phil Stein

Well then why:

2003-06-18 "

Same straight-up answer as before: No. I used to. I founded it. But not any more since USR North took it over and transferred it.

Jerry "

So who or what is claiming to be the manufacturer of these motors?

Joel. phx

People have such short memories.

Yup. VERY high failure rates back then. Manufacturers came and went after a bad batch.

It definitely violated the TRA "can't submit motors made by someone else" except they never even required retesting of the AT by Ellis motors at all. If they HAD properly retested them, they would have caught the J350 issue before customers rockets started CATOing across the country.

Again recertification would have caught the problem before first shipment. But, yes, you're right, NFW should "consumer modification of a certified motor to fix a manufacturing defect" be endorsed.

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

Test isn't 3 motors total. It's 3 of each delay and a minimum of 12 total.

For example, for the AT G64 reload, they must test 3 G64-4, 3 G64-7, 3 G64-10, and an additional 3 of whatever delay migth be provided.

They have the right to notify the authorities...

The idea is to not mix the two. They are very different activities. They shouldn't even be under the same umbrella prganization.

Location shouldn't matter. But a new PROCESS (i e a major change like AT by Ellis) should have triggered a recert. As should the Cedar City site going online.

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

I don't see how any policy was violated. Again, I certainly don't know the inside details, but where in the TMT information (online) do you see ANY requirement to resubmit a certified motor?

Does anyone know if 1125 includes any de-certification requirements (end of cert period, moving facilities, replacement of a machine, de-humidifier damage, new employee)?

Joel. phx

Or an email of a price list Or a photocopy of a price list Or, or, or . . .

It would appear every member of rmr is more of a possibility thinker than each and every TMT chair or TRA President in recent memory (at least since Sue).

Just Jerry

Corporate ownership or not of USR is irrelevent to the issue according to TRA and NAR themselves since only the manufacturer can submit motors. That would be for the purpose of this discussion, ACS.

Jerry

You mean the BORG?

Jerry

See!!! EVERYTHING ties back to rocketry. ; )

Randy

Ahhh. Unless they were from Jerry. Meaning; The first item was from a shadow company with no real address, The partnership filings were from another old company, with Gary, Frank, and Bruce himself as principles, The incorporation listed is now the defunct ACS reaction labs, the permit is for making plant boxes, the sales tax cert. is from a different state than CA, the telephone listing is for yet a different company name, the lease expired in 1988 and is in the name of "Brunda", The copy of his catalog was hastily scrawled on some toilet paper, and the recent ad WAS from HPR.

steve

If this is the case, (and I have no reason to believe it's not), then how come Jerry, or Dave W. doesn't go to the manufacturer and encourage them to have their motors certified under the name of US Rockets motors? It seems to me there is a market for them, and some consumer praise. Couldn't someone talk this other company into certing a few of the more popular sizes? Jerry could even put up the cert money, just have the -real- manufacturer get them certified.

Seems simple to me.

steve

So if they only submit a G64-10, they must submit 12? Does THAT make sense?

Not mix the 2. Like not mixing low power and high power? People that scrach build and people that fly RTF? I don't get it, what difference does it make? Motor from A might cato. Motor from B might cato slightly more. Don't allow motors from A at launch with B? HUH?

From what I understand, the formula was the same, the humidity was the issue. If so there are more variables than simply "process". If AT took it's plant and moved to Florida, with the same employees, the process would be the same, but the humidity would still be at issue. What I don't understand is why a batch sampling didn't uncover the problem (if performed and so required by 1125).

Joel. phx