No LEMP for Jerry?

So Jerry has an LEUP but he says he won't get an LEMP because that's "against the law" in his opinion. Not too sure I understand the logic there. Maybe Jerry can explain why he is unable to get an LEMP. Well actually lots of people know why but I'd like to see if he has the nads to admit the truth.

Jerry survives on RMR because there are no rules here. Introduce a set of rules or guidelines and Jerry falters. Sure is a thin line to walk not having an LEMP isn't it Jerry? Hard to get motors certified anywhere without it.

Stay in touch old friend.

JK

Reply to
Snapshot 5
Loading thread data ...

Yet another troll with yet another set of falsely assumed statements and THEN conclusions based on them.

Having it didn't help and not renewing it didn't hurt. That should tell you something very important.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

That just means you were not legal before, and you STILL are not legal now!

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

If you had any clue at all what constituted legal I might begin to listen to you but 100% of what you post is pure crap.

Change that.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

another Altopia post

what is a JK?

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Usualy on text based chat it is shorthand for "just kidding".

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Jerry, if you had a LEMP for DPT, why did you get rid of it? Who's EX #s where you using? DPT Had none of there own. What happened to the Ontario shop? Where did DPT move to?

And don't forget we're all waiting for you to scan and post the PowerTech judgement.

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

You mean, He's NOT your old friend?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Be GLAD to answer. I got it SOLELY to comply with TRA's unconscionable provision to demand a LEMP despite 27 CFR 55.141-a-8. I submitted it along with at least three different applications to certify motors (different firms and principals).

Tripoli never agreed to accept it.

As such there was NO reason to have it. My ATF agent agreed propellant and motors did NOT belong in the magazine, so he asked us to put our (partial) 1 pound can of BP in there. That's when I learned that when you do not have a LE*P you can store your BPin a cupblard, but if you have a LE*P you have to magazine it. That is silly.

I "voluntarily surrendered" my LEMP so I could stop making them come out to inspect a vacant magazine and no materials under their jurisdiction.

I then began to speak out publicly about my experience and have not stopped since.

However NAR and TRA since filed a $300,000 lawsuit on a tangental subject.

The magazines themselves have been transferred to a party who since received a HEMP and when the magazines provided by me were inspected by the ATF agent, they suggested we commercially produce them. They were that good.

Of course.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Neither are you.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Let me guide you back on topic with a quick couple questions... Are you selling USR motors without an LEMP? How are you bypassing the explosives laws as interpreted by the ATF? Are you paying taxes on the income from the motors you sell?

Are you going to be the test dummy that ruins this hobby for everyone???

JK

Reply to
Snapshot 5

So, are you saying here and now, that you owned DPT?

Why would you submit DPT's LEMP, "along with at least three different applications to certify motors (different firms and principals)." And believe that would somehow constitute legitimate paperwork?

What are the names of these firms, and there principals?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Like, DUH!

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Seems to be a flock of 'em all of a sudden...

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

By CITING the law TO THEM and standing by my rights under the law. Try it, you'll like it.

It seems I already am.

Good thing the law, proven practice, the lawsuit and general public opinion is on my side eh?

Kinda wacky TRA and NAR would have positions contrary to their own lawsuit, but I cannot fix that. I have tried! Within procedure.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Jerry, how did you try? What procedure?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

They multiplied when you (or someone) told the first one he was killfiled by 2 or more people. I guess the remaining 200 people reading his BS words were not enough. He wanted to FORCE everyone to see his crap.

Interesting hobby this/these guys have. I wonder if they have ever run a business and had people "pile on" them who have no business with them, relation to them, or any even remote purpose except to attack and annoy a stranger?

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:27:45 -0800 (PST) From: "George Leo Rachor Jr." To: Jerry Irvine Subject: Re: Revised Meeting minutes

Greetings Jerry,

The NAR Board of Trustee's meeting minutes have been revised with more detail. As you had requested them earlier I sending you the revised copy.

Please keep in mind that they are still unapproved and are subject to revision. We do expect for them to be approved at the next board meeing after any needed corrections are made.

Best Regards,

George Rachor

Minutes follow:

---------------

National Association of Rocketry Board of Trusteeis Meeting July 31, 2003 n August 4, 2003

The following represents a summary of the July 31- August 4, 2003 NAR Board of Trustees meeting in Henderson, KY. The Board met for 23 hours, considered 31 separate member inputs, reviewed 6 committee reports and made personnel assignments for 11 active committees.

The Meeting was called to order. Present were: Jennifer Ash-Poole Jack Kane Mark Johnson George Rachor George Gassaway Mark Bundick Steve Lubliner Stuart McNabb Trip Barber joined Saturday evening.

Administrative Matters - The Board approved the minutes of the Waco, TX and Washington, DC minutes.

Motion: Steve Lubliner motioned to approve the minutes of the NAR 2002 Board meeting (Waco). Seconded by Jennifer Ash-Poole Approved

George Rachor motioned to approve the NAR 2003 winter board meeting minutes. (Washington DC). Seconded by Steve Lubliner Approved: Jennifer Ash-Poole abstained

George Rachor motioned to approve the Executive Committee action of contracting the Services of John Kyte. Seconded by Mark Johnson Approved

The Board approved the Executive Committee action contracting the services of John Kyte. The following Committee Chair positions and associated Trustee Liaisons were approved after the Association Meeting Monday night:

Active Committees Chairman Trustee Liaison American Spacemodeling M. Bundick none Standards and Testing J. Kane none Contest and Records T. Lyon J.Ash-Poole Sport Services S. Lubliner J. Lyndgal Section Activities G. Schafer G. Rachor National Events T. Barber none NARTS B. Spadafora J.Kane Education V. Huegule M. Bundick International Affairs J. Langford M. Bundick NARTREK G. Scheil S. McNabb Executive Bundick, Barber, Johnson

Member Needs and Concerns

Association Dissolution - The Board reviewed Jerry Irvineis request to dissolve the Association, reviewed the By Laws and Articles of Incorporation and found no evidence of any sort that would give cause to show that this action should be undertaken.

Motor Acceptance for Certification - Jerry Irvine asked the Board to direct Standards and Testing to accept motor submissions from ACS-Reaction labs if

Those motors were delivered by iany legal meansi, Documents iissued by any recognized competent authority by UNi were submitted prior to testing, and Appropriate fees were paid in advance,

The Board took no action on this request and noted that such motors would not necessarily meet current S&T standards. In particular, S&T requires documents issued solely by DOT in order to insure that motors accepted for certification could be legally shipped via common carrier means. Selected motors which could be classed DOT 1.1 can legally be shipped, under certain conditions, but would not meet either S&T or NFPA criteria for testing.

Legal Ruling Certification - A request by Jerry Irvine to issue a legal ruling regarding sections of 27 CFR 55 cannot be met, as the NAR has no legal authority or standing to issue such rulings.

DOT Legal Announcement - Jerry Irvine suggested the NAR could make note that certain motors are legal to transport based on information supplied to him by DOT. Again the Board noted that the Association has no legal authority or standing to issue such rulings, and in this particular case, the references provided did not appear to the Board to apply to such motors transported in commerce.

NFPA Code Changes - The Board directed the President to instruct Jerry Irvine to work with NAR NFPA representative Pat Miller to review requests to change various aspects of NFPA Codes 1122, 1125 and 1127 and report to the Board with recommendations.

USR Certification Apology - The Board found no cause to offer apologies to US Rockets regarding motor certifications as the motors submitted for certification did not meet DOT standards for shipment in DOT regulated commercial commerce.

Pursue FAA Regulatory Relief - In considering a request by Jerry Irvine to pursue changes to current FARis, the Board noted that the existing system of notification and waivered launches appears to work well, and that current legal resources necessary to pursue such changes were involved in other work. The Board declined to seek further regulatory changes from the FAA. Members who have FAA problems should contact the President for assistance.

Develop HPR Marketing - Responding to Jerry Irvineis request to imass-market HPRi, the Board would be happy to respond to any specific plans for such marketing from all members. The Membership and Sport Services Committees would be directed to review any such plans and recommend specific action items for adoption by the Association.

USPS Motor Shipping Regulations - Based on a request by Jerry Irvine, the President was directed to seek out knowledgeable members who have worked with USPS regulations to determine what relief might be obtained to allow NAR members to ship motors via USPS for their personal use. The President will report to the Board at the February 2004 meeting.

Alter Motor Certification and Re-Certification Policy - Jerry Irvine requested the NAR make permanent all current and prior motor certifications. The Board declined, citing pervious instances (e.g. Prodyne) where such a policy would have allowed motors whose long term performance had deteriorated below certification standards.

Defer Legislative Strategy to ARSA - Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed asked the Board to defer all items concerning any legislative matters directly to the Amateur Rocket Society of America (ARSA). The Board determined that the Association cannot defer such strategy decisions to outside entities and discharge its legal and moral obligations to the membership. The Board will continue to rely on the President to discharge the day to day operations of legislative matters.

Changes to Motor Certification Procedures - Steve Bloom provided the Board with an extensive discussion regarding possible changes in motor certification procedures, particularly as regards timing (e.g., 3 year /

5 year decertification periods). The Board directed NAR S&T and the NAR NFPA Representative to review with TRAis TMT and CARis Motor Certification Committee possible changes in these time periods, determine the impacts on NFPA 1125 and report back with recommendations by the February 2004 meeting.

Changes to Motor Certification Procedures - Rick Dickinson - In reviewing a request to change certification procedures, the Board noted that have been cases where manufacturers have gone out of business, and a significant supply of motors with performance problems reintroduced into the supply chain by distributors. Since such motors generally bear indications of NAR certification, the Board still believes a potential liability could be imposed on the NAR for motor failures. Because of that potential liability, the Board declined to change current certification procedures.

Motor Recall Procedures - The President was directed to respond to Rick Dickinson to explain the NARis motor decertification process, as his request was based on an incomplete understanding of current procedures. Current S&T procedures do not result in formal product recalls (like those done by the CPSC), but are part of a process which might result in motor decertification.

Motor Decertification Procedures - Scott D. Hansen suggested the Board consider modifications to the existing decertification process after some discussion with the President regarding what the Board saw as legal liability issues. After reviewing Scottis suggestion, the Board declined to change existing policy, citing again liability concerns. Decertified motors cannot be used at NAR events, and members wishing to use such motors must find some non-NAR venue to do so.

IEAS Advertising in Sport Rocketry - The Board declined to change an existing policy regarding advertising in Sport Rocketry magazine, namely that such ads must be for products and activities that conform to the NAR Safety Codes. The Board did however express interest in continuing a conversation with the International Experimental Aerospace Society, and asked the President to have further conversation with Carl A. Blood, Chairman, and Acting President.

FAI Spacemodeling Adoption - Independently of one another, Dale Windsor, Terry Dean, and Mark Petrovich all suggested the NAR pursue more direct involvement in adult FAI Spacemodeling team activities. The President provided an extensive history of NAR FAI involvement from the 1980is and

1990is as background to the Board in discussing both how previous involvement in this activity worked or didnit work. Given that the Academy of Model Aeronautics has now declined to provide funding for this team under its auspices, the Board directed the President to explore ways the NAR might work with interested NAR members to play a role in FAI adult activities (e.g. conducting the flyoff at NARAM or NSL, etc.) The President will report to the Board at its February 2004 meeting.

Term Limits for NAR Officers, Trustees, Committee Chairpersons - The Board took no action regarding a request by Terry Dean to establish term limits for officers, trustees or committee chairmen. The Board noted that the NARis volunteer pool did not appear large enough to support such limits.

Site Owner Insurance for Single Members - David Erbas-White asked if site owner insurance coverage could be expanded to allow individuals to insure sites without sections sponsorship. The Board instructed the President to discuss this as an option with Bob Blomster, our insurance agent, and report back to the Board at the next meeting. The intent of the discussion is to determine if and how such individual member sites would work within our current insurance arrangement. The Board is particularly interested in allowing members involved in hobby and NAR promotional efforts (e.g. school launches) to be afforded the option to insure a site in support of that outreach. Any changes in the insurance coverage will likely occur when the policy is renewed in April 2004.

Group Membership - Gary Melvin asked whether the NAR provided group membership opportunities for groups such as scouting. After reviewing the request, it was not clear whether insurance as a critical component. The President will follow up.

Informational Packet for Local Boards of Education - A suggestion from a member identified only by email address suggested that a packet of information suitable for use with local schools or school boards might encourage more schools to use rocketry or open up new flying fields. Much of the material that would be useful to provide exists, but would need repackaging. This idea was forwarded to the Education Committee for implementation.

Rule Change Proposal Cycle Change - The Board declined to change the current one year cycle in place for competition rules revisions.

Educational Considerations - A variety of excellent suggestions for additional educational outreach were submitted by Kathleen Williams and referred to the Education Committee.

Cross-Recognition of European User Certifications Oliver Missbach ( snipped-for-privacy@raketenwelt.de)

Waiver Altitude Approval - Paul San Soucie, NAR 76115, Oregon Rocketry Launch Director, sought guidance about whether the NAR established a policy similar to that in TRA, which required all launches with waivers above 25,000 feet to have Board of Director approval. The Board asked the President to discuss that policy with TRA President Dick Embry, then contact the member with follow-up. Currently the NAR has no such waiver altitude policy in place.

Allow Reprints by Sections - The Board instructed the President to respond to a request by Shane Heilman, to allow sections to reproduce Association materials for use in local promotions. This approval is consistent with a policy previously approved by the Board which delegated such decisions to the President.

Adopt CAR Junior Certification Policy David Weinshenker, snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.net, and Scott McNeely, snipped-for-privacy@execs.com asked the Board to consider adopting a policy similar to that in use in Canada in order to let Junior members certify in HPR skills. Canadian law regarding motor possession and storage are different than US law. The Board also needed time to assess possible required changes in NFPA regulations to accommodate such certifications. The suggested was refered to Steve Lubliner and John Lyngdal in the Sport Services Committee. They will make recommendations to the Board at the next meeting.

Consider NAREX - The Board declined to adopt a proposal submitted by Randall J. Ejma to include experimental rocketry activities within the NARis programs.

ATF Litigation Review / Congressional Activity - The President reviewed and the Board discussed litigation and legislative matters in Executive Session.

Membership Statistics Review - George Gassaway provided a standard set of membership statistical reports for Board review. The Board noted no exceptional changes in membership growth or trends. Basic membership statistics were as follows:

JR -576 LR - 310 SR -3,944 Life - 17 TOTAL n 4,847 Family - 431 Certifications: L1- 899 L2 - 798 L3 - 141 HPR Total n 1,838 TSO - 13

Sections -103 Section Members n 2,134

Financial Review - NAR Treasurer Stew McNabb led the Board on an extensive review of both 2002 and 2003 financial data. For 2002, the Association ended the year within $3,000 of its projected budgeted deficit of $38,000. This was within 8% of target, possibly the closest the NAR had ever come to hitting budgeted figures from a year ago. Per the Boardis plan, investments in a variety of programs, including education outreach and sustained membership service (magazine, member guidebook, etc.), our cash balances declined during 2002.

The review of expenses year to date through May 2003, along with projected legislative expenses, possible postage increases, and projected printing and insurance cost increases, led the Board to consider multiple options for dues increases. The Board attempted to balance the financial needs of the Association against the economy and desires for Junior membership growth.

The following membership service expense increases were projected for the 2004-2008 timeframe: Printing - $42,750; Insurance - $65,000; HQ Services - $8,100; Postage/Shipping - $8,100; Total - $123,950. Additional legislative expenses were projected at $180,000. On a base of 5,000 total members over that 5 year period, this represented average annual increases of $4.96 for the service programs and $7.20 for legislative work. On a base of 4,000 senior members, those increases would be $6.20 and $9.00 respectively.

After debating all options, the Board voted to approve an immediate $15 dues increase for Seniors, leaving Junior and Leader dues unchanged. The President was directed to update membership materials to reflect the increase as soon as practical.

Motion: George Rachor motioned to raise dues for Sr Members from 47 to $62 per year (+$15). Seconded by Steve Lubliner. Motion approved with Lubliner opposed. Website Statistical Analysis - The President reviewed three months of usage and visitation statistics on the redesigned NAR website. Some trends, like the rate of one time visitors, remain unchanged. However, site usage patterns indicate more users look deeper into the site, and that the changed navigation appears to have assisted the occasional, or one time visitors. The Board suggested minor modifications in the reporting for future meetings.

Education Strategy Discussion -

The President again led a wide ranging discussion on how the NAR could continue to lever its Team America exposure to penetrate the education market further. To further define the NARis objectives, the Board reviewed and took a series of straw votes on the relative importance of grade levels:

High Low Ranking 1 2 3 4 Grade School 5 3 0 0 Middle School 4 4 0 0 High School 0 1 7 0 College 1 0 0 7

And a second straw vote on what services or information should be provided to educators:

High Low Ranking 1 2 3 4 Curriculum 0 0 10 0 Demos 7 2 0 1 Talks 0 4 0 4 Building 3 5 0 0

This exercise bounded the NARis potential efforts towards focusing on hands on activity in middle and elementary schools. That decision in no way invalidated our ongoing participation in Team America, however. The Board then outlined a series of projects to be further developed by the Education Committee over the next 12-18 months:

A. Team America Mentors n NAR members will be encouraged to sign up as mentors for teams, as mentors helped 2003 team tremendously. Given TARC expansion to up to 1,250 schools, many more mentors will be required.

B. Educator Newsletter n The committee will work to use the email contact lists developed over the past two years, then deploy a regular email newsletter to direct teacher to rocketry resources they can use in classrooms.

C. CAP Support n The NAR will complete its work at revising CAP curriculum for delivery in 2004. This project was pending from last year.

D. NAR Educator CD-ROM, Version 2.0 n Due to overwhelming demand for our CD-ROM resource, and given that room remains on the CD, weill look to revise it and produce Version 2.0 for release next year.

E. Resource for School Boards and Administrators - Noting the educator survey results which show growing concern among school administrators and school board regarding the safety of rocketry activity, the NAR will compile a special resource for these administrators, outlining both hobby safety and educational benefits. Itis hoped that this will open new school venues for rocketry education.

F. Educator Workshop/Forum n The Education and National Events Committees will explore adding educator specific tracks to national events. Additionally, the Education Committee will begin work on an electronic education forum for teacher and member use.

G. Video Resources n Responding to teacher and member requests for video resource, the Committee will look to sponsor a contest to develop a 5 to

10 minute video for classroom use. A proposal will be ready for NAR Board review and approval at the next meeting.

H. Elementary Resources n Demand for rocket resources suitable for elementary schools is surprisingly strong. In reviewing work done by members in the field, the Board found a number of suitable resources which the committee will work to package, promote and distribute.

NAR Standards and Testing - The Board reviewed MESS statistics and found no motors meeting criteria to begin decertification due to possible failures. Members will be encouraged to continue to report their failures via MESS, as year to date responses are about 50% of the 2002 levels. Jack Kane reviewed a request by MIT to use S&T materials as part of their iOpen Coursewarei initiative. The President will follow-up with MIT staff regarding the request for a perpetual license. The Board engaged in considerable discussion regarding the decertification period. After reviewing the appropriate NFPA codes, they determined that NFPA standards set shelf life at 5 years if no shelf life date information is printed with or on the motor. S&T will consult with TRA TMA and CAR Motor Testing to work to jointly change policy on the decertification period. This change would have no impact on contest certification, as it is based on availability, not NFPA standards.

NAR International Liaison - The Board reviewed a submitted report by Manuel Mejia who continues to maintain informal contacts with modelers and clubs in several different countries. The Board also reviewed the Junior FAI work being done by John Langford. The Board indicated it would continue support of the Junior FAI effort and outreach to other nationis Spacemodeling efforts.

Other Committee Reports n Contest and Records reported that work on a "Competitor's Handbook" will begin after NARAM-45. Hopefully, a collection of current designs can be used as well as collecting building techniques from the more popular builders. The Board reviewed and accepted without comment reports from the NFPA Committee on Pyrotechnics, Section Activities, NARTREK and the National Events Committees, thanking the chairs for their work.

NAR HQ Performance Review and Services Contract - The Board directed the President to execute the contract for HQ services for the next year.

Following the association meeting and the Election the following actions were taken:

Motion: Trip Barber nominated for the office of vice president Seconded by Jennifer Ash-Poole

Motion approved

Motion: Mark Bundick motioned to re-authorize the Executive committee. (Committee members Mark Johnson, Trip Barber, Mark Bundick) Seconded by Jack Kane... Motion approved

Mark Johnson motioned to add Rod Shaffer to the committee Checking account. Seconded by Steve Lubliner. Motion Approved

Next Meeting - The President indicated his intention to gather the Board to his adopted hometown, Chicago, IL, February 6-8, 2004, for the next meeting.

Motion: Jennifer Ash-Poole motioned to adjourn. Seconded by George Rachor Motion approved

========================================================= George L. Rachor Jr.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Jerry, IT'S SHINY SIDE OUT!

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Have you noticed I post actual content and you do not? I have. Everyone else has too.

Jerry

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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.