on TRA disclosure

Yeh I,m sure you've joined 'em all!

In 1966 jerry irvine was 8 years old.

Yeah but they gave him the boot for not buying into their certification programs & trying to dig up bones in their basement. 8-)

in all fairness to Gary, Len, his remarks were speculation on my position and a request for confirmation, not a statement of his own position

there are two distinct conditions here, the first being that which you are describing

see my quote of Chuck Piper, and Ken McGoffin's affirmation in his

2003-12-09 05:25:07 PST post in thread "Re: ARSA info request for Izzy" [ ] as follows:

Those on this newsgroup who know me from my babblings on ROL know that I'm something of a student of the history of amateur rocketry.

Recently I came into temporary possession of an original copy of the "Stapp report" issued by the American Rocket Society in 1959. This is the report often credited with being the source of the well-known "1 in

7" figure for deaths and injuries in amateur rocketry at the time. Turns out the figures they used came from the NFPA...which got its figures from researching media reports of amateur rocketry accidents. Which is NOT what some articles about the Stapp report said at the time.

Fascinating bit of history that I will be analyzing and reporting on later.

But in this ARS report they mentioned a couple of the early model rocket companies and their products. And this is the interesting part relevant here:

The ARS in 1959 was skeptical of the potential safety of what would become model rocketry! They preferred to see students and rocketry enthusiasts stick to toy water rockets and similar items because of safety concerns.

Because of the problems associated with unregulated amateur rocketry practiced by people who literally had no clue how to build a rocket, and the exotic nature of rockets in that era, there was massive fear of anything rocket in the hands of non-professionals. Model rocketry had to, in effect, fight a war of independence from amateur rocketry in the eyes of the public and AHJ's. So the founders of model rocketry had no choice but to adopt strict codes through the NFPA and bad mouth the amateurs at every opportunity. The organized amateur rocketry clubs got pounded during that period. And echoes of those times affect us still.

+McG ===

I have high regard for both Chuck and Ken, and take their account as accurately descriptive of the initial motivation for NFPA involvement

the desire of the Tripoli membership was in fact to have formalized motor certification for the reasons you state (specifically validation of vendor performance claims and assurance of safe operation). However, the BoD decided that assuming an enforcement role would appease [ in excess of the wishes of the membership ]

from Tripoli Report, Vol 13 No 2 May 2002 "History of Motor Testing", by Bruce Kelly heading "Who demanded motor testing & certification and why?" (excerpted)

"At the 3rd National General Assembly, toward the close of the meeting and during Tom Blazanin's presentation to the membership about financing a new test stand, a discussion broke out between the members and the BOD about testing. I was a participating regular member of TRA, not on the Board of Directors, but I remember this meeting well. I remember it so well because I had just invested alot of money in motors at this launch, and especially in the new 38mm AeroTech motors. The discussion revolved around 'verification of manufacturers claims.' The members wanted TRA to test motors more for verification than for safety or for compliance issues of any regulations. The issue to the membership was one of truth in advertising. The question was, 'How much and I really paying per Newton-second?' Motor testing would answer that question to the members's satisfaction and put the issue to rest."

[ later, the article goes on to justify the compliance aspects of motor certification as an appeasement to the ATF and other agencies, and to comply with TRA's Articles of Incorporation, saying (in part) ]

"Our requirement for manufacturers to comply with federal regulations offers a measure of protection to purchasers or motors. When you are inspected, you can rest assured the motors on the TAR lists are in full compliance, to the best of our knowledge, with DOT and ATF regs and, therefore, are legal."

note that no reference to any actual requirements from the ATF for TRA to conduct compliance verification was cited

which seques into the second condition, which is how apart from the initial rationale for NFPA code developement, the orgs use that process to forward their own agendas.

furthermore, apart from what is explicit in the codes, organizational policies exist which, while ostensibly are designed to protect member interests (esp. WRT insurance and legal liability), in fact are capricious, arbitrarily enforced, and characteristically exclusionary.

this latter point was been been the subject of some excellent objective discussion and summarized succinctly in Duane Phillips' Tue, 13 Jan 2004

18:54:35 GMT post in thread "Re: Another Year without Jerry certified" as follows:

=== >> What does any of this have to do with why the NAR won't cert Jerry's >> motors? >>

Assuming your question is innocent in its' integrity, I don't really know how to help you understand my point of view other than what I have posted. Personally, as it feels the question is more of a re-direct, it does not serve to alleviate the problem to redirect. It doesn't really matter which org you focus on at this time... by and large they have many of the same issues right now. But NAR has far less to lose if high power continues to "go south". And TRA has a more pronounced turbulent history. Maybe you don't see the current trend and motor situation as a problem? There are many things both orgs can do to alleviate the situation. It does not matter if both orgs have the same stand on an issue if the stand is wrong. I think it took having this court case for many to see that more should have been done sooner to protect the rights we now should have but due to common stance have lost. But that is hindsight... hindsight most of us are guilty of, not just the leadership of the two orgs. I guess we expect by appointing leaders for us, that they will have the foresight to protect the freedoms for us, instead of guard selfish territory.

Currently both orgs require, for purposes of motor certification:

-LEMPs

-DOT paperwork

-proof of valid business license

-user certification levels equal to motor class categorizations

-limited business model (i.e. certificatee must be the physical manufacturer) although this point is not uniformly enforced

--- and etcetera...

None of these things have anything to do with function and safety of the motors in question, *except* some type of analysis of the material, so the certificating org has a reasonable degree of assurance the motor will not *explode* on the stand. But even that could be remedied by having the appropriate equipment on hand to pretest samples, just as is currently practiced via methods of over-regulation. All of the above are instituted _by_choice_ in both orgs. Does this serve the needs of the membership? I do not think so...; I know it to be detrimental. What sounded good and harmless initially has brought a major tourniquet to the neck of high power.

Couple this with the fact that the existing exemptions should have been in practice within the orgs long ago, and we have the mess we are in today. I pray it can be resolved and corrected... ===

- iz

Jerry, you're forgetting that I've seen first hand the pathetic extent of your legal knowledge and courtroom skills. And I won't be falling for that bogus summons trick again either.

Agreed.

Deja Vu?

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote in news:qAyUb.180261$ snipped-for-privacy@twister.nyc.rr.com:

[Iz replies to me with lots of information and in a reasonable manner].

Why can't we always talk like this?

len.

Jerry Irvine wrote in news:01rocket- snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:

Criminy. Twice in as many hours. What's happening?

len.

I am posting ...

• not to let the party line be an uncontested voice, protecting the innocent from being proselytized (as you suggested)

• for the observers, and participants who engage the debate; to judge the merits of the respective arguments and decide their own positions in the matter, or contribute to the debate themselves

• for the subjects of the conversation, who undoubtedly hear or learn of the conversation; i.e.; they know that everyone knows that they know

• for the historical public record (disclosure), for future "generations" to learn from and draw upon as a resource, just as we do from the debates prior iterations

the latter is why RMR is the ideal venue for the debate. Being unmoderated and immutable, it is the only venue that serves as a "collective memory"

- iz

you mean the arbitrarily enforced and often downright fraudulent program?

hmmm ...

so you think reeking skeletons complete with dental records should just be left to lie there, poisoning the water supply?

- iz

tongue was firmly in cheek.

It is working.

Less complete at least so far.

God bless!

Hence usenet and not ROL Forums because it is global, permanant, and searchable.

I couldn't agree more. Heck they cannot even silence me and I am Target #1.

I claim you are changing to my POV :)

Len,

Please, this is NOT my belief at all. I am trying to state Iz's view of rocketry in a succinct manner based upon HIS allegations and the two "agendas" HE posted in response to a question I asked. My question and his response are a couple messages up in this thread.

That Jerry agrees with my summation only indicates that I have phrased the issue accurately from his point of view, at least.

Again, Len, that post was simply my paraphrase of someone else's position (the Wizard of Iz), as I understand it, based upon his previous posts and his replies to my direct questions.

I do not hold that view at all, though there are certainly others here that do.

Who cares. We're better off without jerks like that.

This is why you have NO credibility.

You're the CITE guy. CITE me some proof.

It make s the water taste better. Kinda like chicken.

Damn it!! They killed Iz!!!

OOPS I thought I was in South Park.

Phil