Open letter ISP/AT

A letter describing the application. "internded use".

That law STILL has NOT changed after all these years and decades. 27 CFR

If the industry were actually complying with the law, a person wishing to buy model rocket motors would have to be between 14 and 18 years old in most states. A person buying an HPR motor (or larger) would have to be 18-21 years old. The "stated use" would have to be for whatever the "manufacturer recommends". That's it, that's all.

Imagine the size of the hobby market if that reality in law were the reality in industry practice and retail sales?

There is a small amount of "consumer misuse" with model rocket motors now. But I believe the far higher cost of HPR motors and other issues cause a natural tendency in users to not misuse larger motors "as much" so the per capita misuse is far lower.

That coupled with the fact that as pricing rises the sheer number of users drops geometrically, we have a self correcting situation justifying the general consumer sale of all sizes of rocket motors to the general public.

Most stores already keep motors "in the display case" to prevent pilfering of the valuable and desireable products.

Free markets. Existing laws. Faith in the citizenry. Faith in cost justification by most people. It has WORKED every single time it has been tried.

No better example exists than D12's in Wal-Mart. Currently no better example exists of relatively high power available toa WIDE market with inherently zero training and experience, yet no probblem. They are readily available in Wal-Mart.

As they shouold be. Because after all, there is NO PROBLEM (statistically).

Just Mass Market Jerry

What do the trade associations "say" (as opposed to their actual actions)?

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.

Develop HPR Marketing - Responding to Jerry Irvine's request to "mass-market HPR", 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.

There. EVERYONE suggest it now. Local contemperaneous access will be your payoff!

Would I be your god then? :)

I agree with all of that too.

Jerry again:

Insurance rates have nothing to do with the ATF's claim that APCP is explosive. It's all about how people use it and misuse it. In the case of composite motors, there's the fear of injury accidents or brushfires. For black powder motors, add to that the incidents in which people have used Estes motors to construct bombs or incendiary devices.

For instance, someone recently posted about a case where some jerk kid was making pipe bombs from Estes motors and blew off his own hand. The parents sued the hobby shop that sold them the motors.

IMHO, from the things I've heard or read, it's all about the risk of use and misuse, not government classification of the material.

Nope. They have to do with their CLIENT treating them as such.

Jerry

Murray, I couldn't disagree more with your analysis. The purchase of AT's assets by AMW would be a good thing IMHO, if doing so doesn't buy AMW nothing but AT's liabilities. To claim that all they want to do is look at AT's books makes no sense at all to me. Everyone in the business knows who AT's customers are. Just a few years ago, they held a virtual monopoly on HPR motors, so anyone selling HPR was AT's customer. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to see that. Now, as far as it NOT being in the rocketeers' best interests, I disagree again. Many of us have an extensive collection of AT hardware and have limited amount of discretionary income to purchase new hardware. AT has been very reluctant in the past to discuss the possibility of an open architecture with its competitors. Perhaps, under AMW management and with the statements already made by Paul, others will be able to produce AT hardware compatible reloads and decrease the need to purchase more hardware. That leaves the consumer with more $$ to buy reloads and NOT hardware. A win-win scenario. While you see AT's current situation as just a bump in the road, I see it as a step off the cliff. IMHO, AT is dead. It declared bankruptcy to avoid a huge debt load that was accumulating. I'm not versed enough on the nuances of bankruptcy laws, but I would think that once the assets were sold off, the debtors couldn't collect any more than the sale price. If that's the case and Gary was able to reacquire AT for $30k, then he would have essentially eliminated all of AT's debt and still retain all of its assets. IMHO, that would be shady, not what Paul is attempting to do. I could be wrong about the law, but if I am, I'm sure someone will jump in an enlighten me. ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

M D Lampert wrote:

Not their mil customers.

Unless they buy the patents and not only enforce them but keep RCS or anyone else from using them. What are the chances they would buy a patent just to surrenderit?

That would just be the same story with different players.

Agreed.

Nope. You're right.

Herein lies one of the REAL problems.

Its almost a given in this society that a lawsuit will follow any real or perceived wrong. The public's propensity to sue, along with the willingness of lawyers to take half the award, causes the insurance rates to go up which causes the public to complain about insurance rates. Or makes insurance hard to get.

My homeowners insurance went up about 30% last year. It was because the insurer (Travellers) changed their risk-analysis method (I've never filed a claim on this insurance). I don't know how they did the analysis previously, but the new risk assesment method is based upon my credit score. A "Fair-Issacson"(sp?) credit bureau information analysis algorithm shows a statistical correlation between some (they won't say which) credit behaviors and the pay-outs on homeowners insurance claims. Its risk analysis okay, only its the risk to the insurer thats actually important. I have to change something in my financial behaviors to get my homeowner insurance premium down. (To be fair, the insurer doesn't even know what credit information is used in the calculations, they just ask the credit bureaus for a "score". The credit bureaus are the ones who will not say what behaviors or information they use; the algorithm is, apparently, protected as a trade secret.)

Interesting to note, I think. Sure, potential costs are the bottom-line to the insurers, but don't assume that "risk" itself is the main factor in determining insurance premiums.

Bob, tests don't reduce insurance cost because of safety.

Certs and tests reduce insurance cost because you reduce the user pool.

Reduced user pool, lower costs. larger user pool, larger risk. larger risk, more cost for insurance.

I"ve been observing at arms length in the risk and casualty underwriting business since I was sentient.

Art

We all agree this is a core problem - what are we gonna do about it?

-dave w

You call it vultury but, it's legal & IMO, it's more ethical than what Gary attempted to do but, I guess Gary is within the law too.

After seeing how this has played out so far, I'd rather see AT take on new ownership.

Phil Ste>Attention ANIMAL WORKS -

Hopefully the latter to cut you out and reduce compliance costs 30-50%.

Whine louder.

Ray does NOTHING but sit there and whine, in personal pain and hardship, with no either past or future prosepective accomplishments to point to on the topic.

Armchair quarterback supreme.

On drugs.

Sue 'em?!?

David Erbas-White

I like that, Art! "... since I was sentient"

- iz :)

Frankly, I don't have a lot of hope that the problems with our legal system can be solved, particularly since it's become so ingrained in society. Most folks seem to think you have a right to cash in big at other's expense everytime you do something stupid like spill coffee in your crotch.

Ray -

Do you have a crotch? If you had one, you'd know that it REALLY hurts when you dump really hot coffee on it.

Phil

Yeah, but his point is if you spill hot coffee on your own crotch, You should sue the idiot who spilled it there, not the people who sold you the coffee.

Or have a 9 times a year magazine that maybe arrives 4 times a year then to solve that you INCREASE THE NUMBER OF ISSUES YOU PROMISE to 12!

That's funnier than someone spilling coffee on their crotch.

BTW if the superbowl ads are any indication of what is "funny", Bud Light had an ad with a dog that attacked a mans crotch, which the morning shows called funny (Today for example) which they acted INCENSED when Janet Jackson's nipple was exposed! A nipple of a human as seen worldwide every day except in dual anally retentive USA media.

No wonder we are screwed up!

Just Jerry

Obviously you are not from California after all.