Popular Science article

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

Ok. We'll give them a call and have them take over. 8-)

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Poor felonious jerry.

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Since you are still here and still misrepresenting your actions and blaming your problems on others, it is necessary to keep reminding people of the truth.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
The one on the cover had visual appeal. With the speed things happens, I doubt the guy have many great shots. To get a lot of great shots you need a fast motor drive. I saw his camera & he didn't have one. My point is that I doubt that he had many good ones to choose from.

The cover of that PopSci issue has a picture of a Robot Warplane, not a model or high-power rocket.
...Rick
Phil Stein wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

oops - you are right.
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

  Quoted Text Here  
But it's got a big red blurb in the lower left of the cover referencing "50 pounds of explosives"...
Might as well have the article intro picture right there with it :-(
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
We need to ensure that actions by our government uphold the principles of a democratic society, accountable government and international law, and that all decisions are taken in a manner consistent with the Constitution.

Bob Kaplow wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Yeah, that cover blurb sucks and is the biggest thing wrong with the whole story. But there's no indication that blurb came from anyone at the launch; more likely it was some editor who concocted it. To my knowledge no one at the launch or in the hobby was even told about this blurb or asked about it prior to publication, so there was no way anyone could have prevented the mag from using it.
i

  Quoted Text Here  
However since Tripoli (inapproriately) TREATS rocket motors as EXPLOSIVES, it was accurate.

wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
So I guess the guys that arrested you were members of TRA? Did you get their membership numbers and cert levels so we could make sure it was a clean arrest? How much 'quality time' did you spend with Bubba that time around?

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
No we don't. The ATF does. That's why we're suing them, because the ATF says they are explosives and we know they are not.
Your constant lying in this regard is just a pathetic attempt to shift blame off your own inability to operate within the law. You know you can't pull the wool over the ATF's eyes (or the DOT, or the CSFM) so you try to make TRA a party to your illegal operations, to cover for you. TRA would have to take the heat while you ship motors labeled as "model aircraft parts" and play shell games to hide your manufacturing facility.
o

  Quoted Text Here  
The PRECISE opposite is true.
TRA demands ATF permits of new motor certifications. Illegally AND contrary to existing law, and interim lawsuit judgements, and of course their own lawsuit position.
ATF makes whiney positions, but in reality they are following and enfoercing the existing law. But they are trying to coerce folks to treat rockets as explosives. ONLY TRA and its vendor network has conceeded.
ONLY.
  Quoted Text Here  
ALL "sport motors" are ATF exempt.
Period.
Here's the law that shows that:
27 CFR 555.11, Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge.
27 CFR 555.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.
Here's the JUDGE's words verifying it.
"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA and the APA."
Here is the court order that is from:
http://www.v-serv.com/atf/62.pdf
Just factual Jerry

Sheeple Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Liar. Here's the ATF's own words:
http://www.atf.gov/explarson/0504rocketryqa.pdf
In particular, check out question #3... "3. I would like to manufacture and distribute single use rocket motors and/or propellant reload kits. What ATF license is required? Only A MANUFACTURER'S LICENSE IS REQUIRED. Licensed manufacturers may engage in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for their own use. It is not necessary for a licensed manufacturer to also obtain a dealer's license to engage in business on his or her licensed premises as a dealer in explosive materials. See 27 CFR § 555.41(b)(3)."
  Quoted Text Here  
Whiny or not, you are required by law to obey them.

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
I don't agree with that assessment. Catoes and lawndarts are a fact of rocketry, with or without EX. You can't hide them unless you bar the media away from all launches, and that would only make us look worse. At least this article made it clear that the people doing this hobby aren't a bunch of brainless yahoos, and that this hobby is safe despite the occasional flight or motor failure.
Besides, since you don't do high power, you don't do EX, you don't make or sell motors, and you can't legally make or sell motors, it looks to me like it's really not your problem. Let those of us who are actually IN the hobby worry about whether or not it gives us a "bad name".

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
Oh, one more thing I forgot to mention: There were no rockets of any kind on the cover of PopSci! The only rocketry photos were inside the mag, a fact you would be aware of if you had actually seen and read the magazine.
)

the devil is always in the details..
Chapter 4 Limits of Liability
4.2.1 The Tripoli Rocketry Association does not in any way participate in the manufacturing or fabrication
process of Experimental Rocket Motors or propellants.
4.2.2 The Tripoli Rocketry Association does not regulate, approve, or officially support or endorse any
propellant manufacturing or fabrication process, or in any way imply such approval.
4.2.3 The Tripoli Rocketry Association does not endorse or provide any safety codes for the self-
manufacture of any propellant.
IE Manufacture at your own risk... If you blow yourself or somebody else up, its your fault not ours, even though we provide you a Venue to use the motors you manufacture.
4.2.4 The Tripoli Rocketry Association does not regulate the storage of experimental rocket motors.
Who does ? BATFE of course....
4.3 Legality
4.3.1 The Tripoli Rocketry Association does not claim Experimental Rocketry to be legal in every
municipality or in every state.
IE if you decide to partiticpate in TRA EX, its up to you to research and know your States Laws..
4.3.2 Participants in the Tripoli Research program shall comply with all local, municipal, state, and federal
regulations where said activities are conducted.
But if you decide not to, we sure won't make sure that you are or have complied .
9.15 Other Applicable Codes
9.15.1 The High Power Rocketry Safety Code (1998) shall be in effect, except as modified herein, at all
Tripoli Research Launches.
Since the HPR Safety Code and NFPA 1127 are the EXACT SAME THING, how can the TRA modify such?
Also, Phil, doesn't the above IMPLY that the NFPA 1127 ie the TRA Safety Code does also apply to TRA EX, except as the TRA deems not required?
This TRA EX "safety code" is so full of holes that you could laucnh a Z motor through.
shockie B)
And you still haven't even attempted to try and explain why the TRA safety Code (ie NFPA 1127) stated purpose is to discourage EX.
wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

On Wed, 13 Jul 2005 23:04:27 GMT, "shockwaveriderz"
  Quoted Text Here  
That's correct. You have a problem with that? I don't. If someone is worried about it, they shouldn't do it.
  Quoted Text Here  
No they don't. Thay have said that.
  Quoted Text Here  
Yep. That's no different that the CSFM incident someone recently went through with certified motors.
  Quoted Text Here  
Locals hopefully know their local laws. Like NAR, TRA is not a law enforcement organization. It is not practical for small organizations like NAR & TRA to track every law in every state. This applies to certified motors too. I fly motors at NAR & TRA launches that need a LEUP. The no one including the RSO has ever asked to see my LEUP.
  Quoted Text Here  
EX is not considered HPR.
  Quoted Text Here  
IMO the main safety part of the safety code that is different between the two is the Safe Distances. The distances have been increased for EX.
  Quoted Text Here  
I'm not going to because I wasn't there when it was written.
  Quoted Text Here  
Have you ever been to an EX launch? If so what was your impression of how safe it was?

  Quoted Text Here  
Where and how is that stated?
Jerry

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
jerry, Don't you know?
I thought you had a LEMP?
Maybe you said; "i am limp".

Jerry Irvine wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
It's stated on your own website, Jerry: "ATF "knowingly and falsely" claimed PADs are not exempt despite 27 CFR 555.141-a-8."
If you think the ATF has changed their minds (and policy), go ahead and ask them, and post their response here. If you do, be sure to get names this time so we can verify that you're not just lying again.
Ä