when I raised this issue in another venue, a large number of responders immediately began serious consideration of how a mandatory annual, bi- or tri-annual certification program should be implemented!
my reaction was as yours - complete astonishment!
I think my trained flea analogy applies very well - sorry, Ted ;)
EXACTLY!!!
many members of the organizations are intent on making their own lives as difficult as possible, and proud when their efforts succeed saying "we have self-regulated!" to keep the BATFE at bay
I certainly don't see them now or ever having been "at bay", do you?
certification is not a "ticket" into sanctioned events. The TRA/NAR is within their rights to impose additional [legal] requirments on their own memberships [consistent with their purpose] to be observed at their own launches
many people may consider that attractive (e.s.; people with kids, or who like the "warm and fuzzy" that a heightened level of restraint provides them)
these people would choose membership and attend launches
many people like the fellowship of rocketeers, and would choose membership to be able to attend launches and be among their friends (providing that membership did not restrict their activities outside of sanctioned events - the pledge wording issue)
these people would also choose membership
and people like myself, who just love rocketrty and rocketeers and would take the opportunity to support them financially even if they never actually plan to attend a launch
[for example, I am a member in good standing of 5 five clubs in the New York - New Jersey - Connecticut ("Tri-State") area, not including MDRA, which makes six. I have only attended launches at three in the past two years (although I have had explicit invitations to attend at all the others)]
I have never been a proponent of them "ceasing to exist", despite Ray's lies to that effect. I am a proponent of their responsible conduct as organizations, as rocketry advocates, and as good "citizens" of the rocketry world
that wouldn't be any more absurd than TRA claiming their corporate records are copyrighted (despite the legal requirements for disclosure and the fact that portions of it are available directly from states and federal governments)
or to win the "kick me I must be dreaming" award, that their reproduction even VERBALLY is prohibited without prior written permission
{ I addressed these points directly in other posts ]
the organization should earn its members by a free-market process, by offering an attractive value proposition
if people believe that the way the organizations weild their "political power" serves their interests, that enhances the value proposition for those individuals
Ray, your insistence on these points is beginning to appear that you consider that the organizations are perceived as having no real value apart from certificating; and that they will lose members in droves once the organizations can no longer exploit the NFPA requirement to compell membership
why is it so unthinkable that the organization be subject to the same market conditions as an other corporation in the free world?
more "who cares about what you want/need/care about" Ray babble
impractical in the near term
why not use the organizations that coauthored the requirement to implement it fairly? It would be infinitely faster!
and regulatort relief and improving the general conditions in which rocketry is conducted are "good things", aren' they Ray?
they are quasi-governmental in role by virtue of their position on the NFPA rule-making body, and as recognized certificating organizations in the codes they themselves coauthered
they should "do the 'right' thing", and not abuse their positions (granted to themselves) to exploit rocketeers and extort their money and allegiance
you give away nothing
individuals earn their certification my their own merits, by demonstrating "knowledge and competence" as required by NFPA 1127
I and others have presented a number of reasonable methods by which any costs of administering the certification program can be funded
Why? It should be easier the second time around. My personal view on this is that you get your cert to fly within that power class. If it is just a one time deal, why bother? Unless you just want the merit badge. Most merit badge types go away quietly after getting them.
It's not clear that (even granting them some degree of rationality) that the details of certification policies are even of interest to the BATF - what they seem to feel they're expected (politically) to care about is probably the commercial availability of mass-produced solid propellant units. (I would expect that stuff like liquids, despite the high potential performance, would be lower on their priorities - simply because they're much less likely to be seen as "easy enablers" of some sort of illicit munitions project than solids would be.)
That's because those items are not regulated, restricted materials. Like it or not, the government considers high power rocket motors to be restricted material. Not just the ATF either, but CPSC, NFPA, state fire marshals, etc. They require some form of control over who can obtain and use these motors.
Why does their form of organization make a hill of beans difference, except your specific suggestion would PREVENT them from primarilly lobbying, of course!
In fact, the one thing we do know to a certainty is the non-profit and BoT model definitely does NOT work or is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
Why in hell would anyone duplicate known bad policies and outcomes?
From: David Schultz Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets Subject: Re: [FELONY by official] Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2004 16:05:16 GMT
11 Apr 2004 09:05:16 PDT)
27 CFR Part 555 Sec. 555.141 Exemptions.
"(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 555.180 and
555.181, this part does not apply to:"
27 CFR 555.141 quite clearly says that materials exempted under it are exempt from everything in part 555 except for the plastic explosives stuff in
180 and
181. The samples regulations are in 555.110.
The BATFE therefore exercised an unlawfull use of power in requiring Aerotech to provide finished model rocket motors. They could have requested samples of the cast propellant but not the finished motors.
But it is fairly obvious that they wanted the motors for purposes other than identification. Which is what the samples law is about.
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.