Re: [FFT] Cert vs LEUP Q

Magnum-RIP says yes.
I've been buying 29mm and 38mm easy access motors since they first came out
back in 1990. No dealer that I've bought from, including Magnum, Als, Ring,
Red Arrow, Microbrick, Rocket R&D, or any one else ever asked for a copy of
my LEUP for those purchases.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"
>>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Loading thread data ...
I don't think this is correct Bob... NFPA codes consider it HPR if its an H motor, with no mention of propelant weight... ANY HPR model requires a FAA waiver...
shockie B)
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
david: comments inline
shockie B)
"David Erbas-White" wrote:
This is 100% TRUE and is codified in NFPA 1127....
Ahhh the wonders of self-regulation....
Again it states in NFPA 1127 that you can purchase a single H motor for cert purposes...
And yes, a person could go to dealer to dealer to accumulate a number of H motors But you would be violating your self-regulation....
sounds good to me.....
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
Shockie,
Bob is correct. Read the FAA regulations again.
Sec. 101.22 Special provisions for large model rockets.
Persons operating model rockets that use not more than 125 grams of propellant; that are made of paper, wood, or breakable plastic; that contain no substantial metal parts, and that weigh not more than 1,500 grams, including the propellant, need not comply with Sec. 101.23 (b), (c), (g), and (h), provided: (a) That person complies with all provisions of Sec. 101.25; and (b) The operation is not conducted within 5 miles of an airport runway or other landing area unless the information required in Sec. 101.25 is also provided to the manager of that airport.
Found at:
formatting link
(note that Sec. 101.25 is the notification requirement)
The FAA doesn't care what the NFPA codes call the motor: model, high power, water, it just doesn't matter. What the FAA cares about is propellant and gross takeoff mass.
shockwaveriderz wrote:
Reply to
David Schultz
It's quite correct. FAA regs have nothing to do with NFPA, BATFE, NAR, TRA, or any other rules. A waiver is required ONLY if your rocket exceeds the 1500g or 125g limits. It is VERY possible to build an L1 rocket, or for that matter an HPR rocket flown on an H motor, and fly it under 101.22 notification, as long as the rocket is not over 1500g and the propellant doesn't exceed 125g. We did it all week at NARAM-42, when at the last minute the FAA pulled the waiver that the event had counted on having.
You still have to comply with other terms of the HPR safecy code, such as absurdly large field sizes and safe distances. But you CAN fly some H motors under 101.22 notification.
Motors that are 101.22 legal include the H73, H123 (note these first two propellant weights are incorrectly stated by TMT because they compute it as initial weight - empty weight, which includes liner and nozzle erosion, plus delay and ejection weights), H128, H180, H210, H220, H238, H242, and probably a few I've missed.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
heh.
OK, Bit Eimer, I've read through the thread, and I think I can clarify it and at least keep the politics neutral.
The wrinkle you describe has been discussed for years, but it only impacts just a few people in practice. My feeling is that you ought to take the steps along the way, and a single H is technically simpler than a cluster of G's on the field.
You seem to be slightly confused about the nature of the permissions needed. There are three main components: the BATFE, the FAA, and the clubs themselves. Once you see where each rule is coming from, it makes more sense. The BATFE is concerned with the amount of "explosive" material being used and stored; the FAA is concerned with performance levels and specifically what airspace the rockets are likely to reach.
You do not need a LEUP to certify, and you don't need to be certified to get a LEUP. Those are two different things (LEUP is really designed for things like dynamite anyway). The cert levels 1 and 2 roughly correspond to the levels where you would need FAA FAR-101 notification and multigrain reloadable motors (L1), and the point where you would need a LEUP and FAA air traffic clearance of some kind (L2) -- but very roughly, and in the environment of ten years ago. Certification is mentioned in the law by reference, but it was created by the clubs in negotiation with authorities.
You do need a L1 cert to fly a 3x G64 cluster at a NAR or Tripoli launch. With appropriate FAA clearance, and insurance in place, you could fly them independently without any certification at all. You do not need a LEUP to fly a 3xG64 cluster, but you do need FAA permission because the total propellant burned exceeds 125 grams. (In my humble opinion, you will find certification easier, and the club environment worth the trouble.)
Under the current rules, you must fly an H motor to obtain the certification. You do not need a LEUP to buy an H reload, but according to the BATFE's current (and admittedly controversial) interpretation, you do need one to store it overnight or transport it across state lines. (For this reason many dealers will deliver previously-ordered motors to the flying field, and may also be willing to store the motor for you if you buy it and can't fly it until next time.) In this way you can buy one motor at a time for certification, or buy several and have your cert mentor(s) keep them for you.
You'll get the help you need. Remember, your dealer and your club want you certified so you'll burn more motors.
Reply to
Pelysma
OK, Bit Eimer, I've read through the thread, and I think I can clarify it
Thanks P.
Actually, I was never confused (or concerned) about the FAA aspect, since I now do nearly all my flying through a NAR/Tripoli sactioned club. Of course, as you point out, that means I need the L1.
Thanks for the clarification that I should not (theoretically) need a LEUP to buy the H, as long as I buy it and use it at the field. Now its just a question if our local on-site vendor will cooperate.
Reply to
bit eimer
The gentleman is incorrect regarding the BATFE requirements. Because of the changes in the Safe Explosives Act, only a permittee may purchase regulated explosives. You can't buy it if you use it right away because the dealer is expressly prohibited by federal law from distributing regulated explosives to anyone but a permittee. Period. Before the SEA, you didn't need a permit if the purchase was in your state of residence from a dealer in your state.
See:
formatting link
18 USC 842(a) It shall be unlawful for any person? ... (3) other than a licensee or permittee knowingly? (A) to transport, ship, cause to be transported, or receive any explosive materials; or (B) to distribute explosive materials to any person other than a licensee or permittee;
The question of just what is and is not regulated is a bit fuzzier. The BATFE makes claims that effectively make all HPR motors/reloads regulated materials requiring a permit. But there is some question concerning certain motors that were classified by the DOT as Class C toy propellant devices. The BATFE would like you to believe that they aren't exempt but many think they are wrong. So you can still get some "Easy Access" motors without a permit.
At least until the BATFE issues a final rule from NPRM 968 and removes this exemption.
Reply to
David Schultz
This should be in the FAQ!!
Can you hear us Tripoli???
Born regulated.
I told you so.
Jerry!
Evil:
"Hopefully, as a result of all the legal wrangling, we will get some type of increased exemption for the consumer. . . . unless we are lucky enough for APCP to be treated as BP is" -Fred Wallace 1-24-05
Good:
"Bottom line is that there is a SERIOUS disconnect between the government and the constitution. The government believes that rights are bestowed by government and that all else is forbidden unless expressely permitted. The BATFE rulemaking on APCP exhibits that though process clearly. That being, "Unless we declare your device exempt, it is regulated." Unless we declare is a PAD, it is not.
And since I know the BATFE monitors this forum, I want one of you guys to answer a question for me. Who was the moron who rebutted with this idiotic statement in response to a request for a determination that sport rocket motors qualify as PADs.:
'Webster's may be read to suggest that 'gas generator system' is properly defined as 'a group of interacting or interdependent mechanical and/or electrical components that generates gas.'
HELLO! Is anyone home in there? The issue is EXPLOSIVES, PROPELLANTS, PAD's, and REGULATORY AUTHORITY. The BATFE has no regulatory authority over "interacting or interdependent mechanical and/or electrical components". You cannot exempt from regulation items that you do not regulate. And the BATFE's authority to regulate is very clear. That being "any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion"
Therefore, any discussion of "interacting or interdependent mechanical and/or electrical components" (PAD's) by the BATFE must be relevant to "any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion" for it is only in that instance that you have regulatory authority.
So if you take your own definition offerred to the court [of a PAD] and your congressionally created regulatory authority [relative to explosives] one can only determine that BATFE's definition of a PAD is as follows:
"[a]ny tool or special mechanized device or interacting or interdependent mechanical and/or electrical components, [containing] any chemical compound mixture, or device, the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion, which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge."
You can try to dress it up all you please, but here are your own words:
Motor casing: interacting or interdependent mechanical components APCP propellant: (1) chemical compound mixture the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion (2) ATF's notes 'propellant' as 'an explosive material which normally functions by deflagrating (burning) and [which] is used for propelling purposes'
Hence, a rocket motor is by your own definition "interdependent mechanical components, containing chemical compound mixture the primary or common purpose of which is to function by explosion, which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge." and qualifies as a PAD.
Attempts by the BATFE to specifically exclude rocket motors from being classified as a PAD's are nothing more than a BLATANT attempt to rewrite legislation for no other purpose than to expand their scope of influence. And expanding your scope of influence is not why you have been hired nor why you are paid."
Sincerely, Philip Doolittle
formatting link
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Jerry and David Schultz each have a point to make, and resolving it would get into politics again. The legal restriction is by the weight of "explosive" material in one container, which may be a motor or a magazine. Like the L1 and L2 boundaries, the "H" threshold for HPR is somewhat arbitrary and only approximately matches up with legal transitions.
I put "explosive" in quotes because the BATFE lists AP propellants as such in apparent disagreement with the legal definitions. The concept of "Easy Access" is that propellant is sold in smaller units than the threshold, separately packaged -- that is, subgrains sealed in separate plastic baggies. So, there's hedging and smirking going on both ways.
I've flown very few rockets since 9/11/01, and only distantly read of the SEA, so David's correction is good reading. However, the last word hasn't been spoken yet; there are procedures in transition as always. Better to take all of these issues into consideration and consult a legal database for the actual thresholds.
Reply to
Pelysma
It would be helpful if everyone simply agreed to discuss ONLY the law as it exists, and leave it to the lawyers to spank the ATF for going beyond it. The judge has already stated inclinination in that direction, so we even have guidance my proposal is a good one. Besides of course the common sense of going by the regs as written today.
A Vendor construct. Aerotech in particular from 1992.
That is a DOT issue, not an ATF issue. It is both common and WRONG to confuse the two.
It is helpful for the consumer to ignore DOT thresholds entirely since that is the problem of the manufacturer and dealer.
The consumer need only concern themselves with CONSUMER regs such as ATF, CPSC, NFPA (which is authored by NAR and TRA BTW).
The only items in flux right now are NPRM-968 and NFPA-1125.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Incorrect on both agencies.
While the FAA SHOULD be worried about airspace, the rules they've written are based on rocket and propellant weight. Under the original 101.1 model rocket exemption, it is possible to build a minimum diameter rocket powered by a 113g 29mm H motor and reach altitudes in excess of 8000'. Yet a rocket with 126g propellant that will only reach 1000' requires a waiver.
As to the BATFE, it seems their primary concern is that a rocket could be used to deliver a dangerous payload against a target. And it probably could be. But it would be much harder to do so usning HPR technology than with existing technology. The RC airplane folks are very concerned that they are the next target of overregulation and permits, rightfully so. But looking at what HAS BEEN USED TO DELIVER DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, the BATFE should be regulating UPS trucks, vans, USPS, Ryder trucks, and jet planes, not HPR. Except they don't have the authority to regulate things that can deliver hazardous packages at all. They only have the authority to regulate explosives. And as we all know, our rockets do not "explode" or even "deflagrate". They should be regulated the same as other highly flammable materials, such as gasoline and safety flares.
Wrong. Dynamite is a high explosive.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
It is also a DOT issue because the BATFE regulations referenced the DOT regulations. Aerotech did not create "Easy Access" but simply took advantage of the ATF regulations as written.
The exemption was for "and other Class C explosives, as described by U.S. Department of Transportation regulations in 49 CFR 173.100 (p), (r), (t), (u) and (x)." Where (u) defined "toy propellant devices".
All of Aerotech's "Easy Access" motors were classified by the DOT as "Class C toy propellant devices" and therefore were exempt from BATFE regulations. It is as simple as that.
For some reason that nobody understands, the BATFE wants to remove any reference to DOT regulations from the rocket motor exemption. Meanwhile they keep these references (to UN numbers UN0336, UN0337, UN0431, and UN0432) for fireworks. One can only assume that the BATFE has a special desire to put it to the rocket hobby.
Reply to
David Schultz
The OLD 27 CFR 55.141-a-7-v regs exempted all of Class C which translates in DOT parlance to 1.4.
The "real" easy access was "mailable".
USPS regs are different from both ATF and DOT.
They do now.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Or they have a burning desire to "harmonize" everything (like the CEurocrats) so they don't get put on the spot having to explain to some newspaperman or congressperson why they have a Special Exception for stuff that looks like it Might Scare People... (Fireworks have enough of a tradition that it's not a problem to have a special exemption for them, as long as it's perfectly specific, so nobody gets accused of leaving a Dangerous Loophole...): life is _so_ much simpler for them, politically, if _everything_ that "looks like a product that just might be useful to a Terrorist Bomber" is traded only within the "licensee/permittee" regime of the regulated Commerce in Explosives (whether or not it deserves to be subject to such requirements in itself - i.e., "functions by explosion") - so why don't we all just shut up, sign up for permits, and Get Legal?
They wanna be able to use "doing anything with energetic mixtures Without A Permit" as 'prima facie' evidence that someone is up to _something_ they shouldn't be... and we're a fly on the windshield of their Grand Regulatory Design, when we resist plugging into their bureaucracy.
They work for the government. They don't get fired for thinking like that. (Especially in These Perilous Times...)
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker

Site Timeline

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.