Re: Just one stupid question

I have just looked at the NAR site and assume TRA is similar. It states,
> and I quote from the NAR page directly......
>
>
> "High Power Flyer
>
> In order to purchase and use rocket engines beyond the G power range,
> you must be an adult who has been certified as qualified by a recognized
> rocketry research organization. Membership in the NAR empowers you to
> apply for this certification."
>
>
>
> Now maybe this has been hashed over before, but........should you be a
> 14 year old in this state I live in (I don't know the rules everywhere
> as this is not my schtick) after a Hunter safety course you as said 14
> year old is permitted to use a deadly weapon, under the guidance of an
> adult, to hunt game in the woods of this state. Let me repeat, You as a
> 14 year old are permitted to carry, load, aim and discharge a deadly
> weapon for use in hunting small game. This seems to be a resposibility
> which has been well thought out into teaching youngsters how to become
> safe hunters. Whoever is responsible, take a bow. And I'm no longer an
> NRA guy so don't construe this as pro gun.
>
> That being said, why must a person be an 'adult' (which I assume is 18
The rules were written by the same folks on the NFPA committe whether
for NFPA code itself or for the respective org rules. There is more org
crossover for NFPA.
years old) to go past the G range into H and I engines? Is firing an H
> far more difficult than being safe in the woods with a deadly weapon?
> My son is a bit annoyed that he has to wait so long to do L1, (even the
> organized independant launches require level status to use the same
> impulse motors if you join) this seems to be counter productive to
> keeping young blood in this hobby. IF level qualifications are
> percieved as necessary, why are they so archaic? Why can adult
> supervised minors not reach the level status necessary to keep them
> sufficiently interested to continue on? There are some absolutely
> amazing kids I run into at the launch fields, it's a pity many are kept
> down by this silly rule. If the push is to get more kids into this
> hobby, why treat them as second class citizens? (remember I said WITH
> ADULT SUPERVISION!!!)
>
> Obviously if we had the recovery area we'd go blow off some motors of
> our own and thumb our nose at all the regs. Then the kid could move on
> into the area he has immense interest........but for now, he'll keep
> plodding along under G power. And I'll continue to get the question,
> "why can't I just get Level 1?"
>
> I'm sort of tired of the question. :-(
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...
What is the voting age? What is the driving age? What is the drinking age?
Why?
What is the airspeed of .....
Joel.phx
Reply to
Joel Corwith
18.....but no adult supervision required
16 with supervision.....17 with no adult supervision required
21.......
Since adult supervision is only required in one of three I'm missing the pint.....err point......in fact he can take a flying lesson and fly the plane at 14.......
is adult supervision required?
Reply to
Chuck Rudy
The model rocket zealots on the committee have written several rules in HPR that are speficically designed to stifle it. Dane Boles is the poster child for KILLING HPR.
"I wish I had never even heard of HPR." - Dane Boles
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Doesn't Dane sit on the Quest board? Or used to? If so his interests are other than high power, so why would he sit on a decision making committee where he is predjudiced pertaining to an issue he either cares nothinig about? or has concerns it could cut into his business? Was the quote made in reference to rocketry in general? his business? NAR business?
However, as *speculation*, IF he indeed has his interests in mind and IF he is part of Quest, it's obvious why he would be against younger fliers going L1. But that is pure speculation on my part.
Reply to
Chuck Rudy
He co-founded Quest. He abandoned Estes to do it. Had other toy/hobby jobs while his non-compete clause time was running.
Two people died in a Quest motor factory explosion in Yuma Arizona on an Indian reservation. (fetch)
Bill Stine co-founded Quest and now owns it outright IIRC. Most of the Quest molds are from deals his fathter G. Harry Stine was involved in (MPC, etc). Bill is a good guy. Better than his father too. He doesn't appreciate me very much :)
The model rocket FACTION sees keeping model rocketry distinct from MODEL ROCKETRY a liability limiting issue. And they feel the need to add as many rules as can be stuffed down the committee (in the interest of safety of course) that will stifle access. Limited accesss IS the goal of the MR people WRT to HPR. TRA and AT are all too happy to comply as it gives them an effective monopoly and choke point. It worked.
Why are there not two distinct committees for two distinct sports and codes? Do you really need to ask?
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
my speculation on possible vested interests on the NFPA Pyrotechnics committee include
-- as antagonistic to HPR:
Dane Boles of Quest Aerospace (Alternate: Bill Stine) Vernon Estes (Alternate: Arthur H. Barber) Mary Roberts of Estes Industries -- as unlikely to support recognition of new certifying organizations, or support motions which diminish the power and influence of TRA/NAR (e.g.; rescinding any aspect of user or motor certification):
Bruce E. Kelly of TRA (Alternate: Scott Bartel) J. Patrick Miller (Alternate: Mark B. Bundick of NAR) -- as unlikely to support motions that favor new vendors and/or technologies at the expense of established ones, and conversely are likely to support motions that fortify established vendors and technologies:
Michael W. Platt of the High Power Rocket Manufacturing Dealers Assn. Gary C. Rosenfield of Industrial Solid Propulsion Inc.
Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed
It's looking a little like a conservative old boy network (apologies Mary :-) ).........that's a pity........
Reply to
Chuck Rudy
You do realize Chuck that on rmr, one stupid question, leads to 1000 stupid answers, right? ; )
Randy
Reply to
Randy
I'm guessing the ones who can answer this one stupid question will have a hard time coming up with anything but one stupid answer. :-)
Reply to
Chuck Rudy
If you're right, you should go to Vegas. ; )
Randy
Reply to
Randy
Dane did NOT leave Estes to go to Quest. There was quite a period where he was out of the hobby. I've never heard anything about a possible non compete clause. But these are often unenforcable as denying a person employment.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
[I'm several days behind on RMR, and just got to this thread. It still doesn't have a real answer...]
The answer to your question in the USA is the CPSC and the BATF. The CPSC restricts access to minors (those under 18) to any motor with more than 62.5g propellant OR 80 NS total impulse. The BATF crap has already been hashed to death in RMR.
That stated, yes it's reasonable for some sort of Junior program to be set up where say HS aged kids can do G-H-I and maybe more under the supervision of a certified adult. The Rockets for Schools program already does this to some limited extent. At least in the NAR, the way to make that happen is to write up a proposal, and submit it to the NAR BOD. If you start now, and work fast, you should be able to make the agenda for the winter meeting, which is usually in February...
I'd contact Bunny, and the heads of the Education and Sport Services committees.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
That period was a contractural obligation so he went to non-rocket related toy companies for a while.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
But with N, O, P, Q motors :)
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Seems like common sense......unless there is a darker reason. ;-)
Reply to
Chuck Rudy
I believe I read that this is already on the agenda for the February meeting.
Reply to
DaveL
The folks I know that perticipated inthe program used 38mm I motors for their rockets. At least for now, that eliminates the LEUP hassles.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
NOPQ also no LEUP hassles either. Of course.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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.