Re: Regarding Aerotech RMS motor delays

Loading thread data ...
and be ejected and be shunned and have false accusatons made against them
contact me if you are serious
TRA is bouyed by NAR and CAR refusing to do anything either actual or verbal about known, visible irregularities.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Two different (or is it three) organizations are currently certifying motors and it ain't free. What I am proposing, quoting Jerry, is a 'treaty' whereby manufacturer's would submit their products to a single testing entity.
The monies currently paid to the various organizations would instead be used to support a single, central testing authority. I'm not advocating someone take on this onerous burden out of good faith because sooner or later even the best of spirits will begin to lag at performing an un-paid service.
What does it take to perform motor certifications ? I can only think of three prerequisites:
1) a test stand and data-logging system (hopefully NIST traceable) 2) permits from the AHJ to burn lots of motors 3) time to perform the tests and enter the results in a web page
I'm not advocating a volunteer operate the motor certification system without compensation (although he probably shouldn't quit his day job) instead I am suggesting that the currently fragmented testing efforts be brought together at a single location for consolidation. I'm advocating that we establish a single, common, national testing center (probably should work with the EX guys). Manufacturer's would bring samples of their product to the testing facility and conduct certification testing under the watchful supervision of representatives from the national organizations. At the end of a round of tests all parties would sign off on the test results and either certify, or reject, the product for use within their organization.
John
Reply to
John Bonnett
Most of the cert fees now are "donations" to the club. If they were paid to a team of two testers, they would be making over $20.00 per hour each.
I have offered to DONATE the equipment to any such effort.
There was extensive discussion of this on the email list that led to the formation of ieas.org.
> the watchful supervision of representatives from the national organizations. > At the end of a round of tests all parties would sign off on the test > results > and either certify, or reject, the product for use within their > organization. > > John
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
>Two different (or is it three) organizations are currently certifying motors >and it ain't free. What I am proposing, quoting Jerry, is a 'treaty' >whereby >manufacturer's would submit their products to a single testing entity. > >The monies currently paid to the various organizations would instead be >used to support a single, central testing authority. I'm not advocating >someone take on this onerous burden out of good faith because sooner >or later even the best of spirits will begin to lag at performing an un-paid >service. > >What does it take to perform motor certifications ? I can only think of >three prerequisites: > >1) a test stand and data-logging system (hopefully NIST traceable) >2) permits from the AHJ to burn lots of motors >3) time to perform the tests and enter the results in a web page > >I'm not advocating a volunteer operate the motor certification system >without compensation (although he probably shouldn't quit his day job) >instead I am suggesting that the currently fragmented testing efforts be >brought together at a single location for consolidation. I'm advocating >that we establish a single, common, national testing center (probably >should work with the EX guys). Manufacturer's would bring samples of >their product to the testing facility and conduct certification testing >under >the watchful supervision of representatives from the national organizations. >At the end of a round of tests all parties would sign off on the test >results >and either certify, or reject, the product for use within their >organization. > >John
Reply to
David Erbas-White
The main problem with NAR and TRA now is they simply do not follow the rules as written. Ie NFPA-1125.
An independent effort or even a revised NAR or TRA effort where any product that actually meets the STATED (NFPA-1125) standards be tested would solve the problem.
There are mods I would like to see to the rules, but the rules as written do not for example exclude USR by "manufacturer" motors.
Only motors submitted by or designed by or resembling older motors by Jerry Irvine are refused, independent of paperwork or manufacturer.
The rules are interpreted as needed to exclude them.
This impacts about a half dozen vendors interested in entering the market.
That represents testing fees well exceeding $10,000
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Very important. we don't want a certification monopoly. We need more certifiers , not less.
Reply to
AlMax
organizations.
Ok...how about a counter proposal...have the manufacturers become ISO9001 certified to perform their own testing. That would eliminate any possibility of abuse wouldn't it ? The cost of ISO certification might well be a wash when compared against the existing certification process but we should probably do a KTA analysis to confirm that.
Boiled down, here's our situation. We are a fringe group who like to fly model rockets of various sizes. Ain't nobody gonna get rich selling us the whoosh generators we need but at the same time we need to know that the motors we use are safe and perform reliably.
Smaller motor suppliers could (for a fee) submit their products to an ISO certified company testing for a mutually-agreeable fee.
I think what I am driving at is consolidation of a motor certification process which I perceive is fragmented across the different organizations who are acting out of narrow self-interests, rather than what is best for the sport of model rocketry as a whole. So, you are correct. I am looking for a 'monopoly' to replace the extant 'competition'. Regardless of which organization (or none at all) we choose to affiliate with, our motor certifications should all stem from the same source data.
John
Reply to
John Bonnett
And just who would those "half dozen" be?
Why would they try to certify motors that you made, if indeed they are manufacturers?
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
It is a conflict of interest for a manufacturer to do the testing. I know because I have been on the receiving end of "mistreatment".
I can help start it, donate equipment, help write a procedure manual, but cannot "do it". Or won't.
I ran for TRA BOD once (didn't try very hard). I did not run a second time because I saw what Gary Rosenfield did while on the TRA BOD. It was unethical IMHO. YMMV.
Since then we have seen even far more gross examples of malfeasance by board members, particularly Kelly and Rogers and to a lesser extent Blazanin.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
I thought you said you did not manufacture, only designed motors?
Won't is the likely outcome.
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
If NFPA-1125 accepted it as criterion. The next opportunity to edit 1125 is three years + away.
I am more concerned about unfair than fragmented.
I am more concerned about intentionally unfair than fragmented.
STRONGLY AGREED.
> So, you are correct. I am looking > for a 'monopoly' to replace the extant 'competition'. Regardless of which > organization (or none at all) we choose to affiliate with, our motor > certifications > should all stem from the same source data. > > John
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Are you a manufacturer of motors?
WHat did Gary do?
Rogers is the only one of the 3 that you mentioned that is a BOD member. What did CHuck do?
Reply to
Phil Stein

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.