Re: The AT auction



I am open to being corrected.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

You should of been more forthcoming and not taken liberties with the truth. If I'm not mistaken, that letter was written after you claimed you still could not make contact with DOT. As I never experienced such a problem, your alleged experience was suspect, as evidenced by the quote from the letter, you reference. Are you really that stupid?? You should post the letter in it's complete text, as I'm not ashamed of the content. BTW, how much information would you like me to post to ABMR; rather extensive collection of material. Be careful what you ask for..(:-) The mosaic could be revealed; do you want to watch?? (;-)
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
W. E.Fred Wallace wrote:

Go for it Fred! jerry's not afraid of the truth, are you jerry?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But not inaccurate.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Do it! I'd love to finally see a mosaic revealed.
On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 21:56:34 -0400, "W. E.Fred Wallace"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Karl wrote:

No.
-dave w
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Seems that both JI and Frank had a problem with datestamping the manufacturing dates on loads... One of the big reasons that Kosdon got dropped by TRA a few years back, as there was no way to tell if a load was pre or post the "uncertified status" (which happened just a few months prior to the "action") but within the 3 or 5 year grace period...
That's why Koson motors were only given a few months, and not the 3-5 years which was normal... There was no way to tell if a Kosdon load was made before or after decertification.
This is all defined in 1125/1127. It's the Manufacted date, not the Certification date...
Of course, NAR S&T ignored the problem, even though they claim compliance to 1125/1127, and I think you can still fly a "original Frank" reload with NAR...
Please, don't get me started on how S&T really botched the whole Kosdon issue, as I might ramble on for pages...I was the TRA prefect of a joint NAR/TRA club at the time, and it resulted in "NAR folks can fly these but TRA folks cant" rules.... Oh... I'm rambling..... Sorry.. back to other things!
Of course, you may ask why NAR still allows Kosdon loads... I don't know,,,
writes:

past
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IIRC the reason given by TRA for quickly dropping the Kosdon motors had nothing to do with their date code or lack thereof, and everything to do with the paperwork status.
Either the motors were legal, and should have been left alone, or they were not legal, should never have been certified, and should have been removed from the list immediately. Either way what TRA did was wrong. And inconsistent with how other paperwork challenged vendors have been handled.

"S&T really botched the whole Kosdon issue"? More like TRA botched the Kosdon issue. Couldn't figure out how to handle it and be consistent with what they did to Jerry, so they made up new rules.

According to an entry on the NAR S&T web page, "R82 7/11/02 Decertified on 7/1/2005: Kosdon G40-P; G75-7; H70-P; H135-11; I120-P; I130-5; I145-7; I150-6; I170-11; J230-8; J275-6.5; K350-9; K450-12; K700-18; K777-11"
A followup note to that states that in the future all motors will expire at the end f the calendar year. So NAR members with Kosdon reloads have until 12/31/2005 to burn them up. This is based on their certification expirations, and the 3 year grace period that follows.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Seems that both JI and Frank had a problem with datestamping the manufacturing dates on loads... One of the big reasons that Kosdon got dropped by TRA a few years back, as there was no way to tell if a load was pre or post the "uncertified status" (which happened just a few months prior to the "action") but within the 3 or 5 year grace period...
That's why Koson motors were only given a few months, and not the 3-5 years which was normal... There was no way to tell if a Kosdon load was made before or after decertification.
This is all defined in 1125/1127. It's the Manufacted date, not the Certification date...
Of course, NAR S&T ignored the problem, even though they claim compliance to 1125/1127, and I think you can still fly a "original Frank" reload with NAR...
Please, don't get me started on how S&T really botched the whole Kosdon issue, as I might ramble on for pages...I was the TRA prefect of a joint NAR/TRA club at the time, and it resulted in "NAR folks can fly these but TRA folks cant" rules.... Oh... I'm rambling..... Sorry.. back to other things!
Of course, you may ask why NAR still allows Kosdon loads... I don't know,,,
writes:

past
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope. I had dated motors. It was not till they were DECERTIFIED dating became an issue, and then they had their normal and customary 3 year extension terminated on the false claim that false dating would occur.
No hearing. No basis. No recourse. Not even NOTICE to the manufacturer of record.
Nothing.

But again no opportunity to "come into compliance".

A different color slip of paper in the load would have easily done it.

I had a huge stash of already made motors at the time my regular certs did/would have started.
I offered to SHOW them to a TRA rep. They wanted to be sure NOT to see them.
Jerry

Right.
Don't ask, don't tell.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Karl wrote:

Yep, the only missing jester, was a kiss.. Hmm, maybe we missed it..(;-)
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred,
The wish list below is EXACTLY on target. I agree with it 100%. I can't understand why anyone would NOT agree with it. So why is it that you don't like it, Fred? If it is solely because it came from JI, then that is just silly.
Why can't people in power (such as you Fred) see that there are regular folks out here that agree with this list and wish that NAR/TRA would give it due consideration? The consideration should have NOTHING to do with the fact that JI wrote it, since there seems to be an irrational hate by some on R.M.R about anything JI does/says.
Ferrell

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< The wish list below is EXACTLY on target. I agree with it 100%. I can't understand why anyone would NOT agree with it. >>
Jerry's "wish list" is mostly just a disguise for his own agenda. What he's really saying is, "I don't care what the laws and regulations are, I want to manufacture, store, sell and ship motors without government permits and approvals. But I also want TRA/NAR, their members, and the vendors to all put their necks on the line for me. I want TRA/NAR, the members, and the vendors to all pretend that government regs don't exist."
However, if you think Jerry can do better and accomplish more than the existing clubs, encourage him to start his own club.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

Not mostly. Entirely.

Nope but your claiming that is libel.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
RayDunakin wrote:

What Ray said.. The true mosaic..
Fred
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Fred agreeing with Ray over and over is telling indeed.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Did you just have an epiphany, jerry?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 4 Apr 2004 20:54:42 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@comcast.net (Ferrell Wheeler) wrote:

OK, I'll try. Let's take an inventory.

I believe this is a function of marketing. I've got a couple of new volunteers serving as co-chairs of our Membership Committee working on new marketing efforts, including a point of sale brochure that can be used by sections. We could use more professional resource here, in particular a copywriter.

I think the NAR has this covered.

I've never thought the NAR should be in the product business in a big way. Seems to me this point is more a function of the industry than the associations, but I'm open to suggestions about an implementable program that would support this.

I know of no NAR policies that harm non-members.

The NAR doesn't make the laws for the shipment of motors through commercial commerce. We do insist that vendors comply with the laws before we test motors. If vendors think these laws are not necessary, then they should form a trade association and work to change them, like hundreds of other industries in the US.

The NAR Board has considered the questions around recertification of motors, and found our current recertification process to be sound and of value. The Board's open to petition from the membership to change this, but I'd recommend folks start with Jack Kane at S and T to outline the issues before petitioning the Board for change.

NAR user certifications are permanent in the sense that they remain valid as long as you're a member. In fact, the certification is good for a year after you leave. Simply rejoin up to 365 days after you left, and your certification stays intact.
Given the inventory above, where do you believe the NAR hasn't been supportive of nearly everything in this list, Ferrell?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Mark B. Bundick mbundick - at - earthlink - dot - net NAR President www - dot - nar - dot - org
"A dark night in a city that knows how to keep its secrets, but high above the quiet streets on the twelfth floor of the Acme Building, one man is still trying to find the answers to life's persistent questions. Guy Noir, Private Eye."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Requirement that access to HPR products must have either TRA Level cert or NAR Level cert. Non-members are restricted by law in NFPA adoptive states from HPR access entirely. Therefore they are also restricted to vendors cowtowed by club policy to require ATF permits for EXEMPT product sales to all users.
That's a HUGE one Mark.

How is YOUR interpretation of the law/regulation superior to that of the DOT (or ATF) or any other Competent Authority?
Don't even get involved. Ask for complaiance and let the authority verify that compliance (if they even want to). Your current rules require ATF permits even if not required by ATF, and DOT papers even if 100% of the product is MAILED, or DOT exempt, etc.

In NFPA adoptive states motor collections are probably storage of unapproved destructive devices or some such. Do you have a motor collection?
The fact you are satisfied is evidence of a problem you are not addressing aside from the specific issue. It shows a CULTURAL defect that you cannot see the valid concerns of parties outside of the BOT. Not invented here.
It is a historical cultural "feature" of NAR and TRA.

That is NOT permanant.
You making such an obviously delusional statement again shows evidence of a larger problem. Your logic and management style.

That is not permanant.
"NAR user certifications are permanent in the sense that they remain valid as long as you're a member. " - Mark Bundick 4-5-04

Every example where you say in effect,
"The NAR Board has considered the questions around recertification of motors, and found our current recertification process to be sound and of value." - Mark Bundick 4-5-04
in reply to:
"Permanant certifications of motors that have not demonstrated true safety concerns." - Jerry Irvine 4-4-04
Resulting in:
"In NFPA adoptive states motor collections are probably storage of unapproved destructive devices or some such. Do you have a motor collection?" - Jerry Irvine 4-4-04

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I should have parsed the user cert and the motor cert examples separately. I stand corrected. But the point applies to BOTH examples.
The NAR reply to a policy change proposal is "we like our current policy".
Yes we knew that. That's why somebody else had to make the policy change proposal TO YOU.
Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.