Re: The AT auction

Jerry Irv>

> >> Aerotech motors would still be certified at least until three years past > >> the date of the sale to RCS. > > >Nope. Three years from the date they were submitted. > > I thought motors can be used for three years after the certification > expires?

I am open to being corrected.

If TRA and/or NAR suddenly decertifies all Aerotech motors when > RCS takes over, won't the motors be good for at least three years from > that date? > > Brian Elfert
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Loading thread data ...

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

Reply to
W. E.Fred Wallace

No.

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

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,,,

Reply to
AZ Woody

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,,,

Reply to
AZ Woody

Go for it Fred! jerry's not afraid of the truth, are you jerry?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Yep, the only missing jester, was a kiss.. Hmm, maybe we missed it..(;-)

Fred

Reply to
W. E.Fred Wallace

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

Reply to
Ferrell Wheeler

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.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

But not inaccurate.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Nope but your claiming that is libel.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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."

Reply to
Mark B. Bundick

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

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Do it! I'd love to finally see a mosaic revealed.

Reply to
Phil Stein

Mark,

Thank you so much for responding. I have just a few comments below.

NAR has done an excellent job with the magazine. I have no complaints. Kudos.

NAR/TRA insists on inserting themselves between the buyer and seller in 2 specific ways. Motor certifications and user certifications. See my comments below.

_Your_ comments below contradict this statement.

You should be promoting rocketry, not an NGO enforcement agency. You should say "if rocket companies want their motors tested then they should form a trade asssociation and work to set up their own testing procedures like hundreds of other industries in the US."

In other words, NAR user certifications are not permanent at all. I'm constantly amazed that people of sound mind think this is a reasonable regulation, especially for an organization that is supposed to be promoting rocketry.

In order for me to buy a HPR motor, I have to join your organization, jump through some (meaningless, IMHO) hoops, and stay a member of your organization as long as I want to buy motors. Does this not hurt non-members? If my membership lapses for a year and I rejoin then I have to jump through the hoops again. Ridiculous. If NAR has nothing to do with me shooting the rocket and if NAR has nothing to do with selling motors, as you say, then why does NAR prevent a transaction between a seller and a buyer? Even more amazing, if it turns out that I have to get a Low Explosive User Permit from the US government in order to buy motors, then I still can't do it unless and until NAR also approves. Wow!

I look around my shop and I see other things that are unsafe if used improperly...let's see... I have a large tank of acetylene with an oxygen supply next to it, I have a propane forge, and I have some compound bows for archery.

Do I have to join and stay a member of a pro-acetylene use organization before I can buy acetylene from an acetylene supplier? Do I have to have the pro-acetylene organization make sure I can connect hoses correctly, turn the nob in the right direction and light a torch before they will certify me to buy acetylene? If I drop out of their organization for a year, do I have to turn the knob for them again in order to buy acetylene?

What about a pro-propane use organization that requires people to cook some kabobs on a grill before the organization would allow you to buy propane from an independent propane supplier? Reasonable?

What pro-archery organization makes members pass a test before they can _buy_ arrows? (I won't even touch the point of making my own arrows :)

If you wish to regulate who can and cannot fly rockets at NAR sanctioned events, that is your business. But this should not have anything to do with the ability of rocketeers to buy rocket motors. NAR should not be interjecting itself between user and seller. If for some reason you feel you must interject yourself at the point of sale, then why on Earth is there a continual NAR membership requirement? If you are going to have a certification procedure, then it should be a lifetime certification irregardless of membership in NAR. That is just self-serving and silly. Note, I might have many reasons to want to join NAR, for example, to take part in NAR shoots and contests, to get the magazine, etc. but I should not be FORCED to join NAR in order to enjoy this hobby.

I welcome your comments. I would also like to hear if anything has moved forward in the discussions about a possible merger between NAR and TRA.

Take care,

Ferrell Wheeler Sunderland, MD

Reply to
Ferrell Wheeler

I now know who you are. Thanks.

Finally.

(plonk)

echo... echo... ...

~ Duane Phillips.

P.S. For the record, I agree independently with what Jerry Irvine has summarized about President Bundicks' statements. Mark, while I like most of what you try to do, your attempts to "take inventory" here fall far short... especially your inexplicable version of the permanancy of certifications of users, to which you immediately followed on with a conclusory statement of having met these issues.

Your statements show little else but protecti>

Reply to
Duane Phillips

outside the

comply with the

This is a very good point. The efforts of rocketry organizations to help the NFPA pyrotechnics folks carve out a space for the legal practice of sport rocketry resulted in the _reduction_ of regulation (at least for those who bothered to follow regulations:-).

Further, and even more importantly IMO, the long term result of that effort will be that as local authorities adopt NFPA codes, the local patchwork of restrictive regulations will be _reduced_.

The comparison that should be made is not between NFPA codes and no restrictions at all--"No restrictions at all" isn't going to happen in the near future (maybe not in any future!), as nearly everyone--including ARSA--realizes.

The comparison that should be made is between what it would take to _legally_ practice sport rocketry under existing federal explosives regulations and state and local zoning, fire, and public safety law without NFPA codes vs with them.

--tc

Reply to
Ted Cochran

So that's what has been holding us back all these years, lack of a catchy slogan and a flashy brochure! I think external factors such as relative economic prosperity and a vigorous manned race to mars would have the biggest positive impact on membership growth. TARC was (maybe still is) great, but I did not see a corresponding boost in membership. Cash prizes for B division in R&D is great idea, and I'd like to see the NAR match or continue the cash awards. This is certainly something that should be "marketed" at least as aggressively as the first TARC, and it does require membership. You could also roll back the senior member dues increase, or at least make it a reduced cost tiered system. I know this would increase senior membership by at least one.

Yes, but I give full credit to the editor.

Mark, by your logic, the NAR/TRA never should have concerned itself with the BATFE lawsuit. I believe the NAR should step up and be that "trade association". The NAR should get involved with DOT and some other agencies to keep sport rocketry viable as a safe hobby. As MR/HPR become less viable, AR becomes inevitable.

I think what Jerry needs is some sort of NAR ombudsman to pull him kicking and screaming through all the hoops. ;)

So a HPR guy just needs to pay off the NAR once every 730 days? Why not 3 years like for certified motors? Why not 5 years or 50 years? Why not certify nonmembers, who demonstrate the same knowledge and skills, for a small fee? Why not require demonstration of certification skills (or recertification) periodically? Why require certification to use small unregulated hybrid motors? Why not work to change NFPA codes to make sport rocketry more logical and reasonable?

Mark, you are doing an outstanding job as NAR president, but there is always room for improvement.

Alan

Reply to
Alan Jones

What Alan said.

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

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.