An interesting concept, but who would that 3rd party be? If the orgs don't do it, you'll be stuck with government regs -- either a patchwork of local, state and federal regs which differ from state to state; or some entirely new process put in place by a federal agency. I highly doubt that any of these would result in a cheaper, simpler process than we have now.
I agree
- iz
it is reasonable to expect that it would result in a less corrupt on
all things considered
like the revoked certifications of all members expelled or whose membership renewals were force to lapse by order of the BoD
- iz
There are NO specific requirements in the NFPA codes for flyer certs -- the details of flyer certification is left up to the organization doing the certs. Which means the orgs can set any requirements they want, including membership.
Sounds like Iz wants some government involvment.
Funny you should bring it up Ray... using the very example we have been using for rocketry user certs...
Do merit badges expire, even when the "scouter" does not continue membership?
In what cases may a BSA rank or badge of merit _ever_ be revoked?
Somehow you think that one forgets hobby rocketry safety and certification level methods when one's membership lapses? How often have you been to group or club launches where everything operated flawlessly; where no "member's" rocket functioned in a manner "other than expected or designed"?
The drop of a user cert due to lapse of membership is abitrary, and self serving.
~ Duane Phillips.
lol...
Gotta love usenet. It is usually unforgiving, and has a member better than an elephant.
~ Duane Phillips.
Are you sure that wasn't supposed to be "memory" instead of "member"?
-dave w
Yes, but those pictures can be filtered out...
- Robert
No he meant member :)
I saw one revoked because it was proven the memmber did not perform the tasks required to achieve it. His punishment was to perform those tasks.
Forgiven. Thank you. I do understand the angle you are trying to illustrate. The regulation, I agree, is unreasonable. It has not (yet) broken my personal integrity.
But it is easy to see that it can affect people in this manner... especially when the rules and/or laws are not based in any way, shape, or form on actual historical safety records, nor physical properties. It is fear-based regulation; not fact-based.
Fortunately, this country (USA) is still the best place to live on earth, in the way of freedoms and space. So I still give the law and my country my respect, even if some of the laws are stupid. I am not saying I am perfect... but at least trying.
I am also willing to give various groups and orgs that same courtesy, as long as I can agree with what they ask me to have "integrity" for. If not, it is simple... I just don't join.
But I will be a voice on issues and areas those groups try to regulate that affect also my freedoms and controls on enjoyment of the same.
Starting my own group is not always the remedy, just as NAR found out when TRA was formed. "Go form your own group" turned into "crap... they did" turned into "we will support HP also"... what would have happened if they had just listened and worked it out instead of showing the door?
~ Duane Phillips.
Exactly. The ignorant asking ignorant questions and making ignorant claims.
And by ignorant, I do not mean "bafoon" or the like. I mean "lack of knowlege on the issue at hand" by choice, selective reasoning, or by just missing the pertinent information.
DaveGravis was not posting (at least not as said alias) at the time you posted your awesome and stunning photos of your flight.
Classification by reference escapes Fred, but has legal merit and weight, and most importantly, _has_legal_precidence_. Fred made fear based assumptions, and communicated that fear to a legal authority. Unfortunately, he does not seem to grasp the reality of the effect it will have on the hobby, even if it is "just Jerry Irvine", no matter how far he
*feels* Jerry is off-base. Fred is reacting from an end user and manager point of view, not that of a manufacturer/supplier. The paradigms are different.~ Duane Phillips.
Precisely... ESPECIALLY WRT gov't documentation... the burden of proof is on the holder of the paperwork... not governmental archives. Jerry has the essential paperwork, valid on its' face (which is what that means). The lack of correspondence is more like trying to get certain officials to recognise as legal, documents they produced and left forgotten... especially with the ramifications and dominoe effect it has on current attitudes, perceptions, and regulatory direction et al.
Yes, I am being somewhat cryptic, as these are my observations, based on past experience... but the current issue is not my story to tell.
But I understand what Jerry is saying... Fred evidently does not...
~ Duane Phillips.
If only they would put that in print on what they ask you to sign...
Saying one thing and doing another... Both NAR and TRA have this particular issue. I have no interest in joining TRA. I see no benefits whatsoever. Personal opinion of course. Others may chose otherwise, and find usefulness there.
However, NAR still has a lot to offer, IMHO, and I would like to re-join. But what I sign no longer fits what I do with the hobby.
For the record, I agree they have said enough, and historically allowed enough, to convince me of the right intent. Why is it so hard for them to finish the job and put it in writing without regard to type of hobby expression (i.e.: Model Rocketry / High Power Rocketry)? Those terms do not belong exclusively to NAR, and the definition varies from AHJ to AHJ. For anyone to claim otherwise is self-serving untruth. I can and do perform so-called "Model Rocketry / High Power Rocketry" at other times, and by other definitions.
And if it as some here argue, that anytime you do something that does not fit the NAR model "terms", then you are outside of the NAR scope, then why ask people to commit to something that becomes uncovered activity and non-commited the second they variate? This particular argument has no validity.
Again, saying one thing, but publishing another.
In the past, when there was only the "NAR", it probably was appropriate for them to say, "commit to our ideals and flying methods ALWAYS if you want to be part of us". This is no longer the case. They have a huge swath of members that have multiple memberships. In this day and age, the most they can fittingly publish is something like, "when you are with us, follow our rules; when you are not, follow the law".
It is simple. It is what is in practice. Let the commital print follow.
~ Duane Phillips.
Seems to me that's a perfect example of how forming your own group IS a remedy. TRA couldn't get NAR to grow up, so they formed their own group and got what they wanted that way.
What would have happened if NAR had adopted high power without being forced into it by the creation of TRA? Well, we'd have cert levels for every motor size, as NAR was doing when they first adopted high power. We'd probably have other restrictions, perhaps a lower maximum motor size. And the whiners would be able to focus all their attention on bashing NAR rather than splitting their efforts between NAR and TRA. ;)
This would be agreeable indeed, and simpler change in verbage than what I have been saying... add a single term vice an entire concept rewrite.
While this would be "good enough for me", I also like what Mark wrote on this post just after Jerry Irvine, as it addresses one of my points also: why even mess with terms. However, this one-acronym addition you show here leaves it clear enough, as then you are agreeing on what terms to use while engaged in NAR activity.
I hope they print it.
~ Duane Phillips.
Evidence, as to why to orgs are better than one.
I believe he understands and is being intentionally hurtful to further his personal agenda whatever that is. He is a mean little man.
Jerry
[whether] "Mr. Irvine has complied with the instructions provided him, with no response from your office unless he has taken liberties with the truth, there are problems he has failed to disclose, resulting in a delay in the response from you or your office, and or both."- W.E. "Fred" Wallace, MDRA 6-26-01 letter to DOT
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
- Edmund Burke
THIS should be in the FAQ!
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.