Re: The AT auction

Sounds like Phil is making assumptions.

And Iz didn't make the third party statement in this thread... I did.

~ Duane Phillips.

rofl... thanks for the correction... I meant "memory".

~ Duane Phillips.

I guess it could work that way too... rofl...

~ Duane Phillips.

POINT!

rofl... at myself for a change.

~ Duane Phillips.

And they (i.e.: the "org") have more control exactly _how_ under the current paradigm?

Come on Ray... I know you can do better than that... might have to move you into brown belt category.

~ Duane Phillips.

Yes this is a blatent Troll... for Ray...

So are you saying that at one point a rocketry "org" needed to "grow up"?

hmm...

~ Duane Phillips.

I told you -- they can suspend or expell a member who is engaged in illegal/dangerous activities. Not only does this effectively pull the individual's cert, it also clearly shows that the org has fulfilled its duty to the public safety, and disassociated itself from any future actions by that individual.

Yes, one org seemed determined to resist moving out of the 1960's with the rest of the world. So those hobbyists who wanted a modern org that more accurately met their needs, took it on themselves to start one. I think this is an excellent model for the current crop of complainers to consider. Then they can find out first hand whether it's really possible to get the kinds of regulatory changes that they want. Perhaps we'll all be surprised, and they will be able to convince NFPA, ATF, DOT, CSPC, Congress, etc, etc that rocketry needs to be unregulated. Or maybe the folks doing all the complaining will discover that wanting something is not enough to make it happen in the real world.

No, those terms are spelled out pretty clearly in the NFPA codes.

Other times? What is the relevance of that?? And what other legally accepted definitions of Model Rocketry and High Power Rocketry are there?

They are simply asking people to commit to following the rules and regulations for Model and/or High Power rocketry.

Ok, then be specific -- what entity would handle HPR certs if it wasn't the government and wasn't the rocketry orgs? How would this be accomplished, how would it be paid for, and how much would it cost?

So Duane, what's your point? I should view and react as a manufacturer? LOL.. As it stands "right now", Jerry's motors are probably PADs as for as what ATF can enforce, because of the recent court ruling (who knows how long that will last). However, DOT shipping is still a nut Jerry has to crack, if he wishes to legally ship, with a lesser exemption than the basic classification of 1.3c. If I'm not mistaken 1.3c requires wooden shipping containers and a bunch of plackarding, etc., along with finding a shipper that will ship it for a reasonable price. A real pain in the a$$ and the wallet.

Fred

Jerry has made the claims and as you say, the claimant has the responsibility to produce the proof. Jerry can produce no proof that DOT recognized his claim of owner or his origination of any of his propellant or the claimed transferred property rights of the propellant, classified as 1.3c, from the companies he claimed present ownership. What is so difficult to understand?????

Fred

You should of been more truthful with me in the beginning. Attempting to envelope folks in conspiracy to commit unlawful acts is not a good thing.

"Where's dem motors stashed jerry?"

Fred

Now, this should be in the FAQ...

Fred

You: "They can blatantly disregard safety and laws right up until they get busted"

Obviously someone doing this cares nothing for the cert... and certainly has nothing to do with their proper knowlege of the hobby that enabled them to certify in the first place... and was the whole point of my post:

"And they (i.e.: the "org") have more control exactly _how_ under the current paradigm?"

In other words, your claims of liability based on whether a person is inside or outside the org have no cohesion. Not only this, in a permanent cert paradigm, there could be provisions for pulling certs for blatant negligence and malice, which meets your argument of "distancing" the certifying entity from the offender. Just because a cert has no club membership-based or specific expiration does not mean it cannot be designed to be cancelled due to wrongful actions.

If certs were to be permanent, the "bar" of quality would certainly be raised, lending even more significance to the certification. Not only this, but the public view of the org would inherently change from that of a private "club" (which it is not anyway), to that of a hobby community builder, and an asset to all hobby rocketeers everywhere.

Something you apparently don't understand Ray: liabilities are managable. It is only a matter of finding a way to make it work well... even beneficially for all involved... not categorically dismissing ideas.

~ Duane Phillips.

lol.

It is a HORRIBLE model, and serves only to be an example of fear, mistrust, and the inability of the org to take off the biased blinders. The issue cost the hobby an APCP listing on the federal explosives list. Had the original org been in tune with the needs of the members instead of showing them the door, there would have been more notice made of the arbitrary listing... but the house was busy being divided by the want-change meets the don't-want-change crowd.

Example: NRA. Solidarity within NRA maintains black powder exemption despite obvious possible negative uses. Wow... imagine that. Yes, some negative-for-them regulations slip through, but imagine where we'd be if they had a major division and in-fighting.

But be inflexible at all costs... perpetuate the cycle. Live by principle vice live by shoe-tying regulations.

You are so busy being blinded by your malice toward change that you refuse to take notice of the benefits afforded in the even the court case, in which the judge determined that rocket motors are currently defined as PADs; and overturned the ATFs attempt to change that. What does that mean to hobby-loving people like you and me?

~ Duane Phillips.

Person means an individual, firm, co-partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock association, including ANY trustee, receiver, asignee, OR other similar representative thereof; OR government, indian tribe, oragency or instrumentality of any government or indian tribe when it offers hazardous material for transportation in commerce or transports hazardous material to further a commercial enterprise, but such term does not include: (1) The United States Postal Service; (2) For purposes of 49 USC 5123 and 5124 any agency or instrumentality of the federal government.

In the ATF case we have HARD evicence that is the case. Why is it so surprising with DOT?

If the government itself issued them, well, yes!

Jerry

Honestly, yes, if you were to "help" at all; or take no position whatsoever. You were not handling actual motors in any way shape or form, nor were you representing yourself as such, so your liability was nil.

Jerry's motors _are_ PADS, as is every other propulsion motor out there. That can no longer be disputed. Why it took a judge to convince rocket hobby lovers of the same just escapes me. Had the truth been lived to begin with, we would not be in this particular mess.

Knowing this, don't you think you should look a little harder at Jerry's point of view?

This DOT issue has many parallels to the ATF PAD issue. If Jerry has testing paperwork from the DOT that the DOT wants to not recognize, then the issue at DOT needs to be confronted in a tactful manner...

Ponder this: what if Jerry is right, but too much time passes (like with the APCP listing on the explosives list)... and we all lose on a possible class shipping exemption-by-reference?

Jerry may or may not be a nice guy, but the man has a point and a possible solution. Forget the issue being about Jerry. Forget whatever Jerry has done in the past. This issue is not about him. It has far more potential.

You are one of the few who have seen some of the paperwork in person. Take another look, and consider a larger marketing paradigm than just a singly owned entity as developer, manufacturer, storage of surplus, and shipper. Better yet, focus solely on the potential shipping aspects, from a hobby rocketry motor shippers point of view no less. Because what is good for them, will ultimately be good for the whole hobby. The current fixation is on APCP regulation... but just how many entities do you know of _in_ the hobby, or those that regulate the hobby, have actually tested and received such beneficial classifications for their formulas, such as Jerry has?

~ Duane Phillips.

P.S. I grew up less than two miles from where they static test Space Shuttle SRBs. I _felt_ their tests...