Re: The AT auction

I am going to have to question your expertise...

The NFPA Appendix A-1-3 states that for a certified motor, and a certified user... " includes, but is not limited to, an individual who has licenses or certificates from TRA or NAR....."

NOWHERE DOES IT STATE YOU MUST BELONG TO EITHER ASSOCIATION!!!!

Jerry, start a club, issue your own certs for users and manufacturers. The code is open! Be a role model for all us sheep, maybe we will follow! I belong to TRA and NAR, Maybe I will join JI Rocketry Association??

Erik Gates

message

organization,

transaction

Reply to
Erik Gates
Loading thread data ...

Mark,

You asked a question of me. I responded. I'm really hoping you will respond in turn.

To make it simple, I want to hear your defense of the perpetual membership requirement in order to keep certifications. I think this is completely indefensible, and if the quips by Ray and Erik are the best you can do, then I have won the argument. Also, this is one issue you can change with the "stroke of a pen". No NFPA or government involvement necessary. Simply make user certifications lifetime certifications irregardless of membership in NAR or TRA. Easy. Logical. Helps rocketry. If TRA doesn't go along. Great! People will be flocking to NAR to get their certifications.

[I want to reiterate that I think that needing a non-profit's approval before I can purchase a HPR motor from a motor manufacturer is just wrong. But I am willing to see any change in the direction of rocket _promotion_ organizations getting out of the business of putting up negative regulations in front of rocket flyers.]

Thanks for being receptive to discussion.

Take care,

Ferrell Wheeler Sunderland, MD

Reply to
Ferrell Wheeler

So, let's take your claim at face value.

So I can issue certs myself?

Or I can form a group (poof:formed) to issue certs?

And you claim this self-serving formation would comply?

So in effect each manufacturer could perform their own motor and consumer certs (presumably to NFPA standards) and they would be NFPA compliant?

I WANT you to be right.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I suspect that he means to fly AR "under the radar", without LEUP, insurance, waivers, etc. So much for integrity.

Alan

Reply to
Alan Jones

So let's go. Thanks in part to Fred and his friends I have jurisdiction right now and a stomach for persuing the matter.

A little help on the lawyers would be a feature since the benefits are industry wide.

TRA paid legal fees for AT once.

I am.

Mostly not actually.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Weren't the contents of the applicable codes proposed to the NFPA by NAR and TRA in the first place? NFPA-1122 basically fluffed up the existing Model Rocket Safety Code (and NAR's existing motor testing program) into "regulatory language" and posted the whole business under NFPA copyright;

1127 was more of the same, except applicable to HPR-size rockets.

The contents of the NFPA codes in question were written by [some of] the rocket folks in the first place; what's to say that they couldn't have been at least somewhat different if desired?

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

jerryspeak! jerry, what is the above statement supposed to mean?

Reply to
Dave Grayvis

Exactly.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

So why keep asking people to defend it? You've obviously made up your mind and won't be swayed by the facts.

If you want to start your own club and pass out free certs to anyone who wants one, and accept the liability that entails, please do so.

I'm getting pretty sick of these whiny little cheapskates bitching about having to pay a membership fee. If you don't like it, don't join! Go do your own thing. Comply with the rocketry regulations on your own, instead of trying to mooch off the efforts of the organizations.

Reply to
RayDunakin

I agree

POINT!

POINT!

POINT!

POINT!

these objective observations should be in the FAQ

this should be in the FAQ

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

yes, detonable rocket propellant should be regulated, as should the use of dangerous payloads

no, the existing regulations are in part the handiwork or two national rocketry organizations that sought to secure their positions in the industry

rather we should be asking outselves what of those regulations have objective merit, and which do not

draw comparisons between what we see today (with the current NFPA and BATFE regulations), and what is rational; between the current environment that constrains rocketry to one that would enable it, and its benefits to education, flourish

we need leaders, Ted, not janitors

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

enquiring minds want to know!

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

TRA is corrupt, and its practices reflect that corruption. They are bad "citizens" of rocketry, willing to sacrifice rocketry at large to suit their self-serving agenda

for an example, see

What Really Happened With S724? at

formatting link
a new club:

1) would involve significant delay before recognition by an appreciable number of states would make its role meaningful WRT NFPA. What happens to rocketry in the meantime?

2) would still need to defend rocketry against the malicious acts motivated by the TRA/NAR agenda, and their intent to remain a part of regulatory infrastructure through the NFPA and backroom alliances they court with the BATFE.

your proposal is not a solution

reform (or in worst case, constraining their abiity to do mischief) is

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

TRA shows its true colors: "whats in it for me?"

you positioned yourselves as recognized certificating authorities in a regulatory environment you helped create

take responsibility for serving the community you presumably represent. There doesn't have to be anything "in it for you", beyond the satisfaction of knowing that you did your job in creating conditions favorable to rocketry

from

formatting link
"Tripoli is a non-profit organization dedicated to the advancement and operation of amateur high power rocketry."

increased liability is just a rationale you use to justify keeping your hand in rockeeter's pockets. It has no reality

they are supposed to be rocketry advocacies, despite their many actions to the contrary

but they have done more to appease regulators than educate them

do your job, the one you volunteered for; work to create conditions favorable to rocketry

you policies are not that

- iz

Reply to
Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed

Here, here!

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

And this would be a problem exactly why?

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

From Wickman's own website:

BY WICKMAN's OWN ANALYSIS the bill was doomed.

Reply to
Alex Mericas

Reply to
Alex Mericas

damage my own

sactioned by

I don't understand this part.

As was confirmed publically at NARCON, NAR does not care what you fly when you're not flying at a NAR launch. NAR insurance won't apply, but you don't put your membership in danger or anything like that....

--tc

Reply to
Ted Cochran

or TRA in the

recognized

No, NOT as "the" organizations. The language explicitly does not limit the organizations to these two. Further, it is up to the local AHJ--the NAR and the TRA are NOT AHJs, but organizations that may be acceptable to an AHJ.

In the actual code, the language is something like this: The examination and testing shall be carried out by the authority having jurisdiction or a recognized testing organization acceptable to the authority having jurisdiction.

In an Appendix, there is language like this: Recognized testing organizations which tests in accordance with NFPA 1122 and certifies model rocket motors to the performance specifications outlined therein can include, but is not limited to, TRA and NAR.

--tc

Reply to
Ted Cochran

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.