Re: The AT auction

yep

to propose changes

yep :)

yep!

- iz

five years of more to gain recognition in an appreciable number of states

in the meantime, TRA/NAR have been accessories to the death of rocketry by regulation

- iz

Jerry wrote:

pot kettle black

what liability is that, Ray, exactly?

no, Ray. Indy flyers consume no TRA resources, so abstaining from membership is not mooching anything

but I can think of at least one TRA leader that did spend a good amount of time mooching off the memberships money, though

- iz

none of the above equates to "doomed"

- iz

the NFPA's business is developing fire codes

period

in the meantime, since TRA/NAR have been a key contributor (if not midwife) to this regulatory environment, and have the ear of the Pyrotechnics committee, there are things that they can do NOW (not five years from now)

1. immediately rescind all policies in excess of regulation

1. enlist the support of [real] industry experts in developing a proposal for code revision to rescind all NFPA "provisions" that are unrelated to fire prevention using both scientific facts, and experiential data

2. educate committee members (including state fire marshals, law enforcement and insurance industry representatives) and form alliances in support of the proposal

1. steer the proposal through the NFPA adoption process

2. resolve not to shoot yourself in the foot again

any other questions?

- iz

the policy you describe is inconsistent with the agreement one signs when one applies for membership

from

"By submitting this form, I pledge to conduct all my sport rocketry activities in compliance with the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code and the NAR High Power Safety Code."

perhaps they need to revise the application, Ted. Might I suggest,

"By submitting this form, I pledge to conduct all my rocketry activities conducted under the auspices of the NAR in compliance with the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code and the NAR High Power Safety Code."

- iz

Well, I fly at NAR/TRA launches as a NAR member... but I'm also involved in an amateur group. Since NAR explicitly excludes amateur rocketry from its definition of "sport rocketry", I don't feel that anything I've promised with respect to "sport rocketry activities" is applicable to the amateur projects.

-dave w

and without the impetus or resources to consider accepting any non-default organizations

- iz

I apologize for any offense Ted, it is nothing personal

but AFAICT your concept of "what leeway we may have to improve things" amounts IMO to little more than maintenance, hence my janitor reference

between BATFE/NFPA and TRA/NAR rocketeers are like trained fleas, never jumping out of the jar despite its lid having been removed

we need to think out of the regulatory "jar"

- iz

ah, but TRA is not a "club". Chuck Rogers made a personal effort to convince the IRS of this fact when he asked them for 501(c)3 status

now the 'best interest' of an organization is a function of its purpose for existence. Here is first and foremost TRA's purpose:

from the TRA Article of Incorporation at inception

-- "The purposes for which this corporation is organized are:

A. To promote, encourage and advance research, competition, technology and recreational activities related to advanced, nonprofessional rocketry in a safe and legal manner."

we want rocketry to flourish

while voluntary quality testing (ala Consumer Reports, or UL) and mentoring programs have merit and some flyers may appreciate and avail themselves of such programs ...

mandated certifications obstruct the practice of and innovation in rocketry

add to that the corrupt administration of requirements created by a self-serving leadership, and 'obstruct' doesn't do justice to the damage that is done

- iz

in the examples you've given, specific agencies grant a license to practice, not merely a certification. The regulations empowering thoise agencies to grant licenses and the conditions under which they are granted are codified

in the case if HPR, a particular state grants a [implicit] license to practice based on a certitication affirmed by TRA/NAR. TRA/NAR has no authority to grant any license of any kind. The conditions under which that [implicit] license is granted; i.e., NFPA codes where adopted; contain no requirement for recertification for continuity of the [implied] license

the sole requirements are as follows:

NFPA 1127, 2002 Ed. (excerpted for editorial review)

--

5.4 User Certification Provisions. 5.4.1 Certification of a user shall require both of the following: (1) Proof that the user is at least 18 years old (2) Proof that the user possesses a level of knowledge and competence in handling, storing, and using a high power solid-propellant rocket motor and high power rockets that is acceptable to the certifying organization

You obviously did not get Ted's point: You apologize in one sentence and then refer to TRA and NAR members as "trained fleas". You are either disingenuous or lack the comprehension level to recognize the difference between a genuine apology and arrogance.

Fred

it took your 'using' John Cato and his respected position as a licensed Architect and expert on fire codes to add credibility to the organization so that you could obtain your NFPA seat

of course you only wanted his integrity to serve your purposes, and once he opposed your corrupt practices you villified him

like how many others were there that TRA "used" and then discarded once they took issue with the corruption, RAY? How many?

- iz

ignore Ray

he is not quite 'right' :(

- iz

you wouldn't happen to have a cite or link would you, David?

for NARs definition?

thanks in advance :)

- iz

no, I apologize for the offense, and continue to speak the truth

which in this case is my observation

to do otherwise would be disingenious

- iz

I don't see jerry or iz doing anything but complaining and, oh well, nothing else...

Fred

RayDunak>