Re: The AT auction

I stronlgy agree.

Even if the anal literalists are only 5-10% of the population, it is an easy and nearly free membership source.

I have a different perspective. I have always signed those pleadges as a matter of administrative requirement knowing full well they were enforced sporadically, randomly, and with "selective enforcement" and often not even using honest claims. Given all the other defects in the system, a known bad set of words seemed to hardly matter to me.

I brought it up formally as a defect, but that only seemed to target me for selective enforcement with falsified charges.

Jerry

I posted nothing but PUBLIC RECORD.

My lawyer will explain it to your lawyer. What is his number?

And while you're at it, go ahead and parse why the specific language posted is not representative (which frankly I probably think you are right about).

Show me. You refused to have this conversation in email where it belongs, but since the particular small snippet is from a public source, let's parse!

[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

Here's another common reply, mr. irvine, SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP!

I read that one, all the time, here on RMR.

Every interaction I have with authorities they label all non-professional rocketry as "model rocketry".

So who has superior authority, the enforcers and regulators or the NAR?

Jerry

Have you noticed this is a COMMON reply to a Ray Dunakin post by many posters?

I have.

What's your point? You keep hinting at deep dark secrets. If the Feds were _really_ "after" Jerry and everyone who has anything to do with him, don't you think the Black Helicopters would have swooped down years ago? (Hint: The fact that I'm still here makes this less than credible.)

You're so afraid that the Feds will hassle you for having anything to do with Jerry that you want to preemptively stir up baseless trouble for him just to be sure that everybody knows you're on the "other" side. And if you think I'm unfairly representing your attitude, then you're doing a lousy job of presenting your case here.

-dave w

Wow!, You must be one of jerry's biggest customers! You must have purchased hundreds and hundreds of motors, maybe even pallets and pallets of motors. You probably even have one of every size of jerry's hardware sets. You probably fly his motors every weekend.

When was the last time you flew one of his motors?

Get real!......SHEEESH!

November 2002. (Only flew one - but it was a big one!)

-dave w

Nice rant. However, my response was not intended to slam you or promote divisiveness. Rather, it was a comment about the obvious problems of over burdensome regulation. When regulations are reasonable and appropriate, people will comply with them. However, the requiements for a LEUP are not completely reasonable and appropriate. Even the many rocketeers who do want to get a LEUP cannot get one. So some rocketeers will go thier own way without a LEUP. Once you commit that felony, you have to forgo FAA waivers, insurace, organized launches, etc. This path might cause an otherwise fine law abiding citizen to rationalize the violation or other laws as well. In other words, a complete break down of personal integrity resulting from over burdensome regulation. If you take my comments personaly, it can only mean that the shoe fits.

As for myself, I have not yet had the need to fly HPR, or obtain a LEUP. However, I am sympathetic to the cause, and I want to keep my future options open. I have let my NAR membership lapse, but this is only in protest of the recent increase in Sr. membership dues.

Alan

You suspected, then stated so much for integrity. Let's break it down:

- LEUP is not required for certain HP propellants.

- I stated I HAVE elevated levels of insurance in my post.

- I said nothing of waivers, but you automatically ASSUMED I'd forego them?

I see that you are sympathetic on many of your posts, but your post of assumptions here was highly un-sympathetic, assuming guilt FIRST rather than innocence. See enough of that 'round here. Even Fred's post, which agreed with Ray's "don't let the door hit you in the butt" attitude, was more neutral than yours on assumptions.

For the record, all my rocketry activities are within the bounds of the law. Always have been, always will be.

~ Duane "if the shoe fits" Phillips.

You actually insinuated that Jerry may be lying or withholding truth from them?!!!!!

And you are surprised he is upset?

To help a person, you either remain neutral, or a proponent. If you cannot, then you should have bowed out of the conversation, as you had committed to Jerry you would try to help him. A statement like that which you made is always going to rub a Gov't office the wrong way reguardless and independent of the facts. If it is "coming through the message" that the messenger doesn't trust the person for whom he is communicating, then just how the heck to you expect the recipient to receive it?

Now I understand Jerry's vehement heartburn WRT this issue.

If you had suspicions or lack of trust of Jerry, then you should have "bowed out", and foregone the illustrative remarks UNLESS you had proof of illegal activity, at which point you are duty bound to report it. You apparently DID NOT. You simply had a personal lack of trust, which compromised the situation. Very unhelpful indeed.

~ Duane Phillips.

I agree but at this point I just want him to parse what he did say in the context it was received. Because if he meant it as said, too bad so sad for me. But if he really meant something entirely different (which he has both stated and implied) from that the particular quotes states or implies, Yea Team! I may be able to get unregulated plastic approvals for APCP!

As I always say, lets try to turn lemons into lemonade.

Jerry

Er... you mean 'I have not yet had the DESIRE to fly HPR'?

True, true... and I know I could get away with 'doing my own thing' and still be a member of NAR... but my anal literalism mentality would compel me to ask for changes in the 'laws'... and eventually...

Exactly. :(

This ruling is an interesting change of view for the NAR. Bill Stine's talk at NARCON addressed this and several other recent RMR topics. There were a few video cameras in the audience, and I think it would be great if someone could get permission to put a video of the whole talk on the web. In the abscense of that, I'll describe what I remember from Bill's talk. Unfortunately, I didn't take notes so this is completely from memory.

Bill's father, G. Harry, worked at White Sands Missile Range. In the late

1950s, they were getting a lot of letters from the public asking how to build their own rockets. There were no commercially available rocket motors of any type, so building a rocket included building the motor. Many people were being injured or killed in building motors, resulting in what was referred to as the "Teenage Rocket Problem". In, IIRC, the summer of 1957, Harry got a letter from Orville Carlisle describing a rocket he built that used a replaceable cartridge motor. This was a solution to the Teenage Rocket Problem!

Harry wrote back and eventually got a box with a few rockets and motors, called the Rock-a-Chute -- the first model rocket. Bill brought one along to show the audience. This endevor brought about the first model rocket company and an association to promote safe model rocketetry. MMI is long out of business but the association, now known as the NAR, is still around.

Now back to John's comments about the NAR board: when the NAR was formed, people were being injured in building rocket motors and there were discussions about outlawing rockets all together to protect people from injuring themselves. Along comes a solution to the problem: the cartridge motor. The NAR's plege was just that straightforward:

I will not make my own motors, risking injury to myself and motivating states to outlaw rockets entirely to protect others from being injured.

This isn't about "sport rocketry". This is about the public's perception of rocketry *as a whole*. To the average guy on the street -- or the average state legislator -- there is no difference between "Sport Rocketry", "High Power Rocketry" and "Amateur Rocketry". The pledge is about keeping people from getting rocketry in trouble with fire marshalls, police, bomb squads, and other regulators by discouraging people from building their own model rocket motors.

Things change over time, and today there are a lot of people who want to build their own motors. The "Sport Rocketry" exemption to the pledge is pink-book lawyering. If things have really changed, and the pledge is no longer needed to maintain a safe perception of rocketry, then the NAR board should be considering dropping it completely. Note that I'm not in any way implying that uncertified motors should (or would) be allowed to fly on a range run under NAR rules.

Now, let me digress back to Bill's talk and talk about NFPA 1122.

Harry Stine found that most states would classify model rockets as fireworks, and they had laws on the books outlawing firworks. Harry needed a way of getting the states to adopt new laws to legalize model rocketry. He found a way of doing this through the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) and got them to adopt what is today NFPA 1122. The fire marshalls then took this rule back to their state legislatures for adoption into state code. It took THIRTY (30) years to get all states to adopt NFPA 1122! Without it, model rocketry as we know it wasn't legal everywhere.

I hope the vocal group of motor builders will keep this in mind when demanding changes to these rules.

Glen Overby Twin Cities, MN.

You're just an evil wicked man. Your word and signature mean nothing. ;) Nevertheless, you should continue your efforts to spew fire forcefully.

Alan

Definitely kept in mind. I have very high respect WRT those efforts. With this issue, I have no qualm with the NFPA 1122. What I have trouble with is that the NAR application obligates one to swear to only use NAR certified or approved material. The NFPA does not.

Additionally, we now have a diverse community, and multiple rocket organizations, to which many people belong to several. Therefore the current verbage no longer fits current need.

So if the NAR desires to entice people like me, who have widely varied interests in rocketry, to join, then the verbage needs to change accordingly.

If not, then that is fine, I will continue the "lone ranger" route, as I will still be held to safety, law, and priciple; just not committed to use only those materials for which they have given blessing.

~ Duane Phillips.