Re: The AT auction

NFPA codes define model and high power rocketry.

Yeah, there's always a couple of malcontents who have to argue about everything and insist on looking for trouble where there is none. But the rest of us don't have any trouble reading and understanding plain English.

If you're flying "model rocketry", you're supposed to obey the model rocketry safety code. Doesn't matter whether it's a NAR event or not.

If you want to do some other kind of rocketry which is outside the scope of NAR, such as amateur rocketry, you are free to do so.

I just don't see why this is such a big problem for you. The language is extremely clear, and obviously applies ONLY to the types of rocketry (model and high power) that fall under the scope of NAR. You haven't provided any evidence to the contrary, nor have you provided any evidence that NAR is acting in a manner contrary to their stated intent. They aren't expelling, suspending or hassling anyone for engaging in non-modroc, non-high-power rocketry activities. So where, exactly, is the problem????

Yes. Like Tripoli and all its leaders and 27 CFR 555.141-a-8. I see your point.

27 CFR 555.11, "Propellant Actuated Device. Any tool or special mechanized device or gas generator system which is actuated by a propellant or which releases and directs work through a propellant charge." 27 CFR 555.141 exemptions (a) (8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.

Wrong as usual. Certification is only currently handled by this paradigm at this time.

And you fail to read anything correctly. I did not say give away.

Certification funds.

You persist in digesting the message one line at a time, instead as a complete cohesive idea. Your verbosity and changing statements, is followed on by a subsequent erroneous conclusion.

Not free. Not someone elses expense. Not insurance to participate in the hobby. Legal liability insurance from deadbeats who *try* to pin their irresponsibility on the org. This type of insurance is different from day to day practicing hobby insurance.

I am not at all convinced that your argument that we could be held liable for certified individuals actions outside of the org has any merit... quite frankly it is quite preposterous. There is no legal precident that I have ever heard of. The legal indemnity insurance would be a possible remedy for such fear... but that is all it is. You have not made the case for such.

You solely want to hold exclusive ownership of certifications within the orgs for why? How does this benefit the org? Does it make you feel powerful?

~ Duane Phillips.

Those NFPA codes are not in every state, and indeed some levels of various governing bodies interpret it differently than others. It is not a set in stone definition.

Nice stab Ray.

Whose code Ray?

Unfortunately, the NAR pledge and code is not worded as you state... neither for that matter, is TRA's. Your saying so does not make it so. Neither does anyones saying so. Hot air does not hold the same legal weight as ink.

That is your opinion Ray, and you are entitle to it. Likewise I am entitled to mine. And since my decision to join is mine to make, and is based upon the actual documents as they currently stand, not the hot air promulgated by well-wishers as yourself, what exactly is the problem?

lol...

It's all he's got!

My phone number for both work and home are on the letter you have in your possession; they have not changed. You can have your so called attorney contact me and I will determine the need for my attorney to become involved. Better yet, have him put your concerns on paper. The address is on the letter also. I guarantee the proper attention will be given to any formal correspondence. Do you still want to continue holding that door open??

Fred

Jerry Irv>

I'm sure you have heard the phrase, "and your little dog to". Well we now know who the little dog is. (:-)

Fred

By the time of the letter, it was obvious to me and more than just suspicion, Jerry was being less than truthful. Because of the circumstances there was no way I could just "bow out". BTW, If you got the impression I was insinuating Jerry was lying, you misunderstood, "Jerry was lying"; no insinuation there, is there??

As for as Jerry's heartburn, tuff shit. Jerry thought he could involve a indy group in a scheme to sell his motors in commerce, without legal DOT paperwork, but he was either to stupid or thought no one in the group would question the scheme. With all the information, just on RMR; that was enough for the flag to go up and to at least, verify the legal status of what Jerry claim to be fact. I was as surprised as anyone when he agreed to send me his paperwork, and allow me to insure it's delivery to DOT. By the time of the letter I knew Jerry was BSing and I could not believe he was sending the paperwork. By what I knew and understood at that time, I was generous as to what I "insinuated" in the letter. Before the letter, Jerry claimed, no one at the DOT would return his calls or respond to his faxes. This went on for several weeks; I never had any problem getting through to the same phone number or having calls returned that Jerry claimed he could not get to answer or the individual to return his calls. I also found it strange, to say the least, I received a call from DOT, within minutes of faxing Jerry's package, acknowledging the fax received.

You can draw whatever conclusions you want from what you read; it's not my problem. However I could write a book about this shit. On the other hand, I curse the day I became involved with Jerry's problems, but like many others, I fell for his BS, if only a little bit. I washed my hands of him in 2001 and his problems are his, not mine. However, when I read his BS, from time to time, I just gota pull his chain, "from time to time".

Fred W.

Perhaps someone understands this gibberish above, but I haven't a clue.. "unregulated plastic approvals for APCP"??? "parse what I said in context"??? Darn Jerry, did you forget and suck the worm from the bottom of that tequila bottle?(:-)

Fred

Well, I got a meeting to attend, launch planning etc.

Parse this:

[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

Give it a shot.

Still a very expensive proposition.

From a rational, common-sense point of view, you're right. Unfortunately, reason and common sense are strangers to our current legal system. We live in a society in which morons who carry coffee in their crotch while driving can score big bucks suing the restaurant that sold them the coffee. Lawyers routinely sue everyone even remotely connected to any major accident or criminal incident, regardless of culpability. If anyone ever caused a death, injury, or major property damage while engaged in high power rocketry activities (or committed a crime using HPR materials), the organization that certified the individual WILL be sued whether the individual is a member or not.

The orgs did the work to make it possible. But hey, you don't have to be a member of TRA/NAR. You can always start your own club and do certs your own way.

Yes, the decision is yours, which is what I've been saying all along. If you don't like our rules, don't join. The problem is when you insist on raising a big stink over nothing.

"The lurkers support me in email."

- Rick "I see." Dickinson

false

you fail to grasp the role of the organizations, Ray. The organizations exist to provide a service to the public, not the reverse

certification is a condition stipulated in NFPA codes for purchase, possession and use of HPR motors

TRA and NAR are the two certficating authorities recognized by the NFPA

membership is and never has been a condition of certification under any NFPA codes to secure or maintain certification

it could argued that certification is a responsibility of recognized certificating organizations for all who meet the conditions defined by state law (via its adoption of NFPA 1127) by virtue of the privileged status conferred upon them by said law

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

What would indicate you might ever expect that?

Seriously.