Re: Why does jerry irvine ship rocket motors as "model aircraft parts"?

Yea, no problem: The mosaic is revealed, 40 grand to the man and held up on appeal. Jerry was deceptive, shipping rocket motors, (hazmat) as "model airplane parts", (non-hazmat).

Fred

According to the DOT, the above statement applies to you, to the tune of forty grand!

Jerry, I understand that DOT doesn't accept your document nor your interpretion of it. I also understand your document when it says that the test sample exploded 90% of the time in the 10" drop test, and 20% of the time in the 3.75" drop test. I may not know everything about the test process or the regs, but those numbers certainly do not sound like something one would obtain with an inert material.

Please enlighten me (with cites): How many times is a material permitted to explode in these drop tests and still remain exempt from any hazmat classification?

Nobody ever said inert.

Well, except Ray Dunakin.

Yet one more thing you have no comprehension of.

The list is pretty darn long now Ray.

It is exempt at the precise thickness the test manager decides provides adequate margin from the test where a small number of runs produces a popping sound (not entire sample combusted in this particular example BTW).

It is a mere propellant in the worst case.

In this case the person making the judgement was the longest term DIRECTOR of the lab there ever was.

Hmmm.

Jerry

DR. Chang? Don't make me laugh!

Thanks to the wonders of Google, I can find many instances in which you referred to the propellent as an "unregulated plastic". That sounds pretty inert to me, even if you didn't use the word "inert". But in case I've misunderstood something, I'll rephrase my statement:

"Jerry, I understand that DOT doesn't accept your document nor your interpretion of it. I also understand your document when it says that the test sample exploded 90% of the time in the 10" drop test, and 20% of the time in the 3.75" drop test. I may not know everything about the test process or the regs, but those numbers certainly do not sound like something one would obtain with an unregulated material."

You didn't answer the question, or provide any cites: "How many times is a material permitted to explode in these drop tests and still remain exempt from any hazmat classification?"

I find it hard to believe that there are no specific criteria for this. However, if in fact there is no criteria, and a tested material can be classed as unregulated despite any number of explosions during drop-testing, then please provide a cite. Otherwise, we're stuck at "Is too! -- Is not!"

BTW, the document didn't say the material made a "popping sound", it said the material exploded.

Yes, but most mere propellents are classed as some kind of explosive by DOT, and I am not aware of any that have been classified as unregulated by DOT. If you can provide an example of another APCP propellent that is currently classed as unregulated by DOT, please let me know.

DaveGravis wrote:

jerry has about a half dozen formulas, which one is represented in the ACS report? Firestarter? Whitestar? smoky? Slow? Fast? Buttkicker? etc.?

I have a more simple explaination, Dave. The DOT and BATF monitored ROL auctions and followed the leads. It led them to the big fish of illegal motor sales... Jerry Irvine.

steve

Jerry Irvine.

This explanation does not seem likely to me. Since the AT fire there were many motors auctioned off on ROL, the majority of which were shipped `illegally' (without HazMat, unqualified shippers, etc). Most were not even USR motors, and I don't remember JI ever putting up motors for auction there. One person did auction off some USR motors but I haven't heard that he was busted by DOT. In the last few years there never has been a "big fish of illegal motor sales" on ROL, and if the ATFE and DOT had monitored the auctions they would not have been led to JI. Unless a few people used aliases, most who listed motors on ROL were `low volume' sales, not dealers or manufacturers. Dave is likely right. Since the seller probably didn't turn himself in, and the carrier had no idea of what it was carrying, the only one who could have `turned in' JI was either the recipient or another person who knew what was being done. Note: I am not defending JI. I am simply stating that Dave's explanation is much more logical than Steve's as to the source of the complaint to DOT. Mis-labeling something the DOT says is HazMat for shipping purposes is wrong, no matter who does it.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why JI or anyone else would try to ship rocket motors as model airplane parts. How did all the ROL auction rocket motor shippers label their packages? Did ROL ever cancel their auctions because of illegal shipping methods? Why not? Were any of them ever `turned in' to DOT? Why not? After all, no doubt some of those `hazardous' rocket motors ended up being shipped on passenger airliners, but there was never any sustained outcry from the rocket community about that. Part of the reason we have excessive regulation by ATFE and DOT is because too often our `self-regulation' becomes a casuality of `self-interest' and they know it. No wonder the government doesn't listen when we complain about over-regulation. Why should they? When it's in our own self-interest we forget self-regulation and become hypocrites, or else we just remain silent and allow others in our rocket community to do as they please, even when we know it's illegal. I try to avoid the first, but I'm certainly guilty of the second, and I suspect I have a lot of company. Self-regulation sometimes involves the unpleasant task of insisting that either me or my friend follow the regulations, even if those regulations militate against self-interest.

Larry Lobdell Jr.

You (or a club) can insist on whatever you want when it involves you (or the club). When it doesn't involve you (or the club), anything you insist on is no longer "SELF-regulation".

snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote in message news:...

I see the two questions as being different. "Who flew the G?" is about club rules, but "Who shipped the motor" is about legality. But maybe I misunderstood part of your reply. Isn't it DOT's business that some motors sold at ROL auctions were illegally shipped? Most of us know that an I300 for $5 shipping can't include HazMat. They got JI for $40K for a similar offense. My point was that as long as the rocket community (us) facilitates illegality (in this case by allowing motor auctions or buying motors that the seller can't legally ship to us), we're engaging in self-interest rather than self-regulation. True, the clubs have no obligation to enforce the law, but then neither we nor they should be surprised when the government ignores our complaints about over-regulation. You say "If it's not within their scope and/or does not directly affect them, they have no obligation to act as enforcers of the law." Well, doesn't the current over-regulation directly affect them and their members? Didn't they file a lawsuit because they are directly affected? From the point of view of government we're not serious about regulating ourselves so they most certainly will. I don't want to rain on the parade but I just don't see any logical way that we can expect to be heard when we complain about government over-regulation if at the same time we knowingly allow some of us to violate the law. It seems to me that if ARSA/NAR/TRA, etc. insist that their members follow the laws and make a good-faith effort to do so, that would be a reasonable compromise to get rid of government over-regulation. What's the alternative? Over the last months of discussion on this issue I have come to the unfortunate realization that saying it's not "our" business to insist that our club members (national and local) follow the law is a virtual guarantee that government will see we do by regulating us as much as possible. Lawsuits, legislation, and good PR for us may slow them down, but let's not kid ourselves - those things are only temporary hurdles for government. I have had a LEUP for 6 years, but I don't want any government regulation of Sport Rocket motors. I want to be able to move somewhere that doesn't allow storage of "explosives" because our motors are exempt. If we honestly try to regulate ourselves and show the government we are making an effort to follow the law, then we can make a much better case in favor of self-regulation. Time and future events will determine if this is correct.

You wrote: You (or a club) can insist on whatever you want when it involves you (or the club). When it doesn't involve you (or the club), anything you insist on is no longer "SELF-regulation". I would guess that the majority of HPR flyers belong to some club, either local or national. But even if that person does not, what would prevent me from remarking to him/her that what he/she is doing is illegal? Wouldn't it be better to risk receiving the wrath of that individual as opposed to risking more government regulation of the hobby by being silent? Larry Lobdell Jr.

Wouldn't a "private" launch by definition be an ILLEGAL launch?

Nope. There are NAR and TRA launches which means that the launch is conducted within the guidelines of the two orgs allowing the launch to be covered under their respective insurance policies. A non NAR/TRA launch just means that it is not conducted under the guidelines to afford the insurance coverage. You would still have to comply with the FAA waiver requirements. We have a field of that nature here and use it quite often.

I'm not so sure about that. I seem to recall that NAR's reasoning for expelling folks who used non-NAR motors even outside of NAR events was that NAR considered those actitivies to be illegal.

Yes, it is DOT's business. It's not your business, or TRA's, or NAR's.

Prohibiting the auctioning of motors would hurt those sellers who have legal means of delivery. Furthermore, ROL is not officially sanctioned or affiliated with any rocketry organization. They don't have to get NAR's or TRA's permission to do anything. Nor do they represent anyone else in the hobby.

Directly affected by unwarranted, excessive government regulation, yes. That's no excuse to institute unwarranted, excessive "self" regulation.

I believe that's exactly what we have done. A "good faith" effort doesn't mean perfect obedience at all times by all members, nor does it require the orgs to act as police enforments everytime someone auctions a motor, or speeds on the way to the launch.

Gee, why does that not surprise me?

You can say whatever you want.

Correct.

Correct.

Jerry

Tripoli made this shipment their business.

MDRA made this shipment their business.

Ray Dunakin made this shpment his business.

Since you are now talking about yourself and criticizing yourself, maybe YOU should tell US.

So why do they?

You'd also have to comply with any state or local regs that apply.

Prove it.

LOL! In your dreams. I had no involvement with it at all. Of course, when you post stuff on a public forum, I have as much right as anyone to respond with the facts.

Huh??

Jerry Irvine: Master of the Non-Sequiter Reply.