ROL NEWS--AeroTech Announces Certification of Three New Reload Kits

"If there was a problem, it would be worked out long before it made it to RMR!"

The "hard evidence" was published in the form of first hand witness accounts and published TRA lists.

I admitted in advance you would be in denial. The majority of readers did not share that problem. Instead they asked, "so when are you going to sue them?"

Jerry

I noticed that too, Ray. With careful reconstruction, I was able to put the rest of the picture in place. The missing pieces of test stand say, "Wallups Island".

steve

Oh yeah, here's a picture of my car...

You have it backwards, Frank has DOT, He does not have a LEMP.

Suppose TRA certifies a SU motor as an F model rocket motor, and the NAR is forced to cross list it. However, it then turns out that the motor was improperly tested and certified, and the motor in fact should have been certified as an HPR motor or a G motor for sale to adults only. Furthermore, the TRA certified motor proves to be extremely unreliable, causing some significant accidents. TRA does not decertify the motor, and the NAR is compelled to allow it by their cross certification agreement. Kids having accidents with these known bad motors can sue both TRA and NAR. NAR kids filing claims against the NAR insurance over accidents involving these bad TRA certified motors, can cause NAR insurance rates to rise severely or be canceled.

One can think of many examples. The problem is that the NAR is exposed to risk by their policy of blindly accepting TRA certs. TRA with a different culture, risk threshold, and insurance company, may not decertify motors that the NAR would otherwise decertify.

Alan

Well, since the NAR doesn't limit itself to HPR, there's quite a bit for a Junior member to do. Including competition. Like at NARAM, just a month form now. Where some will compete for $1000 cash prizes, thanks to the generosity of Bob Alway. Any one remember an event called TARC? Junior memers.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Sure does. Family membership only gives you one copy. That may be what you're confused about.

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

If it was a "consumer safety and insurance liability" issue, then why was there a several month grace period to use up the motors?

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

Then it's a really bad forgery :-)

Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!

I thought the motors were just fine... it was more a procedural thing. (TRA decided to apply permit requirements to Kosdon that they'd been effectively waiving for him up to that point; NAR stood on the position that the motors had met their standards as of the time they had issued the certfication.)

Neither procedural decision changed anything about the "consumer safety" characteristics of motors that folks had been using and praising for years. The only difference was that Frank's internal status within TRA had apparently been changed from "teacher's pet" to "black sheep".

-dave w

Point.

ROFL

Suppose instead: TRA certifies a motor Maybe tests it maybe not, probably not. Motor test process later PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY to be misused by the TRA. Motor remains TRA certified and NAR/CAR cross listed.

In normal course of events with a non-defective perfectly legal motor flown within the safety code, an accident happens.

Insurance claim filed and paid.

"Victim" files a suit for additional damages on the theory of neglegence and fraud on a claim the motor was improperly made available to general consumers despite proper procedure not being followed by TRA.

Vendor dropped as co-defendant since they submitted samples, money and all papers, and were falsely informed their motors were indeed tested.

To me that is the most likely claim against TRA RIGHT NOW.

Jerry

Liar.

And misspeller.

So they didn't have test _data_ -- the motors could still have been tested.

Jerry quoted:

So when did NAR S&T and TMT say that they had a problem that they haven't worked out? You can't just declare that a problem exists between two orgs when the parties involved agree that there is no problem.

Jerry replied:

Jerry, I don't doubt that you provided motors for this movie. I'll even take you at your word that it was a 1/16A motor. However, I must point out that you have a strange idea of what constitutes "proof". Where in that movie does it state the size of the motor? Your name in the credits only proves that you provided a service/product for the movie.

Ah, I see. Thank you for the correction.

At some point Ray you have to NOT simply disregard what I say.

Jerry

That's quite a stretch.

What kind of accidents?

Didn't these hypothetical kids follow the safety code?