My point is, if they follow the safety code there shouldn't _be_ any
"significant accidents" from faulty motors. That's the whole point of the
safety code -- to minimize risk in the event of a motor failure.
How about if we start listing the bonus delay on the NAR motor malf forms? I
know that TRA doesn't care about the NAR malf forms, but if they got enough of
them in the mail something might happen.
How would Cato know they were never tested, since he was no longer with TMT?
Personally, I think it's ridiculous to force a manufacturer to waste a
butt-load of M motors just to test all the possible delay times.
Frank claimed he was in the process of getting it, so they allowed him some
time to complete it. When it became clear that he wasn't getting it, they
decerted his motors. Was it a mistake to give him time to get his paperwork?
Maybe, but I think most folks in the hobby would prefer to see manufacturers
given a chance to get their act together.
Jerry tried to BS his way through it, submitting bogus paperwork, etc. People
don't like being conned.
When had TRA ever prevented NAR from decertifying any motors?
The ORDER states very clearly:
"In addition, the Court finds that the ATF's pronouncement that sport
rocket motors are not PADs is invalid because it was made without
compliance with the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the OCCA
and the APA."
No, one cannot force a judge to use the particular language you want or
(falsely) claim is needed. But one can read the JUDGE'S ORDER and know
from an understanding of the law what you got is far better than what
the reactive rmr posters such as yourself (with a learning disabilty to
boot) might ask for.
Expect more. Live the lifestyle (ATF).
No they claimed he was in process of getting it. He told them he refused
and they pressured him by publishing in public he made that promise. It
didn't work, they decertified, and they have since learned they were
wrong (court order). Care to bet if they will apologize and COMPENSATE???
False. And I DO know your address.
> In Frank's case, none of his motors were ever dated at all, making it > difficult
> to tell whether they were existing motors or newly made.
It's apparent that the judge was using a very general term like "sport
rocket motors" to forestall any attempt by the BATF to split hairs over
a distinction between "model" and "high power" motors.
NOTHING in the judge's ruling says it is ILLEGAL for TRA to require that
manufacturers submitting motors for cert be licensed by ATF. Nor is there
anything in the NFPA codes which would make it illegal. The certifying orgs can
set any standards they want as long as they at least meet the minimum standards
which are legally required.
Just like Hebrew National franks -- they could use the government's standards,
but they set their standards higher than what the government allows. According
to your "logic", Hebrew National is breaking the law by doing so.