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

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.
Reply to
RayDunakin
Loading thread data ...
Aloha, 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.
Larry
Reply to
AkaZilla
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.
Reply to
RayDunakin
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?
Reply to
RayDunakin
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).
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
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???
Propoganda victim.
Huh?
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. > >
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
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.
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
Jerry blathered:
True, and you know it.
Ooh, I'm so scared. Not!
Vexatious litigants can't sue -- and you have no case anyway.
Reply to
RayDunakin
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.
Reply to
RayDunakin
Nope. Some of them are user-error.
Prove it. You're just pulling numbers out of your aft closure again.
Reply to
RayDunakin
Nope. It was a 100% unternal TRA matter.
Too bad so sad for all the users of the CERTIFIED product, eh?
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Nope. Those "user error" are actually design flaws that promote/allow such "user error".
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.