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

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
Loading thread data ...

Is that your new motto? ;)

Reply to
RayDunakin

Jerry wrote:

You haven't answered the question.

Reply to
RayDunakin

Every blow-by and bonus delay is a malfunction. 99% unreported.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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

Oldie.

For TRA.

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.

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

Point.

And RL vs SU too.

Email this message to the TRA BoD today.

This should be in the FAQ.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

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

Dave W. wrote:

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

And was any actual BATF pressure ever actually appeased by all that? (Somehow I doubt it.)

-dave w

Reply to
David Weinshenker

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

Nonsense. Any motor type or design is subject to user error -- whether it's someone installing a delay incorrectly, putting a Pro38 reload into a rocket without first loading it into a casing, etc. Even single-use motors are not exempt from user error. For instance a flyer could install the igniter improperly and cause a chuff or cato.

Reply to
RayDunakin

Estes SU motors do not blow by orings and have bonus delays because they are packed wrong.

You really have no expertise whatsoever on this topic, but that in no way prevents you from posting stuff. Too bad so sad.

Reply to
Jerry Irvine

I agree. Sport rocketry flown under the safety code is safe. But stuff happens, that is why they are called accidents. when stuff happens with certified motors that should not be listed or even be certified, other suff can happen as well, such as increassed insurance premiums, or cancellation.

Alan

Reply to
Alan Jones

By the test dates that went with the certifications.

Personally, I think that if a manufacturer makes a motor with 5 different delays, then it's the responsibility of the testing authority to test all of them for accuracy. Doesn't matter if it's a 1/2A, a G, or an M.

Personally, I think that to claim they were tested without doing so is FRAUD.

Personally, I think that "bonus delays" are the most dangerous possible motor failure.

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

Reply to
Bob Kaplow

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.