ROL NEWS--AeroTech Endorses Consumer Adjustment of RMS Delays

Folks, there has been a fair amount of conjecture, opinions, intermixed with facts in the discussion of this topic. While my tenure as a NAR
Trustee is currently one of the shortest of the present members, I would like to share my observations in relation to this topic, NAR S&T, and some of the generalizations that have been made about the organizational operations of NAR.
First and foremost, NAR does not operate following Mark's personal agenda with the NAR Trustees just offering a rubber stamp approval of his plans. Don't believe me? Well plan on attending the next Trustee meeting which will be held at NARAM on Friday July 29th and see for yourself.
The Aerotech J350 reloads with the old 7/16" cores and the newer version using 1/2" cores were both certified by TMT, not NAR S&T. Therefore decertification or the requirement of recertification of the motor was not a decision that NAR S&T could make. In addition, the recognition of the motor certifications performed by TMT and CAR are by organization, not by motor. As a result, a new agreement between these organizations would be required before NAR S&T could single out a single motor for decertification from another testing organizations list. Just imagine the political and logistical problems that would occur if that path was followed.
As a newest member of the NAR S&T team, I learned of the Aerotech Delay trimming policy by the ROL news release. Not having any prior knowledge of the Aerotech announcement left NAR S&T flat footed, but we have started discussing the implications of the announcement. It's my understanding the primary reason for not allowing delay trimming on Aerotech motors at NAR sanctioned launches, was that trimming was not a modification approved by the manufacturer, nor did the manufacture supply instructions to perform the operation. That situation seems to have changed, and I expect NAR will change as well.
John Lyngdal NAR Trustee NAR 69264 L3 NAR L3CC
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Johnly wrote:

John,
I 'agree' with the concept that NAR isn't Mark's personal toy -- but that's not the point. I've been involved with many organizations, at many levels, from member (like I am in NAR), to VP, to Director, to Chairman of the Board (in different organizations -- most with thousands of members). From an ORGANIZATIONAL standpoint, Mark is the one who decides, on a day-to-day basis, how the business of the NAR is conducted, within the rules, guidelines, and framework of the NAR. If that ISN'T the case, I'll be both surprised and disappointed. What I expect from the Trustees is to set the POLICY of the organization, and for the President to 'execute' that policy. Granted, in an organization such as NAR, the Trustees may also have hands-on jobs within the organization, but their role as trustee is LEGISLATIVE. And yes, I can well imagine that some of these meetings are quite contentious -- I've literally been in the situation where during one such meeting we had to have an armed guard present because the president had been removed for cause.

Thanks, this is a very helpful explanation -- I truly do appreciate it (and appreciate the final sentence even more <G>).

Forgive me, but I'm trying to clarify something. There is no need (as I understand it) for NAR to 'change' at all. Even within your statement, you actually make that clear. To paraphrase, NAR did not allow trimming of delays because it was not approved by the manufacturer. Now, the manufacturer has changed (not NAR), so NAR is being consistent -- they said in the past that delays can only be trimmed with manufacturer approval, they are saying now that delays can only be trimmed with manufacturer approval. What has changed is that the manufacturer now approves of the modification (and has provided full and complete instructions, not just a tacit wink-and-nod).
In summation, it would appear that NAR would need to change if they wanted to PREVENT delay modifications from being allowed -- and if that were to occur, I'd truly want them to think long and hard about it, and discuss it with the membership before making such a change.
David Erbas-White
P.S. Thank you, sincerely, for your service as a Trustee.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Contest Certification and/or General Use Certification??
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

GOOD question! Most of the 18/20 24/40 and 29/40-120 reloads are contest certified. This could have some "interesting" implications.
And the whole announcement leaves one question unanswered: Will Aerotech honor warranty claims on motors where the delay has been modified? If I reduce a -10 to a -6 and it ends up a -2, will they stand behind their instructions?
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob Kaplow wrote:

It doesn't seem to be an open question, quoting from the instructions:
"NOTE: Please be aware that AeroTechs RMS (TM) reload kit warranty with regard to pyrotechnic time delays only covers failure of the delay to ignite or to remain lit (i.e., partially remaining unburned delay element). It does not cover any failure of recovery system deployment not the result of delay element extinguishment, and any other failures resulting from reload kits not used in accordance with instructions..."
In essence the warranty only really guarantees that the delay element will light, and that it will stay lit once ignited. The only 'guarantee' that the delay time is right are the certification testing that 'proves' the time -- but there is no warranty as to the time of the delay.
David Erbas-White
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article snipped-for-privacy@eisner.encompasserve.org, Bob Kaplow at kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD wrote on 4/15/05 11:48 AM:

Read the instructions and warranty statement. We have the same policy as CTI.
Someone also asked me which way to orient the drilled end of the delay (after the announcement was posted).
"It's in there."
Gary/RCS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I did. It's vague, and could be interpreted that you don't warranty delay accuracy at all on reloads, modified or not.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
I'm not afraid of terrorists. I am terrorized by airport security. _george
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

I have read their language on this (which is itself too restrictive) and modifying the delay according to instructions would not void the otherwise hard to experience warranty.
The delay basicly has to extinguish itself :)
As for if this applies to contest as well, of course. The only differentiating factor for contest cert is availability and the delay mod document is a download. I do not think they will run out of them.
It does raise one issue. What if you want a longer delay? A common contest problem. Will AT do yet another document that states what stock RDK's can be used to extend the delay? It would also have use in multi-clusters where you have say 2 E55's and a 2 E6's.
Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Point.
Point.
I suppose the BOD could vote to override a Presidential decision however.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David,
NAR may operate a bit different than you imagine. While Mark clearly has the leadership position of NAR, the execution of the operational tasks required to operate the organization are delegated back to the other NAR Trustees. For instance, I'm the Trustee liaison to the Sport Services committee, the L3CC committee, and the newest member of NAR S&T team. Other NAR Trustees have responsibilities to educational outreach, organizing national events, HQ operations, S&T, NFPA, and of course the legal and legislative efforts. A significant portion of the NAR Trustee meetings that Mark chairs are reports by the Trustees as to the progress and activities in their assigned areas. The undertaking of new initiatives within NAR are either approved by a vote of the Trustees or at the direction of a single Trustee, depending on the size and scope of the activity. For instance, the Jr. High Power Participation program was reviewed and approved by a vote of the Trustees, while the new HPR Competition program that will be rolled out shortly was worked out at the Sport Services committee level.
How the announcement Aerotech delay modification procedure will be handled is in the hands of Jack Kane, who has oversight of NAR S&T as his Trustee assignment. Jack has the option of deciding the NAR response within the NAR S&T committee or elevating it to the NAR Trustees for discussion. At this point in time, I don't know what his decision will be.
    Best Regards,
            John Lyngdal
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Thanks john for clarifying this.
I've not seen anything "official" on the TRA list, so it does appear that the impact of the RCS announcement is in a bit of limbo right now. TMT is also probably trying to figure it out, as they applied strict rules to CTI when they introduced adjustable delays. (during Sue's term).
We could always get in the "kosdon" situation, where NAR and TRA have different views! (what a mess that was!)
(last I heard, a NAR certified Kodson could be flown at a NAR launch but only by a NAR member, but a TRA member can't fly a Koson at any sanctioned launch (unless it's EX and Frank is part of the team!))

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

His membership was not revoked (for refusing to cooperate) to "close that loop hole"?
See, I have learned TRA lackey language.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

appear that

TMT is

to CTI

have
launch but

sanctioned
Nope. Nobody's membership has been revoked to "close a loophole". Yours was revoked for other reasons, as you well know.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Apparantly not. TRA singled out Kosdon motors for non-recognition.

No imagination required. We are "living the lifestyle" right now.

Great. Welcome back to rmr and thanks for the insightful and honest statement.
I especially like this quote: "the Aerotech announcement left NAR S&T flat footed"
I am proud of Gary :)

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

Wipe your face jerry, No one was talking to you.
They're just talking around you.
So, sit down and shut up.
Do it, a Judge said so.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It would be as crazy as TRA decertifying motors certified by the NAR. Oh, wait, they already did that.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in an American flag.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

Example?
Maybe I'll have TRA "renew" my NAR certs too :)

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Hey Jerry, Dave Gravis will pay your Big Fine if this ever happens.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The big fine and the judgements would get paid if that ever happens. Hence why I think it won't despite NFPA-1125 saying they MUST.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
writes:
-----snip-----

Which leads me to reiterate my belief that having multiple certifying bodies simply opens us up to needless confusion. Our motors consist of specific chemical compositons which should perform the same regardless of whose test apparatus they are mounted on (waving hands about temperature and humidity or air pressure differences).
My recommendation still stands; pool the currently fragmented testing resources into a single, central motor testing authority. A certified motor is a certified motor regardless of whose launch it is used at. Conversely unless decertified for safety reasons (like a high CATO rate) 'orphaned' motors whose manufacturer has stopped production of a particular size should be allowed to be used for sport launches. The only 'certification' an organization should be permitted is to 'certify' whether or not a motor may be used in competition launches.
Competion rules belong solely (as they should) to the owning organization and its nobody else's business what should or should not be allowed.
That way, when something new like Gary's delay drilling procedure comes along, one ruling from one testing authority will put the issue to bed for all of us.
John<==I would miss the bickering, though !
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.