ROL NEWS--AeroTech Endorses Consumer Adjustment of RMS Delays

Loading thread data ...
You've claimed that he carried, stored and sold a bunch of motors. Which is the real story? What did you do?
Oh here it is -
Reply to
Phil Stein
No, not at all. I know better.
And yet I have a fraud judgment against you.
Maybe you forgot, here's a reminder:
ROBERT L. WEISS, ESQ. BAR #118796 1001 Partridge Drive, Suite 105, Ventura, CA 9 3 003 (805) 650-1717
Attorney for: Plaintiff, Franklin Kosdon Bob Kloss, Brian Teeling, & John Lee
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF VENTURA
FRANKLIN KOSDON; BOB P. KLOSS;) Case No. 117435 ) JUDGMENT BRIAN TEELING; and JOHN LEE ) Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) JERRY IRVINE, individually, ) and dba U.S. ROCKETS; ) JERRY IRVINE, dba POWERTECH; ) DOES 1-50, INCLUSIVE ) Defendants , ) This action came on regularly for trial on July 10, 1996 in Department 22 of the California Superior Court, County of Ventura, before the Honorable Burt Henson, presiding. The plaintiffs Franklin Kosdon, Brian Teeling, Bob P. Kloss, and John Lee (hereinafter collectively "Plaintiffs"), and cross-defendants Brian Teeling, Bob P. Kloss, and John Lee (hereinafter collectively "Cross-Defendants") appeared by their attorney of record, Robert L. Weiss. The defendant and cross-complainant, Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, appeared by his attorney of record, Grant Kennedy. And Related Cross Actions ) A jury of 12 persons was regularly impaneled and sworn.
KosdonVjudgment Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury with directions to return a verdict on special issues. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its verdict consisting of the special issues submitted to the jury and the answers given thereto by the jury, which said verdict was in words and figures as follows as to each of the respective claims. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for breach of contract, the jury found that defendant Jerry Irvine breached a contract with each of the Plaintiffs and that each plaintiff was damaged in the respective amounts as follows for the breach of contract: Franklin Kosdon in the amount of $1,3 00.00, Brian Teeling in the amount of $1,399.84, Bob P. Kloss in the amount of $400.00, and John Lee in the amount of $3,500.00. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for conversion, the jury found that Jerry Irvine interfered with the money and profits of Powertech as to each of the Plaintiffs; that a portion and share of the money and profits of Powertech interfered with by defendant Jerry Irvine, was a portion and share which was owned, due or should have been fairly distributed to each of the Plaintiffs; that defendant Jerry Irvine took the money and profits of Powertech exclusively for himself without sharing it with his partners, and without sharing it each of the Plaintiffs; that the interference by defendant Jerry Irvine was a substantial interference as to each of the Plaintiffs; the interference by Jerry Irvine with the money and profits of Powertech was an intentional interference as to each of the Plaintiffs; that the damages suffered as a result of defendant Jerry KosdonVjudgment Irvine's interference with the money and profits of Powertech were such that the interference was a substantial factor in causing such damages as to each of the Plaintiffs; and that the amount of the damages caused by defendant Jerry Irvine's conversion of money and profits of Powertech as to each of the Plaintiffs was respectively as follows: as to Franklin Kosdon, in the amount of $4,847.50; as to Brian Teeling, in the amount of $4,847.50; as to Bob P. Kloss, in the amount of $4,847.50; and, as to John Lee, in the amount of $9695.00. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for fraud and deceit, it was stipulated and agreed that as to each of the Plaintiffs, that cause of action would proceed on the basis of false promise as opposed to misrepresentation, and the jury found that defendant Jerry Irvine made a promise as to a material matter to each of the Plaintiffs; that at the time that defendant Jerry Irvine made the promise, that Defendant Jerry Irvine did not intend to perform it as to each of the Plaintiffs; that the Defendant made the promise with an intent to defraud each of the Plaintiffs; that each of the Plaintiffs, at the time each Plaintiff acted, was not aware of the Defendant's intention not to perform the promise; that each of the Plaintiffs acted in reliance upon the promise made to them; that each of the Plaintiffs was reasonably justified in relying upon the promise by the Defendant; and that Defendant's promise did cause damage to each of the Plaintiffs; and, that at the point in time that the promise was made as to each Plaintiff and their reliance, no dollar amount of damages had been suffered. With respect to Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages, the jury found that Jerry Irvine was guilty of fraud, malice and KosdonXjudgment ~ .3
oppression by clear and convincing as to each of the Plaintiffs on the tort causes of action, and determined to award punitive damages against Defendant Jerry Irvine in favor of each Plaintiff as follows: as to Franklin Kosdon, in the amount of $2,000.00; as to Brian Teeling, in the amount of $2,000.00; as to Bob P. Kloss, in the amount of $2,000.00; and, as to John Lee, in the amount of $2,000.00. With respect to Cross-Complainant Jerry Irvine's claim for breach of contract, the jury found that no Cross-Defendant breached their contract with Jerry Irvine. With respect to Cross-Complainant Jerry Irvine's claim for conversion, the jury found that no Cross- Defendant converted property belonging to Jerry Irvine. With respect to Cross-Complainant's claim of Unfair Competition, Cross-complainant dismissed said cause of action during trial. With respect to the accounting issues and the partnership personal property, the Court found that the items were of negligible value, and determined that those items currently in the possession of Brian Teeling, John Lee, and Bob Kloss, be returned to Jerry Irvine at such time that Jerry Irvine satisfies the Judgment made herein. As to Franklin Kosdon, it was determined that an arson fire had destroyed those items that had been in his possession and that Franklin Kosdon was absolved of any obligation to return such items. The court further diminished the award in favor of Franklin Kosdon on the breach of contract cause of action to zero and reduced the damages on the conversion cause of action down to $2,847.50 by virtue of the prior small claims judgment obtained by Franklin Kosdon against Jerry Irvine. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, Franklin Kosdon, is entitled to judgment against Kosdon\judgment ~f» ~~ Defendant, Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 4,847.50. 1 2 It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, Bob P. Kloss, is entitled to judgment against Defendant, 3 Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 7,247.50. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, Brian Teeling, is entitled to judgment against Defendant, Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 8,247.34. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Plaintiff, John Lee, is entitled to judgment against Defendant, Jerry Irvine, in the amount of $ 15,195.00. It appearing by reason of said special verdicts that: Cross-Defendants are entitled to Judgment in their favor against Cross-Complainant, Jerry Irvine, and therefore that said Cross- Complainant take nothing by way of his cross-complainant. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That Plaintiff Franklin Kosdon have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract reduced to zero, and for conversion in the amount of $2,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $4,847.50. That Plaintiff Bob P. Kloss have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract in the amount of $400.00, and for conversion in the amount of $4,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $ 7,247.50. That Plaintiff Bob P. Kloss have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for Kosdon\(udgment
breach of contract in the amount of $400.00, and for conversion in the amount of $4,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $7,247.50. That Plaintiff Brian Teeling have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract in the amount of $1,399.84, and for conversion in the amount of $4,847.50, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum -of $8,247.34. That Plaintiff John Lee have judgment, against Defendant Jerry Irvine, and Jerry Irvine, d.b.a. U.S. Rockets, for breach of contract in the amount of $3,500.00, and for conversion in the amount of $9695.00, and punitive damages on the conversion in the amount of $2,000.00, for a total judgment in the sum of $ 15,195.00. That Cross-defendants Brian Teeling, John Lee and Bob P. Kloss have judgment in their favor as and against Cross-complainant Jerry Irvine. Further that Cross-complainant Jerry Irvine take nothing by way of his cross-complaint. It is further ordered and decreed that at such time Defendant Jerry Irvine pays the judgments as set forth above, Brian Teeling, Bob Kloss and John Lee shall return to Jerry Irvine the partnership assets currently in their possession and control. Dated: Honorable Burt Henson, Judge of the Superior Court Kosdonjudgment
By the way, when do you intend on taking care of this?
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
Not quite true, based on real personal experince... The Kosdon Decert specifically. I was a TRA Prefect AND a NAR section advisor at the time.. Bunny refused to get involved, claiming that he defered motor cert issues to S&T. Unless Gary sent him a really nice gift basket last Christmas, I doubt he made this call with anything other than his own personal opinion, and therefore doesn't speak for NAR and S&T!
Why has TRA/NAR/TMT/S&T not yet come out and said "OK.. We agree, and this change does not not require a re-certification!" Not here, ROL, or even the TRA member's list. Gary could post a PR that says anything, (like the Ellis J350 fiasco), but still requires the cert folks to sign off... Oh ya, you're a newbie so you probably don't remember that one!
David.. It's clear that you're a newbie to this stuff, as you just got your L1. As someone that's done many ,many certs and done hours of RSO duty, it's not that hard to determine if a flier is a yahoo. Even a L1 cert flier CAN have experience with electronics. It's also not had to see that someone that finds it manditory to shave a second off an RMS delay doesn't a) grasp that the delay is +/-20% or b) has so little faith in their bird to be able to handle the +/-20% of their bird.
"but I modifed the delay to be 9 seconds, and the bird couldn't handle the stress with 11 seconds! I did everything right!"
This assumes that you always fly the same motor! What if you cert on a H123, and find you can get a H242? This does come into play, as with the 123 and 242, you are dealing with a differnt delay grain, even for "medium". (and in the same case!) The propellaent is different, and therefore, the delay grain is different. A "medium" is not a "medium" for different propellant formulations!
Because, your "8 second ajustment" could be a 6 second delay in reality, and the bird could still be flying mighty fast to result in a good flight! While if you left the delay as it was, you wouldn't shread the chute! Shortening delays is never a good tactic, as I've seen many a bird deploy whle still at top speed!
Again David, you're basing your view on a very limited number of HP flights. (1?). I'm basing mine on years of HP, with and without electronics!
These are the kind of things you SHOULD learn between L1 and L2, but it seems in the last few years, real knowledge isn't a part of the cert process....
Reply to
AZ Woody
It might have something to do with the fact that these people have real lives outside of model rocketry. Besides, it's only been a few days; give them a chance to look it over and respond.
Mario Perdue NAR #22012 Sr. L2 for email drop the planet
formatting link
"X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded."
Reply to
Mario Perdue
Bunny didn't refuse to get involved this time -- he SPECIFICALLY stated that all that would be necessary would be for the manufacturer to endorse the technique. He had the OPTION to not get involved, but that is NOT what he did.
And while he is the President of NAR, as long as he is acting within the 'rules' of the organization, then it is his personal opinion that guides any gray areas -- not that I think this is a gray area, it has been pretty well hashed out that engines can only be modified as the manufacturer recommends.
I'm a newbie to HPR, not to rocketry, and I was around (and paid attention) the Ellis sponge-motor fiasco. If you care to google, you'll have seen me posting here for many years. Here's my take on it -- Aerotech could post a recommendation all day long, but the fact was that the motors were made under entirely different conditions than the ones that were certified -- thus, NAR had the option to pull the certifications due to the fact that they were effectively 'different' motors than the ones that were certified. Now, realistically, this is one that could/did require a judgement call -- Gary could argue that he used the same designs, same formulations, etc., and I wouldn't disagree with a certification organization taking that at face value up until the point where the failures were occurring. Once that happened, all bets were off, and instead of it being somewhat incumbent upon the organization to prove why the motors were 'good', it then switched to being incumbent upon Aerotech to prove the motors weren't 'bad'. My two cents, anyway.
I would venture a guess that I've got more experience with these 'types' of electronics than just about anyone in the hobby today. I'm not talking specifically about rocket altimeters, but very small, low powered data acquisition devices that have to operate off battery power and do different things at different times. And again, though I'm a newbie to HPR, that has been by choice -- and I wouldn't have even done it much at this point (I prefer mid-power myself), except that it required a level 2 to help at NSL, so I decided to get it to help out. I agree that you can determine most folks level of proficiency fairly easily, but even with the fact that I've got mega-experience with these 'types' of electronics, I saw no 'need' to unnecessarily complicate my L1 or L2 certification flights by using it. Remember the KISS principle?
I still disagree with your comments about shaving off a second or two off an RMS delay -- as I've pointed out (ad infinitum, it seems), there are times when 8 +/- 2 seconds is PREFERABLE to 10 +/- 2 seconds -- and making those minor 'tweaks' is part of what this hobby is about. I've also discussed how it would appear that the 'range' of delays available in RMS products is a bit sparse -- you've essentially got a choice of 3 delays that span SEVERAL classes of motors. Going back to the lower-power motors, you have 2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8 second delays, just going from B to E class motors (Estes BP). Why should there be limitation for those doing HPR (or even mid-power)?
Yes, and Gary's chart does exactly that -- it allows you to calculate the depth that must be drilled off of ANY delay they manufacture to get your desired time (within the +/- 20%, of course). I don't know if you read their press release or not, but it DOESN'T say drill 1/32 per second, it tells you how to use the provided chart to find the right depth.
Sorry, that may be your opinion, but I've seen plenty of other experience HPR guys differ with that. And while I (myself) am new to HPR, I've not been ignorant of it -- I've witnessed many flights (obviously, nowhere near as many as you), and have participated in many lively discussions over the years (and have kept my mouth shut in areas where I don't know what I'm talking about, but still read the comments by others).
Again, all else being equal, if I have a rocket that consistently is deploying on the way down, where everything I've got TELLS me that is going to happen (be it Rocksim, timing the rocket each time, experience of others, etc.) then it would seem just common sense to shorten the delay as needed. Again, taking your example into account, I would 'tend' to pick a delay where if it happened to be on the short side, it wouldn't be too long before apogee, but that is part of what this hobby is about -- doing those kinds of changes and gauging the effects -- trying to get that 'perfect' flight.
I don't dispute that I've got a lot to learn in the HP realm, and that experience is the best teacher. That having been said, I can't think of a single thing that could have been done better on either my level 1 or level 2 certification flights -- and I think those who signed off on them would agree. I'm not particularly modest, and think I'm a damn fast learner -- but I'm also not particularly a 'newbie', either -- even if HPR is 'new' to me.
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
You know how critical I am of arbitrary rules.
This is not one of them. This falls squarely under "intended use" and "manufacturer recommendation", conflicting language in 1127 notwithstanding. There is a lot of bad and conflicting language in 1127 unfortunately.
"Bunny" does speak for NAR. He may or may not speak for S&T but he does have the aurthority to do so.
When I interacted with NAR (myself) over motor certs it was with Bundick not Kane. Someting I found irregular. But I did not question it since Bundick IS the President. I did disagree with the particular procedure he employed.
When DPT interacted with NAR, they did so through Kane as far as I was told. Back when there were "several" employees BTW :)
Also if you read the rules it indeed allows manufacturers to make changes to the already certified product and only "report" it to the testing AHJ, akin to FAA notification.
The AHJ then has the stated option of whether or not to ask for additional testing.
Now I am the one who has been advocating this change for a decade now and so I am biased, but according to my reading of the VARIOUS rulebooks, this one is consistent with a best effort reading of the many and conflicting rules.
Jerry
That is not a factor in rule reading. Only in historical abuses and traditions.
You haven't had a fun day till you have had a launch with 1000 yahoos!
The whole point of the delay mod procedure is it is simple enough for a newbie.
I do believe it is prohibited by LAW in UK for example.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
No, "the whole point of the delay mod procedure is" to facilitate alteration of the delay train without violating regulations.
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
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
Reply to
Johnly
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 ).
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.
Reply to
David Erbas-White
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 :)
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
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.
Reply to
Dave Grayvis
Hmmm, this would mean that the CTI motors are in violation of NFPA 1127 as well...
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
It's not that it's impossible for someone going for L1 to have experience with electronics. It's that a cert flight should be a KISS effort. Electronics, delay modifications, ANYTHING you haven't done before other than using an H motor instead of a G should not be on the table. And any complicated step should be avoided.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
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!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow

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.