ROL NEWS--AeroTech Files for Chapter 11

Jerry Irvine wrote:


Like G80FWL's :(
Ted Novak TRA#5512
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane wrote: << I agree whole-heartedly... have done the same... checking and rechecking local hobby shops I frequent. And I *live* in Utah... still no local motors.

Maybe you're looking in the wrong places. I haven't seen any composite motors in a hobby shop for years, and then it was just at one small shop.
Do you have a vendor at the launch site?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

rechecking
motors.
motors
I already addressed launchsite vendors. Read back.
Local vendor*s* say they still cannot get the product.
I will no longer be content with only one manufacturer. I intend to fly some Jerry motors. I intend to fly others also.
Unfortunately, I will have to go great lengths out of my way, or pay extra unwanted costs to fly *anything*.
Like it or not, all is not well in motor distribution land.
~ Duane Phillips.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The situation has been created by NAR and TRA adding rules on rules, some actually making it into regulations, and also "dropping the dime" as often as they possibly can.
Gee I wonder why people cannot get motors and the market has dropped 80%+?
I wonder . . . . .
It must be the government, or magic, or Jerry, or, or, or or, or anything BUT NAR and TRA. Look over there!!!!!!
Jerry
"People in this hobby seem to make up all sorts of shit just to make themselves look better, kind of what I heard happened to you." - Shawn Loughary
"When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail." - Lotfi Zadeh
"Since Mr. Kelly's *main purpose* here is to 'build the image' that I am capable of more 'violations' than he is (I've now got TWO 'black marks' to his ONE), we can just forget about *HIS* 'violation' that started this whole thing. One of his *most typical* tactics - when painted into a corner, the classic (and child-like) approach is to say, "Ooooh, look over there!!" (to distract attention from the fact that he got caught with his hand in the 'cookie jar')." - John Cato
--
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

Subject: Re: USR Motors on ROL Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 15:00:50 -0800
shockwaveriderz wrote:

CSFM manufacturer licensing/type registration for "rocket motors" only applies to "consumer" motors - i.e., H or larger motors to be used under the auspices of a "class 3 rockets" licensee, or smaller motors for use by the general public (permission from local fire authority required in either case).
Rockets launched under the control of a "class 2 rockets" licensee (which Frank Kosdon, for example, has) can use solid motors not classified as either "model rocket engines" or "high power rocket engines" in the Registered Pyrotechnics program, and state "manufacturer licensing" does not apply to these.
-dave w
--
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

extra
product that is legal

lengths you'll have

1) I don't live in CA. (Used to though). 2) Why is everyone trying soooo hard to keep Jerry out of the marketplace? You don't know whether he is legal or not! You have your suspicion only!
You know nothing about Jerry's operation. People who are in business may be able to discern some of the LEGAL business tactics Jerry uses. But to the average working American, who does not understand how business operates, and can operate, it is all confusing and sounds suspicious. We as a people would not be where we are today in single business entity paridigms. *Stable* mass market exposure is *only* achieved when the entire paradigm is distributed, and the burden of management also. The lack of this is what makes AT (and all currently motor makers) so affected by *small* changes in operating conditions. Why do you think Estes *refuses* to step into the higher motor ranges? The risk factor starts to double like the motor designations. No, I am not talking motor performance now; I am talking about business model (although, as proven by the AT recent history, it eventually affects everything).
This still has little to do with the fact that TRA/NAR should not be checking anything except the function of the motors themselves. Any and all other excuses *ARE* exerting limitations on the hobby in a negative fashion, in ways they apparently do not fully comprehend.
~ Duane Phillips.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This should be in the FAQ.

--
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
Duane wrote: << 1) I don't live in CA. (Used to though). 2) Why is everyone trying soooo hard to keep Jerry out of the marketplace? You don't know whether he is legal or not! You have your suspicion only! >>
Duane, no one here is "trying" to keep Jerry out of the marketplace. None of us is on the TRA or NAR testing committees. Explaining _why_ he doesn't meet the requirements is not the same as "trying to keep him out". I for one would love to see him get his motors certified.
As for knowledge of Jerry's legal status, I only know what I've heard from others. NAR and TRA both say his paperwork is not in order, and I see no reason to doubt them. Especially since it's corroborated by folks like Fred who have first-hand knowledge of Jerry's situation.
<< This still has little to do with the fact that TRA/NAR should not be checking anything except the function of the motors themselves. >>
Are you basing this statement on your knowledge of the law, or is it simply an opinion? A variety of sources have said that it is illegal to knowingly receive motors that have been improperly shipped. If that's true, would you accept and certify them if you were a certifying authority in the spotlight of the regulatory agencies? Perhaps you might be willing to take such a risk yourself, but can you honestly demand that others do so?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ray,
Cite your sources. I have told you at least three times that your information is wrong. Yet, you trot this response out again and again without mention of the information to the contrary. Now, I'm going to lay it all out here one more time. Any future failure to mention the opposing viewpoint can only be taken for with it is. An attempt to ignore the truth and repeat your side of the argument over and over until somone believes it. And that Ray, is intellectually dishonest. SHould you choose that road, be prepared to discard your "jerry is untrustworthy" card because you sir will have decidedly joined the ranks of the dishonest.
That said, let me clarify: ------------------------ I worked at UPS for 5 years. Two of those at a customer service center acceprting and screening all manner of packages. Currently, I ship HazMat via UPS daily. I own the business, pack the products with my own hands, and had to get a UPS haz met certification. The liability for anything that happens is mine peronally. No subs, no OEM's, no employees to scapegoat on. And I am intimately aware of the following.
1. Responsibility for a shipment lies with the shipper. 2. Once tendered, the responsibility for a properly labeled shipment is on the shipper and carrier. 3. Once tendered, responsibility for an improperly labeled shipment remains with the shipper. 4. Once received, the responsibility for a package becomes the receivers. 5. If the receiver has knowledge that they are not permitted to have the item, the receiver may be liable for illegal possession. 6. For certain items, the shipper may be liable for illegal sales to a restricted party.
Bottom line: If the receiver is legally permitted to have the material, and did not explicitly request that it be delivered by a non-compliant method the responsibility falls onto *the shipper*.
Now, prove me wring and illegally ship me a few Class B motors. I'll keep 'em and you call the authorities and let them know where to come get 'em.
PhilipD

and
yourself,
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I wrote: "A variety of sources have said that it is illegal to knowingly receive motors that have been improperly shipped. If that's true..."
"junkmail" replied: << Cite your sources. I have told you at least three times that your information is wrong. >>
I don't know what difference it makes, since it's still just one person's word against another's. But Fred is one of the persons I've heard say that receiving improperly shipped Class 1.x "explosives" (as APCP is classed by DOT) is illegal. And of course, TRA (and NAR, I think) also believe that.
<< Yet, you trot this response out again and again without mention of the information to the contrary.>>
I'm assuming those on the other side of this issue already know what their own arguments are. Why is it my job to repeat your position for you???
In any case, I have NO personal knowledge of the regulations related to shipping and receiving motors, nor have I claimed to. All I know is that some people are saying it's legal and others are saying it is not. All I have to go on is one person's word against another. Or Jerry's "cites" which tend to ignore any conflicting regulations.
Someone needs to provide clear, unambiguous, definitive proof of one or the other in a way that all parties will accept. Until that happens, it's pointless to continue arguing for certification of motors that lack accepted DOT paperwork.
<< Bottom line: If the receiver is legally permitted to have the material, and did not explicitly request that it be delivered by a non-compliant method the responsibility falls onto *the shipper*. >>
Sounds good to me. Perhaps Fred or someone from TMT can explain why they believe otherwise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

This is why the auctions work.
Both parties have incentive to 'don't ask, don't tell".
I cannot risk the "faith" that requires so I refuse to auction. Ever.
The system breaks down when TRA gets involved and sets up stings to "bait the shipment" and then turns in the shipper.
The problem is TRA has no standing to have exemption from legal liability for a "sting" by being involved in the commission of a crime (or regulatory breach) and as such is as liable or more liable.
Had ANY of my investigations simply raised to the level of a fine or sanction I would simply have "turned states evidence" and disclosed who ordered what and how and screwed TRA or its shillls royally.
Never too late either.
My end is resolved fullyand finally (double jeapordy).
PhilipD wrote:
That said, let me clarify: ------------------------ I worked at UPS for 5 years. Two of those at a customer service center acceprting and screening all manner of packages. Currently, I ship HazMat via UPS daily. I own the business, pack the products with my own hands, and had to get a UPS haz met certification. The liability for anything that happens is mine peronally. No subs, no OEM's, no employees to scapegoat on. And I am intimately aware of the following.
1. Responsibility for a shipment lies with the shipper. 2. Once tendered, the responsibility for a properly labeled shipment is on the shipper and carrier. 3. Once tendered, responsibility for an improperly labeled shipment remains with the shipper. 4. Once received, the responsibility for a package becomes the receivers. 5. If the receiver has knowledge that they are not permitted to have the item, the receiver may be liable for illegal possession. 6. For certain items, the shipper may be liable for illegal sales to a restricted party.
Bottom line: If the receiver is legally permitted to have the material, and did not explicitly request that it be delivered by a non-compliant method the responsibility falls onto *the shipper*.
Therefore a shipment sent at the request of NAR for example and properly packaged, approved, and successfully transferred is received by Kane for example.
Kane then calls the DOT for example. Kane being the receiver just potentially turned HIMSELF in, which explains why the DOT was "kind to him" by dropping the matter and calling "me for example" to apologize. DOT wanted to see it go away too. But it is never too late to resurect it (no statute of limitations) and ream Kane royally.
These rules and laws need to be changed. Nobody needs that hanging over their head for EVERY SHIPMENT ever received!!!
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
Jerry Irvine wrote:

More Bullcrap from the horses ass.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Were you speaking to me, sir?

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

No, I was referring to jerry. Sorry for the confusion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

More Bullcrap from the horses ass.

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

word
receiving
It makes a difference because it is not simply one persons word against another. The law is very clear. I keep trying to get to see that for yourself, and you refuse. It is not a matter of debate like PAD or not, explosive or nor, etc. Legal predicent regarding the rules of responsibility in commerce/shipping was set hundreds of years ago and has changed very little. Go look it up. Or do not do so and continue to speak from a position of ignorance.
Bottom line, Fred is wrong. As is anyone else who tells you that. They may choose to believe that as you have, but that only makes it clear that they have not researched the law on the matter.

own
You do seem to feel obligated to repeat Fred's position so why not mine.... No, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to speak truth and fact when you have knowledge of same. You, however, seem to feel it appropriate to ignore that you have also heard conflicting information whevener you reply to someone you feel may not have seen this thread. And that is intellectually dishonest.

So, you agree that you have no definitive information on the subject. I recommend that you either refrain from posing on the subject, acknowledge that you have been made aware of two differing positions, or at least preface all posts on the matter with the statement immediately above.

Indirectly, you have done precisely that. You regularly respond to posts on the subject in an authoritative tone and fail to inform the reader of your ignorance on the subject. Whether intentional or not (I suspect the former), you lead the reader to believe that you do have personal knowledge of the regulations related to shipping and receiving motors.

Some people?!? Nice attempt to shit focus off Ray. You would be some people also, Ray.

BS. As I said, I bet my personal liberty against my knowledge of that law daily. That carries a little more credence that some off the cuff comment made on RMR. But if that's not good enough, check the facts for your self. The annotated codes are available online and in mony larger libraries.

the
pointless
The proof is there. I have read it. Have you? No. Then why do you continue to post from a position of ignorance?

It should, it's the law. But I would welcome such a response....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Link?
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
"junkmail" wrote: << It makes a difference because it is not simply one persons word against another. >>
So far, that's all I've seen is one person's word against another. You say it's not illegal to knowingly receive improperly shipped motors. TRA/NAR and Fred say it is.
<< The law is very clear. >>
Then show me the law that says so!
<< I keep trying to get to see that for yourself, and you refuse. >>
Because no one is giving specific, complete legal cites to prove it one way or another. Just, "I say it is!" vs "I say it ain't!"
<< Bottom line, Fred is wrong. >>
Fine, prove it! Somebody please PROVE something!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it's
Fred
way or

You disbelieve and refute the proof that is in Jerry's hands. Period. The document is real.
Maybe you think he FORGED it? I mean that is a serious federal offense...
So maybe you should instead get a clue as to how Jerry, or any manufacturer might have such a document, with consideration to the time frame it was obtained, and DOT procedures then and since.
The proof has been proferred and rejected by the ignorant.
~ Duane Phillips.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Phillips wrote:

But the DOT says no.
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.