ROL NEWS--AeroTech Files for Chapter 11

So past practice is no indication of future trends? Good to know.

Jerry

The ONLY manufacturer EVER of a CERTIFIED $5 H (till 2000)

I'm agreeing that AT is the only manufacturer that is heavily into F and G motors. I do NOT agree with your contention that it's TRA's fault there are more manufacturers willing to make motors that size. Go ask CTI, AMW and Ellis why they aren't producing more mid-power motors.

Huh? What planet are you from?

Jerry

Steve wrote:

Dave had the rocket at lunch today. Got it yesterday in the mail. It's called the El Lubbo. Means "The Pound" in Spanglish, I think.

It's a 4" diameter MR. Three tubes coupled together make the airframe. The tubes were light and strong. Looked like good quality MR tubes.

The fins were very light balsa. They were a little rough looking, and will need some sanding, but very light, and acceptable.

The rings were made from good plywood, but fit kinda loose on the 29mm MMT. A third piece, to be used as a bulkhead/baffle was included. It was drilled with maybe seven quarter inch holes. Seems there shoulda been two to make a baffle.

The instructions looked well put together and up to the task.

The nosecone and tailcone were to be made by the user using couplers as shoulders and rolled, cut paper as the cones. This part was pretty cheesy. Not that it can't be done, but we've all seen how 4" shrouds usually turn out. But this doesn't kill the deal. A little cheese shouldn't bring the world done (on USR).

The chute was pretty poor, but would function. It looked like some sort of white nylon cut with pinking shears. The suspension lines looked like packing string, and were tied onto the canopy thru small holes. Again, not too swooft, but it will do.

So, the kit did finally show, and the overall quality wasn't unacceptable. Dave can build it or bash it. The tubes and fins alone would make a great start for a variety of rockets. I offered to turn him a nice balsa cone for it.

Jerry did indeed deliver. After others had posted here weeks ago that they'd received USR kits (as part of the saverocketrynow program) and others had said they'd gotten their prizes from all the other vendors, I concluded Jerry was weaseling out on his obligation to Dave. Well he came thru after all.

I still thinks he's a blowhard, loudmouth, whining POC who pollutes rmr to the extent of nearly ruining it, and I still think he needs a lesson in manners Texas style, but he did deliver.

Doug

No! From the airframe tubes.

Shockingly strong and light.

Build it truly stock, review it then FLY it.

product that is legal

lengths you'll have

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.

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.

Yes. Working with existing paradigms is failing.

But we've already covered this!~

~Duane Phillips.

So you agree there are limitations... and you only propose to ask the makers I can count on one hand to make these? Do you like the hobby, Ray? Would you like to see it grow?

This is your opinion, and not my experience. I'd like to fix the problem

Fact anyhow. Regardless of your opinion. After the AT fire, I was paying $20 for a G80. This should be remedied as to not happen again. It hurt the hobby.

Not at all. Historical evidence in countless other markets. This is pure business logic. Try taking a business course or two.

It is called the law of supply and demand... but there are many other factors about business paradigm that affect both of the elements of supply and demand.

~ Duane Phillips.

I fly both sport and competition. We're in the midst of the second TAC, mentoring kids to build 2 staged dual egglofters that have to reack 1250'. The ONLY competition certified motors bigger than a C are the Estes D12 and E9, and SOME OF THE Aerotech motors. And the fire never changed the vendor choices, it just further reduced availability of many of the AT motors.

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

This should be in the FAQ.

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.

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?

What reason did those dealer give for not carrying other brands? What reason did they give for not having current AT stock? Did they indicate that they _would_ have Jerry's motors if those were certified?

The answers to those questions will reveal whether the problem lies with the vendors or if it lies elsewhere.

No, you could also encourage Jerry and Frank to get their act together so they can cert their motors. The other manufacturers did it, so can they.

Of course. Would certification of illegally manufactured or shipped motors make the hobby grow? Or would it create even more trouble with the bureaucrats who are already antagonistic towards the hobby? I don't know the answer to that -- do you?

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

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.

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.

Sounds good to me. Perhaps Fred or someone from TMT can explain why they believe otherwise.

So why do you make conclusive declarations of illegality knowing you do not know? This is an admission of liability Ray. And I DO know where you live and you are CONVIENT to sue.

Please stop it.

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 f 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