ROL NEWS--AeroTech Receives California State Fire Marshal Approvals

AeroTech Receives California State Fire Marshal Approvals
July 11, 2005
Web posted at: 2:39 PM EDT
(ROL Newswire) -- The California Office of the State Fire Marshal
(OSFM) has issued classification approvals for a number of AeroTech
motors and reload kits.
They include the following:
Model Rocket Single-Use
F42-4T (#64204), 8T (#64208) Econojet
F26-6FJ (#62606), 9FJ (#62609) Standard
Model Rocket Reloadable
G77R-S, M (#07077M, uses the RMS-29/120 case)
G79W-S, M, L (#07079M, uses the RMS-29/120 case)
G61W-S, M, L (#07061M, uses the RMS-38/120 case)
G67R-S, M (#07067M, uses the RMS-38/120 case)
NOTE: The G77R and G79W reloads use the Easy Access high-power line
RMS-29/120 case, not the model rocket RMS-29/40-120 case.
High-Power Reloadable
I600R-M (#09600M, uses the RMS-38/720 case)
K780R-P (#11780P, uses the RMS-75/2560 case)
L1150R-P (#12115P, uses the RMS-75/3840 case)
L1420R-P (#12142P, uses the RMS-75/5120 case)
M1297W-P (#13129P, uses the RMS-75/5120 case)
K680R-P (#11680P, uses the RMS-98/2560 case)
L1300R-P (#12130P, uses the RMS-98/5120 case)
The approvals allow the sale and use of these rocket motors and reload
kits by California consumers. A copy of the new California OSFM
approvals may be downloaded in PDF format from the AeroTech Resource
Library at
formatting link

Source: RCS Rocket Motor Components (RCS), Inc.
Reply to
ROL News
Loading thread data ...
Does think mean it wasn't legal to fly these in CA before now?
What about the bags? How thick are the bags?
Reply to
Phil Stein
Who cares about the bags? The important question is "are they bar coded?"
Gary
In article snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com, Phil Stein at snipped-for-privacy@ArielSystems.spamsks.net wrote on 7/11/05 12:47 PM:
Reply to
Gary C. Rosenfield
I am curious if ANYBODY is going to address this issue?
Does this mean what I think it means. "it wasn't legal to fly these in CA before now?"
After all, several TRA and NAR clubs have large group launches here and allow these motors to fly IMHO.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
And if this is a case of "don't ask, don't tell", at least have the balls to say so.
Otherwise Tripoli (and Aerotech) should be held to the same standards it enforces on others.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
From what I've read here, apparently, people are flying USR motors. With that being the case, why aren't you concerned about that? AT might not be perfect but they are much closer than USR is.
Reply to
Phil Stein
I'm tempted to say "This should be in the F.A.Q." But I won't.
Bill Sullivan
"Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house." - Lazarus Long
Reply to
The Rocket Scientist
Don't really know. As all of our hard documentation was destroyed and I was unsure of whether we had a complete scanned record of approvals, after careful review new letters were sent to the COSFM to fill in some apparently missing classifications and to request classifications for a few new motors.
We have been holding a number of shipments of these motors pending the receipt of the classifications. It's possible that some orders were inadvertently shipped to dealers in the past.
Also, it is my understanding that motors can be used in some circumstances under the authority of a valid COSFM license (pyrotechnic operator, manufacturer and importer/exporter) prior to classification.
It's common knowledge that numerous individuals and dealers bring various manufacturers' motors into the state that are not COSFM classified. Not much that can be done about that. I am not aware of a NAR or TRA requirement to police for COSFM classification.
I believe all AeroTech motors and reload kits currently being sold and used in California are COSFM classified.
Are yours? Have they ever been?
You claim to have a COSFM "model rocket permit" (MR-1147):
formatting link
but there is no record of you, any of your current or previous businesses or this number in the COSFM license database:
formatting link
Why is that?
Gary
In article snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com, Jerry Irvine at snipped-for-privacy@gte.net wrote on 7/12/05 9:14 AM:
Reply to
Gary C. Rosenfield
Because "big fine" has a past and present persistant history of "taking liberties with the truth", but you knew that.. Hell, everybody knows that(:-)
Fred
Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace
Correct.
But there is one for ATF which those motors are EXEMPT from. Ironic, eh?
The oldest date I see in the license field is 2004.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
AFAICT Those are all from pre-1998 when TRA decertified them. I suspect there are a lot of "collector" motors flown, including from Aerotech, FSI, etc.
Fine.
I was of course inquiring as to motors that were shipped into CA "en masse" by a currently shipping and certified and licensed manufacturer, or his authorized dealer. THEN the RSO of a "sanctioned" launch who is a stickler of the rules (apparantly except that one) about what can fly and what cannot.
You already know my position about certifications and motor collections. I believe certs should be permanant and motor collections should be decriminalized.
The other option is just to let your entire motor collection burn to the ground in an "accident" and solve the problem that way.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Pick one.
He ran out of White Out after he transfered tose DOT papers to himself.
He sent a change of ownership tp CSFM numerous times but they kept saying they never got it.
His dog ate it.
The devil made him do it.
And thanks for the info.
Reply to
Phil Stein
Jerry, I was at the ROC launch this past weekend, on July 9, 2005, and that was the first time I had seen any of these new motors available for sale. The vendor who showed them to me did so by enthusiastically telling me about the new motors he had *just* gotten from AeroTech in time for the launch.
I know he didn't have them the last time I had a chance to look at his stock, the previous month, and I have no reason to doubt his statement that he *just* got them in time to bring them to our launch, and that CSFM had classified them at the end of last month. I ended up buying a 29/120 motor and several reloads: two G77R reloads, and one G79W. With the reloads costing approximately half what a G80 costs, with near-identical thrust curves, I'll probably end up using quite a few of these motors.
According to the CSFM document at
formatting link
CSFM classification of these motors was finished on 6/29/05, and the copy on the web site was scanned from a copy that was marked as being faxed on 7/8/05. Either way, they were approved, and the notice faxed, before they were available for sale on July 9th.
So, oh frabjous joy, calloo, callay, your regulatory panic seems to be unfounded, unless you're referring to some other "NAR and TRA clubs here" that were allowing these new motors to be flown. I'm not sure who, however, as the only other local NAR club is SCRA, and I know Fred is a stickler for CSFM classification. Unless you mean Tripoli San Diego, but I doubt that they were able to get these particular motors much earlier than anyone else....
- Rick "Puzzled" Dickinson
Reply to
Rick Dickinson
These are all relatively new motors...
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.