ROL NEWS--Ellis Mountain Motor Delays Certified

There does seem to have been a "great die-off" of available certified motor brands in the past decade or so - and I'm not concluding this from anything Jerry said on RMR, but from things like the NAR and TRA cert listings (as published in early 2000 when I first got back into rocketry), which contained entries for "expiring" types from brands that seem now to be nonexistent. "Energon"? "Dragon's breath"? Who were they?

-dave w

So the clubs need to enforce guidelines to ensure they're insured. I'm assuming these guidelines for NAR/TRA are the NFPA's which Jerry referred to in his reply. I know if I were certifying motors, it would be a simple matter to test a sample set of motors to verify they're performing compared to data provided from manufacturer's tests. But how do I verify that the other items in the NFPA are being followed? For aviation systems, an FAA representative would come on-site and rifle through all your papers, which you're required to keep hardcopies of for this purpose. In the event of liability, we could produce every bit of data required by our regulations showing we followed development and testing guidelines.

How does NAR/TRA do that? Does one of these club's volunteers fly to the company's facility and walk through, verifying that paperwork, processing, and even light switches are as specified in code? What's to keep me from making propellant in my back yard and disappearing if there ends up to be a problem in the field?

Joel. phx

I also find it interesting that there is no 'certification' for parts or kits. While the model is usually inspected by a club representative prior to flight, isn't that like an FAA official walking around an newly built airplane and saying "ok let'r rip"?

plastic-bubble

Are you implying that the state of California requires no paperwork to manufacture and sell ""fireworks""? If they don't collect sales tax, why doesn't every company move there?

Joel. phx

No.

It requires a CSFM (state) permit (ie MR1147). However the issue was a local "business license". Both were asked for by TRA and only one existed or was required. Therefore only one was tendered along with a county document stating NO business license was required in the jurisdiction as well as a map showing the factory was in that jurisdiction.

I cannot imagine how compliance could have been improved short of MOVING to a location where a license became required :)

open a office in a location were a license is required. then that part of the rule is fullfilled.

many ways to do that.

no business licenses required in my area. just tax collecters permits.

snipped-for-privacy@news.verizon.net>...

Strictly speaking of the issue presented:

How dumb is that... in effect saying "we don't allow businesses from your area, sorry". If the business license is not required by law governing the area, then how can an organization require that area to produce one? How hard could it possibly be to just say, "... abides by all APPLICABLE laws...".

~Duane Phillips.

Which this does that last 'this' apply? I'm assuming it applies to the license and not tax id Then how about this, Is it OK for the person submitting the motors for certification to not be related to the business name (tax id, property lot number) the certification is for?

Joel. phx

I think you are misunderstanding my previous post. I agree with others in that the requirement for a business liscence is overly "picky". Therefore the requirement should provide for alternate means of establishing the entity (sole propriater, corporation, partnership) submitting a motor for testing is a viable "up and up" business (not a dreamer submitting "phantom ware") for certification. This can be confirmed through the submission of other objects that establish the validity of the manufacturer as a business (i.e. a Tax ID #, a registered business name (DBA) form, a bank statement in the name of the company, or articles of incorporation). I have no problem with TRA/NAR/CAR requiring some documentation that the entity submitting the paperwork and motor(s) for certification. This practice establishes that the entity submitting the motors is more than "John Doe" making motors in his garage/basement/shed and that the motors will be available in sufficient numbers to justify the effort spent in testing and certification.

Joel Corwith wrote:

I think you are misunderstanding my previous post. I agree with others in that the requirement for a business liscence is overly "picky". Therefore the requirement should provide for alternate means of establishing the entity (sole propriater, corporation, partnership) submitting a motor for testing is a viable "up and up" business (not a dreamer submitting "phantom ware") for certification. This can be confirmed through the submission of other objects that establish the validity of the manufacturer as a business (i.e. a Tax ID #, a registered business name (DBA) form, a bank statement in the name of the company, or articles of incorporation). I have no problem with TRA/NAR/CAR requiring some documentation that the entity submitting the paperwork and motor(s) for certification. This practice establishes that the entity submitting the motors is more than "John Doe" making motors in his garage/basement/shed and that the motors will be available in sufficient numbers to justify the effort spent in testing and certification.

I think the above response would eliminate this practice. If the person submitting the motor for certification is not an agent/principle of the submitting company, it is highly unlikely that they would be able to provide the documentation that established the validity of the manufacturer.

Mark A Palmer

TRA 08542 L3

Not hard. Unwillling. The whole POINT is to restrict that business from the system. Otherwise they would do what they did for Propulsion Polymers and make an obvious common sense exception. The fact they did not IS THE POINT. It was hard evidence of the INTENT of the TRA TMT and its defacto committee member, the TRA President.

Whether those were Blazanion/Kelly, or McMurray/Kelly, or Clark/Kelly, or whoever, the result was precisely the same.

Calvinball.

Just Jerry

All politics is predictable. DOA.

As a TRA member you have standing to request that change. I have been intentionally prevented from having that standing on the basis of a 12 year old claim that was never supported by the federal authority with real jurisdiction over the issue.

Jerry

Did you ever consider that the number of manufacturers is lower because: 1. the market is small, 2. the regulations are high, 3. the costs to certify motors isn't trivial?

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

However as a matter of practice, convention and existing rules it most certainly is NOT.

Jerry

It used to be!