[saverocketrylater.tra]

It is all about making rec.models.rockets about anything but rockets.

Kinda like TRA.

After all, TRA has formally adopted NFPA-1122 and NFPA-1125 and NFPA-1127 which demand delays be tested.

Does TRA do it? No thanks.

NAR and CAR despite any requirements to the contrary have not "formally adopted" rules only to ignore them.

NAR and CAR had the forsight to either comply or say no comment.

TRA is bold indeed.

Jerry

I assume you will IGNORE this fact and both change the subject and attack the messenger. Reminder: while ignoring the actual message above.

Snipped as usual. So inconvenient.

Got kicked out of TRA for asking about it.

Tried to get the NAR to not recognize the bogus certs.

Informed the NFPA of the issue.

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

Three substantive answers.

Not bad for a rhethorical question phrased in the form of bait!!

Welcome to rmr.

Let facts be obfuscated!

Jerry

Hurry!

No, YOU prove that they were tested. I've been trying to get TRA to prove it for a decade now, and all I get is no response from them and idiots who can't understand simple logic showing what they did was bogus.

I'm not gonna waste the bandwidth posting the TMT motor data again. Go find it in your favorite newsgroup search. But I posted the data from Cato and from McMurray that showed only a couple dozen AT motor tests in the 3 year gap, while over 200 would have been needed to cert the new motors added to the lst in that time. That has NEVER been refuted or explained.

I've offered to PAY for the data for particular motors, and to permanently drop this topic and apologize if shown the data that proves me wrong. Nothing.

SHOW ME THE DATA.

or SHUT THE #!%@ UP!

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

Based on what I've seen over the years, that's probably true (my two cents, which in this case isn't worth much because I wasn't active at that time)

Again, based on what I've seen over the years, that's also probably true, but I also understand how/why NAR may or may not have responded in the way that you might have desired.

This is the first I've heard of this, and it's somewhat illuminating. If that is the case, what was the response? If NFPA decided that there WAS something to be concerned about, what was done? If they decided there WASN'T anything to be concerned about, then this pretty much says that your concerns may have been unfounded, does it not?

This last is a serious question, not meant as flame bait. Hopefully, you've seen enough of my commentary to believe that...

David Erbas-White

First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Let's save JerryIrvine.con

Kidding aside, I like Jerry. I'd rather have a few beers with Jerry, than a more respectable NAR trustee. Let's all pray for Jerry. I'm not sure exactly what to pray for; respectability, credibility, RMR netiquete. that sort of thing.

Alan

I think Jerry should produce and sell "Save Jerry!" T-shirts and sell them on RMR...

Oh, wait.. He tried a t-shirt deal a few years back. Seems there was some problem where people who paid never got a t-shirt... (like everyone)

At least he hasn't single handedly cause ROL forums to shutdown in a few years. Now those were interesting times!

No one has ever been kicked out for merely "asking" about anything.

Apparently neither of these orgs came to the same conclusions you did regarding TRA's operations. Sadly, that's not good enough for you.

NFPA:

We rent rooms.

We sell books. A lot of them. Thin ones.

Go away and bother the committes stuffed with commercial interests :)

NFPA:

We rent rooms.

We sell books. A lot of them. Thin ones.

Go away and bother the committes stuffed with commercial interests :)

Ah, come on, that's SOMETHING!!

Jerry

"I am NOT at all satisfied with the organizations performance in the development of NFPA codes, and was appalled at their obstruction of the legislative effort. They presume to be rocketry advocacies, but conduct themselves like rocketry regulatory advocacies and kindly offer to be the surrogates of those who would just as soon see rocketry extinguished."

- Izzy

Get over it.

Reality bites!!

THIS

SHOULD

BE

IN

THE

FAQ.

Apparently, it does for you.

You ARE that myopic.

Jerry

"What I find interesting about your behavior, is the sheer energy you expend changing the subject, and attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message. ANY of several messages."

- Jerry

Apparantly, to the clueless.

This newsgroups IS all about rockets on the rare occasions when Jerry goes into hiding for a while. Unfortunately he always comes back and resumes spewing BS. That's why he's been kicked off all the moderated forums -- he won't stick to posting about rocketry. Here, where there is no moderator, he hijacks every thread and posts all the drivel his sick little brain can conjure. When anyone counters his BS, he blames them for fouling the newsgroup. Jerry's big on blaming others for the results of his own actions.

Dear Newbies: This is a classic example of Jerry's unsubtantiated claims. He has no proof to back it up, yet he states it as if it were fact. He hopes that by repeating this kind of stuff over and over, he can occasionally sucker some poor newbie into accepting it at face value. Ask him for specific, verifiable proof and he'll give you speculation, opinion, conjecture, quotes of his own posts, quotes of other people's posts (often out of context), misdirection and changes of subject -- anything but real proof. Press him hard enough for proof, and you'll find yourself on his enemies list. He may even threaten to sue. But not to worry, the courts have declared him a "vexatious litigant" (someone who files suit as a form of harassment) and restricted his ability to sue.

BTW, I can post the case summary if you want verification, or you can look up the case number yourself. Others have posted the fraud judgement against Jerry, and the DOT ruling. I'm sure they'd be happy to repost those if necessary.

Here's something else of interest to those deciding whether or not Jerry is to be believed... One of the requirements for motor certification is that manufacturers must have an Low Explosives Manufacturer Permit from the ATF. Jerry repeatedly insists that the ATF does not require this permit for rocket motor manufacturers. He even says that the ATF told him he doesn't need that permit. Yet on his own website, he posted the following statements:

"To avoid "interaction" with alphabet regulators we no longer resell contracted motors." "ATF "knowingly and falsely" claimed PADs are not exempt despite 27 CFR 555.141-a-8."

And here's what the ATF has to say about it:

In particular, check out question #3... "3. I would like to manufacture and distribute single use rocket motors and/or propellant reload kits. What ATF license is required? Only a manufacturer's license is required. Licensed manufacturers may engage in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for their own use. It is not necessary for a licensed manufacturer to also obtain a dealer's license to engage in business on his or her licensed premises as a dealer in explosive materials. See 27 CFR =A7 555.41(b)(3)."

You see, it's much easier for Jerry to blame his problems on TRA than it is to admit he's not operating legally in the eyes of the ATF.

You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Lack of data is not proof that those particular motors were not tested. However, that's not the issue here. You made the claim that NO TMT chairman other than Cato has ever "gotten the whole job done". There's been several TMT chairmen since that time. What proof do you have that ALL of them have failed to do their job?

Furthermore, TRA created, owns, and operates Tripoli Motor Testing. It is up to TRA to determine what the TMT chairman's job is and how it should be done -- not you and not Jerry.

To a person full of spite, is it ever?

Makes me wonder how Bob handles his ulcers worrying over crap thats ten(13?) plus years old.

Oh well, I guess getting kick out of a little rocket club really can have a nasty affect on the ego.

Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

It is all about making rec.models.rockets about anything but rockets.

I felt it important to reiterate this before reading Ray's rant.

Thank you.

Jerry

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Lie.

Correct.

Correct.

Correct.

It is NOTABLE that TRA's own policy prevents me from living the lifestyle and sticking it in their face (full force) while selling unregulated motors.

Ironic, eh?

Or to cite the ACTUAL law and the reading thereof :)

The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances).

The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55.

What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding?

Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption?

From: Rick Dickinson

I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written.

The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means.

and

All I have been saying is that:

1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.".

2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:"

3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number.

4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined."

5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable.

6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing

, Part

55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance.

7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned.

and

Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein.

Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers.

Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me.

- Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson

Just Helpful Jerry

That's what I said.

etc....

The attentive reader will note that despite all his one-word denials, Jerry still hasn't backed up anything with proof.

Notice too, how he sticks to his lie even after being confronted with the ATF's own statement that motor manufacturers DO need a permit?

Again, he provides no proof. He has been asked to do so regarding this particular claim for years and always refuses.

No one's stopping you. You don't need TRA's permission to manufacture motors without ATF permits. Go right ahead, stick it in the ATF's face and let's see what really happens.

(Note: Jerry often expresses a desire to be a "test case", but always avoids it like the plague.)

Folks, this is another of Jerry's favorite tactics. He claims we all just have to cite the regs and the ATF will miraculously change their policy. Of course, it's not his neck on the line. HE won't do it. He _claims_ he did, but like all his claims he refuses to provide any proof. He wants the rocketry orgs to stick their necks out instead of his own, just so that he can sell his illegally manufactured, unshippable motors. And he goes ballistic if anyone suggests making a call to the ATF to see if they'll verify his claim.

Again, Jerry ignores the fact that this case isn't settled, and distorts the judge's partial ruling to fit his own interpretation. The specifically refused to address that particular issue, stating that it was "not properly before the court" at that time. But Jerry only hears what he wants to hear.

And then Jerry goes on to post his usual quotations from posters to this forum, as if that is more authoritative than the ATF's own published statement of policy.