So am I legal?

Does the recent BATFE news mean that my G64 reload for my just purchased and
never even used RMS 29/40-120 casing is illegal?
I used to think this was all confusing, but that if I at least stayed below
Level 1, all would be cool. Now it looks like even I'm screwed...
Reply to
bit eimer
Loading thread data ...
Don't sweat it -- the G64 contains 62.5 grams of propellant, and the ATF is only claiming motors that contain OVER 62.5 grams require a LEUP.
You're fine, no matter the outcome, at least with that motor.
-Kevin
Reply to
Kevin Trojanowski
Others are legal with much more. I don't see why with a little wotk you couldn't be.
Reply to
Phil Stein
But Kevin, the G64 produces 120 Nsec, substantially above the 80 Nsec that David Schultz is suggesting the limit now is.
Reply to
bit eimer
Bit, why don't you wait until we find out what the lawyers have to say, before panicking? Or even the ATF, for that matter? It's not like they're running around busting people for G motors the moment we get a questionable ruling.
Take a deep breath and calm down.
Reply to
RayDunakin
Let me try this again. I am not suggesting that the limit is now 80 N-s.
I am saying the limit in the 1994 letter for propellant actuated devices is 80 N-s. But the BATFE is not enforcing this limit. The current exemption that they keep publishing in the Explosives Newsletter, FAQ's, NPRM 968, and claim is long standing policy, is based on propellant weight only. It treats single use and reload kits the same way.
As a reminder, here is the exemption as proposed in NPRM 968:
"(v) Model rocket motors consisting of ammonium perchlorate composite propellant, black powder, or other similar low explosives; containing no more than 62.5 grams of total propellant weight and designed as single use motors or as reload kits capable of reloading no more than 62.5 grams of propellant into a reusable motor casing."
The G64 is at the top end of the range of what the BATFE thinks us peons should be able to purchase without their blessing.
bit eimer wrote:
Reply to
David Schultz
Send it to me, i'll dispose of it.
Reply to
tater schuld
Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking about burying it in the backyard under the tortoise shed for safe keeping. :^)
Reply to
bit eimer
Many people make all this ATF mess seem like the end of the world. I used to be one of those people. I'm not picking on anybody in particular here, so when I say "you," I mean that in a rhetorical way.
Firstoff, I haven't heard of a single case of the ATF enforcing their rules on people (as far as rocket motors go). I don't want to hear any of that crap about Jerry Irvine and the DOT fines. That was the DOT, not the ATF, and is therefore beyond the scope of this message. If I should ever hear that somebody has been busted for having an H128 without a LEUP, then I will be concerned.
Secondly, when you get down to the level of individual agents, NOT THE BUREAUCRACY, do you really think that somebody at the ATF is going to want to drive out to the middle of nowhere on a Saturday or Sunday to bust a few guys out flying rockets? The apes at the head of the Bureau can scare us all they want, but the actual people who do the work probably won't do anything. The ATF has better things to with its manpower do than to actively go after us. The "rockets as missiles" video was a result of us making the leadership mad. The video got nowhere and will probably never surface.
This whole mess could have been avoided if we had not got involved with the ATF in the first place. Rocketeers are amateur scientists! We know that APCP is not an explosive! We know that in the grand scheme of things, the amount of propellant we typically use is insignficant (think about how much propellant is in a NASA booster). We kept asking them if what we were doing was OK, and each time, they gave us a stricter interpretation of the rules. This case should have been put to rest 10 years ago.
Things are not as bad as they seem. Just get on with it fly your rockets.
Reply to
Brian/Joseph McDermott
Even if all the rocketeers were willing to turn a blind eye to the regulations, the regulations affect them in real ways. Many vendors are confused about the regulations, and are therefore taking very strict / conservative interpretations in what they will sell and to whom. If, after this ruling, you can't buy a G64 without a LEUP, your point is moot once your current personal inventory is used up.
-- David
Reply to
David
There is no 80Ns limit other than from the CPSC as to what can be sold to minors. Seems that back in 1985 or so, when we changed the definition of our hobby via the NFPA regs to incorporate LMR and new limits of 1500/125g we got most government agencies to go along with it, except for the CPSC. And of course the 9 years including lawsuit to get the FAA to act. Thus G motors are adults only. I don't see this as a problem worth the kind of effort it would take to fix.
There *IS* an 80N limit on model rocket motors, along with the 62.5g per motor. Thus motors like the F101, G104, and G125 are HPR.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
This year. I have no doubt that if they get their way, we'll see a continual encroachment of what they will allow, until things return to the 1959 state, where HPR is "C" motors.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Did you read the stuff about Al's hobbies here in the Chicago area?
One club member keeps having a different inspector visit. Each time they cite him for violations, and tell him to change. Then the other inspector cites him for the changes and tells him to put it back the way it was.
Another member has the same problem.
Yet another member gave up and dropped his LEUP and HPR because after repeatedly giving the BATFE change of address forms, THEY hadn't updated THEIR records, leaving him very vulnerable to big fines.
Here I don't have first had details, but this aparantly HAS happened, I believe in the PRK.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
I recently felt jerked around on my renewal by an inspector. One call donw to DC fixed it. I did make it clear that I wanted to follow regs - as soon as someone could show me what they are.
Reply to
Phil Stein
ok Bob, then why has the NAR/TRA leadership steadfastly refused to consider defining into law via the DOT or CSPC process or other means , what a LMR motor is and what a HPR motor is? I don't get it.... The BATfe wants to use the CSPC language as they say thats the only language they have to go by( not withstanding the fact that there is a psuedo-Large Model Rocket definition in the FAA regs....)... (and not withstanding the fact that TPD was defined way back in the late 50's early 60's...)
The only place that I am aware of that defines HPR is in NFPA 1127 which has been around since when? Why does the BATFE conviently overlook nfpa 1127 as the basis for the definition of a HPR motor....
This is such a fiasco......so the BATFE slipped by the 1998 NPRM deleting the TPD definition, and the NAR/TRA powers that be were asleep at the wheel?and of course we were ALL asleep at the wheel back in 1971 ( or perhaps in a pot induced coma) when APCP was made an explosive.....
shockie B)
Reply to
shockwaveriderz
I agree!
When and if the ATF busts anyone, it'll be dealers. Going after individual flyers would be difficult and would have far less impact. As for people who say, "Am I going to get busted for these motors I have now," well that's just stupid. Do they think the ATF has bugged the homes of everyone in the country, and knows what motors you have before you tell them?
To do that, we would also have to have avoided any involvement with the NFPA.
Scientific fact is irrelevant to legal fact, as the ATF has proven. There are items on the explosives list that are not even low explosives, such as igniters.
How? By giving in and letting the ATF regulate us to death? What would that have accomplished?
I agree. No matter how bad things get, until the ATF actually stops me from flying, I will continue to fly. There's no reason not to.
Reply to
RayDunakin
For the same reason they conveniently ignore/deny the PAD exemption: They're jerks who are bent on regulating rocketry regardless of the law.
Reply to
RayDunakin
Yes, vendors don't have it as easy as fliers because they are higher up in the supply chain and therfore easier to target. If it should ever come down to a worst-case scenario (I'm not even going to speculate as to what that might be) we will still be able to fly HPR rockets. Alternatives to the current commercial motors do exist, whether it be ANCP, sugar, epoxy, asphalt, Zn/S, hybrids, biprops, or steam. Pretty much all of these options can be, and have been to some extent, commercialized and scaled to the appropriate size (except for the very small rockets, which would be exempt anyway).
Under the current rules, EX rocketry with APCP is pretty much exempt as long as the propellant is for your own use. There is no commerce involved. Despite what some may say, the ATF will never be able to enforce thier rules upon EX rocketeers. There is no paper trail for them to follow and the motor is pretty much burned soon after it is made.
Reply to
Brian/Joseph McDermott
...and you don't transport them on public roadways.
Joel.
Reply to
Joel Corwith
some snipped.
Actually, the ATF agrees with that, as long as the "materials" are properly stored prior to use. No permit, no logging of materials, but safe storage in a proper magazine prior to use is required. (if not immediately used)
Reply to
Dave Grayvis

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.