User Certification History

Ok folks I just know this is probably gonna start Flame WW3, but since I was
not in rocketry circa 1986 when this User certification first started, I
thought that I would ask for the recollections of those that was there at
that time...
I have a pdf copy of the TRA User certification "letter" that IZ posted over
on a.b.m.r earlier so it seems that circa 1986 TRA decided that it needed a
User Certification system for its membership so that they could legally
purchase and possess Class B ( 1.3?) explosives. I can only assume that
they started this User certification in leiu of its membership having to get
LEUPS? at that time? Is this correct? Why did the TRA decide in 1986 that
its membership needed this User certification? what were the driving forces
back then? Is it possible that this will stay on topic for more than 2
Evidently also at this time the NAR was not doing any HPR so at appears to
me that the NAR basically just copied the TRA model? Is that basically
Was the orginal NFPA 1127 written in 1987? later?
Any pertinent and on topic information will be appreciated....TIA
shockie B)
Reply to
Loading thread data ...
knew I JUST had to come back to RMR. ALL this good talk....just makes me.....wanna make me PEE my PANTS! :-)
God bless RMR.
Reply to
Karl Martin Joseph Kowert
It did NOT have that effect. It was ALWAYS an internal club policy for internal benefit.
Doubt me? Cite what law or rule it was designed to "comply with". Please.
LEUP's were not required then or now, so that is not it.
I could tell you the real reason but it is a POLITICAL answer.
To TRY to have a single example of "self-regulation". TRA people heard that term bandied about at NAR and had no clue what to do or how so they started MAKING UP STUFF.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
jerry: do you think just once, you could actually answer a question directly and on topic with no spin or slant.... I am trying to understand what lead to this process...
Right now I find myself in the position of defending and supporting User certification for HPR and I really do not know the history of the process...... How can I make an informed decision on which said to support if I don't have a historical reference ?
SO are you telling me that Class B motors even back in circa 1986 didn't require a LEUP for purchase or possession? Class B is a 1.3(c) ? explosive yes?
I did notice that you signed that User Certification paper circa 1987 that IZ posted so evidently back then even you originally supported User certification?
shockie B)
Reply to
I did.
Spin and slant is necessarily part of the answer.
Stop wasting your time. Things are not going to change and you "defending and supporting User certification for HPR" is both unwelcome by almost all, and a total waste of your time.
You can try to teach a pig to sing, but you waste your time and annoy the pig.
Of course.
I was a prefect. Founding Prefect for #007 LTR. It was my obligation to certify people who requested it. I always treated it as a merit badge. I never restricted sales to certified users or LEUP holders. Never. Ever.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Here's the whole story in a nutshell:
When TRA was formed, rocket motors more powerful than modrocs were prohibited by NFPA 1122, except as follows:
"1-1.4 This code shall not apply to the design, construction, production, manufacture, fabrication, maintenance, launching, flight, test, operation, use, or other activity in connection with a rocket or rocket motor when carried out or engaged in by: (a) the government of the United States of America; (b) any state or local government; (c) any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, corporation, or other business entity engaged, as a licensed business, in research, development, production, test, maintenance, or supply of rockets, rocket motors, rocket propellent chemicals, or rocket component parts; (d) any college or university."
TRA, as a non-profit business promoting research, education, and advancement of high power rocketry, was able to allow its members to take advantage of this exemption. Members who successfully flew a high power rocket in the presence of an "authorized person" representing TRA, would be given a signed "Confirmed Consumer" card permitting them to purchase high power motors as an agent of the corporation.
LEUPs were not required by ATF at that time, as they considered all rocket motors to be PADs and therefor exempt.
No, it was much later, sometime after NFPA 1125. I don't have the exact dates handy.
Reply to
Which (according to the judge) still stands, since BATF never actually made any new ruling otherwise - at some vaguely-timed point (late 90's?? note that no effective date was ever stated!) started talking as if the rules had been different all along or something. Judge said "no" to _that_ noise.
Looks like even the BATF isn't _absolutely_ a "teflon agency". (It's only a 300-pound gorilla at this point: it can't quite sleep _anywhere_ it wants...)
And that's just on a "motion for summary judgement": that's the judge looking at the paperwork and going (as Jerry likes to say) "point!"
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
This should be in the FAQ.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Like sit down and shut up?
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Note: back then TRA was not yet non-profit...
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
However, the DOT considered them to be Class 1.3 explosives and regulated shipping accordingly. For a while, they had to be shipped to explosives permitted airports only and picked up there by the addressee.
Reply to
Tom Binford
Yep, I remember that! Unless you were buying a LOT of motors and had a lot of money to burn, you were better off just going to a launch to get motors even though launches were few and far between back then. That was the main reason I used to go the Lucerne launches, was so that I could get motors.
Reply to
That is the TRUE reason for reloadable motors that came out in 1989-1990. Not to get anything over a aft rule, but to allow shipping of motor grains via DOT rules.
Reply to

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.