USR vs Aerotech

Don't ask, don't tell?

I bet you $100 you do NOT get an authoritative answer to that valid question.

Huh? Either a material requires an ATF permit or it doesn't there is no "in between".

Who is?

Your reference is circular. I asked you to explain why the submittor matters to TMT. You replied because TMT rule 2-4.0 says so. Unless you have additional niformatioon to provide, this is what you have to say on the matter: The submittor matters to TMT only because TMT says that it matters.

See Also: Arbitrary (adj) - Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle

Again, they are an OEM manufacturer. OEM manufacturers make a point of staying behind the scenes so their many distributors can appear to be selling unique products. It's normal business practice and you would be surprised how often what you buy is OEM.

No, but a LEMP is not required if you are not manufacturing any longer. And a LEMP is not required if you are purchasing from a manufacturer and re-selling.

Ironically USR not only warrants its motors it warranties OTHER BRANDS OF MOTORS TO ENCOURAGE SWITCHING. Yet another reason it was blackballed. It was working great!!!

There is a specific policy by both NAR and TRA to insist only the original manufacturer submit the motors. Quest goes to Germany, preps the shipment and they send it from Germany (allegedly). ACS delivered every motor that was previously certified by personal delivery. So they changed the policy also to say no more personal delivery (unless you are not Jerry) and also that only the actual manufacturer can submit. ACS finds TRA and NAR to be evil and wants as little to do with them as practical so offered to send motors as soon as the EX numbers are "approved". That is where we have stood since about 2 years before the motors were decertified in 1997.

It's all arbitrary.

You should say "is Aerotech".

TMT asks new manufacturers to GET PERMISSION from Aerotech before they will accept motors for cert!!!!!!!!!

Given the documentation how can you possibly say they are not in direct contact?

Because you are a moron? Because you are a person of low intelligence? Because you cannot read? Because you are a mindless TRA automaton?

That's a relabeled Aerotech F10.

while ACS may not be able to submit the motor for testing, the DOT paperwork originally issued to ACS is valid for its successors

- iz

Jeff Taylor wrote:

You did not mention TMT in your question. I cannot tell you why that rule is there, I wasn't there when it was added. I do think it's a good rule, but that is beside the point. If you want to argue to TRA or who ever you like, that the rule is bad and should be dropped then by all means go right ahead.

-JT

Are you going to answer the WHY portion of the question? Why is this rule there? Why is it any of TRA/NAR's business what the contractural arrangements are of the entity submitting motors?

Actually, that's not true. A LEMP is a company asset.

Bob

TMT wants to be sure that the motors were manufactured by some one with a LEMP. TMT believes that this is important, and that's why they insist on knowing who the manufacturer is.

You can argue that they shouldn't care, but they do.

-JT

uh! uh! uh! I know! Jerry-mandering!

Is anything he says true?

That is itself illegal.

NFPA-1125 only requires compliance with 27 CFR which does NOT require a LEMP for any propellant actuated device operations. I do not need a resolved NAR/TRA/ATF lawsuit to read the law as it is written right now.

No.

I don't know.

the entity submitting motors?

It isn't. However, they believe that it is their business to check that motors submitted for certification were manufactured under a LEMP. Seems like a good idea to me, but that's just my 2 cents.

-JT

I was.

Plenty have so they added MORE Jerry-mander rules.

Prove it Iz(;-).

Can't a club like TRA make it's own rules? Are they bound to NFPA codes and only NFPA codes?

-JT

I think you really got them going now Jeff (:-)

Fred

Jeff Taylor wrote:

This is why Fred cannot be trusted. In the face of prior postings "proving it" he asks for yet more proof of something he knows to be compiant if he is as trained as he claims to be. Which apparantly he is not.

Jerry