USR vs Aerotech

I did in private channels. The issue is "being worked" whatever that means.

The point was made before, and clearer, on hybrids. If there's no explosives, let alone exempt ones, why would they need any permit?

Joel. phx

Jerry-mandering

Joel,

No troll. I have better things to do. There was an accusation of impropriety on the behalf of TRA. One that should be real easy to resolve as it involved no litigation, and a fairly recent certification. I just wanted to see if the answers would come out, or if the backpedaling would begin.

No, if TRA is behaving that heartens me that we may paly fair going forward. I still would like the history addressed, because if what I understand to be true is even partially true, there are some leaders who need to part ways with TRA forever. Again, hoisecleanig to make amends and pave the way for a new tomorrow.

You see, Joel. Contrary to what you believe, I deperately want a progressive, supporting, active TRA. But I can tell you from experience that some of our leadership does not want that. They want to maintain a spoils system controled by good old boys.

Philip

Yep. And I commend you for not "slinking". Note, however, that that places you in a vary small minority...

Philip

Ok, let's toss out a hypothetical.

Manufacturer XYZ makes motors in outer Mongolia. An "EMP" of sorts may be required, but aside from the manufacturers assertations that they are legal, or spending big bucks hiring a lawyer in Mongolia to do research, there is no way to confirm that as a matter of fact.

Do you allow them to certify, or not? Why?

You said right here YOU could back this up. Now it seems you're backing down.

Only if what you are manufacturing requires an LEMP, and you do not have one. This is a huge bit that keeps getting blasted back and forth. The normal rules do not apply for items that fall out of the test, or fit the definition of a PAD. (but let's regulate ourselves into oblivion anyway).

consequential,

accountability

The never have plugged all the liability holes (nor can they), so the whole thing has yet to succeed, and relies upon good will of insurance to pay at any rate.

Additionally, the more tight they make the restrictions, the more they legally entangle themselves, and hurt the hobby in the process. They must to some extent become an "interpreter of laws" in order to set requirements in the first place. We are not talking about simple club rules, we are talking about club interpretation of Federal and State law, and also creating some of those rules by which everyone must abide.

~ Duane Phillips.

Thanks Bob. Truth: an amazing concept.

~ Duane Phillips.

This should be in the FAQ!

Anthony, before I start writing, please excuse the veracity of my questions. I mean no disrespect.

Do you know this for certain? What about Peru? Hong Kong? Panama? Ethopia? Khazakstan? Guam?

Given that propellants are your bread and butter, you may know that these answers off the top of your head. But I threw out a hardball betting that I would touch at least one that you did not know. The purpose of which is to make this point: Given the endless pages of legislation, jurisdictional disputes, conflicting documents, etc. does it make any sense for the 5 member board of a hobby association to attempt to interpret the law. I say no. There are lawyers who spend their entire lives trying to get a grasp on federal regulation, authority, and jurisdiction, and never succeed. What makes us so special that we believe that we can? And if we can, why did we hire attorneys to handle the case on our behalf?

I say we let the manufcturer determine what is best for their business and the agencies that seek to regulate them determine if they are doing so in accordance with the rules they are bound to enforce. And if XYZ refuses to get a xEMP and BureauQ refuses to prosecute them, so be it.

Philip

They claim they don't.

Then they do!

Well said.

That well thought out plan is harmful to critical Jerry-mandering which is the prime directive. Literally.

your doing me in Tim !

I'm sure Ted would say if you shoot it, you got to eat it.

I wonder if he ever tried HPR ? I know he probably would like it !

/ArtU

'have any plans'?

Would it be safe to say that going outside the US to 3rd party motors(APCP) is out of the question (you being outside and seeming somewhat familiar with those sorts of operations)?.

What about, say Mexico? Where do fireworks come from anyway?

Joel. phx

MCHNY

Anthony,

The countries cited were irrelevant. The were merely an abstraction intended to represent the countless states, counties, boroughs, provinces, parishes, cities, tribal lands, and numerous other political divisions that must be taken into consideration before one can declare that a manufacturer is "manufacturing legally".

Quite frankly, I'm not sure that definitive compliance is possible even for a single location manufacturer. But assuming that it is, when you expand it to every political division in North America, throw in the limited resources of a non-profit entity like TRA, and complicate it with the post-911 fervor here in the states, there is just no way that TRA (or anyone else) can declare a manufacturer "legal" with any reasonable measure of accuracy.

Bottom line, we should leave the determination of legality to the entities established to do so. The lawyers, the courts, the enforcement agencies, and the people who have put themselves in the precarious position of being between the three (the manufacturers).

Philip

I'm sure he'd like it, especially if we built him a scale arrow with a nice broadhead nosecone. :)

Wouldn't an importer have to get everything cleared with the authorities, including DOT, _before_ they could even bring the motors into the country? If that's the case, and I believe it is, then the importer would have clearly have the paperwork in order by the time they submitted motors to cert, right?

Art tried yo reply to your post of your launch photo @ Three Oaks and it got returmed. I have some questions for you.

Thanks Dennis