USR vs Aerotech



Huh? Iam. Kosdon is. The rule is "comply with 27 CFR." 27 CFR offers exemptions. NAR/TRA are the AHJ's. The AHJ's have a lawsuit where they themselves advocate the exemption. Therefore I want my exemtion to 27 CFR considered as compliance. QED.

NFPA-1125, adopted in some states. Having a discussion with a moron like you is actually pointless.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

as
recovery,
that
Unable to follow a thread, Jerry says:

You are complaining that people have to build their rockets instead of buy them pre-built?

say
AHJ.
1125 says (NAR/TRA) are the AHJ? Glad to see your lack of cite and name calling.
Having a discussion with a Jerry Irvine like you is pointless.
Joel. phx

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
regarding the potential of circumventing TRA/NAR WRT the IBC/NFPA codes, an AHJ can be an insurance inspector or a landowner. However, if an SFM or county may claim overriding jurisdiction that limits who qualifies as a "recognized" organization.
NFPA 1125, 2001 Ed. (excerpted for editorial review)
--
A.3.2.2 Authority Having Jurisdiction. The phrase authority having
jurisdiction is used in NFPA documents in a broad manner, since
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Iz wrote: << ergo having TRA/NAR reform their actions is more practical in the short run than attempting to establish a new AHJ or "recognized" organization. >>
Well, since you are opposed to motor certifications and are a member of an organization that opposes them, it's hardly surprising that you would be opposed to starting your own certifying organization. It's also not surprising that you would feel displeased with the organizations that currently are certifying motors.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jerry Irvine wrote:

The BATFE will argue this point with you. For reference, look at air bags.
From ATF Explosives Newsletter June 1997:
"In order to obtain the explosive material used in the airbag initiators and produce the initiator for installation into an airbag unit, a license as a manufacturer of low explosives is needed. If manufactured initiators are purchased from an out-of-state source for installation into an airbag device, a Federal user of low explosives permit is required. Once the explosive material has been incorporated into the airbag device, it may be exempted from regulation."
http://www.atf.gov/explarson/newsletter/explosive.pdf
--
David W. Schultz
http://home.earthlink.net/~david.schultz
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

27 CFR555.141-a-8

27 CFR555.141-a-8

27 CFR555.141-a-8

27 CFR555.141-a-8

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
OK, here's a theoretical curve ball.
NAFTA supposedly removes restrictions between trade US/Mexico. Joe Blow opens a plant in Mexico to make motors. He's not under US jurisdiction so he CAN'T get a LEMP. Jim Blow (his brother <G>) wants to buy motors from Joe and sell them in the US. How would TRA handle this?
David Erbas-White
Jeff Taylor wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff,
If you had been reading the thread, you would know that this thread is discussing that very thing....
Philip

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Philip -
You asked a question, I tried to answer. What's with the 'tude? I never said anything condescending or rude to you.
Never mind. I'm sorry that joined in. I'll leave your "discussion" now.
-JT
PhilipD wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff Taylor wrote:

Certification is needed to satisfy the insurance company and to make many local jursidictions feel safer about the hobby. An insurance company will not pay if they find that a law was broken. Manufacturing without a LEMP is breaking the law. Certification thus requires asking for a LEMP and DOT paperwork from the immediate manufacturer.
This, I believe, is easy enough for anyone to understand.
The certifying agency (NAR/TRA/CAR) holds no liability for their testing, and is only indirectly protecting themselves (and clubs and members) by validating the insurance by eliminating a possible question of legality in case there is a claim. Any other purpose of certification is consequential, and has proven to be essentially a paper tiger when action or accountability was required from either organization.
This, I understand, is harder for people to believe!
-John DeMar
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

And those people should get it (if and when asked) or go where it is not asked for. It should **NOT** be universally mandated on the outside chance somebody might demand it.

According to the TRA BOD that is not the case and they feel quite safe in their actions.

Manufacturing what? Socks? Exempt items?

False on its face.

And then disagree with on firm and citeable basis.

Mainly because there is no evidence of it, experience supporting it, orlaw you can cite.
Jerry

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Are you trying to tell me that if my house burn down due to a faulty light fixture, my insurance company won't pay me if A) UL didn't verify the manufacturing companies DOT hazmat shipping papers, or B) because the lamp company didn't have a LEUP for the special paint they were using. What garbage!!!!
Ya'll need to find a new insurance company. I would like to see a cite from the policy stating this.
As far as local jurisdictions is concerned, oh yeah it's all about feeeeeeling good. Wanna make them feel good, show them the safety code. Invite them to a launch. Show them the safety measures that we all take. Otherwise, it's no different than the "safety" inspections at airports. They make some feeeeeeel better, but its cost in inconvenience is not worth negligible benefit in safety.

Please cite the law that is being broken.

Based on the complexity of the DOT regs, I would venture that a close inspection of any random hazmat shipment has atleast one error.

Gotta do better than that.

consequential? Your right. They have been pompous, self-important, and influential in that they have kept a supply of motors from the users.
Bob

Nope, I belive the consequential part.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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).

testing,
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This should be in the FAQ!
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jeff Taylor wrote:

they do it to appease the BATFE
and to minimize the number of competing vendors in the marketplace
- iz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does Cessaroni have an LEMP? I seriously doubt it...
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote:

:) I agree.
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Very pertinent question, and the answer shoudl be a matter of public record

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I believe he is applying for an ATF permit as a prophylactic measure due to TRA's stance and he wants to sell into the TRA market. He has zero legal reason to get one and it cedes whatever few rights he has as a canadian citizen to ATF to appease TRA.
TRA sucks.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Alright, if no one else will then I will call bullshit.
Dave, George, Fred, Ray, et.al.
Cessaroni tech has motors TRA certified since at least June 2000. Either produce a copy af a Cessaroni LEMP dated before 07/01/2000, or explain why Cessaroni was cert'd without proper papers.
I have called each one of you out by name. Don't try and slink under a rock and ignore this one....
Philip

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.