What is everyone working on now that its cold and windy?

Sounds sad actually... It might have passed muster otherwise and changed the future of rocketry w/ regards to classification. However, arguing for reclassification under those circumstances is kinda like putting the smoke back into the chimney.

Philip

"W. E. Fred Wallace" wrote in

Jerry should try to start his own certifying authority, and then we can all find out just how successful he is at getting the ATF-controlled NFPA to approve his cert program.

Of course, Jerry will never do that. He'd much rather spend his time trash>

This is a typical Jerry tactic: Anytime someone points out the fallacies in Jerry's arguments, Jerry claims that person is "in favor of increased regulation". What a crock.

What are you talking about?? You did not, repeat; did not, fill out a hazmat declaration, declaring hazmat of any kind, much less check the hazmat box on the shipping company shipper declaration. By not checking the hazmat box on the shipper document, indicating hazmat, one way or another, you violated the law, if your shipment contained hazmat: it did, and you were fined.

Fred

Jerry wrote:

Dave W. wrote:

So you're saying that TRA is requiring only minimal proof of compliance?

That's not true, as you well know. They also require such things as business license, etc.

Good grief, another person using the Jerry-speak dictionary of word definitions. In order for any action to be considered "illegal", there must be a law prohibiting that action. If there's no violation of the law, there's no illegality involved.

At least we agree on something..

How can I argue with such logic?? That's like my grand dad saying, "locks only keep out honest people".. I never quite agreed with the old man, as I thought then and now, locks at least, help deter the less than determined dishonest person from breaking and interring. I see regulation of dangerous goods, with a similar parallel. Regulation helps to keep most of the less determined shady characters and companies on the right path. Is regulation a cure all? Hell no, as evidenced by the DOT's own web pages, full of lists of violators and penalties assessed. However, human nature being what it is, coupled with the need for business to cut corners to sometimes just survive, I would hate to see what would happen if there was no regulation at all.

Fred

State and federal.

Refresh My memory, what prior post was that?

Powertech was a partnership. you were a member of that partnership. you were also convicted of civil fraud in excess of $50,000.

Do you have My money?

No it wasn't. More like commercial vs. amateur. Look at the title of this thread.

What about 200 pounds? What about "pallets of motors"

Even more ironic is that many would argue that the fire department burned down their neighbors apartment.

By some accounts AT just had a small grease fire because some employee forgot to put the lid on the skillet. Then the fire department came and poured gassoline on it (OK, they put water on stocks of finely poweded metal fuel, causing it to ignite.).

Alan

Alan

See, here's the thing. I would not mind living next door to AT. I would not mind living in the same building as the guy making motors in his kitchen, as long as he is responsible, knowledgeable, and safety conscious. However, I would not want to live near the teenager who reads a couple lines in HPR and decides, if they can do that, I can do this, without learning how to do it safely and properly first.

I don't make motors, but I'm not opposed to properly done amateur rocketry. The problem with EX is that it blurs the line and encourages people, who should not, to just give it a try.

Alan

Apparantly you have NOT read NFPA-1122 or 1127.

No he actually advocated LEUP's for APCP makers that do not currently require them on a "building code" arguement even though ATF and building codes are different.

Jerry

Do not confuse him with facts.

That account/analogy is substantially accurate.

This should be in the FAQ!!

Proving me right :)

But it need not be a crime. DOT proved that.