What's the current state of the hobby?

oh and wasn't your 3rd reason to allow the use of the czech deltas was because Texas was not a NFPA or IFC state, at least in the fire district in which NSl2006 was being held.
which leads me to ask: Would you as an RSO allow these czech delta motors to be used/sold/distributed in a NFPA or IFC state?
terry dean nar 16158

shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
That was a response to your threat to report us to the authorities. I was simply pointing out that you had nothing to report. I should have kept my keyboard shut and let you make a fool of yourself.

I want everybody to notice that he didn't, can't or won't answer a direct question.
terry dean nar 16158

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com says...
  Quoted Text Here  
We're noticing, alright, but it's certainly not you want noticed.

Like who cares? Since when does an RSO affect what people can buy, sell or distribute? Of course, the motors mentioned are not on the certified list and would not be allowed to be used under NAR or TRA rules but that doesn't affect any other launching.
Phil
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 10:02:28 -0400, Tweak
  Quoted Text Here  

The RSO has complete control over what flys at any NAR launch.
If I'm the RSO at a NAR launch, then what I say is law for that launch. I don't care whos rocket it is or what special permissions from anyone they have, if I (as RSO) feel the rocket shouldn't be launched, it wont be. I may not be invited back as RSO, but as far as I know, no one can over-rule the RSO once the RSO has said no to a rocket.
Personally, if I were RSO at the launch that had the "special permission" rockets being flown, I would have to seriously think about allowing them to be used. There is nothing stopping the person from launching them on thier own time and site, but as a NAR launch, the rocket motor should be on the list of certified motors. Why do they have to have special permission to launch them at a NAR launch? Why not just launch them the day before or the day after on thier own time? They wouldn't have NAR insurance while flying on thier own using uncertified motors, but for the motor sizes that were talked about, that shouldn't be a major issue.
My opinions are just that, my opinions. To each thier own I guess.
-Aaron
Phil Stein wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

That is true but it looks like the BOT made a decisions in the case being discussed. Agree or not, isn't the BOT there to make decisions?
BTW you're little RSO tirade indicates that maybe you did not read and comprehend what I wrote.
Phil
  Quoted Text Here  

Yes, I did read and understand what you said. My point wasn't in how they got the motors. I could care less if they purchased them, shipped them, had them fall out of the sky. My point was that no RSO should allow them to be used at a NAR launch as they are not on the list of certified motors. The RSO is still the final line until the NAR BOT changes the rules so that NAR launches no longer have to use certified motors. Personally, I don't see that ever happening.
If/When/How the motors ever get added to the list is not something I'm very familiar with so I can't speak to that. I don't believe the NAR BOT can just wave a wand and add a motor to the list. There is a process, the NAR S&T, which I believe was not followed.
If the NAR BOT can't follow thier own rules, why should they expect someone else to follow them?
-Aaron
Phil Stein wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  

Agreed.
Phil
  Quoted Text Here  

I should have said USE.. the RSOo is the last line of defense when it comes to safety standards. Another way to look at this is the RSO is the last enforcement person on the field who can enforce the NAR or TRA Safety Codes. Phil, do we know of any other RSO's that openly and knowingly allow uncertfied motors to be used on NAR/TRA ranges?
well we do now.
terry dean nar 16158

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com says...
  Quoted Text Here  
Kick 'em out! Kick 'em out! To the gulag with the infidels!
Oh, sorry, the Stalin in me snuck out.

I have never said nor advocated that anybody be kicked out for this. In fact I have gone on the record that it would be counter-productive for any sanctions to be applied to anybody involved with this.
terry dean nar16158

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 13:20:26 -0400, Tweak
  Quoted Text Here  
I won't even ask. ;-)
Phil

shockwaveriderz wrote:
  Quoted Text Here  
What Phil said; 'would not be allowed to be used under NAR or TRA rules but that doesn't affect any other launching.' ^^^^^ I've launched a few uncertified motors at non tra/nar launches. Even flew a few on my buddy's private lot. Granted, no RSO, but so what?
Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75

ted:
I try and make a distinction between uncertfied motors and de-certfied motors;
Uncertfied motors such as the Czech Deltas have never undergone the NFPA 8.1.7 certfication testing regime, nor have they undergone the required USDOT explosives testing clasification regime nor do they adhere to the CPSC regulations
De-certfied motors on the other hand, at one point in their existence have undergone ALL of the above , and due to production reaons, safety reasons, whatever, are no longer produces, but some remain in the hands of modelers....
As you can see there is quite a difference...
another name for a uncertfied motor is basically an amateur rocket motor.... so basically the NAR is allowing amateur rocket motors to be used..
terry dean

Cool. NAR now has Research launches. Maybe NAR can do a group buy on a few hundred Ktichen Aide mixers.
Phil
On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 15:58:12 -0400, "shockwaveriderz"
  Quoted Text Here  

unfortunately NAR research launches are not allowed under the present safety codes or fire codes. why? becaue unlike TRA research amateur launches, nobody there is selling scores or even hundreds of their homebrew motors to others....
terry dean nar16158

On Sun, 9 Jul 2006 19:52:41 -0400, "shockwaveriderz"
  Quoted Text Here  
I'm OK with the NAR conducting or sanctioning experimental AR launches to evaluate new or emerging technology for possible inclusion under the umbrella of sport rocket motors. Such things as larger motors, reloadables, hybrid, etc. should be field tested to determine if they are appropriate, i.e. safe to use.
What seems to be wrong is the BOT authorizing the NAR president to allow selected NAR members to fly uncertified motors in violation of NAR/NFPA safety codes at NAR venues for sporting purposes (FAI team practice).
Now if I were on the BOT, I probably would have voted the same as an expedient, and then worked rapidly to devise a policy, and change NAR Bylaws, and NFPA regs, to do things right.
I know little about the Deltas, but I think they are not simply uncertified, but uncertifiable, wrt DOT shipping, and they nay not age well. Or maybe I'm remembering something I heard about some other motor...
Alan

Alan: I don't have a problem with the NAR including AR into NAR activities like TRA has with EX/Research rocketry activities.
Isn't that the old cart before the horse analogy? Why couldn't our NARBOT have done their HOMEWORK before passing this new policy? Was it because of expediency? or did they actually think nobody would be noticing and they could slip this under the radar?
And you are 110% correct: the Czech deltas are simply UNCERTIFIABLE without the Prerequiste USDOT explosives testing/shipping requirements.
terry dean nar 16158

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:48:38 -0400, "shockwaveriderz"
  Quoted Text Here  
Well, that's a whole different discussion.
  Quoted Text Here  
I do not know. These days my intel into NARBOT activities all comes from RMR. I think allowing the FAI team to practice with the motors that they will actually be using is the right thing to do. I'm not pleased with the way they did it. OTOH, the NARBOT is smarter than a lot of folks give them credit for. I'm sure they considered more alternatives than you and I together could come up with. What would your solution have been? How do you propose punishing the NARBOT for their transgressions?
  Quoted Text Here  
Alan Jones 15578 OOP