When are motors to be de-certified?

Being in YOUR killfile is a feature, not a bug.

None of your business. Are you an existing customer about to receive them? Are you a certification authority? Are you a recognized Competent Authority? I thought not.

Even errortech does not have to give you that stuff (but does in some narrow cases anyway) when they ship with exemptions.

That's about right, if not an understatement.

NAR refuses me on arrival. The papers do not matter.

I don't see why not. You have seen how Bundick acts toward me right here on rmr and you have third party testimony and evidence I am shunned by NAR (Gassaway, minutes, Bundick, other board members rare posts, a wide variety of things).

Do not. Put me back into your killfile please.

Thank you very much.

Jerry

I called Chang and for only $3000 (a pittance) he offered to resubmit the report essentially as is. He warned that it was likely to "replace" the prior series, which had a recommendation that some items not even be assigned a hazard class, a recommendation DOT followed TO THE LETTER AT THE TIME to their later (1991 purge) shagrin, and DOT was likely to assign an explosive hazard classto any amount of APCP covered in the test from 0.00000001 g to 1000000000000000 KG.

I felt that would be "unhelpful" to quote our illustrious government.

So I went the route of entirely new testing with entirely new papers and entirely new EX numbers so I would always have a fall-back plan which frankly has saved my ass more than once on industrial and military deals in the past 10 years. They recognize a valid BOE test report when they see it and the military LOVES to classify their own material and does so in such a way as favorable to them as possible. Too bad I cannot ship consumer motors using DOD paperwork :)

Jerry

Then why does YOUR NAR do so?

The following represents a summary of the July 31- August 4, 2003 NAR Board of Trustees meeting in Henderson, KY. The Board met for 23 hours, considered 31 separate member inputs, reviewed 6 committee reports and made personnel assignments for 11 active committees.

The Meeting was called to order. Present were: Jennifer Ash-Poole Jack Kane Mark Johnson George Rachor George Gassaway Mark Bundick Steve Lubliner Stuart McNabb Trip Barber joined Saturday evening.

And while I allegedly have your ear . . . .

Philip D:

First, having been in rocketry through most of the BATF battles (and then some), you know what kind of hell it can be to get a federal agency to definitively rule on anything. Much less do so in writing. And it is impossible when they are of the opinion that they you are in compliance and they have no need to issue any type of opinion.

Second, you are on the board at the NAR. How many times has the NAR issued requests NOT to contact one agency or another? Why were those requests issued? Because everyone knows that has any dealings with federal agencies knows it is always best to let sleeping dogs lie, ask forgiveness not permission, etc.

David Erbas-White:

I don't want the scant resources of the rocket organizations being used for things that their not required to do. Having additional requirements that are not in their purview requires additional resources, in all sorts of ways. Given the state of the hobby, the organizations should concentrate on what they MUST do, not ancillary things.

Jerry Irvine:

1. Stop asking manufacturers for LEMP unless specifically required by law.
2. Stop asking vendors and consumers to get LEDP/LEUP.
3. Start accepting 1.3C approved motors for cert based on the FACE OF THE CA/EX DOCUMENT.
4. Apologize to ACS-Reaction Labs for stating their motors were DOT 1.1 class (detonable high explosive) perthe 8-03 Board minutes of the meeting YOU attended.

And before you say something wacky like "I am not on the board" or "that is not my job function", you ARE a confidant of the board members generally. You are a "trusted member"of the NAR heirarchy. Fine. Do something positive with that and gain my strong kudos and support. Start with the short list above. I will be glad to help and cooperate any way I can.

Jerry

Same minutes asked Miller to work with me on NFPA. Have not heard a peep from him. Have him email me. (please)

Jerry

non-supporters

I agree, this has to do with DOT process and acknowledgement, not JI specific docs or EX numbers. It is the handle of these docs in general for which these questions apply.

(which could be researched and refuted) for its alleged invalidity

I also agree that it is the TRA/NAR apparent stance that the answers to the questions are "No".

This is the primary point of contention. The point of go/no-go. What is the proper AHJ point at DOT to direct these questions, or better still, is there any precidence or DOT documentation that would lend significant "Yes" to the queries?

~ Duane Phillips.

If you're going to quote me, please have the decency to correct my misspelling...

"I don't want the scant resources of the rocket organizations used for things that they're not required to do."

Thanks, I feel better now.

David Erbas-White

When???????

The name was the signatory on the BOE report Jerry provides.

Since he is still a valid tester, it is hard to refute.

The issue seems to be trying to force Jerry into more restrictive requirements, when he has a "get out of jail free" card.

The more I hear, the more I am perturbed at the NAR/TRA handling of this document. It could be their "get out of jail free" card too, and open the supply chain like never before.

~ Duane Phillips.

If they don't, it's gonna be more like "what if they had a rocket association and nobody came"...

-dave w

The documents "speak for themselves". TRA knows that and this whole "redefinition of the debate" is meant to imply otherwise. Sometimes without even saying so, and sometimes while deflecting educated people saying so. The acts are intentional, not accidental or neglegence by TRA.

Jerry

Let me rephrase. Jerry - strongly oppose, consistently disagree, shun, frustrate in business and access.

I do think the word HATE is too strong for Gary and Pat. But not for Harry!!

But the INTENSITY is properly communicated.

Something is wrong here....

Randy

Of course not. A new day is about to dawn and the methods of compliance have changed dramaticaly.

Watch. And BTW. Enjoy.

Exacatacaly.

Exacatacaly.

Exacatacaly.

"gonna be"?

Jerry told you so.

Jerry Irvine

"It must really be painful to know that Jerry is legally right. Both 10 years ago, and today."

- Duane Phillips.

"Mr. Irvine has been really helpful...I appreciate his advice."

"Don't argue with a moron; he'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience".

- Mark Simpson

"Jerry may occasionally provide real, useful information,..."

- Balsa Boy

And the last word:

"Before my son hit high school & he lost interest, rocketry was the best father & son activity we EVER had." - Rich Hickok

This a direct statement, with no implication:

ACS is no longer the manufacture and owner of the business and Jerry never accomplished a legal transfer of the ex #, with DOT.

What don't you understand??

Fred

David We>Much Snipped>

Jerry has claimed one thing. You talk like you're sure it's not so, but you've yet

bottom line here?

NAR refuses me on arrival. The papers do not matter.

You have seen how Bundick acts toward me right here on rmr

"Jerry may occasionally provide real, useful information,..."

- Balsa Boy

"A stopped clock* is right twice a day"

- George Gassaway

• - an old saying from before the days of LCD/LED type clocks

accomplished a

So are you saying there are actual procedures that are outlined for such a thing, or requirements stating such must be done?

Or was is an adhoc decision created by people who were not sure?

Also, your statement seems to imply that the EX# can be transferred, at least in some way?

~ Duane Phillips.

He has been asked this directly more than 10 times and has not addressed it. But he has implied in several ways it is not done but is required. Can you trust him?

That was approved by the membership. I know, I was one of those who voted in favor of it.