When are motors to be de-certified?

Absolutely correct. And obviously DOT isn't seeing things Jerry's way, which is why he has that statement on his website saying that he can't ship motors due to government regulations. But all the internet ranting in the world won't have any effect on DOT, so he takes it out on TRA/NAR instead.

Excellent! Has DOT accepted it? Have they granted you your E/EX numbers?

Seems to me you've got it backwards... it should be, "Why cert motors that can't be shipped?"

But I thought the motors weren't explosives. Isn't that what the big fight is about? Are we all wasting our money having TRA/NAR fight this fight for us? There are others out there that actually believe, operate that way, and are willing to lead the fight.

So the claim is that Jerry has done this EVERY time he has shipped? So that's why his motors NEVER get tested?

If Jerry bought ACS, it didn't cease to exist. It became a part of whatever entity bought it. It is no different that when Boeing bought McDonnell-Douglas. You don't see McDonnell-Douglas anymore, but you can bet that all of the patents, contracts, equipment, DOT EX numbers, etc., didn't become null and void.

Fred,

There is another testing capability outlined in 173.56(e). It is rather strict.

(e) Transportation of unapproved explosives for developmental testing. Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section, the owner of a new explosive that has not been examined or approved may transport that new explosive from the place where it was produced to an explosives testing range if-- (1) It is not a primary (a 1.1A initiating) explosive or a forbidden explosive according to this subchapter; (2) It is described as a Division 1.1 explosive (substance or article) and is packed, marked, labeled, described on shipping papers and is otherwise offered for transportation in conformance with the requirements of this subchapter applicable to Division 1.1; (3) It is transported in a motor vehicle operated by the owner of the explosive; and (4) It is accompanied by a person, in addition to the operator of the motor vehicle, who is qualified by training and experience to handle the explosive.

Bob

A particularly delightful feature for me indeed.

And the obfuscation begins...

If you actually have valid EX numbers and the testing authorities won't certify your motors, then as a member of both organizations it's definitely my business. And I would think it in your best interest to prove to the potential customer base out here that you are, in fact, being victimized rather than just another blowhard on the net. Show us the proof and things might actually begin to happen.

They have certified motors. Therefore, I know they have valid EX numbers. I cannot purchase motors from you as I am not assured of remaining within the boundries of either the safety code or the law.

Nope. I ain't buying. Bunny, in particular, has shown WAY more patience with your shennanigans than common courtesy would dictate.

Today, I think not.

Have no fear...Kurt is here!

Pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock pock

The reverse of that is certify EVERY motor that CAN be shipped.

The way TRA and Fred Wallace telles them I see it. My attorney is a bit upset with that.

what year was that vote, Ray? What where is the announcement of the results?

here, do some research:

- iz

That little symbol on the top is the DOT logo.

That scribblingon the bottom is an authorizing signature.

Then there's that truly annoying to TRA item #7.

Huh? Did you miss the thread where every first hand observer agreed TRA certified RMS motors years before they had EX numbers??!!

Put me back into your killfile please. Put me back into your killfile please. Put me back into your killfile please. Put me back into your killfile please. Put me back into your killfile please. Put me back into your killfile please. Put me back into your killfile please. Put me back into your killfile please. Put me back into your killfile please. Put me back into your killfile please. Put me back into your killfile please.

What has been "proven"? Histrionics and accusations do not constitute proof.

Cert all comers and let them worry about shipping.

-dave w

no, but he was, and remains the Prefect Liasion, the host for Tripoli HQ, and NFPA member, and an otherwise influential member of TRA who maintains intimate contact with the BoD

BK is inseparable from TRA leadership as Chuck Rogers is

- iz

RayDunak>

So all you have to do is show that you are the owner of ACS, correct?

(long time readers will note this is where the dissembling regarding ownership usually begins).

Then properly ship the motors to the NAR, correct? What is so hard about this?

Every first hand observer?!? What the heck does that even mean? Oh wait, more "evil" TRA plots. Got it.

I'm sure the entire Internet universe now and in perpetuity, will be enlightened by your contribution

- iz

Kurt Kesler wrote:

No, all that has to be shown is that the testing that was done for ACS is representative of the propellant used in the actual product to be shipped.

Has DOT _ever_ accused otherwise?

Has DOT _ever_ said of the USR motors: "You're not supposed to ship those because they contain a material that has never been properly classified?"

-dave w

people in a position to know based upon their direct experience have provided credible, eye-witness accounts.

I believe it is all a matter of public record, in any case.

- iz