When are motors to be de-certified?

Nope.

Nope.

No waffling either.

I will give one perfect example.

Magazines promised were never delivered and for a significant number of subscribers not refunded or offered refunds (particularly non-TRA members).

Do I really need to remind you of a former TMT charir returning from obscurity to deny TRA falsifications he John Cato certified motors he clearly swears he did NOT certify?

Oh, wait. That's two.

Sorry. My bad.

Jerry

"I don't have anything against AT motors (other than disliking the "bonus delay" phenomenon intensely) -- I just don't like having to take a cert list to the hobby shop with me to be sure I'm buying a motor I'll be able to launch (and legally possess), and I like even less the new practice of replacing defective motors with uncertified motors."

- Donald Qualls

Mom and Dad can make the rules, And certain things forbid, But I can make them wish that they Had never had a kid.

- Calvin

:)

Sure Bob, that's the issue. But at the moment the Government DOES consider them as explosives. So until it's changed there's no sense in bitching about it.

John

And I believe the author of the above quote attributed to me, left out the implicit preamble "FOR A TROLL......"

You're confusing ATF and DOT.

-dave w

WHICH arm of the government are you talking about so I can call you a liar?

Thank you :)

David, In light of the current situation (BATF, Congress, Senators, even J.Q Public trying to shut us down) do you really think it wise that our "Self Governing Bodies" appear to be callus as to what a certified motor is and who is making them? Do you think it would be wise for the NAR to accept a shipment of motors from a completely unknown company or person, test the sample, and put their stamp of approval on them? Do you remember the insurance fiasco of 2002? Both of the national orgs. were basically shut down because the insurance companies would not renew the policy. What effect would we see if the "new motor certification policy" that certified all comers, were in place?

steve

Oh fer krites sake, David. Do you really think it is so simple?!? Could I make a copy of that same letter and use it to ship explosives just because I use the same recipe! Hell no. That letter authorizes that company to ship their explosives. It is not a blanket coverage for anyone in the world to ship that brand of APCP.

sheesh, steve

And another thing!!! How can Jerry (and you) propose he use this, when the rest of his story hinges on the PAD exemption (non-explosives) and another letter by another agency that says he's got flammable solids! Why so all over the board!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Don't you see the lunacy in all this?!?

I don't think ATF etc. etc. gives a blue hoot about whether motors are "listed as certified" by NAR/TRA... it's the basic off-the-shelf availability of prefabricated solid propulsion products (to civilians who might not have even been subjected to a Background Check...) that strikes them as the Potential Political Liability with respect to which they feel the need to Position Themselves: "We know [but will never admit publicly] that it's unlikely that someone will do _that_ with these products... but if it does happen, the possibility that we might get blamed for 'not preventing' it is too much of a potential embarrassment to let it go un-addressed."

-dave w

Yes, I do. Either DOT considers the propellant in Jerry's motors to be a material that has been properly examined and classified, or they consider it to be a "new explosive" that hasn't been. (It's one or the other.)

Considering the extent to which "person" is defined in the DOT regulations to mean collective entities as well as individuals, it's obvious that the key issue (with respect to whether a given test report can be considered as representative of the classification of a given product) is not personal identity (despite what George G. loves to post, this _isn't_ about doctors' licenses!) or business ownership, but continuity of process, specification, and characteristics.

You're confusing two different issues. The PAD exemption deals with whether certain BATF requirements apply (such as secured storage and user permits) to purchase, possession, and use of the material. The hazard classification deals with how, and whether, certain DOT requirements apply (such as placarding, paperwork, and packaging) for shipment by common carrier. Two different agencies.

-dave w

Duh. Trouble is, that's isn't what's being enforced.

Doing something contrary to the ATF's position (no matter how wrong they are) has the potential to land someone in trouble. Now, it's pretty unlikely that a private individual would even show up on the ATF's "radar", but someone representing a major organization is much more likely to be scrutinized -- especially when that organization is both a certifying authority and is involved in a suit against ATF.

I think it's a safe bet that ATF would jump at the chance to nail TRA or NAR for any perceived infraction, even if it was only to use against them in court or Congress. "Your Honor, these guys are illegally storing explosives and/or knowingly accepting shipments of motors that were illegally shipped. They are even certifying these materials for sale to the public! They can't be trusted!"

Iz asked:

I don't recall precisely, only that it was several years ago. I believe it was mentioned in the Tripoli Report at the time.

Hey, you're not related to Dr. Zachary Smith are you? He was a chciken, you know.

Randy

If your attorney is so upset with me, tell the puss to contact me. Maybe we can work something out... Are you threatening me Jerry?? Oh, I understand; fantasizing again...

Fred

Jerry Irv>

Bob, Unfortunately for Jerry, the above may well apply. In fact, it's probably his only option, because so much time has elapsed..

I spent some time on the DOT web page today, looking for the data base that contains EX listings, but found none. EX data may not be electronically available. I also spent about an hour or so looking through the exemptions, but could find none associated with EX-8611103. However, I did run into several exemptions associated with AT EX numbers. Next week, when I have more time, (going through a program audit tomorrow and Friday), I'll see if I can get some information, via a request for an original source document and addendum search. The CAA should be an obtainable public record without doing a FOI request.

Fred

Just to be clear here. your reply to them decertifying a well known manufacturer, present since before TRA was running, and at its inception, and THE first motor line to pay test fees to TRA is somehow an "unknown entity"?

And furthermore for the past month this newsgroup has been discussing LOWERING the "excess" rules within the clubs, consistent with the $300,000+ lawsuit asking for the same.

And Steve Bloom, rmr poster and troll comes along and suggests going against all those trends ignoring every fact in front of our face, disregarding club history and embarking on a policy of increased regs, rules and restrictions "to protect against perceptions"? Ones you cannot even point to?

Why does this surprise me not in the very least?

Jerry

This should be in the FAQ.

PROOF:

We are not discussing flammable solids 4.1 right now. You doing so is a change of subject and a failed distraction.

And my final point is that at each and every point along the way I have cited excerpts of actual laws and regulations and yes inferred conclusions, but offered the raw data for others to also come to their conclusion.

You on the other hand simply substitute your own conclusions for others WITHOUT citing a single thing. None. Show me. Or blow me.

Jerry

"-Larry (Hey! Somebody has to take over now that Jerry's rehabilitated.) Curcio" - self attributed quote!

"Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man."

- George Bernard Shaw

"First of all, thank you Jerry Irvine for the welcome. The one thing that I have noted since returning to rocketry is how friendly and helpful the people are. This impresses me even more than the developments in motor technology!"

- John Baer on snipped-for-privacy@vnet.net

"In fact I have seen numerous examples of "excessive safety" as compared to procedures which worked at Lucerne for years. Keep in mind Lucerne was at the leading edge of every hair brained scheme ever introduced to rocketry for the past 3 decades or so."

- Jerry Irvine

Nobody else recalls either.