When are motors to be de-certified?

LOL...

~ Duane Phillips.

Dave W. wrote: 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.) >>

Ok, so why can't Jerry ship motors? Why does he state on his website that "government regulations" are preventing him from shipping? If it's the DOT that he is referring to, then obviously it isn't "that simple". If it's not the DOT, what other agency is it?

How the ORGs choose to store motors while awaiting testing has nothing to do WRT what the ORGs require for certification.

Fortunately for all of us Ray, the ATF cannot act as an interpreter of shipping and transportation rules and laws, as the rules and laws of shipping and transport are deferred to the DOT.

Ray, you are distributing more FUD, maxima.

And again, there is no law requiring the ORGs to certify motors, let alone stipulate proof of government documentation of any part of the process of motor creation by manufacturer to motor use by end user. It is something the ORGs *choose* to do.

Never let the facts interfere with your FUD campaign.

~ Duane Phillips.

So predictable. You ignore what should be the easy question and go for the TRA crappola once again.

So, who owns ACS? Because if it's you who owns ACS and the associated (presumably valid) EX numbers, all you should need to do is show ownership of said company. Tax documents, business license, etc....any of that should do. Then send properly shipped motors for testing to the correct address along with certified funds.

Take what...an hour to put together? Why all the song and dance?

Or do you not own ACS? Does Jimbo? Or another sock puppet perhaps?

I will grant you that one.

"Cato says" carries ZERO weight with me. ZERO.

Pock?

Jerry already responded to this Ray. Fetch.

- iz

RayDunak> Dave W. wrote:

baby with the bathwater, eh Kurt?

not that anyones observations might have objective merit

like a eye-witness account, perhaps?

- iz

Kurt Kesler wrote:

How about simply comparing his published list with that of Blazanin who followed him but never tested motors?

In theory, but have you asked either TRA or NAR lately if they would even allow that?

I have.

Jerry

I can.

Isn't NFPA-1122,1125,1127 a "government regulation" to the extent it is adopted as law and administered in chokehold fashion by NAR and TRA, the DESIGNATED AHJ's?

Jerry

We have seen how you "work things out". You "drop the dime" and you make all sorts of inquiries that open numerous cans of worms that harm the collective group of rocketeers by bringing regulatory scrutiny on them.

But wwhen you promisetospearhead an exemptionapplicationwhich youhave in your posession,youfailorrefusetodosowhile the above is allhappening.

What is the EXACT status of my WRITTEN (not verbal, not telephonic) FILING for party to exemption status for ACS Reaction Labs (EX-8611103) on DOT-E-10996? And its contractors and licensees?

Hmmm?

Jerry

Your consultation services are indeed impressive. In a negative way.

An attitude stating that the person TRA 'claims' certified certain motors can't deny that he certified said motors seems 'chicken' to me, Kurt...

David Erbas-White

Curb them thar chickens! They done pock marked up my monitor.

John

So, you have Chicken Pocks?

Worse than them durn goose pimples!