When are motors to be de-certified?

You repeating this over and over after being told it is false in no way makes you right.

several of Jerry's motors have tested as unregulated, hence

NFPA 1125

8.2.2 A high power rocket motor or motor-reloading kit not containing pyrotechnic materials shall not be required to have a certificate of classification.

see my 2003-12-15 21:59:07 PST post creating thread "certification of USR motors"

- iz

David Schultz wrote:

there is no provision in NFPA 1125 for their certification

see my 2003-12-15 21:59:07 PST post originating the thread "certification of USR motors"

- iz

baDBob wrote:

very strange indeed

on Dec 16th I submitted a Technical Document Question to the NFPA Pyrotechnics committee regarding this case. I will post whatever response I receive

it doesn't make any sense that a HPR motor (by definition) made from unregulated material is ineligible for certification, yet certification is a condition of sale and use

- iz

David We> baDBob wrote:

You are useful. Have you ever even heard me say that before?

actually the new Transportation Security Administration within the Department Of Homeland Security has jurisdiction

49CFR1502.1 (Revised as of October 1, 2003)

Transportation Security Administration, Organization, Functions, And Procedures Responsibilities of the Administrator

(a) The Administrator is responsible for the planning, direction, and control of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and for security in all modes of transportation. The Administrator's responsibility includes carrying out chapter 449 of title 49, United States Code, relating to civil aviation security, and related research and development activities, and security responsibilities over other modes of transportation that are exercised by the Department of Transportation.

- iz

"junkmail" wrote:

In TRA it's a shared sentiment. In ARSA, it's official policy. TRA=BAD, ARSA=GOOD.

Double standard.

Ray, you are making the sounds of an idiot (again)

TRA was delighted to have John Cato, a well established and respected professional (Architect) with initimate familiarity with fire codes. They used him to give TRA credibility with NFPA so as to secure AHJ standing with that body.

they were not "suckered into" anything. If anyone was "suckered", it was JC, who expected TRA to conduct themselves honorably given their being charged with the safety of its members, and the public at large by virtue of certification authority.

- iz

I don't know. Has anyone ever had that happen and gotten it in writing from DOT?

Hoooooold on there, Babaloo-ie, Jerry used this one .jpg example as his holy grail. Tom is just saying that it isn't a good example. Tom added some valuable insight in saying the USR motors and ACS motors -do not- share this EX number. I though that was a good point to make.

steve

Sure, until he turned out to be a traitorous twit.

(I know I'm going to regret this, but)

How, exactly, was John Cato a 'traitor'?

To what enemy did he turn over 'TRA Secrets', which caused the downfall of TRA. And what was TRA 'hiding' that needed to be secret? Or was there some other definition of traitor that I'm not understanding here?

What laws did he break, compared with the fiduciary responsibility that he had for TRA? And compared, for example, with the fiduciary responsibility of TRA in relation to HPR magazine?

Please address this as it relates to the TMT Chair issue--I'm not interested in turning this into a 'sod farm' discussion, as (IIRC) that occurred after he had resigned as TMT Chair.

David Erbas-White

apples and hexamethylenediamine

- iz

RayDunak> Iz wrote:

more idiocy, Ray! A whistle-blower is not a traitor

from "Blowing the Whistle on Corporate Wrongdoing" at

grail. Tom

Jerry has already posted that hes has about 50 EX numbers. Actually, he has posted 2 jpegs. Here is the other and it contains 2 EX numbers.

They do share if ACS is wholly owned by USR. That is the part that has not been completely explained. What is the relationship between USR, ACS, DPT, and any of the other JI related companies. I don't care what person, stockholders, silent partners, etc. are that own them but, rather, what their relationship is to each oither.

Bob

No Dave, I'm not confused. That's why there's an "EXPLOSIVES" sticker on the box when I receive (or USED to receive) motors from a retailer. DOT may call them Flamable solids, but they are still shipped as explosives.

And since one agency is now over-riding the other, it doesn't really matter, does it? The majority of high power flyers can't meet the requirements of the BATFE. And BATFE will be the ones who will come knocking on our doors and visiting our launches. And if we win the lawsuit regarding APCP, what's going to prevent them from outlawing rockets just because they consider them a terrorist weapon? We still have the issue of BP for ejection charges, and possession of electric matches, too. We can make BP-less ejection systems that do not use electric matches, but until the APCP issue is resolved there will be little R&D. If Aerotech or another manufacturer of "explosives" markets a "rocket motor accessory pack" which contains a small quantity of BP and electric matches for "ignition or ejection purposes" I will be able to legally pursue HPR again. Despite my disapproval of the current BATFE situation and my disgust with MY government's policies, I will not become a felon just for a hobby.

So, the arguments will continue about false motor certifications, black balled motor manufacturers, illegal motor shipments from ROL auctions...long after the flying stops. I see many intelligent posters here that could better serve the hobby by applying their time to helping resolve our current dilemma, instead of wasting time drawing out some discussions until the crude language and name calling begins. I hoped we were above that. RMR is starting to look like many other useless Usenet groups.

John

They all want to make rocket motors available to consumers and every permutation of relationship presented to NAR or TRA to date has been unacceptable to them. Why? I dunno.

Well, I do know (Jerry-mandering), but they are not saying with any particularity so they do not have to testify to it later. But the unreasonable denial is itself actionable.

Jerry

Even back then when it was still a possibility before they added "an explanatory note to TB-700.2) the result was nothing. Just the test result itself I suppose. And I do have that! Test reports never expire and back then, the ingredient tolerance was +-10% so it allows for the fact that very slight changes in ballistics which have NO impact on shipping hazard allow the design of marginally different MOTORS at high operating pressures.

A marketing coup indeed.

A safe one.

One that has official government documentation.

One that is then blackballed by NAR and TRA as a means to generate a monopoly for reloadables, Aerotech reloadables, and now it is just sport to engage in Jerry-mandering.

Jerry