I'm sorry, I live on the east coast and am not aware of companies providing the service out west. Airtex Inc. and Airshot are local companies we use at work, for specialized hazmat shipping. Talk to Gary, I'm sure he can help you..(:-)
indeed, if we had a "changing of the guard", and a TRA administration more open to member scrutiny, I believe that all that is good in HPR embodied in the membership would be expressed, expatriots would return and those kept away would reconsider their choice not to join.
the question is, will TRA do what is in the best interests of rocketry or not.
I have not, nor do I believe that Bob Kaplow and Jerry Irvine have, given up hope that TRA as an organization can be salvaged. And I for one would enthusiastically support it's reform.
if motor certs are mandated, then they should be done independently and objectively. Agreed.
One question is whether they _should_ be mandated (at least in the context of codes intended to be given legal force by reference in fire safety requirements)...
AIUI, we (i.e., the hobby associations' reps to the NFPA) _asked_ the NFPA to put that part in the model codes, didn't we?
Perhaps, in retrospect, we may conclude that getting NAR/TRA "legally" involved in telling anyone what motors not to fly was one of those Bad Ideas that seemed like a Good Idea at the time, but may have ended up causing more trouble than it was supposed to prevent.
I think that we need to back-up a bit, first. The question, to me, seems to be "which of the hazmat requirements apply." Until that question is answered, then we are only speculating on what wickets Jerry has to jump through to "legally" ship his motors.
In the DOT regs, there is a test sequence identified that establishes the path that must be followed (49 CFR 173.56, 57, 58) to classify explosives. If you assume worst case, this is the place to start. It is concievable that a propellant could pass through that series of tests and drop out as nothing more serious than being a flammable solid (49 CFR 173.58(a) The criteria for assignment of class and division are as follows: (6) Not in the explosive class if the substance or article does not have significant explosive hazard or if the effects of explosion are completely confined within the article.)
The table (49 CFR 172.101) does not work well when things drop out of the test. Still trying to understand it.
Does the DOT recognize his test data that his motor propellant is a flammable solid? I understand his reluctance to publish official documents that may identify patented formulas. However, we, as interested third parties, cannot go much further in this area without more data.
Bob, when you and your wife have a disagreement, do you hash it out in public or privately? If you try to avoid doing so in public, is it because you have "something to hide" or is it because it's a private matter between you and your wife?
That's how it is with an organization and its members -- or should be, anyway.
it doesn't work when the communications channel is moderated and is only attended by a minority of the actual membership
... or when an organization's leadership is corrupt
how many YEARS have members been clamoring for a resolution of the HPR problem on the TRA listserv, Ray? If they can't resolve a problem as small as a publication, how can they ever hope to solve fundamental policy issues?