When are motors to be de-certified?

I'll even go so far as to admit that my middle initial is "W".

You can resort to bamboo under my fingernails, chinese watertorture, or, even, making me watch "Lucy" reruns, and I'll say no more.;)

Bob

If it is as you say, it was wrong. I may not agree with you on specific issues, but you have the right to express yourself. In my case, I have experienced only one instance of a message being held for review before being posted and as a result, I voiced my concern to David and it has not happened again. As for as BK goes, one down two more to go, DE and CR, (in that order, it's just going to take time...

Fred

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed wrote:

energetically on the TRA rag-mag and

either the list or TRA, at

From 49 CFR 173.56(b)(1) "The person requesting approval of the new explosive must submit to the Associate Administrator a report of the examination and assignment of a recommended shipping description, division, and compatibility group. If the Associate Administrator finds the approval request meets the regulatory criteria, the new explosive will be approved in writing and assigned an EX number."

Key here seems to be, IF the AA finds the approval request..., THEN...approved in writing and assigned EX number.

Jerry, what is the relationship between the above BOE report and your ACS EX that you have let us see? Is it direct?

Bob

Bob, You have hit the problem square on the head. As I understand it, DOT has the option, to within reason, move up or down on classification. An example: All AT composite propellant is classified as 1.3. However, DOT grants an exemption classification of 1.4 for shipping, for the so called, "Easy access". Another example and I don't understand it: Some squibs used for blow down bottles and fire suppression systems, in the aerospace industry, have classifications that run from 1.3 through 1.4. I remember one unit that was 4.1. I have never done research as to why, but I suspect the difference has to do with amounts of energy producing compound and configuration of the device.

Fred

baDBob wrote:

Ray, where is the link to join the membership list ? I'd like to see what's going on.

yellow wood glue

I'm not surprised.

I'm not defending that, but that's a personal "offer" from an individual, not an official TRA action.

It may have been debated, but your membership _was_ renewed, wasn't it?

There's that double standard again, Iz. Member control of TRA good, member control of ARSA bad. In fact, I recently received an email from you in which you expressed dismay at the notion of members controlling the direction of NAR too.

We're better off without people who shut down other people's launches just to advance their personal vendettas.

The list isn't the only communications channel. YOu can contact the BOD directly. As for the list, it's moderated to prevent personal attacks (such as crying "corruption" everytime you disagree with a decision of the BOD), not actual issues.

As far as I know, it's on the TRA website. I haven't been to the website recently so I don't know exactly where it is since they redesigned the site.

you are missing the point

Mr. Wallace suggested that the TRA listserv may be a more effective venue for debate of TRA policy. My experiences which you were responding to demonstrate that it is not.

I am certain that his sentiment was shared by other board members, as evidenced in the debate surrounding my renewal

this is a credit to no one of the 'good ole boys club', I assure you

- iz

I do not recall the email, Ray. Please send it to me.

In any event, there is no double standard. WRT TRA we are discussing a leadership which has failed its membership, and being ostensibly representative of that membership it is reasonable to require an accounting of the failure, and oversight implemented to prevent a reoccurrence.

ARSA shares neither the structure, or the failure.

you still fail to grasp the root of the problem, and it is beyond the limits of my patience to overcome the limitations of your comprehension.

- iz

be serious, Ray. Are you really that naive to think that the BoD will reflect on, let alone reform their actions voluntarily?

and if they are, as many here assert or suspect, corrupt? Of what purpose is such "moderation" other than to quiet dissent?

- iz

the instructions are at

- iz

RayDunak> Al Max wrote:

[in the bylaws(thelegalones),notin TRA dailypractice.Corporatelyillegalashell.] [not existent, not called for in a bylaws, not a factor in an unincorporated association]

I suppose you think we are better off with people like you and your paramours in rocketry administration (Kelly et al) rather than people who would actually follow some semblance of rule and law.

You know me better than most on rmr, and you know one thing about me. I dislike unnecessary rules and insist on necessary rules to maintain safety, launch rate, and ALL vendor cash flow.

Today under NAR and TRA we lack all of that and with "plenty" of rules. Too many I say.

Jerry

BULLSHIT.

Or every time there is yet more hard evidence of actual corruption.

The main thing I learnned from the few posts I read was even when a member raised a point of contention on a valid issue in a polite and respectful way he is IMMEDIATELY and fully MUZZLED and asked to not post on the subject again. Not after it is resolved. After it is mentioned for the FIRST time. That list is not a discussion group. It is a propoganda organ.

Jerry

I will save you the trouble. They have the option. But they ACCEPTED the RECOMMENDATION VERBATIM.

Here:

This year in an administrative matter they post facto claimed they exercised the option in a way NOT supported by the prior correspondence. They lied.

In fact the material not recommended for a hazard class was treated this way in 1986:

"Proper transportation hazard classification for an explosive, of course, culminates with the assignment of an EX Number. Much more specific than a Hazard Classification, an EX Number applies to a particular explosive formula and its packaging. The two larger pictures of historic regulation of explosives and the present system of classification of all hazardous materials are needed to make clear the EX Number. In the nineteenth century the EX Number was essentially a privately administered classification of the only recognized hazardous material. Today it is administered publicly as part - albeit a special part - of the larger system that regulates hazardous materials. A specific series of tests determines the hazard classification. The manufacturer's knowledge of the material can, in some cases, substitute for some of the tests in this process. In the absence of assumptions, except a concern that the material is explosive, the material moves through Test Series 1 and 2 in that order. Test 1 looks at output ascertaining if the material exhibits explosive characteristics. If not, then for transportation classification, it exits from Class 1 consideration at this point."

- TB-700.2 (DOD7002)[yet another authoratative government document, the

2003 version of which has been changed to add an "out" for the "out"]

Admittedly the treatment would be arbitrarily and capriciously different if tested in 2004, but it wasn't. Andclassification by analogy to ACS is available to EVERY APCP manufacturer who will listen to Jerry Irvine :)

I am your APCP god.

Yes. For natural class and exemptons too.

The exemptionisNOT theexampleIamciting atall.

Dothey have theoption to RAISE the hazardclass1or 2rungs HIGHER?or 4?

1.3 as assumed in 2003 despite a 1986 report to the obvious opposite 1.4 1.5 1.6 4.1 as tested and as issued by default (under3.3x36") 5.1 oxidizer

That is a difference of **4** hazard classes!!!!!!!

One was TESTED and received an ARTICLE approval as 4.1 and the remainder were classified by ANALOGY to the default hazard classes by general hazard and NEW (mass).

But if it does not meet the regulatory criteria (on the low end) it requires NO REPLY OR ACTION including issuing a CA or any number at all.

Show me otherwise please.

And before you say 4.1 are issued CA's, that is itself new. They used to "drop out" of the process entirely.

yes.