 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Rockets / June 2005[saverocketrylater.tra]
[saverocketrylater.tra] Now is too soon. We have important overregulation to live the lifestyle of. Jerry "Using Tripoli logic that happened in the past (even if merely 5 minutes ago) and should be ignored. The leadership will "try" to do better. It might take a while, a decade or two, but we have made some progress today toward it. We discussed it on the secret listserv and agreed to disagree and move forward." - Jerry Irvine "I bet there are more people collecting string into balls than there are flying high power rockets." - Steve Cello, Tripoli Prefect [default] "I hate to 'chime and chirp' - but my 'approach' whipped a disaster area into shape in 7 weeks - and saved Tripoli's little butt with the NFPA. You are PERFECTLY free to contact ANYBODY on the committee for verification." - John Cato, former TMT chair "I've been mailbombed no less than five times since I started posting the truth about the MRED scam to this newsgroup over a year ago. This tells me someone in MRDEAD and Tripoli don't like the truth getting out." - Dave Gawlick "I have tried to really make motor testing a professional operation and it is very obvious to me now as to why Tripoli was having problems 'gaining credibility' with practically everyone in the outside world, because they *really* DON'T have it with some of the people that really matter. And this reputation is well deserved. To be perfectly frank - Tripoli is a sick organization. These bylaw and Articles of Incorporation issues are merely the tip of the iceberg. Symptoms, not the sickness, if you will. Let's hope I am wrong with my assessment. But, as I said, I really feel we may see some concerted efforts to further discredit me, both inside the Board and to the membership in general." - John Cato "If (when?) Tripoli fails, it will be due to all of the problems that Jerry, John, Jim, myself, and others have tried to bring to the attention of the management, and now to the public. It will *NOT* be the result of our complaints any more than the Challenger explosion was the fault of an engineer who said "Don't launch it in the cold"." - Bob Kaplow  SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 (the usual hateful drivel) Just for the record, in case some gullible newbie stumbles onto your post, I'd like to point out that Jerry Irvine is a pathological liar and convicted fraud who has been fined $40,000 by DOT for illegal shipping of motors. He has no credibility, especially when it comes to anything to do with TRA or NAR. He was kicked out of TRA in the early 1990's. He is a former/wannabe motor manufacturer who either can't or won't operate legally, and thus is unable to get his motors certified for consumer use. He is a sad, pathetic little man who spends all his time badmouthing everyone who has ever done anything to support, promote or protect the hobby. a >(the usual hateful drivel) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >promote or protect the hobby. >a This shoould be in the Jerry FAQs. > >(the usual hateful drivel) > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > This shoould be in the Jerry FAQs. It is, isn't it?? > (the usual hateful drivel) Hateful drivel? More like wise statements from people with official positions within TRA and NFPA. Example. Here are quotes from the Chairman of the Tripoli Motor Testing committee (TMT). This, for reference, is the particular TMT Chair who did several notable things during his tenure. 1. Made the first truly comprehensive list of certified motors with all available fields of data as required by various regs and standards. As a result, there were quite a few missing fields of data noted. He mentioned that. The reaction he received was notable and a point of contention for someone accustomed to full disclosure and documentation of results (he is an architect by trade). 2. Made a formal proposal to NFPA (the relevant sub-committees and the full committee) to add Tripioli Rocketry Associon, Incorporated to named status in the consumer motor certification language. Besides simply making the presentation, he raised the standards of testing and reporting (without adding new and unneeded permit requirements) at TMT along with a team of about 3 other hard working folks. He speaheaded this effort and succeeded. The reaction he received was notable and a point of contention for someone accustomed to full disclosure and documentation of results (he is an architect by trade). See a trend here? TRA is opposed to disclosure, loves secrecy, mainly to cover up their folibles and shortcomings which are many and vast. And NOT on a path of correction (Note HPR magazine and ATF interactions) One other possible way to go is testing and disclosure. You know, like they promised to do so they could be named as a testing agency in NFPA code? And this has NOTHING at all to do with a civil lawsuit between two (other) rocketeers back in 1991. This has nothing at all to do with any DOT fine for a single small shipment way back in 2001. This has nothing at all to do with any personal disputes. It has to do with the lack of ethical practices by the TRA BOD when doing its formal duty regarding consumer rocket motor testing. NOT testing motors and THEN declaring them certified is FRAUD. Jerry "I hate to 'chime and chirp' - but my 'approach' whipped a disaster area into shape in 7 weeks - and saved Tripoli's little butt with the NFPA. You are PERFECTLY free to contact ANYBODY on the committee for verification." - John Cato, former TMT chair "I have tried to really make motor testing a professional operation and it is very obvious to me now as to why Tripoli was having problems 'gaining credibility' with practically everyone in the outside world, because they *really* DON'T have it with some of the people that really matter. And this reputation is well deserved. To be perfectly frank - Tripoli is a sick organization. These bylaw and Articles of Incorporation issues are merely the tip of the iceberg. Symptoms, not the sickness, if you will. Let's hope I am wrong with my assessment. But, as I said, I really feel we may see some concerted efforts to further discredit me, both inside the Board and to the membership in general." - John Cato SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > (the usual hateful drivel) > > Hateful drivel? > > More like wise statements from people with official positions within TRA Only one of the individuals you quoted ever had an "official" position in TRA, and he screwed it up and was booted out. > Here are quotes from the Chairman of the Tripoli Motor Testing committee > (TMT). Cato is not _the_ Chairman. He hasn't even been a member of TRA for many years. He's just a former, disgraced chairman of TMT who was booted out of testing for not getting the job done, and was eventually booted out of TRA for good cause. Every TMT chairman we've had since Cato has actually gotten the job done. > This, for reference, is the particular TMT Chair who did several notable > things during his tenure. He accomplished a few things, but nowhere near as much as you claim. Sadly, he was also a crackpot, and what little good he achieved was outweighed by the harm he caused. > TRA is opposed to disclosure, loves secrecy, mainly to > cover up their folibles and shortcomings which are many and vast That's funny coming from you. Heck, you won't even tell people what features one of your alleged products has. Tell us who owns USR? Who makes (or made) your motors, and where is the manufacturing facility? If you had an LEMP and were inspected by ATF, as you claim, what were you manufacturing and where? Are you a business owner? > And this has NOTHING at all to do with a civil lawsuit between tw o > (other) rocketeers back in 1991. This has nothing at all to do with any > DOT fine for a single small shipment way back in 2001. This has nothing > at all to do with any personal disputes. Sorry Jerry, but those issues DO reflect on your credibility, and you have NONE. You've lied too many times, about too many things. For instance, you lied for years about having DOT approvals to ship your motors legally, and blamed TRA for not accepting your bogus DOT stuff. You lied too, when you shipped motors labeled as "model aircraft parts". > It has to do with the lack of ethical practices by the TRA BOD when > doing its formal duty regarding consumer rocket motor testing. For the uninitiated newbie who stumbles on these threads, let me explain what Jerry's really talking about here. TRA won't accept Jerry's motors for certification, because of the many irregularities involved in his submissions. NAR won't accept them either. He lacks DOT testing and approvals for his motors, making them illegal to ship. He lacks the permits which ATF says are required for rocket motor manufacturing. He lacks the required state permits for manufacturing, sales and import/export of rocket motors. At various times he has attempt to submit motors for certification with bogus paperwork, paperwork in someone else's name, etc. Since Jerry can't run his motor business legally, he is reduced to blaming all his problems on the hobby organizations. It's much easier for him to badmouth TRA and NAR than it is to get legal and run a legitimate business. >> > (the usual hateful drivel) >> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines] >for him to badmouth TRA and NAR than it is to get legal and run a >legitimate business. Still more Jerry FAQ material! > Only one of the individuals you quoted ever had an "official" position > in TRA, and he screwed it up and was booted out. Really? How did he screw it up? > booted out of testing for not getting the job done Huh? > Every TMT chairman we've had since > Cato has actually gotten the job done. Really? > > It has to do with the lack of ethical practices by the TRA BOD when > > doing its formal duty regarding consumer rocket motor testing. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > Only one of the individuals you quoted ever had an "official" position > > in TRA, and he screwed it up and was booted out. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Jerry .. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 jerry the pinhead wrote: > .. jerry, are those supposed to be your eyes peering out from you rat hole? This really takes the cake. Jerry, you STARTED a thread whose very title was a flame, you have absolutely nothing to back it up, and then you post a reply to your own thread to try and change the title to a flame-free thread??? I'm sorry, this has got to be something MUCH stronger than just glue fumes... David Erbas-White > This really takes the cake. > > Jerry, you STARTED a thread whose very title was a flame, you have > absolutely nothing to back it up, and then you post a reply to your own > thread to try and change the title to a flame-free thread??? Welcome to the crazy mixed up world of Jerry Irvine. > I'm sorry, this has got to be something MUCH stronger than just glue > fumes... Yep. My guess is some type of mental illness. The paranoia, the delusions, the narcissism, the compulsive lying, all seem to point that way. >This really takes the cake. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >David Erbas-White Glue fumes and CO2 are building up in the rat hole! Jerry - get some fresh air in there!! > >This really takes the cake. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Glue fumes and CO2 are building up in the rat hole! Jerry - get some > fresh air in there!! Hey! Maybe he's working on a new hybrid? He tried hot air and bullshit but didn't get anywhere with that. steve >>>This really takes the cake. >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > steve ROTFLMAO!!! >> >This really takes the cake. >> > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >steve LOL!!! http://www.lukefisher.com/war-room.wav >> > Only one of the individuals you quoted ever had an "official" position >> > in TRA, and he screwed it up and was booted out. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >.. Nice try - you have to post something for it to be FFT. Trolling and otherwise inflamatory stuff doesn't qualify. Also, you need to post something.. Repositng something that you already started the flaming on is probably not a good way to go either. 8-) nada > >> > Only one of the individuals you quoted ever had an "official" position > >> > in TRA, and he screwed it up and was booted out. > >> > >> Really? > >> > >> How did he screw it up? Cato CORRECTED TMT for the very first time ever. Cato RESIGNED before any firing could occur after DISCOVERING only SOME of the active cover-ups and blemishes in the org and its leaders. Talk about a rathole! > >> > booted out of testing for not getting the job done Direct lie. > >> Huh? > >> > >> > Every TMT chairman we've had since > >> > Cato has actually gotten the job done. Direct lie. > >> Really? > >> > >> > > It has to do with the lack of ethical practices by the TRA BOD when > >> > > doing its formal duty regarding consumer rocket motor testing. Even if they made real mistakes, if only they would try with any ethics at all, everyone could forgive them. But nooooooooo. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >nada > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >Jerry Jerry - wasn't that Gary that told you that repeating the same bs over and over isn't going to make it true? I went to a launch Sunday. They were allowed to fly anything except USR motors. There seems to be a pattern developing in the USR mosaic I was not at MDRA. > nada > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Even if they made real mistakes, if only they would try with any ethics > at all, everyone could forgive them. "big fine", You talking bad about TRA alleged ethics, is like the fox telling everyone else to stay out of the chicken coup, because it's bad to eat the chickens.. Example; http://rspa-atty.dot.gov/appeals/Irvine-app.pdf. > But nooooooooo. > > Jerry But yessssssss. Fred > nada > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Jerry Poor jerry. Maybe some day you'll acquire some ethics. > Even if they made real mistakes, if only they would try with any ethics > at all, everyone could forgive them. "Everyone"?? The only people with a grudge against TRA are you, Cato and Bob K. Funny thing is, all three of you have such different views about how the hobby should be run, you'd be at each other's throats if it wasn't for your shared hatred of TRA. > > Even if they made real mistakes, if only they would try with any ethics > > at all, everyone could forgive them. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > about how the hobby should be run, you'd be at each other's throats if > it wasn't for your shared hatred of TRA. I actually believe this is how you see things. That's what's at variance. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > Even if they made real mistakes, if only they would try with any ethics > at all, everyone could forgive them. > > But nooooooooo. > > Jerry Quiet everyone, Jerry is giving a sermon about ethics. This should be good! Here's an excerpt you'll not want to miss... "When purposfully trying to deceive a government agency, it's always best to do so alone for secrecy. However, never tell anyone your're working alone. Rather, tell them you work for a company of less than two individuals, so blame can be deflected to the company, rather than yourself." Jerry Irvine I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed... I get the impression that there's a certain individual here who is, shall we say, "special"? You know, their elevator button is stuck on one floor, and it's the imaginary sub-basement floor that no one knows about except for him, where all sorts of imaginary monsters and playpals come out to torment him and/or play with him? But no matter what, he can't help but push that button over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.... >I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's >contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and >over, and over, and over.... That's correct except that some of the monsters that haunt him are not imaginary. Poor Jerry. > >I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's > >contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That's correct except that some of the monsters that haunt him are not > imaginary. Yep. Those are the monsters with names like DOT, ATF, CSFM, etc. P > > >I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's > > >contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > P What I find interesting about your behavior, is the sheer energy you expend changing the subject, and attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message. ANY of several messages. You could qualify to be a Nazi for sure. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's > contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and > over, and over, and over.... Yeah, You got the "gist" of it. I used to be "business" partners with mr. special. The rest of the partners, along with Myself, had to sue mr. special for fraud. > I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's > contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed... > > I get the impression that there's a certain individual here who > is, shall we say, "special"? You know, their elevator button is Had to google search to see what you were talking about. Not just one, but a whole group of them. May I suggest a filter on everyone in this thread? Or pay a visit to somewhere rockets are the focus,... www.rocketryforum.com > > I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's > > contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > in this thread? Or pay a visit to somewhere rockets are the focus,... > www.rocketryforum.com It is all about making rec.models.rockets about anything but rockets. Kinda like TRA. After all, TRA has formally adopted NFPA-1122 and NFPA-1125 and NFPA-1127 which demand delays be tested. Does TRA do it? No thanks. NAR and CAR despite any requirements to the contrary have not "formally adopted" rules only to ignore them. NAR and CAR had the forsight to either comply or say no comment. TRA is bold indeed. Jerry I assume you will IGNORE this fact and both change the subject and attack the messenger. Reminder: while ignoring the actual message above. Snipped as usual. So inconvenient. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > It is all about making rec.models.rockets about anything but rockets. This newsgroups IS all about rockets on the rare occasions when Jerry goes into hiding for a while. Unfortunately he always comes back and resumes spewing BS. That's why he's been kicked off all the moderated forums -- he won't stick to posting about rocketry. Here, where there is no moderator, he hijacks every thread and posts all the drivel his sick little brain can conjure. When anyone counters his BS, he blames them for fouling the newsgroup. Jerry's big on blaming others for the results of his own actions. > After all, TRA has formally adopted NFPA-1122 and NFPA-1125 and > NFPA-1127 which demand delays be tested. > Does TRA do it? No thanks. Dear Newbies: This is a classic example of Jerry's unsubtantiated claims. He has no proof to back it up, yet he states it as if it were fact. He hopes that by repeating this kind of stuff over and over, he can occasionally sucker some poor newbie into accepting it at face value. Ask him for specific, verifiable proof and he'll give you speculation, opinion, conjecture, quotes of his own posts, quotes of other people's posts (often out of context), misdirection and changes of subject -- anything but real proof. Press him hard enough for proof, and you'll find yourself on his enemies list. He may even threaten to sue. But not to worry, the courts have declared him a "vexatious litigant" (someone who files suit as a form of harassment) and restricted his ability to sue. BTW, I can post the case summary if you want verification, or you can look up the case number yourself. Others have posted the fraud judgement against Jerry, and the DOT ruling. I'm sure they'd be happy to repost those if necessary. Here's something else of interest to those deciding whether or not Jerry is to be believed... One of the requirements for motor certification is that manufacturers must have an Low Explosives Manufacturer Permit from the ATF. Jerry repeatedly insists that the ATF does not require this permit for rocket motor manufacturers. He even says that the ATF told him he doesn't need that permit. Yet on his own website, he posted the following statements: "To avoid "interaction" with alphabet regulators we no longer resell contracted motors." "ATF "knowingly and falsely" claimed PADs are not exempt despite 27 CFR 555.141-a-8." And here's what the ATF has to say about it: http://www.atf.gov/explarson/0504rocketryqa.pdf In particular, check out question #3... "3. I would like to manufacture and distribute single use rocket motors and/or propellant reload kits. What ATF license is required? Only a manufacturer's license is required. Licensed manufacturers may engage in the business of manufacturing explosive materials for purposes of sale or distribution or for their own use. It is not necessary for a licensed manufacturer to also obtain a dealer's license to engage in business on his or her licensed premises as a dealer in explosive materials. See 27 CFR § 555.41(b)(3)." You see, it's much easier for Jerry to blame his problems on TRA than it is to admit he's not operating legally in the eyes of the ATF. > > It is all about making rec.models.rockets about anything but rockets. It is all about making rec.models.rockets about anything but rockets. I felt it important to reiterate this before reading Ray's rant. Thank you. Jerry > This newsgroups IS all about rockets Lie. > on the rare occasions when Jerry > goes into hiding for a while. Unfortunately he always comes back and > resumes spewing BS. Lie. > That's why he's been kicked off all the moderated > forums Lie. > -- he won't stick to posting about rocketry. Lie. > Here, where there > is no moderator, he hijacks every thread Lie. > and posts all the drivel his > sick little brain can conjure. Lie. > When anyone counters his BS, Lie. > he blames > them Lie. > for fouling the newsgroup. Jerry's big on blaming others Lie. > for the > results of his own actions. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Dear Newbies: This is a classic example of Jerry's unsubtantiated > claims. Lie. > He has no proof to back it up, Lie. > yet he states it as if it were > fact. He hopes that by repeating this kind of stuff over and over, he > can occasionally sucker some poor newbie into accepting it at face > value. Lie. > Ask him for specific, verifiable proof and he'll give you > speculation, Lie. > opinion, conjecture, > quotes of his own posts, quotes of > other people's posts (often out of context), misdirection Lie. > and changes > of subject Lie. > -- anything but real proof. Lie. > Press him hard enough for proof, > and you'll find yourself on his enemies list. Lie. > He may even threaten to > sue. But not to worry, the courts have declared him a "vexatious [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > certification is that manufacturers must have an Low Explosives > Manufacturer Permit from the ATF. Lie. > Jerry repeatedly insists that the ATF > does not require this permit for rocket motor manufacturers. Correct. > He even > says that the ATF told him he doesn't need that permit. Correct. > Yet on his own > website, he posted the following statements: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "ATF "knowingly and falsely" claimed PADs are not exempt despite 27 > CFR 555.141-a-8." Correct. It is NOTABLE that TRA's own policy prevents me from living the lifestyle and sticking it in their face (full force) while selling unregulated motors. Ironic, eh? > And here's what the ATF has to say about it: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > You see, it's much easier for Jerry to blame his problems on TRA than > it is to admit he's not operating legally in the eyes of the ATF. Or to cite the ACTUAL law and the reading thereof :) The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances). The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55. What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding? Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption? From: Rick Dickinson <rtd@notesguy.com> I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written. The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means. and All I have been saying is that: 1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.". 2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:" 3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number. 4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined." 5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable. 6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance. 7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned. and Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein. Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers. Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me. - Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson Just Helpful Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > Lie. > Lie. > Lie. etc.... The attentive reader will note that despite all his one-word denials, Jerry still hasn't backed up anything with proof. > > Here's something else of interest to those deciding whether or not > > Jerry is to be believed... One of the requirements for motor [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Correct. Notice too, how he sticks to his lie even after being confronted with the ATF's own statement that motor manufacturers DO need a permit? > > He even > > says that the ATF told him he doesn't need that permit. > > Correct. Again, he provides no proof. He has been asked to do so regarding this particular claim for years and always refuses. > > Yet on his o wn > > website, he posted the following statements: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > lifestyle and sticking it in their face (full force) while selling > unregulated motors. No one's stopping you. You don't need TRA's permission to manufacture motors without ATF permits. Go right ahead, stick it in the ATF's face and let's see what really happens. (Note: Jerry often expresses a desire to be a "test case", but always avoids it like the plague.) > > And here's what the ATF has to say about it: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Or to cite the ACTUAL law and the reading thereof :) Folks, this is another of Jerry's favorite tactics. He claims we all just have to cite the regs and the ATF will miraculously change their policy. Of course, it's not his neck on the line. HE won't do it. He _claims_ he did, but like all his claims he refuses to provide any proof. He wants the rocketry orgs to stick their necks out instead of his own, just so that he can sell his illegally manufactured, unshippable motors. And he goes ballistic if anyone suggests making a call to the ATF to see if they'll verify his claim. > The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Again, Jerry ignores the fact that this case isn't settled, and distorts the judge's partial ruling to fit his own interpretation. The specifically refused to address that particular issue, stating that it was "not properly before the court" at that time. But Jerry only hears what he wants to hear. And then Jerry goes on to post his usual quotations from posters to this forum, as if that is more authoritative than the ATF's own published statement of policy. > > Lie. > > Lie. > > Lie. > etc.... > > The attentive reader will note that despite all his one-word denials, Calling you a liar is not a denial. It is an affirmative statement. Each of these subjects and the related proof or references to thereof have indeed been posted to rmr over the years. Fetch. > Jerry still hasn't backed up anything with proof. Lie. > > > Here's something else of interest to those deciding whether or not > > > Jerry is to be believed... One of the requirements for motor [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Notice too, how he sticks to his lie even after being confronted with > the ATF's own statement that motor manufacturers DO need a permit? The law is controlling. Thank goodness. The judge said that exemptions at 55.141 apply to our rocket motors. Section 55.141 (a) begins: General. This part shall not apply with respect to..." (and then enumerates the various exempted circumstances). The exemption relieves us from the ENTIRE burden of compliance to all regulations of "part 55", not just from only those parts dealing with user permits. Also in part 55 are to be found requirements for manufacture, storage, etc., and the definition of "explosive materials" (in section 55.11) that invokes the "List of Explosive Materials provided for in section 55.23". That means that BATF can "list" things as "explosive" all they want, but that doesn't act to bring PAD's within the definition of "Explosive Materials" - neither their creation and distribution (whether or not considered "commercial"), nor their acquisition, storage and use, are subject to Part 55. What part of "this part shall not apply to..." are you having such trouble understanding? Where does is "commercial manufacturer of what is classified as a LE" excluded from the exemption? From: Rick Dickinson <rtd@notesguy.com> I have had enough law classes, and have done well enough in them, to be able to read and comprehend legal documents, and to draw substantive, supportable conclusions from what I read. The study of law is about learning to pick out what's important, and paying attention to the details. While fair play (aka "equity") is part of the law, attention to detail is a far bigger part. If the law says something, you won't go far wrong by taking it extremely literally, as written. The interesting thing, to me, is that Dave and I have not been contradicting what the lawyers said. We have been taking what they have said, what the judge said, and what the law says, reading them all, and drawing the conclusion that the law says what it means. and All I have been saying is that: 1) The judge ruled that fully assembled rocket motors are, for now, correctly classified as Propellant Actuated Devices (PADs), as listed in Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 555 (formerly known as Part 55), Section 841(a)(8). 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8), in full, reads as follows: "(8) Gasoline, fertilizers, propellant actuated devices, or propellant actuated industrial tools manufactured, imported, or distributed for their intended purposes.". 2) 27 CFR 55.841(a)(8) is only one of 9 exemptions mentioned under 27 CFR 555.841(a), which reads, in full: "(a) General. Except for the provisions of Secs. 55.180 and 55.181, this part does not apply to:" 3) The term "this part" in 27 CFR 55.841(a) has a specific legal meaning, in context. It refers, specifically, to the particular Part of the particular Title containing the phrase "this part". In other words, it refers to Part 55 of Title 27 of the Code of Federal Regulations (aka 27 CFR 55). This reading is made even more obvious by the fact that the sub-section 841(a) mentions several other sections within the part it's talking about specifically by number. 4) The provisions of sections 55.180 and 55.181 relate to "plastic explosives", which are defined in 27 CFR 55.180(c)(4) as "(4) Plastic explosive means an explosive material in flexible or elastic sheet form formulated with one or more high explosives which in their pure form has a vapor pressure less than 10-\4\ Pa at a temperature of 25 deg.C, is formulated with a binder material, and is as a mixture malleable or flexible at normal room temperature. High explosives, as defined in Sec. 55.202(a), are explosive materials which can be caused to detonate by means of a blasting cap when unconfined." 5) I don't think anyone has ever even alleged that the rocket motors we are talking about are "formulated with one or more high explosives", so the provisions in sections 55.180 and 55.181 of this part (part 55) are clearly not applicable. 6) Since 27 CFR 55.180 and 55.181 are clearly not applicable, what we are left with is an exemption from all of 27 CFR 55. As you can see by perusing http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/27cfr55_02.html , Part 55 regulates all aspects of "Commerce In Explosives", from licensing to storage, to disposal, transportation, or what to do if any is stolen. See 27 CFR 55.41 for general information on Licenses and Permits, for instance. 7) An unequivocal exemption from essentially all of 27 CFR 55 (with the twin exceptions of the sections relating to plastic explosives I mentioned above) means that LEUPs are not needed. It also means that LEMPs are not needed for manufacturing PADs. Assembling a PAD is an unregulated activity, at least as far as the federal explosives regulations in 27 CFR 55 are concerned. and Actually, the PAD exemption specifically exempts PADs from "this part", referring to 27 CFR Part 55 (now renumbered to part 555), which is the term for the section of the law that contains the PAD exemption, and the storage, permitting, and other regulations concerning explosives. By exempting PADs from "this part" using verbiage within "Part 555" (nee 55), PADs are exempt from *all* of the regulations therein. Note: this is *including* the regulations requiring permits for manufacturers and dealers. Do a web search for "27 CFR 55" and read it yourself if you don't beleive me. - Rick "Use the Source, Luke" Dickinson > > > He even > > > says that the ATF told him he doesn't need that permit. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Again, he provides no proof. He has been asked to do so regarding this > particular claim for years and always refuses. Proof posted above. Ignore it again? It is proof. Sufficient for ATF but NOT Ray or TRA. Ironic or moronic? > > > Yet on his o wn > > > website, he posted the following statements: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > (Note: Jerry often expresses a desire to be a "test case", but always > avoids it like the plague.) So TRA should simply renew the certs of the motors that under their own rules require ONLY motors and money to be submitted. sh.t or get off the pot. Put it to the test. Show me. > > Or to cite the ACTUAL law and the reading thereof :) > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > this forum, as if that is more authoritative than the ATF's own > published statement of policy. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > The attentive reader will note that despite all his one-word denials, > > Calling you a liar is not a denial. It is an affirmative statement. A statement without proof. > > Notice too, how he sticks to his lie even after being confronted with > > the ATF's own statement that motor manufacturers DO need a permit? > > The law is controlling. Thank goodness. And the law gives the ATF power to interpret the regs, and to enforce their interpretation of the regs. By law, the only way to change their policy (interpretation and/or enforcement) is by taking them to court, as TRA has done. Also, that statement from ATF proves that you lie when you say that ATF does not require LEMPs for rocket motor manufacturers. > > Again, he provides no proof. He has been asked to do so regarding this > > particular claim for years and always refuses. > > Proof posted above. You posted no such proof. All you did was repeat your quote of Rick's opinion. Rick is not ATF. > So TRA should simply renew the certs of the motors that under their own > rules require ONLY motors and money to be submitted. As you know, TRA cannot renew certs on motors that do not meet current cert standards. s > Also, that statement from ATF proves that you lie when you say that ATF > does not require LEMPs for rocket motor manufacturers. Why are you MOTIVATED to discourage manufacturers from enjoying the last few remaining rights they do have? > As you know, TRA cannot renew certs on motors that do not meet current > cert standards. That's NOT what the rules say. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > Also, that statement from ATF proves that you lie when you say that ATF > > does not require LEMPs for rocket motor manufacturers. > > Why are you MOTIVATED to discourage manufacturers from enjoying the last > few remaining rights they do have? Why did you lie by saying that the ATF does not require LEMPs for motor manufacturers? Why are you telling manufacturers to disobey the ATF? Why are you telling everyone that you are in compliance with the ATF without a LEMP, when the ATF says that rocket motor manufacturers must have LEMPs? k >You posted no such proof. All you did was repeat your quote of Rick's >opinion. Rick is not ATF. Ray, I'm getting nearly as tired of seeing Jerry repost my words as you are. However, if you read my words, you'll see that I never claimed to be ATF. And, in the oft-reposted quote, the only opinion that I expressed was that the judge's ruling on the law, and the law itself, should be taken at face value. The rest of my post (that Jerry constantly quotes) was just me making a series of quotes from the actual law, itself, and putting those quotes into context. I'm not a lawyer, and I am, therefore, both unwilling and unable to lawfully render legal opinions. I do not, and I will not, engage in the unlawful practice of law without a license. I am strictly a non-professional at this point, although I have had several college classes on the law, have taken the Law School Admission Test (93rd percentile, if I recall correctly), and am planning to attend law school as soon as I have finished my undergraduate degree. I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that I am not a lawyer, and am pleased to note that Jerry has kept that portion of my post intact as part of his "quote". However, while I'm not a lawyer, I'm not illiterate, either, and I am quite capable of reading carefully, and deriving precise meaning from the written words of others. So, while I am unwilling to render professional legal advice or opinions, I am willing, however, to read the text of the actual laws and regulations "on the books", and to read the written opinions of judges who have ruled on matters of law. And, I'm willing to offer the non-professional opinion that maybe we couldn't go too far wrong by taking what the judge says and taking what the law says both literally, and at face value. - Rick "IANAL" Dickinson SignatureEvery parliament or congress worldwide should be equipped with a hundred-pound chunk of sodium in the entrance foyer, such that any politician who really really wants to make his mark can lift his leg and do so. -- Anthony de Boer > >You posted no such proof. All you did was repeat your quote of Rick's > >opinion. Rick is not ATF. > > Ray, I'm getting nearly as tired of seeing Jerry repost my words as > you are. However, if you read my words, you'll see that I never > claimed to be ATF. I know that, Rick. But Jerry seems to think your opinion is more authoritative than the ATF's published statement, and uses your words as "proof" that the ATF supposedly does not require LEMPs for motor manufacturers. The ATF clearly DOES require that permit, and they have publically said so. > And, in the oft-reposted quote, the only opinion > that I expressed was that the judge's ruling on the law, and the law > itself, should be taken at face value. First off, the ruling you refer to was contradicted by the judge's subsequent ruling, and in that later ruling the judge specifically said that the issue of whether motors are PADs was not before the court at that time. We had to amend the suit to include that issue, and he has not yet ruled on it. Secondly, your opinion of whether we should take it at "face value" is irrelevant to what the ATF actually requires. You and I both know that the ATF _should_ recognise and accept the PAD exemption for rocket motors, but the fact of the matter is that they do NOT. > The rest of my post (that > Jerry constantly quotes) was just me making a series of quotes from > the actual law, itself, and putting those quotes into context. Again, I am well aware of what the regs say. That's not the issue. ATF policy and enforcement is the issue. They have the legal authority to interpret the regs as they see fit, and enforce that interpretation, and only the judge can change that. So far, that hasn't happened. Also, it should be noted that there wasn't even a partial ruling back when Jerry's motors were decertified for lack of LEMPs (not to mention lack of DOT approvals). > So, while I am unwilling to render professional legal advice or > opinions, I am willing, however, to read the text of the actual laws [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > by taking what the judge says and taking what the law says both > literally, and at face value. Ah, but it's not your neck on the line. Any manufacturer who decided to renounce his LEMP would be shut down by ATF, and have to spend time and money fighting it in court. None of the legitimate manufacturers can afford to do that, and even Jerry has enough sense to keep his operations cloaked in secrecy to avoid ATF "interaction". P > Again, I am well aware of what the regs say. That's not the issue. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >> After all, TRA has formally adopted NFPA-1122 and NFPA-1125 and >> NFPA-1127 which demand delays be tested. >> Does TRA do it? No thanks. >Dear Newbies: This is a classic example of Jerry's unsubtantiated >claims. He has no proof to back it up, yet he states it as if it were [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >litigant" (someone who files suit as a form of harassment) and >restricted his ability to sue. Dear Ray: it would be easier just to post the results of the delay testing by TRA. Showing a proof that the job was done is easier than to prove that the job wasn't. Btw... how many samples of each motor are fired before accepting a motor? >>> After all, TRA has formally adopted NFPA-1122 and NFPA-1125 and >>> NFPA-1127 which demand delays be tested. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >the job wasn't. >Btw... how many samples of each motor are fired before accepting a motor? I contacted Paul Holmes the TMT Chairman and asked about delay testing. He said they test that delays are within NFPA specs. That seems reasonable to me. Obviously, the other certification testing is similar between all the organizations. > I contacted Paul Holmes the TMT Chairman and asked about delay > testing. He said they test that delays are within NFPA specs. That > seems reasonable to me. Obviously, the other certification testing is > similar between all the organizations. Did you ask for the test results? You know, the thrust curves with the ejection "tick" on it? Of course not. You took his "word" that something occured for every motor that "we all" (certainly those of us who have participated in several TMT tests and watched carefully what results or reports have emerged from same.) know for a fact has NOT occured. You can bait and blather otherwise, but I am a first hand witness to this one. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >> I contacted Paul Holmes the TMT Chairman and asked about delay >> testing. He said they test that delays are within NFPA specs. That [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Jerry I have no reason not to believe Paul. You say you are a first hand witness. When was the last time you witnessed it? I doubt that you have witnessed it recently. Who was the last TMT Chairmen that you watched? > > I contacted Paul Holmes the TMT Chairman and asked about delay > > testing. He said they test that delays are w ithin NFPA specs. That [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Did you ask for the test results? You know, the thrust curves with the > ejection "tick" on it? You're confusing test data with test results. The results are that the motors passed. Just like getting a degree from college, the proof of the degree is the diploma. You don't have to show employers every paper you ever wrote to get that degree. > Of course not. You took his "word" that something occured for every > motor that "we all" (certainly those of us who have participated in > several TMT tests and watched carefully what results or reports have > emerged from same.) know for a fact has NOT occured. You do not KNOW that, and it is not a fact. It's conjecture and opinion. Also, you were only present at a few TMT tests during the start of the testing program back in the late 80's or thereabout. > Also, you were only present at a few TMT tests during the > start of the testing program back in the late 80's or thereabout. Huh? SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >> Also, you were only present at a few TMT tests during the >>start of the testing program back in the late 80's or thereabout. > > Huh? jerry, ARE YOU STUPID, or just pretending to be STUPID? >>>I contacted Paul Holmes the TMT Chairman and asked about delay >>>testing. He said they test that delays are w ithin NFPA specs. That [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > opinion. Also, you were only present at a few TMT tests during the > start of the testing program back in the late 80's or thereabout. After a usr "firestarter" K motor blew up on the test stand, destroying it, jerry stopped showing up. >> You do not KNOW that, and it is not a fact. It's conjecture and >> opinion. Also, you were only present at a few TMT tests during the >> start of the testing program back in the late 80's or thereabout. > >After a usr "firestarter" K motor blew up on the test stand, destroying >it, jerry stopped showing up. When is Jerry going to pay for that? >>>You do not KNOW that, and it is not a fact. It's conjecture and >>>opinion. Also, you were only present at a few TMT tests during the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > When is Jerry going to pay for that? I'm sure it's on zippy's list of things to do. Oh wait a minute, I meant the list of things to ignore. >> Did you ask for the test results? You know, the thrust curves with the >> ejection "tick" on it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the degree is the diploma. You don't have to show employers every paper > you ever wrote to get that degree. Interesting analogy. My employer can get a copy of my transcript from my college, to verify that I really have the degree I claim to have. And they can find out if I was an A or a C student (maybe if I were a C student, I could be president :-) ) I.E. they can access the data. Why is it that TRA remains so secretive about delay test data? Don't we the consumers of HPR motors have the right to know if our 10 second delay is really 10, or maybe 8 or 12 or 3 or 21 seconds? What is so unreasonalbe about asking TMT to publish the results of the delay tests? It's been a decade since Tom fraudulently extended John's certifications to cover delay values John never tested, or motors that were not tested or failed testing due to delay errors. Half a dozen TMT chairs since Tom have done nothing to rectify this fraud, or release the current delay test data. What's the big secret? The only reason I can think of for keeping the data a secret is that motors that fail delay specs are being certified, and if exposed, it will prove that TRA motor certification is a fraud. As long as the secrecy remains, so remains the appearance of fraud. Any one who disagrees with that must either be part of the fraud, or a complete idiot. Clear the air once and for all. Publish the TMT delay test data. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Vulcans believe peace should not depend on force. -- Amanda, "Journey to Babel," stardate 3842.3 >The only reason I can think of for keeping the data a secret is that motors >that fail delay specs are being certified, and if exposed, it will prove [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > And yet once again, I ask, since you've stated publicly that you have contacted NFPA about these purported 'violations', what the response was. Because, once again, if the authorities are not worried about it, then it seems that you are attempting to create a problem where none exists. Is it possible/conceivable that this could have been an issue? Certainly. But did it occur? No. There are NO (to the best of my knowledge) legal claims that ever came about because of the presence/absence of the delay testing information. Further, in most circumstances, any legal action would have been civil, not criminal (i.e., the delay causing damage to a vehicle). I would further add that (based on the flights I've seen over the years) that incorrect delays are only one very small percentage of what can/does go wrong in a rocket. If you're going to claim this is a tremendous safety issue, then we would (logically) be having to add double- or triple-redundant systems in every flight, just to make sure that things like this don't occur. What protects people/property from problems when flying, more than anything else, are the safety codes regarding distances, and placement of people away from the ballistic path of a rocket. I agree that it would be nice, and convenient, to have this data made public. I don't agree that it's a legal requirement (though I have to admit to being on the fence, I feel I could safely argue pro- or con on it), but it is essentially a non-issue. And I don't base my delay measurements or delay shortening needs on the purported 'norm'. There are far too many variables involved that I would rely on that, so my experience with a given motor/rocket combination weighs far more than what all the 'theory' predicts. David Erbas-White > >> Did you ask for the test results? You know, the thrust curves with the > >> ejection "tick" on it? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > can find out if I was an A or a C student (maybe if I were a C student, I > could be president :-) ) I.E. they can access the data. Does that data include the actual tests you took, and the papers you wrote? I doubt it. > Why is it that TRA remains so secretive about delay test data? Don't we the > consumers of HPR motors have the right to know if our 10 second delay is > really 10, or maybe 8 or 12 or 3 or 21 seconds? You don't need the test data for that. All you need to know is that it passed. > What is so unreasonalbe > about asking TMT to publish the results of the delay tests? Seems like a lot of trouble to me, just to gratify one complainer who's not even a TRA member. > It's been a decade since Tom fraudulently extended John's certifications to > cover delay values John never tested, or motors that were not tested or > failed testing due to delay errors. Allegedly. > The only reason I can think of for keeping the data a secret is that motors > that fail delay specs are being certified... Or maybe they've found some other way to cert the delays. > As long as the secrecy remains, so > remains the appearance of fraud. Yes, without the actual data one could theorize that the delays weren't tested. But you'd have no proof either way. Seems to me, if you're that suspicious, would you believe the data if they showed it to you? > Why is it that TRA remains so secretive about delay test data? Don't we the > consumers of HPR motors have the right to know if our 10 second delay is > really 10, or maybe 8 or 12 or 3 or 21 seconds? What is so unreasonalbe > about asking TMT to publish the results of the delay tests? Is it truly secretive, or just not bothering to publish, because the majority of Tripoli's members don't care? > It's been a decade since Tom fraudulently extended John's certifications to > cover delay values John never tested, or motors that were not tested or > failed testing due to delay errors. Half a dozen TMT chairs since Tom have > done nothing to rectify this fraud, or release the current delay test data. > What's the big secret? If the motors have subsequently been tested, they're not perpetuating any fraud. I don't question that something was fishy subsequent to John, but I very much believe that Sue, and TMT Chairs since, have tested what they claim to have tested. > Any one who disagrees with that must either be part of the fraud, or a > complete idiot. Clear the air once and for all. Publish the TMT delay test > data. Either that, or their world isn't as black and white as yours, Bob. -Kevin > >> After all, TRA has formally adopted NFPA-1122 and NFPA-1125 and > >> NFPA-1127 which demand delays be tested. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the job wasn't. > Btw... how many samples of each motor are fired before accepting a motor? Up to G: 11 Up to M: 3 Otherwise: 1 But at least one of EACH DELAY must be tested per ALL NFPA-1125 standards, and per TMT rules, and S&T rules. So failing to test and report the results is a KNOWN VIOLATION. Could easily be a CRIME in 32 states. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > So failing to test and report the results is a KNOWN VIOLATION. The motor testing _results_ are no secret. Either a motor passes testing, or it fails. >> So failing to test and report the results is a KNOWN VIOLATION. > > The motor testing _results_ are no secret. Either a motor passes > testing, or it fails. PROVE IT! Show me the delay test data. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Vulcans believe peace should not depend on force. -- Amanda, "Journey to Babel," stardate 3842.3 >>>So failing to test and report the results is a KNOWN VIOLATION. >> >>The motor testing _results_ are no secret. Either a motor passes >>testing, or it fails. > > PROVE IT! Show me the delay test data. Bob, what makes you think Ray personally has such data? Shouldn't You be asking TMT for that type of data? > Bob, what makes you think Ray personally has such data? > Shouldn't You be asking TMT for that type of data? I have. More than once. Never got a response. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org ... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for none. >>> So failing to test and report the results is a KNOWN VIOLATION. >> >> The motor testing _results_ are no secret. Either a motor passes >> testing, or it fails. >PROVE IT! Show me the delay test data. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Vulcans believe peace should not depend on force. -- Amanda, "Journey to >Babel," stardate 3842.3 Being on the list is the proof. If it didn't pass, it doesn't make the list. > Being on the list is the proof. If it didn't pass, it doesn't make > the list. I beg to differ. I have previously PROVEN that motors were placed on the list with no testing at all, either of that delay combination, or of the motor completely. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org ... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for none. >I beg to differ. I have previously PROVEN that motors were placed on the >list with no testing at all, either of that delay combination, or of the >motor completely. > > Not to belabor the point, but in a previous post you indicated that you had reported such violations to the NFPA. I indicated that I'd (truly) be interested in further information from you on this, but none was forthcoming. I would reiterate that if the agencies that perform the actual regulatory function are not concerned, then why should you be? After all, I'm all for government entities keeping their noses OUT of things, not bringing them in. And in relation to consumer organizations, folks pay with their wallets. I'm a member of NAR, and am perfectly happy with it. I don't have any additional need (at this point in time) to join TRA, as I see no additional benefit from it, and I truly AM concerned about their actions in the past (most particularly, the entire magazine fiasco). But I've flown at several TRA launches, was welcomed at them, paid any required launch fees, and had absolutely no problems. If TRA continues on their current course, I don't really see a problem with my joining them at some future point, if no NEW problems come up. David Erbas-White >> I beg to differ. I have previously PROVEN that motors were placed on the >> list with no testing at all, either of that delay combination, or of the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I would reiterate that if the agencies that perform the actual > regulatory function are not concerned, then why should you be? Could it be that Bob is the ONLY one that cares? Judging from some of Bob's past posts I going to bet that Bob has spent a fair share of his life 'tattling' on people. I get the feeling that Bob just ain't happy(at all) unless he complains to someone, whether it be TRA, NAR contest rules, smell of epoxy, noisy neighbors, people staring at him et all. Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 After > all, I'm all for government entities keeping their noses OUT of things, > not bringing them in. And in relation to consumer organizations, folks [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > David Erbas-White > > Being on the list is the proof. If it didn't pass, it doesn't make > > the list. > > I beg to differ. I have previous ly PROVEN that motors were placed on the > list with no testing at all, either of that delay combination, or of the > motor completely. I beg to differ, Bob. You've shown that there is a lack of data for certain motors that were certified about 13 years ago. While that could be considered circumstantial evidence, it's not proof. The data could simply be lost. >> Being on the list is the proof. If it didn't pass, it doesn't make >> the list. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for none. I've heard this discussed but have never heard of it being proven. Since motors are recertified every three years, is that still a concern? If so, can you provide me with the info? > >> So failing to test and report the results is a KNOWN VIOLATION. > > > > The motor testing _results_ are no secret. Either a motor passes > > testing, or it fails. > > PROVE IT! Show me the delay test data. There is no requirement to do that, and personally I think it would be a waste of time. Now, you are free to believe that Paul Holmes is a lying scumbucket who doesn't do what he says he did. But without any proof of it, that's just your opinion. Furthermore, I've seen nothing that would lead any reasonable person to believe that Mr. Holmes is a liar. õ > There is no requirement to do that, and personally I think it would be Actually NFPA 1125 does require that. > a waste of time. Now, you are free to believe that Paul Holmes is a > lying scumbucket who doesn't do what he says he did. But without any > proof of it, that's just your opinion. Furthermore, I've seen nothing > that would lead any reasonable person to believe that Mr. Holmes is a > liar. I've just sent him a polite email requesting the delay test data. If/when I get a response, I'll post it here. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org ... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for none. > > There is no requirement to do that, and personally I think it would be > > Actually NFPA 1125 does require tha t. I believe you are mistaken. I may be wrong, but I don't think the NFPA codes specifically require publication of test data, only the results (pass/fail). > > a waste of time. Now, you are free to believe that Paul Holmes is a > > lying scumbucket who doesn't do what he says he did. But without any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I've just sent him a polite email requesting the delay test data. If/when I > get a response, I'll post it here. Will you call him a liar if he doesn't give you what you want? Ray wrote: > > The motor testing _results_ are no secret. Either a motor passes > > testing, or it fails. > > PROVE IT! Show me the delay test data. Oh Bob. It must be so painful to live in such a distrusting world. I can only imagine the agony you feel when you visit the dentist and must take at face value the silly diploma on the wall. I know deep inside you're screaming, "PROVE IT! SHOW ME YOUR COLLEGE TEST DATA!" steve > Dear Ray: it would be easier just to post the results of the delay testing > by TRA. Showing a proof that the job was done is easier than to prove that > the job wasn't. Maybe so, but it's not up to me. > Btw... how many samples of each motor are fired before accepting a motor? I think it's three for most motors. >> After all, TRA has formally adopted NFPA-1122 and NFPA-1125 and >> NFPA-1127 which demand delays be tested. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > litigant" (someone who files suit as a form of harassment) and > restricted his ability to sue. Dear Newbies: This is a classic example of Ray's unsubtantiated claims. He has no proof to back it up, yet he states it as if it were fact. He hopes that by repeating this kind of stuff over and over, he can occasionally sucker some poor newbie into accepting it at face value... Ray posts as much pro TRA BA as Jerry does anti-TRA. It's time Ray takes off his blinders and see what is really going on. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Vulcans believe peace should not depend on force. -- Amanda, "Journey to Babel," stardate 3842.3 >>>After all, TRA has formally adopted NFPA-1122 and NFPA-1125 and >>>NFPA-1127 which demand delays be tested. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf > www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org Dear Newbies: This is a classic example of someone who is so full of spite and outright hatred, of all things, of a little itty bitty rocketry club that this someone was once kicked out of. This all occurred thirteen yesr ago. Now I ask you newbies this; Just how weenie and pathetic is such a ADULT individual to still bitch, whine and cry about it for thirteen years on rmr?? Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 >>> After all, TRA has formally adopted NFPA-1122 and NFPA-1125 and >>> NFPA-1127 which demand delays be tested. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >Vulcans believe peace should not depend on force. -- Amanda, "Journey to >Babel," stardate 3842.3 Bob - an unbiased observer would say the truth is somewhere in between the two opposing opinions. ;-) > Bob - an unbiased observer would say the truth is somewhere in between > the two opposing opinions. ;-) That very well may be the case. Which still leaves TRA hiding information. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org ... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for none. > >> After all, TRA has formally adopted NFPA-1122 and NFPA-1125 and > >> NFPA-1127 which demand delays be tested. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > claims. He has no proof to back it up, yet he states it as if it were > fact. Bob, which of the two claims I made (which you quoted above) do you take issue with? The first claim is that Jerry has failed to provide any proof that TRA does not currently test motor delays. (And please note, Jerry's statement is in the present tense and does not refer to your ancient allegations.) Now, if you think I'm wrong, and Jerry has posted proof that TRA does not currently test motor delays, please be so kind as to instruct us all where to find that proof, because it sure as hell isn't in any of the crap he's posting here. My second claim was that Jerry has been ruled a vexatious litigant by the courts. I said I have proof and would provide it if requested, so here it is. This is the case summary, and if that's not good enough for you, you can use the case number to look it up yourself: Case Summary Case Number: KC028578 GERALD A. IRVINE VS FRANKLIN KOSDON Filing Date: 07/09/1998 Proceedings Held (Proceeding dates listed in descending order) 05/03/1999 at 08:30 am in department A, Oki, Dan Thomas, Presiding Motion for Judgment on Pleadings (SANCTIONS TO HAVE PLTF DECLARED VEX LITIGANT) - Motion Granted > > >> After all, TRA has formally adopted NFPA-1122 and NFPA-1125 and > > >> NFPA-1127 which demand delays be tested. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Motion for Judgment on Pleadings (SANCTIONS TO HAVE PLTF DECLARED VEX > LITIGANT) - Motion Granted Ray, The responses to this from Bob and Jerry should really be good or non existent. I can't wait. (;-) Fred >> I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's >> contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed... [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >in this thread? Or pay a visit to somewhere rockets are the focus,... >www.rocketryforum.com Good idea - if you want censored lame assed content. > >> I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's > >> contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Good idea - if you want censored lame assed content. Yes, they do. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>>I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's >>>>contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Yes, they do. No, They just don't want you. > >>>>I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's > >>>>contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed... [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > No, They just don't want you. Then why don't you go over there? SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>>>>I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's >>>>>>contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Then why don't you go over there? If I did, then would you pay off the fraud judgment? >> >>>>I am still somewhat unknowledgable about this forum and it's >> >>>>contributors, but perhaps someone can bring me up to speed... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Then why don't you go over there? everyone on rmr loves you Jerry!!! jerry the pinhead wrote: > Really? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jerry It must be the glue. > jerry the pinhead wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > It must be the glue. I know that bit of fact is in the "big fine" FAQ >> jerry the pinhead wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >I know that bit of fact is in the "big fine" FAQ DOT - Mr. Fine - how many tubes of glue do you sniff at a time? Jerry - There's not much air circulation in my rat hole because TRA illegally decertified my explosives - er I mean motors - er I mean PADs. DOT - Mr. Fine - how many tubes do you snif at a time? Jerry - Less than two. DOT Mr. Fine - are you saying you sniff one a t a time? Jerry - I didn't say that. > Only one of the individuals you quoted ever had an "official" position > in TRA, and he screwed it up and was booted out. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > booted out of TRA for good cause. Every TMT chairman we've had since > Cato has actually gotten the job done. That is a flat out LIE. ***NO*** TMT chairperson, other than John, has actually gotten the WHOLE job done. John came in when TRA was about a hairs width away from being booted off of the NFPA committee as a motor testing authority and saved the day for TRA. [In hindsight, this may have been a BAD thing...] John got booted from TMT and from TRA for discovering all the illegal crap that was going on behind closed doors, and blowing the whistle on Rogers, Kelly, et al. It was Jophn that exposed the boards illegal manipulation of the bylaws, hidden from members. Sue was close, but even she did not release the delay testing information. One of the folks between John and Sue's tenure could only be described as fraudulent. He was the person who took Johns data, and changed it to certify motors that were either never tested, or failed testing. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org ... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for none. > > Only one of the individuals you quoted ever had an "official" position > > in TRA, and he screwed it up and was booted out. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That is a flat out LIE. Correct. One of several. > ***NO*** TMT chairperson, other than John, has > actually gotten the WHOLE job done. John came in when TRA was about a hairs [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fraudulent. He was the person who took Johns data, and changed it to certify > motors that were either never tested, or failed testing. But only certain brands. Other brands received even more draconion negative treatment. Jerry > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" > >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for > none. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > Other brands received even more draconion negative treatment. What Jerry means is that he couldn't meet the same requirements that apply to all manufacturers, so his illegal motors can't be certified. > > Other brands received even more draconion negative treatment. > > What Jerry means is No way. > that he couldn't meet the same requirements that > apply to all manufacturers, so his illegal motors can't be certified. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >> Only one of the individuals you quoted ever had an "official" position >> in TRA, and he screwed it up and was booted out. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for none. I looked at NARs testing info and they either don't test every delay configuration or don't list everything they tested. Missing delay testing info seems to be common. > I looked at NARs testing info and they either don't test every delay > configuration or don't list everything they tested. Missing delay > testing info seems to be common. What's missing from the NAR as to delay tests? If they certify it, thye test it, and publish the test results. Please point me to delay test data for ANY motor certified by TRA TMT since Cato was removed from the job. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII. >> I looked at NARs testing info and they either don't test every delay >> configuration or don't list everything they tested. Missing delay [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible > resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII. http://nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml AT H268, I218, I285 Also there are quite a few without any testing data. TMT does not show delay testing data at all. Guess no one is perfect but you have to admit that TMT is consistent. 8-) "Guess no one is perfect but you have to admit that TMT is consistent." - Phil Stein SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >"Guess no one is perfect but you have to admit that TMT is consistent." >- Phil Stein You are the only one that has a problem with consistency. > http://nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml AT H268, I218, I285 I've requested the missing data be posted by NAR S&T. I'll let you know what response I get. Now, can you ask TMT to post all the missing delay data for all their certified motors? > Guess no one is perfect but you have to admit that TMT is consistent. Consistently bad? Consistently evasive? Occasionally fraudulent? Great characteristics for a testing agency. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII. >> http://nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml AT H268, I218, I285 > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Consistently bad? Consistently evasive? Occasionally fraudulent? Great >characteristics for a testing agency. I'm sorry Bob but I don't see a problem with TMT only doing Pass/Fail on them. Paul did say that if they test something that is a G or lower they pass the info on to NAR S&T so they can look at it for contest purposes. I don't know about way back before Cato but I don't think there have been any problems recently. Why do you have a problem with delays being tested pass/fail? If a motor fails, obviously, it won't make it to the certified list. >I'm sorry Bob but I don't see a problem with TMT only doing Pass/Fail >on them. Paul did say that if they test something that is a G or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Why do you have a problem with delays being tested pass/fail? If a >motor fails, obviously, it won't make it to the certified list. In my personal opinion, it's pretty clear that TMT has had a somewhat "checkered" past, filled with accusations of impropriety, and some pretty convincing, if not absolute, circumstantial evidence of data-fudging (as alleged by a former TMT chair). I find it hard to believe that any agency, struggling to put those "bad times" behind them, would fail to "go overboard" in demonstrating their adherance to the straight and narrow. Making the process as open and as transparent as possible, and presenting all of the collected motor testing data on their web site, would seem to me to be a simple, and cost-effective, way to regain the trust of the entire rocketry community. The fact that TMT continues to adhere to a reporting system where "pass/fail" and total impulse are just about the only data reported about a motor test just boggles my mind. Even if all of the past accusations about impropriety are completely false, what does TMT have to gain by refusing to publish complete motor test data? All that they accomplish is to give their detractors a reason to complain. Placing the raw test data on their web site has viirtually zero incremental cost for TRA, and would have the immense benefit of finally getting their detractors to shut up about it. I know I'm getting tired of hearing about it, and I'm not even a TRA member. - Rick "One man's opinion" Dickinson SignatureEvery parliament or congress worldwide should be equipped with a hundred-pound chunk of sodium in the entrance foyer, such that any politician who really really wants to make his mark can lift his leg and do so. -- Anthony de Boer >>I'm sorry Bob but I don't see a problem with TMT only doing Pass/Fail >>on them. Paul did say that if they test something that is a G or [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Rick "One man's opinion" Dickinson The following are all links from the TMT test page- http://www.tripoli.org/tmt/TMT_Certified_Motor_Index.shtml http://www.tripoli.org/tmt/new_motors/J360_800-15aCT.shtml http://www.tripoli.org/tmt/new_motors/J135wAT.shtml http://www.tripoli.org/tmt/new_motors/AW%20J480BB.pdf http://stephensonline.ca/carweb/mcc_ct_j380ss.html Like NAR, there is some missing data but hey, the people that do it are worth every penny they are paid. 8-) WHat is wrong with what is there? Please look at all the pages / links and then tell me that total impulse is the only thing posted there. As a dues paying TRA member, I am satisfied with what is there. who tests and how they test. Apparently, so is NAR S&T and CAR CMT. That is good enough for me. As far as getting over 'bad times,' all I've ever seen is accusations by people that seem to have an axe to grind. I don't doubt that it could have happened but it is so far into the past that it is no longer relevent to most people (including me.) > As a dues paying TRA member, I am satisfied with what is there. who > tests and how they test. Apparently, so is NAR S&T and CAR CMT. That > is good enough for me. It's good enough for NFPA too. > As far as getting over 'bad times,' all I've ever seen is accusations > by people that seem to have an axe to grind. I don't doubt that it > could have happened but it is so far into the past that it is no > longer relevent to most people (including me.) Correct on both counts. It's certainly possible that some short cuts were taken in the early days of trying to get the (volunteer) cert program up and running. Not proven, but possible. If it happened, it was necessary at that stage and I don't have a problem with it; nor do I believe that it has anything to do with current practice. It's also completely unrelated to Jerry's lack of ATF, DOT and CSFM permits, which is the reason why he can't get his motors certified. >Like NAR, there is some missing data but hey, the people that do it >are worth every penny they are paid. 8-) WHat is wrong with what is >there? Please look at all the pages / links and then tell me that >total impulse is the only thing posted there. You are right; the data has improved significantly since the last time I looked at the TRA web site. The delay information, which is the particular information being discussed, however, is still missing, as best as I can tell. Am I simply not looking for it in the right place? >As a dues paying TRA member, I am satisfied with what is there. who >tests and how they test. Apparently, so is NAR S&T and CAR CMT. That [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >could have happened but it is so far into the past that it is no >longer relevent to most people (including me.) I am considering joining TRA at some point, so that I can participate in the "experimental" days at BALLS and XPRS. If I'm going to travel to Black Rock for a launch, I'd like to be able to enjoy the entire event, not just a few days. But, even though I'm currently only a NAR and PRS member, I am a consumer of TRA-certified motors. And, while I do tend to use more electronic deployment these days, I still do make use of motor delays for deployment on a fairly regular basis. As such, I don't think it's unreasonable for me to want to see what the tested delay lengths are for the motors I use, as opposed to what the manufacturer claims. After all, I'd have probably zippered my Silver Comet a long time ago if I hadn't known the NAR-measured delay values for the F39 reload. Publishing measured delay values will help rocketeers who make deployment near apogee a design goal.... Plus, publishing the measured delays will help to shut up the whiners who keep claiming that TMT doesn't test every delay. - Rick "NAR Apologist" Dickinson SignatureEvery parliament or congress worldwide should be equipped with a hundred-pound chunk of sodium in the entrance foyer, such that any politician who really really wants to make his mark can lift his leg and do so. -- Anthony de Boer >>Like NAR, there is some missing data but hey, the people that do it >>are worth every penny they are paid. 8-) WHat is wrong with what is [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > - Rick "NAR Apologist" Dickinson I hear you. I doubt that an already busy volunteer force is inclined to do it when just pass/fail covers it. TMT guy told me that he passes all data on to NAR S&T. I suppose you could ask S&T supplement the TMT results if the data provided is adaquate. > > - Rick "NAR Apologist" Dickinson > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > could ask S&T supplement the TMT results if the data provided is > adaquate. They have a peace treaty which is essentially a TOTAL non-interference treaty. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >> > - Rick "NAR Apologist" Dickinson >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Jerry Another conspiracy. > >> > - Rick "NAR Apologist" Dickinson > >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Another conspiracy. I made a factual statement. Care to shed FACT on it? SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>>>- Rick "NAR Apologist" Dickinson >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I made a factual statement. Care to shed FACT on it? you've said nothing, as usual. > In my personal opinion, it's pretty clear that TMT has had a somewhat > "checkered" past, filled with accusations of impropriety, and some > pretty convincing, if not absolute, circumstantial evidence of > data-fudging (as alleged by a former TMT chair). None of your opinion based on accusations and circumstantial evidence is proven fact, nor is any defense needed. Especially considering the limited and questionable character of the sources. > I find it hard to > believe that any agency, struggling to put those "bad times" behind > them, would fail to "go overboard" in demonstrating their adherance to > the straight and narrow. Are you implying the present TMT is not compliant?? If so, please provide your fact in evidence. > Making the process as open and as transparent as possible, and > presenting all of the collected motor testing data on their web site, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are just about the only data reported about a motor test just boggles > my mind. If you understand the + or - limits, what is the value added, providing other than pass or fail? > Even if all of the past accusations about impropriety are completely > false, what does TMT have to gain by refusing to publish complete > motor test data? If it is as you say, what is the need or value added, other than to appease. > All that they accomplish is to give their detractors > a reason to complain. Considering the limited number of individuals complaining and their history, who really cares, other than a few of their drones, (very few)? > Placing the raw test data on their web site has > viirtually zero incremental cost for TRA, and would have the immense > benefit of finally getting their detractors to shut up about it. > > I know I'm getting tired of hearing about it, and I'm not even a TRA > member. Then perhaps, just ignoring the issue would be best.. (:-) > - Rick "One man's opinion" Dickinson Fred, "it's all so simple" Wallace #! rnews 1006 Xref: xyzzy rec.models.rockets:559198 Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets Path: xyzzy!nntp From: WallaceF <frederocket@boe.com> Subject: Re: NERRF and Ed Miller's J to J to K monocopter or........ X-Nntp-Posting-Host: pex003155.se.nos.boeing.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-ID: <42B9530D.EAFA6827@boe.com> Sender: nntp@news.boeing.com (Boeing NNTP News Access) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: The Boeing Company X-Accept-Language: en References: <HP_te.142$Z.32@trndny05> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:01:17 GMT X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en]C-CCK-MCD Boeing Kit (Windows NT 5.0; U) Considering the erratic flight, you still nailed it pretty darn good. Fred Chuck Rudy wrote: > .....how does one video tape an erratic beast like this? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Chuck > >I'm sorry Bob but I don't see a problem with TMT only doing Pass/Fail > >on them. Paul did say that if they test something that is a G or [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Rick "One man's opinion" Dickinson Point. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > I'm sorry Bob but I don't see a problem with TMT only doing Pass/Fail > on them. Paul did say that if they test something that is a G or I do. > I don't know about way back before Cato but I don't think there have > been any problems recently. John published the results of these tests. When Tom took over after John was booted, not only did he stop, but he "certified" all delay values of any motor John had tested. So one test of say an AT M1939-XXL (I think I got this right, it was supposed to be a -L but the delay was WAY off) suddenly resulted in ALL delay values for this motor being certified. Similarly, TMT had tested exactly ONE D24-10, and based on that, ALL D24s were given TMT certification. The -4 and -7 were never tested. We don't know what problems there may or may not be because the data has been kept from us for over a decade. > Why do you have a problem with delays being tested pass/fail? If a > motor fails, obviously, it won't make it to the certified list. To quote from the email I just sent to Paul Holmes: "Now that AT permits delay modification, it's critical to know where you are starting from, before you can properly adjust a delay. If I have an H180-M that is supposedly 10 seconds, and I want 8, it makes no sense to drill out 2s if the thing already tests at 8s. Similarly, I need to adjust even more if it tests out at 12s." Right now we have several manufacturers that make motors, and we have the choice to pick the motor with the most power in a given class. And we have TMT test data to tell us what we are getting. Why is it such a bad idea for them to let us know about delay accuracy as well. I should be able to know what I'm getting, so I can pick the right one for my rocket. In the end it's a matter of SAFETY, and not knowing how they test means I may end up using a delay that is not safe in my rocket. I don't see why that hasn't scared the crap out of the TRA board for the past decade, to the point that they have made this information available. Is there some secret they are covering up? Are one manufacturers delays totally wacked compared to others? I'd LOVE to see a list of VALID reasons for not releasing delay test information for HPR motors. But I've yet to hear ONE. Care to fill me in? Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org ... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for none. >> I'm sorry Bob but I don't see a problem with TMT only doing Pass/Fail >> on them. Paul did say that if they test something that is a G or [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > >... One nation under surveillance, divisive, with liberty and justice for none. We both know that delays can vary 20% from the stated delay time. We also know that the variences will not always be the same. NFPA and all the orgs go by this. If I test 3 10 second delays and they measure 8, 10 & 12 seconds, then I have an average of 10 seconds. How likly am I to get a delay that is right at 10 seconds when two deviated by two seconds and 66% were off their stated value by 20%? If you think that will compromise safety that much, you should find a more accurate way to handle ejection. We need to have some trust in the certifiying groups of our organizations. If you don't maybe you should only allow motors certified by the organization of your choice to fly at your launches or matbe a manufacturer that has a certain quality certification that you like. I can deal with this. Sorry I can't help you deal with it. BTW - Aerotech doesn't make delays for L, M and N motors. Those motors have plugged closures. > BTW - Aerotech doesn't make delays for L, M and N motors. Those > motors have plugged closures. Well, they used to make delays for the 98mm M motors, and they were WAY off... Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org This is a country which stands tallest in troubled times, a country that clings to fundamental principles, cherishes its constitutional heritage, and rejects simple solutions that compromise the values that lie at the roots of our democratic system. -- Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, 1972 >> http://nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml AT H268, I218, I285 > > I've requested the missing data be posted by NAR S&T. I'll let you know what > response I get. Got an email back from Jack Kane, NAR S&T chair. He wasn't aware of the missing data, but will see that it is posted to the web site ASAP. > Now, can you ask TMT to post all the missing delay data for all their > certified motors? I've had no response yet to my "official" request for the missing data from TMT. >> Guess no one is perfect but you have to admit that TMT is consistent. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible > resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -- Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759 > Got an email back from Jack Kane, NAR S&T chair. He wasn't aware of the > missing data, but will see that it is posted to the web site ASAP. Respect. Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >> I looked at NARs testing info and they either don't test every delay >> configuration or don't list everything they tested. Missing delay [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible > resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII. I just checked a few motor certs on the CAR site. They don't report delay testing data either. > > Only one of the individuals you quoted ever had an "official" position > > in TRA, and he screwed it up and was booted out. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Bob Kaplow So Bob, What did you do about the problem, when you became aware of the alleged fraudulent activity? Fred > What did you do about the problem, when you became aware of the alleged > fraudulent activity? Got kicked out of TRA for asking about it. Tried to get the NAR to not recognize the bogus certs. Informed the NFPA of the issue. Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII. > > What did you do about the problem, when you became aware of the alleged > > fraudulent activity? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Informed the NFPA of the issue. Three substantive answers. Not bad for a rhethorical question phrased in the form of bait!! Welcome to rmr. Let facts be obfuscated! Jerry > "Impeach the TRA BoD" Hurry! SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > > What did you do about the problem, when you became aware of the alleged > > > fraudulent activity? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > -- > Jerry Jerry, your acting like a moron. I ask Bob an straight question and got a straight answer. Fred >Got kicked out of TRA for asking about it. > > Based on what I've seen over the years, that's probably true (my two cents, which in this case isn't worth much because I wasn't active at that time) >Tried to get the NAR to not recognize the bogus certs. > > Again, based on what I've seen over the years, that's also probably true, but I also understand how/why NAR may or may not have responded in the way that you might have desired. >Informed the NFPA of the issue. > > This is the first I've heard of this, and it's somewhat illuminating. If that is the case, what was the response? If NFPA decided that there WAS something to be concerned about, what was done? If they decided there WASN'T anything to be concerned about, then this pretty much says that your concerns may have been unfounded, does it not? This last is a serious question, not meant as flame bait. Hopefully, you've seen enough of my commentary to believe that... David Erbas-White > >Informed the NFPA of the issue. > > > > > > This is the first I've heard of this, and it's somewhat illuminating. > If that is the case, what was the response? NFPA: We rent rooms. We sell books. A lot of them. Thin ones. Go away and bother the committes stuffed with commercial interests :) > If NFPA decided that there > WAS something to be concerned about, what was done? NFPA: We rent rooms. We sell books. A lot of them. Thin ones. Go away and bother the committes stuffed with commercial interests :) Ah, come on, that's SOMETHING!! Jerry "I am NOT at all satisfied with the organizations performance in the development of NFPA codes, and was appalled at their obstruction of the legislative effort. They presume to be rocketry advocacies, but conduct themselves like rocketry regulatory advocacies and kindly offer to be the surrogates of those who would just as soon see rocketry extinguished." - Izzy Get over it. Reality bites!! SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > Get over it. > > Reality bites!! Apparently, it does for you. > > Get over it. > > > > Reality bites!! > > Apparently, it does for you. Apparantly, to the clueless. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>Get over it. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Apparantly, to the clueless. That's what I said. > > What did you do about the problem, when you became aware of the alleged > > fraudulent activity? > > Got kicked out of TRA for asking about it. No one has ever been kicked out for merely "asking" about anything. > Tried to get the NAR to not recognize the bogus certs. > Informed the NFPA of the issue. Apparently neither of these orgs came to the same conclusions you did regarding TRA's operations. Sadly, that's not good enough for you. > > > What did you do about the problem, when you became aware of the alleged > > > fraudulent activity? > > > > Got kicked out of TRA for asking about it. > > No one has ever been kicked out for merely "asking" about anything. You ARE that myopic. > > Tried to get the NAR to not recognize the bogus certs. > > Informed the NFPA of the issue. > > Apparently neither of these orgs came to the same conclusions you did > regarding TRA's operations. Sadly, that's not good enough for you. Jerry "What I find interesting about your behavior, is the sheer energy you expend changing the subject, and attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message. ANY of several messages." - Jerry SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 >>>What did you do about the problem, when you became aware of the alleged >>>fraudulent activity? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Apparently neither of these orgs came to the same conclusions you did > regarding TRA's operations. Sadly, that's not good enough for you. To a person full of spite, is it ever? Makes me wonder how Bob handles his ulcers worrying over crap thats ten(13?) plus years old. Oh well, I guess getting kick out of a little rocket club really can have a nasty affect on the ego. Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 > > What did you do about the problem, when you became aware of the alleged > > fraudulent activity? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Bob Kaplow So did any of those agencies respond and take any action? Fred > ***NO*** TMT chairperson, other than John, has > actually gotten the WHOLE job done. Prove it, Bob. You're getting as bad as Jerry when it comes to making claims without providing solid proof, at least when it comes to your favorite whipping boy (TRA). Conjecture, speculation and opinion do not constitute proof. >> ***NO*** TMT chairperson, other than John, has >> actually gotten the WHOLE job done. > > Prove it, Bob. No, YOU prove that they were tested. I've been trying to get TRA to prove it for a decade now, and all I get is no response from them and idiots who can't understand simple logic showing what they did was bogus. > You're getting as bad as Jerry when it comes to making > claims without providing solid proof, at least when it comes to your > favorite whipping boy (TRA). Conjecture, speculation and opinion do not > constitute proof. I'm not gonna waste the bandwidth posting the TMT motor data again. Go find it in your favorite newsgroup search. But I posted the data from Cato and from McMurray that showed only a couple dozen AT motor tests in the 3 year gap, while over 200 would have been needed to cert the new motors added to the lst in that time. That has NEVER been refuted or explained. I've offered to PAY for the data for particular motors, and to permanently drop this topic and apologize if shown the data that proves me wrong. Nothing. SHOW ME THE DATA. or SHUT THE #!%@ UP! Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII. > >> ***NO*** TMT chairperson, other than John, has > >> actually gotten the WHOLE job done. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > or SHUT THE #!%@ UP! THIS SHOULD BE IN THE FAQ. > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" > >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > We have awakened a sleeping giant and instilled in it a terrible > resolve. -- Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, WWII. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > >> ***NO*** TMT chairperson, other than John, has > >> actually gotten the WHOLE job done. > > > > Prove it, Bob. > > No, YOU prove that they were tested. You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. > I'm not gonna waste the b andwidth posting the TMT motor data again. Go find > it in your favorite newsgroup search. But I posted the data from Cato and > from McMurray that showed only a couple dozen AT motor tests in the 3 year > gap, while over 200 would have been needed to cert the new motors added to > the lst in that time. That has NEVER been refuted or explained. Lack of data is not proof that those particular motors were not tested. However, that's not the issue here. You made the claim that NO TMT chairman other than Cato has ever "gotten the whole job done". There's been several TMT chairmen since that time. What proof do you have that ALL of them have failed to do their job? Furthermore, TRA created, owns, and operates Tripoli Motor Testing. It is up to TRA to determine what the TMT chairman's job is and how it should be done -- not you and not Jerry. > > >> ***NO*** TMT chairperson, other than John, has > > >> actually gotten the WHOLE job done. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You're the one making the claim, the burden of proof is on you. One cannot prove a negative. The COST to TRA of adopting NFPA code is THEY have the duty to report data on certified motors. SUCKS, EH??? Pisses off Ray and the entire TRA BOD ! > Lack of data is not proof that those particular motors were not tested. NFPA-1125 IMPOSES an affirmative duty on TRA it has IGNORED. Admit it. Get over it. > However, that's not the issue here. It is the CENTRAL issue here. Of this message. Of this thread. Of TRA ethics. Of TMT policy and practice. Yourdenials aside, which are MANY. > You made the claim that NO TMT > chairman other than Cato has ever "gotten the whole job done". Fact. NOT disproven. NOT disproveable. > There's > been several TMT chairmen since that time. What proof do you have that > ALL of them have failed to do their job? NFPA-1125. > Furthermore, TRA created, owns, and operates Tripoli Motor Testing. It > is up to TRA to determine what the TMT chairman's job is and how it > should be done -- not you and not Jerry. And apparantly not NFPA either, despite its reference in 35 state laws. Too Bad, so sad. Please continue endorsing it!!! SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > One cannot prove a negative. Then one shouldn't make claims that one cannot prove. > > You made the claim that NO TMT > > chairman other than Cato has ever "gotten the whole job done". > > Fact. > NOT disproven. NOT disproveable. NOT PROVEN. Unlike your fraud conviction. > > There's > > been several TMT chairmen since that time. What proof do you have that > > ALL of them have failed to do their job? > > NFPA-1125. Here's another great example of Jerry's pitiful "logic". This is like citing the speed limit as proof that someone was speeding, without providing any evidence of the individual's speed at the time of the complaint. Reminds me of another classic Jerryism. He actually believed that writing "stolen motor" on someone's flight card would constitute proof, in court, that the motor was stolen! p >>One cannot prove a negative. > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > writing "stolen motor" on someone's flight card would constitute proof, > in court, that the motor was stolen! That's nothing Ray. In the Pomona "action", jerry actually submitted reams of rmr posts as evidence! It was truly laughable. The end result was jerry was deemed a vexatious litigant in the state of California and a $10,000 fine, to be paid directly to our lawyer. To date, jerry has never paid that fine. Which reminds me. jerry, where is My money? When are you going to pay that fine? > > Furthermore, TRA created, owns, and operates Tripoli Motor Testing. It > > is up to TRA to determine what the TMT chairman's job is and how it [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Jerry Obviously NFPA has no issue with what ever TRA and NAR are doing. Why do you? You either comply as the rest of the manufactures do or you don't. You don't comply; therefore you don't have certified motors; NAR, TRA, or CARR. Do you want some cheese with "yoo whine boy"???? Fred > > > Furthermore, TRA created, owns, and operates Tripoli Motor Testing. It > > > is up to TRA to determine what the TMT chairman's job is and how it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Obviously NFPA has no issue with what ever TRA and NAR are doing. Nope. They rent a room and print books. But the states that have adopted NFPA-1125 might :) SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 > > > > Furthermore, TRA created, owns, and operates Tripoli Motor Testing. It > > > > is up to TRA to determine what the TMT chairman's job is and how it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > But the states that have adopted NFPA-1125 might :) So what does the states have to do with you being compliance with TRA and NAR requirements? >> > > > Furthermore, TRA created, owns, and operates Tripoli Motor Testing. It >> > > > is up to TRA to determine what the TMT chairman's job is and how it [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >So what does the states have to do with you being compliance with TRA >and NAR requirements? Actually, that's probably something Jerry has in common with the states. States probably aren't compliant with NAR & TRA requirements either. > >> > > > Furthermore, TRA created, owns, and operates Tripoli Motor Testing. It > >> > > > is up to TRA to determine what the TMT chairman's job is and how it [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > states. States probably aren't compliant with NAR & TRA requirements > either. ROTFLMAO >[saverocketrylater.tra] > >Now is too soon. First things first, but not necessarily in that order. Let's save JerryIrvine.con Kidding aside, I like Jerry. I'd rather have a few beers with Jerry, than a more respectable NAR trustee. Let's all pray for Jerry. I'm not sure exactly what to pray for; respectability, credibility, RMR netiquete. that sort of thing. Alan I think Jerry should produce and sell "Save Jerry!" T-shirts and sell them on RMR... Oh, wait.. He tried a t-shirt deal a few years back. Seems there was some problem where people who paid never got a t-shirt... (like everyone) At least he hasn't single handedly cause ROL forums to shutdown in a few years. Now those were interesting times! > >[saverocketrylater.tra] > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Alan >At least he hasn't single handedly cause ROL forums to shutdown in a few >years. Now those were interesting times! Isn't that because they threw him out? > >At least he hasn't single handedly cause ROL forums to shutdown in a few > >years. Now those were interesting times! > > Isn't that because they threw him out? Ahhh, the power of the keyboard. SignatureJerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to:01rocket@gte.net> Please bring common sense back to rocketry administration. (too late) Produce then publish. http://www.usrockets.com Ebay. http://tinyurl.com/6wlp8 zippy the irvine wrote: >>>At least he hasn't single handedly cause ROL forums to shutdown in a few >>>years. Now those were interesting times! >> >>Isn't that because they threw him out? > > Ahhh, the power of the keyboard. What zippy really means is: "Ahhh, the power of the a.shole". |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.