 |
 | 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 / May 2006NAR Board votes to violate Safety Code!
OK, this discussion has been pretty hot on the NAR sections list, but there's not been a peep here in RMR where the real fun goes on! At NARCON 2 months ago, the NAR board of trustees aparantly voted to allow select NAR members to fly uncertified motors at NAR events in violation of the safety code. I had to go to the Yahoo group and read the minutes of the meeting posted last week to even believe what folks were saying: "US Team Practice with Uncertified Motors - US Spacemodeling Team Manager John Langford asked the Board to allow use of foreign and specialty motors upon approval of the NAR President at Team Practice sessions. US Teams previously competed at a severe disadvantage to foreign competitors due to lack of opportunities to practice with FAI competition motors. The Board reviewed the testing protocols used by the FAI prior to World Championship events. Such testing is certainly rigorous enough to insure both performance and safety. The Board approved the request by unanimous vote. Motion by Jay Apt: Seconded by Joyce Guzik The NAR board of trustee.s authorizes selected members of the US Internat team to allow use of foreign and specialty motors upon approval of the NAR President at Team Practice sessions. Motion approved." Rather than rehash everything here, folks really should go to the NARsection group and read the thread over there. As one friend on the NAR S&T committee put it "this pegs my BS meter". EVERY time in the past that an NAR member has brought a motor certification issue to the board, they have ALWAYS declined to get involved, and have indicated that this is S&Ts turf to deal with. Except for this time. If the board had asked S&T to review the FAI testing, and to grant reciprocal status to motors that had the required legal paperwork and had been actually tested buy the FAI as they have to motors tested by TRA or CAR, I'd have no problem with this ruling. The motors would then be listed on the combined certified motor list for all to use. But this decision by 8 people is just plain wrong. If these motors are to be allowed at NAR launches, we might as well open them up to the use of Jerry Irvine motors as well. This violates DOT, NFPA regs, which are law in 49 states. It violates our NAR insurance. And it violates the most sacred of NAR policies, the NAR safety code, which has always been absolute. G Harry must be spinning in his grave. The only conclusion I can draw is that the 8 board members that voted for this bogus policy are a bunch of hypocrites. This decision MUST be overturned, and NAR members flying uncertified motors at NAR events should be disciplined as they have been in the past. It looks like I started using this sig line that I stole from someone elses email just a bit too soon, but it accurately sums things up.  SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > "US Team Practice with Uncertified Motors - US Spacemodeling Team Manager > John Langford asked the Board to allow use of foreign and specialty motors [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and specialty motors upon approval of the NAR President at Team Practice > sessions. Motion approved." And for the ultimate in irony, the very next paragraph in the minutes says... "Cooperation on EX Launches - Al Gloer asked the Board to develop a strategy or policy relative to NAR sections that jointly affiliate with organizations supporting experimental or research motor activity. The Board reiterated the policy that only certified motors are permitted for use on NAR ranges." ... except when blessed by the Pope on odd Tuesdays when the moon is full. How stupid do they think we are? SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >But this decision by 8 people is just plain wrong. If these motors are to be >allowed at NAR launches, we might as well open them up to the use of Jerry [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Except you're ignoring one simple fact -- these "8 people" are both de facto and de jure the only ones who CAN make such a decision. They have reviewed the request, reviewed the motors, reviewed who will be using them and under what conditions, and essentially granted a 'special certification' if all of the above conditions are satisfied. Now, if this was a unilateral decision made by Bunny, as Chief Executive, he would have been out of line. But the fact that THOSE WHO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THIS DECISION DID SO is NOT out of line. You might disagree with the decision, you might want them to have done it 'your way', but they did it LEGALLY. I'll be willing to agree with you if you can EXPLICITLY point where this decision violates DOT and NFPA regs, but as much of these regs harken back to NAR certification, I don't think you'll be able to do so -- if you can, I'll apologize, and personally write a letter to the Board, myself, asking that the decision be reversed because of it's "illegality". But you seem to be under the belief that if YOU don't agree with it, that it's wrong. The 8 members who have been elected to uphold this responsibility have reviewed and voted on it, and under our system, that's the way it works! >The only conclusion I can draw is that the 8 board members that voted for >this bogus policy are a bunch of hypocrites. This decision MUST be >overturned, and NAR members flying uncertified motors at NAR events should >be disciplined as they have been in the past. > > Again, as I read your post, I see that these motors have been granted 'special certification status', under the conditions outlined in the motion. Should DOT, NFPA, BATFE, or state fire offices wish to prosecute for this decision, then the Trustees will be individually and collectively responsible -- but that's exactly why I trust THEIR interpretation, not yours. It's THEIR butt on the line. IMHO, any member of these groups would review the information, and determine that NAR voted AS THE BYLAWS ALLOW, and that essentially 'makes' these motors certified under these conditions. David Erbas-White >It looks like I started using this sig line that I stole from someone elses >email just a bit too soon, but it accurately sums things up. > > >>But this decision by 8 people is just plain wrong. If these motors are to be >>allowed at NAR launches, we might as well open them up to the use of Jerry [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> >> Did the motors have DOT numbers? They must have been shipped from somewhere. If they didn't have numbers, probably the Wabbit & Friends didn't even remotley consider the certifyability of the motors. Hmm I still have one Jerry motor left. If I fill in that big void with epoxy & rejoin NAR.... Phil > Did the motors have DOT numbers? They must have been shipped from > somewhere. If they didn't have numbers, probably the Wabbit & Friends > didn't even remotley consider the certifyability of the motors. The Czech Delta motors most certainly do NOT. Nor is there a business license or business insurance on file anywhere. The exact things the NAR demanded that Jerry Irvine produce to get his motors certified. Looks like Jerry was right all along, there IS a double standard, and the paperwork requirements only apply to Jerry. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! david: I'll take a stab at proving this is a bad policy that allows illegal behavior: from the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code: Motors. I will use only certified, commercially-made model rocket motors... the NARBOT doesn't have the authority to pass apolicy that allows the NAR president to have the authority to selectively waive portions of the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code. from NFPA 1122: 4.19 Model Rocket Motor Requirements. 4.19.1 Only commercially manufactured, certified model rocket motors or motor reloading kits or components as specified in NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors, shall be used. The NARbot doesn't have the authority or power to pass a policy that allows the NAr opresident to have the authority to override NFPA 1122 regulations. In any event, the czech delta motors haven't been tested to NFPA 1125 standards and NFPA 1125 says: Chapter 8 Testing and Certification 8.1 Certification of Model Rocket Motors, Motor-Reloading Kits, and Components. 8.1.1 A prerequisite for certification of a model rocket motor or motor-reloading kit shall be its prior classification by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), or competent authority, as a Division 1.3 or 1.4 explosive, or a written acknowledgment from DOT, or one of its approved testing agencies, that the model rocket motor or motor-reloading kit is a flammable solid. notice "A prerequiste" above? These czech delats haven't undergone that required prerequiste. the NARBOT doesn't have the poer or authority to allow the NAR presidnet the authority to override NFAP 1125 or US DOT requirements for model rocket motors. From NFPA 1122: Chapter 5 Prohibited Activities 5.1 Prohibited Activities. The following activities shall be prohibited by this code: (5) Sale or transfer to the general public, not otherwise exempted in 1.1.4, of any model rocket motor, motor reloading kit, or component that has not been certified in accordance with NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors (6) Making, operating, launching, flying, testing, activating, discharging, or other experimentation with model rocket motors, motor reloading kits, or motor components that have not been certified in accordance with NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket and High Power Rocket Motors David: I think I have conclusively shown that this NARBOT policy decision is in direct conflict with the existing NAR Model Rocket Code, and applicable NFPA 1122/1125 fire code regulations. The NAR does not have the power nor the authority to waive specific sections of either the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code or the NFPA 112/1125 or to exempt specific NAR members from the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code or NFPA 1122/1125. terry dean >>But this decision by 8 people is just plain wrong. If these motors are to >>be [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] >>elses >>email just a bit too soon, but it accurately sums things up. And I'll take stab at replying to your responses... (<G>) > david: I'll take a stab at proving this is a bad policy that allows > illegal behavior: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > NAR president to have the authority to selectively waive portions of > the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code. They're not 'waiving portions' of the NAR Safety Code. As I've said, I would view the motion that was passed as providing a 'special' certification for those motors, under prescribed conditions. Further, you're mistaken -- the NARBOT are the ONLY individuals who have the authority to do ANYTHING in regard to the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code -- who else DOES? If they choose to say that "the NAR Model Rocketry Safety Code applies in all circumstances unless supervised by the NAR President", as PART of the Safety Code, then guess what? IT'S VALID! It may not be 'smart', it may not be 'right', but it IS LEGAL! It would then be up to other authorities to state that they no longer REFER TO or ACCEPT the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code as valid. The NAR BOT must ALWAYS walk a thin line whenever changing the code, in that they must not make changes that would cause the AHJ to no longer ACCEPT the code. In this case, they decided (unanimously, by the way) that this was an acceptable change to the motor certification rules. > from NFPA 1122: > 4.19 Model Rocket Motor Requirements. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > allows the NAr opresident to have the authority to override NFPA 1122 > regulations. Okay, let's look at those regulations... > In any event, the czech delta motors haven't been tested to NFPA 1125 > standards and NFPA 1125 says: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > notice "A prerequiste" above? These czech delats haven't undergone > that required prerequiste. How do you know? If they were certified by FAI, is this not a competent authority? Note that it does not say anything about it being a US authority, or even one that has specific regulations, it simply says "competent authority". If the FAI is an internationally recognized source, there's not an attorney in the world that would want to argue that they are NOT a competent authority. Note that there are other ways around this, for example if DOT has in any way, shape, or form recognized FAI as an 'approved' testing agency, this would ALSO provide the mechanism. > the NARBOT doesn't have the poer or authority to allow the NAR > presidnet the authority to override NFAP 1125 or US DOT requirements > for model rocket motors. So, we continue... > From NFPA 1122: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > accordance with NFPA 1125, Code for the Manufacture of Model Rocket > and High Power Rocket Motors As outlined above, you have NOT demonstrated that these motors weren't tested by a 'competent authority', and the NAR certification is whatever the NAR decides that it is. Bear in mind that the whole POINT of having a Board of Trustees who vote on these things is that there is some semblance of responsibility for the decision making process, and that is what the AHJs are looking for. Unless proven otherwise, they would and should assume that the NAR has looked over the information and made a correct decision. Your simply saying that it's wrong doesn't make it so, but their saying that it's right (conversely) DOES make it so. Again, THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THIS DISTINCTION! > David: I think I have conclusively shown that this NARBOT policy > decision is in direct conflict with the existing NAR Model Rocket > Code, and applicable NFPA 1122/1125 fire code regulations. Terry: I think I have conclusively shown that this NARBOT policy decision MAY not be (and probably isn't) in direct conflict with the existing NAR Model Rocket Code (especially since the existing NAR Model Rocket code would now, technically, include this motion). > The NAR does not have the power nor the authority to waive specific > sections of either the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code or the NFPA > 112/1125 or to exempt specific NAR members from the NAR Model Rocket > Safety Code or NFPA 1122/1125. And, as I've outlined above, they haven't. BTW, thank you for keeping the tone and tenor of this conversation on a factual basis. I think what is obvious here is that we have disagreements that are based on opinions and interpretations -- but because NAR is the AHJ for some of this stuff, that really pretty much answers the question, doesn't it? David Erbas-White > terry dean > [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >>> someone elses >>> email just a bit too soon, but it accurately sums things up. david: I'm glad that at least we can keep this discussion above the wailing of the inhouse anumals. I think you are desparately seraching for loopholes, so you too, can be a believer in this policy. I don't think the NAR S&T nor the NFPA regulations recognize "a special certfication". . A "competent Authority" is usually a governmental agency.....one of the difficulties that the bristish found in legally importing these czech delats motors into their country was that they couldn't find a competnet authority in the czech republic nor could they basically find Mr. Taborsky. Mr. Taborsky's motors have not also undergone CE marling which would be a UK certfication requirement before they could eb sold their. THe NARbot can yes, obviously change and later the model rocket safety code. But changing or altering to the code is completely different from what they are attempting to do here: and that is allow the NAR president to ignore a section of his own organizations Safety Code, along with giving him the authority to allow "certain" select NAR members, to also ignore these same sections. Please read in a nother post where Trip Barber basically says exactly the same thing I do, and he voted for this policy and his prior comments and views on certfication,etc and his vote on this policy is inconsistent at best. David, I will call the US DOT monday, and I will ask them if they consider the FAI a "competent authority". Let me in on a little background that I already know, as I have had discussions in the past with the 4 recognized tetsting labs that the US DOT uses to do this testing. THis same question was asked of all 4 and there responses very virtually identical. It is true that an external to the USA "competent authority" can perform the necessary "explosives" testing process of model rocket motors, just as they do. Remember the prerequiste to certfication is explosives testing, so they can be classified as 1.3,1.4 or 4.1. which is their UN designation number. The FAI could conceivably perform this explosives tetsting at a lab in europe. These labs told me that the US DOT would then determine if these tests carried out by the foreign comptent authority were as rigorous as the tests that were performed here. If they made the determination the foreign testing was not as inclusive or as rigorius as they require from the USAbased tetsting labs, the motors would have to be re-tested here in one of the 4 us testing labs at additional time and expense. It is for this reason that the US tetsting labs recommend that any foreign manufacturer of model rocket motors, be sent here for full tetsting, as there is no gurantee the US DOT will accept overseas paperwork. As far as I know no explosives testing has been done by any foreign or usa based competent authority. If they had been tested and been assigned a UN designation number, they would have been issued an US DOT EX number. I have scanned repeatedly the US DOT EX numbers database which is online, and there is no mention of these motors ever having a US DOT EX number assigned to them; so my only conculsion is that they have not undergone this "prerequiste" explosives testing yet. The NAR cannot accept certfication from other motor testing authorities unless they have all the above.....So the fact that the FAI may have at some time tested a batch of czech delta motors is moot at this point. And as I pointed out in my other response to malcolm reynolds(tony is that you lurking?) , comapring the NAR certfication process to the FAi certfication process is like compaing apples and oranges. The FAI certfication is nothing more than a process to ensure that the motors be used AT THAT PARTICULAR FAI COMPETITION EVENT, are safe to use and don't go over impulse. They aren't being certfied for use for a 3 or 5 year period. there is no concept of de-certfication in FAI. These same batch of motors if they were to be used at another FAI event a month later, would still have to undergo the FAI certication process again....and again....and again..... I highly recommend that you goto the www.fai.org website and get the testing procedures and then compare them to the NAR/NFPA required ones. They are different in scope. I look forward to further discussion. terry dean > And I'll take stab at replying to your responses... (<G>) > [quoted text clipped - 187 lines] >>>> elses >>>> email just a bit too soon, but it accurately sums things up. > david: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I don't think the NAR S&T nor the NFPA regulations recognize "a > special certfication". . Terry, I'll keep this one short (<G>). First, I'm not desperately searching for loopholes, I come at this from an entirely DIFFERENT perspective. I've been on several Boards of Directors, including as Chairman of the Board, and nothing frosts me more than all of the Monday-morning quarterbacks who 'decide' what an organization should be doing after all of those who actually have the responsibility (and liability!) have hashed it out. So no, I don't necessarily agree with WHY/HOW this decision was made, but I look at it from the perspective of how the BOT members would/should see it. In other words, I look at it from the perspective that, for the integrity of the organization, that we look and see if this is allowable under the bylaws of the organization. I have to presume that the Trustees are looking out for the long-term good of the organization, but as a non-BOT member, my role is to ensure that they have followed the bylaws correctly. At least, that's my perspective (and I admit it has changed radically from my pre-BOD days). It's really easy to yell/scream/shout when you haven't, yourself, spent years in the shoes of the BOT (and perhaps you have, I'm making this as a general statement, not directed at you specifically), but once you've put in all the hard work and basically thankless effort on behalf of an organization, it makes it much more difficult to put up with all the 'armchair Trustees'. As I stated previously, I'm the one who viewed it as a 'special certification'. The NAR hasn't stated that, I've used it as my own method of 'understanding'. But, NAR S&T DOES answer to the BOT, and if NFPA refers to "NAR Certified", then "NAR Certified" means whatever the NAR says it does. I was using the term 'special certification' to simply identify it from the 'previous' classification method, but as far as NFPA is concerned, it is simply 'NAR certified'. David Erbas-White > David, I will call the US DOT monday, and I will ask them if they > consider the FAI a "competent authority". Let me in on a little > background that I already know, as I have had discussions in the past > with the 4 recognized tetsting labs that the US DOT uses to do this > testing. What is your objective in doing that? Be careful what you ask for. Calling the DoT and raising a ruckus about model rocket motors is about as beneficial as me calling the FAA and reporting folks who seem to think they don't need to bother to get waivers. Making that phone call is much more likely to cause a lot of harm than it is to come to a good end. If you were a shipper and found yourself in possession of mismarked motors, or motors in a shipment that didn't have proper documentation, it would be a different situation. However, that is far from the case, and you are going to do nothing but cause problems. If your goal is to make it difficult to ship motors, you're heading down the right path. If your goal is to get the NAR BoT to rethink a decision, you're heading down a very, very wrong path. I, personally, have a problem with this decision, because it tells me that the NAR BoT sees the Internats fliers as more important than the average member, for whom they're not willing to make similar decisions. But I'm not about to claim that we need to call the authorites in and cause the problems that will arise from that. -Kevin the objective is clear. But I hear your concerns so I will not do this. I know the FAI aren't a competent authority. terry dean >> David, I will call the US DOT monday, and I will ask them if they >> consider the FAI a "competent authority". Let me in on a little [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > -Kevin > They're not 'waiving portions' of the NAR Safety Code. As I've said, I That is EXACTLY what they have done. > would view the motion that was passed as providing a 'special' > certification for those motors, under prescribed conditions. Further, There is NOTHING in the board meeting minutes on this topic that even uses the word "certified". It specifically says "Uncertified". This is in direct violation of the NAR Bylaws and the NAR Safety Code. If these motors are in any way certified, then they should be on the certified motor list. As of now, they are not. In fact, there isn't even a complete list of what motors this applies to. > you're mistaken -- the NARBOT are the ONLY individuals who have the > authority to do ANYTHING in regard to the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code > -- who else DOES? If they choose to say that "the NAR Model Rocketry > Safety Code applies in all circumstances unless supervised by the NAR > President", as PART of the Safety Code, then guess what? IT'S VALID! The board does have the power to change the NAR Safety Code via the NFPA process. They just did that with the HPR code. They have NOT changed the Model Rocket Safety Code in any way. The board does NOT have the power to change the NAR Bylaws without the vote of the membership. The Bylaws require all members to follow the NAR Safety Code at all times in their non professional rocket activities. The board does NOT have the power to create a special membership class that is exempt from portions of the NAR Safety Code and NAR Bylaws. At least not without a member vote. > How do you know? If they were certified by FAI, is this not a competent > authority? Note that it does not say anything about it being a US Please post a document listing what what motors have been certified by the FAI. Something along the lines of the lists that NAR, TRA, and CAR publish of motors they have certified. Where is the paperwork that shows what motors have been FAI certified? When do those certifications expire? What batches of motors passed certification, and what batches failed? Please post the SPECS that the FAI certifies motors to. NAR, TRA, and CAR all meet NFPA requirements. FAI only tests for performance within the designated range, and whether or not the motor catos. Is the performance consistent? Are the delays accurate? Are the propellant formulations legal in the USA? Are they subject to regulation by the BATFE? >> (6) Making, operating, launching, flying, testing, activating, >> discharging, or other experimentation with model rocket motors, motor [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > tested by a 'competent authority', and the NAR certification is whatever > the NAR decides that it is. Bear in mind that the whole POINT of having NFPA 1125 requires DOT paperwork as a prerequisite. FAI motors have no such paperwork. It is this paperwork that has stood as a barrier to prevent Jerry Irvine from certifying his motors. So we now have a double standard: some uncertified motors without DOT paperwork can be flown by some members, but other uncertified motors that lack DOT paperwork can not. This is not right. > a Board of Trustees who vote on these things is that there is some > semblance of responsibility for the decision making process, and that is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > so, but their saying that it's right (conversely) DOES make it so. > Again, THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THIS DISTINCTION! The board does not have the authority to waive the NAR Safety Code for selected members. In fact, it is the boards job to ENFORCE the NAR Safety Code at all times for all members. They have failed in that job. The board has ALWAYS defered motor certification issues to NAR Standards and Testing. I have yet to see any statement from S&T regarding the certification of these motors. > Terry: I think I have conclusively shown that this NARBOT policy > decision MAY not be (and probably isn't) in direct conflict with the > existing NAR Model Rocket Code (especially since the existing NAR Model > Rocket code would now, technically, include this motion). You have not. It is in conflict with the NAR Safety Code, with the NAR Bylaws, and with the paragraph that follows it in the board meeting minutes. There MAY be a way to reach the goal of this motion. But it needs to be done in a different manner. One consistent with the NAR Safety Code and the NAR Bylaws. What we have now violates both. Until it is fixed, it needs to be revoked IMMEDIATELY. Or at least the NAR president should not grant any approval to violate the NAR Safety Code until these issues are resolved. W.W.G.H.S.D? SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > The NAR does not have the power nor the authority to wa ive specific > sections of either the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code or the NFPA 112/1125 or > to exempt specific NAR members from the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code or NFPA > 1122/1125. Terry, can you quote, or point me to, the specific NAR bylaw that says the BOT does not have the authority to grant a waiver of the safety code? Seems to me, if they have the authority to write the safety code, they automatically have the authority to grant a waiver. Just like the FAA grants waivers of the regs prohibiting high power rockets. hi ray, long time no see... an excellent question and the answer is NO there is no specific NAR bylaw that says the NARBOT does not have thie authority to grant a waiver of the NAR model rocket safety code. There also is no language that they authority to grant such a waiver. I will submit, that indeed the NARBOT may have this authority: but this authority is limited to NAR members only. And such an authorization would eseentially amount to an oveeride/waiver/exemption of specific NFPA codes that are in effect in all 50 states. The NARBOT does not have the authority to do that. That is is jurisdiction of the fire chief or fire marshal. I might add that the NAR also helps write the NFPA codes as a committe member. DO you dra from that, the same conculsion then that they can also waive/override NAR members from local and state fire codes? I don't think so... terry dean shockwaveriderz wrote: > The NAR does not have the power nor the authority to wa ive specific > sections of either the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code or the NFPA 112/1125 > or > to exempt specific NAR members from the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code or > NFPA > 1122/1125. Terry, can you quote, or point me to, the specific NAR bylaw that says the BOT does not have the authority to grant a waiver of the safety code? Seems to me, if they have the authority to write the safety code, they automatically have the authority to grant a waiver. Just like the FAA grants waivers of the regs prohibiting high power rockets. > Terry, can you quote, or point me to, the specific NAR bylaw that says > the BOT does not have the authority to grant a waiver of the safety > code? From the NAR Bylaws, Article 3 section 8: (extra caps mine) Section 8: A person or organization having expressed his (its) desire for membership shall become a member of the appropriate class upon satisfaction of the Membership Committee as to his (its) sincerity of purpose and good reputation, upon affixing his (its) name to a statement pledging to serve and abide by the Safety Code(s) of the Association in ALL NON-PROFESSIONAL ROCKET ACTIVITIES, and upon payment of dues required by these By-Laws. The board did NOT vote to change the NAR Safety Code. The board did NOT vote to direct NAR S&T to certify these motors, or to recognize reciprocal certification of these motors. The voted to allow "selected members" to fly uncertified motors at NAR events. This is a violation of the NAR Safety Code and NAR Bylaws. And while they did not include it in the official minutes of the meeting, the insurance implications were discussed, and members will be left uninsured by this rule. > Seems to me, if they have the authority to write the safety code, > they automatically have the authority to grant a waiver. Just like the > FAA grants waivers of the regs prohibiting high power rockets. They have the authority to formally change the safety code through the NFPA process as they just did with the HPR Safety Code. They do not have the authority to waive the code for "selected members". I think you're confusing the way the NAR is run with the way TRA used to be run in the old days :-) I understand that the NAR board spent about 30-40 minutes on this issue at their recent meeting. Even with that much time spent discussing this rule, there were details that either were not recognized, or were not understood by all involved. Which is why the board needs to go back, reconsider this rule, and either delete it, or revise it in a manner that is consistent with the NAR Safety Code and NAR Bylaws. They certainly should not allow selected members to fly uncertified motors until everything has been reexamined and resolved. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > Except you're ignoring one simple fact -- these "8 people" are both de > facto and de jure the only ones who CAN make such a decision. They have > reviewed the request, reviewed the motors, reviewed who will be using > them and under what conditions, and essentially granted a 'special > certification' if all of the above conditions are satisfied. That being the case, it seems pretty simple to me and answers the main point in question. I understand Bob's objection and his feelings but I'd have to say David is right. Agree with them or not, the recognized authorities apparently followed procedure, considered the circumstances and made their decision. Our elected politicians should be so efficient. Randy www.vernarockets.com > Except you're ignoring one simple fact -- these "8 people" are both de > facto and de jure the only ones who CAN make such a decision. They have > reviewed the request, reviewed the motors, reviewed who will be using > them and under what conditions, and essentially granted a 'special > certification' if all of the above conditions are satisfied. I see nothing in the motion that even uses the word "certification". If these motors are certified through a reciprocal agreement, then they should be listed on the combined list. > Now, if this was a unilateral decision made by Bunny, as Chief > Executive, he would have been out of line. But the fact that THOSE WHO > HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE THIS DECISION DID SO is NOT out of line. The NAR board has the authority to change the safety code through the NFPA process as they recently did with the HPR code. The do *NOT* have the authority to ignore an inconvenient portion of the safety code, or allow members to violate the safety code. > Again, as I read your post, I see that these motors have been granted > 'special certification status', under the conditions outlined in the > motion. Should DOT, NFPA, BATFE, or state fire offices wish to I don't see that phrase anywhere in the minutes. It doesn't say that the team asked to have the motors NAR certified. They asked to be allowed to use uncertified motors. That is a direct violation of the NAR safety code, as stated in the very next item in the minutes. Does any one know if there is actually an "official" list of what uncertified motors may be used in this manner in violation of the safety code? Or is it open season so that the team can use whatever motors they happen to show up with at these events. I have a 'friend' in California who would like to supply a bunch of uncertified specialty motors to the team for this purpose. But for reasons of personal safety, he is unwilling to travel to Texas, and needs an address that he can ship some "model aircraft parts" to. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >> Except you're ignoring one simple fact -- these "8 people" are both de >> facto and de jure the only ones who CAN make such a decision. They have [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >of personal safety, he is unwilling to travel to Texas, and needs an address >that he can ship some "model aircraft parts" to. Have him send them C/O Ken Allen 8-) Who is Steve Weaver? >OK, this discussion has been pretty hot on the NAR sections list, but >there's not been a peep here in RMR where the real fun goes on! [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >It looks like I started using this sig line that I stole from someone elses >email just a bit too soon, but it accurately sums things up. > Who is Steve Weaver? Ask Mark Bundick. Preferably face to face! SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! Bob, Are you saying that the FAI certification process is inferior to the NAR process? Or that FAI-certified motors are inherently more dangerous than NAR-certified motors? Also, in what way are DOT regs being violated? Are you aware of any actual infractions where FAI-certified motors were shipped illegally within the U.S.? malcolm: this is what our Vice-Presidenr, one of the NARBOT members has stated in the section manual guide which is online: MOTOR CERTIFICATION Both NAR safety codes and both NFPA Codes require that fliers use only-certified "motors" . This certification requires passing a rigorous static testing program specified in the NFPA Codes. The NAR safety codes and insurance require that NAR members use only NAR certified motors ; and since the NAR currently has a reciprocity agreement with TRA on motor certification, this means that TRA certified motors also have NAR certification. The NFPA Codes recognize certifications granted by any -approved testing laborato y or national user organization", bu only the NAR and TRA can rovide this service in most parts of the country . The California Fire Marshal has his own testing program for motors in that state. Motors made by private individuals or by companies with out proper explosives licenses , and motors not formally classified for shipment by the U.S. Department of Transportation, are not eligible for NAR certification and may not be used." Now either Trip doen't mean what he says above, or he has completely changed his mind. Also on the NAr website is this Insurance question: Will the NAR insurance cover claims related to use of non-certified motors? No. NAR insurance is null and void if the accident involves a Safety Code violation. Use of uncertified motors is prohibited by the NAR Safety Codes. IS this Clear enough? Yes I will say that the FAI so called certfication process is inferior to the NAR certfication process. Let us review: The FAI certfication process is not the same thing as the NAR S&T certfication process. The FAi certfication process is slightly different than the NAr S&T one;or the TRA one; or the CAR one, in one important respect: The NAR/TRA/CAR certfication proces bestows upon an engine a 3-5 yr cert status. The FAI certification process who certfies that the motors being tested are suitable and adhere to the FAI motor requirements for the FAI CONTEST in which they are about to be used. What this means is that the FAI certification is basically a temporary test of motors to make sure nobody is trying to cheat with over impulse motors. The motors are then IMPOUNDED for the duration the the FAI event. These same motors must undergo a FAI cert by the countries representative NAC(National Aerospace Control, ie the AMA here in the US) EVERY time prior to use in the respective FAI contest. Yes I will say that I personally think that FAI motors in genral rather they be "FAI certfied" or not have always been more dnagerous than comparable modle rocket motors made here in the USA or Cananda, due to the fact that some or most aren't even made by manufcaturing concerns. They are hand-pressed using formulations of chemicals that over here we wouldn't dare use, for example like picric acid or nitrocellulose..... the old CZech Adast motors were called "Widow MAkers" due to their tendency to explode rather violently due to use of picric acid.... I might add that picric acid is on the BATFE's list of explosive substances, and therefore to pocess or use or sale such a motor in the USA<> you would required to have LEU with storage and use by minors would be prohibited. Ok heres how Certfication goes donw in the USA, it pretty simple and strightforward: 1. motors are imported into USA under temporary import license.....they are given a temporary UN number based on what the manufacturer says their constitute ingredients are. 2. they go to 1 of the 4 DOT approved testing laboratories where they undergo basically a set series of tests. These test are used to determine if the motor will be classed a a 1.3 or 1.4 explosive OR a 4.1 flammable solid. 3. assuming that the motors in question pass the DOT testing process, the DOT then issues whats called an EX number for this specific motor formulation. and applies a UN number. It is this UN number designation that determines if it is a 1.4S motor or a 1.4C motor and this designation determines its ability to be shipped and also it detrmines the packaging requirements. 4. Once the motor has this DOT EX number/UN designation number, they are then accepted by the NAR S&T where they are then subjected to the NFPA certfication requirements for sale and use in the USA. 5. Asssuming they pass the NAR certfication process, they are now legal to be sold and used in the USA. Now there are additional requirements from the CPSC: A model rocket motor sold in the USA to be Exempt from the FULL marking,instruction and labeling requirements of the Federal Banned Substances Act , must also adhere to specific packaging,marking and labeling requirements. This is verfieid in the NAR Certfication step above. Now lets take a special case: Lets assume for the sake of argument, that foreign motors do not undergo any of the above, and lets aslo assume that these foreign motors have a explosive ingredient like picric acid or nitorcellulose or other ingredient that is on the BATFE explosives List. DO you see the potential problems allowing such motors without the full DOT/NAR tetsting process as is required for all other motors. And then there is the Liability issues. Manufactureres here in the USA are required to have product liability insurance. Will the manufacturer of these foreign motors have this liability insurance if his motors hurt someone? Ok lets get specific shall we? Am I aware personally of any potential infractions where FAI certfied motors were shiped "illegally" into the USA? well yes and no...I guess it all depends on your ethics and moral compass now doesn't it? One thing I have learned since I rejoined model rcoketry over 4 years ago, is that most rocketeers have very liberal definition of illegal. But let me throw out a scenario that may be real or speculation on my part, and you be the judge. Lets say that prior to a FAI WSMC (World SPace Modeling Championships) members of the USA Team contact one Jiri Taborsky in the Czech Republic. Never heard the name Jiri Taborsky? well Mr. Taborsky is sorta like the "engine maker to the stars", the stars in this cas ebeing members of various national FAI spacemodeling teams. His business is to provide "top-of-the-line", "state of the Art model rocket motors to the FAi competitiors. He creates motors to customer specification in small batches. He is a "boutique" motor maker. Theres NO DOUBT that his Czech Delta motors are the very best in the world. Ok so now we know who Mr. Taborsky is and what service he provides. So the USA Team tell Mr. Taborsky , Hey we need 450 motors total, 225 each of A2-0, A2-7. So Mr.taborsky takes the order, and produces these motors to order. When the USA team arrive at the FAI event, the motors are turned over to Mr. Taborsky, and the USA Team pays him for these motors. These motors are then offered up to the FAI certficiation(motor testing) people and are impounded as described above. Now lets say that only 100 of these motors are actually used in competition. That leaves 350 motors. Well the USA Team members just place the excess motors into their range boxes, and allow them to be flown back to the USA. Where they are not DECLARED to customs. And since customs wouldn't know a czech model rocket motor from a canadian model rocket, everthing is kosher. Now its up to you whether or not bringing back into USA, czech motor in large quantities and not declaring them is a crime or not;whether it is illegal or not. An arguemnt will be made that they are just bringing back "souviners". well a souviner would be a 3-or 5 pack of motors not 350, or 20, or 500 whatever the number might be. I didn't bother to post the applicable NFPA 1122/1125 code snipets that verify what I have said above is correct. The decision facing NAR members is are we going to allow the really bad policy decsion stand. It obviously is in direct violation of the NAR Model Rocket Safety Code, the AMA Model Rocket Safety Code, the NFPA 1122/1125 regulations that all other model rocket motors are required to adhere to. Let me give you my take on why this policy was brought forth. The USA FAI Spacemodleing Team has traditionally been at a severe competitive disadvanatge to other FAI member state competitiors because of the motor situation. The Czech deltas are 10mm motors that as I said above are no doubt the best in the world. Alot of other countries use these motors on a regular basis not only in the WSMC but in the 20+ FAI World Cup event competions held every year mostly in eastern europe. The USA team has been forced to use Estes A3-4T motors which are 13mm in FAI Team Flyoffs and past FAI Practice sessions. SO the modelers make 40/13mm off optimum models and practice with them, and the they don't get to use the Czech deltas until they hit europe. These motors are used for S3A, S4A,S6A,S9A and potentially S1B(PD/BG/SD/HD/ALT) . THIS is the driving reason behind this policy : the ends justify the means. The NARBOT basically has decided that to help the USA FAI team do better than they normally would, we will "bend" the rules for them. I have an alternate suggestion: there are 2 ways to skin cat: the right way and the wrong way. My recommendation to the NAR would be to ante up $5-10K and legally import these mototrs and allow them to go through the DOT tetsting and NAR cert tetsting reginmes. If they pass, then the NAR itself, can sell these motors to its own members ONLY for FAI competition Use only. The NAR has the funds to accomplish this. The NAR can sell "specialty" motors to its own members just like it sells other merchandise. We are not talking about large quantities here. The only reason I can see for that the NAR will not even consider that is as follows: 1. What is we order a batch of motors that we pay up front for, and they fail the DOT testing? 2. What if we order a baych of motors and we pay up front for, and it turns out they are labeled such that because of propellant ingredients, they would require an LEUP to sale and posses? I mean you know the FAI guys aren't going to sit by and have to do the BATFE thing like HPR guys are forced to do? 3. This would set a BATFE precedent: imagine having to have a LEUP and Storage doe 2 gr proprllant A motors.... terry dean > Bob, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of any actual infractions where FAI-certified motors were shipped > illegally within the U.S.? That was quite a verbose reply. I'm glad we have people like you around to ensure that every i is dotted, and every t is crossed, properly and without exception, to the exact letter of the law. I see your point - IF we permit a small number of international competitors the LUXURY of practicing with motors legitimately certified and tested by an authority outside our own borders, in order to give them an even chance of competing in an international venue, then chaos and disorder will surely follow. Dogs and cats living together! MASS HYSTERIA! PUH-LEASE. You look like a nit-picking fool. > malcolm: > [quoted text clipped - 161 lines] >> of any actual infractions where FAI-certified motors were shipped >> illegally within the U.S.? What you both seem to be oblivious to is the almost certainty that the motors were transported illegally. If they did not have DOT numbers (which are required for certification in the US) they can not be transported legally - either inter or intra nationally. If you doubt this check oout previous threads related to Jerry Irvine owing 40 GRAND TO THE MAN for exactly that. It seems that NAR may have become a party to shipping illegal motors. With this kind of behavior, Jerry will fit right in on the BOT. Was it 3 years ago I suggested he run? I think he got 3 write in votes. At least they publish their data on delays - aye Bob. Phil >That was quite a verbose reply. > [quoted text clipped - 175 lines] >>> of any actual infractions where FAI-certified motors were shipped >>> illegally within the U.S.? Phil, What you are saying is true, "if" the motors were imported through a commercial business. However, if individuals brought the motors back for there own personal use, declared them through customs, and the individual motors weigh less than 62.5 grams, there is no DOT or ATFE issue. Now if they brought the motors back in there luggage, without declaring them, and receiving permission to transport on a commercial airline, that is a big time NO! NO! Also, if they declared them as "Model Airplane Parts", they are right up there with "Big Time-Big Fine"..(:-) Fred > What you both seem to be oblivious to is the almost certainty that the > motors were transported illegally. If they did not have DOT numbers [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Phil Considering the morons at the airports, I don't think there is any chance that anyone in their right mind would declare the stuff. Also, motors you would use for rocket tricks shoould have less than 62.5g - is it ok that fly with them as carry on or checked luggage? Phil >Phil, > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> Phil > Considering the morons at the airports, I don't think there is any > chance that anyone in their right mind would declare the stuff. Also, > motors you would use for rocket tricks shoould have less than 62.5g - > is it ok that fly with them as carry on or checked luggage? Nope. Can't be anywhere on a commercial airliner. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >> Considering the morons at the airports, I don't think there is any >> chance that anyone in their right mind would declare the stuff. Also, >> motors you would use for rocket tricks shoould have less than 62.5g - >> is it ok that fly with them as carry on or checked luggage? > >Nope. Can't be anywhere on a commercial airliner. That's what I thought. IMO, this is a bigger problem that wether the motors are NAR certified. NAR didn't bother Jerry but DOT sure did. Phil > What you both seem to be oblivious to is the almost certainty that the > motors were transported illegally. If they did not have DOT numbers [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > With this kind of behavior, Jerry will fit right in on the BOT. Was > it 3 years ago I suggested he run? I think he got 3 write in votes. i'LL MAKE SURE TO VOTE FOR HIM AGAIN THIS YEAR. > At least they publish their data on delays - aye Bob. Not for these uncertified motors they don't! SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > What you both seem to be oblivious to is the almost certainty that the > motors were transported illegally. If they did not have DOT numbers > (which are required for certification in the US) they can not be > transported legally - either inter or intra nationally. Hmmm... I'm wondering, do these flyers already have the motors? If so, how did they get them if they can't legally be shipped here? If they were illegally shipped, why don't these guys just do their practice flying at a private, non-sanctioned launch, and not involve the NAR at all? I don't know much about NAR/FAI competition events, so I'm just curious. > Hmmm... I'm wondering, do these flyers already have the motors? If so, > how did they get them if they can't legally be shipped here? If they > were illegally shipped, why don't these guys just do their practice > flying at a private, non-sanctioned launch, and not involve the NAR at > all? I don't know much about NAR/FAI competition events, so I'm just > curious. All EXCELLENT questions. They have them, because the plan is to fly them next weekend at NSL in Texas. You are absolutely correct: they should go off on their own and fly their uncertified motors without NAR involvement, seperate from an NAR event. If they need insurance, they should secure their own, just as several independent clubs have done. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > That was quite a verbose reply. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You look like a nit-picking fool. The fools are the ones who think that the board can waive portions of the safety code. The fools are the ones that think the board can waive NFPA and DOT regulations. The fools are the ones wo think they will still have NAR insurance coverage while flying these motors. The reason our hobby has survived for almost half a century is that we DO have people who make sure every j is dotted and every f is crossed, to the exact letter of the law. Please explain for me how allowing selected members to violate the NAR Safety Code advances our organization? Why even bother having a safety code if the board can authorize waiving it whenever it gets in the way. That's the kind of logic I used to expect from TRA, not from the NAR. One more question for everyone: W.W.G.H.S.D? SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > The fools are the ones who think that the board can waive portions of the > safety code. The fools are the ones that think the board can waive NFPA and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > One more question for everyone: W.W.G.H.S.D? So.....we are to understand that those who must religiously follow the NAR code to the letter to cover their a.s as far as distance and impulse and certified status in this country are not the same as those who are at a disadvantage overseas in international competition following the same rules? The peons in this country must toe the line but when international status becomes a major concern (read that the status quo puts Americans at a huge competitive disadvantage) the rules aren't so important? I see an amazing conundrum here. Mr. Bundick, please explain this slight of hand. Chuck > So.....we are to understand that those who must religiously follow the > NAR code to the letter to cover their a.s as far as distance and impulse [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I see an amazing conundrum here. You see correctly. Some members of the internats team has been quietly violating the safety code under the radar screen. This was an attempt to legitimize their actions. A poorly thought out attempt. Any one else who might similarly violate the safety code would be subject to expulsion. Especially if your initials were Jerry Irvine. > Mr. Bundick, please explain this slight of hand. Mark and several other board members are a bit occupied this weekend, but I would expect to hear from him soon. I would suggest an email to him will get a faster response than a post here. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! >One more question for everyone: W.W.G.H.S.D? > > WTHDIMWGHSWD? (What The He** Does It Matter What G. Harry Stine Do?) David Erbas-White > Now either Trip doen't mean what he says above, or he has completely changed > his mind. Or he had his fingers crossed behind his back. > Also on the NAr website is this Insurance question: > Will the NAR insurance cover claims related to use of non-certified motors? > No. NAR insurance is null and void if the accident involves a Safety Code > violation. Use of uncertified motors is prohibited by the NAR Safety Codes. > IS this Clear enough? I have verified something that did not show up in the board minutes as posted on the yahoo group: Even though the board has authorized selected members to violate the safety code, that violation will invalidate thier insurance coverage. Only the site owner coverage will remain. > The FAI certfication process is not the same thing as the NAR S&T > certfication process. The FAi certfication process is slightly different [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > ie the AMA here in the US) EVERY time prior to use in the respective FAI > contest. The FAI certification process is about performance, not safety. Yes, they will reject a batch if a motor catos. But it's common practice to submit motors not as one single batch, but as several smaller batches, so that if irregularities are found there are still some motors that slip through. These motors are also not subject to any long term testing or monitoring. They only need to function properly for a week. We don't know what their long term storage properties might be. > 4. Once the motor has this DOT EX number/UN designation number, they are > then accepted by the NAR S&T where they are then subjected to the NFPA > certfication requirements for sale and use in the USA. These imported motors have no DOT paperwork. That alone is enough to make them uncertifyable in the USA. nd there is no business license or insurance behind them. This lack of paperwork is exactly the reason that neither NAR nor TRA will certify Jerry Irvine's motors. I guess Jerry should go into business making specialty motors for selected members. He's offered to do so before. > The USA FAI Spacemodleing Team has traditionally been at a severe > competitive disadvanatge to other FAI member state competitiors because of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > USA FAI team do better than they normally would, we will "bend" the rules > for them. That's not quite correct. The REAL reason that this was done was to legitimize the underground actions that the FAI team has been using for years. How's that for a double standard! Any other member gets kicked out of the NAR for violating the safety code. But the NAR board grants "selected members" the right to violate the Safety Code at NAR events. > I have an alternate suggestion: there are 2 ways to skin cat: the right way > and the wrong way. My recommendation to the NAR would be to ante up $5-10K [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > motors to its own members just like it sells other merchandise. We are not > talking about large quantities here. Either these motors are NAR certified or they are not. If they are, any member can use them at any time. If they aren't then no NAR member may fly them at any time. There is no "selected" class of NAR members granted rights above other members. NAR policy has long established that no one other than NAR S&T has the right to control what motors can and can not be used at an NAR event. We went down this rathole when some contest directors wanted to limit say B SD to 18mm BP motors. The board said no. SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! > These imported motors have no DOT paperwork. That alone is enough to make > them uncertifyable in the USA. nd there is no business license or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > so > before. You are correct Bob in that no business license is behind them. If they were brought in legally as personal import, no DOT paperwork would be needed if not for commerce or resale. >> and the wrong way. My recommendation to the NAR would be to ante up >> $5-10K >> and legally import these mototrs and allow them to go through the DOT >> tetsting and NAR cert tetsting reginmes. If you don't resell them or ship them in commerce , you don't need to spend the 10k to legally import them for non-commerce use. I certainly don't want the NAR spending 10K so a few contest top dogs can fly motors that can be sold for $40 each after all the taxes, importation and the rest of the red tape is done. Talk about subsidies ;) Cranny "looking for Brandi" Dane cranny responses inline... terry dean >> These imported motors have no DOT paperwork. That alone is enough to make >> them uncertifyable in the USA. nd there is no business license or [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > If they were brought in legally as personal import, no DOT paperwork would > be needed if not for commerce or resale. I'm not sure theres any such thing as a "personal import".... >>> and the wrong way. My recommendation to the NAR would be to ante up >>> $5-10K [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If you don't resell them or ship them in commerce , you don't need to > spend the 10k to legally import them for non-commerce use. This assumes that the motore would be given freely to all people to use; in practice, they are sold. > I certainly don't want the NAR spending 10K so a few contest top dogs can > fly motors that can be sold for $40 each after all the taxes, importation > and the rest of the red tape is done. > > Talk about subsidies ;) Cranny, the reason I suggested this route is that the NAR would eventually make their money back from reselling these motors to NAR FAI Spacemodeler contestants. It would also allow for the growth of FAI Spacemodeling competitiors by having a reliable,continous source of FAI competition quality motors(well at least until Jiri Taborsky who is in his 50's at least ,croaks). The motors that we are talking about are A size mototrs and might cost $5-8 per; yes thats expensive, but take into consideration that FAI Spacemodeling competition is voluntary. > Cranny "looking for Brandi" Dane > This assumes that the motors would be given freely to all people to use; > in practice, they are sold. B.S. SignatureSteve Humphrey (replace "spambait" with "merlinus" to respond directly to me) >> This assumes that the motors would be given freely to all people to use; >> in practice, they are sold. > > B.S. Where do I get these free motors? SignatureBob Kaplow NAR # 18L >>> To reply, there's no internet on Mars (yet)! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle: http://nira-rocketry.org/Document/MayJun00.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org S&T is becoming this decades Steve Weaver! Bob asked: > Where do I get these free motors? Seriously? Become involved in FAI flying and make a serious attempt to qualify for the team. After qualifying for the team in 2001 (for the 2002 cycle), a small number of motors were made available to me (three, to be specific). In the past five years I have burned a grand total of five Delta motors in testing to verify staging techniques for my S5 models. I burned DOZENS of Apogee motors to lay the groundwork before using the exceeding rare Deltas. (I have never flown a Delta at a NAR event, BTW.) The Deltas have not been imported in anywhere near the quantities hinted at previously in this thread. Making a wild-a.s guess, there are probably less than a hundred of the beasties on these shores. The vast majority of FAI model testing gets done with Apogee 10.5mm motors and Estes 13mm A's. Lost in this thread is the fact that American motors are preferred for some events, including S8 (R/C rocket glider) and S7 (scale). Tony and I even used Estes B6-0's in the boosters for our Bumper WAC models for S5C (scale altitude) in 2004. It is worth mentioning that the AMA and NAR have just announced an agreement to transfer much of the operational responsibility for FAI Spacemodeling back to the NAR. So, if any of you are interested in learning more about FAI competition, perhaps leading to spot on a future US Team, there are many of us who are genuinely committed to answering your questions and assisting! The 2008 World Championships will be in Lleida, Spain, BTW. Should be a wonderful trip... James ______________________ James Duffy jduffy@mac.com I know for a fact that these motors are also sold to people. I was offered such a purchase at NARAM45 by a FAI competitior. I also know that one of the last batches of Czech Deltas that made its way into this country was bought and paid for upfront by a monetary collection being taken up among the various FAI competitiors at that time. Tell the truth James! The truth will set you free! Also remember that you have the 5th amendement right to not incriminate yourself! And you certainly wasn't a FAI team member back in the late 80's or mid nineties so you can't be sure how these motors were brought back in. and thanks for verifying the fact that Czech deltas have indeed have been imported into this country. I wonder how they were declared to customs? I wonder what UN designation number was used on them? terry dean > Bob asked: > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > James Duffy > jduffy@mac.com I wonder how the FAI competitior got the motors into the country?? Was it legal?? Fred > I know for a fact that these motors are also sold to people. I was offered > such a purchase at NARAM45 by a FAI competitior. > > terry dean steve: why is this bs? since when are potential explosives devices allowed to be "personally" imported by anybody? show me in federal law where this is allowed. terry dean >> This assumes that the motors would be given freely to all people to use; >> in practice, they are sold. > > B.S. > why is this bs? since when are potential explosives devices allowed to > be "personally" imported by anybody? show me in federal law where this > is allowed. Terry, don't be such an a.s. I was responding to your statement: >>> This assumes that the motors would be given freely to all people to >>> use; in practice, they are sold. The motors are not sold, they are given to those who earned them, either by paying for them originally or earning a spot on the US team. SignatureSteve Humphrey (replace "spambait" with "merlinus" to respond directly to me) steve: well then its not BS and I'm not being an a.s. The fact that 10-15 people each ante up X amount dollars up front to purchase a batch of motors versus 1 person purchasing the same batch of motors and then, reselling them in smaller batches is exactly the same thing. Money is changing hands for these motors. There is a commercial transaction taking place for these motors. Uncertfied motors are not supposed to be introduced into commerce in this country. So my statement that they are sold is functionally correct. Are we back to determining what the meaning of IS is? terry dean >> why is this bs? since when are potential explosives devices allowed to be >> "personally" imported by anybody? show me in federal law where this is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The motors are not sold, they are given to those who earned them, either > by paying for them originally or earning a spot on the US team. > well then its not BS and I'm not being an a.s. I'm pinning that on my wall, right next to Brad Guth's "I am not a kook" allegation. You are digging yourself into a deeper and deeper hole with every post. Maybe it's time to quit while you're behind. > > well then its not BS and I'm not being an a.s. > > I'm pinning that on my wall, right next to Brad Guth's "I am not a kook" allegation. Har har hardy har. That there is funny. SignatureTweak You're being an a.s, laws prohibit things there are no laws that "allow" things show me in federal law where this is > allowed. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > B.S. > > If they were brought in legally as personal import, no DOT paperwork would > > be needed if not for commerce or resale. > > I'm not sure theres any such thing as a "personal import".... You can, as an individual, import many different kinds of goods as an individual, that when comercialy imported, are regulated. > > If you don't resell them or ship them in commerce , you don't need to > > spend the 10k to legally import them for non-commerce use. > > This assumes that the motore would be given freely to all people to use; in > practice, they are sold. Why are you assuming anything. Assume is not a legit or legal reason to regulate unless the assumptiom is backed up by regulation. Fred does this include explosives? terry dean >> > If they were brought in legally as personal import, no DOT paperwork >> > would [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Fred Probably not, but who knows if customs would even recognize or care about little hobby rocket motors. I personally would not declare or bother trying to get them through customs. fred > does this include explosives? > > terry dean Cranny Dane spake thusly: > I certainly don't want the NAR spending 10K so a few contest top dogs can > fly motors that can be sold for $40 each after all the taxes, importation > and the rest of the red tape is done. > Talk about subsidies ;) Hell, I'm one of the "contest top dogs" you speak of, and I couldn't agree with you more. <G> Seriously, someone (not you, Cranny) needs to retract the slanderous comment about "stuffing the motors in their range boxes for the flight home," 'cos I can guarantee that that DAMN well didn't happen. The euromotors have been brought in legally, at great expense, and with all of the necessary paperwork in place. James _________________________ James Duffy jduffy@mac.com > Seriously, someone (not you, Cranny) needs to retract the slanderous > comment about "stuffing the motors in their range boxes for the flight > home," Might that be the person who has made incorrect assertions about Texas law? james: Then scan and post to an appropriate place all the documentation; I challenge you to do this! terry dean > Cranny Dane spake thusly: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > James Duffy > jduffy@mac.com Terry wrote: > Then scan and post to an appropriate place all the documentation; I > challenge you to do this! Sorry, Terry, the burden of proof for your outrageous allegation is squarely on your shoulders. I believe that my reputation for honesty and clarity within the rocketry community is adequate for folks to take me at my word. James _________________ James Duffy jduffy@mac.com My so called outrageous allegation is fact as I can back up everthing I have said with emails and other sources. Before you start taking up for you FAI buddies, you better learn the truth about what has been going on. Perhaps you were not party to any of the shenigans going on. Perhaps they just omitted to discuss certain things with you or to notify you of certain things. ANd it would be such a simple to thing to scan the paperwork and post it someplace. But I doubt that will ever happen as it would prove me right. Don't get up here in public and state as fact that the paperwork is 100% when you have never seen it yourself. terry dean > Terry wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > James Duffy > jduffy@mac.com "shenigans" ??? Signature"""Remove "zorch" from address (2 places) to reply. http://www.sirius.com/ > My so called outrageous allegation is fact as I can back up everthing I have said with > emails and other sources. Before you start taking up for you FAI buddies, you better [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> James Duffy >> jduffy@mac.com You forgot that maybe he's not familiar with weenies that whine and pull "facts" out of their a.s. Phil >My so called outrageous allegation is fact as I can back up everthing I have >said with emails and other sources. Before you start taking up for you FAI [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >> James Duffy >> jduffy@mac.com I need to clarify some on my remarks regarding FAI tetsting and certfication of model rocket used at FAI events. I had previously said that motors used in FAI World Cup competitions, have to be tested prior to use. It turns out this is not the case. You are on "the honour system" as was just told to me with a longtime FAI competitor. Basically the motors are only tested at the WSMC (World Space Modeling Championships) which are held on a every other year basis, so they are tested once every 2 years. I might add that in WC events, there is no prohibition against using your handmade motors....ie amateur rocketry style. And since they wouldn't be tested anyway, nobody would know. Over in East Euope not alot of distinction is made between model rocketry and amatuer rocketry as it is here. Both the Polish and former Yugoslavia modlers have a long tradition of AR dating to the mid to late 50's and in fact alot of them transitioned to model rocketry in that time frame. terry dean > malcolm: > [quoted text clipped - 198 lines] >> of any actual infractions where FAI-certified motors were shipped >> illegally within the U.S.? |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message