 |
 | 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 / August 2007Naram 49 Start Today!
People should start arriving in Michigan for Naram 49 later today. The Schedule for Naram 49 is up Will take some pics of the hotel and arriving victums tomorrow. If I am feeling frisky I might send up my plane for some aerial video of the hotel area but I might wait till after I fly it a few time on the field in case I crash it :-) Chris Taylor http://www.naramlive.com/ Go to NYPOWER instead, more fun :) > People should start arriving in Michigan for Naram 49 later today. The > Schedule for Naram 49 is up [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Chris Taylor > http://www.naramlive.com/ And more a.sholes > Go to NYPOWER instead, more fun > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> Chris Taylor >> http://www.naramlive.com/ Yep, cept these are likeable a.sholes. > And more a.sholes > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >> Chris Taylor > >> http://www.naramlive.com/ Great rocketry post, you seem to be concerned about, at times..(:-( > And more a.sholes > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >> Chris Taylor > >> http://www.naramlive.com/ And I qoute Mr "J" "Go to NYPOWER instead, more fun" Now see a stupid statement in the NARAM49 thread. Unless I misread the thread it does say "NARAM49"?. Why doesnt he start a Nypower thread instead? People wonder why folks like Mr ing and others come in here, why shouldnt they the regular posters cant even stay on topic in one thread. > Great rocketry post, you seem to be concerned about, at times..(:-( > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >> >> Chris Taylor >> >> http://www.naramlive.com/ Yea, everyone should drop into RMR and talk about having sex with someone's mother or sister, etc. Even you talk about "but plugs" in your June postings. Like making a statement, "go to NYPOWER instead, more fun", is so for off topic compared to you and that other a$$ clown's postings. You want to talk about rockets, good: You want to act like a a$$ clown, be prepared to be called on it. Don't like it, sit down a shut up and the caustic sarcastic replies will stop. Now I gota a 1/5 scale, 12" diameter V-2 that I am going to go shoot some primer on; now that the sun has gone down and my garage is not so darn hot. Fred > And I qoute Mr "J" > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >> >> Chris Taylor > >> >> http://www.naramlive.com/ Fred BTW. you can use the word a.s Clown in here ;) A V2 eh?. A rocket related tidbit in this thread, Fred you make me think there are angels. Maybe theres hope after all. > Yea, everyone should drop into RMR and talk about having sex with > someone's mother or sister, etc. Even you talk about "but plugs" in your [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] >> >> >> Chris Taylor >> >> >> http://www.naramlive.com/ So, we are in agrement, go and sin no more and I will speak not of a$$ clowns in reference to your postings. Fred > Fred BTW. you can use the word a.s Clown in here ;) > [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > >> >> >> Chris Taylor > >> >> >> http://www.naramlive.com/ LOL ok ok fair enough. however I reserve the right to be bad in the case of the likes of "Mr ing" ;) > So, we are in agrement, go and sin no more and I will speak not of a$$ > clowns in reference to your postings. [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] >> >> >> >> Chris Taylor >> >> >> >> http://www.naramlive.com/ NYPOWER, hmmmm, ok, was a blast Two "N"s were flown, handful onf "M"s, shitload of "K"S and....... well, you all know the rest (since you ALL know everything about everything) Had a great time, weather was awesome, and as usual, so were the people. > LOL ok ok fair enough. however I reserve the right to be bad in the case of > the likes of "Mr ing" ;) [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > >> >> >> >> Chris Taylor > >> >> >> >> http://www.naramlive.com/ I personally missed going to NYPOWER this year because of work commitments. Been there about a half dozen times over the past ten years. Never had a bad time once; well, if I don't take into consideration NYPOWER 1999, localized hell-acious storm came through and the wind blew hard, totally destroyed my EZ-UP. Didn't matter, still had fun. Fred > NYPOWER, hmmmm, ok, was a blast > Two "N"s were flown, handful onf "M"s, shitload of "K"S [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > > >> >> >> >> Chris Taylor > > >> >> >> >> http://www.naramlive.com/ Same here. NY Power is a good time. I missed it because of a bunch of family things happening at the same time. EZ-UP rant - A bad weld in my EZ-UP let go during that little breeze. I found out the hard way that EZ-UP does not replace pieces with bad welds if there is even the slightest breeze at the time. There is no way any kind of wind should make a good weld break. I had the Weld repaired and still use it complete with the "viewing port" in the canopy. Phil >I personally missed going to NYPOWER this year because of work >commitments. Been there about a half dozen times over the past ten [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] >> > >> >> >> >> Chris Taylor >> > >> >> >> >> http://www.naramlive.com/ > NYPOWER, hmmmm, ok, was a blast Bunny mentioned something at NARAM about someone damaging the field owners car with a rocket. Yet another insurance claim that comes out of our budget. What happened?  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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. I didn't know of this unfortunate incident however after all the years of minimal claims, (at least according to the propaganda I see) how does this affect "our budget?" Doesn't the insurance company pay these claims? Phil >> NYPOWER, hmmmm, ok, was a blast > >Bunny mentioned something at NARAM about someone damaging the field owners >car with a rocket. Yet another insurance claim that comes out of our budget. >What happened? > I didn't know of this unfortunate incident however after all the years > of minimal claims, (at least according to the propaganda I see) how > does this affect "our budget?" Doesn't the insurance company pay > these claims? Depends on what the deductible is. It's not uncommon for insureds to sometimes pay the entire claim themselves, even if the claim is more than the deductible, if filing a claim could cause an increase in rates. In those cases, the insured is really just buying a piece of paper just to say they have it and in actually are really self-insuring. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com Thanks. I think most understand the generalities of how insurance works. I'm asking about the specifics of what Bob was referring to. >> I didn't know of this unfortunate incident however after all the years >> of minimal claims, (at least according to the propaganda I see) how [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In those cases, the insured is really just buying a piece of paper >just to say they have it and in actually are really self-insuring. > I didn't know of this unfortunate incident however after all the years > of minimal claims, (at least according to the propaganda I see) how > does this affect "our budget?" Doesn't the insurance company pay > these claims? I was there, but only have information 2nd (3rd or 4th) hand regarding the specific flight. A rocket, recovering under fully deployed chute, drifted onto a power line. The harness was of sufficient length that the rocket, suspended from the snagged harness, swung sideways, struck, and broke a rear side window of the property owner's well used van. I would expect the owner of the rocket and the owner of the van to settle up for damages incurred. In my opinion, insurance is for big expenses, not for a broken side window. The power company was summoned to cut the harness and clear the line. I don't know whether there's a fee associated with that sort of Saturday noon service call. The winds last weekend were a bit capricious on the airfield. When they blew away from the flight line, the over stable birds could weather cock and turn back towards the flight line. Once under chute, they'd push back into the expansive field. When the wind blew towards the flight line, the birds trying for a gentle descent, would drift back towards the flight line. The winds were not brisk at any time. Just enough to warrant some extra consideration with regards to rail angle and chute drift. It mostly affected the mid and L1 class flights, as the away cell was as advertised....away. All in all, it was a well run event, with safety kept at the forefront. Rod angles were repeatedly adjusted, heads ups were called as warranted, and the occasional air horn blast helped people stay safe. Now if I could just abolish the cursed AeroTech bonus delays, all my rockets would have come through unscathed. As it is, they've all been repaired, and will fly again another day. ScottE -- flier of the Coors Flight and Weaned Speed >> I didn't know of this unfortunate incident however after all the years >> of minimal claims, (at least according to the propaganda I see) how [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I was there, but only have information 2nd (3rd or 4th) hand regarding the >specific flight. I was there, too, and I know the flier and the rocket. >A rocket, recovering under fully deployed chute, drifted onto a power line. >The harness was of sufficient length that the rocket, suspended from the >snagged harness, swung sideways, struck, and broke a rear side window of the >property owner's well used van. Correct. >I would expect the owner of the rocket and the owner of the van to settle up >for damages incurred. In my opinion, insurance is for big expenses, not for a >broken side window. Flier and van owner exchanged information; van owner reportedly was not overly upset. >The power company was summoned to cut the harness and clear the line. I don't >know whether there's a fee associated with that sort of Saturday noon service >call. Flier didn't say anything about a fee for that service, but I didn't specifically ask. Flier did say that power company guys were very interested in the rocket, and desperately wanted to know max altitude! >The winds last weekend were a bit capricious on the airfield. When they blew >away from the flight line, the over stable birds could weather cock and turn [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >angles were repeatedly adjusted, heads ups were called as warranted, and the >occasional air horn blast helped people stay safe. I agree with all the above. > On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 21:47:43 -0500, ScottE > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> does this affect "our budget?" Doesn't the insurance company pay > >> these claims? That flight was a freak of nature. There was very little wind when it flew and there was NO rockets that drifted that way before that launch. There must have been some upper level wind current that it caught that was not seen before. There was no culpability on the flier or the away cell crew that prepared that flight. We expect that the flier's insurance to cover that event. If not we (MARS) will find a way to cover the landowner. From what I understand NAR property damage insurance is $5000 deductable to the responsible party, maybe that is changed. Maybe Mr. Bundick may want to bring the insurance info up to date on the NAR website? >>Bob Kaplow wrote.. >>Bunny mentioned something at NARAM about someone damaging the field >>owners car with a rocket. Yet another insurance claim that comes out of our >>budget. What happened? Even if a claim was made on NAR insurance how does that come out of our budget? Is NAR self-insured? -john d MARS > Even if a claim was made on NAR insurance how does that come out of > our budget? Is NAR self-insured? 5K deductible paid by NAR before insurane kicks in. 3rd or 4th claim for similar incidents in the past year. it adds 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. >> Even if a claim was made on NAR insurance how does that come out of >> our budget? Is NAR self-insured? > >5K deductible paid by NAR before insurane kicks in. 3rd or 4th claim for >similar incidents in the past year. it adds up. How many of those are MR only claims? Is the NAR forcing MR only flyers and non flying members to subsidize the HPR flyers? Alan > >> Even if a claim was made on NAR insurance how does that come out of > >> our budget? Is NAR self-insured? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Alan This oughta be good. Who's got the popcorn? SignatureTweak >> >> Even if a claim was made on NAR insurance how does that come out of >> >> our budget? Is NAR self-insured? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >This oughta be good. Who's got the popcorn? Are you going to try the popcorn trick ...... again? ;-) > >> >> Even if a claim was made on NAR insurance how does that come out of > >> >> our budget? Is NAR self-insured? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Are you going to try the popcorn trick ...... again? ;-) Again. Need something to go with this burger I made from this animal somebody skinned and tossed. I think it's opossum, but I'm not sure. SignatureTweak >>> Even if a claim was made on NAR insurance how does that come out of >>> our budget? Is NAR self-insured? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Alan I hope so. >>>> Even if a claim was made on NAR insurance how does that come out of >>>> our budget? Is NAR self-insured? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >I hope so. Do you want artificial butter with that? > >>>> Even if a claim was made on NAR insurance how does that come out of > >>>> our budget? Is NAR self-insured? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Do you want artificial butter with that? Was that offer for me and my popcorn? I hope not, I prefer the real stuff. I'll spend the extra 20 minutes on the treadmill to work it off. SignatureTweak > How many of those are MR only claims? Is the NAR forcing MR only > flyers and non flying members to subsidize the HPR flyers? You've just described insurance, the sharing of the risk. Should the NAR stop HPR so they could lower their insurance premiums a few dollars a year reflected in the membership dues? SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> How many of those are MR only claims? Is the NAR forcing MR only >> flyers and non flying members to subsidize the HPR flyers? > > You've just described insurance, the sharing of the risk. Should the > NAR stop HPR so they could lower their insurance premiums a few dollars > a year reflected in the membership dues? I know at many local launches, you got MR folks there that see HP for the first time and think "some day", or you got folks that do HP and MR. I had a regular thing at a yearly launch where I'd try to launch 1 bird of each motor class I was cert'd for during the weekend. I'd set my pad at the max distance needed, start with "A" and go up! (I might be the only person that ever launched an A from 500'!) Anyway A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K was as far as I ever got, as I ran out of time (and money!) NAR/TRA is not "forcing" MR only fliers to do a darn thing. In most places, an "MR only" flier can just fly in a park, without a NAR/TRA membership! I've seen many "MR only" fliers hit the launches as, even if they don't fly HP, they like to see them. It's not like NAR/TRA is charging for insurance that the flier can never use (or enjoy as a spectator). It's up to the flier how far they want to go. NAR has the "MESS" forms for motor failures, and I guess I'd like to see a similar "damage" form for damage caused by a bird, even if no insurance claim is filed with the nationals. The hobby is "self regulating" after all, and the hobby seems to be ignoring the "I'll just write you a check" damage that can happen. Rocket scientists like data! :) >>> How many of those are MR only claims? Is the NAR forcing MR only >>> flyers and non flying members to subsidize the HPR flyers? >I had a regular thing at a yearly launch where I'd try to launch 1 bird >of each motor class I was cert'd for during the weekend. I'd set my pad >at the max distance needed, start with "A" and go up! (I might be the >only person that ever launched an A from 500'!) Anyway >A-B-C-D-E-F-G-H-I-J-K was as far as I ever got, as I ran out of time >(and money!) But that is just stupid. One of the risk factors is the HPR launcher distance. With the pad 500' away, by the time you noticed a grass fire at the pad and ran out with your fire extinguisher the fire could be out of control; and even with insurance the use of the flying field may be lost forever. >NAR/TRA is not "forcing" MR only fliers to do a darn thing. In most >places, an "MR only" flier can just fly in a park, without a NAR/TRA >membership! Booting MR only fliers out the NAR is not an option for addressing the possible dues inequity! Alan >> I had a regular thing at a yearly launch where I'd try to launch 1 bird >> of each motor class I was cert'd for during the weekend. I'd set my pad [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > be out of control; and even with insurance the use of the flying field > may be lost forever. First of all, I fly in the desert, and sand doesn't burn! Also, a "a" size bird, on a pad 2' off ground level, with a 12" diameter 3/8" SS blast deflector adds additional "protection". I'd give the J or K a better chance of starting a fire. I few an "M" at the same launch, but the series was broken as I didn't get to fly an L! If it's "stupid" to launch an A at 500 feet due to fire dangers, isn't it also "stupid" to launch a M at 500'? Using you're reasoning, all birds should be launched at say, 50', so that you can put out potential grass fires! Now THAT would be stupid! Don't give them any ideas, bunny may weild his sword and drop the bomb on HPR in NAR (and keep the dues the same) "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmobley@rocketryplanet.com> wrote in message Should the > NAR stop HPR so they could lower their insurance premiums a few dollars > a year reflected in the membership dues? >Don't give them any ideas, bunny may weild his sword and drop the bomb on >HPR in NAR (and keep the dues the same) Based on that comment, I'm going to presume that you've never attended one of Bunny's Town Hall meetings. Bunny may not fly much high power himeself, but he's a numbers guy. He can read the NAR membership numbers and "gets it" that the high-power fliers are the driving force behind the current level of NAR membership. Without HPR, NAR would be a much smaller and less viable organization. In other words, with no HPR the dues would go up! There is no question in my mind that he is a very strong supporter of HPR. Glen Overby No (and I have no intentions to) > >Don't give them any ideas, bunny may weild his sword and drop the bomb on > >HPR in NAR (and keep the dues the same) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Glen Overby > Based on that comment, I'm going to presume that you've never attended one of > Bunny's Town Hall meetings. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > There is no question in my mind that he is a very strong supporter of HPR. Glen, your post gives the impression that Bunny considers HPR a necessary evil because it keeps the numbers right. Being a strong supporter of HPR and being a strong supporter of HPR because it's a necessary evil are not the same thing. It's akin to staying in a bad marriage because your spouse makes the lion's share of the money. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > Glen, your post gives the impression that Bunny considers HPR a > necessary evil because it keeps the numbers right. Being a strong > supporter of HPR and being a strong supporter of HPR because it's a > necessary evil are not the same thing. It's akin to staying in a bad > marriage because your spouse makes the lion's share of the money. Let me put this a different way: If the BATF called Ken Good and Mark Bundick to Washington to discuss the possibility of eliminating the necessity of an explosives permit for hobby rocketry in exchange for the killing off of high power rockets of M impulse or higher, guess which one I would NOT want representing me? Hint: the answer is not the person who considers HPR a necessary evil. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com I totally agree > > Glen, your post gives the impression that Bunny considers HPR a > > necessary evil because it keeps the numbers right. Being a strong [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Hint: the answer is not the person who considers HPR a necessary evil. >> Glen, your post gives the impression that Bunny considers HPR a >> necessary evil because it keeps the numbers right. Being a strong [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Hint: the answer is not the person who considers HPR a necessary evil. I HAVE heard Bunny talk about HPR and have also heard him talk with passion about negotiating with the ATF. I would not characterize his view of HPR as a "necessary evil". I can't remember the exact quote but I remember Bunny saying he wanted the ATF out of our hobby. Period. Not part of our hobby, our hobby. > I HAVE heard Bunny talk about HPR and have also heard him talk with > passion about negotiating with the ATF. I would not characterize his > view of HPR as a "necessary evil". I can't remember the exact quote but > I remember Bunny saying he wanted the ATF out of our hobby. Period. > Not part of our hobby, our hobby. That is my impression as well. He will not rest until we are rid of the BATFE once and for all. He's not going to sell out the folks who fly H-I-J, and he-s not going to sell out the folks who fly M-N-O. 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. >Let me put this a different way: If the BATF called Ken Good and Mark >Bundick to Washington to discuss the possibility of eliminating the >necessity of an explosives permit for hobby rocketry in exchange for the >killing off of high power rockets of M impulse or higher, guess which >one I would NOT want representing me? I see we agree on that. I wouldn't want Ken Good representing me, either. Glen Overby Sounds like your against TRA and HPR > >Let me put this a different way: If the BATF called Ken Good and Mark > >Bundick to Washington to discuss the possibility of eliminating the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Glen Overby >Sounds like your against TRA and HPR What do you mean by "against"? I certainly did drop my TRA membership when I found out about the fraud and dirty tricks being done by the BOD, but that didn't change the kinds of rockets that I fly. It took the feds to change that. Glen Overby >>Sounds like your against TRA and HPR > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Glen Overby I have not heard of any allegations in several years. Do you have any evidence of these things are are you a Jerry wanna be. Hell even Jerry stopped accusing them of that. > I have not heard of any allegations in several years. Do you have any > evidence of these things are are you a Jerry wanna be. Hell even > Jerry stopped accusing them of that. Agreed. But I've also never heard of any action taken against those who did wrong in the past, nor any apology for those actions. Step #1 of the road to recovery is always to admit that there is a problem. That has yet to happen. 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. >> I have not heard of any allegations in several years. Do you have any >> evidence of these things are are you a Jerry wanna be. Hell even [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >wrong in the past, nor any apology for those actions. Step #1 of the road to >recovery is always to admit that there is a problem. That has yet to happen. That's history to most of the people that care and I don't think anyone involved are on the board. When some people that accused them of being criminals said so, I asked for evidence and no one came through with any. Seeing how we are all interesting in freedom and legal process, I think evidence should be presented before we hang anyone. > That's history to most of the people that care and I don't think > anyone involved are on the board. Isn't Chuck Rogers still on the board? Don't many TRA members still berate the NAR because of it's past treatment of HPR, "Who flew the G", etc? I guess one will stop when the other stops. 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. >> That's history to most of the people that care and I don't think >> anyone involved are on the board. > > Isn't Chuck Rogers still on the board? Nope. > Don't many TRA members still berate the NAR because of it's past treatment > of HPR, "Who flew the G", etc? I guess one will stop when the other stops. Never have seen/heard of that happening in the ten years I've been a Tripoli member. Modrocs, mid power, high power, EX... it's all sport rocketry and it's all fun. If anyone is going to belittle another flyer for what they're flying then just tell to STFU. Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 >> Don't many TRA members still berate the NAR because of it's past treatment >> of HPR, "Who flew the G", etc? I guess one will stop when the other stops. > > Never have seen/heard of that happening in the ten years I've been a > Tripoli member. Aw come on, I've seen multiple references right here in rmr in the few days since I've been back from NARAM. Look for "who flew the G", "weenie", and other references. 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. >>> Don't many TRA members still berate the NAR because of it's past treatment >>> of HPR, "Who flew the G", etc? I guess one will stop when the other stops. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > since I've been back from NARAM. Look for "who flew the G", "weenie", and > other references. Give me a break! Bob, your talking about online ascii communications in a public forum. Whether it's rmr, alt.computer.freeware, alt.radio.amateur or any other online ascii forum, which is open to the whole unmoderated world and you consider several references to weenie and 'who flew the G' as belittling?!?!? Just last month someone on rmr referred to LDRS and HPR as 'men who have more money than brains'. Big deal, like I'm going to take that as belittling. It's just some simple ascii in a public unmoderated forum. What Glen was talking about much earlier in this forum was about a face-to-face encounter that happened at my local club. Glen was NOT referring to references in ascii form that is online and open to the whole world to see. This whole us-vs-them with a ax to grind crap is OLD and beyond juvenile. 'Mommmmmm, he said this about me and....' Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 >>> Don't many TRA members still berate the NAR because of it's past treatment >>> of HPR, "Who flew the G", etc? I guess one will stop when the other stops. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >since I've been back from NARAM. Look for "who flew the G", "weenie", and >other references. I think weenie is an attitude - and has nothing to do with what you fly it is a good characterization of some people. > Aw come on, I've seen multiple references right here in rmr in the few days > since I've been back from NARAM. Look for "who flew the G", "weenie", and > other references. Don't be ashamed of the "weenie" title. It was well-earned, and in some cases, well-deserved. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> Aw come on, I've seen multiple references right here in rmr in the few days >> since I've been back from NARAM. Look for "who flew the G", "weenie", and >> other references. > >Don't be ashamed of the "weenie" title. It was well-earned, and in some >cases, well-deserved. Ya know, in Marion, Iowa, current home of NAR HQ, there is this restaurant featuring Chicago style hot dogs. It is colorful building with a Piper Cup mounted above the roof. There is a big bold slogan proclaiming it to be the "home of the flying weenie". I keep meaning to take a snap shot and post it. Alan >> Isn't Chuck Rogers still on the board? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > all fun. If anyone is going to belittle another flyer for what they're > flying then just tell to STFU. But Ted, you know living in the past is helpful to those who love to bash the TRA... SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >But Ted, you know living in the past is helpful to those who love to >bash the TRA... That does make it much easier. Phil >> That's history to most of the people that care and I don't think >> anyone involved are on the board. > >Isn't Chuck Rogers still on the board? Nope I think he left two years ago and as I said, no one has ever shown me any specific evidence of Chuck doing anything wrong. He said she said doesn't hack it with me. >Don't many TRA members still berate the NAR because of it's past treatment >of HPR, "Who flew the G", etc? I guess one will stop when the other stops. That statement was a defining moment for NAR. I think most people understand that is in the past although as Glen can attest, some people haven't gotten over the mind set. Phil Ask your "president" about the current fiasco going on with S&T and the recentl KBA certs, want to talk about corrupt. Gary says jump, Bunny says "how high" Last post from me. Where's Jerry when we need him > >Sounds like your against TRA and HPR > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Glen Overby > Last post from me. > > Where's Jerry when we need him Be careful what you ask for..(:-) >> Let me put this a different way: If the BATF called Ken Good and Mark >> Bundick to Washington to discuss the possibility of eliminating the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I see we agree on that. I wouldn't want Ken Good representing me, either. Why? Are you afraid we'd end up with nothing but G motors and above or that you would need an explosives permit for A motors? SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >Glen, your post gives the impression that Bunny considers HPR a >necessary evil because it keeps the numbers right. Being a strong >supporter of HPR and being a strong supporter of HPR because it's a >necessary evil are not the same thing. It's akin to staying in a bad >marriage because your spouse makes the lion's share of the money. I feel that is a misinterpretation of my comments. What I was giving was an example of how those running the NAR understand who their members are, and thus what they should be supportive of. Also note that this thread started by someone too macho to join NAR making an evil comment about NAR dumping HPR; I was countering that. Personally, I feel that NAR is supportive of HPR. But they are also supportive of mid power, low power and contests and as a result have a wider focus than that other organization who doesn't care about anything below "H", and sneers at anything below "M". NAR is also concerned about safety, which is another thing that separates NAR and the other organization. NAR has spent a LOT of time and money pursuing getting the feds off the backs of HPR; if they had no concern for HPR they could have simply accepted the 62.5 gram limit and said "we're happy with that". But they didn't. If you want to think that everbody on the NAR board is evil and a hater of the kinds of rockets you fly, I'll never change your mind. Glen Overby >Personally, I feel that NAR is supportive of HPR. But they are also >supportive of mid power, low power and contests and as a result have a wider >focus than that other organization who doesn't care about anything below "H", >and sneers at anything below "M". My guess is that they are sneering at you and your attitude towards the "other organization." >NAR is also concerned about safety, which >is another thing that separates NAR and the other organization. Please elaborate. And don't forget the specific supporting facts. I support both organizations and look at both without prejudice. I fly research motors, am Prez of a NAR club and am not interested in contests. I've flown M's more recently than Modrocs. Does that make me a bad person? If it does, I'll see if I can use an Estes motor for an igniter. Phil > I feel that is a misinterpretation of my comments. What I was giving was an > example of how those running the NAR understand who their members are, and > thus what they should be supportive of. So if the NAR had a stronger MR base like it did in the olden days and the majority of that base didn't support HPR, then "those running the NAR" would switch their views and support to be against HPR? I don't like politicians who put their finger in the wind to see which way they should vote or what viewpoint they should support. > Personally, I feel that NAR is supportive of HPR. But they are also > supportive of mid power, low power and contests and as a result have a wider > focus than that other organization who doesn't care about anything below "H", > and sneers at anything below "M". What "other organization" is that, Glen? Tripoli? "Not caring about anything below 'H'" and "sneers at anything below 'M'" is as stereotypical as the position you are defending about the NAR not supporting HPR. > NAR is also concerned about safety, which is another thing that separates > NAR and the other organization. Yes, I have seen the presentation, and it looks to the viewer like NAR thinks safety wouldn't be a concern if HPR wasn't involved. > NAR has spent a LOT of time and money pursuing getting the feds off the > backs of HPR; if they had no concern for HPR they could have simply > accepted the 62.5 gram limit and said "we're happy with that". But > they didn't. Then why is the lawsuit titled "Tripoli Rocketry Association vs BATF"? Oh, because the NAR didn't support the lawsuit until they put their finger in the wind and saw what their membership wanted to do. > If you want to think that everbody on the NAR board is evil and a hater of the > kinds of rockets you fly, I'll never change your mind. Who said that? SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >So if the NAR had a stronger MR base like it did in the olden days and >the majority of that base didn't support HPR, then "those running the >NAR" would switch their views and support to be against HPR? I don't >like politicians who put their finger in the wind to see which way they >should vote or what viewpoint they should support. It's called "listening to your membership". It's also an effect of changing the board. If you were a NAR member you'd probably notice how the NAR board has changed in the past few years. >> Personally, I feel that NAR is supportive of HPR. But they are also >> supportive of mid power, low power and contests and as a result have a wider >> focus than that other organization who doesn't care about anything below "H", >> and sneers at anything below "M". > >What "other organization" is that, Glen? Tripoli? "Not caring about Yes. >anything below 'H'" and "sneers at anything below 'M'" is as >stereotypical as the position you are defending about the NAR not >supporting HPR. I'm not speaking of stereotypes, I'm speaking from personal experiences at Tripoli launches. Of being belittled for flying "little rockets" (and seeing others treated that way) and having my H motors sneered at. To be far to those who deserve it, I wish to note that the folks at TSM (Tripoli Southern MN) were ALWAYS nice to me, no matter whether I was flying an F or an I. >> NAR is also concerned about safety, which is another thing that separates >> NAR and the other organization. > >Yes, I have seen the presentation, and it looks to the viewer like NAR >thinks safety wouldn't be a concern if HPR wasn't involved. So, NAR wasn't concerned about safety before HPR came into existance? I thought a lot of NFPA 1122 was about safety. Can you cite what pre-HPR timeframe you know this from personal experience? >> NAR has spent a LOT of time and money pursuing getting the feds off the >> backs of HPR; if they had no concern for HPR they could have simply >> accepted the 62.5 gram limit and said "we're happy with that". But >> they didn't. > >Then why is the lawsuit titled "Tripoli Rocketry Association vs BATF"? I don't know - I wasn't flying rockets when the lawsuit was filed. If the lawsuit is titled Tripoli then why is NAR listed as a plantiff? Maybe it's because they're listed first on the lawsuit? The documents I've read list both organizations, listing Tripoli first. >Oh, because the NAR didn't support the lawsuit until they put their >finger in the wind and saw what their membership wanted to do. Do you know that to be true, or are you just taking another cheap shot? >> If you want to think that everbody on the NAR board is evil and a hater of the >> kinds of rockets you fly, I'll never change your mind. > >Who said that? All of your responses to me in this thread, including this one, have been strongly anti-NAR. Glen Overby >All of your responses to me in this thread, including this one, have been >strongly anti-NAR. > >Glen Overby Aside from your comment about being sneered at, it is more like anti someone with a chip on his shoulder who doesn't know what they are talking about. The sneering was an unfortunate incident that is not common practice in either org. Phil > It's called "listening to your membership". It's also an effect of changing > the board. If you were a NAR member you'd probably notice how the NAR board > has changed in the past few years. I'll have you know my NAR membership is paid up and fully active. The only thing I have noticed about noticed about the NAR BoT is that the same cronies are running the show. How many years is this that Bundick has sat in the driver's seat? It's the same old same old year after year. > I'm not speaking of stereotypes, I'm speaking from personal experiences at > Tripoli launches. Of being belittled for flying "little rockets" (and seeing [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (Tripoli Southern MN) were ALWAYS nice to me, no matter whether I was flying > an F or an I. ster·e·o·type (ste(r'e--?-ti-p', stîr'-) n. 1. A conventional, formulaic, and oversimplified conception, opinion, or image. 2. One that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type. You can't make broad swipes at TRA based on the experience you've had at your regional launches. > I don't know - I wasn't flying rockets when the lawsuit was filed. > > If the lawsuit is titled Tripoli then why is NAR listed as a plantiff? Because they were added to the suit after deciding they had just about missed the boat. > Do you know that to be true, or are you just taking another cheap shot? I know it to be true. > All of your responses to me in this thread, including this one, have been > strongly anti-NAR. I love the NAR. I dislike the NAR leadership. It's stagnant and needs replacing. The essence of "NAR weenies" needs a face lift. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >I love the NAR. I dislike the NAR leadership. It's stagnant and needs >replacing. The essence of "NAR weenies" needs a face lift. When the only candidates in the election are the existing BOT members plus Art Applewhite year after year, I don't think anything will change any time soon. I suspect that there are some members that would appreciate someone running so that they can get a break. Phil > When the only candidates in the election are the existing BOT members > plus Art Applewhite year after year, I don't think anything will > change any time soon. I suspect that there are some members that > would appreciate someone running so that they can get a break. Also not true. Vince Hugele was just elected to the board for the first time last week. Joyce Guzik 2 years ago. Ted Cochran (and Jay Apt, who had been on the board twice previously) the year before that. So the last 4 elections have brought 4 new board members. 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. > I love the NAR. I dislike the NAR leadership. It's stagnant and needs > replacing. The essence of "NAR weenies" needs a face lift. As I recall, there are no term limits and all of the BoT members are periodically up for election. I can't remember an election when there was a viable opposition candidate. Any complaints about an entrenched BoT are just sour grapes, jealousy, or ignorance of the facts. Any NAR member can run for office. Any NAR member can raise an agenda item for the next BoT meeting. Any NAR member can talk personally with any BoT member. So if you think the NAR needs a face lift, what are your SPECIFIC changes. General "be more HPR friendly" don't cut it. Specific problems and specific action items. > Any complaints about an entrenched BoT are just sour grapes, jealousy, > or ignorance of the facts. That's your tale, I sit on mine. > Any NAR member can talk personally with any BoT member. Yeah, so the member can be talked back down to like he was a dog. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> Any NAR member can talk personally with any BoT member. > > Yeah, so the member can be talked back down to like he was a dog. I'm sure you have a specific example to cite. How many issues have you raised with the BoT? I've raised my share. I'm happy with how some of them were resolved and not happy with others. That's that way it works. In none of the cases was I talked down. >>> Any NAR member can talk personally with any BoT member. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > happy with how some of them were resolved and not happy with others. > That's that way it works. In none of the cases was I talked down. Ditto. Many of the issues I've raised have caused forward movement in the organization. Some of the issues I've raised have been 'turned down' (my comment, not theirs -- and obviously subjective -- I may/may not agree with their disposition, but the problem was at least 'reviewed'). Overall, my interaction with all BOT members has led to forward motion of the organization -- I honestly can't ask for more than that. David Erbas-White > As I recall, there are no term limits and all of the BoT members are > periodically up for election. I can't remember an election when there > was a viable opposition candidate. Any complaints about an entrenched 2 years ago, the three incumbants plus Joyce Guzik were on the ballot. Joyce just edged out incumbant Jack Kane for the board. 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. >I love the NAR. I dislike the NAR leadership. It's stagnant and needs >replacing. The essence of "NAR weenies" needs a face lift. Where does the NAR leadership comes from? Does Vladimir Putin appoint them? Do the current trustees own NAR? No, they choose to run and go through an election process. Are you going to run for trustee next year? > Where does the NAR leadership comes from? Does Vladimir Putin appoint > them? Do the current trustees own NAR? No, they choose to run and go > through an election process. That's because they are NAR weenies. > Are you going to run for trustee next year? No, I am not a weenie. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >I'll have you know my NAR membership is paid up and fully active. The >only thing I have noticed about noticed about the NAR BoT is that the >same cronies are running the show. How many years is this that Bundick >has sat in the driver's seat? It's the same old same old year after year. Excuse me? "Same cronies"? Care to quantify that? Here's some data for you: Vince Huegele First elected 2007 Thats this year. Ted Cochran First elected 2004 Joyce Guzik < 3 years You're sounding like Art Applewhite (who, btw, I'm happy to see lost the NAR BOT election -- I voted against him). So I'll ask you the same questions: So what _exactly_ is wrong with the way the NAR BOT is running the organization? What _exactly_ are the changes you want to see made? >You can't make broad swipes at TRA based on the experience you've had at >your regional launches. The hell I can't! I can take the same broad swipes at TRA that you can take at the NAR. >> I don't know - I wasn't flying rockets when the lawsuit was filed. >> >> If the lawsuit is titled Tripoli then why is NAR listed as a plantiff? > >Because they were added to the suit after deciding they had just about >missed the boat. Really? What year & month was the suit filed, and what year & month was NAR added? Glen Overby How about answering the question regarding how long Budnik has been in the drivers seat. > >I'll have you know my NAR membership is paid up and fully active. The > >only thing I have noticed about noticed about the NAR BoT is that the [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Glen Overby > How about answering the question regarding how long Budnik has been in the > drivers seat. Do you mean to insinuate it doesn't matter who the jesters are in the king's court? 8-) SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com Nope, just like to know how long he's been king sh.t. Too long IMO > > How about answering the question regarding how long Budnik has been in the > > drivers seat. > > Do you mean to insinuate it doesn't matter who the jesters are in the > king's court? 8-) > How about answering the question regarding how long Budnik has been in the > drivers seat. Does it matter? The BoT collectively runs the NAR. The BoT elects the President (who had to first be elected as a Trustee by the entire NAR). SOOOO, if you have a problem with Mark being President you have two approaches: Beat him at a general election and/or elect Trustees who don't support him. Now, what problem are we trying to solve? How about some specific instances where Mark or the BoT acted in a way detrimental to the NAR or the NAR membership? > SOOOO, if you have a problem with Mark being President you have two > approaches: Beat him at a general election and/or elect Trustees who > don't support him. J, sounds like you are stuck with the Prez. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > How about answering the question regarding how long Budnik has been in the > drivers seat. It's been about a decade or so. I haven't seen any current board member step up and offer to take the job off his hands. I haven't seen any board candidate indicate that they want the job either. I've probably had as many disagreements with Bunny over the years as any one else in the NAR, But I have no question that he's doing a fantastic job steering our organization through some difficult times. 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. >How about answering the question regarding how long Budnik has been in the >drivers seat. I wasn't able to find that info on the NAR web site. Mark has been NAR president the whole time I've been a member. Glen Overby >>Because they were added to the suit after deciding they had just about >>missed the boat. > > Really? What year & month was the suit filed, and what year & month was NAR > added? Don't you understand the Wikipedia version of history? Just assert a fact on the Internet and it becomes true. Jerry was so ahead of his time. Too bad snopes.com doesn't have a special section on RMR urban legends. >Don't you understand the Wikipedia version of history? Just assert a If I recall "1984" correctly: Those who control the present, control the past. Those who control the past control the future. > Vince Huegele First elected 2007 Thats this year. > Ted Cochran First elected 2004 > Joyce Guzik < 3 years Joyce was first elected in 2005. Any one notice a pattern here? One that Art doesn't fit into? If you want to get elected to the NAR board, the route to get there is to be an NAR volunteer in some other position for several years. 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. >> Vince Huegele First elected 2007 Thats this year. >> Ted Cochran First elected 2004 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If you want to get elected to the NAR board, the route to get there is to be > an NAR volunteer in some other position for several years. So little Artie ran for NAR BOD and didn't win? What a surprise. When he first ran for TRA BOD he had ascii meltdown on the TRA list like you wouldn't believe. Basically acting like he just fell of the saucer, hit his head and went plum crazy. I guess he didn't win too many people over on the NAR side either. Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 >So little Artie ran for NAR BOD and didn't win? What a surprise. He came closer than I cared for. http://www.nar.org/2007/08/2007_trustee_election_results.php > He came closer than I cared for. > > http://www.nar.org/2007/08/2007_trustee_election_results.php Other things take decades to make the NAR website, but the election results were damned near real time. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >>So little Artie ran for NAR BOD and didn't win? What a surprise. > >He came closer than I cared for. > >http://www.nar.org/2007/08/2007_trustee_election_results.php There must have been a whole 200 people that cared enough to vote. With a membership of several thousand, that tells me that things have stagnated or worse. Maybe we should vote for Art next year. It's not like the BOT is doing so much that he will have a negative effect on anything plus who knows maybe he'll come up with some new ideas. Phil >>So little Artie ran for NAR BOD and didn't win? What a surprise. > > He came closer than I cared for. > > http://www.nar.org/2007/08/2007_trustee_election_results.php Any one remember how many votes he got last time? Is he gaining or losing support? 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. >>>So little Artie ran for NAR BOD and didn't win? What a surprise. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Any one remember how many votes he got last time? Is he gaining or losing >support? I think he's gaining. >> So little Artie ran for NAR BOD and didn't win? What a surprise. > > He came closer than I cared for. > > http://www.nar.org/2007/08/2007_trustee_election_results.php I don't know what to be surprised about. The fact that Art got 67 votes or the fact of only 570 total votes for a election of a org that has thousand of members. Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 > I don't know what to be surprised about. The fact that Art got 67 votes > or the fact of only 570 total votes for a election of a org that has > thousand of members. Voter apathy is a STRONG indicator... SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> I don't know what to be surprised about. The fact that Art got 67 >> votes or the fact of only 570 total votes for a election of a org that >> has thousand of members. > > Voter apathy is a STRONG indicator... That could be but it also could mean that the members are content with who is running the org. Could also mean that all the NAR(or TRA) is to them is the benefit to fly with a local chapter/prefecture. Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 > That could be but it also could mean that the members are content with > who is running the org. Could also mean that all the NAR(or TRA) is to > them is the benefit to fly with a local chapter/prefecture. If it were the former, I would suspect there would be higher voting to insure the current administration remains in power, but however I suspect that it is much more the latter, especially since NAR/TRA have so successfully rammed NFPA rules down the nation's throats to guarantee membership in a private club in order to make motor purchases. Tell me, what does a club like MDRA need with a TRA or a NAR? SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> That could be but it also could mean that the members are content with >> who is running the org. Could also mean that all the NAR(or TRA) is to [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Tell me, what does a club like MDRA need with a TRA or a NAR? As a member, I can tell you that to fly HPR, you must have current certification from one of the orgs and that they do check. Phil >> Tell me, what does a club like MDRA need with a TRA or a NAR? > > As a member, I can tell you that to fly HPR, you must have current > certification from one of the orgs and that they do check. You miss my point: What does MDRA NEED with TRA or NAR? Other than NFPA compliance, MDRA has everything TRA or NAR has plus more. What does TRA or NAR provide to MDRA that they don't have and have better? SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >>> Tell me, what does a club like MDRA need with a TRA or a NAR? >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >compliance, MDRA has everything TRA or NAR has plus more. What does TRA >or NAR provide to MDRA that they don't have and have better? I don't miss your point. From my statement, you may deduce that they need something but I don't know what it is. Maybe their insurance requires it or maybe MD is a NFPA state. I don't know but I doubt that they'd require it if it wasn't necessary. I don't think that they need anything directly from TRA or NAR. > I don't think that they need anything directly from TRA or NAR. Now you got it! They don't need *anything* but thanks to the regulatory stuff-it-down-the-states'-throat approach via NFPA (if Maryland is an NFPA state), they have to belong to organizations who offer them nothing. How quaint! SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > > I don't think that they need anything directly from TRA or NAR. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Rocketry Planet http://www.rocketryplanet.com You are not required to belong to TRA or NAR to be a member of MDRA and launch rockets, using up to and including G motors. However, if you wish to launch rockets with motors that normally require certification, (H and above), you must be certified through one of the two orgs; TRA or NAR. At the time The MDRA BOD, including myself, believed HPR certifications was/is important, but not a process and liability we wished to administer as an organization. In addition and important to understand, we did not wish to give the impression of being in competition with the two major organizations. That is a condensed explanation. The MDRA FAQ has information that I believe explains in additional detail. Fred Wallace One of the founding and former BOD member, MDRA. >> I don't know what to be surprised about. The fact that Art got 67 >> votes or the fact of only 570 total votes for a election of a org that >> has thousand of members. > > Voter apathy is a STRONG indicator... I got my NAR ballot too late to get it in to vote. Tripoli gave me more lead time but they also have an apathy problem too. I for the life of me can't figure out why there is little participation with voting in both groups. Kurt > I for the life of me can't figure out why there is little participation > with voting in both groups. Perhaps like Bunny feels HPR is a necessary evil, TRA and NAR members consider TRA and NAR as necessary evils due to NFPA? 8-) SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > Any one notice a pattern here? One that Art doesn't fit into? > > If you want to get elected to the NAR board, the route to get there is to be > an NAR volunteer in some other position for several years. So someone who disagrees with the current administration has to be approved to fill a volunteer slot and then serve the current administration before being electable? No wonder no one else is volunteering. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > So someone who disagrees with the current administration has to be > approved to fill a volunteer slot and then serve the current > administration before being electable? No wonder no one else is > volunteering. Not really. Find a problem, come up with a solution, and offer to help fix it. I've never seen the board turn down offers to help fix problems. 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. > > So someone who disagrees with the current administration has to be > > approved to fill a volunteer slot and then serve the current [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not really. Find a problem, come up with a solution, and offer to help fix > it. I've never seen the board turn down offers to help fix problems. This took 2 seconds. From modelbuzz.com: "NAR BoD declines Wickman leadership in legislative action" SignatureTweak >> Not really. Find a problem, come up with a solution, and offer to help fix >> it. I've never seen the board turn down offers to help fix problems. >> > This took 2 seconds. From modelbuzz.com: > > "NAR BoD declines Wickman leadership in legislative action" I think the key there is "leadership" as in he wanted to do it his way or no way. That type of "help" is rarely received well by any organization. You would get the same result if you offered to take over all S&T activities. If instead the offer was to work with the appropriate committee or group then that would be a completely different story. > >> Not really. Find a problem, come up with a solution, and offer to help fix > >> it. I've never seen the board turn down offers to help fix problems. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > appropriate committee or group then that would be a completely different > story. I think the key in this particular discussion is they turned him down. Bob says they never do that. Never say never. SignatureTweak > I think the key there is "leadership" as in he wanted to do it his way > or no way. That type of "help" is rarely received well by any > organization. You would get the same result if you offered to take over > all S&T activities. If instead the offer was to work with the > appropriate committee or group then that would be a completely different > story. What if his way was better? Apparently, there is a problem with anyone who wants to display leadership that undermines the current administration's stranglehold. The NAR is involved in things it doesn't want to communicate openly about. How many people have asked for an honest dissertation on the subject of NAR S&T and a recent M motor certification that was 27% off the manufacturer's submitted data and after being publicly hushed with the statement that it would be discussed at NARAM, no further comments have been extracted from anyone. I don't know if anything underhanded went out because I wasn't there, but I know the people involved and believe them to be good, honest people. However the public is left with no other information to based their opinion on when the silence makes it appear the NAR is trying to sweep it under the rug. NAR should avoid all appearances of impropriety yet they insist on remaining silent on this issue. Why is NAR silent on the accusation that the M3500 test was doctored and that they displayed favoritism to the manufacturer? You would think they would want to dispel any rumors such as that as soon as possible. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> I think the key there is "leadership" as in he wanted to do it his way >> or no way. That type of "help" is rarely received well by any [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > who wants to display leadership that undermines the current > administration's stranglehold. What if his way was worse? History tells us it was doomed from the start. Hey Darrell, I would like to provide "leadership" in restructuring your website for broader reach. Please provide all account passwords. Trust me, my way is better. > Hey Darrell, I would like to provide "leadership" in restructuring your > website for broader reach. Please provide all account passwords. Trust > me, my way is better. When you start paying your dues and I complete my 501(c)(3) filing, perhaps I will be more inclined to comply with your wishes. Until then, it's a terrible analogy. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > The NAR is involved in things it doesn't want to communicate openly > about. How many people have asked for an honest dissertation on the > subject of NAR S&T and a recent M motor certification that was 27% off > the manufacturer's submitted data and after being publicly hushed with > the statement that it would be discussed at NARAM, no further comments > have been extracted from anyone. Getting communications out quickly is not one of the BoT's strong points, I'll give you that. That doesn't point to a conspiracy. > I don't know if anything underhanded went out because I wasn't there, I see a trend here. Second hand information + hearsay = asserted fact. >> I don't know if anything underhanded went out because I wasn't there, > > I see a trend here. Second hand information + hearsay = asserted fact. If you see a trend, perhaps you would be better served getting an eye exam than participating on a UseNET newsgroup. Why don't you learn the precepts of the English language? I plainly stated that I believe the people involved to be honest, good people, but that the organization they are volunteering for doesn't seem to embrace the damaging power of "the appearance of impropriety." No where do I state second hand information or hearsay and assert that it is fact. That is the conclusion you seem to jump to with some regularity. My message is "clean up the mess, make a statement, clear the air." How hard can that be? Inquiries into the matter have been stifled, ignored or turned away. You call that second hand information? You know, Alex, you sure behave exactly like a FoB (Friend of Bunny). Someone says something about your precious hobby organization and you jump at every opportunity to try to discredit the messenger. Why don't you just concentrate on the message for a while, or does your argument lose its strength when you do? SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > You know, Alex, you sure behave exactly like a FoB (Friend of Bunny). > Someone says something about your precious hobby organization and you > jump at every opportunity to try to discredit the messenger. Why don't > you just concentrate on the message for a while, or does your argument > lose its strength when you do? And the message is? That you don't like Bunny and don't like NFPA rules? > And the message is? That you don't like Bunny and don't like NFPA rules? Alex, you are either purposely argumentative, extremely myopic or really do need an eye exam. My message was in the paragraph above the one you quoted: "My message is 'clean up the mess, make a statement, clear the air.'" Should I tell you what the discussion was about or can you go back in your newsreader and find it? Apparently based on your response, you *love* Bunny and like NFPA rules. Good luck. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > "My message is 'clean up the mess, make a statement, clear the air" That's it? How about something specific? How about someone offer to revamp the NAR website to allow them to deliver accurate communications to the membership quickly and accurately. THAT is a real problem with a real solution that YOU are perfectly positioned to help with. My opinion is that communications is the number one problem with the NAR today (and the poor voter response could be tied to poor communications of the ballots). Can you show me the current NAR policy for active recovery requirements in a certification flight? No, because it isn't on the HPR page. How about the BoT decision on Hybrid igniter usage? Or the certification requirements for Sub-H hybrids? No? Why not? Because it's a volunteer run organization and the volunteer in charge of the website is swamped. If someone with the skill, resources, and energy would step up then the NAR website could at least be on par with the Tripoli website. FWIW I have summarized all of the policy changes the BoT has voted on that haven't made it too the website and I've distributed that to the NAR section leaders email group. See, I'm not in love with everything the NAR does. I see specific faults and offer specific solutions, not broad complaints. > Apparently based on your response, you *love* Bunny and like NFPA rules. I've already said NFPA has a place and in my case I think it has been helpful. I like Mark but don't love him. I don't agree with everything he's done but at least he tries. Alex, before you respond about this specific problem, you really should check out the thread at RP "NAR certifies Kosdon by AeroTech Animal-Compatible reloads" http://www.rocketryplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=501 On page 5, a member of the NAR BOT chimes in. (a member of S&T has been in the thread for some time) From the BOT member: "Regarding this KBA certifications, I hope to talk with folks at NARAM in more depth. I'll be looking to ensure that we have a supportable, published process for certification, so that this sort of discussion doesn't occur in the future. I'm sure that the NAR BoT meeting in two weeks will be an interesting one." and in another post: "This will not be swept under the rug. There will be further discussion. There will be review. I have tremendous respect for Bill, Jack, John, John, Mark, and everyone else involved, all of whom I firmly believe are doing their level best to do what's right by rocketeers everywhere, and backing that up with time, effort, energy, and their own money. The end of the thread is a post from someone else: "In a land far away, kiddies, NARAM49 comes and goes yet the mysteries of the fabled Aerotech M3500 still contines to confuse the membership nationwide. Supposedly a topic for discussion there for the NAR BoT, the only sound emanating from the quiet fields now comes from the resident crickets..." ------------------------------------ The BOT member was there to discuss the issues prior to NARAM, but now has gone MIA. His ability to post about the issue was not hampered by "web site updates" at NAR.org, and the results of the Bot meeting on this issue should also not be hampered by "website updates". NAR got caught with their pants down on this one (read the entire thread as it is quite interesting!). As Darrell said, this is a "mess", and even the Bot member that was posting at RP has vanished! >> "My message is 'clean up the mess, make a statement, clear the air" > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > helpful. I like Mark but don't love him. I don't agree with everything > he's done but at least he tries. > Alex, before you respond about this specific problem, you really should > check out the thread at RP "NAR certifies Kosdon by AeroTech > Animal-Compatible reloads" I was offline during the first part of July and this is the first I've heard about this. I would expect this to have been a hot topic on the NAR sections list (where S&T concerns have been a big topic) which is slightly less biased than open forums. If there is a problem I'm sure it will get exposed. If there is corruption I'll be the first to admit it. I'm willing to bet a cold beverage this IS just another example of the communications problem I pointed out. >> Alex, before you respond about this specific problem, you really >> should check out the thread at RP "NAR certifies Kosdon by AeroTech [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > beverage this IS just another example of the communications problem I > pointed out. Did you read the thread? I'll bet not! Hey, as a former NAR section adviser, trust me when I say that the NAR sections list is FAR from unbiased. There might be some minor tiffs, but real issues are seldom discussed! You might find, if you read this thread, some unbiased views. (ignore the personal attacks). Like I said, a Nar Bot member was there to discuss the issue prior to the Bot meeting at NARAM, but now he's MIA... > Like I said, a Nar Bot member was there to discuss the issue prior to > the Bot meeting at NARAM, but now he's MIA... Yeah... He might actually have a life... David Erbas-Whie Simple excuse.. Did you contact him? This is kind of a hot issue on the "unbiased" forums, like RP! >> Like I said, a Nar Bot member was there to discuss the issue prior to >> the Bot meeting at NARAM, but now he's MIA... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > David Erbas-Whie > Did you read the thread? I'll bet not! I guess I wasn't clear. No, I hadn't read the thread. I don't follow RocketryPlanet. I did look at it after you referenced it. I see lots of opinions. I see reference to 2 motors vs 3 and NFPA required vs NFPA allowed. I also see > If a motor tests more than 20% outside the manufacturer has always > been allowed to rename and relabel the motor. So technically the > motor could be certified. Whether the large discrepancy between the > manufacturers numbers and the as tested numbers should have thrown up > a red flag to find the reason before the motor was certified is > another question entirely. And the conspiracy theory > Like I said, a Nar Bot member was there to discuss the issue prior to > the Bot meeting at NARAM, but now he's MIA... So the theory is that the BoT has been silent since their meeting meaning they are working on a cover up. Wasn't the BoT meeting at the end of NARAM? Like less than a week ago? Like they returned home to their day jobs with zero time to recover? Remember, this is an organization that does not communicate well. Not cover up, just not communicate. > Remember, this is an organization that does not communicate > well. Not cover up, just not communicate. If the result is the same, what color is it? SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> Remember, this is an organization that does not communicate >> well. Not cover up, just not communicate. > > If the result is the same, what color is it? Act of omission vs act of commission. >>> Remember, this is an organization that does not communicate well. >>> Not cover up, just not communicate. >> >> If the result is the same, what color is it? > > Act of omission vs act of commission. So it's not inconceivable that someone who knows the outcome will be the same could deliberately commit an act covering something up and make it appear an act of omission? No, I didn't think so. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > The end of the thread is a post from someone else: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > only sound emanating from the quiet fields now comes from the resident > crickets..." That post was in the range of 12 to 24 hours after the trusties would have arrived home. Yeah, I can see the cover-up there. > ------------------------------------ > The BOT member was there to discuss the issues prior to NARAM, but now [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > as it is quite interesting!). As Darrell said, this is a "mess", and > even the Bot member that was posting at RP has vanished! Interesting? Yeah, the part about it being a complex issue that goes beyond the results of a single motor. The NAR got caught with their pants down? I still don't see it. For there to be a conspiracy or cronieism (is that a word?) I would expect to see a string of such issues where one manufacturer was favored over all others. I do know that the announcement of this particular certification was rushed by the manufacturer and the press release came out before the S&T notice. So I can see that mistakes were made but I don't see pants around the ankles. From what I've seen, people hate TMT and S&T when they don't certify motors and vilify them when they do. > That's it? How about something specific? How about someone offer to > revamp the NAR website to allow them to deliver accurate communications > to the membership quickly and accurately. THAT is a real problem with a > real solution that YOU are perfectly positioned to help with. Like I said, I like to work on things I can change, not frustrate myself. If I want to flex my web-building muscle, I'll go write another article for Rocketry Planet... If you see an extremely rapid cooling of the Earth's core, hit me up again. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >Because it's a volunteer run organization and the volunteer in charge of >the website is swamped. If someone with the skill, resources, and >energy would step up then the NAR website could at least be on par with >the Tripoli website. Not pointing at anyone specific but you've made a good point for limiting the amount of time for people to serve on a board - they get burned out and lack the enthusiasm to do the kind of job that a newly energized person will do. I can understand that point but don't necessarily agree with it. I think it's the common problem of people "going down with the ship". Instead of asking for help they ride the problem into the ground. >>Because it's a volunteer run organization and the volunteer in charge of >>the website is swamped. If someone with the skill, resources, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > burned out and lack the enthusiasm to do the kind of job that a newly > energized person will do. On Aug 10, 1:22 pm, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> wrote: > The NAR is involved in things it doesn't want to communicate openly > about. How many people have asked for an honest dissertation on the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that they displayed favoritism to the manufacturer? You would think > they would want to dispel any rumors such as that as soon as possible. I'm sure I'll regret posting something here but I believe a comment is necessary. I can't tell you what was discussed at the Board meeting because I wasn't there. I can tell you that I talked to everyone involved with this and can say that I'm 100% sure that nothing underhanded happened. Decisions were made that I don't agree with but they were made with good intentions and for all I know they might have been the right decisions. However, something is obviously wrong with the numbers for that motor. The problem isn't being ignored and it will be resolved. By the way, I don't recall every reading an accusation that the numbers were doctored. There was much discussion that they didn't match the manufacturers numbers. That wasn't hidden. It's in the the article on Rocketry Planet: Please note that due to a data discrepancy between AeroTech's measured static test data and NAR certification data, the M2900R-P is listed in the AeroTech catalog as the M3500R-P. AeroTech plans on having the M2900R retested in the near future to bring the certification and manufacturing test data into agreement. > By the way, I don't recall every reading an accusation that the > numbers were doctored. There was much discussion that they didn't > match the manufacturers numbers. That wasn't hidden. It's in the the > article on Rocketry Planet: Any one remember when TMT tested the G75 and rated it as an H while the H128 was a G? Impossilbe, but dispite the data being questioned, no one ever went back and checked it. Then there's the three years of certification of motors without bothering to test them. And lying about motors that were tested that never were. 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. >> By the way, I don't recall every reading an accusation that the >> numbers were doctored. There was much discussion that they didn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > without bothering to test them. And lying about motors that were tested that > never were. And exactly how many years ago did this happen? Do you *really* care...NOW? When has this 'us-vs-them' mentality has gotten anyone anywhere? Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 >> By the way, I don't recall every reading an accusation that the >> numbers were doctored. There was much discussion that they didn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >without bothering to test them. And lying about motors that were tested that >never were. Here we go again. Don't forget the motors on the certification list that NAR didn't retest after certification expired or the delays. 27% IS out of spec per NFPA. Do you dispute the 27%, or the NFPA regs? If the 27% is correct, and NFPA is the rules that S&T lives with, there should not have been a cert granted. This part of things IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE! Dang.. Just like when S&T wouldn't decert Kosdon even when he didn't meet NFPA, NAR proceeded to stick their head in the sand and claim "I see no problem". Considering the whole Kosdon issue cam about due to NSL! > On Aug 10, 1:22 pm, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > M2900R retested in the near future to bring the certification and > manufacturing test data into agreement. > 27% IS out of spec per NFPA. Do you dispute the 27%, or the NFPA regs? > > If the 27% is correct, and NFPA is the rules that S&T lives with, there > should not have been a cert granted. This part of things IS NOT ROCKET > SCIENCE! If a motor tests at significantly different numbers than the manufacturer claims, the manufacturer is allowed to either have the motor retested or accept the as tested numbers as the certified numbers. The latter is what happened in this case. However, because there is no single explanation for the discrepancy the motor will be retested. > Dang.. Just like when S&T wouldn't decert Kosdon even when he didn't > meet NFPA, NAR proceeded to stick their head in the sand and claim "I > see no problem". Considering the whole Kosdon issue cam about due to NSL! My memory is a little fuzzy on this but I believe that the Kosdon motors were in compliance with the rules in place at the time they were certified. What happened afterward did not fit the criteria for decertifying a motor. > I can't tell you what was discussed at the Board meeting because I > wasn't there. I can tell you that I talked to everyone involved with > this and can say that I'm 100% sure that nothing underhanded happened. I agree. I don't think anything intentional happened either. I believe all of the parties are upstanding members of the community. > Decisions were made that I don't agree with but they were made with > good intentions and for all I know they might have been the right > decisions. However, something is obviously wrong with the numbers for > that motor. The problem isn't being ignored and it will be resolved. There is some consternation by fans of AMW that the decision to accept two motors instead of three was not fair play since the new policy hadn't taken effect yet. While I have no idea if the decision was a good one or a bad one, it does reinforce the opportunity for someone to claim the appearance of impropriety. Whether nothing improper was going on or not, if it appears to some people that it was, nothing is going to change their perception. You have to work to eliminate the appearance of impropriety from existing to remain fully neutral. > By the way, I don't recall every reading an accusation that the > numbers were doctored. There was much discussion that they didn't > match the manufacturers numbers. That wasn't hidden. I don't recall ever reading that either. The only accusations I am aware of are the 2-vs-3 accusation and favoritism with regard to the testing queue and rushing the tests. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com On Aug 11, 2:48 pm, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> wrote: > I don't recall ever reading that either. The only accusations I am > aware of are the 2-vs-3 accusation Had we asked for 3 motors we would have gotten them. The Board wanted S & T to go strictly by 1125 which has two as a minimum. The decision to start that now probably wasn't the best. > and favoritism with regard to the > testing queue and There were no other motors in the queue for the west coast test stand. >rushing the tests. That, in my opinion, is where we went wrong. In hindsight it's clear that the best thing to do would have been to stop when the numbers for the M motors didn't match the manufacturers numbers. You want to bet that if that was done we'd hear people whining that the NAR doesn't support high power? > That, in my opinion, is where we went wrong. In hindsight it's clear > that the best thing to do would have been to stop when the numbers for > the M motors didn't match the manufacturers numbers. You want to bet > that if that was done we'd hear people whining that the NAR doesn't > support high power? I don't think you will ever please all of the people all of the time, Bill. I think NAR S&T does a wonderful job and has performed over the years with far more credibility than TMT has, and certainly with more reliability. The recent snafu with TMT and a certain hybrid manufacturer's certifications didn't help there cause either. This particular issue with the KBA tests was bound to be a hot-potato issue no matter who tested them and what the results were. In some people's mind, it was the opening of Pandora's Box. When other manufacturers follow suit and introduce their own versions of "Brand A reloads made by Brand B," don't be surprised. However, in the end, it's the consumer who ultimately wins in this situation. But keep up the good work, Bill. It's a thankless job, and I for one appreciate your effort. Contrary to popular belief, at least for some, I support NAR S&T and just want everyone to be able to view your work without the ability to question the outcome. If my requesting that those involved remove any appearance of impropriety (in spite of the lack of evidence that any impropriety actually existed) ruffles a few feathers, then I am sorry. The end result is worth it. There is no place for another of the hobby's motor testing groups to become entangled in the questionable manner than TMT has had to endure. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com On Aug 11, 7:05 pm, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> wrote: > This particular issue with the KBA tests was bound to be a hot-potato > issue no matter who tested them and what the results were. In some > people's mind, it was the opening of Pandora's Box. When other > manufacturers follow suit and introduce their own versions of "Brand A > reloads made by Brand B," don't be surprised. However, in the end, it's > the consumer who ultimately wins in this situation. I agree the the consumer will benefit but I also agree with the Pandora's Box theory. I can't wait for the battle when Brand B won't warranty his casing because it failed with Brand A's propellant. It shouldn't be the testing agency's problem but you know it will be. Hey, this HAS happened before - AT and CTI. Gary cried foul because another vendor made loads for "his" HW, but now he's making loads for AW HW. Gary got a "free pass" from S&T and TMT when AT moved from NV to UT (how can we forget the J350 issue!) and the fact that AT was actually sold at that time - (Gary-AT (NV) sold AT to RCS(UT)).. New company ownership, in a new location, with new manufacturing, yet no recert required! Like I said, remember the J350 issue if you don't think recert should have been required! > On Aug 11, 7:05 pm, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > warranty his casing because it failed with Brand A's propellant. It > shouldn't be the testing agency's problem but you know it will be. > Gary got a "free pass" from S&T and TMT when AT moved from NV to UT (how > can we forget the J350 issue!) and the fact that AT was actually sold at > that time - (Gary-AT (NV) sold AT to RCS(UT)).. New company ownership, > in a new location, with new manufacturing, yet no recert required! That seems to be straining at gnats... Same motors, same certs, no foul. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com Darrell - not the same motors! You forget the J350 issue! AT offered "advice" to make changes to the grains, but this was before S&T or TMT did! Look it up.. An interesting fact about motors being made in a new location.... >> Gary got a "free pass" from S&T and TMT when AT moved from NV to UT >> (how can we forget the J350 issue!) and the fact that AT was actually [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That seems to be straining at gnats... Same motors, same certs, no foul. > Darrell - not the same motors! You forget the J350 issue! AT offered > "advice" to make changes to the grains, but this was before S&T or TMT > did! Look it up.. An interesting fact about motors being made in a new > location.... Are you referring to the Ellis-manufactured motors? SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> Darrell - not the same motors! You forget the J350 issue! AT offered >> "advice" to make changes to the grains, but this was before S&T or TMT >> did! Look it up.. An interesting fact about motors being made in a new >> location.... > >Are you referring to the Ellis-manufactured motors? Yes Ellis made those. Supposedly nothing was different between the ones made by AT and Ellis. In addition to wondering why they weren't decertified (a bunch of them failed) I wonder why a fresh round of certifications weren't called for after changing the core size and thereby decreasing the amount of propellant and changing the thrust curve. At this point, I'm just wondering as I think it occurred in 2001 and considering that it was so long ago and the motors work fine now and they should have been re certified at least once by now, it is no reason to get excited over it. Phil In the case of the J350, I think de certification would have been more appropriate than re certification >Hey, this HAS happened before - AT and CTI. Gary cried foul because >another vendor made loads for "his" HW, but now he's making loads for AW HW. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> warranty his casing because it failed with Brand A's propellant. It >> shouldn't be the testing agency's problem but you know it will be. > I agree the the consumer will benefit but I also agree with the > Pandora's Box theory. I can't wait for the battle when Brand B won't > warranty his casing because it failed with Brand A's propellant. It > shouldn't be the testing agency's problem but you know it will be. Well, you *were* the entity that gave it the green light... ;-) SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com EXACTLY! I guess NAR S&T will cover the Brand A/Brand B issues. Bill, can we have your CC number? :) >> I agree the the consumer will benefit but I also agree with the >> Pandora's Box theory. I can't wait for the battle when Brand B won't >> warranty his casing because it failed with Brand A's propellant. It >> shouldn't be the testing agency's problem but you know it will be. > > Well, you *were* the entity that gave it the green light... ;-) > EXACTLY! > > I guess NAR S&T will cover the Brand A/Brand B issues. Bill, can we > have your CC number? :) Fortunately S & T only certifies that the motors did what they were supposed to do when they were tested. There are plenty of other things in 1125 that the manufacturer is responsible for including things like testing the casing to twice its working pressure. That's one of the reasons some us weren't all that enthusiastic about cross compatible casings. It's reasonable to assume that Brand A has fired hundreds of his reloads in his casings. Brand B can get his reloads certified in Brand A's casings by firing one himself to get a sample curve and two for certification testing. What would be great would be an industry standardized casing design. I'm not holding my breath on that one. My credit card starts with 4. You'll have to guess the rest. On Aug 12, 12:02 am, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> wrote: > > I agree the the consumer will benefit but I also agree with the > > Pandora's Box theory. I can't wait for the battle when Brand B won't > > warranty his casing because it failed with Brand A's propellant. It > > shouldn't be the testing agency's problem but you know it will be. > > Well, you *were* the entity that gave it the green light... ;-) No, we weren't. CAR approved CTI reloads in AT casings. We honor their certifications so we got dragged into this mess without taking any action. >> Well, you *were* the entity that gave it the green light... ;-) > > No, we weren't. CAR approved CTI reloads in AT casings. We honor their > certifications so we got dragged into this mess without taking any > action. Bill, not true. This issue started with the NAR. When CTI got cross-compatible certification of their reloads by CAR, they were certifying CTI reloads for CTI motor hardware. It just so happened that the reloads also would fit RMS hardware and they were certified to be compatible in that as well. The recent KBA AMW-compatible reloads certified by NAR were made specifically to fit another manufacturer's hardware, so there is no cross-compatibility as the reloads don't also fit any RMS-branded hardware. Once again, there is no cross-compatibility. The CTI reloads that were approved by CAR may have been the first step down the yellow brick road, but the true opening of Pandora's Box started with the NAR's certification of KBA AMW-compatible reloads. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com On Aug 12, 1:21 pm, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> wrote: > >> Well, you *were* the entity that gave it the green light... ;-) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > happened that the reloads also would fit RMS hardware and they were > certified to be compatible in that as well. You're saying that CTI made reloads that were accidentally compatible with RMS hardware? You don't really believe there was no intent for them to work in AT hardware, do you? > The recent KBA AMW-compatible reloads certified by NAR were made > specifically to fit another manufacturer's hardware, so there is no [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > down the yellow brick road, but the true opening of Pandora's Box > started with the NAR's certification of KBA AMW-compatible reloads. Sorry but you have absolutely no chance of convincing me that the NAR started this. > You're saying that CTI made reloads that were accidentally compatible > with RMS hardware? You don't really believe there was no intent for > them to work in AT hardware, do you? No, it was no accident that they were compatible. It was a judicious business decision that made sense: if they would fit RMS hardware with minimal repackaging of additional small parts, why not do it? No one said there was no intent for them to work in the AT hardware. But the fact remains that they were primarily developed to fit CTI hardware — the fact that they would also work in RMS hardware was a bonus. > Sorry but you have absolutely no chance of convincing me that the NAR > started this. You don't have to be convinced — the facts remain what they are. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com We also offered a reciprocal, cross compatible warranty with AT. They declined. Film at eleven. ;-) Anthony J. Cesaroni President/CEO Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace http://www.cesaronitech.com/ (941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota (905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto >> You're saying that CTI made reloads that were accidentally compatible >> with RMS hardware? You don't really believe there was no intent for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You don't have to be convinced — the facts remain what they are. On Aug 12, 5:04 pm, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> wrote: > > You're saying that CTI made reloads that were accidentally compatible > > with RMS hardware? You don't really believe there was no intent for [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > You don't have to be convinced - the facts remain what they are. Indeed they are. They were the first cross compatible motors and the NAR wasn't the certifying agency. > Indeed they are. They were the first cross compatible motors and the > NAR wasn't the certifying agency. Yes. BUT! The KBA AMW-compatible reloads are NOT "cross-compatible." They are truly Pandora-ware! And NAR was the certifying agency. ;-) SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> Indeed they are. They were the first cross compatible motors and the >> NAR wasn't the certifying agency. > >Yes. BUT! The KBA AMW-compatible reloads are NOT "cross-compatible." >They are truly Pandora-ware! And NAR was the certifying agency. ;-) What makes them Pandora-ware? I hope you are not encouraging anyone to 'protect' us. > What makes them Pandora-ware? I hope you are not encouraging anyone > to 'protect' us. There is nothing wrong with Pandora-ware, the consumer will benefit from it greatly. It is the first step toward truly cross-compatible motor hardware. But someone had to be the first to step into that gray area, and NAR was there to escort the trip. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >I agree the the consumer will benefit but I also agree with the >Pandora's Box theory. I can't wait for the battle when Brand B won't >warranty his casing because it failed with Brand A's propellant. It >shouldn't be the testing agency's problem but you know it will be. I think the testing agency should flat out refuse to be involved with that situation since it has nothing to do with testing. >>I agree the the consumer will benefit but I also agree with the >>Pandora's Box theory. I can't wait for the battle when Brand B won't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >I think the testing agency should flat out refuse to be involved with >that situation since it has nothing to do with testing. This didn't come out right. The testing I was referring to relates to how suitable one casing and reload combination may be as opposed to another. Any combination can fail even if both the casing and propellant are made by the same manufacturer. Motor certification only test fires the motor and records the thrust data, propellant weights etc. They do not attempt to determine the point at which a motor will fail or what the safety margins are before a failure will occur. As far as I know they do not attempt to determine shelf life for a motor. I've heard that some of the chemicals used in some of the high performance motors have problems as the motors age. Anyway my point is that certification testing could allot more comprehensive than it is. I'm not saying it should be, I'm only saying it could be. With that in mind, people should not expect that everything will work great every time. After all, we don't have all the resources that NASA has. Phil >>rushing the tests. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that if that was done we'd hear people whining that the NAR doesn't > support high power? As I said yesterday, people hate TMT and S&T when they don't certify motors and vilify them when they do. FWIW, wasn't there always an option to just use 2 motors for M and above? In that case the question is why was the lower measurement certified? Is that an option available to all manufacturers? > FWIW, wasn't there always an option to just use 2 motors for M and > above? NFPA 1125 says "two or more samples" for high power motors and I believe it has always said that. > In that case the question is why was the lower measurement > certified? 1125 says the "imprinted average thrust shall be within 20%....". For as long as I can remember the procedure has always been to allow the manufacturer to change the designation from what he claimed if the motors tested to be consistently different. Since the assumption is that the manufacturer has actually tested a few motors you might wonder why they test at a different number. That puzzles us too. I think a lot of times the manufacturer would like it to be a nice round easy to remember number and hopes they test out close enough. Note that this is only for high power motors. Because of a huge loophole in 1125 just about any number can be used for the average thrust of model rocket motors. We hope to fix that. > Is that an option available to all manufacturers? Yes and others have taken that option. >> Is that an option available to all manufacturers? > > Yes and others have taken that option. Who has taken this option? You must have the data. Please name them! (specific manufacturer and motor) > >> Is that an option available to all manufacturers? > > > Yes and others have taken that option. > > Who has taken this option? You must have the data. Please name them! > (specific manufacturer and motor) You know I can't tell you that just like I can't tell you if a motor had to be tested more than once to pass certification. I also can't tell you about what we're testing until we're done. Manufacturers are a little touchy about things like that. >> >> Is that an option available to all manufacturers? >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >tell you about what we're testing until we're done. Manufacturers are >a little touchy about things like that. Why can't you tell him? Is there a testing manual or NAR rule that says you can't? When someone submits a motor for testing, I would expect that they would be sending you a product that has been tested and debugged. If someone isn't dedicated enough to debug their product before shipping it, I'd sure like to know. On Aug 12, 9:47 am, Phil Stein <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> wrote: > >> >> Is that an option available to all manufacturers? > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Why can't you tell him? Is there a testing manual or NAR rule that > says you can't? It's been an unwritten rule for as long as I can remember. It will be a written rule when the new procedures manual is finished around the first of the year. >When someone submits a motor for testing, I would > expect that they would be sending you a product that has been tested > and debugged. If someone isn't dedicated enough to debug their > product before shipping it, I'd sure like to know. Trust me, after spending a day testing motors and realizing that all that's been accomplished is generate a lot of smoke and fire, everyone on the committee would love to announce which motors wasted our day. Keep in mind that we're not talking about just one manufacturer. It's been many and quite possible all the manufacturers who have had something fail at one time or another. When you consider the size of the market and what we pay for engines I think it's unreasonable to expect perfection although it would certainly be appreciated. > On Aug 12, 9:47 am, Phil Stein <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > the market and what we pay for engines I think it's unreasonable to > expect perfection although it would certainly be appreciated.- Hide quoted text - Keep in mind that "what" the committee does "is" the business of the "membership". And IMO even information regarding failed motors should be in a report made available to the membership. Note - that I'm implying that rmr is the place to report. Doug > > >> Is that an option available to all manufacturers? > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > tell you about what we're testing until we're done. Manufacturers are > a little touchy about things like that. I'm not a lawyer but, depending on the state you maybe governed by the state's "not for profit" statues and "sunshine laws"... given proper notice you may be required by law to make that information available to "club" members - whether the manufacturer(s) like(s) it or not. Doug > "NAR BoD declines Wickman leadership in legislative action" You will now be told this was a "special circumstance." SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> So someone who disagrees with the current administration has to be >> approved to fill a volunteer slot and then serve the current [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Not really. Find a problem, come up with a solution, and offer to help fix >it. I've never seen the board turn down offers to help fix problems. As we all know, anyone can run for BOT. If someone were to provide members with a good reason to vote for them, I think it would be easy to get elected. Recently, (with the exception of Art) I haven't seen any compelling reason to vote for one candidate over another. It was like that at TRA until some new candidates gave members a reason to put them in. Saying things are messed up and I'll fix them is not specific enough. Phil >> Vince Huegele First elected 2007 Thats this year. >> Ted Cochran First elected 2004 [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >If you want to get elected to the NAR board, the route to get there is to be >an NAR volunteer in some other position for several years. Reminds me of what you refer to as the TRA good ole boys club. 8-) > I'll have you know my NAR membership is paid up and fully active. The > only thing I have noticed about noticed about the NAR BoT is that the > same cronies are running the show. How many years is this that Bundick > has sat in the driver's seat? It's the same old same old year after year. Should I ask how many years TRA put up with that other guy at the helm, even though he was taking money and never living up to the commitments? Any one ever get a refund from the old TRA president? NAR has elected several new trustts to the board in recent years. Jennifer, John, Ted, Joyce, and Vince are all relatively new to the board. 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. > I love the NAR. I dislike the NAR leadership. It's stagnant and needs > replacing. The essence of "NAR weenies" needs a face lift. Darrell, all you have to do is to join Art in running for the board. But I'd suggest you attend some meetings and find out what actually goes on first, and come up with some sound platform for your candidacy, so that you do better than Art. "That was easy" 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. > Darrell, all you have to do is to join Art in running for the board. But I'd > suggest you attend some meetings and find out what actually goes on first, > and come up with some sound platform for your candidacy, so that you do > better than Art. I seriously doubt you would ever see me running for the NAR BoT. I don't care one iota about contests. I don't fly model rockets. I am a member just as a means to support the hobby, not the organization. (posturing like Nixon): I .. am .. not .. a weenie! SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > (posturing like Nixon): I .. am .. not .. a weenie! You do realize that using Nixon in this context, you've stated that you ARE a 'weenie'... <G> David Erbas-White >> (posturing like Nixon): I .. am .. not .. a weenie! > > You do realize that using Nixon in this context, you've stated that you > ARE a 'weenie'... <G> Ugghhh! My bad! ;-) SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > I seriously doubt you would ever see me running for the NAR BoT. I > don't care one iota about contests. I don't fly model rockets. I am a > member just as a means to support the hobby, not the organization. And it's far easier for you to throw tomatoes from the sidelines instead of using your position in the hobby in a positive way. I'm looking forward to a detailed study on what's wrong with the NAR and how it should be fixed. > And it's far easier for you to throw tomatoes from the sidelines instead > of using your position in the hobby in a positive way. What position is that? SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >What position is that? Based on your signature, I think it's pluto. Or someplace like that. :-) >> What position is that? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > :-) My position is Pluto. My position is Pluto. It just doesn't register. Sorry. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> And it's far easier for you to throw tomatoes from the sidelines instead >> of using your position in the hobby in a positive way. > > What position is that? Follow the link in your sig. Or don't you think that website is influential? >> What position is that? > > Follow the link in your sig. Or don't you think that website is > influential? I prefer to use my "position" to influence things I can change, not frustrate myself. Some things will never change, and I recognize that. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >>> What position is that? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I prefer to use my "position" to influence things I can change, not > frustrate myself. Some things will never change, and I recognize that. Now THAT'S funny! And SO ironic. > Now THAT'S funny! And SO ironic. Truth. Stranger than fiction at time. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> Darrell, all you have to do is to join Art in running for the board. But I'd >> suggest you attend some meetings and find out what actually goes on first, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >don't care one iota about contests. I don't fly model rockets. I am a >member just as a means to support the hobby, not the organization. With a platform like that you should get black balled. >(posturing like Nixon): I .. am .. not .. a weenie! Priceless. Actually so few members actually vote in the BOT elections that all you really need to do is get maybe a couple hundred of your NAR friends to actually vote for you. How many NAR friends ya got, weenies and all? Alan > With a platform like that you should get black balled. With all this verbal diarrhea I've been displaying, I probably already have been. > Priceless. > > Actually so few members actually vote in the BOT elections that all > you really need to do is get maybe a couple hundred of your NAR > friends to actually vote for you. How many NAR friends ya got, > weenies and all? Not nearly enough, Alan. What shall I profit if I should gain the world and lose my soul? 8-) SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >>I seriously doubt you would ever see me running for the NAR BoT. I >>don't care one iota about contests. I don't fly model rockets. I am a >>member just as a means to support the hobby, not the organization. > >With a platform like that you should get black balled. Or elected. >> I love the NAR. I dislike the NAR leadership. It's stagnant and needs >> replacing. The essence of "NAR weenies" needs a face lift. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >"That was easy" At Tripoli, Art is a three time loser. Next time he's in CA, they are going to put him in the slammer for life. ;-) >> anything below 'H'" and "sneers at anything below 'M'" is as >> stereotypical as the position you are defending about the NAR not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Tripoli launches. Of being belittled for flying "little rockets" (and seeing > others treated that way) and having my H motors sneered at. I'm assuming your talking about Tripoli North Branch. If so, I've been flying at North Branch for 10+ years and have never ever witnessed such a scenario. The vast majority of my flying in that time has been F and G's. As a matter of fact I've only made two L1 flights in the last two years at North Branch. The rest have been C-G's. Hell, I haven't even done the level 2 thing yet! The thing is I can think of maybe one person that would kid you about flying only a H motor but I also know it's more than likely the comment said would be in jest. You don't have to mention a name(s) but you *could* mention initials :) > To be far to those who deserve it, I wish to note that the folks at TSM > (Tripoli Southern MN) were ALWAYS nice to me, no matter whether I was flying > an F or an I. You got that right! TSM is a total class act prefecture. Haven't flown there in almost 7 years. I miss it down there. >>> NAR is also concerned about safety, which is another thing that separates >>> NAR and the other organization. >> Yes, I have seen the presentation, and it looks to the viewer like NAR >> thinks safety wouldn't be a concern if HPR wasn't involved. Triploi IS concerned about safety just as much as the NAR. Nothing but a cheap shot there Glen. > So, NAR wasn't concerned about safety before HPR came into existance? I > thought a lot of NFPA 1122 was about safety. Can you cite what pre-HPR [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>> accepted the 62.5 gram limit and said "we're happy with that". But >>> they didn't. And Tripoli has spent a LOT of time and money on the SAME lawsuit. I suspect Triploi members have spent more on the lawsuit than NAR members only because the outcome of this case totally affects on what Tripoli is all about, flying the bigger motors that the BATFE are wanting to regulate. Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 Former NAR member(can't remember my old number) > Glen, your post gives the impression that Bunny considers HPR a > necessary evil because it keeps the numbers right. Being a strong > supporter of HPR and being a strong supporter of HPR because it's a > necessary evil are not the same thing. It's akin to staying in a bad > marriage because your spouse makes the lion's share of the money. I don't think that Bunny considers HPR a "necessary evil". He considers HPR as a key to the future of the hobby. 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. > I don't think that Bunny considers HPR a "necessary evil". He considers HPR > as a key to the future of the hobby. Then that would make him a wise bunny. That wasn't the impression Glen was giving... SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> How many of those are MR only claims? Is the NAR forcing MR only >> flyers and non flying members to subsidize the HPR flyers? > >You've just described insurance, the sharing of the risk. Should the >NAR stop HPR so they could lower their insurance premiums a few dollars >a year reflected in the membership dues? They could stop covering MR so they could lower dues for HPR people . 8-) >> You've just described insurance, the sharing of the risk. Should the >> NAR stop HPR so they could lower their insurance premiums a few dollars >> a year reflected in the membership dues? > > They could stop covering MR so they could lower dues for HPR people . > 8-) Wrong direction, Phil. If you share the higher risk with fewer people, rates will increase. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >>> You've just described insurance, the sharing of the risk. Should the >>> NAR stop HPR so they could lower their insurance premiums a few dollars [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Wrong direction, Phil. If you share the higher risk with fewer people, >rates will increase. Are you familiar with 8-) - if you see it, don't take things seriously. >>> You've just described insurance, the sharing of the risk. Should the >>> NAR stop HPR so they could lower their insurance premiums a few dollars [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Wrong direction, Phil. If you share the higher risk with fewer people, >rates will increase. If you add more low risk people (E.g. more MR only people join the pool because of a dues reduction.), rates will go down. If you drive the low risk people out of the pool, while retaining the higher risk HPR people, rates will go up. The main point to lowering dues for MR only flyers is to increase membership, not simply to shift the liability burden. Clearly HPR owns the show, and I'm not suggesting that the poor little MR only contingent should have a separate insurance pool. However, it appears that current NAR liability insurance has a $5k deductible per incident that NAR HQ pays for out of general membership funds. If all, or a disproportionate number, of these incidents are from HPR, then MR only members dues are inequitably allocated to cover that portion or the liability of the HPR activity, that the MR only member does not fly. The handling of this $5k business, and the NAR dues structure, is directly under the control of the NAR BOD, and not the insurance company. So, I'm asking if the inequity is real or only imagined. I suspect that there is some inequity, but that rebalancing the dues structure would not significantly increase membership. However, it is topic worthy of discussion here, and at NAR BOD meetings. Alan > However, it is topic worthy of discussion here, and at NAR BOD > meetings. > > Alan Why? Why is it worthy of discussion? What is to be accomplished? What is the goal? SignatureTweak > Clearly HPR owns the show, and I'm not suggesting that the poor little > MR only contingent should have a separate insurance pool. However, it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > However, it is topic worthy of discussion here, and at NAR BOD > meetings. Perhaps as an alternative you could join the SIAR, as they have no dues. 8-) SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> Clearly HPR owns the show, and I'm not suggesting that the poor little >> MR only contingent should have a separate insurance pool. However, it [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >Perhaps as an alternative you could join the SIAR, as they have no dues. 8-) Choice is good. However, SIAR is not a MR alternative to the NAR in the sense that TRA is an HPR alternative to the NAR. Alan >> How many of those are MR only claims? Is the NAR forcing MR only >> flyers and non flying members to subsidize the HPR flyers? > >You've just described insurance, the sharing of the risk. That's not it at all. Ford Focus drivers don't pay the same liability insurance premiums that 18 wheel truck drivers do. > Should the >NAR stop HPR so they could lower their insurance premiums a few dollars >a year reflected in the membership dues? The NAR should not stop HPR. I don't know what the premium differential might be, but that was not the issue. I do suspect that separate HPR premiums would be a bit higher. The issue was the out of pocket NAR expenditures from the Membership dues general fund that may be significantly higher for HPR activities (e.g. the up to $5K that NAR HQ pays on liability insurance claims.) than for non HPR related expenditures. The sad fact is that there was a stiff increase in NAR senior dues that occurred after HPR was embraced by the NAR and HPR participation grew. If there is an inequity or subsidy of NAR HPR flyers, it could easily be addressed by lowering senior dues and adding a dues surcharge for HPR certified membership. Alan > That's not it at all. Ford Focus drivers don't pay the same liability > insurance premiums that 18 wheel truck drivers do. So you think NAR, as small as it is, should split the insurance into two classes based on MR and HPR? Why not split it into 14 groups based on motor impulse and really address the issue. The result of splitting such a small class of insureds is that the premiums for the two smaller classes would be higher than the premiums for the collective group. > The sad fact is that there was a stiff increase in NAR senior dues > that occurred after HPR was embraced by the NAR and HPR participation > grew. If there is an inequity or subsidy of NAR HPR flyers, it could > easily be addressed by lowering senior dues and adding a dues > surcharge for HPR certified membership. Sounds to me like a sure-fire guaranteed way to dissolve the remainder of NAR HPR users and send them scurrying to TRA. Sure, go for it. Sounds like a great idea. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com >> That's not it at all. Ford Focus drivers don't pay the same liability >> insurance premiums that 18 wheel truck drivers do. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >of NAR HPR users and send them scurrying to TRA. Sure, go for it. >Sounds like a great idea. If they do that, dues should be free for those that only fly M's and N's. On Aug 8, 1:29 pm, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> wrote: > > That's not it at all. Ford Focus drivers don't pay the same liability > > insurance premiums that 18 wheel truck drivers do. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Rocketry Planet -http://www.rocketryplanet.com I really do not think the insurance companies are that sophisticated in separating the risks between MR and HPR. The premiums would be the same because there currently an actuarial difference between them. > I really do not think the insurance companies are that sophisticated > in separating the risks between MR and HPR. The premiums would be the > same because there currently an actuarial difference between them. Insurance companies are NOT stupid. They base their rates on actuarial experience and perceived risk. They know exactly how much risk they are assuming before issuing a quote or accepting a binder. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com Ahhhh yes, the "old days" have returned. When I first found RMR, there was a push to make the HP folks form their own newsgroup, as RMR was for MRs! Back then I'd just started back and was flying Estes stuff in a local park.. Maybe a year later, I got my L1. A bit later, NAR was just starting to get into the "L3" thing and the L3CC was "created". Problem was that there were no NAR l3's to cert the L3CC! (chicken/egg thing....). In reality, I had dual memberships in NAR and TRA for years (did my L3 with TRA, as NAR still really didn't have any "experienced" L3's on the L3CC at that point). (even the head of the L3CC had failed his own L3 cert at that time...) I dropped my NAR membership maybe 5 years back, as it really didn't do anything for me. NAR is HPR right now, but only because it was dragged "kicking and screaming" into it by it's membership. To me, NAR leadership never quite "got it" when it came to HPR. But the other side of the coin, is that if it weren't for HPR, NAR membership numbers would drop like a rock. You'd have people that want to compete in parachute durations contests, but that's about it! Anybody else remember the stories where you could be kicked out of NAR for flying a G motor? (even if it wasn't at a NAR launch...) > On Aug 8, 1:29 pm, "Darrell D. Mobley" <dmob...@rocketryplanet.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > in separating the risks between MR and HPR. The premiums would be the > same because there currently an actuarial difference between them. > Anybody else remember the stories where you could be kicked out of NAR > for flying a G motor? (even if it wasn't at a NAR launch...) Ancient history at best. Never experienced it. I've been in the hobby over 10 years and have goon from Level 0 to Level 3 with the NAR. I have NEVER found any resistance to HPR. Stop living in the past. The resistance is over, HPR won. >Ahhhh yes, the "old days" have returned. When I first found RMR, there >was a push to make the HP folks form their own newsgroup, as RMR was for >MRs! Back then I'd just started back and was flying Estes stuff in a >local park.. Maybe a year later, I got my L1. I don't think I was following RMR during your "old days". Even in these days RMR is often helpful to amateur rocketeers, while trying to send them elsewhere for better support. Still, it is understandable that the unmoderated RMR readers would try to cull out a few undesirables of any stripe. Certainly in a largely self regulated hobby, we should not be tolerant of people who advocate violating the NAR safety code and other laws and regulations of the time. >I dropped my NAR membership maybe 5 years back, as it really didn't do >anything for me. Choice is good. For me the choice would come down to local support. However, the NAR has always had, and continues to have, better administration. Alan >Choice is good. For me the choice would come down to local support. >However, the NAR has always had, and continues to have, better >administration. How so? I'm a member of both and have no complaints with either. I can say that since Trojanowskis have taken over HQ, TRA has been excellent and very fast to respond when compared to NAR. Again, I'm not complaining about either but I'm wonder what you base this on. Are you a member of both? > NAR is HPR right now, but only because it was dragged "kicking and > screaming" into it by it's membership. To me, NAR leadership never > quite "got it" when it came to HPR. But the other side of the coin, is > that if it weren't for HPR, NAR membership numbers would drop like a > rock. That's about as succinct and accurate as it gets. They still don't get it. SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > Ahhhh yes, the "old days" have returned. When I first found RMR, there > was a push to make the HP folks form their own newsgroup, as RMR was for > MRs! Back then I'd just started back and was flying Estes stuff in a > local park.. Maybe a year later, I got my L1. Absolutely incorrect. here is the first paragraph of the CFD that led to the creations of RMR: "It is hereby proposed that a newsgroup "rec.rocket" be created for the discussion of any aspect relating to model rockets AND high power rockets. The purpose of this newsgroup would be fr exchange of information to anyone wanting TO BUILD, FLY, OR USE model rocket or high power rockets. These are viable alternatives to amateur rocketry." 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. This will be an interesting test for NAR's "improved" insurance. Please let us know the details of how this works out. We had an occurrence where we had some broken windows when the insurance was secondary. The owners of the vehicles ended up making claims against their comprehensive insurance and the owner of the rocket paid the deductible. If it is a side window as someone else mentioned, it is not a very expensive claim. Phil >> On Sun, 05 Aug 2007 21:47:43 -0500, ScottE >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >-john d >MARS >This will be an interesting test for NAR's "improved" insurance. >Please let us know the details of how this works out. We had an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Phil If I find out, I'll let you know. Everyone is talking about this 5K deductible, but I think it's unlikely the side window of an old van is going to cost 5K to repair. > This will be an interesting test for NAR's "improved" insurance. > Please let us know the details of how this works out. We had an [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Phil The person involved is a class act. It is being covered through his homeowners policy. There was also slight damage to the door sheetmetal which prevented the door from opening. So the cost be a little more than just replacing the glass. >> This will be an interesting test for NAR's "improved" insurance. >> Please let us know the details of how this works out. We had an [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >the door from opening. So the cost be a little more than just >replacing the glass. Our case also involved some sheet metal. His homeowners insurance refused to cover the claim. According to them, everyone was a willing participant and knew the risks and dangers so to bad. Bottom line is home owners insurance might not cover you if something happens. Phil > >> This will be an interesting test for NAR's "improved" insurance. > >> Please let us know the details of how this works out. We had an [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Phil It appears in this case the homeowner's will cover it (fingers crossed). A difference in this case is that the damaged party was not a participant (he wasn't even on-site, just his vehicle was). I hope in your case the that person in question at least gets low premiums on his insurance policy. > I didn't know of this unfortunate incident however after all the years > of minimal claims, (at least according to the propaganda I see) how > does this affect "our budget?" Doesn't the insurance company pay > these claims? $5K deductible. This is something like the 3rd or 4th such incident this year. Plus a similar bill for a LOC Weasel that ended up on the power line at NSL. I've seen a couple of "major" incidents - one at a local club, and one at a Springfest a few years back (the rocket took the pad with it and it hit a truck on the flightline). With the local launch, someone actually got a "magnetic" stick on bullseye that someone would sneak on the the repaired truck at launches for the next flying season! Both times it wasn't reported for insurance. NAR and TRA both have insurance (not self insured) but with deductibles, it was best to just write a check. I wonder if NAR/TRA should actually track "events" and not insurance claims. If the hobby is self regulating, shouldn't it also keep real stats on stuff like this? >> I didn't know of this unfortunate incident however after all the years >> of minimal claims, (at least according to the propaganda I see) how [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > year. Plus a similar bill for a LOC Weasel that ended up on the power line > at NSL. On Aug 6, 10:08 pm, kaplo...@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) wrote: > In article <f8mcb3h7t2e2vdfags1gkhv17ribcop...@4ax.com>, Phil Stein <PSt...@ArielSystems.spamsks.net> writes: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > year. Plus a similar bill for a LOC Weasel that ended up on the power line > at NSL. Are you sure that NAR insurance was actually charged for the incident that happened at NSL? I know the $5K number was banted about but as far as I know (I've attended all the ROCI meetings that the incident was discussed at) the power company's lawyers never filed a claim. -Aaron Neither the local club nor the national wants anything reported for insurance. End result would be the nationals insurance rates would go up. Like I said, claims seem to be settled with a checkbook, and not a claim. The insurance is preserved for a major claim (by the landowner?) Does ANYONE know of a claim filed against NAR or TRA insurance? I'll bet not... Does anyone know of a "checkbook settlement" made at a launch? Like I said, I know of a few.... I really think TRA/NRA should track even "checkbook settlements" over say, $200. "self regulating" comes into play.... TRA/NAR insurance is really only there for the landowner, and they sell it as a benefit for members! (a benefit that no one can use!) I've been a licensed driver for 32 years, and have a great driving history. I have, however, filed an insurance claim. Can anyone tell me that with 1000's of members, there hasn't been claims against NAR/TRA insurance during those same 30 years - that is if the insurance actually had any meaning? > On Aug 6, 10:08 pm, kaplo...@encompasserve.org.mars (Bob Kaplow) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -Aaron > Neither the local club nor the national wants anything reported for > insurance. End result would be the nationals insurance rates would go up. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > insurance during those same 30 years - that is if the insurance actually > had any meaning? This makes the insurance industry sound like organized crime, which is pretty accurate. "Hey, you bumped my car." "I know, I know, I'm sorry. I'll pay for it. If it had really been bad, my 'friend' over there would have paid for it. NO! NO! Don't look at him, he might think something. He might 'expect' something." To have something you can't use is a sad aspect of modern American life. We've got insurance, but we can't use it. We can't use it, because they might up our rates, which they might do anyway just because. We pay tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars for something that is only useful if we totally destroy something in the worst manner. Sounds like bad odds to me. Whose the one with the risk again? SignaturePluto downgraded? Get lost, Pluto. There's a new planet in town. Rocketry Planet — http://www.rocketryplanet.com > This makes the insurance industry sound like organized crime, which is > pretty accurate. I think it's closer to legalized gambling. And like most gambling, the odds always favor the house. > To have something you can't use is a sad aspect of modern American life. > We've got insurance, but we can't use it. We can't use it, because > they might up our rates, which they might do anyway just because. We > pay tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars for something that is only > useful if we totally destroy something in the worst manner. Sounds like > bad odds to me. Whose the one with the risk again? Remember, its gambling. Do you want to gamble that you will never experience a loss? Or do you want to gamble just a little and only insure against a major loss? The odds change depending on how much risk you are willing to carry. And the odds also change depending on your claim history. > To have something you can't use is a sad aspect of modern American life. > We've got insurance, but we can't use it. We can't use it, because > they might up our rates, which they might do anyway just because. We > pay tens (hundreds?) of thousands of dollars for something that is only > useful if we totally destroy something in the worst manner. Sounds like > bad odds to me. Whose the one with the risk again? I happen to have two friends that sell insurance and they have a common saying; 'We're selling a promise, and it's a broken promise at best.' Doesn't that just make you feel all warm and cozy? Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 >> To have something you can't use is a sad aspect of modern American >> life. We've got insurance, but we can't use it. We can't use it, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > TRA#5512 > IEAS#75 That warm feeling is Your blood boiling. >>> To have something you can't use is a sad aspect of modern American >>> life. We've got insurance, but we can't use it. We can't use it, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > That warm feeling is Your blood boiling. My old golf buddy sold me my life insurance and my old hockey buddy sold me my umbrella policy with a *certain* insurance company. Know what the irony here is? I had one claim about 4 years ago on the house and I couldn't believe the quality of the service. It was quick, painless and quite honestly fantastic. I had another claim 2 years ago from a disastrous car accident that resulted in 10k damage to the other vehicle. My rates didn't go up. But I know full well what will happen if I have one more claim... Ted Novak TRA#5512 IEAS#75 > Neither the local club nor the national wants anything reported for > insurance. End result would be the nationals insurance rates would go up. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I really think TRA/NRA should track even "checkbook settlements" over > say, $200. "self regulating" comes into play.... Not keeping those records gives the orgs plausible deniability. IMHO to track those incidents could only hurt, not help. SignatureTweak > Are you sure that NAR insurance was actually charged for the incident > that happened at NSL? I know the $5K number was banted about but as > far as I know (I've attended all the ROCI meetings that the incident > was discussed at) the power company's lawyers never filed a claim. From what Mario said at NARAM, they billed the AMA for the incident, and AMA passed the bill to us. 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 Sir, if I was building a weapon of mass destruction, you wouldn't be able to find it. |
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.