Using uncertified motors in NAR

Using uncertified motors in NAR

Post by Manuel Mej » Mon, 29 Dec 1997 04:00:00



As a NAR member who does periodic public demos, I like the idea that I
carry my NAR insurance policy.  The issue that John Cato, Jr. brought up
about NAR accepting Tripoli certifications on motors that do not meet NFPA
Code 1127 is troubling. If I were to fire one of these motors at a demo,
my insurance could technically become void because I used an unapproved
motor.

The trend towards demos is to use larger motors when feasible. This is
especially important when doing demos at places like airshows. One has to
have their insurance policy functioning at such events or the people that
invited you to fly your rockets may pull their invitation.

Motors that do not meet NFPA code 1127 are useless to me. I will stick to
clustering Black powder motors or using motors like the new Estes Dark
Stars. I will not sacrifice my insurance by using uncertified (and
possibly illegal) junk that I would fly on Federal property. Places like
Air Force Base airshows are Federal property and infractions done on such
places carry a nastier penalty than state or private property.

MMJR--NAR 34611--Senior member

--
****

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------Manuel Mejia, Jr.-------------------------------------
--------------------Tampa, FLA., USA--------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

 
 
 

Using uncertified motors in NAR

Post by Christopher Co » Mon, 29 Dec 1997 04:00:00


Thank you for your OPINIONS and FEELINGS

If you studied the situation instead of going on a 'gut' feeling you would
see HUGH Errors in some of this dialog.

Some of these motors that did not show up on this '94' list such as the
J350 and H220 because they did not exist yet....Not that I can find
anyways.

I lit off  RMS 'Blue Thunder' grains, stubborn to light, reminded me of a
flare.

I suppose the BATF should regulate road flare's....Heck, who knows...maybe
they do..

I held a flame to a delay column for 15 seconds before giving up,
scratching up the material to be able to lit the smaller potions which in
turn lit off the rest.

It is obvious that John's absolute hate and anger for Tripoli has jaded his
opinions and attitudes towards MPR and HPR. He has a right to be pissed off
at Tripoli, but I firmly disagree with him on his resulting opinions. He is
even trying to jade the chair people in the NAR section. Fine, I understand
his motivations, which are destructive to the Hobby, but I understand them.

I know you only like the smaller motors.....fine.
You hate commercial interests......fine.

Leave the MPR and HPR and the RRS alone...Do not drag me or anyone else
with you back to the cave.

You are already party to the loss of some fine minds in the IAR. If left to
you the IAR will never have a HPR test stand. Thanks for the
progress.......

Christopher Cox

 
 
 

Using uncertified motors in NAR

Post by John H. Cato, Jr » Mon, 29 Dec 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

> Thank you for your OPINIONS and FEELINGS

> If you studied the situation instead of going on a 'gut' feeling
> you would see HUGH Errors in some of this dialog.

"Hugh"??

Quote:
> Some of these motors that did not show up on this '94' list such as
> the J350 and H220 because they did not exist yet....Not that I can
> find anyways.

Chris, let's get *comprehensive* here -- and then you will be qualified
to use the word "hugh".  You mention TWO motor types there -- and,
assuming 4 different delays per -- that would equal *8* unique motors.
I listed something over 140 inidividual, unique motors (and THIS from
ONLY THREE manufacturers).  I also qualified my comments by specifically
listing the J350 as being tested AFTER that '94 list (but, do YOU know
which delays of the J350 were ACTUALLY tested?)  Did you notice the
K458  98mm RMS motor?  We burned ONE of those back in '94 (TMT policy is
TWO K's) -- 6 months later, that very motor showed up on Tripoli's list
(and it was MORE than 6 months before the dang TMT committee even HEARD
that their new 'chair' (Blazanin) was even LIVING - much less actually
performing ANY testing in the interim).  Same thing for those 29mm H125s
-- who were having LOTS of problems with delay time accuracy - several
resubmittals.  But, they all showed up on the list -- so, it appears the
'new' TMT policy is: "If is doesn't blow up, it's approved" (and to HELL
with NFPA delay standards).  As a result, you are not even able to
assert ANYthing about the J350 - because you have no data to
substantiate ANY legitimate compliance with those very same NFPA
standards.  I happen to know the J350s were, indeed, test fired -- but I
know nothing beyond that.  Considering AeroTech's history with delay
problems, I've got more on my side to back up the assertion that, most
likely, they had problems here, too.  Regardless, that is only FOUR
motors.  What about the other 139? (and, after a vist to Magnum's
website last night, the numbers are actually HIGHER than 139)

And, as I stated VERY clearly -- there is a REAL simple way to lay this
issue to rest -- lets SEE those firing files.  1st grade simple.

"HUGH errors"??  Yeah -- in your logic, it appears.

Quote:
> It is obvious that John's absolute hate and anger for Tripoli has
> jaded his opinions and attitudes towards MPR and HPR.

I back up my 'jaded opinions and attitudes' with facts, Chris.

What about *your* jaded opinions?

Quote:
> Fine, I understand his motivations, which are destructive to the
> Hobby, but I understand them.

Well, you are right that there is some 'destructive behavior' going on
here -- but it isn't MY behavior that is do defined.

-- john.

 
 
 

Using uncertified motors in NAR

Post by Bob Kapl » Mon, 29 Dec 1997 04:00:00



Quote:

>> Thank you for your OPINIONS and FEELINGS

>> If you studied the situation instead of going on a 'gut' feeling
>> you would see HUGH Errors in some of this dialog.

> "Hugh"??

Formerly known as Third of Five.

Quote:
>> Some of these motors that did not show up on this '94' list such as
>> the J350 and H220 because they did not exist yet....Not that I can
>> find anyways.

> Chris, let's get *comprehensive* here -- and then you will be qualified
> to use the word "hugh".  You mention TWO motor types there -- and,
> assuming 4 different delays per -- that would equal *8* unique motors.
> I listed something over 140 inidividual, unique motors (and THIS from
> ONLY THREE manufacturers).  I also qualified my comments by specifically
> listing the J350 as being tested AFTER that '94 list (but, do YOU know
> which delays of the J350 were ACTUALLY tested?)  Did you notice the
> K458  98mm RMS motor?  We burned ONE of those back in '94 (TMT policy is
> TWO K's) -- 6 months later, that very motor showed up on Tripoli's list
> (and it was MORE than 6 months before the dang TMT committee even HEARD
> that their new 'chair' (Blazanin) was even LIVING - much less actually
> performing ANY testing in the interim).  Same thing for those 29mm H125s
> -- who were having LOTS of problems with delay time accuracy - several
> resubmittals.  But, they all showed up on the list -- so, it appears the
> 'new' TMT policy is: "If is doesn't blow up, it's approved" (and to HELL
> with NFPA delay standards).  As a result, you are not even able to
> assert ANYthing about the J350 - because you have no data to
> substantiate ANY legitimate compliance with those very same NFPA
> standards.  I happen to know the J350s were, indeed, test fired -- but I
> know nothing beyond that.  Considering AeroTech's history with delay
> problems, I've got more on my side to back up the assertion that, most
> likely, they had problems here, too.  Regardless, that is only FOUR
> motors.  What about the other 139? (and, after a vist to Magnum's
> website last night, the numbers are actually HIGHER than 139)

> And, as I stated VERY clearly -- there is a REAL simple way to lay this
> issue to rest -- lets SEE those firing files.  1st grade simple.

> "HUGH errors"??  Yeah -- in your logic, it appears.

>> It is obvious that John's absolute hate and anger for Tripoli has
>> jaded his opinions and attitudes towards MPR and HPR.

> I back up my 'jaded opinions and attitudes' with facts, Chris.

> What about *your* jaded opinions?

>> Fine, I understand his motivations, which are destructive to the
>> Hobby, but I understand them.

> Well, you are right that there is some 'destructive behavior' going on
> here -- but it isn't MY behavior that is do defined.

> -- john.

--

        Bob Kaplow      NAR # 18L       TRA # "Abort, Retry, Fail?"

 
 
 

Using uncertified motors in NAR

Post by John H. Cato, Jr » Mon, 29 Dec 1997 04:00:00


Quote:

> O.K. John,

> Was not pointed towards you, but O.K.

We'll keep it civil, Chris -- promise.

Quote:
> The point is that there is some obvious error's in your data...How
> much.....I do not know, but some.

On the 'untested motor' issue?

There are no 'errors' in *this* data, Chris - none.  I was *chairman* of
that committee.  That 'list' I posted was a CLEAR enumeration of what
was NOT approved by Tripoli when I 'left office'.  As to what has
transpired in the succeeding three years, it's anyone's guess (but just
as I stated, there is a *simple* way of finding out).  But Blazanin did
NOTHING for two years.  NOTHING.  That now leaves only one year for Sisk
to burn as many motors as WE did in '93-'94 (and this doesn't count the
hybrids).  Call me a fanatic, but I'm afraid Mr. Sisk didn't come
anywhere NEAR burning 150 motors -- and that is what it would take for
the current TMT 'list' to *legitimately* mesh with reality.

Quote:
> How about the flare issue.....any comment...does the BATF regulate
> them....

I have absolutely no idea, Chris.

Quote:
> I do know this, there are two ways to read the current regs, and my
> hunch is there is now a lunatic with your same distorted read that
> you will rabidly backup and defend....Thank you for
> your contribution...

And I'm to be blamed for some 'lunatics' interpretation?  Chris, I've
seen larger quantities of AP propellants burn -- and, particularly, I've
seen how rapidly the situation can grow to frightening intensity.  It is
because of this that I know how 'frightening' the rationalizations are
that are being offered forth out here (not necessarily - nor even in any
way - from you).  It's just like Cochran and his view on gasoline in a
residence.

It isn't "safety" or "lack of hazard" that keeps American suburbia from
turning into a conflagration -- it's blind luck and several hundred
Guardian Angels.

Quote:
> Model planes kill at least one person per year and I am sure there are
> plenty federal laws that the FAA can cram down their throats.....or
> not?!?!?  Oh, thats right, we are killing at least that many in our
> 'dangerous' hobby where irresponsibility runs rampant.

No -- again, it's "blind luck" and "several hundred Guardian Angels".

Quote:
> Well, you scared me...I just know there is some government agent
> with a chip on his shoulder like yours, and probably just as
> fanatical. You are scary lately John.

I will not be so 'detached' from reality as to think that some 'fed'
agent (or ALL fed agents) are so completely lacking in intelligence that
they must 'scim' ideas from some little newsgroup.  The scary thing,
Chris, in MY mind is this undaunted and unfathomable ability within this
hobby to (almost literally) *rationalize* daylight into dark.

If you want to be 'fearful' of anything, Chris -- be fearful of THAT.

Be VERY afraid.

=-=-=-=

Chris -- I must confess that I have a hard time understanding how it is
that there is 'evil' intent in anyone who may see things differently (or
more clearly -- or may have a perspective on things that DID come from
some first hand experience) ---- and it is THIS person who is looked at
with disdain for not desiring such questionable and 'unright' acts to
continue -- rather than the ones whose acts give rise to the claims of
impropriety.  Where is THEIR responsibility to the hobby?  Where is
YOURS? -- to (apparently) tolerate THEIR acts, but all of a sudden
reverse yourself and show INtolerance of someone who may 'call their
hand'.  Am I to be considered "more responsible" just because I am able
to 'look the other way' and 'keep my mouth shut'??  Do you applaud the
anonymous individual who ignores the cries of a woman being attacked on
the street corner or the individual who tries to lend her aid?

If you 'fear' for this hobby -- if you are concerned for its future and
see a danger of governmental regulation *** the life out of it --
then 'fear' those who (FIRST) commit the acts to jeopardize its future.
To do otherwise is simply sitting by contently while a 'house of cards'
goes up. Fear the fallout enough to not *tolerate* anything but the BEST
they can give.

Because, if it has degenerated to the point that you are 'afraid' of
somebody 'spilling the beans' -- then it has degenerated BEYOND the
point of saving.  Or beyond of point of DESERVING salvation.

Quote:
> P.S. sorry for the 'Hugh' error..:-)

Well, to be completely honest, I *knew* something wasn't quite right
there but couldn't put my finger on it, even until after my reponse went
out...

... and THEN I saw it.

'Huge' mistake.  Huh?

:-)

-- john.

 "Once you give up your ignorance, you can't ever get it back."
                                                      Unknown

 
 
 

Using uncertified motors in NAR

Post by John H. Cato, Jr » Mon, 29 Dec 1997 04:00:00


I wrote (more than this, but it went thru a...):

    [major snip]

Quote:
>> so, it appears the 'new' TMT policy is: "If is doesn't blow up,
>> it's approved" (and to HELL with NFPA delay standards).

... and Doug responded:

Quote:

> It's even worse than that.  Even some that do blow up get approved.

As I've heard, Doug.

My reference to the 'policy' noted above was an interesting 'curiosity'
I noted the fall after I left TMT -- and Blazanin finally got around to
putting out a new list.  I thought it extremely interesting that EVERY
motor we tested that year I was chair ended up on this new 'list' -- the
obvious curious additions being those that we had problems with (the
H125s and some J90s stick out as particularly vivid in my memory).
Since the old committee were my friends, I also was advised that they
did NO testing for at least 6 months after I left.  From that, it seemed
clear that TMT was now simply going to allow ANY motor tested (that
didn't blow up) to 'pass' and get on the list -- which, of course, IS a
failure to hold to NFPA standards.  This was the beginning of the
downturn that TMT has never reversed as of this hour.

And then I hear recently that *failed* motors (i.e. catastrophic
failures) are also being 'passed' now.

It is so very sad that a decent and credible testing function (as TMT
was once -- even before *I* was at the helm) can be turned so
'southward' and descend into such depths of mediocrity.

This 'thing' of Kelly 'taking over' the communication function (and
*decision-making*, as it appears) on dumping the USR motors seems clear
indication that, no matter WHO the chair, they will merely end up being
a 'puppet' -- nothing more than a figurehead.  That, right there, will
scare off ALL the decent and qualified people -- especially in the
'chair's' position.  I give Sue no more than the year she'll stick it
out -- for I understand (and feel) that she is well qualified -- but,
being that, I don't see how she'll put up with such a mess as she's got.

-- john.

 "Once you give up your ignorance, you can't ever get it back."
                                                      Unknown

 
 
 

Using uncertified motors in NAR

Post by Christopher Co » Tue, 30 Dec 1997 04:00:00


O.K. John,

Was not pointed towards you, but O.K.

The point is that there is some obvious error's in your data...How
much.....I do not know, but some.

How about the flare issue.....any comment...does the BATF regulate them....

I do know this, there are two ways to read the current regs, and my hunch
is there is now a lunatic with your same distorted read that you will
rabidly backup and defend....Thank you for your contribution...

Model planes kill at least one person per year and I am sure there are
plenty federal laws that the FAA can cram down their throats.....or
not?!?!?  Oh, thats right, we are killing at least that many in our
'dangerous' hobby where irresponsibility runs rampant.

Well, you scared me...I just know there is some government agent with a
chip on his shoulder like yours, and probably just as fanatical. You are
scary lately John.

Well, Hybrids or nothing for me. I do not trust "you" guys.

So, you win......Nice waste land you left...

And to you Manuel, entry level for hybrids is around $500, I am sure this
was your intent.

P.S. sorry for the 'Hugh' error..:-)

Christopher Cox

 
 
 

Using uncertified motors in NAR

Post by Doug » Tue, 30 Dec 1997 04:00:00



[major snip]

Quote:
> so, it appears the
> 'new' TMT policy is: "If is doesn't blow up, it's approved" (and to HELL
> with NFPA delay standards).

It's even worse than that.  Even some that do blow up get approved.
 
 
 

Using uncertified motors in NAR

Post by Christopher Co » Tue, 30 Dec 1997 04:00:00


I do not doubt your work John, I have a copy of it and it is excellent. It
is obvious you put allot of love, sweat, and tears into it. And to have it
ripped away from you is exactly gives you the honor of being PISSED OFF, I
know I would be.

It is accurate that you, nor I, know what the TMT has tested and not
tested. Comment here is purely speculative by any party but the TMT. I just
found it odd that some of the 'questionable' motors you listed came into
being, by your own admission, after you left. ( And it drove me nuts to see
someone making speculative assertions as fact....As this person has a habit
of doing....No, not you John )

I am not here to justify of what has transpired in the past. I am a BAR, as
many here are. I purchased a type 4 ammo box the moment I saw AP on my
bench, before the BATF became an issue. You call it angels. I think you may
be selling your rocketry comrades short. I can only speak for the Rocketry
people I have met, but they strive for safety, it only makes sense.

I have but one complaint, and its target is purely the "qty 12 - 62.5 gram
reload pack" definition, now called an mis-interpretation. I fully expected
to have to get something, now known as a LEAP, to try any level 3 attempts.

I loathe the fact that someone felt compelled to step on and squelch a safe
bunch of people.

Just in irony, what will a LEUP buy when a 'M' slams into a car?
Credibility? I think we all have been trying to avoid this without someone
sticking there mitts into it. This is why these organizations have 'levels'
of skill. I will admit this 'level 3' thing looks a little
whimsical.....:-)

Christopher Cox

 
 
 

Using uncertified motors in NAR

Post by Kallen » Mon, 05 Jan 1998 04:00:00


In the days when this may have been the case, it was almost entirely due
to modelers flying wire-controlled model airplanes into power lines and
frying themselves. This is almost unheard of now that radio control is
the *** part of the bobby. There have been some (but very few)
cases of bystanders being killed by model planes.

Quote:

> > Model planes kill at least one person per year and I am sure there are
> > plenty federal laws that the FAA can cram down their throats.....or
> > not?!?!?  Oh, thats right, we are killing at least that many in our
> > 'dangerous' hobby where irresponsibility runs rampant.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Kallend                            | Phone 312 567 3163
Dean, Undergraduate College             | Fax  312 567 3135
IIT                                     | Web http://www.FoundCollection.com/~kallend
 
 
 

Using uncertified motors in NAR

Post by Christopher Co » Mon, 05 Jan 1998 04:00:00


Quote:
> In the days when this may have been the case, it was almost entirely due
> to modelers flying wire-controlled model airplanes into power lines and
> frying themselves. This is almost unheard of now that radio control is
> the *** part of the bobby. There have been some (but very few)
> cases of bystanders being killed by model planes.

Well, I find that a little odd....reason being that I still am hearing war
stories at the hobby shops of causing damage to Cell Towers, Power lines &
Telephone lines. I believe the statistics are current and provided by the
AMA itself.....BUT I DONT REALLY KNOW....

Sorry for the screaming...It seams to be the only real way to qualify some
responses....:-)

Have a Good Year!

Christopher Cox