uncertified motors at TRA launches

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by Steve Baughma » Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:00:00



Howdy!

I've noticed many recent reports of uncertified motors (APS) being used
at various Tripoli sanctioned launches. A recent example is Ted Apke's
BEV-1 flown on an APS redeye at RATS. What type of authorization is
required to burn uncertified motors at TRA-sponsored events?

Thanks!
Steve

 
 
 

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by Jim Yan » Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:00:00



says...

Quote:

>>What type of authorization is
>>required to burn uncertified motors at TRA-sponsored events?

> BIG TROLL

Wouldn't he be referring to 'experimental' motors? IIRC,there was mention of
some being used at a LDRS launch,I read about it in Hi-Power Rocketry,issue
Vol13,#3. Someone had to approve of those launches,yes?

Jim Yanik,NRA member

 
 
 

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by JimWe » Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
>What type of authorization is
>required to burn uncertified motors at TRA-sponsored events?

 BIG TROLL
 
 
 

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by Steve Baughma » Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Hmm, the accusation of my post being a troll leads me to believe I have
not reseached this issue enough. I thought it was a legitimate question.

Steve

 
 
 

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by Alex B. McLaughli » Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Ok Steve... Here's the deal.

You wanna fly a motor? Is that motor uncertified? Is this not an
Experimental Launch? Are there TRA BOD members present, and perhaps the Pres
himself?

Well, What is your coolness factor?

I know what you are saying... Coolness factor... What is the coolness
factor...?

Well... How "cool" are you? You down with the in crowd? If you are, You can
fly it.

No bullshit.

--Alex
(leave me alone, not a TRA member, and I don't give a shit about political
battles, I am remarking from experience...)

Quote:

> Hmm, the accusation of my post being a troll leads me to believe I have
> not reseached this issue enough. I thought it was a legitimate question.

> Steve

 
 
 

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by Steve Baughma » Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Whoopsie!

Looks like I'm the guilty bozo who stuffed an ignitor into the rocket
motor of discontent - at this time we should all pretend that this
thread does not exist and go on with our routine business. That is all.

Glad I asked but sorry I touched a nerve!

Thanks!
Steve

 
 
 

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by Christopher Co » Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:00:00


It's OK.

Just do not ask Mr. Alway to publish a MOTW poster....:-)

Anyhow in many States, if you have the land owners permission and a FAA
waiver, you are good to go.
In many States this would be a real problem.
Tripoli & NAR launches are supposed to be 1127 compliant, meaning no
uncertified motors, except for manufacture fired demo's. Of course some
launches are just launches, neither NAR or Tripoli.

Confusing isn't it...:-)

Christopher Cox

 
 
 

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by Jim McLaughli » Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

> Whoopsie!

> Looks like I'm the guilty bozo who stuffed an ignitor into the rocket
> motor of discontent - at this time we should all pretend that this
> thread does not exist and go on with our routine business. That is all.

> Glad I asked but sorry I touched a nerve!

        Why should we pretend that TRA does not systematically violate
federal and state law regarding winking at and sanctioning the use and
interstate transport of uncertified motors?

        You need only look at the cover photo on the latest TRA   whoo[s
HPR rag to see that TRA  ona  national level gives not a  flying fa*t for
legalities.

        If you actually givea  damn about the future of rocketry as a
hobby in light of the increased scrutiny given to rocketry by  BATF et al
you might want to think about _not_ sticking your head in the sand and
maybe _not_ withdrawing your question.  Instead, demanda   response from
the TRA board who are sitting idly by while illegal motors are routinely
flown at "TRA sponsored and 'insured'" launches.

 > > Thanks!

        You're welcome.

Jim McLaughlin                     These opinions are mine, mine, mine!
Portland, OR                       And not anybody else's. So there.

Remove Anti Spam Device *!!* From Address Before Replying

 
 
 

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by Sue McMurra » Tue, 13 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Quote:

> Ok Steve... Here's the deal.

> <snip>

Dear Steve,

Before everybody goes off halfcocked and this thread turns into another
pointless organization bash, please feel free to email me privately and I will
help answer your original question plus any more that you have. When I have
answered your questions to your satisfaction, you may share our discussion with
the newsgroup if you wish, or if anyone is still interested. Thank you for your
help in stopping this childish nonsense.

BTW, I loved your 1 Apr post. Excellent.

Sincerely,
Sue McMurray
TRA#4027 L2
AeroPac#157
LUNAR#768
Tripoli Motor Testing Chair

 
 
 

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by Sue McMurra » Wed, 14 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Dear Dave,

I'm posting this reply to rmr to help clarify the issue.

Quote:

> I'm curious too.  The only loophole in the rule I know of is demo
> flights of motors that are in the process of testing, or is it just
> any
> motor a manufacturer wants to demo?

There are two types of Tripoli launches: the "regular" ones where only
certified motors can be flown by certified flyers and "experimental"
ones where only uncertified motors can be flown by certified flyers.

At regular TRA launches, a motor manufacturer who already has motors
certified by TMT or has motors with TMT for testing/certification may
demo an uncertified motor by having a certified flyer use it for a
flight.

  1. The manufacturer must be present.
  2. The motor must be gratis to the certified flyer.
  3. The flyer must hold the TRA/NAR cert level of the demo motor.

The motor does not have to be currently with TMT for
testing/certification. It can be totally new. Part of the purpose of
this is to survey consumer interest and part of it is to actually see
how the motor flies. Things happen in flight that don't happen on a
thrust stand and the manufacturer needs to know these things before
committing to a production run for testing/certification. Things also
happen during the assembly of a motor that may need to be worked out to
a more consumer-friendly condition. This is part of the alpha testing of
a motor.

At an experimental TRA launch, this rule of thumb is useful:

  1. The uncertified/non-commercial motor must be flown by the
     non-commercial motor manufacturer (may be part of a group project).
  2. No exchange of money/services/whatever can be made for the
     non-commercial motor.
  3. The non-commercial motor manufacturer must hold the TRA/NAR cert
     level of the uncertified/non-commercial motor that he/she made and
     wants to fly.

The commercial manufacturer motor demo policies are the same for the
experimental TRA launch as for the regular TRA launch. (i.e., It's okay
to hand Robert Ellis a cold one after a successful flight of his demo
motor. It is not okay to load a case of Jack Daniels into the back of
his truck after dark and slip a free pass to Mustang under his pillow.)

The ultimate authorities over whether or not an uncertified motor may be
flown at either type of launch are the prefect and the launch director
of the prefecture hosting the launch (and any alphabets who may be
visiting).

I know that there has been some confusion in the past about these
policies. I can accept the fault for a large part of that confusion
because when I first started with TMT, I had no idea who was and who
wasn't a commercial manufacturer recognized by TMT. There was some "cart
before the horse" and I'm still straightening some of that out (with a
few alphabets watching). :)

I hope that this helps clarify the issue.

Sincerely,
Sue McMurray
TRA#4027 L2
AeroPac#157
LUNAR#768
TMT Chair

 
 
 

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by Sue McMurra » Wed, 14 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Dear Dave,

I'm posting this reply to rmr to help clarify the issue.

Quote:

> I'm curious too.  The only loophole in the rule I know of is demo
> flights of motors that are in the process of testing, or is it just any
> motor a manufacturer wants to demo?

There are two types of Tripoli launches: the "regular" ones where only certified
motors can be flown by certified flyers and "experimental" ones where only
uncertified motors can be flown by certified flyers.

At regular TRA launches, a motor manufacturer who already has motors certified by
TMT or has motors with TMT for testing/certification may demo an uncertified motor
by having a certified flyer use it for a flight.

  1. The manufacturer must be present.
  2. The motor must be gratis to the certified flyer.
  3. The flyer must hold the TRA/NAR cert level of the demo motor.

The motor does not have to be currently with TMT for testing/certification. It can
be totally new. Part of the purpose of this is to survey consumer interest and part
of it is to actually see how the motor flies. Things happen in flight that don't
happen on a thrust stand and the manufacturer needs to know these things before
committing to a production run for testing/certification. Things also happen during
the assembly of a motor that may need to be worked out to a more consumer-friendly
condition. This is part of the alpha testing of a motor.

At an experimental TRA launch, this rule of thumb is useful:

  1. The non-commercial motor manufacturer must hold the TRA/NAR cert level of the
     uncertified/non-commercial motor that he/she made and wants to fly.
  2. The uncertified/non-commercial motor must be flown by the non-commercial motor
     manufacturer (may be part of a group project).
  3. No exchange of money/services/whatever can be made for the non-commercial
     motor.

The commercial manufacturer motor demo policies are the same for the experimental
TRA launch as for the regular TRA launch. (i.e., It's okay to hand Robert Ellis a
cold one after a successful flight of his demo motor. It is not okay to load a case
of Jack Daniels into the back of his truck after dark and slip a free pass to
Mustang under his pillow.)

The ultimate authorities over whether or not an uncertified motor may be flown at
either type of launch are the prefect and the launch director of the prefecture
hosting the launch (and any alphabets who may be visiting).

I know that there has been some confusion in the past about these policies. I can
accept the fault for a large part of that confusion because when I first started
with TMT, I had no idea who was and who wasn't a commercial manufacturer recognized
by TMT. There was some "cart before the horse" and I'm still straightening some of
that out (with a few alphabets watching). :)

I hope that this helps clarify the issue.

Sincerely,
Sue McMurray
TRA#4027 L2
AeroPac#157
LUNAR#768
TMT Chair

 
 
 

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by Sue McMurra » Wed, 14 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Disregard this one. I hit the Send instead of the Save. Sorry. They're
the same text, but I moved a sentence. Sue
 
 
 

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by Jim McLaughli » Wed, 14 Apr 1999 04:00:00


        one of the larger crocks of all time, stating:

Quote:
> Dear Dave,

> I'm posting this reply to rmr to help clarify the issue.


> > I'm curious too.  The only loophole in the rule I know of is demo
> > flights of motors that are in the process of testing, or is it just
> > any
> > motor a manufacturer wants to demo?

> There are two types of Tripoli launches: the "regular" ones where only
> certified motors can be flown by certified flyers and "experimental"
> ones where only uncertified motors can be flown by certified flyers.

> At regular TRA launches, a motor manufacturer who already has motors
> certified by TMT or has motors with TMT for testing/certification may
> demo an uncertified motor by having a certified flyer use it for a
> flight.

>   1. The manufacturer must be present.
>   2. The motor must be gratis to the certified flyer.
>   3. The flyer must hold the TRA/NAR cert level of the demo motor.

> The motor does not have to be currently with TMT for
> testing/certification. It can be totally new. Part of the purpose of
> this is to survey consumer interest and part of it is to actually see
> how the motor flies. Things happen in flight that don't happen on a
> thrust stand and the manufacturer needs to know these things before
> committing to a production run for testing/certification. Things also
> happen during the assembly of a motor that may need to be worked out to
> a more consumer-friendly condition. This is part of the alpha testing of
> a motor.

> At an experimental TRA launch, this rule of thumb is useful:

>   1. The uncertified/non-commercial motor must be flown by the
>      non-commercial motor manufacturer (may be part of a group project).
>   2. No exchange of money/services/whatever can be made for the
>      non-commercial motor.
>   3. The non-commercial motor manufacturer must hold the TRA/NAR cert
>      level of the uncertified/non-commercial motor that he/she made and
>      wants to fly.

> The commercial manufacturer motor demo policies are the same for the
> experimental TRA launch as for the regular TRA launch. (i.e., It's okay
> to hand Robert Ellis a cold one after a successful flight of his demo
> motor. It is not okay to load a case of Jack Daniels into the back of
> his truck after dark and slip a free pass to Mustang under his pillow.)

        Horsepucky.  No commercial manufacturer (Kosdon wesst ; APS; (that
was an APS mtor on the cover of the latest HPR, boys and girls) can move
in interstate commerce unless the manufacturer has both a BATM
manufacturer's license and appropriate DOT shipping classification papers.
Several of the manufacturers lack these requirements.  It is flatly
illegal to launch those motors.

        Tripoli"policy" is irrelevant.

        Ask TRA for an explanation of why and how it habitually encourages
the lauch of motors built by unlicensed commercial manufcaturers which
have been illegally transported in interstate commerce to TRA launches and
allows the launch of those motors.

        Then, while you wait through the days, nay weeks, nay month., nay
years of silence, for you will not get an answer from TRA, ask yourself
how, in the current regulatory climate a TRA policy of winking at
illegal manufacture and illegal transport is helping to show ATF that the
hpr hobby (note no caps to distinguish the hobby from the magazine, a  feat
that Kelly has trouble accomplishing) is deserving of ATF's "benign
neglect" and less regulation.  All that TRA is accomplishing by
tolerating and encouraging the use of illegally manufactured and
transported motors is to bring on even stricter regulation.

        So come on Sue, proove me wrong.   Explain to us how TRA has the
"power" to allow the use of illegally manufactured commercial motors lie
APS and Kosdon West.    

Quote:
> The ultimate authorities over whether or not an uncertified motor may be
> flown at either type of launch are the prefect and the launch director
> of the prefecture hosting the launch (and any alphabets who may be
> visiting).

        Horse pucky.

Quote:

> I know that there has been some confusion in the past about these
> policies. I can accept the fault for a large part of that confusion
> because when I first started with TMT, I had no idea who was and who
> wasn't a commercial manufacturer recognized by TMT. There was some "cart
> before the horse" and I'm still straightening some of that out (with a
> few alphabets watching). :)

        The only confusion is TRA's.  You cannot use "certification" as a
shield from the requirements for  commercial manufacturer's licensing by
BATF and shipping authorization by DOT.   And every time TRA glorifies a
launch of an illegally manufactured  / shipped motor, TRA damages the
hobby.

Quote:

> I hope that this helps clarify the issue.

        I hope so too, but I doubt it.  In the Church of Kelly, you are
not allowed to think or question.

Quote:

> Sincerely,
> Sue McMurray
> TRA#4027 L2
> AeroPac#157
> LUNAR#768
> TMT Chair

Jim McLaughlin                     These opinions are mine, mine, mine!
Portland, OR                       And not anybody else's. So there.

Remove Anti Spam Device *!!* From Address Before Replying

 
 
 

uncertified motors at TRA launches

Post by BULLPU » Thu, 15 Apr 1999 04:00:00


Quote:
>No commercial manufacturer (Kosdon wesst ; APS; (that
>was an APS mtor on the cover of the latest HPR, boys and girls) can move
>in interstate commerce unless the manufacturer has both a BATM
>manufacturer's license and appropriate DOT shipping classification papers.

APS has both of these so whats the problem Jim???? Get your fact straight
before you make false accusations.

Bill Rossi
             \\\///
           (O)(O)  
--oOO----(__)--------------
: I WILL WORK FOR :
: ROCKET MOTORS :
:-------------------oOO-----:
          |__|   |__|
           |~|    |~|  
          ooO  Ooo    http://members.aol.com/BULLPUPP/index.html