one of the larger crocks of all time, stating:
> 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
> 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.
> 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
> 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
> 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.
> Sue McMurray
> TRA#4027 L2
> 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