Easy Access...Dead or Alive
John H. Cato, Jr.
I'm going to complicate it even more and make the statement that "Easy
Access" was still-born (i.e. never existed). Propellant masses over 62.5
grams have ALWAYS been "regulated" -- and anything under that never was
(easily ascertainable in the Orange Book). Understand that it didn't matter
*how* you arrived at a motor of > 62.5 gm (i.e. ten, little 6.26 gm 'grains'
= 62.6 grams TOTAL PROPELLANT MASS).
Sure, you could 'tote' those little 6.26gm 'grains' around all day long --
but once assembled, it was a regulated device.
IOW, it just simply doesn't matter HOW you arrive at > 62.5gm -- once you do,
it's regulated. As to all this 'escapism' about being in one's 'home state'
and all that "don't need federal permits" stuff... just so much wasted time,
in my view -- you would STILL be bound by some STATE laws (and permitting
involved there -- most of which would be 'smoothed over' with the Federal
permit) -- so why complicate one's life??
As to what AeroTech posts on their web site -- you got to remember they make
MONEY on the belief (by the public) about how 'easy' all this stuff is.
Bingo - instant DIScredibility on this kind of stuff -- if it comes from
them. Don't remember anymore if Ed was behind all this 'Easy Access' stuff
(naming it, hyping it) -- but it's about 99% 'marketing hype' and 1%
substance (i.e. the (short-lived) confusion about grains LESS than 62.5 being
assembled into motors GREATER than 62.5 -- but ATF cleared that up rather
well (answer: its regulated)).
If you've got your LEUP (and proper storage), why would you worry about ATF
'hauling you off to the pokey' for some (questionable) "easy access" stuff.
You're legal, right? So why worry?? Drop those puppies in the magazine and
rock on. If you've got any questions, that's what your ATF Field Agent is
for. Don't waste your time with folks who *may* tell you their version of
the 'truth' (i.e. AeroTech or TRA) - but may have *nothing* to do with
'reality'. "Reality" here is defined by ATF. Really.
-- john.
SirWmOsler wrote in message <19991020221959...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
>Ok...I got my LEUP last fall when ATF said all motors w/ more than 62 g
total
>propellant would be regulated...no more easy access. Then Aerotech posts to
>their site that the atf told them easy access was ok. I'm getting my order
for
>RATS together and now they are telling me that EZ access is alive and well
so
>that the 29mm reloads are not regulated. Which is it? If I buy "Easy
Access"
>motors and don't burn them but bring them home, is the ATF gonna haul my ass
>off to jail when they come for their annual inspection? Does anyone know
the
>clear story? I should probably call ATF but was wondering what the gospel
>according to RMR is.
>See you at RATS.
>
>Art
>NAR# 34201 L1
>TRA # 6821 L1
Bill Westfield
total propellant would be regulated...no more easy access. Then Aerotech
posts to their site that the atf told them easy access was ok. I'm getting
my order for RATS together and now they are telling me that EZ access is
alive and well so that the 29mm reloads are not regulated. Which is it? If
I buy "Easy Access" motors and don't burn them but bring them home, is the
ATF gonna haul my ass off to jail when they come for their annual
inspection?
Heh, you're worried about ATF when Gulliani is so close? I keep waiting for
the NYC vice squad to raid a rocket launch...
:-(
BillW
--
(remove spam food from return address)
SirWmOsler
propellant would be regulated...no more easy access. Then Aerotech posts to
their site that the atf told them easy access was ok. I'm getting my order for
RATS together and now they are telling me that EZ access is alive and well so
that the 29mm reloads are not regulated. Which is it? If I buy "Easy Access"
motors and don't burn them but bring them home, is the ATF gonna haul my ass
Peter Clay
don't burn them but bring them home, is the ATF gonna haul [me]
>off to jail when they come for their annual inspection?
I seriously doubt it, but you have a splendid opportunity to be all legal and
clean when they come, don't you? Just log the things into your magazine as if
it mattered, and no matter whether the law requires it or not, you show a
compliant attitude and who will complain?
Unless you have one of those "no storage" LEUPs, which technically shouldn't
exist, if I understand correctly.
There is a discussion of this on ROL's InfoCentral. Anybody know if it's also
on r.m.r FAQ's?
My opinion only. Since I don't have a LEUP, you'd do best to check my facts
rather than trust them...
Peter W. Clay NAR 18619 SR L1
All control is in the hands of those who know. Will they help us grow...?
Gene Costanza
(unofficially) and here are some of the "newer" things that are:
Spitting on a subway platform (min. $50 fine). {My girlfriend HATES this
new enforcement}
Double-parking (~$250 fine) This is an out-and-out outrage! DP'ing is a
NYC institution and all cars doing so should be marked as "Temporary
Historic Landmarks"
Gentlemens' Establishments (shutdown) I *believe* this one is still in
the courts but many have closed down nonetheless. I don't frequent this
type of establishment, unless you define "frequent" as twice a week
;-)>.
The Mafia (6˝-to-life) Funny how an "organization" that began many moons
ago at the behest of illiterate Meditteranean peasants can monitor its
business activities by "demotion", "reallocation" and "severance" of
its various hierarchies from within sans an effect on the outside world
and STILL manage to provide enough external legal necessity to allow a
large portion of law enforcement to subsist. The irony is that their
Eastern European counterparts (who have precipitated the need for the
US superbill) have the initiative and creativity to develop economical
c'feiting plates for currency as low as the US $10 bill and go
unscathed. Additionally, a similar "organization" originating in a
former war-torn small Asian nation, in their never-ending quest for
verve and originality have made heroine so pure that some of our kids
are snorting it as we "speak" . This particular hierarchy also
"promotes" and "demotes" from within, yet seems to go virtually
unnoticed. I think some of Benito G's ancestry would be disappointed by
his vendetti.
WHEW! The caffeine JUST kicked in! Out of subconscious mode. What a
ride! {Who the hell wrote THAT crap?!}
I popped off a few 1000'ers in front of NY's Finest and I still managed
to make it to the bistro by 9AM without posting (No, not on the NG!).
Jamey #5295
we deal with , draw a definite distinction between the regulated and so
called "Easy Access" loads. (we live in the same state as John, thankfully
far away) They specifically stated "you are not required to keep records of
any Easy Access reload kits" period, i.e. those that can be bought through
hobby dealers (up to 38mm). They are fully aware of multiple grains being
assembled into one motor, in a reload kit as well.
Although the ATF has a somewhat murky reputation, our experience has been
with intelligent, informed individuals. We were even told by one agent that
any propellant in the trunk of your vehicle is regulated by the DOT (Dept.
of Transportation) NOT the BATF, no matter the amount.
Just show the agents exactly what you are required to, nothing more, nothing
less.
I don't think there is a clear story, this is our government after all. You
get told one thing , I get told another, Joe over there gets a third story.
Aggravating but bearable if you really like to burn AP. Citizens of other
countries, can't do many of these activities!!
BTW, John still has the TRA stick stuck up his a$$ and can't get it out,
that is why he always includes them at the crux of every problem that arises
with high power rocketry. (please ask privately, John "really" likes to cry
about it),
Jamey #5295
SirWmOsler wrote in message
<19991020221959...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
>Ok...I got my LEUP last fall when ATF said all motors w/ more than 62 g
total
>propellant would be regulated...no more easy access. Then Aerotech posts
to
>their site that the atf told them easy access was ok. I'm getting my order
for
>RATS together and now they are telling me that EZ access is alive and well
so
>that the 29mm reloads are not regulated. Which is it? If I buy "Easy
Access"
>motors and don't burn them but bring them home, is the ATF gonna haul my
Space Modeling Solutions
sirwm...@aol.com (SirWmOsler) wrote:
> Ok...I got my LEUP last fall when ATF said all motors w/ more than 62 g total
> propellant would be regulated...no more easy access. Then Aerotech posts to
> their site that the atf told them easy access was ok. I'm getting my order
for
> RATS together and now they are telling me that EZ access is alive and well so
> that the 29mm reloads are not regulated. Which is it? If I buy "Easy Access"
> motors and don't burn them but bring them home, is the ATF gonna haul my ass
> off to jail when they come for their annual inspection? Does anyone know the
> clear story? I should probably call ATF but was wondering what the gospel
> according to RMR is.
> See you at RATS.
>
> Art
> NAR# 34201 L1
> TRA # 6821 L1
One other note: don't forget that the ATF has much bigger fish to fry than
a bunch of hobbyists trying to do things the right way.
--
Peter Riddell, Proprietor (Licensed Arizona Retailer)
Space Modeling Solutions
486 East Devon Drive
Gilbert, AZ 85296
Voice (480) 497-1960
Fax with notification (480) 497-1960
http://pages.prodigy.net/riddell/smshome.html
Space Modeling Solutions
> Ok...I got my LEUP last fall when ATF said all motors w/ more than 62 g total
> propellant would be regulated...no more easy access. Then Aerotech posts to
> their site that the atf told them easy access was ok. I'm getting my order
for
> RATS together and now they are telling me that EZ access is alive and well so
> that the 29mm reloads are not regulated. Which is it? If I buy "Easy Access"
> motors and don't burn them but bring them home, is the ATF gonna haul my ass
> off to jail when they come for their annual inspection? Does anyone know the
> clear story? I should probably call ATF but was wondering what the gospel
> according to RMR is.
> See you at RATS.
>
> Art
> NAR# 34201 L1
> TRA # 6821 L1
I can tell you from my own experiences ordering motors (as an individual,
not my company), that 38mm stuff is O.K without the LEUP. The dealer will
just want you to fax a copy of your NAR level 1 cert, or they'll check the
Tripoli list and verify you're certified.
--
Peter Riddell 8^)
NAR # 75228 SR, Level One since July 10,1999
"Level Two via the Regulus III (coming soon)!"
Terry Moore-Read
Assuming that the grains don't become regulated until assembled together
inside the motor casing then you do not require an LEUP provided that the
motor is assembled and launched at the site and is not stored assembled at
home or transported assembled accross state boundries.
If an LEUP was required to store fuel grains totalling over 62.5 grams but
individually less than 62.5 then it would be illegal for me to posess more
than one G reload which is clearly not the intent of the regulations.
I'm sure that aerotech consulted both their lawyers and the BATF when
developing the "Easy access" program - if your local officer takes a
different view then ask him to consult his superiors back in DC.
--
---
Terry Moore-Read - te...@svwd.tzo.com or moor...@uswest.net
Get paid to surf the net - go to
http://www.gotoworld.com/getpaid/default.asp?rid=1024312694
John H. Cato, Jr. <jc...@accessatc.net> wrote in message
news:fVwP3.6$sa....@typ12.nn.bcandid.com...
> SirWmOsler wrote in message
<19991020221959...@ng-ch1.aol.com>...
Tom
>
> Bill, flying in Benito Giuliani's backyard isn't legal anyhow
> (unofficially) and here are some of the "newer" things that are:
>
> the courts but many have closed down nonetheless. I don't frequent this
> type of establishment, unless you define "frequent" as twice a week
> ;-)>.
When I was in Joysey last Nov there was a story about a major court
ruling on the NYC TV news. It seems there was one establishment that
allowed a parent to bring their minor child. A judge ruled that if an
establishment let minors in with parents - even if it's like once per
year - then Giuliani's law can't be applied to them because they were
considered a "family" establishment. Giuliani was fit to chew Uranium! I
wonder what happened to that case. Club in question was called the "Ten
Room" or something like that.
SirWmOsler
expected!) I should clarify that I have a "non-storage" leup. My leup is
under the provision that the hobby store will store my unused regulated motors.
DGRTEK
waiting for
>the NYC vice squad to raid a rocket launch...
You don't know how right you are!!!! It's not even funny how much freedom can
be taken away from individuals when certain politicians are at the helm!
Douglas
Darrell D. Mobley
>
> Sorry to disagree with John again (well not really :^), but our ATF agents
> we deal with , draw a definite distinction between the regulated and so
> called "Easy Access" loads. (we live in the same state as John, thankfully
> far away) They specifically stated "you are not required to keep records of
> any Easy Access reload kits" period, i.e. those that can be bought through
> hobby dealers (up to 38mm). They are fully aware of multiple grains being
> assembled into one motor, in a reload kit as well.
I think that depends on what agent you talk to, since I also have had
mucho conversation with the same Atlanta branch that you deal with and
they have all told me that if the motor, when assembled, is greater than
62.5 grams, then it is regulated -- end of discussion.
I don't see what is so difficult about this, people. If you have an
LEUP, like Art does, just log the stuff into your journal. If you
assemble it and don't fly it, disassemble it and put it in a ziplock bag
-- it's now 'unregulated' again, according the definition people here
like to put on it here.
Here's how I judge it -- do I want a felony charge? ( ) Yes ( ) No
The easiest way to insure that I don't is overcompliance, even if self
imposed. Err to the conservative and enjoy a long hobby career...
--
Visit "Rocketry Online" at http://www.RocketryOnline.com for the latest
rocketry-oriented Internet information.
"Your global rocketry resource..."
Darrell D. Mobley
> I can tell you from my own experiences ordering motors (as an individual,
> not my company), that 38mm stuff is O.K without the LEUP. The dealer will
> just want you to fax a copy of your NAR level 1 cert, or they'll check the
> Tripoli list and verify you're certified.
There's another misnomer -- you do not have to be certified with any
organization to purchase motors and dealers that verify that fact are
simply misguided or like to toe the party line. NFPA 1127 specifies
that you will be a certified flyer for the level of motor you wish to
purchase, but no laws that I am aware of require this. Why does
everyone insist on overcomplicating this? (Not you in particular,
Peter)
Steve
> I don't see what is so difficult about this, people. If you have an
> LEUP, like Art does, just log the stuff into your journal. If you
> assemble it and don't fly it, disassemble it and put it in a ziplock bag
> -- it's now 'unregulated' again, according the definition people here
> like to put on it here.
>
> Here's how I judge it -- do I want a felony charge? ( ) Yes ( ) No
>
> The easiest way to insure that I don't is overcompliance, even if self
> imposed. Err to the conservative and enjoy a long hobby career...
In our state, Washington, we've got one more consideration: We have to
pay a state tax on anything inventoried in an explosives magazine. So,
I won't be listing all of my motors in the magazine's log book. Only
what's legally required.
My small unregulated hobby motors will still be kept in my ammo cans
locked up in a safe place.
Steve
Darrell D. Mobley
> > I don't see what is so difficult about this, people. If you have an
> > LEUP, like Art does, just log the stuff into your journal. If you
> > assemble it and don't fly it, disassemble it and put it in a ziplock bag
> > -- it's now 'unregulated' again, according the definition people here
> > like to put on it here.
>
> In our state, Washington, we've got one more consideration: We have to
> pay a state tax on anything inventoried in an explosives magazine. So,
> I won't be listing all of my motors in the magazine's log book. Only
> what's legally required.
>
> My small unregulated hobby motors will still be kept in my ammo cans
> locked up in a safe place.
Which was my point. Unassemble the motor and put it back in a bag like
it came in and store it with your unregulated motors. No need to store
an assembled Easy Access motor unless you really want to...?
SirWmOsler
>> > LEUP, like Art does, just log the stuff into your journal. If you
>> > assemble it and don't fly it, disassemble it and put it in a ziplock bag
>> > -- it's now 'unregulated' again, according the definition people here
I don't think the ATF will look too kindly on motors logged in but never logged
out in someone who does not have a magazine or storage...which still begs the
original question- do I need to log my 29 mm H motors and other "Easy Access"
motors?
Dan Wolf
"Darrell D. Mobley" <ddmo...@rocketryonline.com> wrote:
>
> There's another misnomer -- you do not have to be certified with any
> organization to purchase motors and dealers that verify that fact are
> simply misguided or like to toe the party line. NFPA 1127 specifies
> that you will be a certified flyer for the level of motor you wish to
> purchase, but no laws that I am aware of require this. Why does
> everyone insist on overcomplicating this?
Well, for those of us who wanted to fly bigger rockets than model
rockets 15 years ago, and we're told we couldn't, here's how I see it.
I've seen statements like this from time to time on RMR and they have
always bothered me because it seems to question why Tripoli and/or the
NAR HPR program(s) were ever created.
Here's why I and others may think (right or wrong) that the
certification is required.
Way back in 1957 or so G. Harry and Orville Carlisle come up with a pre-
packaged model rocket engine. This was a good thing because not every
budding rocket scientist was as lucky or careful as Homer Hickam, Jr.
Many met with worse diasters than blowing up their mother's fence.
But, Model Missile and shortly to follow Estes model rocket engines
were not accepted overnight. In many states they were illegal, often
classified as fireworks or other explosives. But G. Harry, Estes, the
NAR all worked with the NFPA to get NFPA 1122 written. Then, they all
worked to get NFPA 1122 included in the laws of most states. This
process took nearly 30 years to complete. In the end, virtually every
state has in its laws, in the part(s) dealing with public safety and/or
explosives, an exemption for model rocket engines. Some states
followed NFPA 1122 closely. Others made reference to the NFPA codes.
Others picked parts and pieces of 1122. But virtually all of them
reference "model rocket engine".
Then the question becomes what is a model rocket engine? Again, going
back to the NFPA codes, a model rocket engine contains less than 4
ounces of propellant. Also, model rocket engines have to be certified
or they are not model rocket engines. There are also total impulse and
average impulse limits. So, just because a rocket engine is less than
a G doesn't make it a model rocket engine. It must meet the common
definition of a model rocket engine and that definition comes from NFPA
1122 (I have seen no other definition accepted).
Okay, so everything is going along fine. Over the course of 30 years
the NAR and the HIA is able to get NFPA 1122 as the "law of the land"
by and large. Then along comes a group of rocket enthusiasts that
wants to legally fly rockets that aren't model rockets but use similar
technology. These aren't the amateur rocket scientists types like the
PRS or the RRS. They aren't into roll your own zinc-sulfate or caramel
candy propellents or metal airframes or liquid fuel. Indeed, their
rockets resemble model rockets more than anything else. The airframes
are, for the most part, still made of frangible materials. The engines
they wish to use are quite similar to model rocket engines in many
respects. But, since the law of the land is NFPA 1122, they can't
legally fly rockets outside the NFPA 1122 model rocket definitions.
Finally, in 1986-87, the Tripoli Rocketry Association was established.
Tripoli considered itself and its members exempt from NFPA 1122 by
complying with section 1-1.4 (c) which allows for operation of rockets
outside the modroc limits by a corporation engaged in rocket research
and development. So, by joining Tripoli, the theory is/was that as a
member of an organization that meets the NFPA 1122 1-1.4(c)
requirement, it allows you to legally purchase and use rocket engines
that aren't model rocket engines in states that follow NFPA 1122. The
NAR, also bought into this line of reasoning as prior to that point,
the NAR, G. Harry, and other powers that be said that the NFPA 1122
limits were all you could do. Once Tripoli was formed, "they" no
longer required this, as Tripoli was considered a legitimate way to
comply with the laws of most states. Later, of course the NAR also
considered itself to meet the requirments of NFPA 1122 1-1.4(c). For
both organizations, they do impose requirements on allowing their
members to legally purchase rocket engines as "agents of the
corporation", that is, said members must be "certified".
Later, as the HPR activity got bigger, both the NAR and TRA saw the
need to create a "new" NFPA 1122 equivalent for HPR so as to have
a "law of the land" for HPR as was done for model rockets decades
before. The model that worked well before was used. NAR and TRA
worked through the NFPA to establish NFPA 1127 which is the HPR
equivalent of NFPA 1122. Now, the NAR, TRA, and the HPRMDA, have the
task of getting it codified into the laws of the states. Once it is,
then membership in such an organization will most certainly be a
requirement for purchase and use of rocket engines in most states.
In the meantime, whether or not membership or certification in the NAR
or TRA is required to fly HPR depends on how the state regulations
follow NFPA 1122. It seems clear in states like Massachusetts it
most certainly is required. In others, it is less clear. New Jersey
requires model rocket engines to be certified by a state agency or the
NAR. It says nothing about HPR engines. In most state statutes,
model rocket engines are granted an exemption, which implies that use
of non model rocket engines is illegal or requires a state permit or
license. Unfortunately, in many states, such as Wisconsin, the laws
would seem to indicate that rocketry outside model rocketry is not
legal at all except for government agencies. At best it is a gray
area. Thus the need for states to ratify NFPA 1127.
As another example, when I lived in New York, I contacted the state
agency that regulates this stuff about the legality and I was told it
was okay as long as I complied with BATF requirements. It took me
several phone calls and 3-4 months to get THAT answer. Mike Platt on
the other hand was told that this activity was illegal unless a state
permit was obtained that cost several hundred dollars. The state also
seemed to indicate to me that certification by NAR or TRA would be a
requirement. Again, the need for states to get NFPA 1127 rolled into
their state statutes. I believe Minnesota already requires this. So,
it would seem NAR or TRA membership/certification is required there.
Eventually, as 1127 gets rolled into other state statutes, it will be
required in most states.
So, in summary, the whole the basis for starting Tripoli was formulated
on the need to have a way for members to legally fly non model rocket
engines and rockets beyond the model rocket limits (as defined by NFPA
1122). Thus the reason why many people believe (and rightly so,
depending upon the state you live in) that Tripoli or NAR membership IS
required to purchase and use non model rocket engines.
My two cents,
Dan "felt like writing today" Wolf
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Chris Taylor Jr.
have seen in a Long time !!!
So much so that I am going to keep it !
Do I mind Nar and Tripoli requiring membership by law to fly those engines
NO I would have it no other way Do I worry about them maybe abusing this in
the future ? YES !
--
-----
Trust me you can Mail me without Mods
Chris
http://www.nerys.com/rocketry/
http://www.nerys.com/myjeep/
Dan Wolf <dw...@cognex.com> wrote in message
news:7v53lu$ju3$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Ted Cochran
> Again, the need for states to get NFPA 1127 rolled into
>their state statutes. I believe Minnesota already requires this. So,
>it would seem NAR or TRA membership/certification is required there.
Sorta kinda. The MN State Fire Marshall uses a part of the Uniform Fire
Code that says that for anything not explicitly covered in the code,
compliance with an adopted NFPA code is OK. The SFM interprets this as
allowing HPR activities in compliance with NFPA with no further local
restrictions, but they also allow HPR activities not in compliance with
NFPA as long as you're in compliance with the state regs regarding low
explosives. Guess which option we choose? :-)
--tc
My opinions only.
Jamey #5295
John H. Cato, Jr. wrote in message , the same tired crap he always comes up
with:^)
Jamey #5295
Bill Westfield
> always bothered me because it seems to question why Tripoli and/or the
> NAR HPR program(s) were ever created.
>
> Here's why I and others may think (right or wrong) that the
> certification is required.
[wonderful explanation deleted]
The problem is that TRA/NAR/NFPA were all more-or-less operating under
the assumption that these pre-built rocket motors that were sort of
like model rocket motors but didn't fit the NFPA1122 weren't already
regulated under some appropriate law. In fact, we now know that
they're regulated as EXPLOSIVES. If you meet your local, state, and
federal regs necessary for using explosives, then you don't need to
meet TRA/NAR/NFPAs requirements for using HPR motors.
Of course, this is really stupid. HPR motors and rockets aren't
explosives in any buy the most bogus legal sense, and the knowlege and
paraphernalia necessary to safely use "'real" explosives is neither
necessary nor sufficient to safely use HPR motors. A demolitions
expert with 20years of accident free experience isn't ready to launch
a level3 rocket, and a level1 HPR candidate need not know the details
on safe storage of 40% dynamite and blasting caps (as apparently
required in some states.)
Has NFPA1127 been rewritten with the current understanding of BATF
status of HPR motors in mind? It would be wonderful if states would
accept rules for HPR motors separately from other explosives (which I
think they're free to do so long as they aren't more lax than federal
laws (many state and local laws are MORE restrictive WRT explosives
than federal law.)) In a sense, California (with it's odd regulations
and special pyro licenses) is ahead in the game, because they divide
rockets into at least four catgories other than "explosives."
John H. Cato, Jr.
Terry Moore-Read wrote
>I'm sure that aerotech consulted both their lawyers and the BATF when
>developing the "Easy access" program -
You have GOT to be kidding?!?!?!?!
-- john.
(errortech's got *lawyers*??????)
:)
John H. Cato, Jr.
Jamey #5295 wrote in message <7un732$sn8$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>...
>Sorry to disagree with John again (well not really :^),
I'm heartbroken, Jamey.
>Although the ATF has a somewhat murky reputation, our experience has been
>with intelligent, informed individuals. We were even told by one agent that
>any propellant in the trunk of your vehicle is regulated by the DOT (Dept.
>of Transportation) NOT the BATF, no matter the amount.
Sounds like your ATF agent's reputation is going to get 'murkier' (your
experience notwithstanding).
Propellant in your trunk is NOT regulated by DOT unless it is there (and
transported) IN COMMERCE (go check 49 CFR).
>BTW, John still has the TRA stick stuck up his a$$ and can't get it out,
Sounds like you've got the 'John Cato stick' up yours, Jamey. (That is not
'banter' -- think about it a minute -- I mean it).
>that is why he always includes them at the crux of every problem that arises
>with high power rocketry
Jamey -- I've got a low opinion of (the 'leeders' in) Tripoli precisely
because they EARNED that unesteemed position. If you think you can cite some
information (that is not the offspring of your overactive imagination) that
can counteract and overturn what I have witnessed (and that 5lb stack of
letters and other documents I have) that so damns these individuals, then --
please -- let's see 'em.
Since I know you cannot do such - no matter HOW much you may desire to turn
these little 'devils' into the 'angels' they have so completely snookered you
into believing they are -- there is really no reason to go much further down
this road.
You are, of course, welcome to try. Admittedly, I still can get some (minor)
entertainment value out the 'alchemy' that some still seem to believe is
worth pursuing.
-- john.
Bill Nelson
:
: The problem is that TRA/NAR/NFPA were all more-or-less operating under
: the assumption that these pre-built rocket motors that were sort of
: like model rocket motors but didn't fit the NFPA1122 weren't already
: regulated under some appropriate law. In fact, we now know that
: they're regulated as EXPLOSIVES. If you meet your local, state, and
: federal regs necessary for using explosives, then you don't need to
: meet TRA/NAR/NFPAs requirements for using HPR motors.
The TRA knew that they were regulated. Otherwise, the organization
would not have been created as an "educational institution", which
is one of the types of organizations that are somewhat exempted from
the normal BATF requirements for usage of explosives.
: Of course, this is really stupid. HPR motors and rockets aren't
: explosives in any buy the most bogus legal sense, and the knowlege and
: paraphernalia necessary to safely use "'real" explosives is neither
: necessary nor sufficient to safely use HPR motors. A demolitions
: expert with 20years of accident free experience isn't ready to launch
: a level3 rocket, and a level1 HPR candidate need not know the details
: on safe storage of 40% dynamite and blasting caps (as apparently
: required in some states.)
The motors ARE explosives - as some of the rather violent CATOs you
probably have seen show.
When they function correctly, they act as propellants - not explosives.
However, the same can be said for most secondary explosive materials.
: Has NFPA1127 been rewritten with the current understanding of BATF
: status of HPR motors in mind? It would be wonderful if states would
: accept rules for HPR motors separately from other explosives (which I
: think they're free to do so long as they aren't more lax than federal
: laws (many state and local laws are MORE restrictive WRT explosives
: than federal law.)) In a sense, California (with it's odd regulations
: and special pyro licenses) is ahead in the game, because they divide
: rockets into at least four catgories other than "explosives."
They would still be bound by the Federal Explosives laws, as you note.
That means an inspected and approved explosives magazine if you plan on
storing motors. It also means a LEUP unless you purchase and use the
motors under very specific conditions.
--
Bill Nelson (bi...@peak.org)
GCGassaway
>>>The motors ARE explosives - as some of the rather violent CATOs you
probably have seen show.<<<
Take it to the farthest extent then air and water are "explosive" too since
they too can be used to overpressurize a container and make it go boom.
The main issue is whether AP propellant is an explosive, not whether rocket
motors in general can "explode". It is simply on ATF's list of low explosives,
no info on how HOW or WHY it is on "the list" or under what conditions if any
that AP propellant might explode (not to be confused with rocket engines in
general exploding, regardless of propellant chemistry).
And do note AP itself is not on the list. AP Propellant is what is on the list.
The stupidity of this issue is that the DOT has tested them and found them NOT
to be explosive, but flammable solids. Then once they arrive in your hands, the
ATF considers them to be an explosive. They've not tested the motors, they just
outright class them that way because they are on "the list". And then the
dominos start falling:
You need an LEUP.
You need an explosives magazine with all kinds of special requirements as to
what kind of structure it is housed in.
You need for your local fire marshall and other local authorities to go
ape**** at the thought of anyone storing "explosives" in or near their home.
Well, actually you don't need any of that (no more than you need to bang your
head against the wall), but you're required to do it. It makes no sense.
There's been no explanations found yet as to under what conditions AP
propellant might be considered a low explosive. Obviously if they were truly
low explosives, the DOT would not classify the HPR motors and reloads they've
tested as Flammable Solids.
- George Gassaway
Bob Kaplow
> Bill Westfield (bi...@iwan-view4.cisco.com) wrote:
> :
> : The problem is that TRA/NAR/NFPA were all more-or-less operating under
> : the assumption that these pre-built rocket motors that were sort of
> : like model rocket motors but didn't fit the NFPA1122 weren't already
> : regulated under some appropriate law. In fact, we now know that
> : they're regulated as EXPLOSIVES. If you meet your local, state, and
> : federal regs necessary for using explosives, then you don't need to
> : meet TRA/NAR/NFPAs requirements for using HPR motors.
>
> The TRA knew that they were regulated. Otherwise, the organization
> would not have been created as an "educational institution", which
> is one of the types of organizations that are somewhat exempted from
> the normal BATF requirements for usage of explosives.
Wrong reg. TRA was an attempt to get around NFPA 1122 via the 1-1.4
exemption there. Since NFPA 1122 is law in many states, the exemption would
allow TRA to fly HPR in excess of the then model rocket safety code. No BATF
exemtion ever existed or was implied.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Ctrl-Alt-Del"
Kaplow Klips: http://members.aol.com/myhprcato/KaplowKlips.html (baffle too!)
NIRA: http://www.nira.chicago.il.us NAR: http://www.nar.org
SPAM: spamr...@ChooseYourmail.com u...@ftc.gov postm...@127.0.0.1
Otto Burgess
AP and rocket motors. Perhaps TAR/NAR should point this out.
GCGassaway <gcgas...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19991101022432...@ng-fy1.aol.com>...
:
: