Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 2.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Regulatory Progress
#1
Regulatory progress has been made on several fronts over the past three decades.

APCP is BATFE exempt.

FAA tripled the MR mass limit.

NAR increased the per motor limit.

FAA has an amateur limit of about 200,000 Lb-sec.

The only hurtle left is for DOT to conform with BATFE and admit that slow burning solids are not only not explosives, but not even flammable solids and are exempt in full. That's next.

Oh, let's return 27 CFR 55.141-a-7 to reality too. The term "starters" for feeble igniters is soooo lame. That was changed about the same time as 27 CFR 55.141-a-8 in response to the lawsuit.

Originally Posted by falingtrea on YORF
So what kind of glasses you wearing Jerry? From what I have seen, all APCP propellants burn at a rate of more that 2 mm per second (even outside the case) so they meet the burn rate requirement for 4.1 Flammable Solid classification even according to the doc you linked to.

About +1.5. Nope. Test it. To keep it simple start with a piece of Kline delay we all know burns at 1/32" per second. 0.794 mm/sec. Other pro burns faster. It might not work on AT Warp-9 if they achieve the burn rate with ground AP, but USR BK which uses catalyst with a higher burning rate exponent passes. 

Slower pros pass easily. 95% of the market. I think Estes BP might pass since they add a passivator to it to slow it down.

The threshold is 0.087 ips. But as you know with DOT they have exemption letters they grant for some things, so perhaps 50% above that might also be included with an exemption letter. 0.130 ips. @ STP.

I have been saying this for a good while with zero industry interest or effort, but a good deal of mocking like you, and unless my certs are re-approved I have zero incentive to do it on my own and benefit everybody else doing business. Eliminating HAZMAT entirely would be of considerable interest to many consumers, schools and dealers.

Science Jerry

TRA #12 
IEAS #0
NAR #24333

cite:

http://v-serv.com/usr/FS-holygrail.jpg
Exemptions not regulations. Please purchase a few rockets from http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm
Thanks. Support eliminating explosive treatment of slow burning solids by DOT.
Reply
#2
Regulations have declined significantly in the past decade, there's no arguing that. Are you making an effort to persuade the DOT to conform to BATFE, and if yes, how?

Are you actively pursuing recertification of your motors? Why are they being rejected?
Reply
#3
(06-08-2015, 11:51 AM)patelldp Wrote: Regulations have declined significantly in the past decade, there's no arguing that. Are you making an effort to persuade the DOT to conform to BATFE, and if yes, how?

Are you actively pursuing recertification of your motors?  Why are they being rejected?

I am forming a coalition of the willing to address the regulator about conforming to physics.  Most of the leaders of the effort come from the professional and amateur side not the consumer manufacturer side.  It appears the consumer vendors like the exclusivity they have built with the Hazmat, membership requirement, user test requirement, and annually expiring user certification requirements. Except for hazmat, none of that exists for model rocketry, another form of CONSUMER rockets. There are no laws restricting access to larger rocket motors, only club rules and their associated self-published NFPA regulations.

TRA decertified a few dozen motors with no notice or reason. I suspect any new certs would arise out of NAR, unless TRA wants to give me the same exact deal they gave Kosdon, full recertification for a year pending new samples and any needed updated paperwork, if any. TRA is having BOD meetings at LDRS. Big Grin

Generally with motor announcements it is best to report past events and not promise vaporware.

I have continuously been a willing and able vendor to the consumer rocketry community, including during the AeroTech outage following the industrial accident. I had the very first certified HPR motors, after all.

Jerry TRA #012
Exemptions not regulations. Please purchase a few rockets from http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm
Thanks. Support eliminating explosive treatment of slow burning solids by DOT.
Reply
#4
In addition to the Federal Regulators, the clubs themselves in cooperation with manufacturers represented on the NFPA committee, promulgate rules that funnel people through them to the exclusion of clubs and manufacturers not represented on the committee, and cannot be since NFPA restricts membership to two representatives each from manufacturers, clubs, and trade associations.

As a result several defects in the regulations have stayed in place at least since 1986.

Excessive offset distances
Club tethering of user certifications
Motor requirements well beyond what the law requires
No allowance for misfire alley range setup

U.S. Rockets home page paragraph on the subject:

INTRODUCTION U.S. Rockets was founded in 1980 by advanced model rocketeers to serve an expanding definition of consumer rocketeers. U.S. Rockets products pioneered the concept and definition of Large Model Rockets (LMR) which are now defined as under 125g (0.28 pounds) propellant and under 1500g (3.3 pounds) liftoff weight. This is the current definition of a "model rocket" in the NAR safety code.

In 1984 U.S. Rockets succeeded in convincing NAR to consider studying High Power Rockets (HPR) for inclusion into the safety code regime. NAR formed a commission to study rockets which exceeded the then safety code limits of propellant and liftoff weight. The result of a NAR multiyear study during which several other associations formed to serve HPR consumers, was that NAR decided to adopt HPR as a valid consumer sport and define a safety code almost identical to the USR version (except excessive offset distances): the NAR HPR safety code. Following that NAR codified these codes and other rules, with the defects and excesses in place, into NFPA-1122 and NFPA-1127 in cooperation with other industry groups and interested parties including all major manufacturers, but with some specific objections from small manufacturers related to recreational BP handling, club tethering, and offset distance issues, which in hindsight has virtually eliminated "lone ranger" users, about 90% of the market for HPR size rockets and motors. Needs Fixin'. Safety Codes Link.
Exemptions not regulations. Please purchase a few rockets from http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm
Thanks. Support eliminating explosive treatment of slow burning solids by DOT.
Reply
#5
If insurance coverage is tethered to safety code which is tethered to imperfect regulations, then those regulations will not be changed at the grass roots level by sane people without the aquiescence of the underwriters.
Reply
#6
NAR and TRA insurance are second to pay policies. The primary coverage you have when you are at a rocket launch is your homeowners, renters, or personal liability policy. NAR, TRA, Estes and Aerotech have unilateral authority to change the rules at will, and do.
Exemptions not regulations. Please purchase a few rockets from http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm
Thanks. Support eliminating explosive treatment of slow burning solids by DOT.
Reply
#7
(06-09-2015, 02:13 PM)Rocketman Wrote: NAR and TRA insurance are second to pay policies.  The primary coverage you have when you are at a rocket launch is your homeowners, renters, or personal liability policy.  NAR, TRA, Estes and Aerotech have unilateral authority to change the rules at will, and do.
Insuance is primary now (at least NAR is).  I agree that the rules can be unilaterally changed but if it eliminates, raises insurance premiums, then they won't change.  Insurance is boss.

Indy clubs can make their own rules but still follow NFPA presumably to get an underwriter to write a GenRe policy for them. Insurance company's really don't like covering perils with no claim history. Change the rules and there will be no claim history under a new less restrictive rule regime. No insurance, no business.
Reply
#8
(06-09-2015, 02:36 PM)jderimig Wrote:
(06-09-2015, 02:13 PM)Rocketman Wrote: NAR and TRA insurance are second to pay policies.  The primary coverage you have when you are at a rocket launch is your homeowners, renters, or personal liability policy.  NAR, TRA, Estes and Aerotech have unilateral authority to change the rules at will, and do.
Insurance is primary now (at least NAR is).  I agree that the rules can be unilaterally changed but if it eliminates, raises insurance premiums, then they won't change.  Insurance is boss.

Indy clubs can make their own rules but still follow NFPA presumably to get an underwriter to write a GenRe policy for them.  Insurance company's really don't like covering perils with no claim history.  Change the rules and there will be no claim history under a new less restrictive rule regime.  No insurance, no business.

Since they have changed rules several times without that horribilization coming to pass, there is no reason not to change the minor things I listed which does not substantially change the safety regime. As I have said, homeowners, renters, and general liability insurance already covers any recreational use of rocketry. Jet Hitch included. Big Grin
Exemptions not regulations. Please purchase a few rockets from http://v-serv.com/usr/instaship-visual.htm
Thanks. Support eliminating explosive treatment of slow burning solids by DOT.
Reply
#9
Jet Hitch that was kool! I hope they start actually selling those!


Bill Clune L3 | NAR#88583
Been a launch Director
Founded a Club
MARS Club|SRC|MDRA - Forever
Reply
#10
(06-09-2015, 04:51 PM)Rocketman Wrote: As I have said, homeowners, renters, and general liability insurance already covers any recreational use of rocketry.


Insurance is for the landowner not the flyer. Landowners are not impressed with as low as $20K liability limited homeowners and renters policies and not all rocketeers own homes or have personal insurance.  Landowners want to see big liability policies and deep pockets.  No place to fly = no hobby.

What you are suggesting is aspirational, but its just dreaming in todays economic and risk adverse environment.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)