Can you build J and higher motors at home without having a Level 1 Certification?

[smarra01]

Please do not misinterpret what I'm trying to say though John. I have never, ever complained that EX activities were impacting my profits. Quite the contrary, as they do help our bottom line each year. The impact is in the TRA's refusal to acknowledge the manufactures' exemption from NFPA 1127 & specifically 6.1(4), as well as their interference with my private business sales, stating that manufactures are not allowed to sell non-certified motors for profit and codifying it in their safety code, well beyond the scope of 1127. They made it their own code 10-6 in the Unified safety code because 1127 and the NFPA doesn't prevent it. The simple removal or rewording of this 10-6 code is all that is needed.

In Jan 2020, about 2 months after the TRA president arbitrarily banned me for life from the HUGE venue of Argonia, KS, the TRA put threatening code in the TMT Policies and Procedures. Codes that would be extremely intimidating to any small manf. You must be logged into the TRA website, find the TMT Policies and Procedures codesin the bottom right, after you reach the correct page. Read 10.7.2 and 10.7.3 and ask yourself if you believe that the TRA would EVER use it on Aerotech and decertify ALL of Aerotechs reloads. The answer is no. They would never do that as it would kill the hobby instantly. So then, who else could they use that 10.7.2 on? Well, the answer is Aerotech, Loki Research and no one else.

I would like to see the removal of TMT Policies and Procedures 10.7.2 and 10.7.3 which would quite quickly put me out of business if one day someone arbitrarily decided to use it on me the same way the TRA President arbitrarily removed me 3 years ago from ever participating again at the 2nd largest HPR venue in the world without ANY recourse. Banned for life, all for triggering his favorite vendor by reporting, to him, the vendors flagrant TRA code & FAA law violations years before.

Scott,

This is 100% incorrect and you know it.
You and the other person in question have a violent past history with each other and you both well know it.
It is for this reason you both usually avoid each other. The last time before the occasion in question
the two of you came face to face it was at the event in question and the interaction exploded.

You were both told by the venues organizers
We simply cant have this sort of thing happening here, we try to make our event a family friendly event
and if this type of behavior ever happens again whoever is away from their camp will be permanently banned from our events.
The interaction happened again inside the other individuals camp.

The event in question is ran by a Non Profit rocketry club which is run by an elected board of directors who where elected.
You were banned by the club BOD.

Not one single aspect of this is news to you.
Your slandering a single individual over the organizations actions to protect there event simply proves there point.

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Show me how this is remotely true John. 1.3.3(2) exemption requires a licensed business. That is not simply an individual doing research for fun.
If individual fliers are exempt to make home made motors, experiment with them, modify and tamper with certified reloads, make available non-certified motors to others, etc., then why are codes 1.2.3(2), 1.2.3(3), 6.1(3), 6.1(4), 6.1(5) & 6.1(8) wrote into the document at all?
Who are these codes intended to cover then if not for the certified flier?
They aren't for non-certified members, because only certified members may obtain HPR reloads and motors that could later be modified or used improperly per the codes listed above.

I thought maybe @jsdemar was arguing that Tripoli is a Licensed Business that does rocket research. When Tripoli code allows for it, its members are doing sanctioned research so they are exempt? Anyway lets see if he responds. I think it is a reasonable interpretation.

Can you give a hypothetical example of how TMT P&P 10.7.2 could be used to put you out of business?

 

[AlexBruccoleri]

Scott,

This is 100% incorrect and you know it.
You and the other person in question have a violent past history with each other and you both well know it.
It is for this reason you both usually avoid each other. The last time before the occasion in question
the two of you came face to face it was at the event in question and the interaction exploded.

You were both told by the venues organizers
We simply cant have this sort of thing happening here, we try to make our event a family friendly event
and if this type of behavior ever happens again whoever is away from their camp will be permanently banned from our events.
The interaction happened again inside the other individuals camp.

The event in question is ran by a Non Profit rocketry club which is run by an elected board of directors who where elected.
You were banned by the club BOD.

Not one single aspect of this is news to you.
Your slandering a single individual over the organizations actions to protect there event simply proves there point.

Thanks for sharing! @Loki Research comments against the Tripoli president and other BOD are not appropriate for this forum IMO. We should keep this conversation to abstract discussions of the rules, friendly advice and constructive criticism.

 

[jsdemar]

Show me how this is remotely true John. 1.3.3(2) exemption requires a licensed business. That is not simply an individual doing research for fun.
If individual fliers are exempt to make home made motors, experiment with them, modify and tamper with certified reloads, make available non-certified motors to others, etc., then why are codes 1.2.3(2), 1.2.3(3), 6.1(3), 6.1(4), 6.1(5) & 6.1(8) wrote into the document at all?
Who are these codes intended to cover then if not for the certified flier?
They aren't for non-certified members, because only certified members may obtain HPR reloads and motors that could later be modified or used improperly per the codes listed above.

People keep telling me they can't make these changes to TRA codes, because of NFPA. That is flat out wrong.
NFPA does not need to change for anything I have asked but item 6.

6.1(5) is the official reason that Steve gives for allowing EX.
What specifically changed in 1127 6.1(5) between 2002 (when EX activities were not allowed) and now, when they are allowed?
Every word in 6.1(5) is identical from then until now. For 20 years that code has not changed.
Why do I ask this again? Because no one has YET to answer the following.

If 6.1(5) wording did not change at all, then how in the world did the TRA make EX activities possible without a single word change in 6.1(5)? How?
Because the TRA changed their interpretation and NAR did not. So if they can make an EX change to TRA code WITHOUT the NFPA code changing, then why can they make these changes I listed? They can surely make each and every change I am proposing with ease, because the changes are in their own codes, not NFPA, and the changes I am proposing are in line with 1127.

Yes, the TRA has the ability to write code that could drive me out of business if used improperly (TMT P&P 10.7.2 and others) and they also have the ability to wright codes that make business easier for me to grow and succeed (selling motors to exempt entities and allowing their flights by code), and for others to possibly follow, but in doing the latter, Gary will likely have more competition from me. Which direction does the membership want? It is their club, but not until they make it their club.

Scott,
When reading a legal document, you can't take anything out of context of the whole document. These are codes for the COMMERCIAL manufacture of high power rocket motors and the use of those COMMERCIALLY manufactured rocket motors. Section 3.3.5 of 1127 defines a Commercial Manufacturer. And 6.1(5) of 1127 goes further and states that it doesn't apply to a "recognized national user organization". TRA and its individual members are such an organization.
All of your arguments for the banning of TRA Research come down to your personal interpretation of the stated purpose in 6.1(5): "evaluation of new high power rocket motor technology". See the definition of technology in the source recognized by 1127 in section 3.1. For each individual TRA member, the meaning of "new" in the "the practical application of knowledge" is not up to YOU to decide!

It appears that you are dead set on looking for a way to ban any use of non-commercial rocket motors. Any reasonable person reading your postings will interpret it that way, even if you deny it in sparse areas of your daunting discourse. In fact, the only point you're still challenging after my reply to all your 6 points is: TRA Research!

In any event, TRA Research is not the reason you can't make a profit. And NFPA 1125/1127 are not limiting your ability to sell rocket motors to government entities, or universities. Nothing is stopping you from selling to anyone who wants to launch outside of TRA/NAR safety codes and insurance. In fact, nothing but your own limited resources is keeping you from doing much more in all the markets, big or small.

If you're still looking for an argument or a loop hole or an excuse, you're welcome to waste your time. I'm done wasting mine on your behalf.

 

[cbrarick]

Scott:

I've always liked EX and you supply hardware which we've appreciated. However, you've lost a lot of "face" with me by the rants on this public forum. If you were looking for me to be sympathetic, you've actually caused the opposite reaction

Gotta tell you I've heard about KS before but ignored it as hearsay. Hoping it wasn't true.

Hate to say this, but just chill! The forum isn't the place or the time for what you're doing. Pick a better place to air your ills.

Best of luck & have a happy New Year

Rick

 

[rcktnut]

Scott,

In any event, TRA Research is not the reason you can't make a profit. And NFPA 1125/1127 are not limiting your ability to sell rocket motors to government entities, or universities. Nothing is stopping you from selling to anyone who wants to launch outside of TRA/NAR safety codes and insurance. In fact, nothing but your own limited resources is keeping you from doing much more in all the markets, big or small.

If you're still looking for an argument or a loop hole or an excuse, you're welcome to waste your time. I'm done wasting mine on your behalf.

By anyone you mean government entities or universities, right?? As far as I know, no manufacturer or vendor will sell a person a reload, unless they are certified to use that particular motor.

 

[Loki Research]

I am NOT arguing for the removal of EX. In fact, I said I'd like it more clearly codified in 1127. How is that wanting to ban it?
We sell lots of EX items.

I'll say it again, I do not want EX to go away, and I do not believe for a moment that it ever will.

The entire reason, the ONLY reason I bring up EX is because of the hypocrisy and double standard in the TRA's excuses of not changing thier code to allow exempt EX motors and change the policy to have them insured. My motors are FAR safer than the average EX, and quite possibly our competitors too, so this should not be too difficult to achieve I would think. But because they are completely unwilling to work with me, making excuses of phantom 1127 codes, insurance and other TRA codes that can and have been changed in the past, I must bring it up as a case in point. If you want me to stop talking about EX, then start talking about insuring and allowing exempt rocket motors to be flown at TRA launches.

When others see the dishonesty and unwillingness to help, I would hope they consider running for an independent seat on the TRA board, and maybe then in a few more years they will be forced to seriously discuss it rather than going thru the procedural motions for show. I've already been waiting 3 & 1/2.

John, you're always offer more help without even asking. Thank you very much. You should really run for the board. You'd get my vote.

 

[jsdemar]

If you want me to stop talking about EX, then start talking about insuring and allowing exempt rocket motors to be flown at TRA launches.

Scott, please define an "exempt rocket motor". Be very specific and/or give examples.

 

[sharkbait]

Show me how this is remotely true John. 1.3.3(2) exemption requires a licensed business. That is not simply an individual doing research for fun.
If individual fliers are exempt to make home made motors, experiment with them, modify and tamper with certified reloads, make available non-certified motors to others, etc., then why are codes 1.2.3(2), 1.2.3(3), 6.1(3), 6.1(4), 6.1(5) & 6.1(8) wrote into the document at all?
Who are these codes intended to cover then if not for the certified flier?
They aren't for non-certified members, because only certified members may obtain HPR reloads and motors that could later be modified or used improperly per the codes listed above.

People keep telling me they can't make these changes to TRA codes, because of NFPA. That is flat out wrong.
NFPA does not need to change for anything I have asked but item 6.

6.1(5) is the official reason that Steve gives for allowing EX.
What specifically changed in 1127 6.1(5) between 2002 (when EX activities were not allowed) and now, when they are allowed?
Every word in 6.1(5) is identical from then until now. For 20 years that code has not changed.
Why do I ask this again? Because no one has YET to answer the following.

If 6.1(5) wording did not change at all, then how in the world did the TRA make EX activities possible without a single word change in 6.1(5)? How?
Because the TRA changed their interpretation and NAR did not. So if they can make an EX change to TRA code WITHOUT the NFPA code changing, then why can they make these changes I listed? They can surely make each and every change I am proposing with ease, because the changes are in their own codes, not NFPA, and the changes I am proposing are in line with 1127.

Yes, the TRA has the ability to write code that could drive me out of business if used improperly (TMT P&P 10.7.2 and others) and they also have the ability to wright codes that make business easier for me to grow and succeed (selling motors to exempt entities and allowing their flights by code), and for others to possibly follow, but in doing the latter, Gary will likely have more competition from me. Which direction does the membership want? It is their club, but not until they make it their club.

When reading a legal document, you can't take anything out of context of the whole document. These are codes for the COMMERCIAL manufacture of high power rocket motors and the use of those COMMERCIALLY manufactured rocket motors. Section 3.3.5 of 1127 defines a Commercial Manufacturer. And 6.1(5) of 1127 goes further and states that it doesn't apply to a "recognized national user organization". TRA and its individual members are such an organization.
All of your arguments for the banning of TRA Research come down to your personal interpretation of the stated purpose in 6.1(5): "evaluation of new high power rocket motor technology". See the definition of technology in the source recognized by 1127 in section 3.1. For each individual TRA member, the meaning of "new" in the "the practical application of knowledge" is not up to YOU to decide!

It appears that you are dead set on looking for a way to ban any use of non-commercial rocket motors. Any reasonable person reading your postings will interpret it that way, even if you deny it in sparse areas of your daunting discourse. In fact, the only point you're still challenging after my reply to all your 6 points is: TRA Research!

In any event, TRA Research is not the reason you can't make a profit. And NFPA 1125/1127 are not limiting your ability to sell rocket motors to government entities, or universities. Nothing is stopping you from selling to anyone who wants to launch outside of TRA/NAR safety codes and insurance. In fact, nothing but your own limited resources is keeping you from doing much more in all the markets, big or small.

If you're still looking for an argument or a loop hole or an excuse, you're welcome to waste your time. I'm done wasting mine on your behalf.

you have been pretty blunt and quite frankly pretty ignorant in your whining rants about the BOD and some other prominent people in the hobby, so I will stoop down be the same as you don’t seem to process the calm and rational exchange and do seem dead set to piss up the EX research aspect of the hobby for everyone else so…

1. Your vendor base is looking pretty lame, not a knock on those guys by any means but a quick search of the 4 out of 5 vendors that have websites shows only some 38mm loads available from them. Why not expand that vendor base and stock them up with a fuller priduct line? I think that could help your bottom line getting more product in the hands of the consumer

2. You own website shows a large portion of your already certified ready to legally sell to the flyers motors as “unavailable”. Perhaps making more motors to offer the full line of Loki products would also boost the bottom line

3. You continually whine about the certification issues, it’s part of the game you chose to be in, and a quick TMT search shows only 2 Loki motors certified since 2018, what’s the big deal there??? Also the TMT option of buying s motor from a vendor that you would have to pay back, exactly how many times has that happened???

4. You continually say TRA is going to shut you down. If you would just follow the rules there would be no cause or need to decertify you, don’t think they really want to shut anyone down but rule breaking without consequence is pretty useless, so follow the current rules and stop fear mongering that TRA is just waiting for you to mis-step so they can close you down

5. Argonia banishment
Why not come back in a positive way and send a large contingent of vendors armed with a full supply of motors to sell and maybe even give the some sales incentive deals to again move that product and create a better bottom line. Loki motors are not banned from KS so get those there vis the vendor base

6. 1127 is not hurting your business, nor is 1125. It’s been made quite clear to you that you may sell whatever uncertified motors you want to the universities, you need to work with them to find venues, waivers, and insurance to do their thing as it has been made quite clear that TRA & NAR venues do not support such flights. So assist them in finding and getting set up with venues that will support such activities

As far as the masses, I cannot speak for everyone, but myself and EX crowd would like to continue on and many of us do support Loki products, like top quality hardware and casting and liner sets and chem’s. That said though I will leave you with a Star Trek quote from Dr. Spock “the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the one”

 

[rfjustin]

Scott, please define an "exempt rocket motor". Be very specific and/or give examples.

Ding ding ding! There is the rub when it comes to insurance. Insurance, underwriting, and risk mitigation strategies are predicated on clearly defined risk appetites of the commercial carrier. Granted there is an art to underwriting (more so in the personal lines realm), but when it comes to things like general liability in the commercial insurance space, the carrier will want no ambiguity regarding the "what" they are insuring. Commercial insurance underwriting resources typically rely on highly detailed and narrative based loss control reports that drive their decisions to accept or reject a given risk based on their book of business.

In the case of Scott @Loki Research, he knows the ins and outs of what motors he is making for whom, and it makes sense to him because he is the SME. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news Scott, but "Exempt rocket motor" is a highly ambiguous descriptor and if it cannot be clearly defined, it can't be insured.

My insurance consulting fees are $225 an hour/4 hour minimum, who wants to continue the conversation offline please?

 

[tim cubbedge]

The OP is a ghost and all his questions were answered. Nothing more to learn.