- Joined
- Nov 12, 2018
- Messages
- 356
- Reaction score
- 215
This seems like an unfortunate precedent. I believe that the majority of organizations to whom FAR provides services are universities and not necessarily TRA members.
This edict suggests that following the TRA safety code to the letter is no longer sufficient, and that events and activities are also subject to approval by the BOD.
The obvious question is whether the BOD is planning on editing the TUSC to reflect this additional requirement, or just add language that FAR is excluded as a place that can host "Tripoli Launches" per the safety code definition? Neither seems appropriate.
That FAR does not necessarily follow the TRA safety code for non-TRA activities seems besides the point.
One would think that the more constructive response would be to educate the membership that activities at FAR that are not in conformance with the TRA safety code are not considered "Tripoli launches", and thus are not covered by TRA insurance, same as any other non-TRA safety code compliant activity anywhere else.
This edict suggests that following the TRA safety code to the letter is no longer sufficient, and that events and activities are also subject to approval by the BOD.
The obvious question is whether the BOD is planning on editing the TUSC to reflect this additional requirement, or just add language that FAR is excluded as a place that can host "Tripoli Launches" per the safety code definition? Neither seems appropriate.
That FAR does not necessarily follow the TRA safety code for non-TRA activities seems besides the point.
One would think that the more constructive response would be to educate the membership that activities at FAR that are not in conformance with the TRA safety code are not considered "Tripoli launches", and thus are not covered by TRA insurance, same as any other non-TRA safety code compliant activity anywhere else.