ATLANTA, Georgia USA — When it comes to rockets, bigger is not necessarily better. Those plastic, flimsy model rockets shown at science fairs seem outdated when compared to the souped-up rockets hobbyists now launch into the skies.

Often measuring as high as 20 feet and weighing more than 100 pounds, they appear to be mini missiles rather than model rockets. The rockets receive the same designation even though its propellant is classified as explosive, meaning hobbyists are required to obtain both state and federal licensing.

However, a bill sponsored by Sen. Mitch Seabaugh, R-Sharpsburg, would remove model rockets from the list of explosives, which enthusiasts said would make their hobby lives easier.

Senate Bill 299 now sits in the Public Safety and Homeland Security Committee, and with crossover day coming Tuesday, its odds of passing this session appear slim.

On crossover day, the 30th day of the legislative session, bills have to be passed by either the House or the Senate to be considered this year.

Seabaugh said he was at first unaware of the issue but introduced the legislation at the urging of Burl Finkelstein, an avid rocketeer in his district.

If the law is not altered, Finkelstein said the hobby will continue to decay in the state.

"The number of people in rocketry has decreased dramatically," he said in reference to the stricter regulations.

Licensing is required to manufacture and transport, as well as use, sell and store the rockets, which Finkelstein said limits the number of companies selling the supplies and the people willing to go through the licensing process.

Chris Stephens, Assistant State Fire Marshall over Hazardous Materials, has monitored the wording of Seabaugh's bill and said he has no problem with its intent.

"Up to this moment, we have not experienced a concern to public safety," he said in regard to the high-powered rockets.

As of now, only six people have received the required state license, Stephens said.

Even if Seabaugh's bill were to pass, it would still be a federal issue.

Under federal law, a model rocket possessing more than 62.5 grams of propellant must receive approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

This clearance includes a permit, background check and fingerprint identification.

Attempts to exclude rockets from the federal definition of explosives have been unsuccessful.

Chuck Walden, President of the Savannah Hilton Head Area Rocketry Club, acknowledged the increased security concerns that arise in a post 9/11 world but said model rockets are not an issue.

He said an amateur rocket would not be able to shoot down an airplane since it lacks the guidance system and speed necessary for such a feat, adding that all rockets capable of exceeding 1,000 feet in altitude require clearance from the Federal Aviation Administration.

Walden estimated that hundreds of people in Georgia launch rockets that require the licenses, but blamed confusion over the law for any violations.

He too, worried about the increased regulation.

"They're stifling a harmless hobby," he said. "This is safe activity that should be enjoyed by as many as possible."

03-22-2007 03:26 PM  #1
Raider Rocketry Low Power Enthusiast   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 128	It seemed to me that the article was slanted. Whatever happened to news where the facts are reported without the journalist passing comment like, “…they appear to be mini missiles rather than model rockets.” Another thing that bothered me was, “…it’s propellant is classified as explosive, meaning hobbyists are required to obtain both state and federal licensing,” coupled with “Under federal law, a model rocket possessing more than 62.5 grams of propellant must receive approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.” There was no mention of a trial, now in it’s 7th year, over this very fact. Not only that, but the 62.5g limit does not cover all propellants. “Seabaugh said he was at first unaware of the issue but introduced legislation at the urging of Burl Finkelstein, an avid rocketeer in his district.” Thank you Burl Finkelstein. I am sure you were not alone in this and I’m sorry they didn’t get to share the credit. I’m also sorry that the article appears to be an equal blend of portraying you as trying to keep the hobby alive and as trying to get rid of “reasonable” (by omission of due diligence in research and reporting) legislation. Perhaps the paper could do a series on it, taking a week and really digging into all the issues. Perhaps day 1 could cover a high school presentation launch. Day 2 could get into clubs and cover mid- to high-powered rockets. Day 3 could cover one of the many university projects done under current regulation. Day 4 could present the BATFE side of the NAR/TRA vs. BATFE case. Day 5 featuring interviews with TRA and NAR representatives would make a nice ending for this series. There are just too many items here to encapsulate in such a small article to do the people involved proper justice.

03-22-2007 07:17 PM  #2
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3189	Thumbs up! Quote: It seemed to me that the article was slanted. Whatever happened to news where the facts are reported without the journalist passing comment like, “…they appear to be mini missiles rather than model rockets.” I thought the article was positive. The "mini missiles" comment is atypical of journalists who aren't familiar with what the hobby has become, and something that I liken more to "Wow! That's really cool, and look how BIG those are!" The author was just communicating his awe. But the real story is that a state legislature has examined the issue of rocket motors being considered an explosive and found that it isn't credible. That is important. If we can show the judge that while the ATF is trying to expand their jurisdiction by harrassing model rocketeers, state goverments are saying they just don't buy it. So much so that they are willing to try to repeal licensing requirements in the state. That is exactly what we are trying to do on a federal level and the article speaks volumes. Quote: Another thing that bothered me was, “…it’s propellant is classified as explosive, meaning hobbyists are required to obtain both state and federal licensing,” coupled with “Under federal law, a model rocket possessing more than 62.5 grams of propellant must receive approval from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.” There was no mention of a trial, now in it’s 7th year, over this very fact. Not only that, but the 62.5g limit does not cover all propellants. But what he said is true. While that might not be a wonderful thing to us, it's still factual to the average reader. I doubt very much that the bureau chief at the paper told him to go uncover a conspiracy, which would explain why he only focused on the matter at hand — a bill that had stalled in the house. Like the average reader, there isn't enough interest in the Georgia legislature to take action on it either. Quote: I’m also sorry that the article appears to be an equal blend of portraying you as trying to keep the hobby alive and as trying to get rid of “reasonable” (by omission of due diligence in research and reporting) legislation. I just don't see this. The fact that it got any press at all is miraculous to me. The writer just doesn't have the time budget to do what you suggest. Quote: Perhaps the paper could do a series on it, taking a week and really digging into all the issues. Perhaps day 1 could cover a high school presentation launch. Day 2 could get into clubs and cover mid- to high-powered rockets. Day 3 could cover one of the many university projects done under current regulation. Day 4 could present the BATFE side of the NAR/TRA vs. BATFE case. Day 5 featuring interviews with TRA and NAR representatives would make a nice ending for this series. This simply is NOT going to happen. This isn't a special interest article or even series, it's a legislative wrap up article looking for the unusual. Quote: There are just too many items here to encapsulate in such a small article to do the people involved proper justice. Again, just a legislative wrap up article about what the current session is dealing with in Atlanta. Not designed to get into the meat of the topic, just cover what is odd on Capitol Hill.

03-22-2007 07:54 PM  #3
herefishy Certified Level Two   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 56	I'm kinda neutral on the article. The one thing that bugged me while reading it was that it was consistently stated that the issue was the regulation of "rockets". But it is not the rocket that is regulated, it is the propellant. In that sense, I found the tone of the article to be inaccurate relative to its overall presentation. An amateur attempt to explain the issue IMO. Maybe it is meaningful to someone who isn't familiar with the issue, but I am not sure what impression the information (as it is presented) would have on a layman. Regards, Mark

03-22-2007 07:58 PM  #4
Raider Rocketry Low Power Enthusiast   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 128	After reading through your comments DD, and rereading the article, I have to say that perhaps I was tilting at windmills. Sometimes I misinterpret things and it can be difficult to tell the tone from the language when reading. I think it's happened to us all. It is wonderful to see someone in the legislature anywhere trying to raise restrictions rather than impose more of them. Up until this article I would not have thought it possible. Please keep up the wonderful news updates. Be warned though that I reserve the right to be wrong from time-to-time. Damon Vice-President in charge of Foot in Mouth department, Raider Rocketry

03-22-2007 09:41 PM  #5
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1978	I was also disappointed in the article. I appreciate that the state legislature might enact some legislative relief, but the article left many false impressions, which when corrected, may result in the noninvolved reader suspecting us of overstating our case for sympathy. The article made it appear that rockets must be approved by ATF and that any rocket that goes above 1000 feet must have a waiver. Neither is true. It looked as though an editor "improved" the article by doing a search on the phrase "rocket motor" and replaced it with the word "rocket." However, with that said, there were some excellent points to the article, such as the fact that participation in the hobby is down. On balance, I think the article did much more good than it did harm, but we all need to be aware of the regulations and accurately inform reporters, so that we do not become seen as stacking the deck. The truth is sufficient.

03-23-2007 12:40 PM  #6
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3189	How about this take? Here's an angle: Granted the writer wasn't an expert on the subject, but the real story here is that NO ONE KNEW ABOUT IT. No matter how unaware the general public might be or how misinformed the media might come off, if there is lawmaking going on that offers legislative relief to the hobby and our organizational leaders don't notify the membership so they can lobby their representives, then how can we possibly hope to get this passed? I find it impossible to believe that this bill was drafted in a void, and at some point, the people involved had to let others know what was going on. I never heard ONE PEEP from the national organizations that this was taking place and that members in Georgia (or members who had family, friends and acquaintances who lived there) should contact their representatives and push for the passage of this bill. How can the national orgs NOT KNOW when something of this magnitude comes up for vote? State regulation is second only in priority to the national fight. How could this story NOT HAVE COME through our hobby organizations and ended up being told by the misunderstanding press? AND at the last minute.

03-23-2007 06:29 PM  #7
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1978	Quote: Here's an angle: Granted the writer wasn't an expert on the subject, but the real story here is that NO ONE KNEW ABOUT IT. No matter how unaware the general public might be or how misinformed the media might come off, if there is lawmaking going on that offers legislative relief to the hobby and our organizational leaders don't notify the membership so they can lobby their representives, then how can we possibly hope to get this passed? I find it impossible to believe that this bill was drafted in a void, and at some point, the people involved had to let others know what was going on. I never heard ONE PEEP from the national organizations that this was taking place and that members in Georgia (or members who had family, friends and acquaintances who lived there) should contact their representatives and push for the passage of this bill. How can the national orgs NOT KNOW when something of this magnitude comes up for vote? State regulation is second only in priority to the national fight. How could this story NOT HAVE COME through our hobby organizations and ended up being told by the misunderstanding press? AND at the last minute. How would they know? I agree that they should, but I honestly don't know if someone in office at either of our orgs does what you do - sifting the media sand looking for nuggets about rocketry. My feeling is that our orgs, currently staffed only by some unpaid volunteers and one or two paid staff members (who have their hands full assembling binders, paying bills, etc.) cannot possibly do this for us. We are the organizations. We need to push intel like this up to our leaders. Then we need to work with them so we are all rowing together. Perhaps more pointedly, what would it take for our organizations to start the ball rolling on these legislative efforts? A few years ago we worked with Mike Enzi to try to get something going. At that time it was shot down procedurally without ever coming to a vote. 9/11 was still fresh in the minds of some and was used as an excuse. One thing it will take is a highly organized effort. We need a vocal membership that is ready to inundate legislators with letters and phone calls and we need someone who is familiar with how to effectively lobby to lead the charge. Maybe we can borrow someone from the NRA.

03-23-2007 10:03 PM  #8
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Quote: How would they know? I agree that they should, but I honestly don't know if someone in office at either of our orgs does what you do - sifting the media sand looking for nuggets about rocketry. I think you missed his point. Go back to this sentence: Quote: I find it impossible to believe that this bill was drafted in a void, and at some point, the people involved had to let others know what was going on. What he is saying is that people don't go to this effort and not tell anyone, especially in the current regulatory environment regarding licenses and permits. The people involved are regular fliers at the Orangeburg, S.C. launch site, and I can't imagine them not sharing the information with someone who would have passed it on to HQ. It's ... inconceivable. Based on this premise, I believe, that is why he is saying why is this information coming to us through the media and not through the channels that were involved the action?

03-23-2007 11:13 PM  #9
Clark Tripoli L2   Joined: Sep 2006 Posts: 16	Interesting article. I know Burl and want to congratulate him for getting the attention of a politician. As far as the inacuracies of the article I'm not going to complain. It gets our problem out in the public eye. Who, then with a little research of their own, can really find out about the fight our hobby has been in with Big Brother. The more people that know, the more will get involved. Let's get more politicians involved. Enough of them start gripping about our plight their constituents will have to address the issue eventually. How do we get more politicians on our side? 1)Invite them to a demo launch, school activity, TARC session, etc.. 2)If they turn you down, keep inviting them. Don't take no for an answer. 3)Keep our launches safe. 4)Keep up our involvement in TARC, schools, NASA SLI, 4H, Scouts, etc..

03-23-2007 11:49 PM  #10
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1978	Quote: I can't imagine them not sharing the information with someone who would have passed it on to HQ. It's ... inconceivable. If it's impossible to believe that they worked on it without telling anybody, then why didn't any of us hear anything about it? To the best of my knowledge it was never mentioned on either the NAR Sections Yahoo list or the TRA Forum. Once released, gossip travels pretty fast, even if not accurately. So, it comes down to this: If you didn't hear about it why would you expect the officials of NAR or TRA to have heard about it? If you did hear about it, why didn't you take it up with NAR or TRA or at least bring it to one of these lists? We are the NAR and the TRA. If we don't do it, it won't get done and we cannot blame anybody else. Quote: Based on this premise, I believe, that is why he is saying why is this information coming to us through the media and not through the channels that were involved the action? What channels do you think failed to relay it to us? The news release only mentioned members of the local club, the fire marshall, and the representative. I suspect that the local rocket club contacted the representative. Then, the representative worked with his legislative aids and the rocket club members for a couple of meetings to draft a bill. Then, the representative's office probably released this to the media along with a list of his other accomplishments. It happens all the time. The local rocket club was probably consumed with working on the details of the bill rather than worrying about how to get the news to us, and that is a good thing. The representative's office probably knows little about us. I don't see this as either a conspiracy of NAR/TRA keeping us in the dark or a failure of them to alert us to legislative actions. I think they found out the same time as you and I. The local rocket club did the right thing by building an alliance with their local representative and that is an example we all need to be following.

03-24-2007 11:27 AM  #11
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3189	Quote: I don't see this as either a conspiracy of NAR/TRA keeping us in the dark or a failure of them to alert us to legislative actions. Steve, with all due respect, I think you are acting extremely naive about whether or not the TRA and NAR keep you in the dark with regard to our regulatory situation. For the record, I submitted the article to headquarters about the Georgia bill stalling on the Hill, and since then, what have you heard? NOTHING? Really? Do you know what I have heard? The same. I haven't gotten a response. Not a "thank you", not a "we'll pass this on", not a "keep up the good work", not an autoresponder saying "I'm on vacation and my email box is full", nothing. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Why is that? Why is a piece of legislation that would roll back regulation of hobby rocketry going to die in Georgia and nothing is being done about it? I agree that our organizations are being run by a bunch of fine volunteers, but just like the members of our local volunteer fire department, they know if they take the job, there'll be a fire every now and then. The times have changed running hobby rocketry organizations and if our current crop of volunteers can't take the heat, then they need to get out of the firehouse. We need some that can take a gift like a legislator who is willing to write law that repeals existing rocketry regulation and AT LEAST make an announcement so that the membership can respond. I'll tell you what I believe. I believe that the people involved, the Burl Finkelstein crowd, got the representative to say they'd look into it. I believe they contacted the hobby organizations about it. And I believe the hobby organizations did just what they did with my submission of the article: NOTHING. Maybe they were overwhelmed with current commitments, maybe their real jobs got in the way, I don't know. But based on actual experience of the TRA/NAR lawsuit, I have all the reasons to doubt the national organizations and none of the reason to doubt the people involved with the Georgia law. There are countless examples of the memberships of both organizations who have complained about the communication during the lawsuit, some likening it to being treated like mushrooms: fed a bunch of crap and kept in the dark. You are right about one thing: We are the TRA and we are the NAR and if the people we have elected don't represent who we are, then it's time to replace them.

03-24-2007 11:53 AM  #12
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Quote: I suspect that the local rocket club contacted the representative. Then, the representative worked with his legislative aids and the rocket club members for a couple of meetings to draft a bill. Then, the representative's office probably released this to the media along with a list of his other accomplishments. The local rocket club was probably consumed with working on the details of the bill rather than worrying about how to get the news to us, and that is a good thing. Let me see if I follow you here. The local rocket club, who has spent probably hundreds of their own dollars contributing to the NAR and TRA lawsuit, were working on this scenario: "Man, it's great we could get some regulatory relief from the state of Georgia as well as on a federal level. I am getting heat from my wife because of all the money I have contributed to the federal lawsuit." "Yeah, me too. I have now contributed MORE to the lawsuit than a federal permit AND a magazine would have cost me." "Well, we'll get these details worked out with Senator Seabaugh's office and see where it leads. Who wants to be the lead person to communicate this with the NAR and TRA?" "Man, I think we should just keep this to ourselves. I mean, this is a state issue, not a national issue, and they are probably tied up doing other things. You know, they are only volunteers." "Yeah, well so are we! If we let them know about it, they can let the members know and we can get more support for the legislation." "I know, I know. I'd just rather no one else know about it. Besides, after our work is done, I am going into an induced coma until after the legislation comes up for a vote. That way, I have an excuse for not having time to alert the national orgs about the possibility that a bill could be coming up for vote here in Georgia." Or could it be that a bill was written and rushed out to the legislators so quick no one had time to follow up? I find it hard to believe that AFTER the bill was written (and the people involved were done with their input) there wasn't time to sit back, reflect on the effort and then say, "Whoops! Someone probably should let the national orgs know we have a similar situation going on in Georgia that the membership would probably want to know about." Alternative theory? Silence is golden. And not letting your adversary know what you are doing in even more golden. The national orgs could believe that such legislation is supportive of the national lawsuit, but to communicate it to the members would alert the ATF to their knowledge of the legislation, and give them time to posture a rebutal to it should the NAR/TRA bring it up. "We support ya, Georgia, but we just can't comment on it now." Sacrificial lamb?

03-24-2007 03:52 PM  #13
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1978	Quote: Steve, with all due respect, I think you are acting extremely naive about whether or not the TRA and NAR keep you in the dark with regard to our regulatory situation... snip... You are right about one thing: We are the TRA and we are the NAR and if the people we have elected don't represent who we are, then it's time to replace them. Don't worry Darrell, it's not the first time someone has called me naive and usually for good reason. All I am saying is that I don't know that NAR or TRA knew about this bill or why they did nothing, but I am not ready to accuse them without having some facts, other than that we heard nothing from them. And, while it is possible they could be keeping us in the dark, I have never seen evidence that they censored rocketry based threads on either the NAR Section news Yahoo list or the TRA member list. Nobody on either of those lists has discussed the legislation in Georgia. So as naive as I may be this subject just has not made the lists. I have written to forums before and advocated that we should be drowning our representatives in mail informing them about the poor treatment rocketry is receiving at the hands of the ATF. NAR leadership has responded by saying that now is not the time to involve our legislators. So I know how they feel. I completely disagree. Now is exactly the time we should involve our legislators so they can see what ATF has done. Every time we write to ATF responding to a Request for Comments on a rule change, we should send a copy to our congressmen or senators telling them why it's a crock. TRA BOD has been more agreeable to my position. Still, I think that much more should be done. If it takes a grass roots movement within our organizations to push this, I believe in that. I am disappointed that NAR does not. We need to seek legislative relief. Otherwise ATF will continually try to find ways to change the rules that affect us. What this state club did was exactly what was needed. Now we all need to do it on a national scale.

03-24-2007 05:49 PM  #14
ddmobley Administrator   Joined: Jul 2006 Posts: 3189	I recall you bringing the subject up on the TRA list before and the topic shot full of holes, I believe, because our legal team didn't think it was the right approach or the right time. There is the possibility that backlash can result, as was evidenced by Senators Lautenburg and Schumer during the Enzi bill era. But at least a reasoned dissent for not taking action is better than no dissent whatsoever. I can sleep with reason, I can't sleep with no action.

03-24-2007 05:59 PM  #15
shockwaveriderz Model Rocket Historian   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 36	this is a poorly written article. 1st of all, model rocket motors are not on the georgia list of explosives. The federal ATF list of explosives is included by reference into the georgia state explosives law. Model rockets and model rocket motors are exempt from the georgia state fireworks laws. The writer of this artcile, like alot of other articles written about model rocketry ae incorrect as model rockets and high power rockets are indeed 2 separate and distinct entities. Since I assume this artcile was supposed to be about HPR APCP motors, which currently in the form of APCP is on the batfe and georgia state explosives laws, I assume that is what the writer was attempting to say. EVEN if rocketry enthusiants were successful in removing APCP as an explosive on the georgia state explosives list, it would be meaningless as the federals take precedence over state laws. Here in KY blackpowder in any quantities are exempt from the state explosives laws; but all federal laws still have to be followed. People wrting about our hobby have been mixing and matching model rocketry, amateur rocketry and HPR since at least the 50's... It should be a crime to write about something when you don't know what you are talking about. terry dean TITLE 16. CRIMES AND OFFENSES CHAPTER 7. DAMAGE TO AND INTRUSION UPON PROPERTY ARTICLE 4. BOMBS, EXPLOSIVES, AND CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS O.C.G.A. § 16-7-80 (8) "Explosive" means any chemical compound or other substance or mechanical system intended for the purpose of producing an explosion capable of causing injury to persons or damage to property or containing oxidizing and combustible units or other ingredients in such proportions or quantities that ignition, fire, friction, concussion, percussion, or detonator may produce an explosion capable of causing injury to persons or damage to property, including but not limited to the substances designated in Code Section 16-7-81; provided, however, that the term explosive shall not include common fireworks as defined by Code Section 25-10-1, model rockets and model rocket engines designed, sold, and used for the purpose of propelling recoverable aero models, unless such devices are used as a component of a destructive device. TITLE 25. FIRE PROTECTION AND SAFETY CHAPTER 10. REGULATION OF FIREWORKS O.C.G.A. § 25-10-1 (b) As used in this chapter, the term "fireworks" shall not include: (1) Model rockets and model rocket engines, designed, sold, and used for the purpose of propelling recoverable aero models took me all of 3 minutes to find this terry dean the only thing interesting bout this article is the fact that a large number of states use the federal BATFE List of Explosives as their state List of explosives; the significance of this fact is, even if APCP is removed from the Federal List, APCP will remain on these state lists up until we can get state action in those states to also remove APCP. terry dean

03-24-2007 10:59 PM  #16
Burl F New Member   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 1	What Are You Doing For Rocketry? Thank you all for your commentary on the article. Naysayers take notice: If any of you have ever given facts to a reporter you would better understand how an article may not be technically correct. The reporter interviewed me on the phone for about 15 minutes and then wrote the story. He is not a expert on the topic and he is not writing for a rocket flier audience. In other words, get over it, an article that fairly brings rocketry into the public forum can be a good thing. Georgia presently requires Federal LEUP holders to get State Explosive licences. Look up all the code sections you want but that is the fact. I am spending my personal time trying to remedy this situation instead of just complaining to my friends. I dont want to go into to much detail because the process is still ongoing in legislative and non-legislative channels. Since some comments were made about the lawsuit I think we need to cover any contingencies of possible outcomes. Winning would be great but not realistic as the only potential outcome. We may win or we may not, putting all faith in the suit to save the hobby is foolish. I am working with ATF right now on options we have under current law to make flying HP easier for more people. Since there is no longer such a thing as "easy access" motors many casual HP fliers are dormant. Sometimes a "behind the scenes" discussion gets more done than the emotionally charged public battle. Last but not least. Being an armchair quarterback is wonderful to have debates. What are you accomplishing for the hobby?

03-25-2007 03:08 PM  #17
crontab Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 204	Quote: Since some comments were made about the lawsuit I think we need to cover any contingencies of possible outcomes. Winning would be great but not realistic as the only potential outcome. We may win or we may not, putting all faith in the suit to save the hobby is foolish. I am working with ATF right now on options we have under current law to make flying HP easier for more people. Since there is no longer such a thing as "easy access" motors many casual HP fliers are dormant. Sometimes a "behind the scenes" discussion gets more done than the emotionally charged public battle. What? Steve Shannon may be onto something. Perhaps the people involved in Georgia didn't tell anyone at the national orgs what they were up to! How ... inconceivable!

03-25-2007 07:55 PM  #18
shockwaveriderz Model Rocket Historian   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 36	can u spell coordination? imagine this: the nfpa codes allow a state to make its own rocketry laws that supercede nfpa regulations; hence we have California; imagine a future where we have 50 states, each with their own rocketry laws and regulations; might cause a big mess? terry dean nar 16158

03-25-2007 07:57 PM  #19
herefishy Certified Level Two   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 56	Quote: Last but not least. Being an armchair quarterback is wonderful to have debates. What are you accomplishing for the hobby? I don't think anyone is attacking anyone, here (except for this comment). I made an objective comment relating to the content of the article without any knowledge nor familiarity of the writer, nor the source of his information. So I guess I should just shut up and accept the consequences of the results of the people that are "doing something"? I said something. You know, the armchair quarterbacks are usually the ones buying the tickets that pay the wages of the players. What am I doing for the hobby? I am paying my dues and buying motors and supplies.... and flying rockets. Also, I am expressing my opinion on occassion. Kind Regards, Mark

03-26-2007 09:23 AM  #20
Raider Rocketry Low Power Enthusiast   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 128	Quote: the nfpa codes allow a state to make its own rocketry laws that supercede nfpa regulations; hence we have California; imagine a future where we have 50 states, each with their own rocketry laws and regulations; might cause a big mess? Yeah, but California always has been kinda it's own deal. I've never been to a state where you had to go through border patrol when entering from another. Even the commonwealths aren't that weird. States have to be able to make their own laws because that's how our country works. Let's deal with the national problem and then address the state issues is kinda how I see it. I'll still admit it's heartwarming to see someone going at it on a state level though. Grassroots at work.

03-27-2007 04:55 PM  #21
Centuriflyer New Member   Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 1	The reporter called me and spent about twenty minutes discussing rocketry in Georgia. It's interesting to see how my comments were translated from voice to print. I did indeed tell him that rockets that fly higher than 1,000 feet need a waiver, but I explained that this is only required for large HPR-style rockets. The reporter pitched the angle that since the state says only six rocketeers are licensed that everybody else must be flying illegally. I corrected him but he didn't print much of what I told him. At least he dropped the outlaw rocketeer story... This guy writes for the local Savannah paper but lives in Atlanta. He said he called me because I was the first club president on the Georgia NAR list to answer the phone. I encouraged him to talk to the local Atlanta clubs and go to a launch before he submitted the story. I guess that didn't happen. Oh well, I did the best I could. There are inaccuracies, of course, but it's awfully nice to see a model rocket story that doesn't make us look like pyros. Chuck Walden, L2 President, SHARC flysharc.org NAR Section 613 Savannah, Ga

03-27-2007 06:04 PM  #22
Steve_Shannon When in doubt, ask Keenan   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 1978	Quote: Oh well, I did the best I could. There are inaccuracies, of course, but it's awfully nice to see a model rocket story that doesn't make us look like pyros. Chuck Walden, L2 President, SHARC flysharc.org NAR Section 613 Savannah, Ga Chuck, I'm sorry if my post expressing disappointement about inaccuracies seemed pointed at you or anybody else in your group. I didn't mean it that way and I should have phrased it better. I know that any time you explain something as complicated as this to someone who is lacking your point of reference there are bound to be misunderstandings, no matter how patiently or clearly you explained things. I think that your group is on the right track and I wish you luck. Regardless of the outcome I hope that your group will add the lessons learned while working through the legislative process to the collective body of knowledge we can later use as we go through similar efforts in different states or even federally.

03-29-2007 01:35 AM  #23
agrippo Certified Level Three   Joined: Aug 2006 Posts: 105	I am a Pyro and proud of it Quote: There are inaccuracies, of course, but it's awfully nice to see a model rocket story that doesn't make us look like pyros. What's wrong with being a pyro? You make it sound like I shouldn't enjoy the thrill of combining fire, smoke and noise into one compact yet still expensive package. Geez...