Rocketry Planet
| R130: NAR S&T Kosdon Motor Announcement |
|
|
|
| 2009 Archived News by NAR Standards & Testing | |
| Thursday, June 25, 2009 | |
|
When the motors are tested and certified the NAR will add them to the certified motor list. But we will not be giving interim certification to the Kosdon motors that were certified in 2001. The reason is that our requirements and Tripoli's were slightly different at that time. Instead of decertifying the motors with no consumer burn time the NAR left them on the certified motor list giving people the burn time needed to use old motor stock. So the burn time that Tripoli is now giving their members, the NAR gave their members in 2001. Also, such certification would be against policy stated in our Motor Testing Manual which is available at http://www.nar.org/SandT/docs/ST-MotorTestingManual.pdf. NFPA Code 1125 requires the successful completion of static testing before any rocket motor can go from being "uncertified" to "certified". Kosdon rocket motors have been "uncertified" for several years. Until the static testing required by NFPA 1125 is done by Tripoli Motor Testing or some other recognized testing authority, the NAR does not regard Kosdon rocket motors as being certified. In accordance with our Safety Code, these motors may not be flown on any range where NAR insurance is in effect until this testing is successfully completed. But we do look forward to seeing Frank back making motors and will be delighted when we can start burning his newly certified stock.
|
As you may have heard Tripoli Rocketry Association has reinstated Dr. Frank Kosdon as a TRA certified manufacturer. Tripoli Motor Testing has also recently granted a one-year interim certification for all Kosdon Enterprises motors that retained approved status at the time of his decertification in April 2001. TRA has declared these motors are only interim certified for Tripoli members, essentially giving them a portion of the burn period they did not receive at the time of censure. The interim certification will end on June 30, 2010, with full certification to be granted for each reload kit going through comprehensive TMT or NAR S&T testing prior to that date.| << Previous Article | Next Article >> |
|---|
Related
Top News
Popular
Sectional Menu
Upcoming Events
February 11, 2012
North East Florida Association of Rocketry Launch Held at the Clegg Sod Farm near Bunnell, FL 1...
ICBM Orangeburg, SC
February 11 - 12, 2012
Sport launch Saturday Research launch Sunday Possible night launch Saturday night
View Full Calendar
 |
Newsdesk RSS Feed
Users Currently Online
 |
terry dean
terry dean
Correct. NAR and TRA have a treaty initiated when TRA tried to take over NAR where they mutually agree to not criticize each others' policies. So far to date 100% of the instances have been NAR forgiving/ignoring TRA.
TRA is a thug. They are "our" thug.
Who finds it as ironic and counter-intuitive as I do, that during most of the time at issue, the President of NAR was from Chicago, and the President of TRA was from Utah?
Jerry
Kinda hard to need forgiveness when you stick to the rules. Kudos to NAR S&T.
terry dean
You may be misinterpreting due to a couple of mischaracterizations in S&T's press release:
The motors did not undergo a "un-certified to certified" state. Un-certified is a motor that has never been certified. The motors did go from "de-certified to certified" state in TMT's opinion.
There is nothing in 1125 to support S&T's position. For some reason they are using a bogus argument to rationalize their position. They have every right to take the position to not reciprocate, but they should not hid behind a bogus 1125 excuse.
Stu
The motors did not undergo a "un-certified to certified" state. Un-certified is a motor that has never been certified. The motors did go from "de-certified to certified" state in TMT's opinion.
There is nothing in 1125 to support S&T's position. For some reason they are using a bogus argument to rationalize their position. They have every right to take the position to not reciprocate, but they should not hid behind a bogus 1125 excuse.
Stu
Would you please parse that for me?
If a motor is de-certified, I do believe there is no basis in TRA or 1125/1127 rules to allow it without a major reliability failure claim which did NOT occur. But once it is done, and the motors are refused for "re-certification" within 3 years, they are not certified at all by any perspective after that. That applies equally to Kosdon, ACS-Reaction Labs, Vulcan Systems, U.S. Rockets and several others. I mentioned the ones who tried to overcome the illegal de-certification as an example.
So how could TRA make a "second error" and claim that temporary certification could be possible at all under any circumstances?
TRA helped author the certification rules, yet doesn't follow them on EITHER de-certification or re-certification, and in addition to that, applies these errors inconsistently among vendors.
They are favoring one guy over 3 others, pure and simple.
YA "friend of Gary".
Jerry
Even if we assume for the moment that NFPA does not require decertification nor even acknowledge that it exists for reasons other than safety and performance changes - the NAR/TRA rules are for their members at their launches under their insurance. They are permitted to exceed the requirements of NFPA 1125/1127 etc.
It's perfectly OK for NAR to say that they will not permit these motors under these circumstances. I also think that TRA is within their rights to say you can only fly RED motors on Thursday launches. The only complaint I have is that TRA appears to be a bit inconsistent in their actions. A level playing field is required. NAR at least seems to be sticking to the stated policy and not making changes to the rules on the fly.
Jerry - what burn down period was given to users of your motors?
Jerry - what burn down period was given to users of your motors?
Zero. In fact the immediate de-certification was announced RETROACTIVELY by a couple of months (announced in March as effective the prior November IIRC). I guess they didn't want me to squawk.
In the case of Vulcan and ACS it was announced at some east coast launch effective immediately. It was enforced by Prefects at HQ demand, but I am not sure it was ever officially published. Mine was a "note" on the TMT page for many years.
By refusing to reinstate my membership as promised, they also excluded me from Balls, etc. Which they enforced on three occasions I was on the Jeff Jacob team and was asked to NOT attend the launch.
If there were a level playing field at TRA they would re-certify USR and ACS motors pending resubmissions right now.
The reason they do that is to give the "designated" vendor a cash-flow from sales to pay the considerable costs to do all new paperwork within that year. Screw the actual rules. It costs on the order of $10,000 per vendor name for governmental compliances, plus about $5000 in club certification fees and costs, plus about another $7000 in specialized pre-approval shipping costs. It's not cheap, and if you are banned with no prospect of being unbanned, it is just good money after bad.
Jerry
There is nothing in 1125 to support S&T's position. For some reason they are using a bogus argument to rationalize their position. They have every right to take the position to not reciprocate, but they should not hid behind a bogus 1125 excuse.
Stu
I think certification status can have one of two possible states. Either a motor is certified or it is not. Maybe we need to "invent" suspended certification like driver's licenses to make the Kosdon recert quasi-conforming to NFPA1125.
Even if we assume for the moment that NFPA does not require decertification nor even acknowledge that it exists for reasons other than safety and performance changes - the NAR/TRA rules are for their members at their launches under their insurance. They are permitted to exceed the requirements of NFPA 1125/1127 etc.
It's perfectly OK for NAR to say that they will not permit these motors under these circumstances. I also think that TRA is within their rights to say you can only fly RED motors on Thursday launches. The only complaint I have is that TRA appears to be a bit inconsistent in their actions. A level playing field is required. NAR at least seems to be sticking to the stated policy and not making changes to the rules on the fly.
The reason you are wrong about this is because TRA has specifically ADOPTED NFPA-1125 as their rule. By violating a rule they adopted they are violating their charter and probably breaking the law to the extent NFPA-1125 is law in ANY state.
Whether enforced or not, for a nationally recognized non-profit to overtly break the law and overtly break their own rules is disturbing to say the least.
To make such an "exception" for one vendor but not 2-3 other like situated vendors is discrimination as well.
On this topic TRA is rarely enforced against by the very vendors they screw, but are quick to screw vendors with questionable enforcement authority as raised by this vendor account:
"Back in the day, we were asked to provide ours and had some prefects demanding our CSFM approval letters at launches otherwise our motors couldn’t fly. They were playing cops for someone I guess."
Jerry
Selective enforcement, impersonating a law official. That's pretty risky stuff.