I read that same book.

__________________
I love sanding.

Then I would suggest modifying the certification process to put an age limit on black powder motors.

This is a COMPLETE crock and you know it... or should...

And NO, my comments regarding competition and the impact of the reasons stated are the very basis of the current certification system and why it is implemented as it is...

SO, if "storage and it's effects" are the only issue, then WHY is it perfectly fine to fly, say, a C6-5 that may have been made, say, in 1966, yet one cannot 'legally' fly a more recent motor made by a mfg. that is no longer in business... simply because of the 'capricious' act of 'decertifying' the motor??

This is nonsensical. Either old motors are safe to fly are they aren't. Certainly storage IS an issue-- even motors with an EXCELLENT reputation for reliability, if stored under extreme conditions or subjected to ill treatment in storage or handling will be quite prone to malfunction. That is a GIVEN. Also, there are certain motors that were at best questionably reliable when they were brand new, for example F100's, D13's, and E15's, yet they received certification. Granted the certification of some of these motors was later "withdrawn" or the motors changed (de-rated) to create higher reliability (as the D13's became D12's, and the E15's became E9's). Nothing ever happened to the F100 AFAIK, other than the fact that their certification expired after a set period of time when FSI went kaput and they were no longer in production. It's also perfectly obvious that motors that DO show themselves prone to "malfunctions" SHOULD be statistically tested to determine at what rate and the proper steps taken to correct the problem, or the certification SHOULD be withdrawn ON SAFETY GROUNDS. BUT, lets not kid ourselves that just because a motor is 20,30, or even 40 years old, it is somehow 'intrinsically unsafe' compared to a newly minted motor of the same type and kind. I've flown 20+ year old Estes motors and had a success rate at least equal with "new" motors less than 2 years old. Yet somehow THAT is glossed over-- how is that a 30 year old motor made by a manufacturer that just happens to STILL be making that motor is considered *perfectly safe* and "certified" yet a similar type and age motor made by a manufacturer who is no longer manufacturing that motor, or no longer in business, is considered de-facto *unsafe* and decertified??

It's a double standard and I for one will call it what it is...

Argue semantics all you want, the system is STILL broken and should be corrected.

Later! OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

For more information on the NAR S&T, go to this website....

http://www.nar.org/NARsandt.html

QUOTE: "S&T not only tests new engine offerings, but re-tests each approved engine type once in every five-year cycle to ensure repeatability and help identify creeping degradation in manufacturing or distribution practices. In addition, S&T collects and reduces data from motor malfunction reports sent in by consumers, using this data to trigger special testing of questionable engines and engine lots."

Obviously, if the motor is no longer in production, they can't perform the five year testing and will decert the motor. Is that five-year testing required? I don't know. I don't care. The current process works for me. Check the NFPA 1122 requirements if you think it's not required and use that to support your proposal to change.

Once certified always certified? One reason to decert OOP motors is so they HAVE to go through the cert process again if they're ever manufactured again. If you don't put them through the process, how do you know the A8-0 manufactured today meets the same standards as when it was produced 10 years ago? The performance curve could be different, the production process might create some less than satisfactory results. They might not be SAFE! You won't know till they go through the certification process.

Contest certification only means that the certified motor is widely enough available to the general public to allow its fair use in NAR competition. The key is availability of already certified motors.

__________________
Don
NAR 53455
"Carpe Diem"

WHY?? Where's your data proving that motors beyond a certain age are unsafe?? Sounds like typical lefty thinking to me-- "better safe than sorry-- guilty until proven innocent". Ever meet a regulation you DIDN'T like??

What a crock!

There are certain motor designs that 'push the limits' of what's actually practical... the core-burning BP F100 was one... anecdotal evidence has been presented that their failure rate was pretty dismal. Of course proper ignitor installation and handling did have a GREAT deal to do with their reliability (or perceived lack thereof). The D13's were quite prone to catos and were "detuned" to D12's to improve their reliability. The E15 motor also tested the pressure containment limits of it's casing, and was prone to debonding or cracking of the propellant from what I've read (IIRC) and was retooled as the E9. Large BP grains are, by their very nature and the properties of the materials themselves, prone to cracking and case debonding over time, which can enlarge the combustion surface area and cause casing rupture when fired.

So what are you saying there, peter?? Maybe we should outlaw all BP motors larger than a D motor... Seems that's what you're arguing for...

Also, there is a concept that a lot of people find very difficult to grasp... I see it all the time in my line of work (agriculture). With a lot of things, hobby rocket motors included, the quality and reliability is the highest it will ever be THE MOMENT IT IS MANUFACTURED. Just like hay, which is the highest quality it will EVER BE the MOMENT IT IS CUT. Now, you can't take poor quality forage and make dairy quality hay, that is, hay of a higher quality than the source forage it came from-- simple logic will tell you that. BUT, if handled, baled, and stored properly, even lower quality forages can be put up as hay that RETAINS MORE NUTRITIONAL VALUE THAN HIGH QUALITY FORAGE THAT HAS BEEN IMPROPERLY HANDLED! I see that all the time-- farmers that grow gorgeous fields of heavily fertilized bermudagrass, spray for every weed, cut at just the right growth stage, BUT THEN LEAVE THE CUT GRASS LAYING FLAT ON THE MEADOW FOR A WEEK before raking and baling-- which VIRTUALLY RUINS the finished product... I can cut a regular old prairie grass meadow with a few weeds and even some tougher older grasses in amongst the lower growing and less nutritious native grasses, and CUT, RAKED, BALED, and STORED properly will beat the pants off the "Cadillac grass" that was handled SO poorly it turned to 'cardboard' before the baler ever rolled it up.

My point is, that one can take a supposedly "unsafe" motor that has been handled and stored correctly and if used correctly have a reasonable expectation of success-- CERTAINLY NO HIGHER PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS THAN WHEN THE MOTOR WAS NEW, to be sure-- logic dictates that. BUT, if done correctly, the chances of success are not especially lower than the average rate of success for that particular motor design when it was new. ALSO, one can take a robust motor with an EXTREMELY high success rate design, and THROUGH IMPROPER AND CARELESS HANDLING, STORAGE, AND USE, have a VERY high probability of failure... similar handling of the more 'twitchy' motor design would almost guarantee failure, to be sure... but the point is, THERE IS NO SUBSTITUTE FOR PROPER HANDLING AND USE. PROPER HANDLING AND USE IS COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS (for motors for sale to the general public, obviously, since motor testing is a destructive process).

We can also infer logically that PROPER HANDLING, STORAGE, AND USE WILL GREATLY INCREASE THE PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS USING A PARTICULAR MOTOR REGARDLESS OF THE ROBUSTNESS AND CONSERVATIVENESS OF ITS DESIGN. Also, THE PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS, ASSUMING PROPER HANDLING, STORAGE, AND USE IS OBSERVED, IS DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL TO THE ROBUSTNESS OR CONSERVATIVENESS OF THE PARTICULAR MOTOR'S DESIGN, as established by failure rates and modes proven out by statistical testing. The probability of success for an older motor, handled, stored, and used properly, can be no higher than the probability of success when it was originally manufactured. HOWEVER, IMPROPER HANDLING, STORAGE, OR USE CAN AND DOES SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGE THE RELIABILITY OF ANY MOTOR DESIGN NO MATTER HOW CONSERVATIVE OR ROBUST IT MAY HAVE ORIGINALLY BEEN.

In other words, you can't turn straw into gold, but you CAN turn gold into crap by handling it wrong!!!

Later! OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

Good points, but the simple fact is, that if the concerns were that old motors were intrinsically unsafe due to their age, the old motor testing program would not exist. Lets not kid ourselves-- plenty of folks fly 'uncertified' motors that they have existing stores of or came into possession of... regarless of their certification status. That's why the old motor program was initiated. I know folks flying under the old motor program, and I fail to see how having a bit of paper from NAR saying you're in the old motor program somehow makes flying those motors 'intrinsically safer' than me flying the same motor without that bit of paper-- the motor doesn't know the difference! LOL

The ongoing S&T testing of current production every five years isn't about the reliability of old motors-- S&T doesn't routinely test old motors in statistically significant quantities to my knowledge... the purpose is to establish that the motors being manufactured AT THE TIME OF TESTING ARE OF "SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE" TO THE ORIGINAL MOTORS SUBMITTED FOR CERTIFICATION. IE to determine if the motors' production quality is up to the standards it was at the time the motors were originally produced and submitted for certification. We all know tooling and equipment wears out, and the composition of feedstocks used (such as clay for nozzles-- anybody remember 'poopy clay' nozzles?) and the various ingredients in the propellant(s) can change over time from batch to batch, source to source, or due to (mis)handling, contamination, or storage concerns. Worn tooling can end up making, say for example, nozzles that are significantly smaller than the original specs, or cause other such differences in the manufacturing that can introduce failure modes into the finished product. This "ongoing testing" is to establish that the motor being manufactured 5 years hence is substantially equivalent to the motor being made today, which should be substantially equivalent to the motors made 5, 10, 15, 20, or more years ago. This ongoing testing merely establishes the fact that the motor AS MANUFACTURED, WHEN MANUFACTURED is comparable to what it was 'back then' (last testing cycle).

Now if that motor is stored in a Conex box through the summer in Phoenix and spends the next winter in a Conex in Minnesota, and you KNEW that, how many would volunteer to put that motor into their favorite rocket?? I know I wouldn't! BUT, if a friend gave you some motors he found in the back of his closet, stored in an air conditioned house in a relatively sealed box, in a continuously stable environment, even if it were say 30 years old, would it be any less safe to fly than a similar motor 'fresh out of the package'?? Of course not! If that friend found some Centuri motors from say, 1969, motors with a good safety record, but decertified due to lack of production, that were stored in identical good conditions... would many people have qualms about accepting them and flying them?? I THINK NOT!!!

The certification process is about what's going on "right now"... it doesn't speak, and isn't intended to speak, to the reliability of motors made 'back then'... those motors were manufactured under the certification process in place at the time and were proven 'statistically safe' and should remain certified... But of course if they went out of production for many years and then came back, the NEW motors should have to obtain the certification and maintain the standards to remain certified-- one thing has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the other... the earlier motors were certified THEN, and the "new motors" should and would have to be certified NOW... that's a given.

Later! OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

No, the decertification has nothing to do with them being intrinsically unsafe (my opinion). The decertification is required so that if the motor was ever manufactured again, it would have to go through the certification process again to ensure the NEW motors are safe. If the motors are never decertified, how can you certify the new motors? Think about it this way. With the recent certification of A8-0s, if you have any from the last time they were manufactured, they're instantly certified. Why? Because they were SAFE when they were originally manufactured. There isn't a certification clause that says only A8-0s produced 2011 and later are certified. But, those old motors HAD to be decertified in order to ensure the NEW motors are certified. If they were never decertified, the manufacturer would have no reason to submit them for certification.

The "piece of paper" is basically to ensure the NAR member is protected under the NAR insurance. The insurance only protects the member when they fly in accordance with the NAR Safety Code which requires the use of "certified" motors.

"2. Motors. I will use only certified, commercially-made model rocket motors, and will not tamper with these motors or use them for any purposes except those recommended by the manufacturer. "
See my first paragraph after the link in my original post. That's straight from the S&T page. Again, decertification of OOP motors is the only practical means to ensure if the motors are ever produced again, they will go through the certification process. The decertification process has nothing to do with the intrinsic safety of the motor (my opinion).

Agreed. S&T has nothing do do with what the consumer does with the motor. Your analogy in your previous post says it all......lol.
We see eye to eye. People are keying on the decertification process as saying the motors are unsafe which is not the case (in my opinion). Decertification is the only practical way of ensuring new manufacturing of the motors goes through the certification process. I believe my opinion of the decertification process is supported by the facts that 1) Certifications do not say only motors after a certain date are certified; and 2) All previously manufactured certified motor with the same designation becomes certified.

DISCLAIMER: I do not work for nor am I affiliated in any way with NAR Standards & Testing. Opinions expressed above are my own and in no way reflect the opinions of the NAR.

__________________
Don
NAR 53455
"Carpe Diem"

I agree with what you've said... but that's part of the "what's broken" about the system...

Why should motors that were manufactured and sold as 'certified' be subject to some capricious action (decertification) based on later production (or lack thereof) and/or the manufacturer discontinuing that motor or going out of business?? The motors in question were manufactured and sold as "certified" so what difference does it make (other than to competitors affecting the ease and capability of attaining sufficient motors widely available enough to be reasonably obtainable by all interested competitors) to the motor I have in my range box that was manufactured 20 years ago whether that motor is still in production today, out of production, or went out of production for ten years and was revived and recertified five years ago... IT DOESN'T! The fact that the system is set up that way is just completely stupid!

If a motor goes out of production, there is a set time limit on when production must resume to keep the certification... that should stay in place. BUT, if the motor DOES NOT reenter production, then all remaining stock that has been produced, properly stored and offered for sale, shipment, or distribution, on retail shelves or proper retail storage, or sold to the hobbyist public and in their possession, should REMAIN CERTIFIED. If the manufacturer wishes at some future point to begin producing that motor again, then they should have to obtain the certification all over again according to the rules and procedures as they now stand, in order to have the motors certified for distribution and offer for sale. What is SO hard about that??

Basically the ONLY change I'm talking about to the system is, that the motor you BOUGHT in YOUR RANGE BOX, that is stamped "certified" and sold as a certified motor, SHOULD REMAIN CERTIFIED SO LONG AS IT EXISTS, TOTALLY IRRESPECTIVE OF THE MANUFACTURING STATUS OF THAT PARTICULAR MOTOR AT ANY FUTURE POINT IN TIME. Once the 'deadline' for restarting production on a motor has passed and the certification for it has lapsed, then the procedures necessary to reinstate that certification FOR ALL NEW PRODUCTION SHOULD REMAIN IN PLACE AS IT IS PRESENTLY.

That's all I'm saying... to do otherwise is, frankly IMHO, stupidity...

I don't know why I'm even worried about it... I'm not a NAR member and so it doesn't matter a whit to me... I don't have to worry about keeping the insurance folks happy or the NAR folks happy... BUT as a landowner who offers his farm to a club for a launch site, it WOULD make me a LOT more comfortable knowing that the NAR members of the club flying out here were covered regardless of whether they put a *new* certified motor in their rocket or a 30 year old motor that is currently certified due to still being in production, or whether they put a 30 year old motor in their rocket manufactured by a company no longer in business or no longer producing that particular motor, without having to worry about it being 'decertified' and therefore not covered if something happened on that particular flight... It's just DUMB, PERIOD! To really totally CYA, the landowner basically would have to play "motor cop" and make sure everything going to the launch pad was certified...

With dumb rules and exclusions and stuff like this, is it ANY WONDER why flying fields are getting harder and harder to find?? Really makes one question the value of the NAR field insurance anyway, unless the field owner is playing 'motor cop' or there's somebody in the club RSOing who is anal retentive and loves playing motor cop... (and we ALL know how fun it is to fly around guys like THAT...) And for what?? To make it easier for NAR HQ to determine which motors are certified and which aren't?? Rubbish!

It'd be about like buying "USDA CERTIFIED" meat at the store and putting it in the freezer, and then being told next month I have to go home and throw it away because that brand meat had a recall today, TOTALLY UNRELATED to the batch I bought LAST MONTH, or that it was no longer USDA certified because the company got bought out or went broke... It's just PATENTLY REDICULOUS...

Later! OL JR

__________________
The X-87B Cruise Basselope-- THE Ultimate Weapon in the arsenal of Homeland Security and only $52 million per round!

I would say not. I've never had a problem flying any of my old motors, certified or not. On the other hand, I've seen flyers with recently purchased motors have a CATO.

__________________
Scott D. Hansen
Ye Olde Rocket Shoppe - Your One Stop BAR Shoppe!
Ye Olde Rocket Plans - OOP Rocket Plans From 38 Companies!
Ye Olde Rocket Forum
WOOSH NAR Section #558

If exaggeration were gold, you'd be a rich man indeed. Your hyperbole isn't currency, however.

As to your analogy with agriculture, and particularly your telling comment about proper storage, that's a significant part of the problem. Hobby motors aren't agriculture and proper storage can't be assumed.

When you get over making a political analogy out of every comment you disagree with you might find your blood pressure isn't quite so high.