#21
|
||||
|
||||
It is not a new law. The folks who wrote that law did so many decades ago when all model Rockets were illegal, so back then it was a great improvement.
The CA SFM was supposed to propose new legisalation to modernize this old weight limit and the prohibition on metal casings and handling components (which makes RMS and LMS HPR). They verbally said they would not enforce the old law and they would support a change. Time went by and they never made the change and several folks passed through that office. In 2010 an enforcement issue involving Frank Kosdon forced their hand and they said they were legally obligated to abide by the law as written. Efforts are underway to get it changed. It will take a while. The CA SFM is not opposed to the change. it is simply a long and tedious process (if handled normally). Quote:
__________________
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117 (L2) Southern California Rocket Association, NAR Section 430 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Exactly what I thought AcroRay!
|
#23
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Bob, Not yet, we're still looking for a local field here in Nacogdoches...maybe in the Dallas area with DARS where John Dyer flies...will definitely take pics. Bob
__________________
illegitimi non carborundum NAR# 54643 L-1 SAM# 043 AMA# 157091 VRCS# 154 A&P# 42x xx xxxx. |
#24
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
CSFM has given lipservice to changing regs for 30 years that I know but when the rubber hits the road they don't want to. They like having compliance and enforcement be "verbal". Once you realize this is intentional and you ask permission (verbally) and "run what you brung", they are fine with it in practice. I used to post about this on rmr. I called it "substantial compliance", a term they referred to at CSFM (now CA OSFM). I pioneered and grew HPR (1974) before either TRA or NAR got on the bandwagon (1985) in this environment and they were fine with it. I later learned the FEDGOV regulation also works about the same way on everything imaginable. Jerry |
#25
|
||||
|
||||
They have changed "regs", it is the "law" they have not changed and which they gave lipservice to changing.
They know they need to clean things up since they not only have outdated laws, but the regs currently refer to old editions of NFPA code (which is fine, you just need to get the old version to be able to read the correct portions referenced by the regulations). If I ever get any real facts that I can report on progress or ongoing efforts to get the changes made, I will report what I can. If I cannot report, then I will not report. Quote:
__________________
-Fred Shecter NAR 20117 (L2) Southern California Rocket Association, NAR Section 430 |
#26
|
||||
|
||||
The law/regs should not exist. Not only should model rocketry up to the US FEDERAL definition be legal in CA, it should be TOTALLY UNREGULATED as well.
__________________
When in doubt, WHACK the GAS and DITCH the brake !!! Yes, there is such a thing as NORMAL, if you have to ask what is "NORMAL" , you probably aren't ! Failure may not be an OPTION, but it is ALWAYS a POSSIBILITY. ALL systems are GO for MAYHEM, CHAOS, and HAVOC ! |
#27
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If you (by that I mean the reader of this message attached with NAR or major vendor heirarchy) need help authoring model code and lobbying for its adoption, let me know. My group mainly focuses on Amateur and FX stuff, but has standing to bring OSFM recognized credibility to the effort. My stated goal is to allow Wal-Mart or hobby store class rockets to be operated at any park or school or vacant site that meets the site standards set forth by NAR. I suggest site dimension 1/4 the expected altitude, to accommodate big dumb rockets, and a non-combustible zone around the pad. If that means NAR needs to clarify that for CA in particular, so be it, but making reference to NAR rather than whatever else is likely to be the most authoritative, up to date, and safety minded. Besides you don't have to know the secret access method and pay a fee for NAR standards. http://v-serv.com/usr/safetycodes.htm I have always felt this is something the vendors should do in cooperation with licensees in the state, as an ad hoc, industry rep group. It helps the need is clear and present, and there has been a federal change to accommodate. Jerry Last edited by Jerry Irvine : 08-21-2012 at 10:10 PM. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
On the ESTES site the "Short Round" and "Mini Fat Boy" are up
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I couldn't find those. Odd. A search for "short round" resulted in the Estes Jetliner appearing.
__________________
NAR #27085 - Oregon Rocketry - SAM |
#30
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Short Round is #1401 Mini Fat Boy is #2442
__________________
__________________ Lawrence William SAM #0422 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|