Aerotech DMS motor NOT decertified

it as to be keep secret

Nothing here says "decertified".

Chad
I think the email to TRA membership email site did say decertified until things are worked out.
GP

Chad
I went back and found the email from Paul Holmes of TMT. The email title says temporary motor decertification. Until things get sorted out. They are checking lot numbers to see where it may have started.
gp

Roger that - makes me wonder what motors I actually have??

An H135 was a sparky instead of White Lightning?
And a G78 was instead a G75, I guess?

Interesting.

This happened at AIRFest. I saw one of the motors launched from the grassy area and it had a lot of sparks. That was the second one of the day. People were not happy.

Shame on the OP!!!. Someone was asked from the list this was originally posted to if it could be shared publicly and he was told NOT YET. He did it anyway. Shame on you!!. and I quote

Blake,

We are holding off on a public website posting to allow Aerotech time to respond. (it’s a long-weekend in the USA)

This posting remains private to the various TRA lists at this time, so no you can't re-post, but a public announcement will be made available later.

no one should no .

Whatever, the question was asked of and answered by David Wilkins. He strongly stated not to spread this on any public forums. Too late now.

It seems to me that the fact that the TMT decertified them should be publicly announced loudly and immediately. The impact to insurance at any launch could easily be questioned. Say somebody flew one today at a commercial or NAR launch and there was an incident. The insurance lawyers could easily say, they had been decertified, referenced this announcement, then refused to pay.

shutttttttttttttttt.

Jim, he did not get it from the TRA list- he got it from CAR. David did say that in the TRA list, but that does not mean the poster got that message.

The above being considered, considering the temporary decertification, the information needs to be spread so folks are not flying uncertified motors thus violating insurance.

I'm also confused. They put out an immediate hold, but didn't inform everyone, but did post it to a list of a few people?

Two can keep a secret if one is dead.

Well I will keep to cti thank you

chris m said:

Well I will keep to cti thank you

Click to expand...

This is the exact thing they were trying to avoid.

Mislabeling isn't the end of the world. They are ahead of the issue, being proactive and trying to resolve it.

Fear mongering and fan boys are what they were trying to dissuade. They will resolve it and they will do so quickly.

chris m said:

Well I will keep to cti thank you

Click to expand...

you don't even have a rocket

chris m said:

Well I will keep to cti thank you

Click to expand...

I will stick to motors I put together so I can make sure the innards are all right.

CarVac said:

I will stick to motors I put together so I can make sure the innards are all right.

Click to expand...

A labeling issue could have problems all the same if it were reloads - a person might not realize its a different propellant than the label states. I too agree that this information should have been released far and wide immediately. I have a couple of these loads, what's in them?

chadrog said:

A labeling issue could have problems all the same if it were reloads - a person might not realize its a different propellant than the label states. I too agree that this information should have been released far and wide immediately. I have a couple of these loads, what's in them?

Click to expand...

I would realize (at least with AT), since I've seen them all except for Propellant X.

CarVac said:

I would realize (at least with AT), since I've seen them all except for Propellant X.

Click to expand...

Of course you would, unfortunately you're not everyone.

chris m said:

Well I will keep to cti thank you

Click to expand...

I've had the exact same issue with CTI as well. I flew what was supposed to be a Red Lightning, but instead it turned out to be a Skidmark. Mistakes happen with all manufacturers. Did I stop flying CTI? Not a chance. I fly 'em all! AT, CTI, AMW. More variety is a good thing, I say.

CarVac said:

I would realize (at least with AT), since I've seen them all except for Propellant X.

Click to expand...

Prop X =~C*, so they would look very similar, highly aluminized.

I think the bigger issue is that we can't see what's inside a single use motor, and if any problem is widespread enough to cause a decertification, or other such action, the lots in question need to be checked.

Or they can send them out to the west coast because we fly on lake beds where the closest flammable material is a few miles away

edwinshap1 said:

Or they can send them out to the west coast because we fly on lake beds where the closest flammable material is a few miles away

Click to expand...

Haha, you're right about that.

I hope AT gets this sorted out quickly; I flew a DMS J270 at LDRS and it worked splendidly.

Wow.

On Sunday, I had a spectacular CATO with an H135 -
[YOUTUBE]wdW80nlG2KQ[/YOUTUBE]
...I got back to the Forum and apparently some DMS motors have been decertified...
Was the CATO because of the motor problems leading to the decertification? (Propellant seemed like White Lightning as it should have been, but it's not every day when a rocket CATOs like that.)

edwinshap1 said:

...
Or they can send them out to the west coast because we fly on lake beds where the closest flammable material is a few miles away

Click to expand...

+5 on that! Of course, we'll need those at a steep discount since we are providing a valuable hazmat solution to the vendor and manufacturer....right???

Looks like your forward closure let loose. Be sure to let Aerotech know and file a MESS report (if you're NAR).

This doesn't sound like the issue that they had with the other DMS motor, though.

UpsilonAerospace said:

Wow.

On Sunday, I had a spectacular CATO with an H135 -
[YOUTUBE]wdW80nlG2KQ[/YOUTUBE]
...I got back to the Forum and apparently some DMS motors have been decertified...
Was the CATO because of the motor problems leading to the decertification? (Propellant seemed like White Lightning as it should have been, but it's not every day when a rocket CATOs like that.)

Click to expand...

cerving said:

Looks like your forward closure let loose. Be sure to let Aerotech know and file a MESS report (if you're NAR).

This doesn't sound like the issue that they had with the other DMS motor, though.

Click to expand...

Yep, forward closure or possibly a compromised delay grain.

edwinshap1 said:

Or they can send them out to the west coast because we fly on lake beds where the closest flammable material is a few miles away

Click to expand...

We don't all fly on dry lake beds out here, unfortunately.

To All,

The temporary flight hold on the Aerotech DMS line of motors has been lifted, and all motors in that line as listed in the original announcement are released without ANY restrictions. Through exhaustive testing of the H135W-14A motor in question as well as lot and accounting variation of all the other motors, we are confident there is zero evidence of a Spark type propellant mix up with this motor in particular. Our reasoning for that determination was backed up by the specialized mechanical properties of that case manufacture negating any mix-up with spark style propellant as well as full visual inspections and multiple stand tests on that specific lot and other lots as witnessed by this office. None of the other DMS motors had any reported incidents but they were included to insure that that relative new line is trouble free, which again was double checked and verified.

The other motor in question, the G78G Mojave Green SU motor WAS found to have an issue of mislabeling as originally suspected and that problem has been found to be restricted to that lot (date code 101742, manufactured in April 2012). All of those motors were thought to have been returned/retained, this one did not. There are two ways to identify a wrong label motor, through the lot number as well as nozzle throat size. The G78G motor has a throat size of .234”, the G75M motor has a .180” throat. If you find G78G motors with that date code OR with the smaller throat size, either return it to your dealer for a replacement or fly it as a G75M MetalStorm sparky motor.

I want to commend Aerotech’s Karl Baumann due diligence and dedication in the all day testing and detective work in resolving these issues, Tripoli has a commitment to insure our flyers have motors with fully identified characteristics for the safety of our flyers and fields, and Aerotech has come through once again in that support.

Please pass this word on to all our flyers, not ‘connected’.

Paul Holmes
Chairman, Tripoli Motor Testing