How much easier it would of been if Mark would of explained, rather than posting his somewhat snide response. However, it's all good and I understand your explained reasoning.
Last edited:
Blockchain Validation of Rocket Certification
- Thread starter Off Grid Gecko
- Start date
Help Support The Rocketry Forum:
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 14,955
- Reaction score
- 1,287
No problem - I shall be providing that sweet lady you live with a pointy stick with which to deal with you.
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 14,955
- Reaction score
- 1,287
....in more ways than one....
Not sure anyone wants to go there...
Zeus-cat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 4,983
- Reaction score
- 1,432
In an earlier post someone had a hypothetical conversation of a court proceeding. So, is it actually illegal to sell an L2 motor to someone who has no certification? Not saying a vendor should do it, but is it actually against a specific law and could someone be arrested for doing that?
heada
Well-Known Member
Most states incorporate NFPA into code/law and thus have the force of law. (Indiana is one state that specifically rejected NFPA 1127 as unenforceable)
MClark
Well-Known Member
A motor can be sold to a non-certified person for their cert flight.
MClark
Well-Known Member
I believe also businesses and universities engaged in rocketry
Off Grid Gecko
Well-Known Member
Let's not muddy the waters by digging too deeply into NFPA. Their dubious organization is not the issue, lol.
Almost a true statement, as unless the state has written into their law/code specific content of NFPA, simply referencing the NFPA code as their law is unenforceable as a violation of law. That is how it was explained to me, many moons ago. The reason given; "NFPA content is subject to changes, without legislative due process". Also explained to me was that until challenged in a court, the states are pretty much going to do what ever they want. As an example, look what the states and congress has done with the 2a constitutional right..
When NFPA 1122, 1125, or 1127 are incorporated by reference, it’s done by referring to the specific edition, which doesn’t change once it’s published. Changes only affect unpublished versions. So, for instance, Codefiner shows that Delaware State Fire Commission incorporated the 2012 edition of NFPA 1125.
https://codefinder.nfpa.org/?nfpanumber=1125
Last edited:
Thanks for that link, Steve.
A little more digging from there turned up the GA law. O.C.G.A. 25-2-4, which adopts 1125(2017) and 1127(2018) in Subject 120-3-3 Rules and Regulations For The State Minimum Fire Safety Standards.
In 120-3-3-.10, Note (4) explains that the edition adopted may not be the most current.
I've wondered about if and how it was enforced here, now I know.
Off Grid Gecko
Well-Known Member
Someone mentioned that until a lawsuit is brought, things are a little murkier..
Even if the reg is pegged to a certain year, there are other ways these things are gotten around. My main grievences with NFPA don't have anything to do with rocketry but with "code enforcement" and specifically how GP materials find their way into building codes so fast. With buildings there are state certified inspectors that issues pass/fail marks when it comes to building codes and things are a bit more sloppy than "this is the law, this isn't." So regardless it's prolly a good idea to keep to what it says unless there is a clear reason to deviate, and in that case it would be good to consult with a legal team as well as local regulators and officials, which I'm sure motor vendors do.
The NFPA regulation also doesn't mention the inner workings of "certifying authorities" such as TRA and NAR as per the original question of what steps are necessary for a vendor to ensure a customer is a certified user. I'm sure a lot of that validation falls on the agreement between the certifier and the dealer. Certifier says "yes this person is certified." There's probably a lot of specifics in there that I have no idea about, but I would assume the policy of exchanging that information is probably up to NAR and TRA to decide on best practices.... at least, until there's a problem and then some govt agency might decide to step in and add paperwork.
I can't think of anyone better to answer that kind of question than Steve. And I would imagine there are probably lawyers on retainer to answer questions when the club brings them up.
Nothing is simple when it comes to navigating US law.
Even if the reg is pegged to a certain year, there are other ways these things are gotten around. My main grievences with NFPA don't have anything to do with rocketry but with "code enforcement" and specifically how GP materials find their way into building codes so fast. With buildings there are state certified inspectors that issues pass/fail marks when it comes to building codes and things are a bit more sloppy than "this is the law, this isn't." So regardless it's prolly a good idea to keep to what it says unless there is a clear reason to deviate, and in that case it would be good to consult with a legal team as well as local regulators and officials, which I'm sure motor vendors do.
The NFPA regulation also doesn't mention the inner workings of "certifying authorities" such as TRA and NAR as per the original question of what steps are necessary for a vendor to ensure a customer is a certified user. I'm sure a lot of that validation falls on the agreement between the certifier and the dealer. Certifier says "yes this person is certified." There's probably a lot of specifics in there that I have no idea about, but I would assume the policy of exchanging that information is probably up to NAR and TRA to decide on best practices.... at least, until there's a problem and then some govt agency might decide to step in and add paperwork.
I can't think of anyone better to answer that kind of question than Steve. And I would imagine there are probably lawyers on retainer to answer questions when the club brings them up.
Nothing is simple when it comes to navigating US law.
Lawsuits have a way of crystallizing law, don’t they?
The good thing about NFPA codes is that they are developed by representatives of the people they affect. They’re not perfect of course but we share in whatever blame there may be.
The process of certification isn’t defined. That’s a good thing I think because it allows Tripoli and the NAR to be more responsive if procedures must be improved. It would be difficult to wait three years for the next edition of code.
As far as enforcement of NFPA rocketry codes I don’t know of any instances where government officials have done so. I did have a person connected to law enforcement ask me about something in Montana state code once, but it didn’t relate to a specific case.
Fortunately we haven’t needed to retain lawyers for a long time. I hope that never changes. We have some pretty good ones within our ranks who have given unselfishly in those instances where we need clarification on something.
Thanks
Thanks, forgot about that little fact.
James Duffy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2009
- Messages
- 1,445
- Reaction score
- 1,733
I'm going to push back on this. If not for the existence of the NFPA codes specific to our hobby, our hobby probably wouldn't exist at all.
Zeus-cat
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2009
- Messages
- 4,983
- Reaction score
- 1,432
But I specifically asked if someone with no certification could legally be sold an L2 motor. I didn't specifically state that they did not have an L1 certification, but I thought it was clear from my question that they had no certification at all.
And why do university teams get to buy L2 motors when in some cases the biggest motors these teams have flown is a D12 or maybe an F? And if they were to damage something who insures them?
my issue with incorporating by reference is doung so essentially creates "secret laws". we the people paid our legislators to do their job and we own the copyright to the resulting product. I should be able to read the law in its entirety somewhere. these days, on line, in the old days, the county library.
we should not have to pay to read our laws. otherwise, ignorance becomes a valid excuse.
South Carolina attempted to copyright and restrict access to the body of state law. that got shut down real quick butnot without a fight.
we have a similar issue with access to court records and subsequent case law. in several states, one company has claimed they own the records, and they charge quite a lot for access. as far as I know, that is still being litigated.
admittedly, I am taking a hard line stance here, because I believe it's a slippery slope to truncating our freedoms.
so yeah, nothing is simple in US law.
we should not have to pay to read our laws. otherwise, ignorance becomes a valid excuse.
South Carolina attempted to copyright and restrict access to the body of state law. that got shut down real quick butnot without a fight.
we have a similar issue with access to court records and subsequent case law. in several states, one company has claimed they own the records, and they charge quite a lot for access. as far as I know, that is still being litigated.
admittedly, I am taking a hard line stance here, because I believe it's a slippery slope to truncating our freedoms.
so yeah, nothing is simple in US law.
do they have a mentor?
Different certification levels are not part of NFPA. NFPA simply says that a HPR motor cannot be sold to someone who isn’t certified but that a single motor may be transferred to a person for purposes of certification. That’s pretty clear for intent, but fuzzy enough that someone buying a J before ever being certified might have a defense. Fortunately our vendors are good about checking on things like this.
As far as university teams with little or no experience buying (or even making) big motors, if it’s for a university activity rather than the individual use by students the scope exclusion for universities completely voids NFPA rocketry requirements from affecting universities. Most universities have some kind risk assessment process though.
Similar threads
