DynaSoar
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2004
- Messages
- 3,022
- Reaction score
- 0
Originally posted by Micromeister
Good grief Dyna:
Shockie just gave you EXACTLY what the FAA specifies.
AND
Nope! NFPA-1122 defines model rocketry, not to mention our buddies at DOT and BATF are pretty stuck on the 62.5gram motor situation. NFPA-1127 was written specifically to address the HPR situation. By the way WE (model rocketry) only have a seat on the NFPA board as a courtesy, the Fire protection folks write the rules with suggestions and input from our Rep. but THEY decide what goes into the finial document. I say this to remind folks WE (model rocketry) are a VERY small part of what the various agencies are looking at. Like that annoying little nat flying around your ears at the range, we too can become a little nuisance that may just get a swift swat.
A case in point of what your first line was in reply to: different rules in different places. MY point was that they come from different sources and that a sinlge source, collated from them by us, would be easier to navigate as well as illuminate contradicitions in substance and emphasis, allowing better comprehension.
As for the last part, I respectfully jump up and down and rant with my hair on fire. I refuse to accept being treated like a mere annoyance by the people who work for me. Any instance of such behavior to which I am made aware will be met with the Sysiphus treatment, and it won't be a rock rolling down hill. I say "mere" annoyance because I would become a professional grade, industrial strength annoyance, the sort that gets their say and their way due to representation by decibel level rather than accepting the sufferance of the logical fallacy typically known as "powers that be". There are no powers that be that we don't make be, and if they act contrary to that, and we allow that, that's a big problem I will not be part of except in its rectification.
OK, my hair is out.