Do I really need a Cargo Van or U-hall to transport Motor?

[Donnager]

[soapbox]
In my experience if the risk management people say you do need it then yes, you do. The risk management people that I've run across have no interest in managing risk but sucking money out of their clients and justifying their existence. I often hear things like, "Well if 2 is very safe then 3 is more safer therefore use 3." Followed by a bunch of anecdotal evidence. To which I want to respond with, "Ok what data do you have to support this claim?" Knowing full well I might as well be talking to a wall or pushing rope uphill. Unfortunately this attitude has permeated into the NASA USLI program. Just add safety precautions with no empirical data to back it up and there is no reasoning with anyone even if it's completely impractical.

So yes, no matter how utterly stupid it is you're going to have to do it regardless of what papers or research you show them. Sorry if I seem a bit bitter about this but it is frustrating to no end. This crap is death by a thousand cuts and will eventually destroy some of these programs and as long as the risk management lawyers are making money they just don't care.
[/soapbox]

Talk to an OSHA inspector if you think this is silly. They'll tell you what to do, even though it is impossible, and blame you for incompetence if you can't achieve same.

 

[SDramstad]

We fly rocket with motors ranging from H to M. They are usually not assembled before transportation.

Typically grains that are not encased in a motor will burn like a road flare or not at all. It needs to be pressurized or not much will happen. I am sure the lawyer thinks rocket fuel = explosive. Thats just not the case.

 

[OverTheTop]

Down here the regs say you can't transport motors in the passenger compartment of a vehicle. I have taken to putting them in a waterproof magazine on the roofrack, since I have a SUV.

 

[TheTank]

[soapbox]
In my experience if the risk management people say you do need it then yes, you do. The risk management people that I've run across have no interest in managing risk but sucking money out of their clients and justifying their existence. I often hear things like, "Well if 2 is very safe then 3 is more safer therefore use 3." Followed by a bunch of anecdotal evidence. To which I want to respond with, "Ok what data do you have to support this claim?" Knowing full well I might as well be talking to a wall or pushing rope uphill. Unfortunately this attitude has permeated into the NASA USLI program. Just add safety precautions with no empirical data to back it up and there is no reasoning with anyone even if it's completely impractical.

So yes, no matter how utterly stupid it is you're going to have to do it regardless of what papers or research you show them. Sorry if I seem a bit bitter about this but it is frustrating to no end. This crap is death by a thousand cuts and will eventually destroy some of these programs and as long as the risk management lawyers are making money they just don't care.
[/soapbox]

This above right here. They are only interested in increasing billable hours to the client and will make over the top safety recommendations so that they can't be held accountable if anything goes south down the road, no matter how remote the chance. They make "recommendations" and rarely bend on those despite any evidence they are given. Rather than bend on their recommendations, they often reply with information and evidence contrary to their recommendation with "that is an internal business decision" meaning my recommendation stands - but you do what you want. And depending on the executive board looking at the info, if you have a majority that is completely risk averse and irrational, you know which way they are going to go. I look at risk every day. Very rarely do these contracted services that fall outside the area of expertise offer any value besides "the sky is falling" type of mentality.

 

[NTP2]

Most schools have legal staff...even if it’s a crappy attorney, they have one or one on retainer ALWAYS.

Even my HS has one.

 

[SammyD]

Not that it makes any difference, but it seems to me that people who worry about rocket motors igniting without igniters in them have never actually tried to ignite one.

You nailed that!

 

[Lance Fisher]

Can you put the moter in a trailer?

 

[lr64]

I suppose it would be counter-productive for Blue Sky to look up all her safety recommendations and start working to rule when at work but NOT involved in rocketry.

 

[lr64]

Talk to an OSHA inspector if you think this is silly. They'll tell you what to do, even though it is impossible, and blame you for incompetence if you can't achieve same.

I've seen a bunch of actual dangerous situations at workplaces. Perhaps the inspectors should concentrate on those. Loose railings, standing on the back of a forklift, air always full of dust, etc.

 

[cwbullet]

It is not an issue for users.

 

[cbrarick]

I'm willing to bet that lawyer thinks our motors are explosive, not flammable solids. I'd ask what the requirements are for flammable solids, then politely provide the lawyer a copy of Judge Reggie Walton's (my personal hero) memorandum of decision. You could also show them the explosives list which specifically excludes ammonium perchlorate composite propellant by name.

 

[tsmith1315]

I'm willing to bet that lawyer thinks our motors are explosive, not flammable solids.

This is what the typical person envisions about rocket fuel when they hear we fly rockets:

 

[NTP2]

This is what the typical person envisions about rocket fuel when they hear we fly rockets:

Too true…