52 replies to this topic

[martyn]

Ok Richard I have slept on it and I realise I am flogging a dead horse. I just want to outline a few things and then I promise I WILL shut up.

I am a bit concerned by your comment -

"The committee I would to think has a very good awareness of what UKPS members would like to do - be able to experiment and keep within the legislation."

This is not what I would like to be able to do, and I honestly feel that it is not what many many other members want.

There are a few people on the forum, who may or may not be ukps members, who do enjoy experimenting for the challenge of developing new or variants of compositions, and good luck to them, I wish I were bright enough to do that.

I feel the vast majority however want, in addition, is to be able to build practical pyrotechnics, in very small quantities, say up to a few Kg's max, using standard comps and techniques, and rather than keep within the legislation, would like the legislation changed to allow them to do that.

The impression I got from the few people I chatted to at the agm was that they were in the build it and fire it camp. I thought that was what we were aiming for with the upcoming review - however I accept that I have misunderstood the intentions.

To be honest, if we just wanted to experiment with up to 100g of something, almost all of us could do that anyway in the privacy of our own wherever, without drawing any attention to ourselves whatsoever. I don't even think the authorities would be all that bothered provided we don't annoy others and obviously restrict the compositions to standard pyrotechnic type comps rather than anything which might detonate! Note - I am aware that 100g of bp or star comp is dangerous and needs to be handled appropriately.

I know I sound like a stuck record, but I can't for the life of me fathom out why the ukps is only, seemingly, going for clarification of the 100g thing?

There are a couple of approaches to following this hobby, one, which many understandably adopt, ( including myself previously) is to keep quiet and never stick your head above the parapet, and make and fire a bit of pyro around Nov and new year. Another is to take part in forum discussions and share knowledge and experience and hopefully everyone benefits and we become stronger, more knowledgeable and more credible as a group. Phil previously said that his heart sank when he saw the details of the IExpE exam, well now I know the feeling as I realise how little, in my opinion we are asking for from the review. And yes, I am aware of the comeback that if I think I can do better I should do it myself, but I don't, so I can't.

Yours guttedly

Martyn

PS please do keep us updated if there are any developments.

[fruitfulsteve]

Also Richard. I'd like to be allowed to ride my bike at 180mph when and where i like, if you get a minute can you make this happen too.

[martyn]

Also Richard. I'd like to be allowed to ride my bike at 180mph when and where i like, if you get a minute can you make this happen too.

Fair enough - point taken - made me smile.

But - as far as I know there is not an upcoming review into speed limits, to which the uk biker society has been invited to comment

[fruitfulsteve]

Couldn't help myself

I must say i do admire your enthusiasm but i think the society is taking the slowly slowly gets the worm approach.

And i wouldn't be silly and ask for 180mph i'd ask for 200mph and negotiate down

[digger]

Right then.

This is clearly a pretty emotive subject.

I understand all points of view, from a practical and a ideal sense.

Yes of course we want to be able to build what we want. However these things just don't happen quickly.

What we need to do is have a professional coherent plan to work towards our goals. We will have to take it one step at a time if we want to be taken seriously. We need to build a level of trust and respect within the community.

The UKPS legislation committee will be meeting over the next couple of weeks. We will try and bash out some ideas and create a road map of where we want to head. I am sure once we have done this, we can start to think about a brief press release to let the members know what we are trying to do on their behalf (maybe something in Spark).

G

[Richard H]

Hi again Martyn.

I am a bit concerned by your comment -

"The committee I would to think has a very good awareness of what UKPS members would like to do - be able to experiment and keep within the legislation."

This is not what I would like to be able to do, and I honestly feel that it is not what many many other members want.

Our intention has always to negotiate reliefs for enthusiasts. The point I am making is that to go about this, we have to clarify what is already the law. We cannot start asking for a list of concessions without first seeking clarification of what already is or might be possible depending upon the viewpoints of HSE's solicitors (whom we have been waiting on for some time). When you look at the rocketry people and what they did, they made a valid use case that cutting up fuel grains for igniting hybrid motors was a low risk activity and not deemed an act of manufacture as such. What you are asking for is a different ball game altogether. We need to start small - and then negotiate further concessions. At the moment HSE are inclined to go the other way - and reduce this theoretical 100 grams of composition to analytical quantities on the order of a few grams max (plenty in the contexts of a laboratory).

There are a few people on the forum, who may or may not be ukps members, who do enjoy experimenting for the challenge of developing new or variants of compositions, and good luck to them, I wish I were bright enough to do that.

I feel the vast majority however want, in addition, is to be able to build practical pyrotechnics, in very small quantities, say up to a few Kg's max, using standard comps and techniques, and rather than keep within the legislation, would like the legislation changed to allow them to do that.

We are still defining 'experiment'. In the document we have sent to HSE, an experiment, to us, is the process of taking a theoretical composition, assembling a firework, and then testing it on the same site to evaluate it's performance. Your definition of experiment appears to be different and somewhat limited to mixing a composition but not doing anything practical with it. If we can establish that an experiment might be for example, assembling a prototype firework, then this would be the first step. Then comes the process of asking for concessions on the quantities of composition involved. We have to take this a step at a time. If we took your wish list to the HSE, I am certain they would laugh us out of the room.

The impression I got from the few people I chatted to at the agm was that they were in the build it and fire it camp. I thought that was what we were aiming for with the upcoming review - however I accept that I have misunderstood the intentions.

This is what we are aiming for. Conducting an experiment involving a pyrotechnic composition, assembling it, and testing it in the same site. (But not for public display or practical use). Transport off-site would also be a big no-no!

To be honest, if we just wanted to experiment with up to 100g of something, almost all of us could do that anyway in the privacy of our own wherever, without drawing any attention to ourselves whatsoever. I don't even think the authorities would be all that bothered provided we don't annoy others and obviously restrict the compositions to standard pyrotechnic type comps rather than anything which might detonate! Note - I am aware that 100g of bp or star comp is dangerous and needs to be handled appropriately.

The HSE are fully aware of what goes on behind closed doors. This forum is regularly read by HSE and many other agencies. The fact that not many people here have had their doors kicked in does say something - but it makes me uncomfortable thinking what some people are doing in the full knowledge that at the end of the day, is illegal.

I know I sound like a stuck record, but I can't for the life of me fathom out why the ukps is only, seemingly, going for clarification of the 100g thing?

Again, I think you have misunderstood. This is only the beginning. We need to clarify what is in black and white now. Then we negotiate exemptions and further concessions.

There are a couple of approaches to following this hobby, one, which many understandably adopt, ( including myself previously) is to keep quiet and never stick your head above the parapet, and make and fire a bit of pyro around Nov and new year. Another is to take part in forum discussions and share knowledge and experience and hopefully everyone benefits and we become stronger, more knowledgeable and more credible as a group. Phil previously said that his heart sank when he saw the details of the IExpE exam, well now I know the feeling as I realise how little, in my opinion we are asking for from the review. And yes, I am aware of the comeback that if I think I can do better I should do it myself, but I don't, so I can't.

I'm not sure what you think we've been doing for the past two years Martyn? We're trying our best to get some positive outcomes here. if you feel so strongly, why not join the committee and contribute?

Regards.

[pyrotechnist]

Could they not reduce the costs of licensing to make it more easier and cheaper for us hobbyists to actually license our buildings? just a thought.

[pyrotechnist]

Could they not reduce the costs of licensing to make it more easier and cheaper for us hobbyists to actually license our buildings? just a thought.

Dam double post I dont know why it keeps doing this, could you delete this one please.

Edited by pyrotechnist, 30 June 2010 - 12:37 PM.

[fruitfulsteve]

I think the cost of third party insurance would dwarf the cost of any license,which is something i'm sure would be required even for amateurs.

[pyrotechnist]

Is there anyone here who has a license to manufacture? if so would you mind saying how much it cost for the license and the total cost etc?

[maxman]

Pyrotechnist, Do you subscribe to "fireworks magazine"? If so I suggest you buy and read back issues 32 and 52 Where you can read about Dean fireworks - A factory on a shoestring. I dont know your personal circumstances the property you may or may not own, but as I see it the cost of a licence would be the least of anyones worries! You cant just pay 5k or 100k or whatever and buy yourself a licence. Even if you can comply with distances etc you have planning authorities to deal with and opposition from neighbours and this alone can halt you in your steps. I suggest you buy both copies and have a good read. It'll only cost you about a tenner for them.

Unless you've had a nice win on the lotto then a factory is going to be out of the realms of most folk on here. I see the only way forward is what is happening now and the UKPS are doing a fantastic job on our behalf.

By the way is there any info on Edwin Baileys factory in Lyme Regis? I've google earthed his pad and its very secluded. I know he is no longer with us and it closed in the 1980's but just wondered how hard he found starting out years ago.

Maxman

[martyn]

Again, I think you have misunderstood. This is only the beginning. We need to clarify what is in black and white now. Then we negotiate exemptions and further concessions.



I'm not sure what you think we've been doing for the past two years Martyn? We're trying our best to get some positive outcomes here. if you feel so strongly, why not join the committee and contribute?

Regards.

Sorry if I came across as ungrateful, Im not, I'm just impatient and a bit dim.
Thank you to everyone who is working towards this - I'm not really a 'committe' person - see I can't even spell it!

[pyrotechnist]

This is where a secluded site comes into play where you dont have neighbours to contest you.

[maxman]

Everyone has neighbours! Just because they're not on the otherside of your garden fence dosen't mean they dont have to be consulted. Your planning application has to be published in the newspaper and then what happens? We'll you would know if you read the article.

Maxman