Jump to content


Photo

A&K Application problems review...


  • Please log in to reply
101 replies to this topic

#61 wayne

wayne

    Member

  • Admin
  • 421 posts

Posted 12 July 2016 - 09:36 AM

Hi All, just to put all minds at rest, the conversation regarding competence is limited to the GM ELO only.  An ELO is within their rights to decide on the way they confirm competence of a person as they see fit.  The main issue for the GM ELO is that they are over worked and under resourced and as I'm sure we can all agree, its difficult to prove competency quickly and easily.  What I have proposed to him is a simple way for people to get competency and and an even easier way for the ELO to check...this then should keep both sides happy.  That said, I'm still awaiting his feedback which I've chased today.

 

From the perspective of other regional ELO's, there's nothing to stop them making their own methods for confirming competence.  But if you live in an area which is already issuing A&K certs, I wouldn't worry.  I've spoken with my ELO last week (for re-certification) and even after discussing the proposals with the GM ELO, there's no thoughts of changing any competency requirements.  If your ELO is happy with their current methods of confirming competency, there's no reason they will change it.  Simply, the GM ELO has a different way of doing things, but each ELO can make their own choices and if things are currently working, they won't change it.

 

I hope that allays a few of the fears I'm reading here.



#62 dave

dave

    Pyro Forum Regular

  • UKPS Members
  • 482 posts

Posted 12 July 2016 - 10:30 AM

 What I have proposed to him is a simple way for people to get competency and and an even easier way for the ELO to check...

may we ask what has been proposed ? even if it may need changing to satisfy him.

 

may reply in the members sections ?



#63 wayne

wayne

    Member

  • Admin
  • 421 posts

Posted 12 July 2016 - 02:22 PM

As I've said before, the only reason I'm not discuss the proposal is that I don't want to jeopardise anything or appear to have a solution that then never happens.  There's nothing secret about it, simply there's no point discussing it until its at least accepted as a possible solution.  As soon as I have positive feedback from the ELO that "it could work", I will let you all know and then we can discuss it.

 

Don't worry, you'll have plenty of time to discuss before anything gets confirmed.

 

I've generally taken this policy since some people can take things that are simple proposals as being something that's agreed and set in stone.  This causes all sorts of problems and can potentially jeopardise any positive outcomes.

 

Once again, there's absolutely no secrecy agenda, its simply the best way to get things moving towards a positive outcome.

 

I hope this makes sense.



#64 wayne

wayne

    Member

  • Admin
  • 421 posts

Posted 12 July 2016 - 02:30 PM

P.S.  I've nudged the ELO by email today, but haven't received a reply.  I will try again by phone this week, but after this, I'm away on business for a couple of weeks so I won't be able to try again until after.



#65 David G

David G

    Member

  • General Public Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 07 September 2016 - 12:25 AM

And still we wait. From the lack of input I take it that this is a dead and buried issue.

#66 wayne

wayne

    Member

  • Admin
  • 421 posts

Posted 07 September 2016 - 09:44 AM

Hi David,

 

As we all know the GM ELO is very not very receptive.  As mentioned previously, I've spoken with him and the response was positive.  I've since nudged him without a single response.  I will endeavour to continue to do so but its a very difficult situation when no responses are given.

 

Please be assured we are doing everything we can but also understand that we don't have a solution to every problem.

 

Cheers,

 

Wayne.



#67 David G

David G

    Member

  • General Public Members
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 07 September 2016 - 12:42 PM

Wayne,with no sarcasm or negativity intended,saying that the GMP ELO is not very receptive is a massive understatement

Edited by David G, 07 September 2016 - 12:48 PM.


#68 BlackCat

BlackCat

    Member

  • UKPS Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 25 November 2016 - 03:05 PM

So, here I am in darkest Northamptonshire, arguably one of the best places to be if you want to go somewhere else!

 

Although I have made progress with my licence applications, I've had a very interesting response from Northants finest that the rest of you guys might be interested in seeing.

 

In April this year, I submitted the forms for an A&K for BP and an AO for fireworks and, after several phone calls, a Firearms Enquiry Officer was assigned as my case officer. After speaking to him on the phone, he admitted that he knew nothing about explosives or fireworks and was only comfortable with firearms. He was, however, comfortable with BP due to it's firearms application.

 

Eventually, he visited me in August and decided that I was an OK person and the upshot was that I had my A&K for BP delivered on November 5th, couldn't have been a better date as far as I'm concerned but there was no AO.

 

Talking to the FEO, he told me that he had been advised by the ELO for Northants that the A&K for BP was all that I needed so I, diplomatically, pointed out that my understanding gleaned mostly from the Society and many hours of reading through ER2014 and other documents was very different and I was sure that a certificate was needed and he said that he'd refer it back to the ELO.

 

I've now heard back and the ELO is saying that I don't need an explosives certificate for fireworks but, if I want to make them, I need an manufacturing licence from the HS&E so I should talk to them. In other words, they haven't refused me one on legal grounds just think that it's unnecessary.

 

So far, my response to them has been to:

 

Point them at the Society's Good Practice Guide, especially the section on legislation. They've responded that it wasn't helpful as they didn't understand it! Sorry Wayne.

 

I've copied them with a verbatim quote of Regulation 6, 1 and 2a of ER2014 to try and explained the manufacturing exemption, as best I can, and why I don't need a licence to manufacture provide that I stick tom the restrictions in the above regulation.

 

I've copied them with the definition of BP on p5 and asked them if, given the precise definition of BP in terms of components, I add other components or replace all or part of the potassium nitrate with another nitrate then is it still BP because, if it isn't then my A&K isn't valid. I've also pointed out that many fireworks do not contain BP or any of it's components so my A&K won't cover them either.

 

Finally, I've copied them with the definition an "explosive substance" and "fireworks" on p 7 of  ER2014, the "explosive substance" being, in my opinion more of an exact description of a pyrotechnic substance than an explosive, and "fireworks" being defined as "explosive articles" and therefore, requiring a certificate. However, nowhere in ER2014 can I see a black and white phrase that defines a pyrotechnic substance as an explosive that requires a certificate. That may just be my tired old eyes though!

 

I'm waiting for a response but, in the meantime I thought I'd ask if anyone can point me towards something simple, in black and white that states that a certificate is required for possession of fireworks outside of the permitted four occasions every year or indeed any other legal "ammunition" that may help.



#69 wayne

wayne

    Member

  • Admin
  • 421 posts

Posted 25 November 2016 - 04:47 PM

If they don't understand the good practise guide, which is aimed at end-users and not enforcement or licencing officers, I would suggest that your ELO consults with some of the other ELO's (Danny or others) to extend his/hers understanding of the legislation and A&K/AO process.

 

Depending what you want to do, these are the simple answers:

 

Obtain fireworks and not store (<50kg): Nothing

Obtain firework and store all year round: Storage licence/registration

Build experimental firework device/or substances (< 100g NEQ):  A/K and AO - depends on what you want to experiment with

Manufacture fireworks: HSE manufacturing licence.

 

Please define which of the above you want to do...



#70 digger

digger

    Pyro Forum Top Trump!

  • UKPS Members
  • 1,960 posts

Posted 25 November 2016 - 04:55 PM

I am tired, it s 1am where I am and I hope someone pipes in with a better answer. Fireworks are not the issues here what you need is an explosives certificate for aquiring pyrotechnic compositions. You can state the exact UN numbers or simply use UNMAN2 if you only want AO. As there is an exemption on manufacturing 100g all you need is to ensure you are allowed to acquire the appropriate explosives not specifically mentioned on the exempted schedule.
Phew that was close.

#71 BlackCat

BlackCat

    Member

  • UKPS Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 25 November 2016 - 07:00 PM

Thanks guys, I have actually given them a list of police forces issuing certificates for pyrotechnics, gleaned from this thread. I didn't specifically mention getting in touch with them but one can only hope that they have some initiative.

 

Wayne - to answer your question as to what I want to do, it's to build experimental fireworks at <100g NEQ hence the application for an A&K for BP and an AO for fireworks. I did in fact list the UN Nos. for fireworks and flash powder on the AO application.

 

Digger - answering such a question at 1am is beyond the call.



#72 samboradford

samboradford

    Member

  • UKPS Members
  • 111 posts

Posted 25 November 2016 - 09:51 PM

A minor point, or not, the definition of BP includes sodium nitrate or potassium nitrate and charcoal, with or without sulphur so that covers many of the "other mixes"

 

There is a manufacturing exemption essentially under the 100g limit ( at any one time ) so you do not need a manufacturing license to create 100g but you cannot "acquire" it without the certificate.  So the certificate is required and the most useful designation is the UNMAN-2 designation which would cover pyrotechnic substances.  As an aside, I don't think that covers "devices" but let's not even go there.

 

Danny from Skew put this better in his post :

 

"ER2014 by default of Reg 5(3) requires the acquisition of all pyrotechnic substances to be by certificate ( either AO or A&K). There is no exception."

"The Police are the enforcing authority for the granting of explosive certificates as per ER2014 Reg 11(1). There is no exception."



#73 wayne

wayne

    Member

  • Admin
  • 421 posts

Posted 26 November 2016 - 07:39 AM

Ok, so if you want to experiment <100g NEQ, then as defined in the guidance, you need an explosive certificate as required by ER2014 Reg 6(2)(a):

 

the manufacture of explosives for the purpose of laboratory analysis, testing, demonstration or experimentation (but not for practical use or supply) where the total quantity of explosives being manufactured at any time does not exceed 100 grams, but nothing in this sub-paragraph is to be taken as authorising any acquisition or keeping of explosives for which an explosives certificate is required by virtue of regulation 5, without such a certificate;

 

When the renewal of my certificate came up in July, my ELO together with Danny reviewed the best way to issue certificates that best match the experimental application.  In the end, we decided on 2 separate certificates:

 

Acquire & Keep: UN 0027, UN 0028, UN 0305 (BP and flash)

Acquire only: UN MAN2 (Any pyrotechnic substance or article subject to these regulations that is within the meaning of explosive contained within regulation 2).

 

This would appear the best fit in our type of application.  I have yet to update the guidance document to suggest applying for the certificates in this configuration, but please bear in mind the application is very much a personal choice.  What fits for one person might not be suitable for another.  The UN MAN2 is an brilliant attempt to assist with our type of applications (Many thanks Danny) since its a catch all for pyrotechnic substances, so its definitely one you want on your certificate.

 

I hope this helps you and your ELO!



#74 Rob.L.

Rob.L.

    Not quite right!

  • Admin
  • 159 posts

Posted 26 November 2016 - 09:18 AM

 
 

 

So, here I am in darkest Northamptonshire, arguably one of the best places to be if you want to go somewhere else!

 

Although I have made progress with my licence applications, I've had a very interesting response from Northants finest that the rest of you guys might be interested in seeing.

 

In April this year, I submitted the forms for an A&K for BP and an AO for fireworks and, after several phone calls, a Firearms Enquiry Officer was assigned as my case officer. After speaking to him on the phone, he admitted that he knew nothing about explosives or fireworks and was only comfortable with firearms. He was, however, comfortable with BP due to it's firearms application.

 

Eventually, he visited me in August and decided that I was an OK person and the upshot was that I had my A&K for BP delivered on November 5th, couldn't have been a better date as far as I'm concerned but there was no AO.

 

Talking to the FEO, he told me that he had been advised by the ELO for Northants that the A&K for BP was all that I needed so I, diplomatically, pointed out that my understanding gleaned mostly from the Society and many hours of reading through ER2014 and other documents was very different and I was sure that a certificate was needed and he said that he'd refer it back to the ELO.

 

I've now heard back and the ELO is saying that I don't need an explosives certificate for fireworks but, if I want to make them, I need an manufacturing licence from the HS&E so I should talk to them. In other words, they haven't refused me one on legal grounds just think that it's unnecessary.

 

So far, my response to them has been to:

 

Point them at the Society's Good Practice Guide, especially the section on legislation. They've responded that it wasn't helpful as they didn't understand it! Sorry Wayne.

 

I've copied them with a verbatim quote of Regulation 6, 1 and 2a of ER2014 to try and explained the manufacturing exemption, as best I can, and why I don't need a licence to manufacture provide that I stick tom the restrictions in the above regulation.

 

I've copied them with the definition of BP on p5 and asked them if, given the precise definition of BP in terms of components, I add other components or replace all or part of the potassium nitrate with another nitrate then is it still BP because, if it isn't then my A&K isn't valid. I've also pointed out that many fireworks do not contain BP or any of it's components so my A&K won't cover them either.

 

Finally, I've copied them with the definition an "explosive substance" and "fireworks" on p 7 of  ER2014, the "explosive substance" being, in my opinion more of an exact description of a pyrotechnic substance than an explosive, and "fireworks" being defined as "explosive articles" and therefore, requiring a certificate. However, nowhere in ER2014 can I see a black and white phrase that defines a pyrotechnic substance as an explosive that requires a certificate. That may just be my tired old eyes though!

 

I'm waiting for a response but, in the meantime I thought I'd ask if anyone can point me towards something simple, in black and white that states that a certificate is required for possession of fireworks outside of the permitted four occasions every year or indeed any other legal "ammunition" that may help.

 

Hello Blackcat,

 

I will be going through this process myself shortly and one thing that is apparent to me is that the authorities that grant certificates have not been correctly briefed in this area or simply haven't had the time to study it.

I notice there appeared to be some confusion over 'making fireworks' and 'constructing experimental pyrotechnic articles' almost like the wording sent them up the wrong road.

To tell you to speak to the HSE confirms that to me.

 

My point is that ant future applicants, myself included, need to carefully word everything and maybe even add an explanitory letter at the outset of the application.

 

When I applied for my EPP I gave them a supplimentary note of explanation alongside my application. Also when getting variations I did the same.

I get the feeling that this went a long way to helping my position be clear and application be successful on every count. (in fact I had a reply to that effect)

 

Whilst this is a fundamentally different process, I can see that there are still too many unknowns for the authorities and possibly us for that matter. I do not think it is quite 'in the bag' yet!

 

I have seen this first hand in the past with a small specialist police force trying to make sense of airgun law after seizing an air weapon, they had the book out and were not finding it easy and in fact came to the wrong conclusion. As an enthusiast known to them (we worked in the same place) I was able to explain why it was not section 1 or prohibited firearm. When you do not know it is not easy.

 

Sometimes we have to do our utmost to intelligently assit the authorities to get the correct result. All of this is groundbreaking stuff still and we would all do well to remember this when making our approach.

 

I know this post may not help you directly but I think it is a factor for all amateurs to consider.

 



#75 BlackCat

BlackCat

    Member

  • UKPS Members
  • 74 posts

Posted 26 November 2016 - 03:58 PM

Thanks again guys, it looks as if there are several points that I can raise with the Police and I need to have a good look at UN MAN-2 before I send your comments onward.

 

Rob - I agree with you entirely about additional information, in fact, when I applied for my EPPP, I sent them additional information on my qualifications and a brief resume of my career as a Research and Development Chemist together with a brief explanation of why I wanted the EPPP. I've sent the same information to the Police to support my A&K and AO application and I would certainly recommend that everyone else does the same.

 

Sam - When talking about other mixtures, I was thinking of a hypothetical case of replacing all or part of the potassium nitrate in BP with strontium or barium nitrate rather than sodium nitrate as thinks stand, the Police seem to think that such a mixture would still be considered BP. Obviously, I have my doubts. I'm also struggling a bit with your reference to ER2014 Reg 5 (3). (1) and (2) seem to be quite clear in that certificates are required for explosive substances unless (3) applies. (3) in (a) seems to be saying that certificates are not required for the explosives listed in Schedule 2, which is straightforward but (B) says pyrotechnic articles apart from those listed in Schedule 3. Schedule 3 contains the UN nos of many pyrotechnic devices but not those for fireworks so, isn't it saying that a certificate isn't required for UN0333 - UN0337.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users