Eddie P

My Feedback: (4)

That picture says a thousand words David [:-] Thanks.

No straw dogs here in Nevada, I thought those were called Pinatas - maybe it's a Texas thing I wholeheartedly agree with you that turbine operations are a COMPLETELY different kettle of fish and we need to be smart for those community members around us and our own simple future enjoyment of the hobby. But while we are at it, I thought we were talking about preventing fires. Turbines, gasoline, combustable glow fuel, lthium packs etc are just risks that need to be examined and managed as a whole. Straw dogs, quasi-logic and all. I've seen two glow and gas engine fires in 30 years of model airplane flying. That's not a lot but it's enough that maybe clubs should keep water extinguishers around in case. Most clubs I've been to, the only fire equipment present is when a turbine guy is around.

dbarrym

My Feedback: (47)

Why yes, David....I remember the CA/San Diego fires all too well...especially as my home club's field (less than a mile from the location of the the first pic) was literally burned down to the dirt in our 2003 fires, and last year's fires came within a mile of my home just last October (see second pic, taken a couple of hours before we were evacuated for 2 days).

For the life of me, I cannot understand why anyone cannot see the logic of standing down during high fire risk periods! As turbine pilots, with the greater potential risk our weights, speeds, and higher potential of fire in a crash (yes, it IS higher), we have an obligation to maintain a higher degree of care and safety.

Barry

dragonpilot

My Feedback: (38)

I was out off of 290 this past weekend and got all muddy. So I Just checked and the burn ban is lifted, everyone can fly Thursday. Problem solved.
The thread can now be closed.

Barry, those are some scary pics, Wow!

Synthetic

My Feedback: (18)

I have a question concerning the above post.

[Turbines make more power than anything else out there, for their weight.]

I am not an aeronautical engineer and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night but I am wondering about this "power to weight" ratio thing. I know this thread is not about power to weight ratios but here's a question.

Doesn't a foamy with the normal brushless electric motor (you know the kind that you hover a foamie with) have a greater power to weight ratio than turbine jets? I am thinking if I would take one of my jets with it running and while holding onto it and pointing it straight up into the air and then go full throttle and then let go of the plane....it falls to the ground.

I take a "foamie" and do this and it shoots up into the air like a rocket. Wouldn't that mean the foamie has a higher power to weight ratio than the jet?

Don

KC36330

DON'T DO IT!!!! you'll likely start a fire.

c/f

My Feedback: (1)

Since I also fly all the other types of model disciplines I find it absurd that some can lump a turbine jet into any category remotely close to any other type of flying r/c model in fire producing potentials.

My first thought is on any grass field you can see EXACTLY where a turbine jet has taxied around the field. The aerials look like crop circle artwork. You try an convince me this can be confused with any other type of r/c model other than a turbine powered jet? I dont think so.

Even when no burn ban exists club members know I was at the feild with a turbine.

AndyAndrews

Synthetic

My Feedback: (18)

Good one!!!

AndyAndrews

All in all, I think this thread has shown that the MAJORITY of turbine jet flyers would NOT fly during a burn ban. Although, it also important to note that practically NONE of us like to be singled out during burn bans from others who use LIPOS, or large props with huge fuel tanks or any other type of model that could potentially cause a fire during a ban.

I think most jet jocks are reasonable and responsible people. I hope others see this after this horrible thread.

yeahbaby

My Feedback: (21)

to give you some perspective about those 2003 fires, the flying field that barry is talking about was my former home field also. when the fire swept through the area, it melted a full size aluminum picnic table into 3 perfectly placed puddles prior to jumping across I-15.

bad jooo joo bro's

sidgates

My Feedback: (2)

The original question is “what do other clubs do during Burn Bans�. I fly at two state parks near Denver. Both have enforced burn bans at least once or more a year for the past several years. The clubs at these parks don’t set the fire ban rules, the park management does.

Cherry Creek Park bans all internal combustion engines except for paved roadways during Burn Bans. This essentially closed the field for model flying. The Denver R/C Eagles demonstrated to the park manager at Cherry Creek State Park how hard it is to ignite glow fuel and the ruling then allowed glow engines during burn bans but not gasoline or turbine engines.

I am aware of three fires at Cherry Creek the past few years. The first was from a model rocket which were never legal in the park. Last year a lightning strike burned about 10 acres, and a lipo fire which occurred on bare dirt.

I have been in modeling for 56 years and I have seen all types of models (glow, gas, electric, turbine) catch on fire. I have flown all types and I personally feel that my turbine engine has the potential of causing the most fire damage and I have curtailed my turbine flying when I thought the fire potential was high even though a mandated fire ban was not in force.

patf

My Feedback: (4)

Sean

I did not call you selfish or childish personally, just the actions you were proposing. I still feel the same as when we spoke directly about this topic years ago. I understand where you are coming from, just do not agree with you, and respect that you do not agree with me.

the one good thing that has been referenced is that with the higher profile of burn bans overall, they are evaluated often. significant rainfall will trigger a quick dropping of a burn ban even if only for a few days so that the public can take advantage of the situation.

in the meantime, pray for rain to whatever your prescribed religious figure is.

aspectratio

Don,

You have a point about the power or at least the static thrust vs the weight of a model. Some foamies and even Giant Scale 3-D planes may have higher power to weight ratios.

However, I bet if you took ten 3-D foamies and flew them into the ground at top speed, you probably would not start a single fire. On the other hand, if you did that with ten turbines you would probably start quite a few fires. If you did it with ten giant scale gas powered 3-D planes, you might start a fire or two if they had LiPolys and they ruptured, but probably not, and glow powered 3-D's would probably be even less likely to start a fire than gas powered planes.

The thing about turbine engines is that they get extremely hot, and they and have extremely hot, high volume, high velocity gases coming out of them, and higher speed impacts are more likely to rupture the fuel tank and/or fuel lines. However, you can easily start a fire without even crashing by just running off the runway into the grass. In fact you can easily start a fire just by running a turbine in the pits if there is something flammable behind it.

This is why the AMA has extra rules about fire safety with regards to turbines.

Just sayin'

seanreit

My Feedback: (60)

Overview of 2004 Crash Stats and Recommendations



Basic Data: This year, the data tracked 1208 pilots logging an estimated 7950 flights.
As with 2003, the presented data relied heavily on the reports received from the CDs or the Airbosses that covered some of the events. More time was spent getting details this year, and it is believed that the 2004 data has better information than did the 2003 data. That stated, the data is not perfect. There is a certain amount of subjectivity in the reports, and when reviewing the details, others may have different perspectives.

Because there was a significantly higher percentage of “unknown� crashes last year, and this year’s data had more categories, comparisons of cause of loss from year to year aren't particularly valid.

Attendance: A comparison of attendance for events where data was available in both 2003 and 2004 showed participation off about 8 percent. It looked like many of the smaller events grew somewhat, but some of the larger events reported fewer registrations. Florida Jets, Michigan, Florida International, Greater Southwest and Mississippi all reported fewer pilots. Superman held ground. Heartland and Liberty were two of the larger meets that grew. The escalating cost of automotive fuel, and therefore the increased cost to attend an event, may have contributed to the reduction.

Frequency of Loss: Overall, the frequency of loss was very similar from year to year. In 2004, there was one loss per 132 flights. The comparative figure for 2003 was one incident per 120 flights, though this number was driven somewhat by 5 overrun losses at Dixie due to a shortened runway. If these losses were removed, the frequency would have been virtually static. This consistency year over year would suggest that the data has a fair amount of credibility.

Cause of Loss: As might be guessed, just over 50% of all losses were related to pilot error. Just over half of these losses were botched landings. While there were several accidents caused by planes stalling on approach, the majority of landing incidents appear to be related to failure to slow the aircraft sufficiently for landing. This was the leading cause of all accidents this year, representing 11 of 66 losses.

Next to landing problems, disorientation represented seven different accidents listed as pilot error. This is the category of loss that was dominated by new pilots. Five new pilots were involved in crashes, and four of these five succumbed to disorientation. Flying at dusk or with the sun in the eyes was also a contributing factor in several of the disorientation losses. CG problems and incorrect radio settings rounded out the pilot error category.

Battery/radio problems represented about 25% of losses this year. Unfortunately, the cause of most of these incidents will never be known. Nine of the fourteen losses in this category are characterized by engine shutdown in flight with some initial Loss Of Control (LOC). In some cases, control was regained but the aircraft was not recovered successfully. In other cases, the LOC was total. Of the remaining electrical problems, several batteries were confirmed defective, a transmitter failed and there was one report of a switch failure.

Interestingly enough, thirteen of the fourteen radio incidents occurred at different events.

Structural problems represented the next most frequent cause of loss at 16%. There really was no consistent pattern here. Wings folded, booms cracked, stabs and hatches departed airframes, flaps failed. No particular aircraft kit was immune, and none were really repetitive. All in all, to have only nine structural problems in almost 8000 flights is pretty amazing, and a testament to the structural integrity of the kits and the building skills in the jet community. .

Engine failures without any reported LOC represented 12% of losses. In most of these reports, pilots were unable to reach the runway, or damaged the airplane if they did during the unanticipated landing. Bearing failure was an obvious cause in some instances, while the remainder were likely related to air bubbles or other transient problems.

There were two mid-airs and a number of unknown events that rounded out the remainder of the data.

There was absolutely no hint of a speed related incident in any of the statistics.

Fires: There were six reported fires this year, though one occurred on the set-up day and not during the sanctioned event

One of the fires reported involved an engine seizure/LOC. The actual fire was very brief, and as soon as the ECU detected the failure it shut off the fuel which appears to have extinguished the fire immediately. There was no post crash fire, and the signs of a pre-crash fire damage could only be detected by inspection of the airframe.

All remaining fires involved planes hitting the ground at high speed or some catastrophic event. All of these fires either self extinguished or were reported to be pilot controlled.

Pilot Experience: As mentioned earlier, new pilots were not involved in many crashes. The comments received from CDs this year were also absent any concerns about newer pilots, which was quite different than in ’03, where this dominated safety concerns. It is believed that buddy boxing has had a significant positive impact and deserves some of the credit for the success of newer waiver holders. This is reinforced by the fact that four out of the five incidents involving newer pilots were caused by disorientation.

Aircraft Durability: As can be deduced from the cause of loss statistics, the age of the airframe really had no strong correlation to losses. A roughly even number of crashes involved new, intermediate and experienced airframes.

Conclusions:

1) Slow flight and landing practice would benefit the turbine community safety record, particularly for those folks flying at home fields with very long runways.
2) More diligence is required in the maintenance of batteries and radio equipment. Batteries should be cycled regularly to keep an eye on capacity. Crystals and modules do fatigue with age. With the forward compatibility that radio systems offer for these parts, it does make sense to encourage frequent range checks as a preventative measure.
3) Newer pilots should be encouraged to avoid disorientation by keeping their aircraft closer in, controlling speed and avoiding flight in adverse lighting conditions.
4) Pilots should keep an eye on fuel systems, engine temps and pump voltages after every flight to look for abnormalities that would suggest air leaks, impending bearing failure or clogged filters.
5) Fires remain relatively uncommon, but still result primarily from high speed ground impact with the engine running. At the beginning of every flight, repetitive thought should be given to pulling the trim in the event of a catastrophic event. Data also shows that fires can be successfully controlled with water based fire equipment. It is not certain how often the regulations are followed in this area at home fields, but it is important.
6) Some aircraft do recover from transient failsafe events. Don’t stop flying the aircraft, even if it seems non-responsive.
7) Failsafe programming remains important in preventing fires. There were 14 incidents recorded where the pilot reported total LOC due to radio or battery problems. In most cases, the incident report confirmed that the engine shut down. None of these crashes resulted in a fire.

To view more information on the JPO's risk management initiative, including actual statistics, click here.

JUST SAYING....

digitech

My Feedback: (10)

i once saw a turbine fire started when a model crashed and within 10 minutes of the start there was more then 10000 square meters of weed burning.
i seen ore then 3 farmers racing on their tractors cutting circles around the fire to stop it from spreading.
we could not believe how fast that spreaded.
here it is pretty simple ,use common sence.
if it is dry and the corn or weed is very dry we just dont fly , we just dont want the gouverment or the community we fly in get their chance and ban us.
on airshows it is allowed to fly no matter how dry it is, it is a enclosed envrioment and firetrucks are present 24 hours until the end of the show.
we are also very carefull , turbines have the problem to be the source of lots of envy , and you can guess what happens if one fire gets started because of one...

Synthetic

My Feedback: (18)

I wasn't talking about catching fire I was just talking about power to weight ratio.

Don

lov2flyrc

My Feedback: (24)

Sean,
Statistics or not... The fact remains that during a burn ban, conditions to accelerate the speed at which a fire will spread are exceptionally higher, simply put! IF you crash and a fire is ignited, it is going to spread much faster (in a burn ban condition) than it would during normal conditions.... This is facts!
Just because the statistics show the chance of fire may be lower than some might expect, THEY STILL HAPPEN. I just dont get the logic your portrying here....?? And, as a Friend, I will state I don not agree at all with the tactics you plan to follow should things not go your way. If I cant play, no one can is NOT the right attitude.
JMHO

Kevin_W

My Feedback: (1)

http://used-firetrucks.com/

Just Saying

seanreit

My Feedback: (60)

When I suggested I would purchase the product pictured below for the field, the response I got was:

I am complying with the club rules for this event only by supplying a water source. We have a truck with 200 gallons of water for use at this event. What we are looking for is the use of a 120 volt gen set and a pump for this event only. That is the subject I am addressing only.

Robin.


I suggested that on 5/3/07 or thereabouts. Another member was willing to go in with me on it. Why would the club be so close minded? Would that type of equipment be helpful in the event of a lipo fire?

Ron S

My Feedback: (2)

You'll need this to pull it then.

Kevin_W

My Feedback: (1)

Sean,

Maybe if you stop blackmailing the club with threats they will be a little more open to compromise.

seanreit

My Feedback: (60)

I tried that, it didn't work. The president of the club was not even willing to help me figure out how to meet about it, here are his words from February '07 in an email exchange:

During the meeting the prohibiting of flying turbines during a burn ban was voted on and passed.

This amendment was brought up and passed by turbine pilots. I do not see anything we can do to change it.

Robin


A year later, and different methods, and now I'm sure he is seeing there are ways to change it. So no Kevin, I'm not changing any tactics till I know I'm sitting in front of a group that is ready to listen. Being nice has proven not to work.

I am alienating friends, by speaking more about this. Please let it be and understand I tried civilly to get this resolved at varying times over the past two years. You have to admit, a club member sending an email to the President of the club willing to donate $3,000.00 worth of equipment to the field and being told we're not gonna talk about this is odd, right? I don't see how that could be wrong.

Kevin_W

My Feedback: (1)

Sean,
If that is true then you are justified in being upset with the club officers.
There is ABSOLUTELY no justification for blackmail, and threats of "closing the club" though.

You are alienating friends by your unscrupulous tactics and actions, not by speaking about the issue here.

If you will drop the threats against the club I am willing to act as a moderator or go-between to see if we can get this resolved before any permanent damage is done.

Will you accept that?

Jackjet

My Feedback: (1)

Sean,

just move on out here to Apple Valley Ca - you can fly ALL you want at Rabbit Dry Lake and El Mirage dry lake - NOTHING to burn out there -and NO club b.s. to contend with -and NO wavier required! Flying freedom is here !

dasintex

My Feedback: (10)

I have said this before, and may I repeat, although clearly it seems it doesn't matter, the reason I started this thread was to find out what others do about Burn Bans, I have learned a vaulable lesson; NEVER post a question on an open forum!

All the conflict that my Thread created I apologize for. Sean is well know on RCU, and he probably knew the responses he would get when he joined the thread way back on page one. The discussion unleashed a ton of conflict, critisim and controversy. I have stated before that I am neither FOR or AGAINST Turbine Restriction during Burn Bans, but the conflict my Thread created may have been damaging and I am sorry for that.

I did get a lot of good information and responses to which I am appreciative of.

I think a more accurate question should of been, asking what Jet pilots prefer to do during Burn Ban situations: Self Regulating or Allow Restrictions. From the responses on this thread it seems that a lot of Jet Pilots do self regulate or Police themselves; and where Turbine Restrictions are in place, most are agreeable to the Retrictions and comply.

Arguments have been raised about other modes of Fire Starters i.e. Lipo's; but a common theme in this thread is that it seems that Turbines are more likely to cause fires. Is it right to discriminate against Turbines, of course not; but in light of the responses here it may seem to be unavoidable.

Public Image is everything, and all across this nation clubs are losing their fields, so why give them a chance to shut another one down because we started a fire?

I don't know what the answer is, I can tell from reading the replys that there is some frustration, anger and disappointement, on both sides of the debate.

My 2 cents worth, actually considering Canadian Money is slightly worth more right now, I guess it would be my 3 cents worth.