blackrider_gr

My friend i m with you!
And since they want to have "rules" against you and the type of engine you use then be there at the club with a photo cam and i am sure you can get lots of evidence that it is not you that bypassing the rules!
Rules i think are for all.. aren't they?

Sorry for my English
A friend from Greece.

Kevin_W

My Feedback: (1)

That sounds a whole lot like blackmail to me.

Sean,
I understand that you are unhappy with the rule, but making threats and pointing fingers at other (unrelated) potential
problems is not very intelligent approach to convincing other people to see things your way. In fact it tends to put
people on the defensive and generally piss them off (as you are admittedly experiencing with the club).

If you carry out your threat to "get the club closed" you have accomplished absolutely nothing for yourself other than
retribution for not getting your way. That is selfish, childish and stupid. It does nothing but hurt this hobby in the
long run. It's hard enough to keep flying fields from being closed by complaints from outside, it is idiotic for
a modeler put his efforts into getting one closed.

Drop the adversarial stance and try to work toward a comprimise.
Failing that, you might just have to accept that you are not going to get your way on this issue.

If that happens find another field to fly at, or live with the rules as written until you can find a more diplomatic
(read "successful" ) way to effect their change.

But please drop the Scorched Earth policy.

Boomerang1

The club I'm a member of has a secretary that tried to ban jets & we had to defend ourselves (sucessfully) so I thought I'd give you the time & read all your posts.

When you are a member of a club it's basically go with the flow, a common interest is why everyone is a member & part of belonging to a club is realising you may not get your own way all the time. If the majority of members at a meeting vote differently to what you feel is right, well, bad luck.

Make it clear you cannot get on with other club members & it's time to find another club. Eventually if you cause grief in enough clubs you will run out of clubs. Post it on the internet for the world to see & presto, you have really made a name for yourself, a bad one. The solution? Pull your head in, admit you were out of line & hope it all goes away, sorry.

For what it's worth, yes, we do have total fire bans in Oz & our turbine code says no fly. Fortunately most have the courtesy & common sense to follow the code. - John.

dasintex

My Feedback: (10)

Sean, not the response I was hoping for, didn't mean to get people in a quandry with you; I was curious what goes on elsewhere, it was my impression that the Jet Community Policed themselves, I wanted to find it out if Turbines were restricted everywhere that a burn ban exists, I appreciate the boys from Australia chimming in, but I would think their Fire Danger is a lot different than here in the USA and Canada, and I can see where the rules of Turbine Operation during Red Flag situations is apparent down under and nessessary, I believe the statement in following common sense is universally followed and the Clubs have the available equipment as mandated by the AMA, weather a restriction is needed or not, would be up to the Club, as Sean has said the AMA has no rules or regulations governing the operation of Turbines during Burn Bans..

KC36330

Sign me up!

if you feel during a fire ban it's in the clubs best interest to limit the possibilities of an aircraft induced fire then by all means ban flying. but don't limit it to jets, make it ANYTHING but a rubber band free flight aircraft. when the shoe is on the other foot and all the members abide by the same 'No Fly' rules the rules have a tendency to be more thought out and logical.

Sean For Club President

Ron S

My Feedback: (2)

I only read part of the threads - there is too much babble here. My opinion is it is only COMMON SENSE to not fly when there is a burn ban. You put the club field in jeopardy when you do. Not everyone flies turbine models.

Most clubs probably have informal rules on this, perhaps not in the constitution. By waving this flag, you are asking it to be put to a vote, and if the club's common sense is followed, you will probably lose.

If you don't want to be hampered by burn ban rules, I'd suggest moving to Minnesota (land of 10,000 lakes), or Antarctica. But then, you'd have AlGore on your case.

Burn ban time --> time to build - the other part of the hobby. [8D]

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

You know, I started thinking about it, and we had a total outdoor fire ban last summer for a month or so and nobody said anything about not flying - jets or otherwise.

I've got to go with Sean on the basic premise of this one. A total ban on jet flying during a burn ban is not reasonable. There are plenty of other model airplanes that can cause a fire and most jet crashes do not start fires.

I see no reason why there couldn't be a few extra precautions taken during burn ban season to let jets fly:

-Minimum of three guys at the field when jets fly

-There must be a true, portable water fire extinguisher filled and quickly available: http://www.nationalfirefighter.com/p...da29dddcbb157a

-If there is a crash, two guys go to the plane, one with the water fire extinguisher, one with the C02 - the third guys calls the fire department and gets them to respond the moment the fire looks out of control

-stop by the fire department before the start of the burn ban season and make sure that they know where you are and what you are doing

We occasionally fly at a National Guard base here and when it was dry, we took one water-based fire extinguisher and one CO2-based fire extinguisher and placed them in the back of an SUV with the key in the ignition. If there was a crash, the closest guys would hop into the SUV and get as close to the crash site as possible and then hoof the fire extinguishers the rest of the way...

You might even look at removing brush and undergrowth that can accelerate a fire or make it difficult to get to a downed aircraft. Maybe you could burn off the brush and grass with the fire department's help during the non-dry season?

Lots of stuff can be done to decrease the risk and its all a lot more reasonable, and probably more effective in preventing a big fire than just banning jets...

Bob

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

This is a bit of a tangent, but perhaps worth mentioning anyway in case it helps any of you guys…

Any time we have firefighters visiting an event I’m at, I take the time to go chat with them – get their feedback on what we are doing and what we could do better.

One fire chief told me to survey the site in advance to know what the situation is with dry grass & weeds, and then be very selective about using a truck, quad, or motorbike to get to a crash site. He said that in many cases the risk of starting a fire by driving a vehicle with a hot exhaust through long dry weeds far outweighs any good you could do by getting 10 or 20 gallons of water to the scene. Sometimes you should put specific areas “out of bounds” to your truck / quad / bike ; other times you should take a longer route to get there via non/less combustible routes rather than charging straight for the target.

frothingslosh

My Feedback: (6)

I've been trying for a while to figure out why so many of the "non-jet" flyers are so negative about jets. I believe it boils down mostly to envy and jealousy because they either can't or won't lay out the money to own one. I've never encountered a single person that didn't like to watch jets fly, including the prop guys at my club. You know what I mean Sein . . . I'm sure that when you fly at your club, EVERYONE watches and enjoys.

My club consists of 25 - 30 members, only 2 of which fly jets, one being myself. Shortly after the jets were introduced to the field, 2 or 3 of the "O-F" members approached us, complaining that we were burning the grass. After a little research, we found that it wasn't caused by the jets at all. Instead, the dead spots were caused by fuel which the prop guys spilled during fueling. They also frequently expressed their concern about a possible fire (even though we don't have burn bans here in northern OH.).

The other jet pilot finally left the club last year, leaving me as the only jet flying member. Shortly after that, I decided to move my jet flying to the local airport (of which I am the manager) where I had more room and lots less complaints. I couldn't believe it when I got an email from one of the club officers stating that he thought I was putting the club in jeopardy and inviting possible law suits against the (chartered, LLC) club in case I had a serious accident AT THE AIRPORT!!! This guy had done NO research, and didn't have a clue as to the Jet rules and how AMA insurance works. He thought the AMA rules PROHIBITED jet flight within 3 miles of an airport.

I'm still a club member because I still have a few good friends there, some that even appreciate and support jets. But, needless to say, all my jet flying is done at the airport.

Come on up and fly with me . . . 4,000 ft. of paved runway. I guarantee that no one will complain, and the fire department is only 1/4 mile away.

patf

My Feedback: (4)

Being president of the Austin club when this rule was developed I feel I should chime in. The ARCA field is located on a city of Austin Grassland park. The jet pilot community in Austin was about 15 pilots give or take. All stood down during a burn ban as a gentlemen’s agreement. There is no “easy” way to determine en masse when conditions are potentially dangerous for fire, so using what we have at hand, it was determined that if conditions are such that the county has proclaimed a Burn Ban, then conditions would be hazardous in the event of a crash/fire. The gentlemen’s agreement worked fine for a while. Sean, as he stated, didn’t agree and flew. There was a lot of discussion, and contrary to what is painted, this was not a situation of paint stirrers revolting against the jet guys. The jet guys of the club are the ones who proposed the rule, a rule they could live with. This was a situation where the jet guys stepped forward to try and retain a field with the club. Anyone who has visited, ARCA is one of the most Jet friendly sites in the nation, if not the world. Some of the earliest jet modelers are members and participated in the preparation of this rule. From Kulcyzk, and Sewall, to Covish and others. Again, this was not a prop stirrers against jet guy situation as portrayed.

The gentlemen’s agreement is a preferred manner to deal with this. I agree that a Burn Ban ban on jets isn’t the most scientific method, but it is an easily defined safeguard against a potentially dangerous situation. During these burn bans the exhaust from a jet taxiing off the end of the runway caught the grass on fire. The situation in Austin was pushed to forming a rule, and the rule was crafted by Jet guys to be something that we could live with and protect the site.

S_Ellzey

Sean,

Once again you have drawn my wife’s and my name into you argument for no good reason. I am really getting tired of it kid.

Dawn and I traveled to ARCA for the New Years Eve party, and brought a couple of jets to fly. When we arrived SEVERAL of the local turbine guys told us that they felt the conditions where getting to dangerous and that the fire hazard was too great to fly a turbine. Considering the burn ban in effect and the condition of the field we agree to the voluntary stand down and flew props the couple of days we where there. CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU INDICATE WE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STAND DOWN!

What you are doing is disgusting – black mail – “do what I say or I will destroy you”.
Any one who is agreeing with this approach needs to spend some quality time with people with a proper moral center.

For those of you that are not familiar with the ARCA field it is surrounded on two sides by thick cedar forest, about 100 yards from the runway, out in front and to the right hand side when you are flying. Start a fire in there when it is super dry and it is going to be really, really bad. Trust me; I helped put one out in there a couple of years ago. About a dozen of us with 4 water back packs, and a four wheeler running the empties back for a refill barely stopped it. We got lucky because the model hit a clearing in there and there was little wind. We stopped the fire only 20 yards from the tree line. When the fire department arrived thankfully all they had to do was check that we really did have the fire out.

The ARCA club has good reason to be extra cautious; tough conditions and they have already seen a couple of turbine related fires. One thing you guys that are bashing the club should take note of; it was the turbine fliers that asked for the regulation to protect the field, not, as some of you have incorrectly assumed, the general membership. The club is supportive of the turbine fliers, just not those whose actions should be reported to their parents.

The AMA has considered regulations concerning stopping turbine flying during burn bans. I sat in on the Safety Committee meeting when it was discussed. The reason they choose to not do anything was due to two factors; it was their opinion that most jet modelers where self regulating on this issue, and that there is no uniformity from state to state on what they call this condition, which makes it very difficult to tie the safety code to a state code.

Steven

seanreit

My Feedback: (60)

This is not true, prior to the implementation of the "burn ban rule" for years turbine operations went on at ARCA with no hesitation. All of us flew.

Somehow, all of the sudden (and forgive me Steve, but as a tremendously well respected member and the then president of the JPO, and as widely portrayed conservative individual, I can't imagine why I would not have associated the dreaming up of this position by you, and if I am wrong, I PUBLICALLY APOLIGIZE!) it is not safe.

I have never flown a turbine jet during the burn ban rule, and I have never broken the rules.

Regardless, where is the public outcry on the prop planes?

What's more likely, burning down the forest, or this:

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=517422


or killing a little girl:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/2952707.stm

There are many examples of this, search Lipo fires when airplanes crash.

Where's the public outcry on that one?

Why choose to beat me up rather than argue the facts.

If we're going to hang our hat on doomsday scenarios, why are prop planes exempt from the discussion?

Because of discrimination.

What about that guy in Ohio in a wheelchair that got clobbered by a 40 percent airplane.

When did an RC turbine jet kill someone?

seanreit

My Feedback: (60)

Shall we ban RC cars as well??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksZPqb_0Eg8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spZ59IHg1k0

patf

My Feedback: (4)

Sean

this is not about personal injury or death. it is about jet pilots policing themselves in an area of public interest and in the interest of other modelers where we can make prudent decisions. this is not just a crash scenario. if you land and run off or taxi into the grass you can start a fire as evidenced from the past. the acreage that has burned in texas over the past few years has been staggering due to careless actions. if a jet were to cause a fire in the grassland park where arca resides, aside from the local issue, jets would be banned for more that just during a burn ban at other clubs. we are fortunate that we have alternatives for flying sites in our area. If you read through this thread you will see that ARCA is not the exception to using a burn ban as a means of regulating activity in potentially hazardous conditions.

the described actions against the club are childish and selfish. understand that there is more at stake here than just your ability to fly jets at a nearby field.

seanreit

My Feedback: (60)

Pat, I disagree with you. This issue has to be dealt with now. Waco never had a turbine burn ban, but when the cronies from Austin contacted them, all of the sudden they followed suit (and they don't even have turbine pilots as members).

Seguin has followed suit.

Arca appears to be the field that others are modeling their positions around. You talk about what if's. If a jet were.

Well, what if a guy on a motorcycle runs through tall grass and his hot muffler lights off the field. Arca has allowed motorcycles to run on field property, DURING BURN BANS.

So you tell me where the alternative is. If the club continues on this path, I will continue on my path, and if I have to sell all of my equipment because I don't have the same flying days that a guy with a death prop has, then so be it.

There is no middle room, what I am trying to accomplish is not illegal, nor immoral. The restrictions, might be illegal (discrimination).

There are recorded cases of people dying from eating food from concession stands that were not in accordance with health codes.

I feel for the club, I really do, this is a shame. I wish someone else had taken this stand before, but now here I am leading the charge, and as has happened in the past, my PM's are more favorable than some might think.

Kevin_W

My Feedback: (1)

Sean,
In your mind you may do a lot to promote the hobby, but in reality you are doing a lot to create problems for all rc modelers.

Those examples have absolutely nothing to do with the potential hazard the rule is trying to prevent.
What you are doing is called "deflection" (don't look at the real issue, look over there). It doesn't work.

If you bring all of this "data" you have collected to the city counsel or the park board you will might achieve your goal ("closing the club"), or you may not. What you will achieve for sure is instilling fear and doubt about the safety of model airplanes, and the ability of the club to control safety.
It might take some time but at some point the parks department will be looking for some land to build a new golf course, or soccer fields, or ultimate frisbee park. When that time comes they will look at a map and see this little model airplane field sitting on all this land. They will look at the revenue ARCA brings them every year, and then look at projected revenues from their proposed project, then they will remember "how dangerous those toys are" because the kill people and start fires. They might even have the data on how many times the fire department has been called out there in the last 10 years. Their decision will be a no brainer, the club is going to loose the field.

Please contain your battle to the club itself.
In your battles with the club I would also suggest that you limit your "data" to fire danger only. Include anything you have on lipo battery or gas engine fires, but forget about the unrelated drivel. Then you can work with the club to come up with a rule that everyone can live with.

seanreit

My Feedback: (60)

And let's face it, if a turbine crash results in a fire, the damages can be exactly the same county burn ban or not. And as I said before, there are posters in this thread that have crashed and created resultant fires (huge fires).

If these things are so dangerous, why are you still flying them?

Molar mender

First observation:
I would think that the city-county-state attorneys would prosecute under the fire marshal's Actions Prohibited section b) in the case of a jet crash. The Fire Marshall only has to tell you the rules. But all that is turned over to the legal system when it comes to adjudicating the rule/law. The "he/she engages in any activity outdoors which COULD allow flames or sparks that COULD result in a fire" is a pretty broad statement, especially if attorneys get into the act. Even though the flame is contained inside the turbine, a crash has the possiblity of allowing that containment to disappear in an instant. It wouldn't take an attorney very long to pick your defense apart if you think you were not breaking ANY RULES AT ALL.

Being the devil's advocate on this one, I suppose you could fly your jet 999 times out of a 1000 and not have a problem; or it could be 9,999 times out of 10,000 and still not be a problem. But that one time, no matter how small the percentage, if the conditions were right, you could start that fire that blackens a 1,000 acres, consumes a couple hundred homes and perhaps someone (a child maybe) dies in that fire.

'The needs of the many, out weigh the needs of the few' in this case and not the other way around. It's already been said on this forum and I will repeat it, it boils down to just plain COMMON SENSE. Why take the risk!!!!!

Second observation:
When it comes to interpersonal relationships, my Momma always taught me "You can catch more flies with honey, than you can with vinegar" and 'that's all I got to say about that'.

Roy

(Jeeez, I have to do more building and stop watching all those movie reruns)

ravill

My Feedback: (11)

Sean,

Sounds like you have a long, difficult and delicate situation over there.

I think "everyone" here understands that it is unfair to ban one specifice type of aircraft, just because it is percieved (true or not) that it poses more danger. (Fire, death, property damage, or what have you)

On the same token, "everyone" here can also see (including yourself) that your current animosity with the club (i.e. those in power over there) could use a more tactful, resolution approach.

But a mutually agreeable solution may prove elusive, you want to fly, "they" don't want you to fly.

I'm all for flying jets, safely and most importantly, to have fun! [sm=thumbup.gif] I would rather fly somewhere where I feel welcome, than at a close field where there maybe some, well, less welcoming folks. I hope a reasonable solution is met in your area.

How about flying at that bomber field you mentioned earlier?

Raf

seanreit

My Feedback: (60)

It is my understanding that Bomber Field is open to turbines round the year. I don't personally know any club members there, or least that I think.

Texas is a very large state, round trip to bomber field is 3.5 hours drive. Round trip to Arca is less than an hour.

I don't have any personal beef with any member of ARCA. All apologies have been made for previous issues, and I believe I am square with the club, as a member, and for previous misunderstandings.

This issue however, appears that the president of the club is leading a charge. He said at the meeting, he was worried for turbine pilots personally what would happen to us if the "doomsday" happened, when I responded I was worried about his 40 size airplane killing a little girl, he changed the subject, and would not discuss it. A club officer stood up and said "Prop planes can not create a fire".

I proved him wrong.

This is ridiculous, I should be able to schedule with my jet buds to go out and fly next Thursday afternoon, but because we don't know when the county is going to enact a ban, or take one down, we can't schedule anything.

This has been going on for two years, the only reason I'm being listened to now is because of the consequences.

AndyAndrews

- Doing the prudent thing and not flying during a burn ban is not promoting a false sense of security. It's reducing the likelyhood that you will start a fire that can get out of hand. It's common sense. Jets can create a fire MUCH worse than props. That is a fact.

Regarding the guy in the wheelchair? No difference except that He better not fly alone or risk the same liability.

And - most courts of law WILL take into account weather or not the severity of an accident could have been prevented by taking all precautions, when making judgements against defendants. Again, common sense.

lol, "only 5 fires?"...

But, all that being said - I wouldn't fly during a burn ban, but if you are willing to take the responsibility whos to prevent you from doing it if you want to? I can't believe that you can't find a place in Texas to fly other than a club. Since the club is private they can make any rules they want. Good luck taking the club to court. You again have the right to loose as much money as you want trying.

seanreit

My Feedback: (60)

Kevin made a great post earlier about deflection.

What we are talking about here is liability.

To suggest that there is anymore liability flying jets during a burn ban or not, is baseless. No one can state any facts about that, only speculation.

No one knows if a crash is going to result in a fire any more than they know if they'll get hit by a buss, or if a prop plane is going to kill a little girl.

If this is a liability issue, I am covered, you are covered, all AMA members are covered. something to the tune of 4 million in secondary insurance.

The biggest fire I know of was the one in Waco, and I'm sorry, what were the damages? What was the flac? Only what I have made of it.

The 5 fires at Austin, I'm sorry, what were the consequences?

The silence is deafening.

Gordon Mc

My Feedback: (11)

I don’t know if it’s still the case, but certainly until relatively recently the largest property damage claim that the AMA ever had, was reportedly for a fire. A fire started by a free-flight model.

The largest and most spectacular fire in the history of a club that I used to fly at, was caused by a glo-powered helicopter. Took something like 50 firefighters, 9 or 10 fire tenders, a bulldozer, and a CDF fire-fighting helicopter to put that one out. (And they had to come out TWICE, as it flared up again a few hours later).

The firefighters that came out for that one told us that a week before that, an equally large fire was started just a couple of miles away – caused by an R/C car.

I have witnessed several other cases where the reason that a fire started by a non-turbine model could not reach such epic proportions, is that there were turbine pilots present who were able to use their extinguishers to put those fires out – extinguishers which would not have been there at all if there had not been turbine activity at the club on those days.

The point I am making with the above, is that fire risk from non-turbine models is NOT as low as many people would like to think, and having the turbine guys present during “high fire risk” days has saved the day a few times – just because we are at least partially prepared for fire whereas the modeling community at large hides behind the “it could never happen with OUR models” myth.

I’m all for the turbine guys having voluntary no-fly times at clubs with high fire risk, as it can help with the community relations that allow turbines to be welcomed at a club. With that said, I believe that if the club decides that there should be a rule saying “no turbine flying during burn bans”, then perhaps they really ought to also add a requirement that fire extinguishers be present when non-turbine models are flown during such high-risk times. And what about Li-Poly’s ? Should those be used during a burn-ban, given their higher propensity for burning when punctured on impact ? Not only would a comprehensive solution to minimizing fire risk improve safety for the club, it would also reduce the risk of seeming political.

Fire from turbines DO happen, but they are not the “almost sure thing” that a lot of people seem to think. Several years ago, the fire risk was much higher than it is now, but improved designs, improved pilot education, improved regulations (failsafe shutdown, banning of plasma bags etc) etc., have all made turbine accidents considerably less likely to result in a fire than used to be the case. Unfortunately, we have not done a good job of educating others about this improvement, and so many “outsiders” still view turbines in the same way as the models from years ago.

There’s a cliché about “Perception IS reality” that comes to mind … if the modeling community at large thinks we are dangerous, then we have to fix that perception, not just keep fixing the reality.

Gordon

seanreit

My Feedback: (60)

Gordon, all good points, and when points were brought up like this at the club meeting, I was told that we are not interested in the facts, just interested in the burn ban policy. It has since been suggested that I simply be removed from the club as a club member rather than educate the club and deal with the issue on the merits.

It is my understanding that the club has now either contacted the health department, or soon will to have our concession evaluated. This will be the end of the Sat night steak dinners that have been favorites at all the events, because I do not think that health compliance can be achieved at this site. This Gentlemen is not my intent. My Intent is simply to grab your attention long enough to discuss the issue at hand, which is the miss placed dooms day event that could have us all in litigation. First of all this cannot happen. We have complied with all rules and regulations, and have liability insurance to back us up. I am asking all of our club members to simply to consider the facts, and make the correct decision.

Further, it is not my intention to encourage any club officer to resign or quit the club. All the officers have put in many hours of personal time to make the club what it is today. To suggest that my real intent is to close the ARCA field is ludicrous. That is akin to burning down the barn to get rid of the rats.

I now have a voice, and am being heard, and I appreciate that. Also appreciate whatever support you all can provide, and would encourage you to do the same thing at your clubs. If majority really rules, being such a minority can be problematic.

Sean

Kevin_W

My Feedback: (1)

Sean it's hard to tell what your intentions are, but if you continue following the course of actions that you spelled out on the first page you WILL degrade the club's image in the eyes of the city and that will effect any future decisions they make regarding the land that the flying field sits on.

You are acting selfish, childish, and stupid!!