Marvinf14

My Feedback: (4)

I believe and thrust that Sean its not Threatening anyone nor Violence nor Terroristic attacks coming from him, if your Club is so Friendly as you may say why not help the guys that fly the Jets and be friendly with them instead of kicking them out or simply say a Fire its the Jets Fault in any future, don't sound like a friendly club to me...

dasintex

My Feedback: (10)

Guys;

If I could retract and put an end to this thread I would love to do so; the intent of this thread has been clearly lost, I am not taking nor have I taken any position for or against Turbine Restrictions; I felt and I honestly thougt that I made that clear; I was trying to figure out what everyone else in the country does with the operation of Turbines during Fire Bans; and the fire danger that Turbines pose, that's it; to those that have given me this information, I thank you, perhaps I was naive to think that people would stick to the merit of the thread, for my ignorance I apologize, I have certainly disturbed the fire ant nest, and they are biting the heck out of me now.

dragonpilot

My Feedback: (38)

dasintex,

Well I think you are getting good information here and even though the discussion has changed somewhat, the content, with exception to some, is pertinent to your topic but I understand if you don't agree.
What is has done is brought out an issue that many clubs face and that could face in the future.
But more importantly, When and if you take away judgment from a paying pilot by actually outright BANNING one type of this great hobby of ours during burn bans, ALL should be banned during that time that has "potential fire threat", if the threat of fire, is that serious in the surroundings.
If turbine aircraft were the only aircraft that existed to fly, there wouldn't be a ban, would there? it would just be another day to day risk, like driving to the store to get some milk, eating a hamburger, or just crossing the street.

Inspector Fuzz

I have been a long time member of ARCA, the club in question. While I do not currently fly turbines I have run the transmitter impound for most of the jet events from 2000-2005. I have personally witnessed 3 high speed jet crashes and ALL of them ended in big fireballs. It is true that failsafe settings and motor shutdowns have helped with the fire problem. It is also true that LOW SPEED jet crashes, running off the runway, etc don't result in fire, HOWEVER, if the pilot screws up or a servo fails or the structure fails close to the deck and that motor is pulling air when the crash occurs, you are going to get fire and lots of it.
I have yet to see a highspeed jet crash in person or on video that did not result in a fireball.

@Sean
It is my opinion, looking at the quality of the setup work in some of your models, that you flying a model airplane constitutes a greater danger than most of the folks in the jet community I have met. You have hit yorself in the head with your own model helicopter and crashed your own car while dangerously caravanning two trailers full of models togther down the highway. If anyone should error on the cautious side it ought to be you. Am I suptrised that you are engaging in this behaviour and the remarks you have made on this thread? Nope. History has a way of repeating itself.
JEFF

P.S. I will be there to vote against you in April.

rjpmodel

My Feedback: (2)

"if your Club is so Friendly as you may say why not help the guys that fly the Jets and be friendly with them instead of kicking them out or simply say a Fire its the Jets Fault in any future, don't sound like a friendly club to me... "

marvinf14 - do you not understand english Read the preceeding post !!

It was the jet pilots in the club that initiated the no fly turbins during burn bans because THEY had enough sense and responsibility to realize that when a turbin hits the ground there is a reasonible chance that fuel flowing over a hot engine could start a fire.

Why is it so hard to understand that a fire way out in a very dry field will be very hard to control by the time you can get there with your very limited water cans.

How can it be repeated so many times that the club is not jet friendly and is trying to pick on jet pilots?

I will repeat it one more time.

It was the jet pilots in the club that initiated the no fly turbins during burn bans because THEY had enough sense and responsibility to realize that when a turbin hits the ground there is a reasonable chance that fuel flowing over a hot engine could start a fire.

ravill

My Feedback: (11)

Not to be a smart ass, but kinda (trying to keep it as light as possible folks! [8D] )

Here's a pic of before and after of my very first jet on its very first flight (not by me ) that went down at about 150 mph. I would say that qualifies as high speed, and it did not result in a fireball.

And here's that famous Roo that went down at well over 100 mph that didn't result in a fireball! [&:]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

Raf

dbarrym

My Feedback: (47)

Interesting that this thread has come to focus on one club and the actions of a few people...the problem is much bigger than that.

Perception is reality, and to the average modeler/club member, turbines present a bigger fire risk than the "average" model, like he/she flies. After all, isn't it the turbine guys who always have a fire extinguisher nearby?

Here in SoCal we have only two or three fields (in total) that still allow turbines, and only one is open to the public/civilian modeler (the other two are on military bases). All have had turbine fires, and both of the military facilities (which I fly at) have "no turbine" rules during Red Flag (burn ban) fire conditions. It's a PITA, as that usually means no turbines from June through October....but if following the "ban" means keeping a flying site open to jets the rest of the year, I'm all for following along. (It's also why I have an Electra almost done, just so I can scratch the itch occasionally through the ban period).

Taking an adversarial position, rather than making a compromise with the "jets are fire hazards/let's ban them all the time" people, is going to be a losing proposition, IMHO. Here in So Cal we've lost two great sites because of these kinds of attitudes/conflicts in the recent past. [X(]

Just my $.01...

Barry

PS - An electric modeler took a similar "screw you, I'll get all flying banned if I can't fly" position after he caused a LIPO fire at a San Diego County managed flying site... as a result, the county is apparently now considering a LIPO ban at sites with a high fire risk. What goes around, etc.....

dragonpilot

My Feedback: (38)

Hey Bob, how's it going

Good last point. But I think to clarify the point is that when you pour kero all over grass or a bush, be it Fresh (non-burn ban?) or dry (burn ban?), and light it on fire, it is reasonable to assume that the grass would burn in both cases and, in fact, it actually does. And this is why the ban during parts of the year makes no sense. It only makes sense if you have a ban all year long because the risk of crashing is the same no matter what day it is. Right? Or are they saying because there is a burn ban by the County, the risk of crashing goes up?

I am curious if the moisture content of the grass/bushes was tested at the time of the other crashes that have occurred there and why it was ok to fly then. And if so, was there a difference in that MC than another non-rainy, non 'ban" day, and if so, was there a fire test done to figure out in milliseconds how less flammable kero doused plant material was that day?


Or can anyone make the determination of what the moisture content is of the plant material surroundings on any particular non-rainy day and then correlate that with the chance of crashing on that day?


The only reasonable thing to do is to have as much safety equipment as possible and at the ready no matter what day it is or what you're flying.


PS (I think the worst enemy with a fire is wind, so the only realistic ban I can foresee putting into place would be banning all flights on high wind days but that would add insult to injury (Fla. jets).

patf

My Feedback: (4)

Dragonpilot and Sean

please read my earlier post. when the rule was made the several of the turbine pilots of the club were consulted. the rule was written by turbine pilots, and i as the president of the club have been flying ducted fans and jets for years. I dont feel i left a mess for anyone. we prepared the best and simplest rule possible with all that we knew. we looked at more restrictive measures, and less, but the burn ban measure worked out the best in a easy to communicate and made the most sense.

crashing is one thing. there has been a few incidents that were handled by the pilots/folks out at the field. fortunately there were enough people around to deal with this. I am not going to speculate on the times only one jet guy is there flying, no other able bodied around, with no water can or leaving his fire extinguisher in the car. it has happened as well.

price can attest, no crash, great landing, brakes a little off and he rolled his kingcat off the end of the runway. at idle the grass caught fire and he lost the booms and a little more in the resulting fire before we could get the water to it. only a five foot diameter of damage.

We have had the fire department out for two of the five fires mentioned. (someone correct me if i am mistaken) One of those two were under control by the pilots in attendence, the other wasnt and the fire department had to put it out. the three remaining were taken care of by the pilots without a need for calling for assistance. of these fires, none were during a burn ban that i can recall.

Again it is a perception. Are we acting in a responsible manner by operating gas turbines in an drought environment whereas we can cause a fire that would destroy a grassland park, not necessarily by crashing, but in normal activities.

Sean you may "win". the skeet club has already been told their lease with the city will not be renewed, and from what i heard 2010 they will have to find a new location. kill another flying site and sit back with a jack and coke and tell yourself that you are the king.

Ron S

My Feedback: (2)

"It only makes sense if you have a ban all year long because the risk of crashing is the same no matter what day it is. Right?"

Tim, careful what you ask for!

To DAS's original question, in Fort Worth, at the Thunderbirds club, we've had a burn ban rule where we don't fly turbines. I am a member of that club, and I know people follow it, from what I know. There may be some exceptions - the club doesn't pass out sledge-hammers for enforcement - but we police ourselves. I mostly fly at HOTMAC, Waco, where I've been an associate member for several years, and all of us follow the same rule. It is just a matter of being proactive instead of reactive. Yes your thread took a different direction, but it is obvious who steered the thread away. I'm certain there was no mean intent with it. [8D]

I hope the ARCA club comes up with a rule that all of their club members can live with. [8D]

JKEpps

My Feedback: (1)

Pat,

You state:

crashing is one thing. there has been a few incidents that were handled by the pilots/folks out at the field. fortunately there were enough people around to deal with this. I am not going to speculate on the times only one jet guy is there flying, no other able bodied around, with no water can or leaving his fire extinguisher in the car. it has happened as well.

So you seem to be very concerned about activity that could cause a fire, no matter what action initiated it, including but not limited to crashes. As a bystander watching this go on, and as one that does not know or agree with things Sean has stated in the past on other issues, and has told him so, I still have a question.

Why have you not addressed Sean's question about banning LiPo use during a burn ban? If potential fire causing activity is your concern, don't LiPos qualify? Shouldn't they be banned? How many non-turbine guys use LiPos bring fire extinguishers to the field? Of those that do, how many bring the right kind of fire extinguisher, and how many simply leave them in their vehicle until they're needed, because they don't want to lug them to the pit area?

If I understand Sean's rant correctly, it's simply this. A forced ban is a very extreme measure. A voluntary self-imposed banned is more reasonable and acceptable by all. It doesn't matter whether the turbine flyers themselves voted it in or not in my opinion. However, if the ban is deemed prudent, then ALL potential fire causing activity should be equally banned.

So again, my question is:

Are you going to gather the club membership together to craft a ban on LiPo use during Burn Bans? If not, why?

-Jorden

patf

My Feedback: (4)

Jorden

I relocated to Dallas in 2006. I no longer live in Austin, not president of the club and no longer a member of ARCA. Honestly this issue is one that pretty much took me out of any thoughts of service to any club. No more cd'ing, no more officership. My voice in this thread to shed some light as to the initial thoughts that the rule sprang from, and to clear up the misconception that prop guys made a rule for jet guys to follow.

Lipos are an issue the individual clubs will need to address. When this rule was made there wasnt but a few who were using Lipos. there may be more now but i have no idea. If they make a rule i hope they work with the lipo flyers to come to a liveable solution.

edit to complete sentence.

Kevin_W

My Feedback: (1)

Here is my thinking on the original subject:

1. Vegetation (grass and trees) burn much easier and quicker during dry conditions (both moisture in the vegetation and air humidity).

2. If a fire is started in vegetation during dry conditions (no matter how it is initiated) it will spread much faster than it would when conditions are wetter (this is why there are burn bans).

3. The likelihood of a model airplane crash initiating a fire is higher with turbine powered models than it is with other types of powerplants.
(While the jet community has done an excellent job of limiting the possibility of a fire during a crash with safety features, rules, and procedures, the above statement is still true)

4. Depending on the distance between the flight line and the point of impact it could take several minutes for people to reach the scene and begin to extinguish the fire. If conditions are too dry the size of the fire could exceed what the on site resources are capable of handling before they are even on the scene.

5. It could take 10-15 minutes (or more) for the fire department to arrive. If conditions are very dry the fire could spread beyond the capabilities of the first responders before they are able to make it to the scene.

6. During very dry conditions it is very likely that the resources of local fire departments are already being strapped dealing with other fires. This will only serve to increase the time it will take for them to respond to your emergency.

During normal conditions turbine powered models can be operated very safely and the dangers can be minimized and controlled, but when conditions are too dry I am not going to fly because I do not want to be responsible for a large fire that could easily result from a crash. While I have plenty of insurance (both personal and AMA) that does not mean that I have the right to put other people and their property at risk just because "I am covered".
I will not fly my turbine powered models during a burn ban whether there is a rule against it or not.



Here is my thinking on Sean's approach to dealing with ARCA.

As I have said several times in this thread I believe that "Sean is acting selfish, childish, and stupid".
Let me explain further.
I believe that Sean is acting selfish because he wants to be able to fly his turbines regardless of the increased fire danger during dry conditions. He thinks that because both he and the club have insurance it doesn't matter if a fire gets started "we're covered".
There is no consideration for property owners or others who may be affected by an out of control fire, only his own well being in the event of a problem. It's selfish!

I believe that Sean is acting childish because he refuses to accept that he is not getting his way.
Just like a little kid who throws a tantrum when he's told he can't have a candy bar or a puppy.

I believe that Sean is acting stupid because he has stated that he intends to cause more problems for ARCA is he doesn't get his way.
This is absolutely stupid because it will serve no purpose other than retribution, and will only result in the loss of another flying field.


Sean, I know you truly believe that you are a crusader and fighting this battle on behalf of jet guys everywhere, but I assure you that if you continue making threats or even worse carry them out, you will do more damage to jet modeling than any "doomsday scenario" crash ever could.

JKEpps

My Feedback: (1)

Pat,

Gotcha, thanks for the reply. Obviously being clear across the country, I'm removed from the current status of the club. Hopefully the current president will chime in with an answer or opinion to my question.

FTiano

My Feedback: (11)

Kevin,
I think that was very well said!
Thanks for putting things in perspective.
I imagine, and hope, that no person could misunderstand.
FT

rjpmodel

My Feedback: (2)

Kevin. That was an excellant post.
It is important for people to realize that the burn ban is put in place when conditions are very dry and when it is very dry it is very probable that by the time we get there with our water cans or by the time the fire trucks get there it is too late and the fire will be very hard to put out. This is exactly what hapenned at the Waco incident. MANY acres were burned. In this case it was many acres of grass but it could have been more serious depending on where a plane crashes.

Kelly Rohrbach

My Feedback: (1)

Even up here in podunk Montana we observe the burn ban orders. In fact last year during our Jet meet in August we were almost shut down by local law enforcement before the meet even started. But in working with them and taking positive action we were able to prove we were safe and would heed any requirements that they wanted, And we even have a fire dept with in 1/4 mile of the field. That is why we moved our Jet meet up about 2 weeks this year before everything starts getting so dry.
Point is the there have been a lot of fires all over the country and at every jet meet that I have attended, and all were put out in a short time with not much damage to property except the model of course.
The fear is the BIG ONE!!. And when it happens I hope that area is not in a burn ban or we will all pay the price. If you think the burn ban is bad down south, try it in the north were we have Winter 6 months out of the year. A burn ban up here can mean only getting to fly 3-4 months out of the year. A small price to pay when you have a conscience.

grbaker

My Feedback: (29)

I normally fly at the Texas City RC club field which is located on property that is owned by the City of Texas City. It is actually a city park. I spoke to the Texas City Fire Marshall about burn bans several years ago. She stated that the city had no problem with jets (or any other type of RC plane) being flown during a burn ban. The club has no rule against flying during a burn ban.

BUT I do not fly my jets when there is a burn ban in effect. Depending on where a jet goes down, it could be very difficult to get to the crash site and the fire department is not very close. Even though I know I have insurance coverage to cover any property damage, I will not take that chance. I don't know how many of you have ever experienced property damage or loss due to fire, but it is difficult to recover from. Some things just can't be replaced. I've never had to go through it myself, but had a co-worker that did.

sirrom

My Feedback: (4)

I am going to make this short and to the point. I do not agree with sean. Last year we had a turbine aircraft that rolled off the end of the paved runway into tall grass because the pilot landed to hot. It was the dry season and of course he started a fire which burned quite a bit of property. He DID NOT crash, he only rolled the plane into the grass. Our club has a ban on flying when the fire index hits a certain point now. We dont' fly and it is accepted by all the turbine pilots. It's away of ensuring that we protect our field for the future. It is not discrimination but just common sense.

patrick

S_Ellzey

Most definitely, what Kevin said.

As to the original question that started this thread;

I do not believe that there is any one answer that fits all cases, each site must look at their own situation and act accordingly. A club that sits in the middle of grass lands with forests around them would have a different view of fire hazard than would a club that sits in the middle of a 1000 acre sod farm where the grass is watered year around. One could easily see where the club in the later case would have far more lax regulations dealing with burn bans. There are many other features that need to be taken into account, like how far is the fire department, how good of a relationship do you have with the land owners/regulators, what else are you putting at risk; are there houses close by, or just a lot open land, or are you in the middle of the desert and could call in a napalm strike and not make a difference. Every situation is different, many may have the same answer; defer to the county burn ban, others may have reasons that they feel they can be more lax, and some don’t need to worry with it at all.

Steven

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

I think that what Steve said is exactly right. Each club has to evaluate its unique situation - I don't think that a universal ban on turbine flying at times when an outdoor burn ban is in effect is reasonable for all fields. Neither is flying turbines, OR other aircraft that can cause fires fairly easily, without regard to the possible effect on others during a high-fire time period.

I do think that there are things that a club can do to help reduce the fire hazard of jets and I would hope that all club members would be in favor of doing those things - just like most clubs I know of maintain a seperate heli hovering area and often set aside times for sailplane guys to roll out their high-starts and winches on the runway.

Everybody has to be good citizens in this hobby for it to survive. While I know it was difficult to get the AMA to "waive" the initial ban on turbines way back when, we've been good citizens and our area of the hobby is growing, developing new technology, and getting new blood interested in the hobby. We should continue to work to keep our reputation clean, but at the same time, we should not accept unreasonable restrictions on our segment of the hobby just because we're not flying .40-sized trainers...

Unfortunately, it looks like both sides are hard-over in this case making compromise unlikely... (for example, has anybody asked the local volunteer fire department how much of a "donation" they would like to come out and stand by for a "jet day" once a month during fire season??? - a fine Texas barbeque might be all it takes...)

Bob

dragonpilot

My Feedback: (38)

Pat, Kevin, Steve, others,

Thanks for further input, it is good discussion. I like hearing the views of a case and in the logic of a discussion. rhklenke, well stated.
and hey, I don't break rules, just hearts, well, ok, not anymore...

Oberfeldwebel

Bob

Since it was the turbine fliers in the beginning who suggested the ban, believing they knew best the club voted in a legal monthly meeting and enacted the ban. The fact that no one opposed it at that time should say it all. The reason it got hard-over was the methods used to overturn the ban. The club is willing to listen and has a motion to rescind the rule at our next monthly meeting. That said, both sides said things that should not have been said here and elsewhere, period.. Our club is not against anyone enjoying their niche. Jets, helicopters, 3D, racers, sport, scale, electric, gas or glo are all welcome at the club. All we are trying to do is what is BEST for the club.
And since, I'm here..the original question was a simple one to answer....What does YOUR CLUB do about turbine flying during a burn ban.

Yes, turbines are banned from flying during a burn ban. No, turbines can fly at any time burn ban or not.

Instead, it went hither and yon, prop fliers don't like jets, gas and LiPo's cause fires why no ban on them. The club was looking for a straight
answer, can you fly a turbine at your club field during a burn ban, period.

End of discussion

Kevin_W

My Feedback: (1)

Oberfeldwebel ,
Are you the current ARCA president?

If so, will you agree to sit down with Sean and discuss this issue to see if you can come up with a club vote that will satisfy everyone?

Sean,
Will you agree to publicly drop the threats against the club and live with the results of a new club vote (whatever that may be)?

rhklenke

My Feedback: (24)

I did answer that question earlier in the thread. We, in fact, have had some dry summers here lately and there have been outdoor burning bans (and posting of signs in rural areas about the extreme fire danger, stories on the news, etc.) during July and August, and into September in the past years.

Our club did NOT ban turbine flying during that season. In fact, it was never even brought up. However, our field is in the middle of pasture land/crop fields right down next to the James River, so there is not much to start a fire or burn so the risk is low. As I also mentioned, when we flew at the National Guard base, which is in the middle of open grass land, we had a "fire vehicle" ready with CO2 and water-based extinguishers in the back, ready to respond to any fire.

I might also add that although I have seen my share of turbine aircraft buring after a crash, in the experience of myself and my fellow jet flyers in our club, we have never had a turbine fire (yes, we have had a few crashes). In fact, the only time an aircraft that I was flying burned in a crash was a UAV a few weeks ago that crashed due to a servo failure. The gasoline tanks burst and covered the wreckage with fuel. The LiPo batteries that powered the payload were damaged and when we went to try and disconnect them, they sparked and set the wreckage on fire. We only had a CO2 extinguisher (because it wasn't a jet) and we couldn't put it out with just that, so it burned the airframe to a crisp...

Bob