David,
I am NOT missing the point rather I am looking at a different point than the one you have in view. There is no question about statistics since the AMA cannot afford a single major fire caused by a model and turbines have already shown a much greater risk toward that than any other model due to the amount of flammable carried to the scene of the crash and the ready ignition source. This constant battering of the fire issue with non-turbine planes is a perfect example of your different approach to the problem. I don't know of anyone who ever said that gasoline or alcohol doesn't burn and yet you constantly throw up the great many fires you have seen in those types of power plants as an example of a bad thing for jets. I happen to feel that doing that is sort of like comparing apples to oranges. They may both be fruit, but that is where the similarity stops.

You and Mongo report things I have NEVER seen. In over 25 years I have NEVER seen a glow powered plane crash result in a fire, but I have seen one engine catch fire on the ground. In over 15 years of flying gas burners I have NEVER seen a crash that resulted in a fire. Yet you both report multiple burns of those types of engines. However, Mongo does admit that at least one fire was actually caused by another agent, namely an electrical short before anyone got to the crash site. I don't think that really counts as a gasoline fire, rather a fire that was accelerated by the gasoline present at the crash site. That is exactly the same thing as many have noted holds true for a turbine crash that results in a fire, but with MUCH less fuel available and much lower likelihood of ignition because of the fewer lower temperature parts around. As for Mongo's and your reports of fires with electric planes, I know for a fact that many of us are capable of letting the smoke out of those things. They don't even have to be flying to do that! So that is really no a big issue.

The issue about the turbine community being safe is not really germane as nobody has really questioned that. Rather they have questioned the ability and willingness of that community to enforce the rules they have already agreed to. Remember, turbines are ALREADY prohibited in the AMA Safety Code. That is why you need a waiver to fly them and the jet jocks already agreed to certain rules that are currently being broken. Mongo goes to bat for you guys saying that there should be no rules limiting you that are not applied to the entire community. That seems to suggest that Mongo really wants us to stop flying turbines in the AMA. Now THERE is a rule we can enforce!

JR suggests that the rules are put in place to attempt to control the behavior of the flyer who has less than his or her issue of "common sense". I think he is right, but I am not sure that any of the suggested, approved, or temporarily put aside rules is any where near stringent enough. As Augiep38 implies, the wealthy modeler can just buy another plane when his dies, without learning why it crashed. Those are the folks we need to find some way to guide to safe operations. Rather than tell me that no jet has ever killed, or that gas/glow birds are statistically just as dangerous, or any other smoke you choose, why don't YOU design a solution?

It sure looked to me and others like that was the approach taken by the TRC and you seem to have some grief with it. I strongly suggest that you need to do something better or accept what work others in your genre' have done in your behalf. Don't tell me about risks, tell me about what YOU would do to lower the risks inherent in turbines and turbine users since that type of propulsion system is currently banned within the Safety Code.