I spoke to Todd Witkoff this morning to bounce a couple ideas off of him. He made a suggestion that has turned out to be a very very good one! I am happy to announce that additional efforts to find a solution has paid off.

Todd suggested that it might make sense to find out from the Fire Marshall what exactly they were using to determine to go into a burn ban.

So I called them and asked.

The answer I received was that many items come into play (no surprise) but that by far the most effective means for determining it was what was called the Keetch-Byram drought index.

http://webgis.tamu.edu/tfs/kbdi_daily/kbdicounty.png

It is a scale from 0 to 800 that determines moisture content across the counties. IT IS UPDATED DAILY.

He said that typically when the number is above 500 for a period of time, we go into a burn ban.

I said, what is the period of time. He said it varies, but typically it is 2 to 3 weeks, and that just depends on schedules to get people together, and weather changes, etc.

Based on the chart, I just picked a number between 500 and 600, 550 and decided that that was a fair number between the two that would determine our fate on a daily basis. Others concurred.

I brought this to other members here, and it has been widely accepted that this was a fair and reasonable way to assess a daily threat.

One suggestion came up which was, wait a minute, we could be above 550 for two weeks and still not be in a burn ban. There were two solutions that came up, Only initiate this number system during an actual burn ban, anything over 550, but below 600 and the wind was below 10 MPH. Turbine flying that day would be deemed safe. The argument being, on a NO WIND DAY, or lilttle wind, even at 570, if there was an accident it would likely be easily contained. Below 550 wind would not be a factor to the exception of sometimes, it's simply too windy to fly.

The DAILY UPDATE IS AVAILABLE AT this website for Texas, I am sure there is something similar for other states:

http://webgis.tamu.edu/tfs/kbdi_daily/kbdisummary.txt

I have taken this to the president of the club, and he said he is willing to support this to our club membership if I had support from my local jet community. I'm happy to say that so far of the waivered pilots in our area at least 7 have already said they are supportive of this solution as it totally covers the times when the county is in a burn ban, but it rained the day before and the day after, the number is say 440 as it is today in Travis county. Because the numbers can contrast so much across an entire county, we have collectively agreed to go by the mean average.

The other waivered holders just have not been contacted yet, but it is expected that they will agree with this solution.

I'm not sure, but I think this might be a solution that could be implemented at clubs everywhere. Along with taking into consideration the community of your club.

Sean

Sean -

Kudos for keeping an open mind and finding a clear, consistent, and fair way to set guidelines for fly/no fly conditions for your area.

Here in SD we have had a system in place for the last couple of years, based on the CA Dept. of Forestry (CDF - you've probably seen the letters on the air and ground fire fighting equipment during news coverage of our various wildfires over the years) fire hazard index. It is updated hourly and is listed both on various state and NOAA Web sites.

We stand down during all "Red Flag" days, and my club (MRCF) has a small red flag that we run up during these periods so it is clear for all to see (and follow). I check the NOAA Web site (before packing up ) for our site every time I fly, winter, spring, whatever.

Again, glad to see that all the hububb resulting in a positive outsome (so far).

Cheers -

Barry

Sean,
Great to hear my suggestions have helped pave the way to amicable agreement by all. Noting that it may take several days to weeks for the county to remove a burn ban even after periods of rainfall, the only logical solution would be to find a source that could provide daily updates on your county moisture content.
I encourage every club to review how your local authorities implement burn ban situations and find a way to monitor your local conditions on a daily basis. It is in my opinion, all clubs should be keeping an eye on the conditions at your field and restrict flying on days that are not suitable for aircraft that have higher than normal fire risk factors.
While I absolutely agree with the no-fly rule ARCA implemented however, I also understand Sean's frustration when it could take several weeks for a ban to be lifted even when conditions are not threatening. Certainly, using the method described above is a logical alternative to using the burn ban posting as a fly / no-fly rule. I wish Sean and ARCA the best in resolving this matter with all in agreement.
Todd

I agree completely!

I feel that if it had been communicated earlier that the main problem was with the way the county was slow to lift a burn ban after a heavy rain then this solution might have been found quicker.

I think it is a good solution, and I am glad that everyone can live with it.

In Arkansas they update this on a daily basis by county. All one has to do is log on and see what the conditions are for that day.

ONCE AGAIN, TEAMWORK AND COMMON SENSE RULE THE DAY.
LIKE MY GRAND PAPPY TOLD ME, ENGAGE BRAIN BEFORE ENGAGING MOUTH.
LOOKS LIKE A PLAN WE COULD ALL LIVE WITH.

You couldn't ask for a better solution, I would think this would be the ground for everyone to meet half-way and come to a mutual agreement, this is valuable information and a game plan to be adopted by clubs in other areas of the country.

I agree with the solution that has been proposed. We may have to fine tune it a little but at least we have a base to work from. All of the jet flyers that I have talked to are in agreement also.

Can we get Sean to buy the first round of beers! or some Jack.

bravo! finding a better method is a wonderful solution. nice work

..

>

Sean,

Just a question.......Why didn't you do all this "legwork" BEFORE threatining the club with trying to get them closed down? FWIW I think it is a workable solution but I would have a hard time listening to you present it after the way you presented your argument against the current rule.

David Reid

OK

Check out this video of a "non-turbine" rc airplane and what happens when it crashes. This is a first for me as I have never seen one catch on fire before..

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=400_1207601925

From the comments on the weight and the "reserve" fuel tank, I think that they had something "rigged" on there to explode. It sounded like they wanted to do it in the air, but couldn't get it off the ground...

Bob

It sure looked strange to me. I have never seen one pretty much "blow up" before so I am wondering the same thing...

They probably had gasoline in the other tank. Nitro will not explode like that on a crash. I've buried plans in the ground when I first got started with full tanks of fuel and never a fire.

Andy