SAFETY QUESTION - possibly "ALERT"

Jerry,

You're blowing smoke (to coin a phrase...).

I know you live in Claremont, and were probably pretty darn close to the fires last year, but I've had two very close calls with the wildfires here in California, and it AIN'T paranoia.

In '78, the fire burned through my backyard, nearly came down to my parents house (10 miles away), and their neighbors across the street from them DID lose their house. That was the year of the 30-mile fire line (from Glendora all the way out to the ocean at Malibu).

In '93, it wasn't much better. I was one of the first to report the beginning of the Laguna Hills fire (which only got as far as it did because everyone was busy fighting the Altadena fire). Again, my mom almost lost her house, and while I was up there trying to help save it, another one broke out near our own house and my wife and kids had to evacuate.

You can play your high-and-mighty I'm-above-everything little games if you'd like, but if you're going to start talking about not taking proper care of burning stuff (i.e., being vigilant about what is launched at the Santa Fe Dam site), you've really gone off the deep end. You may not have noticed, but we live in a desert here. What little groundcover there is gets dry and turns into fuel pretty quick, and there is simply no telling how winds will pick up and carry a fire (during the '78 fire, I watched as the area right above JPL was lit from embers of a fire 7 miles away--it looked like a gigantic line of volcanos, literally as far as the eye could see).

David Erbas-White

No the wild fires are not paranoia. I had two close calls myself.

Claiming a model rocket is going to start a fire at a rock quarry or dam is paranoia. There is a huge difference.

The fire danger is high today. What is it on Lucerne Dry Lake?

Jerry

Jerry,

Have you been to the Santa Fe Dam site? Although it is a 'dam', the part that is used as a 'recreation area' has a lot of grass and brush. For those not in the area, the fact that it is called a 'dam' is that somewhat of a misnomer -- it's a flood control basin. In my entire life, I can only remember a very few times when the dam was even wet (we live in drought conditions here).

If the launches were taking place in the quarry, there wouldn't be an issue - there's no brush there. But there sure is in the recreation area that is used by thousands of folks each weekend.

Further, for you to compare this to Lucerne Dry Lake is ludicrous, and you know it.

David Erbas-White

If you're talking about the Santa Fe Dam (SCRA doesn't launch at the nearby rock quarries), the launch site is in a cleared dirt overflow parking area that would be very hard to ignite, seeing as how it's almost all just dirt, with occasional weeds. However, the cleared area is relatively small (50 yards or so wide, and maybe 30 yards deep), and is surrounded by "scrub". This somewhat random vegetation is composed, largely, of weeds, tall grasses, and various bushes.

While it isn't hard, in most cases, to find and recover your rockets in this area (it's nowhere near as densly packed as a cornfield or other crop field), it is still thick enough to allow any fire which might start the opportunity to spread fairly easily. As has been pointed out by others, everyone in the Los Angeles area lives in a desert, whether they know it or not. What water we have for irrigation and other uses is primarily from other areas; very little, proportionately, comes from local precipitation. As a result, "wild" areas (such as the wilderness preserve at the Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area) are generally not watered by sprinklers, and tend to get quite dry between rainstorms.

The fire danger at Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area is very real. It can be minimized through the use of common sense, given the conditions. By being picky about stabiity of rockets flown there, by asking members to bring water jugs and fire extinguishers to the launch, and by taking steps to raise awareness of the issue during the launch events, Fred does what he can to help ensure that SCRA is not the cause of any wildfires at the dam.

Calling him paranoid shows a real misunderstanding of the actual conditions at the site. Extreme vigilance is appropriate under the typical conditions at the dam. Failing to excercise appropriate levels of caution could easily be seen as negligence in the event of something preventable going wrong, like a fire. Personally, as much as it can be annoying, I'd rather see "Fire Marshal Fred" be his usual zealous self, than risk starting a fire through laxness. Lucerne is the place to try out marginally stable models, or to experiment with unproven designs. The dam isn't.

- Rick "Aaaaaaaallrighty then" Dickinson

Nope.

I told Fred about it sir.

Did I misattribute what you wrote?

Did you not, in another message just up-thread, write these words about Fred's claims of fire danger at the dam:

I fail to see how "Nope." is a reasonable response. Please explain further; we only have your words to go by, and "Nope." doesn't give us much context to understand what you are replying to.

- Rick "Puzzled" Dickinson

NAR weenies live on paranoia

Examples.

ATF has badges and we know the law is on our side but we refuse to either advocate the exemptions we have to our agents or simply live the lifestyle knowing it is perfectly legal.

Someone might pass off a motor as fraudulent in some way (without specifying any way in particular how that might be the case) so only the original manufacturer can submit motors to TRA/NAR, not even an import agent.

etc

Jerry,

Let me make this simple. I am not arguing whether or not "NAR weenies live on paranoia". It seems like a tautology -- those NAR members and/or leaders who "live on paranoia" could be called "NAR weenies", so it's sort of a circular argument, to say the least.

What I am ask>Claim>> Calling him paranoid shows a real misunderstanding of the actual

You replied by saying "Nope."

Now, given that exchange, I fail to see how your "Nope" makes any sense, whatsoever. I also am not quite sure what relation to any of this your diatribe against "NAR weenies" has.

We were discussing Fred, and his concerns over fire danger at the dam. You called him paranoid for worrying about fires at a dam. I countered your argument, and you simply said "Nope". Please explain to me what the heck I am supposed to get out of that "Nope".

"An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a definite proposition. [...] It isn't just contradiction. [...] an argument is an intellectual process... contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

- Rick "I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid." Dickinson

Firstly. A reasonable debate. That I can respect!

Let me clarify. I have been to the site. I have flown rockets. I have lived in the general area all my life. I have flown rockets right next to the foothills often.

Model rockets are inherently safe from the POV of fire danger based on my ~40 years experience.

Therefore any such caution while laudible is excessive as compared to experienced results.

How about that?

Oh and Fred in paritcular is a NAR weenie. And I say that in the most complimentary way possible.

I justified above.

But I could STILL be "wrong" :)

Point!

Keepin Jerry honestly in the debate, and succeeding.

Jerry

Jerry, what's safe for an adult with 40 years experience is often unsafe for children and the inexperienced. I've safely launched in places that I would not consider safe for the average rocketeer. I could do it safely because I knew what I was doing, I had a huge respect for the risks involved, and the skill to mitigate those risks.

Not only that, but a club can have hundreds of launches in a single weekend, and thousands over a period of months. That increases the odds greatly over an individual doing a single flight.

Furthermore, you're blaming the club that runs the launches (as usual), when the reality is that it is the local fire authorities who determine what will or will not be allowed.

And if we had our choice, we would bulldoze the brush area and leave the poor rattlesnakes without a home. We don't have a choice....wear good shoes or boots at the Dam. Shorts and 'flip-flops' are not a good idea.

You can go nekkid at Lucerne. The horror.....

Don't remind me!

This should be in the FAQ

nah. YOU should be in the FAQ

did you say "FAQ you" ???

;-)

-Shread Vector NRA #1 Paramount Leader

:-) yeah !! FAQ you too !! :-)