Nightingale 0 #51 January 8, 2004 the report attributed the cause of the 1994 collapse to too much water in the soil. This problem was addressed in subsequent bonfires. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,126 #52 January 8, 2004 Quotethe report attributed the cause of the 1994 collapse to too much water in the soil. This problem was addressed in subsequent bonfires A thorough root cause analysis would ask why the engineering team didn't detect the fact that there was too much water in the soil; not just find better soil next time. This isn't meant to slam the individuals on the engineering team -- each person in the bonfire undoubtedly thought they were doing the right thing. But sometimes a system that grows over time needs to be re-evaluated as conditions change -- a team that was adequate for a 20-foot-tall bonfire is not adequate for what it ended up being. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #53 January 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteThey had every reason to believe it was unsafe - a collapse had occurred previously (1994) and the injury rate over the previous few years exceeded that in "hazardous" industries by a factor of 3.5 - 7 times (Official Report) and had itself increased 80% over a four year period. I'm sure they'd convinced themselves that it was OK, because, while it was higher than the usual, they could see the individual cause for many of the failures, and couldn't see themselves making the same mistakes. I'm sure something was changed as a result of the 1994 failure, too. A large project with a potential for danger needs to have a strong safety culture, and a brutal root-cause evaluation of accidents, even little ones that people have grown used to. And you have to be willing to re-evaluate the things that work, too. I work for the shuttle program. We're kind of involved in that right now. Wendy W. Yes, NASA got a bit of a black eye over its organizational culture following the Columbia loss. The report on the bonfire failure is very critical of the Aggie culture in this respect. And a lot of skydivers have convinced themselves that skydiving is safe (see many threads on this forum).... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivexxl 0 #54 January 8, 2004 So now using all ther logic or (il)logic here, do we fault the WTC victims for not knowing better, because the buildings were targeted once before? We have all survived knowingly risky things. If your mother gets killed by a piece of flying debris during a windstorm... is it her fault because she should have known better? Come on now! Blog Clicky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,404 #55 January 8, 2004 >>Everyone of these folks had friends and family. >And that's what I realized that day, thus I really feel for the families > of the folks here. Yep. I learned that back when I started skydiving, when an Onion story along the lines of "idiot kills himself jumping out of airplane" appeared. Two years before I would have thought it was funny. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #56 January 8, 2004 Quotethe report attributed the cause of the 1994 collapse to too much water in the soil. This problem was addressed in subsequent bonfires. The very fact that there had been a previous collapse is a clear indicator that something was amiss with the process. The official report criticizes the Aggie culture for being reactive rather than proactive towards safety. No matter how you try to excuse them, they had 2 collapses in a 5 year period of a very large structure, resulting eventually in a serious loss of life. I fail to see how anyone with an ounce of common sense could trust a structure that large being built by students many of whom were drunk, without any serious engineering input. You are excusing the inexcusable.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #57 January 8, 2004 QuoteSo now using all ther logic or (il)logic here, do we fault the WTC victims for not knowing better, because the buildings were targeted once before? Bad example....It was a job site, and no one thought they could pull off an attack like that....But yes several people refused to work in high towers after that and it also effected the design of the new building on the spot. Working in the WTC was not dangerous until there was an ATTACK. Thats different than building a big ass stack of wood for a tradition. QuoteIf your mother gets killed by a piece of flying debris during a windstorm... is it her fault because she should have known better? I don't go out in tornados...If I do and get killed then yes, it is my fault."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #58 January 8, 2004 QuoteThe difference between the Darwin awards and normal accidents... Something that qualifies for the Darwin awards is something that makes 99% us shake our heads and and think, "WHAT was he thinking? WAS he thinking ANYTHING??" Normal accidents, like the bonfire, make most of us shake our heads and think, "But for the grace of God go I.....that could have been me.." To quote Ron: "You build a towering 80 foot wall of wood that weighs two million pounds...what part of that sounds like a GOOD idea? "And to do it while drinking, and horsing around? "And there was a history of it getting more and more dangerous" Well, how is that a "normal accident"?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivexxl 0 #59 January 8, 2004 A bomb went off 7 years prior in the basement AND the design of the structures actually factored in an airplane collision... Please state opinions as opinions, not fact. Blog Clicky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skyblu 0 #60 January 8, 2004 You guys are unbelievable. For the sake of winning an arguement you'll show this much insensitivity to Aggiedave? Regardless of whether it was preventable or not show some compassion and shut the hell up. Geezz... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #61 January 8, 2004 honestly, and all condolences to dave and the other families involved, as with any other thread, if they dont like it, they dont have to read it.. there are a great many valid points about the cultural stupidity leading to that tragedy. it matters not that we know those involved. If your looking for fault there is much to be found, and much willful ignorance on the part of those who blindly trust any administrative body to ensure their personal safety... you too are welcome not to click if the subject matter offends you, its all about personal responsibility, take it or leave it.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #62 January 8, 2004 Nobody is saying that what happened wasn't tragic. So are people dying due to hook turns and other avoidable skydiving causes, yet we post incident reports about them. What some people are getting at is that to avoid the problems in the future, and make something positive come out of the tragedy, people have to learn from the mistakes. Some people (not referring to AggieDave) are clearly in denial about the facts of the situation. They dispute the University's own findings and try to deflect the blame from where it belongs. Yes, the situation is sad, but the people involved (everyone connected to the bonfire) are responsible. That applies to the administration, the students engaged in the activity, and the overall culture that frowned upon a serious, safety-oriented approach to the school's traditional event. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #63 January 8, 2004 QuoteYou guys are unbelievable. For the sake of winning an arguement you'll show this much insensitivity to Aggiedave? Regardless of whether it was preventable or not show some compassion and shut the hell up. Geezz... Sensitivity has no place in engineering design or accident prevention. I'd rather be insensitive than have 12 of my students killed as a consequence of crass stupidity.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,126 #64 January 8, 2004 QuoteSensitivity has no place in engineering design or accident prevention [opinion] In some ways I'll beg to differ here (my this thread has mutated, hasn't it?). Because human systems work better if some attention is paid to personal interaction in anything involving teams. Large projects involve teams, and teams are another word for human systems. To say otherwise is to allow the strongest speaker, not the most technically competent one, to rule, or at least to set the rules. Each has their place, but a facilitator/moderator is a very useful role to include in technical meetings. Things tend to move along more effectively that way. However, sensitivity does not belong in technical in post-accident analysis(other than within very-strict guidelines which limit quick finger pointing). [/opinion] Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #65 January 8, 2004 You keep citing the '94 "collapse" as an engineering failure. Although you don't have any knowledge of what happened. Prior to 1995 Bonfire was at a different site on campus, that year we also experienced VERY heavy rains. What happened is that the satturated soil couldn't hold the weight of stack (Bonfire prior to it being lit is called "stack") and it shifted. It did not collapse, the Aggies pulled stack down. They then spent a lot of time and money, with licensed engineers, conditioning the soil so it could be rebuilt. Once that was complete Aggies banded together and rebuilt stack in a matter of 9 days, completing it the day that it burned. Thus soil samples were taken around the areas of campus to find a location that would suit Bonfire and prevent the shifting of Stack in the future. That is why it was relocated to the Polo Fields on the north east corner of campus. Now, in reference to your observation of "horse play and drunkeness." I'm glad you're an expert, probably never having stepped foot on A&M's campus, let alone being around during Bonfire. Once, only once, during my time building Bonfire(s) did I ever see anyone intoxicated. That person was removed from the site and banned for the rest of the build. This was before they were even able to start working that night. The horse play? Not while working, not while near the work. There were a lot of traditions associated with Bonfire that went on around dorms and such, but once you were at Cut or Stack (cut is prior to Stack, when you're falling the logs and moving the logs for pickup/delivery), its work time. That bullshit was gone. Oh, for the engineering types (Kallend), the engineers on campus, around campus or that had even heard of Bonfire before had never made it known that the design may have a flaw. The only protest ever show were by environmentalist that outcried at the falling of so many logs. Which is why replant was created, to replant thousands (yes, thousands) of trees each year. (Even though the cut sites used for the past 5 years were done at a quary's land, which would have been clear cut the next year by their bulldozers and burned anyways). My point is, you're pointing a very big finger with out even knowing the facts, except for the finished report, which beyond the factual engineering study, was based on hearsay and lore. I'm also glad that you've taken your time today to take a post of mine pointing out my distaste for the Darwin Awards (and my reasons for such, to give folks a moment to think to their lives and find their own reasons to disagree with the Darwin Awards) and turn it against me. This, in my opinion, is a blatant personal attack, simply because you know it is something very close to me and you can use it to turn my screws. Also, knowing our past history of debating each others political views on this very forum, I know we disagree on many issue; thus, this has to be the most childish and hurtful personal attack I have ever witnessed on this website. The level of maturity you've displayed today is incredible, especially knowing your background as an intelligent individual and someone who is most likely respected in your profession as a physics professor.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DJL 232 #66 January 8, 2004 Very good book I'm just about to finish reading. Recommended read for anyone involved in anything that could spill. "Inviting Disaster" by James R. Chiles"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,634 #67 January 8, 2004 On the whole I'd be inclined to believe the conclusions of the official report. It reported the horseplay and alcohol use, deficient attitude toward safety, etc. You forget that I have been around students and listened to their stories for longer than you have been alive. And by the way, soil mechanics IS a branch of engineering, the 1994 event was an engineering failure. You are just in denial.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #68 January 8, 2004 No matter what you say I am or doing, I'm still viewing your entire number of posts in this thread as a personal attack and will remember it as such.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #69 January 8, 2004 it looks like an attack to me too, AggieDave. and I've never even BEEN to Texas. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
