My dad is having a house built and one of the guys working for the company building it saw I was wearing an A&M hat so he came over to talk to me when I was there watching them work. We talked about A&M and he started asking me if I had been to a bonfire. Low and behold he was on the rescue team and he also worked for some lab that did a study to figure out what went wrong. He said the fault should have been placed on the people who put in the center pole because they put it in the same hole as a previous year but it was not flush with the bottom or something to that effect. I could draw it out, but its a little tough to explain.

Anyways, is this what most people believe went wrong or is there another theory as to why the bonfire collapsed?

That wasn't the cause.

In a nutshell, the problem had to do with first stack not being large enough and sturdy enough to support the stacks above it.

First stack needed to be wider, the logs needed to be more inward leaning, and there needed to be cable wraps around first stack every few feet. These factors not being present greatly reduced "hoop strength".

Adding to the problem were an excessive number of logs put "butt up" on second stack. These logs were wedged down between logs on first stack rather than sitting on top of first stack logs. That increased the "hoop stress".

Keegan did a good job of summarizing the physical factors involved in the Bonfire tragedy.

The investigatory report also devoted a section to the "human factors," which included building without engineering oversight or even a set of blueprints, and an administration that relied on "reactive" rather than "proactive" supervision of the tradition.

When a student died after being ejected from the bed of a pickup truck, for example, the university banned riding in the back of trucks. But it went not very far beyond the obvious. Rusty Thompson, the Bonfire adviser, was quoted shortly after the tragedy as saying he considered his job to be akin to running interference for the Bonfire builders with the administration.

A particularly damning comment says that Dr. Bowen, a mechanical engineer by education, drove past the site each day for eight years without inquiring as to whether stack was being constructed safely.

[This message has been edited by DualAG (edited 12/26/2006 10:49p).]

degree of angle. each year leading up to the collapse, the degree of angle became smaller and smaller. as stated by keegan, in 99' the degree of angle was something around 4 or 5, damn near vertical.

Byron are you from Brownwood by any chance?

i always heard that the center pole was cracked when it was hit by a crane. any truth to that rumor?

No.

Just in case you don't ever get around to reading the Linbeck report...

Team 3's findings included consideration of the crane impact.

From page 11

quote:

---

4. Crane impact - Interviews and evidence indicate that a few days before
the collapse, a crane struck and broke off a small piece of a cross tie
attached to the center pole. As a test, Team 3 modeled the maximum
force that such an impact could have generated. Team 3 determined
conclusively that the impact of the crane could not have materially
affected the center pole or contributed to the collapse.

---

[This message has been edited by TexasRebel (edited 12/28/2006 5:49p).]

Texas A&M is a school that stresses engineering and the applied sciences. We attract, train, and turn out graduates who tend to think in concrete, physical terms.

Many Aggies are solidly up to speed on the physical factors (hoop strength, etc.) that caused Bonfire to fall in 1999. To this day, however, some of us don't look beyond--toward the human factors failures that permitted such construction deficiencies to occur.

From the report of Performance Improvement International, the contractor charged by the Linbeck Commission with evaluating human behavioral aspects regarding the 1999 tragedy:

quote:

---

Four root causes and one major contributing factor were found. The four root causes of the 1999 Bonfire structure collapse are:

1. Unqualified personnel (student leadership called Red Pots) were allowed to establish and change the design of the Bonfire structure resulting in configuration changes that reduced critical margins of safety.

2. The critical attributes of the Bonfire structure design were not documented,
resulting in unintended variations from year to year that reduced critical margins of safety.

3. Cultural bias on the part of university administrations and staff resulted in several
missed opportunities in reactive risk management of Bonfire, resulting in failure to identify that the Bonfire structure had grown too large to be constructed using past practices.

4. Lack of a proactive risk management culture for student organizations resulted in several missed opportunities to identify, from problems in other Bonfire activities, that the Bonfire structure had grown too large to be constructed using past practices.

And the one major contributing factor is:

1. An informal process was used by Bonfire advisers for pass-down of university controls, resulting in the enforcement failure of the university requirement for Bonfire structure (55 ft. height limit).

The 1999 Bonfire Structure Collapse is neither a 1999 problem nor a 1999 Red Pot problem. The 1999 Bonfire Structure Collapse is a classic example of an organizational accident with failure causes that existed for many years before the event. No one person in Bonfire performed at such a substandard level as to directly cause the collapse. Each Bonfire person, year to year, performed his or her job function with some degree of competency (at least competency as defined by Bonfire programs and TAMU policy).

However, the aggregate effect of all these actions created the physical conditions in the
Bonfire structure such that even normally occurring loads triggered the structure collapse.

Decisions made by Red Pots (some in 1999 and some passed down as tradition from earlier years) set the stage for the 1999 Bonfire Structure Collapse. However, the Red Pots could not reasonably be expected to know the potential adverse effects of those decisions. Once these conditions combined, margins of safety in the structure were so low that normally seen loads on the structure triggered the collapse. The exact load that triggered the collapse is still unknown and unimportant in explaining the causes of the event.

---

Regardless of the physical failures, e.g., "excess wedging" and "hoop strength," the overriding failure in 1999 was the university's indifference to supervising a major construction project being built on its property.

[This message has been edited by DualAG (edited 12/29/2006 12:42a).]

And how many would have crapped if the university had stepped in to say something? I still wonder what the backlash was like in '70 when the university stepped in.


That is one thing that SB should never be critisised for, they listend to what the bonfire report said, and have fixed EVERY single thing, including the human factors they were so adamant could nto be changed, the the report cited as a problem.

____________________________________________________________
Proudest member of the Fightin Texas Aggie class of 08 Beat the h*** outa tu A-A-A Whoop!!!. May bonfire forever burn in our hearts.....and may the Twelfth Man ever burn it in memory and in hope for the future.

Human factors causation is so familiar in my line of work that I find it surprising when Aggies lead off a Bonfire discussion by first citing "hoop strength" and other physical factors.

I'm an airline pilot. If for some reason I fly my airplane into a thunderstorm, indeed the physical factors leading to the crash will be cited as metal fatigue caused by excessive g-loads imposed by severe updrafts, downdrafts, and microbursts.

However, long before a discussion of why the wings fell off, the NTSB would have pointed out that the dumb pilot ignored his weather radar, advice of his cockpit crew members, meteorological forecasts and pilot reports, warnings from ATC, and his own eyeballs.

The question should be: Why do Aggies so close to the Bonfire tradition tend to hone in on the physical factors to the exclusion of the human behavioral ones -- when, out in the community, the factors sited in the latter report are common knowledge that get cited first?

(At least, that's my observation. Your mileage may differ.)

quote:

---

And how many would have crapped if the university had stepped in to say something? I still wonder what the backlash was like in '70 when the university stepped in.

---

First, a disclaimer. None of the following is in the report. It's my opinion, based on extensive reading, questioning, and exchange of ideas but not substantiated fact.

The leading factor that led to all of those deaths and injuries, in my view, is an ongoing tension between the Bonfire builders and the administration that prevented the oversight that occurred routinely in the days when Bonfire was overseen by the Commandant of the Corps of Cadets.

The students, through the years, developed excessive mistrust for what they considered unwarranted meddling in the tradition by the university. This wasn't exclusively a 1999 occurrence, but rather a pass-down attitude.

Likewise, in later years, when the administration did step in, it was only with reactive, klutzy management, nothing the students would respect.

Backlash? You bet. Whenever an administrator became too heavy handed, the students could rely on well-connected alumni to make a few phone calls. Ray Bowen was too busy building a top-ten public university to do something significant about that pain-in-the-ass Bonfire tradition going on within a mile of his office.

The culture became so skewed that the Bonfire adviser got quoted in the press as saying his job was to run interference for the students with the administration. Wow!

quote:

---

That is one thing that SB should never be criticized for, they listened to what the bonfire report said, and have fixed EVERY single thing, including the human factors

---

That's a hard sell with the general public and the overall university community, given the fact that just last year, Bonfire burned in defiance of a county-wide burn ban. Some 90% of the coverage and post-fire comment pertained to legal difficulties faced by those who ignited it.

Did you notice Mr. Davis' comment in his letter: "I received three calls from neighbors concerned because of the stigma associated with the bonfire"?

There's a genuine perception vs. reality problem with today's Bonfire. My letter to the editor, my wife's, and the landowner's are a start, but we have along way to go.

One thing we can do now is realize that the average Joe on the street, or the average professor on campus may be befuddled by concepts such as "hoop strength." However, each will readily tell you that: "Those kids were building something beyond their capabilities and the university did nothing to stop it."

[This message has been edited by DualAG (edited 12/29/2006 11:49a).]

quote:

---

Why do Aggies so close to the Bonfire tradition tend to hone in on the physical factors to the exclusion of the human behavioral ones

---

Aggies in general or just the ones who post here?

Aggies who are passionate about Bonfire, not just those who post here. And I'm not just referring to the pro-Bonfire people. The critics can be just as tunnel visioned in other ways, although they more readily cite instances of poor judgment by the builders.

This is not exactly an astute observation, but I find that the farther away from Bonfire a person stands, the more objective he can be regarding its problems.

That's not to say that the present students haven't tried to correct what went wrong in previous years. They indeed have and I commend them for their efforts.

But we're all prisoners of our own culture. That's why, in my business, we place so much importance on evaluation from outside of the operation.

[This message has been edited by DualAG (edited 12/30/2006 12:11p).]

quote:

---

That's not to say that the present students haven't tried to correct what went wrong in previous years. They indeed have and I commend them for their efforts.

---

So, then, of the Linbeck report's complaints about 1990s A&M, how much is still applicable today?

Isn't this a perception versus reality problem? As far as the general public is concerned, not much has changed.

Mr. Davis' neighbors, three of them, called to complain about the potential for their rural neighborhood being tainted by the "stigma" of Bonfire.

You know progress has been made because you're close (I assume) to the program. I know because I've taken the time to investigate. But it's only one year since the front page of The Eagle displayed a picture of an SB officer being cited for disobeying the country burn ban.

In the eyes of the vast majority, those kids are still cheating death out there every year in some puerile attempt to continue a dangerous, unnecessary tradition. The county judge ran us out of Brazos County, and his Robertson County counterpart promised "arrests would be made" for the drinking and disorderly conduct that he just knew were going to happen.

When that didn't happen, only one Eagle story and three letters to the editor (two of which came from my family) pointed out the difference.

That's not enough to overcome the shock that still lingers in this community over the tragedy seven years ago.

We've got a long way to go.

[This message has been edited by DualAG (edited 12/31/2006 6:53a).]

Sorry to nit-pick your comment but....

quote:

---

The county judge ran us out of Brazos County

---

I dont think he "ran us out" I was under the impression that SB leadership CHOSE to leave Brazos county not only because they Sims is impossible to deal with but also because they were tired of trying to please him.

quote:

---

his Robertson County counterpart promised "arrests would be made" for the drinking and disorderly conduct that he just knew were going to happen.

---

And he was obviously proven wrong.. If he has admited that or even will is a whole nother issue. But I have the feeling the only reason he said that is because the only knowledge he had to go on was that of which Sims gave him... And from the previous stated I can only imagine what he had to say.

quote:

---

In the eyes of the vast majority, those kids are still cheating death out there every year in some puerile attempt to continue a dangerous, unnecessary tradition.

---

Aren't 99% of our traditions unnecessary? Maybe not dangerous per say but unnecessary yes. That doesnt keep us from doing them does it? Many Aggies built bonfire between 1909 and now and it always has and always will have a danger factor. Sooner or later statistically something is going to happen and 99 just happen to be the year.

The factor has been decreased... Most all folks working on bonfire know that there is a danger factor but still choose to help build it. Ill personally be damned if someone is going to tell me I cant build bonfire because its not safe. I know its not but Im going to try my hardest to be as safe as possible and make sure all around me are the same.

Not to pick on anybody specific just something I have noticed. Many old Ags are quick to say that Bonfire is a unnecessary dangerous activity and we probably need to just quit doing it. I might jump on that bandwaggon one day when my kids are at A&M (although I doubt that will be a bandwaggon I will join) but for now I ask want you to think back to your days of building bonfire, the fun you had the friends you made the lessons you learned... What gives you anymore right to have participated in that than me???

May we keep building bonfire not only to show the burning desire to be the hell outa tu but also in rememberance of November 1999!!!

Each and every journey begins with a single step.

quote:

---

I dont think he "ran us out" I was under the impression that SB leadership CHOSE to leave Brazos county not only because they Sims is impossible to deal with but also because they were tired of trying to please him.

---

I sincerely doubt that the leadership would have wanted to have bonfire anywhere else than Brazos county.

The decision to burn in Robertson county this year actually had nothing whatsoever to do with Judge Sims, i.e. Judge Sims did NOT "run SB out of Brazos county." The decision to burn in Robertson county was based on the simple fact that an agreeable contract was able to be negotiated with a landowner in Robertson county after negotiations on a site in Brazos county fell through. So any perception that the move was due to Judge Sims, or anything related to him, is in error.

"Nothing whatsoever" is a bit of a stretch.

Few things that happen in life are caused by just one thing, so I'll admit that the decision to move Bonfire to Robertson Country wasn't solely motivated by the opposition of the Brazos County judge.

However, it's quite plain to me that Sims was going to erect every roadblock he could in order to make it difficult, if not impossible, to burn Bonfire in his country. Otherwise, there would have been no reason for his arbitrary August deadline followed by his preemptive strike via KBTX.

Had Student Bonfire negotiated an acceptable lease in Brazos County after that arbitrary August deadline, it still would have been faced with the judge's opposition. That's not to say some legal remedy could not have been found, but burning closer to home would generated adverse publicity that the Robertson County venue avoided.

Please tell me that the students weren't chomping a the bit for another Friday night showdown at the courthouse, like what happened last year. Beating Judge Sims in another eleventh-hour court decision may have constituted a legal victory, but it would have been a public relations nightmare.

Students did the right thing in looking elsewhere.

As for the Robertson County judge's remarks, I cited them merely as an illustration of the prevailing public attitude. I don't think he relied solely on input from Judge Sims, in fact, there was little evidence of drinking and disorderly conduct from the 2005 Bonfire at Hot Rod Hill. More than likely, the Robertson judge was just as aware as anyone of the on-campus Bonfire's record for MIP and public intoxication violations.

quote:

---

Aren't 99% of our traditions unnecessary? . . .

---

I'm not arguing against Bonfire, traditions, or the assumption of risk for worthwhile endeavors. Some five or six high school students die each year nationwide while playing football, and nobody seriously advocates eliminating football because of the risk.

That fact remains that many Aggies and members of the community have not moved past the image of twisted bodies from 1999, plus the grim reminders of how Bonfire was constructed haphazardly--as described by the Performance Improvement addendum to the Linbeck report.

Furthermore, the average guy on the street really doesn't understand what went on just last year. All he knows is that six Bonfire builders lit their blaze in defiance of a country burn ban.

To the average Aggie or community member, the Bonfire builders are still doing something so dangerous that the risks outweigh the benefits.

It will take time to change attitudes.

[This message has been edited by DualAG (edited 12/31/2006 3:42p).]

No, Sims did not run SB out of the county. Yes, it will always be perceived that way.

SB would have loved to burn in Brazos County, but as mentioned by oldyeller (and over and over in previous threads) the original sites fell through for reasons beyond SB's control and strangely enough, NOT related to Sims or even Bonfire. SB was VERY fortunate to have Mr Davis step up and offer his land as a Burn site. I was skeptical at first, but I was very surprised at how many people showed up given the distance from town, date, and time. So, don't rule Robertson out in the future.

Dual, the students were not chomping at the bit for another showdown. They obtained legal representation, and were following advice and the proper procedures to insure that a Burn in Brazos county would be legal. In fact, had the sites been secured in Brazos and a burn ban remained in place, SB was NOT going to light anything. Knowing that the ceremonial exemption doesn't apply at the beginning of the year is a huge difference than finding out about it a day or so before the event. So, had the ban been in place, the Stack would either be lit at a later date or possibly dismantled and sold for firewood.

Scott Coker '92

Sims didn't run Student Bonfire out of Brazos, but if Bonfire keeps going smoothly, and continuing in the direction of gettting a good public light once again...I wonder how long it will be before Pro-Bonfire voters run Sims out...

and that right there would REALLY be Aggie Bonfire!

Rebel, it'd be nice to think that pro-bonfire voters could have any say in the matter, but students don't register to vote in Brazos and even those who do, don't vote.

[This message has been edited by SquareOne07 (edited 1/1/2007 3:53p).]

Well, I am not denying that student voting turnout is deplorable, but when Judge Sims is running against a Libertarian the community better be ridiculously Pro-Bonfire and well informed before any political headway can be made election-wise.

so...who do we write in next year...

being registered in Brazos...I've already voted against Sims once...and will continue to until the day either he or I am no longer breathing.

quote:

---

That is one thing that SB should never be critisised for, they listend to what the bonfire report said, and have fixed EVERY single thing, including the human factors they were so adamant could nto be changed, the the report cited as a problem.

---

With what happened during burn this year, there's just no way you can say this statement is true. The human factors, at least to some degree, are definitely still present.

quote:

---

With what happened during burn this year, there's just no way you can say this statement is true.

---

yes there is...but it's not up for discussion on here...find me at my second home some night and I'll be more than happy to explain it to you...

If your 2nd home isn't in Denton, that won't be happening.

Whether or not people will discuss it here doesn't change the fact that you DEFINITELY can no longer say that all the behavioral problems cited in the report have been eliminated.

You can never eliminate the free will of every participant...and that goes for any activity.

It would be like the police trying to prevent a murder before the murderer even has a motive to do it...you can't.

Some people don't realize how much trust they put into each person they pass on the street each day. If that guy in the oncomming lane just all of the sudden decides to turn his vehicle straight at yours...what is there to stop him? There are laws against it, but the laws cannot do anything until after the event. As in Bonfire, there are rules against things, and members will lose their membership, and not be allowed to participate should they be deemed unsafe...but until anybody shows evidence of being unsafe, there is nothing that can be done.

The Linbeck report cited that the administration was being reactive instead of proactive...but sit and think about just how proactive you can really be. Yes if you see unsafe behavior it can be stopped and potential future incidents can be addressed...but that means the behavior had to happen first.

That's all well and good, but the fact is that it was former leaders of the organization partaking in the stupidity. If you wanted to claim that the behavioral problems were inherent to the group, they became exhibit A this year.