Ok, here is my thought on how to make it work and how to accomodate the numbers of volunteers who might want to work on it, while protecting the university. First of all, nobody cuts, loads, or stacks without taking a for credit PE course to train them in their respective task. One class for each.

Cut class is freshman level PE, first several weeks teaching how to safely cut with skill tests and written quizzes. Next few weeks are practice on real logs and how to deal with screwed up drops and getting logs out of the woods...rest of class is supervised cutting in the woods for that year's bonfire. Students who have already taken the class in previous years are allowed to cut with their dorms/outfits, but all entry into cut site is controlled and nobody who hasn't had a cut class in the last 4 years is allowed.

Soph. PE is loading class. Teaching various loading techniques and practicing in a controlled environment. Same rules apply as for cutting.

Junior PE is stack. Same deal as previous two...classroom education and controlled conditions practice.

I know this goes against the "fish build bonfire" of the past, but realities are what they are, and this is a way of reestablishing the seniority system between fish and upperclassmen without resorting to hazing. Since fish and sophomores have been trained to move logs, they can still work as f*** crews at stack if they want to participate.

I also think we should learn from the improvements made by Student Bonfire since 1999. Single stack with single piece centerpole. No alcohol anywhere around any bonfire activity...PERIOD. Give the redpots course credit for the work they do since what they are doing is supervising an engineering construction project. That keeps from having redpots practically flunking out every fall and allows them to spend more time at cut and stack without taking away from coursework. Cut and stack ARE their coursework.

What I envision is turning bonfire into a student project fully integrated into the university instead of a volunteer project undertaken on the side and winked at by the university. That is what has the university in trouble now...they condoned it, but didn't supervise it adequately. Cut classes in the past were a joke, loading was learned on the fly with predictable results, and stack was organized chaos in which rarely did all the groups working on the stack know what the others were doing.

The new way would require more committment by the people working on it and more active involvement by the university, but it would allow us to keep bonfire from becoming a symbolic gesture where it is all built by professional contractors and machines so a bunch of drunks can watch something burn without reall knowing what it took to build it.

The one thing I always found odd about the criticisms of having fish work on Bonfire (which I don't believe were mentioned in the Linbeck report) is that if you delayed fish from working on stack until their soph. or junior years, they're going to have the same amount of experience when they start it which is to say none at all. (Obviously not the same as your system, that just brought it to mind.)

Also, while this is in itself a means to keep numbers low, the bottleneck caused by these Bonfire classes is going to be ridiculous. The classes would have to be offered all throughout the day and have certified staff (paid or unpaid) teach each section. It would also limit the experience of Jrps, Yellows and Chiefs who will have never stacked or even loaded who are supposed to lead others. Plus, do you promote leadership the same as now, or does it go to the best achieving in a particular class? What happens if you can't fit it in your fish schedule, do you just have to not do Bonfire the next 4 years because you got caught behind and there is no means to catch up (assuming that each class is a pre-req for the next) or just lag behind by a year? Plus, do you suggest all Reds be engineering majors/minors and all Browns be Industrial Tech majors/minors and all Greens be Business majors with double emphasis in Marketing and Finance (although the university will probably work concurrently with the Greens)? Plus, almost every science major I know of will only limit you to 2-3 Kinesiologies total and as those who try to register for them know, the good ones go fast. If you want to pigeon-hole students into the "Bonfire track" that is fine, but structure and class availability will be the most essential means to this working.

I must admit, this is a very intriguing suggestion, but the practicality of it is a glaring roadblock to its implementation. The stack could potentially remain the same size as off-campus's since only Juniors and Seniors could stack, but it relies on two very underrepresented factions of student bonfire's crews to do the most work in the shortest period. (Stack requires long hours, very sporadic intense work, and is all competed very quickly.) Again though, this is something to at least use in future discussion.

Texags92 you definitely have some good and interesting ideas there. I don't know if it should be done exactly the way you say but there absolutely needs to be some way of making sure that people who work on bonfire know what the hell they're doing. Of course it all depends on how complicated and how involved the stack is. If its a fairly simple procedure you might be able to get by with a little less certification.

As far as cut is concerned there are certainly some basics that everyone needs to know but we're not exactly building rockets out there. We're just cutting down a bunch of damn trees.

As to only allowing older students to work on Bonfire its kind of interesting you bring that up. I was talking with my father recently (he is class of '70) and he said in those days, when it was all corps, only juniors were allowed to stack I believe. Don't remember the specifics but I think it was similar to what you described. I realize this would affect the leadership structure but maybe it needs to change. Maybe there need to be "stack pots" who can only be seniors and they are in charge of the juniors, etc. Then you would have sophomores in charge of calling logs and running **** crews made up of fish. Anyways, just some thoughts. If the stack is pretty simple to work on all this might not even be necessary.

Great comments and the upper classmen thing would work except that most students move off campus after their second year. Living slim pickings for leaders. If the proper training is done in the spring and summers for the leaders, there is no reason for them not to be able to do certain activities. The key is training in the spring and summer.

I never intended to do that as a way to limit stack to upperclassmen...I just don't see a way to properly train large groups of people in all three phases within the first month and a half of the fall semester of the fish year. It could easily be setup where you could take any of the three classes in any order, but couldn't do any activity before you took the class. Holding the classes only in the fall gave the opportunity for actual cutting, loading, and stacking to be incorporated into the class. As for how to get enough trainers, how about setting the classes up as a lab credit and having redpots teach the classes under the supervision of an instructor in a more controlled setting with a manageable class size?

I agree that what I proposed is not perfect, and there are plenty of improvements that could be made, especially in terms of training leadership positions early and giving underclassmen opportunities to learn. My main point in all of this is that the only way bonfire is coming back as an official university sanctioned event is either 1) as a totally controlled, contracted, and machine constructed token fire with minimal and symbolic student involvement only or 2) as a university engineering project with total university wide committment to training, safety, and proper site and personnel management.

Lets face it...cut classes were a joke. The pots got up there and put on a show like a bunch of monkeys ******* a football for 15-20 minutes while everybody had conversations among themselves and mostly ignored them...then you filed out and were handed your cut card. There was zero effort to do any training at all regarding load or stack. Basically, the only way to learn loading or stacking was for somebody else to take you under their wing and teach you. It wasn't totally uncommon when I was in school for the person doing the teaching to have alcohol on their breath while doing it. Letting bonfire come back with those conditions WOULD constitute a "state created danger". Before, the university could claim that they didn't know how bad it was with plausible deniability. Now there is no way they can go back to that system.

Either they take ownership of the training and impose strict training requirements and discipline in all phases of cut, loading, and construction, or it just simply won't happen at all and they will hire Zachry to cut and stack it professionally with a few "student advisors".

Txags92,

I think, after reading your previous posts on this thread, a lengthy review of this Bonfire board over the last 4 years is in order. (especially the last 2).

Some of the leadership structures sound very very similar to what actually happens. The thing about Bonfire is that it is also supposed to be an opportunity for people to get to do things they never would have otherwise. (How many of you would actually have ever cut down a tree with an axe on your own?) By telling people that they can't do something because they never have, or don't have enough experience with it will just ruin the experience. I was never asked, at Bonfire or (now) at work, how much experience with something I had...but given the goal, and a list of suggestions, and the word GO.

Concerns about the structural limitations of Bonfire not being able to accomidate an increase in members should not be confused with lack of confidence in leadership.

-Brownpot '06
-Class of '05

While cut class back in the day was pretty much a joke lets be honest here. How complicated can cutting down a tree really be? There are a few basic points in cutting down trees that you need to relate to people and the most important involve common sense safety (i.e. check your surroundings, dont swing if you're too tired to hold the axe, etc.). The front and back wedge concept is not something that requires in depth explanation.

The issue with training lies in stack. Thats where you really need to have people who know what they are doing. Again it depends on how you do stack, I'm still thinking in terms of the old method (which I know is not how it is done anymore). But even with the method that is currently used you can't just have any Tom, Dick or Harry off the street working on it.

Look, you can sit in a lab or class all day and tell people how they should do things but the bottom line is that the only way they're really going to learn is to get out there and do it. The old corps way of limiting stack to upperclassmen was a method of making sure the guys who at least had been out there and around Bonfire were the ones doing the most important jobs. I'm not saying it needs to be that way exaactly but there is a certain logic in that method that makes alot of sense. I like the idea of training pots during the summer. That would definitely be a good idea, it would show commitment, and it would allow for the current leadership structure to stay mostly intact.

Texags92, ultimately you are absolutely right about how Bonfire has to be if it were to come back to the University. I disagree on a few minor points but all in all it will have to be like you said...either a very organized and professionally run deal or contract the majority of it out (not an option imo).

So I guess what we are really debating here is the best way to go about organizing and training students. One reason I would be in support of having things like stack be run by upperclassmen is just the fact that many freshman may have never been around anything like this and would therefore have no experience working on something like it. Maybe just make it so that only freshman are restricted to ground crews their first year. Take the matter of "virgin stripes" more seriously and make sure their respective leaders really watch out for them and have some way (checklist, test or something) to make sure they are knowledgeable in how things are done and that they understand what is going on out there. Anyways, just had those few thoughts/comments to add to the discussion.

I agree that the structure of the leadership isn't all that different than what it already was. I think the real issue for the university has to be whether or not they have adequately trained personnel both in supervisory roles, but also doing the actual work. Structural problems may have been what caused the stack to fall, but having multiple crews working on different tasks with no clear understanding of how their actions might interact with what other crews were doing almost certainly was a strong contributing factor. I am not looking at this in terms of preventing another stack collapse. I am looking at it from the point of view of what the university has to do to be able to PROVE in a court of law next time there is ANY serious accident that they did EVERYTHING they could to properly train and supervise the work being performed by students.

I agree that swinging an axe is not rocket science, and dropping a tree should be fairly elementary, but the number of trees dropped across tractor paths, on vehicles, and on people at every single cut I ever went to suggests that there is more to safely cutting trees for bonfire than just swinging an axe and front and rear wedge placement. I think classes where the general concepts are driven into people's heads and tested with quizzes, followed by hands on instruction and chances to swing an axe with an instructor watching to make sure you aren't a danger to yourself simply have to a be a part of the future of bonfire.

Stack is obviously a whole extra level of training and skill, but IIRC, the reality is that most serious injuries (other than 99 of course) didn't usually occur at cut or at stack, they occurred during loading. Loading was never even discussed in the cut classes I attended and I only learned about it from a 10 second discussion of how it all worked from a crew chief right before we picked up the first log to load.

I am coming at this as somebody who has spent alot of time working around a multitude of hazards on chemical plants all over the US. The things I am suggesting mimic what is done in worker safety programs at chemical plants all over the country to train workers and contractors on how to safely work in each area. Those programs are specifically designed to give the plant protection from liability by carefully explaining to each worker and contractor the hazards they will face and the methods of protecting ones self against them. Each class ends with a test, and if you don't pass the test, you don't work in the plant. It isn't good enough to have good leadership...you have to PROVE that you gave the people sufficient training to understand and deal with the hazards they are likely to face or you are liable for damages when they get injured.

Texags92 and pukepot01,
When is the last time you guys been out to Bonfire? Most of the items you speak of on this thread are in action in present time at bonfire. Before every event they have classes to make sure all new people go through the class. Then in the woods or stack the Crewchiefs also give a training lesson before and throughout the day on the activities they are doing. Then the crewchiefs also teamup experienced people with all new comers to get personal mentoring. Also you guys got to remember that there are usually more upperclassmen that are first timers than freshman.
Texags92,
It must have been a long time since you have been there. Speaking of all the drops of trees on tractor paths, vehicles and people. The droping on tractor paths happen rarely and under supervision all the others have not happened in a few of years. The only incident I remember when a tree fell on a vehicle was way back in the day in the corp woods and believe it was someones in the band. You guys need to go out there and enjoy it one weekend. I totaly invite you to cut with my old organization. They always welcome more people.

The way I interpret what texags is trying to say, is that it's not so much important that the students actually LEARN what is being taught in the classroom, so much as that the University has gone through the motions. They will still get their true education on the matter by participating hands on, but in order to prove to courts that they have done everything possible as opposed to just sending fish out there to learn from half-drunk (as the courts will assume no matter how false) sophomores, the University has to make a classroom part mandatory. And I think I agree with this sentiment.

As for the rest of your plan, I think it sounds good, too. Some tweaking will have to be made but that's the most plausible system I've seen presented that would allow Bonfire to be student run on campus again.

Two potential roadblocks you might encounter should you propose that the University offer a Bonfire-related Kinesiology class are the Faculty Senate and the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. I seem to recall that in the mid-1990s we lost several MGMT 489 classes related to the management of student organizations because these two organizations questioned their academic value. I may or may not have the facts of that exactly right, I simply mention it to raise the issue that even if you have the University President on board with that plan--he doesn't decide what classes the University will offer. Given the hostility Bonfire occasionally encountered from the academic side of the University, this plan might have a hard time passing muster with these groups.

Ivory, I am well aware that the current student bonfire has made great strides towards fixing alot of the things that made the old on-campus projects dangerous. What I am referring to was the practices that happened prior to 1999 when Bonfire was a university sanctioned event. As was said above, I am not necessarily saying that the way student bonfire does it now is inadequate, I am saying that for Bonfire to come back as a university sanctioned on-campus event, the practices currently being used by student bonfire will have to be formalized and thoroughly documented in order to pass legal muster. The individual training records and top to bottom integration of the leadership, training, engineering, and construction processes must be able to pass muster in a court of law or the university simply won't bring bonfire back as an official event. Informal cut classes simply won't work. There is ample case law from corporate safety cases to indicate that in order to prove you gave somebody adequate training, you have to have a clearly defined curriculum or training program, evidence that the curriculum was presented to the trainee, and evidence that you tested the trainee on his understanding of the curriculum contents. Holding for credit classes is the easiest way to accomplsh that in a university setting, but it isn't the only way.

Raise tuition and then hire students to work for wages to built Bonfire. Make it so a full or 3/4 time worker will get their money back...any money left in the coffer goes toward the next Bonfire.

Leadership works on Salary (same max ammt.)

please tell me you aren't serious

1) No leadership, no matter how good, will be able to handle the influx of that many people when they are not expecting it. End of story.

2) If you are going to make "classes" for anything...it needs to be leadership training/event planning/etc. Something that's actually useful. We do not need load/cut/etc formal lecture classes. Those just need to be "day training/testing" type thing as a certification.

Who says they are not expecting it?

I think I permanent foundation and center-pole should be used.

well that's one way to make sure centerpole doesn't fall before midnight...

problem is, there is too much heat.

I think a 40 foot tall pole sticking up out of a concrete slab would look very attractive.

Permanant would be difficult, The amount of heat generated by bonfire would cause concrete to fail, and steel to at best soften and change it's mettalurgy.

I make my glorious return to A&M in the spring of 2010. I'd love to see an on campus bonfire by then. When I get there I'd be more than willing to apply my education and experience in fire fighting to help make it as safe and successful as possible.

________________________________________________
Formerly: Fightin' Texas Aggie Class of 2008
Department of Petroleum Engineering

Temporarily: United States Air Force, 48th FW
RAF Lakenheath Fire Rescue

To be honest, I believe that making the base wider with the Windle Sticks is the "secret" to making the stack solid if you engineered all of the calculations. It has be mentioned before that the stack could theoretically evolve into a two stack design. For example, a large base stack similar to what we have now, but then another set of smaller logs cold be stacked on top of that. The first stack could be trimmed into 3 tiers, and the second stack could be trimmed into another 2 tiers. But this shouldn't and won't ever change with Bonfire in its current form, because one of their main points is "all logs touch the ground." It would have to be University approved and have insurance, etc.

quote:

---

To be honest, I believe that making the base wider with the Windle Sticks is the "secret" to making the stack solid if you engineered all of the calculations. It has be mentioned before that the stack could theoretically evolve into a two stack design. For example, a large base stack similar to what we have now, but then another set of smaller logs cold be stacked on top of that. The first stack could be trimmed into 3 tiers, and the second stack could be trimmed into another 2 tiers. But this shouldn't and won't ever change with Bonfire in its current form, because one of their main points is "all logs touch the ground." It would have to be University approved and have insurance, etc.

---

My understanding after reading the '99 report was that the biggest problem with stack that year was that it was over engineered instead of just built from tradition. So I think it's understandable that I get nervous when people start talking about "calculations" and "design."

it wasn't over engineered...and the reports never claim it to be.

There were engineering issues and structural changed (superset cables left off and agressive wedging) but were not looked at from an engineers perspective.

Had anybody put numbers to the forces and stresses internal to stack generated by shoving logs into stack upside down for the next stack to tie to, nobody ever would have thought it was a good idea.

Take a box of sharpened pencils , remove about half of them and wrap them in a bundle as tight as you can with a rubberband so that all of the erasers are on the same end...now, one by one, take the rest of the pencils and shove them in point first to the pointy end of the bundle...it may take some tapping...how many more pencils can you get in before the rubberband cannot take the tension?

now, if there is no alternative to wedging logs into first stack in order to provide some resistance to shear between first and second, the only way to do this safely is to engineer how many, what size and how far you can wedge the logs in without getting anywhere close to the yeild point of the superset cables.

and then again...you have to make sure the superset cables go on.

I lost the site that details it, but a white-hot wood fire with ample fuel and O2 (like that in 2003) can reach temps. of up to 1600*C. Most metals (short of solid Tungsten) and concrete will melt and/or break down at that point.

What [u]is[/u] amazing is that in the OC Bonfire upright stacks that have caught fire and burned, the last things standing were the wendels and centerpole; made from bark-intact pine.

(I am not an engineer, nor do I pretend to be one or think I am qualified to give structural advice. The above comments were simply observations.)

-------------------------------------------------------
If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you can read this in English, thank a Soldier.