LUNAR’clips 2002                        Volume 9, Number 3

Copyright © 2002 by LUNAR, All rights reserved.

Orinda House Fire

Jack Hagerty, LUNAR #002

On Thursday, April 25, the Orinda Intermediate School held their annual rocket launch. This wasn't just a science class launching a half dozen class projects out on the school field; it was a major event with pretty much every student in the school participating, with upwards of 400 rockets launched over the course of the day. Towards the end of the event, one of the students noticed smoke coming from the roof of a house adjoining the school property which turned out to be a fire that destroyed the roof of the house and two bedrooms.

The media picked up on the story and were quick to connect the two events. Channel 2 lead off their Thursday evening newscast with the story, including shots of rockets hanging on their parachutes in the trees. Our local paper, the Valley Times, ran the story, front page (which is odd since they have a sister paper much closer in Walnut Creek), complete with a photo of the burned house. This story not only took as a given that a rocket from the class had started the fire, it all but convicted the science teacher who was running the launch.

I would bet that you have not heard anything about it in the media since. Stories like this are never very interesting once you get past the sensational fire, but the effects are being felt. I have had calls by teachers who have had their science class launches cancelled by their schools because of "the Orinda thing." It quickly made it's way up to the attention of NAR President Mark Bundick who wanted to know just what was going on out here since it could jeopardize our insurance at the national level.

Well, here is, as Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story. I'm presenting it here so that you can be armed with the facts the next time someone approaches you and tries to tell you how dangerous the hobby is.

On the Monday following the fire, I called the Moraga/Orinda Fire District and had a very pleasant, and extended, conversation with Fire Marshal Tonya Hoover. First the bad news: A rocket from the school was definitely the cause. The fire started from the outside of the roof near the top, and there were no other ignition sources such as people working on the roof smoking, etc. The fact that this was a 30 year old shake roof, considered extremely combustible, does nothing to lessen the responsibility of the school and teachers.

The good news, for the hobby at least, is that there were violations of the Safety Code involved. First off, I was shocked at the scale of this event. This explains why neighbors were picking rockets out of their trees and off their roofs all day. This wasn't their only problem. Since this event has been held annually for nearly two decades, they had gotten very lax with the legal technicalities. While there was an application on file, no fire permit had been issued for the event.

The major violation of the Safety Code was the launch site. Rather than launching from the middle of the school field, they set up three saw horse racks right on the edge of the school property, less than 100 yards from the houses. I asked if this was because of the wind (it's been typical spring weather with considerable breezes the past few weeks), but she didn't know. Prevailing weather conditions were not reported as part of this investigation. Launching this close to the houses, all it takes is a little rod tip-off or an off-axis motor and a rocket can easily reach a roof while still under thrust. Even the delay charge could ignite a roof this flammable. Since they were launching up to "D" motors, the Safety Code, and California Fire Code statutes, say a minimum 500 feet separation is required.

I asked if any remains of a rocket were found near the ignition site. She said that she found a nose cone and parachute near the spot, but nothing else. I said that there should have been at least a clay nozzle and perhaps a steel hook, but she said it was difficult to tell since the roof had collapsed into the bedroom at that point. I suggested that the parachute and nose cone may have been from a different model since they do sometimes separate, and I can't imagine a plastic nose and parachute surviving a fire that completely consumes the body and motor casing.

When I further suggested that perhaps non-flame-proof wadding might have been used, her response ("is this wadding installed at the factory?") told me that she wasn't really that familiar with the hobby. She came right out and admitted "I'm not really a model rocket person" but said she'd like to learn. So on May 10, I drove up to Moraga and met with Ms. Hoover. I spent more than an hour with her giving her a crash course on the hobby and examining the evidence from the scene.

The evidence was interesting in that I don't think that any of the pieces were from the model that was the culprit. The nose cone (blow molded BT-20) and parachute found near the ignition site, in my opinion, were not from the rocket that caused the fire. It was an obvious separation due to a poorly glued anchor since the folded paper mount was still attached to the shock cord. Both the nose cone and parachute showed evidence of having been exposed to heat (a melted zone about 1 cm in diameter on the shoulder of the nose, and the 'chute was still folded in a roughly cylindrical shape after having melted lightly along it's entire length which kept it from unfolding), but not flame (no scorch marks on either of them). The heat damage looked completely different than that caused by a normal rocket recovery malfunction (i.e. not enough wadding). I would say that the separated nose/chute landed on the roof after the fire started, near enough to the flames to be heat damaged, but not melt.

There was also a BT-20 body tube with the fins missing, and one separate fin (all painted the same), no motor casing and no nose cone found near the scene. It was possibly the other part of the nose cone/chute, but not conclusive since I could not check for the presence/absence of the shock cord anchor. The tube was full of something (probably wadding) but I was not allowed to extract any of it and examine it since it's evidence. It was also, naturally, severely water damaged, but showed no signs of fire damage at all. One last piece of evidence was a small piece of recovery wadding embedded in some of the roofing felt from under the shingles.

For these to have been the source of the fire would have required a "JFK magic bullet" sort of scenario, but it is possible. The most likely thing is that there was a severe rod tip-off at launching, and the rocket impacted the roof, less than 100 yards away, just about at burnout. The time delay flame, impinging on the old, dry redwood shake, could have started the fire in the 3 to 5 seconds that it burned. The ejection charge could have kicked the motor and blown the nose/chute, still folded, up the roof, and the body down the roof, out of the direct contact with the flame. More likely, the rocket that caused the fire was consumed, and the pieces found drifted down separately some time later.

After leaving the Fire Marshal's office, I stopped by the Orinda fire station to pick up copies of the report (it's the Moraga-Orinda Fire District with the Fire Marshal's office in Moraga and the business office in Orinda). I sent a copy of the report to both Mark Bundick and George Rachor, our representative on the NAR board of directors. There have been no further repercussions regarding insurance, and all involved were grateful that the Safety Code still provides protection against this sort of tragedy. Ms. Hoover considers this a "fluke accident" and remains convinced that model rocketry is fire safe when done in accordance with the Code. However, she will not issue another permit to the school until we (LUNAR) review (or, actually, create) some safety procedures for them.

All content is the responsibility of LUNAR. If you have comments or suggestions regarding these web pages, please contact the