activity guidelines

[fling1]

Hi All,

 

I have an activity in mind to foster patrol unity and build teamwork, but I want to ask your opinions about it...

 

I want the patrols to build potato guns and compete with them. It will provide plenty of opportunity to plan, execute together, and increase their team spirit.

 

I am convinced that this is in bounds, although I know there are some who will object both on safety/common sense grounds and also some who will question how this achieves the aims of scouting. While I appreciate these objections, I am after something more specific:

 

The most common design calls for a combustion chamber into which hair spray is sprayed. The hair spray is ignited with a sparker to fire the cannon. This is your opportunity to convince me that a hair spray-powered cannon is in violation of BSA policy. I have read through the G2SS pretty carefully, and cannot find a prohibition that would apply. Maybe you can?

[Eagle76]

How about this, particularly the last sentence, which is in bold-type in the G2SS:

 

Guide to Safe Scouting

Section VII - Fuels and Fire Prevention

 

Chemical Fuels

Knowledgeable adult supervision must be provided when Scouts are involved in the storage of chemical fuels, the handling of chemical fuels in the filling of stoves or lanterns, or the lighting of chemical fuels. The use of liquid fuels for starting any type of fire is prohibited.

 

The rest of the section seems to be pretty clear in allowing flammable chemicals only in chemical stoves and lanterns.

 

[dan]

In situations not specifically covered in this guide, activity planners should evaluate the risk or potential risk of harm, and respond with action plans based on common sense, community standards, the Boy Scout motto, and safety policies and practices commonly prescribed for the activity by experienced providers and practitioners.

 

 

[ScoutNut]

I can only hope that this was posted tongue-in-cheek!

 

 

Of course, if you really wanted to have a great patrol building activity, you could have 1 team shooting potatoes & 1 team knocking them out of the sky with tomahawks!

(This message has been edited by ScoutNut)

[fling1]

No, ScoutNut. I'm really asking. If you can convince me not to use hairspray, I'll constrain the patrols to a compressed-air design only. They are lobbying for a hairspray design though and I am currently inclined to allow it.(This message has been edited by fling1)

[SemperParatus]

G2SS states...

"Boy Scouts are permitted to fire bows and arrows, BB guns, .22-caliber bolt-action, single-shot rifles, air rifles, shotguns, and muzzle-loading long guns under the direction of a certified instructor, 21 years of age or older, within the standards outlined in current Scouting literature and bulletins. BSA policy does not permit the use of handguns in the Boy Scouting program."

 

I don't see chemical combustion spud guns on the list of items that are permitted to be fired by a boy scout under proper supervision. While the BATF issued a statement in 1995 that such guns are not firearms, many state and local jurisdictions have determined otherwise and may require permits to be obtained. IMO you should consider less dangerous ways to build patrol unity and teamwork.

 

[ScoutNut]

So, I take it that you encourage the use of hair spray as a fire starter?

 

 

[dan]

what are you planning on using for a barrel?

 

Compressed gas it a BIG NO NO with PVC pipe.

[OldGreyEagle]

I think there may be a diference in compresed gas and compresed air

 

On the other hand, accelerants aside, why not fashion a Catapault/trebuchet and chuck pumpkins, that I know you can do, leastwise I have seen done.

 

 

[fling1]

Have done, OGE :-)

 

http://www.scouttroop.org/oh/bsa/476/TrebLaunch.jpg

[anarchist]

Potato guns are fun to build and to operate...heck they are even fun to watch when they shoot....

 

that said...

I would say (IMHO) the liability to the unit and the CO far outweigh the unit building value...except in that you expect get a 'rush' from doing the "forbidden fruit" thing.

The Plastic plumbing pipe may or may not be structurally strong enough to handle the blast generated by a two second "spray" of hairspray follwed by a flick of the installed 'bic' (flint striker). Do you have a plastic expert that can demonstrate the safety of the material? Or a chemistry/control combustion expert who can quanitfy the interior (breech) pressures exerted by a two second burst of hairspray when ignited or a three second burst??

 

The problem here is one of accepting liability for unknown (unknowable?)loss potential...(risk).

 

As individuals we can readily assess and accept (or reject) risk as a measure of having 'fun'...or doing an experiment...but as Scout leaders, do we have the knowledge or ability to assess the potential risks of experimental explosive devises? Do we have the knowledge or ablity to accept the risks for the unit, CO, or BSA?...sorta doubt it.

 

I like OGEs idea build a trebuchet- set up a real big safety range rope of firing line and chuck "punkins"...

 

anarchist

[scoutingagain]

I have seen these devices made and used. My son's science teacher made one and used it on the school playground to demonstrate properties of gases, physics etc. All well controlled, areas roped off, designated targets, etc.

 

For yucks I tried a search on "potato gun accident" and expected to find many postings of death and destruction caused by potato guns but honestly did not find any. I did find many websites that describe how to make these things. There are apparently two types, one used compressed air the the other uses a chemical accellerant such as hair spray.

 

However, I am inclined to agree with those who suggest another activity that did not include the construction of a potential explosive device by scouts and operated by those scouts. I am reminded of the fatality of a scout a few years ago while firing a black powder cannon at a flag ceremony at a summer camp. The issue for me would not be range safety. As with firearms or archery I think you could set up a safe range. I just don't think one could garuantee that one of these things would not blow up in the middle of a group or near a scout, short of a QC program similar to that used in commercial nuclear reactors.

 

I believe these devices can be made and operated safely by experienced people with appropriate skill and knowledge, however unlike firearms, I would not know where to go to find a Certified Potato Gun Instructor. I have to believe there are other activities that would be just as interesting to the scouts that did not involve the inherent danger in these devices. Rocket kits?

 

SA

[fling1]

Thanks for the replies. I've also been researching spun gun incidents of all sorts, to get a better understanding of the risks. What I was looking for here was specific policy language from BSA that would rule out combustion guns vs. pneumatic guns.

 

G2SS on fuels and fires - thanks Eagle76 - there is language here for chemical fuels, which is helpful. Clearly the intent is for various fuel types to be used safely, under supervision, for their intended purpose. I think I can meet that standard. The only bold policy here is that liquid fuels are not to be used for starting fires. Again, even supposing that hairspray is a liquid fuel, we would not be using it to start a fire, but rather to operate the device that was made to consume it.

 

G2SS on firearms and other target weapons - thanks Semper - This language requires certified rangemasters to supervise the operation of archery and firearm equipment. These equipment categories actually have certifications, whereas other target equipment, such as tomohawks, slingshots and trebuchets offer no certifications. The Feds (ATF) have ruled that spud guns are not firearms, so I don't see a substantial difference between them and other dangerous non-certified items like tomohawks, slingshots and catapults.

 

So I think I still have the flexibility to allow it under BSA policy restrictions. Choosing between combustion guns and pneumatic guns, there are definitely pros and cons:

 

Combustion gun pros:

easiest to make, fewest potential failures

operates at lower pressures

shorter range

 

Combustion gun cons:

loud, may generate complaints

potential for experimentation with higher energy (more dangerous) fuels

non-zero potential for untimely hairspray ignition

arguably in violation of G2SS fuels policy

 

Pneumatic gun pros:

quieter

no fuel means no G2SS fuel policy to worry about

easier to stress test for safety factor

shoots further

operates better in cold weather

easier to monitor pressure and safety factor

 

Pneumatic gun cons:

more complex contruction, more opportunities for failure

can be operated at higher pressure (more energy)

shoots further (two edged sword)

 

As for the suggestion to make a trebuchet instead, this is an area where I actually have significant expertise. I can think of at least 5 different ways to get killed (yes, really killed) fooling around with the one I linked to above. These include untimely material failures and operator errors. I have personally witnessed eight potentially serious mishaps with it. I know for a fact that it stores and delivers more energy than a pop gun that shoots a potato 200 yds. The last time my scouts played with it, they actually broke one of the main timbers, which could have been a nasty accident. Just because it is clearly allowed by BSA policy does not make it risk-free, by any stretch.

 

My research so far indicates that there are zero fatalities attributed to these various spud devices, and that almost every injury can be explained by a breakdown in the common sense area, such as reckless handling, non-standard ammo or fuel experimentation. I do appreciate your comments. Any others?

[Beavah]

Yah, dat's pretty funny.

 

There's as much or more stored energy (and therefore potential for harm to persons or property) in pumpkin catapult as in a spud gun. And model rockets in space exploration merit badge are chemically-propelled fast moving objects. So there's nothing inherently stupid here.

 

At that point, you have to use your brain. Set up a safe range on private land, use a proven design, test all "cannons" yourself in a safe manner (remember, failure is more likely from poor construction than from poor design), inspect for potential problems after each firing, train boys in procedures, make allowance for the things kids are likely to do, be mindful of the impression you'll make on others in your community, clean up afterward.

 

Done well, it could be novel way to spend time with a patrol and teach them how to think about safety and courtesy when doing something new... they may take those habits with them when they go play with fireworks when we're not around. That would be a good thing.

 

Done poorly, you teach kids the wrong lessons, hurt the reputation of scouting, and perhaps risk injury.

 

Same as with any of da many things we do.

 

 

 

[packsaddle]

I suppose BSA deserves this kind of scenario for the poor wording they use in so many of their rules. I say, emphatically, that this violates G2SS. There is no difference between the spud gun described in the original post and a cannon using black powder. Both involve explosive combustion to produce high-pressure gases propelling a projectile at high velocity. I suggest calling the council for permission and see what they say but if they don't allow laser tag, they probably won't allow something that actually fires a projectile, at least not in the setting described originally.

BTW, G2SS also does not specifically prohibit land mines or cruise missiles.