The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
The 19 lost in the Arizona Fire
7-5-13
Hello Friends:
My family and friends were grieved to hear the news of the loss of 19 Firefighters in Arizona! I thought after the Thirtymile Fire in 7-10-01 and the loss of 14 firefighers in Colorado in 1994, and other more recent episodes too--the USFS would have learned a few lessons. On July 10, 2011, at the ten year commemoration to remember the four young firefighters lost in The Thirtymile Fire, it was announced at new Safety Structure with Accountability. I'm kind of wondering who is accountable for putting a crew of 19 Hotshots on the ground in a wildland fire like that? Those kinds of fires should be fought from the air with water drops and fire retardent. It's a waste to put live crew on the ground and take a chance with their lives! These kinds of fires create their own kind of weather. All it takes to create tragedy is for the wind to come up? They may be Hot shots but I don't think they signed up for a suicide mission...and neither did Karen Lee fitzPatrick, Tom Craven, Jessica Johnson and Devin Weaver. Let's try to protect our firefighters by using common sense.-Friends of Karen Lee, lost at the Thirtymile Fire of 7-10-01
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by captnjak on
-
Sorry for the loss of your friend, but I think this post is ill-conceived and poorly timed, to say the least.
-
Permalink Reply by Karen Lee FitzPatrick on
-
Hello captnjack:
Oh, I suppose that's why the next morning our phone was ringing off the hook from ABC, CBS and NBC who wanted to talk about this?
I have spent ten years campaigning for greater safety for wildland firefighters, including time up on Capitol Hill speaking to Senators and Congress people. I am the author of the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act which was worked on further by Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington State. The principles became embodied in the New Safety Structure with Accountability authored ultimately by the USFS and announced when the gathering occurred for the Ten Year Commemoration of the Thirtymile Fire, and membering the 4 young firefighters lost there, in Winthrop, WA in 2011. It was said that the new advancements in safety structure were "Their Legacy." Number one at the top of the list of the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act has to do with evaluating topography, aereal views and conditions before placing a live ground crew in a situation. Once again, that fire in Arizona should have been fought only from the air with water drops and fire retardent. I spoke with a few veteran fire people as well who called me, and they also agree with the matter. So I guess it's a matter of opinion...but as a firefighter I would think you would want to stand on the side for greater safety and not taking chances with crew on the ground in wide open wildland situations like that.--Kathie FitzPatrick, Thirtymile Fire Parent-Mother of Karen Lee & Wildland Firefighter Safety Advocate
-
-
I'm all for safety and I'll admit to having no expertise in fighting wildland fires, but you are condemning the on scene decision-makers at a time when, in my opinion, you can't possibly have all the facts. How can you be so sure this early on what was or was not done in evaluating the tactics used prior to using them? I'm sure these decision-makers are suffering greatly right now concerning this tragic outcome.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
I'm kind of wondering who is accountable for putting a crew of 19 Hotshots on the ground in a wildland fire like that? Those kinds of fires should be fought from the air with water drops and fire retardent. It's a waste to put live crew on the ground and take a chance with their lives!
For the most part, I agree with captnjak here. I myself am not a primary wildland FF and don't have the expertise as those in the field do, but I agree that this appears to be a condemnation without having all facts. Foremost, firefighting in any type of capacity (structural, wildland, industrial, shipboard, etc) is an inherently dangerous job, there are risks to take in order to serve the mission of protecting lives and property, in which we were sworn to do.
As mentioned, I am no expert by any means in the realm of wildland, but I do know that such fires have had a significant impact on the lives and property of people we did swear to protect. I do know that wildfires can be mitigated by controlling fuels (cutting brush, digging fire lines, wetting structures, etc) to prevent further spread. This takes people on the ground to accomplish this, let alone to also hit those other hot spots that perhaps can't be seen from the air.
I further know that budgets have a significant impact on the job and this can mean the number of aircraft, cost for fuel, cost for personnel, FAA requirements, operating hours and so forth are impacted. This further means that while an air drop only application, in theory, may be the best way to go, also means it may not be the most finacially applicable to accomplish. At the same time, we know there are homes and structures threatened, which means people are threatened, so at what point does one commit to air operations for a wildfire threatening those or a fire further away?
Let's also look at a federal financial impact here. Firehouse.com ran a story about the sequester impacting budgets and the ability to send crews in BEFORE wildfires to clear away vegetation etc to PREVENT such significant wildfires. Since those budget cuts, we have seen some significant and damaging, and now deadly wildfires. That is even before having a dry and hot conditions we have seen as of late.
My point here is I believe it is disingenous to promote your opinion etc and condemn decisions without knowing all the facts. These deaths, while tragic, should not be, nor do I believe, there were done in vain. As FF's we know, or at least should know, that any call could be our last, it is our duty to honor those who have died to learn their lessons to prevent such similar situations. However, we also have a duty to protect life and property , so a balance must ensue, along with being good stewards of public dollars. Perhaps air drops only approach could be the safest, but is it the most cost effective? Does it account for the hot spots afterwards? Do we have enough outfitted aircraft to successfully accomplish all wildfire threats? If the answer is no, then to me, that means we still need to have trained personnel on the ground.
-
Permalink Reply by Jim Conrad on
-
As of this morning the US has had about 28000 wildland fires and have burnt up about 1.85 million acres.
Those numbers are behind the ten year average by about 12000 fires and 1 million acres according to the NIFC morning sit-rep. With about a quarter of the air tankers we had a few years ago, aviation resources are barely sufficient to handle the current assignment to which they are tasked, supporting ground resources. Air resources are a tool in the box. I do not wish to marginalize the sacrifices made by so many firefighters, but I believe that removing people off the fire line completely is not possible.
-
Permalink Reply by Norm Tindell on
-
As Jim said, it is impossible to achieve the objectives set forth in a wildland fire attack plan without having personnel on the ground. I'm sure you've learned a great deal in your ten years of analyzing the Thirty Mile tragedy. What's usually involved is what's called indirect attack: get out ahead of the fire, build line and fire off the line to deny the fire the fuel it needs to advance, then hold the line. Sometimes lines are built as much as a week ahead of the anticipated arrival of the fire perimeter. Weather, fuels and topography make the fire's spread predictable, but sudden unexpected changes can and do occur. All we can do is be extremely alert to our surroundings. I would not presume to second guess anyone on the Yarnell without having seen the final report on this tragedy.
-
-
With about a quarter of the air tankers we had a few years ago, aviation resources are barely sufficient to handle the current assignment to which they are tasked, supporting ground resources
I would concur. It becomes entirely too easy to sit on the sidelines and make statements that become an "easy" answer, but the reality is there is a need for people on the ground. Like the military, it would be all too easy to say that there is no need for ground troops when we have aircraft, but the reality is aircraft is there in support, not the sole option.
-
-
Thank you for your opinions and observations. As usual, I am letting everybody speak their piece on this. If ground crews are out at a wildland fire site, more communication between the air and the ground should be occuring. Without such, ground crews are operating blindly. I really think for the best safety of all, more air observation from above, and more water/fire retardent drops should be standard practice. All this works together for the best outcome of sucessfuly quelling a fire. Otherwise, too much is left up to chance. The lives of the wildland firefighters are just too valuable to be left up to chance and the whim of nature, and a new gust of wind. Who knows if a true report will ever really be available of the Yarnel fire, the crew, and firebosses involved. It took five years for the truth to come out regarding the negligence and resulting four unnecessary deaths at the Thirtymile Fire. By the way, the 12 year anniversary is tomorrow. Somebody thought the comments were ill timed? I don't think so so.--Kathie FitzPatrick, Thirtymile Parent, Mother of Karen Lee
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
