The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Australian/SoCal connection?
There is and will be a lot of talk about whether Australia's Leave Early or Stay and Defend policy is to blame for the horrendous deaths from fire over the past several days. There's some excellent discussions taking place here on FF Nation and some good resources have been posted.
Something in an AP story caught my eye today and I wondered what others think about it:
"The scale of the disaster shocked a nation that endures deadly firestorms every few years. Officials said panic and the freight-train speed of the flames probably accounted for the unusually high death toll.
Some experts suggested the large number of deaths could also be partly due to a change in the makeup of the population in the areas blackened by the blazes.
There are more people living on the outskirts of cities like Melbourne who have no experience with wildfires, relying on the resources of the Country Fire Authority for help with the blazes, said Mark Adams of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Center. It used to be that families that lived in such areas were usually prepared with equipment to fight the fires themselves, Adams told ABC Television."
I don't want to make too much out of any one thing, and I certainly don't want to draw conclusions before investigations have their say, but this is really interesting to me. LEOSAD only works when people are prepared, educated, and willing to get involved. If they're not, they should be taught to leave early. If inexperience and lack of preparation was a factor in some of these deaths, it bears an immediate lesson for those trying to spread the LEOSAD program (full disclosure: in theory, I support LEOSAD; I live in San Diego) here in California.
Something in an AP story caught my eye today and I wondered what others think about it:
"The scale of the disaster shocked a nation that endures deadly firestorms every few years. Officials said panic and the freight-train speed of the flames probably accounted for the unusually high death toll.
Some experts suggested the large number of deaths could also be partly due to a change in the makeup of the population in the areas blackened by the blazes.
There are more people living on the outskirts of cities like Melbourne who have no experience with wildfires, relying on the resources of the Country Fire Authority for help with the blazes, said Mark Adams of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Center. It used to be that families that lived in such areas were usually prepared with equipment to fight the fires themselves, Adams told ABC Television."
I don't want to make too much out of any one thing, and I certainly don't want to draw conclusions before investigations have their say, but this is really interesting to me. LEOSAD only works when people are prepared, educated, and willing to get involved. If they're not, they should be taught to leave early. If inexperience and lack of preparation was a factor in some of these deaths, it bears an immediate lesson for those trying to spread the LEOSAD program (full disclosure: in theory, I support LEOSAD; I live in San Diego) here in California.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Dennis Brown on
-
Well Shannon i agree with you on this if you dont know what to do get out of the area before its to late and the population is growing in some areas to fast like here in NJ the pine lands are getting populated in some areas and we try to teach them what to do in case of a fire like clear out shrub & weeds from around the house do not stack firewood near the house try to keep propane tanks away but we do not want them to stay and defend there house let us take care of that i rather loose a houe then a life
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/residents/index.htm
After looking at this website, I have to wonder about the extremely high number of fatalities.
It is an excellent website; one that I am sure sees a lot of traffic.
Without any other information, I have to wonder if:
The size and speed of the fire was under-estimated and evacuation was delayed.
Stay and defend was chosen and the fire was over-powering.
Homeowners may have mistakenly thought that help was on the way.
Help was on the way, but was delayed due to firefighting while enroute.
Homeowners refused to leave because of a disabled relative or they had pets or animals that they didn't want to leave.
I am just speculating, but unfortunately, the people who really know what happened can't tell us.
TCSS.
Art
-
Permalink Reply by Oldman on
-
I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic. Now maybe the laws where you live state you can physically force people from their homes, in Texas and I know some other states, if the people don't want to leave, they cannot be forced. How would the IC be responsible?
The IC would be up on criminal charges for other people being ignorant? If that were the case, all officers had better be worried. No plan is perfect. But the education provided to the "ignorant" might help them save themselves. Yes a little knowledge can make some people dangerous, but even as cynical as I am, most people, armed with a little knowledge have a better chance of making the right decision. I have seen the Firewise program work in Texas.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Thomas,
How is an IC responsible for civilian fatalities at a fire, and what does that have to do with firefighter fatalities? Those are clearly two different issues. There is a big difference between firefighter LODDs while they're doing a job assigned by the IC and civilians that are killed while trying to evacuate, or defending their homes, or staying with a bedfast relative, or whatever.
You've repeatedly said that you think Stay and Defend is a bad idea, but you haven't offered any evidence that Stay and Defend contributed to a single one of the recent Aussie fatalities. There is a lot of evidence that Stay and Defend worked in a lot of cases.
And...what does civilian Stay and Defend in Australia have to do with a single conviction about firefighter LODDs in the U.S.??? Different country, different laws, and different perspective on risk.
The Aussie version of Stay and Defend assumes that the civilians that do it have some basic firefighting training, defensible cleared space, resistant or at least fire-prepped homes, their own water supply (swimming pool, etc.) and a fire pump, or a fire barricade system: http://www.firegel.com/
If you have any evidence that Stay and Defend contributed to even one of the Aussie fire deaths, I'd like to see it.
Most importantly, people have the legal right to stay and try to protect their property. Especially in the current economy, people that are property-rich but cash-poor will try to do everything in their power to protect the only piece of economic stability they may have. If that means staying to defend it, even if they have no clue about wildfire realities, then stay they will.
Ben
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
Thanks Ben, another well reasoned response.
Evacuation? By law, neither we, the CFA, nor the Police can order someone out of their home in a wildfire situation - as long as they have some pecuniary interest then they must be allowed to stay. (Once they are out of the fire zone they will not be allowed back in though - we don't want traffic on the roads that doesn't have to be there. Has everyone seen the photos of crashed and burnt-out vehicles?)
We advise people to learn, we will help them in any way we can. We provide literature. We hold pre season information sessions in all the fire-prone areas each year. We cannot force people to learn. We cannot force people to read our literature. We cannot force people to come to the pre season information sessions. We do what we can.
Stay and defend or leave early. We tell people that it's their choice, we cannot guanrantee anything. Stay and defend has risks, many risks. Stay and defend means exactly that; prepare your property, prepare your home, prepare yourself. Keep watch, extinguish embers, stay outside until it's too hot then shelter inside. Keep watch. Check throughout the house as the fire front is passing. Extingish any fires that start. When the front has passed go outside and extinguish any fires near the house. Keep doing that for hours after the fire front has passed because the risk is still present. That is a lot of work, it demands physical and mental strength, it isn't something that everybody can do. But it is something that many people can do, and it is known to work. Now, leave early. That is something that everybody can do, and if it's the decision that's made then good. Stick to it - you aren't a coward because you choose to go! But, and it's a huge but, leave early. Leave before any fire is visible. For me, if a person can see thick smoke in their neighbourhood, if they can hear the fire (and wildfire is noisy, believe me) then it's too late. Leave early means preferably early in the morning of a high risk day. Not something like "we'll fight the fire, but when it gets to within 10 metres of the sheds, then we're leaving" asI heard one idiot say when interviewed. When interviewed just a day or so ago. With all the crtashed and burnt cars that we've seen pictures of in the media. In Australia, leaving when the fire is just down the road is pretty well suicide. The fires travel too fast, they are too hot to survive in. You get disoriented in the smoke. You cannot see in the smoke. You crash into trees, other vehicles, buildings. You die.
When all is done here, when the investigations are finished, when we have as much information about the deaths as can be obtained, then we'll know more. We will never know everything that happened to every casualty. But when bodies are found in burnt-out vehicles, when bodies are found in the streets, when bodies are found in front yards, that indicates to me that they left it too late before trying to evacuate. When bodies are found inside burnt-out houses, that raises a question to which we may never know the answer. Were they staying and defending, or where they simply sheltering? Or were they caught because the fire came on them too quickly? Simply sheltering inside does not work, an unprepared house that is not being actively defende (as I briefly described above) is not a place of safety. It is likely to lead to death.
I haven't been keeping up with the news. I haven't been watching lots of TV. I've been too busy or too tired. I hear that the rate of spread of the fires in some places was unprecedented, it was greater than the studies of the fire scientists indicated. I don't know yet. If so, perhaps this was because of the high fuel load? The high fuel load that was in a drought area? That had been scorched by the recent weather to where it had no moisture content at all? I don't know, let's wait for the investigations to finish. Some of you may have heard that ther's to be a Royal Commission into this tragedy. A Royal Commission is a person, usually a highly respected judge or similar, a person with the right to call anyone he or she likes as a witness. These investigations are ordered by the government, but not controlled by the government. They are impartial.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Vito on
-
As a firefighter with no experience in wildland firefighting but in my opinion as an outsider. For what I've read and watched the news. My impression is... at this point the CFA or any gov't agency should NOT be included in any blame. For so many years CFA and SoCal authorities respectively have learn and re-learn the things that happen in their communities. I believe, they have done everything in their power to save lives and properties.
Maybe the geographical setting is different, Australia is plain and almost flat. Like Fires move at the unprecedented speed. Unlike California has combination of plains ,mountain, and hilly ranges that the speed of the fire might be different. Like Tony said, we don't know yet at this case. The behavior of the fire and the last moments of those poor civilians who perished this fatal conflagration is yet to be known.
For now, the only blame will be the alleged Arsonist that the authorities will love to catch them.
TCSS, mike
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
Before...
After...
Why So Many Deadly Fires?
~ Population Density
~ Narrow Roads
~ Lack of Progressive Fire Prevention and Fire Code Laws
~ Drought Conditions
~ Not Enough Resources
~ Environmentalists / Greenies
There is not really much difference between Australia's issues and Southern California's... We just have more people in a smaller area coupled with topographical features that create other situations that include down canyon Santa Ana winds. Where I live (Santa Barbara), having things burn is a way of life. In fact, my fire department was started in 1926 to control burns started by the local indian tribes to protect cattle grazing lands.
Before civilization started impacting California 300 years plus ago, the indians had it down pretty good. Burn off excess vegetation during the wetter months, controlled burning to be exact to enable easier hunting and travel. With the advent of what the aussies refer to as greenies, or here in the USA, tree huggers or environmentalists, we have a do not burn policy that has been nothing less than a disaster. Additionally, air pollution folks are pretty powerful when it comes time to determining if a burn can be conducted. So what we all end up with is a lot of fuel that has not burned in decades.
If you are in the San Diego / San Bernadino areas, you also have to deal with 1000's of acres of dead trees, killed by a beetle or years of downed trees that have rotted because no one was able to harvest the tree's, again thanks to the environmentalists. Ask anyone up in Montana how they feel about the no logging policies. Another reason for some of these out of control fires...
-
Permalink Reply by John on
-
True if you can't get dead vegetation out of the area it just creates a bigger fire load.
-
Permalink Reply by Aussie_Wildfire on
-
Art Ben Tony Micheal Mike. I'ts good to see you guys thinking and discussing. I agree with you all.
Ben Said
The Aussie version of Stay and Defend assumes that the civilians that do it have some basic firefighting training, defensible cleared space, resistant or at least fire-prepped homes, their own water supply (swimming pool, etc.) and a fire pump, or a fire barricade system:
The problem with this is Apathy, you have to think about how to defend your home and make sure you comit to your plan.
Mike is right the fuel load in these SEMI-Rural location is too high due to Apathy from all
I am hearing that we had 10mph spread in forrest areas and 30 mph on grass lands. I THINK 100,000 acres burnt in one area in 4 hours. Two tankers 8 miles apart were call out, they drove 4 miles each to meet and then went into defensive mode as the front came past, They were still about 10 miles from where they were going to
The 400 fires on this day moved to fast.
If you look at the state of washington and put 400 fires all over, add the weather we had, then ask yourself how do we move the rural population in 1 1/2 hours without running into another front
-
-
Our worst fires in this round have been in hill country - not as hilly as that country near the Californian coast, but steep.
As for arsonists? News is just out that two men are being questioned about suspicious behaviour in the fire area.
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
Some experts suggested the large number of deaths could also be partly due to a change in the makeup of the population in the areas blackened by the blazes.
There are more people living on the outskirts of cities like Melbourne who have no experience with wildfires, relying on the resources of the Country Fire Authority for help with the blazes, said Mark Adams of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Center. It used to be that families that lived in such areas were usually prepared with equipment to fight the fires themselves, Adams told ABC Television."
I used to work for EMA (The Australian Government's FEMA, in a round about sort of way, but with different authority, etc), and we often lectured about this in our institute.
The population changes and moves on.
For those that are heavy into OHS, this has been well researched and written about in numerous books- organizations have no memory because people move on.
I don't remember the exact figure, but recent reseacrh in my area (Macedon Ranges) says that something huge like 65% (from memory) of the population coimmute to the city to work.
There's loads of weekender homes up here where families bundle up the kids and come up for the weekends and holidays to stay in their mansions on MtMacedon.
They have zero experience in bushfires, particularly this area, which is in the top 3 fire risks for the State.
Many people the world over also beleive it won't happen to me. (Sure we've all heard that!!!)
Drive up and around MtMacedon and there's even a house which has been built around this huge f**ker of a tree that woudl take 4 or more people holding hands to get around the whole thing!. What are these people smoking every night to think that it's OK? (I'll try and get some photos...)
I've said it to death in multiple posts now, but it's about education, education, education.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
