The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
IAFF president slams Calif. 'stay-and-defend' plan
From Firerescue1
http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-news/449011-iaff-president-slams-ca...
LOS ANGELES — If stay-and-defend is the best idea California's fire chiefs can come up with to do a better job containing the state's wildfires, my frustration is exceeded only by my concern for the state's residents. Stay-and-defend — outlined in several Times news articles, most recently in the Jan. 13 story, "Southern California fire chiefs debate stay-and-defend program" — should make people run and hide.
Exploring new ideas to protect Californians from the state's increasing number of wildfires is commendable, but stay-and-defend would be a failure. The program includes asking homeowners to pretend that a government education course on fire risk would provide them sufficient training to protect themselves and their property during a wildfire, thereby requiring fewer professional firefighters to be deployed.
Hearing anyone suggest that homeowners should not get out of harm's way is appalling. Hearing a public safety professional make the suggestion is shameless. Stay-and-defend is clearly a half-baked idea from people who believe that saving money is more important than saving lives.
Further reading is available at the LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-schaitberger23-2009jan23...
Hearing anyone suggest that homeowners should not get out of harm's way is appalling. Hearing a public safety professional make the suggestion is shameless. Stay-and-defend is clearly a half-baked idea from people who believe that saving money is more important than saving lives.
Stay-and-defend has had limited success in the Australian bush, where the tactic has been used for some time. But it has also led to disaster, and the homesteader program would not translate to a state as populous as California.
I'm not sure where they're getting their information from, but the stay and defend programs in Australia are far from being a disaster.
Most fatalities are not from the stay and defend- they're from people blindly trying to escape after it's too late and have been caught in firestorms or blindign smoke and crashing their vehicles.
The Australian public is being very clearly taught basic principles that they can adopt to make their home safer (Block downpipes and fill gutters with water, blocking doors, radiant heat safety, etc, etc).
They're also being taught (very clearly and loudly!) that just because you call 000 (Same as the USA 911 system), will not guarantee a big red truck arriving.
They're being taught to evalauate their safety and make an early decision to evacuate or to stay and defend.
Here's a link to some of the information being made available to the public:
http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/residents/index.htm
Feel free to check it out and make your own, informed decision....
http://www.firerescue1.com/fire-news/449011-iaff-president-slams-ca...
LOS ANGELES — If stay-and-defend is the best idea California's fire chiefs can come up with to do a better job containing the state's wildfires, my frustration is exceeded only by my concern for the state's residents. Stay-and-defend — outlined in several Times news articles, most recently in the Jan. 13 story, "Southern California fire chiefs debate stay-and-defend program" — should make people run and hide.
Exploring new ideas to protect Californians from the state's increasing number of wildfires is commendable, but stay-and-defend would be a failure. The program includes asking homeowners to pretend that a government education course on fire risk would provide them sufficient training to protect themselves and their property during a wildfire, thereby requiring fewer professional firefighters to be deployed.
Hearing anyone suggest that homeowners should not get out of harm's way is appalling. Hearing a public safety professional make the suggestion is shameless. Stay-and-defend is clearly a half-baked idea from people who believe that saving money is more important than saving lives.
Further reading is available at the LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oew-schaitberger23-2009jan23...
Hearing anyone suggest that homeowners should not get out of harm's way is appalling. Hearing a public safety professional make the suggestion is shameless. Stay-and-defend is clearly a half-baked idea from people who believe that saving money is more important than saving lives.
Stay-and-defend has had limited success in the Australian bush, where the tactic has been used for some time. But it has also led to disaster, and the homesteader program would not translate to a state as populous as California.
I'm not sure where they're getting their information from, but the stay and defend programs in Australia are far from being a disaster.
Most fatalities are not from the stay and defend- they're from people blindly trying to escape after it's too late and have been caught in firestorms or blindign smoke and crashing their vehicles.
The Australian public is being very clearly taught basic principles that they can adopt to make their home safer (Block downpipes and fill gutters with water, blocking doors, radiant heat safety, etc, etc).
They're also being taught (very clearly and loudly!) that just because you call 000 (Same as the USA 911 system), will not guarantee a big red truck arriving.
They're being taught to evalauate their safety and make an early decision to evacuate or to stay and defend.
Here's a link to some of the information being made available to the public:
http://www.cfa.vic.gov.au/residents/index.htm
Feel free to check it out and make your own, informed decision....
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by lutan1 on
-
Until we know where and how they died, who knows.
6 died in one car- again, without the facts, I'd say it was a case of evacuating too late.
-
-
is one home worth the price of even one of those lives?
Go and read the Interior Attack discussion- there's obviously loads of FF's on this site who reckon a home with no one inside is worth diesing for...
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Luke,
There you go injecting reality into the conversation again. :-)
Take care and don't get to close to the wonders of combustion.
Ben
-
-
Thomas,
How do you know that Stay and Defend was responsible for the deaths?
Until accurate reports are available, I don't think it's safe to assume that all (or any) of those unfortunates were involved in Stay and Defend.
Ben
-
Permalink Reply by Aussie_Wildfire on
-
4pm sunday 36 dead, 600 homes, 400 fires, 6 major fires still out of control, and the news reports say most loss of life were in motor vehicles leaving too late.
Give me a Honda pump a swimming pool or rain tank and I can teach most people how to stay and defend
I STAYED AND DEFENDED WITH MOST OF MY RURAL COMMUNITY and we easly suvived
-
-
The toll on the news tonight has hit 65.
Will we change the policy here in Vic? Nope. Or I doubt it very much.
Overall the program works well.
A lot of deaths appear to be fleeing too late, sheltering in wrong palces, etc. Not directly related to protecting their properties.
Watch this space as more is revealed...
-
-
What a terrible situation. I hope the weather gives our friends in Oz a break very soon.
As for Stay and Defend, the news seems to show that this didn't contribute much to the loss of life.
Many of the victims apparently died in their cars trying to evacuate.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090208/ap_on_re_au_an/as_australia_wil...
This story also cites a family that Stayed and Defended and eventually lost their home, but survived in their olive grove nearby. Apparently, their car fuel tank and their home propane tank caught fire and that was what overwhelmed the home defenders.
A modified Stay and Defend that moves the cars away from the structures and buries the propane tanks underground might have saved this home. My town's local code requires that the large, residential propane tanks be buried underground with only an extended dome protruding above ground. If needed, buried propane tanks can be defended from wildfire by a few shovels of dirt.
-
-
Take care and don't get to close to the wonders of combustion.
Thanks Ben.
It;s interesting that I live in the Macedon Ranges which is in the top 3 fire risk areas in the State just about every year, yet we've been spared this heartache- for now at least.
The Kilmore fires are still a fair distance away, the Redesdale fires are still a fair distance away, though we were on alert from ember attacks on Saturday.
-
-
Ben I'd suggest that for evey death that is directly contributed to the Stay and Defend, there'd be 100's if not more, homes, lives and properties that have been saved as a result.
This fire highlights the issues around education, education, education. Especially when you see photos like this one, which show the result of evacuating too late:
-
-
A modified Stay and Defend that moves the cars away from the structures and buries the propane tanks underground might have saved this home. My town's local code requires that the large, residential propane tanks be buried underground with only an extended dome protruding above ground. If needed, buried propane tanks can be defended from wildfire by a few shovels of dirt.
It's to a requirement here, but I like it. I wonder with hindsight will they change the rules? Curious what Tony and Wildfire think- they're at oppsosite ends of the State but in some amazingly high fire risk areas....
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
