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 Ben Waller on
-
Thomas,
An update, posted elsewhere on FFN...http://www.firefighternation.com/forum/topics/australian-fire-zone-...
This story indicates that most of the fatalities were not engaging in Stay and Defend at all. Rather, they were surprised by the speed and intensity of the fire and fled at the last minute. That is the "worst possible decision" according to the story. In other words, you have a better survival chance if you Stay and Defend when you're facing an immanent threat as the Aussies have.
Ben
-
Permalink Reply by Chris Hayden on
-
I'm just saying... You mentioned that the people who died were the ones who waited to late to get out. What do you think will happen if people are taught to stay and defend their homes. They don't have the training or experience to know when to leave.
-
-
Did you read any of the news articles? Most of the people who were killed were NOT engaged in "Stay and Defend". Most of them were killed while trying to evacuate, which has nothing to do with Stay and Defend. Others were killed because they apparently never knew they needed to evacuate until they had no hope, due to the speed and intensity of the fire.
Some of the Stay and Defend folks who were unsuccessful in defending their homes were interviewed by the news media. They survived by jumping in their swimming pools or by going to wide-open areas with little fuel. They didn't evacuate at all. I think that's the point. Several Aussie officials have pointed out that evacuating too late is worse than evacuating at all. Late evacuations don't necessarily involve Stay and Defend.
Several of the Aussie wildfire guys have posted Stay and Defend success stories from these fires. I think we need to listen to them, since they're having the experience right now.
Ben
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
Hey Chris,
I do not pick up any bashing comments from our Australian brothers down under. If anything, he was trying to be sensitive to a different culture and firefighting system compared to their own.
Noting that there are differences between how we do things and how I perceived they did things has been getting more focused, having just received a packet of information from one of my FFN brothers from the land down under. While I have not had the chance to go through all the information, it seems that we both have a lot more in common than you are giving them credit for.
I've had in depth conversations with Lutan, Tony P and Wildfire to name a few and have found that they use the same tactics and strategies as we do. They use ICS and help out with our incidents with command team and Division Supervisors for large Type I incidents. They have been working side by side with our own guys for years. They have done this to enable mirroring our successes.
In regard to home owners in the recent fires being killed because they stayed to defend their homes, you have to re-read the article and listen to the current reports to learn that in many cases, these fatalities resulted from the fires intensity and speed hitting them faster than anyone thought was possible. I can comment from experience having been around the recent major fires here in Santa Barbara where hundreds of structures were lost. There was nothing we could have done. No one has enough fire trucks to stop a fire that is wind driven coupled with dry fuel from a drought condition.
The Oakland Hills fire years ago had the same disastorous situation with narrow roads, people pulling out of driveways, traffic collisions, blocked roadways and several fatalities... entire families burned alive in their cars. Has anything changed with how we build homes and the amount of population increasing in the wildland urban interface? Nope... Are the fires down under similar to what we have and will experience? Yes, absolutely...
Perhaps knowing this you might consider listening to them and working on becoming their friends. I'm not saying that anyone knows more about something than someone else. What I am saying is that it's cool to sit back, share information and surprise yourself when you allow the synergy of different cultures to emerge.
With that all said, the tragedy that has struck Australia these past two days is mind boggling. No matter where you are, there was no way anything could have been done to combat a wall of flames fanned by 60 mph plus winds. We can all stand to learn from our Aussie brothers and sisters from their attempts to stand and defend against these terrible fires. Lets listen together and learn.
Gracias'
Mike
-
-
From what the Aussie wildfire guys have been saying, their Stay and Defend program is based on not evacuating at all. They teach creating defensible space, having a private water source and fire pump, closing/shuttering doors and windows, keeping Class B fuel sources (cars, propane cylinders) away from the structure, and doing some creative things like stopping up downspouts and filling the gutters with water and even installing exterior mist sprinklers to protect the house.
Tony P's explanation below does a better job than I could.
My point is that late evacuations are mutually exclusive with how Tony, Wildfire, Lutan, et al have explained their Stay and Defend policy.
You could be sitting poolside having a beer, evacuate late, and die in a car wreck or by being overrun by a fire front without a glimmer of Stay and Defend crossing your mind.
I'm just keeping an open mind. There have been some comments that use some pretty fuzzy math...U.S. wildfirefighter LODD equals IC going to prison, equals Aussie civilian deaths, equals Stay and Defend is suicidal. I don't think that A) there's enough evidence to connect those dots, at least for now and B) the current Aussie situation is so extreme that it may not be applicable to more "normal" wildfire Stay and Defend practices.
-
-
Hey Philly,
The recent Tea Fire in Santa Barbara caught everyone off guard with the shear intensity and rapid growth of the fire. One couple that was seriously burned never had a warning or clue that a major fire had started and was heading toward them until it was too late. They were surrounded by fire trucks but no matter what, there could never have been enough, even with the mutual aid that we have.
Now take Australia, things are rather spread out compared to our front country but with the significant drought, dead fuel, 60 mph plus winds and 117 degree F temperatures, nature created a firestorm that has never before been seen in Australia's history.
Watching a video from the Canberra incident outside of Melborne, I heard the fire officer rounding up the few people remaining who wanted to stay and defend their homes. Nothing different than what I saw and heard from the fires we have had here in Santa Barbara. And it was not uncommon to hear about someone who stayed to save not only their homes but their neighbors. What a crap shoot. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesnt'.
I have been a paid professional firefighter with my local for almost 30 years and have been involved in a number of significant campaign fires over my career. Telling the public that they can't stay and defend their home is a very sensitive decision to make. It's also hard to explain why there are no fire engines because what was available was already committed...
While I am aware that some people staying to save their homes may result in injury or life loss, I also know that there are many homes and property that will be saved because what started out as a small fire was prevented from becoming a larger fire. Fire brands or embers from over a mile away blew onto home roofs downwind and started structure fires... No one was there to catch the fire when they were small and controllable.
It was interesting watching the news and listening to people talk about how they put fires out on their roof using a bucket filled with water and rags to thrown on the embers. These folks stayed to protect their homes. In fact over and over again on southern california television, you saw people being interviewed that were able to stay and defend their homes. This is why the departments are looking into changing the policies to reflect what actually happens verses theory. I perceive these Chief's as being progressive toward how they approach problem solving. Key point here is "progressive". We have to be able to do more with less, right?
If you have good defensible space, a safety zone like a swimming pool or the use of foam to coat a house then you've got a good chance of surviving if you can use the foam ahead of time and then leave... It does not sound like the folks who were killed had any options at all. Many had no clue that there was a fire until it was too late...
The use of the term trigger points is something that has not been discussed as well. When fires were burning out of control a few years back, I remember working in the planning section where incident commanders were determining where the trigger points would be located. A trigger point is a location that the fire crosses that determines that folks need to evacuate. There is a lot of planning that goes into this and it has proven to be a successful tool with evacuation and controlling emergency egress. However, give any of us a wildland incident with 60 mph plus winds and it won't make much difference what we do... There is no arguing that at times, people just need to get out and fast. Waiting for smoke and fire at the doorstep is always going to be the wrong choice. I look forward to hearing comments on this point.
Even with folks staying to defend their homes, there will never be enough firefighters available to fight fires for the large incidents. Our only hope is good fire prevention and a large force of trained firefighters ready to answer the call, regardless whether they are volunteer or professional and of course the use of trigger points and preplanning efforts by both fire departments and residents working together.
TCSS,
Mike
-
-
Mike,
Thanks, you said that better than did I.
And you people wonder why I like swiftwater rescue better than fighting wildfires.
Ben
-
-
You're assuming that the stay and defend group is the same group as the evacuate too late group.
I don't think that's the case with the Aussie fires. The evacuate late group are reported to be people that may not have even realized that the fire was close to them until it was too late. The reports are that a lot of them weren't trying to defend anything - they just ran for their lives.
The reports also tell stories of stay and defend types that stayed and never evacuated...and survived to tell the tale...and saved their homes and some of their neighbors. Mike Shlags has some excellent comments about this above.
The Aussies seem to be pretty serious about the "Stay" part of stay and defend.
-
-
Just to keep things in perspective folks, this is one big fire and it has absolutely nothing to do with career vs. volunteer firefighters... From reading the noted articles, here's the Union's Point of View:
Firefighter unions have voiced safety concerns, saying not all residents are physically or mentally strong enough to endure the rigors and trauma of a wildfire. A message that gives residents a choice on whether to stay or evacuate could be confusing, resulting in last-minute exoduses that clog streets, say representatives for firefighters. That could lead to panic and hinder firefighting efforts, said Pat McOsker, president of the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City. Studies show that most wildfire-related fatalities occur as residents are belatedly trying to flee, he said.
"People will make the decision to stay and then when the 40-foot wall of flame comes toward them, they will want to get out and we will have a disaster," McOsker said. "People will be putting their lives at risk needlessly."
USFS folks have been looking into this concept as well and were quoted as follows:
Stay-and-defend has it roots in Australia, where government policy leaves homeowners in rural areas to fight fires on their own. It's a recognition of the country's limited resources, said Sarah McCaffrey, a fire researcher for the U.S. Forest Service. But it's also based on research showing that it's safer to fight a fire than to run at the last minute.
"Studies showed that most civilians died while evacuating and most houses were lost from ember attacks that could have been easily extinguished," McCaffrey said.
Who are these rogue fire chiefs that were referred to in the article?
1. Ventura County Fire Chief Bob Roper
2. Orange County Fire Chief Chip Prather
For those not familiar with these two jurisdictions, you have to know that they are simply huge. The size of Rhode Island or something like that... : ) Please take the time to listen to what they said and why they are thinking of this type of approach... In order to bring about change for the better, it's a good thing to be open minded and be willing to listen to a different approach. Remember what happended to the dinosaurs...
"The new approach recognizes that residents who have made their homes fire resistant, have cleared the brush around the house and have learned how to extinguish spot fires might be able to save property that would otherwise go up in flames because firefighters are overwhelmed."
Ventura's chief is quick to note that the program will not replace professional firefighters.
"It's not teaching them to be firefighters," Roper said. "It's mainly situational awareness and some simple extinguishment skills using mops, garden hoses, buckets -- whatever is available."
The approach is based, in part, on recent research that shows residents with stucco-walled homes typically can safely retreat inside, if a wall of fire passes through. Although the home will become hot and smoky, it will not explode and people inside will not become dangerously overheated.
Recent wildfires in Southern California have brought new converts.
As flames roared toward his Yorba Linda home in November, Jim Unland packed up the family dogs and evacuated.
But two neighbors and an off-duty police officer stayed, spraying garden hoses around homes, dousing spot fires and stowing combustibles before embers blowing miles ahead of the fire wall could ignite them. They saved their own homes and several others, including Unland's.
Unland said their success in battling the Freeway Complex fire convinced him that sticking around to fight the flames is sometimes the smart choice.
"Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't leave," said Unland, 59, a Boeing contracts manager. "I always thought there was this tremendous firestorm with explosions and no oxygen. But it's not that way. People can fight fires if they don't want to leave."
Prather, the O.C. fire chief. said he had some hesitation about joining Roper's effort before the Yorba Linda fire. But he saw that residents in neighborhoods like Unland's helped save dozens of homes that otherwise would have gone up in flames.
Striking early on Nov. 15 in Santa Ana conditions, the Freeway Complex fire, driven by 60-mph gusts, destroyed 190 residences and damaged an additional 123. Yorba Linda was hardest hit with 118 homes destroyed. Outmanned firefighters raced to stay ahead of the fire's erratic path, Prather said.
"An urban environment is a good example of where stay-and-defend works," Prather said. "No matter how many engines and tankers you have, some wildfires will burn right though modern neighborhoods. It's just going to happen."
So many things that the aussies are experiencing are common to our situation here in the southwestern USA. Of course we don't have koala bears... but we do have some pretty massive wildland urban interface situations that is much different than the rural situations confronted in Australia. And in many cases, it's house fires that catch other houses on fire...
TCSS, Mike
I await anxiously for lessons learned from this incident...
-
-
Thomas, I think you are embellishing a bit in regard to the DC-10... here's a photo showing the DC-10 making a drop in a wildland urban interface situation... You have to trust these guys. They know what they are doing and I have not heard of anyone getting injured from one of their drops. Have you?
It's important to back up what you are saying with facts, not conjecture... Maybe I'm wrong here but am willing to listen even though I have reservations for anyone who is confrontational... But then again, you know us Californian's.. we go our own way...
We also started wildland firefighting in 1926 and founded Firescope, the ICS system and other progressive thinking based concepts. Fire Chief's from Orange and Ventura counties are providing direction, based on things that we have learned from our Aussie brothers and sisters as well as our own experience. Do you work and respond to heavily populated wildland urbang interface areas more populated than Ventura, Los Angeles or Orange counties? I don't think so... More out of the box thinking that will catch on eventually, unless folks want to learn from others and move forward like we are trying to do from Oz.
-
Permalink Reply by Aussie_Wildfire on
-
Mike if you could relay to all your friends, that Victoria is the size of Washington State, about 4 1/2 million people, of which 3 million live in the capital city Melbourne. Our whole state can burn like the coast of Cal. Last Saturday it was forecast to be about 115 degs with 50mph winds and 5% humidity throughout the state. 400 fires started on the day, due to all the normal reasons. With us the concept of forcing 1 1/2 million people elsewhere for their safety just can't happen, as we don't know where the fires will be. My 5 acres was burnt out in 2006, my neighbors and I easily stay and defended our homes. BUT we still had some that panicked and ran and the shock of being in a major wildfire still scares a lot around me. Our policy of stay and defend works, but the apathy of the general public, local government and the greens makes it hard to clear vegetation from properties, roadways, government lands etc.
I know that a fogging system on the roof with a Honda pump and a swimming pool or rainwater tank that two 80 yo can defend their home against a 50 feet high crown fire. A royal commission has been called for these fires, it's our most detailed inquiry we can do. It will take 1 year or more.
This subject will be talked about for some time
Thanks
I am GUESSING that one fire burnt 100,000 acres in four hours (the facts will take time)
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
