Letting fires burn

Even Steven
Guru
Posts: 6440
Joined: Mar 24th, 2015, 7:20 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by Even Steven »

common_sense_guy wrote:Instead of getting it fires at first light they'll wait around an hour or to have a meeting first and then decide what to do.


Wait! Are you saying they don't just take off right away and start flying million dollar machines capable of killing other people and doing a great deal of damage willy-nilly and waste time by coming up with flight plans, working out the best tactic, and planning to have multiple of these machines on a rotation basis in close proximity????

What a bunch of beaurocrats!
jsytnick
Board Meister
Posts: 667
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 3:05 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by jsytnick »

delSol97 wrote:
ShannonG wrote: Those fires didn't become visible until 8 PM, at which point it is TOO late to coordinate air support and get craft in the air. With all those fires starting simultaneously and dark falling shortly after, Forestry was left until the next morning to get any assessments done.


Why is it "too late"? I've been on numerous aircraft in the middle of the night and flames are certainly easier to see in the dark. This should be a 24 hour service, not a 9-5 job.

Looking at today's information it says 21 ground crew and air support are working on OMP. Where did they come from? Why couldn't they be there the day before?

It seems to me that we should have aircraft available right now who's sole purpose is to fly around and drop water on small strikes and new ignitions before they become the problem of having to get "21 ground crew" on the scene.

It would also seem to me that it would be a lot more effective having a chopper dropping water on a small fire before it becomes an actual problem, than a chopper dropping small buckets on 200+ hectares.

Based on the numbers, clearly the resources are available.



You realize numerous fires started at the same time during a lightning storm at night right? Jesus, some of you think you know so much better than the trained pro's who do it for a living. Get off the forum and go fight some fires yourselves if you think you can do such a better job.
delSol97
Board Meister
Posts: 671
Joined: May 2nd, 2005, 3:36 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by delSol97 »

jsytnick wrote:You realize numerous fires started at the same time during a lightning storm at night right? Jesus, some of you think you know so much better than the trained pro's who do it for a living. Get off the forum and go fight some fires yourselves if you think you can do such a better job.


https://www.castanet.net/edition/news-s ... htm#231830

It was also reported and confirmed that the Rattlesnake island/OMP strike was intentionally ignored and not considered a problem/priority.
zerograv
Übergod
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mar 5th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by zerograv »

jsytnick wrote:
You realize numerous fires started at the same time during a lightning storm at night right? Jesus, some of you think you know so much better than the trained pro's who do it for a living. Get off the forum and go fight some fires yourselves if you think you can do such a better job.


I've never actually understood this mentality. Yes its a hard job (that they sign up for), yes people are thankful, but that shouldn't mean the management and people making the decisions should be totally immune to any discussion or potential criticism of how OUR resources are being used, especially when peoples homes and livelihoods are threatened.

Asking why fires are essentially ignored until they become a huge problem is a legitimate question, especially considering we pay for it...they always seem to up using more of those resources, and stretching them thinner in the long run.
Before giving someone a piece of your mind, make sure that you have enough to spare.
dle
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3328
Joined: Nov 14th, 2005, 12:29 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by dle »

Pretty sure there are more decisions that have to be made than I would have any clue as to their ins and outs so I mostly leave my suppositions - all I would be able to provide - in my brain (most of the time :138:).

I am however, a great proponent of "get on it"......in the fastest way possible. I am NOT a believer in "boundaries" or "jurisdictions" in these kinds of situations and peoples homes and lives are at stake. For me, when it comes to things like this I'm just all Nike - "just do it!" ALL hands on deck, we can sort out the silly crap later. And never underestimate a fire. NOT EVER.
ShannonG
Board Meister
Posts: 426
Joined: Mar 29th, 2006, 1:04 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by ShannonG »

The OMP 2003 fire burned unchecked in heavy timber for at least a week before it went hairballs. To compare that event to this one isn't much of a comparison.
delSol97
Board Meister
Posts: 671
Joined: May 2nd, 2005, 3:36 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by delSol97 »

Even Steven wrote:
Wait! Are you saying they don't just take off right away and start flying million dollar machines capable of killing other people and doing a great deal of damage willy-nilly and waste time by coming up with flight plans, working out the best tactic, and planning to have multiple of these machines on a rotation basis in close proximity????

What a bunch of beaurocrats!


MedEvac seems to have no problem pulling this off 24/7.
zerograv
Übergod
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mar 5th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by zerograv »

ShannonG wrote:The OMP 2003 fire burned unchecked in heavy timber for at least a week before it went hairballs. To compare that event to this one isn't much of a comparison.


that's not what happened at all.
Before giving someone a piece of your mind, make sure that you have enough to spare.
jsytnick
Board Meister
Posts: 667
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 3:05 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by jsytnick »

zerograv wrote:I've never actually understood this mentality. Yes its a hard job (that they sign up for), yes people are thankful, but that shouldn't mean the management and people making the decisions should be totally immune to any discussion or potential criticism of how OUR resources are being used, especially when peoples homes and livelihoods are threatened.

Asking why fires are essentially ignored until they become a huge problem is a legitimate question, especially considering we pay for it...they always seem to up using more of those resources, and stretching them thinner in the long run.



Serious question-do you really think we have the resources to fight 20 startups in one night? It's reality, they placed the Summerland and Peachland area fires in priority because they are much closer to structures. Personally I think they've reacted to forest fires in the OK area really well since the problems of '03 and the loss of property/habitat that occurred. Simply demanding that they hit every flare up right away isn't realistic in the slightest. Sorry for having the mentality of a realist.
dogspoiler
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 17606
Joined: Feb 20th, 2009, 3:32 am

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by dogspoiler »

A simple question.
Is it easier to put out a spot fire, or wait until 500 to 1000 hectares are blazing ?
If you picked the first option, good for you. Gerry Zimmerman agrees.
Black Dogs Matter
User avatar
gardengirl
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 13599
Joined: Mar 23rd, 2006, 1:01 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by gardengirl »

dogspoiler wrote:A simple question.
Is it easier to put out a spot fire, or wait until 500 to 1000 hectares are blazing ?
If you picked the first option, good for you. Gerry Zimmerman agrees.


I do have the utmost respect for Ex-Fire Chief Zimmerman, but I do find it a bit ironic that he is now playing armchair quarterback.
Life is a banquet and most poor suckers are starving to death.
User avatar
Tero
Board Meister
Posts: 488
Joined: Feb 21st, 2007, 9:32 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by Tero »

"my experience is not first-hand but passing along what I've been told...."

This line in the first sentence of your post discredits you 100% It's mere gossip. You may as well be on a party line. You may as well have started your thread with "Well, what I heard was...."
jsytnick
Board Meister
Posts: 667
Joined: May 5th, 2009, 3:05 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by jsytnick »

dogspoiler wrote:A simple question.
Is it easier to put out a spot fire, or wait until 500 to 1000 hectares are blazing ?
If you picked the first option, good for you. Gerry Zimmerman agrees.


1 spot fire or 20?
zerograv
Übergod
Posts: 1125
Joined: Mar 5th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by zerograv »

jsytnick wrote:

Serious question-do you really think we have the resources to fight 20 startups in one night? It's reality, they placed the Summerland and Peachland area fires in priority because they are much closer to structures. Personally I think they've reacted to forest fires in the OK area really well since the problems of '03 and the loss of property/habitat that occurred. Simply demanding that they hit every flare up right away isn't realistic in the slightest. Sorry for having the mentality of a realist.


We seem to have the resources to fight multiple fires burning in the thousands or tens of thousands of hectares, so why would it not be possible?

I never gave an opinion on the firefighting response either way, i just said I don't understand why the management is immune from questions because they have a hard job.
Before giving someone a piece of your mind, make sure that you have enough to spare.
Even Steven
Guru
Posts: 6440
Joined: Mar 24th, 2015, 7:20 pm

Re: Letting fires burn

Post by Even Steven »

delSol97 wrote:MedEvac seems to have no problem pulling this off 24/7.

No, they don't.

Return to “Fire Watch 2018”