Protection burn likely contributes as Camp Fire rages into Conc...

Hahahaha!!! LMAO

Accountability wrote:

They had that planned burn on the table for several days but didn't do it because of wind possibilities. Seems someone got impatient and decided to roll the dice after getting tired of waiting. The backburn deserves an impartial third party investigation at this point.

I agree with the idea of an investigation. I was listening to the radio when the firing operation was being discussed. There was one individual pushing hard for them to start the operation, even stating "We have been waiting for days to do this, and we won't get another chance."

Despite numerous replies from other personnel stating conditions were becoming too dangerous, the operation began anyway.

Hopefully, the decision process was documented and can be validated. I would hate to find out the ensuing conflagration was the result of somebody's power trip.

South County wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with the idea of an investigation. I was listening to the radio when the firing operation was being discussed. There was one individual pushing hard for them to start the operation, even stating "We have been waiting for days to do this, and we won't get another chance."
Despite numerous replies from other personnel stating conditions were becoming too dangerous, the operation began anyway.
Hopefully, the decision process was documented and can be validated. I would hate to find out the ensuing conflagration was the result of somebody's power trip.

Probably the same person who was quoted in the ChicoE.R. as saying, "the fire was going to get in there anyway", referring to Concow.

Chef deano wrote:

<quoted text>
Probably the same person who was quoted in the ChicoE.R. as saying, "the fire was going to get in there anyway", referring to Concow.

what a horrible thing to say after a tragedy like this. I, too, hope for an investigation. The responsible party/parties need to be held accountable. The ground and air crews deserve our gratitude, however.

Ingineer66 wrote:

The fire fighters are doing a good job and working hard, but the person in charge that allowed this back fire is the one that messed up. The down canyon winds were not a surprise. They had been predicted for the night and they are a common occurrence in this area during the night. And do not try to confuse and deflect the public with fancy jargon. It was a back fire and it got away because of a bad decision. And to say that the fire would have got there anyway is just wrong. That devalues the efforts of the firefighters and is dis-respectful to the residents that had to run for their lives. If that truly was the case then they should have not been able to return to their homes in the first place.

What info does anyone have to suggest backfire? I recently heard of a story of FFs setting fire on ground without controlling its spread but it's only a rumor, as far as I know.

Without taking one position or another, I agree, historical/prevaling winds should have been taken into consideration when decision was made on how to best deal with fire and its spread.

South County wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with the idea of an investigation. I was listening to the radio when the firing operation was being discussed. There was one individual pushing hard for them to start the operation, even stating "We have been waiting for days to do this, and we won't get another chance."
Despite numerous replies from other personnel stating conditions were becoming too dangerous, the operation began anyway. Hopefully, the decision process was documented and can be validated. I would hate to find out the ensuing conflagration was the result of somebody's power trip.

I was not in town at time of fire. What info can you share that will help me learn more? I wish to learn mistakes that were made and sequence of events so responsible parties can learn from mistakes, if any.

South County wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with the idea of an investigation. I was listening to the radio when the firing operation was being discussed. There was one individual pushing hard for them to start the operation, even stating "We have been waiting for days to do this, and we won't get another chance."
Despite numerous replies from other personnel stating conditions were becoming too dangerous, the operation began anyway.
Hopefully, the decision process was documented and can be validated. I would hate to find out the ensuing conflagration was the result of somebody's power trip.

What radio station and how do I get a copy to listen? Rumor suggests a Cal Fire employee from southern Cal gave the order to set fire, ignoring advice and pleas from locals.

searcher wrote:

<quoted text> I was not in town at time of fire. What info can you share that will help me learn more? I wish to learn mistakes that were made and sequence of events so responsible parties can learn from mistakes, if any.

here you go, boss http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_9825110

McLean explained a firing operation is like a back- fire but is planned well ahead of time and done under the most favorable conditions as a way starve a wildfire of fuel.

Jimmy Mittens wrote:

<quoted text>
here you go, boss http://www.chicoer.com/news/ci_9825110
<quoted text>

Thanks Jimmy. Statements found in article were a bit of shock to me. If officials indeed knew fire spread to area was inevitable, as CalFire quote suggests, why didn't CalFire do more to prepare themselves and properties ahead of time?

South County wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with the idea of an investigation. I was listening to the radio when the firing operation was being discussed. There was one individual pushing hard for them to start the operation, even stating "We have been waiting for days to do this, and we won't get another chance."
Despite numerous replies from other personnel stating conditions were becoming too dangerous, the operation began anyway.
Hopefully, the decision process was documented and can be validated. I would hate to find out the ensuing conflagration was the result of somebody's power trip.

Yes, an independent investigation by third party would be helpful.

Chef deano wrote:

<quoted text>
I have the utmost respect for Cal Fire employees.
Like I said before mistakes get made.
I have been listening to the local police scanner, and it is ugly out there.
The person who decided to pull the trigger on the backfire has to live with himself if this fire takes a life.
I have a fire crew in my yard now, and they are worried. I think it's time to go soon.
I am on the upper ridge Coutolenc area, and it looks real bad here.
We only have a precautionary evac now,but I am packed and ready to go.
check out www.magaliaweather.com and click on the scanner link.

The link you list only shows weather for today (current day). What was weather prediction for Monday night or early Tuesday, July 8th, the time that control line was lost?

Ed Nemechek wrote:

<quoted text>----------THIS IS TOTALLY FALSE SELF-SERVING disinformation and a tragic disservice to the suffering people of California--(ednemechek@verizo n.net)

What a lovely dose of irony. Mr Nemechek, it is pretty clear to the citizens of Butte County (at least those who even have a clue who you are) that a snake oil salesman isn't really going to provide a cure for their ailment. Why don't you alleviate our concerns about these aircraft, and not simply declare valid concerns about actual limitations to be disinformation. Prove how it's actually wrong, or it seems pretty obvious that you don't really know or even have a clue what you're talking about.

The Los Angeles Times continues its series on wildfires and the people who fight them with a story about expensive -- and often ineffective -- "CNN drops."

"Fire commanders say they are often pressured to order planes and helicopters into action on major fires even when the aircraft won't do any good. Such pressure has resulted in needless and costly air operations, experienced fire managers said in interviews," the paper says. "The reason for the interference, they say, is that aerial drops of water and retardant make good television. They're a highly visible way for political leaders to show they're doing everything possible to quell a wildfire, even if it entails overriding the judgment of incident commanders on the ground."

Impressive Mr Nemechek - you post your standard vitriolic copy-and-paste job, and then actually post the same thing again, this time with a pathetic introduction.

It's funny that we somehow consider "supertankers" as a cost-effective delivery system for retardant, when in fact the commonly utilized S2T can deliver retardant at a price of $1.02/gallon, whereas the DC-10 can do so at an average price of $2.37/gallon. From a matter of using tax-payer dollars to maximum effect, it would seem that S2T's are over 200% as effective as these so-called "supertankers".

Check out the picture below to view the unparalleled safety record of this aircraft. This is the brand new DC-10 "supertanker" aircraft, having recently figured out that jet turbine aircraft don't have the maneuvering capability to handle the steep canyons which characterize Californian interface.

[url]http://www.wildlandfire.c om/pics/air23/dc10-leftwing2.j pg[/url]

Supertankers are poor initial-attack tools, unlike their smaller counterparts such as S2Ts. The S2T is well-liked among firefighters and pilots for its maneuverability and capability in dropping retardant on difficult runs, such as diving down slopes where one is likely to need a drop on IA. These supertankers are more appropriate for hitting extended-attack fires along ridgetops, where their sorry maneuverability isn't as needed, and a cumbersome ogre can still hit its target.

There's no magical weapon that will end the present disaster in California - and as much as I once wished that supertankers could, I've learned watching them - seeing what they could actually do - that in fact they are simply another tool in the box with some very severe limitations, and perhaps more of a political purpose than a realistic one. It's tax dollars for a horse and pony show.

There's solutions Mr Nemechek, but real solutions are rarely glamorous.

supertankers rule

Ed, you really are a major idiot. You have never been employed by any government agency. You have never been near any tankers, pilots, or fire fighters. Therefore, you are not qualified to say ANYTHING about this issue. Please, everyone else, DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS IDIOT. HE HAS NO CLUE WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT. HE IS 100% WRONG IN EVERY SINGLE POINT. DO NOT PAY HIM ANY ATTENTION AND HE WILL GO BACK TO HIS HOLE.

Here, being as I'm tired of your copy-and-paste jobs between threads, here you go.

Ed, the amazing thing about your sentiments is that quite obviously Tanker 910 was missing a large portion of its wing, having shown its lack of maneuverability and the fact that airplanes aren't well designed for playing chicken with trees. Furthermore, these ogres are incapable of the steep diving runs that S2Ts and other firefighting aircraft routinely perform on initial-attack brush fires midslope or at the bottom of a canyon. These behemoths are in fact only really useful once the fire has blown out of proportion and firefighters are forced to pick arbitrary defensive lines rather than aggressively trying to hook the fire.

Secondly, once again - the cost of retardant delivery from these supertankers is atrocious. It costs Tanker 910 on average $2.37/gallon to deliver retardant, whereas a smaller aircraft such as an S2T can deliver retardant for a price of $1.02 a gallon. For the same price it would cost for a supertanker to make a single pass and dump 12,000 gallons of retardant ($28,440), 23 S2Ts could deliver nearly 28,000 gallons of retardant - and more importantly they can be accurate and selective about where it is deployed. Supertankers may be able to deliver a significant amount of retardant with a single drop, but their effectiveness with each gallon of retardant is severely limited, and moreso, it is far from the most cost-effective means of delivering said retardant.

Ed, I am a seasonal firefighter who sincerely believes that by utilizing effective firefighting tools we can minimize loss from these catastrophic wildfires, and that there are practical and workable solutions that are available to Californians who wish to protect their homes and property.

Ed, I'm sorry to say this, but supertankers aren't one of them. They're a waste of money for something smaller tankers do with at least double the efficiency.

You know, I've been talking with my friend of mine who is training to become a commercial pilot, and I was addressing him about the flight characteristics of these sorts of large aircraft... 747s, DC-10s, etc... and he's been telling me the same things I've heard all along. These planes have their purposes, but they don't have flight characteristics well-suited to firefighting

In fact Ed, you really are a major idiot. As to the "pure premeditated BS and untrue" statement, it would seem fairly accurate that you have never been employed by a government agency. Likewise I doubt that you have known any professional firefighters, and I expect that your experience with tankers and their pilots is nil or limited to this single lobbying group who are hoping to make a dime at the taxpayer's ignorance and expense.

In fact Ed, our careers are fairly safe as we provide a variety of necessary services to the public including response to natural disasters such as earthquakes, mudslides, or last year's windstorms throughout northern California. We provide timely medical response to traffic collisions and medical aids. Structure fires, building collapses, alarms, public assists, and a wide range of services that we provide will be around through my career. Likewise, despite whatever false hopes you're trying to sell - no tanker has put a single fire out. That takes crews on the ground, and the best these aerial resources can do is buy us time and often they can't even do that effectively.

Think about it Ed... we were brought into this profession to serve and protect the public, and we carry this ideal with us as we build ourselves into the eventual leaders of the fire service.

Mr Nemechek, I've been studying these manners both on my own and as an occupation for the past decade. I've drawn experience from those who have thousands more days in the field than myself, and have spent plenty of time working around tankers (and actually been knocked about 10 feet from where I was standing by a drop) It would seem to me that three years without an ounce of time spent in the actual field would yield very few valid results... and I think it's telling.

enough with the super tankers! Anyone else find it strange that the real reason for this fire was not talked about more? Thanks to the firefighters, but the state bill for these fires is astronomical. I for one would like to know if our fire protection agencies need improvement, before the next big fire starts