Most fire victims failed to prepare: KAREN KISSANE. Victoria, Australia. As reported in The AGE.com.au
April 28, 2010

FORTY-FOUR per cent of those who died in the Black Saturday fires had a disability, were in ill health or were aged over 69 or under 12, and one woman was eight months pregnant, the Bushfires Royal Commission was told yesterday.

In the first detailed analysis of 172 fatalities to be made public, Professor John Handmer also reported that several couples had argued over what to do, with the man in each case wanting to stay.

”There are several instances where women who fled survived,” he said. ”There is also evidence of disagreement where women stayed, leading to more fatalities.”

Fifty-eight per cent of those who died made no preparations for fire, with 53 per cent having no fire plan, and 25 per cent having no general knowledge of bushfire.

”A few fatalities were in denial of the fire threat to the last, purposefully ignoring – in some cases, mocking – the advice of friends, relatives or agencies,” said Professor Handmer. ”These people had made a conscious decision to take no action.”

The findings by Professor Handmer, a disaster management expert at the Centre for Risk and Community Safety at RMIT, and two other researchers, prompted a fierce attack on the stay-or-go policy by senior counsel Jack Rush, QC, who asked whether the policy should be buried as it had failed to prompt many people to prepare.

Only 20 per cent of those who died were well prepared to stay and defend, while a further 14 per cent had made some attempt. This was despite the fact the definition of ”prepared” was minimal: a water supply and mops and buckets to use as firefighting equipment.

Professor Handmer agreed the policy required a great deal of re-evaluation. Fourteen per cent of people died trying to flee, even though the policy warned late evacuation was likely to be deadly, and 27 per cent died in bathrooms, a place the policy had not suggested for refuge.

Mr Rush suggested the room might have been chosen because it had water and no windows that could explode and allow embers in.

Some children were found dead in little more than bathers, despite warnings to cover up, and one-third of those who died were in houses that might not have been defendable. Strong winds left some homes defenceless by lifting roofs or blowing windows in, he said.

But people unexpectedly survived by sheltering in cars, sometimes by moving from one site to another to avoid heat and flames. There was not a single fatality among women and children trying to evacuate by car.

Professor Handmer speculated that modern cars might provide better protection than in the past, and said there was also evidence that modern homes were less defendable because they were often large and had two storeys.

Thirty-four per cent of those who died had intended to stay and defend, 26 per cent had wanted to wait and see, 15 per cent had no discernible intentions, eight per cent stayed to shelter but not defend, and 16 per cent had intended to leave. The report said few of those who died had contingency plans, and 30 per cent were taken by surprise by fire.

Professor Handmer agreed fire agencies had known for more than a decade that many people ignored the policy and planned to wait and see on a fire-danger day.

According to H.R. Bill 4488, sponsored by Bob Filner (D) of California, federal wildland firefighters can fight wildfires much cheaper than private wildland firefighters. The bill is designed to implement and update pay and personnel policies to improve retention of Federal wildland firefighters and to reduce the Government’s reliance on more costly non-Federal wildfire resources. The bill contains much needed reforms concerning pay issues for the Federal wildland firefighters. The problem is, those reforms are going to significantly increase the cost to taxpayers for those firefighters. I am fully in support of the better pay for the firefighters, they truly deserve the pay benefits. But let’s be realistic. The Fed’s want more of their own firefighters, that necessarily will entail increasing the wildfire budget due to increased personnel costs and equipment expenditures, and all the overhead expenses that go along with the increases.

Hiring private contract firefighters will be more cost effective due to the overhead expenses being less. Also, when the Feds use firefighters from another governmental agency, the Feds pay the prevailing wages for that agencies firefighters; plus overhead costs for employing that firefighters’ replacement at their home station.

The Feds only pay for the private contractors when they’re needed, and at a lesser wage and overhead cost. Private contractors are responsible for their overhead costs, training, and compliance with applicable laws and standards. If the private company proves to be substandard, they can be released without all the civil service protections and requirements that it takes to dismiss a substandard Federal firefighter.

Of course, this is actually just another big government push for increasing the bureaucracy and decreasing the private sector. The audacity of the Bill’s author is par for the elitist mentality of big government progressives. We’re supposed to believe, yet again, that more government is cheaper for us. While the pay and retention benefits are worthwhile, the part of the Bill that requires less and less private wildland firefighter reliance will prove to be folly. After the wildfire budget increases dramatically, there still wont be a resettting of the notion that using private wildfire contractors actually are less expensive. Instead, the big government model will prevail in spite of the cost.

I firmly believe there should be well paid Federal firefighters to protect our forests and other federal lands, but I also know that hiring private firefighters, only when needed, is cost effective. The premise that more and better paid federal firefighters will cost less than hiring non-Federal resources is disingenuous– typical for a politicians’ rhetoric.

Correctly, the government- local, state, federal- has no legal obligation to protect you from murder, burglary, rape, bleeding to death, or having your house or business destroyed by fire. The police, ambulance, and fire service you do get is a public service, performed mostly on a first-come first-serve basis. The police prioritize their 911 calls if there are competing requests for help, but the fire and ambulance service is strictly handled by serving the call that is taken first, then second, and so on. The caller that has a headache and dials 911 gets the firefighters and ambulance before the caller who gets handled second, but is calling because their child has just been hit by a car. There is no negative liability issues arising from serving a less serious call first. The law states, and the courts have repeatedly ruled the government has no legal obligation to provide police, fire, or ambulance service. The fact is, it has to be this way. There is no possible way for the government to protect everyone. To be held liable for not protecting someone would cause the government to constantly be paying out exorbitant sums of money, eventually breaking the bank.

Then what do we pay taxes for? Ah, that’s a common complaint more than a question. We all understand we must chip in to provide infrastructure so we can all live as comfortably as we can. We want roads, traffic lights, parks, sidewalks, all in good repair. And we also want the comfort of having a police force available to keep us feeling safe, a fire department to rescue us from ourselves and others actions and missteps, and the ambulances to keep us alive while we’re carted off to the hospital. But, of course, it comes at a price. Part of the deal, too, is that we understand we don’t get personalized service. We pay not just for ourselves, we pay in to the pool that covers everyone. So, no, you don’t get your own police officer, your own firefighter, or your own paramedic.

If you want extra security, you have to pay for that with your own funds by hiring a private security firm. If you want your own ambulance, you pay for a private ambulance service with your own money. For private firefighters, well… come to think of it, you can pay for them, but you may not be allowed to use private firefighters. They may be turned away where the road is closed by the police, or forced out of an area that’s under an evacuation order. So the fire service you pay taxes for you have no legal claim to, but the private fire service that has a contractual right to protect you, the government doesn’t allow you to use. Once again, government at its best; deciding for you all that is best for you.

About 400 firefighters have been deployed, but the blaze is not reachable on the ground, so helicopters and at least one air tanker have been bombarding flames hard with water drops.]
One Fire-Pro USA unit standing by in area. No clients threatened at this time.

Greetings All,

First up in wildfire news today, a first-person report that debunks a popular news flash that five people foolishly let themselves be trapped on a fire-threatened ranch after being told to evacuate:

On Sunday afternoon the Station Fire ran wild in Gold Creek Cyn of the Tujunga Valley. A ranch property that was built in 1908 as a hunting lodge sat in danger’s way. The owner a 77-year-old man and 35-year resident of the valley and some of his close friends watched the fire looming closer to the property lines of the 160 acre ranch. The Fire Department and Sheriffs Dept requested that they evacuate immediately.

When asked if there would be a fire truck to defend the home when they left they we’re told there would not be, as the fire was far too dangerous to deploy firefighting equipment and men into the canyon.

The residents immediately reached out to friend Ty Bonnar who runs, Flexible Alternatives, Inc, ( Simi Valley , CA – PCADS and Flexitanks – www.flexiblealternatives.com). Ty said he could help with some of the new products that they have had developed for wildland firefighting and home protection. 6pm Sunday night 3 Fire-Pro (www.fire-pro.org) Homeowner Fire Defense Unit’s (FDU) were delivered to the property and by 8pm each of the 3 fire resistant tanks were filled with 250 gallons of water prepped with fire gel, connected to the high pressure pump and were ready to go.

By 8am Monday, the next morning, rumors of 5 people trapped in Gold Creek, who were now calling for help after refusing to evacuate, hit the airwaves. Travis Wyse who was still at the ranch, the one who, with Ty, delivered and prepared the FDU said no such call was ever made to anyone regarding an emergency evacuation. The only request made by the residents of the ranch was that no additional resources, fire fighters or effort be used for them. “We made the decision to stay and protect the property and home using the STAY AND DEFEND tactic and do not expect or request any further assistance”.

“By 12:30am early Tuesday Morning the fire actually breached the fire roads and started racing down the canyon” said Nicholas one of the residents. At 3:00am the fire had reached the ranch, at which point the residents deployed the FDU, and completely covered the entire cabin, surrounding storage sheds as well as all surrounding brush and trees, and as the quick-moving fire advanced on the gel-soaked perimeter around 4am it literally “laid down and came to a smoldering stop” says Nicholas.

The 3rd backup FDU was then used to keep what was left of the now-slow-smoldering fire at bay and put out the remaining hot spots. By 10pm the firefighters were able to enter the canyon and finish the job. The 3rd FDU was a 500 USG tank that was never used but on hand just in case.

Ty Bonnar of Flexible Alternatives said the Fire-Pro USA equipment used to protect the ranch was manufactured to the same specifications and standards as the companies Precision Container Air Delivery System (PCADS) aerial fire fighting system currently in development for Boeing’s Phantom works and the US ARMY. “This is no garden hose system, this is a professional and complete portable firefighting system”. All 5 of the people presumed trapped are now safe and unharmed, and what had been home to a 77-year-old man since 1975 has been spared, or as Sheriffs Spokesman Steve Whitmore said… “The situation resolved itself”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMWb1N74YXg

Travis Wyse
travis@greensector.com

The practice of fire agencies doing mass evacuations during wildfires may very well be a death sentence for some. The philosophy behind mass evacuation is that lives are more important than property, so flee early. Not a bad philosophy or practice, providing not everyone leaves at the same time and ends up blocking the roadways. Assuming there is an orderly evacuation as the fire is bearing down on residents, and all the people are gone from the community, no lives will be lost; that is if no firefighters are killed defending the property left behind.

But what happens when the evacuation is en mass and disorderly because a wildfire is moving so fast that the speed of the fire and the smoke and embers are already causing panic? What happens is blocked roads and unsafe driving conditions. Do people get killed evacuating? Yes, and not always because the victims “decide” to leave too late; sometimes, the fire moves so rapidly there just isn’t time to leave early.

Leaving a dangerous condition is, of course, a sane and good thing to do. The problem with mass evacuations, however, is that everyone in the area is ordered to leave, in spite of the vast difference in the level of danger. Not every home is susceptible to being destroyed by wildfire in a given area or community. Fires don’t travel like a tsunami and roll through in an unstoppable surge. Wildfires move according to available fuel, topography, and weather conditions. Homes directly against the wildland interface are much more likely to ignite as a fire moves in, and homes further away from the interface area are less likely to be ignited by the wildland vegetation burning. Homes that catch on fire in the interior of the community get ignited by ember showers, not the fire front. This is a fact, as there are numerous examples of communities involved in wildfires which prove this point.

When people are ordered to leave that aren’t in danger, along with those who need to leave, the roads become clogged by people evacuating who don’t need to, endangering everyone. The populace, and the fire agencies, need to act responsibly and rethink the mass evacuation paradigm. Fire agencies need to learn how fire behaves in the wildland interface areas, and change their attitude about people staying to defend their homes. I know the government wants to protect all of us, and that government agency personnel think they are the only people capable of defending us, but it simply isn’t true. Some people are actually endowed with just enough intelligence to take care of themselves and their families without constant bureaucratic intervention. Yeah, I know that sounds crazy.

Imagine a community of people who have prepared themselves and their homes in the event of an approaching wildfire. They would be capable of readying their homes and themselves to stay and defend their property effectively and safely. Property loss would be minimized because there would be people on site to extinguish the small fires started by embers, instead of allowing the ember fires to grow into large destructive fires which ignite even more homes. Imagine firefighters working alongside of homeowners, trained and prepared to defend their own property, and their neighbors. Imagine wildfires being a natural occurrence that we cope with, not fear. Yeah, I know that sounds crazy.

Maybe I’m crazy because I believe you are a lot more capable and intelligent than bureaucrats think you are. If you want to leave a situation because its dangerous, that’s a smart thing to do. But if you want to protect yourself, your family, and your property because you’re capable of doing so, that’s a smart thing to do also. Yeah, I may be crazy, but I’ll decide for myself when to run and when to fight; because I’ll be prepared to do either.

This is an interesting news story. It didn’t get much attention at the time. It illustrates, however, what people are feeling. “We’re on our own,” is a common thought amongst people in the rural areas. The youtube video is below.
“

http://www.sciencecodex.com/nist_study_offers_first_detailed_look_at_the_progress_of_a_wildlandurban_fire

This is a synopsis of an excellent scientific report conducted by the NIST. Let me just reiterate, its the embers igniting homes that cause these large loss of property fires. Its also the embers that cause spot fires, which ignites brush ahead of the main fire, sometimes 2 -3 miles ahead of the main fire. After the homes on the edge of the wildland urban interface ignite, the ember storm becomes that much worse. Burning homes create huge fire brands that fly through the air, igniting other homes and brush. This is why homes on the interior of the housing areas, hundreds of yards away from the wildland urban interface, start igniting. Of course, embers from the brush send out embers also, igniting homes well away from the interface.

Once again, the government has our best interest at heart, They’ll decide what is best for us, specifically concerning how you choose to protect your home during a wildfire. The fire agencies, (yes, the one that is in your community) don’t feel its appropriate for you to either stay and defend your own home, or pay private firefighters to do so. I emphasize “feel” because the fire agencies feel the way they do in spite of the facts and the science that supports the facts. But remember, the government feels your pain better than you, so can decide what is best for you (especially since you’re an idiot).

The fire agencies collectively, with talking points prescribed, are in unison with their battle cry, “You’re property isn’t worth your life.” You should be ready to go early, flee for your life and beat the rush of others evacuating. If you tarry too long, you’ll be in the way of the firefighters; then they’ll have to stop fighting the fire and save you instead. How early should you leave? Well, maybe at the first hint of a santa anna wind approaching. Or maybe during all summer and fall, when fire activity is at its height. Surely, if a fire is baring down on you, you haven’t left soon enough. Because now you’ll be stuck in traffic fleeing with everyone else. You idiot!

The California fire service has rejected the “Stay and Defend or Leave Early” concept. Not because its in your best interest, because its in their best interest. The last thing the fire service wants, and their unions, are people protecting their own homes, or private firefighters protecting them. Heck, you might not want more firefighters and more fire engines if that were to happen. Somehow, they think that a partnership would lead to their demise. What they don’t understand is we need them 24/7, 365 days a year. And we want them, because they are professionals that are trained to handle complex and life threatening situations. But, by having prepared citizens, and a force of supplemental private firefighters, these large loss of property fires can be eliminated with the fire service’s skills and leadership. Being told to run away at the slightest hint of smoke isn’t going to quell the massive property loss or save lives. Although I will agree with the fire service on this point: If you’re not present, you won’t be killed or injured by the fire. Yes, I concede that much. But how do you know when not to be present? Fires can begin and rage suddenly, whether caused by humans or nature. During a strong wind, when the humidity is low and the temperature is high, fires can spread rapidly whether its day or night. The conditions may be too hazardous to flee. For how long should you be absent, then?

I believe, because science and experience supports this position, that homeowners should prepare their homes to withstand a wildfire; then, whether you leave or stay, at least your home will be a safe refuge. Should you decide to stay put and keep your home from igniting, that should be your decision. The government shouldn’t force you out, quite possibly to a worse situation to face. The truth is, people get killed and injured fleeing fires. When your home is properly prepared, and you’re properly prepared, you’re safer in your home than outside. A house can withstand fire much better than a vehicle, and that’s a fact. On the other hand, if you want to leave, then good for you for making that decision. As long as you’re leaving in plenty of time and not jeopardizing you or your loved ones, that’s a great decision. It’s an even better decision if you’ve prepared your home to withstand a wildfire even if there’s no one available to defend it.

The bottom line is this: Ordinary citizens can safely defend their homes when properly prepared. In fact, that’s the only way the large loss of property can be avoided. Instead of the fire service yelling about the sky falling, they should be disseminating truthful, accurate, wildfire defense procedures. Not just “clear more brush, more brush!”, or preventing private firefighters and citizens from defending homes. Thousands of homes burn in spite of brush clearance, and it doesn’t make sense to turn away private firefighters who are trained and capable of saving lives and property. What’s needed is for the fire service to stop being self-serving, and start serving others. Maybe they should serve you. (Maybe they would if you weren’t considered such an idiot.)