SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
With California experiencing two years of unprecedented wildfires that have left more than 20,000 homes destroyed and scores dead, the private firefighting business is booming. These brigades work independently from county firefighters; their job is to protect specific homes under contract with insurance companies.
Their work can vary from pushing back flames as they approach properties to reaching the site before the blaze arrives and spraying homes with fire retardant.
But the private forces have generated complaints from some fire departments, who say they don't always coordinate with local crews and amount to one more worry as they try to evacuate residents and battle the blaze.
"From the standpoint of first responders, they are not viewed as assets to be deployed. They're viewed as a responsibility," said Carroll Wills, communications director for California Professional Firefighters, a labor union representing rank-and-file firefighters in the state.
What began more than a decade ago as a white-glove service for homeowners in well-to-do neighborhoods has expanded in recent years as the wildfire danger has increased, said Michael Barry, a spokesman for the Insurance Information Institute, a not-for-profit organization that educates the public about the insurance industry.
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-private-firefighters-20181127-story.html
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 29 2018, @06:35PM (75 children)
As soon as a few of them fail in a deadly fashion, the risk/cost/benefit analysis will change and it won't be worth it.
Just hoping that those mercenaries don't endanger (or worse) the real firemen before that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @06:39PM
I'll have you make a guess as to what will happen in the near future...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @06:56PM (39 children)
Sometimes they change jobs. Sometimes they just chose to work a second job instead of overtime. Sometimes they come from far away to help.
It makes sense. The city fire department is government, and they don't have to care. The insurance company calculates the cost of paying for fireman and the cost of paying the owner of a destroyed home, and then does what makes financial sense. Letting a mansion burn would be dumb. Some insurance companies even promise to send firemen, since that makes people pay more for the insurance.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:10PM (38 children)
My point is that those guys don't have the full equipment, communication, and backing of the firemen who are on the city/county/state payroll.
They may have the skills, but I've seen the Woolsey fire and the Springs fire both go by (as in: I saw the flames running on the hills).
Coordination is how you save lives and structures, when the wind is gusting over 50MPH. A team of even well-trained professionals trying to protect one thing in isolation is a liability. Potentially a very costly one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:12PM (22 children)
Why are you assuming they have crappier tools? I would expect they have superior tools.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:26PM (18 children)
They don't have planes or helicopters, because the fire area is a no-fly zone.
They may have a shiny truck, pumps and gas masks, but they usually can't legally tap the fire hydrant, and the official firemen may need every drop from it.
They can pump the pool, as long as they have electricity or gas.
They are not informed of the fire's speed and progress unless they listen to the right frequency, which they probably do, but they may miss vital information by not being in the loop.
They are not legally allowed in places closed to the public during the firefighting. They can't light counter-fires.
They have crappier tools to do the job, regardless of how shiny the gear they carry is.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:30PM (17 children)
I searched "private firefighter plane" and found this immediately:
https://www.wildfirex.com/private-firefighting/ [wildfirex.com]
You are just making shit up without even doing 2 seconds of due diligence.
(Score: 5, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:44PM (16 children)
Your article:
> afford government agencies the flexibility to bring in additional resources only when needed. This is a more cost-effective solution.
> Furthermore, the costs of training, insurance, benefits, gear and transportation costs are all borne by the contractor.
You are conflating "private companies contracted by the state to provide firefighting support services" (not the topic) with "private firefighters defending specific structures" (the topic). The first is under the coordination of the firefighting command, while the second is not.
You can get confused because the article you link conflates the two, since the same private company may provide both. That's ok. Just don't think others are "making shit up" because you don't understand nuances.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:04PM (15 children)
Where did I conflate these two scenarios? You claimed they couldnt use aircraft around a fire because it was a no fly zone. The link says they can.
It probably doesnt make any sense to deploy an aircraft to protect specific houses, but that has nothing to do with the ability to do so if they wanted. For example, if there were enough houses they covered in the path of the fire.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:12PM (3 children)
Yep, you still don't get it.
Private companies contract with the state to fly firefighting aircraft for the firemen: They get to fly on the fire, dropping where the firefighters tell them to drop.
Private companies contract with people/insurance to defend specific homes: They don't get to fly on the fire. They are not acting for a public agency, the no-fly applies to them.
Two different kinds of services. Two different kinds of contracts.
(Score: 1, Troll) by qzm on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:55PM (2 children)
No, we do get it.
You make money through some path to state firefighting, and you dont like competition. We see that.
However, you need to realize that it is so transparent that the excuses you are making up are just childish at this stage.
The complain seems to boil down to 'we dont want them here because only WE are allowed to do this job' regardless of results.
I suspect there is a strong undercurrent of 'its embarrassing when we say an area is unsaveable, and they go and save it, humph'
However, using government enforcement to STOP other third parties fighting the fires? Sounds like something from old Russia..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by edIII on Friday November 30 2018, @04:03AM (1 child)
No, I really think it is you guys that don't get it. This is starting to sound a little like the mercenaries versus soldiers argument. Mercenaries should never even be remotely considered, but the black mark on the US soul is there nonetheless.
This is about coordination, responsibility, authorization, and not about financial competition or competition between public and private solutions. The excuses are hardly transparent, and your hand wave dismissal of them doesn't cut it. Either answer to the specific arguments, or bow out.
"We" don't want them there because of the saying, "Too many chiefs, not enough indians". If there is a way for them to be fully certified, regulated, and interact with the chain of command, then why not? As bob_super pointed out, this does happen already. There are private companies working for public agency, and when they do, they are incorporated into the chain of command. The fire chief is aware of them, logistics and planning includes them, evacuation plans consider them, etc.
When the call comes to move back and adjust the containment lines, all private assets need to move as one with the public assets. You do otherwise, and the public assets are now tasked with providing support to the private assets, which should be fucking listening to the coordinators. Not being all macho, Red Adair style, "Fuck that! We got a property to save! Company image on the line! Shareholders to excite!". Then go running into the fire on Evil Knieval's motorcycle.
Firefighters don't just give up, they're in a constant strategic battle with nature, and sometimes nature can just push too fucking hard. Armies retreat for a reason, so do firefighters.
Now you're being stupid as well as ignorant. There is no undercurrent of fucking anything you prick, much less embarrassment. Try stepping foot in Northern California and insulting the firemen with claims of incompetence and big egos, and you will get punched the fuck out, if not carried out by a mob to the nearest airport. Understandably, we love our fire fighters. A LOT. Disparaging them makes you look like a Grade A Gaping Asshole.
"unsaveable [sic]"?
This is your profound fucking ignorance speaking. Yes, indeed, you stupid fucking dumbass, IT WAS UNSAVABLE. It's not a matter of manpower, or courage, or dedication, when you have the conditions we had. Period.
What part of +80mph winds in the fire over a year ago, and worse conditions this year, do you not fully understand? Do you really think we have the technology to stop a fire in its tracks, that has low humidity conditions with high amounts of fuel around it with very high winds pushing it? If you do, you must be simply beside yourself at the passing of Spongebob Squarepants creator, Mr. Hillenburg. You must believe Bikini Bottom's physics are possible :)
When people cannot escape by car fast enough because their engines cannot get enough oxygen, when the flash point of materials is hit within seconds of the fire approaching, when fires jump 10 lane highways, there is going to be a lot of truly unsavable properties.
Public, or private, nothing is going to stop that. Which is why it is so crucial to learn from this, and instead of encourage money wasted on private fire fighting companies for reactive services, pay them to set prescribed fires under the guidance of the proper public agency. That removes the major condition contributing to these disasters, and that is an insane abundance of fuel. I doubt you are even cognizant about how fragile and impacted our forests are in California, or about the ongoing efforts under way to address it.
I'm not against private, and neither is Bob_super (who you claim is biased and making money somehow), but want private instead to be hired and operated by public agency. Either that, or the laws are incredibly clear during catastrophes that private agencies must immediately comply with directives by the public agency. In other words, private is not in charge.
Make no mistake. These were giant fucking catastrophes, not relatively harmless little house/apartment fires that take out 1 or 2 structures. We lost thousands in the space of hours. Get your head out of your fucking ass, and you owe an apology to the firefighters you disparage.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday November 30 2018, @05:52PM
Generally I agree with you, but I do see one error in your above statements:
If the public fire department had the budget to have these private corporations working for them, they probably would be already. The problem is that there are people trying to throw more money at the problem of the fires, money that the public government either doesn't have or isn't willing to allocate that way. Granted, you could say that they should just donate to the fire department directly, but particularly since the money is coming from insurance companies, they're probably not very interested in donating to people who they don't necessarily represent. And I don't really see why there can't be a middle ground between "they must be hired and paid by the state" vs "they are not a legitimate organization and should not be allowed to operate."
In general, I don't really accept that the government ought to be trying to protect me from myself. If that's true, then civil rights are a rather meaningless concept. Mandatory evacuations which criminalize attempts to act as a "good Samaritan" are categorically immoral IMO. Of course, that would also mean that they have no obligation to help you -- which is actually true already, so that's not a technical or a legal problem; if the public firefighters are changing tactics just to defend these dopes then they're doing it purely for the PR value. And I don't think that's necessarily something we should be building laws and public policy around.
And if we do decide to fully commit to the idea of government agents trying to protect people from their own stupidity, then why not have a certification program so that you can go try to defend your or your clients' property as long as you demonstrate that you're capable of working well with others? You've got a lot of manpower and a lot of equipment that's trying to help with your mission -- or at least some part of it, which could still free up resources to be used elsewhere -- and you're just going to tell them all to GTFO? How does that make any sense?
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:13PM
This entire problem of coordinating with "firefighter command" is made up just like the rest of bob_super's arguments:
https://wildfire-defense.com/wildfire-response-program.html [wildfire-defense.com]
But I got the troll mod...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:15PM (9 children)
I thought about replying seriously to you, but if you are unable to make sense of this rather simple thread then you've got bigger problems anyway.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:26PM (8 children)
I understand the thread perfectly fine. Bob_super claims these private firefighting agencies could not use firefighting aircraft (which they do have access to) if they wanted to because it requires "coordinating with the firefighting command", as if that is some insurmountable task.
The actual reason they don't use that tactic to protect private land (at least not often) is it is not cost effective for protecting individual homes.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 29 2018, @10:04PM (7 children)
Bullshit.
There are legal implications to taking your private craft to a firefighting zone. Unless you are explicitly contracted and certified for it, you're a liability, to the guys in the air and on the ground, and a lawsuit waiting to happen.
My neighbor is becoming a fire department helicopter pilot. He's going through years of police and fire-specific training (at least 4, maybe 5).
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @10:30PM (6 children)
I thought you already agreed that the private firefighting agencies had access to people with these qualifications:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=28819&page=1&cid=767899#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
So we are going in circles now as you try to cover for making shit up.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:02PM (5 children)
Can you understand the fucking comment you quote ?
If you're not under contract with the fire agencies, it doesn't matter how good you are, you ain't flying.
You're a liability, even if you can single-handedly stop the fire with an auto-gyro.
The agency contract checks your qualifications, and deals with liabilities if your mere presence results in any damage, injury or death. No contract, no playing near the big boys, no legal standing to be in evacuated zones.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @12:24AM (4 children)
Please just stop pulling shit out from nowhere...
1) Whats your evidence for this in general?
2) What is your evidence that being certified as an insurance response resource is insufficient for this?
I am NOT talking about the need to get some sort of approval from the local fire/whatever authorities. You are saying it is basically impossible to legally do anything involving flying around in these areas unless you are being paid by the government.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday November 30 2018, @12:52AM (3 children)
https://tfr.faa.gov/tfr2/about.jsp [faa.gov]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @01:19AM (2 children)
This doesnt answer my questions. We all know already about the existence of restricted airspace.
The issue is whether private firefighting air personnel could get approval to enter if they so desired (assume they have all the same certifications as the gov-paid ones who are being allowed to fly). I mean really it isnt "whether" they could, it is what would they need to do to accomplish it. You claim there is no way?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bob_super on Friday November 30 2018, @02:03AM (1 child)
Outside of active battlefield air support, I can't think of a more dangerous mission for a pilot than low-flying surrounded by smoke, shifting winds, and extreme thermals. It's hell.
Would you allow guys who, regardless of training, have different objectives and do not answer to the same chain of command ?
Fire support aircraft collisions have happened before, and nobody wants to make a terrible situation worse.
I was watching up to 6 aircraft attacking a hot spot at the top of my mountain. It's an awesome synchronized ballet where the two small tankers, the bigger one, and the three helicopters come in sequence. I'm pretty sure that they rehearse regularly to avoid mishaps (need to ask the neighbor).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @02:09AM
OK, so you are just assuming things based on some weird fantasy world where the right money wouldnt make it happen.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:51PM (2 children)
Well, I'm assuming it because the first thing a newly privatised organisation does is cut back on expensive equipment and general maintenance (gotta make next quarter's bottom line look good).
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @12:28AM (1 child)
Have you ever worked for the gov? They spend the most possible money on the cheapest possible bidder that meets some weird politically/committee defined criteria. So I would never assume the gov employees had the better equipment.
(Score: 2) by fido_dogstoyevsky on Friday November 30 2018, @04:31AM
Yes.
Sometimes, but that's restricted to the bidder, not the equipment. If the user needs a particular thing then that's what the bidders have to bid on.
It's NOT a conspiracy... it's a plot.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NewNic on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:21PM (14 children)
I think you have no clue what the Paradise fire was like. No one was trying to save structures. The fire was so intense and moved so quickly that saving structures simply wasn't an option. These fires are not extinguished by any firefighters.
What the firefighters do is limit the fire and allow it to burn itself out. Fires stop burning when there is no more fuel.
Furthermore, roads were congested and people such as these private crews moving in and out might lead to more deaths, simply because of the volume of traffic in narrow roads. People died trying to escape the fires. Should these private firefighters be allowed to cause more deaths?
The photo in the article shows a house that is not surrounded by forest. I don't think it is typical of Paradise.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:41PM (13 children)
Entirely correct. Having been within miles of this shit happening, I can tell you that your butthole will hit a pucker factor of 11 when you see tall flames moving at you at over 5 miles per hour. In Paradise, I heard an official claiming that in the high winds it was moving many ACRES per minute. So many people died because they couldn't move fast enough. One of my friends, who was kinda of an idiot, was rushing in to save equipment, and turned back when his engine started stuttering from a lack of oxygen. He's very lucky to still be here with us today, and his pictures/video are haunting.
Private firefighting crews in Paradise would've just died. Period. There was no saving jack shit, and the only sane action anyone can take is RUN. There is no saving any structures, and fire insurance for that purpose is just fucking stupid and wishful thinking on the part of the insurance companies and property owners. A regular fire in town, under normal weather conditions, might be handled by private fire crews. That's assuming that they don't get in the way of the official firemen. A forest fire with tinder built up for decades and a good portion of the forest dead under wind conditions of +80mph? RUN. Don't stop. Don't look back. RUN. I can't imagine the level of technology required to stand your ground and fight that.
I can say it, and keep trying to explain it, but there is nothing more terrifying than trying to escape fast moving fire that is engulfing trees all around you and 50 ft. tall. Experiencing a black wall of smoke going high up into the sky, and as far to the left and right as you can almost see, that is also moving towards you? I'm still dealing with a high pucker factor, and the smell of smoke gets me nervous :)
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @12:31AM (7 children)
I don't think you get what more firefighters would have been able to do. Yea, protecting individual houses under that circumstance is not going to work. The problem is letting it get to that point in the first place by not having enough people to clear out the fuel in the fire's path.
(Score: 4, Informative) by edIII on Friday November 30 2018, @01:30AM (6 children)
No, No, No. You're not fucking listening. 5 MILES PER HOUR. By the time you organize and get 1,000 firefighters, or even 50 firefighters, ready to counter-burn, clear out brush with heavy equipment, it's already all over. In 12 minutes, just 12 minutes, the fire has already consumed everything for a mile. So you already giving up a mile or two of structures and/or forest, just to have 12 minutes ahead of it to clear out what amounts to a couple square miles of fuel? Really? You think more could've helped? Not even 10,000 people working as hard as they could, could stop such a beast in its tracks.
You're not fucking getting it at all. People barely made it, and that was running the moment they saw the fire, as fast as they could. Even if the firefighters could've responded in 60 seconds, it would've still been pointless. They're were people that died in their cars, and if you can't make it out in a car, what the fuck are firefighters going to do? You think they have special fire trucks that breathe something other than oxygen?
Fuel plus +80mph winds and low humidity conditions is not something that firefighters can handle. It's just not. You don't understand the sheer order of magnitude involved in this, the number of square miles that needs to be contained, or the timing. Too much work, in too little time, under too dangerous of conditions.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @01:54AM (1 child)
Relax. I think GP's argument is just "rake the forest" to get rid of that pesky fuel. GP is trolling or lost in propaganda. Poe's law is a bitch.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @02:06AM
What is trolling or propaganda about that post? It is literally what I was told by someone who does that. They manage forest fires by doing pre-emptive controlled burns. It sounds like Fahrenheit 451 for firefighters to be lighting fires, but so be it.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @02:03AM (3 children)
Well, what I was told by my buddy (who does this for a living) is that this should have all been cleared long ago but the government refuses to fund it due to "muh deficits or whatever". AFAIK, It isn't something you would do once there is a fire nearby. But I guess hes doesn't know anything about it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Friday November 30 2018, @04:25AM (2 children)
We are talking about two different things.
1) Reactive
2) Proactive
You are correct about funds and the proactive efforts, and your buddy is correct that prescribed burn activities wouldn't be performed during a reactionary event.
Under appropriate guidance, I can't see why a private firefighting company cannot be contracted to perform a prescribed burn, as long as everyone is following the regulations and certified. The major problem has been that funds have been allocated for #1, but never enough for #2. There is a difference between state and federal budgets too, as well as what they're doing to prevent fires in the future.
My points are about the sheer silliness of expecting #2 operations during an extreme #1 event. You don't have a lot of time for prescribed burns, at least not near the epicenter. Not in a way that you could've saved everything. With the winds these fires were jumping 10 lane highways. If it can do that, then just how much do you think you need to clear, and in what time frame? Adding private resources doesn't change the fate of these properties, even if private is allocated on a 1:1 basis somehow. Not in this kind of event, with these very extreme conditions.
Under the conditions of #1, as experienced by Northern California, I agree they shouldn't attempt it. Which was my point. That even with those resources, both private and public, it will be about containment, and you have to give up properties to the fire. You can't stand your ground with the conditions we faced. You just can't, and you would understand that if you were there. It was pure hell, and a testament to all the firefighters that they even slowed it down, much less contained it.
Having private companies involved during these kinds of events is nonsensical, unless they are directly tied in to the chain of command. They'll give up the properties too, or they'll just die. The problem I have with that, is that the public firefighters will disengage from their efforts to save the men trying to save the unsavable properties. I would rather see the private firefighters team up with public firefighters and coordinate their efforts at containment. *THAT* could actually make a real difference.
This perceived pissing match doesn't help anyone, and the request the private agencies coordinate with public isn't unreasonable. At all.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @06:46AM (1 child)
Ok, there is a fire. And there is a clear path that fire will take. And there are people who say lets cut this fire off weeks/months/years ahead of when it reach the target at the fastest rate a fire has ever spread. Would you hire them?
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 30 2018, @09:28PM
Uhhh, no, because they're fucking dipshits according to you.
Not sure what you are saying either. They can cut off the fire off weeks ahead of time? Do they have Miss Cleo on the payroll? Or are you talking about proactive behavior to reduce the availability of fuel, create fire breaks where possible, and take the necessary steps to make sure our forests get the water they need (Kick Nestle out)? First there is a fire, and then somehow there is a clear path it will take? Really? Right there you are full of it. Nobody is predicting in advance how a fire will move, because almost nobody can predict the winds in advance.
Proactive steps make sense, and I already said that private companies that can meet the certifications (they have proper training) should be able to be hired by the state, to be MANAGED by the state in performing prescribed burns in our forests. That is what happens "years" ahead of the possible fire.
During reactive situations, in which your "weeks/months/years" makes zero sense, private companies should be forced by law to be cooperating with the public agencies handling the catastrophe. There are no proactive measures possible during these events, not ones that can happen within hours, or the minutes required. Containment means giving up properties, which goes against the goals of the private companies, but is chosen because those properties have ZERO chance.
You and the others are actually quite cute with your insistence that private efforts could somehow trump public ones, and they could've saved Paradise. Get this through your head; Paradise was doomed the second the fire started.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by deimtee on Friday November 30 2018, @12:35AM (4 children)
Is that a typo? Aussie bushfires with a tailwind have hit 50 miles per hour. (although that is extreme, Check out the Black Saturday article on wikipedia).
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 30 2018, @01:42AM (3 children)
Not a typo. I remember that the night the fires started there were +80mph winds going through the mountains and hills around us. With the winds at 80mph, the front of the fire was consuming everything and moving at 5mph. So, walking at a brisk pace, while everything around explodes into flames, was the way I heard it described. I know the +80mph winds is not a typo. I could be wrong, and it may have been moving at some points much faster than 5mph, and probably closer to the wind speed. The recent fire in Paradise I'm told, moved even faster. At some points, it must've been moving damn near wind speed, because people in cars couldn't make it out in time.
That's why a lot of people around here are full of shit today acting like armchair firefighters with plenty of assumptions. When something moves at even 5mph, coordinating and containing it is quite a task, and it won't be possible to save everything. 12 minutes per mile, or if you're correct, less than that.
What do you do with catastrophe moving that fast towards you? I don't think any number of firefighters could've stopped it quick enough, which is why these things last for weeks at a time now, and take out entire towns, and whole parts of cities.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by deimtee on Friday November 30 2018, @04:29AM
You Die.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires [wikipedia.org]
Scroll down to Overall Statistics. Equivalent to 1500 Hiroshima bombs. Flames over 100 metres high. Pyrocumulous clouds. The fire was intense and energetic enough that it was causing lightning within the firestorm. The foliage on trees at the front didn't catch fire, it exploded and added to the rolling blast.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Friday November 30 2018, @06:13AM (1 child)
I'm not sure how it would work out in terms of miles per hour, but according to SFGate [sfgate.com]:
I might be wrong, but that sounds like it'd have to be moving more than 5 miles per hour.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Friday November 30 2018, @08:26AM
Been awhile since I did this kind of math, feel free to correct if I messed up.
Lets say the fire burns outward in perfect circle to keep it simple.
time = 0 hr radius= 0 surface area=0
time =1 hr radius =5mi surface area =~78 square miles
time = 2 hr radius = 10mi surface area =~314 square miles
time = 3 hr radius = 15mi surface area =~ 706 square miles
time = 4 hr radius = 20mi surface area =~ 1,256 square miles
and the bigger the radius the faster the surface area goes up, so even a "slow" fire can eat up a lot of area in very little time.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @06:58PM (25 children)
This is less about amateurs getting in the way and more about free market professionals doing the job the California government cannot.
If you don't want a private company protecting your house from those fires, that's nice for you. But let's not rush to judge those people who want to save homes from Californincompetance.
Also, organized fire departments with fancy gear were private organizations long before they were public.
I personally like having a government funded fire department, but I also like to have the freedom to replace them if they can't handle the job.
No matter how brave or skillful the Cali Firemen are, they just don't have the numbers or the budget to handle the job that's been given to them.
They should welcome outside help, paid for by private budgets, not complain about it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilPapa on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:13PM (5 children)
Except these private firemen aren't "replacing" anyone. The regular firemen are still on the hook to deal with the fire and now they have to deal with some other guys who've gotten in their way. So if one of these private firemen gets hurt, it's going to be on the taxpayer's dime to go and haul their ass out.
It would be one thing if the people hiring private firefighters signed some kind of waiver saying they understand they're not going to get help from the public firefighters. They want it both ways.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:27PM
In the article it says this has been going on for years, yet this scenario has never happened:
So, it doesnt seem to be a very big price to pay for thousands or tens of thousands of people not having their house burn down.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:35PM (3 children)
Pretty much this.
The firefighters don't like to let a mansion burn. There's pride in saving buildings. There's even tax revenue in saving buildings.
When those guys say "let this one burn, focus elsewhere", it's partially because they have limited manpower (one firefighter per house, nothing will burn, right?), but that doesn't mean that adding a few guys tasked with one specific place to defend is actually helping.
But you're answering to someone who claims it's somehow CA incompetence that suddenly causes year-round fire season (Thomas fire was in December last year), longer dry wind episodes, and the need to reassess where people live and how much we should allocate to fight fires. Not worth our time.
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:07PM (2 children)
Probably less than you think, because of Prop 13. Many of those houses will have property tax valuations that are little more, or even less, than the real value of the land they were sitting on.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:16PM (1 child)
But more than a heap of ash ...
- Save it !
But less than the mansion that will replace it if it burns down
- Abandon it !
But it could take a few years before that's built, offsetting the gain
- ... Err, what do I do, chief ?
(Score: 2) by NewNic on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:38PM
As always: save the people.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 3, Interesting) by archfeld on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:21PM (7 children)
A great portion of the homes lost in the wildfires were due to lack of foresight and failure of maintenance. Whether the landscape control and clean up was the responsibility of the resident, the landlord, the county, the state, or the Feds varies greatly depending on the area, but there was a huge failure nonetheless. Some times bad things happen, but usually they are assisted by a lack of cleanup.
Our local fire department, outside the city in unincorporated county area is by subscription only. They will show up and insure that the fire does not spread, and allow you to suddenly decide you need fire service but at that point it is more expensive than the $900.00/year.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Thursday November 29 2018, @10:54PM (6 children)
> A great portion of the homes lost in the wildfires were due to lack of foresight and failure of maintenance.
Tell that to the people who lost a house in the middle of an urban area, after the fire jumped a 10-lane highway.
At this wind speeds, the only foresight applicable is "don't live anywhere anything can burn a mile upwind", which is more obvious for the isolated houses in the Santa Monica mountains than for the houses which burnt in the heart of Thousand Oaks, or 90% of the city of Paradise.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 30 2018, @12:09AM (5 children)
I gather more than a few houses were destroyed. That means they're not a great portion of the homes lost. I don't get what the point of the exercise is supposed to be. "We're very sorry that you lost your home so we're going to implement dumb societal changes in order to feel better about ourselves."
Sure, private firefighters get in the way of public ones. But there wouldn't be so many of them to get in the way, if California was doing its job.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @03:47AM (1 child)
"if California was doing its job."
You're a moron. You're not genetically hampered so I can only guess you are evil and say moronic things due to your lack of moral fiber. Best of luck in hell buddy.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 30 2018, @02:23PM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by edIII on Friday November 30 2018, @04:34AM (2 children)
Not that simple. Nobody has been doing their job, and there was a multi-decade period in which the prevailing paradigm was stop fires at all costs everywhere to protect public land and properties. The environmentalists were wrong in this case. Forest fires are natural and required.
We've known this for over 10 years now, and there ARE efforts underway. You might like this article regarding them [yale.edu].
It's both the feds and the states too, and the main issue is that funds are allocated for reactionary behavior, and not the proactive behavior we desperately need. If you read the article, it's bad. Really, really bad.
The only reason why I'm against the private companies here is that saving the properties in these cases now isn't possible when experience these "perfect storm" conditions we have. Yes, it was due to many people dropping the ball in the last few decades.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Friday November 30 2018, @02:20PM (1 child)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by edIII on Friday November 30 2018, @07:59PM
I agree with you what you said, as well as your other comments (you were on fire, no pun intended :), and California has its own share of mismanagement. What I don't think is helpful though, is forgetting the role of the feds in it. California isn't the only state with forests either, and I don't think we are responsible for most of our forests. Although, you are correct, California still needs to make sure that the feds are doing there job too. The buck stops with the top leadership in California.
It's a blame game right now, and that's unhelpful because the blame can be shared everywhere. Let's just hope this results in more funding for prescribed burns, and working with the timber industry to clear dead forests where possible.
I pray something constructive comes out of this.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by archfeld on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:28PM (4 children)
How is California responsible for the federal forestry service not maintaining national forest areas due to claims of lack of funds ? Some of the areas in question were indeed state parks but the greatest portion of the areas were federal and private lands that should have been kept up by residents or the national forest service.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/USA_National_Forests_Map.jpg [wikimedia.org]
Either way sometimes bad shit just happens and the deaths are a huge tragedy :(
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 30 2018, @12:11AM (3 children)
Because it's California's responsibility to make sure those other parties do their job too.
(Score: 3, Informative) by archfeld on Friday November 30 2018, @01:10AM (1 child)
While I can't argue that California is the most affected, how do you as a State force the Federal government to do anything ? It would be awesome if you could figure a way to force congress to do something, actually anything would be a novelty. The only thing they seem to do regardless of which party is in charge is filibuster or grandstand issuing bills that are never going get out of committee.
Also California is not the only state affected. Washington and Oregon also suffered heavily this year from fires that occurred in or on federal land or national forests.
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 30 2018, @02:25PM
The same way any bureaucracy prods another: communication, money, and courts. But it has to be important enough to the bureaucracy that someone does it.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 30 2018, @04:37AM
Touche! Hard to argue with that one there :)
Don't let the Feds off the hook though. Stick it to them as hard as you are sticking to the individual states.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:54PM (4 children)
Sorry, but bullshit. The problem you have is profound ignorance. These are not normal fires, but forest fires with insane amounts of dry tinder, under low humidity conditions, with high winds (+80mph). You're full of it, trying to make it a political issue about forest management and states versus the feds (of which the feds manage more forest in California, than California does).
This is like trying to make sure your house doesn't burn down in the face of a slow moving nuclear explosion, while everybody official (and with a brain), is trying to evacuate people and just save lives. Except, you have insurance that mandates that some other poor schmucks have to go in and try to save your property in hopeless suicidal attempts. There is practically zero chance of success in these catastrophic fires. That is what you are ignorant about.
Yeah, when they go in and fuck up, even with their shiny private equipment, it will be the real firemen that have to try to save them. That's because the firemen aren't stupid, but know that the structures cannot be saved and they're switching to saving lives. While the private firemen are obligated to try to save a structure that is doomed.
Keep thinking you can fight these kinds of fires. You can't. It's called containment, and prayer.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by archfeld on Friday November 30 2018, @01:24AM (3 children)
"...Either way sometimes bad shit just happens and the deaths are a huge tragedy :(…"
I agree totally as I stated in the above sentence. But even when the bad shit happens some of it could have been mitigated by following the regulations and that has NOTHING to do with competence of the fire fighters be they state, federal or even the volunteer fire fighters from all over. What I want is for us as a whole to take the lesson to heart and do what we can to ensure the situation doesn't deteriorate to this degree again. Perhaps before you start calling people ignorant, you should read the comment and try to fully digest and understand it.
The ignorant can be educated, stupid is forever. Which one are you ?
For the NSA : Explosives, guns, assassination, conspiracy, primers, detonators, initiators, main charge, nuclear charge
(Score: 3, Informative) by edIII on Friday November 30 2018, @02:36AM (2 children)
Calling somebody ignorant is not a character attack. It's kinda like the horn on a car. By default, it's informational, not a sign of intense disrespect that requires road rage.
I did fully digest the comment, thank you very much. Yes, they are very much ignorant of what these kinds of fires are. It's not about accepting the help of private firefighters, which is fairly dumb and stupid on its own, but whether or not the goal of saving property is even feasible, desirable, or achievable, without becoming a liability and a hindrance to the official firefighting crews. As Bob_super pointed out, without actually being part of the firefighters, you don't have access to the organization and coordination that is happening at the highest levels. That is because you have multiple, multiple groups with different goals trying to operate in the same space. The officials trying to save lives, then property, and the insurance hired firefighters that are trying to save properties, and not so much lives. They're mutually exclusive goals in catastrophes of this magnitude. There are normal fires, then there is the literal hell that opens up with these events. Without being hyperbolic in any way, shape, or form, these events have to be literally orders of magnitude greater than a typical fire in terms of size, speed, and ferocity. You really need to see one up close, and then you will understand. That's what I mean by ignorance, and you probably share it. You should be grateful that you are, and I hope you are ignorant.
Under normal conditions, have a private force all you want. Under these conditions, those groups either need to stay out, or the public needs to hire them on the spot, integrate them into the chain of command, and get them started. That does happen, btw. There were volunteers running heavy equipment to clear out areas trying to contain the fire working with the fire officials.
Which has nothing to do with the argument of private versus public firefighters. The lesson is a simple one; The environmentalists that brought about the paradigm of fighting all fires no matter what, were literally retarded. The good news is that we are working it, we have learned, and we even have plans and goals to mitigate this shit in the future. The bad news? Multi-year drought, almost entire forests dead (not kidding), the lack of prescribed burns for decades, and nobody anywhere being responsible for cleaning up underbrush and dead trees. It wasn't as simple as letting the timber industry in either, because they've already stated that some of these places are just too remote for them to operate in.
California has prescribed burns for some time now with a goal of 1.25 million acres per year. That's what needs to be funded more than fire fighting. Fire prevention.
It's the magnitude of the work that is a problem. We've still got a lot of work to do, literally millions of trees needing to be cut down.
I got these from somebody here:
Prescribed burning in California [yale.edu]
PMS 484 [nwcg.gov]
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @07:00AM (1 child)
I dunno. I've heard similar excuses wabout why since both the US president and the US vice president's wives got diagnosed with cancer, then tens of billions of dollars every year were directed towards a cure for cancer only lead to the conclusion "cancer is many diseases".
So we cant cure it, but also we never liked using math to make predictions, or do anything else reminiscent of science, but it is too hard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @12:39PM
Cancer for the most part is a lot more treatable now than it was even 10 years ago. Just because we now know cancer is many diseases, that doesn't mean we haven't made any progress or have given up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @01:57AM
Go to hell, neoliberal scum.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:45PM
Marcus Licinius Crassus, is that you rearing your ugly head again?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_firefighting#Rome [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:46PM (6 children)
Heh, I knew I wouldn't be disappointed. I knew the douches would crawl out of the woodwork to support letting people's houses burn rather than cutting into the livelihoods of employees of the state.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:06PM (3 children)
As I already said: I just saw the Woolsey fire go by, on top of the mountain in front of my house.
I know people whose house burnt, and people whose houses were only spared because of firemen and luck.
I even know people without fire insurance, whose house burnt.
Gladly we only got a couple deaths, unlike the Paradise-under-the-flammable-trees guys, and that's because the firemen focused on the living, not your supreme offense of "letting people's houses burn" (which reduces the state's income more than a few deaths).
When the wind gusts above 40MPH for three days and nights, you can put a thousand more guys on the ground, on rocky hilly terrain like Westlake and Malibu the fire is pretty much gonna go where it's gonna go, jumping arbitrary distances over highways and lakes, and the horizontal smoke is gonna move both private and public firemen out of its way, and houses with good clearance and luck maybe will still stand, while random others will just be reduced to a chimney. The only thing that really stopped the Santa-Ana-stoked fire was the ocean, like during he Springs fire 5 years ago.
The mercenaries who stand to make money are happy to use our tragedy to advertise their services. Don't join them in assholery.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:51PM
About as useful as asking a pig not to eat shit...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 30 2018, @12:25AM
Except when it doesn't, of course. Fire breaks like anything humans make aren't intended to be perfect.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Saturday December 01 2018, @12:09PM
And if people are happy to pay for and receive their services, what on earth makes you think you have any justification to shit on them?
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:09PM
Reading comprehension my main douchenozzle, reading comprehension.
"As soon as a few of them fail in a deadly fashion, the risk/cost/benefit analysis will change and it won't be worth it."
- Just a statement about how this industry may collapse, insurance companies won't want to continue using such services if a lawsuit awards the family of a dead worker lots of money.
"Just hoping that those mercenaries don't endanger (or worse) the real firemen before that."
- Seems reasonable
Nowhere do I see anything about letting someone's house burn because it is ruining "union jobs" or whatever your crazy brain comes up with. Not a single firefighter is likely to lose their job due to these fire mercs. Not being fully coordinated with the actual firefighters could very well endanger the mercs or fire fighters.
You sure you're not a Trump fan? You're starting to sound like him.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday November 30 2018, @12:06AM
You're just profoundly ignorant in this case. I'm sorry, but you have absolutely no clue about how impossible it is to fight these fires. They. Cannot. Be. Fought. Only contained, and in increasing percentages of containment.
For whatever reason, regardless of who's fault it is, there are forests dying almost everywhere in America it seems. The amount of underbrush and tinder in general was huge, we were already in a multi-year drought, a good percentage of the trees have died to a lack of water, and there were 80mph plus winds dude.
Until you've seen Armageddon up close, and a fiery death closing in on you at 5-10mph, you will not understand how it irresponsible it is to allow private firefighters to operate under the strict paradigm of saving specific property at all costs. Do you not understand that the winds are 80mph, which causes the fire to be moving towards you almost as fast as you can run? Evacuation of all people is the only way to deal with fires of this nature.
Now, a normal fire in town, even one spreading to multiple buildings, is different. As long as the private crews stay out of the way of the official ones, I say let them do what they want.
We need a new word instead of fire. Firestorm? Satan's Flatulence? I dunno, but fire makes it almost sound cute, quaint, and manageable.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.