Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Thursday November 29 2018, @05:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the a-seller's-market dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @06:56PM (39 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @06:56PM (#767844)

    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)

    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:10PM (#767856)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:12PM (#767863)

      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.

      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)

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:26PM (#767870)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:30PM (#767873)

          They don't have planes

          I searched "private firefighter plane" and found this immediately:

          The Rim Fire, the largest wildfire in the lower 48 states this year, saw privately operated aerial firefighting companies deploy their aircraft to the site of the fire in California’s Tuolumne County and Yosemite National Park.

          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)

            by bob_super (1357) on Thursday November 29 2018, @07:44PM (#767878)

            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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:04PM (#767891)

              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)

                by bob_super (1357) on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:12PM (#767899)

                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)

                  by qzm (3260) on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:55PM (#768043)

                  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)

                    by edIII (791) on Friday November 30 2018, @04:03AM (#768144)

                    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.

                    I suspect there is a strong undercurrent of 'its embarrassing when we say an area is unsaveable, and they go and save it, humph'

                    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

                      by urza9814 (3954) on Friday November 30 2018, @05:52PM (#768367) Journal

                      Generally I agree with you, but I do see one error in your above statements:

                      "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.

                      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

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:13PM (#767901)

                This entire problem of coordinating with "firefighter command" is made up just like the rest of bob_super's arguments:

                WDS’s certification as an insurance response resource enables our engine crews to coordinate with Incident Command of an active wildfire event. As a certified wildfire resource we follow the same protocols and directives as municipal fire departments and state and federal wildfire agencies.

                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)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:15PM (#767904)

                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)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @08:26PM (#767916)

                  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)

                    by bob_super (1357) on Thursday November 29 2018, @10:04PM (#767955)

                    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)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2018, @10:30PM (#767965)

                      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).

                      I thought you already agreed that the private firefighting agencies had access to people with these qualifications:

                      Private companies contract with the state to fly firefighting aircraft for the firemen

                      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)

                        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:02PM (#767995)

                        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)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @12:24AM (#768054)

                          Please just stop pulling shit out from nowhere...

                          If you're not under contract with the fire agencies, it doesn't matter how good you are, you ain't flying.

                          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)

                            by bob_super (1357) on Friday November 30 2018, @12:52AM (#768074)
                            • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @01:19AM (2 children)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @01:19AM (#768084)

                              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)

                                by bob_super (1357) on Friday November 30 2018, @02:03AM (#768099)

                                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

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @02:09AM (#768106)

                                  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)

        by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:51PM (#768039)

        Why are you assuming they have crappier tools? I would expect they have superior tools.

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @12:28AM (#768056)

          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

            by fido_dogstoyevsky (131) <axehandleNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Friday November 30 2018, @04:31AM (#768153)

            Have you ever worked for the gov?

            Yes.

            They spend the most possible money on the cheapest possible bidder that meets some weird politically/committee defined criteria

            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)

      by NewNic (6420) on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:21PM (#768014) Journal

      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)

        by edIII (791) on Thursday November 29 2018, @11:41PM (#768030)

        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)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @12:31AM (#768059)

          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)

            by edIII (791) on Friday November 30 2018, @01:30AM (#768089)

            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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @01:54AM (#768095)

              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

                by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @02:06AM (#768103)

                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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @02:03AM (#768100)

              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.

              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)

                by edIII (791) on Friday November 30 2018, @04:25AM (#768150)

                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)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 30 2018, @06:46AM (#768195)

                  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

                    by edIII (791) on Friday November 30 2018, @09:28PM (#768469)

                    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)

          by deimtee (3272) on Friday November 30 2018, @12:35AM (#768063) Journal

          at over 5 miles per hour

          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)

            by edIII (791) on Friday November 30 2018, @01:42AM (#768091)

            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

              by deimtee (3272) on Friday November 30 2018, @04:29AM (#768152) Journal

              What do you do with catastrophe moving that fast towards you?

              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)

              by Magic Oddball (3847) on Friday November 30 2018, @06:13AM (#768187) Journal

              I'm not sure how it would work out in terms of miles per hour, but according to SFGate [sfgate.com]:

              The Camp Fire erupted about 6:30 a.m., spreading to more than 18,000 acres by 3:15 p.m. At that rate, the fire is burning the equivalent of about 10 Costco warehouses per minute.

              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

                by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Friday November 30 2018, @08:26AM (#768208)

                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."