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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Informative=1, Overrated=1, Underrated=1, Total=5
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (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.