Stay and Defend in SoCal

[Captmack]

I took a look at a media interview with an Australian Information Officers and as he ran down the list of fatalities it seemed that a number of the fatal injuries happened while the victims were in their cars trying to leave the fire area. This spokesman re-emphasized the "Stay and Defend or Leave Early" policy with the emphasis on LEAVE EARLY. Which I think is the key. He made a point of the fact that you should not try to drive when the fire is upon you because the roads are often impassable with trees, fire equipment, powerlines, etc.

For myself I too have mixed feelings if this kind of policy will work here with so many of our WUI citizens totally out of step with the realities of life in the interface and an expectation that someone come and save them and/or their property. And if they don't someone else must be at fault and needs to pay for their errors and omissions. So we will see.

[thebrushcoatmedic]

Originally Posted by Captmack

I took a look at a media interview with an Australian Information Officers and as he ran down the list of fatalities it seemed that a number of the fatal injuries happened while the victims were in their cars trying to leave the fire area. This spokesman re-emphasized the "Stay and Defend or Leave Early" policy with the emphasis on LEAVE EARLY. Which I think is the key. He made a point of the fact that you should not try to drive when the fire is upon you because the roads are often impassable with trees, fire equipment, powerlines, etc.
For myself I too have mixed feelings if this kind of policy will work here with so many of our WUI citizens totally out of step with the realities of life in the interface and an expectation that someone come and save them and/or their property. And if they don't someone else must be at fault and needs to pay for their errors and omissions. So we will see.

Now up to 100 confirmed dead. Horrible. Many of the bodies are apparently being found in their burned out homes. As for those who attempted last minute evacuations, Saving Hawaii stated in one of his posts, an inherent flaw in "Stay in Defend or Leave Early" is that some who might decide to initially stay and defend would panic once the fire approached and they realized what they were actually in for. Something clearly went terribly wrong and the whole experiment known as "stay and defend" deserves a great deal more scrutiny before ANYONE tries instituting it here.

[mardrjc]

This is a sad day for those people down there, but to apply it here to SoCal (or the US in general): 100 plus people killed in a country where many of those people are used to living in the wildland-interface and brush, while here, many of the public have no or little clue of wildland fire or what living in the interface is really about (look at the brush clearance problems we often have).

Toss in the fact that people in California seem to visit attorney's at the drop of the hat, this could be a problem. If this occured here in SoCal, tomorrow (Monday) there would be lawyers lining up to file cases.

It goes back to the question I asked when this thread started, how would we defend ourselves form being held accountable by the public who normally don't take responsibility when things happen.

[OB1309]

Originally Posted by mardrjc

It goes back to the question I asked when this thread started, how would we defend ourselves form being held accountable by the public who normally don't take responsibility when things happen.

Mardrjc,

The legislation in Australia contains good faith immunity clauses. The NSW Rural Fires Act 1997 is currently being challenged in the ACT courts over the 2003 Canberra fire, but that case is not going anywhere in a hurry -the immunity is being staunchly defended.

OB
OZ

[mardrjc]

The question will now be, with over 170 dead, what will the courts down there do now, also, how the courts and legal system would work here in California, which is a different situation and can have a different additude towards liability, would view a situation like this (even if there were fewer deaths).

[thebrushcoatmedic]

Originally Posted by mardrjc

The question will now be, with over 170 dead, what will the courts down there do now, also, how the courts and legal system would work here in California, which is a different situation and can have a different additude towards liability, would view a situation like this (even if there were fewer deaths).

in the US... in the aftermath of an incident where a large number of civilians had been killed... and where the Fire Service had endorsed a plan that encouraged these same civilians to remain in the path of an approaching wildfire... the courts would get incredibly busy. It's a recipe for disaster on all fronts.

[danfromord]

just my perception, I have not read all the posts about this subject and I won't try to prove if I on anyone else has more expierence than anyone else so... If I were king of the fire world I would evacuate every home owner in the fires path. Too many times F/F's put themselves at greater risk to try to save civillans. Take them out of the picture and it is safer for those involved in the firefight. Just a comment from the old-fat Chief.
danfromord

[milehighbar]

I agree with danfromord. We already consciously or subconsciously take ownership in the protection of someone’s home. Adding a human element to the human instinct of wanting to protect someone can only cause additional complexity to an already complex situation and the chance of causalities will increase for both the Firefighter and citizen.

Evacuate early and often. Shelter in place as a last resort.

Always continue to evaluate risk vs gain in your decision making processes.

[Siski Sam]

A number of us did stay and defend in the norcal lightning fires last summer. We don't have the kind of Santa Ana winds as in socal, but still need to evaluate risk. A number of us had fire experience and had also watched and helped in burnout by a retired hotshot supt. Experience is important.

Found this interesting... My condolences for the families and friends that were lost Downunder.

The idea that some of the fires were arson makes me burn..........................

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/ar.../d968set81.txt

Australia wildfire death toll expected to pass 200

HEALESVILLE, Australia - The high death toll from hundreds of wildfires across southeastern Australia has forced authorities to re-examine an accepted survival strategy when blazes threaten: Get out early or hunker down and fight.

Many people waited too long and perished as they tried to escape the weekend infernos.
"People need to understand that a late departure is the most deadly," fire chief Paul Rees said.

Recovery teams moving into burned out towns in Victoria state found charred bodies on roadsides and in wrecked cars _ grim signs of futile attempts to flee the raging wildfires fed by 60 mph (100 kph) winds, record heat and drought. The number of deaths was expected to surpass 200, and a few fires were still burning.
"The clear evidence is that the most dangerous place to be is on the road," Rees, Victoria's country fire authority chief, told reporters Tuesday.

The scale of the disaster has shocked a nation that endures deadly firestorms every few years.
Authorities defended their preparations and actions during the fires that swept southeastern Australia on Saturday, saying the extreme weather conditions made catastrophe almost inevitable.

But they agreed that the "stay and defend" policy, under which homeowners remain to protect their properties from fire, needed to be reviewed.

"It is the application of that policy and a lack of an alternative that we need to work on," Rees said.

Evacuation is not mandatory in high-risk areas, and Australia's wildfire services largely comprise volunteers who lack the resources to protect every home.

In Victoria, there is no formal alert system to warn of approaching wildfires, though the Country Fire Authority distributes advice and updates on its Web site and through radio broadcasts.

One expert suggested Australia's shifting demographics could be partly to blame for the scale of the tragedy.

Mark Adams of the Bushfire Cooperative Research Center told Australian Broadcasting Corp. Television that many urbanites who moved to city outskirts have no experience with wildfires and rely wholly on the fire service for help. But families who have lived in the area for generations are prepared to battle blazes themselves, Adams said.

Victoria state Premier John Brumby said he asked Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to consider setting up a national emergency fire warning system months ago.

But officials agree that in the worst conditions, the direction and intensity of fires can change so quickly that sirens, e-mails and other warning systems are not effective.

The wildfires outside Melbourne, Australia's second largest city, destroyed more than 750 homes, left 5,000 people homeless, and burned 1,100 square miles (2,850 square kilometers) of land, the fire authority said.

While the official death toll stood at 181 Tuesday evening, Brumby said there were an additional 50 bodies that the coroner had not identified and were not included in the official tally.

"This is going to be a significant number. It will exceed 200 deaths," he said.

One elderly resident of Healesville, who asked not to be identified by name, said he escaped before the blaze engulfed his home but he lost two friends.

"It was too fast," said the white-bearded man, tears streaming down his cheek and his chin quivering. "They had prepared their property but they wouldn't have wanted to die there."

Healesville lies about 60 miles (100 kilometers) northeast of Melbourne.

The Coleman family in Kinglake district, about 70 miles (130 kilometers) from Melbourne, had a clear plan: 29-year-old Brooke took her two daughters to her parent's house about 20 miles (32 kilometers) away, while her husband Zack stayed to protect their home.

But leaving her husband _ a member of the town's fire guard _ was terrifying.

"I left Saturday evening with the fire at my heels," Brooke Coleman said. "I could see the mountain on fire, and he was in it."

Her husband saved their property, but some of their neighbors lost their homes. Coleman said the government should not dictate whether families stay or go.

"I don't think it's the government's fault so many died," she said. "I think more education is needed for people's awareness of when to leave and when not to leave."

Victoria's Police and Emergency Services Minister Bob Cameron said the state government would not consider making any policy changes until it received the recommendations of a commission investigating the disaster.

Police suspect some fires were started by arsonists. Police Assistant Commissioner Dannye Moloney said a sketch would soon be released of a suspect in one of the fires, which killed 21 people.

Of Australia's estimated 60,000 fires in forests and other vegetation each year, about half are arson or are suspicious, the government-funded Institute of Criminology said this month.

Parliament suspended normal debate for a second day Tuesday to hear condolence speeches.

The possibility of arson "leaves us speechless," Rudd said. "This ... is simply murder on a grand scale."

President Barack Obama telephoned Rudd to convey his condolences and offer assistance. Dozens of other world leaders also sent condolences.

Firefighters continued to battle more than a dozen blazes across Victoria on Tuesday, although conditions were much cooler than during the weekend. Forecasters said temperatures would rise later in the week, posing a risk of flare-ups.

fair use disclaimer

[arff]

From : Californiadisasters_discussion

Hi Kim, Patricia and all, on the various subjects of "leave early or
stay and defend", as one who fights Wildfires here in Australia as well
being Senior Day shift Incident Controller for the the North Shore of
Sydney during the '94 fires, there are a few things about the Victorian
fires.

1. The majority of Towns/villages/houses totally or near totally
destroyed appear to have been located in areas totally surrounded by
tall timber forest or drought dried long grass paddocks and fields.

2. Most were perched on top of ridges with access up and down the sides
of the hills on roads with the forest right up to the safety barriers.

3. Most had the forest run basically through the houses to the main
roads, no fire breaks between forest and township.

4. Those who died in their vehicles trying to evacuate had left it to
late and had to drive down through the fire in very limited visibility
to try to reach safety. Very few had a large cleared area in the middle
of the village to shelter on.

5. The "Leave early" didn't work in some areas as before they had
realised, it most roads out had been cut off miles away by fires.

As all Wildfire fighters will tell you, the place not to be in a
wildfire is uphill of it, a fire travels up hill very fast compared to
traveling down hill, it also creates its own wind which pushes embers
and super dry air in front of it, pre heating the "Fuel".

None of the many burnt out vehicles fuel tanks "Exploded", this is one
thing that didn't appear to happen. Those that burnt out may have had a
window partly open or went stationary on top of burning matter with
plastic fuel tanks , which is now the "Norm" with most modern cars,
plastic melts and then dumps the boiling fuel to burn! Or the rubber
tyres caught fire.

We are taught to shelter in a vehicle in a "Cleared dirt or sealed Area"
with all the windows up and air vents on recirculate with blankets over
us to prevent radiant heat. But driving, partly blind from smoke, in
sheer panic down a mountain road with trees burning and falling around
you is not the place to be. Also if you stop on the road to not hit a
fallen burning tree, you risk being hit from behind by someone else
driving blind!

In one community all the women and children sheltered in the Volunteer
Rural Fire Station whilst the men sheltered in their vehicles in the
cleared car park outside the station. The Rural Fire Fighters stood and
defended these people, in the open with what water they had whilst under
continual ember attack. One description of the ember attack was "It was
like burning hail stones!". The men helped put out spot fires until it
was deemed unsafe for them due to the burning embers burning them and
their clothes and only the Volunteer Rural Fire Fighter wearing fire
proof turnout gear continued to protect everyone until the fire was
past. Most rural fire stations are either "Tin Sheds" or Metal and
brick, so they don't tend to burn.

There was also a couple of people who had put "bunkers" on their
properties, 40' containers buried under berms of earth to keep away
radiant heat, who survived the firestorms which left no buildings
standing. Maybe an idea in wildfire prone areas hmmm, an underground
tool shed.

Most of this has been gained from in depth study of footage and
interviews of those who stayed as well a a couple of phone calls from
mates down there as I am in the opposite situation in Far North
Queensland with Floods!

Kim and Patricia, boats in a cleared area are a no no for sure, but if
there is no other shelter a vehicle may be used to protect evacuated
people from radiant heat and ember attack, of course leave the cabrio
and soft top sports cars at home, their roofs catch fire with burning
embers, the same with a fibreglass bodied vehicle. I can remember seeing
a fibreglass nosed Mack truck emerge driving backwards from a wildfire
once. The nose melted and the driver had to reverse out as the bonnet
fell off. Then the rubber hoses started melting but before they all blew
he had reversed out of the fire. The tar on the road was actually on
fire at the time. The paint was bubbled as well on the cab.

Regards,

Sam Point

Townsville, Tropical North Queensland Australia