Props to that official for taken responsibility… it sucks it happened. But good to see people
Take responsibility for their actions.
11 Likes
FWIW from a CWN:
The discussion is very interesting and helpful in understanding strategy and tactics.
It has been my experience that indeed all agencies have there lemons however I have been very proud of the overall efforts shown here in CA by the professional wildland firefighters.
I also believe this discussion belongs under its own topic and not part of the incident topic.
4 Likes
As a former engine slug in California for many years and now a data scientist I believe statistics is a neutral ground to start from. Unfortunately, I believe, public facing data points:
- Fire Size at first unit at scene
- Number of resources part of initial attack (air and ground)
- Fuel Type
- Weather (actually good api endpoints from NOAA and fire raws)
- Slope
- Initial attack Time of day
And more ……are hard to get.
IRWIN publishes ArcGis layers with some of these data points but many dispatch centers and or incident commanders leave out many valuable fields as blank. As we say in the data world “garbage in…garbage out”…
Data can drive overall strategic planning and daily tactics. But only if it is good and accurate. COVID data has driven many municipalities on how to strategize around their weekly responses.
Hopefully this was ok for this thread. I love all of you.
1 Like
sorry but I disagree, you are basically advocating rubber stamping everything. Q&D is the place to ask these questions. Regardless of intention editing conversation to support one view is not a good thing
4 Likes
I agree with you. Time after time we try to have these discussions and mods and others will say wrong place, wrong time, and continually kick the can down the road avoiding the conversation. It might be an unpleasant conversation for some but it’s one that has to be had.
4 Likes
I couldn’t agree more. It has to be time to figure out a few strategic issues. Accountability has to be in place. Conversations need to be had just as after action review of major or traumatic incidents so we can learn and be better.
There is never a place for armchair quarterbacking. But we do need to quickly evolve and learn.
For too long have we been able to shrug our shoulders and accept loss that could have been handled better. I’m not saying we can stop major incidents, but we could do better. Especially when draw down isn’t even an issue.
1 Like
Ive been a USFS Forestry Tech for 20+ years. Have experience with helicopters, engines, hotshots, IMTs and at a GACC. Ive been using this site, or the origins of this site, since the “They Said” blog Abercrombie days and the beginnings of the forums in 2007. I only give my background becuase I believe understanding someone’s perspective or the lens they see through is extremely important.
Engaging in direct questions about why we do what we do is important to learn from and hold each other accountable from any agency. But, to me the line is crossed when broad sweeping accusations are made based on agency running the fire. Im not saying the deleted posts were about that, i don’t think they were, but that type of comments we’re being made in the SHF-Lava threads.
Now I know everyone on here, including myself are the best ICs, Ops chiefs, DIVS, FBANs, Air Attacks or Center Managers when posting (tounge in cheek). So we all have value to bring to the table when trying to assess fires we are not on and discuss on this platform. But, I think it would be wise to just do what we do in our agency emails and think twice before we send something. Be thoughtful, constructive, but also bring hard questions to the table when appropriate.
There is no perfect boundaries for this site. If you think about it, its one of kind in our industry. I mean we have a site to talk about some of the most dynamic and challenging tasks the world has to offer. So my vote is to not censor, but also let’s always be respectful to each other. Imagine you we’re the one out there in the dirt and your peers were all looking at you to run the fire. And you make mistakes, becuase God knows we’ve all made a ton, but your leading that fight. Or maybe you we’re responsible for developing the contingency plan in case the fire ran towards your DPA.
I’m not going to talk much about the state of my agency in regards to aggressive firefighting. But, We all know we’ve been gutted due to retention issues. So can we be better, yeah. But there are still a lot of us out here that pride ourselves in being the best we can be and being aggressive but knowing our limits. This thread isn’t about that, but I think its part of the elephant in the room.
At any rate, it’s awesome we have this site. It for the most part is clear of public injection. The mods are humans, do the best they can, make mistakes like the rest of this. But do the job as a volunteer army.
Great family talk we are having. Cheers.
30 Likes
Thank you FSFF for a cogent and informative post on the subject of the thread. The main reason I started this thread was to get discussion on what the members feel should and should not be allowed in the Q&D thread as the Lava thread showed there was some concerns. A number of posts, while valid, important and deserve their own thread, address other issues. I didn’t pop on and say anything because, hey free form discussion can be a good thing. Your post however was the type of feedback I was hoping this thread would bring out.
4 Likes