Curious to know this communities thoughts, concerns, likes & dislikes regarding a tracking system regarded by some as the “Holy Grail” of wildland firefighting safety.
Is that how y’all see it?
Does the term “Holy Grail of safety” make you un-comfortable or is it a real game changer?
Is it really necessary to invent and/or spend additional #Time#Talent#Treasure on development of a “new” systems/tech when it is a fact that the usa already has sophisticated (albeit currently classified) systems to track humans and assets on the ground & in the air in real time with a high degree of accuracy?
Couldn’t we de-classify current tech to a point that it can work for the needs of federal agencies involved in firefighting/emergency management rather than feed/grow another “industrial complex” further?
Would that system have truly prevented the tragedies and loss of life on the rattlesnake, loop, dude, mann gulch, south canyon, cramer, 30 mile, espiranza or yarnell etc?
Its allot to think about - those are some of the thoughts & questions that immediately come to my mind.
The tech is and has been there. Various products are being used that are existing technology. Some call it “dismounted ff”. Sounds a lot like “dismounted patrol”. Weird, same concept that the military has used for…decades?
Comes down to money. I’m sure it can be improved or specified to the user of the community for a common or singular platform, but even that is not likely. I think the fire shelter is the only synonymous system in the wildland community and that’s not an absolute.
I bet @ajohansson will jump in and give nuts and bolts of systems and products that are in place.
Can it help with faster location, yes.
Can it eliminate the human factor of decision making,that causes injury or loss of life, no.
Is it a tool, yes.
The Pulaski was the holy grail of hand tools, until…
So much progress has been made on this challenge in my career. Lots of people have worked on this problem over the past 30+ years. It seems like everyone runs into the same basic challenges with connectivity beyond cell range, and battery life. The actual mapping tech is the easy part, IMHO. Less discussed: Unions have often fought to keep their members free of surveillance.
And as long as we don’t have robust systems for realtime mapping of the fire’s location, knowing where your people are doesn’t mean you know where they are relative to the fire…
So many of these issues have been worked through already with a huge number of AVL programs. It seems to be the nature of how we do business that we end up with a lot of duplicitous systems and interoperability issues, though…
Another thought…
It seems to me our history shows over and over that advancements and the next big thing often if not always comes with some level of net loss. un-intended consequences if you will that may/may not come back to bite us.
For example with the calculator came a net loss of math skills aka a loss of mental calculation skills. With the word processor came the same kind of loss in literacy, spelling, writing, grammar, sentence structure skills etc. Calculators & word processors still require power and cease functioning when batteries die or solar/electric power not adequate - the need for math skills & writing skills remains when power is out & batteries are dead.
Wondering what loss or degradation might come with the next “holy grail” & what if any blind spots will it open up on the fire ground and/or in the area of human factors..
Along your same train of thought, many folks out on the line aren’t that good with map and compass these days due to GPS/mapping apps. That particular shift in (or loss of) skills could possibly be exacerbated if we add new layers to the tech folks are relying on.
One of the instructors for my FOBS class used the saying, “when the screen turns on, the brain turns off.” Even when something is intended to improve our situational awareness, it can sometimes have the opposite effect.
My more than 2 cents worth on this topic as it has been a focal point of my professional career for the past 7 years and more broadly for probably the past 15 or so as mapping technology became democratized.
I will start with just my opinion on this article. I have known Rod at RoGo for 6 or so years now, have tested his product, given feed back. I will leave my opinion of the product out but will say that it is crazy how out of touch wildfire today is with the current landscape of technology being deployed today within the USFS. Like @modcamo mentioned nearly everything that is in this article is being done at some shape today. We are tracking firefighters over sat-coms, we are putting those markers on a shared map, we are using satellite sensors to track wildfires in near real-time and also fusing that data on to a shared map interface.
What we are not currently doing widely is sort of what RoGo does in building a peer-to-peer mesh network but there are tools out there commercially ready to go that can do that. The hardest nut to crack right now when you are dismounted is getting the fireline perimeter data to the device. That can be done through satcomms but the pipe is small on iridium (this is what everyone uses) think GarminInreach, Somewear labs. So taking a multi-polygon and sending it over that network is tough.
With that said though and currently being deployed is Sat to Cell which will allow this higher bandwidth data to go out to the dismounted firefighter. Starlink with T-Mobile and AST with Verizon and ATT are the main players here. But as far as dismounted tracking back to the ICP or to Divisions/Branches that have broadband aka a starlink or cell coverage that is being done right now with Garmin Inreaches and sending into a TAK-Server and into Esri web maps etc which is why I was so surprised to see the title of the Wildfire Today article because it gives this impression that this is some crazy new concept in 2025. The reality is the Dingell act set this in motion in 2019 and this has been worked on developmentally deployed since 2015 post Yarnell.
My opinion on technology is sometimes mistaken by some. I started my fist season on a hotshot crew in 1994. I remember when we got our first GPS. I have watched the technology landscape mature in wildfire. I do value mobile technology but to call this the holy grail to wildfire safety is foolish. Nothing will ever replace a solid understanding of the basics of fire behavior and having that drive sound tactics. No amount of technology will ever solve for that. Where technology can help is having a better understanding of your surroundings and what is occurring.
Let me put it this way. Do we guess what the temperature and RH are? Or do we use technology? A thermometer and sling psychrometer and yes even a compass is technology. I am not in the camp of asking an AI interface “is it safe to go do this?” but if technology could keep me from doing something or if I do make a poor decision that perhaps a better outcome may happen because the people that are coming to help me know where I am then I say tech is worth leaning into.
@Drift_Smoke i get your sentiments and your thoughts on this are not uncommon. I taught a TAK workshop this fall and had someone from the WO in it and he had that same sort of fear. I mentioned to him that while on the fireline and dismounted i am not staring into the screen. Rather this is for me to occasionally when i need information to reference but it more useful as a command and control look down at where I am. This is really just like what we do with avenza as a planning tool but allows for real-time tracking and collaboration. Have a good safety zone? you can drop it on the map and rapidly share it. LZ, water points, etc all can be shared rapidly.
I will use Yarnell as an example. When I started there were 13 situations that shout watch out. My rooking year south canyon happens, 14 of what are supposed to be our more elite forces die in Colorado. Helitack, Hotshots, Jumpers. What comes out of that is 5 more situations. 19 year later Granite Mountain gets burned over and all perish. We did not add any more situations. They broke existing rules of engagement. This is the human factor, despite training they made decisions that led to their peril.
So in this case despite having a fully loaded DC-10 above them there was nothing that could even be attempted. At the crux of this is we didn’t know where the crew was. So part of leaning in on tracking tech this example that at a minimum we might make for a better outcome if we know where the people in the bad situation are. Left of that is could technology help keep that from happening? My eyes have played tricks on me. Ever seen smoke over a ridge and think its right there? get to the top and say oh man its over the next ridge. Now GM main factor was cutting through the green with a fire flanking them that they new was heading the same direction. You would think that alone would be enough to keep them from doing what they did but I wonder if they just underestimated how far that path was to the ranch. Perhaps you draw a line like in TAK and go man thats so much further than I thought. Perhaps a tool that calculate the reality of how long its really gonna take to get there and that keeps you from even attempting it. Of course dont cut through the green is the answer but remember human factors. We cant control that.
Now bring in more near-realtime data like we have with the FIRIS plane on where the fire is in TAK and you go nope we are on a course for disaster. Take it to a higher level and this where folks usually don’t like when I talk big brother but a digital safety officer who can see you, can see updated fire perimeter and sees you on an intersection of bad news and checks in with you on your intentions.
After all that the IWI/Mayday call. I have listened to the final radio calls of GM so many times and it still gives me chills. Everyone is confused on where they are at. Wait I thought they were in the black, why are they having to deploy shelters, where are they? The technology certainly exists now where that DC-10 could automatically drop with just having the pilot set an altitude and bearing and let the machine drop the retardant in an emergency setting even without seeing where they were on the ground because the computer knows it just needs the pilot to get the plane there.
I know I used an extreme example here with Yarnell but wit R5 getting on TAK this year I got pulled into south ops during the Gifford. The goal was to help south ops better understand the capabilities in TAK and where we could make some impact. Immediately it was on the line EMS/REMS teams and having not just tracking of where they were but with the hotshot crews having the GarminInreach sat trackers into the TAK server now the Line EMS and REMS teams could position themselves to best respond to the crews. I watched in real-time REMS teams move locations based on hotshot crew movement to ensure they were in the best possible spot for deployment. That is just a simple example of having tracking into a common interface.
@wfapdude if you care to learn more about TAK and all of this geospatial tracking of firefighters, real-time perimeters etc I have had a thread on here for about 6 years now. TAK Information-
I have pasted a couple vides below. The first is one on how this all started with a presentation I made a couple years ago about TAK and the interface of wildfire and the people making it happen. I get a little teary eyed in this. The combat controller Alan Yoshida I mentioned had passed away from cancer 7 months before this presentation. The second is a presentation i did at a firefighter tracking summit hosted by OCFA.
Your 2+++ cents are GREATLY appreciated! Heavy, deep & beyond eye opening to this wildlander who dipped out of Ops before all this new stuff began hitting the ground/laptops! Thank you for taking the time to spell things out like this.
Your points on Yarnell are especially thought provoking to me. It makes me wonder what if groundpounders (especially those on foot away from vehicles and those in very slow moving equipment) could instantly see on a tablet/ipad how fast the fire is moving at any given point of concern in real time - rather than relying on what the smoke looks like, how it sounds, how the ash is falling etc.
Not that i don’t appreciate or trust air attack, FOBS, DIVSUP’s and other Op’s folk on the line or ICP. I think it would/could be good to be able to assess that at the module leader level in my mind. Are we close to that level of availability & capability or is the tech limited to specific overhead/C&G positions? I have way too many questions to blurt out here so ill keep digging into the links you’ve shared and try to use less words when i ask questions in the future!! \m/
@wfapdude so you seem to be talking about having an understanding of fire location, spread, speed while you are in an indirect situation. The technology is certainly there but you would need a sensor parked over the fire constantly and we are not there yet. But while its up and if you have connectivity its as simple as running this on a smartphone phone in your pocket directly on the fireline.
You can take a look at what is possible in these videos of the FIRIS program. when we have a sensor over the fire we can stream realtime geospatial video, and map the fire but the mapping does take a little time. Check out this video presentation below where I show the ability to speed that time up a ton. Could this be automated? Yup - Could we infer rates of spread off the video? Yup. All of this is very possible. So what we need to do this is sensors with decent spatial resolution and persistent stare. So the fixed wing are great to get to the fire fast like FIRIS does. If the fire is gonna keep going then leaving behind a loitering sensor. The military has drones they drop out of king air aircraft now that can last about 4 hours and then we can bring them down in a safer are. We then hopefully replace that with a long endurance remotely piloted aircraft. That is probably the future until we get better satellite sensors. We are doing this larger uas remotely piloted stuff now on large fires but its days into the incident before its set up.
Good copy on all!
Yep, totally thinking about the shot crew or dozer, or IA crew, etc out doing indirect things.
I keep having the thought that schmucks like me can take my dog’s for a walk in Redding and do things like make phone cals, amazon purchases, pull up mapping w/ routing & directions, check the Wx for my location AND surf the web thru a pair of google sunglasses so its a little upsetting to me that consumer use is a higher priority than creating total spatial awareness for our 1st responders.
They too could have a HUD in their safety glasses if it were to become a higher priority by the powers that be. Again, i come back to another thought/wish that more of our military tech could be unlocked and provided to our 1st responders instead of being gatekept behind lock & secrecy of “national security”.
I have a feeling that someday not far off autonomous arial platforms on every run card will be something that is as normal as air attack launching on a veg fire is today. I’d like us to get there sooner rather than later.
I’m as certain as a civilian can be that more entities/contractors - not just our military - are already capable of doing all the things you / we could ever want right now - but it’s all in the shadows and silos that aren’t for public consumption or knowledge. These things (good & not so good) will someday be unclassified and brought into the light of day - hindsight will most certainly show what we coulda/should have done sooner if only the tech could have been shared sooner across agencies & sectors.
Last tangent(s) for now..
I’m worried or perhaps concerned is a better descriptor - regarding 2 main areas.
1 - I think we’re on the verge of hearing about and/or seeing major issues regarding space debris and the direct conflicts this is putting on all orbiting platforms.
2 - I think that the systems being built and the ones i can imagine in my mind are all vulnerable to glitches in Earths electromagnetic field AND other un-nicery that can and has (as tree rings & rocks have shown us) come from our Sun and space Wx. Thinking that there are situations that no amount of hardening or fail safe can prevent - mostly thanks to our transistor based tech/world.
Thanx for your intel & knowledge sharing!
Please know that i hope you NEVER feel obligated to reply to my craziness/weirdness.
The glasses even in the military have not gone over well. The closest thing that has worked is the Arc4 recon from ARA which is a monacle. But the IVAS from microsoft was a disaster and palmer lucky from Anduril (former occulus) is making a go at it. Open glasses like you are saying might be ok with some augmented reality to turn on / off as you want. ATAK has AR now, you could hold up the phone and understand what is occuring around you in live view in the camera.
With that said I think the core of most of the spatial understanding and real-time info sharing is being done right now in TAK. I mean look at what we are doing with FIRIS and TAK its getting the job done the issue is its under utilizes. Im hoping the Feds start moving that way with the firewatch platforms. They are sharing now but start doing some real-time video sharing and maybe leverage smartcam3d for video annotation. Here is the fed tak landing page. https://wftak.wildfire.gov/
To your tangents.
Yup space aint perfect. One of the reasons i love TAK so much is it can work peer to peer with mesh radios. It has the full pace plan built in. LTE, Wifi, Mesh and sat comms.
Agree there is no silver bullet. We need to still know how to do this job without relying solely on technology.
I have been on this site and the site that was before it. This is just what i do. If someone is gonna talk mapping / tech etc. Expect to eventually to see me chime in.
I wont get into the details of the tech, @ajohansson dialed that in for all and has one of the clearest view of all the variables.
From a global prepsective on the Federal side, the biggest hang up is funding. Culture wise for each agency the landscape is mostly set for tracking of dimounted FFs. Weve done different versions/companies for several years as testing. Most folks understand the value. Its just comes down to commitment of leadership vision from the operations side of the house, then backed by funding. AVL is fairly solid with the exception of getting USFS switched from celluar tracking to Sat. BLM has done that already. Cant remmeber where BIA and the others are with it.
So back to the original topic and out of repsect to Bill Gabbart’s vision. Moving to ONE agency under fire leadership should put a shot to the arm on this topic. Hoping for the best in the next few years.
@FSFF I do believe you are on to something for the feds being under one umbrella will help. In my report out of south ops to the leadership there I had a strong opinion on getting this tech down to the forest level in IA and not just make this a tool we use during large wildfires. This is especially true for small group 5 uas for recon and thermal mapping. We need to get to the point where a sUAS is just like a chainsaw. Its a specialty tool, you should be trained but it not be so specialized that only few people can do the work. Now firing operations I would leave to a much higher level of training but for recon after a fire is knocked down where you are not going to get a NIROPS flight this is the tool. So having this all at the disposal as a normal operational tool needs to happen IMHO. You have a tablet on every fire engine, crew buggy, sups truck, BC etc. Every vehicle has a data comms pathway. Dismounted comms pathway yada yada. We have the money in this country to do this and pay federal firefighters a living wage. Sorry I got off on a tangent but this is also a passion of mine.