“In the event of a blowup, pause a moment and size up the situation. Then think clearly, speak decisively, and act in a calm and deliberate manner.” — Safe Practices

• june 8th — mishap? esperanza was a mishap??!?

• may 23rd — the fire orders are dead

december, 2005 archive

july, 2005 archive

june, 2007 wildfire blog archive

june 8th — mishap? esperanza was a mishap??!?

This week, the Forest Service re-released the Esperanza Fire Action Plan with a few minor edits. Actually, they may not have intended to release the plan the first time, as it was labeled “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” on a .pdf copy of a fax.

I'm not sure what un-official use there would be for a plan to keep firefighters from dying on other fires, or as Chief Kimbell says, “...prevent similar mishaps in the future.” There is something very official — and very out-of-touch — in the slogan at the bottom of her letter: “It's cool to be safe.”

In the Compliance Analysis section of the Factual Report, the investigation team dodged agency accountability for the Thirtymile Hazard Abatement Plan and the Cramer Accident Prevention Plan. What's the purpose of having these plans, if all that's said after the next tragedy is that nobody is sure “how/if/when this standard should apply” ???

It doesn't make any difference what direction was or wasn't provided in the Cooperative Fire Protection Agreement. It doesn't matter that Esperanza was a CDF/CalFire incident. This should have been made abundantly clear in the July 9, 2002 Direction on Incident Management – Thirtymile Hazard Abatement Plan (pdf file):

2. Forest Service (FS) employees do not lose their status as “FS employees” when they are working on non-FS fires.  As a result, the employee specific, HAP abatement actions still apply to every FS employee when engaged in wildland fire activities, even on non-FS incidents.  Examples of these actions include:
   • Compliance with work/rest guidelines
   • Compliance with entrapment avoidance and shelter deployment protocols
   • Accepting fireline positions in compliance with red card qualifications
   • Compliance with the 10 Standard Firefighting Orders
   • Mitigation of Watch Out Situations 

That doesn't seem to lack clarity as to how/if/when this standard should apply. I believe the word you're searching for is....

—vfd cap’n

may 23rd — the fire orders are dead

The Esperanza Fire factual report was released yesterday — signalling that after almost 50 years, the U.S. Forest Service has finally abandoned the 10 standard firefighting orders. When the South Canyon Fire report was released, the agencies proclaimed of the orders, “We don't bend 'em, we don't break 'em.”

Yesterday, the Forest Service announced clearly, "We don't acknowledge the Orders exist." The Esperanza report doesn't mention the 10 & 18, or give a fire orders analysis.  There is a LCES analysis, although it's confusing in terms of E-57 serving as a lookout for the other engines. Maybe someday the Hagemeyer's proposal from their Thirtymile lawsuit settlement will tell us exactly what a lookout is.

There's quite a bit in the report about FS doctrine and fire signature predictions (without mentioning either specifically.) Leader's intent and alignment are among the contributing factors.

The investigation team came to this conclusion about the Cooperating Fire Protection Agreement used by agencies in California:

“The clear intent expressed as a guiding principle in the CFPA is "aggressive fire suppression". The word "aggressive" is used seven  times in the document while the doctrine of "firefighter safety first" is mentioned only once. Existing safety rules and risk aversion did not notably influence decisions to aggressively engage in the Esperanza Fire, while aggressive risk management and anchoring to foundational wildland firefighting safety principles was less then apparent.”

Sort of sounds like what was formerly known as a fire order. Somewhere in my distant memory, I seem to recall something about fighting fire aggressively, having provided for safety first.

On the bright side, CDF — excuse me, CAL FIRE — has made it 3-in-a-row with another entrapment fatality report (after Tuolumne and Cedar) released without redactions.

—vfd cap’n

< < < december, 2005 wildfire blog archive >>>