This is 100% the answer. It is better for the forest and in the long run reduces really large fires.
Most of them will want the State or Federal Government to do the Pony-Up. Just like those that overbuild on barrier islands and expect the State and Federal Government to help them out when nature wrecks their house.
If there was that much water in close proximity to the fire, you probably wouldn’t have a fire. Again, oil well fires are not wildfires; they won’t have similar solutions.
the best way to increase fire fighting capabilities is to atomize the water. This does 2 things, it increases the cooling effect as it vaporizes and it reduces the amount of water used.
Having held a wildland fire “Red Card” for more than thirty years, I did everything from greenhorn mopping up to being on a hot shot crew, to helitack, to crazy shit back in the day that safety requirements today one should never, ever do (but it was all we had at the time).
First off, you can read up on the Spring Creek Fire directly, and not the all too often misinformation and sensational reporting from local and national news.
Second, a wildland fire is not a “compact” fire like a barn fire, a house fire, or even a auto salvage tire fire. Wildland fires burn along a perimeter. The size of a wildland fire encompasses burned and unburned acreage. The vegetation types, soils compositions, land topography, ever-changing weather conditions, etc., play interwoven roles. Add in the constant political firestorm for “cost containment,” political hacks calling for more resources (especially the grandstanding supertankers for a great photo op), and you have a real perfect storm.
Wildland fire fighting is also shaped by a legal minefield. Federal land? State land? Private land? Is any of the public land protected, like a wilderness designation? Any animal species in danger because of a special status (threatened and endangered species)? Any threatened utilities (power lines, underground gas and oil pipes)? Vacation cabins? Actual towns and inhabited areas threatened?
We also have consider “after the fire,” months down the road. Will fall/winter rains and snow turn damaged lands and bare soils into massive runoffs? The “after the fire” is in quotes because all wildland fires are “officially out” only after a season-ending event. So let’s assume the Spring Creek Fire is defined as “contained” 30 days from now. To be considered dead and out, a season-ending event may mean 12 inches of sustained snow on the ground. (Still some fires can burn all winter despite snow and/or rain only to re-ignite in spring.)
We only fly on a fire if fire characteristics warrant. Even so, human safety remains the ultimate decider. (And those self-absorbed drone operators need to be burned at the stake. When a drone is found flying even near a fire, all air support stops dead.) Plus, to be most effective, SEATs (Single Engine Air Tankers) and helicopters fly “close” to a fire. Room for last-second error correction is practically nil. (Back in the day I was on a fire in Washington State where we were on a hot fire line, on a 45 degree slope. Relatively dense vegetation. It was impossible to dig a fire line on that slope and back burning was limited; one burning, rolling log can ruin your day and expand the fire in seconds. The only recourse was a retardant drop. Oh, wait. That dense vegetation. The tanker could not see the fireline through the dense vegetation and smoke. But the pilots could see, although not well, our yellow fire shirts. So a decision was made for all of us to line up just off the hot fire line 50-75 feet apart – near an “open” view to the sky, each of us standing near a stout tree. The tanker flew a first pass, low and slow, to eyeball all of us. On the second pass, with all of our radios on high volume to hear the orders, the fun began. As the tanker started its bombing run, when the orders came, we each had to hug our individual stout trees on the leeward side of the drop. We’re not talking a heavy rain from above. Think fire hose downpour of fire slurry retardant. It got the job done. And back in fire camp, our “slimed” fire shirts we wore carried a forever badge of courage / stupidity / craziness / whatever. I think I still have my slime shirt - unwashed - somewhere in my fire gear.)
Explosives to “put out” a wildland fire? No way. Justify the permanent damage to the soils, wildlife, unburned vegetation, hidden utility lines, even fire fighters. For what?
What is not yet making the news, but will someday, is climate change is making wildland fires start earlier in the season, last longer, burn hotter, and be more destructive. Fire science continues to evolve so who knows how fire fighting will change. (It’s gonna get worse since there are fewer and fewer, quality and qualified wildland fire fighters. We have an entire generation that was never raised with an environmental ethic or awareness.) But what will not change is accepting a single fire death nor increased funding. Even so, with increased funding it still will not slow the a natural process fueled by climate change.
And you can do that with a squeeze bottle of ketchup and two paper clips, right? 
Many have discussed it, but none have given the problem the name: Smokey Bear Effect
ttp://mentalfloss.com/article/12492/smokey-bear-effect
Them wanting it, and getting it will be two different things. I’ve only been in this area a few years so don’t know if such a program exists or not, but that’s what insurance companies are for, if you can find one to write you a policy. Quite a few were not insured in this area due to occupancy rules and a litany of other factors. If one couldn’t get fire insurance, they knew the risks. I don’t expect a penny from them, and my place wasn’t insured.
Natural disasters are everywhere on earth, for those in the US, this is what we have to contend with.
I know of plenty that build by certain rivers that flood on a regular basis, and get bailed out often with federal money. Think that was on 60 Minutes some years back. Don’t know if they finally put a stop to that, but I wish they would.
Quite a few of these were second cabin type homes, anyhow, not like it was their main home, although some had some very impressive multi-million dollar places in this area. I’m more concerned about the trees being gone than my little 1,320 s.f. log cabin. Most knew the risks, and have accepted it from the handful I’ve talked to in this area.
Sound like the real deal to me. Any rule of thumb of what they determine is a small fire that they might let burn out vs a big fire they want to put out? Or do they still try to put out the small fires too? Sounds like a interesting, dangerous, and adventurous career. Where do I sign up?
I’m going to send it that link to a few in my area that were affected, we were relying on most scanty info that was often outdated. Looks like the light rains finally helped give it 35% containment according to your link.
Yeah, that whole flood after the fire thing, is similar to how our local weatherman in TX described our drought to flood, by saying we replaced one natural disaster with another. I noticed flood warnings are already in affect now.
Well, that’s no fun then. At least let me retrofit that tank with the two jet engines to set it up for a water cannon.
Yep, finding places that are reasonably hospitable will be harder to find in the future. More risks everywhere from what I see. Let’s hope their forecast models are off.
Thanks for this - fascinating stuff.
Regards,
Shodan
Uhh… I always see P-3 Orions flying in hurricanes. Prop jobs.
And the water bombers seem to be a mix. I was watching a DC-10 bombing a fire from my office window a few weeks ago. Quite a site to see that big boy flying so low in the mountains.
I live and work in Central Colorado. The Weston Pass fire is about 20 miles south of my house. I don’t know how much the fire has to do with it, but a freaking tornado whipped up near it yesterday. You just don’t get tornadoes in the mountains.
Link fixed above.
Hard to beat the 747 supertanker.
Especially up close. :eek:
Still, Sunny Daze has a point. Look at the first video of the 747: the flaps are in a landing position, trimmed for flying pretty damn slow. Not a lot of control authority at that speed, and of course, they’re also pretty low. If there’s any heavy turbulence going on due to wind over the terrain and/or thermal updrafts from the fire, it presents a fair bit of risk under those circumstances, regardless of the plane.
Frankly, flying in a hurricane doesn’t look so bad - just slightly worse than the worst I’ve personally experienced on a commercial passenger flight. They get rocked around a bit, but they’re well above stall speed and high above the ocean, so they have plenty of altitude and control authority to make a recovery if they really get tossed around.
I’ve heard that only **you **can prevent forest fires, so I’m off the hook, get on it you!
Encourage climate change. With all the water that has been, until now, dangerously trapped in the polar ice caps released, the oceans will have more surface area. More surface area and more heat means more evaporation, meaning more clouds. More clouds means more rain thus decreasing the amount of arid land thus fewer fires.
fer sure. I would think that it may be comforting to know that you can lighten your load by tens of tons in just a few seconds. Still dangerous as all get out.