Author Topic: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating  (Read 7122 times)

Offline Bagyassfirey

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« on: November 01, 2010, 08:16:57 PM »
I hear on the news CFS has now risen the grassland FDI to 150 or above before it will become catastrophic. (in all places except MLR, KI and LSE where forest FDI will be 100 or above for catastrophic). So pretty much we have gone back to our old EXTREME rating being the highest because i doubt they will ever forecast a grassland FDI of over 150. Sure in some cases it will reach that and exceed but very rarely will it be forcast above that. Anyone got any thoughts??

misterteddy

  • Guest
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2010, 10:00:55 PM »
obviously inconvenient for the public to have too many days where they need to think of their safety....so we'll fudge the numbers so they arent inconvenienced quite so much....what a new age caring fire service we are

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2010, 10:16:45 PM »
BagyAssFirey - GFDI has been forecase in excess of 150 for MLR several times that i can recall.


Probably just a convenient way of letting DECS off the hook with school closures...

Offline tft

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2010, 07:51:30 AM »
Yes, we will tell the public that only Catastrophic is the only bad day.
You are safe when it is 99 ( i think someone needs to change hands)
You are on the money misterteddy with you comments, lets not upset the public.

pumprescue

  • Guest
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #4 on: November 02, 2010, 11:47:41 AM »
I support this, and it should never have been 100, at 100 FDI they were just crying wolf a lot and the public eventually will just go "meh, its just another one of those CFS things where nothing happens"

Catastrophic needs to be reserved for those "oh crap" days, which seems like it hasn't changed in the area's where all the 6%'ers live in multiple numbers.

Thank god they changed it for the NWP and NEP and the like....

rescue5271

  • Guest
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2010, 06:30:25 AM »
Victoria has removed Catastrophic and is now using CODE RED for those crap days,I support what we have done here in SA and I am sure the public will be a little happy...

misterteddy

  • Guest
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2010, 02:39:13 PM »
because of course Code Red is less scary than Catastrophic

Let's forget about the Thesaurus and remember the intent of the dammed thing

Offline Alan J

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 516
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Certified Flamin' Nuisance
    • View Profile
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #7 on: November 09, 2010, 05:50:04 AM »
does any other pedant her think it illogical that Low - Extreme refer to the
difficulty of controlling an outbreak of fire (the original intent of the system) while Catastrophic refers to the possible impact.

Time to re-think all the words perhaps?
Alan J.
Cherry Gdns CFS

Data isn't information.  Information isn't knowledge. 
Knowledge isn't wisdom.

Offline Bagyassfirey

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #8 on: December 30, 2010, 02:46:54 PM »
Well looks as though ill have to be a proud man and eat my words FDI's over 150 for 2 mora!  :wink:

Offline Chinny

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 45
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #9 on: December 30, 2010, 02:58:52 PM »
panic panic panic panic panic PANIC PAAAAANNIC :roll:

Offline fyreman_16

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 36
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #10 on: December 30, 2010, 04:03:47 PM »
Is there a website that actually states what the FDI's are for towns that is readily accessible?

Offline vsteve01

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 74
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #11 on: December 30, 2010, 08:06:28 PM »
Is there a website that actually states what the FDI's are for towns that is readily accessible?

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/sa?list=ob&subset=a#list has current ops

Offline Bagyassfirey

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 891
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2011, 08:43:26 AM »
so today is a day of fire bans and rated at only severe..But as i check FDI's across the state especially on the West Coast they are nudging 100 already. Is this a case of Bureau not getting it right or just unusual weather? Should we have a system where the Fire ban rating can be reviewed as weather conditions change?

Offline fyreman_16

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 36
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2011, 11:57:24 AM »
13:25:44   30-01-11   CFS: AIR OPS INFO: LSE AIRCREW AND SPOTTER 505, GO TO ACTIVE STANDBY AT MILLICENT, DUE TO INCREASE IN FDI'S - SARC DOWLING > 30/01/2011 1:25:33 PM - CFS State Air Desk

Offline Robert-Robert34

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,429
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Catastrophic Fire Danger Rating
« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2011, 02:56:20 PM »
The FDI got up to 75.8 late this arvo in Mount Gambier
Kalangadoo Brigade