Author Topic: Fire Ban MLR 23 April  (Read 12009 times)

misterteddy

  • Guest
Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« on: April 23, 2009, 12:42:29 PM »
ok....1st of April was 23 days ago.....seriously?....a fireban with 23 degs forecast, and w/v of less than 30 kph....

what an absolute joke.....no wonder the public pays no attention to them

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #1 on: April 23, 2009, 01:04:45 PM »
agreed.  But beyond this, BOM weather forecasts are going to the dogs...must be the financial crisis...

And here goes the Media:  GET READY FOR A HURRICANE OF RAIN! The Media are the cause of Sensationalizing the Recession too...which is creating something bigger than if there were no media thrashing of "DOOM AND GLOOM".


Its thrashed on the scale of Kings of Leon.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2009, 01:11:22 PM by Zippy »

Offline Baxter

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ho ho ho its fire fighting time
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #2 on: April 23, 2009, 01:53:47 PM »
The MLR is not the only spot with the fire ban the pastoral area of the state has got a fire ban in place but it had 2 mm of rain.

Then again they maybe right about the fire ban as no fire likes getting their feet wet  :-P

Zippy in regards to the news they only have to e right for one day as no can remember what they said the previous day
keep it simple for sanity skes please

Offline tft

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 202
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2009, 02:15:07 PM »
misterteddy FDI is only in the 20's

misterteddy

  • Guest
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #4 on: April 23, 2009, 02:43:11 PM »
misterteddy FDI is only in the 20's

my point exactly TFT, in fact I'm surprised it even got that high.....so what goose made the day a TFB...and more importantly.....filtered WHY????

Offline Pipster

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,269
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #5 on: April 23, 2009, 02:51:14 PM »
The TFB is based on predicted weather conditions. One out of three measuring sites in MLR had a predicted FDI of 53, the other two in the 40's.

Based on the prediction from the Weather Bureau, a ban was imposed. Simple.

I see now that CFS has revoked the TFB in Mt Lofty, obviously due to rain....

Pip

There are three types of people in the world.  Those that watch things happen, those who make things happen, and those who wonder what happened.

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #6 on: April 23, 2009, 02:54:55 PM »
sounds like a cricket match....

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #7 on: April 23, 2009, 03:34:32 PM »
misterteddy FDI is only in the 20's

my point exactly TFT, in fact I'm surprised it even got that high.....so what goose made the day a TFB...and more importantly.....filtered WHY????

Well they don't do it just for fun mate.

misterteddy

  • Guest
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #8 on: April 23, 2009, 03:53:29 PM »
The TFB is based on predicted weather conditions. One out of three measuring sites in MLR had a predicted FDI of 53, the other two in the 40's.

Based on the prediction from the Weather Bureau, a ban was imposed. Simple.

I see now that CFS has revoked the TFB in Mt Lofty, obviously due to rain....

Pip



Yeah thanks for the lesson in how they are determined.....pretty sure I've got a handle on how..... it's the why that defies logic

To get an FDI over 50 with the figures on the forecast yesterday then we had to be looking at over 15 t/hectare fuel loading.....do people seriously think we have that? If thats the case....then the 2 days before should have been too (with temps higher and RH lower)

my point is that TFB advise like this is what switches off the public to the message. With all the collective wisdom on the forum do we really, I mean REALLY, think today was an EXTREME Fire Danger Day? Sure it's rescinded now....but theres a number of people around that would have put off work (like slashers, welders, grinders....you know all those people we love to hate on a day when it's 42 and the stupid FDI meter says 49 and not 50 so NO TFB, but they are in the clear). Next time....they will just make their own minds up cos our advice is b/s.


Yeah thanks for that incite Alex.....amazing. So we accept it as fact like good little hamsters on our wheel then just because a piece of paper says so?

Could someone please unlock the Office of Common Sense, theres a delivery waiting...

Offline jaff

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #9 on: April 23, 2009, 04:28:40 PM »
I also find it strange somedays with the apparent lack of consistency with fireban declarations, but until a better system is figured out this system will stay!

BUT on a brighter note some consistency has become apparent, YEH you guessed it its you guys........you bitch when things go wrong, you bitch when things go right, kinda comforting to know that, no matter what happens someone will always have a shite canning post.....lets face it we love to whinge :mrgreen:
Just Another Filtered Fireman

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #10 on: April 23, 2009, 06:26:52 PM »
Yeah thanks for that incite Alex.....amazing. So we accept it as fact like good little hamsters on our wheel then just because a piece of paper says so?

My point is, that obviously the weather met the set criteria. They did get that FDI of 50, and although it may upset you, they therefore have an obligation to impose a TFB.

I suppose you can either keep running on that wheel of yours for the organisation you chose to volunteer for [how does it go "vollunteer to join, after that do what your told"???] or just go away and stop trying to stir up unnecessary argument?

misterteddy

  • Guest
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #11 on: April 23, 2009, 06:47:25 PM »
oh the put up or shut up arguement is soooo useful....please let me cut and paste that so i can use that again

If we used that approach, then there'd be nothing discussed in this place unless it was words of faux praise from lap dogs and sycophants. Life could be oh so jolly and rake hoes (sic) and beaters would reign supreme.

Pardon me for wanting to look for an improvement on a broken system, but please, dont let me disturb ur blissful ignorance

Offline Alex

  • Forum Lieutenant
  • ****
  • Posts: 675
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #12 on: April 23, 2009, 06:53:46 PM »
oh the put up or shut up arguement is soooo useful....please let me cut and paste that so i can use that again


feel free

Offline Pipster

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,269
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #13 on: April 23, 2009, 07:38:55 PM »
Mister Teddy, you obviously don't agree with the current system of setting firebans.

What is your alternative ?
There are three types of people in the world.  Those that watch things happen, those who make things happen, and those who wonder what happened.

Offline Baxter

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ho ho ho its fire fighting time
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #14 on: April 23, 2009, 09:29:24 PM »
No wanting to wade into the debate but I think both side are equally correct in their arguments but are just as equally incorrect.

Yes we can all go to a website that can calculate the FDI for us or if we are apt enough we could use a MacArthur meter using the same BOM data. Those that are old enough will understanding how an FDI is calculated now and in the past.

Presently from my understanding we use soil dryness as a factor to determine dry mass. Even though this is a quick and sometimes very reliable tool it does not replace the good old fashioned field measurement. Yes the days that we actually weighed and dry material and grouped it by size have gone and so to the accuracy that it brings.

Yes that right technology makes life simpler, quicker but nature is still more elusive that what it seems
keep it simple for sanity skes please

Offline ff83

  • Forum Recruit
  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #15 on: April 23, 2009, 09:59:03 PM »
To get an FDI over 50 with the figures on the forecast yesterday then we had to be looking at over 15 t/hectare fuel loading.....do people seriously think we have that? If thats the case....then the 2 days before should have been too (with temps higher and RH lower)

FFDI's are set regradless of fuel load. Where did you pull this 15 T per H from in relation to FFDI's. And yes 15 t/hectare is very possible in the Adelaide Hills and common. Totness for example has 32 T/hectare.


Offline jaff

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #16 on: April 23, 2009, 11:45:17 PM »
Ill see your 32 T/Hectare and.................. raise it 14 T/Hectare
Just Another Filtered Fireman

Offline Burnover

  • Forum Firefighter
  • **
  • Posts: 23
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2009, 10:14:20 AM »
I think it's odd with all our modern technology, we are still using a FDI that was developed in 1967.
« Last Edit: April 24, 2009, 10:16:30 AM by Burnover »

misterteddy

  • Guest
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2009, 11:02:49 AM »
right..... i've drunk a lot of beer and had a good lie down.....so back to the fray

Pip, I've posted my thoughts on a better system of Fire Ban advice here previously, so I dont propose to re-hash it all again. I agree, there is no perfect system, but if the system we have produces the results we saw yesterday....then the system is farked. As an organisation that has the responsibility to get it right, we must constatly strive to improve the system, not just accept its shortcomings as "thats just the way it is". I'll never accept that attitude. If you want just a couple of examples as to why we need to get it better.....many Groups have an SOP of increasing the response on TFB days. That means more trucks driving Pri 1 to Incidents, that means more risk to us, and more risk to the public. Secondly, many National Parks limit access or even close completely on TFB days, depriving people of plans they may have made weeks in advance...they are small thing, but there are many consequences of instituing TFBs.... we must ensure they are there for the right (and valid) reasons. What we do must bear up to a reasonable validation, both as we look at it, but also as the public looks at it - they are after all the ones we put the Bans in place for remember

FF83....i agree completely, the validity of the GFDI, which is what triggered the TFB in the MLR (luv them TLA/FLAs - can i get one more in this sentence?) has always been a point of conjecture, just as the FFDI (yup :P) is inappropriate for the flatlanders in the same area..... IDK (bonus points!) what the perfect answer is....but there has to be a better one.

Burnover.....exactly, not to mention being found seriously flawed in several studies, although in a slight defence, the current Mk 5 GFDI version is a later development (early 2000s from memory)

Darren

  • Guest
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2009, 02:41:28 PM »
I say we ban firebans  :-P

Offline Pipster

  • Forum Captain
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,269
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2009, 05:02:25 PM »

Pip, I've posted my thoughts on a better system of Fire Ban advice here previously, so I dont propose to re-hash it all again. I agree, there is no perfect system, but if the system we have produces the results we saw yesterday....then the system is farked. As an organisation that has the responsibility to get it right, we must constatly strive to improve the system, not just accept its shortcomings as "thats just the way it is". I'll never accept that attitude. If you want just a couple of examples as to why we need to get it better.....many Groups have an SOP of increasing the response on TFB days. That means more trucks driving Pri 1 to Incidents, that means more risk to us, and more risk to the public. Secondly, many National Parks limit access or even close completely on TFB days, depriving people of plans they may have made weeks in advance...they are small thing, but there are many consequences of instituing TFBs.... we must ensure they are there for the right (and valid) reasons. What we do must bear up to a reasonable validation, both as we look at it, but also as the public looks at it - they are after all the ones we put the Bans in place for remember

FF83....i agree completely, the validity of the GFDI, which is what triggered the TFB in the MLR (luv them TLA/FLAs - can i get one more in this sentence?) has always been a point of conjecture, just as the FFDI (yup :P) is inappropriate for the flatlanders in the same area..... IDK (bonus points!) what the perfect answer is....but there has to be a better one.

Burnover.....exactly, not to mention being found seriously flawed in several studies, although in a slight defence, the current Mk 5 GFDI version is a later development (early 2000s from memory)


National parks do not close all parks everytime there is a fire ban - it depends on the risk level - something that Parks appear to look at, and make a determination.

While some groups have extra plans in place for fire bans, one has to look at the response based on the actual FDI, rather than the predicted?  Does the fact that some groups blindly go with the predicted FDI mean that the system of setting a fire ban is wrong?

As I mentioned in my previous post that this last fireban came about because the Strathalbyn measuring site had a predicted FDI just over.

Should a Group at the other end of the fire ban district, where the highest predicted FDI for the day is only 40, respond the cavalry to a fire in their own area, just because one of the other measuring sites at the other end of the area, is over 50?

How about some common sense by brigades and groups?

As for the MacArthur meter - we are way passed the Mk 5 version...I think we were up to about 7 or 8.

Extensive research was undertaken by the CSIRO - Phil Cheney & his team, in relation to the accuracy or otherwise of the MacArthur meter, which improved the accuracy of meter.

The other thing to remember is that CFS does not act alone in the setting of fire bans.   Obviously, the weather bureau provides the forecast, and the recommendation for a ban or not.  CFS then decide whether they will impose a ban.   Should CFS disregard the information provided by people whose job it is to study, and predict the weather, and just take a guess at it themselves?

There must be some system in place to reduce the chance of bushfires getting started, particularly on days where the chance of stopping a fire is low.

Any such system needs to be transparent and consistent.  The current system, while not perfect is at least transparent, and consistent!!

Pip

There are three types of people in the world.  Those that watch things happen, those who make things happen, and those who wonder what happened.

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2009, 05:28:05 PM »
I think it is Para group that decide on Active Standby based on "Local" FDI.

Really, the "Hot Day Response" Plans (borrowed from CFA's book)...should only be actioned when the local FDI is actually above 50. Rather than Fire district wide.

Make it the decision of the Call Taker (Adelaide Fire) or the First person to the fire station's call on weather the response should remain 1st alarm or go further.

I think the decision in CFA for Hot Day response plans activation is made up by each individual region through ESTA (Vicfire)...correct me if im wrong.

misterteddy

  • Guest
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2009, 10:52:30 PM »
so DEH can make a professional considered judgement based on their expertise and the risk, you're saying that local Groups and Brigades should make a considered and professional judgement based on their expertise (???) and their experience...... all i'm saying is why cant the CFS with its highly qualified and experienced staff make the same decision....not rely on rote doctrine

And exactly what is the actual difference between and FDI of 40 as opposed to 50? Is it twice as bad?....half as bad? What does an ROS increase of 10m/min mean to u on the fireground? A Google search along with a search of the AFAC and Bushfire CRC sites doesnt show me any mention of a MacA higher than Mk 5... maybe its the secret CFS version

A decision that had the FDI at Strathalbyn at 50....as the only FDI above 50, and a total fire ban on the Mount Lofty Ranges, on a day where the forecast temp was 23? Contrast this to days over summer just passed where the FDI was 45 in several sites and the forecast temp was over 40, but no Fire Ban in place (must stick to dogma....i mean doctrine) .....consistency is not a feature u can hold up. Transparent...yep....confusing as hell to the public who we expect to Stay or Go based on these decisions we make.....u bet. How many forum people activated their Bushfire Plan and send their loved ones to the rellies for the day so that they could do the business on the back of the truck yesterday, how many of you started and primed your home pumps and laid out your hoses, how many kept the radio close by along with your valuables and bushfire kit? Of course you didnt..... You all made the same decision that the CFS should have made

Its not often I am amazed....but there you go, never assume anything and you learn something new every day. Hope everyone enjoys the rain over the weekend and take time to remember those who put it on the line for us

Offline Zippy

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,540
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #23 on: April 25, 2009, 01:20:28 AM »
we could go backwards and use the "step out the door, stick the finger in the air, look out to the horizon"  HMM ITS A BAD DAY > FIRE BAN!

Offline Baxter

  • Forum Senior Firefighter
  • ***
  • Posts: 163
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • ho ho ho its fire fighting time
    • View Profile
Re: Fire Ban MLR 23 April
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2009, 10:52:39 AM »
Tried Vesta in your search engine Mr T as I think that is what Pip is referring to
keep it simple for sanity skes please