Western Railroad Discussion > Victorville, CA brush fire - Mojave Narrows

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/15 22:10 by atsffan.

It is on the other side.  Everyone from the river to riverside drive, in Apple Valley, has been evacuated.  It is a hot day, firefighters have been on the scene since 2 PM.  It will be a long night, putting out hot spots.  Lots of wind.  As a firefighter that used to live in Apple Valley, those are not easy fires to deal with. 

This was a controlled burn that got away from them,.

czuleget Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This was a controlled burn that got away from
> them,.

Let's be clear...the controlled burn wasn't being conducted by the F.D.  

The regional park lost control of their own control burn.
http://www.vvdailypress.com/article/20150331/NEWS/150339939

KA7008 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> czuleget Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This was a controlled burn that got away from
> > them,.
>
> Let's be clear...the controlled burn wasn't being
> conducted by the F.D.  
>
> The regional park lost control of their own
> control burn.
> http://www.vvdailypress.com/article/20150331/NEWS/
> 150339939

But why wasn't the FD there just to make sure there was no problems. Even just one Brush Rig would have helped... A Camp Crew would have killed it before it got out of control.

The conditions of a normal burn permit (of which 1000's are issued each year) are to burn 6' or smaller PILES of brush ONLY.  FD can't place a brush engine at each one and there is no need to. Yes, sure a brush engine could have helped in this case but then again, the FD didn't know that the park was going to go "hog-wild" and run around with a blowtorch/propane tank in windy weather. The conditions of all burn permits are to have tools and WATER on hand.   The park was burning OUTSIDE of the parameters of their burn permit.  

KA7008 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The conditions of a normal burn permit (of which
> 1000's are issued each year) are to burn 6' or
> smaller PILES of brush ONLY.  FD can't place a
> brush engine at each one and there is no need
> to. Yes, sure a brush engine could have helped in
> this case but then again, the FD didn't know that
> the park was going to go "hog-wild" and run around
> with a blowtorch/propane tank in windy weather.
> The conditions of all burn permits are to have
> tools and WATER on hand.   The park was burning
> OUTSIDE of the parameters of their burn permit.  

Any idea what, if any. penalty the fire commander will face?  It seems this fire could have been managed much better, and within the terms of the permit.

Is this a two days loss of vacation offense, or a firing (!) offense?

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Any idea what, if any. penalty the fire commander
> will face?  It seems this fire could have been
> managed much better, and within the terms of the
> permit.
>
> Is this a two days loss of vacation offense, or a
> firing (!) offense?

The "fire commander" as you call him was just a county parks employee who had a basic burning permit for piles of brush/tumbleweeds/trimmings.  "IF" the Fire Dept goes for cost recovery, the county parks dept would have to transfer funds to the fire district for equipment & manpower.  They would also have to transfer funds to the Sheriff's Dept for aircraft time and fuel.  The superintendent of county parks "could" deal with this person using any of your above options.  I don't know how they deal with personnel matters but I'm sure whether or not this person is full-time vs "seasonal" extra help would be a big factor.

KA7008 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > Any idea what, if any. penalty the fire
> commander
> > will face?  It seems this fire could have been
> > managed much better, and within the terms of
> the
> > permit.
> >
> > Is this a two days loss of vacation offense, or
> a
> > firing (!) offense?
>
> The "fire commander" as you call him was just a
> county parks employee who had a basic burning
> permit for piles of brush/tumbleweeds/trimmings.
>  "IF" the Fire Dept goes for cost recovery, the
> county parks dept would have to transfer funds to
> the fire district for equipment & manpower.  They
> would also have to transfer funds to the Sheriff's
> Dept for aircraft time and fuel.  The
> superintendent of county parks "could" deal with
> this person using any of your above options.  I
> don't know how they deal with personnel matters
> but I'm sure whether or not this person is
> full-time vs "seasonal" extra help would be a big
> factor.

thanks.  given the dry conditions I figured the parks people would take extra precautions with an open fire

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> thanks.  given the dry conditions I figured the
> parks people would take extra precautions with an
> open fire

That would have been the smart and logical thing to do. Oh wait, we are talking about a government agency. Never mind.

There was a case a few years ago in Northern California where a F.S. employee had a controlled burn with the wind going the wrong way, burned down the whole town. Good intentions but not enough understanding of the area.

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was a case a few years ago in Northern
> California where a F.S. employee had a controlled
> burn with the wind going the wrong way, burned
> down the whole town. Good intentions but not
> enough understanding of the area.

Yes, that's why I asked about the training etc given to the guy who held the burn certificate.

Sometimes you need real expertise for something that's a piece of cake 99% of the time.  You're paying for that 1%....