19 Hotshots Killed in Yarnell Hill Fire

[Hellbound]

I wonder if drones could be utilized to avoid such tragedies in the future.

Using a drone to send back streaming video might be a much better solution.

Cheaper too. Drones can be fairly light weight compared to manned aircraft, and can stay aloft longer using less fuel.

My worry would be because of the winds and various thermal effects caused by the fire. Could you get a drone to stay aloft? Most likely it would have to fly higher to avoid effects, which means you'd need more expensive imaging gear, especially when smoke and other obstructions are considered.

Still worth looking into, I think, but I see some potential issues that would have to be overcome.

 

[abaddon]

I wonder if drones could be utilized to avoid such tragedies in the future.

Here's my idea:

It would help these guys to avoid getting trapped if they had an eye in the sky that knows where they are and can also see the surrounding area from a bird's eye perspective. That way the person monitoring by drone could see if a fire was developing in a way that is likely to cut off and surround the firefighters. He/she could also tell them the best direction to move to escape.

Once in a while around these here parts, you find a nugget of a good idea. This is not one of those.

This is a gem.

It extends further. Whoever is monitoring could direct other assets to assist entrapped colleagues.

ETA: That got me wondering. Is anyone doing this already anywhere about the globe?

ETA2: It turns out to be a yes. Google "drones fire fighting" turns up a heap of interesting links.

 

[rcfieldz]

seeing

Might be too much smoke to get a bird's eye view. Infrared may be good but perhaps blowing the fire out someway with a yet undeveloped anti fire bomb would be great(maybe I been watching too many hero movies).

 

[abaddon]

Might be too much smoke to get a bird's eye view. Infrared may be good but perhaps blowing the fire out someway with a yet undeveloped anti fire bomb would be great(maybe I been watching too many hero movies).

Most, if not all, Iraqi oil well fires were extinguished with explosives. Your problem with forest/bush fires is the extent. Any bomb large enough to extinguish those is going to flatten a huge area and kill anyone in the vicinity.

 

[Hellbound]

Most, if not all, Iraqi oil well fires were extinguished with explosives. Your problem with forest/bush fires is the extent. Any bomb large enough to extinguish those is going to flatten a huge area and kill anyone in the vicinity.

Perhaps a self-expanding extinguishing foam? Pressurized container of some sort? I suspect he was thinking along those lines, but with poor word choice.

ETA: Of course, now we're rapidly getting out of the area of "cheap and disposable" and into "Why not just fly it on a plane".

 

[crescent]

Someone mentioned non-native grass species leading to an increase in fires. Could these be removed via spraying or controlled burning, or are we simply looking at too big an area?

That's a big part of my job - it is not easy.

We can use herbicides, but there are very few herbicides that will kill cheatgrass without killing all of the other plants, too. And, as others have stated, many herbicides tend to be toxic to insects, fish and amphibians due to the surfactants the herbicides contain; these surfactants are needed to allow the herbicide to be absorbed into the plant.

We've got one chemical that works - barely. Apply too much, it kills everything. Apply too little, it kills nothing. The right amount varies from place to place depending on soil type. It is expensive, and would need to be applied over millions of acres - my agency alone manages about a quarter of a billion acres of land. There are concerns that plants could develop resistance in as little as three applications.

The cheatgrass is not a problem every year - it needs rain in November to germinate, and a moist spring to put on mass. We can't just set aside money to wait for the right long-term forecasts to apply - federal land management budgets don't work that way. Ideally we, could get by with one application every few years, if we had the flexibility to choose which years on relatively short notice. However, Bureaucracy-wise, that flexibility ain't gonna happen.

Lately I've been working on firebreaks around the more sensitive habitats, where rare species occur. These would serve as an aid to firefighting, not as a substitute.

My worry would be because of the winds and various thermal effects caused by the fire. Could you get a drone to stay aloft? Most likely it would have to fly higher to avoid effects, which means you'd need more expensive imaging gear, especially when smoke and other obstructions are considered.

Still worth looking into, I think, but I see some potential issues that would have to be overcome.

In my experience, once a fire really gets going, they get an airplane overhead pretty quickly. If the weather is bad, they may not be able to use helicopters or slurry bombers, but there can still be an air attack (command) plane circling around about a kilometer up.

Drones are coming along pretty fast, though. There is still a lot of bureaucracy and learning involved, but in another decade or so I'm guessing they will be commonplace, unless blocked by legislation.

 

[crescent]

Someone mentioned non-native grass species leading to an increase in fires. Could these be removed via spraying or controlled burning, or are we simply looking at too big an area?

Burning won't work. The annual grasses are the one thing in the desert that are adapted to frequent fire, very little of the native plants can recover from it easily.

Management fires are critical in many other vegetation types and places, but they are not so good in desert environments.

 

[Hellbound]

In my experience, once a fire really gets going, they get an airplane overhead pretty quickly. If the weather is bad, they may not be able to use helicopters or slurry bombers, but there can still be an air attack (command) plane circling around about a kilometer up.

Drones are coming along pretty fast, though. There is still a lot of bureaucracy and learning involved, but in another decade or so I'm guessing they will be commonplace, unless blocked by legislation.

Well, yeah, but it seems that's more for overall visibility of the blaze and large-scale trends. And, as you said, about a kilometer up. What seems to be discussed here are smaller, lighter craft (meaning less payload, meaning smaller cameras, meaning less resolution), more susceptible to winds and such, and intended for smaller scale stuff (meaning they need better resolution) and intended to be cheap and relatively expendable (meaning any high-end sensors are going to be out, meaning it needs to fly lower).

I dunno, maybe the problems I'm thinking of aren't anything to worry about, but they are things to be considered.

That said, I do think we'll see something before long.

The Army developed a concept for a battlefield drone. It was basically a small, electric ducted fan engine with a camera underneath, about the size of a can of soup. Could be carried on a belt, and when activated would fly up into the air and send the "straight down" picture wirelessly to the soldier (via a handheld device or a HUD). The intent was to give a good, quick overview of the immediate tactical situation. I wonder if something similar might work in these situations? These were definately small and cheap enough to be disposable Of course, I don't know if they ever built them, but it doesn't seem to be outside possibility.

 

[crescent]

What seems to be discussed here are smaller, lighter craft (meaning less payload, meaning smaller cameras, meaning less resolution), more susceptible to winds and such, and intended for smaller scale stuff (meaning they need better resolution) and intended to be cheap and relatively expendable (meaning any high-end sensors are going to be out, meaning it needs to fly lower).

And there is work on civilian applications of such things - but it does not happen overnight, especially in an environment where low flying aircraft are making frequent passes in a low-visibility, dynamic environment.

That said, I do think we'll see something before long.

 

[DDWW]

As reported on my local radio; There is a relief fund to help the families. I will see if I can find the name/address and post.

They also reported that Glen Beck donated $50,000.

Relief Fund - 100 Club of Arizona

 

[abaddon]

Perhaps a self-expanding extinguishing foam? Pressurized container of some sort? I suspect he was thinking along those lines, but with poor word choice.

ETA: Of course, now we're rapidly getting out of the area of "cheap and disposable" and into "Why not just fly it on a plane".

Yeah. I am not in a "forgive a noob his sins" space right now. The noob can burn for his egregious claims. If the noob desires NOT to burn, then the noob can simply NOT make such egregious claims.

 

[abaddon]

AKA

"Hi everybody!! I'm a troll!!"

I don't think we have interacted much, but I read your posts, and largely agree with them, albeit I don't reply much.

That said, you do not often put a blatant nail in it. This nail of yours is very well aimed. I will happily chuck my name behind it.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

While it's unf<snip>dren and pets from burning building" type of guy.

Thank you for this informative and helpful post. I will add you to my Ignore list now to prevent future frustration.

 

[abaddon]

Thank you for this informative and helpful post. I will add you to my Ignore list now to prevent future frustration.

I will step up and admit my first thoughts were "What a sick son of a ..." And that has coloured my perception of this thread.

On balance, that still holds true. I am sorry that you had to see this. I am sorry that I had to see this. Such is the price of freedom of speech.

 

[Travis]

Somehow I see the nutters going crazy over the idea of firefighter drones.

"They might use them to spy on us!"

 

[Quad4_72]

While it's unfortunate the 19 firefighters died, it was an occupational hazard up there with race car driving and scaling buildings without safety gear.

People putting themselves in harm's way for a living doesn't evoke much in the way of sympathy from me. I don't see them as heroes, and my visceral reaction is *shrug*

I'm more of a "brave fireman rescues children and pets from burning building" type of guy.

Definitely would not bother me if you never posted here again. In fact, I would be quite pleased.

 

[abaddon]

Somehow I see the nutters going crazy over the idea of firefighter drones.

"They might use them to spy on us!"

Yeah. Right. That is one of those circle of stupid notions that really annoys me.

Drones deployed? The tards are watching us.

Drones not deployed? The tards are neglecting us.

And whatever you do, the tards are masturbating over whatever random phone call you may have.

Terribly sorry Travis, but you will never win this one.

 

[gsmonks]

A very heartless post from a noob. I normally welcome someone new to the forum, but won't bother here.

Heartless? Not in the least.

But I reserve my feelings of shock, horror, sorrow, etc., for people who don't deliberately put themselves in harm's way.

Back in the 70's there was a stunt man whose schtick was to jump over a speeding car driven straight at him. Another stunt man had a special set of gloves and teeth made for catching bullets fired from a gun (what else?).

Both guys were eventually killed. One went *splat*, the other ate a bullet.

The firefighters in question aren't the only guys involved in an extremely high-risk occupation. The guys who put out oil-well fires and who diffuse bombs put themselves at just as much risk.

The aforementioned high-risk occupations are unnecessary. They're unnecessary because they're about saving property and assets, not lives. Forest fires can be avoided. Bombs can be avoided or set off from a distance. Oil fires can be smothered from the air or left to burn themselves out.

Being attracted to such professions is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you put yourself in such a position, chances are extremely good that you'll eventually wind up dead.

You may as well be playing Russian Roulette.

Oops, there was a bullet in the chamber that time! Oh, dear!

Sorry- that just doesn't cut it with me. The firemen who died in the Twin Towers were selfless heroes. These guys were not. They were hired guns whose job it was to protect property and assets, not lives.

Criticize me all you like. At least I have my priorities straight. If you can't see that, it's you that has the problem, not me.

Steve Irwin is another such example of this type of scenario: high-risk behaviour ending in death. Lots of weeping and wailing afterward.

Steve Irwin's last words: "Crikey! Me heart!"

Makes me laugh every time.

Meanwhile, I reserve my outpouring of grief and sense of loss for those that deserve it.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Four people dead in my city from forest fires make your claim of forest fires being avoidable complete bull ****. HotShots aren't thrillseekers, they're not performance artists, they're not out for fame and glory---they're highly trained and geared professionals in fighting forest fires. Sure, almost everyone can get away, but given that in two years we've had TWO fires burn into a large city, who could argue that everyone (hundreds of thousands of people) should just evacuate and wait for the fire to burn itself out?

Two fires, over a thousand homes damaged or destroyed. Four humans killed. If fires aren't fought, if no one tries to control them, the fire will shift WILL GROW faster than evacuations can keep up with and many more people will die. Tens of thousands dead of smoke inhalation, because there's so many people trying to evacuate that roads are overwhelmed and no one can get out. People dead in their homes because they didn't realize the fire was burning their way. People dead because they were essentially given a few minutes to move house and have too much they want to not see crinkled and blackened.

Would you really be so callous as to mock the death of someone who was trying to save you from a bomb? Can you be sure that if they fail, you're far enough away to survive without injury?

 

[Travis]

Gsmonks, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. They have to control these fires or numerous lives are at stake. If they just let them go because only trees are burning the fire will turn into a monster that will swallow whole towns, and all the people in them, in a blink of an eye.

Again, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.