19 Hotshots Killed in Yarnell Hill Fire

[Cylinder]

19 Arizona firefighters killed in one of nation's deadliest blazes

The 19 firefighters were members of an elite squad who get as close to the fire as possible to set up a barrier and stop its forward march.

But the inferno blazing across central Arizona proved too much.

The entire team was killed Sunday while fighting the Yarnell Hill fire, northwest of Phoenix -- the deadliest wildland blaze for firefighters in more than 35 years.

"Our entire crew was lost," Prescott Fire Chief Dan Fraijo told reporters Sunday night. "We just lost 19 of the finest people you'll ever meet. We're going through a terrible crisis."

All 19 had deployed person fire shelters and most were found inside. This is the worst hotshot disaster that comes to my mind anyway - 15 were killed at Alder Creek and around the same number in the infamous Mann Gulch fire in the 40s/50s. More recently 14 were killed in the 1994 Strom King fire in Colorado.

 

[KatieG]

I saw this on the news when we got back into town today. My heart goes out to their families. I know this type of work has to be done but the danger is so high.

 

[lionking]

This is terrible news. I know people who died in our bushfires a few years ago, and feel great sorrow for the families and friends of these brave firefighters.

 

[Puppycow]

Awful. Are these "personal fire shelters" not adequate to the task? What a hideous way to die.

 

[DragonLady]

The fire is still raging, and many people have been burned out completely. I'm much afraid it will get worse before they bring it under control.

 

[DragonLady]

Awful. Are these "personal fire shelters" not adequate to the task? What a hideous way to die.

There's a little short blurb about them here:
http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/story/2...nell-hill-wildfire-grows-to-almost-1000-acres

He added that the firefighters had to deploy the emergency shelters when "something drastic" occurred.
"One of the last fail safe methods that a firefighter can do under those conditions is literally to dig as much as they can down and cover themselves with a protective - kinda looks like a foil type - fire-resistant material - with the desire, the hope at least, is that the fire will burn over the top of them and they can survive it," Fraijo said.
"Under certain conditions there's usually only sometimes a 50 percent chance that they survive," he said. "It's an extreme measure that's taken under the absolute worst conditions."

It sounds like they're just wishful thinking.

 

[geni]

I know this type of work has to be done

Why?

 

[lionking]

Why?

Protecting people from fire? Is this a serious question?

 

[DragonLady]

Why?

The hot shot crew builds firebreaks. They chop down trees, dig trenches, and generally try to keep fires contained until other firefighters can bring it under control. Without them a lot more fires here in AZ would grow huge.

 

[geni]

Protecting people from fire? Is this a serious question?

The US has cars and a number of other forms of technology for moving people. Given the risks involved wouldn't it make more sense to maintain perminant firebreaks around major settlements and let the rest burn as it will.

 

[lionking]

The US has cars and a number of other forms of technology for moving people. Given the risks involved wouldn't it make more sense to maintain perminant firebreaks around major settlements and let the rest burn as it will.

Just major settlements? Let the rest burn, including "minor" settlements"?

Sorry, and again if you are serious, it looks like you have no idea of wildfires and communities which have to accept them as a reality.

 

[geni]

Just major settlements? Let the rest burn, including "minor" settlements"?

We know that wildfire is a natural part of the forrest lifecycle and that stopping it causes further problems in the long run. We also know that attempting to stop it carries a non zero risk of killing people. That being the case it is reasonable to ask if thecost benefit analysis actauly supports attempting to stop the things.

 

[lionking]

We know that wildfire is a natural part of the forrest lifecycle and that stopping it causes further problems in the long run. We also know that attempting to stop it carries a non zero risk of killing people. That being the case it is reasonable to ask if thecost benefit analysis actauly supports attempting to stop the things.

Controlled burning, fuel reduction and firebreaks are used to control fires, but in extreme conditions they are not always adequate. When fires break control lines, you seem to think that those in the way are unlucky, and should just suffer their fate. You do live in a place unthreatened by these sorts of disasters, but you can't get away rubbish posts like "Why?".

 

[abaddon]

Just major settlements? Let the rest burn, including "minor" settlements"?

Sorry, and again if you are serious, it looks like you have no idea of wildfires and communities which have to accept them as a reality.

You are clearly puzzled by the response you gleaned. Me too. Perhaps the respondent is not familiar with the scale, ferocity and speed of such conflagrations? Just a guess. When it is bad enough that firefighters must perforce dig in and cover themselves in foil in the hope that they come out on the right side of a 50/50 toss of the coin? That's pretty bad. That's as bad as it gets.

 

[DragonLady]

The US has cars and a number of other forms of technology for moving people. Given the risks involved wouldn't it make more sense to maintain perminant firebreaks around major settlements and let the rest burn as it will.

Here in Arizona we have forests that cover thousands of acres, and deserts that cover thousands more. Because precipitation is so sparse, the brush, trees and even cacti become super dry and will ignite very easily -even a single cigarette butt can start a blaze. Once it starts, the wind carries it, and there's very little to prevent it from spreading. Brush fires are the worst for growing very large very, very quickly.

In those same areas, we not only have major settlements and small towns, but also plenty of isolated homes that only house a single family. Add to that thousands of people who live in motor homes and small trailers that don't stay in one place.

We need the hot shot crews because otherwise it's simply impossible to contain huge fires; and whole towns can burn within hours.

 

[lionking]

You are clearly puzzled by the response you gleaned. Me too. Perhaps the respondent is not familiar with the scale, ferocity and speed of such conflagrations? Just a guess. When it is bad enough that firefighters must perforce dig in and cover themselves in foil in the hope that they come out on the right side of a 50/50 toss of the coin? That's pretty bad. That's as bad as it gets.

I certainly understand the ferocity and speed of fires. My house and family were within minutes of being engulfed by the Black Saturday bushfires of 2009, and were only saved by a wind change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires

The firefront was moving at 200 kilometres per hour. Deaths, including of many firefighters, was inevitable. The firefighters did their best, and they may not have saved many people, but they did their duty magnificently.

 

[Travis]

Also firebreaks are themselves damaging to the ecology. They need to be very wide to be effective (back in 1987 there were firebreaks over 200 feet (60 meters) wide around one of our very large local fires) and that means lots of bare dirt to wash into streams. So firebreaks are only built when they are absolutely needed and then when the fire is out extensive rehabilitation takes place immediately to try and erase the firebreak from existence.

Now keeping underbrush down is something that should happen and there are numerous efforts by the National Forest Service to do so. Unfortunately this year the NFS had its budget for removing undergrowth pretty much zeroed out by congress. So the problem is a lot worse right now than it should be.

 

[abaddon]

I certainly understand the ferocity and speed of fires. My house and family were within minutes of being engulfed by the Black Saturday bushfires of 2009, and were only saved by a wind change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Saturday_bushfires

The firefront was moving at 200 kilometres per hour. Deaths, including of many firefighters, was inevitable. The firefighters did their best, and they may not have saved many people, but they did their duty magnificently.

Yup. These things can proceed scary fast, and unpredictably to boot. Here is a simple question for geni. Why did those deceased firefighters not simply back off, walk away from the fire, sprint away from the flames? Why is it that they used the last ditch strategy of digging in, in the hope that the flames would pass over them? Why not simply walk away from the conflagration? A moments thought should give you those answers.

 

[Doubt]

Wild fires are natural and do things people only used to structure fires might not suspect. One of those things is making their own weather. They can produce wind effects that can carry burning embers for long distances. How long of a fire break is resonable to cut? Miles wide breaks?

 

[lionking]

Also firebreaks are themselves damaging to the ecology. They need to be very wide to be effective (back in 1987 there were firebreaks over 200 feet (60 meters) wide around one of our very large local fires) and that means lots of bare dirt to wash into streams. So firebreaks are only built when they are absolutely needed and then when the fire is out extensive rehabilitation takes place immediately to try and erase the firebreak from existence.

Now keeping underbrush down is something that should happen and there are numerous efforts by the National Forest Service to do so. Unfortunately this year the NFS had its budget for removing undergrowth pretty much zeroed out by congress. So the problem is a lot worse right now than it should be.

Correct Travis. In the aftermath of Black Saturday I linked to, the local authorities went overboard with controlled burns and firebreaks. This has eased up in more recent years. As a resident in a fire zone, I accept the risk, and am eternally grateful to the firefighters (mainly volunteer) who serve to protect us.