You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.
Go to Page...
Thank you for crosschecking our sponsors!
About This Page: This is a discussion on Reality Hipcheck within the LetsGoKings.com forums, at Los Angeles Kings Hockey Fan Forum. According to the LA Times our water tankers that we have for fires are just for a politician show. How this is possible, I can't even imagine. Anyone who has
According to the LA Times our water tankers that we have for fires are just for a politician show. How this is possible, I can't even imagine. Anyone who has ever had to evacuate their house, I've had to twice in the last 2 years, has thanked the tankers at one time or another. I personally know most of the guys out of San Bernardino Airport and what an insult.
My email is going out to Julie Cart and Bettina Boxall right now. Just beware ladies, karma has a weird way of coming back at you!
What I've gotten from the first page alone isn't that these planes exist just for a political show. Rather, some politicians might have insisted on their use when the firefighters on the ground found they'd be ineffective.
It seems to me that the tone wasn't that they never work, but the firefighters would probably know better than anyone else what to do. Which seems reasonable - politicians should let firefighters fight fires, and let the military fight wars. Micromanage it and you get disaster.
Oh - and last month's National Geographic has a great article about fires in the US.
I don't blame the politicians as much as I blame the idiotic constituents that demand such a thing.
People buy and build houses in areas that are natural fire corridors. Have been for centuries, and will be for centuries. When a fire breaks out in Santa Ana winds and has flame lengths of 500+ feet, you could put 500 firefighters on a single house and not guarantee it's survival.
People need to start taking responsibility and accept the fact that if buy a house surrounded by trees and brush at the ridge of a canyon, fire is going to find its way to you sooner or later.
By fighting some of these natural fires, we're just making the conditions worse. Natural fires clean out the land, help some trees, and reduce chances of larger fires. But that's besides the point, perhaps.
I don't blame the politicians as much as I blame the idiotic constituents that demand such a thing.
People buy and build houses in areas that are natural fire corridors. Have been for centuries, and will be for centuries. When a fire breaks out in Santa Ana winds and has flame lengths of 500+ feet, you could put 500 firefighters on a single house and not guarantee it's survival.
People need to start taking responsibility and accept the fact that if buy a house surrounded by trees and brush at the ridge of a canyon, fire is going to find its way to you sooner or later.
I agree with, its kinda like me, I live right up to the base of the mountains. I like the views. But, was the land charred 3 years ago....yes. If my house was here 3 years ago, it would have probable been gone. That's the chance my wife and I take, we accept that. But, for someone to sit in a office and take away the resources that could help keep my house is crazy. I betcha if any of their houses were at risk, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I agree with, its kinda like me, I live right up to the base of the mountains. I like the views. But, was the land charred 3 years ago....yes. If my house was here 3 years ago, it would have probable been gone. That's the chance my wife and I take, we accept that. But, for someone to sit in a office and take away the resources that could help keep my house is crazy. I betcha if any of their houses were at risk, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I don't think that the article was suggesting that resources be taken away. It was stating that in some instances the fire team has had air resources on the ground that were not able to fly due to the weather conditions at the time. When the PIC told the politician that they had planes but conditions were not good for flying them, the politician refused to trust the teams years of experience and training and went waaay over his head to the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and pulled favors so that the politician could make a speech about how HE saved the community from certain peril. When the additional planes arrived from the feds, they had to sit on the ground right along side the planes that were already there until the weather conditions permitted their use. Elsewhere it also stated that due to political interference planes have been used not only when they were not needed but at times when there was no way that they could be effective in that particular fire.
The article also discussed that we, as civilians, have become so accustomed to seeing planes combat fires that we do not think that the fire is being taken seriously until air support arrives. And that when we do see the planes arrive that it calms us down. I think that there is something to be said for that. There is value in having a community that is not panicking.
So, is it ever worth the extra expense to fly some planes in even though they will have little to zero impact on the fire itself? Maybe.
__________________ "Government to take over AIG! One lousy vowel; we were so close." - Steve Dilbeck
I found the article very informative, and it was interesting to know that the trained fire incident commanders (who are in the camps with the hand crews who fight the fires) do not want the extra air support. The article mainly points out the waste of money for show in the use of these airplanes, at the cost of the fire fighting agencies (the united states forest service budget is about 46% to fire now).
Also, the article didnt mention the red streak across feather peak in the John Muir Wilderness that a fire fighting plane created when it dropped its fire retardant. And to summarize, it is pretty clear that it was not an accident, as there was no calling in from the pilots that something is wrong, and the flight path shows they turned around and circled the peak.
By fighting some of these natural fires, we're just making the conditions worse. Natural fires clean out the land, help some trees, and reduce chances of larger fires. But that's besides the point, perhaps.
Yeah, but this is California and not Africa, so letting fires put themselves out might be a problem.
Firefighters, helicopters and planes all worked together to save my house a few years ago. It was awe inspiring to watch them work and I have the utmost respect and appreciation for them. What I do have a problem with is politicians interfering with these folks and politicizing the process so that they can take credit for the victory. Let the boys do their job and let the politicians kiss the babies in the shelters.
FlyinKIng
Water planes just for show??? 
