Fort McMurray mandatory evac

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by Rockie »

You can't build a preemptive fire break around every town and it wouldn't have slowed this fire down anyway. The fact environmentalists aren't fans of cutting down trees has nothing to do with it - neither are oil workers because everybody likes trees to look at especially on their own property.

You cut them down to make a fire break as necessary when there's a fire.

Ezra's full of s**t as usual.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Shady McSly
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Sep 13, 2005 9:28 am

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by Shady McSly »

Rockie wrote:You cut them down to make a fire break as necessary when there's a fire.

Based on your vast fire suppression experience? Where did you work?
---------- ADS -----------
 
tbaylx
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1200
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 6:30 pm

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by tbaylx »

Rockie wrote:You can't build a preemptive fire break around every town and it wouldn't have slowed this fire down anyway. The fact environmentalists aren't fans of cutting down trees has nothing to do with it - neither are oil workers because everybody likes trees to look at especially on their own property.

You cut them down to make a fire break as necessary when there's a fire.

Ezra's full of s**t as usual.
Considering the speed the fire moved at I don't think that's realistic.

The reason the oil sands operations themselves aren't too concerned about the fire is because they have a several hundred (thousand?) meter fire break already constructed. You can't wait until the fire starts then start chopping stuff down. It's either in place before hand or you choose not to do it for whatever reasons you may have.

Doesn't happen often where a fire does this much damage, but when it does it's devastating.

Ironically I've heard argue that the reason fires are getting larger and more difficult to deal with is because we're putting them out so effectively for the most part. No fires= no natural clearing of deadwood and renewal of old forests, so the stuff you have left is a tinderbox on a dry season like this.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by Rockie »

Shady McSly wrote:Based on your vast fire suppression experience? Where did you work?
You have no idea what my experience with this is or where I've worked. Besides that, do you think you need to be a fire suppression expert to know what a fire break is or that they're built in front of actual fires?
tbaylx wrote:Considering the speed the fire moved at I don't think that's realistic.
No it's not at all realistic where this fire is concerned as copious reports clearly indicate. This thing jumps over a kilometer at a time.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5970
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by digits_ »

I am wondering how a fire crosses a 1 km wide river. Does it heat up the air soo much that it ignites trees 1 km further away ? Is drift wood on fire crossing the river ? Something else ?
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by 7ECA »

digits_ wrote:I am wondering how a fire crosses a 1 km wide river. Does it heat up the air soo much that it ignites trees 1 km further away ? Is drift wood on fire crossing the river ? Something else ?
Probably in a similar manner to how the Kelowna fires spread in 2003, flying embers and very high winds.
---------- ADS -----------
 
cgzro
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1735
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 7:45 am

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by cgzro »

I imagine that once a fire reaches that level of intensity that the thermals are incredibly powerful and can carry significant bits of burning lumber not just ash high into the air and downwind.

Not sure what could be done, even metal roofs and stucco/brick etc. won't be enough. I guess you need to be extremely aggressive with catching fires very early, but then of course each year the fuel load accumulates.
---------- ADS -----------
 
North Shore
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5602
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 3:47 pm
Location: Straight outta Dundarave...

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by North Shore »

digits_ wrote:I am wondering how a fire crosses a 1 km wide river. Does it heat up the air soo much that it ignites trees 1 km further away ? Is drift wood on fire crossing the river ? Something else ?

A large fire can have 200 foot flames coming off the head, and has huge amounts of thermal energy being released. It will kick up small branches, pinecones, etc, and can carry them a long way downwind. All those embers have to do is land in a spot conducive to burning (dry grass, leaves, needles, etc..) with a strong wind blowing (as was the case in YMM), and it's off again..If you look at some of the 'Escape from McMurray' videos that are doing the rounds on YouFaceTwit, you can see that it is literally raining embers, as the people are driving along. Terrifying - how people managed to keep their cool while driving through that is amazing.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Say, what's that mountain goat doing up here in the mist?
Happiness is V1 at Thompson!
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.
crazyaviator
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by crazyaviator »

Ft, Mac could provide a perimeter of Select trees, thinned for a km with all ground, Call it a perimeter part), brush removed and grassed. beyond that another 1km perimeter of green fields,( call it grazing fields),,,,, A great make work project for inmates and welfare recipients !!! DREAM ON !!
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5970
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by digits_ »

Another thing that seems curious: why are there 4 waterbombers sitting in Gimli airport at this time ? Wouldn't it make sense to send them up there ?
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Rockie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8433
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 7:10 am

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by Rockie »

crazyaviator wrote:Ft, Mac could provide a perimeter of Select trees, thinned for a km with all ground, Call it a perimeter part), brush removed and grassed. beyond that another 1km perimeter of green fields,( call it grazing fields),,,,, A great make work project for inmates and welfare recipients !!! DREAM ON !!
Does the city own the 2 km wide swath of land all around it to be able to make those changes? Does any city or town? How much will it cost for each community to do that? How effective will it be using this fire as a yard stick? Will people even support the change to the landscape, cost of the work and likely much higher cost of expropriating land to accomplish such a task?

I believe this kind of measure was recommended after Slave Lake, but at some point practical considerations to build huge pre-emptive fire breaks have to be weighed against existing fire detection and suppression capabilities, and a Ft. Mac type of event happening.
---------- ADS -----------
 
mbav8r
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:11 am
Location: Manitoba

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by mbav8r »

digits_ wrote:Another thing that seems curious: why are there 4 waterbombers sitting in Gimli airport at this time ? Wouldn't it make sense to send them up there ?
Manitoba is currently under a burn ban and has a couple significant fires burning right now, including evacuations of some communities. We have not had much precipitation to speak of and it wouldn't be prudent to send our quick response two provinces away, that's my guess.
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8132
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by iflyforpie »

Rockie wrote:
crazyaviator wrote:Ft, Mac could provide a perimeter of Select trees, thinned for a km with all ground, Call it a perimeter part), brush removed and grassed. beyond that another 1km perimeter of green fields,( call it grazing fields),,,,, A great make work project for inmates and welfare recipients !!! DREAM ON !!
Does the city own the 2 km wide swath of land all around it to be able to make those changes? Does any city or town? How much will it cost for each community to do that? How effective will it be using this fire as a yard stick? Will people even support the change to the landscape, cost of the work and likely much higher cost of expropriating land to accomplish such a task?

I believe this kind of measure was recommended after Slave Lake, but at some point practical considerations to build huge pre-emptive fire breaks have to be weighed against existing fire detection and suppression capabilities, and a Ft. Mac type of event happening.
No.. but the Province does since the lions's share of it is Crown Land, and since it is responsible for fire protection it should easily be able to allow the thinning of fuels around every interface in the province. The few private parcels shouldn't matter, because most likely they've already been cleared or at least high graded anyways.

How much will it cost? Almost nothing. Put tenders out for the timber companies to do the work; they'll get the value in timber. Perhaps a bit of lost revenue in stumpage fees to encourage them to clear low grade wood... but a drop in the bucket compared to what even an average sized fire season costs--to say nothing about what has happened in Ft Mac.

This was one of the recommendations of the (largely ignored) Firestorm Report after 03 in the Okanagan.

Prevention is always better than suppression.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
goingnowherefast
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1990
Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by goingnowherefast »

digits_ wrote:Another thing that seems curious: why are there 4 waterbombers sitting in Gimli airport at this time ? Wouldn't it make sense to send them up there ?
You can only fit so many airplanes in one chunk of airspace. Fires with active air suppression and co-current evacuation are very very busy.

I wonder if this fire will lead to more prescribed burning in the future? Forest fires are natural and if done in a controlled manner, are perfectly safe.
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5970
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by digits_ »

mbav8r wrote:
digits_ wrote:Another thing that seems curious: why are there 4 waterbombers sitting in Gimli airport at this time ? Wouldn't it make sense to send them up there ?
Manitoba is currently under a burn ban and has a couple significant fires burning right now, including evacuations of some communities. We have not had much precipitation to speak of and it wouldn't be prudent to send our quick response two provinces away, that's my guess.
I see, makes sense !
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
HiLo
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:58 pm

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by HiLo »

To anyone who was pointing fingers about government incompetence allowing this fire to spread:

Looks like they did a good job considering how big the fire was: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/the ... e29930041/
---------- ADS -----------
 
co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4581
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by co-joe »

I'd still love to the the Ruskies show up. I'd bet they do things differently than we do and we might learn a thing or two. Language barrier would be a real issue in the airspace, but when help is offered and you say no thanks, the next time they might not offer.
---------- ADS -----------
 
HiLo
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:58 pm

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by HiLo »

co-joe wrote:I'd still love to the the Ruskies show up. I'd bet they do things differently than we do and we might learn a thing or two. Language barrier would be a real issue in the airspace, but when help is offered and you say no thanks, the next time they might not offer.
I think the last thing congested firefighting airspace needs is a language barrier.
---------- ADS -----------
 
co-joe
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4581
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by co-joe »

I don't know, didn't Quebec send CL-415's? :lol:
---------- ADS -----------
 
HiLo
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 246
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2014 12:58 pm

Re: Fort McMurray mandatory evac

Post by HiLo »

co-joe wrote:I don't know, didn't Quebec send CL-415's? :lol:
I spilled my coffee.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”