Looks to me like wrote on Oct 25, 2007 7:07 AM:CalFire is competing with FEMA in who can produce the most red tape.

Floyd wrote on Oct 25, 2007 9:07 AM:Compare today's claims by the bureaucrats with "Fire chief says state unprepared for deadly California blazes" at http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/10/25/news/state/12_42_1410_24_07.txt to get a complete picture of the situation.

Canada's gift unused wrote on Oct 25, 2007 9:49 AM:The Canadian water-drop BIG aircraft was sent here to help us. It sits on Lake Elsinore, waiting, and waiting. Will somebody in authority get the plane up and dropping water. I cannot believe that it is still sitting there !

James wrote on Oct 25, 2007 11:01 AM:One can only hope people will sign the initiative for state district elections and get control out of the hands of Sacramento, along with our money that supports San Francisco and LA. We can't leave our fates in the hands of CALFIRE officials that don't even live here and seek one thing: power in Sacramento. Calfilre has clearly proven they don't know what is best for us as lives are lost on the fireline and in our communities; all the while, they fret over who will upstage them with the equipment needed. The federal government military stands ready. Give them a fire to fight on their own if they can't be fully ingegrated into the State's ambitions.

policeofficer wrote on Oct 25, 2007 1:04 PM:There is a solution to this, get all of those politician (sanders, roberts, hunters, etc.) out of the Operation Center. STOP interfering with the operation so you can get a photo ops. Let the CHIEF do his job. People who are complaining about the fire chief, I now you don't wish to ever be on his shoes right now. I believe he is doing a great job coordinating all Law Enforcement, Firefighters and support units. Stop the politics in a major crisis like this one.

Greg wrote on Oct 25, 2007 1:26 PM:I'll keep it brief, that way we can't get too deep in the details of CALFIRE imposed policies, the deal between Hunter, Bilbray, Issa and the #1 of CALFIRE and the outcome of the fourth day of destruction. Regardless of that, CALFIRE is saying they "are using all available resources", a commander of one of our bases says I have 8 buckets and 4 helos in the air with 6 buckets, 4 helos on the ground. That equals 2 "spare" buckets in the air, 2 on the ground and 4 aircraft on the ground. Those are the "available resources". Simple math, 4 extra buckets for 4 extra aircraft. These are pretty exact numbers and were made available by the commander immediately on a single request. CALFIRE on the other hand after an hour of wrangling at least, stated they couldn't supply us with the number of military aircraft in the air or available. This exchange was broadcast live over the airwaves. If that's the case, how is CALFIRE even be sure they "are using all available resources" when in reality they are using only SOME of the available resources. That is the issue. The brouhaha continues.

Enough, already wrote on Oct 25, 2007 2:17 PM:After the 2003 firestorm tragedies, we had hoped that the petty squabbling between officials wouldn't get in the way of saving people and homes. But, we were wrong. CALFIRE didn't and still wouldn't approve of so many offers of assistance. What is going on. Are we reduced to officials that have power using it in the wrong way, again. Planes sitting on the ground. Fire fighters not allowed to fight fires. Homes being lost because of it, AGAIN 1

fedup wrote on Oct 25, 2007 4:28 PM:the C130 MAFF units will not be ready to work until Monday at the best..... they are not at mugu and outfitted yet!

Air Force wrote on Oct 25, 2007 4:43 PM:I wish some military, fire fighter or general pilots would speak up here in defence of CalFire. What those who don't fly may not know:1) All aircraft in the "battle" (as that's what it is, a military action) need to be controled by both the ground and Command and Control craft above each scene. These commanders can only control so many aircraft at one time regardless of how many more are ready to fly. Sending up everything helter-skelter is a recipe for disaster and frankly I think the lives of the air crews are worth far more than your homes. 2) Just because aircraft are on the tarmac does not mean they are not working. Aircraft need to be refueled and reloaded with ordinance. They may also need quick maintenance as foreign objects infiltrate their systems and the smoke covers their canopies. They may also be short of personel. You can not just stick any old pilot in these craft, they require very special training. Further, they just may not have a "target" yet. The ships and crews on the ground wait their turn to strike after the first wave is brought down for maintenance. I don't know if this was the case but it surely may have been judging by the number of aircraft involved, qouted in the article above. 3)The amount of smoke generated by these fires may limit the pilots availability to fight them. Just because it may clear where you are standing the pilots need minimum VFR to drop their ordinance safely. No sense in dropping it blind and having it wasted or worse, losing the asset and crew to an uneccessary crash. 4)Bear in mind that when you see firefighters not fighting it may be a tactic that is widely employed in their business. Sometimes they just let a fire run its course in a particular area. Their job is not just to fight fires but control them. Seeing equipment idle does not mean they are not working! If your particular house is sacrificed to the greater good then that's the way it is.

Hunter Lied wrote on Oct 27, 2007 7:51 AM:On Monday, Duncan Hunter said the C-130 from Colorado would be here at 2:30. Is he that bad that he didn't realize they wouldn't be here at all? He downright lied then.

Wait wrote on Oct 27, 2007 10:09 AM:Other articles claim the C-130s were not outfitted for flame retardant. But Hunter is claiming they are sitting on the tarmac. Please explain...truth please.

GET INFORMED! wrote on Oct 28, 2007 1:01 PM:As a firefighter and taxpayer, I feel it is my responsibility to share a perspective that seems to be largely ignored by the local media in this firefighting air resources issue. Red tape plays a role here, but the greater issue is safety and efficiency. Aircraft was not allowed to fly initially due to sound policy. Weather was one factor (high winds and turbulence do not work for aerial firefighting resources) and safety was another. The risk of mid air collisions prohibits multiple aircraft to be working the same space concurrently. Introducing air resources unfamiliar with the firefighting mission, without communication capabilities with ground forces and other air resources creates significant hazards to pilots and firefighters on the ground. We do our best to save your homes, but our peoples safety comes first ALWAYS. Wildfires aren't campfires, you don't simply douse them and they go out. With high temperatures, low humidities and any sort of breeze, vegetation drenched by 2000 gallons of water or fire retardant is ready to burn again in a matter of hours. If there are not ground crews to contain segments of the fire edge that the helicopters and airtankers are working, the fire will continue to spread. Why the shortage of ground crews to support air operations? Most of them were busy trying to evacuate people who refused to do so! Our first priority is saving lives, once we feel we are accomplishing that objective, we move along to our next priority- property. It seems the public perceives putting out catastrophic wildfires as akin to the utility company restoring electricity after a power pole falls over. Wake up to the fact that these are natural disaters which have become increasingly hard to control over the last century. People who live in areas where wildfire poses a threat need to realize it is their choice to live in these areas and they need to take significant measures to reduce the threat to their homes and families. Southern California will burn again and again. In comparison to the 2003 event, these fires experienced significantly stronger winds and had longer periods of lower humidity, yet the cost of human life was less and the number of homes lost was 50% less. That in itself is a huge success. As you continue to badmouth the efforts of firefighters and thier leaders (who surely have done their time on the ground), think about the firefighters who lost their own homes this week trying to save other peoples homes. Think about the fact that a firefighter who makes a decision against policy (such as using unapproved aircraft, or saturating the sky with air resources to the point of causing additional hazard to pilots, firefighters and the public in already marginal conditions) not only has the guilt of any accidental death they may be responsible for, but ALSO is criminally liable for operating out of the scope of their duties, even though they were trying to save your homes. The politicians and public who are pressing this issue are too consumed by pointing fingers to realize that their helplessness in this situation stems from their apathy in the past, apathy to make their properties more firesafe and to acknowledge the threat of catastrophic wildfires will not conveniently disappear without proactive managment of wild lands, which is going to have to paid for somehow.

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2007 1:40 PM:To Get Informed: Your perspective is appreciated, and I am certain it is all true. What is also true is your comment "Red tape plays a role here..." and THAT is the part that is being questioned -- not the decisions made on the ground by firefighters for safety or operational reasons. To this moment, there is no agreement between CalFire and the U.S. Marines, despite the huge assets available from that branch in San Diego County. The 39 "spotters" qualified for use in military planes are ALL Battalion Fire Chiefs who are usually far more necessary on the ground, but they jumped on the qualification bandwagon to prepare to enhance their resumes for higher positions. When the military flies, THEY accept the liability for their deaths, and to say they or their planes are not qualified is absurd -- both men and machine are designed to be stressed far beyond normal civilian capabilities -- high winds are a no-brainer -- and low altitudes are simple for Marine close-air support teams. BTW, where are those Marines...(?). Oh, they are not yet "approved." I suspect that on-line firefighters want as much help as they can get, and as soon as they can get it. Can we agree to end the red tape that is the same red tape as in 2003? That is all we ask.

Kevin wrote on Oct 28, 2007 9:41 PM:To Reardon: The reason there is no agreement with the Marines is that they refused to enter into any agreements. They said they could not waste their flight time training with CAL Fire or other local fire agencies. The Navy, however, did sign an agreement, trained with CAL Fire and was airborne with their copters at the earliest time allowed by the weather. The 'spotters" you refer to are "aviation managers" qualified in the ICS system and may come from a variety of government agencies. The military copters could be used on any fire regardless of jurisdiction, so who's "turf" is CAL Fire protecting?

Reardon wrote on Oct 28, 2007 10:12 PM:Kevin: Cal Fire is the agency that announced that they had 39 spotters, and that all are Bat. Fire Chiefs. They are also the agency that admitted that they called for only two helos from the Navy, when eight were available. Cal Fire eventually permitted one spotter for three platforms -- if that was good enough for Wednesday, why was it not good enough for Monday when extra platforms on the origin of the fire was really necessary? I suspect it will all come out in the investigations that follow. I also expect Grihalva of Cal Fire will be asked to resign by the Governor. As to the Marines, they are not noted for putting up with nonsense – they don’t need to fight fires. If we want them to fight fires, we will not be able to get them to jump through bureaucratic hoops. We need them – they do not need Cal Fire, even for public relations. The Navy, with whom I served for 26 years, is more PR oriented -- they should have had SEAL Team One negotiate with Cal Fire.

Kevin wrote on Oct 29, 2007 11:10 AM:Reardon: The law states that local agreements must be in place before the emergency in order for the State to directly order and utilize military assets. Mutual training is essential for safe air operations. If you consider following the rule of law and providing for the safety of your employees "bureaucratic hoops" then you are a hopeless complainer. The CAL Fire Director has done a great job leading his troops in battle despite your bias that somehow the military can do it better than the thousands of state, federal, and local firefighters. I agree that the military assets should be readily available to the state when practical but don't blame state leaders for following the rules of engagement. Blame the elected officials who sit on hands until the emergency then criticize those who follow the very laws those elected officials have enacted. The fact is that air operations on wildfires are complex and extremely dangerous. Mixing in aircraft without common communications and training is a design for disaster.