Hawaii has a robust emergency siren warning system. It sat silent during the deadly wildfires

[Mike Smith]

Speaking of not being known for accuracy:

The "Washington Free Beacon" isn't known for its accuracy for a reason

As it says right at the top, the newspaper that carried the story was The New York Post, which Rob would have known had he -- for once -- read my posting before commenting on it.

 

[gdlewen]

As it says right at the top, the newspaper that carried the story was The New York Post,

Or you can go to Newsweek to learn that the official in charge of diverting water to reservoirs waited 5 hours to respond to requests for water diversion, telling firefighters to "inquire with a local farmer first to check how a diversion of the water supply would affect him." (Kaleo Manuel, Maui water official, faces scrutiny over fire response)

It doesn't take too long to find clues to this official's thinking: he is on video last year describing water as sacred, like a god (video linked by NY Post.)

Breathtaking priorities.

 

[Jeff Wright]

Steady tone for fire…pulse tone for tsunami.
Simple…turn on and off.

 

[gdlewen]

You could - but that's not how we do event analysis in the real world. While most of Mike's current stuff is whacked - look at some of the work he did back in his prime. It was done afterwards when you could analyze all the data and walk through the decisions being made.

I think we are in ST Discord #negative-vibes territory, now. @Mike Smith does not need me to defend him, so I will just pull this tangent back to the point of my "Newsweek" post: to highlight that news coverage from a different side of the idealogical spectrum (e.g. Newsweek) is questioning the decision-making of officials in this event.

Look: state and local agencies are the darlings of conservatives, especially constitutional conservatives, who tend to have the attitude that "there aren't enough smart people in the world to make big government smart". So to see such (apparently bad) state and local decision-making renders this event hard to watch as it unfolds (and it is still unfolding.)

 

[Mike Smith]

Look: state and local agencies are the darlings of conservatives, especially constitutional conservatives, who tend to have the attitude that "there aren't enough smart people in the world to make big government smart". So to see such (apparently bad) state and local decision-making renders this event hard to watch as it unfolds (and it is still unfolding.)

As a Reagan (small government) conservative, please allow me to explain our philosophy. The genius of a free enterprise + limited government + liberty for the people system is that that people will usually work in their own best interest which creates a more dynamic and effective system for everyone than one defined by bureaucrats.

Unfortunately, the system we now have at the federal level is crony capitalism where the well-connected get the breaks, are not held accountable when they screw up, and we no longer have "equal justice under the law."

Local government is often (not always) better because it is more accountable. In Hawaii, the gentleman who refused to release the water has been "reassigned" (he needs to be fired or, possibly, face criminal jeopardy) and the state emergency manager has resigned. While imperfect, this is a level of accountability. You don't see that in the federal government.

While most of Mike's current stuff is whacked

Oh people - especially those who aren't in the emergency management field like Mike - quite regularly jump to conclusions long before having the facts.

I'm really surprised the moderators allow these personal attacks to continue as they have been going on for years. Note that Rob never seems to have evidence that I am incorrect, he just doesn't like it when I point out issues with his fellow bureaucrats. So, all he can do is launch bile.

 

[Mike Smith]

Mike is prone to that, especially since he has no experience in emergency management, and I feel obligated to call that out so people know he is out of his league here. We all have areas of expertise - and being good in one isn't a guarantee that you'll be good in everything

Yet another no evidence rant by Rob. Just a personal attack. Moderators?

 

[rdale]

I have Mike's stuff hidden by default so didn't realize I hurt his feelings - I've edited my post and removed the commentary about his current process of analysis.

 

[John Farley]

Way too much right vs. left politics creeping in here. What I read was that the local EM director had a general bias against sirens. Regardless, there are numerous examples of bad emergency response at all levels of government and for that matter in the private sector too. And when they happen, they need to be called out. Period.

 

[Mike Smith]

Regardless of your politics, please watch this clip. It explains a lot.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1694205523527372948

 

[Jamie H]

I would be careful of unverified talking points at this stage. In the UK we had an awful fire in a tower block and there were reports like this saying it was going to be awful inside, that hundreds of residents were killed, and it turned out not to be the case.

 

[Jason N]

Philosophical thought Only - Having some background in disaster planning, I can say with relative certainty, there were probably numerous failures or breaking points at multiple levels that will hopefully be analyzed by independent parties not subject to covering up any information for fear of reprisal or job protectionism, as this situation can present itself in any part of the world under the right conditions.

I will say, as there are many who tend to not consider earlier the effects of what's in my best interest a.k.a., personal responsibility. There are so many things happening in such a short period of time in this type of situation, that it turns into a "fog of War" scenario. Not unlike How waiting for a Tsunami or Earthquake effects above certain levels freeze people's ability to process the "what-to-do's", even though they are staring at the obvious risk in the face.

if a fire is moving at 60mph and the smoke trail is facing you, at what point do people decide to take action, or wait for a radio/tv/siren? and where to go, which roads to take? is there only 1? is there a road? does everyone have a car?, is there time for agencies to send transportation? what is the distance they have to travel to get to you? and at what point BEFORE a developing situation actually shows up on the TV/NEWS/RADIO analysis to saying, we may need and should decide to take action ourselves. (what we do know is that at some point, people did finally do that when they pushed themselves into the water, was it soon enough? was the fire just too fast to really give anyone a chance?

There is a time phased analysis that I think still needs to be clearer about how much time communities had to survive or die once the fire situation became clear. and what roll did the either an EOC , state and local officials play in observing, deciding and acting upon a rapidly developing situation. Once a well-defined timeline of events becomes clear, those answers and Gaps in effectiveness will become Highly evident. (keep in mind, under certain situations where things like "this never happened before, become the bedrock of disaster if you haven't planned for it in advance.)

The speed of the wind driven fire probably lessened time to observe and act (no one's fault -- just nature doing nature things). Real time analysis of a developing situation to actionable button pressing. The delay in time of those intrinsic notional issues creep into a person/community "what should we do" OODA loop. Knowing one's surroundings, planning for quick decisive choices can save lives. I am not faulting anyone in this statement, (those will come out in a post analysis) but what I am saying is, for the future, this is a lesson , and a hard one for anyone.

If a person or a community waits to be told what to do, it can have disastrous outcomes. There is a great video of a man from Japan who was interviewed post the Great East Japan Earthquake/Tsunami, 2011, who noted that people stood around could have lived if they just left after the quake, some people came back to the scene to grab valuables and died because of it. The thing was, they actually had more time to make choices , in a fire situation where things are moving 60mph or more.. it outpaces pretty much anyone's, including the professional's ability to conjure up action plans, when to get out warnings, get the response of the people, make sure the people actually believe it, and then hopefully get out in time.

 

[Mike Smith]

Jason,

Excellent posting! This is very similar to what the social scientists studying tornadoes have found. A large percentage of people need at least two forms of "permission" before they will act -- and that is merely going to the basement or a room in the middle of the house. I suspect. To abandon your home and load your precious spouse and children into a car as fire approaches in a smoky atmosphere (poor visibility) would likely take more than two forms.

Thanks for your insight!

Mike

 

[Matt Zumbrunn]

Another aspect is they had it contained by 0900 but left it to go to other fires. Then it roared back to life later in the day. In the continental us and alaska resources get prepositioned. I did it many times. Flying to Arizona to staff USFWS engines. Driving our engine from KS to Austin, NV for prepositioning. Sitting at Lake Merideth, TX in 06 when the whole Panhandle seemed to burn. Thats hard to do in Hawaii, and its even harder to move large fire apparatus amongst the islands. They didnt have the staff to sit on it for an extended period. But its also not economically feasible to staff your organization for a once in a generation event.

 

[Mike Smith]

But its also not economically feasible to staff your organization for a once in a generation event.

But, it appears from media reports (which may be incorrect) that, once it was "contained" that it was more or less left by itself. Do you happen to know whether that is correct.

 

[Matt Zumbrunn]

But, it appears from media reports (which may be incorrect) that, once it was "contained" that it was more or less left by itself. Do you happen to know whether that is correct.

I have seen the same reports as you.
Conditions and staffing don't always give you great options. Its hard for me to cast alot of stones at the IC as they were trying to do what they thought was best in the moment. I was the Incident Commander in a similar situation this spring. Extreme fire danger, resources stretched thin, more fires popping up. Its a tough spot to be put in. If you start kicking resources to other fires and yours flares back up people will be looking to hang you. If you keep your resources, but other fires are understaffed and you lose lives/property then they will be looking to hang you for hoarding resources. You just try to rely on your previous experiences and make the best decision. I've done it from seasonal wildland firefighter, career firefighter, and now I just volunteer.
Contained vs Controlled
Contained: The status of a wildfire suppression action signifying that a control line has been completed around the fire, and any associated spot fires, which can reasonably be expected to stop the fire’s spread.
Controlled: The completion of control line around a fire, any spot fires therefrom, and any interior islands to be saved; burned out any unburned area adjacent to the fire side of the control lines; and cool down all hot spots that are immediate threats to the control line, until the lines can reasonably be expected to hold under the foreseeable conditions.