Red Eagle Bushfire / Wildfire Protection Services

	Governments encourage early departure rather than evacuation State governments tend to sing from same song book about areas under threat from severe bushfire attack. Officially, they do not favour mass evacuation as a default option, but instead they promote early departure as a safe option. However, whatever the terminology, evacuation and early departure both leave vacant houses. The downside is that vacant houses have a high loss rate in severe bushfire attack. The governments know these facts, but they want you out of harm's way, perhaps because they believe that most people will do nothing about fire preparation and will be caught unaware. They want to avoid another high death toll. They believe evacuation will save your life. They want you to leave early on a bad day, even when there is no fire in your area. Why? Because if you leave at the last minute, you are at greater risk of death. The want you to prepare a fire plan. They help people prepare a bushfire survival plan with 5 easy steps. Four of the steps are as follows - what is my trigger to leave, my relocation kit, before I leave, and finally, if my plan fails I somehow go to a safer place. Thus the fire plan they want you to prepare is essentially a self-evacuation plan. Governments provide some information about property protection The government does recognise self defence as a legitimate option, but they do not encourage it. They help you prepare a bushfire survival plan, but it is really an evacuation plan, so it is no help for self defence. They give some advice but Red Eagle describes their advice as poor quality and incomplete. Government agencies say that a well protected property is acceptable for self defence except on CODE RED days, and then give a list of hints about how to protect a property. They assume this information is correct but then add a disclaimer such as this one: CFA makes this information available on the understanding that you take reasonable care when using it. If you have any uncertainty about the application of the information to your particular circumstance, you should obtain further professional advice: CFA does not accept responsibility for how you apply, or rely on the information in this publication. The findings of the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission indicate that many of the people who died were actively self defending in accordance with (as they believed) fire agency advice. The Commission concluded from considerable evidence like the examples below that fire and emergency services need to "improve advice on the nature of fire and house defendibility" and it wants people "to take greater responsibility for their own safety". However, Australian fire agencies have made no significant changes in the advice given, as yet. A couple of examples of evidence from the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission: 1. "Shelter inside while the fire front passes over" is still part of fire agency teaching. "Patrick (son of the deceased) explained: Just from growing up in the bush we were taught from a young age that you would fight ember attack as the fire was approaching and retreat to the house while the firefront passed over, then as soon as it was safe go back outside and continue fighting spot fires". "A Victoria Police forensic scientist concluded the Browns were probably caught unawares by the speed of the fire and decided to adopt their alternative plan and stay in the house until the fire front passed". Red Eagle's professional observation: In severe bushfires, there are multiple fire fronts and ember attack precedes fire fronts. 2 . The "safe house" concept is still part of fire agency teaching "Within 10 minutes the 'safe house' had been engulfed by flames." "In view of the CFA assessment of their home a few years earlier, the Chambers' fire plan was to leave their house and go to one of two neighbours whose houses had been assessed as safe-the Clarks at 1 Reserve Road or the Fullertons at 4 Reserve Road" Red Eagle's professional observation: Houses aren't made safe by what they are built of, but by correct self defence strategies and actions Government policies are based on assumptions Government policies derive from assumptions. Assumptions derive from advice they receive or from strong beliefs of influential individuals. They can be right or wrong. They can be changed with better information. Government policies are also influenced by stated or unstated goals: Where goals are weak, eg, "minimise the impact of bushfires", there can be no accountability and there is no progress. Where goals are lopsided, eg, "reduce deaths at all costs", other areas may suffer. When goals are accountable, eg, "no more than x deaths per year, no more than $yM property loss per year", strategies have to be effective and accountable, and progress occurs. We have listed some of these assumptions for your scrutiny. Ask yourself - Is there any proof? Is it really what the tax payer wants or believes? Government assumes: . Evacuation will save lives . People are concerned about saving lives, they are less concerned about losing house and valuables and disrupting lives . Fire fighters are the only effective resource to combat bushfires . Self defence is an unacceptable risk - they will not promote it, they will not empower communities to self defend. Duty of care issues: Government has a duty of care for people's lives, but they also have a duty of care for people's property. If they actively promote actions that favour lives and expose people to property loss, they may be liable to breach of duty of care. If they believe that fire fighters are the only effective option for bushfire defence, they have failed to seek appropriate advice. This may also breach duty of care if it exposes people to property loss. Government also assumes: . BAL and WMO processes are effective . Public land (eg, DSE) fire plans and municipal fire plans are effective . Township protection plans are effective By accepting BAL and WMO advice as effective, the government continues to demonise native forest and native vegetation and fails to provide incentive for people with correct knowledge to manage fuel loads properly. The Black Saturday fires proved that the first two assumptions were wrong, but they have not been brought to account or improved. Fire plans existed for all areas savaged by the Black Saturday fires. They were either not effective or not current, or both. Unfortunately, this area was not explored by the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission. Red Eagle recommends that fire agencies adopt the self defence system model so that fire plans and fuel management can be based on valid science and become high quality, effective and provide real community protection. Township protection plans are not plans by any serious definition. Eg, Township Protection Plans have been developed for a number of communities in Victoria that are deemed to be at risk of bushfire. One Township Protection Plan makes this statement - "The Plan provides a graphical representation of the fire prevention works (completed and planned) for the area", but when we look for the fire prevention works, and click on the link, there is a brightly coloured brochure that includes a township map and a map showing forested areas (called bushfire risk) and grass areas (called grass fire risk). Sadly, there is no fire prevention works map. Why not? The answer soon reveals itself. When we look for their purpose, we find out that Township Protection Plans are not plans at all. They merely aim to provide "important direction and information for communities to assist with planning before, during and after a fire". Red Eagle suggests that to call them Township Protection Plans is misleading. Duty of care issues: By accepting statutory requirements and fire protection plans as effective when a simple audit proves otherwise, the government is exposing people to unnecessary risk of property loss, which may incur a duty of care liability. Red Eagle is concerned about quality of some government advice Red Eagle becomes concerned with government pronouncements and advice when their advisers stray beyond their core business and core competencies. (A) . The core competencies of Fire Agencies are putting out fires with fire trucks and helicopters and teams of people. They know which properties are safe or not safe for their fire fighters to attend, and they know how to advise residents to make their property and neighbourhood fire truck friendly. However, whilst they know how to chase a flame and deal with it, they seem to have no expertise in protecting a house from ember attack. Consider the tragic non defence of the Canberra suburb of Duffy. Consider Marysville as a more recent example. The fire fighters sheltered on the oval quite safely, even though they were under the same ember attack that was peppering the houses. Dealing with embers is the core of self defence. This is perhaps why they seem to be poorly informed about self defence on a property without a fire truck or a helicopter or teams of people. They may know how to chase the flame, but they seem to be unable to deliver fire protection plans that meet the criteria of a high quality plan Can glossy publications that are high on spin help protect the community? (B) . The core competencies of Building Authorities are ensuring that standards are met. They like to have formulae for designing things or approving things, like engineers. Bushfire related formulae come via bodies like Australian Standards Association, a private business that interprets research from various sources. These formulae have now been locked in, but some are inaccurate because the science is incorrect. For example, BAL (Bushfire Attack Level) assessments are now a requirement for new construction. Their requirements for fire resistant structural material add huge financial costs to construction that are unnecessary and will not prevent house destruction in a bushfire unless other key things are done. Furthermore, the science behind the radiation safeguards is invalid. This suggests that building authorities are poorly informed about self defence in a severe bushfire attack. Duty of care issues Red Eagle is concerned that if the poor advice situation continues, governments may be failing in their duty of care to the community. We repeat the words of the Royal Commission - fire and emergency services need to "improve advice on the nature of fire and house defendibility" and it wants people "to take greater responsibility for their own safety". These are all areas where Red Eagle can help.
	....Return to Home Page . Copyright Red Eagle