alsion ([info]hnpcc) wrote,
@ 2009-05-12 12:29:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Entry tags:feb 7

Royal Commission
Strathewan not warned.

Like, at all. I already knew that, I heard it in real time on the ABC.

Mr Rush questioned why the Integrated Emergency Coordination Centre in Melbourne, given the pressure the Alexandra control centre was under, did not play a greater role in ensuring up to date warnings were being given to communities.

The hearing continues.

Same story, different newspaper.

CFA Chief Officer Russell Rees was recalled today and he could not explain why there was no mention of Kinglake on the CFA website on Black Saturday between 4.35pm and 5.55pm, when a warning was finally issued.

The commission heard yesterday that the firestorm that swept across Kinglake had been acurately mapped hours earlier in the IECC.

Mr Rush asked Mr Rees why Strathewen, where 27 people died, was never mentioned in any CFA warnings.

Mr Rees said Arthur's Creek, which was nearby, was mentioned.
Mr Rush suggested Strathewen was mentioned in other CFA communications.

"Why would Strathewen miss out (on warnings)?" Mr Rush asked.

"I don't know the answer to that," Mr Rees replied.

Chaotic I think is an understatement.


(14 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]undergroundsea
2009-05-12 10:02 pm UTC (link)
There was a fire chief on the 4 Corners programme I saw a fortnight ago, I think he was from Marysville, and he didn't really seem to have a plan or have taken sage actions that day. But it's really harsh to look back and judge what everyone did or didn't do, because there must have been so many obstacles and unknowns that day. I think the inquest will conclude the same things as here, that better communications are needed all round.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]hnpcc
2009-05-13 12:20 am UTC (link)
I think the major problem was just that there was so much going on all over the state all of the time, and stuff seriously just got lost in the cracks. The problem is I'm not sure how you get around that - obviously you can call in more people but you're still going to have trouble with information flow, and things like wind changes are difficult. The information at the control centre and the information at the fire front were frequently at two different stages, and wasn't flowing as well as it should have between them.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]undergroundsea
2009-05-13 12:23 am UTC (link)
I feel as well that a lot of responsibility is placed on the shoulders of ordinary people. I mean my mother's boyfriend is a CFA chief, and he's very on his game and well trained but at the end of the day he is just a civilian in charge of other volunteers. We expect them to cover a lot of ground.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]hnpcc
2009-05-13 12:45 am UTC (link)
Yeah, although I'm not sure at what level you start getting professionals running things. I think basically anyone would have had trouble just with the sheer scale of what was going on that day - as I said, other than exponentially increase the number of people on the ground at the control centre I'm not sure what you can do. And more people doesn't necessarily equal better information flow.

*sigh*

I guess regional control centres are an option, but then you have problems with boundaries and moving trucks to the best positions possible.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Shit.
[info]valamelmeo
2009-05-12 10:53 pm UTC (link)
Every time I think about this or see news about it my reaction is still the same as it was the first day, which is basically just "Shit." This is pretty much my reaction to most sudden large-scale disasters. I try to go beyond that but I really can't wrap my mind around it at all.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Shit.
[info]hnpcc
2009-05-13 12:30 am UTC (link)
Yeah same. I still find myself in shock over how quickly everything went very badly wrong from what was a reasonably controlled point (yes, they'd lost houses, but no one had been killed.) Even the map they drew at 5.43pm didn't show Kinglake really being hit, although it did project spotting in the area as a risk - the projected fire front was heading down through Whittlesea towards the northern suburbs of Melbourne. The wind change though - shit. I do wonder if they were aware of the wind change or not before it happened, because that would seriously have changed all the projections. The fire didn't reach Epping or Diamond Creek as projected, but went east instead.

It's like Hurricane Katrina - the majority of deaths weren't caused by the actual hurricane per se, but by the dykes[1] breaking: again, things going horribly wrong from what was a reasonably controlled point. *sigh*

(Oh and by the lack of a plan to get people out afterwards. That bit didn't help at all. If you're going to offer people refuge in a sports stadium, then surely you have to have some plan for what happens next.)

[1] I know that's not quite the right term but I've gone blank on it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Shit.
[info]valamelmeo
2009-05-13 01:28 am UTC (link)
They're levees, but yeah, it's pretty similar. People weren't evacuated beforehand because residents have known for decades that if a Category 4 or 5 hurricane was to hit, it'd flood everything and rip the city apart, but nearly every year there'd been at least one false alarm, so a lot of people didn't think a big one was going to hit them straight on, because it hadn't before.

Quite a bit like where there was practically no warning before whole towns went up in flames. Of course, the area still being flooded did complicate any rescue efforts after the fact, even if they had been competently managed. As, I'm sure, the continuing fires did as well.

I do doubt you'll have quite as much of a lasting negative effect on the region. New Orleans is still only a shadow, and crime rates in Dallas and Houston haven't recovered yet. And it's been what, 5 years? Which just goes to show what sort of place New Orleans was before, but, well...it's not as if anyone who'd been there didn't know. Tourist areas have bounced back a bit, but nobody wants to live there anymore (can't blame them, really). I don't think you'll have that problem on quite that scale.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Shit.
[info]hnpcc
2009-05-13 01:59 am UTC (link)
but nearly every year there'd been at least one false alarm, so a lot of people didn't think a big one was going to hit them straight on, because it hadn't before.

Similar deal here to be honest. Combined with people thinking they'd have more warning time to get out, which really just didn't happen. Under normal circumstances, yes, but not on that day.

Of course, the area still being flooded did complicate any rescue efforts after the fact, even if they had been competently managed. As, I'm sure, the continuing fires did as well.

Yeah the continuing fires didn't really help much, although certainly the whole area being closed off as a crime scene was really what slowed things down. There weren't really any rescue efforts to speak of - those who survived had done so mostly by getting out of the area, and those who were left were generally OK. The injured were picked up fairly quickly, or got to hospital under their own or someone else's steam.

I have to admit one of the things that always surprised me about Katrina was that they were still allowing people to fly into the city on the day that the hurricane was due to hit. I mean seriously here - um, why? I did have some sympathy for tourists who'd basically just taken their flights as planned and really had no idea what they were getting themselves into. I'd have expected the airlines to suspend flights to be honest.

Tourist areas have bounced back a bit, but nobody wants to live there anymore

I think anyone who was in a good area has pretty much returned, given that they were already on the high ground. The problem for people who were in the lower ground is that their houses (which were their major asset) are essentially now worthless and of course there is ongoing debate about whether the area should be rebuilt. In the interim of course (has it really been 5 years?! Sheesh) people have moved on, found new jobs, new houses and basically started over. So no, there's not as much incentive to go back.

I wonder with the crime rates etc - if you spread the people out a bit more, and basically don't concentrate them in a ghetto does it help? Are there more opportunites available in Dallas and Houston than there were in the old New Orleans? The culture of Texas and Louisiana are very different, obviously.

Kinglake and Marysville - some people will choose to leave and live somewhere less fire prone. Some people will rebuild, and try and make their houses as safe as possible, get heavily involved with the CFA and the fire preparations. And some people will rebuilt their houses as they were, start off very prepared and active and then forget and lapse as time goes on. At least based on what happened around Cockatoo, which was burnt out in 1983. And of course new people will move in who'll have heard of the fires but won't really think it affects them... until it does.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Shit.
[info]hnpcc
2009-05-13 02:00 am UTC (link)
Erm, not that I'm saying that Houston and Dallas are concentrating people in ghettos. Badly worded. I was trying to wonder whether there are more opportunities available out of NoLa than there were in it for some groups.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Shit.
[info]valamelmeo
2009-05-13 02:36 am UTC (link)
I'm sure that's true, but it's mostly that those who were left behind to be bused out by the eventual rescue efforts were generally the poor, and in general they've stayed wherever the bus stopped. Most of the buses went to cities in Texas, though a few did end up in places like Chicago and Salt Lake City. As far as I know, though, the majority of them ended up in either Dallas or Houston, which both saw massive spikes in crime that haven't gone down yet. Here in Dallas we're about 500 miles (800km) away and the aftershocks are still being felt. Of course, New Orleans was one of the most crime-ridden cities in the country...

I'd have to say that yes, there are better opportunities wherever they ended up than they could have if they went back, at the very least. But New Orleans has been facing a Catch-22, really. Nobody wants to go back because they haven't rebuilt enough (shops and houses, mainly) but of course they won't do it unless people come back.

Also, it was August 2005, so this year will make 4 years, not 5 (my mistake). 44 months. And they're only just taking back the trailers which are, for many people who chose to stay, the only housing they have, because of the general housing shortage in the area. I can't help but think those who left were probably better off. They were generally provided with apartments, for one, and only for a year before they were expected to either start paying rent or move to where they could afford to. One such family lived just below me for most of 2006. I don't think it's helped most of them to live in a mobile home right next to the destroyed house they can't afford to fix.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Shit.
[info]valamelmeo
2009-05-13 02:57 am UTC (link)
I have to admit one of the things that always surprised me about Katrina was that they were still allowing people to fly into the city on the day that the hurricane was due to hit. I mean seriously here - um, why?

This is a testament to just how often "the big one" was predicted. Any hurricanes that went into the Gulf and didn't dip plow straight for Mexico, there were warnings given to New Orleans citizens that they might want to think about evacuating. A few former residents have said that if they evacuated every time it was recommended they might as well spend 6 months of the year living somewhere else. Put simply, too many false alarms. Hurricane Cindy had already hit them directly earlier the same season (early July) and these storms normally weaken in the Gulf, so nobody figured it was a big deal. Certainly nobody expected it to hit Cat 5 in such a short amount of time, and so close to land (then again, until the past 10 years, hurricane season was usually over before August 28th).

Hurricanes are notoriously unpredictable things, and even the day before they couldn't know if it would double back, continue straight towards Louisiana, or even turn and run down the coast of Texas. Hurricane Rita, in the same hurricane season, was predicted to hit Galveston, so pretty much the whole greater Houston area was evacuated. As it turned out, a couple dozen people died during the evacuation attempts, and Hurricane Rita ended up curving upward more sharply and hitting the Louisiana border, so the Houston area really wasn't in enough danger to have needed evacuating. It's always a gamble.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Shit.
[info]hnpcc
2009-05-13 03:25 am UTC (link)
I'd forgotten about the Hurricane Rita thing. I remember reading about the previous hurricane hitting Galveston, and thinking I'd probably evacuate just in case given the terrain.

Damn natural disasters, being all unpredictable. Still, I'd rather live in a mostly geologically stable area and have fires than somewhere like California which has both! Earthquakes scare me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Shit.
[info]valamelmeo
2009-05-13 05:10 am UTC (link)
We get some pretty severe thunderstorms and tornadoes around here, and sometimes fires as well, and all of those can be pretty scary, but I really don't think I could cope with earthquakes. The ground is supposed to stay put.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Shit.
[info]hnpcc
2009-05-13 05:56 am UTC (link)
With you on the ground staying put thing. Very disconcerting. I can cope better with tsunamis even - at least they give you some warning (ocean rushes away suddenly - run like hell for the tallest hills you can find).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(14 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…