I suppose I should have used the word "multiple" as opposed to "mass".
My intention was to list incidents wherein large numbers of firefighters had died or if less than large numbers then at least that a firefighting unit (such as an engine company) had been decimated or a larger formation comprising multiple units had taken heavy casualties.
The cause of dead was intended to be by the violence of the fire, not an underlying health problem like heat stroke or heart attack or mechanical mishap like a vehicle TC or aircraft down.
I made an exception with the Tunnel Fire (Oakland Hills Firestorm) as that was a valid mass casualty incident although only one firefighter was killed and even without qualifying for this list this incident still qualifies for an automatic anniversary notice due to every other statistic defining it aside from the acreage which was unremarkable in and of itself.
I did not distinguish between professional firefighters and amateur firefighters as both types fought fires and got burned or snuffed out.
The 2008 incident that Steve reminded me of will get an automatic anniversary announcement even if we did not consider the helicopter accident as part of the fire proper and its casualties in the same category as those already on the list. This is due to the size of the fire which was very large and long-lived. I have yet to get the 2008 NorCal Fire Siege fires into the system here but will do that this month.
KimmerOn Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 5:26 PM, newnethboy <kef413@gmail.com> wrote:Before we get to that question, we need to re-read Kim's title, which
included "mass casualty". The question was raised about the two FFs who died
in the Station Fire; is two a mass? (I wouldn't say so.)
And there's the word, "Wildland", which I presume Kim meant as limiting his
scope to LODDs occurring within wildland fires. To me, that would include
FFs dying due to health reasons which are secondary to their firefighting in
a wildland fire. (However, since these are seldom "mass casualties", they
wouldn't fit here.)
A couple of weeks ago in LA Co, we lost an inmate firefighter to a traffic
collision involving the crew bus. Nobody argued against that being a FF
LODD. (In fact, the consensus on the groups was that this inmate should get
a FF's funeral.)
Bottom line: The only issue I see here and now is, "What constitutes a mass
casualty, wildland fire, LODD?" and draw the boundary at that point, not
because any LODD is less tragic than the next, but that Kim set a level of,
let's call it newsworthiness, as the basis for his calendar events.
Personally, I have no problem with that.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Bates" <HappyMoosePhoto@gmail.com>
To: <californiadisasters@yahoogroups.com>;
<californiadisasters_discussion@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 3:08 PM
Subject: Re: [californiadisasters] CA Mass Casualty Wildland FF Death
Incidents
Ok. I have a biased opinion (former FF) so I'll toss this out to the group.
At what point does a LODD become a disaster? Remember that some deaths are
health related (in days past, typically heart/lung or poor lifestyle choices
and issues). Is it a number, experience loss or what?
I suspect that since LODD are listed on other sites, that it might be
redundant to duplicate it entirely here. What about loss of life from
earthquakes, floods, landslides or other disasters?
Let's discuss this on the discussion group please, cross posted here.
Rick
Blame the typos on the iPhone. It's awkward to type on one.
On Dec 8, 2010, at 11:54 AM, sraddigan@aol.com wrote:
> What about the incident up north in 2008 involving the helicopter? Of
course, I do understand your list may be limited to those who perished
because of fire behavior, however that was not clear. I am not sure that the
fire community would discount those who lost their lives in 2008 as not
incident related deaths and continue to refer to this incident as Line of
Duty Death (LODD).
>
> /Steve
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment