Still another revision of safety zone rule

safety zone
A safety zone constructed on a wildfire in 2014. Is this like a tactic used in the Vietnam war? “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.” (Screen grab from the video below.)

In May of this year Bret Butler, who works in the Fire Behavior Research Work Unit at the Fire Sciences Laboratory in Missoula, Montana, issued a new rule on the size of a safety zone. Mr. Butler revised it two months later in July, and after an additional four months he changed it still again in November.

The calculation of the size of a safety zone is somewhat complex for a firefighter in the heat of battle, and these various guidelines can only be used if the firefighter on the ground is carrying the latest written directions about how to do the math. While it is laudable that researchers are working to improve the safety zone guidelines, changing them every two to four months is too confusing.

In the video (webinar) below the new revision is discussed in detail in the one hour and 15 minute presentation, including questions. (A three-minute executive summary version would be very much appreciated.) This new November, 2014 version of the “Preliminary Proposed Safety Zone Rule” appears at 44:00. The fact that it is called both preliminary and proposed leads us to believe there will be still more changes in the near future.

Below is the description of the December 2, 2014 webinar, presented by Mr. Butler.

Current safety zone guidelines for wildland firefighters are based on the assumption of flat ground, no wind, and radiative heating only. Recent measurements in grass, shrub and crown fires indicate that convective heating can be significant especially when wind or slope are present. Measurements and computer modeling supports this finding and suggests that convective energy transport should be considered when assessing safety zone effectiveness any time wind or slope is present. The results of the research are presented along with recommendations for modifications to current safety zone guides.

Typos, let us know HERE, and specify which article. Please read the commenting rules before you post a comment.

Author: Bill Gabbert

After working full time in wildland fire for 33 years, he continues to learn, and strives to be a Student of Fire.

19 thoughts on “Still another revision of safety zone rule”

  1. Thanks for the short analysis, although I am a bit surprised at the tone of your summary. I thought through the positive and negative impacts of releasing my preliminary findings last spring and concluded that if the release of some findings would save some lives I should do it even though I knew they would likely change. I tried to ere on the side of safety in terms of size. The revision in July incorporated suggestions that I received after the May release. They simplified the analysis process, the modifications suggested last week were based on further data evaluation and suggestions from operational folks. I could have certainly kept my preliminary findings private until a more rigorous data and evaluation were performed. But would have regretted it if the information could have possibly saved some lives. I know it is likely frustrating to firefighters, managers and trainers when they see this moving target. But to be honest, these preliminary findings have generated more feedback then anything I have done in the past. The problem is indeed really complex, and I need feedback from the operational folks who are evaluating if they have a safety zone or not. I have tried to make it clear that the findings are not set in stone. I do not expect we will answer the questions any time soon. Feel free to contact me with suggestions etc.

    0
    0
  2. I might be wrong but I took it as a light hearted suggestion that we maybe should look into resource management as well. Might be wrong……

    The whole thing just seems a bit wonkey to me. I have not been in a safety zone carved out of dog hair timber in front of a crown fire. But I bet I would want it to be about twice as big as it was.

    As some spend a day getting chased into and out of safety zones I would think that the conversation should not be strictly if the safety zone is adequate or not, but also include asking what the heck are we doing here?

    0
    0
  3. Before we regress to placing clearcuts all over the landscape, maybe we should do a little analysis of where shelter deployments occur; what was the fire size; what was the fuel type; what was the stage of the fire when the need for a safety zone ocurred; what was the land ownership (Fed, State, private, etc); what kind of personnel were involved?. This analysis might just give us some insight as to where the problem lies with safety zones and shelter deployments?
    Many decades ago, the answer to stopping fire spread in Southern California was to create and maintain wide fuel breaks on every ridge top (Any one out there old enough to remember “Pre-Attack”?). We all know now how well those worked when the wind blew and we had 1/4 to 1/2 mile spotting ahead of the main fire!
    Pre-constructed safety zones, randomly scattered across tens of millions of acres, is at best a costly idea, and a worst an idea that will create a false sense of security and likely cause more shelter deployments than they prevent.

    0
    0
    1. My comment about establishment of safety zones, to clarify this position, with many organization wheeling power (you know who they are) land managers have a tough uphill fight to get anything accomplished on public lands. Safety zones: responsible timber harvesting, good stewardship of the land and maintaining a total healthy forest eco system is my idea of a “safety zone”. Never like the So.Cal scared landscape pre attack lines. Didn’t seem to work when the winds blew. Those little triangle signs were everywhere.

      0
      0
  4. There is a point in time where the safety zones are going to need to be huge…. Instead of building these monsters, maybe tactics should go from direct/parallel attack to indirect (back off and burnoff). If no one is working on the ground right clise to the fire edge, there is no need for safety zones.

    I know this back off and burn off strategy will not work on all fires (interface) but should on a large percentage.

    0
    0
  5. I have a great idea (not again). Before a devastating fire occurs lets go and make 24 acre safety zones throughout our national forests. Many years ago there was a similar approach, timber harvesting.

    0
    0
  6. Regardless of “science”, the best tactic has always been anchor and flank… with one foot in the black.. hopefully good strong black.

    0
    0
  7. Good point, Kenneth

    Good that you brought the point up..

    The aerial view.

    Granted a helicopter and driver can not be there due to fire severity and winds that could ground ship. Certainly the two cannot be everywhere on the fireground……

    The Mark I eyeball can be superior observation platform in itself……..

    But we will certainly see or read the responses……..

    Thanks, Ken. After 22plus years in and around UH1 and UH60…..I can fully agree with your professional assessment!!

    0
    0
  8. Watching from a unique position, Pilot, Big Hill Helicopter ElDorado NF, I saw more than a few “Safety Zones this year. NONE looked big enough for me, and I cringed when the wind blew through them, and there wasn’t a thing I could do. We need to put cameras on our helicopters so YOU can see what I see.

    0
    0
  9. The issue of appropriate size for Safety Zones has been around for a long time, and rightfully so since it’s very complex with so many variables. It was discussed in the IMRT (Interagency Management Review Team) Report in 1995 after the South Canyon Fire fatalities. Even though the “target” (right size) seems to be constantly moving, I really credit Bret Butler for his efforts and willingness to give us new-and-better info as he develops it. Given the combinations of fuels, terrain and weather conditions that wildfires burn under, I doubt we’ll ever have a “firm answer” about how big a Safety Zone should be. Do we over-estimate the size, and then fail to engage a fire when we can’t clear a big enough area, or do we “wing it”, hope for the best, and then have to use shelters? No easy answers!

    0
    0
    1. Very good analysis. This is a very complex situation, no easy answers. I have been involved in numerous situations in R-5/Cal Fire which could have gone either way. Forunately in every case heroics prevailed.

      0
      0
  10. I might see a better “attitude” in the LMA world

    Seems like there is more transparency out of Mr Butler’s shop than most WO aviation operations most times, anyways…..

    0
    0
  11. I liken to this……..

    While we have lost a number of FFTR’s and since Canada does not use fire shelters………..

    It shows some forward movement and some sort of Gov action…

    I am damned lucky today that I had the leadership at DOI of the past that kept me alive

    NOW

    If there were this many revisions and better training in the WO-FAM

    0
    0
  12. I dont know, the whole idea kinda sits wrong with me. Hard for me to explain it properly.

    Folks fighting over safety zone sizes and newer and better fire shelters gives me the creeps. \

    I guess “safety zones” are better than deployment sites, but I try to stay out of both.

    0
    0
  13. Absolutely agree. Looks like bug kill that 24 acres is small compared to what fire could do with the dead component and weather.

    0
    0
  14. Maybe if someone thinned the dead trees in that photo, when that forest burns, it won’t show such extreme behavior that a 24 acre safety zone is necessary.

    0
    0

Comments are closed.