Tag Archives: lame-ass ideas

Igniting a controlled burn with buckets of diesel

Posted on by
3
controlled burn Python Hunter, buckets of diesel

Screen grab from the National Geographic Channel video.

Apparently there is a show on the National Geographic Channel called Python Hunters. I happened to run across this video from the program, which includes a controlled burn. Their objective was not to kill the large snakes, they said, but to drive them out of the brush, or underground.

If you are familiar with controlled burns or prescribed fires, you will not recognize any of the techniques in this video…. unless you prep your prescribed fires by throwing five gallon buckets of diesel onto the vegetation.

Surprisingly, a representative of the Miami-Dade Fire Department is on scene, probably to reduce the chances of the actors killing themselves. The project may have been surrounded by mostly bare ground — it’s hard to tell — so there might have been little chance of the fire escaping.

python hunter controlled burn

Screen grab from the National Geographic Channel video.

Just to be absolutely clear, definitely do not try this technique. Diesel is not as volatile or explosive as gasoline but what they did, shown in the video, is dangerous. If they had mixed gasoline with the diesel, as is usually done when fueling drip torches for a real prescribed fire, or used straight gasoline, there could have been an explosion when they ignited it, depending on the concentration.

Share

NIFC produces wildfire outlook, target audience: children

Posted on by
12

The External Affairs section at the National Interagency Fire Center has apparently chosen children as their target audience for this “2013 Preseason PIO Podcast” about the upcoming fire season.

It is not clear who should receive the, uh, blame credit, for this innovation, but Ed Delgado, the Fire Weather Program Manager, narrates this two-minute video.

Share

Report: USDA backing away from trashing the USFS logo

Posted on by
8

USFS-USDA logos

There has been a great deal of dust kicked up over the last couple of weeks about the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s decision to cease the use of the venerable and historic logo of the U.S. Forest Service and replace it with the rather drab and uninspiring USDA logo. The plan was to replace all of the logos throughout the USDA with the USDA logo, not just the Forest Service’s.

We heard from a reliable source today that the Secretary of Agriculture’s office is going to make an exception for the USFS, and allow them to continue using the familiar badge with the pine tree. This is more or less consistent with a Twitter message that the official USFS Twitter account sent out this morning:

But, we’ll have to wait and see if the Secretary’s office follows through and actually gives the USFS logo a reprieve. Secretary Tom Vilsack probably had no idea trashing the USFS logo would create such a s**tstorm.

UPDATE at 4:55 p.m. MT, April 5, 2013:

In a comment, B.Morgan asked, “Does anyone have a picture to post of the Forest Service patch with the rounded top, pre-1970s?” Dick Mangan was kind enough to send along the photo below. Like Dick said in another comment, over those old patches, there was a narrow band of a patch that wrapped over the top of the larger patch. It had the name of the national forest where the wearer worked. Dick explained that the smaller patch in the photo was for the female uniform.

Old USFS patch

Share

Fuel in a bladder bag

Posted on by

Bladder bagMaybe I led a sheltered life as a firefighter, or perhaps I just worked around people who made safety number one, but until today I had never heard of filling a bladder bag (backpack pump) with a mixture of gasoline and diesel fuel and using it to apply the burn mix onto brush or slash piles that were to be burned, or were presently burning. But apparently it is a common practice on some U.S. Forest Service districts, according to a recently released “Lessons Learned” document. Below is an excerpt; the entire document is HERE. After the reported near miss, those practices may change.

================================================================

I was walking down the hall of the district office with one of the district staff when we stepped into a conversation some of the crew leaders and assistant crew leaders where having about a near miss on some pile burning operations the previously day. There had been a flashback of flame toward one of firefighters while using a Fedco five gallon with fuel mix (piss bag/ bladder bag) to fuel the ignition on one of the piles. Some of the group was thinking it was no was big deal, some were trying to defend the action of using the Fedco as a firing tool, some were not sure and others thought it was not the right tool for the job. One individual said “we used to use them in region “X” and on my old forest all time in pile burning no big deal you have to just be careful with the flashback”.

I decided to bring it forward to the group that this is something we need to talk about, some were a little reluctant but everybody joined in. I had someone inform the rest of the folks waiting to go out pile burning that we all needed to talk about this issue and that “the piles would wait”. Someone pointed out “have you ever seen a dry piss bag on a fire and did you think there was fuel on the outside of the bag”?

Burning pileThe employee who had the near miss said his fire shirt had fuel on it. We talked how the drip torch had a spark arrest in it, and you are creating a fine mist at the nozzle when you pump the bladder bag which is also creating flumes which comes back and creates the flash that becomes a very unsafe operation.

The subject came up how to carry 5 gallon of fuel mix up the hill as the gas cans weight down on the arm. We asked those that did not think this was the right device to use, why did they not say anything. They felt that they were not going to use it and the person who filled it up was the senior leader of the group.

“What if this had not been a near miss but more serious we should have spoken up or at least talked about it.” We discussed, both as a group and one-on-one, the actions, planning and proper tools to use. We all need to have more training and discussions of proper tools, safety, and minimizing risks.

 

Share

A fire truck that suppresses fires without water

Posted on by

Image: Industrial Design Served, Fire Knight

This may be another invention to add to the list of Lame-Ass Ideas, but we’ll withhold judgement until more details are revealed.

From what we can gather from the diagrams, it appears that this vehicle is designed to spray sand at a forest fire. Yes, sand. The diagram includes interesting items such as:  sand pump, sand tank, blasting arm, and a vacuum digger.

 

Fire Knight details

Image: Industrial Design Served, Fire Knight

Other than the sketches, we can find only this description:

AT4FV All Terrain Field-Forest Fire Fighting Vehicle

Fireknight is inspired with hope for future by aiming extinguishing a fire without water. With this important fire extinguisher, Fire Knight, Dr. Hakan Gursu and his team has been deemed worthy of.

It won 2nd place in the “Sustainable Living/Environment Preservation – Rural Sustainable Design category in IDA 09 Competition”, and honorable Mention from “Green Dot Awards 2008, Concept Category”, whatever those are.

It may not meet “light hand on the land” guidelines with the “vacuum digger” and the sand blasting system, if that’s what it is.

It’s great when designers think outside the box when it comes to firefighting equipment. Remember the “Fire Reconnaissance Vehicle”? Not all of the ideas are going to be winners, especially if firefighters are not consulted, but over the last 100 years there have not been a lot of major advances in tools that a wildland firefighter can use. We’re still controlling fires by swinging sharpened pieces of metal attached to the ends of sticks.

UPDATE March 28, 2011:

After careful consideration, we have assigned this concept to the Lame-Ass Idea category. There is no written description that we can find, but it appears that the “vacuum-digger” rotates, loosens, and then vacuums up “sand”, dirt and no doubt vegetative matter, and deposits it in the “sand tank”. Then it is shot out the “blasting arm” toward the fire along with a lot of air. The air would fan the fire while the sand, dirt, and vegetative matter would, at best, cover some of the fire, slowing, but not putting out the combustion. At worst, the “blasting” would blow the fire all over hell while adding fuel to the fire.
Thanks J

Share

Survive a burnover in a water-lined tent?

Posted on by

The same person that designed a new way to move water, in fire hose lined with high-voltage electrical wires, has designed a fire shelter with double walls which can be filled with water from a fire hose. His thinking is that since there is water in the lining of the tent walls, that the tent would survive being burned over, along with the terrified firefighters inside.

water lined fire shelter

At the web site for this idea, the photo is described thusly:

The image above is a proposed water filled protective tent. Assuming that a firefighter is near a water filled hose in a hose relay, the tent can be filled with water from the hose. The water should provide good insulation from the heat of a fire in a burnover situation.

Off the top of my head, some of the issues include:

  1. Weight and size of the contraption. How would it be transported?
  2. Is this a single victim person shelter, or can it hold many people? If multiple firefighters have to inflate their shelters at the same time, I suppose they will simply wait in line for their turn to use the fire hose while the 200-foot wall of flames approaches. I guess we’ll throw out the requirement to deploy and enter your fire shelter within 20 seconds.
  3. What are the chances of it being at the location where it might be needed?
  4. What happens if a hot ember lands on it while it is sitting on the ground uninflated?
  5. You could not really stage these ahead of firefighters on uncontained portions of fireline. If burnovers are possible, the fire is probably moving rapidly. Where would you put it? And carrying them with you while laying hose may not be practical.
  6. If you have a functional hose lay, the chances of needing any kind of fire shelter are reduced. Not completely, but to a degree.
  7. How long would it take to inflate the contraption with water? In that amount of time, firefighters might be able to use their escape route to get the hell out of the area.
  8. How stable would it be in the kind of wind that frequently precipitates rapid fire growth and burnovers?
  9. And, if a hot ember lands on it while it is inflated with water, will it really not be damaged? And what about direct flame impingement with temperatures of 1,472 to 2,192 degrees F?
  10. Would it be cost prohibitive?
  11. Would you bet your life on this contraption?

Guess where we’re filing this?

Share