3 ms·

>Oakland Fire is actually totally fine, which is weird. Remember the Oakland Hills Fire? A direct result of complete incompetence of the Oakland fire departmen

>Oakland Fire is actually totally fine, which is weird. Remember the Oakland Hills Fire? A direct result of complete incompetence of the Oakland fire department. Hundreds of homes burned in Oakland. Barely any in Berkeley. (For those not familiar with local geography, driving along the ridge it's almost impossible to tell when you've left Oakland an entered Berkeley; the fire certainly wouldn't have been able to tell the difference.) You could see the line of destroyed homes right up to the Berkeley border, where the Berkeley FD was able to stop its progress. Oakland had completely broken infrastructure: Fire took out power, which then prevented any pumping stations to get water up the hill. Oakland had refused to update their fire hose connectors to a standard size, so the Berkeley fire trucks wouldn't work in Oakland even if the water were pumping, and other area trucks (probably a dozen cities sent help) were similarly useless. Trucks FULL OF WATER sat unused at the base of the hills because of lack of communication. And the ENTIRE FIRE happened because the fire chief violated the department's policy: A brush fire they'd put out the night before the BIG fire was what flared up and caused the tragedy. This was a windy season, and their policy states that any such brush fires should be monitored for 24 hours after they've been put out to ensure that they don't flare up again, because of the dangers of fire when the winds are that bad. Story had it that the fire chief (a crony appointment of a useless mayor) told the crew to come home because it was Saturday night. So if Oakland Fire is actually good now, it's certainly improved from utterly incompetent. Granted the loss of life wasn't bad considering the size of the fire (7 people died, if memory serves), but my sister lost a good friend to the fire, and therefore to Oakland Fire's incompetence. So maybe I'm a bit prejudiced. Regardless, that die is cast, and I've left California entirely for the time being.

hncommenter13 13y ago
I don't dispute your account, as I don't know the particulars. One minor quibble, though. Unless you're specifically talking about water tankers sitting unused, most fire engines carry a fairly limited amount of water in their internal tanks (technically, a "truck" has ladders, while, in SF at least, an "engine" has a water tank + a pump + hose lines). In San Francisco, newer engines have a 500 gallon internal tank. That sounds like a lot, but the rated capacity of the pump is 1500 gallons/min, meaning at full flow (150 psi) you have 20 seconds of water. At best, with a small line at a low pressure, you have a few minutes of water. Again, not saying you're wrong or repositioning the engines wouldn't have helped. But unless it's a trash can fire, the first order of business at a working fire (structure or wildland) is securing a dependable water supply.
- SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
  I was led to believe that there were huge water tankers (like gas tankers, but full of water) sitting idle for lack of leadership. But I could have misunderstood. I agree though that the loss of power (and lack of backup power) to the pumping stations was probably the biggest problem. I remember hearing that a number of people saved the private high school "CPS" from burning down using the water in the pool to keep the fire at bay; I'm not clear how they did this, though (if fire fighters were involved, I'd imagine they would be able to use their trucks to pump the water, but the story as I heard it was a bunch of teachers and/or students fighting the fires back). So yes, if you've got water, it's easier to fight a fire.

hncommenter13 13y ago

I don't dispute your account, as I don't know the particulars. One minor quibble, though. Unless you're specifically talking about water tankers sitting unused, most fire engines carry a fairly limited amount of water in their internal tanks (technically, a "truck" has ladders, while, in SF at least, an "engine" has a water tank + a pump + hose lines). In San Francisco, newer engines have a 500 gallon internal tank. That sounds like a lot, but the rated capacity of the pump is 1500 gallons/min, meaning at full flow (150 psi) you have 20 seconds of water. At best, with a small line at a low pressure, you have a few minutes of water. Again, not saying you're wrong or repositioning the engines wouldn't have helped. But unless it's a trash can fire, the first order of business at a working fire (structure or wildland) is securing a dependable water supply.

SomeCallMeTim 13y ago
I was led to believe that there were huge water tankers (like gas tankers, but full of water) sitting idle for lack of leadership. But I could have misunderstood. I agree though that the loss of power (and lack of backup power) to the pumping stations was probably the biggest problem. I remember hearing that a number of people saved the private high school "CPS" from burning down using the water in the pool to keep the fire at bay; I'm not clear how they did this, though (if fire fighters were involved, I'd imagine they would be able to use their trucks to pump the water, but the story as I heard it was a bunch of teachers and/or students fighting the fires back). So yes, if you've got water, it's easier to fight a fire.