Nuff Nuff

Sunday, January 31, 2010

MFB meets CFA and they disagree

Today for the first time this year (2010) a fire "Watch and Act "was issued for a Melbourne Metropolitan area. This was unfortunately expected and the public warned many months ago.

This is not the issue – but it would appear that a turf war broke out between the CFA and the MMFB today and I have the pictures to prove it.

Here is the incident page for the CFA website – notice the RED squares? – you will see to the far right – that is the advice (after it was contained) it clearly says “Doncaster East” and yet below it clearly says Warrandyte. So is there two fires or are they one in the same? (noting that NO reference on the incidents page to Doncaster other than the "Advice" which was previously a "Watch and Act")

Now here is the Advice page – It clearly says Doncaster East – notice the RED Square again?

Alright – so someone must have made a mistake – mistakes happen, we are only human after all.

But………. Something seems to be going on – here is the map for area concerned. Noting 3 marks,
1. The red letter ‘A’ – this indicates the approx location of the fire as per the advice, which states Doncaster East.
2. The circle at the top of the page shows Warrandyte.
3. The circle at the bottom shows Doncaster East.

Just to clarify what you are seeing – is that the same fire appears to have two locations if you use the suburb. So let’s look a little closer - The fire was located on Target Road. Let’s see where that is, using the information provide by the Advice – which is Beasley’s Nursery.

A search reveals:-
Target Road is located in Warrandyte NOT Doncaster East refer below for confirmation of this

So let’s look at other factors. How would this ‘human error’ possibly occur – It has to be human error – It can’t be anything else can it?

The advice clearly states that areas of Doncaster East and Templestowe are likely to be affected. Where does Warrandyte come into this?

The only conclusion I can come to is that the site I am looking at is CFA operated and Warrandyte is a CFA area – whereas Doncaster is MFB operated and since the fire was possibly going to impact Doncaster, that is why Doncaster was listed.


The Alert/Advice should have looked like this:-
Warrandyte – Targets Road (Doncaster East/Templestowe)

That way it ties in with the CFA incident reporting AND the correct location AND also the area possibly being impacted.

From the Royal Commission INTERIM REPORT

The State ensure that the content of bushfire warnings issued in Victoria reflects the principles set out in the Commonwealth policy paper Emergency Warnings — Choosing Your Words (2008).
In particular, all bushfire warnings issued in Victoria must use clear language, avoid euphemisms, and contain explicit information in relation to:
■■ the severity, location, predicted direction and likely time of impact of bushfires on specific communities and locations; and
■■ the predicted severity of impact of the bushfire and whether a specific fire poses a threat to human life

According to the interim report This warning FAILED to comply with 4.2 of the interim report, The advice, which is what will be broadcast in the general media - failed to recognise that areas of Warrandyte MAY also be affected by these fires - It is NOT possible for areas between the two suburbs NOT to be impacted.

I would very much appreciate your thoughts and ideas as to how you would fix the problem.


Andrew said...

Many things like this will happen when there are two sites with probably many people authorised to upload information. One site with an easy to remember url. Who would forget

When things go crazy as they did last year, there can't be any guarantee of accurate information as the site is dependent on information coming in from wherever a fire may be and those who are in a position to inform. In bad situations, the informers just may not be in a position to give accurate information.

Ewen H said...

Love the intrigue and plotting but there is a more standard plausible reason for this.

Take the MFB out of the equation. Yes they probably did attend and would have had it on their website if they did.

The issue is that the "Doncaster East" is a DSE fire name from the DSE Fireweb application and is entered manually by an on-duty officer. If the officer receives information on the ground in the early stages that it may have been in Doncaster East, then that would appear.

Hope this clears up a bit of confusion.

It ain't so (most of the time) said...

Andrew (welcome again!) This is the WHOLE point - 2-3 agencies - the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing is the concern.
The Royal Commission Clearly found and recommended that the location of the fire, the likely impact course of the fire, be CLEARLY identifiable - In this instance, there was NO cross-reference between the two - and this should concern all Victorian residents.

Ewen, thank-you for taking the time to comment. I agree with you - I would to be able to say that human error, had a hand in this - I;ve tried and tried to find a plausible out for both aprties. but I just can't do it.
IF as you say "Doncaster East was manually entered, where was it entered from? - As Target road, no matter where you look is located IN Warrandyte NOT Doncaster East. So for ease of reference, the Advice should have read Warrandyte and the Incident should have also read Warrandyte - with a cross-reference has has been suggested.
My problem is that the ROYAL COMMISSION RECOMMENDTION HAS **FAILED** The location and likely impact of the fire was NOT CLEARLY identifiable.
That is the concern - a little like the Murrindindi - where is Murrindindi?
See the connection?

Fen said...

Tell Jon Faine, he's always interested in this sort of stuff.

Joe said...

What on earth are you going on about? Target Road is obviously on the border between Doncaster East and Warrandyte. If you search for Target Road, Warrandyte and Target Road, Doncaster East on Google Maps you get the same location. Therefore same fire. NO confusion over location. It's a simple issue of the fire being on a geographical borderline area - to think this is evidence of some "turf war" between MFB and CFA is hilarious. You've been spending too much time over analysing every bit of info you see online. Yes, it would have been good to have referred to the location consistently but how on earth has that got anything to do with MFB / CFA cooperation?

It ain't so (most of the time) said...

Yes Fen - Jon Faine is very good with this - He was a personal help to my family and the township in the days afterwards.

Joe - It's not ONLY the MFB/CFA problems (which until proven otherwise) I have to stand with - BUT the fact that A RECOMMENDATION of the ROYAL COMMISSION has NOT been abided by - that should be and is a real concern.
Tht in some respects is the MORe important thing in this whole arguement. in 1939 there was also a Royal Commission and I beleive that only 19 of the 71 (off the top of my head) recommendtions were ever completed.
This MUST be addressed - I understand the 'border' issues BUT the fire was in Warrandyte - yet the alert was issued for DOncaster - Where is the connection? - no cross-reference NADA.
There must be a common thread between the incident and the Alert for people who are unfamiliar with the area

Jayne said...

I've heard of territory grumbles for years between DSE, MFB and CFA, too many agencies and too many conflicting reports.
Yes, I remember hearing during the Royal Commission that info wasn't passed on to other areas as it was felt a particular fire wouldn't impact there and/or it wasn't that persons job to inform other agencies, or other areas.

It ain't so (most of the time) said...

Jayne, I've had one person contact me privately commenting that perhaps the arguement was not so much MFB/CFA, but perhaps other agencies - I can only use the information available in public domain and from what I am seeing it damning.
That was a powder puff test - if I was new to the area OR visiting the area - and I saw/heard Doncaster and I was in Warrandyte. You'd assume you were safe - this is why it's imperative that recommendation 4.2 is followed to the 'enth degree - because it involves lifes, mums, dads, children, aunties, uncles or even work friends.
It's frustrating