Tuesday, January 29, 2013

The CFS Strategy for Combatting Turbine Fires - RUN AWAY

As per previous blog, apologies to those whom risk their lives on behalf of our communities; I’ve seen several large bush fires but never fought one, and I’m not in the CFS but I have done burn-offs with the CFS and Parks SA and it is hard, dirty, scary work.
Every effort must be made to protect those on the fire grounds, driving tankers, etc; and particularly those who pilot various helicopters, spotter planes and water bombers that are considered to be vital in fighting fires.

For example, the NSW Rural Fire Service: "Aircraft are one of the most essential tools of the Rural Fire Service." (their website)
Every summer the arrival of aircraft in fire prone areas generates numerous media items about how pleased the community is that this critical arm of fire-fighting is there to protect them; how aircraft provide critical support to ground crews to the extent that crews will not/cannot be deployed without appropriate air support; etc, etc.
 Aircraft are accepted across the planet as vital, except in South Australia.

In SA, the Labor government's pro-Wind Turbine corruption has infiltrated and compromised every department, every authority, up to and including the heads of the Country Fire Service.  
In response to concerns from Yorke Peninsula residents re the 200 turbine Ceres project, Gregg Nettleton, Chief Officer SA CFS, officially states:
“Fire fighting operations are sometimes assisted by water bombing aircraft and/or earthmoving plant and equipment.”
“While aircraft are an effective capability where favourable operating conditions exist, they do not and cannot replace ground-based crews. In some situations aircraft cannot be deployed due to adverse weather conditions, adverse terrain or obstructions that prevent safe flying environments.”
“Where vertical obstructions exist, such as power lines, radio transmission towers, tall trees and wind turbines, aircraft operations are risk assessed before water bombing operations commence. In some circumstances aircraft will not be utilised because risk caused by vertical obstructions exceed safe operating conditions.”
“However, it is not envisaged [that turbine] development would preclude the use of ground based capabilities to combat a fire in that area.”
This last statement is a falsehood; the CFS strategy for fighting fires in turbines, as described in the Border Watch newspaper (Dec 2012), is to stand over a kilometre away and let them burn out because they cannot combat the fire and it's too dangerous to be closer; a fire in or near a turbine means nobody can get near it to fight it.

Mr Nettleton is prepared to repeatedly misrepresent facts to the point of lies; eg, fighting fire in terrain in-accesible to ground crews is one of the primary advantages of aircraft, not "...they do not and cannot replace ground based crews."

He states that the CFS 'know nothing' about the Ceres project, but that there won't be any problems; there aren't any "vertical obstructions" taller than turbine towers, eg, how many 150m high trees are there in SA; etc,etc; it is all nonsense.

Pilots tell the CFS where they'll fly, not vice versa, and they won't fly near turbines.

On ABC radio Mount Gambier (Dec 2012) David Pearce, Manager, SA CFS Aviation Service stated outright that water bombing was only a minor part of fire fighting and relative to turbines: “We’ll just fly round them.”
How, therefore, do the CFS plan to fight a fire in a Turbine Development like Ceres, Yorke Peninsula, where 200 turbines, 600m apart, covering 18km2 will exclude air support and ground crews attending a fire anywhere in that area?
Water bombers, spotter planes etc. are absolutely critical in providing intelligence on fire behaviour and support to ground crews, and are utilised specifically to combat fires in terrain that ground crews cannot access.

It is absolutely unacceptable that the highly paid heads of such a vital service, with the lives of thousands of un-paid volunteers at risk, are prepared to pursue their own personal agendas via those positions by participating in the current propaganda campaign to deny and dismiss any concerns or opposition. 

Why have they  chosen to engage in this pro Wind Turbine corruption?

Mr Nettleton and Mr Pearce have demonstrated their clear support for the state government and the Wind Turbines, and that they are not fit and appropriate people to be at the head of the Country Fire Service, and I call on them to resign.

They are not making objective statements that reflect the truth; to what degree does this corruption compromise their decisions overall, and at what point are crews put at risk?

I believe that their public statements show that they are already fundamentally compromised and therefore that point, crews at risk, has been reached.

Again, Mr Nettleton and Mr Pearce, I call on you to do the honourable thing, and take your corruption where it is less likely to jeopardise the safety of volunteers and communities.

Tomorrow: The Child Abuse Royal Commission - Why It Will Fail

No comments:

Post a Comment