Fires on the Great Ocean Road

[bob10]

This was a bit of a surprise.

More than 50 homes lost, hundreds at risk: Vic fires | The New Daily (http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/12/26/bushfires-victoria-great-ocean-road-christmas/)

[bob10]

Lorne evacuated.

http://emergency.vic.gov.au/respond/

[LandyAndy]

Was watching ABC 24hrs news today.That has turned out to be one hell of a fire.Something like 130 houses lost,in many places burnt down to the oceans edge:(:(:(:(:(:(:(:(
Ive had the pleasure of driving the Great Ocean Road,its is a special place.
Cant help thinking there is lots of bad news to come,I hope they got everyone out in time.
Andrew

[Hall]

Still a loss, but I would guess, given the area that some of those homes where holiday homes.
Cheers Hall

[bob10]

No lives lost, so far. Still a terrifying experience.

Christmas bushfire devastation in pictures | The New Daily (http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/12/26/fires-gallery/)

[PhilipA]

I must say I was surprised at the comments on the news by a fire bloke who said that there hadn't been a fire there for 15? years so there was lots of fuel.

On Ash Wednesday in 1979? over 1000 houses were destroyed in that area.

Wouldn't you think that there would be regular hazard reduction burns?

Or is it that fire authorities and residents never learn.

Regards Philip A

[Eevo]

This was a bit of a surprise.



im not having a go at you personally, why would this be a surprise?
hot + windy + bushfire area = large chance of devastating bushfire.

[PAT303]

I must say I was surprised at the comments on the news by a fire bloke who said that there hadn't been a fire there for 15? years so there was lots of fuel.

On Ash Wednesday in 1979? over 1000 houses were destroyed in that area.

Wouldn't you think that there would be regular hazard reduction burns?

Or is it that fire authorities and residents never learn.

Regards Philip A

I feel the same,I don't give to charities or collections for disaster relief,if people want to live in an area where lives and property are in danger without taking precautions to reduce risk I don't have any sympathy for them,tree huggers be damned,control burn offs are mandatory in this country. Pat

[Eevo]

On Ash Wednesday in 1979? over 1000 houses were destroyed in that area.


1983 and 3 people died in that area. 75 total across SA n VIC

[Eevo]

without taking precautions to reduce risk I don't have any sympathy for them

not sure about VIC, but in SA there is a lot of council paperwork to do before a controlled burn is approved.
and you cant burn in winter as its too wet.

it's a tough one

[NavyDiver]

Bush is Bush. High temps, high winds can be very bad. It is great that all the people who built in the bush with trees all over the houses left for safety.

The area is beautiful. High rainfall in winter and some for the rest of the year.

If you dont know the area look here (http://www.visitvictoria.com/Regions/great-ocean-road/Destinations/lorne) or check out this link (http://www.visitvictoria.com/Regions/Great-Ocean-Road/Things-to-do/Nature-and-wildlife/National-parks-and-reserves/The-Otways)

This map (https://www.google.com.au/maps/place/Lorne+VIC+3232/@-38.5232372,143.7782617,60750m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x6ad365310b0c1765:0x40579 a430a0c860!6m1!1e1)shows the NO Chance to fight a fire coming from North East on most of this area.

Very glad no body was hurt

[Avion8]

For West Australia there are new rules coming out with respect to building in bush fire prone areas. The following DFES Map of bushfire prone areas is quite enlightening, particularly for people who live in built up areas close to Perth CBD:

https://mapsengine.google.com/09372590152434720789-10051462350412749262-4/mapview/?authuser=0

In fact not much of WA is not in a bushfire prone area. We spend lot of time clearing gumtree leaves, branches spraying fire breaks & cutting grass. Nothing much we can do about the 30 mtr plus tall 2 acres of gumtrees we have on the property except have a Land Rover always ready to leave & grab bags packed & ready.

[R2D2]

A few pics ( not mine ) of the fires.

Sent from my HTC_0P6B using AULRO mobile app

[bob10]

im not having a go at you personally, why would this be a surprise?
hot + windy + bushfire area = large chance of devastating bushfire.

Thankfully I was away from newspapers, TV & radio for most of the day, & night. However, normally news outlets are all over this type of thing. No one up here seemed to be aware of it, and indeed, reading reports in the media, in the towns that were evacuated , the fire came upon them that quick, that homes, and cafes, still had xmas dinner on the tables. I dare say they were surprised. At least their evacuation plans worked well. Started by a lightning strike, it appears. That is pretty rugged country to fight a fire, it must have moved fast.

[Bushie]

I must say I was surprised at the comments on the news by a fire bloke who said that there hadn't been a fire there for 15? years so there was lots of fuel.

On Ash Wednesday in 1979? over 1000 houses were destroyed in that area.

Wouldn't you think that there would be regular hazard reduction burns?

Or is it that fire authorities and residents never learn.

Regards Philip A

My thoughts were exactly the same, but a bit of research now makes me think the comment may be correct. From memory and research it would appear the 1983 fire started at Deans Marsh and ran into the Otways, hitting the coast at Lorne before the SW change sent it through Aireys Inlet and up to Anglesea (roughly). So the area to the SW of Lorne, Wye River etc may have not seen the Ash Wednesday fires.
The fire in this area in 1983 was 'only' 41000Ha.


Martyn

[bob10]

That's fairly rugged country, not sure if hazard reduction would be feasible, given how easy it would be to get out of control. A safety zone around the houses might work, give residents permission to clear the bush to what is regarded as safe. However, from the words of an ex Vic. Premier with a house there, the bush is the reason they live there. " They know the risk, and take the risk", he says. Testament to that would be the fact there have been no fatalities, proving their bushfire plans work, to that extent. It's a risk I would not take.

New fire threat looms, Wye River locals vow to rebuild | The New Daily (http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2015/12/28/victorian-fires-new-threat-looms-wye-river-locals-vow-rebuild/?utm_source=SilverpopMailing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20151229%20The%20New%20Daily%20(1)&utm_content=&spMailingID=24339789&spUserID=MTIxODgyNjMyMTEwS0&spJobID=702785584&spReportId=NzAyNzg1NTg0S0)

[Eevo]

Testament to that would be the fact there have been no fatalities, proving their bushfire plans work, to that extent.

173 people died on black saturday. reading the royal commission report into the deaths, about three quarters had bushfire plans.

[Bushie]

173 people died on black saturday. reading the royal commission report into the deaths, about three quarters had bushfire plans.

Not really what the report says, [Final report Vol 1 Chapter 21 - Lessons Learnt] - unless your emphasis is that they had a plan but didn't understand it, or it's implications.


The Commission engaged Professor John Handmer of RMIT University, working in partnership with the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, to analyse evidence about the deaths that occurred as a result of the 7 February fires. Professor Handmer's field of expertise is community safety in natural disasters.
Professor Handmer delivered his report to the Commission in April 2010. In the report and in subsequent oral examination, he noted, among other things, the following in relation to those who perished:
? Fifty-eight per cent had made no preparations either for staying and defending or for leaving early. A number were prepared to leave but were apparently awaiting a warning.2
? Twenty per cent intended to stay and defend and were well prepared; another 14 per cent had made some limited preparations.3
? The fire took by surprise 30 per cent of those who died.4
? Twenty-four per cent seemed unaware that they were in a bushfire risk area, and 38 per cent did not seem to have a basic knowledge of what precautions needed to be taken to give themselves some degree of protection.5
? Fourteen per cent were fleeing the fire at the time of their death; of these, 4 per cent were fleeing in a vehicle and the remaining 10 per cent were on foot, although a number had fled their vehicles while trying to leave the area.6
? Sixty-nine per cent were classed as ?passively sheltering? inside a house or other building at the time of their death?as opposed to ?actively defending??although some of these people might have retreated inside (having tried to defend) when the fire front arrived.7
? Forty-four per cent were classed as ?vulnerable? because they were aged less than 12 years old or more than 70 years or because they were suffering from an acute or chronic illness or disability.8
? Thirty-two per cent lost their lives on properties whose defendability was questionable.9
Professor Handmer said the material he analysed contained ?unprecedented detail on the circumstances surrounding each fatality? because it allowed him to 'see what people intended to do and what they did in addition to what the final situation was?.10

He offered three principal interpretations of the data:
? The ?prepare, stay and defend or leave early? policy appears 'sound on paper? but ?implementation presents major challenges?.
? Over half of those who died believed that by staying to defend their properties, they were 'taking effective action in terms of their safety?.
? Most of those who died 'did not, and often could not, respond appropriately to the risk that the bushfires presented for them on 7 February?.11
Martyn

[Eevo]

Not really what the report says, [Final report Vol 1 Chapter 21 - Lessons Learnt] - unless your emphasis is that they had a plan but didn't understand it, or it's implications.

Martyn

thanks, i'll have to go reread that. maybe i remember the 69% figure incorrectly

i always find this point interesting.
Thirty-two per cent lost their lives on properties whose defendability was questionable

i think under worst conditions, no property is realistically defendable.