Do you have any idea exactly how many aircraft or how many gallons of retardant were dropped on the YHF between the time we hear “Air support down there” and the time of deployment?
As we know, there was no retardant lines placed to protect Glen Isla or Yarnell in that timeframe
———————————————————————————————–
Via the Air Study Videos we have a very good record of the various drops on the fire during all of that time.
I’m writing this off the top of my head, and way past my bedtime, but I think your question is important.
Until the 4;30-ish drop that the SAIR incorrectly (imho) said Eric said ‘that’s where we want it,” the aerial fire-fighting was going on on the northeast and then east flanks of the fire. Firstly defending areas in the Model Creek Road area, and then in the Sickles Road Area.
After that, in the time framework you are speaking of, the aerial fire-fighting then turned it’s attention to the southwest part of the fire. They then managed to put in one line of retardant at around 4:30 (from, I think, about Shrine Road north-eastward), and then while they were lining up the DC-10 for a line continuing that, the Deployment happened.
After the deployment, they continued dropping retardant from the first line they put in all the way towards the northeast, to defend Yarnell.
The line Bravo 3 dropped, earlier in the day, across the bowl was basically in vain.
However, it looks to me that the lines dropped in the Model Creek Road area and across the top of Yarnell were successful, via the aerial photos in this article on this UK-based Daily Mail Website:
—————————————————————————————-
“Devastation left by ‘firestorm’ that killed 19 Arizona firefighters: Shocking aerial images show town burned to the ground by blaze”
You have to scroll down a bit to come to the actually quite interesting collection of aerial photos that show where the retardant lines stopped the fire. I’ve mapped almost all of these photos, by the way. I have absolutely no clue how they managed to obtain these photos.
PS. Given what I’ve seen in these aerial photos, it has always disturbed me that they didn’t start that line above Glen Illah. I don’t know why that was the case. I really don’t and it bothers me.
**
** EXIF METADATA SUMMARY FROM
** ALL OF THE PANEBAKER AIR STUDY VIDEOS
Below is a just a short summary of the EXIF data contained in ALL of the
Panebaker videos sitting in the online Dropbox folder.
You can see clearly below what Marti has been talking about with embedded
time stamps ( and GPS time stamps ) actually bearing no relation to the
time stamp(s) eventually used in the FILENAMES themselves.
The Nikon Coolpix seems to have been set TWO hours ahead of real time
and the filenames used for files coming from the camera were just ‘dialed back’
manually, or something.
The first SEVEN Panebaker videos show below also contain a short NOTE after
the EXIF data that tries to show how both the ‘Creation Dates’ OR the GPS
Time Stamp *may* have been used to come up with the actual time stamp
used in the video filename.
As you can see from these NOTES below… something is very strange about
where the time stamps used for the video titles actually came from. None
of them appear to be an exact match for either the ‘Creation Time’ or
the ‘GPS Time’ embedded in the movie itself.
Also note… MOST of the videos taken with the Nikon Coolpix P520 do, in fact,
have UTC based GPS timestamps… but SOME videos from the (same?)
Nikon do NOT. It is almost as if the GPS was being turned OFF on the Nikon
for only SOME of the videos shot that day.
File Name: 20130630_144226_VLAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:40:52
Duration: 0:01:32
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 21:40:46.57 UTC ( AZ 14:40:46.57 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.85″, 112 deg 43′ 51.89″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 14:40:46 AZ time plus 1:32
equals 1442.18, but that is still 8 seconds shy of 1442.26.
16:40:52 plus 1:32 equals 1642.24, but subtracting two
hours manually still only gives 1442.24, which is still
two seconds shy of filename time stamp 1442.26.
File Name: 20130630_144508_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:44:27
Duration: 0:00:40
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 21:44:22.11 UTC ( AZ 14:44:22.11 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.85″, 112 deg 43′ 51.94″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 14:44:22 AZ time plus 40 seconds
gives 1445.02, but that is still 6 seconds shy of 1445.08.
16:44:27 plus 40 seconds equals 1645.7, but subtracting two
hours manually still only gives 1445.7, which is still
ONE second shy of filename time stamp 1445.08.
File Name: 20130630_144756_SEAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:45:37
Duration: 0:02:17
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 21:45:31.97 UTC ( AZ 14:45:31.97 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.85″, 112 deg 43′ 51.95″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 14:45:31 AZ time plus 2:17
gives 1447.48, but that is still 8 seconds shy of 1447.56.
16:45:37 plus 2:30 equals 1647.54, but subtracting two
hours manually still only gives 1447.54, which is still
TWO seconds shy of filename time stamp of 1447.56.
File Name: 20130630_150016_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:59:44
Duration: 0:00:29.66
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 21:59:39.17 UTC ( AZ 14:59:39.17 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 20.99″, 112 deg 43′ 51.82″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 14:59:39 AZ time plus 29 seconds
gives 1500.08, but that is still 8 seconds shy of 1500.16.
16:59:44 plus 29 seconds equals 1700.13, but subtracting two
hours manually still only gives 1500.13, which is still
THREE seconds shy of filename time stamp of 1500.16.
File Name: 20130630_150530_fire_behavior_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:05:10
Duration: 0:00:17.55
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:05:05.95 UTC ( AZ 15:05:05.95 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 20.99″, 112 deg 43′ 51.82″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 15:05:05 AZ time plus 17 seconds
gives 1505.22, but that is still 8 seconds shy of 1505.30.
17:05:10 plus 17 seconds equals 1705.27, but subtracting two
hours manually still only gives 1505.27, which is still
THREE seconds shy of filename time stamp of 1505.30.
File Name: 20130630_150822_VLAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:06:28
Duration: 0:01:52
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:06:23.3 UTC ( AZ 15:06:23.3 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 20.99″, 112 deg 43′ 51.82″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 15:06:23 AZ time plus 1:52
gives 1508.15, but that is still 7 seconds shy of 1508.22.
17:06:20 plus 1:52 equals 1708.12, but subtracting two
hours manuall still only gives 1518.12, which is still
TEN seconds shy of filename time stamp of 1508.22.
File Name: 20130630_151842_fire_behavior_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:16:50
Duration: 0:01:49
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
NOTE: 17:16:50 plus 1:49 equals 1718.39, but
subtracting two hours manually still only gives 1518.39,
which is still THREE seconds shy of filename time
stamp of 1518.42.
File Name: 20130630_152406_SEAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:21:07
Duration: 0:02:56
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:21:01.4 UTC ( AZ 15:21:01.4 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 20.18″, 112 deg 43′ 51.71″
File Name: 20130630_153014_SEAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:29:02
Duration: 0:01:10
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:28:57.45 UTC ( AZ 15:28:57.45 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 20.14″, 112 deg 43′ 51.73″
File Name: 20130630_153414_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:34:01
Duration: 12.38 s
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:33:56.38 UTC ( AZ 15:33:56.38 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.98″, 112 deg 43′ 51.79″
File Name: 20130630_153510_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:34:42
Duration: 23.62 s
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:34:37.65 UTC ( AZ 15:34:37.65 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.96″, 112 deg 43′ 51.79″
File Name: 20130630_153532_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:35:13
Duration: 1.17 s
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:35:07.87 UTC ( AZ 15:35:07.87 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.95″, 112 deg 43′ 51.80″
File Name: 20130630_153622_5KA_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:35:38
Duration: 0:00:43
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:35:33.09 UTC ( AZ 15:35:33.09 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.94″, 112 deg 43′ 51.80″
File Name: 20130630_154138_fire_behavior_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:41:06
Duration: 0:00:31
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:41:01.07 UTC ( AZ 15:41:01.07 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.84″, 112 deg 43′ 51.83″
File Name: 20130630_154940_SEAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:48:21
Duration: 0:01:18
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:48:15.97 UTC ( AZ 15:48:15.97 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.76″, 112 deg 43′ 51.84″
File Name: 20130630_161620_VLAT_split_1_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 18:12:48
Duration: 0:03:31
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 23:12:43.83 UTC ( AZ 16:12:43.83 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.92″, 112 deg 43′ 50.16″
File Name: 20130630_161658_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 18:16:41
Duration: 15.75 s
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 23:16:36.24 UTC ( AZ 16:16:36.24 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.90″, 112 deg 43′ 50.35″
File Name: 20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 18:17:07
Duration: 0:01:49
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 23:17:02.62 UTC ( AZ 16:17:02.62 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.88″, 112 deg 43′ 50.40″
File Name: 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP.MOV
Make: Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Lens Type: Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:23:34
Internal Serial Number: ZA2261150
Serial Number: 152066061038
Lens Info: 15-85mm f/?
Lens Serial Number: 000013b95c
** WHY IS THIS TIME DIFFERENT FROM 16:23:34?
Create Date: 2013:06:30 16:23:01
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:23:01
Duration: 11.78 s
Create Date: 2013:06:30 16:23:34.00
Date/Time Original: 2013:06:30 16:23:34.00
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:23:34.00
File Name: 20130630_162508_2SEATS_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 18:23:17
Duration: 0:01:50
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 23:23:11.9 UTC ( AZ 16:23:11.9 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.82″, 112 deg 43′ 50.86″
Wait, what?? I’m not sure you explained that right.
Panebaker’s Nikon and Canon t3i are one hour ahead of Arizona time, because Arizona time is not Mountain Daylight Savings Time, the time Panebaker set his cameras to.
If anybody working on these files, unless they were in a serious hurry, or didn’t care whether it made sense dealing with an Arizona fire, should have known how to do this. Somebody apparently didn’t.
So first you have to set the camera’s timestamp back one hour, in order to sync to other Arizona-set cameras (like the one used on the Air2Air videos, and just about every other camera used on that fire).
Then you have to translate that to the military time — (the 24 hour clock) format they’re using on these filenames.
It seems crazy complicated, for people who don’t understand it. But it’s not really.
So, for example, a photo or video, taken by Panebaker, who lives in Montana and had set his two cameras to Mountain Daylight Savings Time, should have been re-timestamped, by whoever was preparing these files for this, back one hour. Say from 4:16:24 PM to 3:16:24 PM. Then, in order to accurately translate that into the “military 24-hour” format they chose to use to name these files for this kind of important publication, they would then “add” 12 hours to it (to count from midnight of the beginning of that day), to get to 151624. That’s how you do this. That’s what everybody does when they do this, That’s what I’ve been doing all along. For people hired/payed to do it, I would think it would been a “no-brainer.”
They could have absolutely cleanly and quickly and accurately renamed these files without confusion. I have no clue why they didn’t.
Marti… yes… this confused me as well when I finally
did an EXIF dump on ALL of Panebaker Apple Quicktime
movies and then looked at the dates coming OUT of
the movie files themselves. ( EXIF metadata ).
You ALREADY said the Nikon Coolpix P250 was set
ONE hour ahead of time… but the ‘Creation Date’ being
stamped into the movies themselves says that it was
TWO hours behind the ‘real Arizona time’ that day.
Let me take just ONE of the EXIF metadata dumps
from above and see if I can show you what I mean…
Let’s take just THIS one ( since it also has GPS data )…
_______________________________________________
File Name: 20130630_144226_VLAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:40:52
Duration: 0:01:32
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 21:40:46.57 UTC ( AZ 14:40:46.57 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.85″, 112 deg 43′ 51.89″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 14:40:46 AZ time plus 1:32
equals 1442.18, but that is still 8 seconds shy of 1442.26.
16:40:52 plus 1:32 equals 1642.24, but subtracting two
hours manually still only gives 1442.24, which is still
two seconds shy of filename time stamp 1442.26.
_______________________________________________
The FILENAME ended up in the ‘1400’ timerange… but
the ‘Creation Date’ ( according to the Nikon ) was TWO
HOURS ahead of that… in the ‘1600’ hour.
Now there is this…
GPS Time Stamp: 21:40:46.57 UTC ( AZ 14:40:46.57 PM )
That is actually CORRECT.
Timestamp that went into the movie itself was in the
‘1400’ hour ALREADY… and not TWO HOURS ahead
in the ‘1600’ hour as the Nikon’s own timeclock thought.
Well… when I say CORRECT… I mean the HOUR was
correct according to UTC time. ( 1400 hour ).
As explained above, however… I don’t think this is simply
a case where they ended up just taking the GPS time
and using that for the FILENAME itself.
The GPS time stamp of 14:40:46 AZ time plus the
1:32 media duration time embedded in the movie
itself equals 1442.18, but that is still 8 seconds shy of 1442.26 ( which is what they actually NAMED it ).
So ‘eight seconds’ are ‘missing’, even if they were
just referring to the embedded GPS time for filenames…
…but my point is that the HOUR is CORRECT ( according
to the GPS stamp )… and it is TWO hours ahead of the
‘Creation date’ stamped by the Nikon’s own clock setting.
UPDATE: The ‘EXIF metadata’ dump for the Panebaker videos
posted above in this Chapter 6 has been updated and
re-posted at the bottom ( the START ) of the new Chapter 7.
The list above actually has a couple of Panebaker videos
missing. The new list over in Chapter 7 is complete and
has all 31 Panebaker videos listed.
Here is a direct link to the *new* Chapter VII ( SEVEN ) of this ongoing discussion where the *new* EXIF report is posted…
**
** USING AN ONLINE EXIF METADATA EXTRACTOR WITH AIR STUDY
** VIDEOS WITHOUT HAVING TO DOWNLOAD THE VIDEOS
The same ‘online’ tool that can be used to easily extract EXIF metatdata from
any photograph can ALSO be used to pull a ton of metadata out of Apple
Quicktime movie format ( MOV ) files… ( like the Panebaker Air Study videos
in the online DropBox )… but it’s a little trickier to do than just analyzing
a ‘photograph’ in Mr. Dougherty’s online Drobox.
To analyze any PHOTOGRAPH in the online Dropbox… all you have to do
is select the photo… let it appear… then use the ‘View Original’ option by
either right-clicking the image or from the little ‘three dot’ menu option that
is always in the lower right corner when a photo is being displayed.
When the original photo appears… you just ‘cut and paste’ the URL that is now
showing in your browser’s address bar into the ‘View Image at URL’ input
box over in the EXIF online tool page.
You have to do this ‘View Original’ thing because the online Dropbox page
that normally (first) shows a photo to you is just an HTML ‘container’ and
that URL is NOT a ‘direct link’ to the photo itself.
In order for the online EXIF extractor to work… it simply needs a URL that
represents the location of the ACTUAL image ( and not a web page URL ).
Okay… all well and good… but here come the problem with trying to do the
same thing with the online Apple Quicktime movies ( like the Panebaker Air
Study videos ) that are also sitting in the online Dropbox.
When you choose to ‘play a movie’ up there in the Dropbox… right-clicking
the movie player when it appears does NOT give you the same ‘View original’
option as when viewing a still photo. Likewise… when it’s a movie being shown
in the online Dropbox… there is no ‘View original’ menu option if you click the
little ‘three dot’ menu in the lower right corner.
So if you just ‘cut and paste’ the URL of the Dropbox movie player into the
online EXIF extractor tool… it simply comes back and says “Invalid URL. This
is a web page and not a direct link to the item.”
Not to worry. Here is how to essentially do the same ‘View original’ option
for MOVIES up at that Dropbox… even though there is no such menu option.
You have to PRETEND as if you want to DOWNLOAD the movie… but
you still don’t have to actually download it.
When the movie you want to pull the EXIF data from is showing on the screen
with the big RIGHT-ARROW ‘Play’ button already showing… just mouse down
to the bottom right of the panel and LEFT-CLICK that little ‘three dot’ menu icon.
Only one option will be on the popup menu… and it says ‘Download’.
Do NOT LEFT-CLICK that option ( that will start the download ).
Do a RIGHT-CLICK instead.
A RIGHT-CLICK will bring up a ‘System menu’ that should have the
following option on it ( among others )…
“Copy Link Location”
Left-click click that option on this second popup menu.
This will copy the ACTUAL URL of where that original movie
file is really located up there at the Dropbox into your clipboard.
Once you have done the “Copy Link Location” operation… just switch right
over to the online EXIF extractor page and then do a ‘paste’ of that Link
into the ‘Image URL’ input box at the top of the page… then just RIGHT-CLICK
the ‘View Image at URL’ option.
That’s all there is to it.
The online tool now knows exactly where to get its OWN copy of the movie from
the Drobox… and will do so ‘in the background’ at backbone speed… and will then
show you the extracted EXIF data for that MOVIE. If it’s one of the larger movie
files you WILL have to ‘wait’ just a bit while the online server obtains its own
copy of the movie to analyze… but it won’t take long.
NOTE: You may see the online EXIF tool ‘loading’ icon just keep ‘spinning’
even after the EXIF data appears because it is still trying to display frames
from the movie on the same page. Once you are done cutting/pasting the
EXIF data into some other place of your own it’s probably best to CLOSE
that copy of the EXIF tool window so your CPU doesn’t keep spinning.
** GPS TIME STAMPS IN THE PANEBAKER VIDEOS
The Nikon Coolpix P520 camera being used for most of the Panebaker
videos was, in fact, using GPS and MOST of the videos taken with that
camera also have a ‘real time’ GPS time/date stamp. SOME of the same
videos from the same camera do NOT ( almost as if GPS was being
turned OFF at various time ).
If there IS any GPS data in a movie… it WILL be displayed by the online tool
and it will look like this…
Target image: /Panebaker/Video/Video/20130630_161658_EP
Date/Time Original 2013:06:30 18:16:41
GPS Time Stamp: 23:16:36.24 UTC
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Version ID: 2.3.0.0
GPS Latitude Ref: North
GPS Latitude: 34.272193 degrees
GPS Longitude Ref: West
GPS Longitude: 112.730652 degrees
GPS Altitude Ref: Above Sea Level
GPS Altitude: 1292.1 m
GPS Img Direction Ref: Unknown ()
GPS Img Direction: undef
GPS Map Datum: WGS84
Arizona is -7 ( minus SEVEN ) hours in relation to GPS UTC time.
That means…
When UTC hour is 2100… it is 1400 ( 2:00 PM ) in Arizona
When UTC hour is 2200… it is 1500 ( 3:00 PM ) in Arizona
When UTC hour is 2300… it is 1600 ( 4:00 PM ) in Arizona.
When UTC hour is 0000… it is 1700 ( 5:00 PM ) in Arizona
etc…
>> On May 18, 2014 at 4:48 am, calvin said:
>> The Panebaker VLAT pictures labeled 1715′ish are incorrect. These pictures
>> are actually the split drop from the VLAT from 1617. I am not sure if this is
>> relevant, or if it has already been identified.
It’s VERY relevant.
One of those 1715’ish Panebaker still photos ( the one named 20130630_171528-1_EP ) is the one that is a PERFECT match for the Tom
Story photo that was (supposedly) shot at 1639 ( according to the timestamp
on Story’s Canon 1D with the 300mm zoom lens attached ).
So however *wrong* the Panebaker still photos are ( being shot with his
own Canon EOS REBEL T3i camera )… that is ALSO how ‘wrong’ the
Tom Story Canon EOS 1D photo timestamps are.
So there appear to be TWO ‘wrong offsets’ involved here now…
1) How *wrong* was Panebaker’s Canon EOS REBEL T3i that day?
2) Answer to (1) determines how *wrong* Tom Story’s Canon EOS 1D really was.
As much as there is no evidence that there was a VLAT drop at 1639 that
day ( the moment of Steed’s first MAYDAY ) as suggested by Tom Story’s
photos… there is also now actually no real evidence there was a VLAT drop at
exactly 1715, either ( as indicated by Panebaker’s still photos ).
There is no doubt they were BOTH photographing the ‘same VLAT drop’…
but there is still plenty of doubt as to exactly WHEN that was.
So regardless of how the ‘162300 video mystery’ pans out on the other
thread… this thread needs to ‘revisit’ the Panebaker 1715 series and
find out what the ‘wrong time offset’ for THAT camera really was.
More on this later.
Back to looking at video stillframes and comparing them to still photos.
**
** PROBLEM SOLVED?
**
** NEW TIME OFFSETS FOR BOTH…
**
** PANEBAKER’S CANON EOS REBEL T3i
** TOM STORY’S CANON EOS 1D ( WITH 300mm LENS )
As it turns out… thanks to the fact that the audio tracks of the
Panebaker Air Study Videos were capturing ‘shutter clicks’…
this wasn’t all that hard to figure out.
As calvin pointed out… the Panebaker 1715’ish photo series
( regardless of timestamp ) are ACTUALLY photos of the FIRST
VLAT PASS that was part of that ‘VLAT split’ sequence taken
almost an HOUR earlier than 1715.
The Panebaker Air Study video that captures the ACTUAL (correct)
VLAT drop which corresponds to BOTH the Tom Story 7093 photo
( with an incorrect timestamp of 1639.21 ) AND the Panebaker
20130630_171528-1_EP photo ( with an incorrect timestamp of
1715.28 ) is this one…
20130630_161620_VLAT_split_1_EP
This video is 3 minutes and 30 seconds long.
VIDEO 161620 STARTS AT 1612.50 ( 4:12.50 PM )
+2:27 ( 16:15.17 / 4:15.17 PM )
Shutter click that matches Panebaker still photo 20130630_171528-1_EP *and* Tom Story’s 7093 still photo.
VIDEO 161620 ENDS AT 1616.20 ( 4:16.20 PM )
So that means the TIME setting on Panebaker’s Canon EOS
REBEL T3i was actually 1 hour and 11 seconds AHEAD of the
time of the video camera that was recording the 161620 video
that day.
( 1715.28 minus 1615.17 equals 1 hour and 11 seconds ).
So… how does that now affect the ‘time offset’ for Story’s
Canon EOS 1D?
Well… since we NOW know that the actual EVENT being
photographed by Tom Story’s 7093 photo with his Canon
EOS 1D took place at exactly 1615.17 that day… and Story’s
Canon EOS 1D put a *wrong* timestamp of 1639.21 on that
photo… the ‘difference’ between those times would be…
24 minutes and 4 seconds.
( 1639.21 minus 1615.17 equals 24 minutes and 4 seconds ).
So Tom Story’s Canon EOS 1D appears to have been set
24 minutes and 4 seconds AHEAD of the ‘real’ time that day
( if we accept that the video camera on the tripod shooting Air
Study videos was, itself, set close to the ACTUAL time that day ).
SUMMARY…
** Panebaker’s Canon EOS REBEL T3i camera was timestamping
photos 1 hour and 11 second AHEAD of ‘real time’ that day.
** Tom Story’s Canon EOS 1D camera was timestamping
photos 24 minutes and 4 seconds AHEAD of ‘real time’ that day.
See what I wrote below about syncing 152406_SEAT with the 1544 Air2Air video.
Now thinking about that 162300_SEAT_drop video. I couldn’t figure out where it came from. It’s not from any of the cameras we’re seeing most of the video from. It’s totally different. I had been wondering “Where did Panebeker get that video from??”
Now that all makes sense. He was shooting stills with the t3i, with a, as you have found, camera set ahead one hour (which actually would be correct in any Mountain Time place other than Arizona — which doesn’t observe Daylight Savings Time), and he decided to shoot that drop as a video.
So whoever was file-naming Panebeker’s t3i’s photos/video didn’t know that and thus incorrectly named the files.
It really makes me wonder who was naming these files. They made so many mistakes it makes it hard to believe it was someone on “their team.” I think if it was somebody on “their team” they would have been going more for syncing accuracy and would have been more clued in.
Just my somewhat brain dead at this pont opinion.
I think here’s still a lot of timestamp wonkiness on the Nikon videos. Bit I have somewhat of a killer day in front of me, so I don’t know when I’ll be able to get back to it.
We are still putting a lot of ‘trust’ into the existing
filename time/date stamps of the Panebaker
Air Study videos… but I still think it’s OK to do
that ( given exceptions like the 162300 video ).
Example… even for the NEW ‘time offsets’ for
Panebaker’s Canon REBEL and Story’s EOS 1D,
I am obviously ‘trusting’ the fact that the following
Panebaker video is ( at least ) CLOSE to the
REAL time that day…
20130630_161620_VLAT_split_1_EP
As you just pointed out… events in these Panebaker
videos *ARE* ‘traceable’ back into the long-running
Air-To-Air channel videos… and usually ( at least )
these TWO video cameras match up pretty
well, time wise.
So what are the odds that BOTH the camera on
the tripod recording the Panebaker videos *AND*
the camera on the tripod that was recording the
long-running Air-To-Air channel traffic are *BOTH*
set incorrectly… but still within a few seconds
of each other?
I don’t know… but I would say ‘slim to none’.
The fact that the Air-To-Air traffic captures
eventually ‘line up’ ( timewise ) with the actual
MAYDAY calls and the deployment events seems
to indicate that the camera doing the Air-To-Air
channel captures that day was pretty much set to
the ‘right time’ that day… so anything from
Panebaker that ‘matches’ up with dialogue in an
Air-To-Air capture can/should also be considered
‘the right time’ that day.
At one point… I tried to match up an event in either
a Panebaker video OR the Air-To-Air videos with
something from the Blue Ridge GPS unit ( which
was using satellite real-time that day )…
…but that turned out to be pretty much like putting
a square peg into a round hole. I can’t find any
DIRECT correlation between a GPS stamped
event in the Blue Ridge data with an Air-To-Air
channel transmission and/or a Panebaker video
radio capture. Close… but still guesswork.
When I set out on THAT quest… I was hoping to
actually find a TAC channel capture in an Air
Study video that matched the moment when
Frisby told Brown to ‘get some drivers to move
vehicles’. That is still, of course, the EXACT
moment when Brown did his ‘about face’ on
his hike on the Cutover Trail… which was
captured by his GPS unit.
No such luck. None of that ‘rescuing Brendan’ and
the immediate ‘moving vehicles’ radio traffic seems
to have been captured in any Air Study video.
The only line we NOW have to the Blue Ridge GPS
unit and the Panebaker videos is this ‘indirect’ line…
1) Blue Ridge GPS event ( ATV leaving parking lot )
was used to verify that Story’s Canon 3D was
‘accurate’ that day ( within 45 to 50 seconds of
real time ).
2) Story’s photos can be used to ‘match’ events
in Panebaker videos to determine ‘accuracy’
as related to Blue Ridge GPS unit.
So any Tom Story Canon 3D photo that matches
a moment in a Panebaker video almost exactly
is a good ‘indirect’ line of proof back to the
GPS based satellite time that day.
But as we have already discovered… ANYTHING
within 60 seconds or so is going to have to be
considered ‘accurate’ for this day in Yarnell.
Even the GPS unit was only ‘updating’ every
60 seconds that day.
Interestingly, tho, the camera timestamp on the first of those three videos says 6:12:48 PM.
So now I’m thinking the the Panebaker Nikon (source of these videos) is also one hour ahead, just like the Panebaker t3i. And that would make perfect sense, all things considered. The must both be Panebaker’s cameras, and he must live outside of Arizona,with his cameras synced to Mountain Daylight Savings time.
Still, however, I’m seeing quite a few of my representative samples of this videos, in which the File Namer, both not realizing those two cameras were “off” by an hour and getting confused as to how to translate the stamps from “4:30 PM” to “1630” goes back and forth between translating them correctly and translating them incorrectly.
I think the “Air2Air” Contour +2 videocam is accurate, both in names and timestamps, essentially.
I’m looking at 20130630_1628_EP.MOV. The timestamp says 3:47:58 PM. Which would relatively accurately indicate the video was started at 3:47 PM (1547) and end at 4:28 PM (1628), and it’s a 40-minute video. So that works.
Reply to Marti Reed post on
May 19, 2014 at 12:06 pm
>> Marti said…
>> I think the “Air2Air” Contour +2
>> videocam is accurate, both in
>> names and timestamps,
>> essentially.
Totally agree… it is ‘consistent’ with
its own timestamps and filenames
*AND* it *ALSO* seems to have
been set pretty close to the ‘real
time’ ( well, as close as anything
was that day, anyway ).
That video is actually 40 minutes and 14 seconds long… but that didn’t
throw anything off as far as the file
naming went.
1547.58 plus 40 minutes and 14
seconds is 1628.12.
Still ‘right on the money’ and still means the ‘1628’ in the filename is
CORRECT.
I think *all* of the Air-To-Air channel
videos are just as ‘tickety-boo’ with
regards to start times, durations, end
times ( and resulting filename stamp ).
The Panebaker videos… well… ( as
you pointed out already )… that’s
a whole ‘nother story.
It’s like ‘follow the bouncing timestamps’ for those puppies.
More later.
PS: A number of the Nikon Panebaker videos DO, in fact, have UTC GPS time and date stamps embedded in them… and I’m currently trying to see how that factors into things here.
Something is ‘strange’ about even these UTC GPS timestamps, however, and there seems to be a ‘pattern’ there but can’t quite explain it yet. They are always about 8 to 10 seconds BEHIND the other timestamps but its not totally consistent from video to video.
OK I’m back from driving, with a swollen sprained foot, clear across town and back in heavy traffic. I had some time to think.
I DON’T think it’s OK to be “putting a lot of ‘trust’ into the filename time/date stamps” on those videos.
I didn’t have time nor drive space to download all those videos, but of the eight I did, they were ALL incorrectly labeled. The five that are kinda sorta right, like 152406 and 150530 is only right because the renamer just read 5:21:07 PM and just stuck a 1 in front of that, not knowing the camera stamp was an hour ahead. So, purely by mistake those ended up with the “right” filenames.
The other three of those eight, are misnamed, because the renamer, while getting the translation right, didn’t now the camera stamp was off by an hour. So anybody that doesn’t know that camera is off by an hour, is gonna either misinterpret or misunderstand what they’re looking at.
If I could download all those files, which I can’t, I could easily and quickly make a list of those videos with correct filenames. I think it would be well worth doing, now that we know what the problem is.
And I think they should be corrected for Arizona time, which Panebeker didn’t, so they can be synced more “trustworthily” with all the other stuff people are comparing them to.
Can you do that with your online file metadata reader?
I’ve used a lot of Jeffrey’s Lightroom Plugin. His stuff is quite good. I think I’m gonna download and try out this, and also his Exif Viewer for Lightroom.
It actually SAYS it supports MOV Quicktime… but I haven’t been able to get it to successfully analyze any of the Panebaker videos.
Problem with the online tool and using it with the YFH Dropbox is that you have to do ‘View Original’ on any photo and use THAT URL for the EXIF viewer.
If you just call up an Apple Quicktime movie via the dropbox and try to use that URL… it just says “Invalid URL… this is just a web page”.
There is no ‘View original’ option for the movies in the online Drobox, as there is with photos.
You can also try to analyze any ‘downloaded’ videos… but problem there is that the online tool then has to UPLOAD the entire frickin’ thing before it can ‘analyze’ it. Not workable with some of these Air Study videos.
So a desktop tool like exiftool v9.6 is what I’ve been using to analyze the Apple Quicktime movies.
Scratch my comment
above. I just figured out HOW to use that ‘online tool’ to analyze the Apple Quicktime MOV files that are actually sitting in the online YHF Dropbox.
You have to sort of ‘fool’ it and pretend to ‘download’ the video… without actually downloading it.
See a new parent comment up above about how to actually do this.
Ha Ha remember when we spent several days syncing Tom’s D1????
I said I thought it was 22 minutes ahead and you estimated somewhere around 30 minutes ahead?
I had reasons to not want you to be right because of how that would skew my syncing of Tom’s photo of the VLAT after Blue Ridge McCord’s “almost fiasco with the helicopter” video!!
WTKTT: I hate to ask too much of you, and I know we’re all breathlessly waiting/hoping/praying for a Chapter VII, but…
I think it would be enormously useful if you could write up a summary of this whole Panebaker exploration. I can’t do it because I don’t know what all is in your head. I’ve pretty much written/thunk out loud what’s been in mine.
I think it’s really important for folks coming here to understand this, and I don’t think they will by trying to read/comprehend these four days of complicated/convoluted threads.
Marti… I did a ‘dump’ up above of the EXIF data ( including
GPS time stamps ) from the Panebaker videos… but that
was before I read your comment above.
That ‘dump’ is NOT my idea of a ‘summary’ as to where
we reallly stand with these Panebaker videos.
I will do that additional ‘summary’ and post it as well.
It’s actually looking pretty clear.
I no longer think ( at the moment ) that 162300 video
was ‘replacing’ anything at all. It was just a ‘screw up’.
What amazes me is that these guys were getting PAID
to do this ‘Aerial Firefighting Study’ ( With taxpayer dollars
from USDA? )… but they didn’t even bother to make sure
their equipment was all ‘good to go’ with correct timestamps
and whatnot that day.
**
** UPDATE: MORE ABOUT THE 162300 AIR STUDY VIDEO
**
** MYSTERY SOLVED?
>> Marti wrote…
>> Was the Nikon’s timestamper generally off? I don’t know.
>> Periodically, a photo was taken on that camera. The photos
>> are in the Schultz folder.
>> 20130630_1616_AZ-A1S-000688_T911___7_G_RS.JPG
>> (Please dear Universe, don’t ever compel me to type that out
>> on my iPad ever again…) is of the T11 coming out of one of the
>> split drops and has a time stamp of 4:16:36 PM. Boom!
>> As in that’s pretty accurate, relatively speaking, given that we
>> don’t have any absolute time stamps on any of these files, because
>> it just doesn’t work that way in the real world, unless somebody
>> decides to make it do that.
Marti…
Couple of things.
You are right. There is no doubt that even though they DO capture the same
SINGLE SEAT drop… the 152406 video and the 162300 video were shot with
TWO different video cameras.
The 152406 video was shot with a video camera on a TRIPOD… while the
162300 video was shot with a ‘handheld’ video camera.
So which one has the *REAL* timestamp?
I believe it’s the 152406 video.
The following photo in the Swartz folder DOES, in fact, appear to be a still photo
of the EXACT SAME DROP that we see happening in BOTH the 152406 video
*and* the 162300 video.
/AerialFirefightingstudy/Swartz/Pictures/Nikon/North of Fire/Seat Drop 3/
20130630_1524_AZ-A1S-000688_T874___1_G_RS.JPG
Camera: Nikon COOLPIX P520
Lens: 107 mm (Max aperture f/3)
Exposure: Auto exposure, Program AE, 1/250 sec, f/4.9, ISO 160
Flash: Off, Did not fire
Focus: AF-S, Mid-left
Focus 2: AF Area Mode: Dynamic Area
Date: June 30, 2013 – 3:24:31 PM
Location: Latitude/longitude: 34° 16′ 19.7″ North, 112° 43′ 51.9″ West
Location decimal: ( 34.272152, -112.731085 )
Altitude: 1,375.3 m
File: 3,672 × 4,896 JPEG (18.0 megapixels)
If we are going to trust the timestamps on the Swartz photos… then this simply
CONFIRMS that the drop actually did take place in the 1524 timeframe… and
*NOT*( in the 1623 timeframe as the 162300 video seems to suggest.
Things are *still* just a ‘little wonky’ timewise, however, but ( I believe ) fully
explainable now.
The timestamp on Swartz’s photo showing the actual moment of ‘retardant
dropping’ from this single SEAT is 1524.31.
That does NOT match the actual ‘drop time’ for this single SEAT drop as
shown in the 152406 video… but it may be ‘close enough’.
Here is the actual ‘moment of the drop’ as recorded starting at the +2:05
second mark in the 152406 video…
__________________________________________________________________
+2:05 ( 1523.15 / 3:23.15 PM )
(Foreground person 1 – Panebaker?): Here he comes.
+2:19 ( 1523.29 / 3:23.29 PM )
( RETARDANT DROP STARTS FROM THE SINGLE SEAT )
+2:19 ( 1523.29 / 3:23.29 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins): Okay… Ahhhh… we’ll probly be around there
in about five. Umm… What’s your plan on the ground?
+2:20 ( 1523.30 / 3:23.30 PM )
( RETARDANT IS NOW FULLY DROPPING FROM THE SINGLE SEAT )
+2:27 ( 1523.37 / 3:23.37 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): What I’d like to do… ah… is… ah… tie into ( that court here? ) where ya
see the whole ??. If we can tag onto the road up here and then just run it… ah… you know…
( transmission breaks up and cuts off ).
FOREGROUND OVERLAP…
+2:27 ( 1523.37 / 3:23.37 PM )
(Tanker 810): Eight one zero OFF… hard right.
(B33 – French): Lookin’ like you already got me in sight…
looks like your drop went in there good. Thank you.
(Tanker 810): ( Back to ?? )
__________________________________________________________________
So… according to the 152406 video… the ‘moment of the drop’ appears to have
been from a START time of +2:19 ( 1523.29 / 3:23.29 PM ) to ‘fully dropping
retardant’ ( as seen in the Swartz photo ) at +2:20 ( 1523.30 / 3:23.30 PM ).
However… the timestamp on Swartz’s photo for that same ‘fully dropping
retardant’ moment is 1524.31 ( 3:24.31 PM ).
That’s pretty much a full 61 seconds different ( ahead of the video )… but it IS
definitely *within* 61 seconds… which we might have to simply accept as
‘accurate enough to be the same moment’.
I believe this Swartz photo IS of the same exact ‘single SEAT drop’ moment
as seen in the 152406 video… but Swartz’s camera was simply *about* 61
seconds AHEAD of that camera on the tripod that day.
The other reason I believe that Swartz’s photo MUST be of the same drop being
shown in the 152406 video is that even if that SEAT was making MULTIPLE drops
at that location… the simple 61 second time difference is NOT enough time for
his photo to have been of a full ‘go around’ and/or ANOTHER drop by the same
SEAT at the same location.
Not only is there no indication of that happening in the audio or the Air-To-Air
channel traffic… 61 seconds is NOT enough time for them to have made a
complete ‘circle around’ for another pass… either BEFORE or AFTER this
drop captured in the 152606 video.
Also note…
At +2:14 in the 152406 video a white SUV passes the camera heading
west on Hays Ranch Road. The same white SUV is also seen in the
162300 video just a few hundred feet further west on Hays Ranch Road.
No big additional revelation there… just more proof that the 152406 video
and the 162300 video are ‘of the same event happening at the same time’.
So what does all this now mean?
I believe it means the following…
1) There is no doubt that the Swartz photo, the +2:18 second mark in the
152406 video, and the contents of the 162300 video are all THE SAME
SINGLE SEAT DROP being photographed/videoed with 1 digital camera
( Swartz’s ) and TWO different video cameras ( one on tripod, one handheld ).
2) The Swartz photo verifies that the drop really did take place right around
1523.30 that day… and NOT in the 1623 timeframe as the mysterious 162300
video seems to suggest. Swartz’s digitial camera was simply +61 seconds
ahead of the time set on the video camera that was on the tripod that day.
3) The 162300 video *could* just simply be a ‘renaming error’ on Panebaker’s
( or someone else’s? ) part and he really did just mean it to have a filename
of 152300 instead ( even though even that timestamp would not be totally
accurate ). It was NOT an ‘extraction’ from the actual 152406 video that was
then ‘saved to disk’ with a wrong filename… it was the 11.7 seconds from the
OTHER handheld video camera that was (somehow) saved/named with
*WRONG* timestamp about 1 hour into the future.
So… mystery solved?
There WAS no *original* 162300 video at all? ( or at least not one that got
‘replaced’ with 11.7 seconds from another video? ).
This was just some kind of RENAMING error on TWO (different) videos from
TWO different cameras that DO show the same SEAT drop event happening
circa 1523.30 that day?
>> Marti…
>> At exactly +4 seconds in the 11.7 second 162300 video… a
>> shutter click is heard. It comes right after OPS1 Todd Abel
>> says “Go ahead” and then Air Attack Rory Collins starts his
>> “Okay… uh… we’ll probly be around there in about five”
>> response.
>>
>> The ‘shutter click’ also comes at the exact moment that the
>> retardant flow was turned on during this SEAT drop captured
>> in the 162300 video.
>>
>> The SAME EXACT ‘shutter click’ is also heard at the SAME
>> EXACT moment at the +2:20 mark in the 152406 video ( an
>> hour earlier? ) and is part of the same 11 seconds from
>> 152406 ‘duplicated’ as the content of 162300.
>>
>> I can’t seem to find a match for this still photo in ANY of the
>> folders up in the ‘Aerial Firefighting Study’ folder.
>> Not even in Panebaker’s specific ‘SEAT drops’ folder. ( Which
>> is what the 162300 video is showing… a SEAT drop ). Pity.
>> Maybe THAT still camera would have had a correct setting in
>> order to verify 162300 itself.
There DOES appear to be such a ‘photo’ in the folder(s).
Apparently I just ‘missed it’ on a first pass.
I believe the Swartz photo being referenced above IS the one
that corresponds to this ‘shutter click’ heard at the same
exact moment in BOTH the 152406 and 162300 video(s),
and it DOES help verify the TIME when this single SEAT
drop *actually* took place.
That photo filename (thank you swartz for doing this consistently in your photos!!) has the name of the plane in it, It’s T874. The plane being directed in the two videos by Bravo 33 is three-one-zero. You can hear that in 162406.
Unfortunately Swartz doesn’t have any photos of 310 making this drop. That’s because, in my opinion, he’s NOT using a different camera, he’s using the same one and only Nikon Coolpix that they are using to shoot the videos.
It’s because people are using the Panebaker videos to establish when things are being said. IMHO, after today, I don’t believe the “times” being used in the filenames are accurate, for a variety of reasons.
One, because I’m finding that the timestamps on these videos don’t appear accurate and two….
Because whoever was translating them into the filenames seems to have also been confused as to how to translate them.
Reply to Marti Reed post on
May 18, 2014 at 11:36 pm
>> Marti said…
>> And I ask myself, what is the importance
>> of this?
>> It’s because people are using the
>> Panebaker videos to establish when
>> things are being said.
Yes… that’s one BIG reason… but with
regards to this one single ‘mystery’
of the 162300 video… it’s also all about
just establishing if things that are now
permanently in the public evidence record
really ARE what they SAY they are.
*OR*
…whether there is any ‘evidence’ that things
are MISSING which OUGHT to be there.
The 162300 video ‘mystery’ really did look,
at first, as if something that OUGHT to be
there ( an Air Study video capturing events
and/or radio traffic circa 1623 ) *might*
have been ‘replaced’ with something ELSE.
That is looking much less likely now… but
it is still worth verifying as much as possible.
>> Marti also said…
>> IMHO, after today, I don’t believe the
>> “times” being used in the filenames are
>> accurate, for a variety of reasons.
Your ‘points one and two’ up above are
valid… but in *general* I still think MOST
of the Panebaker video timestamps
*CAN* be trusted.
There are a LOT of ‘overlapping’ radio
transmits between these Panebaker
videos and the other ( long running )
Air-To-Air channell videos that DO
sort of prove that at least the timestamps
between those TWO video cameras were
perhaps only SECONDS apart…
…but I agree there appear to be exceptions.
SOME of the Panebaker Air Study video
timestamps ( even other than the
mysterious 162300 one ) appear to still
be a little ‘wonky’.
>> Marti said…
>>
>> Hate to say it but.
>> That photo filename (thank you swartz for doing
>> this consistently in your photos!!) has the name
>> of the plane in it, It’s T874. The plane being
>> directed in the two videos by Bravo 33 is three-
>> one-zero. You can hear that in 162406.
Actually… it is 810 ( Eight one zero ), not 310, but
you are still RIGHT. It is Tanker 810 making the
drop in BOTH videos and he says so himself as
he finishes that drop and is heard ( in BOTH of
the videos ) completing the drop by announcing…
“Eight one zero OUT… hard RIGHT”.
As far as whether or not the ‘title’ on that Swartz
photo actually matches reality… it’s hard to say.
We now have a situation where either the TIME
on Swartz’s camera was WILDLY wrong… and
could not possibly have been a mere 61 seconds
off… OR… the time on Swartz’s camera really
was ‘reasonably accurate’ ( within, say 60 seconds ),
and he is just totally mistaken about what the
number of the SEAT was that he was photographing
at 1524.
A super-enhancement of that Swartz photo SEEMS
to indicate that the actual number on the TAIL of
that plane making that drop is, in fact, 810.
It’s pretty hard to make out because of the smoke
but I would put money on 810 and not 874. The
last digit of the 3-digit tail number seems to most
definitely be a ZERO and not a FOUR.
Also… even though T874 looks VERY similar to
810 ( same type of plane )… Air Tanker 874 also
has the word FIRE ( in big black letters ) on the tail
under the 874 tail number… which I can almost say
for certain is NOT present under the 3 digit tail
number of that SEAT in Swartz’s 1524 photograph.
Tanker 874 apparently has a registration number of
N174ML.
The registration number for Air Tanker 810 is
apparently N187LA… and here is a ‘close-up’
photo of it ( matches Swartz photo exactly )…
Here’s a link to a corresponding ‘photo’ of
Tanker 874. Notice the word FIRE in big
black letters on the tail under the ‘874’
tail number.
I can say pretty much for certain that there
is NO such word FIRE under the tail number
of that SEAT in the 1524 Swartz photo.
Just the 3 digit number that DOES, in fact,
appear to at least end with ZERO.
Nothing else UNDER the tail number.
Firefighting Tankers and Support Aircraft…
Tanker 874 – Registration number N174MLK
The sequence which begins with Bravo 33 saying “eight-one-zero how we lookin?” at 00:31 in 152406_SEAT is right there at 5:18 in the 1544 Air2Air video.
Of course, we don’t know how accurate the timestamping is on the Contour +2 videocam, but I’m guessing it at least isn’t as wonky as the Nikon!
I think you’re right about the cameras, also, now. There’s no way that still and that video could have been shot on the same camera. They were both Nikon Coolpix P520’s. What threw me off was the wording in the “Panebeker Photo and Video Information” docx.
It says:
“Photos were taken primarily with a Canon EOS Rebel T3I, a couple were taken with a Nikon P520. Video in the video folder was also taken with the Nikon Coolpix P520.”
Sounds like they’re describing on camera, right?
Lightroom doesn’t show camera metadata, except the timestamp, for videos. So there is no camera name, much less Camera Serial Numbers. So I wasn’t “seeing” anything to tell me those were two different “versions” of the same camera.
So now I can quit wondering how the camera was stamping the stills “accurately” but not the videos.
The Moore folder includes some photos of that drop, too, and they sequence right in that framework, also. Starting with 20130630_Loc1_seat (20).jpg at 3:23.23 PM. Also Swartz shot the scene before the drop on his iPad at 3:20:42 PM.
**
** MORE ABOUT THE MYSTERIOUS 162300 AIR STUDY VIDEO
**
** WHAT WAS *REALLY* HAPPENING CIRCA 1623 ( 4:23 PM )?
Since we don’t know if there ever even WAS an ‘original 162300’ Air Study
Video ( of any length ) that was then ‘replaced’ with the 11.7 clip from another
video taken almost an HOUR earlier… it’s impossible to say how much ‘radio
traffic’ that original 162300 video *might* have captured ( if it existed ).
For the sake of argument… let’s assume that it DID exist and that it WAS much
more than 11.7 seconds… and that it actually ‘covered’ the time period that
stretched all the way back to the Air Study video that immediately preceded it.
All that means is that it couldn’t have been more than FOUR minutes
long, since the Air Study Video that immediately precedes the
20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP Air Study video was the 20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP one.
( 162300 minus 161858 equals 4 minutes and 2 seconds )
It is doubtful that even if the original 162300 video was MUCH longer than 11.7
seconds that it would have been this full FOUR minutes long ( since no other
Panebaker video was that long and never really exceeded 3 minutes in length )…
…but again… just for the sake of completeness… here are the full FOUR minutes
of captured Air-To-Air channel traffic that would cover the entire time in-between
the 161858 video and the 162300 one… just to see what was *really*
happening ( on Air-To-Air, anyway ) during that timeframe.
The timeframe that actually covers the 11.7 seconds of the existing 162300
video is marked in the transcript below.
As the transcript below shows… NO ACTUAL DROPS took place during this
1618.58 and 1623.00 time period ( as the 162300 video seems to suggest )…
and B33 Thomas French was simply just still in the planning stages for the
upcoming ‘two seat’ drop with Tankers 874 and 830 ( captured in a completely
separate video from the 162300 one ).
** VIDEO 20130630_1628_EP STARTS AT 1547.46 ( 3:47.46 PM )
Length of video: 40 minutes and 14 seconds.
NOTE: The first 30 minutes and 42 seconds omitted from this posting to save
space. Only the FOUR minutes that covers the gap between the 161858 and
162300 videos is included.
+30:43 ( 1618.29 / 4:18.29 PM )
(Tanker 830): I gotcha… am I comin’ in too, Rusty?
+30:48 ( 1618.34 / 4:18.34 PM )
(Tanker 830): Is eight three zero comin’ in with eight seven four?
+30:51 ( 1618.37 / 4:18.37 PM )
(B33 – French): Afirmative. Eight seven four and eight three zero you’re
both cleared in. Two nine eight zero… come in at fifty-five.
+31:10 ( 1618.56 / 4:18.56 PM )
(5KA): Five Kilo Alpha’s out of the dip.
+31:12 ( 1618.58 / 4:18.58 PM )
(B33 – French): Kilo Alpha you’re clear to the drop.
+31:14 ( 1619.00 / 4:19.00 PM )
(5KA): Kilo Alpha
+31:23 ( 1619.09 / 4:19.09 PM )
(B33 – French): Eight seven four… set me up a coverage level 4… whole load… okay?
+31:26 ( 1619.12 / 4:19.12 PM )
(874): Okay.
( 40 SECOND PAUSE – NO RADIO TRAFFIC )
+32:06 ( 1619.52 / 4:19.52 PM )
(5KA): Five Kilo Alpha’s off the drop
+32:07 ( 1619.53 / 4:19.53 PM )
(B33 – French): Kilo Alpha Bravo 33 copy… Hey… I gotcha in sight
so I’ll be low level on this flight but I DO have you in sight… give me a call off the dip.
+32:14 ( 1620.00 / 4:20.00 PM )
(5KA): Will do.
( 42 SECOND PAUSE – NO RADIO TRAFFIC )
+32:56 ( 1620.42 / 4:20.42 PM )
(Unknown): And Bravo 33 eight ?? comin’ around on the east side…
lookin’ for ya… oh… I gotcha.
+33:00 ( 1620.46 / 4:20.46 PM )
(B33 – French): Follow me around… we’re gonna take ya right to
work… allright?
+33:04 ( 1620.50 / 4:20.50 PM )
(B33 – French): You’re clear down to five… and… uh… I’m gonna start my
turn to the left… I’m outta one sixty for one twenty.
+33:11 ( 1620.57 / 4:20.57 PM )
(Unknown): Okay.
+33:13 ( 1620.59 / 4:20.59 PM )
(B33 – French): Puttin’ on the brakes.
+33:17 ( 1621.03 / 4:21.03 PM )
(5KA): Kilo Alpha’s outta the dip.
+33:20 ( 1621.06 / 4:21.06 PM )
(B33 – French): Kilo Alpha gimme a call off the drop.
+33:22 ( 1621.08 / 4:21.08 PM )
(5KA): Will do.
+33:38 ( 1621.24 / 4:21.24 PM )
(B33 – French): Eight seven four… that’s you in the front of the line, right?
+33:42 ( 1621.28 / 4:21.28 PM )
(B33 – French): Okay… what we’re gonna do is… we’re gonna build line
backwards. I need to extend my… uh… pattern just a little bit we’re gonna
get a helicopter in and out… kind of at the… uh… north end of that flank.
Gimmee a good left turn on the exit, okay?
+34:08 ( 1621.54 / 4:21.54 PM )
(B33 – French): Okay… we ah.. we just put in a whole bunch of retardant in with the DC10 we’re gonna build line backwards… you’re gonna be starting in a light fuel patch taking it TO existing retardant… how copy?
+34:21 ( 1622.07 / 4:22.07 PM )
(B33 – French): What I’d look to do is… ah… yea… level 4… star… and I’m… I’ll pop smoke at the start… it’s even gonna be before that light… ah… fuel patch.
+34.56 ( 1622.42 / 4:22.42 PM )
(B33 – French): Allright… I’m gonna start my descent… you’re gonna see the
existing retardant put in by… ah… by nine one one so we’ll be taking retardant
TO that.
*****************************************************************************
** NOTE: 1622.49 is supposedly the START of the 11 second long
** Air Study Video 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP.MOV
*****************************************************************************
+35:06 ( 16:22.52 / 4:22.52 PM )
(B33 – French): Little bit hard to see here… so basically their retardant
started in the flats. We’re gonna be kind of up in the foothill portion.
I’ll pop smoke at the start. Gimme about a wingspan left for ah… drift
Drop heading’s gonna be about zero eight five.
****************************************************************************
** NOTE: 1623.00 is supposedly the END of the 11 second long
** Air Study Video 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP.MOV
****************************************************************************
VIDEO 20130630_1628_EP ENDS AT 1628.00 ( 4:28.00 PM )
Length of video: 40 minutes and 14 seconds.
The Panebaker VLAT pictures labeled 1715’ish are incorrect. These pictures are actually the split drop from the VLAT from 1617. I am not sure if this is relevant, or if it has already been identified.
Reply to calvin post on May 18, 2014 at 4:48 am said:
>> calvin said…
>> The Panebaker VLAT pictures labeled 1715′ish are
>> incorrect. These pictures are actually the split drop from
>> the VLAT from 1617. I am not sure if this is relevant,
>> or if it has already been identified.
calvin… yes… it’s very relevant for a number of reasons.
You just pointed out that we have been *assuming* that
the both the filename and EXIF timestamps on the Panakebaker STILL photos are ‘correct’.
You are right… that doesn’t really appear to be the case.
The Panebaker 20130630_171528-1_EP photo in the
‘VLAT drops’ still photos folder is also the one that is a
‘perfect match’ for Tom Story’s 7093 photo of the same
drop… which Story’s Canon 1D said took place at 1639.
So however ‘wrong’ these Panebaker STILL images are is also directly related to how ‘wrong’ Tom Story’s Canon 1D was set that day.
We were assuming a +36 minute error there, but if the Panebaker still photos ALSO have ‘bogus’ timestamps
then that is no longer correct.
So now we need to figure out just how *wrong* BOTH
Panebaker’s Canon EOS REBEL T3i *AND* Story’s Canon EOS 1D were that day.
Geez. what a mess.
Reminder to anyone getting paid to take pictures of a fire in the future… please make sure the time/date settings on the cameras you are using are CORRECT. Thanks in advance.
So……. I downloaded (and am still downloading) a representative smattering of the Panebaker et al photos and videos.
The File-naming of the videos is all over the boards, compared to the time-stamping. A bunch of the mis-file-naming appears to be typos. For example, 143844 has a time stamp of 4:38:41 PM. Ahem. And 150530 is time stamped 5:05:30 PM. Buyer Beware!
Which leads to our favorite mysterious pair. 162300 is stamped 4:23:01 PM. Accurate? Quite possibly, relatively speaking. 152406 is stamped 5:21:07 PM. Think about THEM apples! There is no way, given what’s going on, that what is happening in that video is happening at 5:21:07 PM!!! So I would be more likely to trust 162300 than 152406.
And speaking of these two videos, the short one is not an edit out of the long one. They’re two completely different videos, captured by two different cameras.
152406_SEAT, with a most likely wrong filename and timestamp, and 162300, with its possibly more accurate timestamp and filemame, were both recorded on the Nikon Coolpix P520. It was on a tripod. It can record up to 24 minutes of video at a time.
Which leads me to my theory. Panebaker et al shot the main videos (except for the ones w/air2air capture, which were recorded on a Contour +2 videocam) on the Nikon in much longer chunks than we see here. Then, probably soon after, they had to sit down and split those videos into smaller chunks. Because…that’s what you have to do. As they were splitting them, they were exporting them out, and had to give them names. Some of them they may have been naming correctly. Some of them they clearly weren’t.
And I don’t know, when you split videos like these up, in something like QuickTime, what happens to the time stamps in the course of doing that. I’ve so far never had to pay attention to that, but then, I’m just learning how to shoot video.
Was the Nikon’s timestamper generally off? I don’t know. Periodically, a photo was taken on that camera. The photos are in the Schultz folder. 20130630_1616_AZ-A1S-000688_T911___7_G_RS.JPG (Please dear Universe, don’t ever compel me to type that out on my iPad ever again…) is of the T11 coming out of one of the split drops and has a time stamp of 4:16:36 PM. Boom! As in that’s pretty accurate, relatively speaking, given that we don’t have any absolute time stamps on any of these files, because it just doesn’t work that way in the real world, unless somebody decides to make it do that.
So that’s what I’ve discovered so far. When I first started looking at those files and their metadata in Lightroom, I wrote in my notes, “Marti starts slowly backing out of THIS particular project…….”
Also. One of my first thoughts as WTKTT (thankfully) starting posting his concerns about these videos was that I have no problem imagining a four-minute lapse in recording. Sometimes, yah know, you have to change out things like batteries and memory cards. And, now that I’ve per used this thing a little bit, maybe we DON’T have a lapse at all. Maybe 162300 WAS shot at that time and so was 152406!!
At exactly +4 seconds in the 11.7 second 162300 video… a shutter click is heard. It comes right after OPS1 Todd Abel says “Go ahead” and then Air Attack Rory Collins starts his “Okay… uh… we’ll probly be around there in about five” response.
The ‘shutter click’ also comes at the exact moment that the retardant flow was turned on during this SEAT drop captured in the 162300 video.
The SAME EXACT ‘shutter click’ is also heard at the SAME EXACT moment at the +2:20 mark in the 152406 video ( an hour earlier? ) and is part of the same 11 seconds from 152406 ‘duplicated’ as the content of 162300.
I can’t seem to find a match for this still photo in ANY of the folders up in the ‘Aerial Firefighting Study’ folder. Not even in Panebaker’s specific ‘SEAT drops’ folder. ( Which is what the 162300 video is showing… a SEAT drop ). Pity. Maybe THAT still camera would have had a correct setting in order to verify 162300 itself.
So… just to be clear…
Despite what you said above… I still don’t think there is *ANY* question that the entire 162300 video is not an exact duplicate of the 11.7 seconds seen at the +2:18 mark in the 152406 video. The ‘mystery’ is why this is so…
…but I hear you up above with your ‘potential’ explanation.
Are you saying that it could just possibly be that this same SEAT drop was captured with TWO different video cameras at the same time… but the one that was running longer and captured the full 2+ minutes ( that includes this SEAT DROP ) was simply mis-named into the 152406 timerange and should have ACTUALLY been named 162406 instead?
Okay… bad typo above.
The word ‘not’ slipped in there which
changed the intent of what I was trying
to say, I think.
Should have read like this…
Despite what you said above… I still don’t think there is *ANY* question that the entire 162300 video is, in fact, an exact duplicate of the 11.7 seconds seen at the +2:18 mark in the 152406 video. The ‘mystery’ is why this is so”.
So just to be cystal clear…
I still think that 162300 video IS an EXACT DUPLICATE of the 11 seconds at the +2:18 mark in the 152606 video.
Hmmm… I think I need to scratch this
comment of my own from above…
“Are you saying that it could just possibly be that this same SEAT drop was captured with TWO different video cameras at the same time… but the one that was running longer and captured the full 2+ minutes ( that includes this SEAT DROP ) was simply mis-named into the 152406 timerange and should have ACTUALLY been named 162406 instead?”
Even this isn’t really a possible explanation.
The 1624 timeframe *IS* covered by the
Panebaker video
20130630_162508_2SEATS_EP, which is 1
minute and 49 seconds long, and ( according to THAT filename timestamp ) starts capturing events at 1623.19 ( 4:23.19 PM ) and ENDS at 1625.08 ( 4:25.08 PM ).
So even if someone ‘misnamed’ the
152406 video and really meant it to
say 162406… everything is still ‘wonky’.
The TWO SEAT drop ( 830 following 874 )
is what is really happening at 162406, and
NOT the SINGLE seat drop shown in both
the 152406 and 162300 videos.
And I’m also saying, these videos, recorded on the Nikon Coolpix are a bloody mess that I’m still trying to sort out.So it’s no surprise they tripped,you up.
Fortunately, I’m pretty sure the photos from it (in the Swartz folder — and they are actually quite astonishing) are accurately time stamped. And I have NO IDEA how that could happen.
So I’m currently downloading some more videos to see if the camera (or whatever) started out accurate, and went gonzo, or if it was that way all day (or thru what ever editor they put the videos through).
Reply to Marti Reed post
on May 18, 2014 at 7:53 pm
>> Marti said…
>> Fortunately, I’m pretty sure
>> the photos from it (in the
>> Swartz folder — and they
>> are actually quite
>> astonishing) are accurately
>> time stamped.
Well.. I hope so.
See new post above entiteld…
** MYSTERY SOLVED
I was wrong just above about
saying there didn’t seem to
be a still photo that matches
the ‘shutter click’ heard in
BOTH the 152406 and 162300
videos at the moment that
single SEAT was ‘dropping’.
There IS such a photograph.
I just missed it at first.
It’s in the Swartz folder(s).
I have NO IDEA which of these
Air Study devices actually had
the RIGHT time that day… but
if we assume ( as we have
been doing for a while now )
that the tripod-mounted video
cameras DID have the ‘correct
time’ that day… then Swartz’s
camera still falls into the
‘accurate enough’ category but
still appears to have been
about 61 seconds ahead of
the time on the tripod
mounted camera(s).
I would still call +/- 60 seconds
‘close enough for accuracy’
on a day like this.
Reply to Marti Reed post on
May 18, 2014 at 7:44 pm
>> Marti said…
>> Yes, It’s exactly what I’m saying.
>> Those are completely different
>> videos.
Yes. You are right.
They are simply TWO *different*
video cameras ( one on a tripod and
one handheld ) recording the same
exact ‘event’ ( the same SEAT drop ).
See new posting above entiteld
** MYSTERY SOLVED?
The Swartz photo I found that appears
to also be the EXACT same SEAT
drop seems to prove that ALL of
this did, in fact, happen in the 1524
timeframe and nowhere near 162300.
Somehow… that 162300 Air Study video is just the 11.7 seconds from the ‘handheld’ being used at that time was meant to be named 152300 ( even though that isn’t even totally accurate, timewise ).
So looking more at what’s coming out of that Nikon. Trying to sync to the VLAT split. The photo of it, which I referenced above, and won’t type again, has an accurate timestamp, and the timestamp is shown on the image. The video, however, is time stamped two hours “late — 6:12:48 PM, and somebody renamed the file 161620. I don’t know where and when and how the Nikon video timestamps are going wacky. And it looks like whoever is splitting out or renaming or what those videos is having a big struggle trying to do it. Maybe in a hurry?
And now I’m not sure my earlier theory — that they videos were shot in big chunks and then split — is correct. Swartz’s folder of the photos taken with the Nikon has a lot of photos in it. I’m not sure exactly what he was doing.
Marti… FWIW… that last photo in the Swartz folder…
20130630_1716_AZ
-A1S-000688___FB_1_G_RS.JPG
has an EXIF timestamp of… 5:16:58 PM and shows
them basically ‘packing up and leaving’ that location
by the helibase where they had the tripods set up
most of the afternoon.
This does appear to be accurate.
The final video taken from the tripod actually ENDS
just before we now see him with that tripod in
his hand and about to put it into the truck.
Have you looked at the Town of Yarnell Folder? YIKES!!
They drove into town. He has photos in the Ranch House Cafe parking lot from 6:38 PM til 6:44 PM. I think the last two include Brian and Trew and their UTV. he wins my gold prize today! He was also shooting on an iPad.
I’m going after 150822_VLAT_EP. It’s the first VLAT drop they shot, both photos and video, of a VLAT drop that day. I didn’t download it right, so I’m waiting. I’ll see if the Nikon was timestamping the video correctly then.
I just don’t know where the screw-up came. I really think 162300 (snot om a different camrea) is both stamped and file named correctly, and 152406, shot on the Nikon, clearly isn’t
The next thing to do would be to go into the Air2Air videos, and see if there’s a match somewhere. But I’m not gonna have time anytime soon to do it…..
Reply to Marti Reed post
on May 18, 2014 at 8:13 pm
>> Marti said…
>> Have you looked at the Town of
>> Yarnell Folder? YIKES!!
Yes. It really was a disaster.
It’s an absolute MIRACLE that more
people were not killed that day.
One of the things I can’t figure out
about that sequence of Swartz
photos is that if you look carefully…
he is approaching the Ranch House
Restaurant ( and taking pictures out
the window of his vehicle ) from the
SOUTH ( not the NORTH, where
he was taking pictures earlier ).
So, somehow Swartz worked his
way further SOUTH than the Ranch
House Restaurant following the
deployment and now we simply
see him coming back NORTH
to it… and pulling into the parking lot.
It would also be nice if someone could
identify all those fire guys in THESE
photos standing in the parking lot,
including the one who is GLARING
at Swartz as he takes photos, even
though the other guy to the right with
the red helmet is obviously freely
shooting photos or video with an
iPhone at that same time.
The guy who is GLARING at Swartz
has a BLUE Helmet… but the Blue
Ridge Hotshots had already
evacuated the Ranch House parking
lot by this time.
Could that be BR Hotshot Ball who
have been ‘left behind’ at the parking
lot that day?
When Frisby and Brown drove out
from the deployment area in the
UTV Ranger… the GPS tracker
shows them going straight up NORTH
towards the ICP command center,
so I don’t think it’s either Frisby
or Brown in that photo.
>> Marti also wrote…
>> They drove into town. He has
>> photos in the Ranch House Cafe
>> parking lot from 6:38 PM til 6:44
>> PM. I think the last two include
>> Brian and Trew and their UTV.
>> he wins my gold prize today!
>> He was also shooting on an iPad.
See above. I believe the BR GPS
tracker shows Frisby and Brown
driving straight up to the ICP after
they came out of the deployment
area… and the rest of BR evacuated
the parking lot shortly after that
in the vehicles. So the guy in the
Blue Helmet seems to have been
a BR Hotshot that was ‘left behind’.
Ball?
>> Marti also said…
>> I just don’t know where the
>> screw-up came. I really think
>> 162300 (shot on a different
>> camera) is both stamped and file
>> named correctly, and 152406,
>> shot on the Nikon, clearly isn’t.
See new post above.
I believe the Swartz photo of the
same SEAT drop puts things the
other way around. That SEAT drop
was in the 1524 timeframe and
NOT the 1623 timeframe.
>> Marti also said…
>> The next thing to do would be to
>> go into the Air2Air videos, and see
>> if there’s a match somewhere. But
>> I’m not gonna have time anytime
>> soon to do it…..
Probably no need.
See new post above with title
** MYSTERY SOLVED?
There IS a Swartz photo that IS most
likely that same exact SEAT drop
seen in BOTH the 152406 and 162300
videos ( shot with different video
cameras ).
Swartz’s digital camera was only
61 seconds ahead of whatever video
camera was sitting on the TRIPOD
that day and capturing drops.
So I believe the ‘proof’ is there that
Swartz’s photo, the 152406 video
( shot on tripod ) and the 162300
video ( handheld video camera )
are all capturing the SAME SEAT
drop… and it was in the 1524
timeframe ( not 1623 ).
Whether that means the handheld
used to shoot the 11.7 seconds was
just a full HOUR off ( timezone error? )
or it was a ‘file renaming’ error is the
only thing that still needs to be
figured out, IMHO.
What I’m kinda sorta generally seeing is that Swartz, who seems to have been in charge of the Nikon (while Panebaker was actually photographing with a Canon t3i ( which is the camera I use)) was taking photos every 10-20-30 minutes.
So I think he was shooting, say, a bit of video, then stopping and shooting some photos, and then switching back to video.
So I no longer think these videos were split out from longer ones. I think the videos were started, recorded, then stopped in camera.
So no-one was splitting them later in QuickTime or such. That means whatever mis-time-stamping was happening must have been happening in camera. Problem is, I’ve never heard of that happening, with a camera correctly stamping its photos and incorrectly stamping its videos. That’s where I’m stumped.
It’s now pretty obvious that in those 11.7 seconds that ended up being ‘named’ the 162300 video… whoever shot that was HURRYING to grab the camera and record that SEAT drop.
The first few seconds show the operator fumbling to point the camera… and then fumbling to ZOOM and catch the SEAT drop in the nick of time… with retardant dropping.
So YES… these 11.7 seconds now just look like a ‘quick opportunity’ to get ADDITIONAL video of the same SEAT drop ( circa 1523.30 ) that was already being captured by the OTHER video camera on the tripod.
How it ended up with a filename of 162300?… that’s still a mystery.
Followup to the original parent comment above that has
the ‘transcript’ in it.
What I should have made clear(er) in the original parent comment
was that the ‘2 SEAT drop’ with 830 following 874 DOES, in fact,
take place very soon after that transcript above ends…
…and that ‘2 SEAT drop’ is fully captured in the Panebaker
video 20130630_162508_2SEATS_EP, which is 1 minute and
49 seconds long, and ( according to the filename timestamp )
starts capturing events at 1623.19 ( 4:23.19 PM ) and ENDS
at 1625.08 ( 4:25.08 PM ).
French, in B33, starts ‘poppin’ smoke right at +21 seconds
( 1623.40 ) in that video ( just as he says he does in the audio )… and then 874 is seen ‘dropping’ at exactly +35 seconds
( 1623.54 ) and 830 then follows him right away dropping
retardant at exactly +57 seconds ( 1624.16 ).
The point here is that this is a TWO SEAT drop and it happens AFTER the 162300 video ENDS… whereas the 11 seconds of the 162300 video (supposedly) shows a completely different SINGLE seat drop with a completely different SEAT happening just a few seconds for the TWO seat drop…
…and BOTH drops (supposedly) being ‘guided’ by the same lead plane. Not possible.
Typo in last sentence above.
I left out the word BEFORE.
Should have read like this…
The point here is that this is a TWO SEAT drop and it happens AFTER the 162300 video ENDS… whereas the 11 seconds of the 162300 video (supposedly) shows a completely different SINGLE seat drop with a completely different SEAT happening just a few seconds BEFORE
the TWO seat drop…
…and BOTH drops (supposedly) being ‘guided’ by the same lead plane. Not possible.
I disagree. Right when whoever (of course we now agree that’s probably Cordes) says “We’ll probably be there about five,” the tanker drops in both videos.
Reply to Marti Reed post on
May 18, 2014 at 9:20 pm
>> Marti said…
>> I disagree. Right when whoever (of
>> course we now agree that’s probably
>> Cordes) says “We’ll probably be there
>> about five,”
The only way it could be SPGS1 Gary Cordes ‘responding’ to Air Attack Rory Collins there is if Cordes was ‘authorized’ to be responding to direct callouts for ‘Operations’.
Just before the ‘Go ahead’ transmit… we hear Air Attack Rory Collins specifically ASK for ‘Operations’ to talk to him over ‘Air to Ground’.
The ‘responder’ to a request for ‘Operations’
( at that point in the day ) *would* have logically been OPS1 Todd Abel… and it even SOUNDS just like Todd Abel, and not Musser or Cordes.
This is all captured in the 152406 video…
____________________________________
+2:13 ( 1523.23 / 3:23.23 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins): Operations, Air Attack, Air-To-Ground
+2:19 ( 1523.29 / 3:23.29 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins): Okay… Ahhhh… we’ll probly be around there in about five. Umm… What’s your plan on the ground?
+2:27 ( 1523.37 / 3:23.37 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): What I’d like to do… ah… is… ah… tie into ( that court here? ) where ya see the whole ??. If we can tag onto the road up here and then just run it… ah… you know… ( transmission breaks up / cuts off ).
____________________________________
>> Marti also said…
>> …the tanker drops in both videos.
Yes… but I believe the proof is now there that this ‘drop’ ( and the audio capture with Air Attack Rory Collins talking to ‘Operations’ ) is definitely in the 1524 timeframe and not the 1623 timeframe.
If that really is a capture of a SINGLE SEAT
drop at 1623… some 1/4 mile off to the
east there of where they were using the
VLAT and the SEATS in most of the other videos…
…then French would have then only had about 25 seconds to completely set up the upcoming TWO SEAT drop with Tanker 874 leading and Tanker 830 following… which is captured in the next Air Study video.
Not possible.
Not enough time for French to have come off that single SEAT drop and then go through all the preparation we hear in the Air-To-Air captures for that upcoming TWO SEAT drop.
It is NOT anyone from ‘Operations’
at all that says “We’ll probably be
around there in about five.”
That is actually Air Attack Rory Collins himself talking TO ‘Operations’ after someone in Operations ( sounds just like OPS1 Todd Abel ) responded to HIS “Operations, Air Attack, Air To Ground” callout with “Go ahead”.
At this point in time ( 1524 ish )… it is Air Attack Rory Collins himself who wants to know what ‘Operations’ plans to do ‘on the ground’… and he gets a full answer from what appears to be OPS1 Todd Abel regarding what ‘roads’ they want retardant to try and ‘tie into’.
OPS1 Todd Abel is still on the NORTH end of the fire at this point and actually ‘on the ground’ back there with SPGS2 Darrell Willis in the Model Creek Road area and the ‘tying into roads’ response to Air Attack Rory Collins is still all about the NORTH side of the fire.
Here are the ‘transcripts’ from the two Air Study Videos which prove that
the 162300 Panebaker Air Study video is simply 11.7 seconds of video that
was simply ‘extracted’ from the much longer 152406 video ( taken almost an
HOUR earlier ) and was either created as a *new* 162300 video OR was
used to REPLACE the contents of the *original* 162300 video.
Whether or not this 11.7 seconds of video simply replaced a much LONGER
video capture of what was *really* transpiring circa 1623 is still not known.
Only a comparison with the actual original 162300 video ( if it ever even existed )
could prove any difference in time lengths.
Here is the transcript of the 11.7 seconds that is the content of Air Study Video
20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP as included in the SAIT FOIA/FOIL release…
** PANEBAKER AIR STUDY VIDEO
** 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP.MOV
Transcript of both the foreground and background radio conversation captured
by Panebaker Air Study Video 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP.MOV.
ECITW ( Every Caveat In The World )
This is what I ( me, personally ) believe is being said in the background of this
video. Your mileage may, of course, vary.
This video is 11 seconds long, so given the small note in the README.TXT file
that accompanies these Air Study videos which states that they all use the
VIDEO END time as the timestamp in the TITLE… then that means this
particular video STARTED at 1622.49 ( 4:22.49 PM )
+0:03 ( 1622.52 / 4:22.52 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins): Okay… Ahhhh… we’ll probly be around there
in about five. Umm… What’s your plan on the ground?
FOREGROUND
(Tanker 810): Eight one zero OFF… hard RIGHT.
BACKGROUND
+0:10 ( 1622.59 / 4:22.59 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): What I’d like… ( VIDEO ENDS )
NOTE: Video ends and cuts off right after the word ‘like’.
VIDEO 162300 ENDS AT 1623.00 ( 4:23.00 PM )
*** NOW… Here is the transcript from the 11 seconds of video at the +2:18 mark
*** in the Air Study Video 201300630_152406_SEAT_EP taken an HOUR earlier…
***
*** The KEY part is the duplication of the following exact query from
*** Air Attack Rory Collins to OPS1 Todd Abel… ( which is now in BOTH
*** of these Air Study Videos… but at different TIMES and almost a
*** full HOUR apart from each other…
***
*** (AA – Rory Collins): Okay… Ahhhh… we’ll probly be around there
*** in about five. Umm… What’s your plan on the ground?
This transcript includes both the FOREGROUND radio traffic ( mostly Air-To-Air
channel captures ) and the BACKGROUND ( TAC channels ) captures.
You can see clearly that the audio at the +2:18 second mark in THIS video
is identical to the audio supposedly captured almost an HOUR later
in the 162300 video.
Also… the 11 second clip from this video being used as the content for
the 162300 video only starts with the ‘Go ahead’ response from OPS1 Todd
Abel… but this ‘Go ahead’ from Abel is a direct response from Air Attack
Rory Collins having just called out to HIM with a “Operations, Air Attack on
Air To Ground” radio call at the +2:13 mark in THIS video.
Also… the ‘What I’d like to do’ phrase that also ENDS the 11 second clip used
as the content for the 162300 video is NOT ‘cut off’ in THIS video and we can
hear OPS1 Todd Abel’s full response to Air Attack Rory Collins.
VIDEO 152406 STARTS AT 1521.10 ( 3:21.10 PM )
+1:30 ( 1522.40 / 3:22.40 PM )
(B33 – French): Okay… what we’re gonna do is… uh… it’s kinda…
like I said the farthest north house… and… pretty close to the house, okay?
This one with the red engine. There’s actually two with red engines it’s
the one furthest north. Now I’m online.
+1:44 ( 1522.54 / 3:22.54 PM )
(Tanker 810): Okay. Gotcha… and… and we’re pretty much goin’ for the heavy smoke?
+1:47 ( 1522.57 / 3:22.57 PM )
(B33 – French): Yea… it’s… it’s a bead on the heavy smoke and I’m on line now
poppin’ smoke just so ya can see me. I want your line to start and bring it right
through HERE… right turn on the exit… ya got that?
** NOTE: Here is the START of the 11.7 seconds from THIS video
** that is duplicated as the content for Air Study Video 162300
_________________________________________________________________
+2:18 ( 1523.28 / 3:23.28 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): Go ahead.
+2:19 ( 1523.29 / 3:23.29 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins): Okay… Ahhhh… we’ll probly be around there
in about five. Umm… What’s your plan on the ground?
+2:27 ( 1523.37 / 3:23.37 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): What I’d like to do… ah… is… ah… tie into ( that court here? ) where ya
see the whole ??. If we can tag onto the road up here and then just run it… ah… you know…
( transmission breaks up and cuts off ).
FOREGROUND OVERLAP…
+2:27 ( 1523.37 / 3:23.37 PM )
(Tanker 810): Eight one zero OFF… hard right.
(B33 – French): Lookin’ like you already got me in sight…
looks like your drop went in there good. Thank you.
(Tanker 810): ( Back to ?? )
_________________________________________________________________
** NOTE: Here is the END of the 11.7 seconds from THIS video
** that is duplicated as the content for Air Study Video 162300
** but 162300 cuts off early up above right after the phrase
** “What I’d like…” in the BACKGROUND capture and the
** phrase “Eight one zero OFF…” in the FOREGROUND capture
**
** The 152406 video simply continues for another half-minute or so
** with a response from Air Attack Rory Collins…
+2:39
(B33 – French): Load and return.
(Tanker 810): Load and return… eight one zero.
+2:43 ( 1523.53 / 3:23.53 PM )
(B33 – French): Five Kilo Alpha… you’re cleared direct to the
helibase if you’re not already headed there.
+2:43 ( 1523.53 / 3:23.53 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins?): Ah.. Okay… I’ll come around once they’re… ah…
( road? )… ahm… on… ahhh… those fire spots (under ?).
+2:53 ( 1524.03 / 3:24.03 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): (Responding to last transmit from AA but words not clear).
Reply to Bob Powers post on May 12, 2014 at 2:43 pm
>> Mr. Powers wrote…
>>…If the Helicopters were dropping water in the same area trying to hold the fire
>> down, then they definitely would have commented on the tanker drop helping
>> them out at a critical location.
Mr. Powers…
In an effort here to try and figure out what is really going on with that now
known-to-be-bogus 162300 Air Study Video ( and to see if any of these ‘other’
Air Study videos are equally bogus )… I now have full transcripts of ALL of the
other USDA Air Study videos that were on fixed tripods and capturing ALL of
the Air-To-Air channel traffic which ‘overlaps’ with these Panebaker and Moore
Air Study videos.
I will post ALL of these transcripts at some point… but since this Chapter 6
is already bigger than it should be ( and failing to load already on mobile
devices )… I am going to wait a bit and see if a new Chapter 7 starts before
attempting to do that. They are not *small* transcripts.
In the meantime… I just thought I would point out that the helicopters
‘commenting’ on the ‘goodness’ of retardant drops ( if they were in a
position to see it ) appears to be *common practice* in that ‘other world’
of WFF Air Support and this is now perfectly evident in the full transcripts
of the Air-To-Air channel traffic that day.
In just ONE of the USDA Air Study videos capturing the complete Air-To-Air
traffic… EVERY TIME the pilot of Helicopter 5KA ( Five Kilo Alpha ) saw
a retardant drop… he IMMEDIATELY would add his own unsolicited comments
to the conversation like “That was spot on!” and “Right on! Perfect!” and
sometimes even lengthier ‘Attaboy!’ style comments.
And MOST of the time… these ‘confirming goodness’ transmits right after a
retardant drop would take place WITHOUT any ‘call signs’. They would just
come out of ‘nowhere’.
So YES… if ANY of the helicopters operating on the south side of the fire
circa 1633 ( we know there were at least TWO in the air there at that
time ) saw that 1633 SEAT drop that went right between the fireline and
a house… it is VERY likely one ( or both? ) of those helicopter pilots might have
been the ones offering the unsolicited. “That’s exactly what we want” and/or
“That’s exactly right” comment(s) over the radio following that drop and
Burfiend was simply mistaken to think those comments were coming
from DIVSA Eric Marsh.
Two things:
FIRST: In a post below, WTKTT suggests that EP (one of the guys conducting the “air study” on the day of the Yarnell Hill Fire) might somehow be withholding or concealing video. I suppose that it is possible that EP is deliberately participating in a scheme to withhold information, or that the AZ Forestry folks withheld some of EP’s video, or that the SAIT is withholding some of the video, but it is equally (if not more) likely that EP just made a misstep in labeling and keeping straight all of his videos, pictures, etc.
Specifically: On June 30th, three folks (EP, SM, and Sw) were on the fire to take pictures and videos regarding the use of RETARDANT (and general air support with water drops) on fire – this is the “air study” folks keep referencing. These folks set up a main, stationary camera on a tripod that was recording from a stationary position almost non-stop, with audio coming exclusively from the air-to-air frequency (such that you can hear pilots such as Tom French, Rory Collins, “Jack,” “Kevin,” etc. talking to each other on these LONGGGGG main videos). In addition to that main camera, however, there were three people on the ground – EP, SM, and Sw – taking individual video clips and photos with various small hand-held devices. My impression is that at least one of them or maybe two had MULTIPLE hand-held devices that they were using.
Here’s the KEY: My impression is that these three folks were SPECIFICALLY interested in capturing videos/photos of the air drops (water, retardant) in action, such that, before you conclude that they are HIDING a video, consider whether there was an actual DROP from a SEAT or a VLAT during the time window in question. If not, it is entirely possible that there WAS no video from a hand-held device at exactly that moment, and NOTHING is being hidden or withheld.
To wit: At roughly 4:15 and 4:17, VLAT 911 dropped its massive load of retardant (split into two drops), and then there were two SEAT drops (one right after the other – they were in a line) at about 4:24 p.m., and then tanker 413 dropped at roughly 4:33, and then VLAT 910 was lining up for a drop when the shit hit the fan with GM. Which brings me to my second point….
SECOND: For reasons not worth getting into (given that I do not have the time or ability to provide links at this point), allow me to say again that I am pretty sure that Marsh did indeed comment to B33 about where he was hoping for some air support (e.g. a VLAT line), but Marsh made the comment WELL before 16:37. Meaning, I am fairly comfortable believing based on the way that I have been tying together all of the same materials that all of you have access to at this point that the 16:37 comment alleged to have been made by Marsh was indeed made by Marsh, but (a) it was likely uttered well before 16:37 AND (b) the words might have been slightly different than what B33 recalls (although the gist was likely the same).
This, by the way, ties into my previously-articulated view that the SAIT, ADOSH, and Wildland Fire Associate timelines are all wrong. I have no “links” to anything to support this, because my support for this is the timeline that I am slowly piecing together on my laptop and in my notebooks. There is nothing – other than my brain and notes – for me to “link” to…. 🙂
Reply to Elizabeth post on May 15, 2014 at 11:16 am
Elizabeth…
First off… let me say that whatever that noise was down below
about some kind of ‘boycott’ on responding to any more of your
posts… I did not comment on it because that’s not something
I personally believe in on a PUBLIC forum.
Yes… this is a PUBLIC forum.
If a post simply meets the acceptable criteria for ‘allowable’
commentary on the part of the person hosting this PUBLIC
discussion… then whatever someone has to say is OK with me.
But… ( likewise )… since this is a PUBLIC forum… people are then
also allowed to ‘freely comment’ ( and SHOULD ) on what anyone
else has to say… even if that comment was not ‘addressed’ to them.
That’s how this works.
If people don’t like your posts… they don’t have to respond to them.
It’s that simple.
I think folks laid out pretty well down below what they find ‘annoying’ about most of your PUBLIC posts and your ‘style’ of commenting.
You are free to either take whatever ‘advice’ was posted… or
ignore it altogether. Freedom of choice, as they say.
Ok… back to business…
>> Elizabeth said…
>> FIRST: In a post below, WTKTT suggests that EP (one of
>> the guys conducting the “air study” on the day of the Yarnell
>> Hill Fire) might somehow be withholding or concealing video.
>> I suppose that it is possible that EP is deliberately participating
>> in a scheme to withhold information, or that the AZ Forestry
>> folks withheld some of EP’s video, or that the SAIT is
>> withholding some of the video…
Correction: I did NOT say that Eric Panebaker (himself) has
‘withheld’ ( or tampered with ) information/evidence. All I said
was (quote)…
“If the 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP video ( as released by the SAIT in response to FOIA/FOIL requests ) does NOT contain the same content as the original… then HE would certainly know.”
That is simply a TRUE statement.
He would be in the *best* position to know whether or not that video that ended up as part of the FOIA/FOIL package coming from the SAIT actually contains the same things he *gave* them.
He probably still has the *originals*.
I ( me, personally ) do NOT KNOW what the ‘story’ is here.
All I know is that one of these Air Study videos is NOT what it is supposed to be… and that there MUST be SOME kind of *story*
that would explain it.
>> …but it is equally (if not more) likely that EP just made a
>> misstep in labeling and keeping straight all of his videos,
>> pictures, etc.
See my original post. I ( me, personally ) do *NOT* think it
is ‘more likely’ this is the case.
I would be the first to tell you that I have ‘mis-named’ files on a
computer when assembling collections of things… but that is
*NOT* the simple explanation for what is seen in THIS case.
If two of these Air Study videos ended up being just ‘duplicates’
of each other ( completely )… then YES… I would say the likelihood
was high that a copy / naming operation went sideways.
In this case, however, we are talking about a much more
complicated scenario.
Someone ( Repeat: I do NOT know WHO ) took the time to
EXTRACT 11.7 seconds of video from the +2:18 second mark
of a PREVIOUS video… and then SAVE that video back to disk
with a totally differnent TIME on it… just short of an HOUR later
than when it was actually taken.
That’s a little more complicated than just accidentally hitting
the wrong key at some point, or screwing up a drag-and-drop
with a mouse.
>> Elizabeth also said…
>> Here’s the KEY: My impression is that these three folks were
>> SPECIFICALLY interested in capturing videos/photos of the air
>> drops (water, retardant) in action,
That is a valid impression to have. That is what they were
getting PAID to do…
…however… you are WRONG to assume that that is the only
reason they ever shot any VIDEO.
SOME of the Panebaker / Moore videos have nothing to do with
any actual ‘retardant’ drops. The most noticeable of these are
the ones that simply have ‘fire-behavior’ in the video TITLE(S).
>> Elizabeth also said
>> such that, before you conclude that they are HIDING a video,
>> consider whether there was an actual DROP from a SEAT or
>> a VLAT during the time window in question.
See above. There did NOT have to be any kind of ‘drop’ in progress
for Panebaker or Moore to be shooting video that day.
The *mystery* surrounding the particular video in question is
that its title DOES seem to inidicate that it is SUPPOSED to be a
video of a SEAT drop at 1623… but that is NOT what it *REALLY*
is at all.
>> Elizabeth
>> SECOND: For reasons not worth getting into (given that I do
>> not have the time or ability to provide links at this point), allow
>> me to say again that I am pretty sure that Marsh did indeed
>> comment to B33 about where he was hoping for some air
>> support (e.g. a VLAT line), but Marsh made the comment
>> WELL before 16:37.
Please provide evidence if you are going to make these
kinds of statements ( or just re-read the comments below about
what people find most annoying about your posting here ).
I have certainly made some ‘leaps’ myself in an effort to try and
help us ALL decipher some mysteries in this ongoing disscusion
(mostly before there was really no evidence to go on but the stupid
SAIR report and the only thing to DO was ‘guess’ about things )…
but I believe if I have ever gotten even close to saying “I’m pretty
sure this is what happened”… there was ( at least ) extensive
explanation as to WHY I was making such a claim.
I could tell YOU right now that MY *extensive notes* seem to indicate that Darrell Willis left the north side of the fire, drove to Yarnell, borrowed an ATV from the Yarnell Fire Station… and then personally drove all the way out to where Steed and Marsh were and told them face-to-face… “You get your asses over there to town and do something that gets your name in the newspapers because I’ve got a City Council Budget meeting next week”…
…but I would NOT expect ANYONE to believe me unless I showed some ‘evidence’ to back it up.
Not much to add to that. I think the evidence you have gone thru the past 2 days pretty well sums up the discussion.
On another note I will be gone for a week and have a lot to catch up on here so keep on looking.
Will be at my Oak Grove Hot Shot reunion reliving the great old days. Have a good week.
Signal boost to WTKTT’s earlier request for a new chapter. My mobile device crashes whenever I try to load this page now. Thanks, Mr. Dougherty, for continuing to host this discussion!
**
** WHERE IS THE *REAL* 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP
** AIR STUDY VIDEO?
After checking the Panebaker 163700 Air Study video again for ANY evidence of ANYONE saying anything like “That’s what we want” circa 1637 ( and finding no such evidence )… I started working BACKWARDS from 1637 and re-checking the other Air Study videos.
There is no Panebaker or Moore Air Study Video that actually covers the 1637 to 1639 timeframe… so if there was any chance of finding evidence of this (supposed) “That’s what we want” transmission reported ONLY by John Burfiend of Bravo 33… then I thought perhaps that even if anyone did say any such thing… he might have simply been mistaken that it came (quote) “within 5 minutes of them going into shelters” ( as he said in his SAIT interview ).
1642 ( Marsh’s final transmissions ) minus 5 minutes is 1637 and so that must have been the ‘guesstimate’ the SAIT investigators were applyiing to this ‘recollection’ on Burfiend’s part.
I STILL believe it is MUCH more likey that if ANYONE said anything to Bravo 33 like “That’s exactly what we want”… that it was SOMEONE ( but NOT Marsh ) confirming the ‘goodness’ of the 1633 SEAT drop that was ‘spot on’ ( according to Burfiend and French ) and got laid down RIGHT between a house and the fireline at exactly 1633. If anyone said “That’s exactly what we want”… it MUST have been someone who saw that actual ‘spot-on’ drop right between the house and the fireline… ( like a chopper pilot ) and NOT someone who would have just seen some plane circling around in the air on some kind of ‘line-up’ flight.
It was MOST LIKELY one of the chopper pilots known to have been in the air and also working that same exact area circa 1637. They would have seen that drop be ‘spot on’ and would have immediately been ‘confirming the goodness’ of it.
Anyway… my plan was to work BACKWARDS through the Panebaker videos again listening carefully for ANY evidence of ANYONE saying anything like “That’s what we want” or other ‘confirming goodness’ opinions on the 1633 SEAT drop at ANY time that day.
Well… here comes the new MYSTERY.
The Panebaker video that immediately precedes the 163700 one is named…
20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP
That (supposedly) means it ENDED at 1623 and would also mean there was no Panebaker video prior to the 163700 one that covered the time of that 1633 SEAT drop down in Yarnell…
…but what the heck… I re-checked the 162300 Air Study video, anway.
That is when I discovered that this entire 162300 Air Study video is BOGUS.
It is NOT what it says it is ( A video taken by Panebaker that ENDS at 1623 ).
The entire Panebaker video 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP is simply a reproduction of 11.7 seconds from the 2:18 second mark ( near the end ) of a much EARLIER Panebaker video 201300630_152406_SEAT_EP.
Someone just LIFTED 11.7 seconds out of a previous video shot around
1524 ( 3:24 PM ) that day… and is trying to pretend that it is the contents of
an Air Study Video shot an hour later at 1623 ( 4:23 PM ).
Everything from those 11.7 seconds at the +2:18 mark in the 152406 Air
Study Video is a *PERFECT MATCH* for the entire content of the 162300 video.
So where is the *REAL* Panebaker 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP video?
How long was the ORIGINAL video?… before someone just (manually) REPLACED it with an 11.7 second clip from a video taken an HOUR earlier?
There was a LOT of critical stuff going at circa 1623 that day and so the original Panebaker 162300 video may have captured some of that.
Example: It has NOT been completely verified that the YARNELL-GAMBLE video was actually shot at 1627. That APPEARS to be the time as supported by the sirens heard in the Jerry Thompson videos… but I still wouldn’t call that 100 percent verification.
If Jerry Thompson himself was just a few minutes off on the times he reported for HIS videos… then the YARNELL-GAMBLE video *MIGHT* have actually been shot a few minutes earlier… like in the 1622-1624 timeframe.
If that is the case… then that means this ‘missing’ 162300 Panebaker Air Study video had a good chance of ALSO capturing that TAC 1 channel conversation where SOMEONE in fire command *seems* to be urging Marsh to ‘hurry up and get to town’ and Eric Marsh ( totally confirmed ) then immediately reports Granite Mountain’s STATUS as… “They’re comin’ from the heel of the fire” ( as in… on the MOVE and NOT in the ‘safe black’ at all ).
So the ‘missing’ Panebaker 162300 video might have ALSO captured that
YARNELL-GAMBLE conversation on TAC 1… complete with the actual
CALL SIGN of whoever it was that was having that conversation with
Eric Marsh at that time and *seemed* to be urging him to hurry up.
Even if the YARNELL-GAMBLE conversation was NOT also captured in this
Panebaker 162300 video… there might have been *other* radio traffic relevant
to Granite Mountain that WAS captured circa 1623.
It really is not possible this was just a screw-up.
Someone seems to have purposely preserved the 20130630_162300 filename
and timestamp for this video… but then also PURPOSELY made an effort
to replace the content with something else from ANOTHER (earlier) video.
More on this later.
I’m now going back and re-checking ALL the Air Study videos to see if this
kind of ‘money business’ was going on with any OTHER Air Study videos.
The 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP video that is now known
to be BOGUS is just ONE of the Panebaker Air study videos that
‘precedes’ the 163700 one. It does not IMMEDIATELY precede it.
There are actually TWO others that come in-between 162300
and 163700… and they both appear to be exactly what they
say they are.
These are the actual ( Eric ) Panebaker Air Study videos
that cover the crucial 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM timeframe that day…
20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP
20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP **** This is the BOGUS one
20130630_162508_2SEATS_EP
20130630_163338_fire_behavior_EP
20130630_163700_fire_behavior_EP
20130630_164544_fire_behavior_EP
20130630_170634_VLAT_EP
NOTE: The 20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP video that precedes the one that is now know to be BOGUS is the one that captured the 4:16 PM “Granite Mountain… what’s your status right now?” query from from someone in fire command and Eric Marsh’s response about Granite Mountain “makin’ their way out the same escape route from this morning” and Marsh’s “just checkin’ it out to see where we gonna jump out at” transmission.
ALSO NOTE: The ‘EP’ initials in these Air Study video filenames all stand for ‘Eric Panebaker’.
If the 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP video ( as released by the SAIT in response to FOIA/FOIL requests ) does NOT contain the same content as the original… then HE would certainly know.
**
** PANEBAKER AIR STUDY VIDEO
** 20130630_163700_fire_behavior_EP.MOV
Reply to calvin post on May 9, 2014 at 3:04 am
>> calvin said…
>> At the 23 second mark of the 1637 Panebaker video there is a background
>> transmission that I cannot make out. This video is only 39 seconds long and
>> would put the 23 second mark near 1637. If you do not mind reviewing,
>> I would appreciate it.
calvin…
I went back and reviewed the 163700 Panebaker video again looking for ANY evidence that ANYONE said anything like “That’s exactly what we want” as reported by the SAIR as Marsh talking to Bravo 33 at that time ( circa 1637 ).
This video (supposedly) ENDS at exactly 1637 and ( as you pointed out )
only covers the 39 seconds prior to that… so if anyone did say anything
of the sort circa 1637… it must have come AFTER 1637 and there is no
Panebaker or Moore Air Study video that covers the 1637-1638 timeframe.
Anyway… after listening carefully again… there is NOTHING in the 163700
video that resembles ANYONE saying anything like “That’s what we want”
or “That’s exactly what we want”.
The mysterious background transmit in the +21 to +23 second mark that you mention APPEARS to be someone saying something about a ‘horse’ that needs to be taken care of. This would match other reports around that time of ‘horses’ being seen running down the middle of Highway 89.
Here is my full transcript of that 163700 Panebaker video…
Transcript of BOTH the foreground AND background radio conversation captured
by Panebaker Air Study Video 20130630_163700_fire_behavior_EP.MOV.
ECITW ( Every Caveat In The World )
This is what I ( me, personally ) believe is being said in both the foreground AND the background of this video. Your mileage may, of course, vary.
This video is 39 seconds long.
Since the text notes accompanying these videos states that the timestamp in the title represents the END time…that makes the actual START time for this video 1636.21
NOTE: The air-to-air conversation in this video is ALSO captured even MORE
clearly in the corresponding USDA AIR STUDY VIDEO – DISC 4 folder.
+0:05 ( 1636.26 / 4:36.26 PM )
(Unknown): Five-O-Eleven… you sure of that helibase… in that green circle here?
+0:09 ( 1636.30 / 4:36.30 PM )
(Unknown – Sounds like French in B33?): Okay, copy that… are you gonna drop your bucket and have to lift back somewhere else?
+0:13 ( 1636.34 / 4:36.34 PM )
(Unknown): Yea… I’ll have to drop ( the bucket? ) then I’ll head for Wickenburg for fuel.
+0:16 ( 1636.37 / 4:36.37 PM )
(Unkown – Sounds like French in B33?): Oh… okay… gotcha… okay… gimme a call… uh… ready to lift.
+0:21 ( 1636.42 / 4:36.42 PM )
(Unknown): Will do.
BACKGROUND
+0:22 ( 1636.43 / 4:36.43 PM )
(Unknown): I’ve got a (horse?) left (to take care of?)
+0:25 ( 1636.46 / 4:36.46 PM )
(Unknown): You’re all clued in. No need to act… just write it down on a piece a paper.
FOREGROUND
+0:34 ( 1636.55 / 4:36.55 PM )
(Unknown – Sounds like French in B33?): And I’ve got a project for you.
+0:37 ( 1636.58 / 4:36.58 PM )
(Unknown): When ya have… ???
BACKGROUND
+0:37 ( 1636.58 / 4:36.58 PM )
(Unknown): (Someone’s NAME here is FIRST word? Boleba/Boleeba? Buliba?) What’s goin’ on back there?
Update: Wherever it says ‘Unknown – Sounds like French in B33’ up above should have just said ‘Thomas French in B33’. It is confirmed.
Since this Panebaker video ‘overlaps’ with DVD DISC 4 of the USDA Air Study Videos… the Air-To-Air traffic captured in that USDA video confirms most of the FOREGROUND communications captured in this Panebaker video.
WTKTT
Discussion above—-
Helicopter Pilot talking to French’
Has a water Bucket for drops.
he is going to drop it off at the heliport and go for fuel.
I’ve got a hose lift to take care of — not horse—would have been moving hose to some location. Generally they bag it Nets and drop it at some location for use.
5011 might be the call sign of the Helicopter? Just thoughts.
Reply to Bob Powers post on May 14, 2014 at 7:06 am
>> Mr. Powers wrote…
>> Helicopter Pilot talking to French’
>> Has a water Bucket for drops.
>> he is going to drop it off at the heliport and go for fuel.
Yes. That is definitely French talking to helicopter
5KA ( Five Kilo Alpha ) at that point. 5KA is the one that needed to ‘drop his bucket’ and go refuel, at this time.
The ‘other’ USDA audio captures of Air-To-Ground with
no ‘walk overs’ on the Air-To-Air channel proves that.
5KA would always identify himself using the full
‘Five Kilo Alpha’ but whenever French was hailing him
he would simply abbreviate it as ‘Kilo Alpha’.
>> I’ve got a hose lift to take care of — not horse—
>> would have been moving hose to some location.
>> Generally they bag it Nets and drop it at some location
>> for use.
Perfectly possible. That’s a very hard section to hear
in this particular video. Could be ‘horse’ *OR* ‘hose’.
The KEY thing there was that this transmission is definitely NOT anyone saying anything like “That’s what we want” in response to any line-up flights.
>> 5011 might be the call sign of the Helicopter?
>> Just thoughts.
I listened to it again. This is definitely a capture of Burfiend in Bravo 33 talking on the Air-To-Ground channel… because in the USDA DVD there is more Air-To-Air talk right underneath this transmit from Burfiend… so the capture in THIS Panebaker video MUST have been ‘Air-To-Ground’ instead.
It still definitely sounds like ‘Five-O-Eleven’ there, but since the chopper call signs all tend to be just THREE digits/numbers ( and there is no chopper with call sign 5011 listed as having been in Yarnell ) it’s unclear who Burfiend is really talking to about the ‘Helibase’.
I could believe he really meant to say ‘Nine-Eleven’, but since they were not dropping in Yarnell now, and the DC10 VLAT 911 was still returning from a refuel and wasn’t even really back in the area yet… I’m not sure what sense that would make at this moment.
Again… the KEY takeaway there is that THIS transmission was definitely Burfiend and it was definitely on the Air-To-Ground channel… so that means this Panebaker video WAS capturing ‘Air-To-Ground’ transmissions…
…but there is still nothing in the capture with anyone ever coming onto the A2G channel and saying anything resembling “That’s exactly what we want”.
This capture ENDS exactly at 1637… so if anyone said something like that circa 1637 over A2G channel… then it must have happened AFTER 1637.
Unfortunately… there is no Panebaker or Moore Air Study video that then goes on to capture the A2G traffic in the 1637 to 1639 timeframe.
The only NEXT ‘capture’ ( in the public record, anyway ) of the A2G channel after this Panebaker video is the Helmet-Cam video itself… which starts just prior to 1639 and begins with Burfiend on A2G talking to ?? someone ?? about how it’s going to be hard for them to hit some target being discussed because of the ‘smoke’. A moment later we hear Steed’s first “We are in front of the flaming front” MAYDAY transmit.
The only reason I might be hearing a little ‘more’ than you
have is that even though this particular video didn’t need
any ‘audio forensics’ or ‘noise filtering’… I STILL found that
I needed to really BOOST THE GAIN on the audio to have
a chance at hearing some of the background.
Does whatever you are using to ‘listen’ to the videos
have that ‘GAIN BOOST’ capability?
“Audio forensics” INCLUDES boosting the gain, WTKTT. When you BOOST the gain, you distort the audio. Sorry if I was not clear on that with you earlier.
WTKTT – it absolutely CAN distort the audio! If you doubt me, the actual Audacity disclosures make this clear. If in doubt, READ the relevant info. If you have something that suggests otherwise, “post your sources.” (Tongue in cheek, obviously.)
Reply to
Elizabeth post
on May 17,
2014 at 11:59
____________
WTKTT – it absolutely CAN distort the audio!
_____________
Oh… so NOW you are backing
off your carte-blanche “When you BOOST the gain, it distorts the audio” statement and have arrived at simply the ‘possibility’ that can happen.
.
Good for you.
You’re learning.
Yes. If you boost the gain some RIDICULOUS amount and your speakers or headphones are now shaking and your eardrums are getting blown out… or if you exceed the SOFTWARE limits as to ‘maximum volume’ allowed for a track… most software ( including Audacity ) has a ‘safety catch’ where it will then start applying ‘clipping’ to the waveform in order to not destroy your equipment.
What I said above was ‘the kind of gain boost I am talking about does NOT ( in ANY way ) distort that audio.
That is simply a TRUE statement.
Incremental boosts of +3db do NOT cause any loss of the waveform and no DISTORTION is taking place… and certainly nothing that would cause anything that anyone might be SAYING to be changed in any way.
_____________
If in doubt, READ the relevant info.
_____________
I have.
I wish YOU would do the same.
_____________
If you have something that suggests otherwise, “post your sources.” (Tongue in cheek, obviously.)
_____________
Okay.
From Audacity’s own user manual…
****************
The top slider is the gain control – it affects the relative volume of the track. By default it only lets you select multiples of 3 dB, but if you hold down shift you can choose any level. Be careful not to set it too high, or you can exceed the maximum volume of a track, which results in clipping.
****************
By the way… the ‘too high’ being referred to would probably be blowing out your ear drums even before the ‘safety catch’ clipping starts to kick in.
Don’t do that.
Just use low increments and all the GAIN boost does it make it EASIER to hear what is being said.
I’ve got Audacity (such a sweet program), and can boost the gain in general and specifically boost the 200-400 Hz range. While it tends to lower interference, I still have the same issues on the brain side of the ear (alas!), and don’t seem to parse the language any better. I’ll give it another try, though.
I think you were spot on about the “Wickenberg to fuel” part. I don’t hear “no need to act” or “write it down on a piece of paper.”
It would be interesting to know if EP still has access to the original files, and how they differ from what we have.
Sitta… yes… the (free) Audacity software is amazing. I have sound software here that costs thousands and thousands of dollars… but I still use Audacity for most things.
It is even BETTER at some things than anything money can (currently) buy.
Disclaimer: I am in no way associated with ‘Audacity’ or any of its software products. I am just a ‘user’.
My only other advice to try and ‘hear’ things that are ‘hard to hear’ is to simply set yourself up a ‘loop’ on that specific phrase… and then let it play over and over and over and over.
**
** Reply to Bob Powers post on May 11, 2014 at 7:49 am
>> Mr. Powers wrote…
>> When Fires Like this in WUI start running at structures the first thing
>> is to thro Air Tankers at the Fire.
>> The problem most times they don’t do any good except make
>> everybody feel like they at least did something.
>> It looks good to the public at least some one is doing something.
There is no doubt ( and we can now hear it for ourselves ) that the Air Support in Yarnell that day knew that most of the drops they were making weren’t doing much good and that it was just like (quote) “spittin’ at it”.
Just like ‘Hotshots’ ( and any FFs building line ) know about the ‘hauling chart’ which says that if flame-lengths are more than about three and one-hal feet they are basically ‘out of it’ and ‘wasting their time’… the AIR people know full well what their own ‘limitations’ are and when THEY are also, basically ‘out of it’.
But… that being said…
If you look at the AFTERMATH photos ( mostly the aerial ones ) following Sunday, June 30, 2013… there is also no doubt that in SOME places… that line of red stuff on the ground IS what ‘stopped’ or ‘diverted’ the fireline near some pretty critical areas of the town.
So I guess it’s really like that old adage that is often attributed to someone in the advertising industry…
“Half of what we do doesn’t do a damn bit of good.
The problem is knowing WHICH half.”
>> Mr. Powers also said…
>> Helicopters – When Fixed wing plains are on a fire Helicopter pilots
>> Monitor there Freq. And stay out of the way. They fly lower and are
>> assigned to specific areas. They maintain contact Air to Air.
>> That is why I said the 1 Helicopter flying that is mentioned may have
>> had an overhead in it that could have made the comment, and could
>> have over keyed Marsh DIV A call.
Since I don’t believe we have even near fully wrapped up the ‘discussion’ about whether the 1637 “That’s what we want!” transmission ever happened at all… or that if it did… whether it really was DIVSA Eric Marsh saying it…
…then this is a very important point.
It’s pretty much a given that there WAS no YHF fire overhead ‘in the air’ at the time this (supposed) 1637 transmission took place… but it really doesn’t matter if there was any ‘fire command’ in a chopper, or not.
Any chopper pilot could have made that transmission… and we KNOW there were at least TWO in the air right there around Yarnell at both 1633, when that ‘spot-on’ SEAT drop happened… and in the 1637 to 1639 timeframe when Steed’s first MADAY appeared. We can even HEAR these 2 choppers flying overhead in the Helmet-Cam video itself.
The recent ‘sidetrack’ of proving that Tom Story’s Canon EOS 1D was 36 minutes and 7 seconds BEHIND the REAL time that day is actually related to this 1637 transmission discussion… which is why it was good to ‘sidetrack’ and take care of that. Tom Story’s 7093 photos series seemed to show a VLAT drop at exactly 1639… the moment of Steed’s first MAYDAY. It was worth it to go off and verify that for no other reason than to prove that that is NOT the case… and that we CAN trust the Air-To-Air traffic completely for figuring out what Bravo 33 was REALLY doing in the 1637-1639 timeframe.
In the course of basically re-viewing and re-listening to EVERY Panebaker Air-Study video in order to nail down that Tom Story camera time offset… I happened to HEAR some things I hadn’t really heard before regarding HELICOPTERS and RETARDANT DROPS.
If you listen to all of the Panebaker Air Study videos… it is *NOT* unusual at all to hear someone in a helicopter ‘commenting’ on a retardant drop right after it happens.
You actually DO hear a lot of ‘unsolicited’ comments ( over Air-To-Ground channel ) such as “Spot-on!” or “Right on target!” or even one lengthy response from a chopper pilot after one of the VLAT drops on the NORTH end where he jumps in on Air-To-Ground right afterwards and says something like…
“This is 5Q Alpha in the hotbird’s seat with a front row view… and that was right on the money! Nice work!.”
So YES… it is actually MORE than likely that when Burfiend thought he heard DIVSA say “That’s exactly what we want”… that really just might have been one of the chopper pilots already in the air down there jumping in on Air-To-Ground and ‘confirming’ the ‘goodness’ of that spot-on 1633 SEAT drop.
So something like “That’s exactly what we want!” probably WAS actually said on the Air-To-Ground channel ( by SOMEONE who saw the spot-on 1633 SEAT drop )… but Burfiend was simply mis-remembering ( during his SAIT interview ) who said that around that time.
No definite PROOF ( yet )… but we’re getting closer.
I’d still love to know what Clint Clauson ( the THIRD guy onboard that Bravo 33 plane that afternoon ) actually thinks he did ( or didn’t ) hear.
While it is NOT unusual at ALL to hear these chopper pilots ‘commenting’ on a retardant drop… the KEY seems to always be that these ‘unsolicited’ verifying-goodness comments ONLY come AFTER a REAL DROP.
In other words… if you listen carefully to all of these sorts of ‘unsolicted’ verifying-goodness comments from the chopper pilots in the Panebaker videos… they NEVER comment on a ‘show me’ or on a ‘line up’ drop…
…and there’s a GOOD reason for that.
These guys are flying ‘show me’ and ‘go-around’ and ‘line-up’ flights basically ALL the time… and unless you are totally GLUED to the Air-To-Air channel yourself then you really can’t ever be sure when they are actually going to DROP… or NOT.
So the ONLY thing that warrants an unsolicited “That was spot-on!” or “That’s exactly what we want!” comment is when you have actually just SEEN them drop… and you are verifying the ‘goodness’ of that location for even MORE drops.
So that, I think, is even more ‘indirect’ proof that Marsh would NOT have just jumped onto the radio and come out of nowhere with an unsolicited “That’s exactly what we want!” transmission JUST because he *might* have accidentally saw ANYONE doing a ‘show me’ or a ‘practice run’.
Those kind of ‘unsolicited’ comments over Air-To-Ground usually ONLY happen AFTER a REAL DROP… and are simply meant to encourage ‘more of the same’ at that location.
So ( perhaps? ) just one more reason why if anyone really did say “That’s exactly what we want!” over the Air-To-Ground channel in the 1634 to 1637 timeframe… it really was just a ‘confirming goodness’ comment regarding the spot-on 1633 SEAT drop right there on the outskirts of Yarnell ( which Marsh himself could NOT have seen due to the smoke cloud between him and Yarnell in that timeframe ).
WTKTT I think you are right on with the above.
Also if the Helicopters were dropping water in the same area trying to hold the fire down, then they definitely would have commented on the tanker drop helping them out at a critical location.
The reason I keep referring to the 1633 SEAT drop there right on the outskirts of Yarnell is because that, in fact, seems to be exactly what everyone who saw it seemed to think. Burfiend and French seemed to think so and said so in their SAIT interview.
The drop went ‘right between the ‘fire’ and a ‘home’… which at THAT point is time is what was *really* needed.
This ‘cut’ from Bravo 33’s SAIT interview seems to be describing that exact drop… and the fact that it was just after this 1633 drop when Burfiend then turned his attention to Kevin in the DC10 VLAT and told him to ‘come on in now’ ( circa 1636 )…
__________________________________________
We decided we were going to go here (pointed to Div Z) and go direct. Took the single SEAT. Brand new pilot (830) went right between spot and the home. We brought the DC10 in…
___________________________________________
Sidenote: They obviously had MAPS at these SAIT interviews and there are several references in the interviews where people are said to have been ‘pointing at the map’.
It SURE would have been nice if copies of that maps ( with notations of where people were pointing ) were included in the SAIT FOIA/FOIL releases…
…but they weren’t.
If these ‘Interview notated maps’ even exist… then they are just even more documents that Arizona Forestry either just neglected to include in the FOIA/FOIL requests… or they ( for some reason ) decided to specifically ‘withhold’ them.
The ADOSH investigation did the RIGHT thing.
They had fresh copies of ‘maps’ at each and every interview and they were freely letting the interviewees ‘mark them up’ during their interviews to make locations and movements more clear…
…and ADOSH did INCLUDE those ‘interviewee notated maps’ in their FOIA/FOIL release(s).
You can listen ( or read ) along with the interviewee AND see the exact notes they were making DURING the interview on real maps.
I’d still love to know exactly WHERE Burfiend was pointing when his own SAIT interview notes say he was ‘pointing at a spot in Division Z’ and said “We went HERE”.
Whoops. I left the phrase “as SPOT-ON” out of the first paragraph above, which was really intended to be the whole point of the statement.
Here is how paragraph 1 above SHOULD have read…
“The reason I keep referring to the 1633 SEAT drop there right on the outskirts of Yarnell as SPOT-ON is because that, in fact, seems to be exactly what everyone who saw it seemed to think. Burfiend and French seemed to think so and said so in their SAIT interview.”
Glad you caught that. TBH I haven’t had much of a chance to even look at the Panebakers. And I’ve definitely been wondering how the helicopters communicated and with whom.
When I read the Interagency Fire Aviation Manual, it said there was supposed to be a “Helico,” a Helitanker Coordinator, somehow in communication with both Air Attack and Incident Command.
The 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP video that is now known
to be BOGUS is just ONE of the Panebaker Air study videos that
‘precedes’ the 163700 one. It does not IMMEDIATELY precede it.
There are actually TWO others that come in-between 162300
and 163700… and they both appear to be exactly what they
say they are.
These are the actual ( Eric ) Panebaker Air Study videos
that cover the crucial 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM timeframe that day…
20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP
20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP **** This is the BOGUS one
20130630_162508_2SEATS_EP
20130630_163338_fire_behavior_EP
20130630_163700_fire_behavior_EP
20130630_164544_fire_behavior_EP
20130630_170634_VLAT_EP
NOTE: The 20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP video that precedes the one that is now know to be BOGUS is the one that captured the 4:16 PM “Granite Mountain… what’s your status right now?” query from from someone in fire command and Eric Marsh’s response about Granite Mountain “makin’ their way out the same escape route from this morning” and Marsh’s “just checkin’ it out to see where we gonna jump out at” transmission.
ALSO NOTE: The ‘EP’ initials in these Air Study video filenames all stand for ‘Eric Panebaker’.
If the 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP video ( as released by the SAIT in response to FOIA/FOIL requests ) does NOT contain the same content as the original… then HE would certainly know.
The Az Republic ran another piece on the Yarnell evacuations yesterday. Turns out only 1 in 8 persons received an automated call, and most of those involved no human-to-human contact, i.e. just left a message. Also the article says there was a 21 minute delay in sending out the notifications (I am assuming from the time the decision was made sometime after 3:30). May account for why people said they were notified around 4:08. Also there was no one hour notice, just “get out now”. In a disaster nothing ever works as it supposed to, but the evacuations that day seemed particularly bad. I still wonder the extent to which the flawed evacuations that day affected firefighting decisions in the time after 3:30.
I can imagine it might have had something to do with Abel, Cordes, et al, not paying enough attention to what Granite Mountain was doing until it was too late……
Maybe their attention was diverted. But I was asking more in how it might have affected tactical decisions.
One thing struck me recently. GM was aware of the evacuations situation. When the fire started running at Yarnell, I believe it was Scott Norris who texted “the fire is running right at Yarnell”. Yet I also think it was he (I’m pretty sure, maybe it was someone else) who texted “and the evacuations have just started”. Maybe it was a throwaway comment, not something they were making decisions based on. But it shows, that even for an experienced crew member, it was on their minds.
The evacuation situation should not have impacted safety considerations. But human nature being what it is, I wonder if it colored the way people looked at risk that afternoon.
Actually… it was Wade Parker’s final text message sent to his mother with a network timestamp of 4:04 PM that had those references in it.
Wade’s complete text message was…
“This thing is running straight for yarnel. jus starting to evac. you can see fire on the left town on right. DO NOT POST THIS ON FACEBOOK OR ANY OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA DEAL!!!!”
There was some discussion, early on ( even on this forum ) about what Wade really meant when he said “jus starting to evac”.
The discussion(s) were addressing the possibility that Wade’s statement could be taken one of two ways…
1) He was telling his mother that HE ( and the other Granite Mountain fellas ) were ‘just starting’ THEIR ‘evacuation’ of their position. As in… just now leaving the safe black.
2) He was telling his mother that YARNELL was only now starting to evacuate.
I believe the consensus back then was that Wade probably meant number 2… mostly because the people with WFF experience were in agreement that Parker probably wouldn’t even use the word ‘evacuation’ to describe their OWN movements or ‘relocation’ efforts.
So if it really was number 2 above… then YES… that is full proof that even the line crew up there ( and not just management like Marsh/Steed ) were fully aware that ‘get out now’ evacuations had been ordered down there in town… but they were also NOT aware that they had been ‘ordered’ by SPGS1 Gary Cordes some 24 mnutes BEFORE that… at 1540.
With regard to how this ‘knowledge’ affected their own decision making… I’m SURE it had SOMETHING to do with either of the following…
1) Management putting pressure on them to get to town as fast as they could ( Sic: Someone in management appears to actually be telling them to HURRY in the YARNELL-GAMBLE video ).
2) If there was no management pressure at all… then it still probably made them ‘rethink’ their already stated plan to remain in the safe black. They ( Steed and/or Marsh ) just didn’t want to accept the fact that they were ‘out of the game’ and weren’t going to be able to be ‘where the action was’… and this urge on their part made them totally forget that their PRIMARY responsibility was the *SAFETY* of ALL of the employees in their charge.
SIDENOTE: A lot has been discussed about what GOOD anyone might have even thought 19 guys with hand tools and no actual structural firefighting equipment could have even been able to do that day… or what their ‘assignment’ might have been even if they made it down there.
It is perfectly possible that even if management requested them to ‘come down’… that no one really had anything specific in mind for them to do at all… at least not at the time the request was made.
Management might have just ‘wanted them to be there’ and was going to figure out what to do with them AFTER they arrived.
This would actually match OPS1 Todd Abel’s thinking with regards to Type 1 Hotshots.
In his ADOSH interview… the ADOSH investigators went over the situation with the Blue Ridge Hotshots with OPS1 Todd Abel and how they just bounced around most of the morning with nothing to do and only being told to ‘stage’ at 3 different places before anyone even gave them any kind of ‘assignment’.
Todd Abel’s OWN explanation for all of that was that he was ‘busy’ that morning… but knew that he just wanted to have a Type 1 Hotshot crew in (quote) “My back pocket in case I needed them”.
Actual (full) quote from Abel about this in his ADOSH interview was…
__________________________________________
So we went down there, uh, after the briefing ran into, um, Blue Ridge out there, um, and they said hey, what would you like us to do? I said hey, why don’t you guys go stage at the school. I’m not sure exactly where I wanna put you guys yet. But I wanted that hotshot crew in my back pocket.
__________________________________________
Granted… that was ‘start of work day’, pretty much, and Abel really *was* ‘very busy’ at that point. It then took Abel almost an HOUR to get all the various engines and crews that were showing up assigned to various places.
However… I’m sure the ‘evacuation cycle’ was just as busy ( and confusing ) when it hit later on… and there might have been no other reason for asking GM to ‘come down’ ( and to HURRY ) than the same sort of “I just wanted Hotshots in my back pocket” mentality.
I would really hate to think that that is the reason why 19 good men died… just because someone wanted them ‘in their back pocket’ but would have ended up just letting them stand around in a parking lot like they did with the OTHER Type 1 Hotshot crew that was ALREADY THERE… .and totally available.
Mike, I absolutely believe that it does. Absolutely. 100%.
(I made a comment on IM long ago about this point and about the demographics of Yarnell/Glen Ilah, and, not surprisingly, I took a fair amount of pushback. It is clear from at least one ADOSH interview that leaps readily to mind that Dave Larson (or someone…) was on the same wavelength, for whatever that is worth. I’m not suggesting the GM guys SHOULD have tried to go to the BSR or wherever, but I am saying that they strike me as a bunch of men who were likely to want to try (if safely possible) help a vulnerable population. Human nature is what it is, and a lot of guys become wildfire professionals because they CARE.)
Elizabeth… I don’t think there is any question in the world that these were men who were ‘likely to try’ to help people. The pay wasn’t good enough to stick with that kind of work for any other reason…
…but ( as I think we have seen )… it is, in fact, possible to care TOO MUCH… if those urges make you forget the rules of your profession and take unnecessary risks with the very LIVES of the employees you are responsible for.
This applies to MANY professions… and not just firefighting.
Yes… they CARED.
But why did TWO of those men care SO much that they forgot the ‘rules’ of their profession *AND* what their PRIMARY responsibilities were… and it ended up
killing all 19?
This is the primary question that still remains to be answered.
The Republic, which I gather takes a fair amount of grief at times, continues to write on this story. This is at least the second significant piece they have done on the evacuations, both well after the incident. They have never tried to link the evacuations to the deaths of the GMHS, but I do think the delayed evacuation impacted some decision-making.
The Yavapai sheriff’s office basically said the evacuations were not perfect, but were good enough as no residents died or were seriously injured. I have a lot of problems with that thinking. First of all, there were near misses with residents. Second, I think some firefighters were left too long at the head of the fire west of town and there were apparently near misses there too. I think there was some reluctance to pull them out because they were trying to buy time. And finally, we may never know for sure the degree to which knowledge of the tardy evacuations impacted Granite Mountain’s actions. Maybe it played no role, but they knew of it and then they did something inexplicable. The questions about what could they have done, about what actions they thought they could do, are good ones. Maybe though they just felt the need to be “available”, to help if needed. Yes, they needed to say put, but am trying to fathom their thought process.
Anyways, those in charge of evacuations should not conclude the process was “adequate”, just because no residents were killed or injured.
>> mike said…
>> The Republic, which I gather
>> takes a fair amount of grief at
>> times, continues to write on
>> this story.
As well they should ( continue to write about this historic, tragic incident ).
>> mike also said…
>> They have never tried to link the
>> evacuations to the deaths of the
>> GMHS, but I do think the delayed
>> evacuation impacted some
>> decision-making.
Of course it did.
Suddenly… EVERYTHING was an EMERGENCY.
That affects EVERYONE involved *and* their decision making.
It ( the total chaos which created this sense of total EMERGENCY in a very short span of time ) could have been AVOIDED. No question.
The moment that thing marched right through that heavy retardant line like it wasn’t even THERE ( hundreds of yards north of even Cordes’ FIRST trigger point )… it didn’t take a genius to figure out there wasn’t much that was going to stop it. The Big Dog was going to just EAT. Get everyone OUT OF THE WAY. Like RIGHT NOW.
>> mike also said…
>> The questions about what could
>> they have done, about what
>> actions they thought they could
>> do, are good ones. Maybe though
>> they just felt the need to be
>> “available”, to help if needed.
Yes. Maybe having some Type 1 Hotshots in Yarnell in/around the time the ONLY thing to be doing was a total evacuation *might* have helped… and maybe that *was* what they were ‘thinking’…
…but just ONE quick call on the radio to discover that there were ALREADY 20 Elite Type 1 Hotshots right there ‘in the middle of the action’… with NO ONE giving them *ANY* assignment(s) whatsoever would have answered that question in their minds… toot-sweet.
That radio call never happened.
IMHO… It should have.
Even if they were half-way there… if they had discovered there wasn’t anything they were even going to be ALLOWED to do if they got all the way there ( just like Blue Ridge wasn’t being allowed to do anything at that time but *be safe* )… they could have TURNED BACK. There would still have been TIME to do that.
>> mike also said…
>> Anyways, those in charge of
>> evacuations should not conclude
>> the process was “adequate”, just
>> because no residents were killed
>> or injured.
No, they most certainly should NOT.
That’s just more ‘establishment of normalcy’ and ‘prior bad decisions with good outcomes’ crap.
Own it. Learn from it.
Find out what OTHER small Arizona towns don’t have a working siren at the fire station because the rats have chewed through the wires….
…then FIX it. ASAP.
Find out what OTHER small Arizona towns have never done a ‘reverse 911’ test to see if it is even going to work when the time comes…
…and do a TEST.
See if it IS going to work.
This is NOT rocket science.
** Regarding INJURIES…
There has ALWAYS been confusion and mis-reporting about that.
The LA Times and USA Today BOTH initially reported that in addition to the 19 fatalities… 22 other ‘firefighters and civilians’ were injured that afternoon.
Their own articles even stated that some of the ‘injured’ had to be flown to burn units because the nearby Congress hospital couldn’t handle them.
2 days later… the AP press was then reporting that there were NO serious injuries other than the 19 fatalities.
To this day, however, the Wikipedia page for the Yarnell Hill Fill is still ‘sticking to the story’ that there were MANY ‘others’ injured that day and they upped the number to 23.
The current ( active ) Wikipedia Page for the Yarnell Hill Fire is basically an absolute JOKE… but this is what their very OFFICIAL looking ‘information box’ about the Yarnell Hill Fire has said from day one and it has NEVER been ‘corrected’ by anyone…
Wikipedia
The Yarnell Hill Fire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarnell_Hill_Fire
______________________________
Location: Yarnell, Yavapai County, Arizona, U.S.
Coord: 34°14′54″N, 112°45′29″W
Date(s): June 28, 2013 – July 10, 2013
Burned area: 8,400 acres
Ignition source: Lightning
Land use: Mixed (residential/wildlands)
Buildings destroyed: 129
Fatalities: 19
Injuries (non-fatal): 23
______________________________
There are also (apparently) claims of ‘personal injuries’ in MANY of the 100+ claims that have been filed by property owners… but no one has done an actual ‘tally’ on that number.
Gary Cordes himself ( according to his own ADOSH interview ) was putting people into the backs of ambulances that afternoon… but there was no good followup on any of that, either.
So whether there *really* were any ‘injuries’ other than the 19 fatalities still remains a bit a mystery… but what else is new when it comes to YHF.
From the article…
________________________
Eight of the 22 firefighters injured were taken to Wickenburg Community Hospital, some were airlifted to a burn unit in Pheonix, and others were transported to Yavapai Regional Medical Center, Glover said. The 19 firefighters who perished were part of the Granite Mountain Hot Shot Crew.
_________________________
This article lists ( and has links to ) what they say are their TWO sources for the article…
Roxie Glover. Wow, have not seen that name for awhile. Fine woman. Amazing mother. Wow. I am looking at the link now: http://guardianlv.com/2013/06/arizona-19-firefighters-dead-and-22-injured-battling-the-yarnell-hill-fire/
That photo is a picture of Bob Kramer’s place off highway 89 that the only thing that survived in his burnt fridge was a case of beer. You can see Bob on my photo area-
Who was injured in that fire?
Tex and I were just skimming and Joy saw Roxie’s name and that photo of Bob’s place and we are out hiking Zion country- God’s country for a bit and away from civilization but it was nice to see the forum going strong. Tex wondered has anyone looked into the ACTUAL DATE that restricted map was made for state land restriction for that area that is currently restricted (340 acres) beyond the Helm’s spot. Anyone know how to find that out? That lady in the red cross showed us a map that matched the map we got in an email mid July 2013. It is not being looked into much but we are wondering as time went by that Tex (Sonny) awoke at 3am this morning thinking of the 19 and that map and other areas. Has anyone new come out on photos/videos locally to help? I guess I will know when I keep skimming. Short on time. Skim for 10 minutes then off I have to go- Hope all you are well.
~Joy A. Collura
From the article…
________________________
Roxie Glover, a spokeswoman for Wickenburg Community Hospital, said officials had told her to expect injured firefighters — but then she was told they weren’t coming.
“It became clear that the firefighters had been deceased,” Glover told The LA Times. “We were told that we were not getting firefighters.”
Glover said officials told her that the 19 firefighters who had perished were part of the Granite Mountain Hot Shot Crew.
At least two (other) firefighters were evacuated by helicopter to a burn center in Phoenix, she said.
Glover said homeowners had flooded into the hospital, suffering from smoke inhalation and shock after losing their homes.
________________________
From the article…
________________________
Wickenburg Community Hospital is expecting to treat about eight firefighters who were among about 22 injured battling the fast-moving, 2,000-acre Yarnell Hill Fire that has burned through have the town, officials said Sunday evening.
The spokeswoman for Wickenburg hospital, Roxie Glover, said there are reports of as many as 22 firefighters being injured. About eight from that group were headed to the Wickenberg facility, some were being air lifted to a Phoenix burn unit and others were being transported to Yavapai Regional Medical Center, Glover said.
Jim Tavary, CEO of Wickenburg hospital, said his facility was put on alert to expect several injured firefighters but did not know their conditions or the extent of their injuries.
“We are setting up an incident command,” Tavary said.
Homes have burned and hospitals have reported injuries from the blaze that had reached Yarnell.
_________________________
And the SAIT and some others still think the Type II team did a good job. When a Cluster F*** starts it just acts like a rolling snow ball it gets bigger and bigger.
Poor planning, poor Safety and poor execution total lack of situation awareness.
Also why would any one think they could through a crew at the head of a running fire and do any thing? That includes Marsh and GM. Why would they think they could do something that no other Hand Crew has ever been able to do.
For all of you who have never fought fire….Direct attack starts by flanking the fire not taking it head on and pinching the head off. The running fire that afternoon was just plain get out of the way. To much fire and no place to make a stand, or no defensible space to protect structures. Evidenced by Fire Fighters Injuries (burns).
** TOM STORY’S CANON EOS 1D CAMERA WAS
** 36 MINUTES AND 7 SECONDS BEHIND THE
** REAL TIME ON JUNE 30, 2013.
Tom Story’s ‘Canon EOS 1D Mark II N’ camera had an incorrect time setting on June 30, 2013 that was always 36 minutes and 7 seconds BEHIND the REAL time.
The proof of this comes from comparing the following two images of the same VLAT drop ( One that Tom Story took and one that Panebaker took ) which took place circa 1715.28 on the NORTH side of the fire, along Hays Ranch Road in Peeples Valley.
Tom Story’s 201303_Yarnell_Hill_7093
*and*
Panebaker’s 20130630_171528-1_EP
BOTH of these photos show the same exact VLAT drop and were taken no more than 1 second apart, so the *known* correct timestamp on the Panebaker photo can simply be applied to the Tom Story photo, and used to compute the ‘time offset’ for Story’s ‘Canon EOS 1D’ that day.
Here is a VIDEO CROSSFADE between these two photos which PROVES that they are of the same VLAT drop and taken within 1 second of each other…
YouTube About Information
_________________________________________________________________
This is a video crossfade between the following two photographs…
Tom Story’s 201303_Yarnell_Hill_7093 *and*
Panebaker’s 20130630_171528-1_EP
They are BOTH still photos of the same DC10 VLAT drop that took place circa 1715.27 ( 5:15.27 PM ) up on the NORTH side of the fire along Hays Ranch Road in Peeples Valley.
Tom Story shot his photo with a ‘Canon EOS 1D Mark II N’ camera with a 300mm f/2.8L Lens attached.
Panebaker shot his photo with a ‘Canon EOS REBEL T3i’ camera with a 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens attached.
The TIME on Tom Story’s ‘Canon EOS 1D’ was set incorrectly that day and it put an EXIF metadata timestamp on his 7093 photo of 4:39.21 PM. The actual time it was taken ( based on this comparison with the correctly-timestamped Panebaker photo ) is 5:15.28 PM.
That means that Story’s ‘Canon EOS 1D’ was always 36 minutes and 7 seconds BEHIND the REAL time on June 30, 2013.
The absolute proof that these are two photos of the same VLAT drop is really in the SMOKE cloud on the left side of both photos. It remains absolutely identical during the ‘crossfade’ between the two photos.
__________________________________________________________________
** MORE DETAIL…
Panebaker wasn’t just shooting videos that day.
Every time there was a VLAT drop… Panebaker also used his ‘Canon EOS REBEL T3i’ digital camera to shoot the drops ( these are all the ‘shutter clicks’ being heard in the Panebaker VIDEOS.
Those photos are in the online Dropbox in this folder…
Photos and Video / AerialFirefightingstudy / Panebaker / Photo / VLAT Drops
ONE of Panebaker’s photos of that 5:15.27 PM VLAT drop on the NORTH side of the fire is an almost perfect match for Tom Story’s 7093 photo.
Filename: 20130630_171528-1_EP
EXIF metadata for this Panebaker still image…
Camera: Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Lens: Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Lens 2: Shot at 85 mm
Exposure: Auto exposure, Program AE, 1/128 sec, f/5.6, ISO 320
Flash: Off, Did not fire
Focus: AI Servo AF, with a depth of field of from 59.7 m to 15.84 m.
Focus 2: AF Area Mode: Multi-point AF or AI AF
Date: June 30, 2013 – 5:15:27 PM
File: 3,456 × 5,184 JPEG (17.9 megapixels)
The EXIF timestamp of 5:15.27 PM ( 1715.27 ) matches the filename title of 171528 ( filename title is 1 second ahead of EXIF timestamp ).
Tom Story took 3 photos of this same moment of the same drop with his Canon EOS 1D.
All THREE have the same exact timestamp so he must have had his ‘auto-shutter’ motor on, leaned on the shutter button, and just took three photos as fast as the camera would take them.
NOTE: The 4:39.21 timestamps are according to HIS Canon EOS 1D but that is the issue. We know these timestamps are not correct. The KEY was finding out what the real ‘time offset’ was that day.
NOTE: His Canon EOS 1D was not ‘stuck’ on 4:39.21. His photos of the rest of this VLAT drop are stamped with the correct incremental seconds values like 4:39.22 and 4:39.23, etc. He really did take these 3 photos all in the same ‘second’ at 4:39.21.
The FIRST one ( 7093 ) is the best ‘exact match’ for the same photo in the Panebaker Air Study Video ‘Photos’ folder.
In-between the Panebaker and Tom Story photo, the DC10 has, in fact, advanced about 1 plane length.
That means that while both of these photos were taken at almost the same moment… the Panebaker image was actually shot FIRST.
Given the rate of movement as seen and timestamped in other photos/videos of this VLAT drop… I would say that only 1 second has elapsed between when Panebaker pressed his shutter button and then Tom Story pressed his.
So.. since the actual EXIF timestamp for this photo is 1715.27… that puts a REAL timestamp on Story’s 7093 photo of…
1715.28 ( 5:15.28 PM ).
The difference, then, between the ACTUAL time Tom Story’s 7093 photo was taken and the incorrect 4:39.21 PM that his Canon 1D ‘stamped’ it would be…
+36 minutes and 7 seconds. ( 1715.28 minus 1639.21 ).
BOTTOM LINE: This PROVES that there was NO VLAT DROP on the SOUTH side of the fire at 4:39 PM that day, which is what Tom Story’s photos seemed to suggest. That would have meant there was a DC10 VLAT drop taking place at the exact moment that Captain Jesse Steed was making his first MAYDAY call.
That is why it was IMPORTANT to figure out WHY Tom Story’s photos might have been suggesting such a drop at that time.
It didn’t happen.
He ( Tom Story ) simply had the TIME set WRONG on his Canon EOS 1D.
You sent me to the Google to do a little Canon 1D History!! Shows how much I pay attention to cameras that cost five times more than I can even contemplate affording!
That is NOT a new camera!! The 1D Mark ii n came out in 2005!! It was about $4000 then. Google shows one on ebay today for $790.
HOWEVER the 1D’s have always been considered the fastest cameras on the market. They’re the supreme sports photography cameras. It wasn’t STUCK on a second. It could shoot 8.5 frames per second. The current 1D Mark iv can shoot 10 frames per second. Tom’s 5D Mark ii’s can only shoot 4 frames per second. And the 1D is a 1.3 crop frame, a little smaller than full frame, which gives it more “reach.”
That’s why when you watch the Olympics the 1D is what most of the photographers are using. So when Tom wanted a combination of speed and reach, that’s when he went for the relatively ancient but still awesome 1D.
Actually Tom shot 21 frames of that whole drop. The first being at x:xx:18. The last being at x:xx:29. There are at least nine frames that he shot that he didn’t put into that folder.
So now that means possibly having to go back to McCord’s VLAT-helicopter-almost-fiasco video and seeing if that possibly changes its timing (and thus the rest of his coolpix images). It might and it might not. And it may not matter in the general scheme of things.
And PS. I’ve been using Canon Rebels since 2007. I currently use the t3i. It’s the most popular “non-professional” dslr on the planet. I have a three-day “how to shoot video with your dslr” class beginning today. So I may not be around too much.
Have you seen the Tom Story photos that DO actually have some GPS information in them?… but that GPS data is totally screwed up?
I find that very unusual. Usually these GPS chipsets in these devices either WORK… or they don’t.
There is always a ‘startup time’ for GPS if you have just turned the device on and sometimes you won’t be getting truly ACCURATE GPS coordinates until you have acquired at least 4 or 5 of the LEO ( Low Earth Orbit ) satellites…
…but Tom Story’s GPS capable device ( I have no idea what camera that really was ) just seems BROKEN.
It’s also VERY unusual that, in the EXIF data for these GPS stamped photos of his, there is no CAMERA or DEVICE information whatsoever.
Very unusual.
Sometimes the CAMERA or DEVICE Model number or ID is one of the ONLY things a cheap camera will add as EXIF data… but I’ve never seen a device that is adding other sophisticated EXIF data ( like GPS )… but also seems to be REFUSING to add any actual CAMERA or DEVICE information.
So it wasn’t a Canon…
and it wasn’t an iPhone or an iPad.
I have NO IDEA what camera he was using for those (incorrectly) stamped GPS photos.
It was some kind of smartphone pic that he was posting to Instagram. I’m such a bozo re smartphones.
But I’ve looked at LOTS of various smartphone pix from this fire, and the way they get tagged and time stamped is all over the boards. And we had a discussion way back when about how the geotagging etc could be easily way off. It takes awhile for that to set itself up.
I’ve seen LOTS of smartphone geotagging from this fire that is also all over the boards. I haven’t come to expect any kind of accuracy on any of this stuff at all.
**
** MORE ON THE TOM STORY CANON EOS 1D PHOTO TIMESTAMPS
** AND THE (SUPPOSED) VLAT DROP AT 1639
Reply to Marti Reed post on May 11, 2014 at 8:54 am said:
>> Marti said…
>> I had downloaded a smattering of photos from both folders, but
>> just kinda randomly. Just downloaded a bunch more,
>> more strategically. Looks like he photographed three VLAT drops.
Yes, it does.
>> Marti also said…
>> I’m starting to think he set up that camera quickly, just setting the
>> date, and not the time. Thus the stamp when first shot a frame on
>> it would have been 00:00:00. I don’t know if I have the time to figure
>> out what to synch on. But if I can pin one of those VLATs, it might
>> be possible to nail it.
>>
>> That being said, I’m currently thinking that drop might be the 1707ish
>> one. I just don’t know where he took it from. I don’t know where that
>> drop was, exactly. Do you?
I’ve been hard working on that here ( the actual LOCATION of that VLAT drop in
the Tom Story Canon EOS 1D photos ) and I can almost say with little doubt
that regardless of he 4:39 timestamp(s)… that is actually EXACTLY where
we see the Air Study people filming those earlier VLAT drops off on that
small ridge at the NORTH end of the fire… up in Peeples Valley.
So YES… regardless of device timestamp… it looks like that 4:39 series
of photos coming from Ton Story’s ‘Canon EOS 1D Mark II N’ are of the
SAME VLAT DROPS captured in the Panebaker videos… much earlier.
Exactly WHICH Panebaker video is a match?
I am on that right now… taking stillframes from Panebaker videos and
comparing them to the Tom Story photo(s).
>> Marti also wrote…
>> If it was visible from the RHR parking lot, he could have caught
>> it w/that 300mm easily.
Yes… but see above. It looks like those photos were taken all the
way up NORTH of the same VLAT drop(s) seen in the Panebaker
Air Study videos.
It even looks like Tom Story might have been standing almost exactly
where the Air Study group was and using his 300mm lens from there.
>> Marti Reed also said ( on May 11, 2014 at 9:19 am )…
>>
>> Hah! I just found what looks like a tight sequence of the same event,
>> using both a Mark D and the 1D! It’s the red and white helicopter
>> picking up a bucket at the helispot and heading into the smoke…
>> Looks good…more later….
Bingo! I agree. That looks like the ‘moment’ when he decided to
actually switch between the 5D and the 1D.
>> Marti also said…
>> OK, if this helicopter sequence shows the 1D is set about 20 minutes
>> late, that would put the problematic VLAT drop at 4:17– the split drop.
Yes. This is starting to fall into place now.
That VLAT drop (supposedly) photographed by Tom Story with his
Canon 1D at 4:39 PM ( the exact minute of Steed’s first MAYDAY )
looks more and more like simply one of the same VLAT drops that
happened much earlier and captured by one of the Panebaker videos.
Still not *EXACTLY* sure it was the 4:17 ‘split drop’ video… but I am
all over that and will have some results of my own soon about that.
Bcuz, I wrote mistakenly below that he shot the second T 911 sequence (the one Blue Ridge was capturing with the almost helicopter snafu) on on the Mark D II. He actually shot it on the D1. And the first image is stamped 2:00:23. If you pull that stamp back 22 minutes (like I think you need to with the long two-camera helicopter and the third sequence) that puts it at 1:38:23. Right when it would be flying out of that drop. I think we’ve got it. At least good enough for well, what we need. If some overpaid lawyer’s crew wants to get more exact, that’s fine with me!!!!
That Tom Story VLAT sequence which *appears* to have been taken at 4:39 PM ( according to his Canon 1D ) was definitely shot almost exactly where the Panebaker Air Study videos were being taken up on Hays Ranch Road some time earlier and looking WEST at the SEAT / VLAT drops.
** Panebaker Air Study video
** 20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP
The ‘focus’ starts out fine in this video, but at about +7 seconds, when the ZOOM starts to capture the actual VLAT drop, the focus goes blurry, recovers a little, but never really returns to ‘sharp’ focus the whole time it is ZOOMED…
…EXCEPT for a brief moment at exactly +20 seconds. He recovers ‘sharp’ focus while ZOOMED for just a split second, but then loses it again.
A freeze-frame of that split-second when it is both ZOOMED and in ‘sharp focus’ proves that the terrain matches the Tom Story photos exactly… right down to the trees on the ridge in the foreground.
The ‘terrain’ in both the foreground and the background is, in fact, an ‘exact match’ for the Tom Story Canon EOS 1D photo sequence.
Now… is Tom’s photo sequence simply ‘stillframes’ of this same exact VLAT drop shown in this Panebaker video?
Not 100 percent on that yet.
There are similarities… but not seeing an ‘exact match’ yet.
Stay tuned. Tom was apparently in a slightly different spot on the side of Hays Ranch road than the Air Study fellas so the ‘perspective’ on the drop is slightly different. The ‘retardant’ in the Panebaker video seems to fall much farther ‘into the smoke’ than is shown in Tom’s photo sequence…
…but the DC10’s ‘hard left on exit’ is a MATCH in both the video and Tom’s photo sequence.
I’m still comparing stillframes from this Panebaker video to the Tom Story photo(s) to see if we can get this down to an EXACT time offset for Story’s Canon 1D.
The one thing we know for SURE now… is that Story’s Canon 1D photo is *NOT* a photograph of any VLAT drop that was happening at 1639, at the same exact time Steed’s first MAYDAY went out.
I actually accidentally downloaded the USDA 1640 Air Study video yesterday, intending to download the later one. So I sat and watched it three times, just to get familiar with the jargon, the planes, the kind of communication going on. It’s a really helpful one to watch, because there is a LOT of stuff going on right in front of the camera. The one after it with the air 2 air of the 1633 drop and the 1647 whatever is not as good, because they don’t zoom in so you can’t really see anything, like the Panebaker does with that 1633 drop.
So, yeah, I watched the VLAT split drop quite handily three times over. So when I went to recheck those photos I instantly recognized the spot. That smoke to the left is over the helicopter “horseshoe dip.”
I think he’s at a different angle from the videos, although I haven’t watched the Panebakers, they’re still……..down…..loading.
With that 300 mm lens, it’s hard to tell, but when the plane lifts, it’s right over his head. And I don’t know whether this is the first or second drop, and i’m not sure it’s possible to tell. The plane was flying the exact same path, just dropping at the “front” end (which is actually called the “tail” because its the last part dropped) and extending it.
You can really get a much better grasp on it by watching the USDA video with the air 2 air. Very detailed conversation going on.
Finding that overlapping helicopter sequence was like a HAPPY Mother’s Day Gift, believe me. Thanks Tom Story!!
It also confirmed that my re-time-stamping of McCord’s camera was not terribly off, which I wasn’t sure of. Things could be several minutes off, but it looks like I’ve got all of this basically synced.
Update: It appears that the VLAT drop captured
in the Panebaker Air Study video titled…
20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP
…is NOT the VLAT drop in Tom Story’s Volume 2
photo sequence.
In Tom’s photo sequence… we see the VLAT in ‘level flight’ at the peak of retardant output.
In the Panebaker 161858 video… pretty much at NO TIME during the drop is the DC10 actually in ‘level flight’. That video basically shows him dropping in a ‘constant curve’ and already heading to his left before the ‘cutoff’ moment.
The VLAT drop Tom Story photographed makes the same kind of ‘hard left on exit’ after drop… but definitely came in straighter ( and lower ) than the drop seen in the Panebaker video.
So on to the USDA videos.
Probably a more likely ‘match’ there…
…but we are still NOT WRONG about LOCATION.
Tom Story definitely photographed a VLAT drop at that same location as these Air Study videos… onto that ridge up there off Hays Ranch Road in Peeples Valley.
Thanks. It has to be one of those drops. Because there aren’t that many VLAT drops, and ONLY drop in that location is the split drop. So it’s the other drop. It has to be.
Yeah, go watch the USDA video. And actually the entire Panebaker 3-part sequence.
Marti… just an FYI… see posts below about helicopters. In the course of watching these Air Study videos all over again I’ve found at least one more ( so far ) very *NEAR MISS* between a fixed-wing and a helicopter.
This one looked even CLOSER than the skycrane versus DC10 one earlier in the day.
It’s in Panebaker Air Study video
20130630_153414_EP at the
+11 second mark.
Lead plane is on a line-up from east to west parallel to Hays Ranch Road… but a chopper with a bucket is coming up on a south to north line on the OTHER side of the smoke cloud.
Chopper crosses RIGHT in front of the lead plane at exact same altitude with only a few seconds to spare.
Reply to Marti Reed post
on May 11, 2014 at 9:04 pm
>> Marti said…
>> It has to be one of those drops.
>> Because there aren’t that many
>> VLAT drops, and ONLY drop in
>> that location is the split drop.
>> So it’s the other drop. It has to be.
It is. ( the 5:15 VLAT drop up along Hays Ranch Road on the NORTH side of the fire ).
Totally confirmed.
See new post above including a new
VIDEO CROSSFADE on YouTube
that proves it.
Story’s Canon EOS 1D was always 36 minutes and 7 seconds BEHIND the REAL time that day.
**
** CLINT CLAUSON ( ATS TRAINEE FLYING IN BRAVO 33 )
** RECORDED THE TIME OF STEED’S FIRST MAYDAY?
As long as we are still sort of ‘focused’ on these *VERY* confusing SAIT interview notes with Bravo 33… I think it’s worth pointing out something else.
When the SAIR came out… it was astounding how *LITTLE* information they were providing with regards to ‘sources’ for the narrative timeline and other (supposedly) ‘factual’ statements they were making.
ONE of those things has always been…
How did they arrive at a time of 1639 for Steed’s first MAYDAY call?
They just published that time as FACT… and there wasn’t even a ‘footnote’ to indicate how they arrived at that (specific) time.
Sure… a LOT of people HEARD this call… but no one seemed to be SURE what TIME it really was.
The SAIT also already knew about Aaron Hulburd’s Helmet-Cam video and this is obviously where they were taking a lot of what was then SAID and ‘paraphrasing’ it in their SAIR report…. but they also knew they were NOT going to release that Helmet-Cam video to the public along with the report…
…but ( as we know now )… the TIMESTAMPS on Aaron Hulburd’s Helmet-Cam device were also a little ‘wonky’ that day and not entirely accurate.
So how did the SAIT really ‘nail down’ the 1639 time for Steed’s Mayday?
The answer might be the SECOND SENTENCE of their later-released interview with Bravo 33 in their SAIT Investigation Notes .
__________________________________________________________________
SAIT INTERVIEW WITH BRAVO 33 – July 9, 2013 – 1700
Interviewees: Bravo 33
John Burfiend – ATS Specialist ( Air Attack duties / Monitoring Air-To-Ground )
Clint Clauson – ATS Trainee
Thomas French – AT Specialist ( Pilot, Lead Plane / Monitoring Air-To-Air )
SAIT Interviewers: Dudley, Mayhew, Foley, Kurth, Rocha
We were ordered as lead air attack to relieve Bravo 3.
Clint did record a few times on air tankers departing and
when the frantic call was made.
_________________________________________________________________
This mysterious ‘Clint Clauson’ person is never “quoted” at all in the interview ( or never even asked any questions? )…. but this SECOND sentence in the interview notes DOES establish that he seemed to be ‘writing some TIMES down’ that day… INCLUDING the moment of Steed’s first (frantic) MAYDAY call.
I would also say this one sentence in the SAIT notes also pretty much
establishes all of the following…
1) Clint Clauson was onboard as an ‘ATS Trainee’. Burfiend is listed as ‘ATS’ and French is only listed as ‘AT’… so that means Clauson was most probably ‘mentoring’ with Burfiend that day and NOT French.
2) If Clauson was ‘mentoring’ with only Burfiend… then that means Clauson would probably ALSO have been listening to the same radio channel Burfiend was. That means Clauson was listening exclusively to the ‘Air-To-Ground’ channel and was hearing everything that Burfiend was (including Steed’s first MAYDAY in real time).
3) Clauson apparently WROTE DOWN the TIME they heard Steed’s first MAYDAY call ( described in SAIT notes as ‘the frantic call’ ). As in… on a piece of PAPER.
4) Even though Clauson apparently was never asked anything by the SAIT investigators and there is no record of him ever SAYING anything in the interview… the notes still imply that Clauson might have given them a ‘document’ or a ‘piece of paper’ that had these TIMES that he recorded written on it. If so… that document was NOT included in the SAIT FOIA/FOIL package and ( if it exists ) is just one more document that would seem to have been *withheld* by Arizona Forestry from legitimate ( legal ) FOIA/FOIL requests. We already KNOW that Arizona Forestry *DID* withhold any number of documents. Maybe this ‘piece of paper’ from Clauson is simply one of those ‘withheld’ documents.
So… REGARDLESS of whether there was an actual DOCUMENT ( or copy of
one ) handed by Clauson to the SAIT investigators that had ‘1639’ written down for the time they heard the first ‘frantic call’… SOMEHOW that ‘1639’ time was COMMUNICATED to the SAIT investigators ( but is also never mentioned in the interview notes ).
So THIS *might* be how the SAIT was so SURE that Steed’s first MAYDAY actually took place at 1639, despite poor recollections and a wonky timestamps on the Aaron Hulburd Helmet-Cam video.
They might have been totally trusting what this mysterious ATS Trainee Clint Clauson had actually WRITTEN DOWN ( or, perhaps, just TOLD them verbally during the interview, according to his recollection ) as the TIME for Steed’s first ‘frantic call’… and they ‘adjusted’ all the other times/events based on that.
There has always been a folder in Mr. Dougherty’s online Dropbox that says it contains ‘Pre-Fire images from Boulder Springs Ranch’, but there has also always been a ‘glitch’ in the linking that was sending clicks to another ( different ) folder.
That ‘glitch’ is GONE… and now we can see the full set of pre-fire images taken at the Boulder Springs Ranch ‘safety zone’.
There are even some ‘post-fire’ images included for a ‘before/after’ glimpse of some parts of the compound.
The following link now takes you right to the correct folder…
There are at least TWO photos there which verify what Joy Collura reported about the FENCING on the western side of the compound ( The direction Granite Mountain was approaching from ). It does, in fact, appear to simply be 3 strands
of barbed wire. Nothing substantial.
There are also TWO photos of an antique pickup truck that was parked well INSIDE the ‘safety zone’ up in the northwest part of the compound.
One photo of the antique pickup truck is pre-fire.
Another is post-fire.
You can see the ‘before/after’ for this vehicle. It got fried.
The entire back-half and wooden bed of the pickup burned
up completely, along with both back tires ( completely melted ).
This ‘antique pickup truck’ was exactly here ( INSIDE ) the ‘safety zone’…
34.219495, -112.771250
It was sitting 98 feet INSIDE the ‘safety zone’ from the fence that established the western edge of the compound and only 46 feet from the northwest corner of the Llama barn next to the house.
The last photo in the set ( with a name of vegetation-on-hills-.jpg ) actually shows how FAR inside the perimeter of the ‘safety zone’ this burned pickup truck was… and how CLOSE it was to the Llama pens and the barn.
NOTE: The actual NAME of the post-fire photo of the burned pickup truck is ‘truck Yarnall 15 June 001.JPG’ but the date indicated in this hand-modified title is INCORRECT.
The post-fire photo of the burned pickup truck was ACTUALLY taken well AFTER the fire on September 14, 2013.
The ACTUAL EXIF data embedded in the ‘after fire’ photo of the
pickup truck is as follows…
Camera: Canon PowerShot A4000 IS
Date: September 14, 2013 – 11:56:39 AM
Lens: 5 – 40 mm – Shot at 15.1 mm (shot wide open)
Exposure: Auto exposure, 1/1,002 sec, f/4, ISO 125
Flash: Auto, Did not fire
Focus: Single, Face Detect, with a depth of field of from 18.2 m to infinity.
Focus 2: AF Area Mode: Multi-point AF or AI AF
File: 3,456 × 4,608 JPEG (15.9 megapixels)
I would say the truck burned because of the straw in the back of it
possibly by direct flame but more likely by sparks that ignited the straw and burnt the truck. Sill interesting….
Reply to Bob Powers post on May 11, 2014 at 10:45 am
>> Mr. Powers said…
>> I would say the truck burned because of the straw in
>> the back of it… possibly by direct flame but more likely
>> by sparks that ignited the straw and burnt the truck.
Agree. That was a LOT of ‘straw’ piled in the back of the thing and you can even see a burned-up gasoline can there in pile in the aftermath photo.
It’s also possible that the ’embers’ ignited that small tree that was near it first… then the ‘open flame’ from the tree nailed the straw.
>> Mr. Powers wrote…
>> Still interesting….
Yes. Definite proof that even though the structures didn’t appear to suffer any damage at all… the ‘open area’ of the ‘safety zone’ was no picnic that afternoon.
It definitely wasn’t one of those ‘sit in the middle in a lawn chair and drink a beer and watch the fire go by’ kind of ‘safety zones’. More like ‘you better be inside one of the bulidings’ kind of ‘safety zone’.
Probably also a good lesson there for anyone trying to ‘fire proof’ their own compounds. These pictures prove that regardless of how far INSIDE your compound there are ‘small trees’ or other ‘combustibles’ ( like bales of hay )… they probably ARE going to IGNITE under similar circumstances… so BEWARE.
Even if you have a 600 foot wide ‘clearing’ around your house… make sure you haven’t kept ‘trees’ right next to your house and make sure all ‘combustibles’ are INSIDE or… at least… out on the PERIMETER and not near a structure.
Confession time. My urban backyard is full of dead stuff. I don’t live in the WUI, but the wind is blowing, we’re in endless drought here in N Mexico, and I’ve spent inordinate amounts of time reading about fire lately. Tomorrow morning I intend to make an appointment to get rid of the dead stuff in my backyard. Now that it’s finally possible to tell the dead stuff from the live stuff.
Every fifth post in my New Mexico Twitter Stream is about Wildfire Preparedness. We shall see……..
I’m dreading this wildfire season in New Mexico……..
I spent eight years living in the forest outside of Flagstaff. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in the forest now, or in the East Sandia Mountains, although I’d love to….
By the way… that ‘pile of crap’ on the left-hand side of the ‘post-fire’ photo with the fried pickup truck is the burned-up remnants of a wooden wagon that was also there INSIDE the ‘safety zone’.
You can see what that wagon looked like BEFORE it got fried to nothing in the ‘pre-fire’ photo of the pickup truck.
It did NOT have any ‘hay’ or ‘straw’ in it… but it burned to the ground, anyway.
If you look at the last photo on that page ( which shows the pickup truck and the wooden wagon pre-fire ) you will see that there was ALSO actually a STRUCTURE there in-between them pre-fire.
Some kind of storage shed? Looks to be wooden.
That STRUCTURE is TOTALLY GONE in the post-fire pictures and only that 50-gallon drum is left standing there.
Not too surprising. That STRUCTURE appears to have been sitting right BETWEEN the two small trees that were there INSIDE the ‘safety zone’.
When those two trees ‘lit up’… it must have been quite a BLAZE going there INSIDE the ‘safety zone’ and just 46 feet from the Llama barn.
Amazing job on the supposed 16:37 Marsh transmission. That is some impressive collective work! It’s not easy to prove the absence of a thing, yet I think you’ve pretty much wrapped that one up.
I’m still confused about how you are using VHF vs. UHF to refer to radio traffic. Here is how I understand frequencies:
All(?) radio communications on non-military incidents (including fire, Search and Rescue, police, etc.) take place over VHF. This includes air-to-air, air-to-ground, dispatch, and all ground crews.
Air-to-air tends to span from 121.x Mhz to 123.x Mhz. Fire/police/EMS in my area use frequencies in the range of 154.x – 173.x Mhz. (This may differ in areas near large bodies of water, as this overlaps with Marine VHF). Bendix King handheld and mobile (vehicle) radios used on fire generally transmit and receive in the 136 – 174 Mhz range. Dispatchers and repeater stations transmit and receive larger parts of the spectrum. Airguard and air-to-ground frequencies are in the 160s, so ground crews can monitor and transmit on them. For obvious reasons, transmissions on the airband range are more tightly controlled (non-pilot radio operators get permitted, and base stations are licensed).
In summary, all of these Yarnell radio communications are VHF, though air-to-air and air-to-tower transmissions are on a lower frequency of VHF than air-to-ground and ground-to-ground. Do I have this right?
>> Sitta said…
>> Amazing job on the supposed 16:37 Marsh transmission.
>> That is some impressive collective work!
>> It’s not easy to prove the absence of a thing,
No. It most certainly is NOT ( easy ).
>> Sitta also said…
>> yet I think you’ve pretty much wrapped that one up.
Well… perhaps not yet. Still needs another few passes.
There is some other evidence in the public record that is
relevant. Still ‘looking’ at all that. Stay tuned.
>> Sitta also said…
>> In summary, all of these Yarnell radio communications are
>> VHF, though air-to-air and air-to-tower transmissions are on
>> a lower frequency of VHF than air-to-ground and ground-
>> to-ground. Do I have this right?
Well… YES… you probably do.
Probably should have done this yesterday ( before all the VHF/UHF lingo entered the picture )… but here are the channels that were
actually ‘in use’ that weekend ( along with exact frequencies )…
From PDF page 22 of the Arizona Forestry SAIR report itself…
______________________________________________________
Radio Frequencies
The Yarnell Hill Fire was assigned Group 1 A1S PHX District
channels on June 28. On June 30 at 1022, the communications
plan was as follows:
Channel No., Channel Name, Assignment
1, AZSF1, Command
5, VFIRE21, Optional Tactical, Unassigned
6, AZSFTAC1, Tactical 1, Div A and Div Z
7, AZSFTAC2, Tactical 3, Structure Protection Group 1
8, AZSFTAC3, Tactical 2, Structure Protection Group 2
10, AZSFTAC5, Air-Ground
16, AIRGUARD, Air Guard Channel
Early in the day on June 30, there was limited use of AZSFTAC3
Tactical 3 by Granite Mountain IHC, Blue Ridge IHC, and heavy
equipment boss. Tactical 3 was assigned to Structure Protection
Group 1 at 1200 that day.
___________________________________________________
The exact frequencies assigned to Arizona’s
“Group 1 A1S PHX District Channels” are as follows…
Channel, Function, Frequency, Tone, Mode, Assignment
1, TAC 1, RX: 168.0500, TX: 168.0500, 123.0, N, OPS / DIV
2, TAC 2, RX: 168.2000, TX: 168.2000, 123.0, N, OPS / DIV
3, TAC 3, RX: 168.6000, TX: 168.6000, 123.0, N, OPS / DIV
4, TAC 4, RX: 166.7250, TX: 166.7250, 123.0, N, OPS / DIV
5, TAC 5, RX: 166.7750, TX: 166.7750, 123.0, N, OPS / DIV
6, TAC 6, RX: 168.2500, TX: 168.2500, 123.0, N, Unassigned
7, CMD C-2, RX: 168.1000, TX: 170.4500, 123.0, N, Command
8, CMD C-9, RX: 160.0125, TX: 165.2500, 123.0, N, Command
9, AZ State Fire, RX: 151.4000, TX: 159.4050, 162.2, N, AZ State Fire RPTR
10, Prescott NF Fire Net, RX: 164.3525, TX: 172.6125, 103.5, N, Forest Fire Net RPTR
11, Blank
12, MUTL AID, RX: 154.2800, TX: 154.2800, 0.0, N, Mutual Aid
13, AIR/GND, RX: 169.2000, TX: 169.2000, 0.0, N, Primary A/G
14, AIRGUARD, RX: 168.6250, TX: 168.250, 0.0, N, Air Guard
15, WEATHER, RX: 162.4000, TX: 0.0, 0.0, N, Weather Broadcast
16, AIRGUARD, RX: 168.6250, TX: 168.6250, 110.9, N, Air Guard
ALL of the frequencies assigned to this Arizona
“Group 1 A1S PHX District Channels” are in the
range from ( low/high )…
154.2800 ( Mutual Aid ) up to 170.4500 ( Command 2 )
That matches what you said is used in YOUR area…
>> Sitta said…
>> Fire/police/EMS in my area use frequencies in
>> the range of 154.x – 173.x Mhz.
The most IMPORTANT thing to notice is that there is NO
PUBLISHED ‘Air-To-Air’ channel in this frequency group.
Only an ‘Air-To-Ground’ channel.
Even if you CLONED your radio off of someone else that day… you would still have had to specifically ‘punch in’ an Air-To-Air frequency and add it manually to the bank to talk on the ‘Air-To-Air’ channel.
Good reason for that.
The Air guys will not ( and SHOULD not ) tolerate just anyone
transmitting on whatever Air-To-Air channel they are using.
That would be a nightmare ( for them ).
So you are saying that the Bendix-King radios could not be programed for Air to Air at the lower freq. of 121-123 ?
As I have tough although the newer Radios are different than the ones I used 20 years ago. So there would be a separate radio for
the air to air and special separate Freq.? would certain fire officials and others have those radios in their vehicles? I know we did back when. Like the helitack truck and dispatch both FS & BLM as well as some county and city as well as State rigs.
One of the newer ( and more expensive ) Bendix Kings
on sale (today) at Amazon.
This is what they choose to call their COMMAND VERSION
of even the more basic ( and cheaper ) BK GPH5102… and even this COMMAND version doesn’t have the 121-123 frequency range.
This puppy is $1,325 smackeroos… and it STILL won’t give you an Air-To-Air Channel if it’s down in the 120’s.
500 Channels, 25 User Groups, 20 Channels per Group
136-174 MHz Frequency Range
5/1.5 watts RF Power
MIL-STD 810
Programmable Soft Switches
1 new from $1,325.00
_______________________________________________
I can’t quote them at the moment… but I’m SURE there ARE tight regulations about who is ever ‘allowed’ to even be transmitting on ‘Air-To-Air’ channels.
Could you imagine if anyone could just walk out of a Radio Shack and immediately start transmitting on ‘Air-To-Air’ channels.
“Hey!… Delta Airlines!… I see you up there! How’s it goin’!… where ya headed!”
It has a lot of stuff about radio frequencies. I don’t really understand it because I don’t understand radio frequencies.
But somebody like you might want to peruse it. It’s more complicated than we think. I think there was more going on than we’re currently aware of. And I think you might find it quite useful for getting a finer understanding of what the possibilities/probabilities might be.
Including possible helicopter stuff. And a few other things.
Also I asked somewhere below, “What is Air Guard?” Now I know.
I just what to say to you Sitta, thanks for coming back and helping out. I’ve missed your voice.
I think what we’re doing now is an example of what we can do when we work together at solving problema, even when we disagree/see things differently, respectfully with each other, communicating back and forth, knowing none of us is exactly “right,” we’re all seeing different things at different times, from different perspectives and different knowledge bases. We all have different things/skills/perspectives to offer.
**
** Reply to calvin post on May 10, 2014 at 2:49 am
>> calvin said…
>>
>> WTKTT… The slash across the throat sign has always bothered me.
>> How could he ( John Burfiend ) be so certain that they were dead?
>> Really, how?? How did he know they were dead when he didn’t
>> even know where they were??
>> WTF
calvin…
The SAIT interview notes with Bravo 33 are an absolute MESS… but if you read them *very* carefully it would appear that John Burfiend ( who was the right-seat guy, not flying the airplane, and the one who was monitoring Air-To-Ground channel ) did his ‘slash across his throat’ gesture just AFTER Marsh’s final transmission when Marsh ‘affirmed’ that they were on the ‘SOUTH side of the fire’.
Even if they couldn’t see them… I think Burfiend could tell looking downward at that moment that anyone deploying on the SOUTH side of that exploding fireline was a goner. Hence… ‘slash across the throat’ gesture over to Thomas French.
Here is the exact ‘context’ of that testimony from Thomas French in the SAIT interview notes. It seems to confirm that Burfiend’s ‘slash across his throat’ gesture to French did, in fact, come right after Marsh’s *final* transmission…
__________________________________________________________________
We were right here (pointed at map) when Granite Mountain 7 called screaming in the radio. Ops said “are you getting this? I told Granite Mountain 7 “you need to calm down. I can’t understand you”. Immediately Division A called and said “we are starting a burn out, we are getting in our shelters. I said we got pople in trouble. Tanker called and said I got you in sight. I claimed out – the DC10 swung wide. I looked at John and he did this (slash across the throat). I told Kevin to stand by copy, taking it around. We have a crew in trouble. We are going to go look.
__________________________________________________________________
Let me also say that while I (personally) have always found this ‘slash across the throat’ gesture from Burfiend to be quite ‘uncalled for’… I do *NOT* believe for one second that this obvious assumption on his part that they were ‘goners’, even at that point in time, had *ANY* effect on him then proceeding to do his job.
I can also criticize them ( and, indeed, the WFF radio protocols themselves for apparently NOT having a good, established MAYDAY protocol ) for NOT taking the transmissions from Steed and Caldwell seriously for more than TWO MINUTES… but that still doesn’t mean I think they didn’t do all they possibly could to try and save those men that day… when they finally did realize this was a *REAL* emergency.
As soon as OPS1 Todd Abel contacted French and Burfiend and *TOLD* them to get their heads out of their asses and RESPOND to these men… they did.
And once they did ( finally stop ignoring them )… they obviously kicked into their own highly-rehearsed and professional procedures for such a situation.
I also happen to believe that if there had been *ANY* indication in those final radio exchanges of where they REALLY were ( such as… if Marsh had only taken 2 seconds to say… “we are 600 yards due WEST of Boulder Springs Ranch” )…
…I believe Thomas French in B33 and Kevin in the DC10 VLAT would have actually attempted a retardant drop ( whether they really believed it would do any good or not ) at GREAT risk to their own lives.
To have flown the jet-engine DC10 right through that thick ASH cloud would have been absolute suicide for Kevin… so I don’t think THAT would have happened… but if there was ANY way to get at their location ( if they knew where it was ) OTHER than flying blindly directly THROUGH the smoke/ash cloud…
I think they would have tried it.
For the rest of my life… I will always wonder WHY, when Marsh was directly asked by Burfiend…. “So, you’re on the south side of the fire, then?”…
…all Eric Marsh said was… “Affirm”.
Obtuse communications. Right to the end.
Even if French or Burfiend didn’t know where the heck the ‘Boulder Springs Ranch’ was… there were MANY people listening to the final MAYDAY calls who DID and they would have jumped right into the conversation and TOLD French and Burfiend *EXACTLY* where that was.
If Marsh had just added ANY amount of OTHER information… they at least *MIGHT* have been able to KNOW or GOOD-GUESS their exact location.
He didn’t… and I will ALWAYS wonder WHY he didn’t avail himself of that
one last chance to identify their exact location.
We ( in this ongoing discussion ) are not the only ones to wonder from day one WHY there was so much ‘confusion’ and ‘delay’ in realizing that the transmissions from Granite Mountain constituted a *REAL* emergency… or to wonder WHY it was that Burfiend in Bravo 33 basically IGNORED them for almost 2 minutes ( and even told them to get OFF the channel ) until OPS1 Todd Abel called him directly and *TOLD* him to stop ignoring these men.
Back in December of 2013 even… Wildfire Today published an article about this specific thing and about the new *YoLo* proposal which was a DIRECT reaction ( coming from the ground level ) to what happened in Yarnell.
Wildfire Today
Published December 23, 2013 by Bill Gabbert
Suggested protocol for firefighters when declaring an emergency
______________________________________________________
After reading about the deaths of the 19 firefighters on the Yarnell Hill Fire, Mr. Joseph Berto ( WFF Helicopter pilot ) had some thoughts about the crucial need for clear, descriptive radio communications when there is a firefighter emergency that requires immediate assistance. Below is his proposal, and following that my initial reaction and his response:
( See original article for full proposal )
______________________________________________________
There has ALSO been this ONGOING forum discussion about
this over at ‘Wildland Fire’.
Wildland Fire
Home of the Wildland Firefighter
Thread: More Yarnell Hill discussion: Mayday, Mayday, Mayday!
The first comment that ‘kicked off’ this (ongoing) discussion
over there at ‘Wildland Fire’ is as follows…
______________________________________________________
From Wildland Fire member: D Powers
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Mexico
Mayday, Mayday, Mayday!
I have read the official reports about the Yarnell Hill fire, but the transcription of the radio traffic does not do justice to listening to them.
One thing that stood out to me was the lack of an emergency declaration. B-33 did not pick up on the tone of voice (possibly because he was trying to do three jobs at once), but everyone else did.
In the military, civilian aviation, and the structural fire service that is one of the first things to be drilled into new recruits: recognize when you are in trouble, and call for help. Make sure others know you are calling for help.
I am not saying GM did anything improper (I have never heard of Mayday being used in a wildland setting) but perhaps it is something to be considered for the future?
______________________________________________________
This ‘Wildland Fire’ Forum Thread is heavily commented and goes on with many ‘ideas’ such as just adopting what WFF people use in Australia ( Emergency, Emergency, Emergency ) or other ‘already used’ standards.
Since it still appears that the WFF management in the United States doesn’t intend to DO or RECOMMEND ANYTHING new in this regard… I certainly hope the ‘folks on the ground’ just go ahead and decide on something amongst themselves… ASAP… since whether their own management gives a crap about their safety, or not, it is THEIR LIVES that might depend on such an established protocol in the future.
Marti and WTKTT
A couple of thoughts one I listed below.
1. If the transmission was on air to air Marsh would not have made it.
The portable radios do not Carrie that Freq. because of the Radio Ban it is on.
2. If a OPS or the IC was in the helicopter they could have made that statement over Air to Air. If the Helicopter was in the area then it could have been re-conning the fire with 1 of the overhead.
3. A vehicle with that Radio Ban on a separate radio from the National fire Freq. Ban Radio could have also made the comment. That statement could have come without a call sign.
At this point with out verifiable radio traffic that was copied we are right now chasing shadows. If it was not copied on air to ground it could not have been Marsh. WTKTT if you have a way to check the freq. you could probably show the Problem of different Bans Low and High They should be listed some where.
Reply to Bob Powers post on May 10, 2014 at 10:58 am
>> Mr. Powers said…
>>
>> 1. If the transmission was on air to air Marsh would not
>> have made it.
Yes… and also IAOI ( If And Only If ) it went out on ‘Air-to-Air’…
then WE should be hearing it, too, captured in that video
which was CLEARLY recording the A2A traffic around that time.
It’s not there. Didn’t happen.
>> The portable radios do not Carrie that Freq. because of
>> the Radio Ban it is on.
No, they don’t. Not normally, anyway.
It’s the whole VHF ( Highband ) versus UHF ( LowBand ) thing.
Handhelds that have BOTH capability are VERY expensive.
>> 2. If a OPS or the IC was in the helicopter they could have
>> made that statement over Air to Air. If the Helicopter was in
>> the area then it could have been re-conning the fire with 1
>> of the overhead.
True… but there is certainly NO evidence that any OPS or IC
was flying in anything in Yarnell that late in the day. Everyone
was ‘on the ground’.
>> 3. A vehicle with that Radio Ban on a separate radio from the
>> National fire Freq. Ban Radio could have also made the
>> comment. That statement could have come without a call sign.
Also possible. Heck… we can even hear with our own ears in the video capture(s) that someone way back in Prescott Air Operations was ‘hearing’ all the traffic and was ALSO able to just press TRANSMIT at any moment and ‘insert’ themselves into the Air-To-Air conversations all the way down there in Yarnell.
This is all kind of ‘moot’, however, because with regards to this (supposed) “That’s exactly what we want” retardant-related transmission (supposedly) from DIVSA Marsh… it is John Burfiend ALONE who is testifying he ‘heard that’ and he is also testifying it was over the ‘Air-To-Ground’ ( UHF / LowBand ) channel.
That’s *another* reason the ‘Air-To-Ground’ channel is always one of the most popular and most-listened-to channels on ANY fire. It’s ‘where the action is’ and its accessible to the ‘cheaper’ radios because it is a UHF frequency and not a VHF one.
>> At this point with out verifiable radio traffic that was copied we
>> are right now chasing shadows.
I’m still looking at some ‘other’ things in the public evidence record and I’m not sure more still can’t be ‘figured out’ from it about this (supposed) transmission from Marsh… so I’m not ready to call it ‘shadow chasing’ just yet. Stay tuned.
>> If it was not copied on air to ground it could not have
>> been Marsh.
Agree. It really is a shame that the Air-Study folks didn’t ALSO have another video camera running that day with a direct inline feed on the A2G channel like they had one going with a direct inline feed on the A2A channel. That would have been REALLY helpful here.
>> WTKTT if you have a way to check the freq. you could probably
>> show the Problem of different Bans Low and High They should
>> be listed some where.
I’m sure they are… but I’m not sure it matters.
Air-To-Air was VHF and Air-To-Ground was UHF.
Only a VERY expensive handheld can do both and those are
NOT usually the Bendix Kings carried by WFF ground men.
We also DO have a full VHF A2A channel capture covering
the timeframe in question.
Marsh is nowhere on it.
If that transmission of his happened at all… it had to be on A2G.
I actually started this comment way earlier this morning, while doing other stuff and watching an over-my-head class on how to use InDesign, while continuing to read all the comments, and letting things sink in and re-arrange themselves. And then I wandered off to check on some facts and re-read some interviews, and then try to figure out when that VLAT drop was that Blue Ridge Hotshot McCord videod as it dangerously flew right over a helicopter so that maybe if there was any info on that (which there isn’t, but I think it happened about 1:37 PM, which means under Bravo 3’s watch), and now I’m back to finishing/editing this.
OK so now you know why it wasn’t on air 2 air. So I can delete the rest of the paragraphs that I wrote for you about that. I basically agree with all WTKTT has written about that. Including the part about maybe Marsh started to try to contact Air Attack but got overstepped by someone else saying “that’s where we want it” from down below, even the parking lot. That also makes sense, from a possibility level, since Eric Div A had been in earlier contact with Air Attack, and AA had indicated v/A2G uneasiness with where he saw that crew (that he didn’t know who they were).
At this point, who knows? Who even knows if that SAIT interview report was even accurate/truthful about anything either French or Burfiend even said. I agree w/WTK that it’s pretty evident the SAIT pretty heavily massaged that whole process to make it fit their pre-established narrative.
And note to WTKTT here, bcuz it’s easier to do this than scroll down while I’m downloading a bunch more of both sets of Air Study videos, thanks for clarifying the “show me” directions. I confess, when I wrote that question, it was a short-cut, bcuz I hadn’t had time to go try to “translate” the numbers and I was guessing you probably had. I also confess, I’m still a bit “bowl-challenged,” and thus my confusion about that. When somebody says “bowl” I have no idea what they mean. Thus, when Burfiend apparently (or not) spoke of test-flying “the bowl” “from west to east,” it definitely created a certain picture in my head, that apparently didn’t correspond to the facts. And, hey, maybe it didn’t even correspond to what he said!
And, hey, as long as we’re being left to lots of gaps and thus room for speculating, could it be that Burfiend and French didn’t take that Forest Service SAIT interview all that seriously, either? Maybe they had already figured the AFS was gonna, all things considered, bend the “facts to their narrative” based on their at-that-time recently published investigative process model. Which is in fact exactly what they did.
And to TTWARE — and Bob — and WTKTT — etal:
About the ASM thing. As I was on again off again over the past few months, trying to make sense of the Air command structure and terminology, including reading Fire Aviation, the sister site of Wildfire Today, I saw quite a bit of grumpiness about this new Module thing. And it may be one of the Lessons to be Learned from Yarnell.
And somewhat related to the above, I’ve been really thinking about my possible “overly glowing” assessment of French. It may be just that. Or it may be that I’m just translating him a little differently. I’ve been around air and balloon pilots and meteorologists and tornado-chasers a lot. They do what they do because they enjoy it, even when it gets dangerous and difficult — and, hey so do fire/wildfire fighters (who we all know are actually pyromaniacs in disguise!!), so I’m not so offended by what some of you all are upset about. And maybe that gesture across the throat was not in jest. It could have been dead serious. I could envision my dad doing that if he heard a report of a balloon hitting a power line. And he wouldn’t have meant it to be funny.
Bravo 33’s job was (as per the Air Support YouTube video) to get wet stuff on the ground without bending metal along with, when necessary and possible, adding situational awareness, but NOT managing the ground crews (as opposed to what Rory Collins was/wasn’t doing, ahem. I can’t imagine, after watching/listening to French for hours, ever doing what Collins did.). That was somebody else’s job. They were doing just that, and it wasn’t all that easy, and they had lives on their hands, too. Plane crashes on fires are not that uncommon.
So when that SEAT flew through that fire at 4:33, to make that drop that apparently took a few set-ups to get, French essentially thanked him, and the pilot, possibly with some relief, indicated he was happy too, even tho they both knew, it was quite possibly a fool’s errand, but one they were hired to do.
And now that I’ve read what you wrote, WTKTT, about what they would have done, and DID do, after they abandoned that VLAT drop, I really appreciate that. Not only that, but they were running out of fuel, and still managed a 5:07 VLAT drop in the middle of it all. And, as they said, they were just barely able to do it because it was in such heavy smoke and ash they could hardly even see.
That being said, I’m sensing something of a cognitive dissonance. Might it, again, have to do with this thing we have called “Culture”?
Could it be that “Fire Aviation” has something of a different “culture” than on-the-ground “Fire Fighting”? And is that maybe something else that’s adding to the confusion? And furthermore, I definitely see, and have read about, regional differences, especially in the complaints about Collins. As in, in the northwest forests they fight fires differently than in the southwest, and thus the big conflicts between Marsh and Collins.
OK a final thing, before I go on a last-minute quest for Mother’s Day Flowers. Regarding that 1:37ish PM VLAT drop. Once I figured out that that’s when it happened, I went back to Bravo 3’s interview. Collins had had to leave (out of fuel) so Bravo 3 was Air Attack. They say nothing about that drop in their SAIT interview. And that’s what leads me to the next thing.
Helicopters. I have absolutely NO IDEA who was mostly directing helicopters. I was wondering that as I watched the Air-to-Air 1628 video. French WAS paying careful attention to helicopters, but it was all about keeping them out of the way of the fixed wing tankers, because they were dropping really close to the helispot and the “horseshoe dip” location. Since there’s no air-to-air video earlier than 2pm-ish, there’s no record of how Bravo 3 was communicating. I don’t even know if B3 was even aware there was a helicopter right under that VLAT. So I have no clue who was directing the helicopter drops. Maybe just another little unimportant detail in the general scheme of things?
Which leads to my seriously final point. Having those Air Study videos really HAS been critical, given the jumbling of everything else. And yes, it would have been even more helpful if they had set up the same kind of video camera with the Air to Ground channel included. Without all the wind and stuff that the Panebakers have. We’d still be fifty miles behind where we are if somebody hadn’t thought, “Gee, lets go set up some video cameras up on that fire and document the Fire Aviation!!”
Great Job Marti
When Fires Like this in WUI start running at structures
The first thing is to thro Air Tankers at the Fire. The problem most times they don’t do any good except make every body feel like they at least did something. It looks good to the public at least some one is doing something.
Helicopters–When Fixed wing plains are on a fire Helicopter pilots Monitor there Freq. And stay out of the way. They fly lower and are assigned to specific areas.
They maintain contact Air to Air.
That is why I said the 1 Helicopter flying that is mentioned may have had an overhead in it that could have made the comment, and could have over keyed Marsh DIV A call.
From what I am reading there is no radio verification that DIV A broke into any Air conversation except the statement from AA. At this point we have a personnel recollection with no solid proof it actually happened.
Again good work on the info.
Marti—–Yes there are 2 different cultures good catch Ground and air, not sure where those Smoke Jumpers fit? We always liked the Helicopters when they gave us a ride.
Also we all love Fire, Fire Fighting and even starting them like Back Fires Project burns Etc.
If you didn’t you would not stick with it.
So you found us out as well.
Actually, to be honest, I “go to school” online regarding photography, media, design, business at an online “place” called CreativeLIVE, which is based in Seattle. When we have classes, we also have chatrooms.
One of my pals in the chatrooms is a female firefighter relative/supporter in southern California. She’s actually VERY interested in this fire and is probably reading this site, which I have linked her to regularly.
We chuckle a lot about how people who fight fires and people who pay attention to fires (like me) are actually fascinated by fire. I’ve always been fascinated by fire, loved/miss my 10 years of surviving via wood-stoves in Flagstaff, always have candles burning, and about every 4 years get really intensively interested in a wildfire.
I started tracking/observing wildfires online in about 1996. I was really interested in how communities used the Internet to deal with how a wildfire was impacting them and to connect to each other to deal with it.
That lead to my watching the Los Alamos Cerro Grande Fire online in 2000. Given that a bunch of geeks were affected by it, and I had family/friends ties to it, they really used the Internet to connect, respond, get the word out. I followed that carefully.
I was really interested in the interface between wildfires and the Internet. Why? Because I, too am a lover of fire.
The other big one for me was 2001, the Hayman Fire near Colorado Springs. My daughter was a competitive figure skater, and we were there when that fire was burning. I actually photographed it, and, of course, I followed all of it online.
Oh and then the 2002 Rodeo-Chedeski Fire in Arizona, a HUGE fire. We ate and inhaled the smoke from it for weeks here in Albuquerque. I followed it online. And cried. A lot. I FELT it. And was AWED by it. Because I spent ten years living in the forest in Flagstaff. I felt those trees burning.
Fire. I majored BA in Anthropology/Archaeology from Prescott College. (When we had the crew that gave birth to the Prescott Hotshots that, in turn gave birth to the Granite Mountain Hotshots. And I had a horse, and I rode that horse all over Granite Mountain). The harnessing of fire by humans is considered a benchmark in human evolution. But fire can still overpower us.
So, yes. We love fire!!! And we fear it! And we have to deal with it. And it kills. And it renews. So yeah, I found you out. Because I, and a number of others, are just like you.
There WERE helicopters already down in Yarnell and also doing whatever they could to ‘save things’ in this 4:15 to 4:45 timeframe.
We actually can HEAR at least TWO of them actually ‘fly over’ Aaron Hulburd as he was filming the ‘Helmet-Cam’ video there in the St. Joseph Shrine parking lot… and AS he was capturing those ‘final transmits’ from Steed, Caldwell and Marsh.
It actually could have been ANY helicopter pilot working the fire down there at this time that just jumped onto the Air-To-Ground channel and said…
“That’s exactly what we want”
…right after the 1633 SEAT drop there on the EAST side of the fire. That SEAT drop probably DID hit the same outlying areas that THEY ( the choppers ) were focusing on as well.
Burfiend said this call came ‘5 minutes before they went into shelter’… but given their *general* confusion about TIME throughout their recollections to the SAIT investigators… it’s pretty doubtful they could have been *THAT* sure that *EXACTLY* 5 minutes had transpired between ANY two events that afternoon.
If the “That’s what we want” confirmation ( from someone in/near or ‘flying over’ Yarnell… but not Marsh ) was a direct response to the spot-on 1633 SEAT drop… then it’s possible that Burfiend was simply 4 minutes off on his recollection… and it was really about 9 minutes between when he heard that and when it all started hitting the fan.
Mistaking a 9 minute elapsed time period for 5 minutes would have been perfectly understandable that afternoon… coming from ANYONE.
I still think the most important point about all of this is that the SAIT investigators obviously did *NOT* even lift a finger to try and *VERIFY* the TIME and the SOURCE of this “That’s what we want” recollection on Burfiend’s part.
They just trusted what (only) Burfiend was recalling, didn’t care that no one else seemed to have heard it, called it an ‘absolutely verified communication from Eric Marsh’… and used it was the defacto END of their own self-imposed ‘verifiable communications’ blackout period.
Even Eric’s voice in the YARNELL-GAMBLE video TEN MINUTES earlier ( at 1627 ) is much more ‘verifiable’ than this ‘recollection’ on Burfiend’s part… yet they (apparently) chose to ignore what they were hearing in the YARNELL-GAMBLE video altogether.
Perhaps the SAIT understood that if they were going to pretend there was a ‘blackout’ ( with no verifiable communications )… then they couldn’t END that blackout ‘too early’.
In other words…. it was OK to take a dubious transmission/recollection that happened just 2 minutes before the MAYDAY… because 2 minutes wasn’t enough time for management to be accused of neglecting to do something…
…but TEN MINUTES was too much… hence… they had to IGNORE Eric’s obvious reporting of GM’s ‘status’ ( to someone in command ) at 1627.
Once they decided to officially report that there was a ‘verifiable communications’ BLACKOUT… and that that is why management didn’t know where they were… they could not END it too early before the deployment… so the 1637 ‘recollection’ from Burfiend simply looked like a good place to do that.
The VLAT/helicopter incident I’m describing is not about the in-question call we’re talking about. It happened about 12:35 PM. There was a VLAT drop just northish of where the Blue Ridge hotshots were waiting with their buggies for an asignment. There was one test flight then the VLAT made it’s drop. The BR guys were photographing and video-ing it.
When the VLAT was coming down to make the drop, there was a helicopter right underneath it. Bravo 3 was in charge, as Rory Collins was off getting re-fueled. Unfortunately we don’t have the air 2 air so I don’t know what kind of communication was going on.
Interestingly enough, as I’ve been working on jockeying Tom Story’s photos into submission, it looks like his first VLAT set, which he took on the relatively accurate Mark D II, is of that T 911 coming out of that drop. With, I think, Bravo 3 just ahead of him.
I confess, I’m still a little mystified re helicopter communications. They were on air-to-air, but during the air-to-air video I watched yesterday, from a bit before 4:00 pm to about 4:20, French was just keeping them out of the way of the tankers. That’s all.
I would think the helicopters must have been in communication with some kind of overhead. I haven’t had time to “go there” but I’m sure there must have been some kind of crew organizing them?????? It definitely wasn’t Bravo 33. And I don’t know if Bravo 3 was doing it either. It just seems weird.
Also, that leads me to ask, “What is Air Guard? What is that channel used for?”
Reply to Marti Reed post on
May 11, 2014 at 5:10 pm
>> Marti said…
>> I confess, I’m still a little mystified re
>> helicopter communications. They were
>> on air-to-air, but during the air-to-air
>> video I watched yesterday, from a bit
>> before 4:00 pm to about 4:20, French
>> was just keeping them out of the way
>> of the tankers. That’s all.
Correct. There are never any ‘instructions’ to them from Bravo 33 ( acting as both Lead Plane and Air Attack ) about what they should actually be DOING ( drop-wise ).
The ONLY thing French was concerned about was them staying out of HIS way.
Only conversations are about who is heading to helibase… or who is leaving the fire… and what direction they should take to do that.
This also confuses me from the ‘Air Attack’ standpoint. It is French ( performing Lead Plane duties ) we hear ‘directing’ this Air Traffic around him… even though the SAIT notes say it was French who turned to Burfiend and said “You’re Air Attack!”.
____________________________________
From SAIT interview with Bravo 33…
Paragraph 4…
I knew there was 2 structural groups.
I wrote down 2.
Tom said “hey dude, you are the air attack”.
____________________________________
So it really is very, very confusing.
I’m not even sure the Air people fully understand it all… much less the ground folks.
Anyone on the ground in a command position could obviously ASK the choppers to do things without going through Air Attack… which is what makes it all the more confusing.
In one of the Air Study videos… right after the spot-overs were happening up on Model Creek road… SPGS2 Darrell Willis just tells his subordinate, Gary Moser, to ‘get one of those choopers to take care of that spillover’.
So even line personnel could just make requests of the choppers any time they wanted to?
It’s a wonder there weren’t MORE near-fatal
crashes that day other than the incredible near-miss out over that middle bowl earlier that day.
Another near Fixed-Wing / Chopper
near miss I hadn’t seen before…
In Panebaker Air study video
20130630_153414_EP, at +11 seconds, there is another *NEAR MISS* between a helicopter and the lead plane flying a line-up flight in that same location where the VLATS were dumping up there off Hays Ranch Road.
The lead plane is flying the line-up flight from west to east, parallel to Hays Ranch Road… but a chopper is coming up on a south to north line over in the same location but on the ‘blind’ side of the smoke cloud… and the lead plane seems to have NO IDEA he is there.
Hard to tell how close it was because the ZOOM is active on the camera… but it looks WAAAY too close for comfort as the chopper crosses right in front of the lead plane at what looks like the same altitude.
Looks like a few seconds in time made all the difference here.
Somebody has to be directing the helicopters, and it’s not really Air Attack/Bravo. That’s just not their responsibility from what i’ve read. Like it’s not also their responsibility to direct the ground crews, basically.
Their responsibility, it seems to me, in general and on this fire, is more about directing the fixed wing tankers and clearing the space around them.
I’m getting pretty brain-dead at this point, but tomorrow I’ll go look.
I do find myself wondering about the cost-effectiveness of the whole Fire Aviation thing. I’m hoping maybe the fact that those video cameras were set down that afternoon to do Air Study means something.
There is actually, I think, a TON of stuff to be learned from this fire, including the effectiveness of Fire Aviation. Where, and under what conditions, did it really help, and where did it not, and at what cost.
The problem is, as I have sensed all along, and even more so when I spent some hours today reading the Interagency Aerial Supervision Guide, they said over and over again how Aerial Support has to be integrated with overall Incident Command Strategy and Tactics.
And, as we know, since there was no actual “as-required” thought-out and written-out Plan for this day, there was nothing, strategically speaking, for Fire Aviation to tie into, other than various ad-hoc ongoing “let’s try this” tactics.
How do you effectively evaluate Aerial Fire-fighting on a fire in which there was no coherent over-all strategy/tactics in play in the first place?
So I’m not willing to dump the possible value of intelligent Fire Aviation, all things considered, but I do believe it’s time for a serious analysis of it, all things considered.
First, kudos to WTKTT and Marti, for digging into and getting the “that’s where we want it” conversation as analyzed as can possibly be done without some additional ‘outside’ input. I’m in agreement with Bob that, with all the chaos in the sky and on the ground that day, it would have been easy to mix-up that ‘recollection’ attributed to Marsh with another parties transmission.
The troubling part of the whole deal is that MANY people heard A/G radio traffic during the time in question, but we don’t have any of those ‘other’ recollections.
As has been stated before, A/G is one of the most listened-to channels on the fireground, as the most up-to-date reports on fire activity and other significant events usually comes across that channel in a prompt fashion. While earlier in the day people might have been only paying a cursory listen, later in the afternoon, with the fire getting ready to burn up an entire town, you can bet many, many people were glued to it (as evidenced by the background traffic videos).
On another note regarding possible takeaways, in my opinion two glaring ones seemingly related to BUDGET concerns are:
1) The states calling out a Type II Short Team (which was never even able to assemble all of it’s critical team members) for a fire that was already deemed a threat to a community.
2) The feds determination that they could save money by having less aircraft and personnel on fires by jamming two critical and busy functions inside of one aircraft (ASM). There may be times on slower, less active fires when that could be appropriate, but NEVER on Type I or Type II fires, and NEVER on Type III fires that are deemed to have a strong potential to rapidly escalate and threaten communties. Personally, I think the ASM ‘experiment’ should be ended and the duties returned to the Air Attack and Lead planes, but hey, that’s just me.
>> TTWARE said…
>> First, kudos to WTKTT and Marti, for digging into and getting
>> the “that’s where we want it” conversation as analyzed as can
>> possibly be done without some additional ‘outside’ input.
Two quick things here…
1) calvin is the one that has been focused like a laser-beam on this 1637 transmission from day one. It has deserved more focus and attention for quite some time… and deserves even MORE. It is ( and will remain ) IMPORTANT to know whether this ‘fact’ being reported by Arizona Forestry ever actually happened at all… and if it did… what the FULL story is on it.
2) I’m looking at some other things in the public evidence record that might shed a little more light on this… so I wouldn’t say that nothing more can be learned *without* some new interviews.
It is, in fact, still perfectly possible there is *GOING* to be ANOTHER official Yarnell Hill Investigation sometime soon.
At this point ( and with everything even WE have proved is totally WRONG with the original SAIT work )… I would think the right thing for Arizona Forestry to do at this point is just admit their mistakes and do it all over again… but THIS time try to get it RIGHT.
The families deserve nothing less ( and have, indeed, been ASKING for a better investigation since day one ).
Indeed… a ‘proper investigation’ is even one of the ‘stipulated’ action items in most of the wrongful death claims… which means that even if ALL the parties involved try to ‘settle out of court’…. the settlement(s) themselves might still REQUIRE a new ( proper ) investigation be done.
>> TTWARE also said…
>> I’m in agreement with Bob that, with all the chaos in the
>> sky and on the ground that day, it would have been easy to
>> mix-up that ‘recollection’ attributed to Marsh with another
>> parties transmission.
It actually could have been a COMPLETE walk-over.
Bravo 33 has already testified that because of the piss-poor handoff from Rory Collins… they basically had NO IDEA who was even ‘working the fire’ down there underneath them… and they also freely admit they had NO IDEA what anyone’s VOICES sounded like as they got all this dumped onto them. They didn’t even know what Field OPS1 Todd Abel’s voice sounded like as they suddenly started doing this Lead Plane / Air Attack double-duty.
So it is ACTUALLY possible that Marsh might have hit ‘transmit’ on the A2G channel… and only got the words “Bravo 33, Division A” out before SOMEONE ELSE totally walked all over him and then said something like “That’s exactly what we want”.
Maybe Marsh WAS trying to ‘say something’ to Bravo 33 at that point… but got totally ‘walked on’ and Burfiend just thought all that was coming from the same person ( since they admit they had
no idea who anyone was down there or what their voices
sounded like ).
Don’t forget that we NOW know that by the time Steed made his FIRST MAYDAY call… that call is NOT ‘filled with over-modulation’
as the SAIR reported. Steed is ACTUALLY YELLING into his microphone at the top of his voice and its because there are ACTUALLY at least two chainsaws running right next to him already. He was YELLING as much to hear himself as to make sure Bravo 33 could hear him over the saw noise right next to him.
That means that they DID realize the trouble they were in some span of time BEFORE Steed’s first MAYDAY. They had ALREADY decided to deploy BEFORE Steed’s first MAYDAY… and had (apparently) ALREADY found the deployment site, pulled the ropes on the saws, and gotten to work.
It could very well be that whatever Marsh was trying to say to Bravo 33 when he then got ‘walked on’ was either related to them suddenly realizing the trouble they were in ( as early as 1637? )… OR it was simply Marsh getting walked on at 1637 but not having the time to RETRY because it was suddenly time to help find the deployment site or just simply ‘run forward’ to catch the men.
All guesswork… but it’s possible.
My feeling is that there were no CALL SIGNS involved here at
all regarding what Burfiend was ‘recalling’.
I believe that Burfiend is just simply MISTAKEN about it being
DIVSA Marsh saying anything ( at any time ) about “That’s exactly what we want”. It was probably someone else who had a VHF radio with them there in Yarnell and they were ‘confirming’ the ‘goodness’ of the 1633 SEAT drop that had just taken place within sight of the Ranch House Restaurant.
>> TTWARE also said…
>> The troubling part of the whole deal is that MANY people heard
>> A/G radio traffic during the time in question, but we don’t have
>> any of those ‘other’ recollections.
Correct. Even the SAIT should have realized this alone was reason to re-interview Burfiend and try to CONFIRM what he reported.
Not only did the SAIT *NOT* do that…. they took as ‘gospel’ Burfiend’s recollection(s)… and even totally trusted his ‘guess’
that it was ‘5 minutes later when they deployed’… so they just
subtracted 5 minutes from 1642 and put a timestamp of 1637
on Burfiend’s “That’s what we want” recollection…
…and they went ‘out the door’ with it
The SAIT just published it as FACT, and even called this
non-verified reported transmission the ‘official’ end of their own
self-imposed ‘non-verifiable communications’ blackout.
Go figure.
>> TTWARE also said…
>>
>> As has been stated before, A/G is one of the most listened-to
>> channels on the fireground, as the most up-to-date reports on
>> fire activity and other significant events usually comes across
>> that channel in a prompt fashion. While earlier in the day people
>> might have been only paying a cursory listen, later in the
>> afternoon, with the fire getting ready to burn up an entire town,
>> you can bet many, many people were glued to it (as evidenced
>> by the background traffic videos).
Totally agree. If there was EVER a time for anyone with a cheap
UHF handheld ( capable of listening to Air-To-Ground UHF ) to be
monitoring that channel for transmissions… it was circa 4 to 5 PM in Yarnell.
Everybody WAS… but only ONE guy up in an airplane who admits he had no idea who was even on the ground or what they sounded like is the one reporting a ‘crucial’ transmission?
It doesn’t ‘add up’.
>> TTWARE also said…
>>
>> On another note regarding possible takeaways, in my opinion
>> two glaring ones seemingly related to BUDGET concerns are:
>>
>> 1) The states calling out a Type II Short Team (which was
>> never even able to assemble all of it’s critical team members)
>> for a fire that was already deemed a threat to a community.
>>
>> 2) The feds determination that they could save money by
>> having less aircraft and personnel on fires by jamming two
>> critical and busy functions inside of one aircraft (ASM). There
>> may be times on slower, less active fires when that could be
>> appropriate, but NEVER on Type I or Type II fires, and NEVER
>> on Type III fires that are deemed to have a strong potential to
>> rapidly escalate and threaten communties. Personally, I think
>> the ASM ‘experiment’ should be ended and the duties returned
>> to the Air Attack and Lead planes, but hey, that’s just me.
Not sure myself about necessary/needed changes to the whole Air Support thing… but with regards to BUDGET…
If ICT4 Russ Shumate had only just spent the money on Saturday for day-long chopper support and bucket drops… that thing would have been dead-as-a-doornail before 4:00 PM on Saturday.
If ‘Arizona Forestry’ just adds up what the cost for that chopper support on Saturday would have been and THEN compares it to
the *other* costs that resulted by NOT spending that money
on Saturday…
…well… you don’t need a whole lot of batteries in your calculator to realize what a ‘budget buster’ that mistake was.
If the whole Yarnell Incident ( and the loss of 19 good men ) isn’t enough to teach Arizona Forestry ( and SWCC ) that using the ‘IA with overwhelming force’ approach isn’t ( ultimately ) the most cost-effective way to fight wildland fires in that region…
The (supposed) “That’s what we want” transmission came over the UHF Air-To-Ground channel and NOT the VHF Air-To-Air channel.
Nobody needed an expensive VHF piece of kit to have been the one making that call to Burfiend in B33 on A2G.
It could have been ANYONE on the ground in Yarnell who saw that 1633 SEAT drop and might have been trying to confirm the ‘goodness’ of it.
So that one paragraph above SHOULD have read…
“It was probably someone else who had a UHF radio with them there in Yarnell and they were just ‘confirming’ ( over the A2G channel ) the ‘goodness’ of the 1633 SEAT drop that had just taken place within sight of the Ranch House Restaurant.”
So……I’ve been watching and listening to the Air Study 30130630_1628_EP.MOV video three times through. Since I mistakenly downloaded it, instead of the next one that I’m now downloading. I figured I might as well, since it would help me see and hear what was going on. Quite interesting.
This one includes the impressive 4:16-4:18 two-minute VLAT 911 split-drop. Quite interesting and quite educational to watch/hear. Most of it features Tom French as Bravo 33 Lead Plane , leading, instructing the other pilots of both air tankers and helicopters, checking things out, communicating with media planes, really polite, respectful, supportive, calm and cool. Totally impressive all things considered. This video spans from about 1558 til 1628. Forty minutes. I highly recommend watching it. I don’t have the link for it at the moment, unfortunately. But you can find it. Just go to WTKTT’s link for the Air Study video he posts above, and download/watch the 1628 video instead!
What really strikes me is the truly calm, professional, supportive, positive, specific, clear communications happening all around. No sign of stress, pressure, conflict, frustration, anything negative at all. You really get a sense that everybody actually enjoys what they’re doing.
This also includes the communication between Rory Collins, as Air Attack, as he leaves the fire to head to Deer Valley, because his pilot has run out of fly-time, and his, I would say, disappointment that he still hasn’t been able to secure his relif pilot, who is grounded at Stafford because, I would guess, of the same weather that was grounding other planes all around.
I hate to say this, because I have a beef with Rory Collins, but over the course of about fifteen minutes during this, on again off again, he did have something of a leisurely conversation with Tom French. And, as Tom French says towards the end of it, (re Burfiend who would become Air Attack) “my right-seater’s been copying everything.”
Collins told him quite a bit of stuff, about the weather, about IC, about go ahead and finish what you’re doing and then get over to the other side of the fire with the DC 10’s, about Div A being the ground contact ( I guess not forecasting that Div A was about to head out to the bleak unknown, which, to be fair, he didn’t know at that time). He asked for questions, concerns, and French back-and-forthed with him, and didn’t sound the least like this was weird or strange or hectic or insufficient in any way. He sounded confident that they were completely ready to assume the responsibility they were being handed.
And then he kept on doing what he was doing. Being Bravo33 (which is pronounced Bravo Three Three) Lead Plane. Calm and confident and positive in the midst of what we perceive as being chaos.
Marti
I am confident after every thing I have been reading that you guys have found, that the statement.
That’s where we want it,– is from OPS or a ground person
with the structure protection group in the area of the drop, and has absolutely nothing to do with March.
It has never made science that Marsh would have popped out of no where with that statement.
Based on experience call it a educated guess it was not Marsh. People near the drop site would be much more plausible. They were trying to save structures at that point and that is what they were focused on.
Yes, I’m thinking more and more in line with you (see my comment below in response to yours). I’m still wondering how it could have been that this call from someone (who decreasingly looks like it would have been Marsh) (and I’m trusting Burfiend who says he heard it) wouldn’t have been heard on the AirToGround channel that A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE heard at the time, including the crew doing that “Last MInutes” video. That’s what stumps me.
Is there possibly some other channel that Air Attack Burfiend could have been interacting with that could have signaled to him, at 4:37-4:39-ish, as they were circle-ing then flying a test flight “west to east over the bowl” that “that’s exactly what we want”?
Marti… not only am I not sure we can really
trust either Burfiend’s or French’s statements
in the SAIT investigations notes about the
“that’s what we want” statement… I think
their recollection in *general* is kinda wonky.
For example…
Here is the exact ‘infamous’ paragraph from
their SAIT interview that has that one and
only reference in the *entire* evidence
record in it about “that’s what we want”…
…but look at the REST of the paragraph
that precedes that ‘recollection’.
It’s all pretty ‘skewed’ unto itself regarding
what ELSE they ‘think’ they heard from
Marsh… and WHEN…
TIME NOW = 1630
:: We needed to go back to the right flank
:: ( 1630 AZ time ).
:: Made 3 practice runs. Painted 2.
:: We came around.
TIME NOW = However long it take to make
‘3 practices runs’ and then ‘come around’.
Let’s call that FIVE minutes, at least.
TIME NOW = 1635
:: Got a call from Division A stating they
:: were going down their escape
:: route to the safety zone.
WTF? At 1635? Not a chance.
:: Didn’t know Division A was the
:: superintendent of the Granite Mountain
:: hot shots. Asked him “is everything OK?”
:: He replied “everything is ok, just heading
:: to the safety zone”.
Again… WTF?? Not possible ( at 1635 ).
There ARE video captures that cover this
timeframe AND were capturing the A2G
radio channel and there are no such
transmissions recorded.
:: We came around,
:: made a practice run through the bowl,
:: west to east.
TIME NOW = ??
We really have no idea. Their testimony
above about hearing from Marsh at ‘this
time’ already proves the SAIT notes are
out in left field already… so there is no
telling WHEN this ‘practice run’ they are
now referring to happened… if it even
happened at all.
:: I was talking to Tom
:: about the rising terrain on exit.
:: Division A clad and said “that is what
:: we are looking for, that is exactly right”.
:: Within 5 minutes of that, they went in
:: shelter.
So this LAST STATEMENT about them ‘going into shelter’ within 5 minutes of the “that is what we are looking for” transmission
( according to their recollection ) MUST be
what the SAIT used to actually come up with the 1637 timestamp for Marsh’s (supposed)
transmission.
French and Burfiend had no frickin’ idea what
time it *really* might have been… but
somehow they also seemed to be SURE
that ‘within 5 minutes’ is when Eric
announced they were ‘deploying’.
So the SAIT just took their ‘recollection’ about
the previous transmission from Marsh being
‘within 5 minutes’… and then they just
counted BACKWARDS from 1642… when
the Helmet Cam captured Marsh’s final
statement(s).
1642 minus 5 minutes = 1637
Voila!… The SAIT was now SURE that 1637
is when Marsh MUST have said “That is what
we are looking for”… and they frickin’ PUBLISHED that in the SAIR as if it was fact.
They were taking these ‘unverified’ random recollections of French / Burfiend as ‘gospel truth’… even though ( as shown above ) they were completely mis-remembering Marsh’s OTHER statements ( on A2G channel ) about
‘going down their escape route’.
So the SAIT didn’t question the FIRST half of
even that one section ( paragraph ) of their
interview ( which is obviously an inaccurate
recollection ) but then the SAIT took the
SECOND half as ‘gospel truth’… and
PUBLISHED the ‘statements’ as FACT…
even though NO ONE ELSE was reporting
that transmission from Marsh on the *VERY*
popular A2G radio channel.
Go figure.
As I have said before… something about
Marsh ‘asking’ for retardant must have
seemed *really* attractive to THEIR ‘version
of events’ and fit nicely with THEIR ‘agenda’
in order for them to not have either
questioned this one statement from them
*OR* made sure it fit the criteria of ‘verified
transmission’ which they seemed to be so picky about for the previous 30+ ‘blackout’
minutes.
Bob:
Do you think this is important, all things considered?
To be honest, I’m less and less thinking it is, all things considered. To be honest, I’m kind of hanging onto it because the SAIT made a big deal of it, using Burfiend, who I really respect, and his narrative of it to further their own narrative, in what I agree with WTKTT to be a really irresponsible manner.
Do you think it’s really all that important, in the general scheme of things on this totally mismanaged fire, that Burfiend says he heard, while they were flying a “show me,” someone tell him (and possibly mistakenly thinking it was Div A Eric Marsh) that ‘this is exactly where we want that” ?
Or is it time for all of us to just admit we can’t figure this out, all things considered, and move on?
I really respect your hard-won experience-based sense of what is truly important in wildland fire-fighting.
I would say with out other identified radio traffic its a guess as to who made the statement. Maybe an assumption after the fact by Burfiend that he recollects something
during a show me run. What is very strange is there was no prior conversation asking for a drop by March. It would be un conceivable for Marsh to think his discussion with OPS about we’ll get a drop down there would have any thing to do with a 30 min. later statement. Where is location and discussion of need?
The only thing this adds to is some how thinking Marsh asked for a drop to save the crew and no one was listening. Which I think is BS. It could have been any one with an Air to Air Freq. on the ground. Thought they said DIV. A. It dose not make science that Marsh would have jumped in and said that with all the smoke at that time he could not have seen air craft and gave no other direction prior.
With out verifiable evidence it will just hang hot there as something to talk about– Had the air tanker dropped where DIV A ask they would have been saved,–Wishful thinking. Where they were dropping had no connection to where Marsh was. I am still of the belief it was not Marsh, I am still betting on the Structure Group. Air to Air would have a very limited number of people on it. That same statement could have been used several times during the day by ?????
Also if it was air to air Marsh would not have had that on his hand held radio. Only air to ground.
Any air to air radios would have been in Vehicles like City or county Engines or Supervisors trucks. If I am not mistaken Air is on a totally different Ban than the Fire freq. Bans. High Ban and Low Ban you cannot run them both on the same radio. Air to ground is in the same ban area as crewnet, and the other fire freq. Another little added info on air attack. 2 different radios in air craft to talk to air and ground.
A air tanker would have Air to air, if they IA a fire some one on the ground would have air to air to talk to them till Air Attack arrived. Clear as mud again ….
Reply to Marti Reed post on May 9, 2014 at 5:20 pm
>> Marti wrote…
>> What really strikes me is the truly calm, professional,
>> supportive, positive, specific, clear communications
>> happening all around. No sign of stress, pressure, conflict,
>> frustration, anything negative at all.
Yes. Right down to Burfiend doing the ‘slash across his throat’
gesture as soon as he knew 19 good men were deploying.
Very positive. Very professional.
>> You really get a sense that everybody actually enjoys
>> what they’re doing.
Yes. Flying airplanes is FUN!
>> This also includes the communication between Rory Collins,
>> as Air Attack. He asked for questions, concerns, and French
>> back-and-forthed with him, and didn’t sound the least like this
>> was weird or strange or hectic or insufficient in any way. He
>> sounded confident that they were completely ready to assume
>> the responsibility they were being handed.
Yes. It all sounds very ‘nicey-nicey’ and polite, doesn’t it?
You would hardly be able to tell that just a few hours earlier,
Collins was dumping retardant all over a Division Supervisor’s
plan of action and not giving a shit whether he liked it or not…
…or that while he was ‘Air Attack’… a helicopter almost crashed
straight into a DC10 and the resulting explosion would have lit
that middle bowl up like a Christmas tree long before wind
change…
…or that while he was ‘Air Attack’… numerous people on the
fire commented how ‘disorganized’ the helicopters were that
day and seemed ‘totally unsupervised’ and ‘doing whatever the
hell they wanted’… to the point where Blue Ridge Hotshots would
later say that the ‘split’ in the fireline was actually caused by
this ‘unsupervised’ helicopter activity that day.
…or that he only gave them 10 minutes notice about having
to leave the fire… and then left Bravo 33 with a laundry list of
‘cluelessness’ that they would then recount to SAIT investigators…
…or that this same guy, following the incident, would refuse to
return phone calls and make it almost impossible for anyone
to interview him.
Sorry, Marti.
Yes… I agree that these guys know how to talk on the radio and
‘get a job done’… but I’m not ready to give any of them the glowing
‘points’ you are granting.
In MANY ways… ( from Friday night through Sunday )… the AIR
operations at Yarnell left a LOT to be desired.
I actually, truly hope the overall ‘picture’ that has emerged
from the Yarnell Hill Fire regarding this ‘Air Support’ stuff ( and the
interaction with ground forces ) is not NORMAL or ‘business as
usual’.
WTKTT… The slash across the throat sign has always bothered me. How could he be so certain that they were dead? Really, how?? How did he know they were dead when he didn’t even know where they were??
calvin… the SAIT interview notes with Bravo 33 are an absolute MESS… but if you read them *very* carefully it would appear that John Burfiend ( who was the right-seat guy, not flying the airplane, and the one who was monitoring Air-To-Ground channel ) did his ‘slash across his throat’ gesture just AFTER Marsh’s final transmission when Marsh ‘affirmed’ that they were on the ‘SOUTH side of the fire’.
Even if they couldn’t see them… I think Burfiend could tell looking downward at that moment that anyone deploying on the SOUTH side of that exploding fireline was a goner. Hence… ‘slash across the throat’ gesture over to Thomas French.
Here is the exact ‘context’ of that testimony from
Thomas French in the SAIT interview notes.
It seems to confirm that Burfiend’s ‘slash across
his throat’ gesture to French did, in fact, come
right after Marsh’s *final* transmission…
_________________________________________
We were right here (pointed at map) when Granite Mountain 7 called screaming in the radio. Ops said “are you getting this? I told Granite Mountain 7 “you need to calm down. I can’t understand you”. Immediately Division A called and said “we are starting a burn out, we are getting in our shelters. I said we got pople in trouble. Tanker called and said I got you in sight. I claimed out – the DC10 swung wide. I looked at John and he did this (slash across the throat). I told Kevin to stand by copy, taking it around. We have a crew in trouble. We are going to go look.
__________________________________________
Let me also say that while I have always found this ‘slash across the throat’ gesture from Burfiend to be quite ‘uncalled for’… I do *NOT* believe for one second that this obvious assumption on his part that they were ‘goners’, even at that point in time, had *ANY* effect on him then proceeding to do his job.
I can also criticize them ( and, indeed, the WFF radio protocols themselves for apparently NOT having a good, established MAYDAY protocol ) for NOT taking the transmissions from Steed and Caldwell seriously for more than TWO MINUTES… but that still doesn’t mean I think they didn’t do all they possibly could to try and save those men that day… when they finally did realize this was a REAL emergency.
As soon as OPS1 Todd Abel contacted French and Burfiend and *TOLD* them to get their heads out of their asses and RESPOND to these men… they did.
And once they did ( finally stop ignoring them )… they obviously kicked into their own highly-rehearsed and professional procedures for such a situation.
I also happen to believe that if there had been *ANY* indication in the next few moments of where they REALLY were ( such as… if Marsh had only taken
2 seconds to tell them… “we are 600 yards due WEST of Boulder Springs Ranch” )…
…I believe Thomas French in B33 and Kevin in the DC10 VLAT would have actually attempted a retardant drop… at GREAT risk to their own lives.
To have flown the jet-engine DC10 through that thick smoke-ass cloud would have been absolute suicide for Kevin… so I don’t think THAT would have happened… but if there was ANY way to get at their location ( if they knew where it was ) OTHER than flying blindly directly THROUGH the smoke/ash cloud…
I think they would have tried it.
For the rest of my life… I will always wonder WHY, when Marsh was directly asked by Burfiend…. “So, you’re on the south side of the fire, then?”…
…all Eric Marsh said was… “Affirm”.
Obtuse communications. Right to the end.
If he had just added ANY amount of OTHER information… they at least *MIGHT* have been able to KNOW or GOOD-GUESS their exact location.
He didn’t… and I will ALWAYS wonder WHY he
didn’t take that one last chance to identify their
exact location.
**
** DID DIVSA ERIC MARSH REALLY CALL BRAVO 33
** AT 1637 ABOUT ‘RETARDANT’?
Reply to calvin post on May 8, 2014 at 2:34 am
>> calvin said…
>> I am not sure exactly where Marsh was when he called Bravo33 and said
>> that is exactly where we want the retardant.
calvin… see below. I am personally ( and honestly ) still not convinced this
1637 radio ‘callout’ from Marsh actually took place… or ( if it did ) that it really
was Eric Marsh that said anything of the sort.
>> But if he was walking downslope toward the canyon floor, I do not think he
>> would have been able to see the flight path.
Assuming this transmission DID take place just as the SAIR reported…
It’s really not possible. He might have been able to HEAR some planes flying
over there on the other side of that smoke column… but it’s really not
credible that he could have SEEN them, at that point. It was almost
‘dark as night’ at that point, as well ( as the Glen Ilah resident video proves ).
>> Because of the short period of time between that call out and the call
>> announcing the entrapment, we know he HAD to be close.
Yes. If it happened at all… and at the TIME it supposedly happened… then
Marsh had to be VERY close to the rest of the men. No question.
>> There is a small mound between the entrapment/ deployment site and BSR
>> that is just north of the dozered road (created to remove GM’s bodies).
>> I think it is possible he was on that mound where he would have had
>> more visibility.
Perhaps… and I know exactly the ‘mound’ you are referring to… but that would create the UNBELIEVABLE scenario that Marsh could see exactly what was happening with the fire out ahead of the men still over in the canyon… and he still let them walk right into a deathtrap, anyway.
There are a LOT of ‘unbelievable’ moments that happened that weekend… ( too many ) but I really can’t get my head around THIS possibility ( that Marsh really might have been ‘out ahead of them’ and in a good ‘forward lookout’ position up on that mound… but he let them all die anyway rather than ‘abort the mission’ ).
>> calvin also wrote…
>> I do not believe the GMH were only counting on their speed to outrun
>> the fire. I do believe they were expecting retardant to be dropped on the
>> south side of the fire. But as far as I can tell (from post burn pictures),
>> that never happened.
I hear ya… but ‘as far as I can tell’… there is still the distinct possibility that this “That’s where we want retardant” transmission from DIVSA Eric Marsh never really happened at all… or that it wasn’t actually Eric that said it.
Stick with me for a moment while I try to ‘document my confusion’ about
this (supposed) callout from Marsh to Bravo 33.
This Air Study video actually covers the 1637 timerame…
This video is only recording the Air-To-Air channel but it does provide a CLEAR accounting of *EXACTLY* what Air Attack was doing from 1630 and right up through the deployment ( and beyond ).
There really is nothing in these captured Air Attack conversations that even remotely backs up what the SAIR says was happening at 1637… much less
Marsh making any “that’s where we want retardant” call(s).
Hence my ‘confusion’.
Air Attack ( Bravo 33 ) had the VLAT DC10 910 ( Pilot Kevin ) in a HOLDING
pattern a full SEVEN MILES OUT from the fire and didn’t even ASK Kevin
to start to ‘come into the area’ until 14 seconds before 1637. It took almost
another 2 minutes for the VLAT to even get close to the fire and only then
BEGIN talking to Air Attack about a ‘show me’ run on the EAST side of
the fire… and even this initial conversation about a possible ‘show me’ run
with Air Attack didn’t start until just 24 seconds prior to Steeds first MAYDAY.
The FULL 12 minute and 22 second transcript of this video has already
been posted down below in this ‘Chapter 6’. The following is just a
SUMMARY of that full transcript describing (generally) what Air Attack
was actually DOING during this timeframe…
** USDA AIR STUDY – DISC 4 VIDEO STARTS AT 1630.48 ( 4:30.48 PM )
NOTE: When the video STARTS… we hear Air Attack (B33) actively lining up
a REAL drop ( not a practice run ) with a SEAT from NORTH to SOUTH on
the EAST side of the fire… down near Yarnell. At this point… Air Attack has
the DC10 VLAT 910 ( Pilot Kevin ) in a ‘holding pattern’ SEVEN MILES OUT
and away from the fire… and isn’t even STARTING to deal with him yet.
( 1631.36 4:31.36 PM ) – AA tells SEAT to follow him for DROP.
( 1633.20 4:33.20 PM ) – SEAT drop takes place.
( 1633.24 4:33.24 PM ) – SEAT says “Off the drop now”.
( 1633.26 4:33.26 PM ) – AA tells SEAT to ‘load and return’.
( 1634.11 4:34.11 PM ) – AA tells 910 to set level 4 drop but to still HOLD.
( 1634.12 4:34.12 PM ) – AA tells 910 he’ll get back to him.
( 1634.40 4:34.40 PM ) – AA tells SEAT Wickenburg is out of retardant.
( 1634.42 4:34.42 PM ) – SEAT tells AA he’ll try ‘private club’ for retardant.
( 1635.37 4:35.37 PM ) – Chopper 5Q Alpha reports needing to refuel.
( 1636.10 4:36.10 PM ) – DOZER AND TRANSPORT go by camera.
( 1636.25 4:36.25 PM ) – Chopper 5QA reports landing at Helibase.
( 1636.27 4:36.27 PM ) – AA tells 5QA to let him know when he’s back.
( 1636.46 4:36.46 PM ) – AA only now tells VLAT 910 to ‘come on in’ to the area.
( 1637.05 4:37.05 PM ) – AA tells VLAT 910 target will be flames on EAST side.
( 1638.12 4:38.12 PM ) – Chopper 5QA departs to Wickenburg.
( 1638.15 4:38.15 PM ) – AA asks 5QA to depart on WEST side of fire.
( 1638.42 4:38.42 PM ) – VLAT 910 only now reports ‘approaching area’.
( 1639.03 4:39.03 PM ) – AA only now starts talking to 910 about ‘show me’
( 1639.27 4:39.27 PM ) – Captain Jesse Steed’s first MAYDAY.
( 1639.47 4:39.47 PM ) – Prescott Air Operations (PAO) heard MAYDAY.
( 1639.48 4:39.48 PM ) – PAO tells AA ‘get with OPS… something wrong’.
( 1639.53 4:39.53 PM ) – AA ignores OPS. Sticks with 901 ‘show me’ talk.
( 1641.18 4:41.18 PM ) – AA only now realizes something is happening.
( 1641.20 4:41.20 PM ) – AA tells VLAT 910 ‘folks in trouble… just standby’.
( 1641.25 4:41.25 PM ) – VLAT 910 copies… tells AA he’ll stage out northeast.
( 1641.31 4:41.31 PM ) – AA tells VLAT 910 looks like ‘deployment in progress’.
( 1641.33 4:41.33 PM ) – AA asks VLAT 910 for coverage lvl 6 and to ‘standby’.
( 1641.39 4:41.39 PM ) – VLAT 910 copies… says he’ll watch AA and standby.
( 1643.33 4:43.33 PM ) – USDA AIR STUDY – DISC 4 VIDEO ENDS
So ( from what I can tell ?? )… there is NOTHING there that supports what the
SAIR has reported about Marsh ‘seeing a VLAT drop lineup’ fly OVER him
at 1637 and making ANY kind of radio call like “That’s where we want retardant”.
Unless it’s the SEAT drop at 1633 that the SAIR was talking about ( which DID
actually take place and so the time of 1637 is totally wrong )… but even that was
a SOUTH to NORTH lineup on the EAST side of the fire and never ‘flew over
Marsh’ at all.
The most IMPORTANT thing to remember here is that this one single ‘transmission’ from Marsh is based on just ONE SINGLE person’s recollection,
was NOT captured in any background recordings, and it has not been ‘verified’
by ANYONE else ( even though it supposedly happened on the *very* popular
and well-listened-to Air-To-Ground channel ).
From page 15 of the SAIT Yarnell Investigation Notes ( YIN )…
**************************************************************************************
INTERVIEW WITH BRAVO 33
Interviewees: Bravo 33
John Burfiend-ATS Specialist
Clint Clauson – ATS Trainee
Thomas French – AT Specialist
Interviewers: Mike Dudley, Brad Mayhew, Tim Foley, Jay Kurth, Jimmy Rocha
We needed to go back to the right flank ( 1630 AZ time ).
Made 3 practice runs. Painted 2. We came around.
Got a call from Division A stating they were going down their escape
route to the safety zone. Didn’t know Division A was the superintendent
of the Granite Mountain hot shots. Asked him “is everything OK?” He
replied “everything is ok, just heading to the safety zone”. We came around,
made a practice run through the bowl, west to east. I was talking to Tom
about the rising terrain on exit. Division A clad and said “that is what we are
looking for, that is exactly right”. Within 5 minutes of that, they went in shelter.
************************************************************************************
So there it is.
That is the ONLY reference to this (supposed) transmission by (supposedly)
DIVSA Eric Marsh in the ENTIRE evidence record… and there isn’t even any
specific TIME reported for it at all.
Here are the things to ‘consider’ about this ‘testimony’.
1) This is the ONLY place this transmission from (supposedly) DIVSA
Eric Marsh is EVER mentioned… even though it (supposedly) took place
on the well-listened-to Air-To-Ground channel. TWO completely separate
investigations interviewing MANY people who were constantly monitoring
that Air-To-Ground channel all day… and this quick blurb in the SAIT
investigator’s notes recounting just ONE person’s recollection is still the
ONLY mention of this (supposed) transmission.
2) There is NOTHING (recorded in the SAIT notes) about this (supposed)
transmission taking place at 1637, as published in the SAIR. Zero. Zip. Nada.
It is still a complete mystery how the SAIT actually ‘assigned’ a time of 1637
to this (supposed) transmission from Eric Marsh to B33 on the Air-To-Ground
channel. Bravo 33 was even not really ‘sure’ about any of the actual times…
so how did the SAIT come up with 1637 for this (supposed) transmission?
3) The interview notes DO say that Bravo 33 reports this as ‘Division A called’…
but they also do NOT specifically say whether Bravo 33 ALSO said there were
actual CALL SIGNS involved with this transmission such as “Bravo 33, Division
Alpha’. Other notes from the Bravo 33 interview establish that they were not only
‘unfamiliar’ with who was even working the fire ( because of the piss-poor handoff
from ATGS / ASM1 / Rory Collins )… they were also not familiar with anyone’s
VOICES yet. Bravo 33 specifically says they had no idea what OPS1 Todd Abel
sounded like yet… so UNLESS there were specific CALL SIGNS involved on this
transmission from Marsh it is doubtful they would have been able to tell it was
DIVSA Marsh just from the voice. It is still POSSIBLE that this transmission came
from ‘someone else’ at that time and Bravo 33 is simply mistaken that it was
actually ‘Division A’ ( Marsh ).
4) This one single ‘supposed’ transmission from Marsh played a critical
role in the published SAIR document since they are using this one single
transmission as the defacto END of the (supposed) ‘blackout period’ where
they say they had ‘no direct verifiable transmissions’ from either Marsh
or Granite Mountain… yet it (actually) remains one of the most ‘unverified’
transmissions on record that day.
It is ONLY being ‘recalled’ by one single source ( ONE person ) and even
though others SHOULD have heard this transmission over the well-listened-to
Air-To-Ground channel… NO ONE ELSE in ANY interview or testimony spanning
TWO separate investigations recalls hearing it at all.
I still think it is ‘suspicious’ that the SAIT gave absolute ‘verified transmission’
status to this one (supposed) unrecorded radio callout from Marsh with only
ONE person seeming to ‘recall’ it ( when many others SHOULD have also
heard it… but apparently did NOT ).
There are still MANY other ‘transmissions’ that were actually captured in videos
and in audio tracks that the SAIT chose to call ‘not verifiable’, yet they chose
THIS (unrecorded) moment as so ‘verifiable’ that it ‘officially’ represents the
END of the (supposed) ‘blackout’.
It still almost seems like they were going to great lengths to make sure
this one (supposed) statement about a ‘retardant drop’ made it into the
‘official narrative’ and the ‘official public report’.. regardless of how thin
its ‘verifiableness’ really was.
We can OBVIOUSLY hear ( with our own ears in the Air Study video ) that ‘Air
Attack’ himself NEVER got this transmission at all.
So the ONLY possibility is that the other guy in the plane who was listening to
any ‘Air to Ground’ traffic was the ONLY one who actually heard this.
I am not saying he is WRONG or ‘imagining things’… but our ability to actually
VERIFY this ( as to caller ID and TIME, and what was actually said ) is seriously
non-existent.
I just wish there was an equivalent ADOSH interview transcript with Bravo 33
( French and Burfiend ) to ‘compare’ the SAIT (YIN) notes to and be SURE that
this ONE person’s recollection isn’t flawed, or that he simply was mistaken
about WHO was ‘calling that in’ to him.
There isn’t ( an equivalent ADOSH or other ‘independent’ interview with B33
French/Burfiend ).
At the 23 second mark of the 1637 Panebaker video there is a background transmission that I cannot make out. This video is only 39 seconds long and would put the 23 second mark near 1637. If you do not mind reviewing, I would appreciate it.
Otherwise, I hear you. I also want to know how the SAIT came up with this “quote.”
How does the 4490 red video that was taken around deployment time fit into all of this?
I know the +23 transmission in the 163700 Panebaker video that you speak of. I checked my Air Study notes and what I have for that is someone simply saying something about a “horse in the road” that they need to “take care of”.
I will re-listen to this 39 second video and get back.
As for the 4490red video… I don’t know.
Makes about as much sense ( time-wise ) as the Tom Story photo showing a full VLAT DC10 dump at exactly the moment of Steed’s first MAYDAY ( which is also not supported by any other evidence for being at that time ).
It could be that the 1633 SEAT DROP ( which definitely happened and is captured in that video ) is what Marsh MAY have seen and was reacting to THAT.
The ‘recollection’ might simply be wrong about what they were doing when they heard the transmission. Maybe Marsh had seen the actualy 1633 drop and THAT is what he meant by “That’s where we want retardant”… and it wasn’t a response to any ‘line up’ flight at all.
I decided to walk away from that, because the pain of picking my way thru it was greater than desperation to figure it out….
However, now that I found your posting of the list of the drops, I’ve been thinking hmmmmm is it possible he’s photographing the 1706 T910 drop? Of course the problem with that is that at about the same time (I think?) he was photographing the Blue Ridge UTV leaving the Ranch House Parking Lot…..
I don’t have Lightroom open, so I’m not looking at the photos, just doing this off the top of my head…….
One with id 552301203 with a 70-200 mm f/2.8 L lens (major everybody’s favorite workhorse zoom lens), and another with id 720306928 with a 16-34 mm f/2.8 L lens for wide angle shots.
They both seem to be accurately time-stamped.
On the 1D Mark II id 401063, his most state-of-the-art camera, with which he shot the VLAT drop that I may be getting closer to time-stamping (he was so far off that I think maybe he hadn’t bothered to set the time, just the date–perhaps it was brand new??), he was using a 300 mm f/2.8 L lens. That’s a pretty big honkin’ lens. And heavy.
Marti… in folder ONE of Tom Story’s online photos ( the folder that does NOT have any Ranch House Restaurant photos )… he shot a LOT of ‘retardant drop’ sequences and they appear to have ALL been shot with this same ‘Canon EOS-1D Mark II N’ camera that was then later used for the (supposed) 1639 VLAT drop.
I suppose if we can just match ANY of these ‘drops’ that he photographed with THAT camera we will know if the that 1639 VLAT drop photo has an accurate timestamp or not.
I’m looking at it from this end as well. There is NO EVIDENCE that ANY VLAT drop took place ANYWHERE on that fire at 1639… when Tom Story’s photo seems to say it did.
I was hoping for just a 1 hour (incorrect) time zone setting… but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
I had downloaded a smattering of photos from both folders, but just kinda randomly. Just downloaded a bunch more, more strategically. Looks like he photographed three VLAT drops. Will look at them much more closely after Mothers Day Lunch!
I’m starting to think he set up that camera quickly, just setting the date, and not the time. Thus the stamp when first shot a frame on it would have been 00:00:00. I don’t know if I have the time to figure out what to synch on. But if I can pin one of those VLATs, it might be possible to nail it.
That being said, I’m currently thinking that drop might be the 1707ish one. I just don’t know where he took it from. I don’t know where that drop was, exactly. Do you? If it was visible from the RHR parking lot, he could have caught it w/that 300mm easily.
Plus, I’m not sure that folder just has the 1Ds. But I’ll examine them later today for sure!
Hah! I just found what looks like a tight sequence of the same event, using both a Mark D and the 1D! It’s the red and white helicopter picking up a bucket at the helispot and heading into the smoke…
The voice in the video is that of French, who is in the role of Lead Plane, not Air Attack. That’s why he is on Air-to-Air. He’s not listening to Air-to-Ground.
When you hear the voice/callout of Air Attack, on Air-to-Ground, that is Burfiend. He’s not listening to Air-to-Air.
The only way each one knows what’s going on on the other’s channel is via their communication with each other.
So the person telling the story of their recollection of the communication with Div A would have been Burfiend.
Other than that, yep, copy. So now that I’ve downloaded that video, I’ll go watch it.
They were obviously able to just ‘talk’ to each other in
the plane but each one was ONLY listening to the one
frequency, apparently.
Don’t forget that the 163338 Panebaker video actually
SHOWS the ‘real time’ SEAT drop that actually happens
in the other video detailed above.
They come in from the SOUTH ( lined up on that radio tower as the conversation says ) and they drop on the EAST side of the fire.
There is no ‘West to East’ flyover as described in the SAIR and there was no chance of it flying OVER Marsh… but that doesn’t mean he might not have ‘seen it’… and THIS 1633 SEAT drop is what he might have actually been referring to with his “That’s where we want retardant” message.
A public copy of this Air Study video is in Mr. Dougherty’s online Dropbox at…
LOL I’m still downloading the 20130630_1628_ER.MOV file that I’ve been downloading for the past hour and a half, having slowed it down exponentially by trying to watch a bunch of other videos at the same time…..
But as soon as it finally finishes, I’ll take a look at that one. I still haven’t actually been able to play anythng in any manner that lets me actually SEE what’s going on……
Also WTKTT and Marti
Bothe of the drops on the Video were to far out in front of the fire to do any good. The did not fly into the smoke to hit the flames.
Again it is hard to use air tankers at the front of a running fire. Smoke wind and no visibility reduce accuracy of drops. If GM was under the smoke they would not have seen them to make an accurate drop. Only in the movies. OLD SAYING— Never expect an air drop to save your ass, if they can’t see you they can’t hit you…
Looking back over the transcript of Bravo Lead Pilot talking to the VLAT 910 while they’re setting up for the drop.
I can’t tell if Bravo is actually flying a “show me” or they’re just circling. It kinda reads like Bravo is actually flying the show me, which would mean he would have been flying over the bowl.
What do you think?
And also I’m asking this of Bob Powers, who seems to be the one of us with the most experience of this stuff……
Yes very likely the fir was not that big to circle and make runs and keep all the plains apart would cover a lot of air space. circling the fire at different altitudes or even locations. as I said earlier the plains could have flown over Marsh and crew at any time
in a 8 mile square area. Setting up to make a run takes a lot of maneuvering. Dose that help?
“If you need more altitude let me know… you should be okay at sixty five, only other aircraft I’ve seen is a media ship at this time (at) niner-thousand five hundred.”
Right after the 1633 SEAT drop… it was ‘load and return’ time for that SEAT. French didn’t get back to Kevin ( DC10 ) right away because he had to take a moment to inform the now departing SEAT that Wickenburg was ‘out of retardant’. Departing SEAT says he will try a ‘private club’ in Wickenburg. French gives him permission to do that… and only then begins to turn his attention to Kevin… SEVEN miles out and ‘holding’.
As Kevin is ‘coming in’… French tells him “we’re pretty much alone on the fire now”.
So YES… the space was cleared out. The other DC10 was ‘on approach’ to Yarnell but still quite a ways out.
Except for the choppers, that is. They ( apparently ) just continued to do pretty much whatever they wanted to… just as they had been doing all day.
Marti… yes. Probably so. See my other post about the ‘plan’ apparently being to just try to get ‘in position’ to be in FRONT of Kevin ( DC10 910 ) as he came into the area from the SOUTH and be ready to just ‘angle in front of him’ for a quick ‘show me’ as soon as he entered the area.
This ‘jockeying for position’ while waiting for Kevin to arrive on the fire and ‘acquire a visual’ on them might be the ‘practice runs’ mentioned in the B33 YIN notes.
I think, now, after going over the transcripts, they did fly the show me, but it was exactly when Jesse made the mayday, bcuz the call from Prescott (who heard Jesse’s mayday) came right while Bravo was flying over the bowl west to east.
Chilling.
So, to get out of stun mode and back to analytical mode, if Eric made any call on air to ground about “that’s where we want it,” it had to have been about an earlier flight. So that would mean the actual SEAT drop.
It’s possible Eric is watching the Bravo Lead Plane and VLAT 910 circling around the bowl, which is what they were doing, before the show me, at 3:47, and that’s when he Air2Grounds “that’s it that’s where we want it.” And that’s what Burfiend would have heard.
Is that impossible?
I’m thinking out loud so thanks for your patience, every one…..
Marti… the way I read that transcript in the 1630 to 1643 timeframe… my take is that when French ( Lead Plane Duty ) finally turned his attention to Kevin ( VLAT DC10 910 ) circa 1636.46 ( just 14 seconds before 1637 )… and told him to ‘come on in’ from his ‘holding pattern’ SEVEN MILES away… and said “Have I got a project for you!”… what he wanted to have happen at that point was to be ‘in position’ to do a ‘show me’ for Kevin as soon as he ‘entered the area’.
So YES… there must have been a lot of ‘circling’ going on at that moment as he waited for Kevin to ‘come on in’ and get a VISUAL on him.
We can even hear the two of them struggling to ‘acquire’ that visual as Kevin brought the DC10 in. It isn’t until Kevin says “Okay… I see your beacon” that he actually DID ‘acquire that visual’.
But now we are just seconds BEFORE Steed’s first MAYDAY.
So I guess it is ‘possible’ that as French was ‘circling around’ in anticipation of getting in FRONT of Kevin as he came in from the SOUTH… French could have been
literally ‘all over the place’ down there.
Maybe he did circle WAAAY out over that middle bowl doing some kind of ‘practice run’ to get in front of Kevin as he came in from the SOUTH… and Marsh simply just ‘saw’ French ‘jockeying for position’ as Kevin approached…
…but that still doesn’t warrant Marsh’s (unsolicited) “That’s exactly what we want!” radio call.
That ‘circling around’ to get into position to lead Kevin on a SOUTH to NORTH ‘show me’ on the far EAST side of the fire as Kevin ‘arrived’ in the area would have had nothing to do with where they actually planned to drop any retardant.
So we’re supposed to believe Marsh just saw some small plane wildly circling around up in the air down there and somehow thought that was an indication of where retardant was going to be dropped?
Fer cryin’ out loud.
If Marsh really was all that concerned about ‘helping’ get retardant dropped somewhere… then why isn’t there MORE radio traffic to that effect where we at least hear Marsh trying to CONFIRM where they planned on dropping ANYTHING?
Do I still confused about all this?
You damn betcha.
Marti… I am on a ‘learning curve’ here with all this information myself… but that is simply what it SOUNDS like is happening from the transcript(s) of the audio conversations.
Yes… something about ‘west to east’ practice is runs is mentioned in SAIT interview notes… but I am focused more at the moment on what the AUDIO captures ACTUALLY tell us about what they were REALLY doing.
Even though the ‘show me’ is long past 1637 and just moments before Steed’s first MAYDAY… French has obviously started the ‘show me’ and is explaining what he wants to Kevin in the DC10… and he uses compass headings.
French says “…and my heading starting out was three six zero and ended up about three three five’.
Flying a ‘heading’ of ‘three six zero’ means you are flying DUE NORTH.
There is no ZERO compass heading in aviation. True north is always referred to by pilots as ‘three six zero’.
So flying a heading of ‘three six zero’ for the start of the drop and ending up with a heading of ‘three three five’ means flying a due SOUTH TO NORTH flight path and then banking a little to your LEFT and ending up with a heading of 335 degrees ( sorta north/northwest ).
There are OTHER clues in that transcript such as French specifically asking the chopper that is leaving the area to fly down the WEST side of the fire to stay ‘out of the way’.
Why would he be ASKING the chopper to exit the area to the WEST if that’s where he was planning on flying with Kevin?
I posted this video a few weeks ago. I don’t know if anybody watched it. It’s REALLY REALLY helpful, about the most helpful thing I’ve come across regarding how Air Attack actually works.
I think there’s a TON of CONFUSION in our discussion about Air Attack. And that’s NOT helping us figure things out or communicate accurately to whomever may be reading this.
In this really well made BLM National Incident Fire Center video, called “Firefighting Airspace (2012 Refresher),” Steve Price, Aerial Supervisor, BLM Boise District, clearly describes and illustrates how Air Attack works. Then, at 6:16, he clearly describes how the Aerial Supervision Module, i.e. BRAVO, works, and, then, how the communications system is organized.
The pilot of the plane (i.e. for Bravo 33 at Yarnell being FRENCH, not Burfiend) functions as a lead plane pilot, and communicates primarily over Air-to-Air with the other pilots. That is his job. That’s why I’m saying to you, WTKTT, that you are incorrect in ascribing that voice/role to Burfiend.
The not-pilot of the plane (i.e. for Bravo 33 at Yarnell being BURFIEND, not French) functions as Air Attack, and communicates primarily over Air-to-Ground with the crews and overhead and whoever else on the ground. Again, WTKTT, when you say that, in the interview, it’s French speaking, that, also, is not accurate.
When one needs to let the other know something, they tell each other. French, as overheard in the Air Study videos, was functioning as lead plane, and being heard in the videos, communicating over air-to-air. He didn’t hear the Steed Mayday. He was trying to line up the VLAT T910 drop, a challenging job in itself, all things considered. How that Prescott notification got picked up in that video I have no idea. I don’t think French probably even heard it.
Burfiend is the one speaking in the interview. He’s the one who would have been busy doing other things when Steed did his Air to Ground “MayDay.” He’s the one who would have been in communication with Div A. I’m guessing he would have heard the Prescott call. Probly about the same time OPS got his attention, also. He’s the one who would have told French, we’ve got a problem on the ground, at which point French notified T910 of the problem and told him to go on standby.
In order to even begin to accurately understand what we are seeing/hearing in these videos, and what we are reading in these reports, interviews, etc., we really need to clear up our confusion about this stuff.
Also, since I’ve spent the morning reading all your Air Study posts, WTKTT, yes that 4:16/4:18 T-911 pair of videos was a split-drop in which, as the list indicates, the first drop was “at” 1615 and the second was “at” 1617. So, as unbelievable as it may sound, those two drops came two minutes apart.
And thanks for all the heavy lifting you did getting those videos transcribed and analyzed. It wasn’t until I stumbled across that Firefighting Airspace video, that my own confusion started lifting enough for me to even begin to comprehend what we are encountering. Because it really is……..CONFUSING!
And now that I just wrote all that, it also means that whether or not that 4:37 Marsh communication with BURFIEND happened, it WOULDN’T have shown up on the Air Study video, because it wasn’t Air-to-Air. And it wasn’t with FRENCH, who wasn’t AIR ATTACK.
So the only way it will emerge is if it’s via a video that has Air to Ground at that time overheard, or if someone who was listening, as you have said WTKTT, that VERY MUCH listened to Air to Ground frequency overheard it and would like to speak up about that somewhere sometime somehow.
Burfiend’s a pretty awesome guy. I don’t think he would be making something up. I think both of them were doing a SPECTACULAR job, all things considered. Including the fact that they were left clueless about what was happening in the midst of total chaos and had to figure out a whole lot of things on the fly.
Marti as you explained above you rang a bell.
The that’s exactly were we want it came fro the Air attack boss telling the lead plane he was right on.
some times no one answers as he was expecting to hear that or hear he was not in the right place.
Happens all the time between lead and air.
I am saying it never was Marsh.
If it was not Air Attack
It would have been some one close to the drop zone talking on air to ground. have to figure this out. Maybe one of the OPS.
I am still betting it was not Marsh.
If there was to much smoke he may have heard the Plains but never would have seen them. I am in agreement with WTKTT that the smoke was to thick to see the plains at that time. Marsh would have wanted a drop on his head and the crews at that point not dropping on the flames would not even slow that fire down.
I think I’m agreeing with you here. I kind of put this idea out, trying to wrestle the timeline together, this being the last straw.
Watching the Air Study Video of the VLAT split drop some 20 minutes earlier, I could see Bravo33 flying and leading the VLAT 911, but only just barely. And that’s when they were both coming down much lower to actually do the drops.
I think if Eric was watching when Bravo 33 did the practice run from west to east over the bowl, he might have been able to see it, if the smoke wasn’t too thick, or maybe hear it. But, unfortunately, that didn’t happen until 4:39 while Steed was making his mayday call and, alas, it was too late for any meaningful signal from Eric saying “yes that’s where we want it.”
So since I don’t think Burfiend made that up, and he’s saying it happened while they were flying “show me” from west to east over the bowl, in the midst of all that smoke and whatever (which they WERE IN FACT DOING over on the other side of the fire before they came to this side), the only thing I can think of is that somebody else must have said that. It’s really a stumper.
And if Eric, or anybody else, had said it over AirToGround, at 4:39, while Bravo 33 was flying (I think, but I could be wrong) a “show me” from west to east over the bowl, everybody that was listening to Air to Ground then, which included a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE (including us watching/listening to the “Last Minutes” video, would have heard it, also
So at this point, I, personally admit I can’t figure this one out, based on the data we currently have, and am willing to admit defeat, given that I’m not all that sure what difference it ultimately makes in the general scheme of things, anyway.
At this time, “Air Attack” was Burfiend, sitting in Bravo 33 with French, who was flying as Lead Plane. It was fully functioning as an Air Support Module, with both Lead Plane and Air Attack bundled into one vehicle. So what you are saying here doesn’t work.
Reply to Marti Reed post on May 9, 2014 at 11:50 am
>> Marti said…
>> Because it really is……..CONFUSING!
Yes… it is… and the SAIT interview notes with Bravo 33 are
really such a MESS that it just compounds things.
For example…
>> Marti also said…
>> Burfiend is the one speaking in the interview.
No… not exclusively. There are ‘quotes’ in these interview
notes from BOTH of them… but since it is all written as
‘first person perspective’ it is NEVER clear in those SAIT
interview notes ( at any particular moment ) WHO is really
being ‘quoted’ ( Burfiend or French ).
The SAIT interview notes with Bravo 33 contain specific
references for BOTH Burfiend AND French being the ones
‘quoted’… but it keeps CHANGING.
Examples from the YIN interview notes…
( See if you can ‘follow the bouncing ball’ here as to
who is suddenly ‘speaking’ to the SAIT interviewers )…
________________________________________________
Paragraph 4…
I knew there was 2 structural groups. I wrote down 2.
Tom said “hey dude, you are the air attack”.
Paragraph 13…
I was talking to Tom about the rising terrain on exit.
Paragraph 17…
I told Tom “lets fly something further down”.
Same Paragraph (17)… but only 8 sentences later…
I looked at John and he did this (slash across the throat).
I told Kevin to stand by copy, taking it around.
Same Paragraph (17)… just 4 sentences later…
At first KA wanted to get the bucket but John said “no,
we need to find these guys”.
Last paragraph…
Because of the attitude, I was working hard trying to
stay 3 drops in front of Tom.
_______________________________________________
So not only is the TIME all distorted in this ‘interview’ with
them jumping back and forth all over the place…
…one moment it is (apparently) Burfiend speaking in the
‘first person’… then suddenly it’s French speaking in the
‘first person’… then it’s (apparently) back to Burfiend again.
I could almost understand them ‘splitting’ the interview notes into ‘top-half’ and ‘bottom-half’ with one or the other being
French or Burfiend then speaking from the first-person…
…but there’s no indication that’s what they were doing, either. It’s all just a jumbled MESS.
By the way…
There were THREE people in that airplane.
SAIT INTERVIEW WITH BRAVO 33 – July 9, 2013 – 1700
Interviewees: Bravo 33
John Burfiend-ATS Specialist
Clint Clauson – ATS Trainee
Thomas French – AT Specialist
What RADIO CHANNEL does anyone think the 3rd guy
in the plane ( Clauson ) was ‘listening to’ that day?
Since he is listed as an ATS Trainee… and French is
only listed as an ‘AT’… does that automatically mean
this mysterious Clauson guy was only interested in
what Burfiend ( ATS Specialist ) was doing… and so
was only listening to ‘Air-To-Ground’ like Burfiend?
If that is the case… then that means this Clauson guy
would have heard EVERYTHING Burfiend did… including
this (supposed) “That’s what we want” transmission from
DIVSA Eric Marsh.
But ( apparently ) even though the SAIT had this Clauson
guy sitting right there in the interview… they never asked
him anything and he is (apparently?) not quoted anywhere
in that interview. Very strange.
Also… now that I have re-read the SAIT Bravo 33 notes
to grab the ‘follow the bouncing ball’ quotes… I just realized
that this Bravo 33 interview ALSO proves without a
shadow of a doubt that OPS1 Todd Abel was ‘fully engaged’
with Bravo 33 throughout the entire ‘swtich to the south
side of the fire’ Air Operations shift… and right on up
through the deployment.
There are quotes in the B33 YIN interview which indicate
OPS1 Todd Abel was VERY ‘focused’ on the Air-To-Ground
channel and conversing directly with Burfiend right up
to Steed’s first MAYDAY call ( and beyond ).
So that means if Eric Marsh really did suddenly come
onto the Air-To-Ground channel at 1637 with his
( unsolicited ) “That’s what we want” transmission…
…that OPS Todd Abel MUST have heard it right along
with Burfiend ( and the Clauson guy )… along with ALL
the other people who were no-doubt listening to that
‘popular’ Air-To-Ground channel.
But NOWHERE in ANY of his interviews with two separate
investigations does Todd Abel say he ever heard any
such transmission.
It really is important to figure this out.
Not only because the SAIT chose to label this one single
‘transmission’ as ‘totally verified’ and THEN use it as the
defacto ‘end’ of the (supposed) ‘verifiable communications’
blackout period…
…but also because it’s simply important to KNOW if
DIVSA Eric Marsh ever really did say any such thing.
So….. I’ve spent the day downloading and watching and trying to learn from the videos. And trying to be unbiased about it. And still struggling with that Marsh call that Burfiend (who I really respect) notes. And being seriously impressed by French’s behavior, even tho you diss him for the chuckles. I see him as doing a really good job of a really complicated task and the chuckles are to support the pilots, and I think they’re doing a better and more professional job than a whole bunch of other people on that clusterf*ck fiasco of a fire.
But reading what you are writing here, and yeah. The SAIT was a joke. Not an investigation. This is totally unprofessional. But I don’t blame Burfiend and French for it.
I sit here thinking maybe sometime I should head down to Silver City to have a conversation. If I can find the time. Which I maybe can’t. All things considered. Hopefully whoever is in charge of the lawsuits will.
calvin said JANUARY 13, 2016 AT 3:49 AM
Do you have any idea exactly how many aircraft or how many gallons of retardant were dropped on the YHF between the time we hear “Air support down there” and the time of deployment?
As we know, there was no retardant lines placed to protect Glen Isla or Yarnell in that timeframe
———————————————————————————————–
Via the Air Study Videos we have a very good record of the various drops on the fire during all of that time.
I’m writing this off the top of my head, and way past my bedtime, but I think your question is important.
Until the 4;30-ish drop that the SAIR incorrectly (imho) said Eric said ‘that’s where we want it,” the aerial fire-fighting was going on on the northeast and then east flanks of the fire. Firstly defending areas in the Model Creek Road area, and then in the Sickles Road Area.
After that, in the time framework you are speaking of, the aerial fire-fighting then turned it’s attention to the southwest part of the fire. They then managed to put in one line of retardant at around 4:30 (from, I think, about Shrine Road north-eastward), and then while they were lining up the DC-10 for a line continuing that, the Deployment happened.
After the deployment, they continued dropping retardant from the first line they put in all the way towards the northeast, to defend Yarnell.
The line Bravo 3 dropped, earlier in the day, across the bowl was basically in vain.
However, it looks to me that the lines dropped in the Model Creek Road area and across the top of Yarnell were successful, via the aerial photos in this article on this UK-based Daily Mail Website:
—————————————————————————————-
“Devastation left by ‘firestorm’ that killed 19 Arizona firefighters: Shocking aerial images show town burned to the ground by blaze”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2353353/Arizona-wild-fires-pictures-Shocking-aerial-images-utter-devastation.html
You have to scroll down a bit to come to the actually quite interesting collection of aerial photos that show where the retardant lines stopped the fire. I’ve mapped almost all of these photos, by the way. I have absolutely no clue how they managed to obtain these photos.
So, imho, the story is…………complicated.
OK its more than past my bedtime. Goodnight.
PS. Given what I’ve seen in these aerial photos, it has always disturbed me that they didn’t start that line above Glen Illah. I don’t know why that was the case. I really don’t and it bothers me.
Yikes! San Bernardino!
I spent a bunch of time “there” yesterday reading about the whole WUI thing.
I guess what’s going on right now there might be comparable to Initial Attack on a quickly expanding wildfire in the Wildland Urban Interface?
Ok, for some strange reason I posted this in the wrong place. Will move it to the right place.
I have no idea why or how this happened.
**
** NEW CHAPTER VII ( SEVEN ) STARTED
Here is a direct link to the *new* Chapter VII ( SEVEN ) of this ongoing discussion.
http://www.investigativemedia.com/yarnell-hill-fire-chapter-vii/
Thanks once gain to Mr. John Dougherty for all his support and his
extraordinary patience with ALL of us.
Thanks WTKTT!
I guess I’ll have to repost my comment regarding San Bernardino there.
**
** EXIF METADATA SUMMARY FROM
** ALL OF THE PANEBAKER AIR STUDY VIDEOS
Below is a just a short summary of the EXIF data contained in ALL of the
Panebaker videos sitting in the online Dropbox folder.
You can see clearly below what Marti has been talking about with embedded
time stamps ( and GPS time stamps ) actually bearing no relation to the
time stamp(s) eventually used in the FILENAMES themselves.
The Nikon Coolpix seems to have been set TWO hours ahead of real time
and the filenames used for files coming from the camera were just ‘dialed back’
manually, or something.
The first SEVEN Panebaker videos show below also contain a short NOTE after
the EXIF data that tries to show how both the ‘Creation Dates’ OR the GPS
Time Stamp *may* have been used to come up with the actual time stamp
used in the video filename.
As you can see from these NOTES below… something is very strange about
where the time stamps used for the video titles actually came from. None
of them appear to be an exact match for either the ‘Creation Time’ or
the ‘GPS Time’ embedded in the movie itself.
Also note… MOST of the videos taken with the Nikon Coolpix P520 do, in fact,
have UTC based GPS timestamps… but SOME videos from the (same?)
Nikon do NOT. It is almost as if the GPS was being turned OFF on the Nikon
for only SOME of the videos shot that day.
** PANEBAKER AIR STUDY VIDEOS
File Name: 20130630_143844_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:38:41
Duration: 2.24 s
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
File Name: 20130630_144226_VLAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:40:52
Duration: 0:01:32
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 21:40:46.57 UTC ( AZ 14:40:46.57 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.85″, 112 deg 43′ 51.89″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 14:40:46 AZ time plus 1:32
equals 1442.18, but that is still 8 seconds shy of 1442.26.
16:40:52 plus 1:32 equals 1642.24, but subtracting two
hours manually still only gives 1442.24, which is still
two seconds shy of filename time stamp 1442.26.
File Name: 20130630_144508_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:44:27
Duration: 0:00:40
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 21:44:22.11 UTC ( AZ 14:44:22.11 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.85″, 112 deg 43′ 51.94″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 14:44:22 AZ time plus 40 seconds
gives 1445.02, but that is still 6 seconds shy of 1445.08.
16:44:27 plus 40 seconds equals 1645.7, but subtracting two
hours manually still only gives 1445.7, which is still
ONE second shy of filename time stamp 1445.08.
File Name: 20130630_144756_SEAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:45:37
Duration: 0:02:17
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 21:45:31.97 UTC ( AZ 14:45:31.97 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.85″, 112 deg 43′ 51.95″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 14:45:31 AZ time plus 2:17
gives 1447.48, but that is still 8 seconds shy of 1447.56.
16:45:37 plus 2:30 equals 1647.54, but subtracting two
hours manually still only gives 1447.54, which is still
TWO seconds shy of filename time stamp of 1447.56.
File Name: 20130630_150016_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:59:44
Duration: 0:00:29.66
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 21:59:39.17 UTC ( AZ 14:59:39.17 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 20.99″, 112 deg 43′ 51.82″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 14:59:39 AZ time plus 29 seconds
gives 1500.08, but that is still 8 seconds shy of 1500.16.
16:59:44 plus 29 seconds equals 1700.13, but subtracting two
hours manually still only gives 1500.13, which is still
THREE seconds shy of filename time stamp of 1500.16.
File Name: 20130630_150530_fire_behavior_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:05:10
Duration: 0:00:17.55
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:05:05.95 UTC ( AZ 15:05:05.95 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 20.99″, 112 deg 43′ 51.82″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 15:05:05 AZ time plus 17 seconds
gives 1505.22, but that is still 8 seconds shy of 1505.30.
17:05:10 plus 17 seconds equals 1705.27, but subtracting two
hours manually still only gives 1505.27, which is still
THREE seconds shy of filename time stamp of 1505.30.
File Name: 20130630_150822_VLAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:06:28
Duration: 0:01:52
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:06:23.3 UTC ( AZ 15:06:23.3 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 20.99″, 112 deg 43′ 51.82″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 15:06:23 AZ time plus 1:52
gives 1508.15, but that is still 7 seconds shy of 1508.22.
17:06:20 plus 1:52 equals 1708.12, but subtracting two
hours manuall still only gives 1518.12, which is still
TEN seconds shy of filename time stamp of 1508.22.
File Name: 20130630_151842_fire_behavior_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:16:50
Duration: 0:01:49
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
NOTE: 17:16:50 plus 1:49 equals 1718.39, but
subtracting two hours manually still only gives 1518.39,
which is still THREE seconds shy of filename time
stamp of 1518.42.
File Name: 20130630_152406_SEAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:21:07
Duration: 0:02:56
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:21:01.4 UTC ( AZ 15:21:01.4 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 20.18″, 112 deg 43′ 51.71″
File Name: 20130630_153014_SEAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:29:02
Duration: 0:01:10
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:28:57.45 UTC ( AZ 15:28:57.45 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 20.14″, 112 deg 43′ 51.73″
File Name: 20130630_153414_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:34:01
Duration: 12.38 s
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:33:56.38 UTC ( AZ 15:33:56.38 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.98″, 112 deg 43′ 51.79″
File Name: 20130630_153510_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:34:42
Duration: 23.62 s
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:34:37.65 UTC ( AZ 15:34:37.65 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.96″, 112 deg 43′ 51.79″
File Name: 20130630_153532_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:35:13
Duration: 1.17 s
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:35:07.87 UTC ( AZ 15:35:07.87 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.95″, 112 deg 43′ 51.80″
File Name: 20130630_153622_5KA_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:35:38
Duration: 0:00:43
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:35:33.09 UTC ( AZ 15:35:33.09 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.94″, 112 deg 43′ 51.80″
File Name: 20130630_154138_fire_behavior_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:41:06
Duration: 0:00:31
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:41:01.07 UTC ( AZ 15:41:01.07 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.84″, 112 deg 43′ 51.83″
File Name: 20130630_154940_SEAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 17:48:21
Duration: 0:01:18
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 22:48:15.97 UTC ( AZ 15:48:15.97 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.76″, 112 deg 43′ 51.84″
File Name: 20130630_161620_VLAT_split_1_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 18:12:48
Duration: 0:03:31
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 23:12:43.83 UTC ( AZ 16:12:43.83 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.92″, 112 deg 43′ 50.16″
File Name: 20130630_161658_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 18:16:41
Duration: 15.75 s
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 23:16:36.24 UTC ( AZ 16:16:36.24 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.90″, 112 deg 43′ 50.35″
File Name: 20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 18:17:07
Duration: 0:01:49
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 23:17:02.62 UTC ( AZ 16:17:02.62 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.88″, 112 deg 43′ 50.40″
File Name: 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP.MOV
Make: Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Lens Type: Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:23:34
Internal Serial Number: ZA2261150
Serial Number: 152066061038
Lens Info: 15-85mm f/?
Lens Serial Number: 000013b95c
** WHY IS THIS TIME DIFFERENT FROM 16:23:34?
Create Date: 2013:06:30 16:23:01
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:23:01
Duration: 11.78 s
Create Date: 2013:06:30 16:23:34.00
Date/Time Original: 2013:06:30 16:23:34.00
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:23:34.00
File Name: 20130630_162508_2SEATS_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 18:23:17
Duration: 0:01:50
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 23:23:11.9 UTC ( AZ 16:23:11.9 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.82″, 112 deg 43′ 50.86″
File Name: 20130630_163338_fire_behavior_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 18:31:26
Duration: 0:02:09
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
File Name: 20130630_163700_fire_behavior_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 18:36:17
Duration: 0:00:39
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
File Name: 20130630_164544_fire_behavior_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 18:43:43
Duration: 0:01:59
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 23:43:38.25 UTC ( AZ 16:43:38.25 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.64″, 112 deg 43′ 51.87″
File Name: 20130630_170634_VLAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 19:05:42
Duration: 0:00:49
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 00:05:37.3 UTC ( AZ 17:05:37.3 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:07:01
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.63″, 112 deg 43′ 51.90″
END OF LISTING
Wait, what?? I’m not sure you explained that right.
Panebaker’s Nikon and Canon t3i are one hour ahead of Arizona time, because Arizona time is not Mountain Daylight Savings Time, the time Panebaker set his cameras to.
If anybody working on these files, unless they were in a serious hurry, or didn’t care whether it made sense dealing with an Arizona fire, should have known how to do this. Somebody apparently didn’t.
So first you have to set the camera’s timestamp back one hour, in order to sync to other Arizona-set cameras (like the one used on the Air2Air videos, and just about every other camera used on that fire).
Then you have to translate that to the military time — (the 24 hour clock) format they’re using on these filenames.
It seems crazy complicated, for people who don’t understand it. But it’s not really.
So, for example, a photo or video, taken by Panebaker, who lives in Montana and had set his two cameras to Mountain Daylight Savings Time, should have been re-timestamped, by whoever was preparing these files for this, back one hour. Say from 4:16:24 PM to 3:16:24 PM. Then, in order to accurately translate that into the “military 24-hour” format they chose to use to name these files for this kind of important publication, they would then “add” 12 hours to it (to count from midnight of the beginning of that day), to get to 151624. That’s how you do this. That’s what everybody does when they do this, That’s what I’ve been doing all along. For people hired/payed to do it, I would think it would been a “no-brainer.”
They could have absolutely cleanly and quickly and accurately renamed these files without confusion. I have no clue why they didn’t.
But thank you for doing it!
Marti… yes… this confused me as well when I finally
did an EXIF dump on ALL of Panebaker Apple Quicktime
movies and then looked at the dates coming OUT of
the movie files themselves. ( EXIF metadata ).
You ALREADY said the Nikon Coolpix P250 was set
ONE hour ahead of time… but the ‘Creation Date’ being
stamped into the movies themselves says that it was
TWO hours behind the ‘real Arizona time’ that day.
Let me take just ONE of the EXIF metadata dumps
from above and see if I can show you what I mean…
Let’s take just THIS one ( since it also has GPS data )…
_______________________________________________
File Name: 20130630_144226_VLAT_EP.MOV
Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:40:52
Duration: 0:01:32
Make: NIKON COOLPIX P520
GPS Time Stamp: 21:40:46.57 UTC ( AZ 14:40:46.57 PM )
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Position: 34 deg 16′ 19.85″, 112 deg 43′ 51.89″
NOTE: GPS time stamp of 14:40:46 AZ time plus 1:32
equals 1442.18, but that is still 8 seconds shy of 1442.26.
16:40:52 plus 1:32 equals 1642.24, but subtracting two
hours manually still only gives 1442.24, which is still
two seconds shy of filename time stamp 1442.26.
_______________________________________________
Here’s what I am seeing above…
>> File Name: 20130630_144226_VLAT_EP.MOV
>> Creation Date: 2013:06:30 16:40:52
The FILENAME ended up in the ‘1400’ timerange… but
the ‘Creation Date’ ( according to the Nikon ) was TWO
HOURS ahead of that… in the ‘1600’ hour.
Now there is this…
GPS Time Stamp: 21:40:46.57 UTC ( AZ 14:40:46.57 PM )
That is actually CORRECT.
Timestamp that went into the movie itself was in the
‘1400’ hour ALREADY… and not TWO HOURS ahead
in the ‘1600’ hour as the Nikon’s own timeclock thought.
Well… when I say CORRECT… I mean the HOUR was
correct according to UTC time. ( 1400 hour ).
As explained above, however… I don’t think this is simply
a case where they ended up just taking the GPS time
and using that for the FILENAME itself.
The GPS time stamp of 14:40:46 AZ time plus the
1:32 media duration time embedded in the movie
itself equals 1442.18, but that is still 8 seconds shy of 1442.26 ( which is what they actually NAMED it ).
So ‘eight seconds’ are ‘missing’, even if they were
just referring to the embedded GPS time for filenames…
…but my point is that the HOUR is CORRECT ( according
to the GPS stamp )… and it is TWO hours ahead of the
‘Creation date’ stamped by the Nikon’s own clock setting.
UPDATE: The ‘EXIF metadata’ dump for the Panebaker videos
posted above in this Chapter 6 has been updated and
re-posted at the bottom ( the START ) of the new Chapter 7.
The list above actually has a couple of Panebaker videos
missing. The new list over in Chapter 7 is complete and
has all 31 Panebaker videos listed.
Here is a direct link to the *new* Chapter VII ( SEVEN ) of this ongoing discussion where the *new* EXIF report is posted…
http://www.investigativemedia.com/yarnell-hill-fire-chapter-vii/
**
** USING AN ONLINE EXIF METADATA EXTRACTOR WITH AIR STUDY
** VIDEOS WITHOUT HAVING TO DOWNLOAD THE VIDEOS
The same ‘online’ tool that can be used to easily extract EXIF metatdata from
any photograph can ALSO be used to pull a ton of metadata out of Apple
Quicktime movie format ( MOV ) files… ( like the Panebaker Air Study videos
in the online DropBox )… but it’s a little trickier to do than just analyzing
a ‘photograph’ in Mr. Dougherty’s online Drobox.
That online tool is here…
http://regex.info/exif.cgi
To analyze any PHOTOGRAPH in the online Dropbox… all you have to do
is select the photo… let it appear… then use the ‘View Original’ option by
either right-clicking the image or from the little ‘three dot’ menu option that
is always in the lower right corner when a photo is being displayed.
When the original photo appears… you just ‘cut and paste’ the URL that is now
showing in your browser’s address bar into the ‘View Image at URL’ input
box over in the EXIF online tool page.
You have to do this ‘View Original’ thing because the online Dropbox page
that normally (first) shows a photo to you is just an HTML ‘container’ and
that URL is NOT a ‘direct link’ to the photo itself.
In order for the online EXIF extractor to work… it simply needs a URL that
represents the location of the ACTUAL image ( and not a web page URL ).
Okay… all well and good… but here come the problem with trying to do the
same thing with the online Apple Quicktime movies ( like the Panebaker Air
Study videos ) that are also sitting in the online Dropbox.
When you choose to ‘play a movie’ up there in the Dropbox… right-clicking
the movie player when it appears does NOT give you the same ‘View original’
option as when viewing a still photo. Likewise… when it’s a movie being shown
in the online Dropbox… there is no ‘View original’ menu option if you click the
little ‘three dot’ menu in the lower right corner.
So if you just ‘cut and paste’ the URL of the Dropbox movie player into the
online EXIF extractor tool… it simply comes back and says “Invalid URL. This
is a web page and not a direct link to the item.”
Not to worry. Here is how to essentially do the same ‘View original’ option
for MOVIES up at that Dropbox… even though there is no such menu option.
You have to PRETEND as if you want to DOWNLOAD the movie… but
you still don’t have to actually download it.
When the movie you want to pull the EXIF data from is showing on the screen
with the big RIGHT-ARROW ‘Play’ button already showing… just mouse down
to the bottom right of the panel and LEFT-CLICK that little ‘three dot’ menu icon.
Only one option will be on the popup menu… and it says ‘Download’.
Do NOT LEFT-CLICK that option ( that will start the download ).
Do a RIGHT-CLICK instead.
A RIGHT-CLICK will bring up a ‘System menu’ that should have the
following option on it ( among others )…
“Copy Link Location”
Left-click click that option on this second popup menu.
This will copy the ACTUAL URL of where that original movie
file is really located up there at the Dropbox into your clipboard.
Once you have done the “Copy Link Location” operation… just switch right
over to the online EXIF extractor page and then do a ‘paste’ of that Link
into the ‘Image URL’ input box at the top of the page… then just RIGHT-CLICK
the ‘View Image at URL’ option.
That’s all there is to it.
The online tool now knows exactly where to get its OWN copy of the movie from
the Drobox… and will do so ‘in the background’ at backbone speed… and will then
show you the extracted EXIF data for that MOVIE. If it’s one of the larger movie
files you WILL have to ‘wait’ just a bit while the online server obtains its own
copy of the movie to analyze… but it won’t take long.
NOTE: You may see the online EXIF tool ‘loading’ icon just keep ‘spinning’
even after the EXIF data appears because it is still trying to display frames
from the movie on the same page. Once you are done cutting/pasting the
EXIF data into some other place of your own it’s probably best to CLOSE
that copy of the EXIF tool window so your CPU doesn’t keep spinning.
** GPS TIME STAMPS IN THE PANEBAKER VIDEOS
The Nikon Coolpix P520 camera being used for most of the Panebaker
videos was, in fact, using GPS and MOST of the videos taken with that
camera also have a ‘real time’ GPS time/date stamp. SOME of the same
videos from the same camera do NOT ( almost as if GPS was being
turned OFF at various time ).
If there IS any GPS data in a movie… it WILL be displayed by the online tool
and it will look like this…
Target image: /Panebaker/Video/Video/20130630_161658_EP
Date/Time Original 2013:06:30 18:16:41
GPS Time Stamp: 23:16:36.24 UTC
GPS Date Stamp: 2013:06:30
GPS Version ID: 2.3.0.0
GPS Latitude Ref: North
GPS Latitude: 34.272193 degrees
GPS Longitude Ref: West
GPS Longitude: 112.730652 degrees
GPS Altitude Ref: Above Sea Level
GPS Altitude: 1292.1 m
GPS Img Direction Ref: Unknown ()
GPS Img Direction: undef
GPS Map Datum: WGS84
Arizona is -7 ( minus SEVEN ) hours in relation to GPS UTC time.
That means…
When UTC hour is 2100… it is 1400 ( 2:00 PM ) in Arizona
When UTC hour is 2200… it is 1500 ( 3:00 PM ) in Arizona
When UTC hour is 2300… it is 1600 ( 4:00 PM ) in Arizona.
When UTC hour is 0000… it is 1700 ( 5:00 PM ) in Arizona
etc…
Thank you !
When I’m not brain dead, which I am right now, I’ll experiment with this!
**
** REVISITING THE 1715 PANEBAKER STILL PHOTOS
>> On May 18, 2014 at 4:48 am, calvin said:
>> The Panebaker VLAT pictures labeled 1715′ish are incorrect. These pictures
>> are actually the split drop from the VLAT from 1617. I am not sure if this is
>> relevant, or if it has already been identified.
It’s VERY relevant.
One of those 1715’ish Panebaker still photos ( the one named 20130630_171528-1_EP ) is the one that is a PERFECT match for the Tom
Story photo that was (supposedly) shot at 1639 ( according to the timestamp
on Story’s Canon 1D with the 300mm zoom lens attached ).
So however *wrong* the Panebaker still photos are ( being shot with his
own Canon EOS REBEL T3i camera )… that is ALSO how ‘wrong’ the
Tom Story Canon EOS 1D photo timestamps are.
So there appear to be TWO ‘wrong offsets’ involved here now…
1) How *wrong* was Panebaker’s Canon EOS REBEL T3i that day?
2) Answer to (1) determines how *wrong* Tom Story’s Canon EOS 1D really was.
As much as there is no evidence that there was a VLAT drop at 1639 that
day ( the moment of Steed’s first MAYDAY ) as suggested by Tom Story’s
photos… there is also now actually no real evidence there was a VLAT drop at
exactly 1715, either ( as indicated by Panebaker’s still photos ).
There is no doubt they were BOTH photographing the ‘same VLAT drop’…
but there is still plenty of doubt as to exactly WHEN that was.
So regardless of how the ‘162300 video mystery’ pans out on the other
thread… this thread needs to ‘revisit’ the Panebaker 1715 series and
find out what the ‘wrong time offset’ for THAT camera really was.
More on this later.
Back to looking at video stillframes and comparing them to still photos.
**
** PROBLEM SOLVED?
**
** NEW TIME OFFSETS FOR BOTH…
**
** PANEBAKER’S CANON EOS REBEL T3i
** TOM STORY’S CANON EOS 1D ( WITH 300mm LENS )
As it turns out… thanks to the fact that the audio tracks of the
Panebaker Air Study Videos were capturing ‘shutter clicks’…
this wasn’t all that hard to figure out.
As calvin pointed out… the Panebaker 1715’ish photo series
( regardless of timestamp ) are ACTUALLY photos of the FIRST
VLAT PASS that was part of that ‘VLAT split’ sequence taken
almost an HOUR earlier than 1715.
The Panebaker Air Study video that captures the ACTUAL (correct)
VLAT drop which corresponds to BOTH the Tom Story 7093 photo
( with an incorrect timestamp of 1639.21 ) AND the Panebaker
20130630_171528-1_EP photo ( with an incorrect timestamp of
1715.28 ) is this one…
20130630_161620_VLAT_split_1_EP
This video is 3 minutes and 30 seconds long.
VIDEO 161620 STARTS AT 1612.50 ( 4:12.50 PM )
+2:27 ( 16:15.17 / 4:15.17 PM )
Shutter click that matches Panebaker still photo 20130630_171528-1_EP *and* Tom Story’s 7093 still photo.
VIDEO 161620 ENDS AT 1616.20 ( 4:16.20 PM )
So that means the TIME setting on Panebaker’s Canon EOS
REBEL T3i was actually 1 hour and 11 seconds AHEAD of the
time of the video camera that was recording the 161620 video
that day.
( 1715.28 minus 1615.17 equals 1 hour and 11 seconds ).
So… how does that now affect the ‘time offset’ for Story’s
Canon EOS 1D?
Well… since we NOW know that the actual EVENT being
photographed by Tom Story’s 7093 photo with his Canon
EOS 1D took place at exactly 1615.17 that day… and Story’s
Canon EOS 1D put a *wrong* timestamp of 1639.21 on that
photo… the ‘difference’ between those times would be…
24 minutes and 4 seconds.
( 1639.21 minus 1615.17 equals 24 minutes and 4 seconds ).
So Tom Story’s Canon EOS 1D appears to have been set
24 minutes and 4 seconds AHEAD of the ‘real’ time that day
( if we accept that the video camera on the tripod shooting Air
Study videos was, itself, set close to the ACTUAL time that day ).
SUMMARY…
** Panebaker’s Canon EOS REBEL T3i camera was timestamping
photos 1 hour and 11 second AHEAD of ‘real time’ that day.
** Tom Story’s Canon EOS 1D camera was timestamping
photos 24 minutes and 4 seconds AHEAD of ‘real time’ that day.
See what I wrote below about syncing 152406_SEAT with the 1544 Air2Air video.
Now thinking about that 162300_SEAT_drop video. I couldn’t figure out where it came from. It’s not from any of the cameras we’re seeing most of the video from. It’s totally different. I had been wondering “Where did Panebeker get that video from??”
Now that all makes sense. He was shooting stills with the t3i, with a, as you have found, camera set ahead one hour (which actually would be correct in any Mountain Time place other than Arizona — which doesn’t observe Daylight Savings Time), and he decided to shoot that drop as a video.
So whoever was file-naming Panebeker’s t3i’s photos/video didn’t know that and thus incorrectly named the files.
It really makes me wonder who was naming these files. They made so many mistakes it makes it hard to believe it was someone on “their team.” I think if it was somebody on “their team” they would have been going more for syncing accuracy and would have been more clued in.
Just my somewhat brain dead at this pont opinion.
I think here’s still a lot of timestamp wonkiness on the Nikon videos. Bit I have somewhat of a killer day in front of me, so I don’t know when I’ll be able to get back to it.
We are still putting a lot of ‘trust’ into the existing
filename time/date stamps of the Panebaker
Air Study videos… but I still think it’s OK to do
that ( given exceptions like the 162300 video ).
Example… even for the NEW ‘time offsets’ for
Panebaker’s Canon REBEL and Story’s EOS 1D,
I am obviously ‘trusting’ the fact that the following
Panebaker video is ( at least ) CLOSE to the
REAL time that day…
20130630_161620_VLAT_split_1_EP
As you just pointed out… events in these Panebaker
videos *ARE* ‘traceable’ back into the long-running
Air-To-Air channel videos… and usually ( at least )
these TWO video cameras match up pretty
well, time wise.
So what are the odds that BOTH the camera on
the tripod recording the Panebaker videos *AND*
the camera on the tripod that was recording the
long-running Air-To-Air channel traffic are *BOTH*
set incorrectly… but still within a few seconds
of each other?
I don’t know… but I would say ‘slim to none’.
The fact that the Air-To-Air traffic captures
eventually ‘line up’ ( timewise ) with the actual
MAYDAY calls and the deployment events seems
to indicate that the camera doing the Air-To-Air
channel captures that day was pretty much set to
the ‘right time’ that day… so anything from
Panebaker that ‘matches’ up with dialogue in an
Air-To-Air capture can/should also be considered
‘the right time’ that day.
At one point… I tried to match up an event in either
a Panebaker video OR the Air-To-Air videos with
something from the Blue Ridge GPS unit ( which
was using satellite real-time that day )…
…but that turned out to be pretty much like putting
a square peg into a round hole. I can’t find any
DIRECT correlation between a GPS stamped
event in the Blue Ridge data with an Air-To-Air
channel transmission and/or a Panebaker video
radio capture. Close… but still guesswork.
When I set out on THAT quest… I was hoping to
actually find a TAC channel capture in an Air
Study video that matched the moment when
Frisby told Brown to ‘get some drivers to move
vehicles’. That is still, of course, the EXACT
moment when Brown did his ‘about face’ on
his hike on the Cutover Trail… which was
captured by his GPS unit.
No such luck. None of that ‘rescuing Brendan’ and
the immediate ‘moving vehicles’ radio traffic seems
to have been captured in any Air Study video.
The only line we NOW have to the Blue Ridge GPS
unit and the Panebaker videos is this ‘indirect’ line…
1) Blue Ridge GPS event ( ATV leaving parking lot )
was used to verify that Story’s Canon 3D was
‘accurate’ that day ( within 45 to 50 seconds of
real time ).
2) Story’s photos can be used to ‘match’ events
in Panebaker videos to determine ‘accuracy’
as related to Blue Ridge GPS unit.
So any Tom Story Canon 3D photo that matches
a moment in a Panebaker video almost exactly
is a good ‘indirect’ line of proof back to the
GPS based satellite time that day.
But as we have already discovered… ANYTHING
within 60 seconds or so is going to have to be
considered ‘accurate’ for this day in Yarnell.
Even the GPS unit was only ‘updating’ every
60 seconds that day.
Interestingly, tho, the camera timestamp on the first of those three videos says 6:12:48 PM.
So now I’m thinking the the Panebaker Nikon (source of these videos) is also one hour ahead, just like the Panebaker t3i. And that would make perfect sense, all things considered. The must both be Panebaker’s cameras, and he must live outside of Arizona,with his cameras synced to Mountain Daylight Savings time.
Still, however, I’m seeing quite a few of my representative samples of this videos, in which the File Namer, both not realizing those two cameras were “off” by an hour and getting confused as to how to translate the stamps from “4:30 PM” to “1630” goes back and forth between translating them correctly and translating them incorrectly.
Actually, Eric lives in Jackson, Wyoming, I think.
I think the “Air2Air” Contour +2 videocam is accurate, both in names and timestamps, essentially.
I’m looking at 20130630_1628_EP.MOV. The timestamp says 3:47:58 PM. Which would relatively accurately indicate the video was started at 3:47 PM (1547) and end at 4:28 PM (1628), and it’s a 40-minute video. So that works.
So the person who owns THAT camera probably lives in Arizona.
Reply to Marti Reed post on
May 19, 2014 at 12:06 pm
>> Marti said…
>> I think the “Air2Air” Contour +2
>> videocam is accurate, both in
>> names and timestamps,
>> essentially.
Totally agree… it is ‘consistent’ with
its own timestamps and filenames
*AND* it *ALSO* seems to have
been set pretty close to the ‘real
time’ ( well, as close as anything
was that day, anyway ).
That video is actually 40 minutes and 14 seconds long… but that didn’t
throw anything off as far as the file
naming went.
1547.58 plus 40 minutes and 14
seconds is 1628.12.
Still ‘right on the money’ and still means the ‘1628’ in the filename is
CORRECT.
I think *all* of the Air-To-Air channel
videos are just as ‘tickety-boo’ with
regards to start times, durations, end
times ( and resulting filename stamp ).
The Panebaker videos… well… ( as
you pointed out already )… that’s
a whole ‘nother story.
It’s like ‘follow the bouncing timestamps’ for those puppies.
More later.
PS: A number of the Nikon Panebaker videos DO, in fact, have UTC GPS time and date stamps embedded in them… and I’m currently trying to see how that factors into things here.
Something is ‘strange’ about even these UTC GPS timestamps, however, and there seems to be a ‘pattern’ there but can’t quite explain it yet. They are always about 8 to 10 seconds BEHIND the other timestamps but its not totally consistent from video to video.
OK I’m back from driving, with a swollen sprained foot, clear across town and back in heavy traffic. I had some time to think.
I DON’T think it’s OK to be “putting a lot of ‘trust’ into the filename time/date stamps” on those videos.
I didn’t have time nor drive space to download all those videos, but of the eight I did, they were ALL incorrectly labeled. The five that are kinda sorta right, like 152406 and 150530 is only right because the renamer just read 5:21:07 PM and just stuck a 1 in front of that, not knowing the camera stamp was an hour ahead. So, purely by mistake those ended up with the “right” filenames.
The other three of those eight, are misnamed, because the renamer, while getting the translation right, didn’t now the camera stamp was off by an hour. So anybody that doesn’t know that camera is off by an hour, is gonna either misinterpret or misunderstand what they’re looking at.
If I could download all those files, which I can’t, I could easily and quickly make a list of those videos with correct filenames. I think it would be well worth doing, now that we know what the problem is.
And I think they should be corrected for Arizona time, which Panebeker didn’t, so they can be synced more “trustworthily” with all the other stuff people are comparing them to.
Can you do that with your online file metadata reader?
The (free) online tool won’t pull any
metadata from Apple Quicktime
format MOV files.
Need something like exiftool v.9.61
for that.
…but I hear ya on the filenames.
At some point… they SHOULD all
be ‘correct’ and ‘reflect reality’.
Working on that here as well.
More later.
Great! Thank you!
Just found something. Jeffrey Friedl’s “Online Exif (Image Data) Viewer:
http://regex.info/blog/other-writings/online-exif-image-data-viewer
I’ve used a lot of Jeffrey’s Lightroom Plugin. His stuff is quite good. I think I’m gonna download and try out this, and also his Exif Viewer for Lightroom.
That’s the same ‘online’ tool I’ve been recommending and that I was commenting about above… but this is the URL I’ve been using…
http://regex.info/exif.cgi
It actually SAYS it supports MOV Quicktime… but I haven’t been able to get it to successfully analyze any of the Panebaker videos.
Problem with the online tool and using it with the YFH Dropbox is that you have to do ‘View Original’ on any photo and use THAT URL for the EXIF viewer.
If you just call up an Apple Quicktime movie via the dropbox and try to use that URL… it just says “Invalid URL… this is just a web page”.
There is no ‘View original’ option for the movies in the online Drobox, as there is with photos.
You can also try to analyze any ‘downloaded’ videos… but problem there is that the online tool then has to UPLOAD the entire frickin’ thing before it can ‘analyze’ it. Not workable with some of these Air Study videos.
So a desktop tool like exiftool v9.6 is what I’ve been using to analyze the Apple Quicktime movies.
Marti… hold the phone…
Scratch my comment
above. I just figured out HOW to use that ‘online tool’ to analyze the Apple Quicktime MOV files that are actually sitting in the online YHF Dropbox.
You have to sort of ‘fool’ it and pretend to ‘download’ the video… without actually downloading it.
See a new parent comment up above about how to actually do this.
Ha Ha remember when we spent several days syncing Tom’s D1????
I said I thought it was 22 minutes ahead and you estimated somewhere around 30 minutes ahead?
I had reasons to not want you to be right because of how that would skew my syncing of Tom’s photo of the VLAT after Blue Ridge McCord’s “almost fiasco with the helicopter” video!!
WTKTT: I hate to ask too much of you, and I know we’re all breathlessly waiting/hoping/praying for a Chapter VII, but…
I think it would be enormously useful if you could write up a summary of this whole Panebaker exploration. I can’t do it because I don’t know what all is in your head. I’ve pretty much written/thunk out loud what’s been in mine.
I think it’s really important for folks coming here to understand this, and I don’t think they will by trying to read/comprehend these four days of complicated/convoluted threads.
Thanks!!
John has started a Chapter 7. Put the summary in there. Loading this comment thread is a challenge for some computers.
Yes… a *new* Chapter VII ( SEVEN ) has started.
Here is a direct link to the *new* Chapter VII ( SEVEN )
of this ongoing discussion…
http://www.investigativemedia.com/yarnell-hill-fire-chapter-vii/
Marti… I did a ‘dump’ up above of the EXIF data ( including
GPS time stamps ) from the Panebaker videos… but that
was before I read your comment above.
That ‘dump’ is NOT my idea of a ‘summary’ as to where
we reallly stand with these Panebaker videos.
I will do that additional ‘summary’ and post it as well.
It’s actually looking pretty clear.
I no longer think ( at the moment ) that 162300 video
was ‘replacing’ anything at all. It was just a ‘screw up’.
What amazes me is that these guys were getting PAID
to do this ‘Aerial Firefighting Study’ ( With taxpayer dollars
from USDA? )… but they didn’t even bother to make sure
their equipment was all ‘good to go’ with correct timestamps
and whatnot that day.
**
** UPDATE: MORE ABOUT THE 162300 AIR STUDY VIDEO
**
** MYSTERY SOLVED?
>> Marti wrote…
>> Was the Nikon’s timestamper generally off? I don’t know.
>> Periodically, a photo was taken on that camera. The photos
>> are in the Schultz folder.
>> 20130630_1616_AZ-A1S-000688_T911___7_G_RS.JPG
>> (Please dear Universe, don’t ever compel me to type that out
>> on my iPad ever again…) is of the T11 coming out of one of the
>> split drops and has a time stamp of 4:16:36 PM. Boom!
>> As in that’s pretty accurate, relatively speaking, given that we
>> don’t have any absolute time stamps on any of these files, because
>> it just doesn’t work that way in the real world, unless somebody
>> decides to make it do that.
Marti…
Couple of things.
You are right. There is no doubt that even though they DO capture the same
SINGLE SEAT drop… the 152406 video and the 162300 video were shot with
TWO different video cameras.
The 152406 video was shot with a video camera on a TRIPOD… while the
162300 video was shot with a ‘handheld’ video camera.
So which one has the *REAL* timestamp?
I believe it’s the 152406 video.
The following photo in the Swartz folder DOES, in fact, appear to be a still photo
of the EXACT SAME DROP that we see happening in BOTH the 152406 video
*and* the 162300 video.
/AerialFirefightingstudy/Swartz/Pictures/Nikon/North of Fire/Seat Drop 3/
20130630_1524_AZ-A1S-000688_T874___1_G_RS.JPG
Camera: Nikon COOLPIX P520
Lens: 107 mm (Max aperture f/3)
Exposure: Auto exposure, Program AE, 1/250 sec, f/4.9, ISO 160
Flash: Off, Did not fire
Focus: AF-S, Mid-left
Focus 2: AF Area Mode: Dynamic Area
Date: June 30, 2013 – 3:24:31 PM
Location: Latitude/longitude: 34° 16′ 19.7″ North, 112° 43′ 51.9″ West
Location decimal: ( 34.272152, -112.731085 )
Altitude: 1,375.3 m
File: 3,672 × 4,896 JPEG (18.0 megapixels)
If we are going to trust the timestamps on the Swartz photos… then this simply
CONFIRMS that the drop actually did take place in the 1524 timeframe… and
*NOT*( in the 1623 timeframe as the 162300 video seems to suggest.
Things are *still* just a ‘little wonky’ timewise, however, but ( I believe ) fully
explainable now.
The timestamp on Swartz’s photo showing the actual moment of ‘retardant
dropping’ from this single SEAT is 1524.31.
That does NOT match the actual ‘drop time’ for this single SEAT drop as
shown in the 152406 video… but it may be ‘close enough’.
Here is the actual ‘moment of the drop’ as recorded starting at the +2:05
second mark in the 152406 video…
__________________________________________________________________
+2:05 ( 1523.15 / 3:23.15 PM )
(Foreground person 1 – Panebaker?): Here he comes.
+2:13 ( 1523.23 / 3:23.23 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins): Operations, Air Attack, Air-To-Ground
+2:18 ( 1523.28 / 3:23.28 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): Go ahead.
+2:19 ( 1523.29 / 3:23.29 PM )
( RETARDANT DROP STARTS FROM THE SINGLE SEAT )
+2:19 ( 1523.29 / 3:23.29 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins): Okay… Ahhhh… we’ll probly be around there
in about five. Umm… What’s your plan on the ground?
+2:20 ( 1523.30 / 3:23.30 PM )
( RETARDANT IS NOW FULLY DROPPING FROM THE SINGLE SEAT )
+2:27 ( 1523.37 / 3:23.37 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): What I’d like to do… ah… is… ah… tie into ( that court here? ) where ya
see the whole ??. If we can tag onto the road up here and then just run it… ah… you know…
( transmission breaks up and cuts off ).
FOREGROUND OVERLAP…
+2:27 ( 1523.37 / 3:23.37 PM )
(Tanker 810): Eight one zero OFF… hard right.
(B33 – French): Lookin’ like you already got me in sight…
looks like your drop went in there good. Thank you.
(Tanker 810): ( Back to ?? )
__________________________________________________________________
So… according to the 152406 video… the ‘moment of the drop’ appears to have
been from a START time of +2:19 ( 1523.29 / 3:23.29 PM ) to ‘fully dropping
retardant’ ( as seen in the Swartz photo ) at +2:20 ( 1523.30 / 3:23.30 PM ).
However… the timestamp on Swartz’s photo for that same ‘fully dropping
retardant’ moment is 1524.31 ( 3:24.31 PM ).
That’s pretty much a full 61 seconds different ( ahead of the video )… but it IS
definitely *within* 61 seconds… which we might have to simply accept as
‘accurate enough to be the same moment’.
I believe this Swartz photo IS of the same exact ‘single SEAT drop’ moment
as seen in the 152406 video… but Swartz’s camera was simply *about* 61
seconds AHEAD of that camera on the tripod that day.
The other reason I believe that Swartz’s photo MUST be of the same drop being
shown in the 152406 video is that even if that SEAT was making MULTIPLE drops
at that location… the simple 61 second time difference is NOT enough time for
his photo to have been of a full ‘go around’ and/or ANOTHER drop by the same
SEAT at the same location.
Not only is there no indication of that happening in the audio or the Air-To-Air
channel traffic… 61 seconds is NOT enough time for them to have made a
complete ‘circle around’ for another pass… either BEFORE or AFTER this
drop captured in the 152606 video.
Also note…
At +2:14 in the 152406 video a white SUV passes the camera heading
west on Hays Ranch Road. The same white SUV is also seen in the
162300 video just a few hundred feet further west on Hays Ranch Road.
No big additional revelation there… just more proof that the 152406 video
and the 162300 video are ‘of the same event happening at the same time’.
So what does all this now mean?
I believe it means the following…
1) There is no doubt that the Swartz photo, the +2:18 second mark in the
152406 video, and the contents of the 162300 video are all THE SAME
SINGLE SEAT DROP being photographed/videoed with 1 digital camera
( Swartz’s ) and TWO different video cameras ( one on tripod, one handheld ).
2) The Swartz photo verifies that the drop really did take place right around
1523.30 that day… and NOT in the 1623 timeframe as the mysterious 162300
video seems to suggest. Swartz’s digitial camera was simply +61 seconds
ahead of the time set on the video camera that was on the tripod that day.
3) The 162300 video *could* just simply be a ‘renaming error’ on Panebaker’s
( or someone else’s? ) part and he really did just mean it to have a filename
of 152300 instead ( even though even that timestamp would not be totally
accurate ). It was NOT an ‘extraction’ from the actual 152406 video that was
then ‘saved to disk’ with a wrong filename… it was the 11.7 seconds from the
OTHER handheld video camera that was (somehow) saved/named with
*WRONG* timestamp about 1 hour into the future.
So… mystery solved?
There WAS no *original* 162300 video at all? ( or at least not one that got
‘replaced’ with 11.7 seconds from another video? ).
This was just some kind of RENAMING error on TWO (different) videos from
TWO different cameras that DO show the same SEAT drop event happening
circa 1523.30 that day?
Followup…
In a previous post ( down below ) I wrote…
>> Marti…
>> At exactly +4 seconds in the 11.7 second 162300 video… a
>> shutter click is heard. It comes right after OPS1 Todd Abel
>> says “Go ahead” and then Air Attack Rory Collins starts his
>> “Okay… uh… we’ll probly be around there in about five”
>> response.
>>
>> The ‘shutter click’ also comes at the exact moment that the
>> retardant flow was turned on during this SEAT drop captured
>> in the 162300 video.
>>
>> The SAME EXACT ‘shutter click’ is also heard at the SAME
>> EXACT moment at the +2:20 mark in the 152406 video ( an
>> hour earlier? ) and is part of the same 11 seconds from
>> 152406 ‘duplicated’ as the content of 162300.
>>
>> I can’t seem to find a match for this still photo in ANY of the
>> folders up in the ‘Aerial Firefighting Study’ folder.
>> Not even in Panebaker’s specific ‘SEAT drops’ folder. ( Which
>> is what the 162300 video is showing… a SEAT drop ). Pity.
>> Maybe THAT still camera would have had a correct setting in
>> order to verify 162300 itself.
There DOES appear to be such a ‘photo’ in the folder(s).
Apparently I just ‘missed it’ on a first pass.
I believe the Swartz photo being referenced above IS the one
that corresponds to this ‘shutter click’ heard at the same
exact moment in BOTH the 152406 and 162300 video(s),
and it DOES help verify the TIME when this single SEAT
drop *actually* took place.
Hate to say it but.
That photo filename (thank you swartz for doing this consistently in your photos!!) has the name of the plane in it, It’s T874. The plane being directed in the two videos by Bravo 33 is three-one-zero. You can hear that in 162406.
Unfortunately Swartz doesn’t have any photos of 310 making this drop. That’s because, in my opinion, he’s NOT using a different camera, he’s using the same one and only Nikon Coolpix that they are using to shoot the videos.
Typo. you can hear
French Bravo 33 saying that on 152406.
And I ask myself, what is the importance of this?
It’s because people are using the Panebaker videos to establish when things are being said. IMHO, after today, I don’t believe the “times” being used in the filenames are accurate, for a variety of reasons.
One, because I’m finding that the timestamps on these videos don’t appear accurate and two….
Because whoever was translating them into the filenames seems to have also been confused as to how to translate them.
Reply to Marti Reed post on
May 18, 2014 at 11:36 pm
>> Marti said…
>> And I ask myself, what is the importance
>> of this?
>> It’s because people are using the
>> Panebaker videos to establish when
>> things are being said.
Yes… that’s one BIG reason… but with
regards to this one single ‘mystery’
of the 162300 video… it’s also all about
just establishing if things that are now
permanently in the public evidence record
really ARE what they SAY they are.
*OR*
…whether there is any ‘evidence’ that things
are MISSING which OUGHT to be there.
The 162300 video ‘mystery’ really did look,
at first, as if something that OUGHT to be
there ( an Air Study video capturing events
and/or radio traffic circa 1623 ) *might*
have been ‘replaced’ with something ELSE.
That is looking much less likely now… but
it is still worth verifying as much as possible.
>> Marti also said…
>> IMHO, after today, I don’t believe the
>> “times” being used in the filenames are
>> accurate, for a variety of reasons.
Your ‘points one and two’ up above are
valid… but in *general* I still think MOST
of the Panebaker video timestamps
*CAN* be trusted.
There are a LOT of ‘overlapping’ radio
transmits between these Panebaker
videos and the other ( long running )
Air-To-Air channell videos that DO
sort of prove that at least the timestamps
between those TWO video cameras were
perhaps only SECONDS apart…
…but I agree there appear to be exceptions.
SOME of the Panebaker Air Study video
timestamps ( even other than the
mysterious 162300 one ) appear to still
be a little ‘wonky’.
Reply Marti Reed post on May 18, 2014 at 10:57 pm
>> Marti said…
>>
>> Hate to say it but.
>> That photo filename (thank you swartz for doing
>> this consistently in your photos!!) has the name
>> of the plane in it, It’s T874. The plane being
>> directed in the two videos by Bravo 33 is three-
>> one-zero. You can hear that in 162406.
Actually… it is 810 ( Eight one zero ), not 310, but
you are still RIGHT. It is Tanker 810 making the
drop in BOTH videos and he says so himself as
he finishes that drop and is heard ( in BOTH of
the videos ) completing the drop by announcing…
“Eight one zero OUT… hard RIGHT”.
As far as whether or not the ‘title’ on that Swartz
photo actually matches reality… it’s hard to say.
We now have a situation where either the TIME
on Swartz’s camera was WILDLY wrong… and
could not possibly have been a mere 61 seconds
off… OR… the time on Swartz’s camera really
was ‘reasonably accurate’ ( within, say 60 seconds ),
and he is just totally mistaken about what the
number of the SEAT was that he was photographing
at 1524.
A super-enhancement of that Swartz photo SEEMS
to indicate that the actual number on the TAIL of
that plane making that drop is, in fact, 810.
It’s pretty hard to make out because of the smoke
but I would put money on 810 and not 874. The
last digit of the 3-digit tail number seems to most
definitely be a ZERO and not a FOUR.
Also… even though T874 looks VERY similar to
810 ( same type of plane )… Air Tanker 874 also
has the word FIRE ( in big black letters ) on the tail
under the 874 tail number… which I can almost say
for certain is NOT present under the 3 digit tail
number of that SEAT in Swartz’s 1524 photograph.
Tanker 874 apparently has a registration number of
N174ML.
The registration number for Air Tanker 810 is
apparently N187LA… and here is a ‘close-up’
photo of it ( matches Swartz photo exactly )…
http://highsierraspotters.com/forum/gallery/showimage.php?s=2421e773c8f3bbd7b5d3eeadf75181ba&i=4633&c=6
BTW: The GPS information on that Swartz photo
is actually accurate. That IS exactly where he
was standing when he took this photo of that
SEAT drop.
More on this later.
The KEY will be that regardless of what it says
in Swartz’s photo title… exactly WHERE was
T874 at exactly 1524?
If it was off on a ‘load and return’ at that time, then
Swartz simply was mistaken about which plane
he was taking a picture of at 1524.
Followup…
Here’s a link to a corresponding ‘photo’ of
Tanker 874. Notice the word FIRE in big
black letters on the tail under the ‘874’
tail number.
I can say pretty much for certain that there
is NO such word FIRE under the tail number
of that SEAT in the 1524 Swartz photo.
Just the 3 digit number that DOES, in fact,
appear to at least end with ZERO.
Nothing else UNDER the tail number.
Firefighting Tankers and Support Aircraft…
Tanker 874 – Registration number N174MLK
http://azaerophoto.com/forum/index.php?topic=234.60
OK, WTKTT, I think you’re right.
The sequence which begins with Bravo 33 saying “eight-one-zero how we lookin?” at 00:31 in 152406_SEAT is right there at 5:18 in the 1544 Air2Air video.
Of course, we don’t know how accurate the timestamping is on the Contour +2 videocam, but I’m guessing it at least isn’t as wonky as the Nikon!
Kudos!
I think you’re right about the cameras, also, now. There’s no way that still and that video could have been shot on the same camera. They were both Nikon Coolpix P520’s. What threw me off was the wording in the “Panebeker Photo and Video Information” docx.
It says:
“Photos were taken primarily with a Canon EOS Rebel T3I, a couple were taken with a Nikon P520. Video in the video folder was also taken with the Nikon Coolpix P520.”
Sounds like they’re describing on camera, right?
Lightroom doesn’t show camera metadata, except the timestamp, for videos. So there is no camera name, much less Camera Serial Numbers. So I wasn’t “seeing” anything to tell me those were two different “versions” of the same camera.
So now I can quit wondering how the camera was stamping the stills “accurately” but not the videos.
The Moore folder includes some photos of that drop, too, and they sequence right in that framework, also. Starting with 20130630_Loc1_seat (20).jpg at 3:23.23 PM. Also Swartz shot the scene before the drop on his iPad at 3:20:42 PM.
**
** MORE ABOUT THE MYSTERIOUS 162300 AIR STUDY VIDEO
**
** WHAT WAS *REALLY* HAPPENING CIRCA 1623 ( 4:23 PM )?
Since we don’t know if there ever even WAS an ‘original 162300’ Air Study
Video ( of any length ) that was then ‘replaced’ with the 11.7 clip from another
video taken almost an HOUR earlier… it’s impossible to say how much ‘radio
traffic’ that original 162300 video *might* have captured ( if it existed ).
For the sake of argument… let’s assume that it DID exist and that it WAS much
more than 11.7 seconds… and that it actually ‘covered’ the time period that
stretched all the way back to the Air Study video that immediately preceded it.
All that means is that it couldn’t have been more than FOUR minutes
long, since the Air Study Video that immediately precedes the
20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP Air Study video was the 20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP one.
( 162300 minus 161858 equals 4 minutes and 2 seconds )
It is doubtful that even if the original 162300 video was MUCH longer than 11.7
seconds that it would have been this full FOUR minutes long ( since no other
Panebaker video was that long and never really exceeded 3 minutes in length )…
…but again… just for the sake of completeness… here are the full FOUR minutes
of captured Air-To-Air channel traffic that would cover the entire time in-between
the 161858 video and the 162300 one… just to see what was *really*
happening ( on Air-To-Air, anyway ) during that timeframe.
The timeframe that actually covers the 11.7 seconds of the existing 162300
video is marked in the transcript below.
As the transcript below shows… NO ACTUAL DROPS took place during this
1618.58 and 1623.00 time period ( as the 162300 video seems to suggest )…
and B33 Thomas French was simply just still in the planning stages for the
upcoming ‘two seat’ drop with Tankers 874 and 830 ( captured in a completely
separate video from the 162300 one ).
** VIDEO 20130630_1628_EP STARTS AT 1547.46 ( 3:47.46 PM )
Length of video: 40 minutes and 14 seconds.
NOTE: The first 30 minutes and 42 seconds omitted from this posting to save
space. Only the FOUR minutes that covers the gap between the 161858 and
162300 videos is included.
+30:43 ( 1618.29 / 4:18.29 PM )
(Tanker 830): I gotcha… am I comin’ in too, Rusty?
+30:48 ( 1618.34 / 4:18.34 PM )
(Tanker 830): Is eight three zero comin’ in with eight seven four?
+30:51 ( 1618.37 / 4:18.37 PM )
(B33 – French): Afirmative. Eight seven four and eight three zero you’re
both cleared in. Two nine eight zero… come in at fifty-five.
+30:57 ( 1618.43 / 4:18.42 PM )
(Tanker 830): Roger.
+31:00 ( 1618.46 / 4:18.46 PM )
(B33 – French): Nine one one… ya still up?
+31:02 ( 1618.48 / 4:18.48 PM )
(VLAT 911): Yes sir.
+31:03 ( 1618.49 / 4:18.49 PM )
(B33 – French): That was absolutely right on… both drops… thank you.
+31:06 ( 1618.52 / 4:18.52 PM )
(VLAT 911): Thank you. ‘preciate it.
+31:10 ( 1618.56 / 4:18.56 PM )
(5KA): Five Kilo Alpha’s out of the dip.
+31:12 ( 1618.58 / 4:18.58 PM )
(B33 – French): Kilo Alpha you’re clear to the drop.
+31:14 ( 1619.00 / 4:19.00 PM )
(5KA): Kilo Alpha
+31:23 ( 1619.09 / 4:19.09 PM )
(B33 – French): Eight seven four… set me up a coverage level 4… whole load… okay?
+31:26 ( 1619.12 / 4:19.12 PM )
(874): Okay.
( 40 SECOND PAUSE – NO RADIO TRAFFIC )
+32:06 ( 1619.52 / 4:19.52 PM )
(5KA): Five Kilo Alpha’s off the drop
+32:07 ( 1619.53 / 4:19.53 PM )
(B33 – French): Kilo Alpha Bravo 33 copy… Hey… I gotcha in sight
so I’ll be low level on this flight but I DO have you in sight… give me a call off the dip.
+32:14 ( 1620.00 / 4:20.00 PM )
(5KA): Will do.
( 42 SECOND PAUSE – NO RADIO TRAFFIC )
+32:56 ( 1620.42 / 4:20.42 PM )
(Unknown): And Bravo 33 eight ?? comin’ around on the east side…
lookin’ for ya… oh… I gotcha.
+33:00 ( 1620.46 / 4:20.46 PM )
(B33 – French): Follow me around… we’re gonna take ya right to
work… allright?
+33:03 ( 1620.49 / 4:20.49 PM )
(Unknown): Allright.
+33:04 ( 1620.50 / 4:20.50 PM )
(B33 – French): You’re clear down to five… and… uh… I’m gonna start my
turn to the left… I’m outta one sixty for one twenty.
+33:11 ( 1620.57 / 4:20.57 PM )
(Unknown): Okay.
+33:13 ( 1620.59 / 4:20.59 PM )
(B33 – French): Puttin’ on the brakes.
+33:17 ( 1621.03 / 4:21.03 PM )
(5KA): Kilo Alpha’s outta the dip.
+33:20 ( 1621.06 / 4:21.06 PM )
(B33 – French): Kilo Alpha gimme a call off the drop.
+33:22 ( 1621.08 / 4:21.08 PM )
(5KA): Will do.
+33:38 ( 1621.24 / 4:21.24 PM )
(B33 – French): Eight seven four… that’s you in the front of the line, right?
+33:41 ( 1621.27 / 4:21.27 PM )
(Tanker 874): Affirm
+33:42 ( 1621.28 / 4:21.28 PM )
(B33 – French): Okay… what we’re gonna do is… we’re gonna build line
backwards. I need to extend my… uh… pattern just a little bit we’re gonna
get a helicopter in and out… kind of at the… uh… north end of that flank.
Gimmee a good left turn on the exit, okay?
+33:52 ( 1621.38 / 4:21.38 PM )
(Tanker 874): Okay
+34:08 ( 1621.54 / 4:21.54 PM )
(B33 – French): Okay… we ah.. we just put in a whole bunch of retardant in with the DC10 we’re gonna build line backwards… you’re gonna be starting in a light fuel patch taking it TO existing retardant… how copy?
+34:20 ( 1622.06 / 4:22.06 PM )
(Tanker 874): Sounds good.
+34:21 ( 1622.07 / 4:22.07 PM )
(B33 – French): What I’d look to do is… ah… yea… level 4… star… and I’m… I’ll pop smoke at the start… it’s even gonna be before that light… ah… fuel patch.
+34:30 ( 1622.16 / 4:22.16 PM )
(Tanker 874): Allright.
+34:31 ( 1622.17 / 4:22.17 PM )
(B33 – French): Have I got a DC10 holdin’ out there?
+34:37 ( 1622.23 / 4:22.23 PM )
(VLAT 911): That’s nine one… ah… one to the… ah… south.
+34:40 ( 1622.26 / 4:22.26 PM )
(B33 – French): Okay… copy that… ah… looks like you were just motionless… er… okay… thanks a lot… we’ll see ya in bit.
+34:44 ( 1622.30 / 4:22.30 PM )
(VLAT 911): Yea… just stayin’ close but out of the area.
+34:46 ( 1622.32 / 4:22.32 PM )
(B33 – French): Yea… you got it.
+34:48 ( 1622.34 / 4:22.34 PM )
(Helicopter 5KA): Kilo Alpha’s off the drop.
+34:51 ( 1622.37 / 4:22.37 )
(B33 – French): Kilo Alpha’s off the drop… break eight seven four… you ready to go?
+34.54 ( 1622.40 / 4:22.40 PM )
(Tanker 874): I’m ready to go.
+34.56 ( 1622.42 / 4:22.42 PM )
(B33 – French): Allright… I’m gonna start my descent… you’re gonna see the
existing retardant put in by… ah… by nine one one so we’ll be taking retardant
TO that.
*****************************************************************************
** NOTE: 1622.49 is supposedly the START of the 11 second long
** Air Study Video 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP.MOV
*****************************************************************************
+35:05 ( 1622.51 / 4:22.51 PM )
(Tanker 874): Copy
+35:06 ( 16:22.52 / 4:22.52 PM )
(B33 – French): Little bit hard to see here… so basically their retardant
started in the flats. We’re gonna be kind of up in the foothill portion.
I’ll pop smoke at the start. Gimme about a wingspan left for ah… drift
Drop heading’s gonna be about zero eight five.
****************************************************************************
** NOTE: 1623.00 is supposedly the END of the 11 second long
** Air Study Video 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP.MOV
****************************************************************************
VIDEO 20130630_1628_EP ENDS AT 1628.00 ( 4:28.00 PM )
Length of video: 40 minutes and 14 seconds.
The Panebaker VLAT pictures labeled 1715’ish are incorrect. These pictures are actually the split drop from the VLAT from 1617. I am not sure if this is relevant, or if it has already been identified.
Hey, Calvin, which particular photos of the split drop are you referring to? I’m seeing a variety of them in the various folders.
Reply to calvin post on May 18, 2014 at 4:48 am said:
>> calvin said…
>> The Panebaker VLAT pictures labeled 1715′ish are
>> incorrect. These pictures are actually the split drop from
>> the VLAT from 1617. I am not sure if this is relevant,
>> or if it has already been identified.
calvin… yes… it’s very relevant for a number of reasons.
You just pointed out that we have been *assuming* that
the both the filename and EXIF timestamps on the Panakebaker STILL photos are ‘correct’.
You are right… that doesn’t really appear to be the case.
The Panebaker 20130630_171528-1_EP photo in the
‘VLAT drops’ still photos folder is also the one that is a
‘perfect match’ for Tom Story’s 7093 photo of the same
drop… which Story’s Canon 1D said took place at 1639.
So however ‘wrong’ these Panebaker STILL images are is also directly related to how ‘wrong’ Tom Story’s Canon 1D was set that day.
We were assuming a +36 minute error there, but if the Panebaker still photos ALSO have ‘bogus’ timestamps
then that is no longer correct.
So now we need to figure out just how *wrong* BOTH
Panebaker’s Canon EOS REBEL T3i *AND* Story’s Canon EOS 1D were that day.
Geez. what a mess.
Reminder to anyone getting paid to take pictures of a fire in the future… please make sure the time/date settings on the cameras you are using are CORRECT. Thanks in advance.
So……. I downloaded (and am still downloading) a representative smattering of the Panebaker et al photos and videos.
The File-naming of the videos is all over the boards, compared to the time-stamping. A bunch of the mis-file-naming appears to be typos. For example, 143844 has a time stamp of 4:38:41 PM. Ahem. And 150530 is time stamped 5:05:30 PM. Buyer Beware!
Which leads to our favorite mysterious pair. 162300 is stamped 4:23:01 PM. Accurate? Quite possibly, relatively speaking. 152406 is stamped 5:21:07 PM. Think about THEM apples! There is no way, given what’s going on, that what is happening in that video is happening at 5:21:07 PM!!! So I would be more likely to trust 162300 than 152406.
And speaking of these two videos, the short one is not an edit out of the long one. They’re two completely different videos, captured by two different cameras.
152406_SEAT, with a most likely wrong filename and timestamp, and 162300, with its possibly more accurate timestamp and filemame, were both recorded on the Nikon Coolpix P520. It was on a tripod. It can record up to 24 minutes of video at a time.
Which leads me to my theory. Panebaker et al shot the main videos (except for the ones w/air2air capture, which were recorded on a Contour +2 videocam) on the Nikon in much longer chunks than we see here. Then, probably soon after, they had to sit down and split those videos into smaller chunks. Because…that’s what you have to do. As they were splitting them, they were exporting them out, and had to give them names. Some of them they may have been naming correctly. Some of them they clearly weren’t.
And I don’t know, when you split videos like these up, in something like QuickTime, what happens to the time stamps in the course of doing that. I’ve so far never had to pay attention to that, but then, I’m just learning how to shoot video.
Was the Nikon’s timestamper generally off? I don’t know. Periodically, a photo was taken on that camera. The photos are in the Schultz folder. 20130630_1616_AZ-A1S-000688_T911___7_G_RS.JPG (Please dear Universe, don’t ever compel me to type that out on my iPad ever again…) is of the T11 coming out of one of the split drops and has a time stamp of 4:16:36 PM. Boom! As in that’s pretty accurate, relatively speaking, given that we don’t have any absolute time stamps on any of these files, because it just doesn’t work that way in the real world, unless somebody decides to make it do that.
So that’s what I’ve discovered so far. When I first started looking at those files and their metadata in Lightroom, I wrote in my notes, “Marti starts slowly backing out of THIS particular project…….”
So this is a reminder to people analyzing video. Sometimes it helps to watch them while you’re listening to them.
Also. One of my first thoughts as WTKTT (thankfully) starting posting his concerns about these videos was that I have no problem imagining a four-minute lapse in recording. Sometimes, yah know, you have to change out things like batteries and memory cards. And, now that I’ve per used this thing a little bit, maybe we DON’T have a lapse at all. Maybe 162300 WAS shot at that time and so was 152406!!
Marti…
At exactly +4 seconds in the 11.7 second 162300 video… a shutter click is heard. It comes right after OPS1 Todd Abel says “Go ahead” and then Air Attack Rory Collins starts his “Okay… uh… we’ll probly be around there in about five” response.
The ‘shutter click’ also comes at the exact moment that the retardant flow was turned on during this SEAT drop captured in the 162300 video.
The SAME EXACT ‘shutter click’ is also heard at the SAME EXACT moment at the +2:20 mark in the 152406 video ( an hour earlier? ) and is part of the same 11 seconds from 152406 ‘duplicated’ as the content of 162300.
I can’t seem to find a match for this still photo in ANY of the folders up in the ‘Aerial Firefighting Study’ folder. Not even in Panebaker’s specific ‘SEAT drops’ folder. ( Which is what the 162300 video is showing… a SEAT drop ). Pity. Maybe THAT still camera would have had a correct setting in order to verify 162300 itself.
So… just to be clear…
Despite what you said above… I still don’t think there is *ANY* question that the entire 162300 video is not an exact duplicate of the 11.7 seconds seen at the +2:18 mark in the 152406 video. The ‘mystery’ is why this is so…
…but I hear you up above with your ‘potential’ explanation.
Are you saying that it could just possibly be that this same SEAT drop was captured with TWO different video cameras at the same time… but the one that was running longer and captured the full 2+ minutes ( that includes this SEAT DROP ) was simply mis-named into the 152406 timerange and should have ACTUALLY been named 162406 instead?
Okay… bad typo above.
The word ‘not’ slipped in there which
changed the intent of what I was trying
to say, I think.
Should have read like this…
Despite what you said above… I still don’t think there is *ANY* question that the entire 162300 video is, in fact, an exact duplicate of the 11.7 seconds seen at the +2:18 mark in the 152406 video. The ‘mystery’ is why this is so”.
So just to be cystal clear…
I still think that 162300 video IS an EXACT DUPLICATE of the 11 seconds at the +2:18 mark in the 152606 video.
Hmmm… I think I need to scratch this
comment of my own from above…
“Are you saying that it could just possibly be that this same SEAT drop was captured with TWO different video cameras at the same time… but the one that was running longer and captured the full 2+ minutes ( that includes this SEAT DROP ) was simply mis-named into the 152406 timerange and should have ACTUALLY been named 162406 instead?”
Even this isn’t really a possible explanation.
The 1624 timeframe *IS* covered by the
Panebaker video
20130630_162508_2SEATS_EP, which is 1
minute and 49 seconds long, and ( according to THAT filename timestamp ) starts capturing events at 1623.19 ( 4:23.19 PM ) and ENDS at 1625.08 ( 4:25.08 PM ).
So even if someone ‘misnamed’ the
152406 video and really meant it to
say 162406… everything is still ‘wonky’.
The TWO SEAT drop ( 830 following 874 )
is what is really happening at 162406, and
NOT the SINGLE seat drop shown in both
the 152406 and 162300 videos.
Yes, It’s exactly what I’m saying. Those are completely different videos. WATCH THEM!!!!!
And I’m also saying, these videos, recorded on the Nikon Coolpix are a bloody mess that I’m still trying to sort out.So it’s no surprise they tripped,you up.
Fortunately, I’m pretty sure the photos from it (in the Swartz folder — and they are actually quite astonishing) are accurately time stamped. And I have NO IDEA how that could happen.
So I’m currently downloading some more videos to see if the camera (or whatever) started out accurate, and went gonzo, or if it was that way all day (or thru what ever editor they put the videos through).
SOMETHING went wrong.
Reply to Marti Reed post
on May 18, 2014 at 7:53 pm
>> Marti said…
>> Fortunately, I’m pretty sure
>> the photos from it (in the
>> Swartz folder — and they
>> are actually quite
>> astonishing) are accurately
>> time stamped.
Well.. I hope so.
See new post above entiteld…
** MYSTERY SOLVED
I was wrong just above about
saying there didn’t seem to
be a still photo that matches
the ‘shutter click’ heard in
BOTH the 152406 and 162300
videos at the moment that
single SEAT was ‘dropping’.
There IS such a photograph.
I just missed it at first.
It’s in the Swartz folder(s).
I have NO IDEA which of these
Air Study devices actually had
the RIGHT time that day… but
if we assume ( as we have
been doing for a while now )
that the tripod-mounted video
cameras DID have the ‘correct
time’ that day… then Swartz’s
camera still falls into the
‘accurate enough’ category but
still appears to have been
about 61 seconds ahead of
the time on the tripod
mounted camera(s).
I would still call +/- 60 seconds
‘close enough for accuracy’
on a day like this.
Reply to Marti Reed post on
May 18, 2014 at 7:44 pm
>> Marti said…
>> Yes, It’s exactly what I’m saying.
>> Those are completely different
>> videos.
Yes. You are right.
They are simply TWO *different*
video cameras ( one on a tripod and
one handheld ) recording the same
exact ‘event’ ( the same SEAT drop ).
See new posting above entiteld
** MYSTERY SOLVED?
The Swartz photo I found that appears
to also be the EXACT same SEAT
drop seems to prove that ALL of
this did, in fact, happen in the 1524
timeframe and nowhere near 162300.
Somehow… that 162300 Air Study video is just the 11.7 seconds from the ‘handheld’ being used at that time was meant to be named 152300 ( even though that isn’t even totally accurate, timewise ).
So looking more at what’s coming out of that Nikon. Trying to sync to the VLAT split. The photo of it, which I referenced above, and won’t type again, has an accurate timestamp, and the timestamp is shown on the image. The video, however, is time stamped two hours “late — 6:12:48 PM, and somebody renamed the file 161620. I don’t know where and when and how the Nikon video timestamps are going wacky. And it looks like whoever is splitting out or renaming or what those videos is having a big struggle trying to do it. Maybe in a hurry?
And now I’m not sure my earlier theory — that they videos were shot in big chunks and then split — is correct. Swartz’s folder of the photos taken with the Nikon has a lot of photos in it. I’m not sure exactly what he was doing.
Marti… FWIW… that last photo in the Swartz folder…
20130630_1716_AZ
-A1S-000688___FB_1_G_RS.JPG
has an EXIF timestamp of… 5:16:58 PM and shows
them basically ‘packing up and leaving’ that location
by the helibase where they had the tripods set up
most of the afternoon.
This does appear to be accurate.
The final video taken from the tripod actually ENDS
just before we now see him with that tripod in
his hand and about to put it into the truck.
Good catch!!
Have you looked at the Town of Yarnell Folder? YIKES!!
They drove into town. He has photos in the Ranch House Cafe parking lot from 6:38 PM til 6:44 PM. I think the last two include Brian and Trew and their UTV. he wins my gold prize today! He was also shooting on an iPad.
I’m going after 150822_VLAT_EP. It’s the first VLAT drop they shot, both photos and video, of a VLAT drop that day. I didn’t download it right, so I’m waiting. I’ll see if the Nikon was timestamping the video correctly then.
I just don’t know where the screw-up came. I really think 162300 (snot om a different camrea) is both stamped and file named correctly, and 152406, shot on the Nikon, clearly isn’t
The next thing to do would be to go into the Air2Air videos, and see if there’s a match somewhere. But I’m not gonna have time anytime soon to do it…..
Yikes, typing too fast on the iPad again! Sorry for the typos!
Reply to Marti Reed post
on May 18, 2014 at 8:13 pm
>> Marti said…
>> Have you looked at the Town of
>> Yarnell Folder? YIKES!!
Yes. It really was a disaster.
It’s an absolute MIRACLE that more
people were not killed that day.
One of the things I can’t figure out
about that sequence of Swartz
photos is that if you look carefully…
he is approaching the Ranch House
Restaurant ( and taking pictures out
the window of his vehicle ) from the
SOUTH ( not the NORTH, where
he was taking pictures earlier ).
So, somehow Swartz worked his
way further SOUTH than the Ranch
House Restaurant following the
deployment and now we simply
see him coming back NORTH
to it… and pulling into the parking lot.
It would also be nice if someone could
identify all those fire guys in THESE
photos standing in the parking lot,
including the one who is GLARING
at Swartz as he takes photos, even
though the other guy to the right with
the red helmet is obviously freely
shooting photos or video with an
iPhone at that same time.
The guy who is GLARING at Swartz
has a BLUE Helmet… but the Blue
Ridge Hotshots had already
evacuated the Ranch House parking
lot by this time.
Could that be BR Hotshot Ball who
have been ‘left behind’ at the parking
lot that day?
When Frisby and Brown drove out
from the deployment area in the
UTV Ranger… the GPS tracker
shows them going straight up NORTH
towards the ICP command center,
so I don’t think it’s either Frisby
or Brown in that photo.
>> Marti also wrote…
>> They drove into town. He has
>> photos in the Ranch House Cafe
>> parking lot from 6:38 PM til 6:44
>> PM. I think the last two include
>> Brian and Trew and their UTV.
>> he wins my gold prize today!
>> He was also shooting on an iPad.
See above. I believe the BR GPS
tracker shows Frisby and Brown
driving straight up to the ICP after
they came out of the deployment
area… and the rest of BR evacuated
the parking lot shortly after that
in the vehicles. So the guy in the
Blue Helmet seems to have been
a BR Hotshot that was ‘left behind’.
Ball?
>> Marti also said…
>> I just don’t know where the
>> screw-up came. I really think
>> 162300 (shot on a different
>> camera) is both stamped and file
>> named correctly, and 152406,
>> shot on the Nikon, clearly isn’t.
See new post above.
I believe the Swartz photo of the
same SEAT drop puts things the
other way around. That SEAT drop
was in the 1524 timeframe and
NOT the 1623 timeframe.
>> Marti also said…
>> The next thing to do would be to
>> go into the Air2Air videos, and see
>> if there’s a match somewhere. But
>> I’m not gonna have time anytime
>> soon to do it…..
Probably no need.
See new post above with title
** MYSTERY SOLVED?
There IS a Swartz photo that IS most
likely that same exact SEAT drop
seen in BOTH the 152406 and 162300
videos ( shot with different video
cameras ).
Swartz’s digital camera was only
61 seconds ahead of whatever video
camera was sitting on the TRIPOD
that day and capturing drops.
So I believe the ‘proof’ is there that
Swartz’s photo, the 152406 video
( shot on tripod ) and the 162300
video ( handheld video camera )
are all capturing the SAME SEAT
drop… and it was in the 1524
timeframe ( not 1623 ).
Whether that means the handheld
used to shoot the 11.7 seconds was
just a full HOUR off ( timezone error? )
or it was a ‘file renaming’ error is the
only thing that still needs to be
figured out, IMHO.
What I’m kinda sorta generally seeing is that Swartz, who seems to have been in charge of the Nikon (while Panebaker was actually photographing with a Canon t3i ( which is the camera I use)) was taking photos every 10-20-30 minutes.
So I think he was shooting, say, a bit of video, then stopping and shooting some photos, and then switching back to video.
So I no longer think these videos were split out from longer ones. I think the videos were started, recorded, then stopped in camera.
So no-one was splitting them later in QuickTime or such. That means whatever mis-time-stamping was happening must have been happening in camera. Problem is, I’ve never heard of that happening, with a camera correctly stamping its photos and incorrectly stamping its videos. That’s where I’m stumped.
It’s now pretty obvious that in those 11.7 seconds that ended up being ‘named’ the 162300 video… whoever shot that was HURRYING to grab the camera and record that SEAT drop.
The first few seconds show the operator fumbling to point the camera… and then fumbling to ZOOM and catch the SEAT drop in the nick of time… with retardant dropping.
So YES… these 11.7 seconds now just look like a ‘quick opportunity’ to get ADDITIONAL video of the same SEAT drop ( circa 1523.30 ) that was already being captured by the OTHER video camera on the tripod.
How it ended up with a filename of 162300?… that’s still a mystery.
Followup to the original parent comment above that has
the ‘transcript’ in it.
What I should have made clear(er) in the original parent comment
was that the ‘2 SEAT drop’ with 830 following 874 DOES, in fact,
take place very soon after that transcript above ends…
…and that ‘2 SEAT drop’ is fully captured in the Panebaker
video 20130630_162508_2SEATS_EP, which is 1 minute and
49 seconds long, and ( according to the filename timestamp )
starts capturing events at 1623.19 ( 4:23.19 PM ) and ENDS
at 1625.08 ( 4:25.08 PM ).
French, in B33, starts ‘poppin’ smoke right at +21 seconds
( 1623.40 ) in that video ( just as he says he does in the audio )… and then 874 is seen ‘dropping’ at exactly +35 seconds
( 1623.54 ) and 830 then follows him right away dropping
retardant at exactly +57 seconds ( 1624.16 ).
The point here is that this is a TWO SEAT drop and it happens AFTER the 162300 video ENDS… whereas the 11 seconds of the 162300 video (supposedly) shows a completely different SINGLE seat drop with a completely different SEAT happening just a few seconds for the TWO seat drop…
…and BOTH drops (supposedly) being ‘guided’ by the same lead plane. Not possible.
Typo in last sentence above.
I left out the word BEFORE.
Should have read like this…
The point here is that this is a TWO SEAT drop and it happens AFTER the 162300 video ENDS… whereas the 11 seconds of the 162300 video (supposedly) shows a completely different SINGLE seat drop with a completely different SEAT happening just a few seconds BEFORE
the TWO seat drop…
…and BOTH drops (supposedly) being ‘guided’ by the same lead plane. Not possible.
Hmmmmmm I just saw this. Will check it out.
I disagree. Right when whoever (of course we now agree that’s probably Cordes) says “We’ll probably be there about five,” the tanker drops in both videos.
Reply to Marti Reed post on
May 18, 2014 at 9:20 pm
>> Marti said…
>> I disagree. Right when whoever (of
>> course we now agree that’s probably
>> Cordes) says “We’ll probably be there
>> about five,”
The only way it could be SPGS1 Gary Cordes ‘responding’ to Air Attack Rory Collins there is if Cordes was ‘authorized’ to be responding to direct callouts for ‘Operations’.
Just before the ‘Go ahead’ transmit… we hear Air Attack Rory Collins specifically ASK for ‘Operations’ to talk to him over ‘Air to Ground’.
The ‘responder’ to a request for ‘Operations’
( at that point in the day ) *would* have logically been OPS1 Todd Abel… and it even SOUNDS just like Todd Abel, and not Musser or Cordes.
This is all captured in the 152406 video…
____________________________________
+2:13 ( 1523.23 / 3:23.23 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins): Operations, Air Attack, Air-To-Ground
+2:18 ( 1523.28 / 3:23.28 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): Go ahead.
+2:19 ( 1523.29 / 3:23.29 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins): Okay… Ahhhh… we’ll probly be around there in about five. Umm… What’s your plan on the ground?
+2:27 ( 1523.37 / 3:23.37 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): What I’d like to do… ah… is… ah… tie into ( that court here? ) where ya see the whole ??. If we can tag onto the road up here and then just run it… ah… you know… ( transmission breaks up / cuts off ).
____________________________________
>> Marti also said…
>> …the tanker drops in both videos.
Yes… but I believe the proof is now there that this ‘drop’ ( and the audio capture with Air Attack Rory Collins talking to ‘Operations’ ) is definitely in the 1524 timeframe and not the 1623 timeframe.
If that really is a capture of a SINGLE SEAT
drop at 1623… some 1/4 mile off to the
east there of where they were using the
VLAT and the SEATS in most of the other videos…
…then French would have then only had about 25 seconds to completely set up the upcoming TWO SEAT drop with Tanker 874 leading and Tanker 830 following… which is captured in the next Air Study video.
Not possible.
Not enough time for French to have come off that single SEAT drop and then go through all the preparation we hear in the Air-To-Air captures for that upcoming TWO SEAT drop.
Correction for above.
It is NOT anyone from ‘Operations’
at all that says “We’ll probably be
around there in about five.”
That is actually Air Attack Rory Collins himself talking TO ‘Operations’ after someone in Operations ( sounds just like OPS1 Todd Abel ) responded to HIS “Operations, Air Attack, Air To Ground” callout with “Go ahead”.
At this point in time ( 1524 ish )… it is Air Attack Rory Collins himself who wants to know what ‘Operations’ plans to do ‘on the ground’… and he gets a full answer from what appears to be OPS1 Todd Abel regarding what ‘roads’ they want retardant to try and ‘tie into’.
OPS1 Todd Abel is still on the NORTH end of the fire at this point and actually ‘on the ground’ back there with SPGS2 Darrell Willis in the Model Creek Road area and the ‘tying into roads’ response to Air Attack Rory Collins is still all about the NORTH side of the fire.
**
** MORE ABOUT THE 162300 AIR STUDY VIDEO
Here are the ‘transcripts’ from the two Air Study Videos which prove that
the 162300 Panebaker Air Study video is simply 11.7 seconds of video that
was simply ‘extracted’ from the much longer 152406 video ( taken almost an
HOUR earlier ) and was either created as a *new* 162300 video OR was
used to REPLACE the contents of the *original* 162300 video.
Whether or not this 11.7 seconds of video simply replaced a much LONGER
video capture of what was *really* transpiring circa 1623 is still not known.
Only a comparison with the actual original 162300 video ( if it ever even existed )
could prove any difference in time lengths.
Here is the transcript of the 11.7 seconds that is the content of Air Study Video
20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP as included in the SAIT FOIA/FOIL release…
** PANEBAKER AIR STUDY VIDEO
** 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP.MOV
Transcript of both the foreground and background radio conversation captured
by Panebaker Air Study Video 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP.MOV.
A public copy of this Air Study video is in Mr. Dougherty’s online Dropbox at…
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/y3jy5opssrcvzb3/S3cCXl9pjr/AerialFirefightingstudy/Panebaker/Video/Video#lh:null-20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP.MOV
ECITW ( Every Caveat In The World )
This is what I ( me, personally ) believe is being said in the background of this
video. Your mileage may, of course, vary.
This video is 11 seconds long, so given the small note in the README.TXT file
that accompanies these Air Study videos which states that they all use the
VIDEO END time as the timestamp in the TITLE… then that means this
particular video STARTED at 1622.49 ( 4:22.49 PM )
VIDEO 162300 STARTS AT 1622.49 ( 4:22.49 PM )
BACKGROUND
+0:02 ( 1622.51 / 4:22.51 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): Go ahead.
+0:03 ( 1622.52 / 4:22.52 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins): Okay… Ahhhh… we’ll probly be around there
in about five. Umm… What’s your plan on the ground?
FOREGROUND
(Tanker 810): Eight one zero OFF… hard RIGHT.
BACKGROUND
+0:10 ( 1622.59 / 4:22.59 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): What I’d like… ( VIDEO ENDS )
NOTE: Video ends and cuts off right after the word ‘like’.
VIDEO 162300 ENDS AT 1623.00 ( 4:23.00 PM )
*** NOW… Here is the transcript from the 11 seconds of video at the +2:18 mark
*** in the Air Study Video 201300630_152406_SEAT_EP taken an HOUR earlier…
***
*** The KEY part is the duplication of the following exact query from
*** Air Attack Rory Collins to OPS1 Todd Abel… ( which is now in BOTH
*** of these Air Study Videos… but at different TIMES and almost a
*** full HOUR apart from each other…
***
*** (AA – Rory Collins): Okay… Ahhhh… we’ll probly be around there
*** in about five. Umm… What’s your plan on the ground?
This transcript includes both the FOREGROUND radio traffic ( mostly Air-To-Air
channel captures ) and the BACKGROUND ( TAC channels ) captures.
You can see clearly that the audio at the +2:18 second mark in THIS video
is identical to the audio supposedly captured almost an HOUR later
in the 162300 video.
Also… the 11 second clip from this video being used as the content for
the 162300 video only starts with the ‘Go ahead’ response from OPS1 Todd
Abel… but this ‘Go ahead’ from Abel is a direct response from Air Attack
Rory Collins having just called out to HIM with a “Operations, Air Attack on
Air To Ground” radio call at the +2:13 mark in THIS video.
Also… the ‘What I’d like to do’ phrase that also ENDS the 11 second clip used
as the content for the 162300 video is NOT ‘cut off’ in THIS video and we can
hear OPS1 Todd Abel’s full response to Air Attack Rory Collins.
VIDEO 152406 STARTS AT 1521.10 ( 3:21.10 PM )
+1:30 ( 1522.40 / 3:22.40 PM )
(B33 – French): Okay… what we’re gonna do is… uh… it’s kinda…
like I said the farthest north house… and… pretty close to the house, okay?
This one with the red engine. There’s actually two with red engines it’s
the one furthest north. Now I’m online.
+1:44 ( 1522.54 / 3:22.54 PM )
(Tanker 810): Okay. Gotcha… and… and we’re pretty much goin’ for the heavy smoke?
+1:47 ( 1522.57 / 3:22.57 PM )
(B33 – French): Yea… it’s… it’s a bead on the heavy smoke and I’m on line now
poppin’ smoke just so ya can see me. I want your line to start and bring it right
through HERE… right turn on the exit… ya got that?
+1:58 ( 1523.08 / 3:23.08 PM )
(Tanker 810): Got it.
+2:05 ( 1523.15 / 3:23.15 PM )
(Foreground person 1 – Panebaker?): Here he comes.
+2:13 ( 1523.23 / 3:23.23 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins): Operations, Air Attack, Air-To-Ground
** NOTE: Here is the START of the 11.7 seconds from THIS video
** that is duplicated as the content for Air Study Video 162300
_________________________________________________________________
+2:18 ( 1523.28 / 3:23.28 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): Go ahead.
+2:19 ( 1523.29 / 3:23.29 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins): Okay… Ahhhh… we’ll probly be around there
in about five. Umm… What’s your plan on the ground?
+2:27 ( 1523.37 / 3:23.37 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): What I’d like to do… ah… is… ah… tie into ( that court here? ) where ya
see the whole ??. If we can tag onto the road up here and then just run it… ah… you know…
( transmission breaks up and cuts off ).
FOREGROUND OVERLAP…
+2:27 ( 1523.37 / 3:23.37 PM )
(Tanker 810): Eight one zero OFF… hard right.
(B33 – French): Lookin’ like you already got me in sight…
looks like your drop went in there good. Thank you.
(Tanker 810): ( Back to ?? )
_________________________________________________________________
** NOTE: Here is the END of the 11.7 seconds from THIS video
** that is duplicated as the content for Air Study Video 162300
** but 162300 cuts off early up above right after the phrase
** “What I’d like…” in the BACKGROUND capture and the
** phrase “Eight one zero OFF…” in the FOREGROUND capture
**
** The 152406 video simply continues for another half-minute or so
** with a response from Air Attack Rory Collins…
+2:39
(B33 – French): Load and return.
(Tanker 810): Load and return… eight one zero.
+2:43 ( 1523.53 / 3:23.53 PM )
(B33 – French): Five Kilo Alpha… you’re cleared direct to the
helibase if you’re not already headed there.
+2:43 ( 1523.53 / 3:23.53 PM )
(AA – Rory Collins?): Ah.. Okay… I’ll come around once they’re… ah…
( road? )… ahm… on… ahhh… those fire spots (under ?).
+2:53 ( 1524.03 / 3:24.03 PM )
(OPS1 Todd Abel): (Responding to last transmit from AA but words not clear).
VIDEO 152406 ENDS AT 1524.06 ( 3:24.06 PM )
Reply to Bob Powers post on May 12, 2014 at 2:43 pm
>> Mr. Powers wrote…
>>…If the Helicopters were dropping water in the same area trying to hold the fire
>> down, then they definitely would have commented on the tanker drop helping
>> them out at a critical location.
Mr. Powers…
In an effort here to try and figure out what is really going on with that now
known-to-be-bogus 162300 Air Study Video ( and to see if any of these ‘other’
Air Study videos are equally bogus )… I now have full transcripts of ALL of the
other USDA Air Study videos that were on fixed tripods and capturing ALL of
the Air-To-Air channel traffic which ‘overlaps’ with these Panebaker and Moore
Air Study videos.
I will post ALL of these transcripts at some point… but since this Chapter 6
is already bigger than it should be ( and failing to load already on mobile
devices )… I am going to wait a bit and see if a new Chapter 7 starts before
attempting to do that. They are not *small* transcripts.
In the meantime… I just thought I would point out that the helicopters
‘commenting’ on the ‘goodness’ of retardant drops ( if they were in a
position to see it ) appears to be *common practice* in that ‘other world’
of WFF Air Support and this is now perfectly evident in the full transcripts
of the Air-To-Air channel traffic that day.
In just ONE of the USDA Air Study videos capturing the complete Air-To-Air
traffic… EVERY TIME the pilot of Helicopter 5KA ( Five Kilo Alpha ) saw
a retardant drop… he IMMEDIATELY would add his own unsolicited comments
to the conversation like “That was spot on!” and “Right on! Perfect!” and
sometimes even lengthier ‘Attaboy!’ style comments.
And MOST of the time… these ‘confirming goodness’ transmits right after a
retardant drop would take place WITHOUT any ‘call signs’. They would just
come out of ‘nowhere’.
So YES… if ANY of the helicopters operating on the south side of the fire
circa 1633 ( we know there were at least TWO in the air there at that
time ) saw that 1633 SEAT drop that went right between the fireline and
a house… it is VERY likely one ( or both? ) of those helicopter pilots might have
been the ones offering the unsolicited. “That’s exactly what we want” and/or
“That’s exactly right” comment(s) over the radio following that drop and
Burfiend was simply mistaken to think those comments were coming
from DIVSA Eric Marsh.
Two things:
FIRST: In a post below, WTKTT suggests that EP (one of the guys conducting the “air study” on the day of the Yarnell Hill Fire) might somehow be withholding or concealing video. I suppose that it is possible that EP is deliberately participating in a scheme to withhold information, or that the AZ Forestry folks withheld some of EP’s video, or that the SAIT is withholding some of the video, but it is equally (if not more) likely that EP just made a misstep in labeling and keeping straight all of his videos, pictures, etc.
Specifically: On June 30th, three folks (EP, SM, and Sw) were on the fire to take pictures and videos regarding the use of RETARDANT (and general air support with water drops) on fire – this is the “air study” folks keep referencing. These folks set up a main, stationary camera on a tripod that was recording from a stationary position almost non-stop, with audio coming exclusively from the air-to-air frequency (such that you can hear pilots such as Tom French, Rory Collins, “Jack,” “Kevin,” etc. talking to each other on these LONGGGGG main videos). In addition to that main camera, however, there were three people on the ground – EP, SM, and Sw – taking individual video clips and photos with various small hand-held devices. My impression is that at least one of them or maybe two had MULTIPLE hand-held devices that they were using.
Here’s the KEY: My impression is that these three folks were SPECIFICALLY interested in capturing videos/photos of the air drops (water, retardant) in action, such that, before you conclude that they are HIDING a video, consider whether there was an actual DROP from a SEAT or a VLAT during the time window in question. If not, it is entirely possible that there WAS no video from a hand-held device at exactly that moment, and NOTHING is being hidden or withheld.
To wit: At roughly 4:15 and 4:17, VLAT 911 dropped its massive load of retardant (split into two drops), and then there were two SEAT drops (one right after the other – they were in a line) at about 4:24 p.m., and then tanker 413 dropped at roughly 4:33, and then VLAT 910 was lining up for a drop when the shit hit the fan with GM. Which brings me to my second point….
SECOND: For reasons not worth getting into (given that I do not have the time or ability to provide links at this point), allow me to say again that I am pretty sure that Marsh did indeed comment to B33 about where he was hoping for some air support (e.g. a VLAT line), but Marsh made the comment WELL before 16:37. Meaning, I am fairly comfortable believing based on the way that I have been tying together all of the same materials that all of you have access to at this point that the 16:37 comment alleged to have been made by Marsh was indeed made by Marsh, but (a) it was likely uttered well before 16:37 AND (b) the words might have been slightly different than what B33 recalls (although the gist was likely the same).
This, by the way, ties into my previously-articulated view that the SAIT, ADOSH, and Wildland Fire Associate timelines are all wrong. I have no “links” to anything to support this, because my support for this is the timeline that I am slowly piecing together on my laptop and in my notebooks. There is nothing – other than my brain and notes – for me to “link” to…. 🙂
Reply to Elizabeth post on May 15, 2014 at 11:16 am
Elizabeth…
First off… let me say that whatever that noise was down below
about some kind of ‘boycott’ on responding to any more of your
posts… I did not comment on it because that’s not something
I personally believe in on a PUBLIC forum.
Yes… this is a PUBLIC forum.
If a post simply meets the acceptable criteria for ‘allowable’
commentary on the part of the person hosting this PUBLIC
discussion… then whatever someone has to say is OK with me.
But… ( likewise )… since this is a PUBLIC forum… people are then
also allowed to ‘freely comment’ ( and SHOULD ) on what anyone
else has to say… even if that comment was not ‘addressed’ to them.
That’s how this works.
If people don’t like your posts… they don’t have to respond to them.
It’s that simple.
I think folks laid out pretty well down below what they find ‘annoying’ about most of your PUBLIC posts and your ‘style’ of commenting.
You are free to either take whatever ‘advice’ was posted… or
ignore it altogether. Freedom of choice, as they say.
Ok… back to business…
>> Elizabeth said…
>> FIRST: In a post below, WTKTT suggests that EP (one of
>> the guys conducting the “air study” on the day of the Yarnell
>> Hill Fire) might somehow be withholding or concealing video.
>> I suppose that it is possible that EP is deliberately participating
>> in a scheme to withhold information, or that the AZ Forestry
>> folks withheld some of EP’s video, or that the SAIT is
>> withholding some of the video…
Correction: I did NOT say that Eric Panebaker (himself) has
‘withheld’ ( or tampered with ) information/evidence. All I said
was (quote)…
“If the 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP video ( as released by the SAIT in response to FOIA/FOIL requests ) does NOT contain the same content as the original… then HE would certainly know.”
That is simply a TRUE statement.
He would be in the *best* position to know whether or not that video that ended up as part of the FOIA/FOIL package coming from the SAIT actually contains the same things he *gave* them.
He probably still has the *originals*.
I ( me, personally ) do NOT KNOW what the ‘story’ is here.
All I know is that one of these Air Study videos is NOT what it is supposed to be… and that there MUST be SOME kind of *story*
that would explain it.
>> …but it is equally (if not more) likely that EP just made a
>> misstep in labeling and keeping straight all of his videos,
>> pictures, etc.
See my original post. I ( me, personally ) do *NOT* think it
is ‘more likely’ this is the case.
I would be the first to tell you that I have ‘mis-named’ files on a
computer when assembling collections of things… but that is
*NOT* the simple explanation for what is seen in THIS case.
If two of these Air Study videos ended up being just ‘duplicates’
of each other ( completely )… then YES… I would say the likelihood
was high that a copy / naming operation went sideways.
In this case, however, we are talking about a much more
complicated scenario.
Someone ( Repeat: I do NOT know WHO ) took the time to
EXTRACT 11.7 seconds of video from the +2:18 second mark
of a PREVIOUS video… and then SAVE that video back to disk
with a totally differnent TIME on it… just short of an HOUR later
than when it was actually taken.
That’s a little more complicated than just accidentally hitting
the wrong key at some point, or screwing up a drag-and-drop
with a mouse.
>> Elizabeth also said…
>> Here’s the KEY: My impression is that these three folks were
>> SPECIFICALLY interested in capturing videos/photos of the air
>> drops (water, retardant) in action,
That is a valid impression to have. That is what they were
getting PAID to do…
…however… you are WRONG to assume that that is the only
reason they ever shot any VIDEO.
SOME of the Panebaker / Moore videos have nothing to do with
any actual ‘retardant’ drops. The most noticeable of these are
the ones that simply have ‘fire-behavior’ in the video TITLE(S).
>> Elizabeth also said
>> such that, before you conclude that they are HIDING a video,
>> consider whether there was an actual DROP from a SEAT or
>> a VLAT during the time window in question.
See above. There did NOT have to be any kind of ‘drop’ in progress
for Panebaker or Moore to be shooting video that day.
The *mystery* surrounding the particular video in question is
that its title DOES seem to inidicate that it is SUPPOSED to be a
video of a SEAT drop at 1623… but that is NOT what it *REALLY*
is at all.
>> Elizabeth
>> SECOND: For reasons not worth getting into (given that I do
>> not have the time or ability to provide links at this point), allow
>> me to say again that I am pretty sure that Marsh did indeed
>> comment to B33 about where he was hoping for some air
>> support (e.g. a VLAT line), but Marsh made the comment
>> WELL before 16:37.
Please provide evidence if you are going to make these
kinds of statements ( or just re-read the comments below about
what people find most annoying about your posting here ).
I have certainly made some ‘leaps’ myself in an effort to try and
help us ALL decipher some mysteries in this ongoing disscusion
(mostly before there was really no evidence to go on but the stupid
SAIR report and the only thing to DO was ‘guess’ about things )…
but I believe if I have ever gotten even close to saying “I’m pretty
sure this is what happened”… there was ( at least ) extensive
explanation as to WHY I was making such a claim.
I could tell YOU right now that MY *extensive notes* seem to indicate that Darrell Willis left the north side of the fire, drove to Yarnell, borrowed an ATV from the Yarnell Fire Station… and then personally drove all the way out to where Steed and Marsh were and told them face-to-face… “You get your asses over there to town and do something that gets your name in the newspapers because I’ve got a City Council Budget meeting next week”…
…but I would NOT expect ANYONE to believe me unless I showed some ‘evidence’ to back it up.
Point taken?
Not much to add to that. I think the evidence you have gone thru the past 2 days pretty well sums up the discussion.
On another note I will be gone for a week and have a lot to catch up on here so keep on looking.
Will be at my Oak Grove Hot Shot reunion reliving the great old days. Have a good week.
TIME FOR CHAPTER SEVEN?
Signal boost to WTKTT’s earlier request for a new chapter. My mobile device crashes whenever I try to load this page now. Thanks, Mr. Dougherty, for continuing to host this discussion!
**
** WHERE IS THE *REAL* 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP
** AIR STUDY VIDEO?
After checking the Panebaker 163700 Air Study video again for ANY evidence of ANYONE saying anything like “That’s what we want” circa 1637 ( and finding no such evidence )… I started working BACKWARDS from 1637 and re-checking the other Air Study videos.
There is no Panebaker or Moore Air Study Video that actually covers the 1637 to 1639 timeframe… so if there was any chance of finding evidence of this (supposed) “That’s what we want” transmission reported ONLY by John Burfiend of Bravo 33… then I thought perhaps that even if anyone did say any such thing… he might have simply been mistaken that it came (quote) “within 5 minutes of them going into shelters” ( as he said in his SAIT interview ).
1642 ( Marsh’s final transmissions ) minus 5 minutes is 1637 and so that must have been the ‘guesstimate’ the SAIT investigators were applyiing to this ‘recollection’ on Burfiend’s part.
I STILL believe it is MUCH more likey that if ANYONE said anything to Bravo 33 like “That’s exactly what we want”… that it was SOMEONE ( but NOT Marsh ) confirming the ‘goodness’ of the 1633 SEAT drop that was ‘spot on’ ( according to Burfiend and French ) and got laid down RIGHT between a house and the fireline at exactly 1633. If anyone said “That’s exactly what we want”… it MUST have been someone who saw that actual ‘spot-on’ drop right between the house and the fireline… ( like a chopper pilot ) and NOT someone who would have just seen some plane circling around in the air on some kind of ‘line-up’ flight.
It was MOST LIKELY one of the chopper pilots known to have been in the air and also working that same exact area circa 1637. They would have seen that drop be ‘spot on’ and would have immediately been ‘confirming the goodness’ of it.
Anyway… my plan was to work BACKWARDS through the Panebaker videos again listening carefully for ANY evidence of ANYONE saying anything like “That’s what we want” or other ‘confirming goodness’ opinions on the 1633 SEAT drop at ANY time that day.
Well… here comes the new MYSTERY.
The Panebaker video that immediately precedes the 163700 one is named…
20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP
That (supposedly) means it ENDED at 1623 and would also mean there was no Panebaker video prior to the 163700 one that covered the time of that 1633 SEAT drop down in Yarnell…
…but what the heck… I re-checked the 162300 Air Study video, anway.
That is when I discovered that this entire 162300 Air Study video is BOGUS.
It is NOT what it says it is ( A video taken by Panebaker that ENDS at 1623 ).
The entire Panebaker video 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP is simply a reproduction of 11.7 seconds from the 2:18 second mark ( near the end ) of a much EARLIER Panebaker video 201300630_152406_SEAT_EP.
Someone just LIFTED 11.7 seconds out of a previous video shot around
1524 ( 3:24 PM ) that day… and is trying to pretend that it is the contents of
an Air Study Video shot an hour later at 1623 ( 4:23 PM ).
Everything from those 11.7 seconds at the +2:18 mark in the 152406 Air
Study Video is a *PERFECT MATCH* for the entire content of the 162300 video.
So where is the *REAL* Panebaker 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP video?
How long was the ORIGINAL video?… before someone just (manually) REPLACED it with an 11.7 second clip from a video taken an HOUR earlier?
There was a LOT of critical stuff going at circa 1623 that day and so the original Panebaker 162300 video may have captured some of that.
Example: It has NOT been completely verified that the YARNELL-GAMBLE video was actually shot at 1627. That APPEARS to be the time as supported by the sirens heard in the Jerry Thompson videos… but I still wouldn’t call that 100 percent verification.
If Jerry Thompson himself was just a few minutes off on the times he reported for HIS videos… then the YARNELL-GAMBLE video *MIGHT* have actually been shot a few minutes earlier… like in the 1622-1624 timeframe.
If that is the case… then that means this ‘missing’ 162300 Panebaker Air Study video had a good chance of ALSO capturing that TAC 1 channel conversation where SOMEONE in fire command *seems* to be urging Marsh to ‘hurry up and get to town’ and Eric Marsh ( totally confirmed ) then immediately reports Granite Mountain’s STATUS as… “They’re comin’ from the heel of the fire” ( as in… on the MOVE and NOT in the ‘safe black’ at all ).
So the ‘missing’ Panebaker 162300 video might have ALSO captured that
YARNELL-GAMBLE conversation on TAC 1… complete with the actual
CALL SIGN of whoever it was that was having that conversation with
Eric Marsh at that time and *seemed* to be urging him to hurry up.
Even if the YARNELL-GAMBLE conversation was NOT also captured in this
Panebaker 162300 video… there might have been *other* radio traffic relevant
to Granite Mountain that WAS captured circa 1623.
It really is not possible this was just a screw-up.
Someone seems to have purposely preserved the 20130630_162300 filename
and timestamp for this video… but then also PURPOSELY made an effort
to replace the content with something else from ANOTHER (earlier) video.
More on this later.
I’m now going back and re-checking ALL the Air Study videos to see if this
kind of ‘money business’ was going on with any OTHER Air Study videos.
Typo in last sentence.
I meant to say ‘monkey business’.
Last sentence should have read…
“I’m now going back and re-checking ALL the Air Study videos to
see if this kind of ‘monkey business’ was going on with any
OTHER Air Study videos.”
Correction for the above post.
The 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP video that is now known
to be BOGUS is just ONE of the Panebaker Air study videos that
‘precedes’ the 163700 one. It does not IMMEDIATELY precede it.
There are actually TWO others that come in-between 162300
and 163700… and they both appear to be exactly what they
say they are.
These are the actual ( Eric ) Panebaker Air Study videos
that cover the crucial 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM timeframe that day…
20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP
20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP **** This is the BOGUS one
20130630_162508_2SEATS_EP
20130630_163338_fire_behavior_EP
20130630_163700_fire_behavior_EP
20130630_164544_fire_behavior_EP
20130630_170634_VLAT_EP
NOTE: The 20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP video that precedes the one that is now know to be BOGUS is the one that captured the 4:16 PM “Granite Mountain… what’s your status right now?” query from from someone in fire command and Eric Marsh’s response about Granite Mountain “makin’ their way out the same escape route from this morning” and Marsh’s “just checkin’ it out to see where we gonna jump out at” transmission.
ALSO NOTE: The ‘EP’ initials in these Air Study video filenames all stand for ‘Eric Panebaker’.
If the 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP video ( as released by the SAIT in response to FOIA/FOIL requests ) does NOT contain the same content as the original… then HE would certainly know.
**
** PANEBAKER AIR STUDY VIDEO
** 20130630_163700_fire_behavior_EP.MOV
Reply to calvin post on May 9, 2014 at 3:04 am
>> calvin said…
>> At the 23 second mark of the 1637 Panebaker video there is a background
>> transmission that I cannot make out. This video is only 39 seconds long and
>> would put the 23 second mark near 1637. If you do not mind reviewing,
>> I would appreciate it.
calvin…
I went back and reviewed the 163700 Panebaker video again looking for ANY evidence that ANYONE said anything like “That’s exactly what we want” as reported by the SAIR as Marsh talking to Bravo 33 at that time ( circa 1637 ).
This video (supposedly) ENDS at exactly 1637 and ( as you pointed out )
only covers the 39 seconds prior to that… so if anyone did say anything
of the sort circa 1637… it must have come AFTER 1637 and there is no
Panebaker or Moore Air Study video that covers the 1637-1638 timeframe.
Anyway… after listening carefully again… there is NOTHING in the 163700
video that resembles ANYONE saying anything like “That’s what we want”
or “That’s exactly what we want”.
The mysterious background transmit in the +21 to +23 second mark that you mention APPEARS to be someone saying something about a ‘horse’ that needs to be taken care of. This would match other reports around that time of ‘horses’ being seen running down the middle of Highway 89.
Here is my full transcript of that 163700 Panebaker video…
Transcript of BOTH the foreground AND background radio conversation captured
by Panebaker Air Study Video 20130630_163700_fire_behavior_EP.MOV.
A public copy of this Air Study video is in Mr. Dougherty’s online Dropbox at…
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/y3jy5opssrcvzb3/S3cCXl9pjr/AerialFirefightingstudy/Panebaker/Video/Video#lh:null-20130630_163700_fire_behavior_EP.MOV
ECITW ( Every Caveat In The World )
This is what I ( me, personally ) believe is being said in both the foreground AND the background of this video. Your mileage may, of course, vary.
This video is 39 seconds long.
Since the text notes accompanying these videos states that the timestamp in the title represents the END time…that makes the actual START time for this video 1636.21
NOTE: The air-to-air conversation in this video is ALSO captured even MORE
clearly in the corresponding USDA AIR STUDY VIDEO – DISC 4 folder.
VIDEO STARTS AT 1636.21 ( 4:36.21 PM )
BACKGROUND
+0:04 ( 1636.25 / 4:36.25 PM )
(Unknown): (On?) short final…
FOREGROUND
+0:05 ( 1636.26 / 4:36.26 PM )
(Unknown): Five-O-Eleven… you sure of that helibase… in that green circle here?
+0:09 ( 1636.30 / 4:36.30 PM )
(Unknown – Sounds like French in B33?): Okay, copy that… are you gonna drop your bucket and have to lift back somewhere else?
+0:13 ( 1636.34 / 4:36.34 PM )
(Unknown): Yea… I’ll have to drop ( the bucket? ) then I’ll head for Wickenburg for fuel.
+0:16 ( 1636.37 / 4:36.37 PM )
(Unkown – Sounds like French in B33?): Oh… okay… gotcha… okay… gimme a call… uh… ready to lift.
+0:21 ( 1636.42 / 4:36.42 PM )
(Unknown): Will do.
BACKGROUND
+0:22 ( 1636.43 / 4:36.43 PM )
(Unknown): I’ve got a (horse?) left (to take care of?)
+0:25 ( 1636.46 / 4:36.46 PM )
(Unknown): You’re all clued in. No need to act… just write it down on a piece a paper.
FOREGROUND
+0:34 ( 1636.55 / 4:36.55 PM )
(Unknown – Sounds like French in B33?): And I’ve got a project for you.
+0:37 ( 1636.58 / 4:36.58 PM )
(Unknown): When ya have… ???
BACKGROUND
+0:37 ( 1636.58 / 4:36.58 PM )
(Unknown): (Someone’s NAME here is FIRST word? Boleba/Boleeba? Buliba?) What’s goin’ on back there?
VIDEO ENDS AT 1637.00 ( 4:37.00 PM )
Update: Wherever it says ‘Unknown – Sounds like French in B33’ up above should have just said ‘Thomas French in B33’. It is confirmed.
Since this Panebaker video ‘overlaps’ with DVD DISC 4 of the USDA Air Study Videos… the Air-To-Air traffic captured in that USDA video confirms most of the FOREGROUND communications captured in this Panebaker video.
WTKTT
Discussion above—-
Helicopter Pilot talking to French’
Has a water Bucket for drops.
he is going to drop it off at the heliport and go for fuel.
I’ve got a hose lift to take care of — not horse—would have been moving hose to some location. Generally they bag it Nets and drop it at some location for use.
5011 might be the call sign of the Helicopter? Just thoughts.
Reply to Bob Powers post on May 14, 2014 at 7:06 am
>> Mr. Powers wrote…
>> Helicopter Pilot talking to French’
>> Has a water Bucket for drops.
>> he is going to drop it off at the heliport and go for fuel.
Yes. That is definitely French talking to helicopter
5KA ( Five Kilo Alpha ) at that point. 5KA is the one that needed to ‘drop his bucket’ and go refuel, at this time.
The ‘other’ USDA audio captures of Air-To-Ground with
no ‘walk overs’ on the Air-To-Air channel proves that.
5KA would always identify himself using the full
‘Five Kilo Alpha’ but whenever French was hailing him
he would simply abbreviate it as ‘Kilo Alpha’.
>> I’ve got a hose lift to take care of — not horse—
>> would have been moving hose to some location.
>> Generally they bag it Nets and drop it at some location
>> for use.
Perfectly possible. That’s a very hard section to hear
in this particular video. Could be ‘horse’ *OR* ‘hose’.
The KEY thing there was that this transmission is definitely NOT anyone saying anything like “That’s what we want” in response to any line-up flights.
>> 5011 might be the call sign of the Helicopter?
>> Just thoughts.
I listened to it again. This is definitely a capture of Burfiend in Bravo 33 talking on the Air-To-Ground channel… because in the USDA DVD there is more Air-To-Air talk right underneath this transmit from Burfiend… so the capture in THIS Panebaker video MUST have been ‘Air-To-Ground’ instead.
It still definitely sounds like ‘Five-O-Eleven’ there, but since the chopper call signs all tend to be just THREE digits/numbers ( and there is no chopper with call sign 5011 listed as having been in Yarnell ) it’s unclear who Burfiend is really talking to about the ‘Helibase’.
I could believe he really meant to say ‘Nine-Eleven’, but since they were not dropping in Yarnell now, and the DC10 VLAT 911 was still returning from a refuel and wasn’t even really back in the area yet… I’m not sure what sense that would make at this moment.
Again… the KEY takeaway there is that THIS transmission was definitely Burfiend and it was definitely on the Air-To-Ground channel… so that means this Panebaker video WAS capturing ‘Air-To-Ground’ transmissions…
…but there is still nothing in the capture with anyone ever coming onto the A2G channel and saying anything resembling “That’s exactly what we want”.
This capture ENDS exactly at 1637… so if anyone said something like that circa 1637 over A2G channel… then it must have happened AFTER 1637.
Unfortunately… there is no Panebaker or Moore Air Study video that then goes on to capture the A2G traffic in the 1637 to 1639 timeframe.
The only NEXT ‘capture’ ( in the public record, anyway ) of the A2G channel after this Panebaker video is the Helmet-Cam video itself… which starts just prior to 1639 and begins with Burfiend on A2G talking to ?? someone ?? about how it’s going to be hard for them to hit some target being discussed because of the ‘smoke’. A moment later we hear Steed’s first “We are in front of the flaming front” MAYDAY transmit.
Followup…
The real ‘mysterious’ transmit in this video is the
following one…
+0:25 ( 1636.46 / 4:36.46 PM )
(Unknown): You’re all clued in. No need to act… just write it down on a piece a paper.
I wonder what THAT was all about?
WHO was now ‘clued in’… about WHAT?… and why was it something that ‘required no action’… just ‘write it down’?
We are only 120 seconds away from Steed’s first MAYDAY when this (strange?) transmit took place.
Here’s a transcript of what I’m hearing in that video:
Panebaker 1637
VOICE 1 0:05 five-oh-eleven […sh…?] at helibase, in the green circle here.
VOICE 2 Okay, copy that. Are you going to drop your bucket and have to lift back somewhere else?
VOICE 1 Yeah, I’ll have to drop the bucket, then I’ll head [over to …?]
VOICE 2 0:18 Oh, okay, gotcha. Okay. Give me a call, uh, when you’re ready to lift.
VOICE 1 0:20 Will do.
[…]
VOICE ? […] [clued in?] [wanted?] at […]
VOICE 2? 0:29 Affirm.
VOICE 2 0:34 And I’ve got a project for you.
VOICE ? 0:36 [What are you? You’re at?]
VOICE 3 0:37 [what’s going on?] back there?
Sitta… Thank you!
The only reason I might be hearing a little ‘more’ than you
have is that even though this particular video didn’t need
any ‘audio forensics’ or ‘noise filtering’… I STILL found that
I needed to really BOOST THE GAIN on the audio to have
a chance at hearing some of the background.
Does whatever you are using to ‘listen’ to the videos
have that ‘GAIN BOOST’ capability?
“Audio forensics” INCLUDES boosting the gain, WTKTT. When you BOOST the gain, you distort the audio. Sorry if I was not clear on that with you earlier.
( Heavy sigh )
Time to remember our Mark Twain again…
“It’s not what (he/she) doesn’t know that
bothers me… it’s what (he/she) knows fer
sure that just ain’t so.”
*and*
“We are ALL ignorant… just about
different things.”
Heavy sigh right back atcha, kiddo! 🙂 Audio forensics – it is not just for the Zimmerman trial any more!
Elizabeth… fer cryin’ out loud.
The ‘gain boost’ I am talking about
does NOT ( in ANY way ) ‘distort
the audio’.
You have no idea what you are even talking about.
WTKTT – it absolutely CAN distort the audio! If you doubt me, the actual Audacity disclosures make this clear. If in doubt, READ the relevant info. If you have something that suggests otherwise, “post your sources.” (Tongue in cheek, obviously.)
Reply to
Elizabeth post
on May 17,
2014 at 11:59
____________
WTKTT – it absolutely CAN distort the audio!
_____________
Oh… so NOW you are backing
off your carte-blanche “When you BOOST the gain, it distorts the audio” statement and have arrived at simply the ‘possibility’ that can happen.
.
Good for you.
You’re learning.
Yes. If you boost the gain some RIDICULOUS amount and your speakers or headphones are now shaking and your eardrums are getting blown out… or if you exceed the SOFTWARE limits as to ‘maximum volume’ allowed for a track… most software ( including Audacity ) has a ‘safety catch’ where it will then start applying ‘clipping’ to the waveform in order to not destroy your equipment.
What I said above was ‘the kind of gain boost I am talking about does NOT ( in ANY way ) distort that audio.
That is simply a TRUE statement.
Incremental boosts of +3db do NOT cause any loss of the waveform and no DISTORTION is taking place… and certainly nothing that would cause anything that anyone might be SAYING to be changed in any way.
_____________
If in doubt, READ the relevant info.
_____________
I have.
I wish YOU would do the same.
_____________
If you have something that suggests otherwise, “post your sources.” (Tongue in cheek, obviously.)
_____________
Okay.
From Audacity’s own user manual…
****************
The top slider is the gain control – it affects the relative volume of the track. By default it only lets you select multiples of 3 dB, but if you hold down shift you can choose any level. Be careful not to set it too high, or you can exceed the maximum volume of a track, which results in clipping.
****************
By the way… the ‘too high’ being referred to would probably be blowing out your ear drums even before the ‘safety catch’ clipping starts to kick in.
Don’t do that.
Just use low increments and all the GAIN boost does it make it EASIER to hear what is being said.
WTKTT,
I’ve got Audacity (such a sweet program), and can boost the gain in general and specifically boost the 200-400 Hz range. While it tends to lower interference, I still have the same issues on the brain side of the ear (alas!), and don’t seem to parse the language any better. I’ll give it another try, though.
I think you were spot on about the “Wickenberg to fuel” part. I don’t hear “no need to act” or “write it down on a piece of paper.”
It would be interesting to know if EP still has access to the original files, and how they differ from what we have.
Sitta… yes… the (free) Audacity software is amazing. I have sound software here that costs thousands and thousands of dollars… but I still use Audacity for most things.
It is even BETTER at some things than anything money can (currently) buy.
Disclaimer: I am in no way associated with ‘Audacity’ or any of its software products. I am just a ‘user’.
My only other advice to try and ‘hear’ things that are ‘hard to hear’ is to simply set yourself up a ‘loop’ on that specific phrase… and then let it play over and over and over and over.
It’s boring as hell… but it works.
**
** Reply to Bob Powers post on May 11, 2014 at 7:49 am
>> Mr. Powers wrote…
>> When Fires Like this in WUI start running at structures the first thing
>> is to thro Air Tankers at the Fire.
>> The problem most times they don’t do any good except make
>> everybody feel like they at least did something.
>> It looks good to the public at least some one is doing something.
There is no doubt ( and we can now hear it for ourselves ) that the Air Support in Yarnell that day knew that most of the drops they were making weren’t doing much good and that it was just like (quote) “spittin’ at it”.
Just like ‘Hotshots’ ( and any FFs building line ) know about the ‘hauling chart’ which says that if flame-lengths are more than about three and one-hal feet they are basically ‘out of it’ and ‘wasting their time’… the AIR people know full well what their own ‘limitations’ are and when THEY are also, basically ‘out of it’.
But… that being said…
If you look at the AFTERMATH photos ( mostly the aerial ones ) following Sunday, June 30, 2013… there is also no doubt that in SOME places… that line of red stuff on the ground IS what ‘stopped’ or ‘diverted’ the fireline near some pretty critical areas of the town.
So I guess it’s really like that old adage that is often attributed to someone in the advertising industry…
“Half of what we do doesn’t do a damn bit of good.
The problem is knowing WHICH half.”
>> Mr. Powers also said…
>> Helicopters – When Fixed wing plains are on a fire Helicopter pilots
>> Monitor there Freq. And stay out of the way. They fly lower and are
>> assigned to specific areas. They maintain contact Air to Air.
>> That is why I said the 1 Helicopter flying that is mentioned may have
>> had an overhead in it that could have made the comment, and could
>> have over keyed Marsh DIV A call.
Since I don’t believe we have even near fully wrapped up the ‘discussion’ about whether the 1637 “That’s what we want!” transmission ever happened at all… or that if it did… whether it really was DIVSA Eric Marsh saying it…
…then this is a very important point.
It’s pretty much a given that there WAS no YHF fire overhead ‘in the air’ at the time this (supposed) 1637 transmission took place… but it really doesn’t matter if there was any ‘fire command’ in a chopper, or not.
Any chopper pilot could have made that transmission… and we KNOW there were at least TWO in the air right there around Yarnell at both 1633, when that ‘spot-on’ SEAT drop happened… and in the 1637 to 1639 timeframe when Steed’s first MADAY appeared. We can even HEAR these 2 choppers flying overhead in the Helmet-Cam video itself.
The recent ‘sidetrack’ of proving that Tom Story’s Canon EOS 1D was 36 minutes and 7 seconds BEHIND the REAL time that day is actually related to this 1637 transmission discussion… which is why it was good to ‘sidetrack’ and take care of that. Tom Story’s 7093 photos series seemed to show a VLAT drop at exactly 1639… the moment of Steed’s first MAYDAY. It was worth it to go off and verify that for no other reason than to prove that that is NOT the case… and that we CAN trust the Air-To-Air traffic completely for figuring out what Bravo 33 was REALLY doing in the 1637-1639 timeframe.
In the course of basically re-viewing and re-listening to EVERY Panebaker Air-Study video in order to nail down that Tom Story camera time offset… I happened to HEAR some things I hadn’t really heard before regarding HELICOPTERS and RETARDANT DROPS.
If you listen to all of the Panebaker Air Study videos… it is *NOT* unusual at all to hear someone in a helicopter ‘commenting’ on a retardant drop right after it happens.
You actually DO hear a lot of ‘unsolicited’ comments ( over Air-To-Ground channel ) such as “Spot-on!” or “Right on target!” or even one lengthy response from a chopper pilot after one of the VLAT drops on the NORTH end where he jumps in on Air-To-Ground right afterwards and says something like…
“This is 5Q Alpha in the hotbird’s seat with a front row view… and that was right on the money! Nice work!.”
So YES… it is actually MORE than likely that when Burfiend thought he heard DIVSA say “That’s exactly what we want”… that really just might have been one of the chopper pilots already in the air down there jumping in on Air-To-Ground and ‘confirming’ the ‘goodness’ of that spot-on 1633 SEAT drop.
So something like “That’s exactly what we want!” probably WAS actually said on the Air-To-Ground channel ( by SOMEONE who saw the spot-on 1633 SEAT drop )… but Burfiend was simply mis-remembering ( during his SAIT interview ) who said that around that time.
No definite PROOF ( yet )… but we’re getting closer.
I’d still love to know what Clint Clauson ( the THIRD guy onboard that Bravo 33 plane that afternoon ) actually thinks he did ( or didn’t ) hear.
Followup… forgot to mention something…
While it is NOT unusual at ALL to hear these chopper pilots ‘commenting’ on a retardant drop… the KEY seems to always be that these ‘unsolicited’ verifying-goodness comments ONLY come AFTER a REAL DROP.
In other words… if you listen carefully to all of these sorts of ‘unsolicted’ verifying-goodness comments from the chopper pilots in the Panebaker videos… they NEVER comment on a ‘show me’ or on a ‘line up’ drop…
…and there’s a GOOD reason for that.
These guys are flying ‘show me’ and ‘go-around’ and ‘line-up’ flights basically ALL the time… and unless you are totally GLUED to the Air-To-Air channel yourself then you really can’t ever be sure when they are actually going to DROP… or NOT.
So the ONLY thing that warrants an unsolicited “That was spot-on!” or “That’s exactly what we want!” comment is when you have actually just SEEN them drop… and you are verifying the ‘goodness’ of that location for even MORE drops.
So that, I think, is even more ‘indirect’ proof that Marsh would NOT have just jumped onto the radio and come out of nowhere with an unsolicited “That’s exactly what we want!” transmission JUST because he *might* have accidentally saw ANYONE doing a ‘show me’ or a ‘practice run’.
Those kind of ‘unsolicited’ comments over Air-To-Ground usually ONLY happen AFTER a REAL DROP… and are simply meant to encourage ‘more of the same’ at that location.
So ( perhaps? ) just one more reason why if anyone really did say “That’s exactly what we want!” over the Air-To-Ground channel in the 1634 to 1637 timeframe… it really was just a ‘confirming goodness’ comment regarding the spot-on 1633 SEAT drop right there on the outskirts of Yarnell ( which Marsh himself could NOT have seen due to the smoke cloud between him and Yarnell in that timeframe ).
WTKTT I think you are right on with the above.
Also if the Helicopters were dropping water in the same area trying to hold the fire down, then they definitely would have commented on the tanker drop helping them out at a critical location.
The reason I keep referring to the 1633 SEAT drop there right on the outskirts of Yarnell is because that, in fact, seems to be exactly what everyone who saw it seemed to think. Burfiend and French seemed to think so and said so in their SAIT interview.
The drop went ‘right between the ‘fire’ and a ‘home’… which at THAT point is time is what was *really* needed.
This ‘cut’ from Bravo 33’s SAIT interview seems to be describing that exact drop… and the fact that it was just after this 1633 drop when Burfiend then turned his attention to Kevin in the DC10 VLAT and told him to ‘come on in now’ ( circa 1636 )…
__________________________________________
We decided we were going to go here (pointed to Div Z) and go direct. Took the single SEAT. Brand new pilot (830) went right between spot and the home. We brought the DC10 in…
___________________________________________
Sidenote: They obviously had MAPS at these SAIT interviews and there are several references in the interviews where people are said to have been ‘pointing at the map’.
It SURE would have been nice if copies of that maps ( with notations of where people were pointing ) were included in the SAIT FOIA/FOIL releases…
…but they weren’t.
If these ‘Interview notated maps’ even exist… then they are just even more documents that Arizona Forestry either just neglected to include in the FOIA/FOIL requests… or they ( for some reason ) decided to specifically ‘withhold’ them.
The ADOSH investigation did the RIGHT thing.
They had fresh copies of ‘maps’ at each and every interview and they were freely letting the interviewees ‘mark them up’ during their interviews to make locations and movements more clear…
…and ADOSH did INCLUDE those ‘interviewee notated maps’ in their FOIA/FOIL release(s).
You can listen ( or read ) along with the interviewee AND see the exact notes they were making DURING the interview on real maps.
I’d still love to know exactly WHERE Burfiend was pointing when his own SAIT interview notes say he was ‘pointing at a spot in Division Z’ and said “We went HERE”.
Where is HERE?
Whoops. I left the phrase “as SPOT-ON” out of the first paragraph above, which was really intended to be the whole point of the statement.
Here is how paragraph 1 above SHOULD have read…
“The reason I keep referring to the 1633 SEAT drop there right on the outskirts of Yarnell as SPOT-ON is because that, in fact, seems to be exactly what everyone who saw it seemed to think. Burfiend and French seemed to think so and said so in their SAIT interview.”
Glad you caught that. TBH I haven’t had much of a chance to even look at the Panebakers. And I’ve definitely been wondering how the helicopters communicated and with whom.
When I read the Interagency Fire Aviation Manual, it said there was supposed to be a “Helico,” a Helitanker Coordinator, somehow in communication with both Air Attack and Incident Command.
Correction for the above post.
The 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP video that is now known
to be BOGUS is just ONE of the Panebaker Air study videos that
‘precedes’ the 163700 one. It does not IMMEDIATELY precede it.
There are actually TWO others that come in-between 162300
and 163700… and they both appear to be exactly what they
say they are.
These are the actual ( Eric ) Panebaker Air Study videos
that cover the crucial 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM timeframe that day…
20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP
20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP **** This is the BOGUS one
20130630_162508_2SEATS_EP
20130630_163338_fire_behavior_EP
20130630_163700_fire_behavior_EP
20130630_164544_fire_behavior_EP
20130630_170634_VLAT_EP
NOTE: The 20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP video that precedes the one that is now know to be BOGUS is the one that captured the 4:16 PM “Granite Mountain… what’s your status right now?” query from from someone in fire command and Eric Marsh’s response about Granite Mountain “makin’ their way out the same escape route from this morning” and Marsh’s “just checkin’ it out to see where we gonna jump out at” transmission.
ALSO NOTE: The ‘EP’ initials in these Air Study video filenames all stand for ‘Eric Panebaker’.
If the 20130630_162300_SEAT_drop_EP video ( as released by the SAIT in response to FOIA/FOIL requests ) does NOT contain the same content as the original… then HE would certainly know.
Yikes… this ‘correction for the above post’ was NOT meant for this thread and somehow posted TWICE.
Once up above with the ‘thread’ it belongs to and again down here where it didn’t belong.
I think maybe this ‘Chapter 6’ is starting to cause WordPress
to suffer brain damage… as is know to happen when the
content gets very large.
I think it’s time for a new ‘Chapter 7’.
The Az Republic ran another piece on the Yarnell evacuations yesterday. Turns out only 1 in 8 persons received an automated call, and most of those involved no human-to-human contact, i.e. just left a message. Also the article says there was a 21 minute delay in sending out the notifications (I am assuming from the time the decision was made sometime after 3:30). May account for why people said they were notified around 4:08. Also there was no one hour notice, just “get out now”. In a disaster nothing ever works as it supposed to, but the evacuations that day seemed particularly bad. I still wonder the extent to which the flawed evacuations that day affected firefighting decisions in the time after 3:30.
I can imagine it might have had something to do with Abel, Cordes, et al, not paying enough attention to what Granite Mountain was doing until it was too late……
Maybe their attention was diverted. But I was asking more in how it might have affected tactical decisions.
One thing struck me recently. GM was aware of the evacuations situation. When the fire started running at Yarnell, I believe it was Scott Norris who texted “the fire is running right at Yarnell”. Yet I also think it was he (I’m pretty sure, maybe it was someone else) who texted “and the evacuations have just started”. Maybe it was a throwaway comment, not something they were making decisions based on. But it shows, that even for an experienced crew member, it was on their minds.
The evacuation situation should not have impacted safety considerations. But human nature being what it is, I wonder if it colored the way people looked at risk that afternoon.
Actually… it was Wade Parker’s final text message sent to his mother with a network timestamp of 4:04 PM that had those references in it.
Wade’s complete text message was…
“This thing is running straight for yarnel. jus starting to evac. you can see fire on the left town on right. DO NOT POST THIS ON FACEBOOK OR ANY OTHER SOCIAL MEDIA DEAL!!!!”
There was some discussion, early on ( even on this forum ) about what Wade really meant when he said “jus starting to evac”.
The discussion(s) were addressing the possibility that Wade’s statement could be taken one of two ways…
1) He was telling his mother that HE ( and the other Granite Mountain fellas ) were ‘just starting’ THEIR ‘evacuation’ of their position. As in… just now leaving the safe black.
2) He was telling his mother that YARNELL was only now starting to evacuate.
I believe the consensus back then was that Wade probably meant number 2… mostly because the people with WFF experience were in agreement that Parker probably wouldn’t even use the word ‘evacuation’ to describe their OWN movements or ‘relocation’ efforts.
So if it really was number 2 above… then YES… that is full proof that even the line crew up there ( and not just management like Marsh/Steed ) were fully aware that ‘get out now’ evacuations had been ordered down there in town… but they were also NOT aware that they had been ‘ordered’ by SPGS1 Gary Cordes some 24 mnutes BEFORE that… at 1540.
With regard to how this ‘knowledge’ affected their own decision making… I’m SURE it had SOMETHING to do with either of the following…
1) Management putting pressure on them to get to town as fast as they could ( Sic: Someone in management appears to actually be telling them to HURRY in the YARNELL-GAMBLE video ).
2) If there was no management pressure at all… then it still probably made them ‘rethink’ their already stated plan to remain in the safe black. They ( Steed and/or Marsh ) just didn’t want to accept the fact that they were ‘out of the game’ and weren’t going to be able to be ‘where the action was’… and this urge on their part made them totally forget that their PRIMARY responsibility was the *SAFETY* of ALL of the employees in their charge.
SIDENOTE: A lot has been discussed about what GOOD anyone might have even thought 19 guys with hand tools and no actual structural firefighting equipment could have even been able to do that day… or what their ‘assignment’ might have been even if they made it down there.
It is perfectly possible that even if management requested them to ‘come down’… that no one really had anything specific in mind for them to do at all… at least not at the time the request was made.
Management might have just ‘wanted them to be there’ and was going to figure out what to do with them AFTER they arrived.
This would actually match OPS1 Todd Abel’s thinking with regards to Type 1 Hotshots.
In his ADOSH interview… the ADOSH investigators went over the situation with the Blue Ridge Hotshots with OPS1 Todd Abel and how they just bounced around most of the morning with nothing to do and only being told to ‘stage’ at 3 different places before anyone even gave them any kind of ‘assignment’.
Todd Abel’s OWN explanation for all of that was that he was ‘busy’ that morning… but knew that he just wanted to have a Type 1 Hotshot crew in (quote) “My back pocket in case I needed them”.
Actual (full) quote from Abel about this in his ADOSH interview was…
__________________________________________
So we went down there, uh, after the briefing ran into, um, Blue Ridge out there, um, and they said hey, what would you like us to do? I said hey, why don’t you guys go stage at the school. I’m not sure exactly where I wanna put you guys yet. But I wanted that hotshot crew in my back pocket.
__________________________________________
Granted… that was ‘start of work day’, pretty much, and Abel really *was* ‘very busy’ at that point. It then took Abel almost an HOUR to get all the various engines and crews that were showing up assigned to various places.
However… I’m sure the ‘evacuation cycle’ was just as busy ( and confusing ) when it hit later on… and there might have been no other reason for asking GM to ‘come down’ ( and to HURRY ) than the same sort of “I just wanted Hotshots in my back pocket” mentality.
I would really hate to think that that is the reason why 19 good men died… just because someone wanted them ‘in their back pocket’ but would have ended up just letting them stand around in a parking lot like they did with the OTHER Type 1 Hotshot crew that was ALREADY THERE… .and totally available.
Mike, I absolutely believe that it does. Absolutely. 100%.
(I made a comment on IM long ago about this point and about the demographics of Yarnell/Glen Ilah, and, not surprisingly, I took a fair amount of pushback. It is clear from at least one ADOSH interview that leaps readily to mind that Dave Larson (or someone…) was on the same wavelength, for whatever that is worth. I’m not suggesting the GM guys SHOULD have tried to go to the BSR or wherever, but I am saying that they strike me as a bunch of men who were likely to want to try (if safely possible) help a vulnerable population. Human nature is what it is, and a lot of guys become wildfire professionals because they CARE.)
Elizabeth… I don’t think there is any question in the world that these were men who were ‘likely to try’ to help people. The pay wasn’t good enough to stick with that kind of work for any other reason…
…but ( as I think we have seen )… it is, in fact, possible to care TOO MUCH… if those urges make you forget the rules of your profession and take unnecessary risks with the very LIVES of the employees you are responsible for.
This applies to MANY professions… and not just firefighting.
Yes… they CARED.
But why did TWO of those men care SO much that they forgot the ‘rules’ of their profession *AND* what their PRIMARY responsibilities were… and it ended up
killing all 19?
This is the primary question that still remains to be answered.
Mike made a point or posed a query, and I agreed with his point/query.
That was the only purpose of my post.
…and I was agreeing with *both* of you. They CARED. A LOT…
…but that still doesn’t (fully) explain what happened in Yarnell on June 30, 2013.
The Republic, which I gather takes a fair amount of grief at times, continues to write on this story. This is at least the second significant piece they have done on the evacuations, both well after the incident. They have never tried to link the evacuations to the deaths of the GMHS, but I do think the delayed evacuation impacted some decision-making.
The Yavapai sheriff’s office basically said the evacuations were not perfect, but were good enough as no residents died or were seriously injured. I have a lot of problems with that thinking. First of all, there were near misses with residents. Second, I think some firefighters were left too long at the head of the fire west of town and there were apparently near misses there too. I think there was some reluctance to pull them out because they were trying to buy time. And finally, we may never know for sure the degree to which knowledge of the tardy evacuations impacted Granite Mountain’s actions. Maybe it played no role, but they knew of it and then they did something inexplicable. The questions about what could they have done, about what actions they thought they could do, are good ones. Maybe though they just felt the need to be “available”, to help if needed. Yes, they needed to say put, but am trying to fathom their thought process.
Anyways, those in charge of evacuations should not conclude the process was “adequate”, just because no residents were killed or injured.
Reply to mike post on
May 12, 2014 at 10:04 pm
>> mike said…
>> The Republic, which I gather
>> takes a fair amount of grief at
>> times, continues to write on
>> this story.
As well they should ( continue to write about this historic, tragic incident ).
>> mike also said…
>> They have never tried to link the
>> evacuations to the deaths of the
>> GMHS, but I do think the delayed
>> evacuation impacted some
>> decision-making.
Of course it did.
Suddenly… EVERYTHING was an EMERGENCY.
That affects EVERYONE involved *and* their decision making.
It ( the total chaos which created this sense of total EMERGENCY in a very short span of time ) could have been AVOIDED. No question.
The moment that thing marched right through that heavy retardant line like it wasn’t even THERE ( hundreds of yards north of even Cordes’ FIRST trigger point )… it didn’t take a genius to figure out there wasn’t much that was going to stop it. The Big Dog was going to just EAT. Get everyone OUT OF THE WAY. Like RIGHT NOW.
>> mike also said…
>> The questions about what could
>> they have done, about what
>> actions they thought they could
>> do, are good ones. Maybe though
>> they just felt the need to be
>> “available”, to help if needed.
Yes. Maybe having some Type 1 Hotshots in Yarnell in/around the time the ONLY thing to be doing was a total evacuation *might* have helped… and maybe that *was* what they were ‘thinking’…
…but just ONE quick call on the radio to discover that there were ALREADY 20 Elite Type 1 Hotshots right there ‘in the middle of the action’… with NO ONE giving them *ANY* assignment(s) whatsoever would have answered that question in their minds… toot-sweet.
That radio call never happened.
IMHO… It should have.
Even if they were half-way there… if they had discovered there wasn’t anything they were even going to be ALLOWED to do if they got all the way there ( just like Blue Ridge wasn’t being allowed to do anything at that time but *be safe* )… they could have TURNED BACK. There would still have been TIME to do that.
>> mike also said…
>> Anyways, those in charge of
>> evacuations should not conclude
>> the process was “adequate”, just
>> because no residents were killed
>> or injured.
No, they most certainly should NOT.
That’s just more ‘establishment of normalcy’ and ‘prior bad decisions with good outcomes’ crap.
Own it. Learn from it.
Find out what OTHER small Arizona towns don’t have a working siren at the fire station because the rats have chewed through the wires….
…then FIX it. ASAP.
Find out what OTHER small Arizona towns have never done a ‘reverse 911’ test to see if it is even going to work when the time comes…
…and do a TEST.
See if it IS going to work.
This is NOT rocket science.
** Regarding INJURIES…
There has ALWAYS been confusion and mis-reporting about that.
The LA Times and USA Today BOTH initially reported that in addition to the 19 fatalities… 22 other ‘firefighters and civilians’ were injured that afternoon.
Their own articles even stated that some of the ‘injured’ had to be flown to burn units because the nearby Congress hospital couldn’t handle them.
2 days later… the AP press was then reporting that there were NO serious injuries other than the 19 fatalities.
To this day, however, the Wikipedia page for the Yarnell Hill Fill is still ‘sticking to the story’ that there were MANY ‘others’ injured that day and they upped the number to 23.
The current ( active ) Wikipedia Page for the Yarnell Hill Fire is basically an absolute JOKE… but this is what their very OFFICIAL looking ‘information box’ about the Yarnell Hill Fire has said from day one and it has NEVER been ‘corrected’ by anyone…
Wikipedia
The Yarnell Hill Fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yarnell_Hill_Fire
______________________________
Location: Yarnell, Yavapai County, Arizona, U.S.
Coord: 34°14′54″N, 112°45′29″W
Date(s): June 28, 2013 – July 10, 2013
Burned area: 8,400 acres
Ignition source: Lightning
Land use: Mixed (residential/wildlands)
Buildings destroyed: 129
Fatalities: 19
Injuries (non-fatal): 23
______________________________
There are also (apparently) claims of ‘personal injuries’ in MANY of the 100+ claims that have been filed by property owners… but no one has done an actual ‘tally’ on that number.
Gary Cordes himself ( according to his own ADOSH interview ) was putting people into the backs of ambulances that afternoon… but there was no good followup on any of that, either.
So whether there *really* were any ‘injuries’ other than the 19 fatalities still remains a bit a mystery… but what else is new when it comes to YHF.
Followup 1
** ARTICLE CLAIMS 22
** INJURED IN YARNELL
Arizona: 19 Firefighter’s Dead and 22 Injured Battling the Yarnell Hill Fire
http://guardianlv.com/2013/06/arizona-19-firefighters-dead-and-22-injured-battling-the-yarnell-hill-fire/
From the article…
________________________
Eight of the 22 firefighters injured were taken to Wickenburg Community Hospital, some were airlifted to a burn unit in Pheonix, and others were transported to Yavapai Regional Medical Center, Glover said. The 19 firefighters who perished were part of the Granite Mountain Hot Shot Crew.
_________________________
This article lists ( and has links to ) what they say are their TWO sources for the article…
The LA Times and
USA Today.
Roxie Glover. Wow, have not seen that name for awhile. Fine woman. Amazing mother. Wow. I am looking at the link now:
http://guardianlv.com/2013/06/arizona-19-firefighters-dead-and-22-injured-battling-the-yarnell-hill-fire/
That photo is a picture of Bob Kramer’s place off highway 89 that the only thing that survived in his burnt fridge was a case of beer. You can see Bob on my photo area-
Who was injured in that fire?
Tex and I were just skimming and Joy saw Roxie’s name and that photo of Bob’s place and we are out hiking Zion country- God’s country for a bit and away from civilization but it was nice to see the forum going strong. Tex wondered has anyone looked into the ACTUAL DATE that restricted map was made for state land restriction for that area that is currently restricted (340 acres) beyond the Helm’s spot. Anyone know how to find that out? That lady in the red cross showed us a map that matched the map we got in an email mid July 2013. It is not being looked into much but we are wondering as time went by that Tex (Sonny) awoke at 3am this morning thinking of the 19 and that map and other areas. Has anyone new come out on photos/videos locally to help? I guess I will know when I keep skimming. Short on time. Skim for 10 minutes then off I have to go- Hope all you are well.
~Joy A. Collura
Followup 2…
The original LA Times article…
19 firefighters die in
Arizona wildfire
June 30, 2013 – By Matt Pearce and Cindy Carcamo
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/30/nation/la-na-nn-arizona-firefighters-dead-20130630
From the article…
________________________
Roxie Glover, a spokeswoman for Wickenburg Community Hospital, said officials had told her to expect injured firefighters — but then she was told they weren’t coming.
“It became clear that the firefighters had been deceased,” Glover told The LA Times. “We were told that we were not getting firefighters.”
Glover said officials told her that the 19 firefighters who had perished were part of the Granite Mountain Hot Shot Crew.
At least two (other) firefighters were evacuated by helicopter to a burn center in Phoenix, she said.
Glover said homeowners had flooded into the hospital, suffering from smoke inhalation and shock after losing their homes.
________________________
Followup 3…
The original USA Today article
USA Today
Article: 19 firefighters killed battling Arizona blaze
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/06/30/fire-in-arizona-prompts-evacuation-of-120-homes/2477469/
From the article…
________________________
Wickenburg Community Hospital is expecting to treat about eight firefighters who were among about 22 injured battling the fast-moving, 2,000-acre Yarnell Hill Fire that has burned through have the town, officials said Sunday evening.
The spokeswoman for Wickenburg hospital, Roxie Glover, said there are reports of as many as 22 firefighters being injured. About eight from that group were headed to the Wickenberg facility, some were being air lifted to a Phoenix burn unit and others were being transported to Yavapai Regional Medical Center, Glover said.
Jim Tavary, CEO of Wickenburg hospital, said his facility was put on alert to expect several injured firefighters but did not know their conditions or the extent of their injuries.
“We are setting up an incident command,” Tavary said.
Homes have burned and hospitals have reported injuries from the blaze that had reached Yarnell.
_________________________
And the SAIT and some others still think the Type II team did a good job. When a Cluster F*** starts it just acts like a rolling snow ball it gets bigger and bigger.
Poor planning, poor Safety and poor execution total lack of situation awareness.
Also why would any one think they could through a crew at the head of a running fire and do any thing? That includes Marsh and GM. Why would they think they could do something that no other Hand Crew has ever been able to do.
For all of you who have never fought fire….Direct attack starts by flanking the fire not taking it head on and pinching the head off. The running fire that afternoon was just plain get out of the way. To much fire and no place to make a stand, or no defensible space to protect structures. Evidenced by Fire Fighters Injuries (burns).
** TOM STORY’S CANON EOS 1D CAMERA WAS
** 36 MINUTES AND 7 SECONDS BEHIND THE
** REAL TIME ON JUNE 30, 2013.
Tom Story’s ‘Canon EOS 1D Mark II N’ camera had an incorrect time setting on June 30, 2013 that was always 36 minutes and 7 seconds BEHIND the REAL time.
The proof of this comes from comparing the following two images of the same VLAT drop ( One that Tom Story took and one that Panebaker took ) which took place circa 1715.28 on the NORTH side of the fire, along Hays Ranch Road in Peeples Valley.
Tom Story’s 201303_Yarnell_Hill_7093
*and*
Panebaker’s 20130630_171528-1_EP
BOTH of these photos show the same exact VLAT drop and were taken no more than 1 second apart, so the *known* correct timestamp on the Panebaker photo can simply be applied to the Tom Story photo, and used to compute the ‘time offset’ for Story’s ‘Canon EOS 1D’ that day.
Here is a VIDEO CROSSFADE between these two photos which PROVES that they are of the same VLAT drop and taken within 1 second of each other…
Youtube Video Title: Tom-Story-7093
Direct link to this VIDEO…
http://youtu.be/QixH_erZ5cc
YouTube About Information
_________________________________________________________________
This is a video crossfade between the following two photographs…
Tom Story’s 201303_Yarnell_Hill_7093 *and*
Panebaker’s 20130630_171528-1_EP
They are BOTH still photos of the same DC10 VLAT drop that took place circa 1715.27 ( 5:15.27 PM ) up on the NORTH side of the fire along Hays Ranch Road in Peeples Valley.
Tom Story shot his photo with a ‘Canon EOS 1D Mark II N’ camera with a 300mm f/2.8L Lens attached.
Panebaker shot his photo with a ‘Canon EOS REBEL T3i’ camera with a 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 Lens attached.
The TIME on Tom Story’s ‘Canon EOS 1D’ was set incorrectly that day and it put an EXIF metadata timestamp on his 7093 photo of 4:39.21 PM. The actual time it was taken ( based on this comparison with the correctly-timestamped Panebaker photo ) is 5:15.28 PM.
That means that Story’s ‘Canon EOS 1D’ was always 36 minutes and 7 seconds BEHIND the REAL time on June 30, 2013.
The absolute proof that these are two photos of the same VLAT drop is really in the SMOKE cloud on the left side of both photos. It remains absolutely identical during the ‘crossfade’ between the two photos.
__________________________________________________________________
** MORE DETAIL…
Panebaker wasn’t just shooting videos that day.
Every time there was a VLAT drop… Panebaker also used his ‘Canon EOS REBEL T3i’ digital camera to shoot the drops ( these are all the ‘shutter clicks’ being heard in the Panebaker VIDEOS.
Those photos are in the online Dropbox in this folder…
Photos and Video / AerialFirefightingstudy / Panebaker / Photo / VLAT Drops
ONE of Panebaker’s photos of that 5:15.27 PM VLAT drop on the NORTH side of the fire is an almost perfect match for Tom Story’s 7093 photo.
Filename: 20130630_171528-1_EP
EXIF metadata for this Panebaker still image…
Camera: Canon EOS REBEL T3i
Lens: Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Lens 2: Shot at 85 mm
Exposure: Auto exposure, Program AE, 1/128 sec, f/5.6, ISO 320
Flash: Off, Did not fire
Focus: AI Servo AF, with a depth of field of from 59.7 m to 15.84 m.
Focus 2: AF Area Mode: Multi-point AF or AI AF
Date: June 30, 2013 – 5:15:27 PM
File: 3,456 × 5,184 JPEG (17.9 megapixels)
The EXIF timestamp of 5:15.27 PM ( 1715.27 ) matches the filename title of 171528 ( filename title is 1 second ahead of EXIF timestamp ).
Tom Story took 3 photos of this same moment of the same drop with his Canon EOS 1D.
All THREE have the same exact timestamp so he must have had his ‘auto-shutter’ motor on, leaned on the shutter button, and just took three photos as fast as the camera would take them.
NOTE: The 4:39.21 timestamps are according to HIS Canon EOS 1D but that is the issue. We know these timestamps are not correct. The KEY was finding out what the real ‘time offset’ was that day.
NOTE: His Canon EOS 1D was not ‘stuck’ on 4:39.21. His photos of the rest of this VLAT drop are stamped with the correct incremental seconds values like 4:39.22 and 4:39.23, etc. He really did take these 3 photos all in the same ‘second’ at 4:39.21.
201303_Yarnell_Hill_7093 – 4:39:21
201303_Yarnell_Hill_7094 – 4:39:21
201303_Yarnell_Hill_7095 – 4:39.21
The FIRST one ( 7093 ) is the best ‘exact match’ for the same photo in the Panebaker Air Study Video ‘Photos’ folder.
In-between the Panebaker and Tom Story photo, the DC10 has, in fact, advanced about 1 plane length.
That means that while both of these photos were taken at almost the same moment… the Panebaker image was actually shot FIRST.
Given the rate of movement as seen and timestamped in other photos/videos of this VLAT drop… I would say that only 1 second has elapsed between when Panebaker pressed his shutter button and then Tom Story pressed his.
So.. since the actual EXIF timestamp for this photo is 1715.27… that puts a REAL timestamp on Story’s 7093 photo of…
1715.28 ( 5:15.28 PM ).
The difference, then, between the ACTUAL time Tom Story’s 7093 photo was taken and the incorrect 4:39.21 PM that his Canon 1D ‘stamped’ it would be…
+36 minutes and 7 seconds. ( 1715.28 minus 1639.21 ).
BOTTOM LINE: This PROVES that there was NO VLAT DROP on the SOUTH side of the fire at 4:39 PM that day, which is what Tom Story’s photos seemed to suggest. That would have meant there was a DC10 VLAT drop taking place at the exact moment that Captain Jesse Steed was making his first MAYDAY call.
That is why it was IMPORTANT to figure out WHY Tom Story’s photos might have been suggesting such a drop at that time.
It didn’t happen.
He ( Tom Story ) simply had the TIME set WRONG on his Canon EOS 1D.
Heh! Thanks for doing this!!
You sent me to the Google to do a little Canon 1D History!! Shows how much I pay attention to cameras that cost five times more than I can even contemplate affording!
That is NOT a new camera!! The 1D Mark ii n came out in 2005!! It was about $4000 then. Google shows one on ebay today for $790.
HOWEVER the 1D’s have always been considered the fastest cameras on the market. They’re the supreme sports photography cameras. It wasn’t STUCK on a second. It could shoot 8.5 frames per second. The current 1D Mark iv can shoot 10 frames per second. Tom’s 5D Mark ii’s can only shoot 4 frames per second. And the 1D is a 1.3 crop frame, a little smaller than full frame, which gives it more “reach.”
That’s why when you watch the Olympics the 1D is what most of the photographers are using. So when Tom wanted a combination of speed and reach, that’s when he went for the relatively ancient but still awesome 1D.
Actually Tom shot 21 frames of that whole drop. The first being at x:xx:18. The last being at x:xx:29. There are at least nine frames that he shot that he didn’t put into that folder.
So now that means possibly having to go back to McCord’s VLAT-helicopter-almost-fiasco video and seeing if that possibly changes its timing (and thus the rest of his coolpix images). It might and it might not. And it may not matter in the general scheme of things.
So, we have another mystery solved!
Thanks!
And PS. I’ve been using Canon Rebels since 2007. I currently use the t3i. It’s the most popular “non-professional” dslr on the planet. I have a three-day “how to shoot video with your dslr” class beginning today. So I may not be around too much.
Marti… sidenote…
Have you seen the Tom Story photos that DO actually have some GPS information in them?… but that GPS data is totally screwed up?
I find that very unusual. Usually these GPS chipsets in these devices either WORK… or they don’t.
There is always a ‘startup time’ for GPS if you have just turned the device on and sometimes you won’t be getting truly ACCURATE GPS coordinates until you have acquired at least 4 or 5 of the LEO ( Low Earth Orbit ) satellites…
…but Tom Story’s GPS capable device ( I have no idea what camera that really was ) just seems BROKEN.
It’s also VERY unusual that, in the EXIF data for these GPS stamped photos of his, there is no CAMERA or DEVICE information whatsoever.
Very unusual.
Sometimes the CAMERA or DEVICE Model number or ID is one of the ONLY things a cheap camera will add as EXIF data… but I’ve never seen a device that is adding other sophisticated EXIF data ( like GPS )… but also seems to be REFUSING to add any actual CAMERA or DEVICE information.
So it wasn’t a Canon…
and it wasn’t an iPhone or an iPad.
I have NO IDEA what camera he was using for those (incorrectly) stamped GPS photos.
It was some kind of smartphone pic that he was posting to Instagram. I’m such a bozo re smartphones.
But I’ve looked at LOTS of various smartphone pix from this fire, and the way they get tagged and time stamped is all over the boards. And we had a discussion way back when about how the geotagging etc could be easily way off. It takes awhile for that to set itself up.
I’ve seen LOTS of smartphone geotagging from this fire that is also all over the boards. I haven’t come to expect any kind of accuracy on any of this stuff at all.
**
** MORE ON THE TOM STORY CANON EOS 1D PHOTO TIMESTAMPS
** AND THE (SUPPOSED) VLAT DROP AT 1639
Reply to Marti Reed post on May 11, 2014 at 8:54 am said:
>> Marti said…
>> I had downloaded a smattering of photos from both folders, but
>> just kinda randomly. Just downloaded a bunch more,
>> more strategically. Looks like he photographed three VLAT drops.
Yes, it does.
>> Marti also said…
>> I’m starting to think he set up that camera quickly, just setting the
>> date, and not the time. Thus the stamp when first shot a frame on
>> it would have been 00:00:00. I don’t know if I have the time to figure
>> out what to synch on. But if I can pin one of those VLATs, it might
>> be possible to nail it.
>>
>> That being said, I’m currently thinking that drop might be the 1707ish
>> one. I just don’t know where he took it from. I don’t know where that
>> drop was, exactly. Do you?
I’ve been hard working on that here ( the actual LOCATION of that VLAT drop in
the Tom Story Canon EOS 1D photos ) and I can almost say with little doubt
that regardless of he 4:39 timestamp(s)… that is actually EXACTLY where
we see the Air Study people filming those earlier VLAT drops off on that
small ridge at the NORTH end of the fire… up in Peeples Valley.
So YES… regardless of device timestamp… it looks like that 4:39 series
of photos coming from Ton Story’s ‘Canon EOS 1D Mark II N’ are of the
SAME VLAT DROPS captured in the Panebaker videos… much earlier.
Exactly WHICH Panebaker video is a match?
I am on that right now… taking stillframes from Panebaker videos and
comparing them to the Tom Story photo(s).
>> Marti also wrote…
>> If it was visible from the RHR parking lot, he could have caught
>> it w/that 300mm easily.
Yes… but see above. It looks like those photos were taken all the
way up NORTH of the same VLAT drop(s) seen in the Panebaker
Air Study videos.
It even looks like Tom Story might have been standing almost exactly
where the Air Study group was and using his 300mm lens from there.
>> Marti Reed also said ( on May 11, 2014 at 9:19 am )…
>>
>> Hah! I just found what looks like a tight sequence of the same event,
>> using both a Mark D and the 1D! It’s the red and white helicopter
>> picking up a bucket at the helispot and heading into the smoke…
>> Looks good…more later….
Bingo! I agree. That looks like the ‘moment’ when he decided to
actually switch between the 5D and the 1D.
>> Marti also said…
>> OK, if this helicopter sequence shows the 1D is set about 20 minutes
>> late, that would put the problematic VLAT drop at 4:17– the split drop.
Yes. This is starting to fall into place now.
That VLAT drop (supposedly) photographed by Tom Story with his
Canon 1D at 4:39 PM ( the exact minute of Steed’s first MAYDAY )
looks more and more like simply one of the same VLAT drops that
happened much earlier and captured by one of the Panebaker videos.
Still not *EXACTLY* sure it was the 4:17 ‘split drop’ video… but I am
all over that and will have some results of my own soon about that.
I would bet my kittehs on it.
Bcuz, I wrote mistakenly below that he shot the second T 911 sequence (the one Blue Ridge was capturing with the almost helicopter snafu) on on the Mark D II. He actually shot it on the D1. And the first image is stamped 2:00:23. If you pull that stamp back 22 minutes (like I think you need to with the long two-camera helicopter and the third sequence) that puts it at 1:38:23. Right when it would be flying out of that drop. I think we’ve got it. At least good enough for well, what we need. If some overpaid lawyer’s crew wants to get more exact, that’s fine with me!!!!
And thanks for pulling this up out of the weeds!
Oops. It’s the T 910. Haven’t had time to keyword this stuff yet.
Location is *confirmed*.
That Tom Story VLAT sequence which *appears* to have been taken at 4:39 PM ( according to his Canon 1D ) was definitely shot almost exactly where the Panebaker Air Study videos were being taken up on Hays Ranch Road some time earlier and looking WEST at the SEAT / VLAT drops.
** Panebaker Air Study video
** 20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP
The ‘focus’ starts out fine in this video, but at about +7 seconds, when the ZOOM starts to capture the actual VLAT drop, the focus goes blurry, recovers a little, but never really returns to ‘sharp’ focus the whole time it is ZOOMED…
…EXCEPT for a brief moment at exactly +20 seconds. He recovers ‘sharp’ focus while ZOOMED for just a split second, but then loses it again.
A freeze-frame of that split-second when it is both ZOOMED and in ‘sharp focus’ proves that the terrain matches the Tom Story photos exactly… right down to the trees on the ridge in the foreground.
The ‘terrain’ in both the foreground and the background is, in fact, an ‘exact match’ for the Tom Story Canon EOS 1D photo sequence.
Now… is Tom’s photo sequence simply ‘stillframes’ of this same exact VLAT drop shown in this Panebaker video?
Not 100 percent on that yet.
There are similarities… but not seeing an ‘exact match’ yet.
Stay tuned. Tom was apparently in a slightly different spot on the side of Hays Ranch road than the Air Study fellas so the ‘perspective’ on the drop is slightly different. The ‘retardant’ in the Panebaker video seems to fall much farther ‘into the smoke’ than is shown in Tom’s photo sequence…
…but the DC10’s ‘hard left on exit’ is a MATCH in both the video and Tom’s photo sequence.
I’m still comparing stillframes from this Panebaker video to the Tom Story photo(s) to see if we can get this down to an EXACT time offset for Story’s Canon 1D.
The one thing we know for SURE now… is that Story’s Canon 1D photo is *NOT* a photograph of any VLAT drop that was happening at 1639, at the same exact time Steed’s first MAYDAY went out.
That is now *CONFIRMED*.
I actually accidentally downloaded the USDA 1640 Air Study video yesterday, intending to download the later one. So I sat and watched it three times, just to get familiar with the jargon, the planes, the kind of communication going on. It’s a really helpful one to watch, because there is a LOT of stuff going on right in front of the camera. The one after it with the air 2 air of the 1633 drop and the 1647 whatever is not as good, because they don’t zoom in so you can’t really see anything, like the Panebaker does with that 1633 drop.
So, yeah, I watched the VLAT split drop quite handily three times over. So when I went to recheck those photos I instantly recognized the spot. That smoke to the left is over the helicopter “horseshoe dip.”
I think he’s at a different angle from the videos, although I haven’t watched the Panebakers, they’re still……..down…..loading.
With that 300 mm lens, it’s hard to tell, but when the plane lifts, it’s right over his head. And I don’t know whether this is the first or second drop, and i’m not sure it’s possible to tell. The plane was flying the exact same path, just dropping at the “front” end (which is actually called the “tail” because its the last part dropped) and extending it.
You can really get a much better grasp on it by watching the USDA video with the air 2 air. Very detailed conversation going on.
Finding that overlapping helicopter sequence was like a HAPPY Mother’s Day Gift, believe me. Thanks Tom Story!!
It also confirmed that my re-time-stamping of McCord’s camera was not terribly off, which I wasn’t sure of. Things could be several minutes off, but it looks like I’ve got all of this basically synced.
Thanks, Lightroom!
Typo alert: the USDA 1620 Air Study Video
Update: It appears that the VLAT drop captured
in the Panebaker Air Study video titled…
20130630_161858_VLAT_split_2_EP
…is NOT the VLAT drop in Tom Story’s Volume 2
photo sequence.
In Tom’s photo sequence… we see the VLAT in ‘level flight’ at the peak of retardant output.
In the Panebaker 161858 video… pretty much at NO TIME during the drop is the DC10 actually in ‘level flight’. That video basically shows him dropping in a ‘constant curve’ and already heading to his left before the ‘cutoff’ moment.
The VLAT drop Tom Story photographed makes the same kind of ‘hard left on exit’ after drop… but definitely came in straighter ( and lower ) than the drop seen in the Panebaker video.
So on to the USDA videos.
Probably a more likely ‘match’ there…
…but we are still NOT WRONG about LOCATION.
Tom Story definitely photographed a VLAT drop at that same location as these Air Study videos… onto that ridge up there off Hays Ranch Road in Peeples Valley.
Thanks. It has to be one of those drops. Because there aren’t that many VLAT drops, and ONLY drop in that location is the split drop. So it’s the other drop. It has to be.
Yeah, go watch the USDA video. And actually the entire Panebaker 3-part sequence.
Thanks for doing this. I’m too lazy.
Marti… just an FYI… see posts below about helicopters. In the course of watching these Air Study videos all over again I’ve found at least one more ( so far ) very *NEAR MISS* between a fixed-wing and a helicopter.
This one looked even CLOSER than the skycrane versus DC10 one earlier in the day.
It’s in Panebaker Air Study video
20130630_153414_EP at the
+11 second mark.
Lead plane is on a line-up from east to west parallel to Hays Ranch Road… but a chopper with a bucket is coming up on a south to north line on the OTHER side of the smoke cloud.
Chopper crosses RIGHT in front of the lead plane at exact same altitude with only a few seconds to spare.
Thx, will check it out!
That is also why you keep hearing French say “…and I need a HARD LEFT on the exit” whenever they were dropping at that spot up along Hays Ranch Road.
The helicopters were all ‘crossing’ Hays Ranch Road to get to the Helibase as they were doing all that retardant work on that ridge.
I believe French was AWARE of these few close calls and that’s why he then kept emphasizing a ‘hard left turn’ coming out of the drops after that.
Yes, and also the “horseshoe dip was right across from the helibase. Very tight quarters, indeed.
Reply to Marti Reed post
on May 11, 2014 at 9:04 pm
>> Marti said…
>> It has to be one of those drops.
>> Because there aren’t that many
>> VLAT drops, and ONLY drop in
>> that location is the split drop.
>> So it’s the other drop. It has to be.
It is. ( the 5:15 VLAT drop up along Hays Ranch Road on the NORTH side of the fire ).
Totally confirmed.
See new post above including a new
VIDEO CROSSFADE on YouTube
that proves it.
Story’s Canon EOS 1D was always 36 minutes and 7 seconds BEHIND the REAL time that day.
**
** CLINT CLAUSON ( ATS TRAINEE FLYING IN BRAVO 33 )
** RECORDED THE TIME OF STEED’S FIRST MAYDAY?
As long as we are still sort of ‘focused’ on these *VERY* confusing SAIT interview notes with Bravo 33… I think it’s worth pointing out something else.
When the SAIR came out… it was astounding how *LITTLE* information they were providing with regards to ‘sources’ for the narrative timeline and other (supposedly) ‘factual’ statements they were making.
ONE of those things has always been…
How did they arrive at a time of 1639 for Steed’s first MAYDAY call?
They just published that time as FACT… and there wasn’t even a ‘footnote’ to indicate how they arrived at that (specific) time.
Sure… a LOT of people HEARD this call… but no one seemed to be SURE what TIME it really was.
The SAIT also already knew about Aaron Hulburd’s Helmet-Cam video and this is obviously where they were taking a lot of what was then SAID and ‘paraphrasing’ it in their SAIR report…. but they also knew they were NOT going to release that Helmet-Cam video to the public along with the report…
…but ( as we know now )… the TIMESTAMPS on Aaron Hulburd’s Helmet-Cam device were also a little ‘wonky’ that day and not entirely accurate.
So how did the SAIT really ‘nail down’ the 1639 time for Steed’s Mayday?
The answer might be the SECOND SENTENCE of their later-released interview with Bravo 33 in their SAIT Investigation Notes .
__________________________________________________________________
SAIT INTERVIEW WITH BRAVO 33 – July 9, 2013 – 1700
Interviewees: Bravo 33
John Burfiend – ATS Specialist ( Air Attack duties / Monitoring Air-To-Ground )
Clint Clauson – ATS Trainee
Thomas French – AT Specialist ( Pilot, Lead Plane / Monitoring Air-To-Air )
SAIT Interviewers: Dudley, Mayhew, Foley, Kurth, Rocha
We were ordered as lead air attack to relieve Bravo 3.
Clint did record a few times on air tankers departing and
when the frantic call was made.
_________________________________________________________________
This mysterious ‘Clint Clauson’ person is never “quoted” at all in the interview ( or never even asked any questions? )…. but this SECOND sentence in the interview notes DOES establish that he seemed to be ‘writing some TIMES down’ that day… INCLUDING the moment of Steed’s first (frantic) MAYDAY call.
I would also say this one sentence in the SAIT notes also pretty much
establishes all of the following…
1) Clint Clauson was onboard as an ‘ATS Trainee’. Burfiend is listed as ‘ATS’ and French is only listed as ‘AT’… so that means Clauson was most probably ‘mentoring’ with Burfiend that day and NOT French.
2) If Clauson was ‘mentoring’ with only Burfiend… then that means Clauson would probably ALSO have been listening to the same radio channel Burfiend was. That means Clauson was listening exclusively to the ‘Air-To-Ground’ channel and was hearing everything that Burfiend was (including Steed’s first MAYDAY in real time).
3) Clauson apparently WROTE DOWN the TIME they heard Steed’s first MAYDAY call ( described in SAIT notes as ‘the frantic call’ ). As in… on a piece of PAPER.
4) Even though Clauson apparently was never asked anything by the SAIT investigators and there is no record of him ever SAYING anything in the interview… the notes still imply that Clauson might have given them a ‘document’ or a ‘piece of paper’ that had these TIMES that he recorded written on it. If so… that document was NOT included in the SAIT FOIA/FOIL package and ( if it exists ) is just one more document that would seem to have been *withheld* by Arizona Forestry from legitimate ( legal ) FOIA/FOIL requests. We already KNOW that Arizona Forestry *DID* withhold any number of documents. Maybe this ‘piece of paper’ from Clauson is simply one of those ‘withheld’ documents.
So… REGARDLESS of whether there was an actual DOCUMENT ( or copy of
one ) handed by Clauson to the SAIT investigators that had ‘1639’ written down for the time they heard the first ‘frantic call’… SOMEHOW that ‘1639’ time was COMMUNICATED to the SAIT investigators ( but is also never mentioned in the interview notes ).
So THIS *might* be how the SAIT was so SURE that Steed’s first MAYDAY actually took place at 1639, despite poor recollections and a wonky timestamps on the Aaron Hulburd Helmet-Cam video.
They might have been totally trusting what this mysterious ATS Trainee Clint Clauson had actually WRITTEN DOWN ( or, perhaps, just TOLD them verbally during the interview, according to his recollection ) as the TIME for Steed’s first ‘frantic call’… and they ‘adjusted’ all the other times/events based on that.
Great catch! ATS means Air Tactical Supervisor. AT or ATP means Air Tactical Pilot.
I bet that guy knows a whole lot more than he’s letting on to.
PS. Great Resource:
The Interagency Aerial Supervision Guide:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nifc/aviation/aerial_supervision.Par.58629.File.dat/IASG.pdf
Has quite a bit of stuff (most of which I don’t understand, but might be useful) about radios.
And a bunch of other stuff.
**
** PICKUP TRUCK BURNED INSIDE RANCH ‘SAFETY ZONE’
There has always been a folder in Mr. Dougherty’s online Dropbox that says it contains ‘Pre-Fire images from Boulder Springs Ranch’, but there has also always been a ‘glitch’ in the linking that was sending clicks to another ( different ) folder.
That ‘glitch’ is GONE… and now we can see the full set of pre-fire images taken at the Boulder Springs Ranch ‘safety zone’.
There are even some ‘post-fire’ images included for a ‘before/after’ glimpse of some parts of the compound.
The following link now takes you right to the correct folder…
Folder: Helms Ranch Photos Pre-Fire
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/02ue6bnjp6nazkm/AABhgJJer7PG8OD2IhAwQYZ4a/Photos%20and%20Video/Helm%20Ranch%20Photos%20Pre-Fire#/
There are at least TWO photos there which verify what Joy Collura reported about the FENCING on the western side of the compound ( The direction Granite Mountain was approaching from ). It does, in fact, appear to simply be 3 strands
of barbed wire. Nothing substantial.
There are also TWO photos of an antique pickup truck that was parked well INSIDE the ‘safety zone’ up in the northwest part of the compound.
One photo of the antique pickup truck is pre-fire.
Another is post-fire.
You can see the ‘before/after’ for this vehicle. It got fried.
The entire back-half and wooden bed of the pickup burned
up completely, along with both back tires ( completely melted ).
This ‘antique pickup truck’ was exactly here ( INSIDE ) the ‘safety zone’…
34.219495, -112.771250
It was sitting 98 feet INSIDE the ‘safety zone’ from the fence that established the western edge of the compound and only 46 feet from the northwest corner of the Llama barn next to the house.
The last photo in the set ( with a name of vegetation-on-hills-.jpg ) actually shows how FAR inside the perimeter of the ‘safety zone’ this burned pickup truck was… and how CLOSE it was to the Llama pens and the barn.
NOTE: The actual NAME of the post-fire photo of the burned pickup truck is ‘truck Yarnall 15 June 001.JPG’ but the date indicated in this hand-modified title is INCORRECT.
The post-fire photo of the burned pickup truck was ACTUALLY taken well AFTER the fire on September 14, 2013.
The ACTUAL EXIF data embedded in the ‘after fire’ photo of the
pickup truck is as follows…
Camera: Canon PowerShot A4000 IS
Date: September 14, 2013 – 11:56:39 AM
Lens: 5 – 40 mm – Shot at 15.1 mm (shot wide open)
Exposure: Auto exposure, 1/1,002 sec, f/4, ISO 125
Flash: Auto, Did not fire
Focus: Single, Face Detect, with a depth of field of from 18.2 m to infinity.
Focus 2: AF Area Mode: Multi-point AF or AI AF
File: 3,456 × 4,608 JPEG (15.9 megapixels)
I would say the truck burned because of the straw in the back of it
possibly by direct flame but more likely by sparks that ignited the straw and burnt the truck. Sill interesting….
Reply to Bob Powers post on May 11, 2014 at 10:45 am
>> Mr. Powers said…
>> I would say the truck burned because of the straw in
>> the back of it… possibly by direct flame but more likely
>> by sparks that ignited the straw and burnt the truck.
Agree. That was a LOT of ‘straw’ piled in the back of the thing and you can even see a burned-up gasoline can there in pile in the aftermath photo.
It’s also possible that the ’embers’ ignited that small tree that was near it first… then the ‘open flame’ from the tree nailed the straw.
>> Mr. Powers wrote…
>> Still interesting….
Yes. Definite proof that even though the structures didn’t appear to suffer any damage at all… the ‘open area’ of the ‘safety zone’ was no picnic that afternoon.
It definitely wasn’t one of those ‘sit in the middle in a lawn chair and drink a beer and watch the fire go by’ kind of ‘safety zones’. More like ‘you better be inside one of the bulidings’ kind of ‘safety zone’.
Probably also a good lesson there for anyone trying to ‘fire proof’ their own compounds. These pictures prove that regardless of how far INSIDE your compound there are ‘small trees’ or other ‘combustibles’ ( like bales of hay )… they probably ARE going to IGNITE under similar circumstances… so BEWARE.
Even if you have a 600 foot wide ‘clearing’ around your house… make sure you haven’t kept ‘trees’ right next to your house and make sure all ‘combustibles’ are INSIDE or… at least… out on the PERIMETER and not near a structure.
Confession time. My urban backyard is full of dead stuff. I don’t live in the WUI, but the wind is blowing, we’re in endless drought here in N Mexico, and I’ve spent inordinate amounts of time reading about fire lately. Tomorrow morning I intend to make an appointment to get rid of the dead stuff in my backyard. Now that it’s finally possible to tell the dead stuff from the live stuff.
Every fifth post in my New Mexico Twitter Stream is about Wildfire Preparedness. We shall see……..
I’m dreading this wildfire season in New Mexico……..
I spent eight years living in the forest outside of Flagstaff. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in the forest now, or in the East Sandia Mountains, although I’d love to….
And it’s only gonna get worse….
By the way… that ‘pile of crap’ on the left-hand side of the ‘post-fire’ photo with the fried pickup truck is the burned-up remnants of a wooden wagon that was also there INSIDE the ‘safety zone’.
You can see what that wagon looked like BEFORE it got fried to nothing in the ‘pre-fire’ photo of the pickup truck.
It did NOT have any ‘hay’ or ‘straw’ in it… but it burned to the ground, anyway.
One more followup…
If you look at the last photo on that page ( which shows the pickup truck and the wooden wagon pre-fire ) you will see that there was ALSO actually a STRUCTURE there in-between them pre-fire.
Some kind of storage shed? Looks to be wooden.
That STRUCTURE is TOTALLY GONE in the post-fire pictures and only that 50-gallon drum is left standing there.
Not too surprising. That STRUCTURE appears to have been sitting right BETWEEN the two small trees that were there INSIDE the ‘safety zone’.
When those two trees ‘lit up’… it must have been quite a BLAZE going there INSIDE the ‘safety zone’ and just 46 feet from the Llama barn.
Amazing job on the supposed 16:37 Marsh transmission. That is some impressive collective work! It’s not easy to prove the absence of a thing, yet I think you’ve pretty much wrapped that one up.
I’m still confused about how you are using VHF vs. UHF to refer to radio traffic. Here is how I understand frequencies:
VHF = Very High Frequency = [30 – 300 Mhz]
UHF = Ultra High Frequency = [300 Mhz – 3 Ghz]
Source = http://wiki.radioreference.com/index.php/Spectrum
All(?) radio communications on non-military incidents (including fire, Search and Rescue, police, etc.) take place over VHF. This includes air-to-air, air-to-ground, dispatch, and all ground crews.
Air-to-air tends to span from 121.x Mhz to 123.x Mhz. Fire/police/EMS in my area use frequencies in the range of 154.x – 173.x Mhz. (This may differ in areas near large bodies of water, as this overlaps with Marine VHF). Bendix King handheld and mobile (vehicle) radios used on fire generally transmit and receive in the 136 – 174 Mhz range. Dispatchers and repeater stations transmit and receive larger parts of the spectrum. Airguard and air-to-ground frequencies are in the 160s, so ground crews can monitor and transmit on them. For obvious reasons, transmissions on the airband range are more tightly controlled (non-pilot radio operators get permitted, and base stations are licensed).
In summary, all of these Yarnell radio communications are VHF, though air-to-air and air-to-tower transmissions are on a lower frequency of VHF than air-to-ground and ground-to-ground. Do I have this right?
Reply to Sitta post on May 10, 2014 at 10:44 pm
>> Sitta said…
>> Amazing job on the supposed 16:37 Marsh transmission.
>> That is some impressive collective work!
>> It’s not easy to prove the absence of a thing,
No. It most certainly is NOT ( easy ).
>> Sitta also said…
>> yet I think you’ve pretty much wrapped that one up.
Well… perhaps not yet. Still needs another few passes.
There is some other evidence in the public record that is
relevant. Still ‘looking’ at all that. Stay tuned.
>> Sitta also said…
>> In summary, all of these Yarnell radio communications are
>> VHF, though air-to-air and air-to-tower transmissions are on
>> a lower frequency of VHF than air-to-ground and ground-
>> to-ground. Do I have this right?
Well… YES… you probably do.
Probably should have done this yesterday ( before all the VHF/UHF lingo entered the picture )… but here are the channels that were
actually ‘in use’ that weekend ( along with exact frequencies )…
From PDF page 22 of the Arizona Forestry SAIR report itself…
______________________________________________________
Radio Frequencies
The Yarnell Hill Fire was assigned Group 1 A1S PHX District
channels on June 28. On June 30 at 1022, the communications
plan was as follows:
Channel No., Channel Name, Assignment
1, AZSF1, Command
5, VFIRE21, Optional Tactical, Unassigned
6, AZSFTAC1, Tactical 1, Div A and Div Z
7, AZSFTAC2, Tactical 3, Structure Protection Group 1
8, AZSFTAC3, Tactical 2, Structure Protection Group 2
10, AZSFTAC5, Air-Ground
16, AIRGUARD, Air Guard Channel
Early in the day on June 30, there was limited use of AZSFTAC3
Tactical 3 by Granite Mountain IHC, Blue Ridge IHC, and heavy
equipment boss. Tactical 3 was assigned to Structure Protection
Group 1 at 1200 that day.
___________________________________________________
The exact frequencies assigned to Arizona’s
“Group 1 A1S PHX District Channels” are as follows…
Channel, Function, Frequency, Tone, Mode, Assignment
1, TAC 1, RX: 168.0500, TX: 168.0500, 123.0, N, OPS / DIV
2, TAC 2, RX: 168.2000, TX: 168.2000, 123.0, N, OPS / DIV
3, TAC 3, RX: 168.6000, TX: 168.6000, 123.0, N, OPS / DIV
4, TAC 4, RX: 166.7250, TX: 166.7250, 123.0, N, OPS / DIV
5, TAC 5, RX: 166.7750, TX: 166.7750, 123.0, N, OPS / DIV
6, TAC 6, RX: 168.2500, TX: 168.2500, 123.0, N, Unassigned
7, CMD C-2, RX: 168.1000, TX: 170.4500, 123.0, N, Command
8, CMD C-9, RX: 160.0125, TX: 165.2500, 123.0, N, Command
9, AZ State Fire, RX: 151.4000, TX: 159.4050, 162.2, N, AZ State Fire RPTR
10, Prescott NF Fire Net, RX: 164.3525, TX: 172.6125, 103.5, N, Forest Fire Net RPTR
11, Blank
12, MUTL AID, RX: 154.2800, TX: 154.2800, 0.0, N, Mutual Aid
13, AIR/GND, RX: 169.2000, TX: 169.2000, 0.0, N, Primary A/G
14, AIRGUARD, RX: 168.6250, TX: 168.250, 0.0, N, Air Guard
15, WEATHER, RX: 162.4000, TX: 0.0, 0.0, N, Weather Broadcast
16, AIRGUARD, RX: 168.6250, TX: 168.6250, 110.9, N, Air Guard
ALL of the frequencies assigned to this Arizona
“Group 1 A1S PHX District Channels” are in the
range from ( low/high )…
154.2800 ( Mutual Aid ) up to 170.4500 ( Command 2 )
That matches what you said is used in YOUR area…
>> Sitta said…
>> Fire/police/EMS in my area use frequencies in
>> the range of 154.x – 173.x Mhz.
The most IMPORTANT thing to notice is that there is NO
PUBLISHED ‘Air-To-Air’ channel in this frequency group.
Only an ‘Air-To-Ground’ channel.
Even if you CLONED your radio off of someone else that day… you would still have had to specifically ‘punch in’ an Air-To-Air frequency and add it manually to the bank to talk on the ‘Air-To-Air’ channel.
Good reason for that.
The Air guys will not ( and SHOULD not ) tolerate just anyone
transmitting on whatever Air-To-Air channel they are using.
That would be a nightmare ( for them ).
So you are saying that the Bendix-King radios could not be programed for Air to Air at the lower freq. of 121-123 ?
As I have tough although the newer Radios are different than the ones I used 20 years ago. So there would be a separate radio for
the air to air and special separate Freq.? would certain fire officials and others have those radios in their vehicles? I know we did back when. Like the helitack truck and dispatch both FS & BLM as well as some county and city as well as State rigs.
One of the newer ( and more expensive ) Bendix Kings
on sale (today) at Amazon.
This is what they choose to call their COMMAND VERSION
of even the more basic ( and cheaper ) BK GPH5102… and even this COMMAND version doesn’t have the 121-123 frequency range.
This puppy is $1,325 smackeroos… and it STILL won’t give you an Air-To-Air Channel if it’s down in the 120’s.
http://www.amazon.com/GPH5102X-CMD-Analog-Handheld-Command-Version/dp/B00AA0DIBI
________________________________________________
GPH5102X-CMD Analog Bendix King Handheld
(Command Version)
500 Channels, 25 User Groups, 20 Channels per Group
136-174 MHz Frequency Range
5/1.5 watts RF Power
MIL-STD 810
Programmable Soft Switches
1 new from $1,325.00
_______________________________________________
Maybe there’s a regulation about that?
I can’t quote them at the moment… but I’m SURE there ARE tight regulations about who is ever ‘allowed’ to even be transmitting on ‘Air-To-Air’ channels.
Could you imagine if anyone could just walk out of a Radio Shack and immediately start transmitting on ‘Air-To-Air’ channels.
“Hey!… Delta Airlines!… I see you up there! How’s it goin’!… where ya headed!”
YIKES.
I wrote somewhere else something about this:
Interagency Aerial Supervision Guide:
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/nifc/aviation/aerial_supervision.Par.58629.File.dat/IASG.pdf
It has a lot of stuff about radio frequencies. I don’t really understand it because I don’t understand radio frequencies.
But somebody like you might want to peruse it. It’s more complicated than we think. I think there was more going on than we’re currently aware of. And I think you might find it quite useful for getting a finer understanding of what the possibilities/probabilities might be.
Including possible helicopter stuff. And a few other things.
Also I asked somewhere below, “What is Air Guard?” Now I know.
I just what to say to you Sitta, thanks for coming back and helping out. I’ve missed your voice.
I think what we’re doing now is an example of what we can do when we work together at solving problema, even when we disagree/see things differently, respectfully with each other, communicating back and forth, knowing none of us is exactly “right,” we’re all seeing different things at different times, from different perspectives and different knowledge bases. We all have different things/skills/perspectives to offer.
I love it when this happens.
It’s all about respect.
**
** Reply to calvin post on May 10, 2014 at 2:49 am
>> calvin said…
>>
>> WTKTT… The slash across the throat sign has always bothered me.
>> How could he ( John Burfiend ) be so certain that they were dead?
>> Really, how?? How did he know they were dead when he didn’t
>> even know where they were??
>> WTF
calvin…
The SAIT interview notes with Bravo 33 are an absolute MESS… but if you read them *very* carefully it would appear that John Burfiend ( who was the right-seat guy, not flying the airplane, and the one who was monitoring Air-To-Ground channel ) did his ‘slash across his throat’ gesture just AFTER Marsh’s final transmission when Marsh ‘affirmed’ that they were on the ‘SOUTH side of the fire’.
Even if they couldn’t see them… I think Burfiend could tell looking downward at that moment that anyone deploying on the SOUTH side of that exploding fireline was a goner. Hence… ‘slash across the throat’ gesture over to Thomas French.
Here is the exact ‘context’ of that testimony from Thomas French in the SAIT interview notes. It seems to confirm that Burfiend’s ‘slash across his throat’ gesture to French did, in fact, come right after Marsh’s *final* transmission…
__________________________________________________________________
We were right here (pointed at map) when Granite Mountain 7 called screaming in the radio. Ops said “are you getting this? I told Granite Mountain 7 “you need to calm down. I can’t understand you”. Immediately Division A called and said “we are starting a burn out, we are getting in our shelters. I said we got pople in trouble. Tanker called and said I got you in sight. I claimed out – the DC10 swung wide. I looked at John and he did this (slash across the throat). I told Kevin to stand by copy, taking it around. We have a crew in trouble. We are going to go look.
__________________________________________________________________
Let me also say that while I (personally) have always found this ‘slash across the throat’ gesture from Burfiend to be quite ‘uncalled for’… I do *NOT* believe for one second that this obvious assumption on his part that they were ‘goners’, even at that point in time, had *ANY* effect on him then proceeding to do his job.
I can also criticize them ( and, indeed, the WFF radio protocols themselves for apparently NOT having a good, established MAYDAY protocol ) for NOT taking the transmissions from Steed and Caldwell seriously for more than TWO MINUTES… but that still doesn’t mean I think they didn’t do all they possibly could to try and save those men that day… when they finally did realize this was a *REAL* emergency.
As soon as OPS1 Todd Abel contacted French and Burfiend and *TOLD* them to get their heads out of their asses and RESPOND to these men… they did.
And once they did ( finally stop ignoring them )… they obviously kicked into their own highly-rehearsed and professional procedures for such a situation.
I also happen to believe that if there had been *ANY* indication in those final radio exchanges of where they REALLY were ( such as… if Marsh had only taken 2 seconds to say… “we are 600 yards due WEST of Boulder Springs Ranch” )…
…I believe Thomas French in B33 and Kevin in the DC10 VLAT would have actually attempted a retardant drop ( whether they really believed it would do any good or not ) at GREAT risk to their own lives.
To have flown the jet-engine DC10 right through that thick ASH cloud would have been absolute suicide for Kevin… so I don’t think THAT would have happened… but if there was ANY way to get at their location ( if they knew where it was ) OTHER than flying blindly directly THROUGH the smoke/ash cloud…
I think they would have tried it.
For the rest of my life… I will always wonder WHY, when Marsh was directly asked by Burfiend…. “So, you’re on the south side of the fire, then?”…
…all Eric Marsh said was… “Affirm”.
Obtuse communications. Right to the end.
Even if French or Burfiend didn’t know where the heck the ‘Boulder Springs Ranch’ was… there were MANY people listening to the final MAYDAY calls who DID and they would have jumped right into the conversation and TOLD French and Burfiend *EXACTLY* where that was.
If Marsh had just added ANY amount of OTHER information… they at least *MIGHT* have been able to KNOW or GOOD-GUESS their exact location.
He didn’t… and I will ALWAYS wonder WHY he didn’t avail himself of that
one last chance to identify their exact location.
Followup to above…
We ( in this ongoing discussion ) are not the only ones to wonder from day one WHY there was so much ‘confusion’ and ‘delay’ in realizing that the transmissions from Granite Mountain constituted a *REAL* emergency… or to wonder WHY it was that Burfiend in Bravo 33 basically IGNORED them for almost 2 minutes ( and even told them to get OFF the channel ) until OPS1 Todd Abel called him directly and *TOLD* him to stop ignoring these men.
Back in December of 2013 even… Wildfire Today published an article about this specific thing and about the new *YoLo* proposal which was a DIRECT reaction ( coming from the ground level ) to what happened in Yarnell.
Wildfire Today
Published December 23, 2013 by Bill Gabbert
Suggested protocol for firefighters when declaring an emergency
______________________________________________________
After reading about the deaths of the 19 firefighters on the Yarnell Hill Fire, Mr. Joseph Berto ( WFF Helicopter pilot ) had some thoughts about the crucial need for clear, descriptive radio communications when there is a firefighter emergency that requires immediate assistance. Below is his proposal, and following that my initial reaction and his response:
( See original article for full proposal )
______________________________________________________
There has ALSO been this ONGOING forum discussion about
this over at ‘Wildland Fire’.
Wildland Fire
Home of the Wildland Firefighter
Thread: More Yarnell Hill discussion: Mayday, Mayday, Mayday!
http://wlfhotlist.com/threads/38400-More-Yarnell-Hill-discussion-Mayday-Mayday-Mayday!
The first comment that ‘kicked off’ this (ongoing) discussion
over there at ‘Wildland Fire’ is as follows…
______________________________________________________
From Wildland Fire member: D Powers
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Mexico
Mayday, Mayday, Mayday!
I have read the official reports about the Yarnell Hill fire, but the transcription of the radio traffic does not do justice to listening to them.
One thing that stood out to me was the lack of an emergency declaration. B-33 did not pick up on the tone of voice (possibly because he was trying to do three jobs at once), but everyone else did.
In the military, civilian aviation, and the structural fire service that is one of the first things to be drilled into new recruits: recognize when you are in trouble, and call for help. Make sure others know you are calling for help.
I am not saying GM did anything improper (I have never heard of Mayday being used in a wildland setting) but perhaps it is something to be considered for the future?
______________________________________________________
This ‘Wildland Fire’ Forum Thread is heavily commented and goes on with many ‘ideas’ such as just adopting what WFF people use in Australia ( Emergency, Emergency, Emergency ) or other ‘already used’ standards.
Since it still appears that the WFF management in the United States doesn’t intend to DO or RECOMMEND ANYTHING new in this regard… I certainly hope the ‘folks on the ground’ just go ahead and decide on something amongst themselves… ASAP… since whether their own management gives a crap about their safety, or not, it is THEIR LIVES that might depend on such an established protocol in the future.
Marti and WTKTT
A couple of thoughts one I listed below.
1. If the transmission was on air to air Marsh would not have made it.
The portable radios do not Carrie that Freq. because of the Radio Ban it is on.
2. If a OPS or the IC was in the helicopter they could have made that statement over Air to Air. If the Helicopter was in the area then it could have been re-conning the fire with 1 of the overhead.
3. A vehicle with that Radio Ban on a separate radio from the National fire Freq. Ban Radio could have also made the comment. That statement could have come without a call sign.
At this point with out verifiable radio traffic that was copied we are right now chasing shadows. If it was not copied on air to ground it could not have been Marsh. WTKTT if you have a way to check the freq. you could probably show the Problem of different Bans Low and High They should be listed some where.
Reply to Bob Powers post on May 10, 2014 at 10:58 am
>> Mr. Powers said…
>>
>> 1. If the transmission was on air to air Marsh would not
>> have made it.
Yes… and also IAOI ( If And Only If ) it went out on ‘Air-to-Air’…
then WE should be hearing it, too, captured in that video
which was CLEARLY recording the A2A traffic around that time.
It’s not there. Didn’t happen.
>> The portable radios do not Carrie that Freq. because of
>> the Radio Ban it is on.
No, they don’t. Not normally, anyway.
It’s the whole VHF ( Highband ) versus UHF ( LowBand ) thing.
Handhelds that have BOTH capability are VERY expensive.
>> 2. If a OPS or the IC was in the helicopter they could have
>> made that statement over Air to Air. If the Helicopter was in
>> the area then it could have been re-conning the fire with 1
>> of the overhead.
True… but there is certainly NO evidence that any OPS or IC
was flying in anything in Yarnell that late in the day. Everyone
was ‘on the ground’.
>> 3. A vehicle with that Radio Ban on a separate radio from the
>> National fire Freq. Ban Radio could have also made the
>> comment. That statement could have come without a call sign.
Also possible. Heck… we can even hear with our own ears in the video capture(s) that someone way back in Prescott Air Operations was ‘hearing’ all the traffic and was ALSO able to just press TRANSMIT at any moment and ‘insert’ themselves into the Air-To-Air conversations all the way down there in Yarnell.
This is all kind of ‘moot’, however, because with regards to this (supposed) “That’s exactly what we want” retardant-related transmission (supposedly) from DIVSA Marsh… it is John Burfiend ALONE who is testifying he ‘heard that’ and he is also testifying it was over the ‘Air-To-Ground’ ( UHF / LowBand ) channel.
That’s *another* reason the ‘Air-To-Ground’ channel is always one of the most popular and most-listened-to channels on ANY fire. It’s ‘where the action is’ and its accessible to the ‘cheaper’ radios because it is a UHF frequency and not a VHF one.
>> At this point with out verifiable radio traffic that was copied we
>> are right now chasing shadows.
I’m still looking at some ‘other’ things in the public evidence record and I’m not sure more still can’t be ‘figured out’ from it about this (supposed) transmission from Marsh… so I’m not ready to call it ‘shadow chasing’ just yet. Stay tuned.
>> If it was not copied on air to ground it could not have
>> been Marsh.
Agree. It really is a shame that the Air-Study folks didn’t ALSO have another video camera running that day with a direct inline feed on the A2G channel like they had one going with a direct inline feed on the A2A channel. That would have been REALLY helpful here.
>> WTKTT if you have a way to check the freq. you could probably
>> show the Problem of different Bans Low and High They should
>> be listed some where.
I’m sure they are… but I’m not sure it matters.
Air-To-Air was VHF and Air-To-Ground was UHF.
Only a VERY expensive handheld can do both and those are
NOT usually the Bendix Kings carried by WFF ground men.
We also DO have a full VHF A2A channel capture covering
the timeframe in question.
Marsh is nowhere on it.
If that transmission of his happened at all… it had to be on A2G.
Hi Bob! And everybody else!
I actually started this comment way earlier this morning, while doing other stuff and watching an over-my-head class on how to use InDesign, while continuing to read all the comments, and letting things sink in and re-arrange themselves. And then I wandered off to check on some facts and re-read some interviews, and then try to figure out when that VLAT drop was that Blue Ridge Hotshot McCord videod as it dangerously flew right over a helicopter so that maybe if there was any info on that (which there isn’t, but I think it happened about 1:37 PM, which means under Bravo 3’s watch), and now I’m back to finishing/editing this.
OK so now you know why it wasn’t on air 2 air. So I can delete the rest of the paragraphs that I wrote for you about that. I basically agree with all WTKTT has written about that. Including the part about maybe Marsh started to try to contact Air Attack but got overstepped by someone else saying “that’s where we want it” from down below, even the parking lot. That also makes sense, from a possibility level, since Eric Div A had been in earlier contact with Air Attack, and AA had indicated v/A2G uneasiness with where he saw that crew (that he didn’t know who they were).
At this point, who knows? Who even knows if that SAIT interview report was even accurate/truthful about anything either French or Burfiend even said. I agree w/WTK that it’s pretty evident the SAIT pretty heavily massaged that whole process to make it fit their pre-established narrative.
And note to WTKTT here, bcuz it’s easier to do this than scroll down while I’m downloading a bunch more of both sets of Air Study videos, thanks for clarifying the “show me” directions. I confess, when I wrote that question, it was a short-cut, bcuz I hadn’t had time to go try to “translate” the numbers and I was guessing you probably had. I also confess, I’m still a bit “bowl-challenged,” and thus my confusion about that. When somebody says “bowl” I have no idea what they mean. Thus, when Burfiend apparently (or not) spoke of test-flying “the bowl” “from west to east,” it definitely created a certain picture in my head, that apparently didn’t correspond to the facts. And, hey, maybe it didn’t even correspond to what he said!
And, hey, as long as we’re being left to lots of gaps and thus room for speculating, could it be that Burfiend and French didn’t take that Forest Service SAIT interview all that seriously, either? Maybe they had already figured the AFS was gonna, all things considered, bend the “facts to their narrative” based on their at-that-time recently published investigative process model. Which is in fact exactly what they did.
And to TTWARE — and Bob — and WTKTT — etal:
About the ASM thing. As I was on again off again over the past few months, trying to make sense of the Air command structure and terminology, including reading Fire Aviation, the sister site of Wildfire Today, I saw quite a bit of grumpiness about this new Module thing. And it may be one of the Lessons to be Learned from Yarnell.
And somewhat related to the above, I’ve been really thinking about my possible “overly glowing” assessment of French. It may be just that. Or it may be that I’m just translating him a little differently. I’ve been around air and balloon pilots and meteorologists and tornado-chasers a lot. They do what they do because they enjoy it, even when it gets dangerous and difficult — and, hey so do fire/wildfire fighters (who we all know are actually pyromaniacs in disguise!!), so I’m not so offended by what some of you all are upset about. And maybe that gesture across the throat was not in jest. It could have been dead serious. I could envision my dad doing that if he heard a report of a balloon hitting a power line. And he wouldn’t have meant it to be funny.
Bravo 33’s job was (as per the Air Support YouTube video) to get wet stuff on the ground without bending metal along with, when necessary and possible, adding situational awareness, but NOT managing the ground crews (as opposed to what Rory Collins was/wasn’t doing, ahem. I can’t imagine, after watching/listening to French for hours, ever doing what Collins did.). That was somebody else’s job. They were doing just that, and it wasn’t all that easy, and they had lives on their hands, too. Plane crashes on fires are not that uncommon.
So when that SEAT flew through that fire at 4:33, to make that drop that apparently took a few set-ups to get, French essentially thanked him, and the pilot, possibly with some relief, indicated he was happy too, even tho they both knew, it was quite possibly a fool’s errand, but one they were hired to do.
And now that I’ve read what you wrote, WTKTT, about what they would have done, and DID do, after they abandoned that VLAT drop, I really appreciate that. Not only that, but they were running out of fuel, and still managed a 5:07 VLAT drop in the middle of it all. And, as they said, they were just barely able to do it because it was in such heavy smoke and ash they could hardly even see.
That being said, I’m sensing something of a cognitive dissonance. Might it, again, have to do with this thing we have called “Culture”?
Could it be that “Fire Aviation” has something of a different “culture” than on-the-ground “Fire Fighting”? And is that maybe something else that’s adding to the confusion? And furthermore, I definitely see, and have read about, regional differences, especially in the complaints about Collins. As in, in the northwest forests they fight fires differently than in the southwest, and thus the big conflicts between Marsh and Collins.
OK a final thing, before I go on a last-minute quest for Mother’s Day Flowers. Regarding that 1:37ish PM VLAT drop. Once I figured out that that’s when it happened, I went back to Bravo 3’s interview. Collins had had to leave (out of fuel) so Bravo 3 was Air Attack. They say nothing about that drop in their SAIT interview. And that’s what leads me to the next thing.
Helicopters. I have absolutely NO IDEA who was mostly directing helicopters. I was wondering that as I watched the Air-to-Air 1628 video. French WAS paying careful attention to helicopters, but it was all about keeping them out of the way of the fixed wing tankers, because they were dropping really close to the helispot and the “horseshoe dip” location. Since there’s no air-to-air video earlier than 2pm-ish, there’s no record of how Bravo 3 was communicating. I don’t even know if B3 was even aware there was a helicopter right under that VLAT. So I have no clue who was directing the helicopter drops. Maybe just another little unimportant detail in the general scheme of things?
Which leads to my seriously final point. Having those Air Study videos really HAS been critical, given the jumbling of everything else. And yes, it would have been even more helpful if they had set up the same kind of video camera with the Air to Ground channel included. Without all the wind and stuff that the Panebakers have. We’d still be fifty miles behind where we are if somebody hadn’t thought, “Gee, lets go set up some video cameras up on that fire and document the Fire Aviation!!”
Hasta! Thank you all for bearing with me!
Great Job Marti
When Fires Like this in WUI start running at structures
The first thing is to thro Air Tankers at the Fire. The problem most times they don’t do any good except make every body feel like they at least did something. It looks good to the public at least some one is doing something.
Helicopters–When Fixed wing plains are on a fire Helicopter pilots Monitor there Freq. And stay out of the way. They fly lower and are assigned to specific areas.
They maintain contact Air to Air.
That is why I said the 1 Helicopter flying that is mentioned may have had an overhead in it that could have made the comment, and could have over keyed Marsh DIV A call.
From what I am reading there is no radio verification that DIV A broke into any Air conversation except the statement from AA. At this point we have a personnel recollection with no solid proof it actually happened.
Again good work on the info.
Marti—–Yes there are 2 different cultures good catch Ground and air, not sure where those Smoke Jumpers fit? We always liked the Helicopters when they gave us a ride.
Also we all love Fire, Fire Fighting and even starting them like Back Fires Project burns Etc.
If you didn’t you would not stick with it.
So you found us out as well.
Ha Ha, yes I found you out!!
Actually, to be honest, I “go to school” online regarding photography, media, design, business at an online “place” called CreativeLIVE, which is based in Seattle. When we have classes, we also have chatrooms.
One of my pals in the chatrooms is a female firefighter relative/supporter in southern California. She’s actually VERY interested in this fire and is probably reading this site, which I have linked her to regularly.
We chuckle a lot about how people who fight fires and people who pay attention to fires (like me) are actually fascinated by fire. I’ve always been fascinated by fire, loved/miss my 10 years of surviving via wood-stoves in Flagstaff, always have candles burning, and about every 4 years get really intensively interested in a wildfire.
I started tracking/observing wildfires online in about 1996. I was really interested in how communities used the Internet to deal with how a wildfire was impacting them and to connect to each other to deal with it.
That lead to my watching the Los Alamos Cerro Grande Fire online in 2000. Given that a bunch of geeks were affected by it, and I had family/friends ties to it, they really used the Internet to connect, respond, get the word out. I followed that carefully.
I was really interested in the interface between wildfires and the Internet. Why? Because I, too am a lover of fire.
The other big one for me was 2001, the Hayman Fire near Colorado Springs. My daughter was a competitive figure skater, and we were there when that fire was burning. I actually photographed it, and, of course, I followed all of it online.
Oh and then the 2002 Rodeo-Chedeski Fire in Arizona, a HUGE fire. We ate and inhaled the smoke from it for weeks here in Albuquerque. I followed it online. And cried. A lot. I FELT it. And was AWED by it. Because I spent ten years living in the forest in Flagstaff. I felt those trees burning.
Fire. I majored BA in Anthropology/Archaeology from Prescott College. (When we had the crew that gave birth to the Prescott Hotshots that, in turn gave birth to the Granite Mountain Hotshots. And I had a horse, and I rode that horse all over Granite Mountain). The harnessing of fire by humans is considered a benchmark in human evolution. But fire can still overpower us.
So, yes. We love fire!!! And we fear it! And we have to deal with it. And it kills. And it renews. So yeah, I found you out. Because I, and a number of others, are just like you.
Mr. Powers… good point you just made.
There WERE helicopters already down in Yarnell and also doing whatever they could to ‘save things’ in this 4:15 to 4:45 timeframe.
We actually can HEAR at least TWO of them actually ‘fly over’ Aaron Hulburd as he was filming the ‘Helmet-Cam’ video there in the St. Joseph Shrine parking lot… and AS he was capturing those ‘final transmits’ from Steed, Caldwell and Marsh.
It actually could have been ANY helicopter pilot working the fire down there at this time that just jumped onto the Air-To-Ground channel and said…
“That’s exactly what we want”
…right after the 1633 SEAT drop there on the EAST side of the fire. That SEAT drop probably DID hit the same outlying areas that THEY ( the choppers ) were focusing on as well.
Burfiend said this call came ‘5 minutes before they went into shelter’… but given their *general* confusion about TIME throughout their recollections to the SAIT investigators… it’s pretty doubtful they could have been *THAT* sure that *EXACTLY* 5 minutes had transpired between ANY two events that afternoon.
If the “That’s what we want” confirmation ( from someone in/near or ‘flying over’ Yarnell… but not Marsh ) was a direct response to the spot-on 1633 SEAT drop… then it’s possible that Burfiend was simply 4 minutes off on his recollection… and it was really about 9 minutes between when he heard that and when it all started hitting the fan.
Mistaking a 9 minute elapsed time period for 5 minutes would have been perfectly understandable that afternoon… coming from ANYONE.
I still think the most important point about all of this is that the SAIT investigators obviously did *NOT* even lift a finger to try and *VERIFY* the TIME and the SOURCE of this “That’s what we want” recollection on Burfiend’s part.
They just trusted what (only) Burfiend was recalling, didn’t care that no one else seemed to have heard it, called it an ‘absolutely verified communication from Eric Marsh’… and used it was the defacto END of their own self-imposed ‘verifiable communications’ blackout period.
Even Eric’s voice in the YARNELL-GAMBLE video TEN MINUTES earlier ( at 1627 ) is much more ‘verifiable’ than this ‘recollection’ on Burfiend’s part… yet they (apparently) chose to ignore what they were hearing in the YARNELL-GAMBLE video altogether.
Perhaps the SAIT understood that if they were going to pretend there was a ‘blackout’ ( with no verifiable communications )… then they couldn’t END that blackout ‘too early’.
In other words…. it was OK to take a dubious transmission/recollection that happened just 2 minutes before the MAYDAY… because 2 minutes wasn’t enough time for management to be accused of neglecting to do something…
…but TEN MINUTES was too much… hence… they had to IGNORE Eric’s obvious reporting of GM’s ‘status’ ( to someone in command ) at 1627.
Once they decided to officially report that there was a ‘verifiable communications’ BLACKOUT… and that that is why management didn’t know where they were… they could not END it too early before the deployment… so the 1637 ‘recollection’ from Burfiend simply looked like a good place to do that.
The VLAT/helicopter incident I’m describing is not about the in-question call we’re talking about. It happened about 12:35 PM. There was a VLAT drop just northish of where the Blue Ridge hotshots were waiting with their buggies for an asignment. There was one test flight then the VLAT made it’s drop. The BR guys were photographing and video-ing it.
When the VLAT was coming down to make the drop, there was a helicopter right underneath it. Bravo 3 was in charge, as Rory Collins was off getting re-fueled. Unfortunately we don’t have the air 2 air so I don’t know what kind of communication was going on.
Interestingly enough, as I’ve been working on jockeying Tom Story’s photos into submission, it looks like his first VLAT set, which he took on the relatively accurate Mark D II, is of that T 911 coming out of that drop. With, I think, Bravo 3 just ahead of him.
I confess, I’m still a little mystified re helicopter communications. They were on air-to-air, but during the air-to-air video I watched yesterday, from a bit before 4:00 pm to about 4:20, French was just keeping them out of the way of the tankers. That’s all.
I would think the helicopters must have been in communication with some kind of overhead. I haven’t had time to “go there” but I’m sure there must have been some kind of crew organizing them?????? It definitely wasn’t Bravo 33. And I don’t know if Bravo 3 was doing it either. It just seems weird.
Also, that leads me to ask, “What is Air Guard? What is that channel used for?”
Reply to Marti Reed post on
May 11, 2014 at 5:10 pm
>> Marti said…
>> I confess, I’m still a little mystified re
>> helicopter communications. They were
>> on air-to-air, but during the air-to-air
>> video I watched yesterday, from a bit
>> before 4:00 pm to about 4:20, French
>> was just keeping them out of the way
>> of the tankers. That’s all.
Correct. There are never any ‘instructions’ to them from Bravo 33 ( acting as both Lead Plane and Air Attack ) about what they should actually be DOING ( drop-wise ).
The ONLY thing French was concerned about was them staying out of HIS way.
Only conversations are about who is heading to helibase… or who is leaving the fire… and what direction they should take to do that.
This also confuses me from the ‘Air Attack’ standpoint. It is French ( performing Lead Plane duties ) we hear ‘directing’ this Air Traffic around him… even though the SAIT notes say it was French who turned to Burfiend and said “You’re Air Attack!”.
____________________________________
From SAIT interview with Bravo 33…
Paragraph 4…
I knew there was 2 structural groups.
I wrote down 2.
Tom said “hey dude, you are the air attack”.
____________________________________
So it really is very, very confusing.
I’m not even sure the Air people fully understand it all… much less the ground folks.
Anyone on the ground in a command position could obviously ASK the choppers to do things without going through Air Attack… which is what makes it all the more confusing.
In one of the Air Study videos… right after the spot-overs were happening up on Model Creek road… SPGS2 Darrell Willis just tells his subordinate, Gary Moser, to ‘get one of those choopers to take care of that spillover’.
So even line personnel could just make requests of the choppers any time they wanted to?
It’s a wonder there weren’t MORE near-fatal
crashes that day other than the incredible near-miss out over that middle bowl earlier that day.
Another near Fixed-Wing / Chopper
near miss I hadn’t seen before…
In Panebaker Air study video
20130630_153414_EP, at +11 seconds, there is another *NEAR MISS* between a helicopter and the lead plane flying a line-up flight in that same location where the VLATS were dumping up there off Hays Ranch Road.
The lead plane is flying the line-up flight from west to east, parallel to Hays Ranch Road… but a chopper is coming up on a south to north line over in the same location but on the ‘blind’ side of the smoke cloud… and the lead plane seems to have NO IDEA he is there.
Hard to tell how close it was because the ZOOM is active on the camera… but it looks WAAAY too close for comfort as the chopper crosses right in front of the lead plane at what looks like the same altitude.
Looks like a few seconds in time made all the difference here.
Good catch, thanks!
Somebody has to be directing the helicopters, and it’s not really Air Attack/Bravo. That’s just not their responsibility from what i’ve read. Like it’s not also their responsibility to direct the ground crews, basically.
Their responsibility, it seems to me, in general and on this fire, is more about directing the fixed wing tankers and clearing the space around them.
I’m getting pretty brain-dead at this point, but tomorrow I’ll go look.
So, from what I’ve just read, Air Guard is reserved for Air Emergencies, like crashes and such things.
I do find myself wondering about the cost-effectiveness of the whole Fire Aviation thing. I’m hoping maybe the fact that those video cameras were set down that afternoon to do Air Study means something.
There is actually, I think, a TON of stuff to be learned from this fire, including the effectiveness of Fire Aviation. Where, and under what conditions, did it really help, and where did it not, and at what cost.
The problem is, as I have sensed all along, and even more so when I spent some hours today reading the Interagency Aerial Supervision Guide, they said over and over again how Aerial Support has to be integrated with overall Incident Command Strategy and Tactics.
And, as we know, since there was no actual “as-required” thought-out and written-out Plan for this day, there was nothing, strategically speaking, for Fire Aviation to tie into, other than various ad-hoc ongoing “let’s try this” tactics.
How do you effectively evaluate Aerial Fire-fighting on a fire in which there was no coherent over-all strategy/tactics in play in the first place?
So I’m not willing to dump the possible value of intelligent Fire Aviation, all things considered, but I do believe it’s time for a serious analysis of it, all things considered.
First, kudos to WTKTT and Marti, for digging into and getting the “that’s where we want it” conversation as analyzed as can possibly be done without some additional ‘outside’ input. I’m in agreement with Bob that, with all the chaos in the sky and on the ground that day, it would have been easy to mix-up that ‘recollection’ attributed to Marsh with another parties transmission.
The troubling part of the whole deal is that MANY people heard A/G radio traffic during the time in question, but we don’t have any of those ‘other’ recollections.
As has been stated before, A/G is one of the most listened-to channels on the fireground, as the most up-to-date reports on fire activity and other significant events usually comes across that channel in a prompt fashion. While earlier in the day people might have been only paying a cursory listen, later in the afternoon, with the fire getting ready to burn up an entire town, you can bet many, many people were glued to it (as evidenced by the background traffic videos).
On another note regarding possible takeaways, in my opinion two glaring ones seemingly related to BUDGET concerns are:
1) The states calling out a Type II Short Team (which was never even able to assemble all of it’s critical team members) for a fire that was already deemed a threat to a community.
2) The feds determination that they could save money by having less aircraft and personnel on fires by jamming two critical and busy functions inside of one aircraft (ASM). There may be times on slower, less active fires when that could be appropriate, but NEVER on Type I or Type II fires, and NEVER on Type III fires that are deemed to have a strong potential to rapidly escalate and threaten communties. Personally, I think the ASM ‘experiment’ should be ended and the duties returned to the Air Attack and Lead planes, but hey, that’s just me.
Reply to TTWARE on May 10, 2014 at 9:10 am said:
>> TTWARE said…
>> First, kudos to WTKTT and Marti, for digging into and getting
>> the “that’s where we want it” conversation as analyzed as can
>> possibly be done without some additional ‘outside’ input.
Two quick things here…
1) calvin is the one that has been focused like a laser-beam on this 1637 transmission from day one. It has deserved more focus and attention for quite some time… and deserves even MORE. It is ( and will remain ) IMPORTANT to know whether this ‘fact’ being reported by Arizona Forestry ever actually happened at all… and if it did… what the FULL story is on it.
2) I’m looking at some other things in the public evidence record that might shed a little more light on this… so I wouldn’t say that nothing more can be learned *without* some new interviews.
It is, in fact, still perfectly possible there is *GOING* to be ANOTHER official Yarnell Hill Investigation sometime soon.
At this point ( and with everything even WE have proved is totally WRONG with the original SAIT work )… I would think the right thing for Arizona Forestry to do at this point is just admit their mistakes and do it all over again… but THIS time try to get it RIGHT.
The families deserve nothing less ( and have, indeed, been ASKING for a better investigation since day one ).
Indeed… a ‘proper investigation’ is even one of the ‘stipulated’ action items in most of the wrongful death claims… which means that even if ALL the parties involved try to ‘settle out of court’…. the settlement(s) themselves might still REQUIRE a new ( proper ) investigation be done.
>> TTWARE also said…
>> I’m in agreement with Bob that, with all the chaos in the
>> sky and on the ground that day, it would have been easy to
>> mix-up that ‘recollection’ attributed to Marsh with another
>> parties transmission.
It actually could have been a COMPLETE walk-over.
Bravo 33 has already testified that because of the piss-poor handoff from Rory Collins… they basically had NO IDEA who was even ‘working the fire’ down there underneath them… and they also freely admit they had NO IDEA what anyone’s VOICES sounded like as they got all this dumped onto them. They didn’t even know what Field OPS1 Todd Abel’s voice sounded like as they suddenly started doing this Lead Plane / Air Attack double-duty.
So it is ACTUALLY possible that Marsh might have hit ‘transmit’ on the A2G channel… and only got the words “Bravo 33, Division A” out before SOMEONE ELSE totally walked all over him and then said something like “That’s exactly what we want”.
Maybe Marsh WAS trying to ‘say something’ to Bravo 33 at that point… but got totally ‘walked on’ and Burfiend just thought all that was coming from the same person ( since they admit they had
no idea who anyone was down there or what their voices
sounded like ).
Don’t forget that we NOW know that by the time Steed made his FIRST MAYDAY call… that call is NOT ‘filled with over-modulation’
as the SAIR reported. Steed is ACTUALLY YELLING into his microphone at the top of his voice and its because there are ACTUALLY at least two chainsaws running right next to him already. He was YELLING as much to hear himself as to make sure Bravo 33 could hear him over the saw noise right next to him.
That means that they DID realize the trouble they were in some span of time BEFORE Steed’s first MAYDAY. They had ALREADY decided to deploy BEFORE Steed’s first MAYDAY… and had (apparently) ALREADY found the deployment site, pulled the ropes on the saws, and gotten to work.
It could very well be that whatever Marsh was trying to say to Bravo 33 when he then got ‘walked on’ was either related to them suddenly realizing the trouble they were in ( as early as 1637? )… OR it was simply Marsh getting walked on at 1637 but not having the time to RETRY because it was suddenly time to help find the deployment site or just simply ‘run forward’ to catch the men.
All guesswork… but it’s possible.
My feeling is that there were no CALL SIGNS involved here at
all regarding what Burfiend was ‘recalling’.
I believe that Burfiend is just simply MISTAKEN about it being
DIVSA Marsh saying anything ( at any time ) about “That’s exactly what we want”. It was probably someone else who had a VHF radio with them there in Yarnell and they were ‘confirming’ the ‘goodness’ of the 1633 SEAT drop that had just taken place within sight of the Ranch House Restaurant.
>> TTWARE also said…
>> The troubling part of the whole deal is that MANY people heard
>> A/G radio traffic during the time in question, but we don’t have
>> any of those ‘other’ recollections.
Correct. Even the SAIT should have realized this alone was reason to re-interview Burfiend and try to CONFIRM what he reported.
Not only did the SAIT *NOT* do that…. they took as ‘gospel’ Burfiend’s recollection(s)… and even totally trusted his ‘guess’
that it was ‘5 minutes later when they deployed’… so they just
subtracted 5 minutes from 1642 and put a timestamp of 1637
on Burfiend’s “That’s what we want” recollection…
…and they went ‘out the door’ with it
The SAIT just published it as FACT, and even called this
non-verified reported transmission the ‘official’ end of their own
self-imposed ‘non-verifiable communications’ blackout.
Go figure.
>> TTWARE also said…
>>
>> As has been stated before, A/G is one of the most listened-to
>> channels on the fireground, as the most up-to-date reports on
>> fire activity and other significant events usually comes across
>> that channel in a prompt fashion. While earlier in the day people
>> might have been only paying a cursory listen, later in the
>> afternoon, with the fire getting ready to burn up an entire town,
>> you can bet many, many people were glued to it (as evidenced
>> by the background traffic videos).
Totally agree. If there was EVER a time for anyone with a cheap
UHF handheld ( capable of listening to Air-To-Ground UHF ) to be
monitoring that channel for transmissions… it was circa 4 to 5 PM in Yarnell.
Everybody WAS… but only ONE guy up in an airplane who admits he had no idea who was even on the ground or what they sounded like is the one reporting a ‘crucial’ transmission?
It doesn’t ‘add up’.
>> TTWARE also said…
>>
>> On another note regarding possible takeaways, in my opinion
>> two glaring ones seemingly related to BUDGET concerns are:
>>
>> 1) The states calling out a Type II Short Team (which was
>> never even able to assemble all of it’s critical team members)
>> for a fire that was already deemed a threat to a community.
>>
>> 2) The feds determination that they could save money by
>> having less aircraft and personnel on fires by jamming two
>> critical and busy functions inside of one aircraft (ASM). There
>> may be times on slower, less active fires when that could be
>> appropriate, but NEVER on Type I or Type II fires, and NEVER
>> on Type III fires that are deemed to have a strong potential to
>> rapidly escalate and threaten communties. Personally, I think
>> the ASM ‘experiment’ should be ended and the duties returned
>> to the Air Attack and Lead planes, but hey, that’s just me.
Not sure myself about necessary/needed changes to the whole Air Support thing… but with regards to BUDGET…
If ICT4 Russ Shumate had only just spent the money on Saturday for day-long chopper support and bucket drops… that thing would have been dead-as-a-doornail before 4:00 PM on Saturday.
If ‘Arizona Forestry’ just adds up what the cost for that chopper support on Saturday would have been and THEN compares it to
the *other* costs that resulted by NOT spending that money
on Saturday…
…well… you don’t need a whole lot of batteries in your calculator to realize what a ‘budget buster’ that mistake was.
If the whole Yarnell Incident ( and the loss of 19 good men ) isn’t enough to teach Arizona Forestry ( and SWCC ) that using the ‘IA with overwhelming force’ approach isn’t ( ultimately ) the most cost-effective way to fight wildland fires in that region…
…then I don’t know what it will take.
Correction for above.
Accidentally typed ‘VHF’ instead of ‘UHF’.
The (supposed) “That’s what we want” transmission came over the UHF Air-To-Ground channel and NOT the VHF Air-To-Air channel.
Nobody needed an expensive VHF piece of kit to have been the one making that call to Burfiend in B33 on A2G.
It could have been ANYONE on the ground in Yarnell who saw that 1633 SEAT drop and might have been trying to confirm the ‘goodness’ of it.
So that one paragraph above SHOULD have read…
“It was probably someone else who had a UHF radio with them there in Yarnell and they were just ‘confirming’ ( over the A2G channel ) the ‘goodness’ of the 1633 SEAT drop that had just taken place within sight of the Ranch House Restaurant.”
Correction to the correction ( ROFL ).
See Sitta’s post ( and response ) above.
The ACTUAL frequencies in use that weekend all seem to have been in the 154 to 175 mgHZ range.
RE Air Attack Handoff to Bravo 33 at 1558 ish:
So……I’ve been watching and listening to the Air Study 30130630_1628_EP.MOV video three times through. Since I mistakenly downloaded it, instead of the next one that I’m now downloading. I figured I might as well, since it would help me see and hear what was going on. Quite interesting.
This one includes the impressive 4:16-4:18 two-minute VLAT 911 split-drop. Quite interesting and quite educational to watch/hear. Most of it features Tom French as Bravo 33 Lead Plane , leading, instructing the other pilots of both air tankers and helicopters, checking things out, communicating with media planes, really polite, respectful, supportive, calm and cool. Totally impressive all things considered. This video spans from about 1558 til 1628. Forty minutes. I highly recommend watching it. I don’t have the link for it at the moment, unfortunately. But you can find it. Just go to WTKTT’s link for the Air Study video he posts above, and download/watch the 1628 video instead!
What really strikes me is the truly calm, professional, supportive, positive, specific, clear communications happening all around. No sign of stress, pressure, conflict, frustration, anything negative at all. You really get a sense that everybody actually enjoys what they’re doing.
This also includes the communication between Rory Collins, as Air Attack, as he leaves the fire to head to Deer Valley, because his pilot has run out of fly-time, and his, I would say, disappointment that he still hasn’t been able to secure his relif pilot, who is grounded at Stafford because, I would guess, of the same weather that was grounding other planes all around.
I hate to say this, because I have a beef with Rory Collins, but over the course of about fifteen minutes during this, on again off again, he did have something of a leisurely conversation with Tom French. And, as Tom French says towards the end of it, (re Burfiend who would become Air Attack) “my right-seater’s been copying everything.”
Collins told him quite a bit of stuff, about the weather, about IC, about go ahead and finish what you’re doing and then get over to the other side of the fire with the DC 10’s, about Div A being the ground contact ( I guess not forecasting that Div A was about to head out to the bleak unknown, which, to be fair, he didn’t know at that time). He asked for questions, concerns, and French back-and-forthed with him, and didn’t sound the least like this was weird or strange or hectic or insufficient in any way. He sounded confident that they were completely ready to assume the responsibility they were being handed.
And then he kept on doing what he was doing. Being Bravo33 (which is pronounced Bravo Three Three) Lead Plane. Calm and confident and positive in the midst of what we perceive as being chaos.
To be fair and helpful, the later video which covers the Air Support during the time of the burnover is not above, it’s below and it’s https://www.dropbox.com/sh/02ue6bnjp6nazkm/AAA4aB8cuUhL0vwnEy-ja-Ypa/Photos%20and%20Video/AerialFirefightingstudy/Panebaker/Video/Video_with_134175_audio#lh:null-20130630_1643_EP.MOV
Marti
I am confident after every thing I have been reading that you guys have found, that the statement.
That’s where we want it,– is from OPS or a ground person
with the structure protection group in the area of the drop, and has absolutely nothing to do with March.
It has never made science that Marsh would have popped out of no where with that statement.
Based on experience call it a educated guess it was not Marsh. People near the drop site would be much more plausible. They were trying to save structures at that point and that is what they were focused on.
Yes, I’m thinking more and more in line with you (see my comment below in response to yours). I’m still wondering how it could have been that this call from someone (who decreasingly looks like it would have been Marsh) (and I’m trusting Burfiend who says he heard it) wouldn’t have been heard on the AirToGround channel that A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE heard at the time, including the crew doing that “Last MInutes” video. That’s what stumps me.
Is there possibly some other channel that Air Attack Burfiend could have been interacting with that could have signaled to him, at 4:37-4:39-ish, as they were circle-ing then flying a test flight “west to east over the bowl” that “that’s exactly what we want”?
I have absolutely no idea.
Marti… not only am I not sure we can really
trust either Burfiend’s or French’s statements
in the SAIT investigations notes about the
“that’s what we want” statement… I think
their recollection in *general* is kinda wonky.
For example…
Here is the exact ‘infamous’ paragraph from
their SAIT interview that has that one and
only reference in the *entire* evidence
record in it about “that’s what we want”…
…but look at the REST of the paragraph
that precedes that ‘recollection’.
It’s all pretty ‘skewed’ unto itself regarding
what ELSE they ‘think’ they heard from
Marsh… and WHEN…
TIME NOW = 1630
:: We needed to go back to the right flank
:: ( 1630 AZ time ).
:: Made 3 practice runs. Painted 2.
:: We came around.
TIME NOW = However long it take to make
‘3 practices runs’ and then ‘come around’.
Let’s call that FIVE minutes, at least.
TIME NOW = 1635
:: Got a call from Division A stating they
:: were going down their escape
:: route to the safety zone.
WTF? At 1635? Not a chance.
:: Didn’t know Division A was the
:: superintendent of the Granite Mountain
:: hot shots. Asked him “is everything OK?”
:: He replied “everything is ok, just heading
:: to the safety zone”.
Again… WTF?? Not possible ( at 1635 ).
There ARE video captures that cover this
timeframe AND were capturing the A2G
radio channel and there are no such
transmissions recorded.
:: We came around,
:: made a practice run through the bowl,
:: west to east.
TIME NOW = ??
We really have no idea. Their testimony
above about hearing from Marsh at ‘this
time’ already proves the SAIT notes are
out in left field already… so there is no
telling WHEN this ‘practice run’ they are
now referring to happened… if it even
happened at all.
:: I was talking to Tom
:: about the rising terrain on exit.
:: Division A clad and said “that is what
:: we are looking for, that is exactly right”.
:: Within 5 minutes of that, they went in
:: shelter.
So this LAST STATEMENT about them ‘going into shelter’ within 5 minutes of the “that is what we are looking for” transmission
( according to their recollection ) MUST be
what the SAIT used to actually come up with the 1637 timestamp for Marsh’s (supposed)
transmission.
French and Burfiend had no frickin’ idea what
time it *really* might have been… but
somehow they also seemed to be SURE
that ‘within 5 minutes’ is when Eric
announced they were ‘deploying’.
So the SAIT just took their ‘recollection’ about
the previous transmission from Marsh being
‘within 5 minutes’… and then they just
counted BACKWARDS from 1642… when
the Helmet Cam captured Marsh’s final
statement(s).
1642 minus 5 minutes = 1637
Voila!… The SAIT was now SURE that 1637
is when Marsh MUST have said “That is what
we are looking for”… and they frickin’ PUBLISHED that in the SAIR as if it was fact.
They were taking these ‘unverified’ random recollections of French / Burfiend as ‘gospel truth’… even though ( as shown above ) they were completely mis-remembering Marsh’s OTHER statements ( on A2G channel ) about
‘going down their escape route’.
So the SAIT didn’t question the FIRST half of
even that one section ( paragraph ) of their
interview ( which is obviously an inaccurate
recollection ) but then the SAIT took the
SECOND half as ‘gospel truth’… and
PUBLISHED the ‘statements’ as FACT…
even though NO ONE ELSE was reporting
that transmission from Marsh on the *VERY*
popular A2G radio channel.
Go figure.
As I have said before… something about
Marsh ‘asking’ for retardant must have
seemed *really* attractive to THEIR ‘version
of events’ and fit nicely with THEIR ‘agenda’
in order for them to not have either
questioned this one statement from them
*OR* made sure it fit the criteria of ‘verified
transmission’ which they seemed to be so picky about for the previous 30+ ‘blackout’
minutes.
Bob:
Do you think this is important, all things considered?
To be honest, I’m less and less thinking it is, all things considered. To be honest, I’m kind of hanging onto it because the SAIT made a big deal of it, using Burfiend, who I really respect, and his narrative of it to further their own narrative, in what I agree with WTKTT to be a really irresponsible manner.
Do you think it’s really all that important, in the general scheme of things on this totally mismanaged fire, that Burfiend says he heard, while they were flying a “show me,” someone tell him (and possibly mistakenly thinking it was Div A Eric Marsh) that ‘this is exactly where we want that” ?
Or is it time for all of us to just admit we can’t figure this out, all things considered, and move on?
I really respect your hard-won experience-based sense of what is truly important in wildland fire-fighting.
I would say with out other identified radio traffic its a guess as to who made the statement. Maybe an assumption after the fact by Burfiend that he recollects something
during a show me run. What is very strange is there was no prior conversation asking for a drop by March. It would be un conceivable for Marsh to think his discussion with OPS about we’ll get a drop down there would have any thing to do with a 30 min. later statement. Where is location and discussion of need?
The only thing this adds to is some how thinking Marsh asked for a drop to save the crew and no one was listening. Which I think is BS. It could have been any one with an Air to Air Freq. on the ground. Thought they said DIV. A. It dose not make science that Marsh would have jumped in and said that with all the smoke at that time he could not have seen air craft and gave no other direction prior.
With out verifiable evidence it will just hang hot there as something to talk about– Had the air tanker dropped where DIV A ask they would have been saved,–Wishful thinking. Where they were dropping had no connection to where Marsh was. I am still of the belief it was not Marsh, I am still betting on the Structure Group. Air to Air would have a very limited number of people on it. That same statement could have been used several times during the day by ?????
Also if it was air to air Marsh would not have had that on his hand held radio. Only air to ground.
Any air to air radios would have been in Vehicles like City or county Engines or Supervisors trucks. If I am not mistaken Air is on a totally different Ban than the Fire freq. Bans. High Ban and Low Ban you cannot run them both on the same radio. Air to ground is in the same ban area as crewnet, and the other fire freq. Another little added info on air attack. 2 different radios in air craft to talk to air and ground.
A air tanker would have Air to air, if they IA a fire some one on the ground would have air to air to talk to them till Air Attack arrived. Clear as mud again ….
Reply to Marti Reed post on May 9, 2014 at 5:20 pm
>> Marti wrote…
>> What really strikes me is the truly calm, professional,
>> supportive, positive, specific, clear communications
>> happening all around. No sign of stress, pressure, conflict,
>> frustration, anything negative at all.
Yes. Right down to Burfiend doing the ‘slash across his throat’
gesture as soon as he knew 19 good men were deploying.
Very positive. Very professional.
>> You really get a sense that everybody actually enjoys
>> what they’re doing.
Yes. Flying airplanes is FUN!
>> This also includes the communication between Rory Collins,
>> as Air Attack. He asked for questions, concerns, and French
>> back-and-forthed with him, and didn’t sound the least like this
>> was weird or strange or hectic or insufficient in any way. He
>> sounded confident that they were completely ready to assume
>> the responsibility they were being handed.
Yes. It all sounds very ‘nicey-nicey’ and polite, doesn’t it?
You would hardly be able to tell that just a few hours earlier,
Collins was dumping retardant all over a Division Supervisor’s
plan of action and not giving a shit whether he liked it or not…
…or that while he was ‘Air Attack’… a helicopter almost crashed
straight into a DC10 and the resulting explosion would have lit
that middle bowl up like a Christmas tree long before wind
change…
…or that while he was ‘Air Attack’… numerous people on the
fire commented how ‘disorganized’ the helicopters were that
day and seemed ‘totally unsupervised’ and ‘doing whatever the
hell they wanted’… to the point where Blue Ridge Hotshots would
later say that the ‘split’ in the fireline was actually caused by
this ‘unsupervised’ helicopter activity that day.
…or that he only gave them 10 minutes notice about having
to leave the fire… and then left Bravo 33 with a laundry list of
‘cluelessness’ that they would then recount to SAIT investigators…
…or that this same guy, following the incident, would refuse to
return phone calls and make it almost impossible for anyone
to interview him.
Sorry, Marti.
Yes… I agree that these guys know how to talk on the radio and
‘get a job done’… but I’m not ready to give any of them the glowing
‘points’ you are granting.
In MANY ways… ( from Friday night through Sunday )… the AIR
operations at Yarnell left a LOT to be desired.
I actually, truly hope the overall ‘picture’ that has emerged
from the Yarnell Hill Fire regarding this ‘Air Support’ stuff ( and the
interaction with ground forces ) is not NORMAL or ‘business as
usual’.
If it really is… all I can say is… YIKES!
WTKTT… The slash across the throat sign has always bothered me. How could he be so certain that they were dead? Really, how?? How did he know they were dead when he didn’t even know where they were??
WTF
calvin… the SAIT interview notes with Bravo 33 are an absolute MESS… but if you read them *very* carefully it would appear that John Burfiend ( who was the right-seat guy, not flying the airplane, and the one who was monitoring Air-To-Ground channel ) did his ‘slash across his throat’ gesture just AFTER Marsh’s final transmission when Marsh ‘affirmed’ that they were on the ‘SOUTH side of the fire’.
Even if they couldn’t see them… I think Burfiend could tell looking downward at that moment that anyone deploying on the SOUTH side of that exploding fireline was a goner. Hence… ‘slash across the throat’ gesture over to Thomas French.
Here is the exact ‘context’ of that testimony from
Thomas French in the SAIT interview notes.
It seems to confirm that Burfiend’s ‘slash across
his throat’ gesture to French did, in fact, come
right after Marsh’s *final* transmission…
_________________________________________
We were right here (pointed at map) when Granite Mountain 7 called screaming in the radio. Ops said “are you getting this? I told Granite Mountain 7 “you need to calm down. I can’t understand you”. Immediately Division A called and said “we are starting a burn out, we are getting in our shelters. I said we got pople in trouble. Tanker called and said I got you in sight. I claimed out – the DC10 swung wide. I looked at John and he did this (slash across the throat). I told Kevin to stand by copy, taking it around. We have a crew in trouble. We are going to go look.
__________________________________________
Let me also say that while I have always found this ‘slash across the throat’ gesture from Burfiend to be quite ‘uncalled for’… I do *NOT* believe for one second that this obvious assumption on his part that they were ‘goners’, even at that point in time, had *ANY* effect on him then proceeding to do his job.
I can also criticize them ( and, indeed, the WFF radio protocols themselves for apparently NOT having a good, established MAYDAY protocol ) for NOT taking the transmissions from Steed and Caldwell seriously for more than TWO MINUTES… but that still doesn’t mean I think they didn’t do all they possibly could to try and save those men that day… when they finally did realize this was a REAL emergency.
As soon as OPS1 Todd Abel contacted French and Burfiend and *TOLD* them to get their heads out of their asses and RESPOND to these men… they did.
And once they did ( finally stop ignoring them )… they obviously kicked into their own highly-rehearsed and professional procedures for such a situation.
I also happen to believe that if there had been *ANY* indication in the next few moments of where they REALLY were ( such as… if Marsh had only taken
2 seconds to tell them… “we are 600 yards due WEST of Boulder Springs Ranch” )…
…I believe Thomas French in B33 and Kevin in the DC10 VLAT would have actually attempted a retardant drop… at GREAT risk to their own lives.
To have flown the jet-engine DC10 through that thick smoke-ass cloud would have been absolute suicide for Kevin… so I don’t think THAT would have happened… but if there was ANY way to get at their location ( if they knew where it was ) OTHER than flying blindly directly THROUGH the smoke/ash cloud…
I think they would have tried it.
For the rest of my life… I will always wonder WHY, when Marsh was directly asked by Burfiend…. “So, you’re on the south side of the fire, then?”…
…all Eric Marsh said was… “Affirm”.
Obtuse communications. Right to the end.
If he had just added ANY amount of OTHER information… they at least *MIGHT* have been able to KNOW or GOOD-GUESS their exact location.
He didn’t… and I will ALWAYS wonder WHY he
didn’t take that one last chance to identify their
exact location.
**
** DID DIVSA ERIC MARSH REALLY CALL BRAVO 33
** AT 1637 ABOUT ‘RETARDANT’?
Reply to calvin post on May 8, 2014 at 2:34 am
>> calvin said…
>> I am not sure exactly where Marsh was when he called Bravo33 and said
>> that is exactly where we want the retardant.
calvin… see below. I am personally ( and honestly ) still not convinced this
1637 radio ‘callout’ from Marsh actually took place… or ( if it did ) that it really
was Eric Marsh that said anything of the sort.
>> But if he was walking downslope toward the canyon floor, I do not think he
>> would have been able to see the flight path.
Assuming this transmission DID take place just as the SAIR reported…
It’s really not possible. He might have been able to HEAR some planes flying
over there on the other side of that smoke column… but it’s really not
credible that he could have SEEN them, at that point. It was almost
‘dark as night’ at that point, as well ( as the Glen Ilah resident video proves ).
>> Because of the short period of time between that call out and the call
>> announcing the entrapment, we know he HAD to be close.
Yes. If it happened at all… and at the TIME it supposedly happened… then
Marsh had to be VERY close to the rest of the men. No question.
>> There is a small mound between the entrapment/ deployment site and BSR
>> that is just north of the dozered road (created to remove GM’s bodies).
>> I think it is possible he was on that mound where he would have had
>> more visibility.
Perhaps… and I know exactly the ‘mound’ you are referring to… but that would create the UNBELIEVABLE scenario that Marsh could see exactly what was happening with the fire out ahead of the men still over in the canyon… and he still let them walk right into a deathtrap, anyway.
There are a LOT of ‘unbelievable’ moments that happened that weekend… ( too many ) but I really can’t get my head around THIS possibility ( that Marsh really might have been ‘out ahead of them’ and in a good ‘forward lookout’ position up on that mound… but he let them all die anyway rather than ‘abort the mission’ ).
>> calvin also wrote…
>> I do not believe the GMH were only counting on their speed to outrun
>> the fire. I do believe they were expecting retardant to be dropped on the
>> south side of the fire. But as far as I can tell (from post burn pictures),
>> that never happened.
I hear ya… but ‘as far as I can tell’… there is still the distinct possibility that this “That’s where we want retardant” transmission from DIVSA Eric Marsh never really happened at all… or that it wasn’t actually Eric that said it.
Stick with me for a moment while I try to ‘document my confusion’ about
this (supposed) callout from Marsh to Bravo 33.
This Air Study video actually covers the 1637 timerame…
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/02ue6bnjp6nazkm/AAA4aB8cuUhL0vwnEy-ja-Ypa/Photos%20and%20Video/AerialFirefightingstudy/Panebaker/Video/Video_with_134175_audio#lh:null-20130630_1643_EP.MOV
This video is only recording the Air-To-Air channel but it does provide a CLEAR accounting of *EXACTLY* what Air Attack was doing from 1630 and right up through the deployment ( and beyond ).
There really is nothing in these captured Air Attack conversations that even remotely backs up what the SAIR says was happening at 1637… much less
Marsh making any “that’s where we want retardant” call(s).
Hence my ‘confusion’.
Air Attack ( Bravo 33 ) had the VLAT DC10 910 ( Pilot Kevin ) in a HOLDING
pattern a full SEVEN MILES OUT from the fire and didn’t even ASK Kevin
to start to ‘come into the area’ until 14 seconds before 1637. It took almost
another 2 minutes for the VLAT to even get close to the fire and only then
BEGIN talking to Air Attack about a ‘show me’ run on the EAST side of
the fire… and even this initial conversation about a possible ‘show me’ run
with Air Attack didn’t start until just 24 seconds prior to Steeds first MAYDAY.
The FULL 12 minute and 22 second transcript of this video has already
been posted down below in this ‘Chapter 6’. The following is just a
SUMMARY of that full transcript describing (generally) what Air Attack
was actually DOING during this timeframe…
** USDA AIR STUDY – DISC 4 VIDEO STARTS AT 1630.48 ( 4:30.48 PM )
NOTE: When the video STARTS… we hear Air Attack (B33) actively lining up
a REAL drop ( not a practice run ) with a SEAT from NORTH to SOUTH on
the EAST side of the fire… down near Yarnell. At this point… Air Attack has
the DC10 VLAT 910 ( Pilot Kevin ) in a ‘holding pattern’ SEVEN MILES OUT
and away from the fire… and isn’t even STARTING to deal with him yet.
( 1631.36 4:31.36 PM ) – AA tells SEAT to follow him for DROP.
( 1633.20 4:33.20 PM ) – SEAT drop takes place.
( 1633.24 4:33.24 PM ) – SEAT says “Off the drop now”.
( 1633.26 4:33.26 PM ) – AA tells SEAT to ‘load and return’.
( 1634.11 4:34.11 PM ) – AA tells 910 to set level 4 drop but to still HOLD.
( 1634.12 4:34.12 PM ) – AA tells 910 he’ll get back to him.
( 1634.40 4:34.40 PM ) – AA tells SEAT Wickenburg is out of retardant.
( 1634.42 4:34.42 PM ) – SEAT tells AA he’ll try ‘private club’ for retardant.
( 1635.37 4:35.37 PM ) – Chopper 5Q Alpha reports needing to refuel.
( 1636.10 4:36.10 PM ) – DOZER AND TRANSPORT go by camera.
( 1636.25 4:36.25 PM ) – Chopper 5QA reports landing at Helibase.
( 1636.27 4:36.27 PM ) – AA tells 5QA to let him know when he’s back.
( 1636.46 4:36.46 PM ) – AA only now tells VLAT 910 to ‘come on in’ to the area.
( 1637.05 4:37.05 PM ) – AA tells VLAT 910 target will be flames on EAST side.
( 1638.12 4:38.12 PM ) – Chopper 5QA departs to Wickenburg.
( 1638.15 4:38.15 PM ) – AA asks 5QA to depart on WEST side of fire.
( 1638.42 4:38.42 PM ) – VLAT 910 only now reports ‘approaching area’.
( 1639.03 4:39.03 PM ) – AA only now starts talking to 910 about ‘show me’
( 1639.27 4:39.27 PM ) – Captain Jesse Steed’s first MAYDAY.
( 1639.47 4:39.47 PM ) – Prescott Air Operations (PAO) heard MAYDAY.
( 1639.48 4:39.48 PM ) – PAO tells AA ‘get with OPS… something wrong’.
( 1639.53 4:39.53 PM ) – AA ignores OPS. Sticks with 901 ‘show me’ talk.
( 1641.18 4:41.18 PM ) – AA only now realizes something is happening.
( 1641.20 4:41.20 PM ) – AA tells VLAT 910 ‘folks in trouble… just standby’.
( 1641.25 4:41.25 PM ) – VLAT 910 copies… tells AA he’ll stage out northeast.
( 1641.31 4:41.31 PM ) – AA tells VLAT 910 looks like ‘deployment in progress’.
( 1641.33 4:41.33 PM ) – AA asks VLAT 910 for coverage lvl 6 and to ‘standby’.
( 1641.39 4:41.39 PM ) – VLAT 910 copies… says he’ll watch AA and standby.
( 1643.33 4:43.33 PM ) – USDA AIR STUDY – DISC 4 VIDEO ENDS
So ( from what I can tell ?? )… there is NOTHING there that supports what the
SAIR has reported about Marsh ‘seeing a VLAT drop lineup’ fly OVER him
at 1637 and making ANY kind of radio call like “That’s where we want retardant”.
Unless it’s the SEAT drop at 1633 that the SAIR was talking about ( which DID
actually take place and so the time of 1637 is totally wrong )… but even that was
a SOUTH to NORTH lineup on the EAST side of the fire and never ‘flew over
Marsh’ at all.
The most IMPORTANT thing to remember here is that this one single ‘transmission’ from Marsh is based on just ONE SINGLE person’s recollection,
was NOT captured in any background recordings, and it has not been ‘verified’
by ANYONE else ( even though it supposedly happened on the *very* popular
and well-listened-to Air-To-Ground channel ).
From page 15 of the SAIT Yarnell Investigation Notes ( YIN )…
**************************************************************************************
INTERVIEW WITH BRAVO 33
Interviewees: Bravo 33
John Burfiend-ATS Specialist
Clint Clauson – ATS Trainee
Thomas French – AT Specialist
Interviewers: Mike Dudley, Brad Mayhew, Tim Foley, Jay Kurth, Jimmy Rocha
We needed to go back to the right flank ( 1630 AZ time ).
Made 3 practice runs. Painted 2. We came around.
Got a call from Division A stating they were going down their escape
route to the safety zone. Didn’t know Division A was the superintendent
of the Granite Mountain hot shots. Asked him “is everything OK?” He
replied “everything is ok, just heading to the safety zone”. We came around,
made a practice run through the bowl, west to east. I was talking to Tom
about the rising terrain on exit. Division A clad and said “that is what we are
looking for, that is exactly right”. Within 5 minutes of that, they went in shelter.
************************************************************************************
So there it is.
That is the ONLY reference to this (supposed) transmission by (supposedly)
DIVSA Eric Marsh in the ENTIRE evidence record… and there isn’t even any
specific TIME reported for it at all.
Here are the things to ‘consider’ about this ‘testimony’.
1) This is the ONLY place this transmission from (supposedly) DIVSA
Eric Marsh is EVER mentioned… even though it (supposedly) took place
on the well-listened-to Air-To-Ground channel. TWO completely separate
investigations interviewing MANY people who were constantly monitoring
that Air-To-Ground channel all day… and this quick blurb in the SAIT
investigator’s notes recounting just ONE person’s recollection is still the
ONLY mention of this (supposed) transmission.
2) There is NOTHING (recorded in the SAIT notes) about this (supposed)
transmission taking place at 1637, as published in the SAIR. Zero. Zip. Nada.
It is still a complete mystery how the SAIT actually ‘assigned’ a time of 1637
to this (supposed) transmission from Eric Marsh to B33 on the Air-To-Ground
channel. Bravo 33 was even not really ‘sure’ about any of the actual times…
so how did the SAIT come up with 1637 for this (supposed) transmission?
3) The interview notes DO say that Bravo 33 reports this as ‘Division A called’…
but they also do NOT specifically say whether Bravo 33 ALSO said there were
actual CALL SIGNS involved with this transmission such as “Bravo 33, Division
Alpha’. Other notes from the Bravo 33 interview establish that they were not only
‘unfamiliar’ with who was even working the fire ( because of the piss-poor handoff
from ATGS / ASM1 / Rory Collins )… they were also not familiar with anyone’s
VOICES yet. Bravo 33 specifically says they had no idea what OPS1 Todd Abel
sounded like yet… so UNLESS there were specific CALL SIGNS involved on this
transmission from Marsh it is doubtful they would have been able to tell it was
DIVSA Marsh just from the voice. It is still POSSIBLE that this transmission came
from ‘someone else’ at that time and Bravo 33 is simply mistaken that it was
actually ‘Division A’ ( Marsh ).
4) This one single ‘supposed’ transmission from Marsh played a critical
role in the published SAIR document since they are using this one single
transmission as the defacto END of the (supposed) ‘blackout period’ where
they say they had ‘no direct verifiable transmissions’ from either Marsh
or Granite Mountain… yet it (actually) remains one of the most ‘unverified’
transmissions on record that day.
It is ONLY being ‘recalled’ by one single source ( ONE person ) and even
though others SHOULD have heard this transmission over the well-listened-to
Air-To-Ground channel… NO ONE ELSE in ANY interview or testimony spanning
TWO separate investigations recalls hearing it at all.
I still think it is ‘suspicious’ that the SAIT gave absolute ‘verified transmission’
status to this one (supposed) unrecorded radio callout from Marsh with only
ONE person seeming to ‘recall’ it ( when many others SHOULD have also
heard it… but apparently did NOT ).
There are still MANY other ‘transmissions’ that were actually captured in videos
and in audio tracks that the SAIT chose to call ‘not verifiable’, yet they chose
THIS (unrecorded) moment as so ‘verifiable’ that it ‘officially’ represents the
END of the (supposed) ‘blackout’.
It still almost seems like they were going to great lengths to make sure
this one (supposed) statement about a ‘retardant drop’ made it into the
‘official narrative’ and the ‘official public report’.. regardless of how thin
its ‘verifiableness’ really was.
We can OBVIOUSLY hear ( with our own ears in the Air Study video ) that ‘Air
Attack’ himself NEVER got this transmission at all.
So the ONLY possibility is that the other guy in the plane who was listening to
any ‘Air to Ground’ traffic was the ONLY one who actually heard this.
I am not saying he is WRONG or ‘imagining things’… but our ability to actually
VERIFY this ( as to caller ID and TIME, and what was actually said ) is seriously
non-existent.
I just wish there was an equivalent ADOSH interview transcript with Bravo 33
( French and Burfiend ) to ‘compare’ the SAIT (YIN) notes to and be SURE that
this ONE person’s recollection isn’t flawed, or that he simply was mistaken
about WHO was ‘calling that in’ to him.
There isn’t ( an equivalent ADOSH or other ‘independent’ interview with B33
French/Burfiend ).
Not yet… anyway.
At the 23 second mark of the 1637 Panebaker video there is a background transmission that I cannot make out. This video is only 39 seconds long and would put the 23 second mark near 1637. If you do not mind reviewing, I would appreciate it.
Otherwise, I hear you. I also want to know how the SAIT came up with this “quote.”
How does the 4490 red video that was taken around deployment time fit into all of this?
I know the +23 transmission in the 163700 Panebaker video that you speak of. I checked my Air Study notes and what I have for that is someone simply saying something about a “horse in the road” that they need to “take care of”.
I will re-listen to this 39 second video and get back.
As for the 4490red video… I don’t know.
Makes about as much sense ( time-wise ) as the Tom Story photo showing a full VLAT DC10 dump at exactly the moment of Steed’s first MAYDAY ( which is also not supported by any other evidence for being at that time ).
It could be that the 1633 SEAT DROP ( which definitely happened and is captured in that video ) is what Marsh MAY have seen and was reacting to THAT.
The ‘recollection’ might simply be wrong about what they were doing when they heard the transmission. Maybe Marsh had seen the actualy 1633 drop and THAT is what he meant by “That’s where we want retardant”… and it wasn’t a response to any ‘line up’ flight at all.
More later…
RE Tom’s VLAT photos:
I decided to walk away from that, because the pain of picking my way thru it was greater than desperation to figure it out….
However, now that I found your posting of the list of the drops, I’ve been thinking hmmmmm is it possible he’s photographing the 1706 T910 drop? Of course the problem with that is that at about the same time (I think?) he was photographing the Blue Ridge UTV leaving the Ranch House Parking Lot…..
I don’t have Lightroom open, so I’m not looking at the photos, just doing this off the top of my head…….
The Tom Story camera that we have narrowed the time offset down on ( the one he was using in the Ranch House Restaurant parking lot ) is this one…
Canon EOS-5D Mark II
The ‘big boy’ with the 300mm lens that seems to show a VLAT drop right at 1639 ( and we haven’t determined the time offset for yet ) is this one…
Canon EOS-1D Mark II N
I already checked the obvious ( 1 hour difference because of timezone set incorrectly ) but that doesn’t appear to be the problem.
BOTH of these cameras were ‘stamping’ using a -07:00 offset from GMT that day.
More later…
Actually, Tom was using two Canon 5D Mark IIs.
One with id 552301203 with a 70-200 mm f/2.8 L lens (major everybody’s favorite workhorse zoom lens), and another with id 720306928 with a 16-34 mm f/2.8 L lens for wide angle shots.
They both seem to be accurately time-stamped.
On the 1D Mark II id 401063, his most state-of-the-art camera, with which he shot the VLAT drop that I may be getting closer to time-stamping (he was so far off that I think maybe he hadn’t bothered to set the time, just the date–perhaps it was brand new??), he was using a 300 mm f/2.8 L lens. That’s a pretty big honkin’ lens. And heavy.
Marti… in folder ONE of Tom Story’s online photos ( the folder that does NOT have any Ranch House Restaurant photos )… he shot a LOT of ‘retardant drop’ sequences and they appear to have ALL been shot with this same ‘Canon EOS-1D Mark II N’ camera that was then later used for the (supposed) 1639 VLAT drop.
I suppose if we can just match ANY of these ‘drops’ that he photographed with THAT camera we will know if the that 1639 VLAT drop photo has an accurate timestamp or not.
I’m looking at it from this end as well. There is NO EVIDENCE that ANY VLAT drop took place ANYWHERE on that fire at 1639… when Tom Story’s photo seems to say it did.
I was hoping for just a 1 hour (incorrect) time zone setting… but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Thx for this, WTK!
I had downloaded a smattering of photos from both folders, but just kinda randomly. Just downloaded a bunch more, more strategically. Looks like he photographed three VLAT drops. Will look at them much more closely after Mothers Day Lunch!
I’m starting to think he set up that camera quickly, just setting the date, and not the time. Thus the stamp when first shot a frame on it would have been 00:00:00. I don’t know if I have the time to figure out what to synch on. But if I can pin one of those VLATs, it might be possible to nail it.
That being said, I’m currently thinking that drop might be the 1707ish one. I just don’t know where he took it from. I don’t know where that drop was, exactly. Do you? If it was visible from the RHR parking lot, he could have caught it w/that 300mm easily.
Plus, I’m not sure that folder just has the 1Ds. But I’ll examine them later today for sure!
Hah! I just found what looks like a tight sequence of the same event, using both a Mark D and the 1D! It’s the red and white helicopter picking up a bucket at the helispot and heading into the smoke…
Looks good…more later….
OK, if this helicopter sequence shows the 1D is set about 20 minutes late, that would put the problematic VLAT drop at 4:17– the split drop.
OK, really got to get going….
A little note on terminology:
The voice in the video is that of French, who is in the role of Lead Plane, not Air Attack. That’s why he is on Air-to-Air. He’s not listening to Air-to-Ground.
When you hear the voice/callout of Air Attack, on Air-to-Ground, that is Burfiend. He’s not listening to Air-to-Air.
The only way each one knows what’s going on on the other’s channel is via their communication with each other.
So the person telling the story of their recollection of the communication with Div A would have been Burfiend.
Other than that, yep, copy. So now that I’ve downloaded that video, I’ll go watch it.
Marti… thank you.
Yes… that is ‘how it was’ in that timeframe.
They were obviously able to just ‘talk’ to each other in
the plane but each one was ONLY listening to the one
frequency, apparently.
Don’t forget that the 163338 Panebaker video actually
SHOWS the ‘real time’ SEAT drop that actually happens
in the other video detailed above.
They come in from the SOUTH ( lined up on that radio tower as the conversation says ) and they drop on the EAST side of the fire.
There is no ‘West to East’ flyover as described in the SAIR and there was no chance of it flying OVER Marsh… but that doesn’t mean he might not have ‘seen it’… and THIS 1633 SEAT drop is what he might have actually been referring to with his “That’s where we want retardant” message.
A public copy of this Air Study video is in Mr. Dougherty’s online Dropbox at…
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/y3jy5opssrcvzb3/S3cCXl9pjr/AerialFirefightingstudy/Panebaker/Video/Video#lh:null-20130630_163338_fire_behavior_EP.MOV
I’m thinking you may be onto something here.
LOL I’m still downloading the 20130630_1628_ER.MOV file that I’ve been downloading for the past hour and a half, having slowed it down exponentially by trying to watch a bunch of other videos at the same time…..
But as soon as it finally finishes, I’ll take a look at that one. I still haven’t actually been able to play anythng in any manner that lets me actually SEE what’s going on……
Also WTKTT and Marti
Bothe of the drops on the Video were to far out in front of the fire to do any good. The did not fly into the smoke to hit the flames.
Again it is hard to use air tankers at the front of a running fire. Smoke wind and no visibility reduce accuracy of drops. If GM was under the smoke they would not have seen them to make an accurate drop. Only in the movies. OLD SAYING— Never expect an air drop to save your ass, if they can’t see you they can’t hit you…
Reply to Bob Powers post
on May 9, 2014 at 1:39 pm
>> Mr. Powers said…
>> Both of the drops on the Video
>> were too far out in front of the fire
>> to do any good.
Right after the 1633 SEAT drop…
both the Lead Plane Pilot ( B33
French ) and the SEAT pilot are
LAUGHING and this is what is said…
+2:46 ( 1633.34 / 4:33.34 PM )
(French): Yea… we liked your drop…
I know there was a lotta fire in there… but… ah… (laughter) nicely done
+2:50 ( 1633.38 / 4:33.38 )
(Unknown): Yea (laughter)… it’s…
it’s like spittin’ at it.
They both KNEW it wasn’t doing a damn bit of good… but what the heck… they get paid by the ‘hour’ and not by the ‘results’.
Looking back over the transcript of Bravo Lead Pilot talking to the VLAT 910 while they’re setting up for the drop.
I can’t tell if Bravo is actually flying a “show me” or they’re just circling. It kinda reads like Bravo is actually flying the show me, which would mean he would have been flying over the bowl.
What do you think?
And also I’m asking this of Bob Powers, who seems to be the one of us with the most experience of this stuff……
Yes very likely the fir was not that big to circle and make runs and keep all the plains apart would cover a lot of air space. circling the fire at different altitudes or even locations. as I said earlier the plains could have flown over Marsh and crew at any time
in a 8 mile square area. Setting up to make a run takes a lot of maneuvering. Dose that help?
Thanks. Yes.
Lead plane says to VLAT 910:
“If you need more altitude let me know… you should be okay at sixty five, only other aircraft I’ve seen is a media ship at this time (at) niner-thousand five hundred.”
He had that space cleared out completely.
Right after the 1633 SEAT drop… it was ‘load and return’ time for that SEAT. French didn’t get back to Kevin ( DC10 ) right away because he had to take a moment to inform the now departing SEAT that Wickenburg was ‘out of retardant’. Departing SEAT says he will try a ‘private club’ in Wickenburg. French gives him permission to do that… and only then begins to turn his attention to Kevin… SEVEN miles out and ‘holding’.
As Kevin is ‘coming in’… French tells him “we’re pretty much alone on the fire now”.
So YES… the space was cleared out. The other DC10 was ‘on approach’ to Yarnell but still quite a ways out.
Except for the choppers, that is. They ( apparently ) just continued to do pretty much whatever they wanted to… just as they had been doing all day.
Which would also correspond to Burfiend saying in the interview that they made a practice flight over the bowl west to east….
Marti… yes. Probably so. See my other post about the ‘plan’ apparently being to just try to get ‘in position’ to be in FRONT of Kevin ( DC10 910 ) as he came into the area from the SOUTH and be ready to just ‘angle in front of him’ for a quick ‘show me’ as soon as he entered the area.
This ‘jockeying for position’ while waiting for Kevin to arrive on the fire and ‘acquire a visual’ on them might be the ‘practice runs’ mentioned in the B33 YIN notes.
I think, now, after going over the transcripts, they did fly the show me, but it was exactly when Jesse made the mayday, bcuz the call from Prescott (who heard Jesse’s mayday) came right while Bravo was flying over the bowl west to east.
Chilling.
So, to get out of stun mode and back to analytical mode, if Eric made any call on air to ground about “that’s where we want it,” it had to have been about an earlier flight. So that would mean the actual SEAT drop.
This timeline is a beast to pull together.
On the other hand, continuing to think out loud,
It’s possible Eric is watching the Bravo Lead Plane and VLAT 910 circling around the bowl, which is what they were doing, before the show me, at 3:47, and that’s when he Air2Grounds “that’s it that’s where we want it.” And that’s what Burfiend would have heard.
Is that impossible?
I’m thinking out loud so thanks for your patience, every one…..
Marti… the way I read that transcript in the 1630 to 1643 timeframe… my take is that when French ( Lead Plane Duty ) finally turned his attention to Kevin ( VLAT DC10 910 ) circa 1636.46 ( just 14 seconds before 1637 )… and told him to ‘come on in’ from his ‘holding pattern’ SEVEN MILES away… and said “Have I got a project for you!”… what he wanted to have happen at that point was to be ‘in position’ to do a ‘show me’ for Kevin as soon as he ‘entered the area’.
So YES… there must have been a lot of ‘circling’ going on at that moment as he waited for Kevin to ‘come on in’ and get a VISUAL on him.
We can even hear the two of them struggling to ‘acquire’ that visual as Kevin brought the DC10 in. It isn’t until Kevin says “Okay… I see your beacon” that he actually DID ‘acquire that visual’.
But now we are just seconds BEFORE Steed’s first MAYDAY.
So I guess it is ‘possible’ that as French was ‘circling around’ in anticipation of getting in FRONT of Kevin as he came in from the SOUTH… French could have been
literally ‘all over the place’ down there.
Maybe he did circle WAAAY out over that middle bowl doing some kind of ‘practice run’ to get in front of Kevin as he came in from the SOUTH… and Marsh simply just ‘saw’ French ‘jockeying for position’ as Kevin approached…
…but that still doesn’t warrant Marsh’s (unsolicited) “That’s exactly what we want!” radio call.
That ‘circling around’ to get into position to lead Kevin on a SOUTH to NORTH ‘show me’ on the far EAST side of the fire as Kevin ‘arrived’ in the area would have had nothing to do with where they actually planned to drop any retardant.
So we’re supposed to believe Marsh just saw some small plane wildly circling around up in the air down there and somehow thought that was an indication of where retardant was going to be dropped?
Fer cryin’ out loud.
If Marsh really was all that concerned about ‘helping’ get retardant dropped somewhere… then why isn’t there MORE radio traffic to that effect where we at least hear Marsh trying to CONFIRM where they planned on dropping ANYTHING?
Do I still confused about all this?
You damn betcha.
Typo above…
Meant to say…
Do I still SOUND confused?
You damn betcha.
And yes, I can see you may be right here:
“…but that still doesn’t warrant Marsh’s (unsolicited) “That’s exactly what we want!” radio call.”
What makes you say:
“That ‘circling around’ to get into position to lead Kevin on a SOUTH to NORTH ‘show me’ on the far EAST side of the fire”
When Burfiend says it’s a west to east “over the bowl”?
Marti… I am on a ‘learning curve’ here with all this information myself… but that is simply what it SOUNDS like is happening from the transcript(s) of the audio conversations.
Yes… something about ‘west to east’ practice is runs is mentioned in SAIT interview notes… but I am focused more at the moment on what the AUDIO captures ACTUALLY tell us about what they were REALLY doing.
Even though the ‘show me’ is long past 1637 and just moments before Steed’s first MAYDAY… French has obviously started the ‘show me’ and is explaining what he wants to Kevin in the DC10… and he uses compass headings.
French says “…and my heading starting out was three six zero and ended up about three three five’.
Flying a ‘heading’ of ‘three six zero’ means you are flying DUE NORTH.
There is no ZERO compass heading in aviation. True north is always referred to by pilots as ‘three six zero’.
So flying a heading of ‘three six zero’ for the start of the drop and ending up with a heading of ‘three three five’ means flying a due SOUTH TO NORTH flight path and then banking a little to your LEFT and ending up with a heading of 335 degrees ( sorta north/northwest ).
There are OTHER clues in that transcript such as French specifically asking the chopper that is leaving the area to fly down the WEST side of the fire to stay ‘out of the way’.
Why would he be ASKING the chopper to exit the area to the WEST if that’s where he was planning on flying with Kevin?
Nice work, WTKTT.
Another thing about this AIR ATTACK terminology.
I posted this video a few weeks ago. I don’t know if anybody watched it. It’s REALLY REALLY helpful, about the most helpful thing I’ve come across regarding how Air Attack actually works.
I think there’s a TON of CONFUSION in our discussion about Air Attack. And that’s NOT helping us figure things out or communicate accurately to whomever may be reading this.
In this really well made BLM National Incident Fire Center video, called “Firefighting Airspace (2012 Refresher),” Steve Price, Aerial Supervisor, BLM Boise District, clearly describes and illustrates how Air Attack works. Then, at 6:16, he clearly describes how the Aerial Supervision Module, i.e. BRAVO, works, and, then, how the communications system is organized.
The pilot of the plane (i.e. for Bravo 33 at Yarnell being FRENCH, not Burfiend) functions as a lead plane pilot, and communicates primarily over Air-to-Air with the other pilots. That is his job. That’s why I’m saying to you, WTKTT, that you are incorrect in ascribing that voice/role to Burfiend.
The not-pilot of the plane (i.e. for Bravo 33 at Yarnell being BURFIEND, not French) functions as Air Attack, and communicates primarily over Air-to-Ground with the crews and overhead and whoever else on the ground. Again, WTKTT, when you say that, in the interview, it’s French speaking, that, also, is not accurate.
When one needs to let the other know something, they tell each other. French, as overheard in the Air Study videos, was functioning as lead plane, and being heard in the videos, communicating over air-to-air. He didn’t hear the Steed Mayday. He was trying to line up the VLAT T910 drop, a challenging job in itself, all things considered. How that Prescott notification got picked up in that video I have no idea. I don’t think French probably even heard it.
Burfiend is the one speaking in the interview. He’s the one who would have been busy doing other things when Steed did his Air to Ground “MayDay.” He’s the one who would have been in communication with Div A. I’m guessing he would have heard the Prescott call. Probly about the same time OPS got his attention, also. He’s the one who would have told French, we’ve got a problem on the ground, at which point French notified T910 of the problem and told him to go on standby.
In order to even begin to accurately understand what we are seeing/hearing in these videos, and what we are reading in these reports, interviews, etc., we really need to clear up our confusion about this stuff.
Here’s the link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fjF2KQ75TY&index=147&list=PLTErVrHH6uJja-ljtn7z9Q5Sz9WtCPGw1
Also, since I’ve spent the morning reading all your Air Study posts, WTKTT, yes that 4:16/4:18 T-911 pair of videos was a split-drop in which, as the list indicates, the first drop was “at” 1615 and the second was “at” 1617. So, as unbelievable as it may sound, those two drops came two minutes apart.
And thanks for all the heavy lifting you did getting those videos transcribed and analyzed. It wasn’t until I stumbled across that Firefighting Airspace video, that my own confusion started lifting enough for me to even begin to comprehend what we are encountering. Because it really is……..CONFUSING!
And now that I just wrote all that, it also means that whether or not that 4:37 Marsh communication with BURFIEND happened, it WOULDN’T have shown up on the Air Study video, because it wasn’t Air-to-Air. And it wasn’t with FRENCH, who wasn’t AIR ATTACK.
So the only way it will emerge is if it’s via a video that has Air to Ground at that time overheard, or if someone who was listening, as you have said WTKTT, that VERY MUCH listened to Air to Ground frequency overheard it and would like to speak up about that somewhere sometime somehow.
Burfiend’s a pretty awesome guy. I don’t think he would be making something up. I think both of them were doing a SPECTACULAR job, all things considered. Including the fact that they were left clueless about what was happening in the midst of total chaos and had to figure out a whole lot of things on the fly.
Marti as you explained above you rang a bell.
The that’s exactly were we want it came fro the Air attack boss telling the lead plane he was right on.
some times no one answers as he was expecting to hear that or hear he was not in the right place.
Happens all the time between lead and air.
I am saying it never was Marsh.
If it was not Air Attack
It would have been some one close to the drop zone talking on air to ground. have to figure this out. Maybe one of the OPS.
I am still betting it was not Marsh.
If there was to much smoke he may have heard the Plains but never would have seen them. I am in agreement with WTKTT that the smoke was to thick to see the plains at that time. Marsh would have wanted a drop on his head and the crews at that point not dropping on the flames would not even slow that fire down.
I think I’m agreeing with you here. I kind of put this idea out, trying to wrestle the timeline together, this being the last straw.
Watching the Air Study Video of the VLAT split drop some 20 minutes earlier, I could see Bravo33 flying and leading the VLAT 911, but only just barely. And that’s when they were both coming down much lower to actually do the drops.
I think if Eric was watching when Bravo 33 did the practice run from west to east over the bowl, he might have been able to see it, if the smoke wasn’t too thick, or maybe hear it. But, unfortunately, that didn’t happen until 4:39 while Steed was making his mayday call and, alas, it was too late for any meaningful signal from Eric saying “yes that’s where we want it.”
So since I don’t think Burfiend made that up, and he’s saying it happened while they were flying “show me” from west to east over the bowl, in the midst of all that smoke and whatever (which they WERE IN FACT DOING over on the other side of the fire before they came to this side), the only thing I can think of is that somebody else must have said that. It’s really a stumper.
Thanks Bob for helping me think this through!
And if Eric, or anybody else, had said it over AirToGround, at 4:39, while Bravo 33 was flying (I think, but I could be wrong) a “show me” from west to east over the bowl, everybody that was listening to Air to Ground then, which included a WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE (including us watching/listening to the “Last Minutes” video, would have heard it, also
So at this point, I, personally admit I can’t figure this one out, based on the data we currently have, and am willing to admit defeat, given that I’m not all that sure what difference it ultimately makes in the general scheme of things, anyway.
At this time, “Air Attack” was Burfiend, sitting in Bravo 33 with French, who was flying as Lead Plane. It was fully functioning as an Air Support Module, with both Lead Plane and Air Attack bundled into one vehicle. So what you are saying here doesn’t work.
Reply to Marti Reed post on May 9, 2014 at 11:50 am
>> Marti said…
>> Because it really is……..CONFUSING!
Yes… it is… and the SAIT interview notes with Bravo 33 are
really such a MESS that it just compounds things.
For example…
>> Marti also said…
>> Burfiend is the one speaking in the interview.
No… not exclusively. There are ‘quotes’ in these interview
notes from BOTH of them… but since it is all written as
‘first person perspective’ it is NEVER clear in those SAIT
interview notes ( at any particular moment ) WHO is really
being ‘quoted’ ( Burfiend or French ).
The SAIT interview notes with Bravo 33 contain specific
references for BOTH Burfiend AND French being the ones
‘quoted’… but it keeps CHANGING.
Examples from the YIN interview notes…
( See if you can ‘follow the bouncing ball’ here as to
who is suddenly ‘speaking’ to the SAIT interviewers )…
________________________________________________
Paragraph 4…
I knew there was 2 structural groups. I wrote down 2.
Tom said “hey dude, you are the air attack”.
Paragraph 13…
I was talking to Tom about the rising terrain on exit.
Paragraph 17…
I told Tom “lets fly something further down”.
Same Paragraph (17)… but only 8 sentences later…
I looked at John and he did this (slash across the throat).
I told Kevin to stand by copy, taking it around.
Same Paragraph (17)… just 4 sentences later…
At first KA wanted to get the bucket but John said “no,
we need to find these guys”.
Last paragraph…
Because of the attitude, I was working hard trying to
stay 3 drops in front of Tom.
_______________________________________________
So not only is the TIME all distorted in this ‘interview’ with
them jumping back and forth all over the place…
…one moment it is (apparently) Burfiend speaking in the
‘first person’… then suddenly it’s French speaking in the
‘first person’… then it’s (apparently) back to Burfiend again.
I could almost understand them ‘splitting’ the interview notes into ‘top-half’ and ‘bottom-half’ with one or the other being
French or Burfiend then speaking from the first-person…
…but there’s no indication that’s what they were doing, either. It’s all just a jumbled MESS.
By the way…
There were THREE people in that airplane.
SAIT INTERVIEW WITH BRAVO 33 – July 9, 2013 – 1700
Interviewees: Bravo 33
John Burfiend-ATS Specialist
Clint Clauson – ATS Trainee
Thomas French – AT Specialist
What RADIO CHANNEL does anyone think the 3rd guy
in the plane ( Clauson ) was ‘listening to’ that day?
Since he is listed as an ATS Trainee… and French is
only listed as an ‘AT’… does that automatically mean
this mysterious Clauson guy was only interested in
what Burfiend ( ATS Specialist ) was doing… and so
was only listening to ‘Air-To-Ground’ like Burfiend?
If that is the case… then that means this Clauson guy
would have heard EVERYTHING Burfiend did… including
this (supposed) “That’s what we want” transmission from
DIVSA Eric Marsh.
But ( apparently ) even though the SAIT had this Clauson
guy sitting right there in the interview… they never asked
him anything and he is (apparently?) not quoted anywhere
in that interview. Very strange.
Also… now that I have re-read the SAIT Bravo 33 notes
to grab the ‘follow the bouncing ball’ quotes… I just realized
that this Bravo 33 interview ALSO proves without a
shadow of a doubt that OPS1 Todd Abel was ‘fully engaged’
with Bravo 33 throughout the entire ‘swtich to the south
side of the fire’ Air Operations shift… and right on up
through the deployment.
There are quotes in the B33 YIN interview which indicate
OPS1 Todd Abel was VERY ‘focused’ on the Air-To-Ground
channel and conversing directly with Burfiend right up
to Steed’s first MAYDAY call ( and beyond ).
So that means if Eric Marsh really did suddenly come
onto the Air-To-Ground channel at 1637 with his
( unsolicited ) “That’s what we want” transmission…
…that OPS Todd Abel MUST have heard it right along
with Burfiend ( and the Clauson guy )… along with ALL
the other people who were no-doubt listening to that
‘popular’ Air-To-Ground channel.
But NOWHERE in ANY of his interviews with two separate
investigations does Todd Abel say he ever heard any
such transmission.
It really is important to figure this out.
Not only because the SAIT chose to label this one single
‘transmission’ as ‘totally verified’ and THEN use it as the
defacto ‘end’ of the (supposed) ‘verifiable communications’
blackout period…
…but also because it’s simply important to KNOW if
DIVSA Eric Marsh ever really did say any such thing.
So….. I’ve spent the day downloading and watching and trying to learn from the videos. And trying to be unbiased about it. And still struggling with that Marsh call that Burfiend (who I really respect) notes. And being seriously impressed by French’s behavior, even tho you diss him for the chuckles. I see him as doing a really good job of a really complicated task and the chuckles are to support the pilots, and I think they’re doing a better and more professional job than a whole bunch of other people on that clusterf*ck fiasco of a fire.
But reading what you are writing here, and yeah. The SAIT was a joke. Not an investigation. This is totally unprofessional. But I don’t blame Burfiend and French for it.
I sit here thinking maybe sometime I should head down to Silver City to have a conversation. If I can find the time. Which I maybe can’t. All things considered. Hopefully whoever is in charge of the lawsuits will.
Reply to calvin post on May 8, 2014 at 3:08 am
>> calvin said…
>>
>> Div A tells Rory Collins the other crew is in the black and they were
>&