Share This Page

Recalling '94 fire, officials study Ariz. blaze

| Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 2:11 a.m.

PRESCOTT, Ariz. — Investigators from across the United States poured into the mountain town of Yarnell on Tuesday to figure out why 19 elite firefighters perished in an out-of-control wildfire and whether human error played a role in the tragedy.

The investigation into the nation's biggest loss of firefighters since 9/11 will look at whether the Hotshot crew paid attention to the forecast, created an escape route and took other precautions developed after a similar disaster in Colorado nearly two decades ago.

The team of about 10 investigators from various agencies also will look at whether the crew should have been pulled out before the fire exploded.

Within hours on Sunday, violent wind gusts turned what was believed to be a relatively manageable lightning-ignited forest fire into a death trap that left no escape.

In a desperate attempt at survival, the firefighters unfurled their foil-lined emergency shelters, but those offer only limited protection when in the direct path of a raging fire.

The federal government overhauled its safety procedures following the deaths of 14 firefighters on Colorado's Storm King Mountain in 1994. Investigators found numerous errors in the way the blaze was fought.

“The reforms after Storm King were collectively intended to prevent that from happening again, which was mass entrapment of an entire Hotshot crew,” said Lloyd Burton, professor of environmental law and policy at the University of Colorado.

“There are so many striking parallels between this tragedy and what happened on Storm King in 1994, it's almost haunting.”

Those changes included policies under which no firefighters should be deployed unless they have a safe place to retreat. They must also be continuously informed of changing weather.

“If you don't have those things in place, it's not advisable to deploy a team in the first place, because you can't guarantee their safety,” Burton said.

The Hotshot team based in Prescott entered the smoky wilderness over the weekend with backpacks, chainsaws and other heavy gear to remove brush and trees and deprive the flames of fuel.

But the blaze grew from 200 acres to about 2,000 in a matter of hours as “the wind kicked up to 40 to 50 mph gusts and it blew east, south, west — every which way,” said Prescott City Councilman Len Scamardo.

“What limited information we have was there was a gust of wind from the north that blew the fire back and trapped them,” Scamardo said.

With the investigation just beginning, it's not clear what help water- or retardant-dropping aircraft could have provided for the doomed crew.

One contractor, Neptune Aviation Services, had three aerial tankers making drops on the fire earlier in the day. But at the time the firefighters died, the planes had been grounded because of treacherous conditions, said chief executive Ronald Hooper.

“It wasn't safe for them to be in the air at that time,” Hooper said. There were “severe winds, erratic winds and thunderstorms in the area.”

However, government dispatch logs show at least two other planes were flying over the fire at the time, one large tanker and one small one. There was also at least one firefighting helicopter in the air early on Sunday afternoon.

Dick Mangan, a retired U.S. Forest Service safety official and consultant, said it is too early to say if the crew or those managing the fire made mistakes.

“The fact that they're dead and that they had to deploy fire shelters tells us that something was seriously wrong,” Mangan said. But then again, he said, they may have been doing everything right, and “this just might have been a weather anomaly that nobody saw coming that happened too quickly to respond to.”

He said the crew members may have taken too many risks because they were on familiar ground and were trying to protect a community they knew well.

“When you've got especially structures and residences involved, and you've got local resources, there's a fair amount of social and political pressure, some of it self-generated by the firefighters, who want to do a good job,” Mangan said. “They don't want to see a community burn down. They want to get in there.”

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.