This attack from a few months back…
…came from this tree, which still shows where it broke apart:
This attack from a few months back…
…came from this tree, which still shows where it broke apart:
“There has been speculation among officials that the boat capsized due to a large, rogue wave, although the matter is still under investigation.”
Non, non, non!
“Rogue waves (also known as freak waves, monster waves, episodic waves, killer waves, extreme waves, and abnormal waves) are large and spontaneous surface waves that occur far out in open water, and can be extremely dangerous, even to large ships such as ocean liners.”
Ocean Beach aint in open water, right?
So SFGov spokesmodels should pick a different adjective.
How about sneaker wave? You know, the kind that sneak up on the unwary. Or sleeper wave, for the sleepyheaded mariner. Or set wave, if you’re a surfer.
Speaking of which, take a look:
I suppose, if you don’t know what you’re doing, then you could try to pass the buck by calling this a rogue wave (or an Act of God). But that would just go to show that you didn’t know what you’re doing.
Oh here we go, CNN does my job for me here.
How common was the wave what overturned our rescue boat? Was it a once in a day wave, or a once every ten years wave? IDK. But it certainly wasn’t a rogue wave.
If only we had a highly trained branch of the US military stationed nearby, standing by to help people in the water…
Semper Paratus, Gentle Reader
Here you go:
“When Joe Breeze did what thousands of Mill Valley kids had done before him — stood on Miller Avenue across the street from the 2 a.m. Club and stuck out his thumb to hitch a ride — he didn’t know he was changing history.“
Let’s chalk some of this up to a kind of CW Nevius-style local rah-rahing.
Now let’s compare that with a less patriotic, a less Bay Area-centric source like Wiki.*
What’s that, it was only the “mega-success” of MTB what got started on Mt. Tam?
Al right, but that means Cascade Canyon Road is on “a western ridge of Mt Tam …”
“They all came together to race Repack, a steep downhill drop on a western ridge of Mount Tam, plummeting 1,300 feet in 2.1 miles.”
…as opposed to it being on nearby Pine Mountain, right?
So on this map (which isn’t exactly pointing north, oh well) the peaks of Mt Tam are on the lower right, and Pine Mountain is on the left across a chain of lakes, and Cascade Canyon Fire Road (aka “Repack” – you can’t expect Marin Co guv’mint/The Feds to honor that bike-centric name) is in the upper left.
Here’s another map, with Mt Tam way off your screen, down and to the right – knock yourself out.
Anyway at least now, a Chron writer is showing his/her work. So, if you think Pine Mountain / the San Geronimo Ridge / Cascade Canyon Road/Repack is a part of Mt. Tam, then, maybe mountain biking gestated, a little, on Mount Tam, sort of.
But if not, then not.
I’ll tell you, IRL, Repack is way far away from the West, Middle, and East peaks of Mt Tam, so that’s why I’m saying mountain biking was NOT born on Mt Tam.
END OF LINE
Just released, see below.
I don’t know. The NTSB weighed in and the SFFD certainly DID NOT get an A+ grade, to say the least:
“The overall triage process in this mass casualty incident was effective with the exception of the failure of responders to verify their visual assessments of the condition of passenger 41E.
The San Francisco Fire Department’s aircraft rescue and firefighting staffing level was instrumental in the department’s ability to conduct a successful interior fire attack and successfully rescue five passengers who were unable to self-evacuate amid rapidly deteriorating cabin conditions.
Although no additional injuries or loss of life were attributed to the fire attack supervisor’s lack of aircraft rescue and firefighting (ARFF) knowledge and training, the decisions and assumptions he made demonstrate the potential strategic and tactical challenges associated with having non-ARFF trained personnel in positions of command at an airplane accident.
Although some of the communications difficulties encountered during the emergency response, including the lack of radio interoperability, have been remedied, others, such as the breakdown in communications between the airport and city dispatch centers, should be addressed.
The Alert 3 section of the San Francisco International Airport’s emergency procedures manual was not sufficiently robust to anticipate and prevent the problems that occurred in the accident response.”
Here’s some more on Flight 214 from San Francisco Magazine. Some quotes in there from SFFD personnel appeared to show a bit of self deception, IMO.
And there’s this, from the San Jose Mercury News:
San Francisco’s emergency personnel also were criticized. While praising firefighters for rescuing several passengers from the burning wreckage and having more than the required number of personnel on hand, the report said “the arriving incident commander placed an officer in charge of the fire attack” who hadn’t been properly trained. The responders also had communication problems, including being unable “to speak directly with units from the airport on a common radio frequency” and didn’t rush medical buses to the scene, which “delayed the arrival of backboards to treat seriously injured passengers.” In addition, the report said airport emergency officials in general lack policies “for ensuring the safety of passengers and crew at risk of being struck or rolled over by a vehicle” during rescue operations. During the chaotic initial response to the Asiana crash, two firetrucks ran over one of the teenage passengers lying outside the plane. The San Mateo County coroner ruled the girl was alive when she was hit, but the San Francisco Fire Department disputes that finding.
Obviously, this was an aircraft accident that involved pilot error, as most do. Equally obviously, some of the problems on that day showed that the SFFD wasn’t training properly, realistically.
All right, here’s the release:
“Asiana suit dismissal vindicates firefighters’ ‘heroic efforts’ in tragic crash, Herrera says. City Attorney adds, ‘Our hearts go out to the parents of Ye Ming Yuan and to all the surviving loved ones of the three who lost their lives’ in 2013’s Asiana tragedy
SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 7, 2015) — Parents of the 16-year-old passenger who was ejected and killed in the crash of Asiana Flight 214 on July 6, 2013 dismissed their civil lawsuit against the City and County of San Francisco today. Neither the plaintiffs nor their attorneys appear to have issued a public statement accompanying their dismissal, which was filed in U.S. District Court this afternoon.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement in response:
“Our hearts go out to the parents of Ye Ming Yuan and to all the surviving loved ones of the three who lost their lives in the tragic crash of Asiana Flight 214. We’re grateful for a dismissal that will spare everyone involved the added heartache and costs of litigation, which we believed from the beginning to be without legal merit.
“As we remember those who lost their lives in the Asiana crash, I hope we acknowledge, too, the heroic efforts of San Francisco’s firefighters and police who saved hundreds of lives that day. With thousands of gallons of venting jet fuel threatening unimaginable calamity, our firefighters initiated a daring interior search-and-rescue that within minutes extricated trapped passengers, and moved them safely to medical triage. In the face of great danger to their own lives, our emergency responders showed heroism and selflessness that day. They deserve our honor and gratitude.”
The National Transportation Safety Board determined that the crash of Asiana flight 214 was caused by the Asiana flight crew’s mismanagement in approaching and inadequately monitoring the airspeed of the Boeing 777 on its approach to San Francisco International Airport, according to the NTSB’s June 24, 2014 announcement. The NTSB also found that the flight crew’s misunderstanding of the autothrottle and autopilot flight director systems contributed to the tragedy.
On July 3, 2014, NTSB Member Mark R. Rosekind issued a concurrent statement that praised San Francisco’s first responders: “The critical role of the emergency response personnel at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and the firefighters from the San Francisco Fire Department cannot be underestimated. Although certain issues regarding communications, triage, and training became evident from the investigation and must be addressed, emergency responders were faced with the extremely rare situation of having to enter a burning airplane to perform rescue operations. Their quick and professional action in concert with a diligent flight crew evacuated the remaining passengers and prevented this catastrophe from becoming much worse. In addition, the emergency response infrastructure and resources at SFO that supported firefighting and recovery after the crash are admirable, significantly exceeding minimum requirements.”
Asiana Flight 214 struck the seawall short of SFO’s Runway 28L shortly before 11:30 a.m. on Saturday, July 6, 2013, beginning a violent impact sequence that sheared off the tail assembly, rotated the aircraft approximately 330 degrees, and created a heavy cloud of dust and debris before the aircraft finally came to rest approximately 2300 feet from its initial site of impact. The sheared-off tail assembly and force of rotation resulted in the ejection of five people: two crewmembers still strapped into the rear jump seats, and three passengers seated in the last two passenger rows. All three ejected passengers suffered fatal injuries: two died at the scene, and one died six days later.
With nearly 3,000 gallons of jet fuel venting from fuel lines where two engines detached during the crash sequence, a fire started in one engines that was wedged against the fuselage. A fire also began in the insulation lining the fuselage interior, beginning near the front of the aircraft. The interior fire produced heavy smoke inside the aircraft and posed extremely dangerous conditions given the volatility of leaking jet fuel and its proximity to potentially explosive oxygen tanks. In the face of imminent explosion, the rescue effort safely evacuated and triaged of some 300 people. Asiana flight 214 carried 307 individuals: 4 flight crew, 12 cabin crewmembers and 291 passengers. Three of the 291 passengers were fatally injured.
The case is: Gan Ye and Xiao Yun Zheng, et al v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, case no. C14-04941, filed Aug. 13, 2014. Learn more about the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office at http://www.sfcityattorney.org/.”
Here you go – a couple years worth of pay data for SFGov’s Incident Support Specialists:
(All of these ISS people are at the SFFD AFAIK.)
So, what does an ISS do?
Here’s my guess – drive SUVs about Frisco.
Now let’s do a search for ISS:
“A fire chief’s vehicle, also called a “chief unit” or a “fire chief’s car”, “Fly Car”, “Fly Vehicle”, a “fire car”, or sometimes even called a “Buggy” (a throw back to horse drawn days), is a car, truck, or SUV that is used by a fire chief at fire scenes.”
“Each fire chief’s vehicle can be driven/operated by an assistant to the Fire Chief, Deputy Chief, Division Chief or Battalion Chief known as a Chief’s Driver, Chief’s Aide, Chief’s Operator, or Incident Support Specialist.”
So, if you spend 60-something hours a week driving people about Frisco in a Ford Expedition or a Chevy Suburban, you can make about ten times as much laboring as an SFGov Incident Support Specialist than as a driver for the Lyft or the Uber.
Do I have that right?
And check out the other Ford in the background – it matches the cable car you can see.
Anyway, it’s dangerous to park anywhere near a port-a-potty these days.
If this were my ride, I’d have somebody tow it somewhere fast – you don’t want Auto Return to get their hooks on it, that’s for sure…