I think the Haight’s Station 12 might have them beat though:
“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
I guess this is one of my issues, the width of the Fell Street bike path – I think it’s too narrow. It’s being used a lot more now than back when it was widened from 8 feet to 12 feet, IMO.
Anyway, this kind of thing happens all the time and it always seems to be E21 that turns up to haul people (and their bikes – it comes with you at no extra charge on your already quite hefty bill) away.
(Hey, who would get better medical attention after an accident – Princess Diana back in the 1990’s or a homeless person of the 94117 in 2016? It’s not even close.)
ASSIGNMENT DESK: Somebody ought to go on a ride-along with this crew and then write about it…
And check it, from our local Paper Of Record last year:
Firefighters, strip clubs’ holiday connection seen as odd, sexist, by Heather Knight, December 15, 2014.
An accident* on Masonic yesterday at Hayes, with CCSF’s John Adams Campus (the former Lowell High School, 1913-1962):
(My money’s on the VW’s driver being at fault, but who knows.)
Now how many airbags exploded during this fender bender, like a dozen? You could see all matter of them from a distance. How much would it cost to replace a single side curtain bag, for instance, one wonders. The upshot is that the people inside these rides get injured less than they would have a generation ago, but the cars get damaged more.
So it’s off to the scrapheap they go.
Seems fair enough.
*’Cause it wasn’t on purpose. Now if it were, then we’d call this collision attempted homicide or something. But if you’re an “urbanist” or whatnot, feel free to call it a collision if you want – that word would also apply. TY, drive through.
In the next world war
In a jackknifed juggernaut
I am born again.
In the neon sign
Scrolling up and down
I am born again
In an interstellar burst
I am back to save the universe
In a deep, deep sleep
Of the innocent
I am born again
In a fast German car
I’m amazed that I survived
An airbag saved my life
Let’s see if I can pay off on the headline.
Ever since I can remember, SFFD Local 798 has sponsored an annual Christmas Toy Drive, you know, for kids! And our local strip clubs have been involved – imagine smiling faces and giant checks for 25 large.
(I can recall riding my bike to the stoop of the Gold Club (aka Conference Room G? Good one, Yelp!) on Howard Street back in The Aughts during my lunch hour – somebody (some blogger/media type, I forget who) wanted a photo of the scene. I get there, and it was so sad. Three strippers had been driven there just for a press conference, but at least one of them didn’t get it. “Is my picture going to be in the paper? I don’t want my family to see that!” (Girl, do you have agency? No? OK fine.) Obvs, there wasn’t a meeting of the minds on this deal and it gave me a sad, so I left. And then they decided to move the venue of the presser, ’cause people were worried about have the embarrassing GOLD CLUB marquee in the photos.)
Anywho, this whole program with the strippers…
…has not been without controversy.
Oh, check it, from our local Paper Of Record:
Firefighters, strip clubs’ holiday connection seen as odd, sexist, by Heather Knight, December 15, 2014.
Now let’s think here – who could replace the strippers this year? It would have to be an image-sensitive entity with a worser image than the sex trade, but with loads of cold hard cash to spend all over town.
Uh, what about Airbnb? (You know they have a big election coming up come November.)
Hey what about Airbnb itself – take a look at what they have to say about all this, after the jump.
Hey Airbnb, is this the kind of thing you were looking for when you gave the SFDems five figures not too long ago?
Hey Airbnb, you let the strippers do this work for years and years just until you have a big election coming up and you want to show yourselves as a great corporate citizen?
(And also asking: What of poor Lexus, Mercedes, and Porsche? They’re OUT, after all these years of giving to the kids?)
I’ll tell you, I have no beef against the idea of Airbnb per se, but man, your sausage factory isn’t pretty, A.
In fact, it’s offal.
All right, click on over to get Airbnb’s side of the story from their fresh news release. (And don’t forget to read the fine print – see if you have to sign away your first-born when you click on an ad for Airbnb…)
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/.”
Get up-to-speed here.
Hey, look at this – an official SFFD operations memo. Just a draft, but nobody’s really working on hammering out the exact wording of detailed Fire Code sections here. No, this is more what you call “guidelines.”
Now arguably, this program is actual SFFD policy now and it’s has been policy since well before 2015, but of course most people in town don’t know about it. The new wrinkle, AFAIK, is that only ground floor bathrooms are covered. That means that a lot of stations won’t be able to help you.
“SAN FRANCISCO FIRE DEPARTMENT
DEPUTY CHIEF – OPERATIONS MEMORANDUM
TO: Divisions 2 and 3, Battalions 1-10
FROM: Deputy Chief Gonzales, Operations
DATE: June 19th, 2015
SUBJECT: General Public Usage of Fire Station Restroom Facilities
To all Members:
Fire Station Restrooms: San Francisco Fire Stations with ground floor restroom facilities are available for public use. Members of the general public may use the ground floor restroom facilities between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
If the Fire units within said Stations are called out for any emergency, the member of the public must also leave the facility immediately. Members of the public shall not be left behind alone in the Firehouse. Signs shall be posted by Station Captains on the doors of the facilities stating, “If there is an emergency dispatch and units must leave, anyone using this restroom facility must also leave immediately.”
The Fire Department employee that guides the member of the public to the bathroom facility shall also verbally inform the member of the public that they will have to leave the facility immediately, if an emergency call comes in and no units are available to stay behind.
The Fire Department employee that guides the member of the public into the facility is also responsible for escorting the member of the public back out of the Firehouse.
It is up to the Officer’s discretion if a member of the public is allowed to use the ground floor restroom facility. If the member of the public requesting to use the facility is inebriated or altered in any way, they shall not be allowed to use the restroom facility. The health and safety of our members and the security of the Firehouse shall also factor into the Officer’s discretion/decision.
Regarding visitors to the Firehouse, article 3950 still applies:
Members shall not invite or allow visitors not on Department business to enter Department facilities before 1000 hours or after 2100 hours. Members shall only allow visitors into public areas of a Department station or facility. Members shall not invite or allow intoxicated persons in or about Department property, except for purposes of providing medical care.”