Australia's fire warnings system is generating misleading ratings, exaggerating risk, ABC investigat
- 7 months ago
#qld #fire #firewarning #bushfire
Australia's new $11 million fire warning system exaggerates risks, alarms communities and erodes public trust, the ABC's investigation has found. Highlights System mistakenly predicted major fire danger for southern Queensland earlier this month The system incorrectly predicted a catastrophic fire threat for southern Queensland earlier this month. A Perth council was informed in June of the system's "teething problems" In June, Perth council was notified of the system's "egress issues" A fire expert said the system was "not fit for purpose" Earlier this month, the system mistakenly warned Queensland Fire and Emergency Services that much of southern Queensland was facing catastrophic conditions - when it was not. QFES staff scrambled adjust system in middle of night before so-called “catastrophic” fire category day to reduce rating applied Darling Downs and Granite Belt. The incorrect "disaster" classification, which urged residents in the fire area to evacuate and warned a high likelihood of loss life and property, remained for at least 16 hours before being downgraded. Introduced in September last year, warning programme, known as the Australian Fire Danger Rating System , was supposed to use latest science, including detailed vegetation data maps and fire prediction models, to more accurately measure bushfire behaviour. Under the previous system, fire personnel only had to choose between two types of vegetation. But AFDRS urges officers to choose from eight different fuel types and consider moisture content. 'Teething problems' Interstate problems were flagged earlier this year when a Western Australian government fire officer briefed Perth council on "teething" problems with the way vegetation types are scored in the system. Mundaring Shire Council's June minutes recorded the briefing and said "public confidence in the system has diminished as a result". The National Fire Emergency Services Council in Australia and New Zealand, which oversees development implementation of the system, acknowledged this week that there had been "some improvements to inputs required". Fire behavior expert Andrew Sturgess says the system is not fit for purpose. But AFAC said system was a fundamentally safer option, had been tweaked and "put us in a much better position than maintaining the system which has been widely criticized in past". The system's operations have been criticized by a former Queensland government fire behavior expert; this expert stated that the system was not fit for purpose and called for the original rating system to be reinstated while AFDRS was fine-tuned. “We don't have quality of input we need to get really reliable fire danger ratings from the new system,” says fire behavior expert Andrew Sturgess, who founded and led Queensland Fire Service's forecasting services unit until late 2019. “The new system requires a lot of new data about things like altitude of fuel and load on ground. “Trying
Australia's new $11 million fire warning system exaggerates risks, alarms communities and erodes public trust, the ABC's investigation has found. Highlights System mistakenly predicted major fire danger for southern Queensland earlier this month The system incorrectly predicted a catastrophic fire threat for southern Queensland earlier this month. A Perth council was informed in June of the system's "teething problems" In June, Perth council was notified of the system's "egress issues" A fire expert said the system was "not fit for purpose" Earlier this month, the system mistakenly warned Queensland Fire and Emergency Services that much of southern Queensland was facing catastrophic conditions - when it was not. QFES staff scrambled adjust system in middle of night before so-called “catastrophic” fire category day to reduce rating applied Darling Downs and Granite Belt. The incorrect "disaster" classification, which urged residents in the fire area to evacuate and warned a high likelihood of loss life and property, remained for at least 16 hours before being downgraded. Introduced in September last year, warning programme, known as the Australian Fire Danger Rating System , was supposed to use latest science, including detailed vegetation data maps and fire prediction models, to more accurately measure bushfire behaviour. Under the previous system, fire personnel only had to choose between two types of vegetation. But AFDRS urges officers to choose from eight different fuel types and consider moisture content. 'Teething problems' Interstate problems were flagged earlier this year when a Western Australian government fire officer briefed Perth council on "teething" problems with the way vegetation types are scored in the system. Mundaring Shire Council's June minutes recorded the briefing and said "public confidence in the system has diminished as a result". The National Fire Emergency Services Council in Australia and New Zealand, which oversees development implementation of the system, acknowledged this week that there had been "some improvements to inputs required". Fire behavior expert Andrew Sturgess says the system is not fit for purpose. But AFAC said system was a fundamentally safer option, had been tweaked and "put us in a much better position than maintaining the system which has been widely criticized in past". The system's operations have been criticized by a former Queensland government fire behavior expert; this expert stated that the system was not fit for purpose and called for the original rating system to be reinstated while AFDRS was fine-tuned. “We don't have quality of input we need to get really reliable fire danger ratings from the new system,” says fire behavior expert Andrew Sturgess, who founded and led Queensland Fire Service's forecasting services unit until late 2019. “The new system requires a lot of new data about things like altitude of fuel and load on ground. “Trying