Comments for 0 at http://www.cfaconnect.net.au , comment 1 to 10 out of 10 comments http://www.cfaconnect.net.au Thu, 09 Sep 2010 21:12:41 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=&catid=&Itemid=1#comment-367 Thanks Karen, looking forward to your upcoming article. I am interested to know what the wording will be for the "Watch and Act" messages, and whether it takes into account not just how members of focus groups tell you they will react, but how they will actually react, knowing as we do from past experience the prevalance of a predisposition towards adopting a "wait and see" approach. My bet is that most will go for wait and see unless there is very strong wording towards the ACT part of the message. - Russell Edwards Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:34:18 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=&catid=&Itemid=1#comment-366 Hi all Thanks for the comments - I read them with interest as it directly relates to our Project: Community Information & Warnings - Timeliness, Content & Form. Rather than take up a huge chunk of space by responding to everyone's individudal comments, suggestions and concerns, perhaps it's better to break our project's key deliverables down into a series of dot points. I'll then aim to post something more comprehensive up as an article in a week or so. Key Actions & Deliverables of the Project Team: - Revise message levels and content based on market research outcomes, Royal Commission findings, existing psychological research, Common Alerting Protocol (CAP) princples and other subject matter experts - Focus group testing for understanding of fire danger rating scale and language used within warnings messages - Revise & Enhance authorisation & approval process for community information - including contingencies for when systems/communications fail - New and existing Information Unit personnel identified to receive new & refresher training for this season & beyond; revise/enhance existing training package including updates to new processes and web entry tools - Revise all Information Unit documentation in line with changes I hope this goes some way towards providing clarification. Watch this space! Karen Enbom - Project Manager - Karen Enbom Sun, 13 Sep 2009 08:45:55 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=&catid=&Itemid=1#comment-364 Please make sure that whatever CFA/DSE/Government etc go out with has been thoroughly tested on groups of residents from well prepared to know nothing, one of the gaps previously is that there appeared to be little testing to actually see if the messages worked, and if they did, what behaviour or action did they drive....or are we too late for that already? - Paul Davis Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:48:29 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=&catid=&Itemid=1#comment-362 Russell - your last paragraph is the clearest, most concise and sensible expression of a leaving early trigger point that I have heard in five years with CFA. - Martin Anderson Fri, 11 Sep 2009 16:17:10 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=&catid=&Itemid=1#comment-361 [i]‘Emergency Warning’ is an alert that there is an imminent threat and immediate action is required to protect life. [/i] The average person will interpret that via the following warped and extremely dangerous logic: [b](1)[/b] Action to protect life is not required unless there is an imminient threat, and [b](2) There is no imminent threat if I have not received a warning about it in my specific locality. (1) obviously defies the laws of logic, but the average person might reasonably ask, what is the point of warning about imminent threat if action is actually required long before that stage? Surely the CFA would not be issuing such warnings if it was too late? And didn't they just tell me that all I had to do was "Watch"? (oh, "and Act".. whoops... that bit came second... surely that's not important!) (2) places unrealistic expectations on emergency intelligence and communications (1) and (2) both court disaster in exactly the same way as the previous system of urgent threat messages. The very existence of a flood of these on the website and on 774 acts to invite people towards propositions (1) and (2), especially when they are predisposed towards "it won't happen to me" and "boy who cried wolf" sentiments. This is why you had a whole bunch of people on Black Saturday who had no intention to or real preparation for staying and defending, who got caught out either still in their house (without knowing proper sheltering techniques) or out on the road in a last-minute attempt to flee. Unless it is made [b]very[/b] clear that people who do not plan to stay and defend should be leaving [u]as soon as there is a fire within 75 km[/u] in the direction of existing or forecast wind, we are doomed to see Ash Wednesday and Black Saturday repeat themselves again and again. - Russell Edwards Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:56:00 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=&catid=&Itemid=1#comment-360 Can someone please tell me which of the two FDIs the BOM publishes will be the basis for the new system...the grasslands FDI or the Forest FDI? - Don Barber Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:32:49 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=&catid=&Itemid=1#comment-359 As stated . For the RECC to be able to issue warnings (in the earlier periods of an incident or fire) it is necessary for the RECC to be able to be contacted by the Incident Controller . This was not generally possible on 'Black Saturday'. If the RECC has no sitreps - How can the Info. Officer there issue the warnings?. That is the issue. That is one reason why warnings fell down on 7th Feb. 2009 and also why we could not use SEWS. - Peter Rice Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:27:45 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=&catid=&Itemid=1#comment-357 So, it looks like there is one communication framework for community warnings during a bushfire, and another for education about what to do to prepare and act during a bushfire? Was any consideration given to having only one communication framework or system for everything to work within - surely this would be simpler for the community to grasp, understand and engage in rather than two? It seems we now have a set of messages around prepare, act and survive, and another around advice, watch and act and emergency warning? Does this not leave room for confusion? One way to tackle this would be to create the framework in a customer centric or end user model, so you start from what they need ( the community ) and how best to design that communication based on their needs. My concern and caution is that previous to the last fires, there was confusion around communication targeted for an internal audience, and communication that was supposed to be for an external audience...they are very different and need to be designed that way however my observation is there has been confusion between who messages are being designed for, fire fighters or the community and we need to be so careful around this.... - Paul Davis Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:18:15 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=&catid=&Itemid=1#comment-355 That's what it says: [quote]- Information units will have operational guidelines and the technological capability in place to enable them to quickly issue accurate warnings. Approval will occur at local incident level by the IC or deputy IC. - Where an ICC has not yet been established, warnings can be issued on behalf of the IC by information units in the RECC or iECC. [/quote] What's the issue? - Geoff Schmidt Fri, 11 Sep 2009 07:10:25 +0100 http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=&catid=&Itemid=1#comment-350 A major problem that we experienced on 'Black Saturday' was not being able to contact the RECC (Region 12 HQ) because all the phone lines at that location were constantly engaged. That is one reason we could not use SEWS, etc. Under this new system the same problem is likely. The local Incident Controller HAS to be able to issue warnings right from the start.. Has not anyone read the submissions and evidence within the Royal Commission? - Peter Rice Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:00:01 +0100