EISPIRATEN

Canoeman,

I have a hard time believing a prescribed burn was scheduled in August, in 100 degree temps, and <15% humidity. Sorry, but KTLA (and any media source) is not the best place to get all your information.

A firefighter (with over 25 yrs experience) on the Station fire that I know very well told me it is very unusual to have a plume dominated wildfire (look it up if you want to know what kind of extreme conditions this can create) on the Angeles in primarily chaparral, And to have that kind of behavior to last for over a week is unprecedented. There is only so much man can do when this types of fire behavior is present.

The response to the Station Fire was like all other fires (in which well over 90% are contained at less than 2 acres- NIFC). The same amount and types of crews were dispatched in the initial attack on that afternoon.

Based on the facts I know, the report, and first hand accounts (as well as my own experience and knowledge) my only serious question to the response would have been ordering of more air support on the first and second day. I think there were some also some mistakes made by both the USFS and LA County regarding coordination of that aspect. However, the part of extremely rugged terrain does have alot of weight. That area where it started is almost entirely inaccessable by ground, until you get up past the Grizzly Flats fire road.

As far as limited crews on your side, yes the majority of crews were in other higher priority areas of the fire where it was threatening more homes. I did see MANY crews stationed at both Valyermo and off 106th /Ft. Tejon Rd.

And as far as seeing no Forest Service "rangers" people out and about, maybe if you get out of Juniper Hills- where there are no developed recreation sites or designated trails, and no reason to spend alot of time around there- you might see a few more people. Try Little Rock or Big Rock.

It's all about prioritizing with the people they do have. It's not the old days where the primary duties then were being on horseback or in the backcounty, especially in a forest like the Angeles, where the vast majority of the 3 million visits are to developed recreation sites.

Believe me, many of the 'rangers' I know would prefer to spend more time on the trails and in the backcountry. However, it just doesn't happen that way much anymore, and that's where they rely largely on volunteer groups to help out. Hey, I have a suggestion if you care so much! How about volunteering?

edit: spelling/grammar

While it was a Federal Investigation, in addition to the USFS, the panel also included persons from LA County, Cal-Fire, etc.. (as listed on the report).

mattmaxon wrote:

cougarmagic wrote: no one did anything wrong! the BRUSH is to blame

It's the green wall of silence...

When any agency investigates itself the result is almost always the same... "We didn't do anything wrong.", "our actions where justified"

I personally didn't expect anything else.

I would have been encouraged if something else came from it

I feel this "investigation" was done to give the appearance of doing something while not doing anything.

canoeman wrote:Just Imagine a ranger in the back country with his full gun belt, pepper spray, hand cuffs, gun, six spare semi auto magazines, baton, ticket book, and huge radio.

Imagine the Icehouse Canyon trail taggers encountering this ranger.

The controlled burn info came from the forest service fire commander after being asked several times it it was true, and he said it WAS TRUE, THERE WERE BURN PERMITS ISSUED FOR THAT DAY, AT THAT LOCATION, but the forest service personnel did not utilize them.

this info has somehow been forgotten by the press, but the info came from the fire department, it was filmed by ktla.
the coincidence is interesting at the very least.
I'm sure you worked very hard on the fire, kudos to you.
but we never had air drops on this fire until locals hiked to the top of the ridge and started photographing the fire line on the other side of Pleasant view ridge,burning through upper littlerock canyon, unattended, and gave the pics to the fire department.
The only response from the fire department was to threaten the locals with arrest if they ventured to the ridge anymore. the very next day( the 5th day the local crews were sleeping in our driveway) did the air drops begin on the northern fire line.

quoting the la times "But the Forest Service has declined to release detailed information about its response to the suspected arson fire, citing in part an ongoing homicide investigation by the Los Angele's County Sheriff's Department into the deaths of two firefighters whose truck fell off a mountain road. Sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said the department sent a letter Wednesday to fire officials asking that the material be withheld until detectives review it.

Neither Forest Service officials nor Whitmore would explain how the release of information on the deployment of firefighters and equipment might jeopardize the investigation. The firefighters were killed on the blaze's fifth day.

The Times reported this week that the Forest Service considered the fire nearly contained at the end of the first day, and thus prepared to go into mop-up mode the next morning with fewer ground crews and water-dropping helicopters, according to documents and interviews. After the story appeared, fire victims demanded an investigation."
I doubt we will get any real investigation on this.
Its too political.

both littlerock creek and big rock creek are in juniper hills, I do get out, just not from the south side.
to be precise though, big rock creek is actually in Valyermo 1/2 mile from juniper hills.
But from my window, I can see big rock creek and alimony ridge.
both are about 8 to 10 minutes from my driveway.
My point was exactly that.
most of the back country or remote camps are ignored by the forest service.
lupine campground is a shameful example of gross neglect by the forest service as are any on the camp grounds out of reach of the truck cab of the modern forest service personnel.
If the contractors who actually do the work can't reach it by truck, it's a dead campsite.
the forest vehicle permit was supposed to take care of that, but its been blown on mineral leasing and lumber lease roads.

as for no trails, we do have I believe the punch bowl trail, the manzanita trail, the burkhart trail, alimony trail, pleasant view ridge trail, mt wiliamson trail, littlerock dam, the national desert trail, big rock creek trail, and a few others I have forgotten at this time

Quote "as far as seeing no Forest Service "rangers" people out and about, maybe if you get out of Juniper Hills- where there are no developed recreation sites or designated trails, and no reason to spend alot of time around there- you might see a few more people. Confused Try Little Rock or Big Rock. "

canoeman wrote:both littlerock creek and big rock creek are in juniper hills, I do get out, just not from the south side.
to be precise though, big rock creek is actually in Valyermo 1/2 mile from juniper hills.
But from my window, I can see big rock creek and alimony ridge.
both are about 8 to 10 minutes from my driveway.
My point was exactly that.
most of the back country or remote camps are ignored by the forest service.
lupine campground is a shameful example of gross neglect by the forest service as are any on the camp grounds out of reach of the truck cab of the modern forest service personnel.
If the contractors who actually do the work can't reach it by truck, it's a dead campsite.
the forest vehicle permit was supposed to take care of that, but its been blown on mineral leasing and lumber lease roads.

as for no trails, we do have I believe the punch bowl trail, the manzanita trail, the burkhart trail, alimony trail, pleasant view ridge trail, mt wiliamson trail, littlerock dam, the national desert trail, big rock creek trail, and a few others I have forgotten at this time

Quote "as far as seeing no Forest Service "rangers" people out and about, maybe if you get out of Juniper Hills- where there are no developed recreation sites or designated trails, and no reason to spend alot of time around there- you might see a few more people. Confused Try Little Rock or Big Rock. "

Those trails you mentioned are inside the ANF boundary, and have no trailheads for them in Juniper hills itself. That was my point.

While Lupine CG is no Buckhorn, it is maintained on a weekly basis by the USFS. Also, the only campgrounds on the ANF that are under contract thru a concessionaire are Table Mtn, Mtn Oak, Jackson Flat, and Lake CG, all in the Big Pines area. There are 3 group CG on the LA Dist that are co-contracted out, and those are Coulter, Lightning Point, and Bandido.

It's one thing to have an opinion, but if your facts are false, it means nothing.

Like a cork that smells bad....

every trail except big rock creek are entered from juniper hills
burkhart trail is in juniper hills
pleasantview ridge is in juniper hills
littlerock creek is in juniper hills
national desert trail is in juniper hills
alimony trail is in juniper hills
.
YOU NEED TO BUY A MAP, OR LEARN TO READ THE ONE YOU HAVE............

YOU ARE WRONG
i LIVE NOT MORE THEN 5 MINUTES FROM EACH OF THESE TRAILS IN JUNIPER HILLS
SO MIND YOUR OPINIONS AND GET OUT OF YOUR TRUCK MORE OFTEN TO GO TO THE TRAIL HEADS.
I CAN SEE THREE OF THE TRAIL HEADS FROM MY KITCHEN WINDOW, ,,,,,,,,,,,IN JUNIPER HILLS

AND IF YOU CONSIDER THE CONDITION OF LUPINE CAMPGROUND TO BE ANYTHING IN THE SAME UNIVERSE OF THE WORD MAINTAINED, THEN THAT PRETTY MUCH PROVES MY POINT............

Go to the Acting Trails Coordinator at the LA River Ranger District Office (which maintains forest records for all designated forest trail systems) and ask to see the designated trails on the ANF. (Or you can call Howard O. at that office, 818-899-1900 x229) You will see then, that no trails officially start or end in Juniper Hills jurisdiction. Can you hike up to these trails from JH? Probably, but they are not official trails at that point, just game trails used by coyotes and high desert rednecks.

The closest official trailhead accessing the area is the Burkhart/HDNRT Trail which comes out at Devils Punchbowl, or can be accessed though a closed fire road through some private property near Cruthers creek. (Which at that point, is technically Valyermo Jurisdiction until it enters USFS land).

Maybe we should put in a request to close Lupine Campground since apparently the USFS can't maintain it to your specifications. I'm sure they'd be happy to close the gate at Guffy again and not have to drive the 45 min each way to the bottom of the canyon to clean a toilet that less than 5 people use a week (except during hunting season).

...high desert rednecks.

HDR's

All right, knock it off you two. Now I'm sorry I started this.

Anyway, the threads getting hijacked, so let's call it a day and go back to fun TRs.

Take a breath and read the rules from another board
"The San Gorgonio Backcountry Bulletin Board exists as a forum for sharing information (NOT DEBATING ISSUES) between San Gorgonio visitors. Poor water supply at a certain camp? Need trip planning or equipment advice? Discuss it here. Topics should be relevant to the San Gorgonio Wilderness, San Bernardino National Forest, other outdoor adventure areas, and associated information."

I thought these same rules applied to the San Gabriel Blog Site as well

I feel like someone has cloned "Fight On" and he's debating with himself

Maybe you two should get a room or a UFC cage and get it over with

Being "right" about something never proved or changed the outcome (unless in a courtroom), let the other guy think he's got it right and move on.

lilbitmo wrote: Maybe you two should get a room or a UFC cage and get it over with

HELL YES!

It's not about winning an argument, to me. It's about facts vs. ignorance.

That being said, I'm going to go have a can of warm Meister Brau, smoke some reds, and go shoot at some squirrels and Joshua Trees.

I am a member of the juniper hills community association, and personally worked on the final bounderies for the town of juniper hills years ago. that were voted on by voters and accepted by Los angeles County, and has its own town council.
The devils s punchbowl is in juniper hills, lewis ranch is in juniper hills, mike lewis is a personal friend of mine, alimony ridge is in juniper hills, pleasant view ridge is in juniper hills.
just because the forest service doesnt know where the trails start, is of no concern to those of us who actually LIVE IN JUNIPER HILLS at these trail heads.
I feel bad you know so little of the northern part of the san gabriels, but thats ok, we know where the trails are, just call us and we will be glad to show your people where they are.

this explains alot of the screw ups the forest service made in the station fire.
they dont even know where their trails start.

this is why the forest service has the reputation it does.

MtnMan wrote:Go to the Acting Trails Coordinator at the LA River Ranger District Office (which maintains forest records for all designated forest trail systems) and ask to see the designated trails on the ANF. (Or you can call Howard O. at that office, 818-899-1900 x229) You will see then, that no trails officially start or end in Juniper Hills jurisdiction. Can you hike up to these trails from JH? Probably, but they are not official trails at that point, just game trails used by coyotes and high desert rednecks.

The closest official trailhead accessing the area is the Burkhart/HDNRT Trail which comes out at Devils Punchbowl, or can be accessed though a closed fire road through some private property near Cruthers creek. (Which at that point, is technically Valyermo Jurisdiction until it enters USFS land).

Maybe we should put in a request to close Lupine Campground since apparently the USFS can't maintain it to your specifications. I'm sure they'd be happy to close the gate at Guffy again and not have to drive the 45 min each way to the bottom of the canyon to clean a toilet that less than 5 people use a week (except during hunting season).

sorry didnt see the post about the truce
I'm done

canoeman wrote:I am a member of the juniper hills community association, and personally worked on the final bounderies for the town of juniper hills years ago. that were voted on by voters and accepted by Los angeles County, and has its own town council.
The devils s punchbowl is in juniper hills, lewis ranch is in juniper hills, mike lewis is a personal friend of mine, alimony ridge is in juniper hills, pleasant view ridge is in juniper hills.
just because the forest service doesnt know where the trails start, is of no concern to those of us who actually LIVE IN JUNIPER HILLS at these trail heads.
I feel bad you know so little of the northern part of the san gabriels, but thats ok, we know where the trails are, just call us and we will be glad to show your people where they are.

this explains alot of the screw ups the forest service made in the station fire.
they dont even know where their trails start.

this is why the forest service has the reputation it does.

Canoeman,
I just have to say, I work for the other agency which has responsibility for your area, and although we don't do things like ANF, they are still highly respected by their peers. Mistakes were made. They were mistakes in policy. (No night air ops, and not retaining outside agencies early on) Did you lose any homes in Juniper Hills?
You realize some of the protected areas in your area dictate using more conservative tactics in your area? Most if not all units in your area were outside agencies unfamiliar with the area.
Also by the time the fire got to your area it was basically a backing fire (creeping down hill)so most units assigned to Juniper Hills were in structure protection mode.
Thats just the nature of the beast on such a large fire. (no dozers(speckled frog ) They have a big job and wear alot of hats with a tenuous budget.
Just setting the record straight.

I have to admit , I got a little emotional on his thread.
should have been more laid back, just gets frustrating when someone try's to tell me they think they know my actual (literally) back yard, when they live on the other side of the mountains, 50 miles away, quoting office files.
One of my issues is with the way the forest service behaved after getting all the money from the forest passes, it proceeded to close down many camp grounds, and rails or abandon them.
The perception in latter years is the shift from forest keepers, to Armed to the teeth swat cops, who never leave their trucks except to issue tickets.
Now a days, you cant tell a ranger from a Sheriff.
In all the years Ive been hiking the northern SG, Ive never met a ranger on trail, ever.
fire crews yes, rangers no.
I just just dont think the FS should be investigating themselves.

Thank you, for the thoughtful response.

Bill wrote:

canoeman wrote:I am a member of the juniper hills community association, and personally worked on the final bounderies for the town of juniper hills years ago. that were voted on by voters and accepted by Los angeles County, and has its own town council.
The devils s punchbowl is in juniper hills, lewis ranch is in juniper hills, mike lewis is a personal friend of mine, alimony ridge is in juniper hills, pleasant view ridge is in juniper hills.
just because the forest service doesnt know where the trails start, is of no concern to those of us who actually LIVE IN JUNIPER HILLS at these trail heads.
I feel bad you know so little of the northern part of the san gabriels, but thats ok, we know where the trails are, just call us and we will be glad to show your people where they are.

this explains alot of the screw ups the forest service made in the station fire.
they dont even know where their trails start.

this is why the forest service has the reputation it does.

Canoeman,
I just have to say, I work for the other agency which has responsibility for your area, and although we don't do things like ANF, they are still highly respected by their peers. Mistakes were made. They were mistakes in policy. (No night air ops, and not retaining outside agencies early on) Did you lose any homes in Juniper Hills?
You realize some of the protected areas in your area dictate using more conservative tactics in your area? Most if not all units in your area were outside agencies unfamiliar with the area.
Also by the time the fire got to your area it was basically a backing fire (creeping down hill)so most units assigned to Juniper Hills were in structure protection mode.
Thats just the nature of the beast on such a large fire. (no dozers(speckled frog ) They have a big job and wear alot of hats with a tenuous budget.
Just setting the record straight.

"I am a member of the juniper hills community association".

and I'm in the Mickey Mouse Club, but it doesn't make me an expert on Knots Berry Farm.

My point here was that we are the ones who confirmed the official boundary lines of juniper hills, that were accepted by Los Angeles county planning commision, and the Los Angeles County govt. as the actual boundary lines of the town of juniper hills.
so when discussing this point, the boundary lines of juniper hills, being a member of the planning committee gives me a right to speak on this point with purchase.
Of course if you worked for knots berry farm, as I work for juniper hills, you would actually have some kind of valid opinion here except for the ability to make snotty comments about something you actually know nothing about. Through your comments, you have proved you know nothing abou t the boundary lines of juniper hills. period
Of course with the mickey mouse club membership thingy going for you, I think your on the right track........

I'm still curious - and to be honest - a little confused as to why the Morris fire was knocked down so quickly, relatively speaking --- yet the Station fire, only a day so later, went so wrong.

Is it simply unfair to compare the two fires? Was the vegetation and terrain that much different?

They seemed to start up about the same time of day, didn't they...

Just asking

outwhere wrote:I'm still curious - and to be honest - a little confused as to why the Morris fire was knocked down so quickly, relatively speaking --- yet the Station fire, only a day so later, went so wrong.

Is it simply unfair to compare the two fires? Was the vegetation and terrain that much different?

They seemed to start up about the same time of day, didn't they...

Just asking

I can't speak to the vegaetation and terrain, but I think the fact that they were one day apart is very important. Resources were heaped on the Morris fire immediatley, and then when the Station fire started, i think the USFS didn't think much of it and left all/most of their assets on the Morris.

All speculaton on my part.

lilbitmo wrote:I thought these same rules applied to the San Gabriel Blog Site as well

I dunno, we debate stuff all the time here.

The San Gorgonio board is full of weenies. And they do debate things there, usually which of the two weather nerds on that board post the most accurate forecasts.

canoeman wrote:I think the best thing for the ANF is to be absorbed into the national park system.
but this just my humble opinion.

Luckily not even the Park Service shares that opinion and so it will never happen.

Rumpled wrote:

outwhere wrote:I'm still curious - and to be honest - a little confused as to why the Morris fire was knocked down so quickly, relatively speaking --- yet the Station fire, only a day so later, went so wrong.

Is it simply unfair to compare the two fires? Was the vegetation and terrain that much different?

They seemed to start up about the same time of day, didn't they...

Just asking

I can't speak to the vegaetation and terrain, but I think the fact that they were one day apart is very important. Resources were heaped on the Morris fire immediatley, and then when the Station fire started, i think the USFS didn't think much of it and left all/most of their assets on the Morris.

All speculaton on my part.

Sounds about right. Terrain is very similar.

Rumpled wrote:

outwhere wrote:I'm still curious - and to be honest - a little confused as to why the Morris fire was knocked down so quickly, relatively speaking --- yet the Station fire, only a day so later, went so wrong.

Is it simply unfair to compare the two fires? Was the vegetation and terrain that much different?

They seemed to start up about the same time of day, didn't they...

Just asking

I can't speak to the vegaetation and terrain, but I think the fact that they were one day apart is very important. Resources were heaped on the Morris fire immediatley, and then when the Station fire started, i think the USFS didn't think much of it and left all/most of their assets on the Morris.

All speculaton on my part.

Bottom line is no 2 fires are alike. To compare them in this way isn't really fair.

Vegetation/fuels in Station fire start area hadn't burned in several decades, terrain was almost entirely inaccesible by foot, weather was changing to much drier and hotter from 2 days earlier. Many Resources were immediately diverted to Station fire from Morris, but Morris was already in stage 2 Demob, so their weren't as many people on it as 2 days earlier.

However, as I've stated before, I still think air support was the issue, whether enough was ordered or soon enough is the biggest question to the response.

Also, many criticizing the resource allocations to fires really need to read up on the ICS (incident command system), and how it works. Very interesting stuff, and in most cases, very structured and successful. There are tons of links online to get info on it.

MtnMan wrote:

Rumpled wrote:

outwhere wrote:I'm still curious - and to be honest - a little confused as to why the Morris fire was knocked down so quickly, relatively speaking --- yet the Station fire, only a day so later, went so wrong.

Is it simply unfair to compare the two fires? Was the vegetation and terrain that much different?

They seemed to start up about the same time of day, didn't they...

Just asking

I can't speak to the vegaetation and terrain, but I think the fact that they were one day apart is very important. Resources were heaped on the Morris fire immediatley, and then when the Station fire started, i think the USFS didn't think much of it and left all/most of their assets on the Morris.

All speculaton on my part.

Bottom line is no 2 fires are alike. To compare them in this way isn't really fair.

Vegetation/fuels in Station fire start area hadn't burned in several decades, terrain was almost entirely inaccesible by foot, weather was changing to much drier and hotter from 2 days earlier. Many Resources were immediately diverted to Station fire from Morris, but Morris was already in stage 2 Demob, so their weren't as many people on it as 2 days earlier.

However, as I've stated before, I still think air support was the issue, whether enough was ordered or soon enough is the biggest question to the response.

Also, many criticizing the resource allocations to fires really need to read up on the ICS (incident command system), and how it works. Very interesting stuff, and in most cases, very structured and successful. There are tons of links online to get info on it.

Yup. But it is a policy from ANF or the Forest service in general that needs changing. I bet they will decide to allow night air-ops in the future because of this tragedy. The Forest service was the lead agency in a unified command. I don't think LA City or County viewed it as a threat to homes at that point, or they may have been more assertive.
There was another fire that had broken out in Palos Verdes on day 2 which diverted equipement including air assets from the County.
I do think that budget played a role, in that the forest service often cuts other agencies loose to prevent having to pay for those units.
That being said, flying helicopters at night is inherently dangerous, and I'm afraid lives will be lost.

Surprised it took them this long:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... al+News%29

From today's LA Times:

Records show no mention of terrain in withholding aircraft during Station fire

Two officers at the scene called for aircraft to begin dousing the blaze around 7 a.m. on Day 2. At some point one order was canceled, but records give no indication of who did so or why.

Newly released records contradict a finding by the U.S. Forest Service that steep terrain prevented the agency from using aircraft to attack -- and potentially contain -- the Station fire just before it began raging out of control.

Experts on Forest Service tactics also dispute the agency's conclusion that helicopters and tanker planes would have been ineffective because the canyon in the Angeles National Forest was too treacherous for ground crews to take advantage of aerial water dumps.

Two officers who helped direct the fight on the ground and from the sky made separate requests for choppers and tankers during a critical period on the deadly fire's second day, according to records and interviews.

At 12:49 a.m. on Aug. 27, Forest Service dispatch logs show, a division chief made this call for aircraft:

"Fire has spotted below the road, about five acres. Order one helitanker, three airtankers, any type. . . . Have them over the fire by 0700 hours."

But the airtankers were canceled and the helitanker was significantly delayed, according to dispatch logs, deployment reports and interviews. The Times obtained the logs, reports and volumes of other documents through the federal Freedom of Information Act.

Records of the Day 2 battle do not cite the sheerness of the canyon above La Cañada Flintridge as a reason for withholding the aircraft, which firefighters who were at the scene say might have stopped the blaze from erupting into the disaster that it became. The fire was the largest in Los Angeles County history, killing two firefighters, destroying about 90 dwellings and charring 250 square miles in one of America's most-visited national forests.

Last month, a Forest Service review endorsed the decision to not send the helicopter and planes but failed to mention the officers' independent calls, made more than six hours apart, for a heavy air assault.

"It just irks me to see . . . that they're blaming the terrain for why no action was taken," said Don Feser, a former fire chief for the forest who retired in 2007. "They're just making excuses."

"I've covered a lot of that ground, and there is only a small percentage of land that is too steep to put firefighters on," said Feser, who worked in the Angeles National Forest for 26 years, the last seven as fire chief. "And if we can't put firefighters on it, guess what we do? We use aircraft."

An officer who took part in the Day 2 operation said the absence of ground crews in the canyon did not keep commanders from using aircraft to bombard the area later in the fight. "We ran helicopters down there all day," he said.

Choppers and tankers just after sunup, he said, could have slowed the flames' march through the canyon, doused the surrounding ridges and given ground crews a much better chance of knocking the blaze down along Angeles Crest Highway, a crucial defense line.

"You could have made a stand," said the officer, who requested anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.

The Forest Service says aerial drops at first light or soon after on Day 2 would have accomplished nothing. The agency also dismisses suggestions by some critics that its strategy was influenced by a memo issued three weeks before the fire that instructed forest supervisors to rein in costs.

In a statement, the Forest Service pointed to three dispatch entries that note the rugged terrain. But the entries don't mention aircraft, and two of them were made minutes before a Forest Service division chief on the ground ordered the helicopter and tankers.

Tom Harbour, the agency's director of Fire and Aviation Management, said in the statement that the tankers were "ordered prudently as a contingency, based on where the entire fire was and might be." He said the tankers "could never have gotten close enough to the spot fire under the Angeles Crest Highway which ultimately caused the problems."

But Feser and an officer who engaged the blaze that morning said planes could have dumped on the flames in the upper portion of the canyon as the fire climbed toward the ridge above the road.

Harbour and other officials did not respond to questions about who canceled the order for tankers and when, and they were not available for interviews after the statement was issued late Friday.

The Station fire broke out in midafternoon on Aug. 26 near the Angeles Crest Ranger Station, for which it was named. Hours of water dumps by Los Angeles County Fire Department helicopters helped the Forest Service limit the flames that day to 15 acres, according to records and interviews.

After the county aircraft were sent home, the fire began to grow overnight as embers caught low downward winds and drifted across Angeles Crest Highway, igniting straw-dry brush in the dark canyon below.

Deployment records referring to the orders for the air tankers and helitanker show the 7 a.m. arrival times highlighted as "special needs" -- but note that the planes were canceled at an unspecified point. The dispatch logs include no directive to cancel or delay the aircraft. Rather, they narrate an effort to secure other choppers from the Los Angeles County and city fire departments.

The Times asked for audio copies of more detailed radio transmissions, but the Forest Service has not provided them. The dispatch logs are meant to contain the most significant transmissions, agency officials say.

Commanders may also issue orders by cellphone or radio communications not captured in the logs, the officials say, although key decisions and tactical obstacles typically are reflected in daily summaries of a firefight. None of the summaries reviewed by The Times say that aerial dumps were ruled out because of the terrain.

At 7 a.m., despite the overnight order for large water-dropping aircraft, only a spotter plane from the state Department of Forestry and Fire Protection was over the flames, say people familiar with the operation. The spotter crew was tasked with directing the air attack, and its captain immediately radioed for choppers and tankers but was told they would not be available in force for two hours or more, according to these sources, who asked to remain unidentified because they do not have permission to discuss the operation.

The first helitanker reached the blaze about 8 a.m., the sources say. By then, the flames had jumped the highway and were racing into the forest, outrunning ground crews. Deployment records show that the Forest Service then began ordering more aircraft.

In September, Angeles Fire Chief David Conklin and the county fire department's No. 2 executive, Chief Deputy John Tripp, told The Times that they believed the Forest Service had deployed enough aircraft to combat the blaze on Day 2. Conklin also said that, as the flames spread up and down the steep canyon, "You just couldn't put people down-slope to fight that fire."

But Conklin and Tripp did not say that the terrain had dissuaded commanders from ordering water dumps. And neither said that the sharpness of the canyon was a factor in the decision not to bring in more aircraft earlier in the morning, if only to begin unloading on the fire as soon as it scaled the highway.

"Was there a need for more helicopters? I don't know," Conklin said in September. "I wish we would have had more there that morning."

The Forest Service review followed a Times report that the agency had misjudged the threat posed by the fire and scaled back its Day 2 response. The review was based on interviews with several Forest Service officers. Tripp sat on the panel that oversaw the inquiry, but also played a lead role in a subsequent county review that questioned the Forest Service's aggressiveness. The county review urged the Forest Service to allow night missions by aircraft, which the federal agency has generally prohibited because of safety concerns. County choppers routinely fight fires after dark.

The county review said that daytime water dumps should begin at first light, and that its own commanders "should have been more assertive" and sent copters to the Station fire earlier on Day 2.

Feser, the former Angeles chief, said the fire might have been tamed even without night missions if the Forest Service had used time-honored tactics, starting with a fierce air assault on the difficult terrain.

"You win some and you lose some," he said, "but at least you can say at the end of the day: 'We gave it our best shot.' "

paul.pringle@latimes.com
Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times