Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Tujunga Incident-LA Co/ANF

Expand Messages
  • newnethboy
    LA County Fire Station 74 s area and Angeles NF, the Tujunga Incident: Comm plan at 13:58: Admin Blue 12 Comd Blue 2 Tacs 18, 20 Air-to-Ground Tac 19
    Message 1 of 32 , Jul 5, 2009
      LA County Fire Station 74's area and Angeles NF, the Tujunga Incident:

      Comm plan at 13:58:
      Admin Blue 12
      Comd Blue 2
      Tacs 18, 20
      Air-to-Ground Tac 19
    • Harry Marnell
      Those 2009 messages all seem to have been sent out at the time, as I have them in my own email store and they re in the SoCalFire archives back as of that
      Message 32 of 32 , Nov 5, 2013
        Those 2009 messages all seem to have been sent out at the time, as I
        have them in my own email store and they're in the SoCalFire archives
        back as of that date, around message #26574
        http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SoCalFire/conversations/messages/26574

        We're now at msg 29071 (if you can get to it in the Neo Yahoogroups)

        It has risen again.

        Harry

        On 11/5/2013 15:24, newnethboy wrote:
        > Steve's post appears to be from 7 July 2009. (!!!!!!!!!) And it's in reply
        > to a message posted 7 July 2009, which in turn was a reply to a message
        > posted 5 July 2009.
        >
        > Apparently "Yahell" finally found Steve's message "in the bottom of an old
        > mail sack".
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Michael Meadows" <mike425@...>
        > To: <SoCalFire@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Tuesday, November 05, 2013 3:14 PM
        > Subject: Re: [SoCalFire] Re: Tujunga Incident-LA Co/ANF
        >
        >
        > 911 though, was on contract.........
        > On Nov 5, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Geoff Pemberton wrote:
        >
        >>
        >> I believe that 910 is current off contract. That may be the reason for the
        > denial. I am sure the none contract cost is very high.
        >>
        >> Geoff Pemberton
        >> From my IPhone.
        >>
        >>
        >> On Nov 5, 2013, at 14:05, "Steve Carver" <steve.carver@...> wrote:
        >>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> -----Original Message-----
        >>> From: SoCalFire@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SoCalFire@yahoogroups.com] On
        > Behalf
        >>> Of DaveSFV@...
        >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 07, 2009 4:29 PM
        >>> To: SoCalFire@yahoogroups.com
        >>> Subject: Re: [SoCalFire] Re: Tujunga Incident-LA Co/ANF
        >>>
        >>> Yes, someone higher up told the IC of the Tujunga fire that they could
        > not
        >>> have the 910. They could order another air tanker but not the 910. It was
        >>> interesting as this all played out on the net frequency. Angeles kept
        >>> telling the IC to call supervisor so and so on his cell phone. The IC had
        >>> bad cell phone service and could not get the supervisor. The supervisor
        >>> came up on the net frequency and in no uncertain terms told the IC, no
        > 910.
        >>> It did seem silly as at the time as the fire was 30 acres with minor
        > threat
        >>> to some homes.
        >>>
        >>> I don't know what the 910 costs per hour to fly, anyone? And is the FS
        >>> paying a fee to have the 910 standby whether it flies or not.
        >>>
        >>> Dave
        >>> N6KFS
        >>> ========Original Message========
        >>> Subj:
        >>> Date: 7/7/2009 11:25:18 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time
        >>> From: dr952@... <mailto:dr952@...>
        >>> To: SoCalFire@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SoCalFire@yahoogroups.com>
        >>> Sent on:
        >>>
        >>> So FS nixed the use of 910. Should be interesting to learn if CDF will
        > nix
        >>> use of Mars w/there {CDF} air armada. Some things never change. Neva
        > gonna
        >>> when suits makeing the decisions.
        >>>
        >>> DMac
        >>>
        >>> --- In SoCalFire@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SoCalFire%40yahoogroups.com> ,
        >>> DaveSFV@... wrote:
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> Yes, bad fingers, 173.375, and tac one is 168.050. Air tankers working
        >>>> on 169.200. The request for tanker 910 (DC-10) has been nixed by
        >>>> someone higher up in the ANF.
        >>>>
        >>>> Dave
        >>>> N6KFS
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> ========Original Message======== Subj: Date: 7/5/2009 3:17:03 P.M.
        >>>> Pacific Daylight Time From: _ke6zgp@..._ (mailto:ke6zgp@...)
        >>>> To: _SoCalFire@yahoogroups.com <mailto:_SoCalFire%40yahoogroups.com> _
        >>> (mailto:SoCalFire@yahoogroups.com <mailto:SoCalFire%40yahoogroups.com> )
        >>> Sent on:
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> That would be 172.375
        >>>>
        >>>> Mark Bonney wrote:
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>> ANF Forest Net?
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.