Yarnell Hill Fire Report & Twitter Analysis of Public Opinion

>>> Next on "Arizona Horizon," a local wildfire expert talks about the recently released Yarnell Hill fire report. We'll find out how researchers are using Twitter to analyze public opinion. Those stories next on "Arizona Horizon." >> Good evening and welcome to "Arizona Horizon," I'm Ted Simons. Grand Canyon National Park is closed to visitors today due to the federal government shutdown. And Governor Jan Brewer says that no state funds will be used to keep the park open, even if the money is eventually reimbursed by feds, a tactic used by Governor Symington during the last government shutdown in 1995. Services provided by the Department of Economic Security, the Arizona Department of Transportation, and the Department of Health Services could be impacted by the current shutdown. >>> We will have more on how the shutdown will impact the state tomorrow, right here on "Arizona Horizon." >>> Well, the Arizona State Forestry Division recently released a much anticipated report on the Yarnell Hill fire which killed 19 members of a hotshot firefighting team. Wildfire expert Jim Paxon, currently of the state game and fish department, joins us now to discuss the report. Thanks so much for being here. >> Thank you for having me, Ted. >> In the document here, your thoughts on the report, what did you learn? >> I thought it was very even-tempered, written from the perspective of a firefighter. That's pretty unique, it'll go a long way in the future to help firefighters ask questions. I think that's beneficial for the entire firefighting community. >> Was it too even-tempered? >> No, I don't think so. They did refuse to point fingers. They refused to engage in what they call hindsight bias, which to me is armchair quarterbacking. It's really easy to determine fault from your easy chair. >> Can you though, from the easy chair, with hindsight, look at things maybe more caustically than the report? There's been some criticism of the report that there is no blame here, no answers, just a lot of questions. How do you respond to that? >> I think they drew some conclusions. >> What they refused to do is to point a finger of blame where it could not be assessed with facts and with the experience of the Yarnell Hill fire. What they did try to do was go back and reconstruct what that crew did in their last moments and leading -- leaving the black all the way down to where they were entrapped. >> Leaving that safe area on the ridge and going into a bowl with up to 10-foot-high fuel. Why? Why did they do this? >> They looked at that. We've seldom seen fire move like that fire did, even with the weather event. I think the conclusion was drawn were the crew thought they had an hour to go a little over a mile. That's doable. In reality, they had less than 20 minutes. Because of the speed of that fire as that weather event came over, and they dropped into that bowl, they lost sight of the fire. And then it came around the bend and it was burning so fast they just couldn't get out of the way. >> There was a two-track road on that ridge, and it's suggested in the report, if they had stayed on that two-track road they would have made to it a ranch, sounds like it's a fortress up there, very well protected. You're saying they probably didn't want that, they wanted to engage. >> If they had stayed on that road they would have dropped over the ridge away from the fire to highway 89. But the report concludes that they were trying to go to Yarnell to help out because that's where fire was going to put lives and property at risk. So they dropped down through that bowl, kind of a short-cut to try to get there to assist in the firefighting operations. >>> Let's talk about radio challenges, the documents mention this and chronicle 30 minutes without contact. What happened there? >> That's one of the questions we'll never know. It really troubles firefighters, that silence. Understand, too, there's the chaos of fire moving towards people's valley, evacuations there. Fire is moving towards Yarnell and people are evacuating there. They are trying to reposition resources, get folks in place, do what they can safely, get the residents out of the way, a lot of chaos. The crew was the only crew on the mountain when all this was happening. >> Should they have been the only crew on the mountain? >> Well, you know, they had an option to stay in the black, and watch the fire go by. Grandstand in the bleachers and watch the fireworks. And the conclusion was they chose to go be part of the trying to help Yarnell out. Should they have moved off the mountain earlier? You know, they had the weather alerts, they realized what was happening, they were in communication that they were moving. It just was not understood that they were moving away from the black and going down through that unburned area. >> It sounds like from the report management thought the crew was still in the safe area. >> They did. >> And the crew obviously was not. That's where the silence and the radio problems exist. There is some sort of -- will some sort of change in protocol be looked at, where if you're not hearing anything, if you don't hear anything stay put, and if you're management, find out why you're not hearing anything. >> They will look at communications channels and the outputs and devices, whether they be GPS or some way to track those folks that's going to be examined closely. That's really a national question. But the communications, we have worked on firefighters for years and years, and I started this game back in 1969. Not everybody had radios then. And yet, we went from a 10-code like the police use, to clear text. Now we need to make sure that we understand both sides, what's being communicated. And there probably were some acceptances that messages were sent that weren't meant, or received and not understood. That's problematic and this report identifies that. >> You mention problematic: So the document does not, though, seem to show any indication of negligence. >> No. You know, the incident command, the management and crew all operated within the programs that are appropriate in the national wildfire coordination. All of our fireline handbooks, incident management practices, they looked at that very closely. >> No reckless actions according to the document. >> Yes, I'm buying that. >> How come? >> There was some accusations put out in the public that the crew wasn't qualified and they shouldn't have been there. Totally false. This team looked at their training, qualifications, crew structure, the number of type 1 and type 2 firefighters, they met all the standards. They were current on their training. They had the required days off, they were vindicated that this crew should have been on that fire. >> So this crew was trained enough to be a type 1 team as opposed to a type 2? >> Absolutely. They were -- they had been on fires, I think on 28 fires in the last two years. This was an excellent crew. They had been on several fires this season. They had been on the docy fire that burned up through Prescott just two weeks before. They were on the Thompson Ridge fire in New Mexico and received excellent commendations for their firefighting. >> Were they due for a rest because of those fires? Were they overworked or exhausted? >> No, these were the best fit, most energetic young people. The youngest was 21, the oldest was 43, Eric Marsh, the crew superintendent. These were tough guys, cross-country skiers and mountain bikers. They are the best of the best. They were day 13 of duty, but they had two days off of fires before. They could have gone two more days before they had to take days off according to our standards. But that's still a guideline. They were within the work risk guidelines. >> And they were fit to go on this fire. >> There were also concerns, and I heard this from people in that general area up there, that the fire started Friday. And that there was little if any action until things got out of hand. The bottom line for them is it should never have reached this point. Valid? >> I disagree. You know, on Friday they had five lightning starts, this was one of them, the Yarnell Hill fire. They had clouds overhead. You don't put people on top of a granite *** with lightning up there, and hike them up in the dark through really rough country, and dense chaparral. You wait until daylight the next day, which they did. This fire kind of skunked around. It didn't really do much for a day and a half. Then the evening of 29th it started to burn. As it did, they increased resources. They got a type 2 incident management organization. They called two hotshot crews, order air tankers and helicopters. They did appropriate things for incident management. The whole thing that happened on this fire was that outflow from a thunderstorm that blew this fire up. It was an anomalous event. >> That being said, critics, a variety of critics look at this report and say 19 people died. Someone must have done something wrong. Yet the report does not seem to show that. >> I think the report highlights that anomalous event and there are some indications that the proper attention wasn't paid to by the crews in the chaos, perhaps tracking the crew was lost that 30 minutes that really troubles a lot of firefighters. There was silence as that crew was moving. I think things will be done differently. But the folks out there -- and I know most of them -- were doing the dead level best they could with the situation they were dealt. They were doing things that they had experience, that they had training, and that they were trying to do the best for the fire on the ground. >> If they are doing their best and this is the result, does that best change by way of training and by way of guidelines? After the Dude fire, I remember after that, a lot of wildfire training and protocols seemed to change, from a distance it seemed like a lot of things happened because of that fire. Many more people died on this one. Will we see those kinds of changes? >> One of the recommendations was they could have a a staff ride. Go to the battlefield and see why we either won or lost. We need to do that. And look at the characteristics, the fuels, the rate of spread, the winds, weather, everything. Look at the tactics, learn from it. One of the things that's really neat about this report is they asked questions for the firefighter. What is safe black? How valid is a weather forecast for how long? When do you make the decision that you shouldn't go through green to reach a safety zone? Every firefighter that has experience has run from a fire to get to a safety zone. These kids couldn't run because the fire came around the corner and was in front of them and cut them off. >> I would imagine another area to look at is getting those firefighters to understand that -- it sounds like that area, having not been up there, was really a bowl. It would be very difficult to escape something like that. >> Is there a way, by way of communication, maybe they get GPS devices, I don't know. There has to be a way I would think for future firefighters to not go into such dangerous areas without realizing what's happening around them. >> I think in the future we'll see more questions asked, particularly about going through unburned fuels, the green we call it, to reach a safe area. There will be more questions asked by management, where are you going, what are you doing, why are you doing that, how can we help you. Another disconnect was that air-tac was in the sky, and when air-tac ran out of time, the supervisory module ran out of time, they were doing two things at once. I believe there will be appropriate air resources for this situation in the next fire. >>> Does the report reduce the likelihood of something like this happening again? >> The report emphasizes that firefighting is an inherently risky profession. It does not accept risk that results in fatalities. It does accept that we have to make decisions and we need more information, more criteria, more making sure that those decisions minimize and mitigate risk. That's where the question part of this second part of the report tells firefighters to ask those questions. Don't depend on what somebody else tells you. You ask those questions and make sure what you're doing is safe and will still enable you to fight the fire. >> We have another investigation due by way of the state, correct? >> That's right. The Arizona Department of Occupational Safety and Health is going to have an investigation. They will look at more of the legal parameters and perhaps some of the training and the things that go more to law, and that's expected to be out before the first of the year. >> We may see another vantage point of the incident by way of that report. >> I think we will. >> Critics of the report were saying, oh, I knew it would be like this, no one will show blame or cause because they are afraid to or everyone's doing the CYA business. People are desperate for answers and yet the report raises more questions than provides answers. >> Many of the answers to those questions died with those 19 brave young men. I don't know that we would in any way be able to answer those questions. But I like this report because it brings to the very forefront of a firefighter's acumen, don't -- don't not answer these questions. We need to take looks, long and hard, before we leave safe black and go across green to reach a safe zone. If it means reengaging, is it worth the risk for us to go there to reengage. This is a good report. It was written by firefighters for firefighters. >> And it's a better report if some of those questions are eventually answered. >> Yes. >> Tim, it's been a pleasure, good to have you here. >> Thank you, Ted. >> Thank you for helping us try to figure out a complicated and emotional issue. >> Thank you. >> You bet. >>> In the far southwestern corner of the state, where interstate 8 enters Arizona from California, is a monument to a time-worn spot where countless before us have crossed the mighty Colorado. Native tribes once lived here. Europeans arrived in 1544 when Spanish soldiers took rowboats north along the River of Good Guidance. In 1700, Jesuit missionary Father Kenough spread Christianity and made maps after a harrowing journey from Sonora to the aptly named Devil's Highway. While steamboats as long as 140 feet plied the Colorado, hauling gold up the river to California. It's hard for today's speedy traveler to catch a glimpse of the Colorado River and the place where so many came to cross it. Yuma Crossing. >>> Get the inside scoop on what's happening at Arizona PBS. Become an Eight Insider. You'll receive weekly updates on the most anticipated upcoming programs and events. Get the Eight Insider delivered to your email inbox. Sign up today. >>> USA computer science doctoral students are working on research to use data from Twitter to gauge and analyze public opinion. ASU computer informatics professor Subah Rau Kamhampahti is here to talk about it. >> Welcome. >> Thank you. >> Talk to us about using Twitter to analyze public opinion. >> I was thinking of a time when people tried to figure out what an event -- how is an event actually received by just looking at the town square and what the people in the town square say. Twitter has become the modern day town square. We were watching the fact that oftentimes, let's say there was presidential debate going on last year, they would look at what people were saying about various, for example, the Big Bird thing became a big issue, for example. >> Sure. >> One of the questions, there are obviously journalists and some of the time is going to be invested into actually counting which parts of the event are being talked about, which of the tweets, and whether they are positive or negative, rather than going to the higher level. We thought we can use the computer science techniques to support this actual alignment in sentiment analysis. We can do a more direct analysis with public opinion. >> How do you do a higher level of analysis, get these twitter feeds segmented and fragmented. How are the metrics? >> So the way the twitter has hosts, you can get copies of tweets in real time. We get a fraction of it, a sample of it. And many of these -- the public event in particular, you know that there is a prespecified tag to which people are tweeting. What you don't know is which part of the event are they talking about. For example, something as simple as the shutdown, it's a single-point issue. Something more complicated like an entire debate, something like a speech by Obama, this could have multiple different things going, and you want to be able to see which pieces are being talked about by which of the tweets. >> How do you define what's being said? Twitter has a language all it's own. You have to figure out and align fragmented words, slang words, words that aren't even words. >> The thing I'd like to say is the following. If you look at the metaphor of the search engines, when you're looking for something on Google, how could the search engine know the specific query I'm looking for. >> And what's interesting is the sweet spot where the search engine gets you close to something that you're looking for, and actually doing an analysis of English. In twitter they only want 44 words and there is lots of slang and so on. What's interesting is because there are so many of them and essentially looking at -- it's a public event with a large number of people tweeting, everyone. If you don't get the exact nuance correctly, you will get the sentiment expressed by a large number of people. >> Indeed, a large number of people. But are you getting public opinion in general or public opinion on the twitter-verse? You have to figure out, who are these people tweeting. >> I am a computer science professor, I'm not a journalist. What we are not doing here is getting an exact carefully selected sample of people. The work you are doing is not going to redo the studies of focus groups, Gallup Polls and so on. They express opinions whether you want it or not. In the "New York Times," many of the events that happen, people lead by saying what was the twitter universe saying. It was like a beauty pageant and somebody from Indian origin won. A few people did get onto the twitter. The media did report it. Our real thing is that you can support analyzing the -- some selected people who watched. We are not talking about statistical results, but if you are pointing to Twitter to find out how it was received, we will support from it a technical point of view. >> Computational science in general, how far can it go to understand human behavior, human thought, human action? >> That's one of the most fascinating things that's going on right now in the context of twitter. People wanted you to express their opinions. But since there are so many expressing opinions at the same time, twitter has had to become a footprint of the human behaviors. It was started some time back, we would know different people in different countries sleep at different times. Well, this is the times when people are sleeping and these are the times when they are waking up, aso on you did get a good understanding of the footprint of the collective human behavior, not a single person's behavior. I may not know what you are trying to say by your tweet, but some part of the audience actually tweet being this event, I can get a general idea,. >> So very quickly, response so far to the research. >> So one of the interesting things is that we started by looking at -- so there are two different aspects from a technical point of view. One is that the tweets are going on and you need to connect to which part of the event they are talking about. There is the alignment work and this sensitivity alert. Presenting to the community, this is like a good beginning, I guess. >> Good beginning, good information, good to have you here. Thank you so much for joining us. >> Thank you. >> I'm Ted Simons, thank you so much for joining us, you have a great evening. Captioning Performed By LNS Captioning www.LNScaptioning.com