Catalina Island Fire - Indiana Tower Climber arrested

[ChiefEngineer]

I was reading "the Princeton Indiana Clarion online" and saw that an Oakland City Indiana man was arrested for starting the Catalina Island fire last May.

I had read last year it was an accident resulting from a welding project gone bad - an accident. Possibly radio world but can't find the link now.

The newspaper noted the man worked for a "tower company" and given nationwide tower, ERI, and others very near to Oakland City...was surprised to see no mention of the employer. Man indicated the insurance company was working it out and he didn't expect to find cops on his doorstep.

Any info on this? Newspapers near the island report "One death" and this is shocking except that it was a bison and not human. 42 million dollar fire apparently. I recall this was an EMF site and they have an on site engineer who lives at the site and was overseeing the project who was also injured.

WHY does an accident result in arrest for criminal charges?

 

[mr_elbows]

as I recall, they were cutting off an old guy anchor in the brush and grass and had NO water, fire extinguisher, NOTHING to put out a fire

 

[ChiefEngineer]

This is typical of any tower work. I don't see the problem from a common sense aspect.

A welding torch won't cause spontaneous combustion. It is far from an open fire. Not a smoker but did they have a ban on smoking which is more likely to cause a fire than use of a welding torch?

If there is a drought order open burning is prohibited but not normal use of materials which don't normally cause fires. Do you have water and fire extinguisher handy when you farm a field? No. Not reasonable. Driving a tractor with a combustion engine over a field could lead to a fire and is more likely than this accident. And farmers don't carry water or fire extinguishers.

The fact that the station had an on site supervising engineer who was in charge of the subcontractor makes the arrest even more stupid for lack of a better explanation.

If the station was ultimately responsible for their employees and the sub was an employee then why not yank their chain? The station had a supervisor on site. Why was the supervisor not charged for not calling in a timely manner. This is a very inconsistent scenario that has played out as it relates to responsibility in the workplace.

The brush aspect is interesting. Does this mean the station owner (any would be normally noted as having heavy brush around the guy anchors arrgh) would know that the work they ordered and lack of maintenance would lead to a large fire?

I have a 10,000 gallon fuel storage tank. Would you weld this seam please?

If we had the fire department any time we did tower work we would all be out of business. I did note that there is no fire department on Catalina island which might be the problem. The marines brought fire equipment from the mainland on hovercraft to fight the fire.

Apparently the station owner was CSN International.

What none of the articles or stories have related is the alleged lack of responsibility that caused the arrest. Since the guy had an on site supervisor this is the key factor that makes me question the arrest. Simply saying he was charged with starting a wildfire is a lack of simple journalistic responsibility as it does not answer why?

 

[mr_elbows]

"A welding torch won't cause spontaneous combustion"

you are joking, I hope

a CUTTING torch in dry brush or grass is a disaster waiting to happen

especially if the wind is blowing

common sense would dictate that there be at least a five-gallon bucket of water, or a fire extinguisher, handy with a second person to watch for flare-ups

perhaps they arrested him for being a dumbsh*t

 

[radionekkid]

Considering the area involved, wind conditions and reaction time, a single fire extinguisher or garden hose are simply symbols of intent and more than likely would have not been effective.

We live in a time when mistakes or inadvertent accidents with usual civil consequences are raised to the level of criminal prosecution. Troubling indeed.

 

[nmoore6676]

Considering the area involved, wind conditions and reaction time, a single fire extinguisher or garden hose are simply symbols of intent and more than likely would have not been effective.

We live in a time when mistakes or inadvertent accidents with usual civil consequences are raised to the level of criminal prosecution. Troubling indeed.

Would you feel the same way about the drunk driver who blows a stop sign or red light and kills your wife, mother, or child? In my mind an accident is an event that happens despite taking reasonable precautions or just occurs inexplicably like a lightning strike or say a meteor. In this case they were in an area undergoing a drought, surrounded by brush, and cutting metal with a chop saw which emits lots of sparks and they had no fire prevention equipment, not even a fire extinguisher or hose.

Criminal action I would say if I were on the jury.

 

[Hunter]

WHY does an accident result in arrest for criminal charges?

A news report I heard said that their are local laws on the island prohibiting open flame devices....or something to that effect that would suggest the tool he was using was not legal....perhaps without a permit.

 

[ChiefEngineer]

This isn't mean to be argumentative but an honest discussion about what was described initially as a non criminal accident. We aren't looking at a drunken driver.

The difference here is : The climber was being supervised by the station staff. If there was an order prohibiting any use of the torch the station (supervising) should be the responsible party additionally.

The no flame order. This is some meat as opposed to supposition. If there was an order prohibiting any open flame. Normally no burn orders don't prohibit cutting torches, but, are only prohibiting an "open burn" like a campfire, fireworks, etc. we have had this type of thing in the midwest but never has this applied to a cutting torch.

Who was the tower company?.

 

[nmoore6676]

This isn't mean to be argumentative but an honest discussion about what was described initially as a non criminal accident. We aren't looking at a drunken driver.

The difference here is : The climber was being supervised by the station staff. If there was an order prohibiting any use of the torch the station (supervising) should be the responsible party additionally.

The no flame order. This is some meat as opposed to supposition. If there was an order prohibiting any open flame. Normally no burn orders don't prohibit cutting torches, but, are only prohibiting an "open burn" like a campfire, fireworks, etc. we have had this type of thing in the midwest but never has this applied to a cutting torch.

Who was the tower company?.

I think he is the contractor, but the issue is that here in California they take wild fires seriously or perhaps you didn't hear the news reports a couple months back. However they did let the kid off who "accidentally" started the Agua Dulce fire playing with matches. The District Attorney does generally have a no holds barred approach because of the tremendous danger when we are in drought conditions. They were even looking at possibly holding the power companies at least civilly liable for sparking lines.

I heard that it was a chop saw, and they are now saying a welder's torch. That type of saw throws a lot of sparks and a torch is a live flame so either way there should have been fire suppression equipment more than a garden hose or fire extinguishers which there were not.

The work was being done to replace guy wires and my understanding is that it was being done on the ground not in the air on the tower. I am sure they have looked at the case before filing charges as i said they let the unidentified minor off because he may have had a learning disorder.