We'll be there now and he'll be home tomorrow, so we'll be continuing. There is a meeting in Montreal, the 15th. It begins on the whole matter of international air regulations. And we'll see what comes out of that. Now, I have to ask a question to about Levin. The backup of the Marines. You're going to keep them in there? You're going to pull them out? What are you going to do without a range over there in Levin? Well, the function that they were set in there for, along with a whole lot of national force, that was one that anticipating that we would then be able to remove the foreign forces that did with Israel but not with Syria, that then to enable Levinon, the government of Levinon to put together its own military over its own territory, that the multinational force would be there, you might say, behind their forces to help create stability while they're able to take over. I don't know that any of us anticipated what we're seeing now or to this degree. So there are still air that's mentioned. One thing is we have, and this is true of all the multinational forces, we have assured them that we're going to protect our people. I heard on the television this morning that there had been some naval bombardment of gun positions. This morning the French were doing something in response to their reconnaissance yesterday, but we had short batteries with the Marines and one ship and we, I don't know what it's taking place since then, but they silenced the guns. This is going to be a continuing policy to take out the artillery weapons. We're not going to put anybody over there and not let them defend themselves. In the meantime, we're doing our best to convince Syria and getting their Arab friends to also do their best to influence them, to get them to... Are you making any progress though toward getting the Syrians out of it? I'll know more when we hear from McFarland who has just been in Damascus and I think I was trying to get out of there yesterday. I was trying to remember how long it's been, but I think it's been about a year since you set this whole peace project to motion on that. Has it been that long? Well, let's see. It was a year ago that I announced the whole peace plan. Now, when the Marines must be pretty much, we could say safely, a year. It couldn't have been too long afterward that they went in. You're disappointed that nothing more is happening? Well, I think all of us were optimistic that it would have happened sooner. And there's been foot-dragging in a number of places, including the Lebanese government itself, trying to broaden the base of the government, because they do have the problem that their own laws deal with, with regard to the mix of the Maronite Christians, the various Muslim sects. That's SECTS, I understand. Can you look ahead, six months in Lebanon? What would you say? Syrians still there, the country potentially? I'd be afraid to try. A lot of tough things for you to play. Yes. Okay, now, let me come home. I did a call on the other day on this gender gap business. Talk to me about this gender gap. Is it growing? Does it exist? Is it getting worse? Better? What are you supposed to do about it? Well, we're going to, I think what we really need to do is not so much an improvement over what we have been doing, except that nobody knows what we have been doing. What we need is for more understanding. Now, and this wasn't the last minute thing, as so many have implied for political reasons, we had been very successful in California in reviewing state statutes and getting laws changed where there was actually built-in discrimination in the law. For example, we found we had a law that said that a wife with her own money couldn't invest that money without her husband's permission. Now, you've got to repeal it. Yes, we changed those. Now, when we came here, the first thing I did was ask the 50 states, someone here to ask the 50 states to set up some of the states to bring about the same thing we did in California. All responses? Yes, not a very thorough response. All 50 of them appointed a representative to do this. Now, in a number of the states, well, it's like you could imagine it would be. It's been faster than some than others. Some of them have been rather successful. Some of them are pretty slow at it. We're continuing to press on this. We can't order them after all. They are sovereign states. But then here in Washington, we set out with this plan of having the Justice Department do it with regard to federal laws. And this was a laborious process to go through all the laws and everything. We've had three reports back from the Justice Department. Now, I'm familiar with the first quarterly report. The second one was a very small one, as I understand it. And I have not yet seen the third quarterly report. Well, the third quarterly report is the one that contains the information that I think I'm correct in this if I'm off one or two. It isn't any more than that. The 27 laws have already been corrected. 60 more will be corrected when Bob Dole's legislation passes because we have sent up the findings on 60 more. We're having a cabinet meeting as soon as this is over, two o'clock on the subject of the balance of about one other 65 or more laws to make the decisions on those, because now some of those we probably won't want to correct because they're laws that actually provide advantages for women that are not provided for men and that we think are justified. Now, some of the women's leaders don't want these advantages. I know, but I think you have to recognize in some instances, such as labor laws that women and men are different. Well, our physical strength. Most states have laws about how much weight you can lift. Now, I'm going to be sure I have my count straight. 27 federal acts already have been corrected. 60 more will be corrected under Bob Dole's bill. Then you have another 60 or so that you have not done. Since they're continuing, of course, to look, but under this bunch, we're discussing these this afternoon. In a cabinet meeting with the Justice Department in charge and presenting the presentation. Now, on top of that, there are the other things that I know are well known, but we at this point are ahead of the previous administration in the employment of women. We have, for the first time in history, three women at one time in our cabinet, and of course we all know that it's the only time there has ever been a woman on the Supreme Court. But more than that, we have appointed 1,200 women in executive and policymaking positions. And I think that this compares favorably or better than any previous administrations, and we're continuing on. Well then, why do you experience this hostility from these leaders of the women's groups? Well, for one, because they don't know these things, or they're not paying any attention to it. And I think basically it's because I don't happen to believe that the ERA is as good an answer as what we're doing. Now, it sounds very simple and easy, a constitutional amendment. What did I say, ERA? Well, equal rights and money. Yes, I want to make sure I got that right. As I have viewed it, and I am not a lawyer myself, but I sought legal advice back when I was a governor and was going to be faced with it there in California. This will put in the hands of the courts what I think can be handled in legislation. And it doesn't simply guarantee everyone. What it does guarantee is that if someone thinks they're being discriminated against, they'll have to go to court to get a settlement. Well, I think changing the laws makes a lot more sense where it's just specific and right there in the law. But I think that this is part of it. You haven't been able to persuade some of these more militant women though to all that point of view? No. But also, Jack, the other thing is I don't have anything to do with whether a constitutional amendment is passed or not. They were trying to do it and said they haven't been able to get it passed. That's right. And I suppose it'll come out. Did you have to read that transcript of the songus and the horn hatch when, oh, oh, it was something? Yes. But Songus had no answer. He said, let the courts decide what it means. Yeah. He said it over and over. It was very strange coming from a legislator also that he just wanted to let the courts make all the decisions. Do you have? Now, do your pollsters indicate that this gap, so-called, was getting worse? I haven't seen any indication of that. Am I right or wrong? What's in this numbers do not show a broadening of it. Gallup has shown some of the worse on its own. I said in a column I wrote the other day that I'd like to see a survey done of those women who voted in 1980 who voted for you and find out how many of them have decided they would vote against you. That'd be pretty interesting. I'd like to see that myself. Wouldn't that be interesting? What the switch is. Wouldn't you think it'd be pretty small? I, if any at all. Jack, an example of this is the other day when I went over to render that apology that then kicked up the fuss. The caveman. Well, I have to tell you the only person that I recognized in that room, whether found out afterward, felt was the woman that I had called and made the arrangements through, Polly Maidenhout. I couldn't have asked for a better reception. I walked out to a standing ovation. And as a matter of fact, even she, with every opportunity to have laid into me, she was smiling and warm and friendly and thanking me profusely for having come over. And within the hour, I called a press conference and was kicking my brains out. You're going to push for this bill of Bob Dole's to get that on place? Most of those 60 statues that are covered by Bob's bill are pretty innocuous, aren't they? Many of them. But what they take, many of them can be corrected simply by changing one word. Change it from men or women to persons. And it'll solve all the problems. The law doesn't have to be changed. Well, he mentioned one of them to me the other day that I mentioned in my column. It had to do with members of the Ute tribe of Indians. A statue passed around 1850 somewhere that the Ute Indians could be moved from one reservation or one piece of land to another only with the consent of the adult male members of the tribe. Well, the statue had been invoked. I mean, it's been lying there on the books for a hundred and thirty years or so, and it's only going to repeal that. I asked for a typical statue. I didn't have to tell you to say that. Most of them were at about that level of importance. Listen, before we get off this, I left out some things, too, about what we've done. And it goes back to the very beginning. The first thing we ever tried to do when we came here, of course, was the economic program. Well, tax-wise, we have virtually eliminated the marriage penalty and the income tax and the widow's tax in the state or the inheritance taxes. We have almost doubled the tax credit for childcare for working-wise. We made changes in the pension laws. Economically, we have, and I think in the economic recovery, we were seeing that what we did was most beneficial to them because last month, when that biggest decline in unemployment in 24 years took place, it was a bigger decline for women workers than it was for men. And their rate of unemployment is much lower than the men's and lower than the average. Right. Now, this kind of carries me into the next area I want to ask you about, and these deficits. What's going to be done about it? How do you feel about this idea of a commission to make recommendations on what to do about the deficits? No, I think the economic recovery that is showing up is better than we had predicted or than anyone else had predicted is a large part of the answer to the deficits. But the other one is we've never been as successful as we should have been and that we must be in persuading the Congress to cut spending. I don't think that a commission they could come in with recommendations about tax increases and so forth, but the history of tax increases shows they're not. They don't cure deficits. We double the taxes in the five years from 76 to 81. And in those five years we have $650 billion worth of deficits. Now, we think the economic recovery and a tax increase would certainly set that back. Everyone seems to be agreed on that. But right now the deficit would be $40 billion less than it is. Had we gotten from Congress what we asked for in spending reductions, but key members of your own party refused to go along with the spending cuts. Now, the program that we asked for in January, the budget they wouldn't consider, we may not be able to stay exactly with that, but if the Congress will not give the spending cuts again that we think are necessary, I'm going to use the veto pen to bring them about. Our plan in January, and we submitted that, with the contingency tax, that could have brought us on a declining pattern. Granted, there are going to be pretty big deficits this year and next year, but it would have brought us on a declining pattern out of the next five years that you could point to a time certain in which you would balance the budget. Now, the contingency tax, I still support. This, the idea of that was because so much of the thing that's keeping interest rates up, for example, is pessimism about whether we can hold the line on inflation. Exactly so. And because of the deficits and so forth. So the contingency tax was put out there that if they would pass it along with the spending cuts, it calls for that if they, we have the spending cuts. If the deficit remains above a certain percentage of the gross national product, if the recovery is solid enough at that time that it cannot be set back by a tax increase, the tax would go into effect. Now it would be passed already. By passing it already, no, it would go into effect in 1986. The idea in passing it and having it there fixed would be not only for the fact that it would give people in businesses an ability to plan. They would know what the tax was going to be in advance, make their plans accordingly. But also it would reassure these pessimists in the money market about dealing with the surpluses to the place that I think we could see an even faster recovery. But don't you face for 84, 85, there are almost certain prospect that there will not be significant cuts in spending and there will not be tax increases? Well, I've got to be more optimistic in that, in fact, because I've got on my desk a letter signed by 146 representatives of both parties saying and outlining 11 specific spending areas which, if the Congress submits appropriations excessively above what we asked for in January in those, they will support my veto. That's one way of making it stick. I've got about 10 minutes left here. Let me ask you about one of these entitlement programs we don't hear much about. These price supports for foreign commodities. I was reading a piece by Cliff Harbin that just came over my desk yesterday about $21 billion. That's worse than food stamps. Yes, and you've named it. The thing is most people never realize those are entitlement programs based on 1977 and 1981 legislation of foreign bills. Those were based on anticipation of continued high inflation. And the result has been that those things just kept going up because of what had been passed. Now we had bumper crops in 81 and 82 that reduced the prices because of the surpluses and what we must have at the very least is a freezing at the present level of those price supports because now the prices have gone back up on foreign products. It'd be good if they could be reduced below the level they are, but it was the fact that that legislation anticipating inflation just paid the prices too high. Building a price support that... It's pretty difficult to defend $20 billion. Yes, it is. Of course. This PIC plan, the P-I-K, what's your impression of that now that it's been in effect? Too much success? Well, I don't know whether they're doing it wrong. I thought of it. Here's why I thought of it. I kept seeing the figures for how much it was costing us to keep all that cert to buy and accumulate all that surplus and then store it. So I said, if we've got to pay out all these payments to farmers like for taking land out of production to soil erosion and so on, whatever they were doing, and the cash, why don't we give them the crop that they didn't have and let them sell that crop in the market? Incidentally, the farmers' position also when we talk about these farm support prices has been benefited now by the reduction in inflation because this has made a difference to them in the cost of production. But it seemed to me and it made a lot of sense because here's a fellow that had X number of dollars coming and you give it to him in a crop and say, go out and sell it. You're going to continue the program? I don't know. We haven't... I would think that as long as we have to accumulate such surpluses that for such things as a farmer who loses his crop in a flood in weather disaster or something production because of, you know, there's a big problem today of are we eroding too fast? Things of that kind that seems to me it makes more sense to give a farmer a crop that he lost to go out into the market to sell than to keep on paying storage on that crop and give you money. Hasn't it succeeded beyond your wildest dreams? You didn't anticipate this many or this larger percentage? The application started coming in, I think, with more of the surplus than we had. My idea simply wasn't you ran out of the surplus, you stopped doing it. I don't think you're at that point yet. It hasn't been a popular program politically in the Midwest? Apparently the farmers, I was amazed that farmers were divided with it. So you think probably it will be continued then? We haven't, I can't really say because we haven't had a meeting on that to see where we go from here. But as for the cost of it, if you thought it would be to try to freeze these at least you said to freeze them the price supports where they are. Yes. Would that go for dairy products too? This surplus cheese is bound to be a concern. Yeah. There may be one change there in the dairy laws. Again, Jack, I have to be honest with you I would have to sit down with Jack Block and our people here and find out what the situation is. That's what I see on the television and we talk about these enormous services of cheese. They can't give it away as fast as they have to buy it. Well, and one of the problems was in giving it away that in such quantities that we have to watch that we don't suddenly make basket cases out of the merches. They're in business, we can't do that. The original idea and the one that I hope we would continue with is where you're giving it to destitute people in such a way as not to not to interfere with normal trade and business. We have about three minutes on politics. What's the prospect for holding on to the Senate next year? Well, I know it's going to be tough. Like the last time out, we have the most seats up for grabs and we've had to retire to the accounts that are going to be very difficult for us. Tennessee is almost conceded now, isn't it, Tagore? Well, I won't give up on any maybe recovery and all the continues when people will see the value of us having some allies here. The loss of five seats would change anything. What's your guess? You're going to hold it? Why nationwide is a party harder than you've ever tried before to keep that from happening? You'll be out there helping some of these key senators to be re-elected? Yeah. You ever need to tell me about your own re-election? Jack, no decision is yet because one fellow came in here from representing a magazine set for your city and he was the first man from your profession that ever said this. He opened the meeting by saying I hope you will wait until the last possible minute before you make a decision and announce it. It was my own thinking to do that and I said, why? And he said exactly what I thought.  You might as well go home now. And he said, if you say yes, he said in the climate today everybody will say from then on everything you're trying to do is political and you can't get anything done. Do you think I would sound advice that he was good? I thought I would sound advice. You go and wait a while before letting us know. Yeah, as long as I think I can. Well, certainly before the end of the year though, you've let us know. Well, that's probable. Maybe at some time. I'm afraid to work in. How are you feeling these days? You're looking good. I feel great. Good. Are you ready to get working fine? Well, he said to me, although he didn't. See, each year I go back out there, he's one of the finest in the country. This injured ears does have a gradual rate of deterioration. And it's most evident in things like a state dinner or a cocktail reception or something sorting the voice out from the background noise. This year is normal and I'm staying that way. But this time he didn't recommend it or anything but he said maybe I'd like to see the latest state of the art. And I said, well, yeah. And he held out a kind of a wax ear with this thing in it. And I've never seen anything so small along that line. And I said, let me see that. But he brought it out and showed it to me and told me all about it. And I thought about having something that I could put in for those state dinners and so forth. And I said, I'll go for that. It works. It really helps. Yeah, that's good. I want to see it. Got it. And that's all there is. That's the whole thing. Isn't that so? I remember those days of the people with the panel on their chest and turning their arms and so forth. That's it. That's the volume control. We used to have a member of the Virginia House of Delegates on the front row of our House of Delegates, Uncle Billy Adams. And when the debate got dull, he was hearing a way down. Couldn't hear a thing. Uncle Billy had to ride out here to get that sound out of his ears. I have to tell you one of the most unkind tricks I've ever heard of was a fellow on a train and in the club car, the Ritz brothers were on there. And years ago in the club car, he kind of made a little pest of himself. So the Ritz brothers started talking to him and gradually getting their voices lower and lower and lower. And he's turning up the dial and turning up the dial.  That's much wrong. He comes back with this and turns it all the way up. And then he stops! Ritz brothers! Alright, when you're looking good, it's been almost exactly a year since I was here.  As a matter of fact, I'm wondering if I'm not going to have to get some coats changed. I can really kind of break out some seams if I try to do that. I'm still at it. Good to see you. I am. Give my best to the family. Yeah, Marie came in with me. She said, Oh, what happened? Give my best to the families. No, it's the quartermaster that's home. Where is the Marie? Chris, he's at sea. He's the quartermaster. He's the number two son. They're out right now. Oh, I thought he was the one that came home. Oh, the one that came home was in the Army. He'd been in Abidjan. That's the youngest boy. He'd been in the Army for nine years in non-intelligence. Oh, I thought he was a Marine. No, he was Army. No, my number one son had been in the Marines for two years. Ah. My number one son was a Marine. My number two son was Navy. My number three son was Army. You've got a lot of service. The only one that's made a career out of it is our navigator, the quartermaster, the number two son. He's on the destroyer out of Charleston. And he may wind up down in Nicaragua after you send him down. Well, I hope you don't send him down. I'll be good to see you soon. Okay, good to see you.


You are about to experience firsthand, up close and personal, an after-action review. You'll see how an after-action review, or AAR, can be a vital learning tool, how it gives all of us and our agencies a solid framework for attaining and disseminating critical organizational knowledge. For years, AARs have benefited private business and the military. Today, the entire interagency wildland fire community has also adopted this proven learning process. As you're about to see, an AAR is a professional discussion of an incident or event that enables firefighters to discover what happened, why it happened, and how strengths can be sustained and weaknesses can be improved upon. Using this simple set of four basic questions, all AARs follow the same format, involve an exchange of ideas and observations, focus on improving proficiency. The AAR is not a critique. Its central focus is to simply discover why things happened, so everyone is better prepared for the next time. The AAR is held immediately after the incident or event by the personnel involved. The incident's leader facilitates this process. The AAR focus is always on what, not who. As you will see by this simulation, the AAR encourages people to speak freely. It provides an open, honest, and professional discussion. It is a dialogue, not a lecture or a debate. It can include respectful disagreement, but never in subordination. If done right, this simple exercise can be a valuable key to an ongoing open communication process that both educates and motivates. AARs will help us all sharpen our wildland fire management skills, knowledge, and capabilities. Alright folks, let's go ahead and get started on the after-action review for the Horse Creek Burn. We had a pretty good day out there. The purpose of this after-action review is to focus on the what, not the who. We want to learn from today's burn and apply as much of that knowledge as possible into the next burn. We all know this was a big deal interagency setup, sat on the shelf for two years. There was a lot of pressure to get this done, and we're going to be doing more of this. We'll probably be doing a lot of these burns in the future. What I'd like to do is capture as much knowledge and learn from our mistakes and learn from our positives today and wrap that up into the burn package. The ground rules are very simple for the after-action review. Let's not make it personal, let's keep it professional. And please don't interrupt each other, let folks say their piece, get their comments out. But do try to keep your comments short so we can get out of here before it gets too much later. And then the final thing is what's said here stays here, and there's a caveat attached to that. What I need to do is to capture as much information in writing so we can put it into the packaging. If Pete, you could take notes for us. And the way we want to take the notes is, I'll give you an example. If we decided that through this after-action review that Leith didn't fill up the drip torches and that led to a delay getting ignition started, we wouldn't say that. We would say make sure drip torches have filled up the night before to avoid delays in the morning. So we don't attach names, it's not about blame. I'm sure as we go through this all of us are going to focus on things we could have done differently. So let's just keep the names out of it and let's make sure we capture the important points. And we'll get it wrapped up. Okay, is everybody good to go? We get started? I'm going to go off the IRPG, the simple four-question format after-action review, page 17. And let's start with the first question. What was the overall objective of the burn? Well, the objective was a fuel reduction burn. We were looking to reduce hopefully 75% of the fuel loading in the area with as minimal damage as we could to the mature trees in the area. Those were our primary objectives. As far as what was planned, as you mentioned, the horse creek burned. We've kind of had it sit on the shelf for a while. A lot of time effort went into the planning, the writing of the burn plan. But busy season, we were kind of slow out of the chute to get things going. Didn't have quite enough talent on the district or qualifications, so brought some of you folks in to help us out. Okay. That was the plan. All right, well good. Let's focus on the planning part. First question, what was the ignition pattern? Chris, you were the ignition specialist out there today. What was your plan for firing the unit? Well, the plan was Curtis to start up in the northeast corner with two ignition teams, one larger than the other, with Curtis or with Travis, excuse me, holding for us to light a test fire. And if that went well, to proceed and tie it down into horse creek and also to take fire south along the ridge. Okay. What was the plan for holding? Travis, you were the holding specialist out there. What would you foresee? That was pretty straightforward. Keep it in the unit, you know, I'm holding this ridge, and this is the hand line, so I focused a lot on that. I wasn't as concerned with the drainage, but, you know, I had a hand crew up there and we had engines with the road and pretty straightforward holding show. Okay. Let's move on to what actually happened. We started burning. I believe it was about nine o'clock. We started ignition. Chris, why don't you fill us in on that? Yeah, Curtis, it was, let me float out. Yeah, about nine o'clock, began ignition with the test fire. Test fire went well. From that point, we got to go from U and fired back to the west along the north perimeter and then began taking fire as well down the south end. Okay, the two engine captains. Scott, what did you think? What did you think of the test fire? This thing's progressed. I thought that the test fire was going well. Chris and Travis and I, we all worked together and we were in agreement that the test fire was in meeting our objectives at the time of the test fire. Cool. Can you make sure you capture that piece in the notes? Sure. Test fire looked good. Lace? Yeah, I agree. It looked really well. I mean, it was doing exactly what we wanted. So, I agree. Okay, so I think we're all in agreement that test fire was good. We got progressing up. Travis, you started firing up the ridge.  Well, you know, we came in pretty nervous with the residents all concerned because we're burning in their backyard. So, with the smoke and everything, they were a little concerned, but I was pretty happy with what I saw with the test burn and what was going on. So, from my point of view, it was a good thing. All right, if I remember right about 1,100, things started to change. I always want to move ahead because it seemed like it was pretty much uneventful up to that point. If I correct me if I'm wrong, folks, but I believe the burn pattern looked about like this. Does that look close? Yeah. Yeah, that's pretty good. Okay, so let's take it up to 11 o'clock. We got the firing to this point. Chris, you're running ignitions and you're at this point, what's going on? Well, about 11 o'clock, we got about there. Things were going really well. Winds were in good shape with good fire behavior, but we got into an area that surprised us that the prep hadn't been completed through there. So, the prep wasn't completed. We were still continuing to fire as conditions were still pretty optimal as far as getting the objectives met. And shortly thereafter, we got a little bit of a wind shift and got a spot fire across the line. Okay, let's hold it up there. Now, Travis, you're holding. Yeah. And you're up there with Chris. Chris was saying that he didn't feel that prep was the standard. How do you feel about that? Well, it's hard to say, but I agree with him because I'm the one that did the prep. But what he's right, it wasn't done as well as it had been previous to that, all the area before. Okay. So, yeah, it's true. Okay. We can touch on that a little more in question three. So, everyone's in agreement that the prep probably wasn't done or was not done to standards up on the ridge? Yeah, that was a big part of it. Curtis, the other part is, it was probably my fault as much as anything. I didn't get out and scouted ahead of time. I knew most of the folks. We worked together when it brought the module over of hot shots. Travis was the only one who hadn't worked with us. Okay. We'll address that as we go on. I just want to make sure that everybody's comfortable with that statement that there are some issues with the prep. Now, you were firing pretty aggressively. If I remember right, you covered that distance in a very short time. What were you thinking with that? Well, the conditions were going well and probably got a little bit overzealous and tried to get her done a little faster and we really needed to. The first part was going well. We had covered quite a bit of country and the winds were real favorable, so we continued, thought it may be just a short section of prep and so we decided we'd continue to go for it. Okay. Well, let's bump the timeline up somewhere just after 11, if I remember right. Travis, somebody called in a wind shift. Is that correct? About 11 o'clock? Yeah. Oh, Scott, that was you. You were taking one. I was taking weather and about 11.15 or so, we started getting strong winds out of the west. So we got a wind shift just to visualize here. Wind shift out of the west. We got a more of a west component. And you contacted everyone on the radio? I did, yes. And whereas in communications with ignitions and holding. Okay. So then we got, it's about 11.15 I think is when we had the spot fire, right? And that took place just over the ridge right here. Travis, why don't you fill us in on what happened at that point? It was pretty amazing how quickly it happened. He called in the wind shift and right away we got a spot. And as holding, I contacted Blake and let him know the general area. And right away he knew where it was and he knew the best, quickest way to get there. And he was on top of it and got there. I was trying to get down there with the holding forces, but he pretty much had it wrapped up. Okay. So you took action on the spot. Why don't you go ahead and show us what happened here on the table? All right. Kind of pretty familiar with this area and notice the wind switch. I was kind of ready for it.  I called Mark because he had the bigger engine to come in. And the other engine was actually on the fire when Mark got here. He took over the structure and the other engine helped on the fire. And the spot fire actually went better than I thought. I thought it was going to blow out, but everybody worked well together and we hammered it. And even with the wind that kind of pushed him towards the cabin. But the propane was an issue right off the bat. But everybody did really well and hammered it. And you knocked it down about an acre? Yeah, probably an acre.  What was going through your head when you pulled that down? Well, with the structure engine, our guys got the proper PPE for the structure. So we bunkered up, got around the house, deployed our hoses, and we secured the propane tank. Our guys are pretty good at, with the hazmat stuff and the propane. So we felt there was no issue with the propane, but we had everything secure while the other two engines did their thing out there in the spot fire. So I thought from our point of view we worked really good, all three engines. I appreciate you guys being there too. It made it a lot easier for us to do our thing knowing you're back there. I also thought the communication between the three engines was really good today. I mean, the focus, the structure was the structure guys took care of the structure and we went out and took care of the wild land. So I thought that communication between the three engines was really good also. Okay, in the interest of time, what I'd like to do is, if everybody's in agreement, can we just kind of go back to the burn, the spot's wrapped up, and then we progress with the firing operation down the ridge and back to the creek. And is everybody okay with moving on to that, on the second question, and we'll come back and address some of these issues on the third question. So Chris, you guys regrouped, and you started going down the ridge? Yeah, once we got the spot under control, we kind of transitioned back into those initial roles of ignition and holding, and we continued to progress down the ridge, had to take the crew, while they were working on the spot fire down below, we couldn't really access it, so we took the hotshot crew and they continued to prep, finished up the prep on down to the end, and then we had the ignition team go ahead and finished down on the ridge, and it went well from there. Okay, let's go ahead, if everybody's cool, we'll call that good, and let's jump into why it happened, and the white part, I'd like to focus on the spot fire. Lath, you had mentioned that, you didn't seem like you were surprised with the spot, and you've worked in this area a lot. Anything you can add to this? Yeah, about every day about that time, it shifts there, and I've been on the district for 15 years, so like I said, it didn't surprise me, I was just hoping I'd be wrong, it wasn't. I sure wish you would have said something, the debriefing, the plan for it. You know, I kind of, I should have, to be honest, a little but hurt that I wasn't involved a little more, with my experience, and so I should have said something. If I'm in your check on further of why this probably happened, it was probably, we mentioned a little bit about the pressure, I think there's a little pressure to get this thing done, and a hurry, we're up against the end of the fiscal year, and like I said earlier, it's been a busy year, fighting fire, even though we had this thing on the shelf ready to go, we didn't spend a whole lot of time from a district's perspective, getting it ready for you guys. We had to ask folks to come in and help. I had Lath off doing other things at the time, we had Travis down to help us prep. Big learning lesson notes I'll put down for ourselves is to treat every burn, even though this was only 100 acres, I think we were pretty relaxed, knowing you folks were here to help. We should have stepped it up a notch and been a little bit more prepared for you, and we certainly could have scouted that line as well. And Mr. Gordon, as a district FMO, you know, in the roll-up, if we can get this type of stuff captured, that'll help us back at home, too, because we're under the same pressure. Absolutely. Okay, I think we've kind of slid into the final question on what we can do next time. There's a good lead-in, Pete, with what it sounds like for the most part, just slowing down, taking our time, getting together, talking about stuff. Lace, I think we kind of caught, kind of wrapped up what we talked about. Get you folks, you guys, that have been around for a while, more involved in the planning. Is there anything that you could have done different on the day of the burn? You know, I should have spoke up, and I should have maybe even came out a little early and drove the line, and I could have said we need to fix that one area. And, you know, I should have spoke up, mainly. And it's just like with Mark, the positive is having you here, and the thing to learn from is to have you more involved. Yeah, sometimes, you know, when there's a lot of overhead, you get a little intimidated, you don't want to say much. And, you know, I felt like maybe you guys wouldn't listen to me, so I didn't talk.  All right. Say that, Kevin. And I don't want to wear this topic out, but I just want to make sure that we're in agreement for holding an ignition that we can all, and everybody else, that we need to take a look at our prep, probably have better standards, more involvement. Does that sound good? Yeah.  As far as ignition, probably a little bit slower than, you know, one of the keys is getting folks out there and ensuring the prep's done, maybe have a couple of folks to clean it up as we go. But, again, just take it a little bit slower and be a little more mindful of what's happening with the wind and we got into the fuel. Scott, you've been pretty quiet today. Anything you want to add? Just something I was noticing with operations. When we did get the spot fire, I think as something that we could use as a collective group is we could have discussed trigger points a little more profoundly in the briefing that if this does something does happen on the least side of the ridge there that this is what's going to happen. We're going to stop ignition, holding is going to hold. The engines are going to go over there and we'll have that trigger point in place that we can use next time. That's an excellent suggestion. Something else as far as the future, some of the contingency stuff was a little bit unclear in the briefing. And that was me. As burn boss, you know, I've got a 70-page burn plan in my pocket and I think I talked about 15-30 seconds about contingency and fortunately you guys are here. So that's a good one for me to take home.  Okay, so I'll open it up, give a little more time for questions at 20-second pause for questions in the morning. And I know you're in a rush to, you know, find yourself. That was perfect. And that's what I was thinking the whole time was you got to get started. But that's a good point. If we had talked before, I would have known some of these things. Okay, I know, I think we all probably want to get home. It's been a long day. Anything else to wrap it up? You want to thank everybody for helping us meet these targets and coming out and helping meet the calls on the district for me. I appreciate all the help and good work for those of you visiting and my own guys too. Thanks. As we get this AAR, this roll-up will be in the final package. As we all know, this is interagency and it's been a big deal. So I know my boss and I think all of our bosses want to look at this and it'll be in the package for next year. Thanks, guys. Yeah, thank you.


So my beautiful people I am back with another Alden Ring video and today guys I bring you a complete guide on how you can activate and go into the fight of the two secret bosses located within the Seothra River area. These are the Ancestor Spuit and a Regal Ancestor Spuit. These reward you an amazing Ash of War and also guys we get a Remembrance which is this right here. The Remembrance of the Regal Ancestor which you can either pick the winged Great Horn or the Ancestor Spuit's Horn which is a Talisman. You can pick whichever you want. The ashes you get is this right here guys. Where are we? It's that there the Ancestor follower ashes. So yes today we get into it all. How's it going guys my name is DPJ and if you're doing enjoyed the video leaving a like really helps out and if you like what you see and want to see more be sure to subscribe. Okay so I've been asked for a guide on this because many guides out there just just jumbled up mixed up and some people are so confused some people don't even know that there's two of these giant mystical reindeer bosses but it actually is and today I guide you to all for that. So what you need to do is first you guys have access to Nukron City. You need to gain access to Nukron City and you do that via B in Radhan. Starts here guys come across here red main castle come up to here take him out guys simple and amazing cinematic and you then gain access to guys an area which you get to you by coming here so that's where we're going to go. Four height west. Yep the ground will open up you can go underground and explore a crazy bayou tiff or area which beholds many many secrets like these two bosses. Now to actually activate these bosses you have to light certain things which I'll showcase to you exactly where each one is. Okay so as you can see we're here on the map and you need to come this way this way people so let's go. Now the first one you'll want to do is the regal ancestor spirit that's the one that gives you the remembrance which you then take two two fingers at the round table and the second one will give you the ashes and the second one to me is it is way harder way harder to actually activate and initiate the fight. Yep once you get it done I don't think the boss is too well it went for me on my high level I can't say I'm gonna be hard for everybody else.  On your way here there will be the mimic tear boss you will have to take out your progress but at the end of the day guys if you can take out the darn it isn't easy to fight you can easily take out the mimic easily.