The Campbell Prediction System
1
The Campbell Prediction System (CPS)
Doug Campbell, Ventura County Fire Dept. USFS retired.
1210 Sunset Pl. Ojai, CA. 93023. Phone # 805-646-7026
E-mail: doug@dougsfire.com. Web site: www.dougsfire.com.
The problem:
Unanticipated changes in fire behavior are common in burnover accident investigation
reports. Had firefighters or their supervisors known what the fire was about to do and had they
evacuated the area before the event, there would not have been the fatalities and injuries that
resulted from the burnover event. It takes years of trial and error to learn how to predict changes
in fire behavior. The current computer models have not been a solution to this problem. Their
accident avoidance history is lacking in successful solutions for firefighters.
One solution:
Some firefighters have a history of fire behavior knowledge. Can the knowledge of those
firefighters be taught to others? If we can learn how to recognize the potential fire behavior
change and act on the implications of the potential actually happening, we can avoid burnover
accidents. Those firefighters that act on accurate fire behavior predictions are safer and better
firefighters.
The author has delved into the intuition of the experienced firefighter to discover how they
made wildland fire evaluations of fire behavior change and determined the tactical solution in
situations. To gain insight, Doug used his more than 40 years experience in the wildland fire
business and had discussions with many knowledgeable firefighters. He asked: “How do you
explain, how we know what the fire is going to do?” The answers led to the concepts written in
the Campbell Prediction System book and the course titled: “Wildland Fire Signature
Prediction Methods.” Students using this method report it works well for them. The Signature
Prediction Method is a quick and practical way to predict, verify and communicate when and
where wildland fire behavior changes can occur. The observed fire behavior becomes the
baseline for fire behavior predictions in tactical situations. Firefighters who recognize these
predictive elements can implement proper fire behavior tactics. The Campbell Prediction
System teaches firefighters how to use logic to explain their intuition to communicate how they
came to the decisions made on the fireline. It provides a language to communicate the
implications of the observed and predicted fire behavior. CPS teaches firefighters how to discuss
a fire’s potential, assuring a safe and effective fire fighting operation. It shows how to find
solutions to fireline situations.
Signature Prediction System Development and operation.
Objectives:
1. To enable the use of experience-based knowledge to make fire behavior predictions
The Campbell Prediction System
2
2. To display fire signature evaluations and identify the areas within and outside of the
threshold of control of the suppression groups
3. To offer a professional logic that dictates when to be offensive or defensive
4. To train line personnel in the use of observations of the fire situation
5. To train line personnel in the implications of the situation and the logic used to determine the
tactical adjustment
6. To understand the fire and potential fire behavior so L.C.E.S. can be effective
Observations of the variation in fire behavior are made as the fire is burning over terrain.
These variations are then explained as to the cause. The causes of these variables are then
recognized and the terrain or weather factors are matched to the causes. If the causes remain
valid for the short-term future, then the areas in the exposure fuels are segregated into two
targets. One area will be where fire suppression can be successful. The other area will be
designated an area where fire behavior is uncontrollable. These areas are highlighted on a map
display. The fire will produce a variation of signature behavior that can be predicted to reoccur
as the fire burns over the terrain. This signature behavior will replicate when the forces causing
the behavior reoccur. Identification of these areas before the flaming front will be determined
and displayed for others to view and consider the implications. The alignment signature is
derived from the fire intensity and rate of spread due to the various alignments of wind, slope
and solar preheating -- “ fuel flammability level.” These signatures are captured for use in
predicting fire behavior in the path of the fire. Validations of the predictions are made as the fire
burns over the exposure. The expanding perimeter is updated hour by hour and signature
projections are made and displayed. An evaluation is made of where/when the threshold of
control line is located on the incident. The threshold of control is derived from the capability of
the suppression forces, the fire behavior, terrain and fuels encountered. The past will be used to
predict the future with Operations oversight adjustments. Training will provide consistency of
evaluations and a standard terminology. A qualified Meteorologist with added fire signature
qualifications and practical experience makes a weather influence evaluation. This evaluation
will determine the change that will occur from past weather influences. This information will be
used to factor the threshold of control probability as well as the timing suggested for operations
at these lines.
Expected Product and Outcome:
This training will result in a display of the signature prediction system and logic that will be
simple to understand and serve to make the application of suppression plans more safe and sure
than current state-of-the-art procedures. The system has been tested on large and complex fires
as well as initial attack situations and has a history of validation. The signature evaluation
process has been proven to be superior to other methods of prediction because it includes the
probability of control, and it is based on the logic of replication of fire signatures over the
fireground. Fire behavior predictions and tactical evaluations will be made by discussions with
line personnel. The fire signature evaluation and the logic used to base the action on will be upfront. The responsible line personnel will actually make and explain the prediction before action
is implemented. Training will be made available to qualify personnel in use of the Signature
Prediction System of fire behavior and tactics evaluation. Wildland Fire Specialist, Doug
Campbell has used these methods for more than 20 years with excellent results. He has written a
course for this tested system and has taught the subject in the U.S.A. and abroad. Doug is
The Campbell Prediction System
3
willing to train trainers and in the processes, revise and/or amend the lesson plan as requested by
departments. The department ordering the service must fund the trainer course. The trainer
course requires students with a working knowledge of suppression on wildland fires. The time
the training session requires is from 16 to 24-hours. This training will provide the student with
the information and graphics with which to teach the course. As the student gains experience
using this method of prediction and tactical evaluation, he/she should become proficient within a
season or two. When the student can make oral and written evaluations of a variety of wildland
fire situations, the student will be proficient.
References
Albini, F.A. (1976). Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech.
Rep. INT-30, 92p.
Andrews, P.L., R.C. Rothermel. (1982). Charts for interpreting wildland fire behavior
characteristics. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT131, 21 p.
Byram, G.M. and Jemison, G.M. (1943). Solar Radiation and Forest Fuel Moisture.
Journal of Agricultural Research 67(4). Pgs. 149-176
Countryman, C.M., W.A. Dean. (1979). Measuring moisture content in living chaparral: a field
user’s manual. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-36, 27 P.
Countryman, C.M. (1966). The Concept of Fire Environment, Fire Control Notes 27(4).
Countryman, C.M. (1972). The Fire Environment Concept. PMS 433, NFES 2166.
Deemin, J.E., R.E. Burgan, and J. D. Cohen. (1977). The National Fire Danger Rating System.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-46, 63 p.
Fischer, W. C., C.E. Hardy. (1976). Fire weather observer's handbook. USDA Forest Service
Agric. Handbook 494.142 p.
Martin, R.E., H.E. Anderson, W.D. Boyer, J.H. Dieterich, S.N. Hirsch, V.J. Johnson, and W.H.
McNab. (1979) Effects of fire on fuels. USDA Forest danger ratings 1978 USDA Forest
Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-40, 51 P.
Rothermel, R.C., G.C. Rinehart. GTR INT-142 (1983) Field Procedures for Verification and
Adjustment of Fire Behavior Predictions.
Rothermel, R.C. RP INT –438 (1991), Predicting Behavior and Size of Crown Fires in the
Northern Rocky Mountains.
Wilson, C.C. (1988), Fatal and Near-Fatal Forest Fires, the Common Denominators.
The Campbell Prediction System
Reviews and solutions for wildland fire accidents.
The Loop Fire, 1966, The Romero Fire 1971, Battlement Creek, 1976, The Spanish Ranch fire
1979. The Butte fire, 1985. The Yellowstone Fires 1988. The Glen Allen fire 1993. The
Buchannan Rx burn 1993. The South Canyon Fire, 1994. The Green Meadow fire l994. The
Grand Fire l996. The Calabasas Fire 1996.
Reviews of burn-over avoidance: The Dillon Fire 1994.
4
The Campbell Prediction System
Author: Doug Campbell 1210 Sunset Pl. Ojai, CA. 93023, Phone # 805-646-7026 USFS retired.
E-mail: doug@dougsfire.com, Web site: www.dougsfire.com