Pip, I've posted my thoughts on a better system of Fire Ban advice here previously, so I dont propose to re-hash it all again. I agree, there is no perfect system, but if the system we have produces the results we saw yesterday....then the system is farked. As an organisation that has the responsibility to get it right, we must constatly strive to improve the system, not just accept its shortcomings as "thats just the way it is". I'll never accept that attitude. If you want just a couple of examples as to why we need to get it better.....many Groups have an SOP of increasing the response on TFB days. That means more trucks driving Pri 1 to Incidents, that means more risk to us, and more risk to the public. Secondly, many National Parks limit access or even close completely on TFB days, depriving people of plans they may have made weeks in advance...they are small thing, but there are many consequences of instituing TFBs.... we must ensure they are there for the right (and valid) reasons. What we do must bear up to a reasonable validation, both as we look at it, but also as the public looks at it - they are after all the ones we put the Bans in place for remember
FF83....i agree completely, the validity of the GFDI, which is what triggered the TFB in the MLR (luv them TLA/FLAs - can i get one more in this sentence?) has always been a point of conjecture, just as the FFDI (yup 
) is inappropriate for the flatlanders in the same area..... IDK (bonus points!) what the perfect answer is....but there has to be a better one.
Burnover.....exactly, not to mention being found seriously flawed in several studies, although in a slight defence, the current Mk 5 GFDI version is a later development (early 2000s from memory)
National parks do not close all parks everytime there is a fire ban - it depends on the risk level - something that Parks appear to look at, and make a determination.
While some groups have extra plans in place for fire bans, one has to look at the response based on the actual FDI, rather than the predicted? Does the fact that some groups blindly go with the predicted FDI mean that the system of setting a fire ban is wrong?
As I mentioned in my previous post that this last fireban came about because the Strathalbyn measuring site had a predicted FDI just over.
Should a Group at the other end of the fire ban district, where the highest predicted FDI for the day is only 40, respond the cavalry to a fire in their own area, just because one of the other measuring sites at the other end of the area, is over 50?
How about some common sense by brigades and groups?
As for the MacArthur meter - we are way passed the Mk 5 version...I think we were up to about 7 or 8.
Extensive research was undertaken by the CSIRO - Phil Cheney & his team, in relation to the accuracy or otherwise of the MacArthur meter, which improved the accuracy of meter.
The other thing to remember is that CFS does not act alone in the setting of fire bans. Obviously, the weather bureau provides the forecast, and the recommendation for a ban or not. CFS then decide whether they will impose a ban. Should CFS disregard the information provided by people whose job it is to study, and predict the weather, and just take a guess at it themselves?
There must be some system in place to reduce the chance of bushfires getting started, particularly on days where the chance of stopping a fire is low.
Any such system needs to be transparent and consistent. The current system, while not perfect is at least transparent, and consistent!!
Pip
