A National Parks and Wildlife Service supervisor has told a coronial inquest into the Black Summer bushfires he raised concerns about changing weather conditions and spotting in the hours before a back-burn in the Blue Mountains broke containment lines.
Air attack supervisor Chris Banffy had been conducting aerial surveillance of the Gospers Mountain "mega-blaze" in December 2019 when the Rural Fire Service (RFS) Incident Management Team (IMT) decided to proceed with a back-burn in the Grose Valley/Mount Wilson area.
It was hoped the strategic burn would stop the southern flank of the fire jumping the Bells Line of Road, but within hours it broke containment lines to the east of Mount Wilson Road and eventually destroyed 100 homes.
New South Wales Coroner Teresa O'Sullivan is examining the incident as part of an inquest focusing on the planning and execution of back-burns during the deadly 2019/20 fire season.
In evidence delivered to the court on Wednesday, Mr Banffy said he had the aircraft he was in land at about 2pm, in the hours after the burn had started, to speak in person with RFS divisional commander, James Carter and RFS divisional operations officer, Craig Burley.
He said he wanted to his raise concerns about "flaring", "crowning" and "spotting" in the area of the operation.
"At this point it was cranky … unpredictable fire behaviour, and you need to watch it really carefully," he told the court.
"I've thought a lot about this … I thought we were going to lose it — I did not see that we could hold it.
"That was my opinion and I needed to convey it to the ground troops.
"I needed to make sure that message was clear, that I've got concerns with it and particularly that we needed to move along the Bells Line of Road."
'Crazy fire behaviour'
Mr Banffy said the weather had changed over a two-hour period and that the wind had "picked up" and started to come from the south-west.
"When you left that face-to-face [with Mr Carter and Mr Burley] was it your impression that you as a group of three were on the same page?" counsel assisting Adam Cassleden asked.
"Yes," Mr Banffy replied.
He later told the court there had been "crazy fire behaviour" across the state and due to limited resources "we needed to be more precautionary on everything we did".
"It's not a criticism of anybody," he said.
"It was the reality of where we were at."
But under cross-examination by Nicholas Newton, who has been representing the RFS during the proceedings, Mr Banffy agreed that the consequences could have been as dire had the back-burn not have been undertaken.
"I accept that," Mr Banffy said.
'Nothing outstanding'
Earlier this week RFS divisional commander James Carter told the court he felt the information being delivered by Mr Banffy was "intelligence" rather than a matter of "concern".
Craig Burley, a divisional operations officer with the RFS, was working in the field at the time and said he too did not remember any "concerns" having been vocalised by Mr Banffy.
He said he recalled the interaction but did not feel there was anything "outstanding to note from the conversation" in his log.
"We were all happy with what the situation was at that point in time," Mr Burley said.
"I recall no undue concerns being raised by Chris at that point."
Under cross-examination by Jennifer Single SC, Mr Burley was questioned further about his recollection of the conversation.
"Mr Banffy expressed concern to you about the fire progression during that discussion, didn't he?" Ms Single asked.
"Not overly no … there was nothing outstanding that said to me, from that conversation, that there was an imminent cause for concern arising," Mr Burley replied.
He later clarified to the court that "given it was three years ago" he could not say unequivocally what Mr Banffy "may or may not have said".
'Window of opportunity'
When questioned about his reflections on the back-burn strategy, Mr Burley said he stood by the plan that was executed on the day.
"We had a window of opportunity that was conducive, we had a plan that was resourced and if the same parameters were put to me tomorrow, I would support the plan again," he said.
"The only thing we could have done was do nothing and that wasn't an option."
He was pressed about whether more aerial resources would have helped "suppress the fire" before conceding it was an aspect of the strategy that could have been improved.
"More aerial resources would have been handy and could have changed the outcome," he said.
"Yes, if we had some extra availability of aerial recourses, that may have made a difference."
The inquest continues.
