New Water Bomber for Victoria

[Dropt McGutz]

State Government to lease multi-million dollar fire-fighting jet Matt Johnston From: Herald Sun November 07, 2009 12:00AM

EXCLUSIVE: A MULTI-million dollar super water-bomber capable of soaking a 1.2km bushfire in one hit will join our firefighting arsenal this summer.
The water-bombing jet will be able to reach anywhere in Victoria in just 45 minutes, and is being billed as an important weapon in heading off another Black Saturday disaster.

With forecasts of a fierce summer, Premier John Brumby moved quickly to get an Australian-first firefighting jet lease, most likely a modified DC-10 or 747 jumbo carrier.

Police and Emergency Services Minister Bob Cameron told the Herald Sun the aircraft would be one important weapon in fighting fires and protecting Victorians.

"This will be another asset as we leave no stone unturned to help deliver on our goal of making Victoria as fire safe and as fire ready as possible," he said.

"Large aircraft that can carry up to eight times the water or retardant of smaller firefighting aircraft are untrialled in Australian conditions."

2A DC-10 or 747 carrier would be able to drop a similar-sized load - more than 50,000 litres of water or fuel retardant - to the Russian Ilyushin jets that were rejected by the State Government during February's bushfires that claimed 173 lives.

A lease for a water bomber of this size can cost up to $10 million a season, and testing of the selected bomber will begin in January for use during the worst summer heat.

It is believed a new Victorian aircraft would be used on fires that are just beginning or to help contain a developing bushfire front.

Mr Brumby had said at the time that those aircraft were deemed unsuitable for our terrain and the offer was too late to have an impact.

"You could imagine in some of these big areas, flying throughout some of our high country, how difficult and testing that would be," the Premier had said.

At that time, Mr Brumby was already deep in discussions with federal counterparts to try to fast-track a new aircraft for Victoria that could be properly tested.

Before those discussions, an agreement to increase Victoria's leased aerial firefighting system was not on the cards until 2010-11.

Mr Brumby has spoken publicly about his fears of a horror bushfire season, with conditions at least as bad as the past year.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment and the CFA say aircraft are not silver bullets and proper investigations are necessary into the most effective water carriers.

The Californian Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has used a DC-10 Airtanker as a key firefighting tool during past fire seasons, and describes the plane on its website as "suitable for larger-scale drops".

The Herald Sun believes the State Government is keen to see how effective a big bomber will be this summer, to determine whether future use is effective for Victoria.

Space to house the aircraft would also be an issue, and Tullamarine or Avalon airport would need to be fitted with special infrastructure to cater for the super-soaker.

Zones to load the aircraft with water or fuel retardant at high speed will need to be set aside.

I remember quite a few years ago the RAAF was experimenting with C130's with some form of spray equipment for fire suppression. I'm not sure why this never went ahead.

[Tarq57]

I think this is great news, and probably should have been done years ago.
$10 mill is a lot of money. If it's effective, (and chances are it will be) it will pay for itself easily before the season is halfway through.

We get bushfires/scrubfires in NZ, but not quite on the scale of those of our neighbor. I could never understand why governments (and/or the insurance industry) of countries that seasonally suffer massive damage from this threat haven't funded for a number of these aircraft, as a sort of ready-reaction force, able to be anywhere in the country in an hour or three.

[Wunwing]

This subject has been done to death her before but its good to see it up again.The rest of the world seems to think heavy fire bombers work, but somehow we are different.I suspect the real problem is that the only way that we could have a cost effective fire bombing fleet is under a Federal system and that would take money away from the State system.

I recently saw an academic paper that the no large fire bombing policy appears to be based on. It cites experiments using Canadian aircraft and over the years an F27, DC6 and a Canadair have been used. The problem is there was only ever one at a time. Thats a bit like saying that in a large timber yard fire, we sent one fire truck and it didn't work , so fire trucks don't work.

What we need is a fleet of aircraft that can dump 5/10 tons of water using adjustable drop patterns.The Canadian companies Airspray and Conair do just that and it seems to work. Recently they have been working in the US and even in California, on Gum Trees.The Canadians even have ex Australian aircraft with Airspray using 2 x ex Aust L188s in their fleet and Conair reported as obtaining 2 ex Aust CV580s.

Right now there are 11 Grumman Trackers for sale in Victoria which are very able fire bombers when converted to Conair Firecats with PT6s. All but 1 have been hangared for about 20 plus years and seem in excellent condition. The Californians use a large fleet of these aircraft on their Eucalypt fires and they seem to work.However no-one here seems interested.

There was a Neptune fully converted in Perth for many years but there was no interest in that aircraft either, despite successfull operations of that type in the USA.

And finally there is a big push from operators of small aircraft who use fire bombing as a top up for other businesses. They do a good job but don't have the grunt of big aircraft.They do have the lobby power with local politicians and see large aircraft as a threat.

The end result is too much politicising and no heavy dump aircraft.

Wunwing

[Timber]

As usual a large part of the solution is sitting on the doorstep, unseen by most. Wunwing is right .... convert the 11 idle sitting Trackers to Conair or Marsh Aviation Firecats (different engines & STC's) and you have a good base fleet of tankers that can deliver reasonable size loads with great agility and precision.

You would have all 11 Trackers modified for $50 million or so and the fleet would last for at least 20 years. Maybe a deal could then be made with CALFIRE to move some of their aircraft from California to Victoria in the southern summer and vice versa for the northern summer, so that effectively the tanker fleet of either state is greatly enhanced when it matters. Choosing the Marsh Aviation modification for the Trackers would ensure equipment compatibility.

It is nice and spectacular to see a widebody tanker, and certainly it will do some good, but to a certain extent it is only political grandstanding. Australia needs a fleet of dedicated tankers to fight fires from the air to begin with.

[bellsux]

Would the Trackers really be a solution?

An ancient airframe that has been sitting around for over 25 years that would need some serious money spent on getting it back to a safe condition. They would need to be pulled apart for corrosion, new hydraulics and fuel components, flight controls, instrument and avionic upgrades, PT6 conversion, then get CASA to certify them on to the civilian register. Remember that these airframes are 1950's designs how easy would getting spare parts be?

The Air Tractors that are used as SEAT's now can be bought new, carry more water and foam, cheaper to run, are flown by guys that spend most of their time flying at 500' and below, operate out of grass/dirt strips, ability to drop and reload in minimal time.

Safer and cheaper to stick with the new.

[cavemanzk]

If they had of spoken earlier they could have gotten ZK-NBS at a bargain bin price.

Its probably to late for NBS, think she would have been cut up by now.

[Capt_SNAFU]

why not convert a QF 744 that will be sent to the desert or a 763? Still plenty of service life in them and plenty of engineering experience to service.

[Guptar]

According to todays Herald Sun, the Vic gov is lookign at leasing some supertankers, iether 747 or the DC 10 for this years fire season.

Apparantly they were quite effective in the recent wildfires in California.

One wonders how they would fare in Oz.

[FarmerPete]

G'day all.

As this is my first post, perhaps I should introduce myself. By profession I'm a farmer - and I should make it clear that I'm neither a pilot, nor a pilot-wannabe. However I'm also a volunteer firefight and Air Attack Supervisor (Trained with DSE, work with NSWRFS) This doesn't mean that I'm the Great Guru on all things to do with fighting fires from the air, but I might be able to offer a certain amount of information and perspective.

Firstly - and I must emphasise that i don't speak for any service - IMHO there is always going to be a certain amount of politics involved in the letting of such contracts. The media likes large, camera-worthy items, and booking a big bomber has a certain cachet. Not saying that this makes it wrong, just that you need to be wary.

Secondly, there are three issues relating to waterbombing that are more important than the capacity of a single aircraft. One is the capacity of your system over time. The second is placement. The third is flexibility.

The capacity of your system is measured in litres per hour on target, rather than litres per tanker. If your 50,000litre tanker has a turnaround time of 90 minutes (not unreasonable given that it can't land on every bush strip) then 4 AT802s on 20 minutes turnaround will give you a higher capacity system.

Some of you will be far more familiar with the capabilities of the larger aircraft than I am, but I suspect that they will have difficulty operating at 50-100' above tree-tops in the terrain that often confronts us when fighting fires. Consider the impact of wind upon foam or retardant, and how this increases with drop height. The bad fires do not occur upon days that give perfect drop conditions.

A number of smaller tankers give greater flexibility in that they give a more constant delivery. In rapidly-developing fires this can be a considerable advantage as we respond to changing conditions and new threats. Not that a larger aircraft cannot split loads, but once empty, we must wait for its return.

The advantage of the larger aircraft - if it can drop accurately - is its ability to create a more effective retardant line due to length of drop. This is particularly useful during first response situations in seeking to prevent the fire from developing in the absence of a full compliment of ground crew. It was on this basis that the 1986 CSIRO study into the cost-effectiveness of Aerial fire-fighting recommended a single DC6 and a combination of smaller aircraft as the optimum configuration for fire suppression in Victoria

Under the costs then applicable, the Trackers, Neptunes and C-130/MAFFS were all not cost-effective in a normal year.

Please bear in mind that we prefer to not kill our pilots. The conditions prevailing during the worst of Black-Sat were not conducive to safe flying at low levels over rough terrain and with reduced visibility. Add in the fire intensities and fires spotting ahead of the main front at an average distance that is measured in kilometres, and you can understand how aircraft effectiveness is reduced on such days.

Another point that should be made is that no government has an unlimited budget. In comparison, poor roads kill more people in a year than Black-Sat, and an inadequately-funded health system kills more people per year than bushfires have in the past two centuries. We have no right to demand funding if we cannot demonstrate a return on investment.

All that said, we CAN do some very good and cost-effective work with aircraft. Particularly in a first-response mode, or in backing up ground crews in rough terrain. We just need to be smart about it.

Regards..... Pete

[FarmerPete]

It's worthwhile looking through this paper by the BushfireCRC onb the effectiveness of aerial fire suppression.
http://www.bushfirecrc.com/research/downloads/Aerial-Suppression-Report-Final-web.pdf

Regards.... Peter

[halas]

The best solution would be to shoot the f*ckers who start the fires.

Save lives, property and the money to pay for water bombers.

halas

[Fred Gassit]

CL-415: expensive as hell, about 25 million a piece.
I don't think there is a privately owned example anywhere, strictly a taxpayers machine.

[Capt Basil Brush]

What are they doing with Army Caribou's when they retire?

They are airworthy, could carry a good load of water when converted, can land just about anywhere, and they are already owned (you would think so by now)

That would be a better use than putting them up on a pole somewhere.

[training wheels]

This video explains it all. A 747 flying 400 ft AGL at 140 knots.

KvBRWTumoZI

[chimbu warrior]

I'm no expert either, but doubt that wide body jets are the answer for Australia.

If Tullamarine is the only airport it can use in Victoria (okay Avalon too), there are going to be lots of efficiency problems.

As for CL-215's or 415's, we seem to be a bit short of waterways of sufficient size to enable a decent scooping run.

Trackers or Convairs could be an option, but the AT-502 & 802 will always deliver the best bang for the buck in Australia -

lots of them already here (thus limited additional capital cost)
plenty of skilled and experienced crews (already spend their days close to terrain)
can land almost anywhere
quickest to turn around


It is my sincere hope that we do not ever see another fire season like last summer.

[FarmerPete]

Nice video.
Just apply a reasonable scepticism to salesmen attempting to bluff you with big numbers. To put it in context, to put the equivalent of 10mm rainfall on just 1 hectare requires 100,000 litres. :eek: Retardant does extend this, but not by orders of magnitude. I'd be far more impressed if the Evergreen people could talk about actual savings - as determined by independent analysis - rather than theoretical savings. In theory, doing a rain-dance is even more effective. In theory......


The normal drop heights that we use are 50-100'AGL . We only go as high as 100' to permit the retardant to achieve terminal velocity. 400-800'AGL means that accuracy is going to be a more significant problem, and wind-drift and dispersion will be far bigger issues. Sorry to sound like a wet blanket ;) but water in the wrong place extinguishes no fires..:(

Talking marketing,,,, when I did my course, the Canadairs were in the news. It was interesting that at no stage did the manufacturer approach the fire agencies or make a submission through the agencies normal process for acquiring an aerial firefighting capacity. In each case, they attempted to make sales by going directly to politicians and the media, rather than the people who actually fight fires.

To address Launchpad McQuack's question, the sums on hire vs. ownership and multiples of aircraft have been done. As the state governments get most of their disaster funding from the Federal Govt, and because the contract aircraft tend to move between states as required during the major fire years, the effect is not dissimilar to a National fleet in practice. It pays to recall that when Vic has a bad year, similar conditions tend to prevail in both Southern NSW and SA as well. It's just not sensible to strip those states of their aerial capacity when they're facing the same threat.

Are there scenarios in which a high-capacity tanker can make a difference? You bet.:ok: But in the real world we need to make sure that we don't let our enthusiasms carry us away.

Regards............ Peter

[FarmerPete]

I'll second Chimbu Warrior on his argument that the availability of experienced local pilots is a valuable resource. Consider the amount of time that the agricultural pilots of ATs and Dromaders spend below 100'AGL doing real work. Time that a specialist tanker crew would have to be paid to do as training in off-seasons.

I have a lot of admiration for the Ag Pilots.

Peter

[Carrier]

There have to be good reasons why even the Newfies are buying some CL415s. Take a look at these two links:

AVCANADA • View topic - Govt of Newfoundland orders 4 CL415's . . . (http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopic.php?f=54&t=59696&hilit=newfoundland+415)

FLIGHT TEST: Bombardier 415 - The superscooper (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/08/21/331305/flight-test-bombardier-415-the-superscooper.html)

[FarmerPete]

There have to be good reasons why even the Newfies are buying some CL415s.


Might have something to do with the fact that freshwater covers 7.7% of the surface area of Labrador/Newfoundland. Not to mention a great deal of protected sea area on the coast.. That protection is important, as scooping is limited to conditions of less than (IIRC) 1 metres swell. How does that compare with South-Eastern Australia on a bad fire day in the middle of a drought??

They're a very productive aircraft when the conditions suit them. Eastern Canada is probably as good as it gets for that syle of aircraft. SE Australia offers us big problems when it comes to locating, large open (Think about the number of dead trees in our inland reservoirs) bodies of water during droughts. It's a whole different pot of Bouillabaisse.

Regards..... Peter

[Wunwing]

I see that the same arguments a previously come up again, particularly the age of firebombers.The fact is that it is very hard to justify new aircraft. The rest of the world uses old aircraft that have been rebirthed.Aero Union uses
P3As, Conair CV580s (soon to include the recently ex Pionair aircraft) and Airspray uses L188s. They are all 1950s airframes.

Those who knock the Grummans fail to realise the strength of the Grumman product which were built to be corrrosion proof and overly strong for their carrier role. They are no older than the CV580 airframe and the L188 airframe and yet Conair and Airspray and the Governments that they contract to, seem to be pretty happy with the end product. I recently inspected all 11 of the Sale aircraft and with the exception of the aircraft stored outside, they are in very good condition.

As far as turnaround is concerned, Conair advertises their CV 580 as carrying 2100 US gallons at 270 kts with a 5 minute fill time and a 4 hour endurance and Airspray L188s as 3,000US Gallons and a 4.5 hour endurance.The photos on web sites indicate that these aircraft indeed do get down as low as the smaller aircraft.Those specs beat any light aircraft and if funded and operated Federally and aircraft were based in say Western NSW, they could easily respond very quickly en mass to all but WA

As far as doubting the Trackers, anyone who ever saw the Trackers operating around Nowra will know how low that they operated over the beaches and if you have seen video of carrier landing will know that they could handle pretty bad turbulence.The California State owns 25 of them so they must think that they are OK, its the largest single type fleet in North America

It appears that we are out of step with the rest of the World on this.The Trackers are here and available and in good condition and we should use them while we have them.

Wunwing

[Gundog01]

Capt Basil Brush

What are they doing with Army Caribou's when they retire?


Airforce Caribous not Army.

Way too expensive to contemplate maintaining hence the reason the Airforce is retiring them.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

From speaking to a few CFA guys today, there seems to be a media beatup (No - not possible:}) on the usefulness of the larger type of tankers. One of the problems associated with these aircraft is their refill time. Via hose it can take a very long time - up to 24 hours, and to scoop airborne can be a problem. Port Philip bay is often too rough for airborne refills. The difference between Aus and many other places is the availability of long, smooth lakes. Victoria is sadly lacking in these that are suitable.

These guys seemed to agree with Farmer Pete about more aircraft more often, rather than one dig dump less often.

This info is only from a few guys and I'm not saying it is correct, just putting it out there for discussion:ok:

[werbil]

Port Philip bay is often too rough for airborne refills.


I'd be very surprised if you couldn't find suitable water in Port Philip Bay - it is effectively a closed body of water. The windward shore would provide flat water in it's lee.

The difference between Aus and many other places is the availability of long, smooth lakes. Victoria is sadly lacking in these that are suitable.


There are a lot more waterways suitable for something like a 415 than airports that are suitable for a 747 or DC10. From the Bombadier site:


This effective firefighting technique takes only 12 seconds, travelling at 130 km/h (70 knots) and 410 metres (1,350 feet), to scoop up a 6,137-litre (1,621-US-gallon) water load.
The advanced Bombardier 415 aircraft scoops water from sites that are only two metres (6.5 feet) deep and 90 metres (300 feet) wide. When the water site is too small for a full pick-up, the Bombardier 415 takes a partial load and returns to the fire.
The Bombardier 415 amphibian doesn’t need a straight scooping path. Since the aircraft is still in "flying" mode while scooping, pilots can easily manoeuvre around river bends or visible obstacles in the water.

[Timber]

A quick calculation on the various tanker options. With the reload point 15 nm away from the fire the drop rate in liters per hour is about:

AT-502: 140kts, 7,000 liters dropped / hr, hose refill only, price $??m
AT-802: 160kts, 10,000 liters dropped / hr, hose refill only, price $??m
Tracker: 240kts 16,000 liters dropped / hr, hose refill only, price $7m
G111AT: 180kts 16,000 liters dropped / hr, hose refill or scoop, price $15m
CL415T: 180kts 20,000 liters dropped / hr, hose refill or scoop, price $30m

The scoopers can double their output easily if a convenient water body is close because the "tank" time is then reduced to seconds.

There is probably a role for each of these aircraft, but what would the main strike force have to consist of....?

[AussieNick]

just a question bout these big water bombers? considering the speed they would be going to just stay airbourne, and a safety height that they would be dropping from, wouldn't the force of the fluid/retardent hitting the fires cause more spot fires due to splash than its worth?

[FarmerPete]

AussieNick asked

just a question bout these big water bombers? considering the speed they would be going to just stay airbourne, and a safety height that they would be dropping from, wouldn't the force of the fluid/retardent hitting the fires cause more spot fires due to splash than its worth?


With the aircraft that we're using now, dropping from 100'ATreeL gives the retardant time to achieve terminal velocity and fall vertically. Given the manufacturer's specified drop height of 400-800"ATL, splash is not likely to be a problem.

Higher speeds also cause greater initial dispersion.

Regards............ Peter

[FarmerPete]

There are a lot more waterways suitable for something like a 415 than airports that are suitable for a 747 or DC10. From the Bombadier site:


Werbil.

Also from the Bombardier website.....

How much distance does the Bombardier 415 take to scoop its load? The Bombardier 415 is very manoeuvrable. If a body of water is 1,341 metres (4,400 feet) long by 90 metres (300 feet) wide and 2 metres (6 feet) deep, without floating debris, then it is scoopable*. Only 400 metres (1,350 feet) are actually required on the water, the remainder being needed for approach and climb-out. Of course, these distances can be reduced by scooping (http://www.aerospace.bombardier.com/en/aerospace/products/amphibious-aircraft/firefighting-techniques-and-technologies?docID=0901260d80009039) partial loads or scooping while turning. Speed on the water while scooping is 75 knots. Approximately 10 to 12 seconds are required between touchdown and lift-off to scoop a load.
* Including obstacle clearances of 50 feet, sea level, on a standard day, all operating engines



As I lives adjacent to the upper Murray, I know how rare this specification is anywhere other than the lower 1/4 of the Murray. Our rivers are narrow, wind almost continuously, are full of snags and tend to be lined with Eucalypts well over 50' in height. Not to mention the ambient temperatures on a typical bad fire day.:eek:

The specifications could be met on a handful of major impoundments, but as our lakes are man-made and contain much flooded timber, safety considerations would require the aircraft to only scoop from carefully surveyed and marked runs.

There may be more such runs than there are airports capable of taking a 747 , but not a lot of them.

Respectfully............ Peter

[bellsux]

Interesting figures Timber, did you re-engine the Trackers with a Tardis to come up with those numbers?? :confused:

[Timber]

Garrett TPE-331

Hartzell Propeller: Press Releases (http://www.hartzellprop.com/pressroom/release.asp?id=174)

[Shot Nancy]

a safety height that they would be dropping from
So what is the frag envelope for slick water?

[Freewheel]

A quick calculation on the various tanker options. With the reload point 15 nm away from the fire the drop rate in liters per hour is about:

AT-502: 140kts, 7,000 liters dropped / hr, hose refill only, price $??m
AT-802: 160kts, 10,000 liters dropped / hr, hose refill only, price $??m
Tracker: 240kts 16,000 liters dropped / hr, hose refill only, price $7m
G111AT: 180kts 16,000 liters dropped / hr, hose refill or scoop, price $15m
CL415T: 180kts 20,000 liters dropped / hr, hose refill or scoop, price $30m

The scoopers can double their output easily if a convenient water body is close because the "tank" time is then reduced to seconds.

There is probably a role for each of these aircraft, but what would the main strike force have to consist of....?



Helicopters.

[lk978]

this may be a dumb question but, dont they have terrain in Canada and California too? their pilots seem to be able to handle it in Trackers and alike.
http://www.ebestagent.com/ebestmagazine/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/airtanker1.jpg

CAL FIRE - Air Program (http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_protection/fire_protection_air_program.php)

Why are we so different to them (obvious water shortage compared to Canada)

Why dont we learn from their professional (sorry to offend the volunteers out there) initial attack programs operating in Canada. Feel free to research these programs. Initial Attack Crews - Wildfire Management Branch - Ministry of Forests and Range - Province of British Columbia (http://bcwildfire.ca/FightingWildfire/Crews/Initial/)

[werbil]

FarmerPete,

I used to live around the Grampians where there were quite a number of suitable lakes. Of the numerous large lakes in the area that would be suitable Bellfield & Rocklands in particular have large areas of deep water even during drought periods. The closest airport with a chance of taking a DC10 or 747 to these lakes would be at Avalon - over 100nm away.

I also used to live in far East Gippsland where there were quite a number of protected Estuaries that would have been suitable for water scooping - including both the Mallacoota Lakes and the Gippsland Lakes. Again, the closest airport with a chance of taking a DC10 or 747 would be Canberra - again over 100nm away.

There are many other waterways in Victoria that I can think of that would be suitable for scooping.

A large capacity tanker will take a significant amount of time to refill on the ground - scooping only takes seconds.

as our lakes are man-made and contain much flooded timber, safety considerations would require the aircraft to only scoop from carefully surveyed and marked runs

I'd be more worried about damn power lines than underwater timber. Having done some flying in an impoundment with both I know which is easier to spot on an aerial survey. Man made marks are usually only needed in very confined areas with hazards that are completely submerged as there are usually plenty of natural features to use as marks. In Australia we are fortunate that we don't have anywhere near the amount of mobile timber that they have in many overseas waterways - seeing large trees floating just under the surface sends shivers up my spine.

[Wanderin_dave]

Extremely uneducated observer so no opinion. Though I do know the DC-10 gets low, see here:

SEA07TA181 (http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20070703X00873&ntsbno=SEA07TA181&akey=1) :eek:

Could East Sale handle a 747/DC-10?

[werbil]

East Sale is still well over 100nm away from Mallacoota.

[Dog One]

At the weights the 74 would be operating at, East sale would be suitable. It would appear that Avalon, Melbourne or East Sale would enable the 747 to cover anywhere in Victoria in under 30 minutes. The closer the fire, the quicker the sectors.

[FarmerPete]

Werbil.

Please allow that I'm familiar with the rapid turnaround that scoopers, where feasible, can permit. (I was watching an AT802 Fireboss working on the Clarence River only a fortnight ago.) Be aware that we've also seen Aircranes running turnarounds as low as 45 seconds under real Australian conditions and from water sources that could not possibly permit scooping by a fixed-wing aircraft. . When these issues are taken into consideration, the niche in which the CL415 is the most effective aircraft starts to narrow, considerably.

It is a part of my work to assess the risks to aircraft operating at fires. I don't claim to be an expert at it, but I've spent enough time on inland lakes to know that deepest sections - along the old river-beds -, were generally the most heavily timbered. We only have to miss one.....

It might also be worth mentioning that a number of our senior aviation personnel - in both DSEVic and NSWRFS - trained at the California School of Air Attack, so they have had the opportunity to see how the various aircraft types work. We send fire mangers over there on a regular basis, so it cannot be said that we're isolated from the latest developments in aerial firefighting overseas. A quick scan of the web indicates that the CDF don't own CL415s, and that the two counties that do use them (a total of 4 aircraft) lease, rather than buying. Only 3 Canadian provinces are listed as major users, and they are all in the eastern part of the state with high numbers of freshwater lakes. It appears that over most on Northern America, the Canadairs are not the outstanding "go-to" aircraft that the company advertising would have us believe.

Please hear me. I'm not saying that the '415 is a bad aircraft. What I am saying is that across much of Vic and NSW - particularly away from the narrow coastal strip - it cannot work to capacity and that, therefore, the choice of other aircraft is not as ridiculous as you might think.

The option is always there for a private company to import one and to go through the normal tender-for-contract or EOI (for the call-when-needed list) that all the others go through. While I remain suspiscious of the political factor in the lease under discussion, I'm quite sure that the firefighting authorities in Victoria have specific tasks and situations in mind for their major aircraft contracts, and have done their best to influence the choice.

Respectfully..... Peter

[training wheels]

Obviously, no-one will be able to predict the type of forest fires we'll be getting next summer. So wouldn't it be reasonable then to prepare ourselves for all possible scenarios and have a range of different aircraft types at the ready? I'm sure there is a niche for the 747 Supertanker; if there wasn't, then why would a company invest in it?

[Double Wasp]

Hello all,

First I do not want to infer that we do not have a competent fire fighting system here in Australia. I am sure there are plenty of examples where helicopters were the most effective as the water source they were picking up from would not have supported other aircraft. I am also sure there is an equal amount of situations where the reverse is true.

My main focus is that there are tools that we do not have available to us that we should have. Mainly larger retardant tankers and scoopers. I think the DC10 and the 747 are not manuverable enough. I think the Convair 580 would be Ideal for this or if we have to go to new airframes the Q400 seems to be working well for the French securite civile.

We should not be putting the tankers (retardant carriers), and the water bombers (scoopers) into exactly the same category. These airplanes are two different parts of the whole picture. Tankers help contain and direct while the scoopers help decrease fire intensity.

While its true only 3 Provinces use the 415, Ontario, Quebec, and now Newfoundland they are not the only ones using scoopers. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the NWT use the previous model the 215. Alberta has the Rockies in it with lowests safes around 15000' as does the NWT. I have seen some of the swamps and puddles these guys have scooped out of and it is pretty amazing. One has to remember that these guys are scooping out of rivers that have active logging as well as reservoirs from hydro dams across Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Lets not forget to mention France, Spain, Italy, Turkey and Greece. All of whom have mountainous terrain and have a lot more restrictions on their internal waterways than Australia.

The trick is these aircraft do not work alone. They work as a pair at a minimum preferably more. These aircraft set up a circuit as close to the fire as possible and hammer it with as much water as they can. The guys who I talk to talk about 90 takeoffs plus for a four hour mission when the source is close. This makes a hell of a difference but it must be remembered that the boots on the ground put out the fire not the airplane.

DW

[BULLDOG 248]

The CL415 were in OZ 8 years ago doing proving flight for the Fire Auth's in NSW, Vic and S.A (not sure about the other states) and all come to the conclusion that the price and lack of water supplies were the main issues against????
This was during spring and not the fire season??? I might be worth getting a couple here during the fire season and have a good look at them.

[Buster Hyman]

The best use for a DC10/747 would be in creating fire breaks. Otherwise, we'd need the fire to burn in a straight line for them to be most effective.

I agree with earlier posts regarding amphibious aircraft, there's just not enough lakes & rivers they can use. As for Port Philip Bay, well, who wants to tell a Farmer that they just dropped 20,000lts of sea water on their land?

Personally, I think our chopper pilots do a sterling job, all things considered and you cannot underestimate their accuracy when compared to fixed wing solutions.

Just my 2 cents worth. :ok:

[FarmerPete]

Try this for an exercise.
This time last week, we were working a fire SE of Mathoura.
35°51'8.33"S
144°56'50.83"E
For those who don't know the area, it's floodplain occupied by the world's largest forest of River Redgum. It's also got a lot of reed or cane-grass beds that the locals estimate have fine-fuel loads of up to 100t/ha. We were running three ATs off the Deniliquin strip, on about 25-minutes turnaround.

Would anyone care to whistle up an online map and nominate a spot that'd be suitable for scooping?

Double-Wasp makes a very valid point in saying that we need to distinguish between the use of short term retardants (Water and foam, effectiveness limited to 20 minutes on a 40c day) and long-term retardants such as Phoscheck. Short-term retardants are of very limited use if we don't have people on the ground.

[FarmerPete]

Or try the Frenchman's Fire, some 10 days earlier.

30° 0'37.91"S
152°32'4.01"E

[TBM-Legend]

Scoopers and Super Scoopers can operate successfully with land based stop and go replenishment. Air Tractors and baby choppers etc are like fighting a house fire with a garden hose. The real issue that is lost is that the vested interests want only a simple solution. Aerial fire fighting requires various levels of appliances and attack methods.

[FarmerPete]

Comparing the Scoopers with JetRangers is pointless. No-one is arguing that the two perform the same work.

Comparing a '415 on a 20+ minute turnaround to a Huey with a 1400 litre bucket on a 2 minute turnaround ..... is a far more reasonable situation in realworld firefighting.

Going back to the original topic, we should ask what the Canadairs would bring to the party that we (or Victoria) hasn't already got.

High productivity aircraft operating off open water sources close to the fire? Yep, got that covered with the Aircrane and multiple helitacks.

Flexible fixed-wing capacity capable of operating off agricultural strips and laying long-term retardant line, or first-attack or fresh lightning strike. Yep, ATs and Dromaders.

What I expect (and granted, i cannot say that I've worked with machines of this capacity) that a large airtanker will do is add the capacity to lay a retardant line of significant length in one pass. This is can be used to limit the forward spread of a fire which has already begun to develop, but is not running hard. It can also be used to provide a break along the edge of a township that is threateded by fire. It won't stop a hard-running fire, but will reduce the radiant heat faced by fire crews and residents attempting to defend homes.
The '415s do not have this capacity. You can't scoop long-term retardant, it has to be premixed and pumped on board. Your capacity to reload is limited by your ability to position batching and pumping equipment to a convenient airstrip. If it takes 90 minutes to physically transport the equipment and set it up, then that is the minimum time taken before your small or medium capacity aircraft can commence to reload after its first drop.

As for "garden hoses"? If we can't do something with 3 ag planes carring a combines 7500-9000 litres, it's hardly likely that a '215 or '415 carrying a maximum of 6100 litres is going to do more when operating off the same strip and under the same conditions. The other nice thing about the ag aircraft is that we can hire them on a "call when needed" basis, which means that we don't have to pay their costs during the quiet seasons. We DO have a "vested interest".... The interest of the taxpayers who have to fund the exercise.

[Double Wasp]

Farmer,
I agree that for those particular fires the Canadairs would not have been able to scoop however they can then be loaded with long term and dump same as any other tanker. Much like how the Fireboss can be used but with a bigger punch. The difference is when the fire does have a suitable source near to it then the other side of the effectiveness would be available.

In Canada in Alberta, NWT, Saskatchewan and British Columbia they use a combination approach of large and small longterm tankers, scoopers, helicopters and ground crews to fight fires. They have the tools available to pick what piece of equipment is most suited. I believe that without having both scoopers and larger tankers we are limiting ourselves needlessly.

While 415 is expensive it could be used as a longterm retardant delivery platform or short term or both in the same mission. However if the cost is too prohibitive maybe a combination of Firebosses and Convair 580's would result in the most "bang for the buck".

Good discussion so far
DW:ok:

[Double Wasp]

Farmer you posted just before I did,
I would like to add that these larger aircraft and scoopers should not be at the expense of the smaller tankers and helicopters. They are all needed.
I would bet some solid money that the Aircrane Helo crews are paid throughout the season whether they fly or not. Meaning there is a precedent for crews to be on call all season long cool or hot. A couple guys sitting around on a base somewhere should be able to be accounted for in someone's budget.
As far as the infrastucture goes sure it might take 90 min to set up a remote base but that is just logistics which will always get better with time. There should be some set up already for the ag aircraft its just a matter of making sure strip length is appropriate for the bigger boys.
Definately no longer talking DC10 and 747 they are pretty much there to put shows on for the media.
:rolleyes:
DW

[FarmerPete]

DW.
In Canada in Alberta, NWT, Saskatchewan and British Columbia they use a combination approach of large and small longterm tankers, scoopers, helicopters and ground crews to fight fires. They have the tools available to pick what piece of equipment is most suited. I believe that without having both scoopers and larger tankers we are limiting ourselves needlessly.


No argument on the requirement for a mix of tools to do a variety of jobs. I'm a believer. The issue that we face at the moment is $$, or rather,, the lack of them.

We have an "interesting" funding system in NSW.
The contract aircraft - the ones that we pay to sit ready all season - are paid for out of the Service's budget, up to a point. This is the same budget with which we train and equip firefighters on the ground, build infrastructure, and keep the shop running. From memory, that budget has increased more than 3-fold over the last 15 years, and yet there are still major deficiencies. Aviation has to work hard to justify any extra expenditure.

Declared Emergencies are funded directly by the State Government, which pays for running costs, repairs, consumables and hire of extras through its emergency fund. This is used for hiring the call-when-needed fleet, but can't be accessed to buy or hire aircraft for use outside the specified area of the Declaration.

Gotta go, I have a contractor coming,,,, but please keep in mind the other demands on the Government's wallet. Firefighting is only a vote-winner for a short period after a big season. After that, the voters tend to lose interest and politicians lose incentive to fund us properly. My brigade has no shed, and half the trucks that we should....

Peter

[lk978]

In the rest of the world helicopters are used as initial attack, finding spot fires or lighting strikes and extinguishing the blaze before the fire gets to large.

This means multiple teams all over the country with a medium to large bucket (212 or AS350 ect) and a team of fire fighters who winch in to target the small blaze. Then let the heavy bomber create the breaks for the larger fronts.

What does out initial attack consist of a couple of guys in a jetranger mapping out where the small puffs of smoke are...

I am no expert but I am sure there is a use for professionally trained crews like this for initial attack and search and rescue provided by the fed's at a national level. I think that might upset a few of the chiefs out there.... maybe one day this issue will not be an arena for political grand standing

[Buster Hyman]

ik978, you're talking about Hot Shots or Smoke Jumpers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotshot_crew) I think. I don't think there are many agencies in Oz that want people to jump into the path of a fire with a rake hoe & chainsaw.

[FarmerPete]

lk978.
What does out initial attack consist of a couple of guys in a jetranger mapping out where the small puffs of smoke are...



In NSW we commonly use detection flights on a particularly bad day or after a lightning front has come through. Usually a fixed-wing due to cost considerations and the ability to cover more country than is possible with a Jetty.

First-attack with aircraft is often undertaken with a prepositioned AT802. We keep the contract aircraft on standby in the areas of greatest risk. (according to the weather gurus and the lightning tracker systems..) Particularly if there's been a little rain with the storm, it often works to paint the smoker and the ground around it red, (Phoscheck) with the aim of keeping it quiet until a crew can get in.

As a lot of the rough, timbered country is managed by either State Forests on National Parks, these services do have trained remote-area crews that can either hike in, or winch in from a 'copter. The RFS also has RAFT crews, but we deploy them by winch less often.

As Buster said, there's no great enthusiasm here for parachute crews. If there's a big enough hole for them to jump into, we can land a heli in there.

[lk978]

Thanks for the info guys, I see that we do have some capabilities like we see in other parts of the world but just not at that level.

My biggest problem with our policies is that we tend to think we are so different from everywhere else, if its not our high terrain (laughable compred to Canada) its the bush is too ruggered (have a look at califoria).

" I don't think there are many agencies in Oz that want people to jump into the path of a fire with a rake hoe & chainsaw"

I understand this comment but why not? should we just hire in the crews from the north each season? that would make sense wouldnt it. I believe they are only attackig small fires that hasnt formed a front.

FarmerPete Would having paid highly trained crews help? (i understand that the volunteers are highly trained, but like the difference between army trained and SAS trained)

[parabellum]

No reason why Avalon couldn't become a totally dedicated fire fighting airport, rather than 'mix it' at Tullermarine, is there? Oh yes, I forgot, Lindsey Fox!

[TBM-Legend]

Thanks for the vested advice Farmer Brown. The real point is you need lots of assets to fight fires. Early intervention is a policy practiced in Canada but seemingly not here for lack of equipment, valiant manpower or money. No one decries the efforts of the boys and girls who give their all here but rather we need a bigger "stick" to add to the armory.

In Canada the AT's replaced B-26's. My friend who has flown firebombers for >25 years tells me that the -26's would fly when AT's are blown out with high winds. The 215/415's always operate in teams so it is not one replacing multiple smaller machines..

[FarmerPete]

lk978
" I don't think there are many agencies in Oz that want people to jump into the path of a fire with a rake hoe & chainsaw"

I understand this comment but why not? .... I believe they are only attacking small fires that hasnt formed a front.
It's partly to do with OH&S. Too many of the crews lost or burnovers experienced have not been from large fires (people get the hint that those are dangerous) but small or benign-seeming fires that have undergone rapid acceleration due to unforeseen changes in local weather. CSIRO research has resulted in SOP that you don't go close to fires without having a refuge area within a specified distance. Whether the issue has been over-done, is not something that I should comment on here... partly due to an ongoing court-case resulting from the Canberra fires a few years ago.
There's also a perception that the Americans are a little more gung-ho than we are, and almost expect to take the occasional casualty. Whether this is true or not, others will know, but you only need to look at the Coronial inquiry into the Linton fire in Vic to understand why managers get nervous about risk.


FarmerPete Would having paid highly trained crews help? (i understand that the volunteers are highly trained, but like the difference between army trained and SAS trained)
It's a little outside my area of expertise, so my comments should not be taken as gospel.. RAFT is a great tool to have available, but must be used with caution. Exactly how much training is required is not for me to say, but the pros - Forestry and NPWS (Sparks and Wildfires ;)) are pretty good, and also fit. No reason why volunteers cannot achieve the same skill and fitness levels, but few have the time available.

I like a good early attack, as the longer that we leave a fire burning, the more likely it is to come out and bite us on a bad day.... but sometimes it's also more appropriate to just put a ring around it and burn an area out. At least that way we can have good, solid containment lines. A D8 beats a rake-hoe for making firebreaks, every time IMHO.:ok:

Regards.... Peter

<edited to add> It's also worth remembering that a severe lightning front can result in a couple of hundred ignitions. That's a lot of crews if you want to deal with them that way.

Pete

[FarmerPete]

Thanks for the vested advice Farmer Brown. The real point is you need lots of assets to fight fires. Early intervention is a policy practiced in Canada but seemingly not here for lack of equipment, valiant manpower or money. No one decries the efforts of the boys and girls who give their all here but rather we need a bigger "stick" to add to the armory.

It'd be interesting to compare the relative value of the timber resource under threat in Canada, and here..... and how the Candians fund and justify their expenditure.

I only know that in NSW, the budget is determined by a levy on insurance. There comes a point where spending extra money becomes wasteful because the return is too low. To be hard-nosed about it, sometimes it is cheaper to replant and rebuild than it is to spend huge amounts of money on methods of firefighting that show diminishing returns. As I said before, both roads and health systems are underfunded, and this costs us far more lives than fire does.

Fire is not a sacred cow, and must be kept in perspective.

Oh, and by the way. Farmer Brown kept cattle. Yr Obed Svnt is a sheep and grain cocky, who is so passionate about quick response that he keeps a private fire unit parked outside his back door all summer.

[werbil]

FarmerPete,

I had heard whispers that there would be firebosses coming into the country, but I hadn't heard that they were here yet. One comment I would make after looking at the www.firebossllc.com (http://www.firebossllc.com) website the other day is that the fireboss requires about 300m more length to work than the Canadairs (both actual scoop and 50' to 50'). I'd love to have a play in a fireboss, but with no plans to fly ag its never going to happen.:{

I do agree that unless you are using the 415's for scooping they become a poor cousin compared to 802's and the like - escpecially when you consider they lift 1 1/2 ton less from land than they can scoop from water. Carrying around the weight of flying boat hull when operating as a land aircraft is inefficient. At least if the fireboss is like the caravan it can be switched between standard and amphibian gear overnight.

What would be very interesting is a comparison between the cost of operating a 415 to say three firebosses (I suspect that would provide similar throughput).

With all due respect, as a seaplane pilot I would not accept a risk assement performed on a body of water that I was planning to operate off by anyone other than an experienced seaplane pilot. I work in open water where we have to regularly work around boats, where it is very rare to find even very experienced skippers that understand our requirements.

What is really sad is seeing the political budgetry influences on the selection of the size and type of assets used for firefighting, especially when it distorts the selection away from a more effective system for the same actual investment. And then there is the question about how we value life.

I'm a firm beleiver in hit em early and hit em hard. I am also a firefighter in Queensland (auxiliary) and at times I wish I was back in Victoria (volunteer) where we would use dozers and 4WD tankers where up here we use knapsacks and rakehoes, and be home in a fraction of the time. However on the same token I much prefer the fire behaviour up here.

[FarmerPete]

Werbil...
With all due respect, as a seaplane pilot I would not accept a risk assement performed on a body of water that I was planning to operate off by anyone other than an experienced seaplane pilot. Point taken, very happily. This is about as good as it gets on the Murray until you get closer to SA. Bit hard to see what's under the surface, isn't it? That is a small tinny, BTW.
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa47/Tsayad/032.jpg


What is really sad is seeing the political budgetry influences on the selection of the size and type of assets used for firefighting, especially when it distorts the selection away from a more effective system for the same actual investment. And then there is the question about how we value life.
It is. But it's the same in all walks of life. I'm wary of claiming exceptions. Because of the emergency funbding regiome, the RFS is actually slightly less concerned about cost-effectiveness than was DSE-Vic when I trained with them.

I'm a firm beleiver in hit em early and hit em hard. I am also a firefighter in Queensland (auxiliary) and at times I wish I was back in Victoria (volunteer) where we would use dozers ....

You mean like this? :D

I like the way that the Forestry boys do fire-breaks. No mucking about here.
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa47/Tsayad/047.jpg

Cheers............ Pete

[Buster Hyman]

I understand this comment but why not? should we just hire in the crews from the north each season? that would make sense wouldnt it. I believe they are only attackig small fires that hasnt formed a front.

Sadly, the fire will "form a front" when it pleases.

I think I mentioned on the other thread that I had met the guy who developed the fire curtains we use on our Tankers (and I can readily vouch for!). His Brother was a Smoke Jumper & died on Storm King Mountain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Canyon_Fire) in 1994. Now, there were many circumstances & stuff ups that contributed to this tragedy, but basically, these guys & girls have little in the way of protection if they get caught. The only survival PPE they have is a collapsible shelter they carry with them & need to deploy when in danger. The shelter stops radiant heat, but not direct flame, and you need to be out of the wind to successfully deploy them to a suitable standard. Rarely will it be still during the conditions you need to deploy them in.

Remember, if the jumpers get caught, someones got to go in to help them anyway.

These portable shelters are not recommended or supplied to any agency in Oz that I am aware of, as they possibly provide a false sense of security. (There's probably a myriad of other reasons I'm not aware of too!)

Anyway, you are right in saying that they can, and do, knock out small, remote fires, but I think the agencies here believe the risk is too great.

[Wunwing]

While we in OZ go around in circles on this subject and as usual try to find political solutions for engineering problems,the rest of the World gets on with real solutions.
I note on the Freight Dog forum that there is a thread running on the future of Atlantic Cargo's 6 L188s. Its suggested that they are to be used in Canada for fire bombers. Given that some of Airsprays fleet are ex Atlantic, its quite probable.
But hey here in Australia we're different, we don't need aircraft like Airspray's long liners do we, a bit of spin here and there and we are OK (until next time)???
Wunwing

[FarmerPete]

Wunwing...

If it's ...
(a) affordable.
(b) cost-effective.
(c) more of (b) than the other available options...

Then undoubtedly it will be examined.

In reality, bushfires in Australia kill an average 5 people per year.... the majority of which would not have been saved by your solution, but which may be saved if we get more fundamental things right, like fuel management and education.

It's the politicians who favour big-ticket items. The people on the ground would often rather have their 25YO, petrol-powered truck replaced with something more reliable.

I can't emphasise enough that in the fire management "market-place", aviation competes for limited dollars. There are a lot of other needs.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That said, it is a conviction of mine that we NEED more Fuel-Reduction Burning. Every major inquiry since 1939 has said so, yet the Land Management Agencies seem to have an institutional nervousness on this subject as they get carpeted every time one gets away. Even if the "damage" is minor. Having a larger aviation presence and budget may help them acquire the needed courage to do the work.

Peter

[FlexibleResponse]

I must commend FarmerPete for his excellent and very knowledgeable input and comment on this thread!

I am sure that the views that he expresses will promote and accelerate the achievement of the optimum airborne fire suppression and extinguishing capability that the fire-challenged States of Australia so desperately need.

Some years down the track Australia will have a capable and reliable airborne fire fighting capability...and future generations will not be able to imagine a time when that capability did not exist.

Pioneers with the imagination and intelligence...mixed with the requisite amount of commonsense...are required now to make that so...

[notmyC150v2]

FarmerPete,

Thanks for your great posts so far. It's not often we get someone on here who knows what they are talking about and are prepared to argue in such a civilised and respectful manner.

So for a completely unknowledgable one such as I, could you please tell me (if you can), would the fire tragedies in Victoria this year have been avoided if we had some of these you beaut fire bombers on standby?

It just seems to me that these fires were so extreme and the weather so supportive of them, that nothing could have made a difference. Am I wrong?

[halas]

Fight the the cause of the problem, not mop-up afterwards ($$$$$$$$).

The Age earlier this year...

Call to copy SA arson campaign

SELMA MILOVANOVIC AND MARIKA DOBBIN
February 27, 2009

VICTORIAN police should target suspected arsonists on days of high fire risk, mirroring a South Australian operation credited with halving the state's arson rate in five years, a top Victorian policeman says.

Assistant Commissioner Steve Fontana said yesterday that police in areas such as Gippsland had visited suspected arsonists as part of surveillance patrols.

But an ongoing, statewide door-knocking campaign was a "good, proactive method".

The comments came as Federal Attorney-General Robert McClelland prepares to convene a national conference on arson next month.

"Australia must tackle bushfire arson as an urgent national priority," a spokesman for Mr McClelland said. "The cost in lives, properties destroyed and community resources are too high to be ignored."

All options to stamp out the heinous crime of arson would be considered by criminologists, police, firefighters and emergency services, the spokesman said.

Under South Australia's Operation Nomad, police visit suspected and convicted arsonists on days of high fire danger. They also use automated number plate recognition to alert them of suspects driving in fire danger zones.

The scheme — credited with reducing the arson rate in Adelaide Hills bushfires in the past five years — has resulted in 35 people being arrested for arson this summer, while another 40 were given on-the-spot fines.

"I think it is a good practice and it's probably something we can roll out more comprehensively as time goes on," Mr Fontana said.

The Age believes Morwell police made home visits to known arsonists in Gippsland in past weeks, including a 17-year-old twice charged with arson and Moe mother Rosemary Ann Harris, 31, who was sentenced last week to three years' jail for two fires lit in December 2006.

Mr Fontana said 140 NSW police who arrived yesterday would help with arson patrols in fire-prone areas.

SA Premier Mike Rann has written to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd seeking to have Operation Nomad discussed at next month's Council of Australian Governments' meeting.

A spokeswoman for Premier John Brumby said Victoria had some of the toughest penalties for arson in the world. But Mr Brumby would be happy to discuss a statewide approach to arson prevention if it was raised at COAG.

On Black Saturday, there were only two major fires in South Australia — neither believed to have been deliberately lit — despite horror weather similar to Victoria's.

That day, 120 South Australian police checked on about 40 people of interest.

Liberty Victoria President Michael Pearce said Victoria Police would need no further powers if a scheme such as Operation Nomad was adopted.

"If they had a reasonable suspicion that someone may be planning to commit an offence, police have adequate power to monitor and impose surveillance on people," he said.

Meanwhile, a man and a woman who were arrested on Tuesday over suspicious fires in the Officer area — believed to have been lit on February 4 — have been released.

halas

[werbil]

FarmerPete,

Aren't there are number of water sking races along the Murray such as the Southern 80? Boats travelling at average speeds of over 150km/hr for 80 k's or so between Torrumbarry and Echuca ? There would have to be dozens of spots along that section of the river that could be used for scooping. I've never been able to read water conditions or depths from photos - the only things that work for me are local knowledge interpreted by the pilot and the trained mark one eyeball.

Best constructed break for a fire that I've ever seen was the one to the east of Gillantipy in the Gippsland Fires of about 2003 - the break was about the same width as the Hume Highway.

****

notmyC150v2

Very unlikley to have made much of a difference - it would have saved some houses and possibly a few lives. In extreme fire conditions that only thing that will stop a developed fire in Victoria is a change in the weather or Bass Strait. The Gippsland Fires mentioned above were a classic example - they'd build a control line, hold it for a few days, the north westerlies would pick up again and then the fire would jump the control lines and they'd start again. After about a month the weather patterns changed and they got it under control.

However, where aircraft have a big advantage is in slowing a fire which has only just started, giving ground crews a chance to get to the scene and contain the fire. It's going back a few years, but I think the advice was if you don't have a fire under control in thirty minutes (can't remember the actual time, but it was damn short) on an extreme fire danger day it's time to start mobilising some serious resources including from a long distance away. The fire that is held by an aircraft might otherwise turn into a very destructive fire with loss of life - there have been many killer fires that started days before the loss of the first life, and from tiny beginnings.

[Maxum2400]

It's a shame about losing the National Safety Council back in 89'. Helitak crews, F27 firebomber, 'Bird Dog' aircraft and a contract with Canada to have an exchange program with their helio's. Bring back 'Freddo'!

[FarmerPete]

notmyC150v2So for a completely unknowledgable one such as I, could you please tell me (if you can), would the fire tragedies in Victoria this year have been avoided if we had some of these you beaut fire bombers on standby?

It just seems to me that these fires were so extreme and the weather so supportive of them, that nothing could have made a difference. Am I wrong?

I don't know..... How good is your crystal ball?

In an ideal world, there'd always be enough funds, so we'd get to find out. But in an ideal world, there wouldn't be any bad fires, anyway.

In theory, they might have made a difference in some fires and saved some people..... particularly in the case of fires that started on previous days and in milder conditions. Had they been extinguished then, results might be better. On the day itself and under the conditions prevailing, I doubt that any aerial resources would have made much difference.

The same can be said for firebreaks, trucks, earthmoving equipment, and all the other tools that firefighters use.

The best way to control a fire is to have it when you choose, rather than on a blow-up day. The best way to survive a bad fire is to be somewhere else.

Regards......... Peter

[FarmerPete]

Werbil...Aren't there are number of water sking races along the Murray such as the Southern 80? Boats travelling at average speeds of over 150km/hr for 80 k's or so between Torrumbarry and Echuca ? There would have to be dozens of spots along that section of the river that could be used for scooping. I've never been able to read water conditions or depths from photos

I thought of that too.
It's not much over 30km from Echuca to Torrumbarry in a straight line, but the race website boasts that in that stretch of river thare are over 120 bends.:eek: I suppose that it makes the racing "interesting"... or something.:confused:

Perhaps you'll appreciate the issues that fire services face when managing aircraft safety. Pilots are almost always more skilled than we are, and have more practice in managing the normal safety issues, yet as the contracting organisation, we are required to ensure the safety of our pilots. Neither CASA nor the OH&S authorities are impressed with our status as an "Emergency" service, and require us to run aircraft over fires as though it were pretty much ordinary business. That includes making sure that pilots don't get carried away by the urgency of the situation and push the limits just that little bit too hard. So sometimes we have to develop standards that a good pilot on a good day could exceed, and if somebody went in while attempting to scoop off the Murray, I'd hate to be explaining to the Coronor and CASA, why I authorised that action when the river at that point din't quite meet the manufacturer's standards.

There probably are a few points that are suitable, but I wouldn't claim that there are "dozens" of them.

You're right about the rest, tho. We sometimes need the humility to admit that God puts out more of the big ones than we do. Best we can do is limit the damage until it rains.

Cheers......... Pete

[FarmerPete]

Maxum2400
It's a shame about losing the National Safety Council back in 89'. Helitak crews, F27 firebomber, 'Bird Dog' aircraft and a contract with Canada to have an exchange program with their helio's. Bring back 'Freddo'!


We may not have lost as much as you think. Neither people nor machinery just evapourated.

I don't think that it's letting any cats out of the bag to mention that the Training and Safety Manager of the Vic State Aircraft Unit, Bryan Rees, is an ex-NSC man. Perhaps that's why he's (IIRC) highly critical of poor use of resources. :=

Regards............ Pete

[Wunwing]

Pete

Your comments on OH & S limits on scooping seem to indicate that Canadairs will not work. Which gets back to my suggestion that we should be using large airport based aircraft in a similar manner to the rest of the world.

Experiments with one aircraft be it an F27, DC6 or whatever prove or disprove nothing. The rest of the world uses multiple large aircraft in a planned and concentrated attack to extinguish fires as soon as they start.

I stand by my original suggestion that serious consideration should be given to obtaining the Sale trackers for conversion while we have them available.

Wunwing

[FarmerPete]

Wunwing....

Please ignore the anguished expression on my face. I always look this way first thing in the morning.:{

The rest of the world uses multiple large aircraft in a planned and concentrated attack to extinguish fires as soon as they start.

I'll merely note that (a) "planned and concentrated" attacks are an issue of policy and management, not aircraft size.... and that (b) "The rest of the world" also has fires, some of which are not extinguished as soon as they start. The first-attack success rate in SE Australia will probably stand comparison with any similar area in the world.

As for the conversion of old, ex-military airframes for specialist fire work, I'll (for what that's worth) happily consider that as an option when somebody can show that it's both more cost-effective than the current strategy, and does not divert resources from other areas of emergency management that are just as vital.

Here are the key findings from the Bushfire CRC Aerial Suppression Research Project.
~Aerial suppression can be effective in providing
support to ground crews and improve the probability
of first attack success by up to 50 percent or more if
the FFDI is in the low, moderate and high classes.
~For an aircraft to provide effective assistance it must
be available at call, rapidly dispatched with minimal
travel time and with logistical systems in place.
~Air operations effectively integrated into the incident
management structure and competent personnel
need to be available to direct the operation.
~The use of ground resources with initial aerial
support is the most economically efficient approach
to suppression.
~The use of aircraft for first attack until ground
resources reach the fire produces the best outcome.
~Large fixed wing air tankers such as a DC 10 are at
a cost disadvantage. This is particularly the case for
first attack when fires are small and where water
drop accuracy is required.

[Wunwing]

Pete
I've got the same look on my face. You seem to have a problem with the age of aircraft that I'm suggesting have some use.
Conair have just purchased 2 ex Pionair Convair 580s for conversion to firebombers. The CV580 is a rebuild of the old CV340 and 440s and are the same age as the Trackers. Airspray is rebuilding L188s which are virtually the same age as the trackers and Aero Union are using A model Orions which aren't all that much younger and have had a far harder life.Neptune inc continue to use Neptunes which are the same age as the trackers.

With old aircraft, companies that specialise in them keep a huge stock of spares and seem to manage them well. The only real problem is radial engines and my proposal is to re engine them with PT6s which are basic industry current standard.The evidence in general ops is the CV580. An early 50s airframe mated with a later 50s propjet which still gives an unrivalled cost base for a reliable airframe.

Wunwing

[FarmerPete]

Not a morning person, either, mate?

OK, OK, it isn't necessarily the age of the airframe. We also have enough ex-Vietnam Hueys around working fires to demonstrate that this isn't the issue.
If the economics of converting and using these aircraft is worthwhile, why aren't private firms lining up to buy them, do the conversion and tendering for fire work at competitive rates?

The majority of Contracts for the NSW Rural Fire Service are managed by the NSW Department of Commerce. Further information on tenders can be found by visiting the governments' electronic tendering site:
www.tenders.nsw.gov.au (http://www.tenders.nsw.gov.au)
Suppliers should register their interest by creating a profile and login.

Should you require further information please email [email protected] ([email protected])

If they come on that basis, I have no problems with using them.

I know that I keep hammering the economics issues, but what's the use of spending $2 to save $1 worth of property?

Cheers.....Pete.

[Wunwing]

Pete
Actually I've been up since 0500EST, just not at the computer.

My current expertise is keeping very old aircraft flying so I've some knowledge of what I'm saying aircraft ops and engineering wise. In a previous life I was a B747 FE so I know a little about them as well.

I've discussed purchasing and tendering with some potential operators but the problem is that to be both financially and operationally viable a minimum common fleet size is needed, probably beyond 3 +aircraft, say another 3 airframes for spares, damage, backup etc. On top of that specialised supporting road vehicles and a good engineering setup. That is why I'm suggesting the Trackers. They are cheap to purchase, have an established modification available, have overseas current operators who can train staff and use an industry standard power plant. If you want to look at what is required by a very professional operator look at Neptune Aviation web site.

To justify doing all that, an ongoing 10 year Govt contract is needed and so far no-one that I've spoken to has been able to get a committment for more than one season. Thats certainly no good for purchasing, converting and an annual down time of 8 months of the year.

Its also the current problem with the US operators who as a result of a couple of accidents and the resulting politics including some very interesting sideline operations involving shadowy organisations, have been only able to source work 1 season at a time and thus aren't in a position to modernise.Basically with the exception of 1 or 2 operators their aircraft are past their use by date or getting close

Also of interest is that in the US, their newer ( 1950/60s)heavy aircraft have been gifted out of the USAF/USN stockpile which makes it less costly to startup.That is the reason for the main US guys to use Orions and C130As verses the Canadians who use old civil aircraft like the L188 Electra which was the civil version of the Orion.

What started our discussion is the Vic Gov propsal to use a B747 or DC10 at $10,000,000 cost for the season. My original point was and is that that kind of money would be better spent on something more flexible and longer term than a 1 shot 100 ton drop only here for a limited time and certainly restricted by weight and handling requirements to big city runways.However the only way to get it is by a Gov. and probably the Federal Gov. funding the INITIAL operators via a long term contract. Once an industry is established it may be a different story

Wunwing

[FarmerPete]

Wunwing.
My current expertise is keeping very old aircraft flying so I've some knowledge of what I'm saying aircraft ops and engineering wise. In a previous life I was a B747 FE so I know a little about them as well.


I'll have to acknowledge that you'e a class or two ahead of me on this subject. That's fine and I'm prepared to listen.

I can also understand some of what you say regarding the economics, although I'm still unsure why you'd be arguing for an in-country fleet that sits idle - as you say - for 8 months of the year. The capital cost incurred would require that the savings over the 4 months of actual operation would have to be pretty spectacular.

Where I may still disagree with you is the assumption that we're currently lagging behind the rest of the world in our tactics or organisation. At some points we are, but that mostly occurs when managers at a local level are still not fully familiar with the needs and capabilities of aviation.

Cheers........... Peter

[Senior Pilot]

We also have enough ex-Vietnam Hueys around working fires to demonstrate that this isn't the issue.

I'd query that assertion: there are very few ex mil UH1's in Oz, and most of your medium Helitacks in Victoria are one Bell 205 (civil variant of the UH1, but dual hydraulics, etc) and a lot of contract Bell 212/412's. No ex Vietnam Hueys at all :=

[Trash 'n' Navs]

Australia prepares to test large air tanker for firefighting missions (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/11/23/335324/australia-prepares-to-test-large-air-tanker-for-firefighting.html)

Australia prepares to test large air tanker for firefighting missions
By Emma Kelly

Australia is set to test a very large air tanker, such as the Boeing 747 Supertanker or McDonnell Douglas DC-10, for aerial firefighting for the first time early in 2010.

The aircraft will be deployed in Victoria between January and late March. The move follows the worst fires in the country's history in February, during which more than 170 people died in Victoria, and amid expectations of a severe fire season this year.

The National Aerial Firefighting Centre, which procures and manages a national aerial firefighting fleet to fight fires throughout the country each year, will run the procurement tender process and evaluate the trial, with support from the Bushfire Co-operative Research Centre.

The centre has been evaluating very large air tankers following the release of its Future Aerial Fire Management Capability request for proposal released early last year (Flight International, 25-31 August). Issues of cost-effectiveness and ground infrastructure have previously prevented the use of large air tankers in Australia.

"Large aircraft that can carry up to eight times the water or retardant of smaller firefighting aircraft are untested in Australian conditions," says Victoria's police and emergency services minister Bob Cameron. He adds: "Firefighting agencies will need to determine how they'll work in Australian conditions and Victoria will test how effective the big machines can be in fighting fires in conjunction with our current fleet of smaller firefighting aircraft."

Victoria has 34 contracted firefighting aircraft for this year's firefighting season, which has already started, and access to a further 176 fixed-wing aircraft and 38 helicopters that are on call.

The large air tanker - some of which are capable of laying a continuous line of retardant or water 30m (100ft) wide for 1.2km (0.65nm)- would be assessed for immediate attack when a fire is small, its impact on a developing fire to help contain it and on a control line. Victoria also plans to test a new suppressant gel as an alternative to traditional foam for firebombing.

I note on an earlier post, there was a comment about funding. FarmerPete - how's this new "National Aerial Firefighting Centre" working out? Another QUANGO or actually of use?

Seems like a valid approach to put some actual local data behind the arguments rather than relying on Canada, USA or European operations, local assumptions or even the manufacturers claims.
:ok:

[FarmerPete]

Senior Pilot.
I'd query that assertion: there are very few ex mil UH1's in Oz, and most of your medium Helitacks in Victoria are one Bell 205 (civil variant of the UH1, but dual hydraulics, etc) and a lot of contract Bell 212/412's. No ex Vietnam Hueys at all :=

It seems possible that I've been misinformed, or simply got the wrong end of the stick on the subject of their service. It wouldn't be the first time I've made a blue.

On the other hand, it would seem that there are definitely Huey's working fire in NSW.
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa47/Tsayad/Fire/23102009009.jpg
I apologise for the poor quality of the photograph, but here are HT205/VH-ONZ and HT282/VH-RSL returning to Grafton after working out of Nymboida. They did good work stopping a backburn that jumped the break in half a dozen places, and made some boys on the ground very happy.
http://i202.photobucket.com/albums/aa47/Tsayad/Fire/24102009.jpg

The following aircraft are on the NSWRFS List of Approved Aircraft for 2009/10 season. All, apart from HT276 are listed as UH-1H variants.

HT205/VH-ONZ
HT276/VH-UHF (UH-1B)
HT346/VH-UHH
HT271/VH-HUE
HT272/VH-LUE
HT282/VH-RSL
HT263/VH-CPO
HT442/VH-UEE

That's ignoring McDermot's trio of 205-1As.

Humour a simple country lad if you will, and don't hit me over the head too hard for believing what I've seen in the official documentation.:confused:

Regards..... Peter

[FarmerPete]

Trash 'N' Navs..

You can probably learn as much about the NAFC from the net as you can from me. Pity that their website seems to be 12 months behind. Maybe that tells us something.:* My limited info is that it's essentially a committee of the various state departmental heads who determine how the Federally funded contract aircraft are to be used. There's obviously some sense in having a Federally funded asset with a flexible deployment so that aircraft can be allocated according to need, rather than just according to state boundaries. But it's also true that when one part of SE Australia has a bad fire seaon, it tends to be across state boundaries.

A better source for current research into the effectiveness of the various systems would be the Bushfire CRC. Bushfire CRC home (http://www.bushfirecrc.com/)

Sorry that I can't help more........ Peter

[werbil]

http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/4111385B-B763-4B81-9F6D-B19168C9E80E/2058/canadairreport.pdf is an interesting read even if it is a few years old. Does anyone know if there has been any update on it?

Some good ones to watch:
YouTube - Be-200 MULTIPURPOSE AMPHIBIOUS AIRCRAFT (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R4EgOj0WKRA)
YouTube - Canadair 2 - Fire boss 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1KIcyJYw0E)
YouTube - Fire Boss (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXGM1Jrf0_M)
YouTube - Training in Sant Ponc? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_7zWkTHNS4)
YouTube - airtractor 802fb training (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkS8XpJdvaM)

[HarleyD]

Farmer Pete,

Love your work here attempting to bring an relatively informed voice to this perrennial issue that we have on this site, every fire season. I agree just about totally with you in very respect, you have very obviously been in the fire attack scene for some time.

I look to the DC10 at Avalon with some circumspection, that this is a big ticket political item that demonstrates that the vic goverment is doing something, BIG about the forthcoming season. I hope it is effective, though i have many doubts. we will see. At least some big bucks are being allocated, this is a serious matter after all.

As far as the hoary old tracker chestnut that is dished up as the solution every year, a drommy with one engine and single pilot will do the job from a remote fire base that the tracker needs a proper airport for, and yes, I know they were carrier borne, but snowy plains does not have a catapult.

HD

[Wunwing]

Harley
The reason that every fire season the subject of heavy fire bomber comes up is because as an aviation industry we look on in amazement as we attempt to fight fires with small aircraft and helicopters while the rest of the world supplements the lighties with heavies.I for one after extensive discussions with experts can't see why we are different to the rest of the world who seems to use the heavies mainly to extinguish inaccessable fires early after they start.

My suspicion is further aroused by academic papers that make statements that heavies have been trialed here but don't work. The only reference that I can find for heavy trials are solo F27, DC6 and Canadairall at different times. The rest of the world uses multiple heavy aircraft. Why are we different?

The reason that the Trackers come up is (a) they are here and in resonable condition and (b) they seem to work in California where they are used extensivily against similar fires to those that we experience here.The arrival of the DC10 at such short notice shows that even in tight times Government can find money. I for one would rather see that much money funding a number of L188/C130/Orion types distributed around the country.

Wunwing

[campdoag]

I met a guy the other day who reckons he has got 2 converted C130s on the way from canada...... He reckons they will be here within 3 weeks and is going to operate them out of a strip up near Shepparton. He seemed like he was full of shlt.......... anyone heard of anything like this??????

[Buster Hyman]

He seemed like he was full of shlt...
Must be CFA then....;)

[bellsux]

Just out of curiosity with the reoccurring Tracker chestnut Wunwing, who would be buying the aircraft, who would be paying for the refurb and modifications and who would you have operating them? As an aviation industry we have companies that have invested heavily in aircraft, facilities and crew.

[Wunwing]

bellsux

Why are the Trackers a "chestnut"? The Mac' Dictionary defines a chestnut
among other things as a stale joke or anecdote".I assume that is what you think the conversion of the Trackers is?

As far as the industry having big investments I couldn't agree with you more. By definition any transport mode including aviation has big investments. If you are referring to the fire supression part of aviation then I suggest that no one has the monopoly on that.If you or anyone has large investments in equipment that has no other use than fire supression without firm contracts or commitments then that is bad business.You appear to be saying as have others, that the current operators don't want competition.

Like most threads that grow and in this case the thread is not all that big, read all the posts before commenting.The thread was started because of the Vic government bringing in a DC10.That shows that at least one level of Government is willing to spend additional money on large firebombers.What I am saying is that I, among others believe that that money would be better spent on a number of resident larger fire bombers. This is how the rest of the world functions.I don't understand why we are different. Fires are fires no matter what language we speak or what direction the bathwater goes down the sink.

As far as the Trackers I am aware of at least 2 airwork operators, currently not in the firebombing business, who are interested in some Tracker aircraft for firebombing. Since all 11 are currently for sale I guess we will soon see if its a genuine interest or not.

As far as the suitability of the Trackers for conversion, the number used overseas would indicate that they are suitable for the purpose including Eucalypt fires. Having said that, clearly there is a move to bigger units, with Conair converting to CV580s including 2 recently ex Australian aircraft, Airspray to L188s and Aerounion to Orions.

For converting Trackers, there appears to be 2 different conversions with the Conair Firecat the better option weight wise.Given the skill level here I don't see why those conversions couldn't be done under license here. by existing companies who already have a large industry investment in equipmentand skills.

Wunwing

[bellsux]

I have read the arguments for and against over the pages and have kept an open mind but still don't believe it is a good option. Personally I do think they are an old joke compared to an AT802 and belong either on a pole outside the RSL, a museum or better still, recycled into a beer can. My questions still remain unanswered. As these airframes have been for sale for quite a considerable time one could easily assume that it is not a cost effective option.

[alpha tango driver]

The Conair Firecat Turbo carries 3300 L, only 200 L more than the AT 802Fs that Vic DSE has already contracted. Leave the Trackers as gate guards.

AT Driver

[maxspeed]

I don't understand why we are different. Fires are fires no matter what language we speak or what direction the bathwater goes down the sink.

Definitely not the case, fires have extremely different characteristics in different areas in the world, Australia, Africa , Americas, Mediterranean to name but a few, for many reasons that any pilot who has ever attacked a fire in anger would know....

[Buster Hyman]

Very true max...and then there's a fire that changes everything you thought you knew about a fire in your local patch patch.

[Fred Gassit]

The trackers are listed for sale on an american website.

[Super Cecil]

A rough guess maybe 2.5 US million each to convert Trackers?

[601]

One of the biggest differences is the flash point of eucalyptus oil is 53 °C.

[Stikybeke]

Here it is.....

On 15th December 2009 CASA Instrument EX108/09 was released that relates to Conduct of Aerial Application (Firebombing) Operations by DC10 Aircraft Reg No. N`7085, SN 47957 by Agfire Aviation......

Here's the link to the DC10 Supertanker that's obviously on its way....

Welcome to 10 Tanker Air Carrier (http://www.10tanker.com/)

My question is....how are they going to fill the tank up with the 12000ltrs once it has been deployed? Have to go back to an airport I'd think as I can't see this thing scooping along a lake etc to scoop up water....

No doubt....this'll be some pretty interesting stuff to keep an eye out for...

Stiky
:eek:

[Super Cecil]

They claim 30 minute turn around (Fuel/retardent load) and 45 minutes to anywhere in the state. And that's 48,000 litres or 12,000 US gals.

[Stikybeke]

Thanks for that Cec....my mistake...you're right...12000US Gal...that's not the only error I made:uhoh: the correct registration for the DC10 to which the CASA Instrument relates is N17085 (typo on my part their earlier...) .Oh the shame....

Still though, it does make me wonder where they're going to operate from because that refill / turnaround rate is still a big call in anyone's terms given the size of that aircraft.....

I just checked the Sydney Airport Message Board Forum (type in the Rego..) the DC10 is here...

Its route here was So California Logistics (KVCV) - Kona Itl (PHKO) - Pago Pago (NSTU) then avalon. From its logs on all its stops it travelled at FL280.

"10 Tanker Air Carrier" DC-10 - Sydney Airport Message Board (http://yssyforum.net/board/showthread.php?p=39036)

Apparently it's using Bomber 911 or similar callsign and was last seen in the sky down in Victoria (probably out of Avalon..) on the 18th December...anyone seen it yet?????


Stiky
:confused:

[Wunwing]

601 et al
Some of the fires inthe West Coast of Calfornia and a lot around the Med are Eucalypts. Using large aircraft seems to be considered the norm there. Try and drag up video of the Canadairs fighting the resulting scrub fire in Greece after the Helios crash. They sure look like Eucalypts to me. Hence my comments about bathwater etc.
I've watched from nearby large firebombers in action in LA with Eucalypts burning and yes the fire was extinguished with the help of Trackers, a DC6 and a couple of Orions.

Wunwing

[shkw]

Must admit the Cl415 looks good, if interested in something bigger (lo/hi mix?) then the Japanese US-2 might be a good option - esp if federally funded (air force? - they use the same engines as a C-130J)

The US-2 Amphibian Aircraft - Operations in large-scale fire disasters | ShinMaywa Industries, Ltd. (http://www.shinmaywa.co.jp/english/guide/museum_us2_04.htm)

http://www.shinmaywa.co.jp/english/news/pdf/09-02-19.pdf

I must admit personally I like the russian be-200 especially with RR engines but bit worried about ongoing support and maint.

[FarmerPete]

When pointing out that large air-tankers are used overseas, it's also worthwhile noting that these same overseas areas still have destructive fires.

In California, for instance, we have a state with roughly the same land area as the state of Victoria, and a GDP which is the equivalent of the whole of Australia. Maybe they can afford more resources than any one Australian state.
Yet for all this, of the 20 largest fires in California's recorded history, over half have occurred during the last ten years.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/fact_sheets/20LACRES.pdf

It'd be interesting to see more detailed stats, and we can happily speculate why the last 10 years has seen so many large fires in California.... but the one thing it does not demonstrate is that the Americans are vastly more succesful than we are in the prevention of destructive fires. Not so much that we look stupid for not imitating them.

[Flying Binghi]

In California, for instance, we have a state with roughly the same land area as the state of Victoria, and a GDP which is the equivalent of the whole of Australia. Maybe they can afford more resources than any one Australian state...


"SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's budget cuts could mean the closing of up to 220 state parks..."

Schwarzenegger Would Close 220 State Parks To Cut Deficit (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/29/schwarzenegger-would-clos_n_208941.html)

[FarmerPete]

That's wat happens when you spend too much money without doing the sums on cost-effectiveness.

I'd say that it sounds very much like NSW, except that NSW creates more National Parks while offering redundancies to NSW-NPWS firefighting staff. My comments on their reasoning would be very cynical.

Pete

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Farmer Pete...some figures for you to put some context in the argument.
King Lake complex=450,000acres+
Marysville comples=370,000acres+
Just two fires along the same area of the Dandenong Ranges consumed some 820,000acres.

In total Black Saturday in Victoria consumed some 1,111,074acres of land.
In 06/07, 70 individual fires merged into one to burn through 2,471,053acres of Alpine Victorian forest.
In 2003 Victoria lost 3,706,580acres of land to fire in the North East.

In three separate fire seasons less than five years apart, over 5,000,000acres of land was lost.

Do you think Victoria alone needs some serious firepower when it comes to taking the fight to the fires?

In my opinion, the Authorities would rather let a fire burn out if it doesn't threaten life or asset. However, that policy allows a fire to burn quietly unchecked (where it can be stopped) until the next trough comes through and allows the beast to roar again threatening life and asset in small communities considered "Too Dangerous to defend"

Just to put us in context with Californa.

As a footnote...this last season the DSE have appeared to be more helpful than ever up in the North East...they actually were more proactive in fighting the fires with backburns and putting assets on the ground than years past...then again, they have lost a lot of face in the district. A crew change allowed Tatra ski complex to burn to the ground on Mt Buffalo in 06 after a backburn got out of control. State Goverment just pocketed the insurance money rather than rebuild the site($6,000,000 I believe. Locals believe it is a greenie agenda to return Mt Buffalo to natural state and not give a reason for anyone to go up there in the winter.)

[Super Cecil]

Ozbusdriver,
the most damage was on that bad Saturday. There were spots that a big machine could have worked but the bulk of them it could not. For two weeks after that day there were something like 8 fixed wing and 4 medium choppers just working out of Latrobe. These machines were working maybe 20 different fires and many more individual points on these fires. From Wilsons Prom in the south to Dargo in the north to stuff on th SA border there was machinery operating. How many big machines should be used? What cost would you say is too much to pay? The current fleet is a compromise of big and little. There are jobs that skycranes are good for and there are jobs that fixed wing are suited to. Now there is a choice of a big machine, it has limitations like all the rest of the fleet and I'm sure the Airdesk know that.

[FarmerPete]

OZBUSDRIVER..

The issue WRT the Kinglake and Marysville fires is that no aircraft could have stopped them under the conditions prevailing at the time. Probably, the same could be said of the larger Cali fires.... the only conclusion that can really be reached is that neither state has found the answer to the bad ones - regardless of what size aircraft are used.

The figures that I'd really like to see, and which would be useful in making valid comparisons, are the relative successes in first attack..... getting fires out early, before they develop. I don't have a good timeline for the BlackSat fires, but I attended one on a bad day not long ago. Within the first hour, it had run approximately 10km, and was burning on a front at least 2km wide. The smoke was such that the AT802 in the air at the time could not get in to hit useful targets. Work out for yourself whether a DC10 would have been much use in that situation. maybe when the wind dropped, but when that happened, we got around it with graders.:D
http://www.bordermail.com.au/multimedia/images/full/663380.jpg

Could Vic use more resources? Definitely!

However I'm just as concerned that insufficient emphasis is being put on fuel reduction burning and adequate fire trails. You'll know yourself how vital it is to have ground-crews supporting any work done from the air, and no firebreak - whether built by dozer or aircraft - will effectively hold a fire when intensity is such that spotting distances exceed the width of the break.

Yes,,, I agree that we should put more emphasis on getting fires out early. That's where aircraft (IMHO) contribute most, rather than being thrown at a bad fire when everything else has failed.

Regards..... Peter

[FarmerPete]

For those unfamiliar with fire behaviour, the basic prediction tool developed by the CSIRO is the McArthur Fire Danger Meter. It is used to develop the fire danger indices so beloved of the media.

An online copy is available here.

Calculating Forest FDI's (http://www.firebreak.com.au/forest-5.html)

I suggest that you go to the site, and start plugging in your own figures. A really bad day will have temperatures in excess of 40C, RH below 10% and wind in excess of 60KPH.

I suggest that you start at T=38C RH=25% and Wind=30kph. Drought factor of 9-10 and fuel load of 15-20 tons per ha.

Have a look at the expected spotting distance.:eek:

Now play around and work out how much you have to back off the conditions before the spotting distance is less than the 90m quoted as the effective width of the retardant line produced by the DC10.

Regards..... Peter

[Super Cecil]

I happened to pass through Hamilton on that bad Saturday, there were embers landing at the airfield from the Colraine fire, it would have been maybe 25 miles away?

[FarmerPete]

Super Cecil.

I'm not surprised.

Spot fires were confirmed at similar distances during the '03 Canberra fires.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Thanks for the link to the FDI calculator, Peter. When you punch in the figures and add an up slope, you get what the Smokies were saying for the day in question...in excess of 200!

[ozblackbox]

Parked next to the DC10 at Avalon the other day in our Air Ambulance King Air.

Nice machine and will certainly provide a good shower.

[Dog One]

Does any one know if the aircraft has been used operationally yet. I see in the press that there has beena fire burning in Northern Tasmania for the past week or so, and at various times threatening Beaconsfield and surrounding community's.

Would it not have been feasible in the early stages of this fire to have flown the aircraft down (flight time 40 mins) to put out the fire before it got as a large as it is now. From the press reports, there is a large amount of resources being used juts to contain the fire.

[VH-XXX]

The DC10 is reportedly "on standby" for any fires this week as reported by the media last week.

[Benjamin James]

Super Cecil.

I'm not surprised.

Spot fires were confirmed at similar distances during the '03 Canberra fires


Yep, I still remember sitting in the backyard in Braddon (suburb next to the city centre) and watching embers landing from the fires on the other side of town.

[FarmerPete]

Dog One asked.....
I see in the press that there has beena fire burning in Northern Tasmania for the past week or so, and at various times threatening Beaconsfield and surrounding community's.

Would it not have been feasible in the early stages of this fire to have flown the aircraft down (flight time 40 mins) to put out the fire before it got as a large as it is now. From the press reports, there is a large amount of resources being used juts to contain the fire.

An interstate deployment is a political issue.
The Tasmanians would have to ask for it, and be prepared to pay for it. This wouyld depend very much upon their own predictions for fire behaviour, and their expectations of their ability to control it with the assets at hand.

There is also the question of whether the Vic government would be prepared to see such an assett made unavailable for their own fires. Not politically clever if events show that it was needed at home..... and Fire Danger across a fair slice of SE Australia at the moment is approaching "Extreme".

Secondly, it is rare that aircraft actually put fires out. They are a very useful supporting asset, but they do not replace ground troops for actual extinguishment. Not that this is a reason to not deploy them,just suggesting that you adjust your expectations.

Respectfully.... Peter

[bellsux]

http://video.news.com.au/1674225090/Nine-News-Fire-fight

nice drop here from 604