RAAF Richmond & firefighting
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" and perhaps as PM he could get the wheels in motion for a larger scale solution to help combat this recurring threat"
Get rid of the greens and stupid council and state policies re not allowing serious burning off across wide areas.
Anyway, back to the topic, I don't think the mil would want it to occur,
even under aid to the civil power, preferring the relevant agencies to buy
their own aircraft if they want them and then maybe defence provide
qualified crew.
Get rid of the greens and stupid council and state policies re not allowing serious burning off across wide areas.
Anyway, back to the topic, I don't think the mil would want it to occur,
even under aid to the civil power, preferring the relevant agencies to buy
their own aircraft if they want them and then maybe defence provide
qualified crew.
Last edited by 500N; 21st Oct 2013 at 06:03.
Once again the Federal and State "experts" let us down. The S-64F sat at YSBK until, I think, yesterday because the contract crew wasn't on-site yet. I imagine that plus a few others might have helped big time in the beginning.
Fire, floods and cyclones are a permanent part of our natural environment [Dorathea McKella wrote the peom "I love a sunburn country" decades before the greenies got in on the act]
Our so called "poor" cousins in Spain, Turkey, Greece etc [France/Italy/USA/Canada] have standing fleets of heavy firebombers permanately on strength and augment them with hired in machines. My friend has just finished flying a CL215 in Turkey!
MAFFS for some C-130's plus other heavy stuff augmented by lighter helps/ag planes etc are needed now....
Fire, floods and cyclones are a permanent part of our natural environment [Dorathea McKella wrote the peom "I love a sunburn country" decades before the greenies got in on the act]
Our so called "poor" cousins in Spain, Turkey, Greece etc [France/Italy/USA/Canada] have standing fleets of heavy firebombers permanately on strength and augment them with hired in machines. My friend has just finished flying a CL215 in Turkey!
MAFFS for some C-130's plus other heavy stuff augmented by lighter helps/ag planes etc are needed now....
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see that would be an issue - MAFFS just seems such a logical solution considering we have the aircraft and crews available that can make use of a bolt on option like that - I would imagine its cheaper to have those units available to be deployed when the situation warrants rather than keeping dedicated aircraft online.
Seeing as it has been some 30 years since this option was last evaluated in Australia perhaps its time for it to be revisited?
Seeing as it has been some 30 years since this option was last evaluated in Australia perhaps its time for it to be revisited?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you are still using airframe time / flying hours of the military which
they don't seem to get back and so mil training is lost.
The mil units that use these aircraft have a hard enough job getting time in them anyway and planned usage as part of a planned training exercise can be years in the making. If the aircraft are taken out of it, the whole basis of the training can be lost.
If we can afford to give away C-130's to Indonesia .....................
If they are going to keep flying them, why not us in a different role ?
they don't seem to get back and so mil training is lost.
The mil units that use these aircraft have a hard enough job getting time in them anyway and planned usage as part of a planned training exercise can be years in the making. If the aircraft are taken out of it, the whole basis of the training can be lost.
If we can afford to give away C-130's to Indonesia .....................
If they are going to keep flying them, why not us in a different role ?
I posted this on Rotorheads before I saw this thread.
With the present on-going crisis and a possible increase in size and intensity why hasn't any large fixed-wing assets been flown in from the Northern Hemisphere over the last few days. The largest could be here overnight
As far as CAsA is concerned with the operation of such equipment, a declaration of a state of emergency should be made by the state and federal Govts which should include sidelining CASA or forcing fast tracking of approval.
With the present on-going crisis and a possible increase in size and intensity why hasn't any large fixed-wing assets been flown in from the Northern Hemisphere over the last few days. The largest could be here overnight
As far as CAsA is concerned with the operation of such equipment, a declaration of a state of emergency should be made by the state and federal Govts which should include sidelining CASA or forcing fast tracking of approval.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Why go with half measures......CH47D Chinook with a bloody big fire bucket.
Cost too much? Oh yeah, one SQN OPSO personally purchased a Bambi Bucket & went to the effort to write SOPS for fighting fires. Unfortunately the brass didn't approve his venture....what a waste
Cost too much? Oh yeah, one SQN OPSO personally purchased a Bambi Bucket & went to the effort to write SOPS for fighting fires. Unfortunately the brass didn't approve his venture....what a waste
Lots of NSW RFS aviation fire fighting activity from RAAF Richmond today. Three AT-802 Air Tractors, another "Aerial Applicator" (AKA cropduster) and a Sikorsky Sky Crane seen flying around. They were refuelling at the base.
And quite a few retired 'H' model Hercs sitting around doing nothing...
And quite a few retired 'H' model Hercs sitting around doing nothing...
Come on TA how about it?
Wouldn't this be a sight for sore, bloodshot, watering eyes if you were on the ground fighting fires in the Blue mountains right about now...
And a poohtube vid demo
:
[YOUTUBE]
And a poohtube vid demo
:[YOUTUBE]
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Edge of nowhere
Age: 53
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been on fire grounds with Bambi buckets in operation they CAN be bloody effective in the right circumstances. That said, an 802 coming in low along the fire line is a beautiful sight!
Sarcs
Did you actually watch and listen to the video, featuring the clapped out A model Herc, embedded in your post?
It’s one of the more intelligence-insulting videos I’ve seen on the topic of airborne fire-suppression.
Did you actually watch and listen to the video, featuring the clapped out A model Herc, embedded in your post?
It’s one of the more intelligence-insulting videos I’ve seen on the topic of airborne fire-suppression.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was the lead for the trials on the MAFFS in 1982 and attended the US Forestry airborne fire fighting training at Boise Idaho. The trial was for the Vic Forestry Department and was supported by the Federal Government. Unfortunately, there were few fires in 1982 so the trials were extended to 1983 and we were heavily involved in the Ash Wednesday fires on Mt Macedon and later in the Gippsland.
The MAFFS released about 3000 gals in one to three shots and penetration was adjusted by changing the pressure of the release which also determined the length of the fire break delivered. Retardant was not directed onto the fire but next to it to reduce the heat and allow ground fire fighters to operate.
Unfortunately there were only three airfields in Victoria (except the major airports) that could take the C130 at maximum weight and hot temps(Hamilton, Mangalore and East Sale) close to forests without destroying the strips.
The turn around time of the aircraft refuel was slow due to the slow output from the retardant pump and using above ground swimming pools to mix the batches. With one aircraft while it did save some houses, the concentration of effort was not sufficient to be effective.
In the US they stack the aircraft up to 10,000+ so by the time the last aircraft has dropped it load the first is back on task. Our tune around time to Macedon from Mangalore was about 1 hour.
The aircraft had to maintain a considerable amount of fuel in the outboard tanks to ensure maximum 'G' tolerance with the heavy load in the cargo compartment (40,000lbs).
Exciting flying at 100 feet but with limited effect with the one aircraft.
The MAFFS released about 3000 gals in one to three shots and penetration was adjusted by changing the pressure of the release which also determined the length of the fire break delivered. Retardant was not directed onto the fire but next to it to reduce the heat and allow ground fire fighters to operate.
Unfortunately there were only three airfields in Victoria (except the major airports) that could take the C130 at maximum weight and hot temps(Hamilton, Mangalore and East Sale) close to forests without destroying the strips.
The turn around time of the aircraft refuel was slow due to the slow output from the retardant pump and using above ground swimming pools to mix the batches. With one aircraft while it did save some houses, the concentration of effort was not sufficient to be effective.
In the US they stack the aircraft up to 10,000+ so by the time the last aircraft has dropped it load the first is back on task. Our tune around time to Macedon from Mangalore was about 1 hour.
The aircraft had to maintain a considerable amount of fuel in the outboard tanks to ensure maximum 'G' tolerance with the heavy load in the cargo compartment (40,000lbs).
Exciting flying at 100 feet but with limited effect with the one aircraft.
Hey Trashie,
Great post, thanks for sharing. it would be interesting to compare rate of application with, for example, two equipped Hercs against current types up to the same operating cost.
The Bell 214 helicopters are lifting around 3000L with each bucket or tank load and their rate of application can be quite high when there are water sources nearby, same withe the Dauphin and UH-1, but with lesser amounts.
I can't remember, off the top of my head, the objective of the fixed wing AT-602/802 bombers when I was working with those guys in WA, but I think it was something like 5000L per hour on any given fire, which seems like a low number and a single Herc (even with 1hr turn around) would easily better that. There are vested interests in both emergency management and aviation industry (and extreme resistance to change in the ADF) that seem to keep us tied to what we have always had, rather than seeking innovation and best practice. The move to NAFC contract coordination is a good one, and hopefully a sign of more to come. Natural disasters are an international problem and should be handled at federal level when declared.
Great post, thanks for sharing. it would be interesting to compare rate of application with, for example, two equipped Hercs against current types up to the same operating cost.
The Bell 214 helicopters are lifting around 3000L with each bucket or tank load and their rate of application can be quite high when there are water sources nearby, same withe the Dauphin and UH-1, but with lesser amounts.
I can't remember, off the top of my head, the objective of the fixed wing AT-602/802 bombers when I was working with those guys in WA, but I think it was something like 5000L per hour on any given fire, which seems like a low number and a single Herc (even with 1hr turn around) would easily better that. There are vested interests in both emergency management and aviation industry (and extreme resistance to change in the ADF) that seem to keep us tied to what we have always had, rather than seeking innovation and best practice. The move to NAFC contract coordination is a good one, and hopefully a sign of more to come. Natural disasters are an international problem and should be handled at federal level when declared.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: .au
Age: 43
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably best to have a close look at those figures, chopper opperators are prone to exaggerate with the ammount they are lifting. Even if the stats for the chopper say it can lift that much, most likely that is at sea level, isa day and perfect conditions. Throw in Australian summer temps, a few mountains, wild turbulence, fuel load crew, role equipment. And you will find there is more hot air in those belly tanks than usefull load.
As for the litres per hour comparisons ferry distances is the largest factor that controls the rate. For 5000L per hour you are looking at less than 2 loads that hour.
If 4 minutes is an average fill and taxi time, by 2 loads then there is 52 minutes of ferry and drop time left in that hour. Guessing the fire is not exactly on the airport boundary with that turn around time.
As for the litres per hour comparisons ferry distances is the largest factor that controls the rate. For 5000L per hour you are looking at less than 2 loads that hour.
If 4 minutes is an average fill and taxi time, by 2 loads then there is 52 minutes of ferry and drop time left in that hour. Guessing the fire is not exactly on the airport boundary with that turn around time.
Grug,
There was also a range attached to that capability, but I can't remember it off the top of my head.
The helicopters are, of course, limited by the usual factors, but I know for a fact that the B214 is lifting it's stated numbers even with the engine further derated. It does all depend on water sources near the fire, but the helicopter application rate can be extremely high, often well above fixed wing figures, but of course the operating costs are much higher.
In an urban environment, I would suggest that rotary wing bombers are much more prescise and better the fixed wing aircraft in application rate due to abundance of water sources that do not even require a landing (golf courses, swimming pools, creeks, rivers, the ocean etc.).
There was also a range attached to that capability, but I can't remember it off the top of my head.
The helicopters are, of course, limited by the usual factors, but I know for a fact that the B214 is lifting it's stated numbers even with the engine further derated. It does all depend on water sources near the fire, but the helicopter application rate can be extremely high, often well above fixed wing figures, but of course the operating costs are much higher.
In an urban environment, I would suggest that rotary wing bombers are much more prescise and better the fixed wing aircraft in application rate due to abundance of water sources that do not even require a landing (golf courses, swimming pools, creeks, rivers, the ocean etc.).
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: low and heavy
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trojan, your memory deserts you I am afraid. I fly a SEAT (single engine air tanker) AT802 to be exact. With an airstrip within 5 miles from the fire ground I have delivered 30000 ltrs to the fire within an hour. We had 5 x 802's doing the same thing. Do the math on ltrs delivered per tax payer dollars spent it is very difficult to beat the AT802.
The question you guys should be asking is why it takes sooo long for some States to deploy their aircraft to a fire? One of the Australian States has a system where 2 bombers (up to 6000ltrs) are overhead every fire in the populated areas within 15 mins of someone calling 000. Seems like a good idea.....
The question you guys should be asking is why it takes sooo long for some States to deploy their aircraft to a fire? One of the Australian States has a system where 2 bombers (up to 6000ltrs) are overhead every fire in the populated areas within 15 mins of someone calling 000. Seems like a good idea.....
Last edited by plucka; 27th Oct 2013 at 21:55.