Rather interesting they used a lot of sea water, wonder what effect that has on the ecology.
I've often wondered about that. Sea water has (to my recollection) never been used on "mainland" South Australia. I also don't know that sea water was used at all in either the air or ground attack on the current Kangaroo Island event and I rather doubt that it was.
Now that I've started, may I mention that I've read this thread with considerable interest, because these days after 50 years as a volunteer CFS member, my age now precludes me from going out on a ground appliance - unless it's a very benign incident; however I'm still active and current on air base operation. I'm also party to some of the thinking behind current strategy, both in terms of what equipment (aircraft) we have, and how we use them. I think we have the policies and equipment mix right for our particular combination of circumstances here in the "driest state". Suffice to say that our fleet of AT-802 SEATs and associated observer rotary and fixed wing aircraft* work well for us most of the time. Having LATs at the ready would not (IMHO) have really prevented the rapid forward spread (to any useful degree) at the two major events which put us on the front pages for a few days last month, although they
may have assisted in the protection of some assets which were destroyed.
* There is one contracted Skycrane in the fleet which get responded when it's involvement is determined to be beneficial, and LATs are occasionally invited in from the eastern states if they are spare, and again perceived to be useful in a given situation. That's about as far as I want to go - if this were in Jet Blast I might venture a little further into reasons, but politics are involved too, so best I stay clear. Thank you all for an interesting read.