"Hercs" or "Caribous" -Can They Be Used as FIREFIGHTERS??

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Looking at the Port Lincoln fires on tonight's news, it would seem that a larger aircraft or two, might have had a little more success.
So,
Its probably been asked before, but they seem to utilise all sorts of large aircraft in the US for fire-bombers..

Can the RAAF 'Hercs' be fitted with a large internal bladder, slide in - slide out - suitably 'tied down', with an 'easy fill' facility, and a bloody big valve / louvres / whatever at the rear end, for the purpose of water bombing??

The 'Bou' - possibly on a smaller scale?

I mean, here we have two styles of airframes with a fairly 'empty' cavernous interior capable of lifting some serious volumes / weights.

Is the problem structural?

The capacity, and therefore the weight, need not approach MTOW for 'Normal Ops', as I realise that the turb. encountered in the Fire Proximity area would be potentially 'Severe', and there is no point in risking overstressing the airframes.

But surely, here is an opportunity to fully utilise these fine fully funded aircraft and give the crews some 'extraordinary' training - in a not too disimilar Military-style environment. ?

Is this not possible / feasible / economical?
Would not the properties saved be worth it?

I wonder.....:confused:

Cheers.:ok:

[Hempy]

"Hercs" or "Caribous" -Can They Be Used as FIREFIGHTERS??


Well, C-130's can as long as they are not too old.....:eek: (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=4bDNCac2N1o)

[AirSic]

Tend to remember a Neptune parked up at YPPH for some time.

Gent had sunk his SUPER into the A/C and If I'm not mistaken, his intention was at some stage to turn the thing into an airbourne firefighting unit.

There was a lot of "issues" with the regulators at the time and I don't know what happened to the idea or the A/C. CASA didn't like it so they made it go away?:ugh:

One would think that this would be an opportune time for the defence forces, Ready and or Reserve units to be put to good use; a recruitment drive of sorts as well.:ok:

No bugger that, lets pay millions for a giant orange helo from O/seas, and whilst that is somewhat effective, if it gets broken, it's not ours!:E

[Hercfix]

The RAAF borrowed this system and trialed it in the 80,s using H models.

Modular Airborne FireFighting System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Airborne_FireFighting_System)

Don't know why it never went any further. They where operating out of Victoria from memory and would return to Richmond once a week to get serviced (clean all the fire retardend gunk out of the tailplane, yuk).

Here is a link to a report on the trial

Fire Research Reports - Report No. 15 (http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/nrenfoe.nsf/FID/-6F467658E5C16B6A4A2567E1002A897E?OpenDocument)

[VH-XXX]

Not long ago I read a lengthy story about firefighting in the US with ex-military aircraft and how they swapped them for another type that was grounded for airworthiness issues, but the system was taken advantage of and some ended up carting drugs in Columbia etc.

If this story rings a bell for someone that knows where it is, please post a link!

[HarleyD]

Griffo. I assume that yours is an honest and innocent question based on simple lay observation of events as shown by the media.

The Herc thing has been tried and has been binned as not the best solution to Aussie bush fire, or ‘wildfires’ as they are now known. There is an existing fleet of fully funded suitable aircraft with highly trained specialist pilots that is available and distributed around the worst areas on call and standby for aerial fire suppression. These are Ag pilots who fly Single Engine Air Tankers (SEAT) that are slightly modified, convertible ag planes with capacities around 2500 litres. They are located at numerous small fire bases that are capable of refueling and refilling these aircraft so that they can fly many short haul delivery flights each per day per fire. They can be readily relocated from one base to another so that they can be concentrated when needed and are also highly autonomous and capable of operating with minimal ground support when required.

The SEAT fleet is supported by several class 1 and class 2 rotary wing aircraft that can operate autonomously, sourcing water from convenient reservoirs to enable very short ferry to and from the fire.
This system is flexible versatile and readily mobile and mobilized and is an extremely effective and cost effective tool to enable ‘first strike’ capability to remote fires. It is not dependant on a few large established bases and large crews and sophisticated airframes that require additional Bird dog aircraft and long times over the fire site prior to their drop(s), all of which reduce effectiveness to respond rapidly. It is possible that perhaps in a few instances such a force may be able to assist the existing system, but is likely to cause more issues than it would cure.
As to fire suppression operations being within the domain of the military doctrine or these operations bearing any semblance to military ops, this is another matter, but you average herc pilot would need extensive training to get anywhere near the standards that the qualified ag pilots who conduct these ops day in day out, always at MTOW (and that’s Ag MTOW) in conditions that would make your hair stand on end if you only could see what they do. The costs associated with using the Military, especially with the current cost recovery policies would be horrifying I am sure.
Hats off to the SEAT and Helitak pilots that have done an outstanding job in unbelievable conditions over the fires around our country over the years. More power to you and I hope that the present fleet of smaller aircraft is maintained and expanded.
Having said that, it is always worth considering all options and not being blinded by current methodologies, your question is worthy of airing and I hope that I have helped address your query in some way. I am not a resident expert on the matter but I used to fly active fire suppression work in a former life and occasionally these days I spend long hours, when called in, flying aerial command and fire mapping flights for statutory bodies and commercial stakeholders over fires in Victoria.

HD
XXX - don't know about ex fire attack aircraft being used to carry drugs in colombia, but I did see some black painted AirTractor 802's over there that are used for spraying defoliant on the stuff. Aztecs and Shrikes seem to be the aircraft of choice the Narco runners down that way as every airport i have been to in Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela has a rotten row of seized ones slowly corroding away beside a taxiway or apron.

[Training Guy]

Yes it was evaluated in the 81/82 fire season and worked out to be OK but it tied up an aircraft and 2 crews for the season that could have been used for other Govt purposes.

our Airforce is not big enough and we dont have enough C130s to allow on to just sit around waiting for that "maybe this season fire". Not to say we cant, but do we want the asset sitting around waiting.?

combinations of other aircraft are cheeper and better for our types of fires.
Chris.

[Spodman]

Looking at it from the ground, (I'm a volunteer firefighter), in my area, (near Romsey), a helicopter can dump 1500 L EXACTLY where it is required, wander over to a dam, and is back with another 1500 L in a matter of minutes. A bigger helo with 4 times as much water is 4 times as effective.

Small fixed wing delivers meaningful water more economically, but requires ground support at some sort of rudimentary airstrip, which is always going to be further away than the dam the helo is sluuuuping its next load out of. Maybe a couple of fire fighting tankers relaying water, or one big-ass tanker on site.

Bigger fixed wing would need to come here from further away, Essendon or Mangalore, and need the ground support, and probably not supply the fire with much more water than a number of smaller fixed wing, and nowhere near as much as a heap of helos.

On the other hand, a Martin Mars full of water on a going plantation/forest fire cannot be beat. It can turn an out of control fire I would run away from to something I can approach and black out almost instantly...

[trashie]

I conducted the trials for the C130 MAFFs on 1982-83 for the Vic and Fed Government which included Ash Wednesday and the fires around that time. The aircraft was restricted to a few airfields, Mangalore, East Sale and Horsham due to the high AUW required and the high temperatures normally associated with the fire season. Operating only one aircraft did not provide the concentration of effort required. In the US the aircraft are in a holding pattern and provide continuous retardant. Our turn around times were about fifteen to twenty minutes but transit generally meant about one hour between drops.
The operation was also costly with one MAFFS unit costing $1Mil to hire from the US Government. The units held about 3000 Gals of retardant so the total weight with the MAFFS unit made it about 40,000 lbs. This meant that you needed to hold additional fuel in the outboard tanks to maintain a 3G tolerance which increased the AUW.
The MAFFS did enable to provide 1 to 3 drops per sortie depending on the number of tanks selected and pressurised. There were 5 tanks plus the deployment tubes. Small fires could be triangulated and contained. In all cases help was still needed from the fire fighters on the ground as it only retarded the fires rather than extinguishing them.

Still it made for some pretty interesting flying.

[Freewheel]

Well if you're going to go down that road......




Bugger!




Evergreen Supertanker (http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/gallery.html)

[VH-XXX]

This makes for some interesting reading.

Full text of "Review of the U.S. Forest Service firefighting aircraft program : hearing before the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first sess (http://www.archive.org/stream/reviewofusforest00unit/reviewofusforest00unit_djvu.txt)

Some interesting info here too:

Aerial firefighting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_firefighting)

[Peter Fanelli]

The Herc thing has been tried and has been binned as not the best solution to Aussie bush fire


Oh, so Australian bushfires are different to the rest of the world?

[Freewheel]

There are some peculiarities due to the vegetation types, the terrain is not unusual.

The government of California has asked for Australians to travel there to help them when their own eucalyptus forests went up (naturally, Australia was blamed because eucalypts aren't native there).

The fire behaviour can be somewhat baffling when the techniques successful in coniferous forests aren't quite as successful, not to mention the habit of shedding branches, usually on tents or the cabins of vehicles.

The drop bears are another thing entirely.......

[airtags]

Spod

Air attack is broad debate - Bushfire CRC has done some interesting research and has made some findings that will not necessarily sit comfortably with some authorities.

Essentially the key to air suppression is the ability to deliver the initial response (typically retard) within a limited timeframe from fire establishing. After this point air/attack supression is really akin to mustering - attempting to shape, turn, & deflect the primary front, (principally for property or fireground crew protection.)

I used to live in the Blue Mountains and have worked in some of the most devasting blazes that defied convention. We also recorded and covered some of the various a/c trials including the much debated C130 brawl with the then NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner.

I now live not far from your patch and although larger fixed wing aircraft may deliver advantages in these relative 'flatter' areas, end of the day it's about those critical initial and recurrent response times. For this reason I would feel more comfortable with an Aircrane that can quickly suck up a few thousand litres from the dam and do multiple dumps rather than rely on one or two fixed wing a/c.

I think there's a few threads in rotorheads that have some data comparisions.

AT

[Like This - Do That]

One would think that this would be an opportune time for the defence forces, Ready and or Reserve units to be put to good use; a recruitment drive of sorts as well.

DACC and other 'RRF' activities are a pain and a turn off. If my blokes know that the next training weekend is RRF they stay away in droves.

Recruitment drive it ain't! If folks want to fight bushfires etc they join the bushies or SES.

[bushy]

The existing system of ag planes and big helicopters is obviously good and if they get to the fire early enough can often contain a fire. But it's only part of the solution.
Colin Pay was working on a water pickup system for fixed wing aircraft. Surely this would work if the drag from the pickup system was behind the C of G. Maybe a retractable stinger in the tail to pick up water. And with a weak link so that it breaks off if the drag force is too great. Will we let this research die with Colin?
Some time ago we had a Canadian DC6 fire fighter based in Adelaide with a very short response time (15 mins?) I believe large aeroplanes are often necessary and could make a big difference, but they would have to be integrated into the existing system. We need a fleet of big aircraft to assist the existing aerial and ground firefighters. Todays bushfires are not an isolated event.They happen somewhere nearly every year.

But it appears that it's all too hard and too expensive for our authorities. Is fire damage less expensive?
What does it cost insurance companies? Maybe we will have to wait until Canberra gets burnt again.

You don't win a medal of freedom by dealing with bushfires.

[dash 27]

Airborne firefighting equipment have there own place in their own environment, and jetrangers with bambi buckets on firestorms..............well i shake my head.

In the 80's someone of vision foresaw the sh#tfight we have seen in fire's over the last 20 years, and imported a display of an Italian and a French CL 415 to australia to demonstrate the ability of a fleet of aerial tankers. Not 1, or converted A model 1960 herc's or bloody Caribou's. The display was performed in front of governement, military and private investor powers to be. The display was nothing short of awesome. The maneuverability, the accuracy, and efficiency of these aircraft in numbers leaves one awestruck.

Quote "They are very expensive. They fly like cowboys. We can use our existing helicopter operators. Our fires aren't that bad. Canada has private enterprise with private owned forests and our trees are different"

And so for the last decade, fires have been p#ssed on by smaller helicopters. It hasn't been until recent times that they have started to get serious with the Ericson Skycranes and the Bell 212's, 412's. It takes numbers of suitable aircraft in proximity to facilities to refuel and resupply.

In the northern hemisphere, Spain, France, Canada, Portugal and Italy have CL215's and 415's all under snow when Sydney burns. :ugh: :ugh: :ugh:

So the government still p#sses money away with military, and its own incompetences. Lets buy sh*t helicopters for the navy and army blowing billions. :ugh::mad::ugh: aka sea sprites/MRH 90's. And lets replace caribou's with king airs. Ahhhhhhhhhhh:=

This country should have no time for incompetence. People, look outside the box that "our idiot leaders" make us live.

YouTube - CL415 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDa0gs6c6FU) CL415

YouTube - Russian JetSeaplanes US Needs to Patrol FireFight dynmicpara (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=BDx-swVqG1o) BE200

YouTube - SuperTanker 910 Esperanza Fire (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=osCF0c4IcA4) DC10

YouTube - Boeing 747 the water bomber (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QfCwChAg6lE) B747 (allbeit from the flight levels)

We need to rethink what we are doing with what is not working, and think smarter and use larger aircraft to drop perventative retardant, and use the smaller aircraft in organised numbers with water. And what better to shrink turn around time than use aircraft with land in water to pickup water.

I take my hats off to the hard working skilled helicopter pilots, as their part is needed too, but the big scale has to be the way to go. Back packs and switchets and shovels really should be a thing of the past.

If there was any a time for an expat intervention, now it is with organised, and efficient direction for what the insurance companies of the thousands of lost burnt properties.

And here's a thing. When sh#ts not burning, how bout using them in a utility fitout as a coastal patrol, that can land in the ocean. The 415 is the size of a dash 8. Fancy having an aircraft that can fight fires and be used as a coast guard platform, as well as a SAR aircraft.

Now that would be forward thinking.

I shake my head at our leaders' 1st world expectations with 3rd world thinking.

[Peter Fanelli]

The government of California has asked for Australians to travel there to help them when their own eucalyptus forests went up (naturally, Australia was blamed because eucalypts aren't native there).


It's interesting and a lot of people probably don't notice it when passing through Los Angeles or San Francisco but if you travel in California away from the main cities the vegetation is very much like Australia. I was taken for a drive north and south of San Francisco some years ago and the sights AND smells of the vegetation was just like being back in South Australia.

[Newforest2]

The book you are thinking of is Fire Flight by J.J.Nance.

John Nance Productions - Welcome! (http://www.johnjnance.com/index.htm)

[HarleyD]

Yes our fires are different, whether this dictates different strategies and tactics for fire fighting is up to the experts and in recent years I have flown several visiting groups of experts from various states in the US on tours of the Victorian fire sites, along with local experts in forrestry, fire fighting and meteorology. I types of fires that we can get can be very different to the North American experience and they even learn from us in some instances.

Many US aerial fire fighting agencies have fixed wing Single Engine Air Tanker fleets, AT 802s etc they don't all have aerial armardas of DC8s circling the state waiting for a whisp of smoke.

I am not so sure that the CL412 is ideal for aussie fires, though around Sydney where they have access to plenty of water they could be a worthy asset.

I can remember the Con-Air FireCats that Freddo intended to bring over to Victoria to augment the 212 helitack bombers and was way keen to get a slot flying them, but it all caved in before it could happen. I flew bird dog for the ConAir F27 on a local fire whilst it was out here. very exciting at the time but a fire in the same area 2 years ago was much better attacked by the Droms that are based down here these days.

Large aircraft have been tried on numerous occaisions in Aus but the proven formula is the present one of first strike by SEAT or helitack assets with the flexibility to re distribute assetts quickly to different fires or regions as required. I have worked up over the High Plains for days on end where there have been 4 or major fires that were being attacked from 3 different bases by about 6 f/w SEAT and about 8 bigger helos including AirCrane, Mil, Sikorsky and several Bell 212s. I cannot see that a couple of large aircraft could have been better in this instance.

Having said that, there are several ex RAN trackers rotting away just down the road that could be converted if the need and will was actually there.

HD

[Howard Hughes]

Yes they can, but please keep this (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=TBcC8zqNjKk) accident in mind!:eek:

[Horatio Leafblower]

Colin Pay was working on a water pickup system for fixed wing aircraft. Surely this would work if the drag from the pickup system was behind the C of G.

There were a number of issues with the system Col was trialling and everything had to be going for you on the day. Water-skiing an aircraft is not something I have tried but I am told it needs a bit of co-ordination (rules me out...)

Water-skiing then adding 3,000 kg of water strikes me as a bit tricky, especially if you add in the typical "wildfire" wind & heat conditions.
... and if Col couldn't pull it off, nor could you or I.

Maybe a retractable stinger in the tail to pick up water. And with a weak link so that it breaks off if the drag force is too great.

That was the first system Col trialled, in about 1996/97 as I recall. Boom bounced off the water and "modified" the tail plane... end of trial! :eek:

Will we let this research die with Colin?

I can't claim to speak for any of them but I suspect most people close to the action on this one would say YES :suspect:

[Spodman]

For this reason I would feel more comfortable with an Aircrane that can quickly suck up a few thousand litres from the dam and do multiple dumps rather than rely on one or two fixed wing a/c.True, but there are only a couple of Skycranes, and heaps of regionally based smaller helos and fixed wing. If I call for air support and the Skycranes are in Gippsland and 'all' I get is a Helitack and a couple of Drom's I would still be grateful.

In my area we don't have many fires that can only be attacked from the air, but it is not uncommon to have parts of a planned control line you can't send a Tanker coz it is too rough, or the fire is too hot or there is just not adequate 'bug-outs' if it all starts to look a bit 'Linton'.And what better to shrink turn around time than use aircraft with land in water to pickup water.Well that is nice, and would work well in Canada where there is a lake every 5 min flight time, but the closest bodies of water those things could land or pick up for me would probably be Lake Eildon (maybe) or Port Philip Bay. both further than Essendon or Mangalore! Not sure what salt water would do to a productive paddock, but it'll make the fence rusty:hmm:

[nick2007]

The RAAF already spends a fortune on the fatigue management of the C130s. Using them in those sorts of ops would chew up airframe hours like nothing else.
And the Caribous hgave been more or less ready for retirement for years now.
Nice idea though.

As for water skiing... I'm with Horatio on that. Even if Col had not crashed, I think someone (either casa in certificating it, or the RFS in issuing the contracts) would have said it was not a wise idea sooner or later, and effectively stopped the development. Read the ATSB interim report.

It doesn't matter where the water pickup is positioned longitudinally on the aircraft (either at the wheels or at the tail) - as long as you have a drag force below the cg, it will always cause a pitch down moment.

As for shearing linkages - it would be very difficult to tailor these to a specific load, and not have them break during normal operations (think of hte vibrations involved).
Interesting idea... on paper.

[Freewheel]

Spodman,

The chances of getting a viable load off Lake Eildon are diminishing by the day, with the likelihood increasing that the intakes will be clogged by algae or frog spawn....

[John Eacott]

And so for the last decade, fires have been p#ssed on by smaller helicopters. It hasn't been until recent times that they have started to get serious with the Ericson Skycranes and the Bell 212's, 412's. It takes numbers of suitable aircraft in proximity to facilities to refuel and resupply.

d27,

JetRangers/Squirrels haven't been used for waterbombing for more than 12 years! I did the first BK117 waterbombing in 1997 in NSW, and NRE (now DSE) were then using 212's. The first Aircrane was also put on contract in Victoria that year ;)

Crane drops tend to average 6-7000lt, 412's about 1600lt. Turn rounds depend on proximity of water sources, which have to be big enough (in Victoria) for bellytank equipped machines, but anywhere between 4 to 15 minutes would be the norm.

I haven't flown fires for 2 years, but 1,800,000lts was my drop total for 2006/07 season in my BK117 ;)

[Allan L]

John,

I can't say whether or not they get much use, but there are FIVE Squirrels and TWO Jetrangers on the Victorian contract for this year (I'm reading from the list and can quote regos if needed), which is very similar to past years. There are also a few Longrangers and a lone BK117, which all together make up the type 3 (or Light helo) fleet.

In the medium (Type 2) there are FOUR 212s and a single 205.

Then you get to the Heavies (Type 1) - TWO Aircranes and TWO S61s.

Plus there are the usual heap of SEATs - TWELVE in fact.

[Flying Binghi]

I shake my head at our leaders' 1st world expectations with 3rd world thinking.

The other problem is the 3rd world budget :ouch: methinks what we got now wont change much :(

[werbil]

Bushy / Horotio Leafblower,

There is a system for collecting water in 802 Air Tractors available commercially - Wipaire / FirebossLLC make a set of floats designed for this job.

There are two issues with them.
Cost - probably around $500k US for a pair of floats
Weight - probably adds around 1200 lbs to the empty weight of the aircraft. Fireboss publish the ability to pick up between 2500 and 3000 liters of water depending on the fuel load.

Scooping water for firebombing is not a new idea - it was a option on the factory De Havilland Beaver floats in the 1950's - our flight manuals include a supplement regarding the use of it.

IF the resistance of the skis and pickup points can be located behind the C of G it will significantly reduce the risk of a water loop. Basing the design on the shape and positioning of the bottom of aircraft floats forward of the step would be a good place to start. Apart from the structural needs the rest of the float is just there to displace water at taxi speeds - its not necessary if you don't slow down.

[nick2007]

Werbil -
Yes, I am aware that water scooping has been done for many years using float equipped aircraft/flying boats. I'm aware of the Fireboss 802.

However the way I see it is this:
If the aircraft is planing on the surface, scooping water, and is subject to a subtle disturbance, then the difference between using a water hull and skis is that the hull's increasing displacement as it lowers in the water results in greater buoyancy, forcing the aircraft to pitch up. It is therefore a stabilising force.

Whereas if the skis are lowered further into the water, there is a significant an increase in drag (below the cg), there is no significant increase in buoyancy, and although there is some hydrodynamic lift produced by the skis, I would view it as primarily a destabilising situation (i.e. nose over into the water).

In regards to the drag load being behind the c.g. preventing a water loop, this is true for lateral stability yes, but does not affect the longitudinal stability issue (i.e. nose over into the water).

That's why they have been putting scoops on floatplanes and flying boats since the 1950's, but by 2008, only Col Pay had been trying it with skis (unless someone knows of some other examples). Any water-based ski-equipped/hydro-foil equipped aircraft? I can't think of any. I suspect for the same reason - too unstable!

[John Eacott]

ohn,

I can't say whether or not they get much use, but there are FIVE Squirrels and TWO Jetrangers on the Victorian contract for this year (I'm reading from the list and can quote regos if needed), which is very similar to past years. There are also a few Longrangers and a lone BK117, which all together make up the type 3 (or Light helo) fleet.

Allan,

The light helicopters are all Firebirds, not Helitacks: this is reflected in their callsigns. They are only used for firespotting/aerial incendiary/AAS roles, not for firebombing :) One Longranger and one Squirrel are each permanently assigned to the two Cranes for AAS for each heavy Helitack. The BK117 is a contract Helitack, not really a Type 3 (a constant issue, but hardly relevant ;) ).

[Allan L]

Thanks John.

Although I also see that the contract list details their "Firebombing System" as being various capacities of buckets (410 to 680 litres) with the 117 having a 1200 litre belly tank.

[John Eacott]

AllanL,

The Firebirds are required to carry all sorts of stuff, including HF Radio, wool blankets and Bambi buckets. Trust me, they don't use any of them! (Except in an emergency.)

The day that BK belly tank actually fights a fire with a full 1200lt, the sun will rise in the west......:p More like 900lt average drop ;) Another anomaly, the SAU will credit each drop at max tank capacity, regardless of what's actually dropped, unless the operator reports otherwise. Great for statistics, but not entirely accurate; indeed, quite misleading when applied over a campaign fire :=

[werbil]

Nick2007

At planing speeds (which would be used for water scooping) buoyancy doesn't enter into the equation - for all practical purposes the only forces provided by the water are hydrodynamic forces. Yes, a subtle disturbance will push the floats further into the water - but at the speeds we are talking about there is only a very, very small area of the floats in contact with the water (all in front of the step) - the sides and bottom of the floats behind the step of the floats only get wet by spray.

If you land nose low in a float plane they are very directionally unstable - have a look at this video - YouTube - Floatplane accident (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=gQ5D0Qa0PBk) - if you let it start you are along for the ride. Full back stick is the only thing that may save you.

Floatplanes also have a nose down tendency due to the drag - it is especially pronounced if you leave the wheels down on landing as this video demonstrates - YouTube - Sea Plane Crash (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=pucmWr55cgw)

With the DHC-2 installation (they were straight floats) increased loads were permitted when water scooping only if the aircraft was kept at step speed or above (I don't think the floats had enough reserve buoyancy meet certification requirements).

The location of the step on floatplanes is critical - to far aft and it is impossible to get airborne - to far forward and directional stability on the water at high speed is the problem.

W

[ozaggie]

As one of the pilots involved with fighting the Pt. Lincoln fire, I can assure our fellow respondents that the two AT602 and two AT802 SEAT'S provided excellent support over the life of the fire. With two AT602's based at lincoln for the summer and two AT802's arriving within 1.2 hrs from up to 145nm away within 1 hour of activation demonstrates the versatility of the fixed wing fleet within Sth Aust. The crane took in excess of 2 hrs to get to lincoln, did one load, refuelled, did 3 loads, pulled out with a maintenance problem, further 3 loads, repeat previous, then for the media continued for a further hour when the fire was benign and the SEAT's had been stood down! No sour grapes here but I pay my taxes too! The Ericsson is a magnificent platform for fire operations but is massively expensive, maintenence intensive, and requires ready access to available water resources to be effective. This was not available at the recent conflagration at Pt Lincoln. If the wind did not preclude the crane from scooping from the bay, the fire would not have had the intensity anyway, so the SEAT's would still have been effective. I am very proud of the work that all who were involved in this incident achieved in very arduous and trying flying and ground support conditions (including the crane guys) but to achieve what we did took an exceptional aircraft, and for my money that is the SEAT Airtractor's Cheers.......

[bushy]

Well done ozaggie. While the others are talking about it you are out there doing it.
One day our authorities may realise that bush fires happen more than once and they should organise the fire breaks, water supplies, and machines that will be needed to fight or prevent them. There are a lot of good people working on that now, with scant resources.
We haven't yet built a sucessful safety capsule for crews that get trapped in fires. We have tried and quit.

[nick2007]

Werbil,
Ok so the way I see it now is -
The skis were - from a hydrodynamics point of view - acting like a set of floats with a step set very far forward, so the whole setup was laterally unstable (or on the point of instability) when planing on the water.

[bushy]

We may see some action with a DC10 soon.

[jeta108]

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ComLaw/Legislation/LegislativeInstrument1.nsf/0/B22B7D7EF558C77ECA25752C007DA5B9/$file/CASAEX94.doc