Greek Fire Fighting Aircraft crashed

[znord737]

From France 24 TV
Just announced one of the Fire fighting aircraft fighting the fires in Greece has crashed on a mission.

[stripakis]

Yes, this is correct. According to the serious newspaper 'Kathimerini' the plane (a PZL) crashed at 12:45 (greek time) near Argostoli on the island of Cephalonia. The 55 year old pilot had a total 4,025 hours on a variety of types including 524 on the PZL.

The crashed aircraft was of Polish origin, id.1122, was built in 1983 and had a total of 4,733 hours. The accident is being investigated by the Greek Air Force.

[A Very Civil Pilot]

I landed in EFL just after the incident, as the 2nd firefighting aircraft was returning.

Our handling agent passed on the information, stating that the aircraft had apparently stuck some power cables.

[Tandemrotor]

Is the PZL the yellow, single (radial) engined Agcat type aircraft? I was only admiring the two of them at Argostoli at the weekend!

Very sad.

[JW411]

That's exactly it - Polish version of the Agcat. I was on holiday in Corfu about 10 years ago and one of them bit the dust fighting a fire in the hills. I was told that they were flown by volunteer Greek Air Force pilots.

[fonejacker]

I know these particular aircraft in question. They are normally parked on the edge of the very small apron at EFL, next to the fire station.

[goatface]

An AGCAT firefighting? I have clear memories of these machines doing agricultural work in the UK, as robust and manouverable as they may be, I could never imagine them to be an effective fire fighting aircraft.

[SNS3Guppy]

That's exactly it - Polish version of the Agcat.


No, it really isn't. It was a M-18 Dromader, which is nothing at all like an AgCat. An AgCat is a biplane, where as the Dromader is a monoplane, and much larger with a much larger capacity. The Dromader was originally a product produced as a license copy by Thrush, in Poland, but was highly modified and has a completely different wing, significant fuselage changes, a bigger hopper and powerplant, different landing gear, tailwheel assembly and flight controls, and a different empennage.

The Dromader is the most common firefirefighting aircraft globally, particularly among Single Engine Air Tankers. I flew one for seven years, doing firefighting. it's a solid capable airplane.

It's been somewhat outshined today by the Air Tractor AT-802, and where I carried 650 gallons of fire retardant in my Dromader, I carried 800 in the Air Tractor. The air tractor is faster. The Dromaders I flew were refitted with turbine engines, rather than the russian and polish radials, and had different fire gates and hopper modifications, but were the same airframe and wing.

The M18B flies like a completely different airplane,with bigger ailerons, far more response, flap gap seals, etc. The Dromader, like many ag airplanes, isn't really "user-friendly," but it's a nice flying airplane as ag aircraft go. Heavy on the ailerons compared to an Air Tractor, but very nice compared to other aircraft.

It's definitely NOT an AgCat.

[THE THUNDER]

Who know if it the pilot had serious injured? or, he's dead?
I'm pilot fire fighting "agroforestal" in Spain, although now I work as FI, but I recognize that work in the fire is special dangerous.

When we were training with the course fire fighting, we were special careful and atencion with the net electrical, and we pass below again and again for training.
In the fires it's very dangerous, because the electrical cables don't see since the aircraft, only can view the pylons.

My condolences

[SNS3Guppy]

Who know if it the pilot had serious injured? or, he's dead?


Stergios Kotoulas, the pilot, died.

Greek pilot dies in fire-fighting aircraft crash - South Eastern Europe - The Sofia Echo (http://www.sofiaecho.com/2009/08/27/775601_greek-pilot-dies-in-fire-fighting-aircraft-crash)

[nessim]

Local eyewitnesses say that PZL dropped water diving very low and then while climbing through heavy smoke hit power cables loosing part of left wing and crashed next of an hotel bursting in flames.

http://www.protothema.gr/content/data/upimages/mponios/pzl_crash.jpg

Greece bought 30 PZL dromader in 83-84 for agricultur sprayings but when spraying was forbidden they were used for firefighting. Since then 12 of them crashed killing 6 pilots through the years.

http://s.enet.gr/resources/2009-08/pzl_small-thumb-large.jpg

[ChristiaanJ]

An AGCAT firefighting? I have clear memories of these machines doing agricultural work in the UK, as robust and manouverable as they may be, I could never imagine them to be an effective fire fighting aircraft.I live very near MPL (Montpellier, Southern France) where they have both AgCats (biplane) and AirTractors (low-wing monoplane, looking similar to the PZL in the photo).
Big radials... I only need to hear them, to think "oh sh*t", and know what they are and where they're going....

They can carry several hundred litres of retardant, and usually operate in pairs, so they can be quite effective as a 'first response', well before the "big ones" (Canadairs, Trackers) can get here from places like Marignane (near Marseille).

Also they can rotate back into and out of MPL quite rapidly, and being "low and slow", they can also then remain on station to direct the local fire engines converging on the fire.

So yes, they can be very effective in certain areas, as around here, when they can act as a "quick reaction force".

CJ

[doubleu-anker]

"I was told that they were flown by volunteer Greek Air Force pilots."

If that is true, then possibly that is part of the problem.

Firefighting is a very specialized and dangerous type of aviation. With all due respects, what skills and experience long term, would a serving military pilot have to go firefighting? The job is dangerous enough for current and experienced personal.

They should contract in serving firefighting pilots, if they are available, or failing that experienced and current Ag pilots. No only from a safety point of view but for getting the job done effectively.

[cessnapuppy]

these fire fighting operations probably have the highest fatality and accident rates of any kind of flying, other than war time. They also tend to fly some of the oldest. creakiest and decrepit types of aircraft subjected to incredibly high g-forces and stresses. you have to drop the water really low, otherwise you just create a cloud of useless steam at 300ft - some planes skim the surface of a lake and load up water, where a unseen log or canoe spells disaster. Makes me wonder everytime I hear of one of these crashes , if it wouldnt be better to just let the damn fire burn ( of course, if MY home was in the 'line of fire') then I would probably have a different suggestion!)http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/07/PZL_M18B_Dropping_Water.jpg/180px-PZL_M18B_Dropping_Water.jpg ^photo from wiki

[JW411]

My apologies - I meant to say the Polish "equivalent" not the Polish "version".

[RoyHudd]

Hats off to the poor guy who perished, and to the brave fellows who fly these missions. Volunteers or not, they deserve our respect as fellow aviators who undertake hard and dangerous flying for a good purpose.

Respect.

[Stuck_in_an_ATR]

YouTube vid on Dromader Firefighters - good illustration of the aircraft and the demanding job...

YouTube - Waterbombing Southwest Style (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-o5ct0zZrc)

[nessim]

[QUOTE]"I was told that they were flown by volunteer Greek Air Force pilots."

If that is true, then possibly that is part of the problem.[/QUOTE

Firefighting pilots are not volunteers in Greece.
Perished pilot Stergios Kotoulas was group captain and the chief of PZL scuadron and was an experiended airforce retired officer that returned
in action (many do so for an extra income). Firefigthing pilots are officers of Greek Air Forces.
http://asset.tovima.gr/assetservice/Image.ashx?c=12113344&r=0&p=0&t=0&q=100&v=1&s=1&w=1000
http://www.skai.gr/files/temp/597531CEB6C29B511A852F91E6725EFA.jpg
http://kefaloniapress.gr/images/stories/atyxhmata/kateleios/dioikitis.jpg

[SNS3Guppy]

They also tend to fly some of the oldest. creakiest and decrepit types of aircraft subjected to incredibly high g-forces and stresses. you have to drop the water really low, otherwise you just create a cloud of useless steam at 300ft - some planes skim the surface of a lake and load up water, where a unseen log or canoe spells disaster.

Makes me wonder everytime I hear of one of these crashes , if it wouldnt be better to just let the damn fire burn ( of course, if MY home was in the 'line of fire') then I would probably have a different suggestion!)


Spoken like someone who's never fought a fire from the air in his life.

Oldest airplanes? Several years ago the Dromader I flew was nearly new, turbine and GPS equipped, with a new fire gate, current inspections, etc. Creakiest? Decrepid? Is this what you've read somewhere?

High G-loads? Clearly this isn't you speaking from experience, because it's simply not true. Your "useless steam" comment is fanciful, and sounds like you watched the movie "always" one too many times.

The only SEATs that are picking up water are the AT-802 Fire Boss, and the converted Beavers that use a float drop system. Otherwise, it's wheels and retardant in the US, and water and foam most other places. Unseen Canoes? Are these invisible canoes, or simply agressive parent canoes that are protecting their young? Have you ever landed on the water? Surely doesn't sound like it.

In the tanker industry, we don't decide to let the fire burn, or put it out. We act as a tool on behalf of the incident commander who makes decisions as to the tactics and methods he or she wishes to use in addressing the fire. We then apply our own judgement, and act professionally to apply the water or retardant in the most appropriate manner, according to the requests from either an air attack platform, a leadplane, or ground troops. We're not there to put out the fire in most cases, but to control it, modify it's behavior, or provide backup and safe zones to ground troops who do the actual firefighting.

It's not an emergency. It's our job.

[ChristiaanJ]

SNS3Guppy,
There HAVE been some highly published crashes of hi-time C-130s losing a wing during the pull-out....
I suppose that's what cessnapuppy was referring to.

It's true that with converted military aircraft, you don't always "know where it's been".

Here in France most of the fleet is not that new either, but most of it is purpose-built (Canadair, AgCats, Air Tractors) and has never done anything but fire-fighting. Proper maintenance then does the rest.

CJ

[SNS3Guppy]

There HAVE been some highly published crashes of hi-time C-130s losing a wing during the pull-out....

I flew the C-130 in question, and the 4Y that crashed 3 weeks later. I obtained my FE certificate in the former, and my 4Y type in the latter. Again, cessnapuppy has no idea what he or she is talking about.

T-130 didn't fail during a "pull out," and wasn't high-time, either, at approximately 20,000 hours. T-123 was only at 8,200 hours total time. As for "crashes," as in multiple crashes of "high time C-130's," where did the others occur on firefighting missions? There was one other loss in Pearl Blossom, California, in 1994, of T-82. That loss occurred during level flight and not a time when the aircraft was "overstressed" or in a "pull out."

The fact is that the mountain fire environment can be demanding and sometimes unpredictable. Severe and extreme turbulence can cause erratic aircraft response, strong rotors and downdrafts, and significant stresses on airframes. It's part of the fire environment.

Another SEAT (Single Engine Air Tanker), this one an Air Tractor AT-802, was lost several days ago in Nevada, in the US. This happens, and while unfortunate, does not deter the mission nor alter the decision of the professionals who undertake it, to do so professionally and with dedication.

As for decrepid aircraft and all that garbage...it's got no place in a serious discussion about the industry. Fatalities have occurred, and will continue to occur, but this is no reason to badmouth the industry with unsubstantiated, emotional accusations which have no foundation in reality.

[Carrier]

New purpose built fire fighting aircraft are available. These are designed for the conditions referred to by SNS3Guppy. However they come at a price. As a result some operators prefer to use cheaper older aircraft that have been modified for fire fighting. Naturally these conversions are less capable and less suitable for the task.

The better fire fighting operations, such as Ontario, have new or recent purpose built aircraft such as the CL-415. Others such as Saskatchewan are upgrading their earlier purpose built CL-215s to turbo-prop engines.

Here is a recent flight test article: Superscooper: Bombardier 415 flight test (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/08/21/331305/superscooper-bombardier-415-flight-test.html)

[SNS3Guppy]

Did you really fly that C130 in question?


Yes. I did.

[lear60fellow]

My condolences to the family, as always it´s a collegue that was doing his job. In an case fire-fighting is a dangerous job. I have never flown those machines but I have some collegues that did and the ones that flies CL-215 say that they are more efective that the latter ones on attacking a fire, they can go lower and drop the water more effectively, on the turbine models they see the turbine temperature rise up like hell

[SNS3Guppy]

Why would a turbine engine see a temperature increase over a fire? I've never seen any such thing, and can't imagine why that could possibly ever be the case.

[ChristiaanJ]

Why would a turbine engine see a temperature increase over a fire? I've never seen any such thing, and can't imagine why that could possibly ever be the case.Hot air?
I can well imagine different type engine controllers with a different type reponse to sudden changes in OAT. Anybody else know more?

CJ

[SNS3Guppy]

Hot air?
I can well imagine different type engine controllers with a different type reponse to sudden changes in OAT. Anybody else know more?



Yes. Engine temperatures don't increase over the fire. Very little of aerial firefighting actually takes place in the heat or smoke column, and most retardant drops are done adjacent to the flame, or backing up dozer or hand lines, or natural barriers. Attacking the flame directly is done primarily with water, and even then it's drifting into the flame with wind, providing an aircraft some standoff from the fire itself. The times when one actually encounters increased heat over the fire arent' frequent, and when it happens, it doesn't affect engine performance.

The only thing I've ever seen affect engine performance over a fire is debris and smoke...which can flame out an engine, clog filters or screens, or contain debris on occasion that's large enough to block an air intake, carburetor, or otherwise do damage (breaking windscreens, etc).

The hollywood version of aerial firefighting that's seen in movies like "always" doesn't really do much to portray the real thing.

[RAPA Pilot]

So how does one fall into air firefighting? I'm not a wannabe, 4000hrs on various types, just inquisitive thats all.

[SNS3Guppy]

That would really depend upon where you are.

[LRdriver III]

I want to ask same question... and I gather both of us asking are in Europe (EGSS), How would I, a similiar experienced pilot to RAPA, get into such stuff?

Is it all government/mil pilots who do this or is there a need for private contract companies to augment the southern european fleets. The fires seem to occur more and more each year, so maybe private companies can do this and move around seasonally.

[papazulu]

So how does one fall into air firefighting

If you are fluent in Italian and willing to work for 4 months out of 12 on a 3 year contract, pay for your TR (CL415T) and log 200/250-ish hrs every season (depending on the "heat" and the base) the company to get in contact with is SOREM in Rome Ciampino.

Spectacular job, so I am told by friends doing it for their 3rd year but miserable T&C's unless you are a fill-timer. The other option could be the old piston workhorse (CL215) this summer based in Corsica.

As far as I know in Greece you need to be part of the military as well as in Spain and France. However Spain operate private AT's in LEVC and they have been deployed in Southern Italy and former Yugoslavia.

I pass when it comes to US but SNS3 knows for sure.

Chill out...:E

PZ :ok:

[sharksandwich]

Does anyone know if these small ex-crop-spraying aircraft are really effective, or is it a matter of being seen to do something by the authorities?

[lanef300]

If I may, in France, one does not need to be part of the military...At least to be an f/o for the Sécurité Civile (which is part of the State Ministry, not Defense)...
There's a recruitment process, asking for 500hrs tt, JAR, and a few tests/interviews (including psy and pilots)...
Otherwise, regarding the Captains, most of them come from the Air Force/Navy, but at least 2 of them come from a civilian training...

[papazulu]

If I may, in France, one does not need to be part of the military..

Thx mate, mine was just a clue but obviusly "Securitè Civile" sounds pretty much as "Protezione Civile" so they might be just governative bodies.
Similar req's, about 1000TT for insurance purposes.

Regards

PZ :ok:

[ChristiaanJ]

Does anyone know if these small ex-crop-spraying aircraft are really effective, or is it a matter of being seen to do something by the authorities?The answer is : "depends..."

I've seen them in action locally several times.

On fires that have only just started, or smaller fires in general, they can be very effective.
Being "low-and-slow" they have the advantage of being able to drop very accurately, even very close to villages and houses, and then if necessary they can "loiter" to direct the local fire engines on the ground.

Where I live it's fairly densely populated, so most fires are spotted quickly, before they spread too far, and then the smaller aircraft can do an excellent job.

When you start talking steep hillsides, uninhabited and inaccessible terrain, and fires that are already burning over tens of hectares, that's when you start calling in the Canadairs, the Trackers and the Fokkers.

CJ

PS : AFAIK, our local ones are not "ex-crop-spraying", but were bought new and already fitted out for fire fighting.

[SNS3Guppy]

Does anyone know if these small ex-crop-spraying aircraft are really effective, or is it a matter of being seen to do something by the authorities?


Ag aircraft were the first aircraft used for firefighting. Today's ag aircraft that are used in firefighting operations are quite different than typical older era "crop dusters," however.

The AT-802 is about the size of a King Air 200, but with a gross weight of 16,000 lbs, half of which is payload. It can fly at 170 knots to the fire, and carries as much as the S2 Tracker as a tanker, before they were converted to turbines. With bigger hoppers on the way, the 802 is classified in the US as a Type III tanker.

What's important isn't how much the aircraft can carry. More is useful up to a point, but Single Engine Air Tankers (SEATs) can be based at smaller airports, and can be based in many cases locally, closer to the fire. They're an "initial attack" tool, meaning they're often first on scene with a fire.

A SEAT is not only an initial attack tool, however. I've worked large fires with a SEAT quite effectively, building line, hot spotting, and doing tactical drops to support ground troops. Several SEATS can keep a nearly constant application on a fire, as opposed to a single large air tanker which can make one drop, then may have a long turnaround time when going back for retardant or foam/water, and fuel. I've done fires with other SEATs, for example, in which our turns were fast enough that our biggest delay was runway time...the holdup was on the ground loading and getting on and off the runway, rather than over the fire. Very effective at the fire side, where the incident command had a tanker overhead ready to drop continuously.

SEATs also offer cost advantages in some cases with respect to total cost of the aircraft and operation, and in many cases can deliver the retardant for less money per gallon or liter than other equipment. What aircraft is in use, how it's used, where, the distance to the fire, etc, are all important factors in making this determination. Suffice it to say that if a structure or life can be saved because the SEAT is closer on a given day and can get on the fire sooner, then it's a lot more cost effective...especially to the life saved or the home/property owner.

I've flown large air tankers and small air tankers, and each have their place. I spent years fighting fire on the ground, as well, and see it from that perspective, too. I've flown a variety of different single engine air tankers with different hopper sizes, configurations, types, and engines, and had an opportunity to evaluate their effectiveness from a pilot perspective, as well as go back and walk the fireline after and see how the coverage was on the ground, and the effect on the fire. I've also had the experience of making a forced landing in a fire once due to an engine failure in a SEAT, and have a little insight from that perspective, as well.

The SEAT program in the United States has been very effective.

I can't speak regarding finding employment in fire in Europe, but I can tell you that in the US it's nearly impossible. Very few positions come open, there are qualified people waiting when they do, and to get qualified takes a number of years of very specialized fire experience. The SEAT program is perhaps a little easier, but one will require experience in ag aircraft, at least a thousand hours of ag time, and in most cases needs to arrive already experienced in the 802 (or decreasingly, the Dromader). I turned down an AT-602 position this year in a brand new airplane, and I know that operator was having a hard time finding a pilot...but it wasn't a very good position and a friend of mine was killed in his other 602 last year at the same location...so I did fire in other ways, instead.

Aircraft like the M18 Dromader in question in this thread are very hardy, very simple aircraft, easy to work on, with low maintenance demands, and reliable systems and components. They're inexpensive to buy and to maintain. They've got a large hopper for chemical or water, and they are relatively easy to fly, as that type of equipment goes. They've got a big wing, they handle mountain flying and dropping well, and they're very commonly found in fire operations around the world.

They've got disadvantages, too. They have a very narrow drop speed range...only about 15 knots. Too slow, and the aircraft will stall on the drop, and too fast, and it will pitch up and may not be survivable. I've experienced both. I have experienced aerodynamic lockup of the controls and high speed buffet during dive recoveries in the Dromader. It's got a low flap speed range, which limits it's ability to drop downhill, as well as it's low drop speed range. Energy management is important, because one is restricted from having a lot of energy due to the lower drop speeds required. This is also a bonus for retardant delivery, however, as it allows better targeting and coverage consistency. The airplane has a long takeoff roll, but it's much better than the 802. The airplane has a more forgiving wing than the 802. The airframe is built like a tank. There have been three Dromaders that lost their wings in flight as a result of improper maintenance (overtorquing on the wing attach clevis fittings due to improper conversion from metric to SAE); the pilots survived in each case.

SEATs aren't used because they're window dressing. Large air tankers are a lot more impressive to the public. SEATs are used because they're effective, cost effective, and many programs find that they can field multiple airplanes with SEATs for the money, enabling them to be widespread with more immediate local coverage. They fly from smaller airfields in many cases, enabling more airfields to be used. They take very little support in the field, depending on how they're used.

It's important to remember that a SEAT, just like a Large Air Tanker, is simply another tool in the toolbox for the firefighters on the ground...and fires aren't fought from the air. It's the troops on the ground that put out fires. Aircraft simply assist them by performing precision work where the ground pounders want it done. In the air, we help modify fire behavior, but we're not there to put out a fire. It doesn't work that way. Even in an initial attack operation, our function is to slow the spread or treat surrounding materials to give those on the ground time to come in and work the fire by hand.

[ChristiaanJ]

SNS3Guppy,
True thanks for that tale.
I can only watch them here from the ground.
Your story tells me a bit more about them 'up there'.

Christian

[sharksandwich]

SNS3Guppy - thank you for the informative post.

[Smoketoomuch]

Fascinating stuff sns3 - thanks.
Whats a typical turn-round for some of the different types used, ie how many drops/hour?

There's some great footage on the link below, including DC-10s and Martin Mars [I think]. Full of respect for the crews involved. Just awesome, absolutely awesome.

LiveLeak.com - Oak Glen San Bernardino County Fire On Scene Footage (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1ed_1251750707)

[SNS3Guppy]

Turn times really depend on the aircraft, the loading system, the delays at the field, etc. If there are no traffic delays and there's no one in the reartardant pilt, 15 to 20 minutes without refueling, but again, that depends on the aircraft. Piston airplanes needing fuel also often require oil, which takes extra time. Mechanical issues may take extra time. If nothing but retardant is needed, then it can go quickly with typical high pressure systems.

Seats typically average about a five minute turn, and ground delays are generally minimal because more often than not the SEAT is using a rural, smaller airport.

Actual turn-arounds from the fire really depend on where the fire is in proximity to a reload base.

I see the Evergreen 747 got used for the first time on a fire on a revenue flight, yesterday.

Video: Firefighting 747 Air Tanker in Action over Station Fire | FOX 11 News (http://www.myfoxla.com/dpp/news/local/Station_Fire_Air_Tanker_Video_20090831)

[doubleu-anker]

Hello SNS3Guppy

Some excellent posts on this thread from you.

Would you have any idea the background of the B747 pilot(s) involved?

Normally it is more cost effective and safer to train a pilot, experienced in the field of aviation in question, to operate a type of aircraft.

Would this still be the case with the Evergreen crews?

[SNS3Guppy]

I can't comment on that.

[MerzNorton]

The crew on the Evergreen Supertanker all formerly flew the 74 at EIA.

[nessim]

A British tourist accidentally shoot a video of PZL crash.
After water bombing on 13th sec there is a flash hitting power cables...
(also very impressive the detached response of cameraman in front of a tragedy)..

YouTube - ? ????? ??? PZL (Mielec) M-18B "Dromader", ???? ?????????. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujNq0eiQ6rI&feature=player_embedded)