"aircraft are sent only to pacify community against actual fire suppression value."

shows that someone is trying to help - but tough to tell people it makes little difference cp the PBI on the ground

I nice dodge with an irrelevant "fact" . The claim being pushed by the likes of Andrew Bolt and parroted by you is that we don't have to worry about climate change because all the fires were deliberately lit.... Wizofoz... mate... I never said such a thing and you know it so don't go trying to put words into my mouth!

The climate has always been changing and to think we have such a major hand in it is sheer stupidity!
Three volcanos are chuffing away North of Australia right now with a total of thirteen active today... bushfires' CO2 in comparison... meh! :ugh:

It's very simple but astounds so many. What Bolt; Credlin; The IPA; Reuter; AAP etc have questioned and pointed out (but NOT the climate change weeping zealots of Ch10 / ABC / SBS / CNN / DW / TwitterSewer etc) is that it's CAUSE & EFFECT... if there were no deliberately lit sparks there would not be so many fires AND if there wasn't so much un-attended to undergrowth / fuel, they would not be so intense. Is that so hard to comprehend?
The facts are clear just as per the example I mentioned as an immediate example that day, of idiots lighting the fires!

Happy Landings:ok:

That is the unfortunate part. People believe the aircraft are making a difference. Gives them some 'comfort'. The reality is different. There are other, more, effective means of fire response than bombers. The minute they're not sent - the community would be in an uproar. You don't win elections that way.

Aerial firefighting can improve the chances of a first attack on a bushfire being successful by up to 50%, but it must happen within 30 minutes of ignition to have any prospect of working.

There are costs to have the aircraft on stand by each day (sitting around) - then costs to operate. Just in Victoria, the cost is north of $20m, and operating costs north of $15m each fire season. So ~$30-40m PA spent. A lot of cash for not a lot of return.

Victoria has some 50 aircraft on stand-by for the fire season period and up to 100 additional aircraft nationally.

Chocks - there is indeed a long term climate effect and it's not positive for Australia (but quite good if you live in say Murmansk). In geological time its only yesterday that glaciers almost reached Central London for example.

What is also a fact is that the rate of change has increased dramatically since 1700 - and tracks the onset of the Industrial Revolution and the growth of people and industry.

The greens think we can stop CC - I don't think so - but we may be able to SLOW the rate of change

You have to remember that the Canadair study was done 30 years ago. I cannot remember the exact date.

From the same study;
The paper shows what could have been done then, when we had a chance of buying the CL415s.
We blew it back then.

The NSW RFS has RAFT teams who walk in or get dropped in by helio. Certaily the RFS vehilces wait on accessible trails for the fire to arrive.

Man made CO2 is 100 times the output of volcanoes. https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...oes-or-humans/Strange Bolt hasn't mentioned that, don't you think?

So, if you are happy to believe that the output of CO2 by volcanoes effects the climate, you MUST believe that man-made CO2 is worse, musn't you?

Now, what evidence do you have that ANY of the catastrophic fire were deliberately lit? And were we not in drought, would it matter? Idiots can't light fires if there is no dry foliage to lite- even a denier can't deny that- but probably will anyway.

ummmm..currently..ALL of the fires in Oz were deliberately set. The Police are rounding them up as we speak...

There have been several volunteer firefighters arrested for setting fires just to get more work as paid.

Police in Australia accuse 24 of deliberately setting bushfires amid natural factors

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/07/a...rnd/index.html

Most of the larger bushfires this season have been the result of dry lightning

That isn't even close to what that says.

They do yes. And so does Parks in much bigger numbers, but I was referring to the ground based stuff which I didn’t really point out.

"Now, what evidence do you have that ANY of the catastrophic fire were deliberately lit? "

Well there is this, from before much of the current hype.

"About 85 per cent are related to human activity, 13 per cent confirmed arson and 37 per cent suspected arson," he said.

"The remainder are usually due to reckless fire lighting or even just children playing with fire."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-...idays/11528192

And I'm fully prepared to believe that may be so. It's also NOT what Chocks was pushing- that we wouldn't have a problem if we just somehow made arson not happen, and is also completely irrelevant. We had arsonists in years we had no major bushfires- because we didn't have the CONDITIONS that lead to fires, arsonists or not.

One of the best summaries you'll see-

Nice, but look carefully and one sees he is doing what he is accusing of others.

For example, NSW figures are quoted to counter national figures. (12:34)

It goes on to ignore both QLD and TAS, the former has an additional 109 before the courts, though it does not distinguish between arson/deliberate.

Here is the "non-Murdoch" source -

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-...risis/11865724

There is some good advice regarding graphs - I guarantee most people think they are looking at a temperature graph when they are in fact looking at a "temperature anomaly graph".

As for BOM figures? Well, when I went hunting for figures for a known heat wave where I live (within the BOM supplied/standardised equipment period) it had this to say -

" Data from 1910 and 1911 are not consistent with other sites in the region and are not used". So, no info.

I agree with the fire chief when he says hazard reduction will not stop spread. It does decrease intensity, but this is not stated.

As for environmental interference? My post # 30 refers, again, non- Murdoch source. But, that is only one example, there may be no others.

I can see your point of view, however, there are other points of view with merit.

The simple answer to the original question is...we can't afford it! Every time we have these fires the water bomber buying saga gets trotted out, ain't gunna happen, remember this is Australia, a nation NOT known to be efficient or smart at just about anything we do!

To quote one politician;

"What is the cost of doing nothing?"

So $30-40m that may reduce the severity or prevent fires is a small price to pay.

If the States, or the Commonwealth, were to purchase the CL515, they are multi-role aircraft and could carry out SAR operations. At present we do not have an aircraft within our SAR capabilities of landing on water for rescue purposes.
CL-515

And if that is viable then why not the government purchasing say, 3 of the soon to be retired Qantas 747-438ERs and doing the same in reverse. Operating/owning them here and leasing them out to California and others during our Winter??? The long range of the aircraft would certainly provide no problems carrying firefighters as well between Australia and the US and v.v.

There’s probably much better airframes sitting in the desert than clapped out QF airframes.

Also to fly them in the USA on any forestry contract or anything dept. of state, the aircraft can’t have any local EO’s they all have to be standard with STC’s.

That’s why you see a lot of N reg helicopters in Australia but not the other way.

How about Clive’s MD’s...

I see an 83 arriving in Oz currently.

:)