There might actually be more than one video of the incident. I heard about it several days ago.

RIP guys.

how do you know that it hasn’t already been submitted?

it becoming public at least helps stop some of the BS speculation going on.

Low level operations come with elevated risk. An expert, well trained crew can do the same thing day in, day out, and yet have a bad day with very little change from what they were doing 10 minutes, 1 day, 1 year before. Within normal operations, functional resonance of factors associated with the process may just get to a condition where a number are near the edge, and enough together cause an undesired outcome. The operating environment is stochastic, around desired normal conditions, each of which has levels of variation that occur naturally, and are controlled in the course of the operation. Without going too far down the rabbit hole with that, note that the Reason model of causation, the "Swiss Cheese" model is simplistic, and assumes a linear process, and life is just not so. The final point is that the guys and girls that are out there doing this job are professionals, and face the risks that arise from their operation day after day.

R.I.P.

Hmmm, I make the videographer at the 1010m contour crossing the road at 35°59.898S 149°23.113'E. This is just west of the right angle dogleg, about 1000m north of the site. The retardant run appears to be inside of the 1100m hills (~2km to the WNW) at 00:15 which are slightly below the aircraft in line of sight. Remember the camera is not level to the horizon (the camera drops during the pan and the crash site is uphill of the videographer ). I'd guess the aircraft at 00:15 is at approx 1100m (The same height as the hills, but you're slightly looking "up" at them) making the aircraft appear higher. Impact was at 1050m or less. If these assumptions are correct the aircraft descended at the most 150 feet in the last 18 seconds m (<50fpm) covering ~0.75nm = 150kts.
The video stops - 2 seconds after the fire is visible - probably just before the sound reaches it (if the northerly let it travel that far) which would have been at about 3 seconds.
RIP

A lot of firies have and use the cameras in their phones, both for recreation and documenting matters such as broken stuff, the licence plate numbers of idiots, etc, etc. It’s not unreasonable that someone in a crew would video a drop if they were on a break and in a safe position to do so.

An accident in the real sense of the word. It is a job that is inherently risky and there is always the chance that there is going to be a small miscalculation that is fatal. No one would normally fly in those conditions if they could possibly avoid them.

There's a clear and obvious distinction between reasonable, sensible sharing and discussion of facts and the peddling of empty, pointless speculation, catch-phrases and idiotic references to vague possibilities by ignorant wannabes desperate to appear knowledgeable in the aviation forum. Sadly, this thread is riddled with examples of the latter.

Having just seen one of the videos all I can say is RIP lads. Putting out fires, helping, doing a great job. Then next second yes all ****e come real. I am certainly no accident investigator, actually have no idea about the real circumstances, but it does appear to me that they just well...... hit the ground.

A risky job yes, limits defined no doubt but fires are brutal beasts not just on the ground. The turbulence, the vis. No doubt hey were following their out after the drop and something just didn’t go right.

There but for the grace of god and thank you, you have paid the ultimate price for doing a very risky job.

The linked video has been made private. Does anyone have another link? Quite keen to see it.

You don’t need to see it.

Who are you to judge who should and shouldn’t see it?

Sunfish, who appointed you as judge and jury on what I should watch.

By the way its been sent on Facebook and still up for those interested.

TBM, I didn’t say you mustn’t see it or you can’t see it. I said you don’t need to see it. That is my opinion, I’m not judging anything. If you think that it will make you a better person, improve safety and is not just morbid curiosity go right ahead.

Sunfish, I think you nailed it. The personal motivations people have for watching may separate the "professionals" from the "spotters" (terms used metaphorically).

I note the video seems to have dissapeared so the public won't be viewing it any more.

I want to though.

Having seen the video one thing that came to my mind was "Was the a full drop" - seemed like quite a short run?

Quote:

---

I note the video seems to have dissapeared so the public won't be viewing it any more.

---

That's being pretty optimistic. Once its out, it's out! Already been broadcast on Sky News!

There's absolutely nothing morbid about wanting to see the video, I have, and it's nothing more than what you have served up nightly on the TV news, a fatal accident at an airshow is far, far more in your face being so close. Pretty much all you see is the fireball on impact at a considerable distance. Sunny may be a little overly sensitive given his association with the fire fighting efforts.

Early news reports suggested that it was the end of the drop after having completed an earlier one elsewhere.

The videographer or his nearby colleagues seemed surprised in the video that there wasn’t more of a drop as they seemed to be expecting a second drop.

This video from Coulson's site seems to do a good job of summing up their C-130 fleet. Interestingly there is a comment that they have depleted the world market of C-130s, hence the move to 737 based aircraft.

Coulson's C-130 tanker Bomber 131 started life in the TACAMO program and had chin windows, but was used by NASA for a while and had its chin windows blanked off at some point as they were nonexistent in NASA's livery. Bomber 134 wasn't mentioned but may have a similar history.