That's what the forest service found in the US. If there are frequent wildfires, they tend to burn cooler and not do serious damage to the larger trees and such. However if fires are suppressed for several years, the area becomes overgrown with 'fuel', and a subsequent fire burns much hotter becomes highly destructive of the ecosystem. The problem is we've rather locked ourselves into the fire suppression mode, so there is little choice but to maintain the status quo - it's basically too late to return to the original frequent natural fire pattern.
Plus of course there is that messy issue of the need to protect the 'unnatural' human lives, structures, and infrastructure - which is hard to do if you allow wildfires to simply be 'wild'.

Pretty sure 100 kts is 185.2 km/h

It was in 'stralya... which is rather known for being phlatt.:}

From Cedrick:

Very much confirms what I've see in my travels. I'm always surprised just how quickly the country recovers from a fire in my part of the world - even a big one. Driving though the the area yesterday of our last big one seven years ago (82,500 hectares, two lives lost, and over 90 homes lost in less than one day), we remarked that the roadside vegetation was more lush now than we can ever recall prior to the the fire. The Eucalypts have all shot out from ground level and have luxurious growth almost back to the levels of the dead branches resulting from the fire. The birds and the 'roos are back as well.

One the other hand we were shocked by what we saw and experienced on a drive though the Snowy Mountains a few years back where the "Canberra" fire has its origins. It's probably (hopefully) on the road to recovery. Nature is a great healer - we just need to be patient.

The use of LATs vs SEATS ? My observations parallel those from Cedrick in post #143 - very closely. (Perhaps we are thinking of the same event?) Always good for a vigorous discussion. But perhaps not here.

If the eyebrow window is the solution, gotta wonder what the question was.

I've owned and driven a number of planes with eyebrows, B737CL, Westwinds, & Astras... They give a nice spot to put a tracker system in without chopping new holes in the pressure hull. Otherwise, keeping the sun shade in place is the main justification for what they do. Even in close form trail they don't get used.

Well, they've started work on it: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...rt/ao-2023-008

Over the coming weeks, the collection of evidence will allow the ATSB to determine the scope of the investigation and gain a better understanding of its timeframe.

The snow gums are a good indicator of what it's going wrong due to warming. They have evolved to need fire to create the next generation. Their life cycle requires that these fires only occur about every ten years so the saplings are mature enough to withstand the next fire. When fires are too frequent they die off.

My comment: “[L]et's hope the ATSB comes up with some 'takeaways' that folks flying for the airlines will consider relevant.” was in response to Lookleft’s suggestion that this is the first loss of a transport category hull in Australia and that was the justification for ATSB to investigate, notwithstanding that there were no fatalities and it was a known risky kind of operation with nothing to do with transport of passengers or cargo. This aircraft might have started its life as certified in the transport category, but that ended as soon as it was modified to be and was then operated as a LAT.

To be clear, I think ATSB should be investigating this accident, preferably in consultation with or ideally with the assistance of the NTSB and Boeing. But I also think ATSB should be investigating all aircraft accidents involving fatalities.

I doubt that anything will come out of this investigation that will have any relevance to folks flying for the airlines or be anything novel. I guesstimate that the outcome will be to the effect that when engaged in known risky kinds of operations, bad things are more likely to happen in the blink of an eye.

It seems fairly obvious they are referring to the design intention of the aircraft. According to Coulson, the Fireliner has around 70 pax seats in it so even though it might operate under General Aviation (?) it is still intended for and capable of air transport to and from fire tasks. As opposed to Air Transport. It may not be used for airline or other transport category operations however it's still an airliner. A modified airliner. A modified air transport aircraft. Regardless of what it now self-identifies as, it's still a B737-300 which was conceived, designed and manufactured as a transport category aircraft. So there you go!

I think you're right. But something must be changed to make it "safer" or else someone might be held responsible. Lots of people running for cover.

I believe there have been people rotating through senior roles in the Australian operations for some time now. The investigation should capture toxic culture, training deficiencies and any other contributory factors. It will be an interesting report, especially now the NTSB is assisting.

It's not about what it started out as nor what it self-identifies as. It's about what was on its certificate of airworthiness when operated as a LAT.

That's why there was a regulatory problem that had to be worked through before any people were permitted to be carried in those seats.

I'll try to make my point by putting it this way: If Coulson had sold the aircraft to Qantas, do you think CASA would approve the addition of the aircraft to Qantas's AOC for the conduct of RPT?

And in any event, none of this is relevant if airworthiness had nothing to do with the accident.

Yes that is all well-put and accurate however I think the arguing began because someone referred to it as an air or airline or whatever transport category jet which had crashed. If I read that I'd understand what he was trying to say. If he said it was the first in Australia, I'd say he's wrong as there was a B707 hull-loss in Australia back in the '90s. It could be a matter of semantics getting panties all bunched up or some might even say excessive pedanticism.

As for ATSB motivation, they are political same as most departments. It's easy to see why it'll be investigated even without fatalities whereas a Jabiru which hit a tree and killed both POB might not be. Personally I think it sucks.

I flew 737s with eyebrows out of Perth. They were very useful in visual circuits and circling. On a base turn to the otherside (i.e. flying left seat and turning right or vise versa) the threshold is nicely visible in the eyebrow window.

So pilots and operators of large air tankers don't deserve a chance to learn from others misfortunes in the hopes of avoiding a similar (or worse) fate? Good to know. :rolleyes:

I’m guessing you’re ‘not from around here’.

You obviously missed the earlier post in which I said: “To be clear, I think ATSB should be investigating this accident, preferably in consultation with or ideally with the assistance of the NTSB and Boeing. But I also think ATSB should be investigating all aircraft accidents involving fatalities.”

My comment that you quoted has a context. The context is recent aviation fatalities that ATSB has refused to investigate. They include a mid-air collision which resulted in two fatalities. ATSB refused to investigate on the ground that there was nothing to learn for transport safety and the ATSB is not funded to investigate that kind of accident. So the pilots of aircraft similar to those involved in the recent mid-air don’t deserve a chance to learn from others’ misfortunes in the hope of avoiding the worst fate?

This LAT accident involved no fatalities and has no implications for transport safety. Yet ATSB is investigating. Us ‘from around here’ know why.

You might say that we don’t know the implications until we find out what happened and why. And I’d agree with you, completely. And the same argument applies to the recent mid-air.

If exposing ATSB duplicity means I’m biased, I’m happy to be labelled biased.

The question was; How can it improve cockpit visibility by eliminating four windows that were there as original equipment? When they were converting DC-4s to tankers they would often install an eyebrow window for the very purpose later described by Checkboard.

​​​​​​​You poor bastard, you actually believe what you wrote? Maybe sometime in 2027 we'll hear something.

Bear with me, not an Australian, but why would the ATSB give a rat's ass? No loss of life, not even an injury, Part 138 utility operation - no public safety issues, foreign aircraft, foreign flight crew . It more or less burned as much useless scrub as it put out on its last pass. Let the operator figure it out, or not.

Surprised you're still on about cabin crew visibility when non-pprune rumours have graduated to power loss after completion of the last run.

I seem to recall houses covered in red powder last year during fires in Perth. Would be a flips t comment if the next crash was over rural houses. Investigations help understand the root cause and assist with preventing future events. I find your comments strange!