Greek Fire Fighting Aircraft crashed
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There HAVE been some highly published crashes of hi-time C-130s losing a wing during the pull-out....
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.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: Where the job is!
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Carrier; 29th Aug 2009 at 03:30. Reason: add correction
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: germany
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can well imagine different type engine controllers with a different type reponse to sudden changes in OAT. Anybody else know more?
CJ
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot air?
I can well imagine different type engine controllers with a different type reponse to sudden changes in OAT. Anybody else know more?
I can well imagine different type engine controllers with a different type reponse to sudden changes in OAT. Anybody else know more?
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.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: bespin, the cloud city
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So how does one fall into air firefighting
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...
PZ
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: France
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: bespin, the cloud city
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I may, in France, one does not need to be part of the military..
Similar req's, about 1000TT for insurance purposes.
Regards
PZ
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 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.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: SE England
Posts: 275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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