747 Fire fighting water tanker
6 of them ^ vs 60 AT-802's 
I am not involved in aerial firefighting at all but the guys who operate the SA AT's are in the hangar next door, and from what I have heard (and seen) of how they use them- they are EXTREMELY effective against small to upper medium sized fires. Of course if you got a huge inferno, then not even a skycrane will be able to do much.
One thing it seems people are missing here is the true measure of aerial firefighting- litres on the fire per hour and cost per litre of water. Without having to put up heaps of figures, I'd say the AT's do the job pretty damn well for the price. I'd certainly want 20 or so AT's scattered around the state than 2 CL's based in the capital city!
Why don't the authorities establish an operation similar to the US (can't think of the name) that had federal funding to combat their forrest fires? Surely this would benefit all involved if the states banded together and established a common organisation with common infrastructure?
I am not involved in aerial firefighting at all but the guys who operate the SA AT's are in the hangar next door, and from what I have heard (and seen) of how they use them- they are EXTREMELY effective against small to upper medium sized fires. Of course if you got a huge inferno, then not even a skycrane will be able to do much.
One thing it seems people are missing here is the true measure of aerial firefighting- litres on the fire per hour and cost per litre of water. Without having to put up heaps of figures, I'd say the AT's do the job pretty damn well for the price. I'd certainly want 20 or so AT's scattered around the state than 2 CL's based in the capital city!
Why don't the authorities establish an operation similar to the US (can't think of the name) that had federal funding to combat their forrest fires? Surely this would benefit all involved if the states banded together and established a common organisation with common infrastructure?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes the AT-802 should have a role; but I understand the turn around time is substantial; I guess it depends on where the fire is in relation to a strip and / or body of water to reload the CL-415 or the tractor; maybe we could have 3 CLs and 30 AT-802s?
Re "The cost of water" when taken from the ocean, harbour etc is not an issue; hence the CL-415 should get a guernsey IMHO.
I hear talk on the radio today of 8 "Elvis/Delilah" sky cranes being on the shopping list; but no one is saying who will pay etc.
An absolute motsa for me is something better than we have now is needed; a dedicated quick response (national unit) would be best; so that would make it from the federal funds for mind.
The other issue, particularly in Vic, is why the CFA has to buy it's own trucks, generally, with money they (CFA units) raise from the community; the gov's all around, including councils, need to have a bigger role in asset protection.
Re "The cost of water" when taken from the ocean, harbour etc is not an issue; hence the CL-415 should get a guernsey IMHO.
I hear talk on the radio today of 8 "Elvis/Delilah" sky cranes being on the shopping list; but no one is saying who will pay etc.
An absolute motsa for me is something better than we have now is needed; a dedicated quick response (national unit) would be best; so that would make it from the federal funds for mind.
The other issue, particularly in Vic, is why the CFA has to buy it's own trucks, generally, with money they (CFA units) raise from the community; the gov's all around, including councils, need to have a bigger role in asset protection.
Last edited by SM4 Pirate; 11th Dec 2006 at 01:34.
The Canadair looks like a cool machne, but, for example, the current fires in the alpine areas - where would the nearest suitable spot for a CL415 to fill up be and how long would be the transit time be?
I can see where one would have been of use in the Sydney fires of a year or 2 ago where they were close to the ocean/harbour.
But what about the Canberra fires a few years ago?
I can see where one would have been of use in the Sydney fires of a year or 2 ago where they were close to the ocean/harbour.
But what about the Canberra fires a few years ago?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Canadians and Yanks use two different approaches. They use large aircraft to fight fires as they occur from lightning strikes etc and smaller aircraft and helicopters when they get close to civilisation.They also use smoke jumpers in the wilderness, backing them up with the large bombers.
Unlike our approach they don't wait until a fire gets close to civilisation.
Up until recently they used a mix of large aircraft until one company lost a Liberator and an A model Herc, pulling the wings of both. Then followed a grounding of most large aircraft and an enquiry and the closing down of a few of the fire bombing concerns.
The Herc operations were a mix of contractors and Air National Guard. The ANG have developed a roll on/off Kit for a standard Herc. The privateers, or some at least, appear to have been involved in some interesting activities in their downtime. Others now operate Orions and L188s.Conair of Canada operate Firecats (Trackers) and CV580s and one Canadian company, Airspray operates L188 Longliners including former QF VH ECC. There are also DC6s and DC4s.The Canadians and a number of European operators use Canadair derivatives and a few Catalinas are still around but most now grounded.
The aircraft in Australia a few years ago was from memory a DC6 from Conair.Depending on how you look at it fortunately or unfortunately there was very little activity for it the year that it was here. I am not sure what a single aircraft would do anyway as the operation depends on a rapid strike by multiple aircraft to knock down the fire.
I have been told that the heavy approach is no good with our trees but California and most Med Countries are full of Gums and it seems to work there.
If you can think back to the video of the recent Helios B737 crash in Greece there were Canadairs busy in the background putting out the fire that the crash had started
I can't see under the current emergency requirents why say Airspray could not be contracted to bring out their L188s for the season. They should have no trouble with delivery range. Talking to some of the fire heavies a few years ago I came to the conclusion that the real problem was one of control and budgets. The only way to fund such an operation is via the Feds who could allocate across Australia. This puts the operations outside of the State Fire services. It also limits expenditure on other things like trucks etc.
Unlike our approach they don't wait until a fire gets close to civilisation.
Up until recently they used a mix of large aircraft until one company lost a Liberator and an A model Herc, pulling the wings of both. Then followed a grounding of most large aircraft and an enquiry and the closing down of a few of the fire bombing concerns.
The Herc operations were a mix of contractors and Air National Guard. The ANG have developed a roll on/off Kit for a standard Herc. The privateers, or some at least, appear to have been involved in some interesting activities in their downtime. Others now operate Orions and L188s.Conair of Canada operate Firecats (Trackers) and CV580s and one Canadian company, Airspray operates L188 Longliners including former QF VH ECC. There are also DC6s and DC4s.The Canadians and a number of European operators use Canadair derivatives and a few Catalinas are still around but most now grounded.
The aircraft in Australia a few years ago was from memory a DC6 from Conair.Depending on how you look at it fortunately or unfortunately there was very little activity for it the year that it was here. I am not sure what a single aircraft would do anyway as the operation depends on a rapid strike by multiple aircraft to knock down the fire.
I have been told that the heavy approach is no good with our trees but California and most Med Countries are full of Gums and it seems to work there.
If you can think back to the video of the recent Helios B737 crash in Greece there were Canadairs busy in the background putting out the fire that the crash had started
I can't see under the current emergency requirents why say Airspray could not be contracted to bring out their L188s for the season. They should have no trouble with delivery range. Talking to some of the fire heavies a few years ago I came to the conclusion that the real problem was one of control and budgets. The only way to fund such an operation is via the Feds who could allocate across Australia. This puts the operations outside of the State Fire services. It also limits expenditure on other things like trucks etc.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: In The Office
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turn around times
I have operated an AT-802 on a fire in SA with a turn around time of 5 mins loading from a dam in a paddock. We had 4 aircraft delivering a total of 2000lts a minute to the fire front for half the price of the skycrane.
Conair in Canada now have eight 802's and as far as I am aware no CL-415's although they have lakes everywhere in Canada. I think the Convair's or anything this big would require a more suitable airstrip than a paddock therefore affecting litres delivered per hour.
Every fire I have been on in NSW in the last ten years has been well established and involved a ferry of at least 15 minutes to reach the fire front. This is a complete waste of time and money, and achieves almost nothing. This very rarely happens in SA.
Conair in Canada now have eight 802's and as far as I am aware no CL-415's although they have lakes everywhere in Canada. I think the Convair's or anything this big would require a more suitable airstrip than a paddock therefore affecting litres delivered per hour.
Every fire I have been on in NSW in the last ten years has been well established and involved a ferry of at least 15 minutes to reach the fire front. This is a complete waste of time and money, and achieves almost nothing. This very rarely happens in SA.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: downunder
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The answer is simple if you want to scoop and have the flexibility of the 802 .......FIREBOSS 802 on floats with scooping ability and land capable
1xCL415 = 12xFireBoss = 20x802
6400lt vs 38400lt vs 64000lt
You do the maths
www.firebossllc.com
1xCL415 = 12xFireBoss = 20x802
6400lt vs 38400lt vs 64000lt
You do the maths
www.firebossllc.com
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 299
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
747 tankers , c 415's c130's or even a fire fighting mod for these new c17's we've bought at great expense. They are all a great way to get the job done but the sad fact is that the emergency service's involved are all obsessed with helicopters, Ive even heard chopper pilots chattering on the numbers about how sweet it is the be flying the big wigs around spotting in an air conditioned jet ranger.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopters certainly have their place in fire fighting but as stated there is a BIG role for the flying planks.
Certain factions get it into their heads that one type of machine is IT. wrong.
Look at NT, some twit wants to replace a/c with choppers and a couple of jets for aeromed work
That will work well over the distances concerned, locations and time lines....not!
My point is (firefighting wise) that a combo of types may prove a better choice. Given that parts/maintenance/downtime use/training on cross types etc etc may stop my idea in it's tracks
Certain factions get it into their heads that one type of machine is IT. wrong.
Look at NT, some twit wants to replace a/c with choppers and a couple of jets for aeromed work
That will work well over the distances concerned, locations and time lines....not!
My point is (firefighting wise) that a combo of types may prove a better choice. Given that parts/maintenance/downtime use/training on cross types etc etc may stop my idea in it's tracks
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think there must be a better way in Oz than what we have at the moment. The helitacs over here in the west tend to be pretty precise but lack the volume.
With the 747 tanker, wouldn't that quantity of water falling from the sky flatten everything below it... Including the houses it is meant to be saving?
It's great for an instant rainstorm. I assume the 747 in the USA is used to fight the fire in the forrested areas before the fire reaches any house.
The video was good, I thought there would be a greater pitch change with that much water going out the belly.
Volga Dnper have a few AN-124's floating around somewhere that are used for fire fighting from memory. Surely that would hold more than a 747-100?
WilliamOK - Thats one of the poorest comments I have heard on here.
With the 747 tanker, wouldn't that quantity of water falling from the sky flatten everything below it... Including the houses it is meant to be saving?
It's great for an instant rainstorm. I assume the 747 in the USA is used to fight the fire in the forrested areas before the fire reaches any house.
The video was good, I thought there would be a greater pitch change with that much water going out the belly.
Volga Dnper have a few AN-124's floating around somewhere that are used for fire fighting from memory. Surely that would hold more than a 747-100?
WilliamOK - Thats one of the poorest comments I have heard on here.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No pictures, but here's the report on the trial:
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F3100...+Report+15.pdf
The Phoschek used is nasty stuff, both to handle and encounter on the fire ground.
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/CA256F3100...+Report+15.pdf
The Phoschek used is nasty stuff, both to handle and encounter on the fire ground.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: downunder
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
www.firebossllc.com check this out for a neat fire fighting machine
A jolly roger
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5' 11 AGL
Age: 68
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And a great waste of water. Any water not falling directly on the fire evaporates very quickly in a firestorm - 60+knt winds, 40+ air temp, 15% or lower humidity - the water doesn't hang around long. As an ex-RFS volunteer I have direct experience of this.
We do need a mix - FW for before the fires get really going. But when the fire reaches my house, I think I'd prefer a daisy bucket overhead in the critical minutes than a FW "maybe" dumping the water on me or "maybe" the water landing a hundred feet away.
FW - thinking of some of the areas of NSW I have seen in the last few months - it would have to be able to retank from a dam - there just isn't any decent lengths of waterways left in many areas to scoop on the fly.
We do need a mix - FW for before the fires get really going. But when the fire reaches my house, I think I'd prefer a daisy bucket overhead in the critical minutes than a FW "maybe" dumping the water on me or "maybe" the water landing a hundred feet away.
FW - thinking of some of the areas of NSW I have seen in the last few months - it would have to be able to retank from a dam - there just isn't any decent lengths of waterways left in many areas to scoop on the fly.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is also important to note that although aerial bombing of a fire is a useful tool in slowing a fire or knocking the heat out of it, there will always be a requirement to follow the drop up with on ground crews.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been involved in Aerial Fire Fighting since it was first bought to Eastern Australia by the (now defunct) NSCA(Vic) what we have now is actually a very good mix of litres-on-fire vs re-attack times. All the current aircraft used (bar the Skycranes) provide a very good mix of being able to fight most types of fires. However as has been stated the huge firestorms that can develop are not really affected by aerial firefighting.
People need to remember that firebombers are not the be all and end all of fire fighting. It is still the guys and girls on the ground that do the majority of fire fighting and are very effective. Helicopters are very good at vital asset protection and for transporting fire attack crews to strategic and tactical locations to conduct bck burns etc and to get into otherwise inaccessible areas in the shortest period of time. Fixed wing (read AT-802's and Dromaders etc) are very good at fire fronts or laying a line of suppressant just in front of the fire to help with stopping it.
However once a fire starts and developes into a firestorm aircraft are essentially useless for fighting the actual fire. Aircraft can't even get near the fire in these circumstances.
Aircraft are best at attacking fires before they develop into full blown bushfires. Spot fires and small outbreaks, where they use their speed and reattack capabilities to the fullest mean they ar emost affective in this area.
As for the skycrane... my own opinion, when you look at the costs and litres per minute on the fire, they are less effective and more expensive than 2 or three medium helo's or three or four light helo's.... I believe these are more a case of the public now expects these helo's here rather than the bodies having theability to get the best bang for the buck. Perception is truth....
The CL-215 was actually bought to Australia by the NSCA(VIC) for a trial one season but it was not suited to out terrain, resources or infrastructure. Better solutions were developed and have proven more effective.
One last thing, you could have 50 helo's and 200 AT802's, but as soon as the fire develops into a bushfire it is the blokes on the ground that are still the most effective means of putting it out. (This is without the problem of being ble to control that many aircraft!!!) Aircraft are a tool to be used and particularly in VIC and SA are used very well. NSW has some way to go and appears to have more political hurdles to jump through as other posters have stated above. (I have no experience in WA)
Cheers
CB
People need to remember that firebombers are not the be all and end all of fire fighting. It is still the guys and girls on the ground that do the majority of fire fighting and are very effective. Helicopters are very good at vital asset protection and for transporting fire attack crews to strategic and tactical locations to conduct bck burns etc and to get into otherwise inaccessible areas in the shortest period of time. Fixed wing (read AT-802's and Dromaders etc) are very good at fire fronts or laying a line of suppressant just in front of the fire to help with stopping it.
However once a fire starts and developes into a firestorm aircraft are essentially useless for fighting the actual fire. Aircraft can't even get near the fire in these circumstances.
Aircraft are best at attacking fires before they develop into full blown bushfires. Spot fires and small outbreaks, where they use their speed and reattack capabilities to the fullest mean they ar emost affective in this area.
As for the skycrane... my own opinion, when you look at the costs and litres per minute on the fire, they are less effective and more expensive than 2 or three medium helo's or three or four light helo's.... I believe these are more a case of the public now expects these helo's here rather than the bodies having theability to get the best bang for the buck. Perception is truth....
The CL-215 was actually bought to Australia by the NSCA(VIC) for a trial one season but it was not suited to out terrain, resources or infrastructure. Better solutions were developed and have proven more effective.
One last thing, you could have 50 helo's and 200 AT802's, but as soon as the fire develops into a bushfire it is the blokes on the ground that are still the most effective means of putting it out. (This is without the problem of being ble to control that many aircraft!!!) Aircraft are a tool to be used and particularly in VIC and SA are used very well. NSW has some way to go and appears to have more political hurdles to jump through as other posters have stated above. (I have no experience in WA)
Cheers
CB
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Port Headland
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NSCA
Quote
"Having been involved in Aerial Fire Fighting since it was first bought to Eastern Australia by the (now defunct) NSCA(Vic)" ...........
From my memory the NSCA got there first helicopter around 1980, I know there were many aircraft involved in Aerial Firefighting before then.
Freddo did have a pretty neat Infra Red camera and pretty yellow helicopters (as well as subs, gliders, yachts, dogs ....) but the boys from Skyfarmers, Alpine, Superspread to name just a few had been firebombing for many years before Thunderbirds showed up on the scene!
I think Wazza brought two CL-215s to Australia around the time Surveillance first won the Coastwatch Contract? I can't remember whether they had big round engines or turn and burn?
I seem to recall cost was a big factor - over US$20 million each with round engines and very significant maintenance costs?
I seem to recall cost was a big factor - over US$20 million each with round engines and very significant maintenance costs?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...............it's the same old story here with anything in life where damned if you do or damned if you don't..............how much "insurance" do we take to cover those events that are going to happen anyway regardless of our effects on an add hoc basis ?...........we could have zillions worth of equip sitting around 80% of the year awaiting their expertese "just in case" & then there's little guarentee that it will be effective enough at the end of the day, all we can really do is be prepared, as individuals & take/accept that risk to want to live in high fire risk places. The current resources we have at our disposal are most likely adequate for smallish bush fires but the level of fire activity that we are seeing now in the high plains of Vic would be ny impossible to act upon effectively without mother natures help via a down pour, 747 fire bombers and all, still I take my hat off to those that try with obviously not enough resources to reduce the loss of human life, stock & property.
...............life is all about risk, we as pilots know this & it's calculated to some degree but to the boys & girls out there risking it all................... be extra careful & God's speed to you all.
Capt Wally:-)
...............life is all about risk, we as pilots know this & it's calculated to some degree but to the boys & girls out there risking it all................... be extra careful & God's speed to you all.
Capt Wally:-)
A jolly roger
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: 5' 11 AGL
Age: 68
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Cloud Basher,
You put that better than I could.
I was involved (on the ground) in the Canberra fires, and on that day the most reassuring sound was the Seahawk entering the battle. Which leads me to ask:
Why aren't the military RW used more often in major fire situations?
You put that better than I could.
I was involved (on the ground) in the Canberra fires, and on that day the most reassuring sound was the Seahawk entering the battle. Which leads me to ask:
Why aren't the military RW used more often in major fire situations?