Which aircraft are best for Firespotting and Aerial Survey?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YLIL on my days off
Age: 50
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which aircraft are best for Firespotting and Aerial Survey?
Hi all,
Having never done either, I was sitting here wondering what the requirements for firespotting and aerial survey aircraft are in terms of speed.
Is slower (<120kts) or faster (>150kts say) better suited for either / both operation?
Cheers,
Flog.
Having never done either, I was sitting here wondering what the requirements for firespotting and aerial survey aircraft are in terms of speed.
Is slower (<120kts) or faster (>150kts say) better suited for either / both operation?
Cheers,
Flog.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It really depends on your customer and the area that you are working in.
Some government bodies require twin engines for "safety" and possibly speed so that rules out your 210 to an extent.
Based on what I have seen from a local Aero Club that does fire spotting, they ditched using 210's and were last using a PN68 and 404 Titan mainly because of the speed. Once a fire is spotted they want to get there ASAP and check it out and decide on ground crews and aerial action.
If you're after something for "spotting" as such, then speed is your friend - but depends on your target area.
If you want something for observing and coordinating from an aerial perspective, then a 172 would do the job.
The club that I observed doing the spotting was using PPL's with the CFA observer which was a good way to clock up hours.
Some government bodies require twin engines for "safety" and possibly speed so that rules out your 210 to an extent.
Based on what I have seen from a local Aero Club that does fire spotting, they ditched using 210's and were last using a PN68 and 404 Titan mainly because of the speed. Once a fire is spotted they want to get there ASAP and check it out and decide on ground crews and aerial action.
If you're after something for "spotting" as such, then speed is your friend - but depends on your target area.
If you want something for observing and coordinating from an aerial perspective, then a 172 would do the job.
The club that I observed doing the spotting was using PPL's with the CFA observer which was a good way to clock up hours.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Aust.
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would have thought that Fire Spottig and Aerial Survey require 2 completely dfferent aircraft.
The Aerial Survey companies all seem to use 400 series Cessnas and the odd Chieftain for the Photography - have even seen a Bongo
Fire Spotting seems to be done (by CALM WA and a few others) in Decathlons, Super Cubs, C172s, Bird-Dogs... long loiter time (not so long in the C305)
The Aerial Survey companies all seem to use 400 series Cessnas and the odd Chieftain for the Photography - have even seen a Bongo
Fire Spotting seems to be done (by CALM WA and a few others) in Decathlons, Super Cubs, C172s, Bird-Dogs... long loiter time (not so long in the C305)
How about a Diamond DA42?
Twin engine runs on avgas or diesel.
Very long loiter endurance up to 12 hours!
Comfy cabin great visibility in a turn
Lowish cost.
cruise 160 kias
stall 56 kias
Apparently ok on grass or dirt strips.
Mickjoebill
Twin engine runs on avgas or diesel.
Very long loiter endurance up to 12 hours!
Comfy cabin great visibility in a turn
Lowish cost.
cruise 160 kias
stall 56 kias
Apparently ok on grass or dirt strips.
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 13th Jan 2009 at 02:41. Reason: more info
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did some spotting in a C182; was pretty much ideal.... reasonable transit speed, short / rough field capable so could land pretty much anywhere, 6 + hours endurance, enough power, and good vision.
As far as fire spotting goes twins seem to be the norm here in Vic. C337 ideal & C404 for fire recon. I'd hate to be down there amongst the heat between the hills in a SE, pass
Wmk2
Wmk2
Depends what sort of survey you are going to do.
If it is animal counting type survey, then the C182/185/206 types are about the best.
Firespotting: something strong and well ventilated, I would imagine.
If it is animal counting type survey, then the C182/185/206 types are about the best.
Firespotting: something strong and well ventilated, I would imagine.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: victoria
Age: 37
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You always seem to hear DSE, CFA and Lifeguard C337's and PN68's flying around vic when the weather is good, so i suppose they are the aircraft of choice around here.
That Lifeguard gig seems to be pretty decent, just fly up and down the coast all day in the sun!
povopilot
That Lifeguard gig seems to be pretty decent, just fly up and down the coast all day in the sun!
povopilot
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: New Zealand
Age: 34
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would something like a Eurocopter Dauphin be ideal for fire surveillance, etc?
According to the magical Wikipedia, a company uses them for such a thing. Endurance and speed aren't too bad. Plenty of them are used for SAR..
Or would operating costs be too high?
According to the magical Wikipedia, a company uses them for such a thing. Endurance and speed aren't too bad. Plenty of them are used for SAR..
Or would operating costs be too high?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would imagine that Dauphine would be a bit expensive along with anything but an R22. The PN68 and 337 would be lighter on the economy scale for running costs hence the popularity for such operations in Vic and they pass the tick for being a twin engine. Operating in often hot and high conditions the second engine would be reassuring. I'm led to believe that the 337 is the aircraft of choice for Life Safer ops due to the belief that in an engine failure / ditching that with the wheels up she will land safely on the water if required (due to the boat liek shape hull), versus a conventional twin, especially given the lower than usual altitudes.
Not having actually done fire spotting, but some other aerial observation and mustering work in my youth, I kinda like tandem high wing machines like the Super Cub. Enough power when solo, good visibility from either side of the cockpit, open doors to keep cool and a low stall speed so if it quits at least you arrive at the accident slowly. Someone mentioned the C172. Compared with the Cub, for low level work at min speeds it would not be my first choice and if it was inevitable, I'd rather crash in a Cub anyday.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Left of reality.
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Variable
Calm WA used to run supercubs but as time goes by Aeronica Scouts have proved their worth. Endurance @ mission capable.
As for survey. ? How much has the client got to spend and how does he/she want to achive an outcome that is postive.? Anything from 182,s, 206,s diamonds, fletchers. 402,414, shorts,casa,s the list goes on.
As for survey. ? How much has the client got to spend and how does he/she want to achive an outcome that is postive.? Anything from 182,s, 206,s diamonds, fletchers. 402,414, shorts,casa,s the list goes on.
I've flown a number of different aircraft whilst performing fire spotting duties. 150 (I'm not kidding, we were forced to during the fuel contamination debacle), 172, R172K, 182, R182, 206, 210, PA24-260, PA28-160, PA28-180, PA32R-301, PA31-350, PA34, PA38 (dreadful), C33, V35A, A36 and some others that I can't remember.
A lot of the firespotting I've had to do was in the A36. Some air observers/air attack supervisors had issues with the wing being on the 'bottom'and obstructing their view of things. In reality it was never a problem. If you're going around in circles over a fire in a 182 for example, you constantly have to lift the wing to keep the fire in sight. That doesn't happen in the A36. And when you sit there and actually take note of how much ground the wing hides, it's not a lot. If you lean forward slightly you can see straight down past the leading edge of the wing.
The 172 is OK if your just keeping station over a fire, but if you're constantly having big changes in altitude where you might be checking some aspect of the fire and then climbing back up to altitude where things are a bit cooler and a bit smoother, they're a dead loss. You only just get back up there and then down you go again. There's also an issue with the amount of power you have on tap and hence the aircraft's performance (or lack of it). I've only been caught out twice at a fire over the years and one of those incidents was in the 172 and it was due mainly to only having 160 horses to play with. It nearly just wasn't enough.
A coulpe of the poster's above mentioned loiter time/endurance. I won't spend any longer than fours hours max over a fire. It can be hard work out there some days and after that period of time you can start to feel rather fatigued. Both crew members by then are pretty keen to get back on the ground and have a rest. If the aircraft has a six hour endurance, we don't tell anyone!
Personally, it's never worried me in the slightest about operating a single over a fire. If the engine is going to throw a wobbly the aircraft would be put down in the black stuff. It's not going to burn again (the terrain that is). Having said that, a twin might be nice if you're operating up in the high country. But over the hundreds of square miles of flat mallee scrub, for me at least, it's never been something to worry about.
If you fly a recce of the local fire district and do 'one with the lot' it's a distance of just a bit over 500NM. That's around 3 hours in a R182/210/A36 or 5 hours in the 172. The 210 or the A36 might be the way to go. But the real question is, which one of those makes more dollars for you?
But to answer Flog's question, it'd be either the 182RG the 210 or the A36. They've all got enough power to keep you out of trouble. They all carry a good load. They're all reasonably fast. And if you have to sit over a fire for awhile, you can wind all three back to 80 kts without any bother.
But for me it would be the 210 (as much as I love the fabulous A36). It's got two more seats way down the back than the 182RG, if you have to take a crew somewhere. You also get to sit in the shade. The A36 can be hot inside the cabin on a hot day. And let's be honest, only girls fly their A36's with curtains on the insides of the windows!
There you go. A36 on fire spotting/air attack duties.
A lot of the firespotting I've had to do was in the A36. Some air observers/air attack supervisors had issues with the wing being on the 'bottom'and obstructing their view of things. In reality it was never a problem. If you're going around in circles over a fire in a 182 for example, you constantly have to lift the wing to keep the fire in sight. That doesn't happen in the A36. And when you sit there and actually take note of how much ground the wing hides, it's not a lot. If you lean forward slightly you can see straight down past the leading edge of the wing.
The 172 is OK if your just keeping station over a fire, but if you're constantly having big changes in altitude where you might be checking some aspect of the fire and then climbing back up to altitude where things are a bit cooler and a bit smoother, they're a dead loss. You only just get back up there and then down you go again. There's also an issue with the amount of power you have on tap and hence the aircraft's performance (or lack of it). I've only been caught out twice at a fire over the years and one of those incidents was in the 172 and it was due mainly to only having 160 horses to play with. It nearly just wasn't enough.
A coulpe of the poster's above mentioned loiter time/endurance. I won't spend any longer than fours hours max over a fire. It can be hard work out there some days and after that period of time you can start to feel rather fatigued. Both crew members by then are pretty keen to get back on the ground and have a rest. If the aircraft has a six hour endurance, we don't tell anyone!
Personally, it's never worried me in the slightest about operating a single over a fire. If the engine is going to throw a wobbly the aircraft would be put down in the black stuff. It's not going to burn again (the terrain that is). Having said that, a twin might be nice if you're operating up in the high country. But over the hundreds of square miles of flat mallee scrub, for me at least, it's never been something to worry about.
If you fly a recce of the local fire district and do 'one with the lot' it's a distance of just a bit over 500NM. That's around 3 hours in a R182/210/A36 or 5 hours in the 172. The 210 or the A36 might be the way to go. But the real question is, which one of those makes more dollars for you?
But to answer Flog's question, it'd be either the 182RG the 210 or the A36. They've all got enough power to keep you out of trouble. They all carry a good load. They're all reasonably fast. And if you have to sit over a fire for awhile, you can wind all three back to 80 kts without any bother.
But for me it would be the 210 (as much as I love the fabulous A36). It's got two more seats way down the back than the 182RG, if you have to take a crew somewhere. You also get to sit in the shade. The A36 can be hot inside the cabin on a hot day. And let's be honest, only girls fly their A36's with curtains on the insides of the windows!
There you go. A36 on fire spotting/air attack duties.