"Hercs" or "Caribous" -Can They Be Used as FIREFIGHTERS??
Thread Starter
"Hercs" or "Caribous" -Can They Be Used as FIREFIGHTERS??
Looking at the Port Lincoln fires on tonight's news, it would seem that a larger aircraft or two, might have had a little more success.
So,
Its probably been asked before, but they seem to utilise all sorts of large aircraft in the US for fire-bombers..
Can the RAAF 'Hercs' be fitted with a large internal bladder, slide in - slide out - suitably 'tied down', with an 'easy fill' facility, and a bloody big valve / louvres / whatever at the rear end, for the purpose of water bombing??
The 'Bou' - possibly on a smaller scale?
I mean, here we have two styles of airframes with a fairly 'empty' cavernous interior capable of lifting some serious volumes / weights.
Is the problem structural?
The capacity, and therefore the weight, need not approach MTOW for 'Normal Ops', as I realise that the turb. encountered in the Fire Proximity area would be potentially 'Severe', and there is no point in risking overstressing the airframes.
But surely, here is an opportunity to fully utilise these fine fully funded aircraft and give the crews some 'extraordinary' training - in a not too disimilar Military-style environment. ?
Is this not possible / feasible / economical?
Would not the properties saved be worth it?
I wonder.....
Cheers.
So,
Its probably been asked before, but they seem to utilise all sorts of large aircraft in the US for fire-bombers..
Can the RAAF 'Hercs' be fitted with a large internal bladder, slide in - slide out - suitably 'tied down', with an 'easy fill' facility, and a bloody big valve / louvres / whatever at the rear end, for the purpose of water bombing??
The 'Bou' - possibly on a smaller scale?
I mean, here we have two styles of airframes with a fairly 'empty' cavernous interior capable of lifting some serious volumes / weights.
Is the problem structural?
The capacity, and therefore the weight, need not approach MTOW for 'Normal Ops', as I realise that the turb. encountered in the Fire Proximity area would be potentially 'Severe', and there is no point in risking overstressing the airframes.
But surely, here is an opportunity to fully utilise these fine fully funded aircraft and give the crews some 'extraordinary' training - in a not too disimilar Military-style environment. ?
Is this not possible / feasible / economical?
Would not the properties saved be worth it?
I wonder.....
Cheers.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ex FSO GRIFFO
"Hercs" or "Caribous" -Can They Be Used as FIREFIGHTERS??
Well, C-130's can as long as they are not too old.....
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Left Right Out
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Beaurocracy gone mad, perhaps?
Tend to remember a Neptune parked up at YPPH for some time.
Gent had sunk his SUPER into the A/C and If I'm not mistaken, his intention was at some stage to turn the thing into an airbourne firefighting unit.
There was a lot of "issues" with the regulators at the time and I don't know what happened to the idea or the A/C. CASA didn't like it so they made it go away?
One would think that this would be an opportune time for the defence forces, Ready and or Reserve units to be put to good use; a recruitment drive of sorts as well.
No bugger that, lets pay millions for a giant orange helo from O/seas, and whilst that is somewhat effective, if it gets broken, it's not ours!
Gent had sunk his SUPER into the A/C and If I'm not mistaken, his intention was at some stage to turn the thing into an airbourne firefighting unit.
There was a lot of "issues" with the regulators at the time and I don't know what happened to the idea or the A/C. CASA didn't like it so they made it go away?
One would think that this would be an opportune time for the defence forces, Ready and or Reserve units to be put to good use; a recruitment drive of sorts as well.
No bugger that, lets pay millions for a giant orange helo from O/seas, and whilst that is somewhat effective, if it gets broken, it's not ours!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAAF borrowed this system and trialed it in the 80,s using H models.
Modular Airborne FireFighting System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Don't know why it never went any further. They where operating out of Victoria from memory and would return to Richmond once a week to get serviced (clean all the fire retardend gunk out of the tailplane, yuk).
Here is a link to a report on the trial
Fire Research Reports - Report No. 15
Modular Airborne FireFighting System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Don't know why it never went any further. They where operating out of Victoria from memory and would return to Richmond once a week to get serviced (clean all the fire retardend gunk out of the tailplane, yuk).
Here is a link to a report on the trial
Fire Research Reports - Report No. 15
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not long ago I read a lengthy story about firefighting in the US with ex-military aircraft and how they swapped them for another type that was grounded for airworthiness issues, but the system was taken advantage of and some ended up carting drugs in Columbia etc.
If this story rings a bell for someone that knows where it is, please post a link!
If this story rings a bell for someone that knows where it is, please post a link!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Griffo. I assume that yours is an honest and innocent question based on simple lay observation of events as shown by the media.
The Herc thing has been tried and has been binned as not the best solution to Aussie bush fire, or ‘wildfires’ as they are now known. There is an existing fleet of fully funded suitable aircraft with highly trained specialist pilots that is available and distributed around the worst areas on call and standby for aerial fire suppression. These are Ag pilots who fly Single Engine Air Tankers (SEAT) that are slightly modified, convertible ag planes with capacities around 2500 litres. They are located at numerous small fire bases that are capable of refueling and refilling these aircraft so that they can fly many short haul delivery flights each per day per fire. They can be readily relocated from one base to another so that they can be concentrated when needed and are also highly autonomous and capable of operating with minimal ground support when required.
The SEAT fleet is supported by several class 1 and class 2 rotary wing aircraft that can operate autonomously, sourcing water from convenient reservoirs to enable very short ferry to and from the fire.
This system is flexible versatile and readily mobile and mobilized and is an extremely effective and cost effective tool to enable ‘first strike’ capability to remote fires. It is not dependant on a few large established bases and large crews and sophisticated airframes that require additional Bird dog aircraft and long times over the fire site prior to their drop(s), all of which reduce effectiveness to respond rapidly. It is possible that perhaps in a few instances such a force may be able to assist the existing system, but is likely to cause more issues than it would cure.
As to fire suppression operations being within the domain of the military doctrine or these operations bearing any semblance to military ops, this is another matter, but you average herc pilot would need extensive training to get anywhere near the standards that the qualified ag pilots who conduct these ops day in day out, always at MTOW (and that’s Ag MTOW) in conditions that would make your hair stand on end if you only could see what they do. The costs associated with using the Military, especially with the current cost recovery policies would be horrifying I am sure.
Hats off to the SEAT and Helitak pilots that have done an outstanding job in unbelievable conditions over the fires around our country over the years. More power to you and I hope that the present fleet of smaller aircraft is maintained and expanded.
Having said that, it is always worth considering all options and not being blinded by current methodologies, your question is worthy of airing and I hope that I have helped address your query in some way. I am not a resident expert on the matter but I used to fly active fire suppression work in a former life and occasionally these days I spend long hours, when called in, flying aerial command and fire mapping flights for statutory bodies and commercial stakeholders over fires in Victoria.
HD
XXX - don't know about ex fire attack aircraft being used to carry drugs in colombia, but I did see some black painted AirTractor 802's over there that are used for spraying defoliant on the stuff. Aztecs and Shrikes seem to be the aircraft of choice the Narco runners down that way as every airport i have been to in Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela has a rotten row of seized ones slowly corroding away beside a taxiway or apron.
The Herc thing has been tried and has been binned as not the best solution to Aussie bush fire, or ‘wildfires’ as they are now known. There is an existing fleet of fully funded suitable aircraft with highly trained specialist pilots that is available and distributed around the worst areas on call and standby for aerial fire suppression. These are Ag pilots who fly Single Engine Air Tankers (SEAT) that are slightly modified, convertible ag planes with capacities around 2500 litres. They are located at numerous small fire bases that are capable of refueling and refilling these aircraft so that they can fly many short haul delivery flights each per day per fire. They can be readily relocated from one base to another so that they can be concentrated when needed and are also highly autonomous and capable of operating with minimal ground support when required.
The SEAT fleet is supported by several class 1 and class 2 rotary wing aircraft that can operate autonomously, sourcing water from convenient reservoirs to enable very short ferry to and from the fire.
This system is flexible versatile and readily mobile and mobilized and is an extremely effective and cost effective tool to enable ‘first strike’ capability to remote fires. It is not dependant on a few large established bases and large crews and sophisticated airframes that require additional Bird dog aircraft and long times over the fire site prior to their drop(s), all of which reduce effectiveness to respond rapidly. It is possible that perhaps in a few instances such a force may be able to assist the existing system, but is likely to cause more issues than it would cure.
As to fire suppression operations being within the domain of the military doctrine or these operations bearing any semblance to military ops, this is another matter, but you average herc pilot would need extensive training to get anywhere near the standards that the qualified ag pilots who conduct these ops day in day out, always at MTOW (and that’s Ag MTOW) in conditions that would make your hair stand on end if you only could see what they do. The costs associated with using the Military, especially with the current cost recovery policies would be horrifying I am sure.
Hats off to the SEAT and Helitak pilots that have done an outstanding job in unbelievable conditions over the fires around our country over the years. More power to you and I hope that the present fleet of smaller aircraft is maintained and expanded.
Having said that, it is always worth considering all options and not being blinded by current methodologies, your question is worthy of airing and I hope that I have helped address your query in some way. I am not a resident expert on the matter but I used to fly active fire suppression work in a former life and occasionally these days I spend long hours, when called in, flying aerial command and fire mapping flights for statutory bodies and commercial stakeholders over fires in Victoria.
HD
XXX - don't know about ex fire attack aircraft being used to carry drugs in colombia, but I did see some black painted AirTractor 802's over there that are used for spraying defoliant on the stuff. Aztecs and Shrikes seem to be the aircraft of choice the Narco runners down that way as every airport i have been to in Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela has a rotten row of seized ones slowly corroding away beside a taxiway or apron.
Last edited by HarleyD; 13th Jan 2009 at 22:17. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF Hercules and MAFFS
Yes it was evaluated in the 81/82 fire season and worked out to be OK but it tied up an aircraft and 2 crews for the season that could have been used for other Govt purposes.
our Airforce is not big enough and we dont have enough C130s to allow on to just sit around waiting for that "maybe this season fire". Not to say we cant, but do we want the asset sitting around waiting.?
combinations of other aircraft are cheeper and better for our types of fires.
Chris.
our Airforce is not big enough and we dont have enough C130s to allow on to just sit around waiting for that "maybe this season fire". Not to say we cant, but do we want the asset sitting around waiting.?
combinations of other aircraft are cheeper and better for our types of fires.
Chris.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at it from the ground, (I'm a volunteer firefighter), in my area, (near Romsey), a helicopter can dump 1500 L EXACTLY where it is required, wander over to a dam, and is back with another 1500 L in a matter of minutes. A bigger helo with 4 times as much water is 4 times as effective.
Small fixed wing delivers meaningful water more economically, but requires ground support at some sort of rudimentary airstrip, which is always going to be further away than the dam the helo is sluuuuping its next load out of. Maybe a couple of fire fighting tankers relaying water, or one big-ass tanker on site.
Bigger fixed wing would need to come here from further away, Essendon or Mangalore, and need the ground support, and probably not supply the fire with much more water than a number of smaller fixed wing, and nowhere near as much as a heap of helos.
On the other hand, a Martin Mars full of water on a going plantation/forest fire cannot be beat. It can turn an out of control fire I would run away from to something I can approach and black out almost instantly...
Small fixed wing delivers meaningful water more economically, but requires ground support at some sort of rudimentary airstrip, which is always going to be further away than the dam the helo is sluuuuping its next load out of. Maybe a couple of fire fighting tankers relaying water, or one big-ass tanker on site.
Bigger fixed wing would need to come here from further away, Essendon or Mangalore, and need the ground support, and probably not supply the fire with much more water than a number of smaller fixed wing, and nowhere near as much as a heap of helos.
On the other hand, a Martin Mars full of water on a going plantation/forest fire cannot be beat. It can turn an out of control fire I would run away from to something I can approach and black out almost instantly...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I conducted the trials for the C130 MAFFs on 1982-83 for the Vic and Fed Government which included Ash Wednesday and the fires around that time. The aircraft was restricted to a few airfields, Mangalore, East Sale and Horsham due to the high AUW required and the high temperatures normally associated with the fire season. Operating only one aircraft did not provide the concentration of effort required. In the US the aircraft are in a holding pattern and provide continuous retardant. Our turn around times were about fifteen to twenty minutes but transit generally meant about one hour between drops.
The operation was also costly with one MAFFS unit costing $1Mil to hire from the US Government. The units held about 3000 Gals of retardant so the total weight with the MAFFS unit made it about 40,000 lbs. This meant that you needed to hold additional fuel in the outboard tanks to maintain a 3G tolerance which increased the AUW.
The MAFFS did enable to provide 1 to 3 drops per sortie depending on the number of tanks selected and pressurised. There were 5 tanks plus the deployment tubes. Small fires could be triangulated and contained. In all cases help was still needed from the fire fighters on the ground as it only retarded the fires rather than extinguishing them.
Still it made for some pretty interesting flying.
The operation was also costly with one MAFFS unit costing $1Mil to hire from the US Government. The units held about 3000 Gals of retardant so the total weight with the MAFFS unit made it about 40,000 lbs. This meant that you needed to hold additional fuel in the outboard tanks to maintain a 3G tolerance which increased the AUW.
The MAFFS did enable to provide 1 to 3 drops per sortie depending on the number of tanks selected and pressurised. There were 5 tanks plus the deployment tubes. Small fires could be triangulated and contained. In all cases help was still needed from the fire fighters on the ground as it only retarded the fires rather than extinguishing them.
Still it made for some pretty interesting flying.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Freewheel; 13th Jan 2009 at 22:13. Reason: The bloody link didn't work the first time!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This makes for some interesting reading.
Full text of "Review of the U.S. Forest Service firefighting aircraft program : hearing before the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first sess
Some interesting info here too:
Aerial firefighting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Full text of "Review of the U.S. Forest Service firefighting aircraft program : hearing before the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops and Natural Resources of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first sess
Some interesting info here too:
Aerial firefighting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Herc thing has been tried and has been binned as not the best solution to Aussie bush fire
Oh, so Australian bushfires are different to the rest of the world?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some peculiarities due to the vegetation types, the terrain is not unusual.
The government of California has asked for Australians to travel there to help them when their own eucalyptus forests went up (naturally, Australia was blamed because eucalypts aren't native there).
The fire behaviour can be somewhat baffling when the techniques successful in coniferous forests aren't quite as successful, not to mention the habit of shedding branches, usually on tents or the cabins of vehicles.
The drop bears are another thing entirely.......
The government of California has asked for Australians to travel there to help them when their own eucalyptus forests went up (naturally, Australia was blamed because eucalypts aren't native there).
The fire behaviour can be somewhat baffling when the techniques successful in coniferous forests aren't quite as successful, not to mention the habit of shedding branches, usually on tents or the cabins of vehicles.
The drop bears are another thing entirely.......
Last edited by Freewheel; 14th Jan 2009 at 01:38. Reason: To make more sense.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spod
Air attack is broad debate - Bushfire CRC has done some interesting research and has made some findings that will not necessarily sit comfortably with some authorities.
Essentially the key to air suppression is the ability to deliver the initial response (typically retard) within a limited timeframe from fire establishing. After this point air/attack supression is really akin to mustering - attempting to shape, turn, & deflect the primary front, (principally for property or fireground crew protection.)
I used to live in the Blue Mountains and have worked in some of the most devasting blazes that defied convention. We also recorded and covered some of the various a/c trials including the much debated C130 brawl with the then NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner.
I now live not far from your patch and although larger fixed wing aircraft may deliver advantages in these relative 'flatter' areas, end of the day it's about those critical initial and recurrent response times. For this reason I would feel more comfortable with an Aircrane that can quickly suck up a few thousand litres from the dam and do multiple dumps rather than rely on one or two fixed wing a/c.
I think there's a few threads in rotorheads that have some data comparisions.
AT
Air attack is broad debate - Bushfire CRC has done some interesting research and has made some findings that will not necessarily sit comfortably with some authorities.
Essentially the key to air suppression is the ability to deliver the initial response (typically retard) within a limited timeframe from fire establishing. After this point air/attack supression is really akin to mustering - attempting to shape, turn, & deflect the primary front, (principally for property or fireground crew protection.)
I used to live in the Blue Mountains and have worked in some of the most devasting blazes that defied convention. We also recorded and covered some of the various a/c trials including the much debated C130 brawl with the then NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner.
I now live not far from your patch and although larger fixed wing aircraft may deliver advantages in these relative 'flatter' areas, end of the day it's about those critical initial and recurrent response times. For this reason I would feel more comfortable with an Aircrane that can quickly suck up a few thousand litres from the dam and do multiple dumps rather than rely on one or two fixed wing a/c.
I think there's a few threads in rotorheads that have some data comparisions.
AT
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Great Southern Land
Age: 57
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AirSic
One would think that this would be an opportune time for the defence forces, Ready and or Reserve units to be put to good use; a recruitment drive of sorts as well.
Recruitment drive it ain't! If folks want to fight bushfires etc they join the bushies or SES.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will we just let it birn?
The existing system of ag planes and big helicopters is obviously good and if they get to the fire early enough can often contain a fire. But it's only part of the solution.
Colin Pay was working on a water pickup system for fixed wing aircraft. Surely this would work if the drag from the pickup system was behind the C of G. Maybe a retractable stinger in the tail to pick up water. And with a weak link so that it breaks off if the drag force is too great. Will we let this research die with Colin?
Some time ago we had a Canadian DC6 fire fighter based in Adelaide with a very short response time (15 mins?) I believe large aeroplanes are often necessary and could make a big difference, but they would have to be integrated into the existing system. We need a fleet of big aircraft to assist the existing aerial and ground firefighters. Todays bushfires are not an isolated event.They happen somewhere nearly every year.
But it appears that it's all too hard and too expensive for our authorities. Is fire damage less expensive?
What does it cost insurance companies? Maybe we will have to wait until Canberra gets burnt again.
You don't win a medal of freedom by dealing with bushfires.
Colin Pay was working on a water pickup system for fixed wing aircraft. Surely this would work if the drag from the pickup system was behind the C of G. Maybe a retractable stinger in the tail to pick up water. And with a weak link so that it breaks off if the drag force is too great. Will we let this research die with Colin?
Some time ago we had a Canadian DC6 fire fighter based in Adelaide with a very short response time (15 mins?) I believe large aeroplanes are often necessary and could make a big difference, but they would have to be integrated into the existing system. We need a fleet of big aircraft to assist the existing aerial and ground firefighters. Todays bushfires are not an isolated event.They happen somewhere nearly every year.
But it appears that it's all too hard and too expensive for our authorities. Is fire damage less expensive?
What does it cost insurance companies? Maybe we will have to wait until Canberra gets burnt again.
You don't win a medal of freedom by dealing with bushfires.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: East Coast Oz
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tankers
Airborne firefighting equipment have there own place in their own environment, and jetrangers with bambi buckets on firestorms..............well i shake my head.
In the 80's someone of vision foresaw the sh#tfight we have seen in fire's over the last 20 years, and imported a display of an Italian and a French CL 415 to australia to demonstrate the ability of a fleet of aerial tankers. Not 1, or converted A model 1960 herc's or bloody Caribou's. The display was performed in front of governement, military and private investor powers to be. The display was nothing short of awesome. The maneuverability, the accuracy, and efficiency of these aircraft in numbers leaves one awestruck.
Quote "They are very expensive. They fly like cowboys. We can use our existing helicopter operators. Our fires aren't that bad. Canada has private enterprise with private owned forests and our trees are different"
And so for the last decade, fires have been p#ssed on by smaller helicopters. It hasn't been until recent times that they have started to get serious with the Ericson Skycranes and the Bell 212's, 412's. It takes numbers of suitable aircraft in proximity to facilities to refuel and resupply.
In the northern hemisphere, Spain, France, Canada, Portugal and Italy have CL215's and 415's all under snow when Sydney burns.
So the government still p#sses money away with military, and its own incompetences. Lets buy sh*t helicopters for the navy and army blowing billions.
aka sea sprites/MRH 90's. And lets replace caribou's with king airs. Ahhhhhhhhhhh
This country should have no time for incompetence. People, look outside the box that "our idiot leaders" make us live.
YouTube - CL415 CL415
YouTube - Russian JetSeaplanes US Needs to Patrol FireFight dynmicpara BE200
YouTube - SuperTanker 910 Esperanza Fire DC10
YouTube - Boeing 747 the water bomber B747 (allbeit from the flight levels)
We need to rethink what we are doing with what is not working, and think smarter and use larger aircraft to drop perventative retardant, and use the smaller aircraft in organised numbers with water. And what better to shrink turn around time than use aircraft with land in water to pickup water.
I take my hats off to the hard working skilled helicopter pilots, as their part is needed too, but the big scale has to be the way to go. Back packs and switchets and shovels really should be a thing of the past.
If there was any a time for an expat intervention, now it is with organised, and efficient direction for what the insurance companies of the thousands of lost burnt properties.
And here's a thing. When sh#ts not burning, how bout using them in a utility fitout as a coastal patrol, that can land in the ocean. The 415 is the size of a dash 8. Fancy having an aircraft that can fight fires and be used as a coast guard platform, as well as a SAR aircraft.
Now that would be forward thinking.
I shake my head at our leaders' 1st world expectations with 3rd world thinking.
In the 80's someone of vision foresaw the sh#tfight we have seen in fire's over the last 20 years, and imported a display of an Italian and a French CL 415 to australia to demonstrate the ability of a fleet of aerial tankers. Not 1, or converted A model 1960 herc's or bloody Caribou's. The display was performed in front of governement, military and private investor powers to be. The display was nothing short of awesome. The maneuverability, the accuracy, and efficiency of these aircraft in numbers leaves one awestruck.
Quote "They are very expensive. They fly like cowboys. We can use our existing helicopter operators. Our fires aren't that bad. Canada has private enterprise with private owned forests and our trees are different"
And so for the last decade, fires have been p#ssed on by smaller helicopters. It hasn't been until recent times that they have started to get serious with the Ericson Skycranes and the Bell 212's, 412's. It takes numbers of suitable aircraft in proximity to facilities to refuel and resupply.
In the northern hemisphere, Spain, France, Canada, Portugal and Italy have CL215's and 415's all under snow when Sydney burns.
So the government still p#sses money away with military, and its own incompetences. Lets buy sh*t helicopters for the navy and army blowing billions.
aka sea sprites/MRH 90's. And lets replace caribou's with king airs. AhhhhhhhhhhhThis country should have no time for incompetence. People, look outside the box that "our idiot leaders" make us live.
YouTube - CL415 CL415
YouTube - Russian JetSeaplanes US Needs to Patrol FireFight dynmicpara BE200
YouTube - SuperTanker 910 Esperanza Fire DC10
YouTube - Boeing 747 the water bomber B747 (allbeit from the flight levels)
We need to rethink what we are doing with what is not working, and think smarter and use larger aircraft to drop perventative retardant, and use the smaller aircraft in organised numbers with water. And what better to shrink turn around time than use aircraft with land in water to pickup water.
I take my hats off to the hard working skilled helicopter pilots, as their part is needed too, but the big scale has to be the way to go. Back packs and switchets and shovels really should be a thing of the past.
If there was any a time for an expat intervention, now it is with organised, and efficient direction for what the insurance companies of the thousands of lost burnt properties.
And here's a thing. When sh#ts not burning, how bout using them in a utility fitout as a coastal patrol, that can land in the ocean. The 415 is the size of a dash 8. Fancy having an aircraft that can fight fires and be used as a coast guard platform, as well as a SAR aircraft.
Now that would be forward thinking.
I shake my head at our leaders' 1st world expectations with 3rd world thinking.
The government of California has asked for Australians to travel there to help them when their own eucalyptus forests went up (naturally, Australia was blamed because eucalypts aren't native there).
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Aus, or USA, or UK or EU, or possibly somehwere in Asia.
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes our fires are different, whether this dictates different strategies and tactics for fire fighting is up to the experts and in recent years I have flown several visiting groups of experts from various states in the US on tours of the Victorian fire sites, along with local experts in forrestry, fire fighting and meteorology. I types of fires that we can get can be very different to the North American experience and they even learn from us in some instances.
Many US aerial fire fighting agencies have fixed wing Single Engine Air Tanker fleets, AT 802s etc they don't all have aerial armardas of DC8s circling the state waiting for a whisp of smoke.
I am not so sure that the CL412 is ideal for aussie fires, though around Sydney where they have access to plenty of water they could be a worthy asset.
I can remember the Con-Air FireCats that Freddo intended to bring over to Victoria to augment the 212 helitack bombers and was way keen to get a slot flying them, but it all caved in before it could happen. I flew bird dog for the ConAir F27 on a local fire whilst it was out here. very exciting at the time but a fire in the same area 2 years ago was much better attacked by the Droms that are based down here these days.
Large aircraft have been tried on numerous occaisions in Aus but the proven formula is the present one of first strike by SEAT or helitack assets with the flexibility to re distribute assetts quickly to different fires or regions as required. I have worked up over the High Plains for days on end where there have been 4 or major fires that were being attacked from 3 different bases by about 6 f/w SEAT and about 8 bigger helos including AirCrane, Mil, Sikorsky and several Bell 212s. I cannot see that a couple of large aircraft could have been better in this instance.
Having said that, there are several ex RAN trackers rotting away just down the road that could be converted if the need and will was actually there.
HD
Many US aerial fire fighting agencies have fixed wing Single Engine Air Tanker fleets, AT 802s etc they don't all have aerial armardas of DC8s circling the state waiting for a whisp of smoke.
I am not so sure that the CL412 is ideal for aussie fires, though around Sydney where they have access to plenty of water they could be a worthy asset.
I can remember the Con-Air FireCats that Freddo intended to bring over to Victoria to augment the 212 helitack bombers and was way keen to get a slot flying them, but it all caved in before it could happen. I flew bird dog for the ConAir F27 on a local fire whilst it was out here. very exciting at the time but a fire in the same area 2 years ago was much better attacked by the Droms that are based down here these days.
Large aircraft have been tried on numerous occaisions in Aus but the proven formula is the present one of first strike by SEAT or helitack assets with the flexibility to re distribute assetts quickly to different fires or regions as required. I have worked up over the High Plains for days on end where there have been 4 or major fires that were being attacked from 3 different bases by about 6 f/w SEAT and about 8 bigger helos including AirCrane, Mil, Sikorsky and several Bell 212s. I cannot see that a couple of large aircraft could have been better in this instance.
Having said that, there are several ex RAN trackers rotting away just down the road that could be converted if the need and will was actually there.
HD