Neptune Firebomber
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AUS
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple fact of major bush fires is that its either a fleet of D9's, more fire or a long time put them out.
In suburban areas you cant cut through peoples back yards with a D9 and you cant let it burn to close to the houses, so they use aircraft. This has two effects being a positive statement to the public that things are happening and the second being that the fires are mostly small and the aerial support helps the guys on the ground with trucks.
If you look at a normal suburban house fire they conect two or three fire truck to a hydrant and soak it for an hour or two. Now if it takes that long to put out 750sqm how much water is it going to take to put out 75 Hectrares?
So aircraft look great from a PR position and do help to save people but they are very limited in what can be achieved.
In suburban areas you cant cut through peoples back yards with a D9 and you cant let it burn to close to the houses, so they use aircraft. This has two effects being a positive statement to the public that things are happening and the second being that the fires are mostly small and the aerial support helps the guys on the ground with trucks.
If you look at a normal suburban house fire they conect two or three fire truck to a hydrant and soak it for an hour or two. Now if it takes that long to put out 750sqm how much water is it going to take to put out 75 Hectrares?
So aircraft look great from a PR position and do help to save people but they are very limited in what can be achieved.
Knew I'd have a reason to use this pic one day if I kept it on file.
Classic shot of the Neptune puting down a line of retardent along a slope somewhere in sunny California (I think).
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Left of reality.
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WA politics?
Dear Guys
Away from the yanks. Apologies.
Why out of Jandakot are localised (media friendly) very expensive helicopters being used when AT-802,s are sitting on the ground ready to go.?
The big Heli is milking the public purse to the sum of $9000-00 an hour.!
Aka seen to be doing the right thing. But had to come out of perth, not Jandakot. Fire was 20 k,s south of JPT.???
When there are (THE CORRECT) aircraft available and on standby, why deploy a white elephant.? Calm has an agenda.
Seems wrong.
Sorry for the thread shift, but it is Downunder.?
Any comments welcome.
Multi
Away from the yanks. Apologies.
Why out of Jandakot are localised (media friendly) very expensive helicopters being used when AT-802,s are sitting on the ground ready to go.?
The big Heli is milking the public purse to the sum of $9000-00 an hour.!
Aka seen to be doing the right thing. But had to come out of perth, not Jandakot. Fire was 20 k,s south of JPT.???
When there are (THE CORRECT) aircraft available and on standby, why deploy a white elephant.? Calm has an agenda.
Seems wrong.
Sorry for the thread shift, but it is Downunder.?
Any comments welcome.
Multi
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Multi,
I think you will find that 20km south of JT will still be in FESA's jurisdiction.
That aside, there are totally different approaches to 'Fire' between FESA and DEC (CALM).
FESA are certainly better at the Media game........
TCF
I think you will find that 20km south of JT will still be in FESA's jurisdiction.
That aside, there are totally different approaches to 'Fire' between FESA and DEC (CALM).
FESA are certainly better at the Media game........
TCF
Hey SN3, is the rumour true that a lot of the older machines are being phased out? Govt contracts require turbines? Grew up watching Always and would give my left one to fly an A-26, hell I'd give both.
j3
j3
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pistons are falling into disfavor, to be sure. Ten years ago I was on a C-130, and also on a PB4Y. They were pushing hard to get rid of piston airplanes, then, and would prefer to do so now. However, the P2V still has a lot of life and still does an effective job.
In my SEAT work, it's all turbine now. I ran them converted with both Pratt motors, and Garrett motors. The Air Tractors are all Pratt...all turbines now.
Turbines are certainly more reliable, but I loved my R2600's and R3350's...and we operated the only C97 on fires, with R4360's, too.
The Skycrane is a wonder to behold on a fire. Nine thousand an hour, yes...but the work it can do exceeds nearly everything else that can be put on a fire, including most heavy fixed wing tankers.
In my SEAT work, it's all turbine now. I ran them converted with both Pratt motors, and Garrett motors. The Air Tractors are all Pratt...all turbines now.
Turbines are certainly more reliable, but I loved my R2600's and R3350's...and we operated the only C97 on fires, with R4360's, too.
The Skycrane is a wonder to behold on a fire. Nine thousand an hour, yes...but the work it can do exceeds nearly everything else that can be put on a fire, including most heavy fixed wing tankers.
SNS3Guppy
Even if just for helping to direct a fire or assisting in slowing it down, surely fixed wing tankers would be a valuable asset. As far as I am aware we have no multi engine tankers operational in any state. We continue to have large fires every few years, very close to large population centres with large airports.
Or Bush fire brigades are almost entirely volunteers and response times can make a big difference. Surely a federaly funded fleet of multi tankers would substantially improve capabilities.
Even if just for helping to direct a fire or assisting in slowing it down, surely fixed wing tankers would be a valuable asset. As far as I am aware we have no multi engine tankers operational in any state. We continue to have large fires every few years, very close to large population centres with large airports.
Or Bush fire brigades are almost entirely volunteers and response times can make a big difference. Surely a federaly funded fleet of multi tankers would substantially improve capabilities.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, large air tankers are a useful asset. No question about it.
However, especially in Oz, you're going to run up against similiar problems to what occur in the US and Canada...the two largest and most developed wildland firefighting locations in the world. Having enough tankers and enough bases, and enough personnel to adequately prosecute a fire using a tanker means that it's a resource that's going to be stretched thin no matter how you slice it.
As exciting and promising as the air tanker looks, one must always remember that the fire is often far beyond the capabilities of anything we can throw at it. It's a tool, but just a tool.
To run a sufficiently comprehensive tanker program requires a lot of money. Oz has a lot of land, a small population, and a relatively limited budget. Even in the US where the budget runs hundreds of millions of dollars, and where a significant program is already in place, it often falls far short of the mark. It's not uncommon for a large fire to run twenty five million dollars or more in resources and costs...and that adds up quickly.
Two years ago I was grounded three times in two weeks when money wasn't available to send me on a fire, and repeatedly I was set down on the ground with no pay because of the lack of funding. Entire fire crews and engines sat idle as funds were stretched tight. In one state, the entire state got for one year what one district needed for a month. It's an extensive program needed to support an air tanker system.
To adequately run an aerial fire suppression system, a comprehensive air attack or bird dog system needs to be in place. A comprehensive communications system needs to be seemlessly in place allowing all agencies and operators to communicate...this shouldn't stop at state lines. A comprehensive system of bases needs to be established to cover all types of operations. Companies need to exist which can support, train for, maintain, and operate each type of tanker, helitanker, air attack, SEAT, helicopter, smoke jumper, paracargo, and other platforms...companies which can supply parts and keep them running in the field on a very mobile basis, over a very large area. A full infrastructure must exist. Adequate training and interface with ground troops and user agencies must be developed. The mindset and handling by fire and mutual aid agencies must adapt to the use of these new tools.
Even with that done and the budgeting to make it happen, we find it takes about ten years to train a fire pilot; you've got to have people who are adequately trained and ready to fight fire. Even with that done, with everything in place and equipment and crews up to the task, tankers, large or small, are only tools in the toolbox. Nothing more. Firefighting is always done by ground troops, who use aircraft tactically to help work their fire. Having air tankers over the fire is a useful thing...but it's not the be-all and end-all of fighting fire, and one shouldn't expect a magic change in the outcome of wildfires as a result.
However, especially in Oz, you're going to run up against similiar problems to what occur in the US and Canada...the two largest and most developed wildland firefighting locations in the world. Having enough tankers and enough bases, and enough personnel to adequately prosecute a fire using a tanker means that it's a resource that's going to be stretched thin no matter how you slice it.
As exciting and promising as the air tanker looks, one must always remember that the fire is often far beyond the capabilities of anything we can throw at it. It's a tool, but just a tool.
To run a sufficiently comprehensive tanker program requires a lot of money. Oz has a lot of land, a small population, and a relatively limited budget. Even in the US where the budget runs hundreds of millions of dollars, and where a significant program is already in place, it often falls far short of the mark. It's not uncommon for a large fire to run twenty five million dollars or more in resources and costs...and that adds up quickly.
Two years ago I was grounded three times in two weeks when money wasn't available to send me on a fire, and repeatedly I was set down on the ground with no pay because of the lack of funding. Entire fire crews and engines sat idle as funds were stretched tight. In one state, the entire state got for one year what one district needed for a month. It's an extensive program needed to support an air tanker system.
To adequately run an aerial fire suppression system, a comprehensive air attack or bird dog system needs to be in place. A comprehensive communications system needs to be seemlessly in place allowing all agencies and operators to communicate...this shouldn't stop at state lines. A comprehensive system of bases needs to be established to cover all types of operations. Companies need to exist which can support, train for, maintain, and operate each type of tanker, helitanker, air attack, SEAT, helicopter, smoke jumper, paracargo, and other platforms...companies which can supply parts and keep them running in the field on a very mobile basis, over a very large area. A full infrastructure must exist. Adequate training and interface with ground troops and user agencies must be developed. The mindset and handling by fire and mutual aid agencies must adapt to the use of these new tools.
Even with that done and the budgeting to make it happen, we find it takes about ten years to train a fire pilot; you've got to have people who are adequately trained and ready to fight fire. Even with that done, with everything in place and equipment and crews up to the task, tankers, large or small, are only tools in the toolbox. Nothing more. Firefighting is always done by ground troops, who use aircraft tactically to help work their fire. Having air tankers over the fire is a useful thing...but it's not the be-all and end-all of fighting fire, and one shouldn't expect a magic change in the outcome of wildfires as a result.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: of my pants is unknown
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SN3 wrote.
Fire isn't fought that way, and tankers don't work that way. Air assets don't fight fire. Ground troops do.
Sorry it took so long to get back to ya. Have you done much work with water bombers (scoopers). I asked a friend of mine, he is the chief pilot for one of the 215 outfits in Canada. I was told that what I said was pretty much exactly how they fight fires. They use tankers to direct where they want a fire to go then they get a 3 or 4 groups of scoopers, with 2 to 4 aircraft to a group, to attack the fire and to try and decrease its intensity. If there is 6 to 16 water bombers working on a fire for two, four hour shifts a day it does help considering in this time they can drop up to 90 times per day each, when the water source is close.
The water bombers also do other jobs like help control back burns as well as saturate fire breaks. If this is an ineffective way of fighting fires someone better tell the Canadians, and the French, and the Italians, and the Greeks and the Turks, etc. I do know that they never really got going in America because they weren't made in the USA, and therefore found ineffective, but that does not mean that they do not work.
You are right about the ground troops though. They are the ones that actually put out the fire. It is boots on the ground that does the hard work. I did, however, actually say that when I first posted.
Thanks for smack in the face. Waiting for another one.
DW
Quote:
I completly agree with everything you said except for the statement that water not effective. From what I understand Tankers put a line around (to contain) or accross (to direct) a fire. Then the Helos and the Scoopers come in and basically increase the relative humidity in the fire environment by dropping on or near the fire. Once the fire has backed off enough the ground crews go in and put it out.
The larger air tankers are the weapon that we are missing here in Australia.
Please correct me if I am wrong
I completly agree with everything you said except for the statement that water not effective. From what I understand Tankers put a line around (to contain) or accross (to direct) a fire. Then the Helos and the Scoopers come in and basically increase the relative humidity in the fire environment by dropping on or near the fire. Once the fire has backed off enough the ground crews go in and put it out.
The larger air tankers are the weapon that we are missing here in Australia.
Please correct me if I am wrong
Sorry it took so long to get back to ya. Have you done much work with water bombers (scoopers). I asked a friend of mine, he is the chief pilot for one of the 215 outfits in Canada. I was told that what I said was pretty much exactly how they fight fires. They use tankers to direct where they want a fire to go then they get a 3 or 4 groups of scoopers, with 2 to 4 aircraft to a group, to attack the fire and to try and decrease its intensity. If there is 6 to 16 water bombers working on a fire for two, four hour shifts a day it does help considering in this time they can drop up to 90 times per day each, when the water source is close.
The water bombers also do other jobs like help control back burns as well as saturate fire breaks. If this is an ineffective way of fighting fires someone better tell the Canadians, and the French, and the Italians, and the Greeks and the Turks, etc. I do know that they never really got going in America because they weren't made in the USA, and therefore found ineffective, but that does not mean that they do not work.
You are right about the ground troops though. They are the ones that actually put out the fire. It is boots on the ground that does the hard work. I did, however, actually say that when I first posted.
Thanks for smack in the face. Waiting for another one.
DW
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry it took so long to get back to ya. Have you done much work with water bombers (scoopers). I asked a friend of mine, he is the chief pilot for one of the 215 outfits in Canada. I was told that what I said was pretty much exactly how they fight fires. They use tankers to direct where they want a fire to go then they get a 3 or 4 groups of scoopers, with 2 to 4 aircraft to a group, to attack the fire and to try and decrease its intensity. If there is 6 to 16 water bombers working on a fire for two, four hour shifts a day it does help considering in this time they can drop up to 90 times per day each, when the water source is close.
The water bombers also do other jobs like help control back burns as well as saturate fire breaks. If this is an ineffective way of fighting fires someone better tell the Canadians, and the French, and the Italians, and the Greeks and the Turks, etc. I do know that they never really got going in America because they weren't made in the USA, and therefore found ineffective, but that does not mean that they do not work.
You are right about the ground troops though. They are the ones that actually put out the fire. It is boots on the ground that does the hard work. I did, however, actually say that when I first posted.
Thanks for smack in the face. Waiting for another one.
The water bombers also do other jobs like help control back burns as well as saturate fire breaks. If this is an ineffective way of fighting fires someone better tell the Canadians, and the French, and the Italians, and the Greeks and the Turks, etc. I do know that they never really got going in America because they weren't made in the USA, and therefore found ineffective, but that does not mean that they do not work.
You are right about the ground troops though. They are the ones that actually put out the fire. It is boots on the ground that does the hard work. I did, however, actually say that when I first posted.
Thanks for smack in the face. Waiting for another one.
Yes, I've worked with the CL215's and 415's, and you're incorrect that they don't see use in the US. Further, I've worked fire internationally...and am one of the few in the US who has experience in most aerial fire disciplines and duties, including ground fire.
Perhaps you simply misunderstood your friend.
777 the photo is of a Douglas A26 Invader not a Marauder or a Havac which were built by Martin I have flown the beast A26 she will outperform a P51 on full power those 2/r2800,s with 17% of flap she climbs like a rocket ship left hand seat single pilot operation the last of the fast bombers before the advent of jets the approach for landing is flat and 120kts over the fence the right hand seat has no controls, is for the bomberdier,navergater, armer for the large bomb bay, the beast had a remote turret fireing on top of the fuselarge She saw service in Korea and Vietnam she was to late for the 2nd world war the Havac and Marauder were in the ww2 everbody gets confused but she is a breed apart from the earlier 2
There are two A-26's (or Canadian B-26's) getting shipped to Oz as we speak. They are in the final stages of preparation. One is in perfect airworthy cond. the other is complete but only good for spares. Both ex firefighters.
Sorry.... i am not allowed to say anymore
Sorry.... i am not allowed to say anymore
Join Date: May 2004
Location: of my pants is unknown
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SN3 wrote:
I am not trying to pick a fight here but can you please elaborate on what I am wrong about.
As far as usage in the US there are what one group of 2 per year of 415's go to Cali and there are 4 or so 215's in Minnesota. Every now and then a group of 2 from the NWT is sent to Alaska for a week or two. Whilst this does constitute use it is very limited and not to the extent that other countries use them. Most other places in the world the fleet is 50% Water Bombers min (usually a lot higher) compared to tankers. In the USA what would the percentage be? If I had to guess it would be less than 10%. The main reason why they started using the 215's and 415's was after that C130 wrecked most airplanes not specifically designed as water bombers were banned from flying for most of the agencies. This ban was slowly lifted after it was realized that fires were still burning and there was no airplanes there to work them, and that the C130 in question had suffered a structural failure in part due to the speed at which the drop occurred.
Could you please enlighten us all on how the 215's and 415's work fires and what their use is.
As I read it seems we are nearly talking about the same thing.
I eagerly await correction.
DW
No, you were wrong before, and are still wrong.
Yes, I've worked with the CL215's and 415's, and you're incorrect that they don't see use in the US. Further, I've worked fire internationally...and am one of the few in the US who has experience in most aerial fire disciplines and duties, including ground fire.
Perhaps you simply misunderstood your friend.
Yes, I've worked with the CL215's and 415's, and you're incorrect that they don't see use in the US. Further, I've worked fire internationally...and am one of the few in the US who has experience in most aerial fire disciplines and duties, including ground fire.
Perhaps you simply misunderstood your friend.
I am not trying to pick a fight here but can you please elaborate on what I am wrong about.
As far as usage in the US there are what one group of 2 per year of 415's go to Cali and there are 4 or so 215's in Minnesota. Every now and then a group of 2 from the NWT is sent to Alaska for a week or two. Whilst this does constitute use it is very limited and not to the extent that other countries use them. Most other places in the world the fleet is 50% Water Bombers min (usually a lot higher) compared to tankers. In the USA what would the percentage be? If I had to guess it would be less than 10%. The main reason why they started using the 215's and 415's was after that C130 wrecked most airplanes not specifically designed as water bombers were banned from flying for most of the agencies. This ban was slowly lifted after it was realized that fires were still burning and there was no airplanes there to work them, and that the C130 in question had suffered a structural failure in part due to the speed at which the drop occurred.
Could you please enlighten us all on how the 215's and 415's work fires and what their use is.
As I read it seems we are nearly talking about the same thing.
I eagerly await correction.
DW
Join Date: May 2004
Location: of my pants is unknown
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for my original intention I still feel tankers would be a great tool for us here in Australia. While our country may be large the area where the fires are a threat is actually a relatively narrow band around the coastline near the major centres. The fires that happen in the sparsely settled north and west are for the most part allowed to burn as the naturally would. We are really only talking about mid way up the east coast and around the bottom to a bit on the west coast, The wet usually takes care of any fire threat in the north while the south is burning. If it is deemed it is required during the dry well the south usually has cooled down by then with a decreased fire threat so assets would be available. Even with a relatively small population the infrastructure and training is not insurmountable as the bases are not needed right across the country. The staff at a fire base does not need be huge. For a small base of 2 tankers plus a bird dog you really only need three or four people to keep it running. There are already fire coordination centers in place they would just need have air attack people integrated so they could be kept in the loop as to where the aircraft are most needed.
It is a shame that these aircraft are not even tried when they are available (ref: the Neptune). Sometimes being resistant to new ideas can be deadly.
I hope our mentality changes.
DW
It is a shame that these aircraft are not even tried when they are available (ref: the Neptune). Sometimes being resistant to new ideas can be deadly.
I hope our mentality changes.
DW
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not trying to pick a fight here but can you please elaborate on what I am wrong about.
As far as usage in the US there are what one group of 2 per year of 415's go to Cali and there are 4 or so 215's in Minnesota. Every now and then a group of 2 from the NWT is sent to Alaska for a week or two. Whilst this does constitute use it is very limited and not to the extent that other countries use them. Most other places in the world the fleet is 50% Water Bombers min (usually a lot higher) compared to tankers. In the USA what would the percentage be? If I had to guess it would be less than 10%. The main reason why they started using the 215's and 415's was after that C130 wrecked most airplanes not specifically designed as water bombers were banned from flying for most of the agencies. This ban was slowly lifted after it was realized that fires were still burning and there was no airplanes there to work them, and that the C130 in question had suffered a structural failure in part due to the speed at which the drop occurred.
Could you please enlighten us all on how the 215's and 415's work fires and what their use is.
As I read it seems we are nearly talking about the same thing.
I eagerly await correction.
As far as usage in the US there are what one group of 2 per year of 415's go to Cali and there are 4 or so 215's in Minnesota. Every now and then a group of 2 from the NWT is sent to Alaska for a week or two. Whilst this does constitute use it is very limited and not to the extent that other countries use them. Most other places in the world the fleet is 50% Water Bombers min (usually a lot higher) compared to tankers. In the USA what would the percentage be? If I had to guess it would be less than 10%. The main reason why they started using the 215's and 415's was after that C130 wrecked most airplanes not specifically designed as water bombers were banned from flying for most of the agencies. This ban was slowly lifted after it was realized that fires were still burning and there was no airplanes there to work them, and that the C130 in question had suffered a structural failure in part due to the speed at which the drop occurred.
Could you please enlighten us all on how the 215's and 415's work fires and what their use is.
As I read it seems we are nearly talking about the same thing.
I eagerly await correction.
The use of The CL215's had nothing to do with the loss of Tanker 130, and were in use prior to that time. I was flying with them prior to that time.
I was a cremwmeber on T130, by the way, and in fact did my Flight Engineer turbopropeller rating in that specific airplane. It's loss had nothing to do with "the speed at which it dropped."
Tanker 130 was lost at Walker, California, and three weeks later Tanker 123 was lost in Estes Park, Colorado. (I did my PB4Y type rating in Tanker 123, incidentally). You assert that there were no tankers available to fly fires following these losses, and that is untrue. I was flying when it happened, I was flying the next day, and the day after that...I didn't stop flying. C-130's were grounded, as were the PB4Y's. CL215's were not brought in to cover for missing tankers, and would have been utterly useless for much of the operational area covered by the large air tanker program due to lack of dip sites and extensive travel distances.
CL215's work well when operating very closs to a water source, but lose their effectiveness very quickly unless staged in large numbers with short tunaround times, when operating with water (or foam) only. Any turaround time requires longer term fire suppressants, which are gel or retardant.
Tankers not specifically designed as "water bombers" were not "banned" following the loss of T130 and T123. Piston airplanes were grounded briefly, and the P2V fleet was returned to service shortly thereafter. P3's continued to operate. DC-4's and DC-6's continued to operate, with the DC4's having now been retired. This isn't due to a problem with the DC4, but a preference which is largely political in nature, for turbine equipment. The 4Y's and C130's were not returned to service for reasons too extensive to discuss presently.
None of the tankers in use were "specifically designed as water bombers," and "water bombing" isn't the purpose for which they were being used. Some of the aircraft, including the P2's, the P3's, and the 4Y's were indeed designed for low altitude bombing and payload delivery, as was the C130.
The "ban" (which didn't exist) was "lifted" not because of a pressing need for tankers, but due to a comprehensive demonstration of safe maintenance and structural integrity on the part of the operators...including an extensive testing and proving process involving inflight operations over fires using strain gauges, etc. Nothing got put in service because of a need to fight fires; it got put in service because it was the right equipment for the job and it proved it's self safe to operate.
As for how CL215's and 415's work fires...they drop water on fires. Dropping near fires and increasing the relative humidity in the air to reduce fire behavior so ground troops can come in is a ridiculous idea, and is not how the aircraft are used. Simply put, they put the wet stuff on the red stuff, taking the heat out of the fire and reducing fire behavior. Again, in a large, active fire, putting water on the fire itself (going direct) is often about as effective as spitting in a camp fire. The notion that drops near the fire are used to increase relative humidity, however, is not true. Water is dropped on the fire, in the same manner as a hose lay is used to provide direct attack from the ground on a wild fire or structure.
As for staffing tanker bases with three people...it's possible...but typically not. Particularly if you want to have a real tanker program with real operations, and not simply a dog and pony show.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: of my pants is unknown
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SN3
I will accept the correction regarding the loss of the Tankers, and the fact that there may be more 215's and 415's working in the US than I was aware of. It also sounds like I was wrong regarding the ban, I can accept that.
I also agree that the farther away from water the less effective scoopers become due to turn around time. That is why I was suggesting tankers for Australia. As far as the humidity thing is concerned well I wont go there for the sake of being civil.
Dogs and ponies aside;
I have never been to a tanker base in the US so I can not comment on them however if you go to a lot of bases in Canada where there are tankers the actual crew is very rarely more than 4 including the dispatcher. These bases typically only have two Electras or a couple of CV 580's, if there are more airplanes based there then obviously crew numbers go up. If more aircraft arrive due to an ongoing situation they bring in people from a base that isn't as busy.
In Australia we aren't ever going to have a fleet of Tankers like the US in fact I would doubt it would ever get over 10 airframes (spread accross the country) total with probably only starting out with 2 or so to see how they work out. If they would ever be given the chance that is.
Lets see what I got wrong this time.
DW
I will accept the correction regarding the loss of the Tankers, and the fact that there may be more 215's and 415's working in the US than I was aware of. It also sounds like I was wrong regarding the ban, I can accept that.
I also agree that the farther away from water the less effective scoopers become due to turn around time. That is why I was suggesting tankers for Australia. As far as the humidity thing is concerned well I wont go there for the sake of being civil.
Dogs and ponies aside;
I have never been to a tanker base in the US so I can not comment on them however if you go to a lot of bases in Canada where there are tankers the actual crew is very rarely more than 4 including the dispatcher. These bases typically only have two Electras or a couple of CV 580's, if there are more airplanes based there then obviously crew numbers go up. If more aircraft arrive due to an ongoing situation they bring in people from a base that isn't as busy.
In Australia we aren't ever going to have a fleet of Tankers like the US in fact I would doubt it would ever get over 10 airframes (spread accross the country) total with probably only starting out with 2 or so to see how they work out. If they would ever be given the chance that is.
Lets see what I got wrong this time.
DW
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Umm, nothing. Tanker base manager, an assistant and a loaderman(person). Maintenance and flight crew depending at what is based at that particular tanker base. Also, you can rest assured 1200 Imp. Gals every 30 seconds (sometimes faster, sometimes much slower) is pretty bloody humid. I'm thinking Sydney, the Central Coast, up to Newcastle would be a good spot for a couple of 215/415's.
Last edited by Forestdump; 24th Mar 2009 at 23:45.