$12M fire bomber trial
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day all,
Just consider this before demanding heavy aerial water bombing a/c......
When you see 9000lt of retardant from Elvis coming through the tree canopy, it is ripping branches off so maybe another couple of tonnes of wood falling with it, it destroys everything on the ground below and on slopes, it creates a destructive flood if the canopy has not dispersed the fluid enough. Imagine what 45tonnes from a DC10 will do.............
A slow moving helo can direct the drop accurately, they can see people on the ground, fire trucks and property clearly and funnily enough, usually the fire too! A DC10 cannot and more importantly the height it is above the canopy (a matter of a few metres)also increases the risk of bird strike with a heavily ladened a/c. A helo can carry out multiple drops in the same time as the DC10's turn time and drop it much more effectively to assist the ground crews, what's more, probably carry up to the EQUIVALENT payload as a DC10 depending on the helo type, in the time it takes the DC10 to refuel, reload and return to the fight.
In all likelihood people WILL be injured and property damaged/destroyed with a/c dropping big loads, it probably slows down the work rate other a/c & helo's due to clearance issues. Certainly any ground crews and equipment must be removed from the drop zone or risk damage or injury. All this takes time and fighting a wild fire, time is CRITICAL to its control.
Unless you have been on the ground fighting a fire with aerial bombing or been involved in actual aerial fire fighting ops, you simply dont know what you're talking about.
Armchair generals have never won wars and probably cause politicians to waste taxpayers money, which should be put into essential gear like protective clothing, GPS, EPIRB's, comms for ground crews or more helo's for water bombing etc. Me thinks this is a much better use of taxpayer funds.............
Another factor to consider is the increased tendancy for people to move into the bush for a tree change experience. From memory the DC10 cuts a path about 1.5km long, in the typical bush setting within 1.5hrs drive time of any capital city this one drop could possibly hit anywhere between 2-10 houses. At around $300k-$600k or more per house the $10m for a DC10 for a season is quickly equaled in damages to property if the fire fighting agencies get it wrong.............Remember the Yanks were using 500kg concrete laser guided bombs to smash Iraqi armour in residential areas, just imagine what a misguided payload of 45tonnes of water/retardent would do to people/vehicles/property........
So unless you have flown years of fire fighting ops, you simply are NOT qualified to to comment on this subject. No matter how good your intentions............
D4
Just consider this before demanding heavy aerial water bombing a/c......
When you see 9000lt of retardant from Elvis coming through the tree canopy, it is ripping branches off so maybe another couple of tonnes of wood falling with it, it destroys everything on the ground below and on slopes, it creates a destructive flood if the canopy has not dispersed the fluid enough. Imagine what 45tonnes from a DC10 will do.............
A slow moving helo can direct the drop accurately, they can see people on the ground, fire trucks and property clearly and funnily enough, usually the fire too! A DC10 cannot and more importantly the height it is above the canopy (a matter of a few metres)also increases the risk of bird strike with a heavily ladened a/c. A helo can carry out multiple drops in the same time as the DC10's turn time and drop it much more effectively to assist the ground crews, what's more, probably carry up to the EQUIVALENT payload as a DC10 depending on the helo type, in the time it takes the DC10 to refuel, reload and return to the fight.
In all likelihood people WILL be injured and property damaged/destroyed with a/c dropping big loads, it probably slows down the work rate other a/c & helo's due to clearance issues. Certainly any ground crews and equipment must be removed from the drop zone or risk damage or injury. All this takes time and fighting a wild fire, time is CRITICAL to its control.
Unless you have been on the ground fighting a fire with aerial bombing or been involved in actual aerial fire fighting ops, you simply dont know what you're talking about.
Armchair generals have never won wars and probably cause politicians to waste taxpayers money, which should be put into essential gear like protective clothing, GPS, EPIRB's, comms for ground crews or more helo's for water bombing etc. Me thinks this is a much better use of taxpayer funds.............
Another factor to consider is the increased tendancy for people to move into the bush for a tree change experience. From memory the DC10 cuts a path about 1.5km long, in the typical bush setting within 1.5hrs drive time of any capital city this one drop could possibly hit anywhere between 2-10 houses. At around $300k-$600k or more per house the $10m for a DC10 for a season is quickly equaled in damages to property if the fire fighting agencies get it wrong.............Remember the Yanks were using 500kg concrete laser guided bombs to smash Iraqi armour in residential areas, just imagine what a misguided payload of 45tonnes of water/retardent would do to people/vehicles/property........
So unless you have flown years of fire fighting ops, you simply are NOT qualified to to comment on this subject. No matter how good your intentions............
D4
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Victoria au
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Delta, I agree that the big aircraft can make a mess but would have to disagree in your comparison between the Erickson Aircrane and the DC10. They are very different tools designed for very different uses in aerial firefighting. A load dropped from a DC10 dropped correctly (ie at the correct speed and height) will not cause widspread destruction. Any drop from a Fixed Wing if done correctly must reach terminal velocity before it reaches the tree canopy and therefore should largely come down like rain. A lot of people incorrectly believe that the load needs to be "punched" or pushed through the canopy - this is when it gets dangerous.
I think the Aircranes are a great tool and I reckon that they have probably been the best single thing that has made a significant difference to the success of some of the initial fire attack in Victoria. I have, however been in the situation a couple of times as a firefighter not too far from Melbourne where the Cranes have had way too far to go for water and their effectiveness dropped significantly. Not many people know it but often on a hot day they will only be carrying about 4500 - 5500 litres. In these situations a drop from a big bomber (or several split drops) would have been far more efficient and effective without any safety issues for the crew or the guys on the ground.
I think the Aircranes are a great tool and I reckon that they have probably been the best single thing that has made a significant difference to the success of some of the initial fire attack in Victoria. I have, however been in the situation a couple of times as a firefighter not too far from Melbourne where the Cranes have had way too far to go for water and their effectiveness dropped significantly. Not many people know it but often on a hot day they will only be carrying about 4500 - 5500 litres. In these situations a drop from a big bomber (or several split drops) would have been far more efficient and effective without any safety issues for the crew or the guys on the ground.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the large aircraft have issues fighting close to housing or fire crews, is there any way they would be more effective in attacking fire in more remote areas before it gets on top of a town? Acting to try and direct the fire earlier or prepare an area in front of the fire to slow it down?
Just asking - no idea of the realities behind this.
Just asking - no idea of the realities behind this.
Chinbu has hit the nail on the head. The most cost and time effective delivery of retardant to either a fire front or a containment line is the single engine air tanker (SEAT). They have constantly proven themselves in the face of the C214's, DC10, Convair's, etc.
Fire Bombers | Facebook
These aircraft are the present and future of Australian aerial firefighting, in conjunction with their rotary winged friends. The trials of the DC10, etc, have been expensive and unsuccessful political stunts.
Fire Bombers | Facebook
These aircraft are the present and future of Australian aerial firefighting, in conjunction with their rotary winged friends. The trials of the DC10, etc, have been expensive and unsuccessful political stunts.
Yes. That's what suits our terrain, surface water availability, and population distribution. All of these credentials are unique to Australia in their current form and equally determine the combination of aircraft and their management that best suits our environment.
Well, that's only guaranteed by those managing the fleet. As was the case on Black Saturday, The aircraft available (Including two medium fixed wing bombers) were not utilised to any advantage at all.
Black Saturday is hardly an example of mismanaging the fleet.
With winds that strong, and thermals from the fire, flying low enough and bombing effectively is just about impossible. The wind blows the water into a fine spray/ vapour which evaporates before it hits the ground. WOFTAM.
With winds that strong, and thermals from the fire, flying low enough and bombing effectively is just about impossible. The wind blows the water into a fine spray/ vapour which evaporates before it hits the ground. WOFTAM.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont see any difference in our terrain,vegetation and summer weather conditions to that in south west coast USA or the Med countries. Lots of dry landscapes, gum trees and sea in all those places too but we persist in thinking that we are unique.
Wunwing
Wunwing
Join Date: May 2004
Location: of my pants is unknown
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The convair "tests" also occured during some of the wetest seasons on record. I am sure they were able to demonstrate their capabilities in full sitting on the ramp with no fires to fight.
Also the remark about SEATs "flying in the face" of the large tankers / scoopers refers to the idea that there is some kind of competition. What you don't seem to understand is that these aircraft work together in a bigger picture and here in Australia we are missing a large piece of the puzzle.
While we can do without the heavy equipment in most situations, when they are needed they are an invaluable tool that we are missing.
Cheers
DW
Also the remark about SEATs "flying in the face" of the large tankers / scoopers refers to the idea that there is some kind of competition. What you don't seem to understand is that these aircraft work together in a bigger picture and here in Australia we are missing a large piece of the puzzle.
While we can do without the heavy equipment in most situations, when they are needed they are an invaluable tool that we are missing.
Cheers
DW
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't reduce the dump rate?
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
Lucerne is basically correct, we do have a system that works fairly well when properly tasked, the SEAT is an effective tool when correctly used. the large helos are a very good complement to the SEAT fleet, and this is supported by a large number of call when needed SE FW ACFT.
Our topography, geography, water resources, population quantity and density, our vegetation is all different to most of the USA that i have visited. this is not to say that large tankers can't technically work, but our current SEAT system is flexible and versatile and is highly cost effective for our little bit of paradise.
Ultimately it is the ground based assets that do the hard work and the aerial fire attack fleet assist them as much as possible, again when tasked properly.
I have flown SEAT and have spent time in the US visiting fire bases, including CALFIRE at mcClellen in Sacramento. rows of converted P3s P2s C130's and firecats, even 747 with OV10 bird dogs and again rows of kingairs.
if anyone really REALLY thinks that one convair is going to be effective when california alone has all of that inventory of aircraft, as well as numerous super well equipped fire bases capable of loading eight or ten large tankers AT THE SAME TIME, then you are sadly deluded. the USFS and other departments tip many times more into their fire suppression fleet than we do, so can support this huge aerial armada. just the CALFIRE base in sacramento makes our air force look pathetic in comparison.
No doubt the whole debate will start again soon with summer on the way, but here in Vic the government has slashed fire fighting funding on the basis that we are unlikely to have as bad a season as during the drought, so on that basis alone i cannot see a significant investment in aerial firefighting assets in the immediate future.
HD
Our topography, geography, water resources, population quantity and density, our vegetation is all different to most of the USA that i have visited. this is not to say that large tankers can't technically work, but our current SEAT system is flexible and versatile and is highly cost effective for our little bit of paradise.
Ultimately it is the ground based assets that do the hard work and the aerial fire attack fleet assist them as much as possible, again when tasked properly.
I have flown SEAT and have spent time in the US visiting fire bases, including CALFIRE at mcClellen in Sacramento. rows of converted P3s P2s C130's and firecats, even 747 with OV10 bird dogs and again rows of kingairs.
if anyone really REALLY thinks that one convair is going to be effective when california alone has all of that inventory of aircraft, as well as numerous super well equipped fire bases capable of loading eight or ten large tankers AT THE SAME TIME, then you are sadly deluded. the USFS and other departments tip many times more into their fire suppression fleet than we do, so can support this huge aerial armada. just the CALFIRE base in sacramento makes our air force look pathetic in comparison.
No doubt the whole debate will start again soon with summer on the way, but here in Vic the government has slashed fire fighting funding on the basis that we are unlikely to have as bad a season as during the drought, so on that basis alone i cannot see a significant investment in aerial firefighting assets in the immediate future.
HD
Guest
Posts: n/a
May 2012 "...AL-QAEDA has named Australia as a prime target for terrorism by firebombing in an online terrorism and bomb-making magazine..."
Oct 2012 "...Al-Qaeda has been blamed for a recent series of forest fires across Europe, as the head of Russia's Federal Security Service claimed they were set by arsonists as part of the group's low-cost attack strategy..."
Would very likely have some relevance to the size of the firefighting fleet, especially after what appears to have been happening in Europe.
Last edited by prospector; 8th Oct 2012 at 03:26.
It is of your freedom to ignite a firebomb
.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...got-worse.html
Hmmm... seems some think terrorism and/or bush fires have nothing to do with 'civil' aviation..
All 'civil' pilots have an ASIC - Whys that ? ...Do pilots have to report any terrorist type incidents ?
...anyway, there's one who wont be starting a bush fire any time soon:
A couple of weeks ago, 26/9/12 "A man accused of terrorism offences has made an unsuccessful bid for bail at the Melbourne Magistrates Court.
The court heard on Tuesday that Adnan Karabegovic, 24, from Officer, called Australians "dirty convict pigs" and had a formula for making bombs.
He was arrested as a result of counter-terror raids in Melbourne two weeks ago...
...The court heard telephone intercepts recorded Karabegovic talking about going to Bosnia to train and using bombs to start bushfires..."
Melbourne terror suspect denied bail - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
.
...the thread that has just been closed
What does this have to do with Australian civil aviation?
All 'civil' pilots have an ASIC - Whys that ? ...Do pilots have to report any terrorist type incidents ?
...anyway, there's one who wont be starting a bush fire any time soon:
A couple of weeks ago, 26/9/12 "A man accused of terrorism offences has made an unsuccessful bid for bail at the Melbourne Magistrates Court.
The court heard on Tuesday that Adnan Karabegovic, 24, from Officer, called Australians "dirty convict pigs" and had a formula for making bombs.
He was arrested as a result of counter-terror raids in Melbourne two weeks ago...
...The court heard telephone intercepts recorded Karabegovic talking about going to Bosnia to train and using bombs to start bushfires..."
Melbourne terror suspect denied bail - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
.