Firefighting plane down in NSW
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aussie
Age: 51
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the 415's would be great, but why would you want/need the military to operate them.. Canada and the US as well as others (spain etc..) all run them as a civil operation.. are we not that capable..?
xxgoldxx
Civil crews would be fine. One issue is that the demand is quite seasonal, which is why I think crewing with existing Air Force crews would be a solution. Under RAAF umbrella, you could get a lot of resources and training for not a lot more expense. What ever it takes. The whole bushfire defence requires a variety of weapons, depending on the situation, which means helicopters, fixed wing, and innovative ideas like the Boeing example. Why don't we at least trial the CL415s for just one season? Like yr right suggests, I fear there are vested interests playing against the national good.
Civil crews would be fine. One issue is that the demand is quite seasonal, which is why I think crewing with existing Air Force crews would be a solution. Under RAAF umbrella, you could get a lot of resources and training for not a lot more expense. What ever it takes. The whole bushfire defence requires a variety of weapons, depending on the situation, which means helicopters, fixed wing, and innovative ideas like the Boeing example. Why don't we at least trial the CL415s for just one season? Like yr right suggests, I fear there are vested interests playing against the national good.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AUD $00.20
Why we don't make more use of our military resources has intrigued me for a long while and has certainly created some interesting discussion. For instance here we have a need for the services of a highly specialised group of pilots and aircraft in this bush fire prone land and we have very little of either. The notion that the Army and/or RAAF could support a few dedicated specialist aircraft is no more outré than the Navy being the 'bees knees' for serious SAR (and FDR recovery). Real life training benefits for engineers, operations, logistics, pilots and ground crew are there. Always seems a bit potty to me, that our highly skilled, ready to go folk are parked on the sidelines at a time of serious national need.
Not even an economists bootlace, but I reckon a honest cost /benefit analysis would come down to a gross saving for the country – overall. Anyway – just my two bob's worth...
Not even an economists bootlace, but I reckon a honest cost /benefit analysis would come down to a gross saving for the country – overall. Anyway – just my two bob's worth...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm surprised that by this length of thread the usual suspects haven't started the big aircraft don't work in Australia chant.Its happened everytime this subject has been mentioned.They then add that they have been trialed here and were no good and we have no water anyway.
To answer the latter first. To the best of my knowledge, we have trialed one Conair DC6B, 2 Conair CV580s and a DC10 at different times.All have been here after a bad fire season and had no real work to do in the next.In all cases there were not enough aircraft or crews to prove anything.From what I can see everyone else in the world uses these aircraft as an initial attack on fire startups as the PRIMARY function.The list of countries who use large aircraft is extensive, including many that we would class as 3rd world.
The other opinion that they dont work here is because "there is not enough water". In the recent fires there was the Richmond RAAF base and the Hawkesbury river and Warragamba Dam within the fire zone.There was certainly enough water for these fires.With the Picton area fires, there were 3dams withing the fire zone
I was on Hawkesbury Road Springwood only minutes after the fire started.At that stage it was not all that big and could have been knocked down or at least slowed by drops from a few large aircraft, say based at Richmond or even Bankstown.I watched as a lone helicopter with a bucket carried out what was obviously a futile task which may have saved individual properties but has no effect in the overall fire front.By that stage the whole of Springwood was in traffic gridlock and the emergency vehicles couldnt get through. I watched the buses tasked with evacuating the schools turn back because of the gridlock.Clearly one major benefit of large water drops is instant access when situations like this occur.
I was there again yesterday returning evacuated family members.There were at least 2, possibly more, Bell Longrangers running a shuttle from the Springwood Golf Course lake to a valley a short distance away. I was there for about 2 hours and they were doing about a 5 minute sequence each.I dont know the hourly operating cost of a Longranger but I suspect that 4 to 6hours of their operation would exceed dramatically a couple of drops from a CV 580.
Unfortunately I agree with other posters on this site. This argument is not about facts, its about politics at all 3 government levels. Unfortunately after this no one will be game to take of RFS because of there deserved hero status so the situation won't change.
Wunwing
To answer the latter first. To the best of my knowledge, we have trialed one Conair DC6B, 2 Conair CV580s and a DC10 at different times.All have been here after a bad fire season and had no real work to do in the next.In all cases there were not enough aircraft or crews to prove anything.From what I can see everyone else in the world uses these aircraft as an initial attack on fire startups as the PRIMARY function.The list of countries who use large aircraft is extensive, including many that we would class as 3rd world.
The other opinion that they dont work here is because "there is not enough water". In the recent fires there was the Richmond RAAF base and the Hawkesbury river and Warragamba Dam within the fire zone.There was certainly enough water for these fires.With the Picton area fires, there were 3dams withing the fire zone
I was on Hawkesbury Road Springwood only minutes after the fire started.At that stage it was not all that big and could have been knocked down or at least slowed by drops from a few large aircraft, say based at Richmond or even Bankstown.I watched as a lone helicopter with a bucket carried out what was obviously a futile task which may have saved individual properties but has no effect in the overall fire front.By that stage the whole of Springwood was in traffic gridlock and the emergency vehicles couldnt get through. I watched the buses tasked with evacuating the schools turn back because of the gridlock.Clearly one major benefit of large water drops is instant access when situations like this occur.
I was there again yesterday returning evacuated family members.There were at least 2, possibly more, Bell Longrangers running a shuttle from the Springwood Golf Course lake to a valley a short distance away. I was there for about 2 hours and they were doing about a 5 minute sequence each.I dont know the hourly operating cost of a Longranger but I suspect that 4 to 6hours of their operation would exceed dramatically a couple of drops from a CV 580.
Unfortunately I agree with other posters on this site. This argument is not about facts, its about politics at all 3 government levels. Unfortunately after this no one will be game to take of RFS because of there deserved hero status so the situation won't change.
Wunwing
Last edited by Wunwing; 25th Oct 2013 at 21:21.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When the NSCA was around and used Bell 205, 212 and 412 fire bombing helicopters, they would send some of their fleet overseas once the fire season had finished in Australia. From memory the choppers went to Spain and Canada for the Northern summer. The same could be done if we had a large firebomber aircraft.
Last edited by BPA; 25th Oct 2013 at 21:30.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Following on from BPA, why not use / Import the Northern Hemisphere aircraft for our summer like the Elvis ?
As opposed to us buying.
As opposed to us buying.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even in those days a lot of the helos were from Canada.I often saw them coming and going on B747 Combis that I crewed then.I suspect the Bells that I saw yesterday are also recent northern based arrivals
The same could be done both ways for large fixed wing aircraft.Of note is that 3 of the 4 aircraft that I have already noted were Conair from Canada.
I'm sure that the Airspray L188s (1 originally an Australian aircraft) are more than capable of making it here with little problem.
It seems that if we are to do this properly, lining up with a type used in Canada would be a good move for both technical backup and Northern/Southern seasonal movement.The Canadians seem to be the ones who are the leaders here.I suspect that they dont have the CIA "baggage" that some of the old US companies did.
We can live in hope but I doubt anyone is listening.
Wunwing
The same could be done both ways for large fixed wing aircraft.Of note is that 3 of the 4 aircraft that I have already noted were Conair from Canada.
I'm sure that the Airspray L188s (1 originally an Australian aircraft) are more than capable of making it here with little problem.
It seems that if we are to do this properly, lining up with a type used in Canada would be a good move for both technical backup and Northern/Southern seasonal movement.The Canadians seem to be the ones who are the leaders here.I suspect that they dont have the CIA "baggage" that some of the old US companies did.
We can live in hope but I doubt anyone is listening.
Wunwing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Air National Guard in the U.S has modular units that can be fitted to their C130's for fighting fires, why not here. We just retired the C130H fleet, perhaps not best idea to start putting firefighting stresses onto the older airframes, but why not the J model's. Richmond would of been the ideal staging point for this recently. Earlier this week I heard 4 or 5 C130's operating in formation around Mudgee, would that money not have been better spent putting them to a different operational use?
Dash 27
welkin71, PM me.
Early 90s from what I recall. The trail was "sponsored" by National Jet Systems. As I recall two 214s came here.
http://www.pprune.org/dunnunda-godzo...tml#post221828
I think I have the same document that Ozoilfield alludes to. Most of what is said in Oz's post I concur with as I recall the same type of conversations.
Probably same from the same source
Any chance you have a date for that report and is there an online source for the full document
Early 90s from what I recall. The trail was "sponsored" by National Jet Systems. As I recall two 214s came here.
http://www.pprune.org/dunnunda-godzo...tml#post221828
I think I have the same document that Ozoilfield alludes to. Most of what is said in Oz's post I concur with as I recall the same type of conversations.
Probably same from the same source
...We live in a fire zone, and our eyes are closed because every year people loose their properties, their lives because of our apparent fix that could be a whole lot better...
" ...There are three simple lessons which could be learned: First, the current approach to bushfire management is not working. Second, the current approach has been tried before and it didn’t work then either. And third, there are still a lot of people around who know all this, from whose first-hand experience much could be learned.
...those who do not study history are condemned to repeat it.
Sadly, when it comes to bushfire management in Australia, I see history repeating itself continuously, and even worse, because of recent changes in our forest management environment, the outlook is for more of the same... "
continues - Jennifer Marohasy » Bushfire Management in Australian Forests: A Note from Roger Underwood
.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia - South of where I'd like to be !
Age: 59
Posts: 4,261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Binghi
Here is a general observation about "forest management environment,"
They declare a National Park or State park or buy a property for "Conservation". They lock it up as they don't have the staff to manage it and do what needs doing. Greenies in Gov't, Councils Gov't agencies hinder or stop outright people's ability to burn off and Gov't staff have to toe the line re this. End result is across all of Aus we get huge build ups of fuel.
We then get these huge fires.
Anyway, that's my HO.
And then we put people in harms warm, on the ground and in the air
and the sad results have been seen. If they did not need to do it, all
the better.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: my happy place....
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MIL airborne fire fighting.
The fact is the military will struggle to come to terms with an aerial fire fighting role as opposed to a relief or evacuation role in support of the local services.
Military aircrew (generally speaking) do not posses the skills and corporate knowledge to operate anywhere near the efficiency and effectively as the guys and girls currently doing the job. After speaking to the crews directly has I have been left with no doubt that this job requires a great deal of experience and corporate knowledge. The required finesse and awareness for this has been developed over years of constant operations. The close supervision of the newer crews by the older hands is quite impressive. This seems to be a job not to be tackled by “part timer’s”
The corporate governance that would come with this new role would be breathtaking. There would be Training Management Plans to be written, SOP’s and DI’s to write, aircrew to train, then new aircrew currencies to maintain and expend hours on. All of which would eat into an already lean flight hours allocation. The self-appointed subject matter experts would “corner the market” and then make themselves indispensable, stifling capability and building their own little empire.
Then there is the equipment, which the ADF would no doubt raise a SOR which would take years to fulfil through the DMO and be very costly. Then would modify it to meet ADF needs, then integrate it to the fleet(s) with another costly “Australian” mod. It would require constant (read more than required) maintenance with no guarantee it will be available when we need it.
The ADF is very good at warfighting ops, with command structures that have evolved to do just that. I suspect the only way to deal with the dynamic and high tempo nature of fire ops would be to have a permanent C2 node ready to go, tailored for that function, creating another burden on the system. For civilian emergency management, its bread and butter stuff.
The risk assessments alone would restrain effectiveness. ADF image would sustain a massive hit if it were to lose a strategic asset (fixed wing or rotary) in local fire fighting ops. I suspect ADF members would gladly join the fight, sadly the truckload of considerations that go with it leads me to believe that this will not happen anytime soon without a major re-think.
Military aircrew (generally speaking) do not posses the skills and corporate knowledge to operate anywhere near the efficiency and effectively as the guys and girls currently doing the job. After speaking to the crews directly has I have been left with no doubt that this job requires a great deal of experience and corporate knowledge. The required finesse and awareness for this has been developed over years of constant operations. The close supervision of the newer crews by the older hands is quite impressive. This seems to be a job not to be tackled by “part timer’s”
The corporate governance that would come with this new role would be breathtaking. There would be Training Management Plans to be written, SOP’s and DI’s to write, aircrew to train, then new aircrew currencies to maintain and expend hours on. All of which would eat into an already lean flight hours allocation. The self-appointed subject matter experts would “corner the market” and then make themselves indispensable, stifling capability and building their own little empire.
Then there is the equipment, which the ADF would no doubt raise a SOR which would take years to fulfil through the DMO and be very costly. Then would modify it to meet ADF needs, then integrate it to the fleet(s) with another costly “Australian” mod. It would require constant (read more than required) maintenance with no guarantee it will be available when we need it.
The ADF is very good at warfighting ops, with command structures that have evolved to do just that. I suspect the only way to deal with the dynamic and high tempo nature of fire ops would be to have a permanent C2 node ready to go, tailored for that function, creating another burden on the system. For civilian emergency management, its bread and butter stuff.
The risk assessments alone would restrain effectiveness. ADF image would sustain a massive hit if it were to lose a strategic asset (fixed wing or rotary) in local fire fighting ops. I suspect ADF members would gladly join the fight, sadly the truckload of considerations that go with it leads me to believe that this will not happen anytime soon without a major re-think.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another thread stated that an AT802 was 1/15th the cost of the Canadair but delivered just over 1/2 the payload. If this is true, bang for buck? Correct, shiny red fire trucks don't put out fires - firefighters doing the hard slog on the ground do that. Regardless, it's a dangerous occupation for all involved and the stakes are high when things go wrong. A tragic event and an unimaginable loss for those directly affected.
Yes very sad indeed. RIP
We are talking about affordable risk here. Can CASA afford not to let these aircraft operate in times of emergency?? All the bomber pilots are aware of the stress put on firebombing aircraft to a certain extent I am sure. There is also the severe turbulence in and around fires and hill country especially in strong to gale force winds. Not to mention the strain and aerodynamic buffeting a bomber is subject to, when dispensing material at jettison rates. Surely this is a national emergency for Australia, so get the water and retardant on. What does need looking at is the remuneration for pilots.
We are talking about affordable risk here. Can CASA afford not to let these aircraft operate in times of emergency?? All the bomber pilots are aware of the stress put on firebombing aircraft to a certain extent I am sure. There is also the severe turbulence in and around fires and hill country especially in strong to gale force winds. Not to mention the strain and aerodynamic buffeting a bomber is subject to, when dispensing material at jettison rates. Surely this is a national emergency for Australia, so get the water and retardant on. What does need looking at is the remuneration for pilots.
It seems to me it is time that Australia go big or go home. Going big means a serious national effort to fund a standing fleet of aircraft with the associated ground support infrastructure and an effective operational control system.
Last edited by Big Pistons Forever; 26th Oct 2013 at 05:07.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Tamworth,NSW
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whats wrong with the American MAFFS they use in the C130. I would imagine you could fit 4 of them in a C17 to get them out here and there,s plenty of C130s sitting around Richmond and they hold about 3000us gals.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: yes
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BPF
That's fair comment. You are entitled to your opinion just like I am.
You would also disagree, that it was a sad event and Fire Bomber pilots should be paid more??
I see now.
That's fair comment. You are entitled to your opinion just like I am.
You would also disagree, that it was a sad event and Fire Bomber pilots should be paid more??
I see now.