Fire Bombers

[Section28- BE]

Where do the "C-130's" originate (/who's operating them...??) from...??

And further, are they 'Brokered' in here (along with the DC-10)....???

Thanks in advance.

Rgds all/& H N/Y
S28- BE

[Car RAMROD]

The Hercs are from Coulson I believe

[Fris B. Fairing]

Aircranes

Please forgive the thread drift but I noticed TV coverage of an Erickson Aircrane using a bucket on a long line. It later emerged that they were picking up from the ocean so the logical conclusion is that the long line and the bucket keeps saltwater away from the tanks, pumps and airframe. However, I'm now told that an Aircrane has been seen fitted with the tank and snorkel and picking up from the ocean. Can anyone explain?

HNY to all.

[PLovett]

Fris, I would think the long line & bucket would be so they could get it down in the gullies. It was tiger country where that fire is.

[josephfeatherweight]

The award for the dumbest comment of 2015 goes tooooooo????

Yr right!!!!!

But he said it in 2014...
I won't rule him out of the 2015 award, though...

[Subversive1]

Originally Posted by Section28- BE

Where do the "C-130's" originate (/who's operating them...??) from...??

And further, are they 'Brokered' in here (along with the DC-10)....???

Thanks in advance.

Rgds all/& H N/Y
S28- BE

They are direct to operator contracts, sole source. Even open contract bids are for operators only, no brokers. The only time brokers come into play is for surge charter requirements.

[Eddie Dean]

Yr Right maybe be a bit of a sh1t stirrer in these parts, but he is one of the few men I would trust to be beside me with a rifle.
The Empire building he referred to is fact.

[rjtjrt]

Get the CSIRO to report on the use of aerial attack with the various assets we have now, and other potential assets we could use (Canadair, etc).
CSIRO presumably have no agenda to persue, and can hopefully be relied upon to issue an objective, and an authoratative and well researched report.

[Eddie Dean]

Rj, it seems in recent times the supply of air attack assets has been centralised.
Hopefully this will stop a lot of the silliness.

[red_dirt]

Eddie, he may be a good operator in a hicksville brigade of 3 but im sorry, that is typical of old school vollo bad attitude towards the white shirts.

I know vollo captains building empires does that give me the right to label all bushies as empire builders?

Im not bushie bashing here and i know that really isnt the place to be talking about it but old school bushies need to realize and appreciate its because of these supposed empire builders the rfs' budget has increased 10 fold since 94 and the service has moved out of the stone age into modern day times with new appliances, aircraft, ppe, training, systems, procedures and legal protections.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

....ten times the budget, more and better( more expensive) and they still cannot put out a fire. And you have put your finger on the exact problem red_dirt! THE problem is the lack of local knowledge of fire behaviour in the local environment. Local fire captains had the authority to perform hazard reduction when and as required. In Vic, the bush was completely burnt of scrub hazards every five years. There hadn't been any hazard reduction on the surf coast since ash Wednesday in 1983... The bush around Gembrook is exactly the same. The litter is over a metre deep in some valleys up there.

Like a wise old blackfella said this year up in the Kakadu...
...if you don't burn the bush and look after it the lightning will come and take everything!

It doesn't matter how many shiny trucks or big water bombers you have, if you do not burn out the trash you are doomed to watch the bush turn into hell on earth so that NOTHING will stop it!

[Eddie Dean]

What ozbusdriver said

[unexplained blip]

Originally Posted by rjtjrt

Get the CSIRO to report on the use of aerial attack with the various assets we have now, and other potential assets we could use (Canadair, etc).
CSIRO presumably have no agenda to persue, and can hopefully be relied upon to issue an objective, and an authoratative and well researched report.

Done, and continues to be looked at: e.g., Evaluation of Aerial Suppression Techniques and Guidelines | BFCRC Legacy.

In Aus conditions, putting a fire out is very difficult. Once an initial attack has failed (first 30 mins or so) it is mainly about seeking containment and then having the fire run out of fuel or being substantially rained on, than seeking to directly extinguish it. Aerial bombing the buggery out of at least the larger fires isn't seen as a viable tactic (e.g., the current Wye River in Vic). Places like Canada are different.

The design of aerial firefighting assets is not sufficiently mature either. One particular airliner-based design, for example, has a high drop capacity but it is contended (backed by research) that the tank design leads to slugging of the release of retardant, in turn leaving gaps in the intended containment line and therefore enabling the fire to progress. That hasn't stopped certain governments from spending big bucks keeping the public onside by way of retaining its services... the whole analytics/cost-benefit thing for firefighting and fire mitigation is a dogs breakfast. (Will note that the C130, as a counter example, has a better reputation.)

As for the points (other posts) about hitting fires hard early, even on a hideous day like Black Saturday 2009 the vast majority of fire starts (more than 200) were tamed by initial attack from the ground. For my mind, the most open question is around whether air resources should be used to more aggressively pounce on small fires in tricky locations like the Otways. I feel that this might indeed be something that flows from an analysis of the current fire there.

[Section28- BE]

Giday U/B

So "the Phil" got it 'Right' the first time in the early 2000's....????, Skycranes and all comers at CBR, etc..... for review.

Leaving aside fuel reduction and the 'holistic' approach- to burn, down The Bottom End............ and what you blokes deal with/are doing.

Please do note: We do 'it' in bigger country and are lucky to get any assets (we provide those- at own expense) on-site inside 30-45mins or maybe beyond the hour.............. pending, but as stated- we are doing it in bigger/flatter (pick your mark) country- and I acknowledge that, with the option to wait, then attack, as it were............

Had occasion (in a preceding life) as a favour- to Customs/Immigration Clear for Bombardier, a CL-415 for that process in CBR..............., back then.

Personally- I was more than impressed with the Design/Structure and 'Method for Purpose' (as explained by the Proponents, given...) of that machine. (Foam Injection/Management, included)

Unlike Herc's they won't 'Clap Hands' overhead, when it gets hot and sweaty and in common with the Aircrane- we are talking ex Vietnam War machinery or beyond, (and put the Crop Dusters in there as well..., no onus on the concept, at all..- vale Col), doing something that was never part of the original Design Brief................

Would be interested to hear your perspective/views, vis: that part of the world- and 6/or so, of 'em (CL-415's) in a line/cycle.............., without trying to be a quarsie "Sales Consultant"- and I am certainly not that!!!

Tks, and Rgds
S28- BE

[witwiw]

There hadn't been any hazard reduction on the surf coast since ash Wednesday in 1983...

Not exactly correct. These have been going on over the years throughout the Otways. In fact, of current relevance, there was a hazard reduction burn immediately to the NW of Kenett River around mid-2015.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Honestly witwiw, if the hazard burns were done there would be no fire. There should no more than four years maximum and at least two years between each coup. If the fire did get going it would quickly hit a newly burnt off area and extinguish itself. I would really want to believe that reduction burns are done but history shows otherwise in Vic. Hells bells, these idiots cannot even manage their own fires let alone a lightning strike.

Case in point...during the CB fires, the fire ran into a patch of land that was burnt off three years prior, it died there on the spot.

I can get you in my fourbie and I can show you land that hasn't been burnt for decades....you cannot see ten feet into it for scrub undergrowth.

However, I must add...the scorched earth mob put a dozer and grader through the tracks up and around gembrook...could be this spring they may actually do something about the fuel hazard...I live in hope!

[layman]

hazard reduction burning isn't a panacea

From a 2002 report to Commonwealth parliament

Is Fuel Reductiion Burning the Answer? ? Parliament of Australia

Quote from Phil Cheney (CSIRO scientist) - possibly Australia's foremost expert on bushfires.

"For the first 18 months to two years [after hazard reduction] the fire will stop on a prescribed burn. After two years it will continue to burn through it, but it will burn at a lower and manageable intensity, and as the years go by the intensity builds up as the fuel builds up. Prescribed burning is not designed to stop fires. It is designed to reduce their intensity, so the impacts are lower and you have a sporting chance of suppressing it, even under extreme conditions."

Also in the report:

"under extreme conditions bushfires will burn across land with very low fuel loads"

and

"fuel reduction burning is but one method of hazard reduction employed by State Forests and the area grazed for hazard reduction is six times the area burned on an annual basis."

An example of an extreme case ...

I can't find any reference to it on the 'net but my faulty memory recalls listening to a woman ringing in to a radio station about how the Black Saturday bushfire had burnt around their farm (with help from a CFA crew) but hadn't burnt the farmhouse.

Unfortunately, the next day or so, the winds changed, the fire returned and burnt out their farmhouse when there was "nothing" left to burn.

regards
layman

[John Eacott]

Having worked on firegrounds in NSW in the 2000-01 season and then exactly the same area again in 2001-02 as fires burned through supposedly safe areas, the science of hazard reduction burns can be seen to be less than exact.

As we allow fuel loads to build up there is obviously an increased risk, but the history of out-of-control HRBs (Lancefield is just up the road to me and a mate lost his house) raises more questions than answers.

I also have a house at Dinner Plain which was well protected by high country cattle grazing. Now it needs regular slashing of the grass around the village, let alone the uncontrolled growth out in the surrounding area.

[red_dirt]

Plus 1 for John Elliot

There are hazard reductions then there are "hazard reductions"

Sometimes the burn plan limitations are so strict that the completed burn holds no strategic advantage, basically takes off the top layer of fuel, leaves another load untouched, kills the leaves in the top layers then they all drop subsequently replacing the burnt stuff.

[witwiw]

Ozbusdriver - I was commenting on an incorrect statement, nothing more, and not the effectiveness of such burns. I'm a regular in the Otways and come across reduction burns regularly. In the example I mentioned, though, the fires didn't get to that area near Kennett River to put it to the test.

On that point, I doubt if it would have made a difference on the day given the intensity and the fact that the fire was advancing through the canopies. Hazard reduction burns take care of underbrush and not much more. The fire you speak of, CB (Canberra?), was that in the canopies or in the scrub beneath? I'd suspect the latter if the fire petered out once reaching the previously burnt area.

Thanks for the Fourbie offer but I already do that myself and concur with your observations.