|
Firefighting plane down in NSW
Only just happened, crews rushing to the scene. Just hope he survived.
Aircraft fighting NSW bushfire crashes |
Looks like he did not survive, confirmed dead at the scene according toreports.
Tragic news for his family. |
-12 Dromader is what lost the wing.
This loss of life should never have happened CASA has been warned repeatedly of the years that over weight with the turbine modification is dangerous this is the second know accident with wing seperation from the airframe. CASA you have now no where to run. I hope you will now go to his wife and kids and expain your selfs and how sorry you are. But i bet you dont you hide in your castles and beat your ******* chest and say how good you all are well you cant hide this on away. last transmission from aircraft may day mayday mayday wings off. now his wife and 3 kids have to live with what is left my heart gose out tho them after growing up in the industry i feel for you all at this time of need. RIP David. |
Terrible news. RIP.
|
ATSB report on previous wing failure is at http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3532975/ao2008084.pdf . Sad anyway but so much worse if this proves to be an avoidable rerun.
|
The Skull should be charged with manslaughter
|
What type of aircraft was it?
|
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. Grab a piece of metal and bend it long enough and often enough it will break. We all know this. The trick of course, is the determine where it will break, before it does. What I want to know, is where are the DC10's and B747's and other heavy bombers are, the Americans use? Surely these should have been hired in. I think light aircraft and helicopters is weeing in the wind trying to fight fires on this scale. The Dromader is an old Eastern block design, originally fitted with a 1000hp "iron" engine. Used to carry 2500 liters then IIRC. Since then some have put been fitted with turbine engines, God knows what they are carrying? |
"I think light aircraft and helicopters is weeing in the wind trying to fight fires on this scale."
It certainly looked like that on the news with some of the footage. You could see the water work where it hit but the fire / flames were so large either side, not sure what effect it had after 5 minutes. Very sad. Nice words said on the news. |
casa and SR's [Safety Reccs]
The following was the SR following the 2008 structural failure:
Action taken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority On 17 November 2011, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) informed the ATSB, ...that CASA has written to the registered operators of all Australian registered M18 Dromader aircraft type to verify that, where applicable, they have procedures for recording aircraft time in service conducting overweight operations, and for the proper factoring of overweight flight time for calculation of the airframe service life. Responses have been received and assessed and, where necessary, CASA has conducted follow-up with particular operators. Further verification of operator procedures is expected to occur in accordance with CASA’s surveillance program. ATSB assessment of response The ATSB is satisfied that the action taken by CASA adequately addresses the safety issue. Civil Aviation Safety Authority Exemptions for overweight operations Significant Safety issue Operation of the M-18A in accordance with Civil Aviation Safety Authority exemptions EX56/07 and EX09/07 at weights in excess of the basic aircraft flight manual maximum take-off weight (MTOW), and up to the MTOW listed on the Type Certificate Data Sheet, may not provide the same level of safety intended by the manufacturer when including that weight on the Type Certificate. Action taken by the CASA On 2 December 2011, CASA advised that it would inform all M18A operators other than those that have a supplemental type certificate permitting operation to 6,600 kg, that the exemptions do not permit agricultural operations in the restricted category above 4,700 kg MTOW. CASA also advised that they will be revising the exemptions to ensure that the intended interpretation is clear to operators. ATSB assessment of response/action The ATSB is satisfied that, when completed, the action taken by CASA will adequately addresses the safety issue. Is this another case of SR's not being properly surveilled by casa?? AND: Safety fears flagged earlier over make of plane in death crash |
What type of aircraft was it? |
SMH article
Quote from SMH article Safety fears flagged earlier over make of plane in death crash:
The aircraft that crashed on the NSW south coast while fighting bushfires is the same make of plane aviation investigators had raised safety concerns about seven months ago. The plane's 43-year-old pilot, David Black, died on Thursday morning when his fixed-wing aircraft crashed in rugged terrain while water-bombing a bushfire about 40 kilometres west of Ulladulla. The husband and father of three young children was from Trangie in central NSW. It is the fourth fatal accident in Australia involving an M18 Dromader aircraft since 2006. Of those four, it is the second to have crashed while fighting bushfires. Narromine mayor Bill McAnally said the small Trangie community of 1000 people would feel the loss immensely. ''He was trying to do the right thing, fighting the fires and for something like this to happen - it's just tragic,'' he said. ''We really feel for his family.'' He described Mr Black as a decent, hard-working family man with a big heart. ''It's a great loss to our area because he was a real community man,'' he said. Following the spate of accidents, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau released a report in April that found a range of safety issues arose when Dromader aircraft were flown at take-off weights above 4.2 tonnes. ''The investigation identified several safety issues indirectly arising from the operation of the M18 aircraft at increased weights,'' the bureau's report in April said. ''Though some of these issues were minor in isolation, collectively the increase in risk was more significant.'' The M18 Dromader involved in the latest crash was operated by Rebel Ag in Trangie, and had been contracted to the Rural Fire Service for firefighting efforts. As a result of the investigation earlier this year, Rebel Ag told the bureau it would make a raft of modifications to its aircraft, including fitting vortex generators on their wings. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority subsequently approved the changes. The manager of Rebel Aerial declined to comment on Thursday. Dromader planes are commonly used for crop dusting but are often pressed into fighting bushfires during summer. A bureau spokesman said on Thursday it was important not to pre-judge the accident despite the findings of its report in April. A team of three investigators, including an avionics engineer, were expected to reach the scene of the crash in bushland by early Friday. |
cl415
About time we invested in at least half a dozen cl415's. It surely couldn't be that hard to attach them to a herc squadron. We're going to see lots more of these fires, and likely to occur in distant locations at the same time. Crikey, Greece can even afford them.
|
Montenegro, with its population of 600,000 and air force of 10 aircraft in total can afford two dedicated firefighting aircraft. Why can't we? If cash is that tight, fund it with an insurance levy in high bushfire risk areas.
In the past, at least in NSW, this was more because Koperberg doesn't like aircraft than because aircraft were actually unaffordable. Problem I see with the 215/415 is a lack of lakes to scoop water from, and and in many cases long distances from the coast to the fireground. Despite the smaller capacity of something like an AT-802F compared with a CL-415, given that you'd need to fill the aircraft on the ground 99% of the time anyway, wouldn't the turnaround time be lot faster on an AT-802? There is also already plenty of qualified aircrew for that type. You can also buy several 802F's for the price of a CL-415. |
This is an extract from a Canadair document published when the aircraft was demonstrated in Oz
QI2 Could It Be Useful In Australia ? Australian bush fire fighters will not begin to appreciate the support and increased personal safety the SuperScooper will provide until they work a fire with the planes overhead. Aerial firefighting for bush fires has largely been confined to fixed-wing agricultural aircraft and helicopters, both of which have an important continuing role to play in the fight against bush fires. These aircraft have some very real advantages, but they also have some very real disadvantages, which include limited payload, ground-based operations and flying weather restrictions. While the most effective way to utilize the punch of the SuperScooper is by early detection and rapid response - hitting the fire with a massive drop of Class A fire fighting foam to allow fire fighters direct access to the fire - the aircraft will continue to operate effectively when fire intensity and extreme weather have grounded all other aircraft. The greatest fire threat facing Australia is not amongst the valuable forest plantations scattered around the States, but from the burgeoning urban I bush interface sprawl which was exposed in no uncertain terms during the NSW fires recently. Once the risk was confined to the Adelaide Hills, the Dandenong Ranges, and the Blue Mountains, but it has now become apparent that no urban bush land settlement, whether it be in outskirts of Perth or Brisbane, or in Lane Cove, is exempt from the risk of a high intensity and devastatingly fierce bush fire. Arguments that all aircraft would be grounded during a fire of "Ash Wednesday" intensity are incorrect; extreme weather conditions and high intensity fires are certainly the order of the day, but there are many windows of opportunity during firefighting operations in extreme conditions where the sheer ruggedness of the purpose-built aerial fire fighter enables it to fly and fight. Fire fighters on the ground do not all go home just because the fire intensity is beyond 3OOOkW/m where it is assumed ground forces are ineffective. During the Ash Wednesday fires in South Australia in 1983, Canadair aircraft could have been flying almost continuously- after all, Resue 1, the State Rescue Helicopter, a Bell205, flew around the Adelaide Hills throughout the worst periods. In any event the fundamental purpose of the SuperScooper is to put out bush fires before they rage out of control One of the biggest criticisms of the aircraft is the supposed lack of water sources suitable for scooping. The fact is that there is more scoopable water adjacent to high risk areas (see attached maps) than the detractors would have you believe. In many, many cases, a quick survey of your fire district will indicate that scooping water is available. The combined national firefighting forces which responded to the New South Wales fires could have been very effectively supported by Canadair aircraft. For example, the fire which almost destroyed Winmalee in the Blue Mountains could have been controlled two days before the fire reached the urban area. Scooping from the Nepean river, and with a flying distance of23 kilometers to Mt. Wilson, 2 CL-215's could have dropped at least 188,000 liters of firefighting foam on the fire before nightfall on Thursday, leaving fire crews to trek in to the fire site the next morning to black out the fire completely. Instead, nearly three days passed, with a very risky backburn conducted, before the fire hit Winmalee with terrifying force. To the north, in the Banyabba Nature Reserve, Bush Fire units had to drive for four hours before reaching the fire front whereas two CL-215's could have dropped a conservative 288,000 liters of fire fighting foam per day on the fire. Firefighting in urban fringe areas and in national parks frequently means that fire fighters cannot attack the fire front with safety because it is located in dangerously inaccessible terrain. They are forced to light backburns, which are a big risk in themselves, or wait until it reaches roads and tracks, at which time the intensity is well beyond the ability of ground forces to control. The advantage of initial attack is lost because of the inability to access the fire, and fire fighters watch in frustration and growing fear as the fire approaches homes and threatens lives. It is in these circumstances that the SuperScooper can provide its greatest support; rapid attack with huge quantities of fire suppressant long before the fire threatens lives and properties, enabling fire fighters to extinguish the fire without extreme personal risk. Annex F gives some indication as to the issues that need to be addressed in the event that authorities wish to trial the SuperScooper in Australia. |
Dear Bankrunner;
I'm no expert in purchasing aircraft, it may well be that the cl415 is not the best choice. But you agree, I think, it is time to have dedicated aircraft for bushfire fighting. It seems obvious to me that the Air Force should be running this group. Regarding scooping; there would be precious few areas in Tasmania unsuitable. Second, the current aircraft have to be filled on land, and the cl415 is amphibious. The cl415 has a payload of around twice the Airtractor, it's purpose built, for durability etc, has sufficient power for tight situations. Herc drivers could be endorsed on the aircraft, and integrate the flying missions with their other flying duties. I'm sure the crews would be keen to operate these missions. |
C-17?
|
Great stuff!! Like all inventions, necessity is the mother. This seems a brilliant idea, in it's simplicity and adaptability alone. :D
"If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going." |
Wasn't Col Pay killed while experimenting with a water scoop on an AG aircraft on Lake Liddell. I wonder where this work went, or is someone still carrying on with it?
Re DC10 and bigger fire bombers: Wouldn't their speed cut their time down from the fire to the lake. I'm thinking of The big Lake...Pacific Ocean or Botany bay for the Sydney region being discussed in these fires. I guess you need somewhere for it to stand while a big pump fills it up. The Boeing idea appears sound. a C130 could utilize this idea. |
RFS dont like aircraft cause they work its not a shinny red fire truck wake up smell the roses RFS is a mini emprire building place where the super heros live, sorry guys sad but true and once again im in the know here.:ugh:
|
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..?
|
Yr right...... Closer to the mark than what you think brother. Apparently one can't say those sort of things in our culture though!!!!!
|
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. |
Thanks 601 for the text extract re Canadair CL-415 -
Any chance you have a date for that report and is there an online source for the full document ? |
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... |
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 |
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.
|
Following on from BPA, why not use / Import the Northern Hemisphere aircraft for our summer like the Elvis ?
As opposed to us buying. |
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 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:ok:
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 . |
Just a pic from the RFS
|
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. |
Good video of how the 415 can scoop out of some tight areas in pretty rough conditions. |
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. :rolleyes: 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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by Don_Apron
(Post 8115174)
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. 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. |
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.
|
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. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 13:33. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.