Fire Bombers
 

There are CL415 Water Bombers sitting on the ground in the winter off-season all over southern Europe right now.

Why on earth cant our government arrange an exchange of hemispheres for these aircraft with the seasons?

Alternatively in RAAF or RAN service or equally in Surveillance and Rescue.

Yes, I know that it was attempted some years ago for profit, but lets forget about that and look at the real costs of the few recent bushfire seasons and things possibly getting hotter and drier?

It's not the profit angle, it's the lack of suitable areas to pick up water in Australia. Not many lakes in the Blue Mountains or anywhere in the Great Dividing Range where many fires are.

Warragamba Dam and the Pacifc Ocean don't count? Or is saltwater a non starter?

Not to mention the lakes on the central coast, which in WWII had flying boats operating off them.

Canadair did a study on this back in the 80s.
See this post.
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ml#post8116228

Approx 5nm SW of Lithgow is Lake Lyall. I don't know if it and the surrounding terrain would allow aviation fire-fighting but I'd be quite confident that the relevant authorities would have had it examined.

I didnt realise that there were others talking about this very topic on the other firefighting thread. Others had picked up on this before I and have made very good points there.

I only opened this thread because I passed through a European airport the other day and saw 6 CL415s sitting idle on the ground while NSW was engulfed in flames with no respite in sight.

I thought it is yet another national embarrassment (along the lines of my pet grievances of everything is for profit in Australia, public infrastructure in private or banks hands and the banal beauracracy of aviation that is driving us to the wall) that we had nothing similar given the environment we live in and the future direction of weather problems.

A lack of suitable water bodies with respect is a red herring - these aircraft are amphibious and could eaily be refilled still reasonable quickly on the ground by water tankers which are cleverly deployed.

What is lacking is the fortitude and strength of leadership in our country.

We need a strong purpose built aircraft, not some old hacks that put people at unfair risk.


It should not be a question of operation for profit, and there should be no question of CASA placing banal beauracratic hurdles or reinventing the wheel.

It should be a case of: Others do it successfully, lets make it happen here too for the benefit of the people.

Forget they're float planes. Plenty of airstrips and tankers to fill them up...

Quite a number of civil Spanish firebombers go to Chile in the winter the rest just go for maintenance and storage.

I would check it over the next weekend, but I am fairly sure that Greek CL (both 215 & 415) are down for maintenance during winter months.

And I also thing about the issues about terrain familiarity and for the CL-215 I doubt they can do the trip without some heavy maintenance in the middle of it.


Rwy in Sight

Well then, what about a couple of these based, say at Richmond or Canberra, where they could do the whole of the J Curve in a couple of hours.





Its about time they got serious about fire fighting and aviation in Australia

A friend of mine drives CL215's and they've ferried them from Canada to Turkey and back. There is a conversion of the CL215 to CL215T replacing the radials with turbines.

Typical here however, the emergency will be over and the pollies/bureaucrats all go back to sleep until the next one.

If you have a look at the places recently where we've had significant loss of property and/or life, there has always been water relatively close by- close enough for a CL type option to be quite viable. Lake Eildon wasn't that far from the Victorian bush fires, Warragamba for the Blue Mountains fires, lots of lakes for the central coast fires, Lake Burley Griffin for the Canberra fires although there may be a question there over depth?

Even if they take 30 minutes to do a round trip from the fire front to the water supply, the amount of water they can put on the fire is enough to alter fire behaviour. In many cases they will alter fire behaviour more in one drop than a helicopter will flying multiple smaller drops but with more water over the same time frame.

When you then have 2-3 (or more) of these things working in concert, it can be a very significant force multiplier.

Evergreen don't say anything about filling the 747, but it seems to imply that it fills on the runway. The requirement for a 2500m runway is slightly restrictive, but with a 747 cruise speed it should be feasible to run out of capital city or military airports. They say it holds 78,000 litres. I think that might be equivalent to 23 Dromader flights. I can imagine the logistics of filling rapidly might be complex. That might be 3 semi-trailer tankers on the ground and they seem to add retardant chemicals.

On the other hand, it can basically get here from the US overnight.

bigger/heavier aircraft can more easily operate in higher wind conditions. The Firecats [modified S-2] and older B-26's etc had better crosswind limits for a start when AT's are effectively grounded.

I guess what works is a combo of heavy and lighter fixed and rotary wing machines. The mindset in OZ is one or the other....reality is both!

AT's were working last week in 50 knots plus, load is similar with both old twins mentioned to an 802.

Re RAAF participation in the recent bushfire problem - this is the RAAF magazine 'Airforce', article....

Defence Newspapers | Air Force

Cheers:ok:

50 knots crosswind? :eek:

Firecats
 

Meanwhile, we retired 16 S-2s in the 1980's and left them to rot. Now they've been purchased by a foreign company for, I am led to believe, conversion to Firecats... aren't we such a smart country..?

Now, cue all the vested-intrest operators and blinkered senior fire staff telling us why they can single handedly save the world with a bunch of Air Tractors :rolleyes:

Vested interest? You are looking at least 3 million per aircraft for conversion without any work on airframe corrosion/AD updates. Have you seen the Trackers in the last couple of years? They are being sold for scrap not as going aircraft. A Firecat has a similar load to 802's, can't operate on anything apart from tar runways and has well over twice the operating cost. Trojan, you going to donate the 20 or 25 million required to convert and get airworthy half a dozen aircraft?

Neville,

Those aircranes (only 3 of them) cost; (these figures are 5 years old and where quoted to me by one of the crew)

10,000 per day each just to be in oz
10,000 per hr if they go flying.

They are here for about 100-150 days/yr that works out to be 150 *30000 = 4.5mil per season just to be in Oz....if they go flying its more.

Now add the operating costs of all the jetrangers/airtractors and anything else that can carry water and the cost you quote to convert the trackers would only amount to about the total one season fire fighting cost...not that much really.

They have been here every season for at least a decade...thats about 45mil spent so far...just on 3 helicopters...

I know 20-25 mil sounds like a lot....but if it gets 8-10 aircraft going of that capacity it probably isn't wasted money.

What needs to be considered is cost vs benefit. I really don't know how effective they would be. They seem to be effective overseas in similar environments, so I am of the opinion it would not be money wasted. I am not an expert of fixed wing firebombing.

I am just trying to say that the money argument for not doing it, is kind of void if you compare it to how much money we are already spending figting fires....but they have to be effective.

This assumes the Trackers are also capable of being made airworthy. Something I suspect they are not.....they have been sitting there for an awfully long time.

Alpha

Different missions for Aircranes and fixed wing, both have strong points. It's not an either or, there are uses for both.
As for those prices, I've heard just over double that for Crane hire.

The 802 is a capable machine for sure, though lacking in performance and very strip hungry when that tank is full, not something that would have been a problem in the Firecat (which can operate from gravel strips btw). Also, many operators are bringing 602s and Droms, not 802s.

The Trackers were also owned by the govt until 1994. The air and ground crews were in government employ until the mid eighties and there was a significant stock of spares. They are all very low time airframes and could have quite easily been converted for fire-fighting work back then (before the 802 even existed).

I wonder what the total cost of bushfire has been since then? It would be in the tens of billions, and the cost of conversion of a fleet of dedicated bombers (with further assistance provided by smaller operators) would pale into insignificance.

As an aside, most of the helicopters are actually cheaper than the rates I have seen here. The ADF has a stupid way of costing it's assets, that sees a Black Hawk costed at around $27k per hour for example. But most medium water bombing helicopters (Bell 214, Dauphin and UH-1 for example) are $5-6k per hour to the tasking authority. If a fire is near a water source or on the coast (whether urban area or not) the rate of wet stuff on hot stuff can be much higher using these machines than in any fixed wing. I'd bet it's probably even better (for a given cost) than you'd get using the Evergreen 747!

Neville N.
Yes I have seen them in the last couple of years.Have you?
Two of us did a survey for a potential purchaser about 2 or 3 years ago. All but 1 have been hangared for a number of years.There may be reasons for not converting them but I doubt if corrosion (except for the one in the open) is a factor.

Whatever was the case for the Trackers, the current light aircraft, helicopters and red trucks is not working.As I said on another thread on this subject, I was at Springwood when the fire broke out. There was about a 2 hour window to stop it. It is now history that the current system didn't stop it. So do we do the usual and say, well we were all very brave and pat everyone on the back or do we look at a better way?

And we can look at the real picture, not the fuzzy furry one and admit that this inaction did cost lives as well as terrible property loss. In the complex that my parents live in, 4 persons died during and immediately after their evacuation. Yes they were elderly but if they had died as a result of a medical procedure there would have been an investigation.There were 3 other hospices and hostels also evacuated in Springwood. I wonder how many more died and are being quietly swept under the carpet while no one does anything about a better system? As previously mentioned in this and other threads on this subject there are too many entrenched interests.

Wunwing

Yes Wunwing I have seen them and it was around the time you did. I have read people seem to think that ITAR's limit the Trackers to scrap.

Armchair experts abound, every one has an answer.
Despite what you say there is a limit to what Governments/Organisations have to spend.

As far as particular fire events every one is individual, the people tasked (Paid or volunteer) to fight fires do so to the very best of their ability.
There are weather events that when occur influence fires in such a way that we are just observers.

Wunwing I agree with you.

Neville,
The government has had more than enough cash to make this happen. Significant savings can be realized simply by more efficient use of assets. I'm not sure who you're referring to with the armchair experts comment, but it's a clear miss in this case. I am a volunteer firefighter (and previously SES for 12 years), former bushfire pilot and a former military and civilian Aircrewman. I have no axe to grind. I do however believe the current system, while a vast improvement on previous years, is not working.

The government needs to step up its commitment to prevention and combat of bushfire and natural disasters more generally. The ADF has the equipment to conduct water bombing operations, but has not trained with it for years. The 'operational commitments' argument doesn't hold water, because large parts of the organization do very little of operational value and the return for the number of assets and logistic support base is very low.

In my opinion, in a nation that is so prone to natural disasters, and with such vast distances to cover, a dedicated fleet is required to meet our response obligations. Not only that, but we should be leading the world in the development of new techniques and technology. While the individuals involved in emergency response to an amazing job, at the moment we are letting them, and the wider public down.

Trojan
So did you fly radial or turbine Droms or were you in 802's? What do you think of the Victorian tasking and use of assets compared to other states like WA and SA? Did you notice much difference between NSW and Vic ops?

I'm not an ag pilot. My bushfire aviation experience is rotary (crewman) and fixed-wing spotters/birdogs (pilot). Many of my current and former colleagues are fixed and rotary wing ag/bomber pilots and crewmen. Vollie work is in addition to the above. Many others are very senior emergency management staff in the NSW and WA combat agencies. I've also been responsible for providing aviation emergency response assets to government, though for contractual reasons Im not going to elaborate on that.

Like I said, no axe to grind. The people who formulate the actions plans for these operations are not pilots, the 'experts' they often consult are usually not pilots. Some of the senior EM staff in NSW RFS are not even firefighters!

What about yourself, what's your angle? I take it you are an ag pilot?

I have a good friend who is

Last night I went looking for what happened to the now defunct Aero Union fleet of P3 Orion, fire bombers.The answer is that they have been purchased by an aircraft wrecking company.

I also came across a 2012 article about the Canadian company, Airspray, who have a fleet of L188 fire bombers using the old Aero Union facility to convert a Bae 146 aircraft to a fire bomber. In the article the Airspray rep stated that they were looking for contract work in the southern hemisphere for the next season (2013?)for the Bae aircraft.

Looks like they didn't sell their product or someone here ignored their offer?

Anyone know what happened to the Hookway,Sale Trackers?

Wunwing

That's very interesting wunwing. As you probably already know, the 146 can operate from relatively short, unpaved airstrips and is remarkably easy to support (although getting on a bit). I wonder if the option was ever investigated?

Have the Trackers been sold?

The Bae 146 is the newest of the converted fire bombers. Years younger than the CV580s, Trackers, Neptunes and the L188s which make up the majority of the worlds non amphibian large aircraft fire fleet.

Maybe this is the way we should go? There is certainly enough operations and engineering know how here for the aircraft type.

Wunwing

A ) large fire = arm chair aviation/fire experts come out
B ) Arm chair experts with many years of aviation fire fighting experience always talk about these large planes.....

I am sorry but big does not mean that they are going to work here in Australia.
There is also an issue with Incident controllers not calling in resources quick enough to stop a fire. QLD,SA,WA never seem to have huge fires in their metro areas. Only VIC/NSW/ACT appear to. So what are those states doing well?

The trackers have been sold to a company in the states. I have been lead to believe that it is for parts only. (I am happy to be corrected)

Agree.

The equipment here is well suited, indeed purpose built for the task in many/most cases.

How it is deployed...:hmm:


PS declare I have no vested interest in the matter

I assume that I am by your definition an 'armchair expert" and I'll wear that but in the case of the Springwood fire I was at the scene minutes after it started. What I saw was a small fire turn into a big one and a scene of vehicle gridlock and complete chaos along the one road in and out of Winmalee.

I don't claim to know much about bushfires but I do know a bit about aircraft and flying. Given the typical scenario of gridlock it seems to me the best way to deliver a big fire knockdown is aviation based and I dont mean a few small helos with buckets.I mean something that can deliver 20 tons at one go followed by rapid similar drops.

I was having a meal last night with a very experienced Blue Mountains fire fighter and he brought up this subject. He played down our Springwood experience but agreed the Lithgow fire would have been well served by a large water drop.I suspect if he had seen what we saw he may have a different view on Springwood as well.

Again I say if what we are currently doing is so successful, why did we have this series of recent disasters. The Springwood damage bill alone would pay for years of running 3 or 4 heavy fire bombers.I dont understand why big seems to work in the rest of the world but we are different.

I've seen the fires in California and that was definitely deep valleys and eucalypts.Why are we different, maybe the Coriolis effect?

Wunwing

Because the equipment is deployed too little, too late.

And because the equipment itself is too little

Once again we come across the seed of the issue. Initial attack. Hit it hard, hit it early.
Its always easier to put out a small fire than to fight an inferno for weeks on end.
Who cares if the responce to a new / small fire is heavy handed or over gunned.

The savings are to be made in the what could have been scenarios.
Opportunity is what allows a small fire to get out of hand.

Agreed.

Too little, too late, often not for days at a time.

If the equipment here is so inadequate, why are elements of it rotated to the northern hemisphere for their fire season?

Why are the aircraft held back till conditions exist where nothing is effective?

The aircraft should be deployed when/where they will do the most good...