Bushfires.
 

Yeah a massive thank you to all the volunteers on the ground and those supporting from the air. So heartbreaking.

I don't know what aircraft are fighting fires at the moment though if I was the government
I would buy the Beriev BE-200 say get 10 of them. Attached them to the RAAF for training
and logistics. They can scoop 12000L on a touch & go they would put out the front line of a fire storm
quicker than that 737. They can configured to search & rescue, maritime patrol, cargo, transport up to 72 pax.
I think it's an ideal aircraft. Just a suggestion.

Or, as has been raised before...……

A fleet of C-130's 'traded in' by Ronny RAAF, you know, last year';s model, who could, (in my opinion), drop plastic modules filled with water / retardant, via the ramp, directly over the leading edge of said fires.....
a la parachute extraction methods....
We've already paid for the aircraft....Haven't we..?? Just 'donate' them to the State Fire-fighters and have 'Ronny' continue to maintain them...or subby it out if cheaper.

Could have pre-prepared palletised cargo avbl for quick loading / turnaround at nearby regional airport, of which there are plenty in this case….

Yeah, I know....can't litter the country with disposed plastics......NAH! Just let it burn...…

Comments..??

Interesting. Last two days, either no air assets flying or everybody has their XPDR/ADSB turned off. Nothing showing on FlightAware. Same from me, regardless of leadership issues, all the best for everyone today up in NE Vic, Gippsland and Southern NSW. Before this change hits you guys are going to be in for a rough ride. Hope you all keep safe.

More likely, the amateur receivers that feed FlightAware are turned off or have no internet connection.

Has anyone considered that the weather systems associated with the fires may preclude aerial assets?
VFR requirements etc!

didn't they give some away or Qantas aircraft sent for scrap save dollar spend money here

The issue is how they got so big in the first place...Because we don't, as a nation have sufficient assets to stop small fires becoming big fires.

For ScoMo to say "Bushfires are a state issue" shows how little concept he has about the significance of worsening fire seasons. NSW can't afford a fleet of CL-415's (we're too busy building new football stadiums), but Australia happily gives away $4 Billion a year in foreign aid. At today's exchange rate, that's 80 CL-415's. Or 70 if you budget for maintenance & crewing too. Putting 10 at a time in a racetrack dumping onto any fledgling bushfire this season could well have stopped what we've witnessed so far - and we are still a couple months away from the end of the bushfire season, with 1,500+ homes already gone, triple that in outbuildings destroyed and over a dozen dead with twice that still missing. What's the economic cost of all that devastation?

It's all well and good to say "but the 'Murican's are the experts at that kind of thing" and I would agree that that is a true statement. But there is nothing stopping us following in their footsteps instead of continually contracting out the job. We just don't have a government with the will to take ownership of the issue - because footy grounds and better internet in PNG are more important. :mad:

"For ScoMo to say "Bushfires are a state issue" shows how little concept he has"

That is not his opinion, it is in fact the law.

That could be changed, with legislation. Good luck getting that through by this time tomorrow....

As it stands the Feds throw money at the States to contribute to the procurement of aerial assets.

Have a look on JB. Some fire issues discussed outside the aviation arena that have a big effect.

It isn't about getting it through tonight, or tomorrow, it is about getting it through at all! We lost 173 Citizens a decade ago, and we are straight back onto the hamster wheel. Defence is a national issue. As is currency and welfare, yet health and fire suppression? Nope, upto the states to go it alone, and good luck with that...

Not enough to buy their own. NSW has only just now bought one 737. One. Yes they lease other assets as the need arises, but that is because it is a State issue, not a national one. The most numerous aircraft in the aerial firefighting fleet is the venerable Air Tractor.

We have two Hercs, 1 737 and 3 RJ85's, according to the NAFC, though that was only current as at last years fire season. ISTR we have a DC-10 this year as well. More are on the way (now, after a business case lodged 18 months ago by recent reports) and may be here for this season, yes, but 6(7?) "heavy" fixed-wing bombers are not sufficient for a country this size. We need our own fleet, crewed by our own people ready to go, we cannot continually rely on overseas assets, particularly when we do have the resources to take care of things ourselves, if not the political will.

" The most numerous aircraft in the aerial firefighting fleet is the venerable Air Tractor."

8 are sitting idle not 5 minutes from where I sit now. There has been no interest in using them.

However, all the air support in the world means nothing without work on fuel loadings.

Recommendations were made 10 years ago for fuel reduction burns of at least 5% preferably 10% to be made.

Actually more like 1% has been achieved. This warning from a year ago -

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-...ZCRGnYvcbGEJ24

KR, from where do we operate this large fleet of Very Large Air Tankers (VLAT) and CL415's?
An RJ85 or a C130 (Multi Engine Air Tanker - MEAT) may be able to operate from a few Regional Airports, however a B737 or DC10 needs suitable runways and support facilities.
Within Victoria a B737 would be limited to YMML, YMAV, YMES and YMIA. It can't use YMEN because it is above 45 tonne.
Even at B737 speeds Victoria would need several in order to be able to lay an effective retardant line on the flank of a fire from the limited number of suitable aerodromes.
The CL415 needs around 1300m of obstacle free smooth water in order to scoop fill. Victoria doesn't have many such suitable waterways. Most that would normally be suitable, large reservoirs, are at 50% or less capacity.
Back in the 1970's trials were conducted using military C130 fitted with a retardant dispersal, pallet. The trials weren't all that successful.
Perhaps the better option, for Victoria in particular, is to increase the fleet of AT802A and AT802F Single Engine Air Tankers (SEAT). This should be coupled with the acquisition of more large helicopters: S61, S64, or utilize the fleet of B412 that exist in country.
SEATs and helicopters can operate from just about anywhere and should be used for initial knockdown of small fires, ie don't let them become large fires.
It has been said many times that aerial firefighting is just another asset (tool), along with manpower, tankers and earth moving equipment used to fight fires.
It has also been said that fire bombers make great television, but they do not put out fires.
RG

And, some of the public needs to take a long hard look at themselves -

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d5421390a2.jpg

and keep current

And yet each evening VH-LAB can be seen surveying the very same areas?

https://www.flightradar24.com/FSCN125/2368baec

That shouldn't be the prevailing attitude in that regard right now, methinks.

Not a pilot but I live in a country with a number of CL-215/415. I need to point out currently there is no production line for CL-415. There are thoughts about a 515 and the Japanese have an aircraft suitable but I am not sure about production capacity. For Australian size the Be-200 is much better due to higher speed and water scooping capability.

Last time I looked, one could still take on a fire until the relevant authority took control of the incident.

Which seems appropriate.

Sunfish
Surely a 'state of emergency' could ban recreational use of waterways to allow firefighters to do their job?
Or are the Aussies so stupid they would put recreation before their country??

I am suprised to read that company who own the 747 Supertanker in Colorado have been in contact with Australian officials and say they are ready to go if they are needed ? I would have been down this avenue weeks ago.

There is a simple reason the fires are so big.
One word - FUEL.

Amen to that.

You are simply wrong. This is a more complex take on the problem.

https://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2019-...fires/11817336

People hate to hear it but climate change is a significant factor. Fires are going through areas that were cleared not long ago and even re-crossing burnt areas multiple times. The heat, humidity and drought are burning with a ferocity that is igniting the whole forest from to to bottom in one hit. Hazard reduction achieves nothing in those circumstances.

Hazard
​​​reduction burns are being done but the window of opportunity to do these is continually shrinking. Look at the time of year these fires started.

Would you rather be in / adjacent to an area that had hazard reduction or an area that did not at present?

Put simply, do you want a big fire or a small one?

That wasn't a simple question, it was a rhetorical question with a simple premise for a complex problem. Read the link I provided.

Yes, read it a while back.

Your rhetorical question was addressed with a Royal Commission after Black Saturday.

Here is a warning on the subject from a year ago.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-...ZCRGnYvcbGEJ24

An Ag Rating on it’s own is currently useless for getting a job fighting fires if you’re an Aussie on fixed-wing. 1,000 hours of Ag flying is the requirement, which will take a good number or years to log. There isn’t so much Ag work around these days.
I suspect in years to come most of the fire-fighting pilots in Australia will be from overseas, as the 1,000 hours of Ag isn’t required of them - or maybe CASA will make a Fire-Fighting Rating that bypasses Ag ?