From Airlines to Firebombing - Really?
 

https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-an...0200914-p55vgq

Which one is it? Is it arrogance or ignorance to think airline pilots have the skillset to move across to firebombing with minimal re-training?

So highly experienced Pilots can’t apply then? Only X Fighter Pilots, Bomber Pilots and Space shuttle Pilots?

What about X Air Force One Pilots, would they have the required experience for you?

oh ok.

it’s not like the current Fire Bombing Pilots have never made a mistake is it......

No it’s more like you think we’d be coming in and taking someone else’s ( your? ) job? Is that it?

You cannot put anyone in aviation in a box. Airline pilots come from all parts of aviation and people have some pretty amazing experience. Test Pilots, Fighter Pilots, Survey Pilots, SAR, RFDS etc etc

It would be much quicker to start with to hire a current 737 pilot to fly a 737 water bomber than anyone from GA regardless of experience.

Couldn't read beyond the paywall, but what is the availability of larger firebombers, especially if the goal is to have australian registered fleet with local crews? The article begins with stating the existence of choppers and smaller ac and lack of larger ac. Even though there are pilots available (I am not taking any opinion on the firebombing readiness), is there anything to fly for 20/21 season? I would imagine it would take too long to convert freighters/airliners for the job to make the season.

It depends on the person And their background, most don’t. Some will for sure.

The assumption being there will be any work.

Hard to envisage after last seasons catch up in hazard reduction...

As big as it was it was a drop in the ocean!

Squawk is right. Plenty more inflammable real estate. We did our mandatory burn over training exercises today. Mr. Summer will be with us sooner than we think.

I guess all airline pilots are just button pushing, autopilot babysitting children of the magenta huh? Not “real” pilots? Couldn’t possibly be tasked, with some additional training, to operate the aircraft they have probably 1000’s of hours on in a different role huh?

Aircraft types used in the National Aerial Firefighting Fleet include RJ85, 737, King Airs and Learjets for scanning. Q400s and 747s have been used overseas. No doubt there’d be endorsed Australian pilots on the above types who are currently stood down. Some training required for the task yes, but less I’d imagine than taking a current bomber pilot on an Air Tractor and training them to fly a 747. You’ve got ready to go people with plenty of time on type ready and willing to crew a service we need in this country. The AFAP head is quite right.

Some people like to think what they do is unique! No one could possibly do what I do.
Aviation is all encompassing. Once you have your head around the basics and gain some experience,
there are many paths available to you.
It’s not that hard, and most readily adapt to the different opportunities.

A very highly experienced (both time on type and exposure to fire bombing operations) crew lost their lives this season in a well maintained and capable aircraft. You’d be hard pressed to find a better crew/aircraft combination in the world.

And you think it’ll be “minimal” training.

Sure.

I have known several former USN P3 pilots that transitioned from their age 60 airline jobs over to fire fighting spectrum. Not aware of any issues, but then I was not in the cockpit with them.

It’s very easy to bring that up as a throw-away line to harden a point of view and if anyone were to post back right now with what truly happened (before the report was released) there would be a barrage of comment world wide.

The best way to summarise this tragedy and how it is at all relevant to this discussion, would be to say... do you ever see airline crew tasked to fly from Melbourne to Sydney, performing a flyby of the Canberra tower on the way past?

Why does an airline pilot need to have a skillet to do firebombing? Do they also have to cook breakfast?

No not “minimal”, additional training to the required standard. They’ve already got the experience on type. All it takes is CASA to amend the rules which currently make it the domain of former ag pilots. Maybe there is resistance from some in that community who want it to remain a closed shop

Interestingly helicopter firefighting pilots are not required to have former aerial application (ag) experience before gaining a firefighting endorsement as far as I can see.

You’ve got probably a thousand pilots who are currently not working in this country who would be up to the task of being able to be trained for this service if the Federal Government and CASA got on board. I don’t see why anyone posting on this site wouldn’t want to kill two birds with one stone (provide Australia with this essential service and provide employment for many of our stood down colleagues). It does seem there is some sneering going on at “autopilot babysitting” airline pilots who possibly couldn’t do anything more than watch an autopilot from 10 seconds after take off to ten seconds before landing.

I agree with you fully, with the right training it could be done. The article though indicated it would be minimal training, which just wouldn’t be true. I’m not an Ag pilot, but I know many and to operate in that environment at low level is demanding, add a heap of other aeroplanes, **** house vis and usually large amounts of heat and you suddenly have a very different experience than what is usual for an airline crew.

Of course people can be trained, and I’m sure if anyone wanted to do it full time for the rest of their careers (or for an extended stint), you could go out and grab it. A casual gig for a season while covid (terribly) has ****** over the aviation sector? Not realistic IMHO. You’d spend most of the season being a training burden, and hopefully (because as you’ve suggested, what we ALL want is a return to normality for aviation as a whole) back at an airline within a year or two. There are people in airline with previous relevant experience that might be easier to train, so there isn’t a one size fits all answer.

I think the comment that would (has) rubbed people in the wrong way in that line of work the wrong way potentially is “minimal training.” With thousands of hours on type, of course with suitable training you could make it work, airline pilots aren’t just button pushers (that should be obvious to anyone). But it wouldn’t be a two week course and a check to line!

It’s also really a pointless discussion to have, the positions are filled by the contractor. There aren’t any vacant seats available.

It's interesting that all of the replies so far (including my own) reflect no actual firefighting experience.
Given that it is a foreign company flying a N registered aircraft I would think that the first plan of action for any aspiring aerial firefighter would be to ensure they have the required license suitable to the employer, the required endorsement for low level ops suitable to the employer and put in an application to the employer.
Declaring that "this is my country and I am entitled to a job regardless of real time experience or license's" made me more than a little uncomfortable when I read it in the Sunday Mail this morning.
Unemployment does not give you priority on the list of most suitable candidates.
I am pretty sure that the pilots who have been firefighting safely for years would take this attitude as a slight on their training and professionalism.

I think most of the lot on this thread and lurking would have to demonstrate the ability to fly a simple VFR pattern after a runway change and a constant rate of descent to landing without gyrations with creating magenta line final with the FMS and without Flight Director and autothrottles.

I see the wreckage created by today's training at my US Legacy Carrier in the Sim and in real life when it comes to anything outside the magenta line with a Flight Director and autothrottles. To say there is a possible transfer of skills is near laughable.

P3 pilots were mentioned. Those guys were used to flying a couple hundred feet above the ocean with 2 engines shut down in a airplane that probably had half of it's equipment inop or screwed up..

I think the whole point of AFAP’s position (which is in common with what many emergency services groups are saying) is in the long term last summer will become the norm not an exception. Fire seasons are overlapping with the northern hemisphere so we can’t rely on them to provide the bulk of the larger aircraft. It’s time to combine Australia’s firefighting and aviation expertise to create our own national aerial firefighting service, and not rely on northern hemisphere contractors. Jobs for Aussies and all that. Australian registered aircraft, Australian pilots, we control them.

Now the currently stood down pilots may be able to be used in later seasons if they choose so, but more firefighting pilots definitely be needed in the future. Don’t think for one second that last summer was an anomaly. It’s a threat this country is going to face for the majority of future years, we have a lot of money and resources spent on services to drop real bombs on threats that have very rarely been employed over time, whereas bushfires will threaten this country every 5/6 months for most years into the future, yet we seem to want to a bare minimum effort with overseas contractors. Doesn’t make sense?

Boy there’s some crap in here.......most Pilots experienced on type with thousands of hours in the Aircraft and the Sim would have very little difficulty learning to drop fire retardant AFTER a suitable amount of training on the ground and air and appropriate testing.....
Sure, not all would be suitable at it but most would have the ability to adapt and survive in what is a hostile environment for sure....

Obviously they should be rostered as FO for a while with an experienced CN to learn the ropes, I’m not suggesting we stick 2 newbie Airline Pilots together...!!

So some here are saying that 10,000 hours experience ( sometimes even on type ) counts for nothing? Really?

I’ve had about 20 years of fire ops in east coast states, starting back in the late 80s when we learned On The Job, so there’s a little bit of experience to refer to.

We all have to start somewhere and there have been numerous missed opportunities for a solid home owned and operated aerial firefighting to be set up and nurtured. Time and again the cheap and easy choice has been made by officials to engage overseas operators rather than nurture ‘our own’ and keep the money and experience here in Australia. We missed out on setting up our own S-64 Aircrane fleet back in the late 90s, and have spent more since on bringing in N Reg machines than we would ever have outlaid on a fleet of new machines (as did the Italians). Operators such as Kestrel have battled hard to get night ops up and approved, forever slowed down by the CASA and achieved so much despite the obstacles put in their way. McDermotts have a great setup of Helitacks all on P2 or N registrations which allow them to go overseas and Make Money, a virtual impossibility with any VH machine.

So why can’t or won’t we allow Australian pilots to get a foot in the overseas dominated door of LAT and VLAT ops? Why should aircraft pilot be an approved occupation for migrants; it certainly wasn’t some 40 years ago? The skill levels must be there, and the requirements certainly in place to meet the demands of the job; helicopter pilots must have ag/low level endorsement to be allowed out on fire ops (Helitack and Firebird) so I’d expect similar requirements for plank drivers to get onto the fireground. Minimum hours are also required (100 last time I looked) so it’s not as if Capt Bloggs is going to jump into a LAT without being thoroughly trained.

And my pet irrit has long been the so-called Free Trade Agreement with the USA, where no-one, not even the Canadians, can operate on their own register on fires in the US. All have to be N Reg.

Yet we roll over and let them into Australia with only a requirement for an Australian AOC, watching a vast amount of money and experience drift away at the expense of every Australian taxpayer.

Quite incorrect; no helicopter pilot is allowed on any Australian fire operation without ag/low level endorsement and minimum hours on type and on fireops.

There is no such thing as a firefighting endorsement.

CASA 56/18 — Flight Training (Aeroplane Firefighting Endorsement) Approval 2018

Politics, the government doesn’t want to invest in it. They’d rather spend money elsewhere.

it isn’t just AFAP, emergency service chiefs have been campaigning for more water bombers since before last fire season. Looks like their pleas are still falling on deaf ears.

Although I was referencing helicopter ops, you are quite right as there's a similar instrument for rotary drivers. Nonetheless, the requirement for the low level segment of the ag (or mustering) endorsement was always a requirement for helicopter ops; it is now covered in 57/18 Part 5.3.b and Schedule 1.

Re: Buying Overseas Vs. Developing our own talents.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. We suffer from the ANU over educated idiots who populate the Canberra bureaucracy. They kill 99.999% of every Australian initiative or innovation all the time. The reason is that what they were taught in Economics 101 about competitive advantage and economics of scale is utter bull**** and has been for at least the last 60 years.

"Competitive advantage" is a term for having some geographic, social or economic advantage over other producers that results in your industry being more efficient and profitable than other peoples. This is often to do with "input costs'.

"Economies of scale" is to do with absorbing the initial investment (referred to as setup costs) in producing something over more units than the next guy. This means a lower unit cost.

The examples quoted in the texts are the American Auto industry - huge economies of scale. The Chicago meat packers grow cattle > rail to chicago > kill and fit into tins > rail to New York.

However these and other examples are sixty years out of date and in a modern context, just plain wrong. For example the entire technology thrust in the auro industry for the last sixty years is to reduce setup costs so that economic order quantity = 1 not 10,000! This is what, among other things, Kanban and CNC machine tools is all about.

Same with competitive advantage - transport costs these days are minimal, the internet has shrunk the planet and the idea for example that our primary products (e.g wool) had to be processed in England is way past its use by date.

So how is this relevant? Simple ANU graduates were taught:

- Australia only has competitive advantage in mining and agriculture, we are a quarry and a farm, period. The downside of this is that we are price takers as our commodities are traded internationally.

- Australia is too small to have economies of scale in manufacturing anything at all. The corollary to this is that any manufactured goods from overseas are always cheaper and better value.

- The deduction from these two outdated principles is that forcing miners and farmers to buy anything local reduces their profitability.

* For these "logical reasons" the Mandarins in Canberra have implacably opposed ANY manufacturing or other initiative in the Australian economy because it might "hurt our farmers or miners".

That is why:

-the Victa airtourer business was allowed to be destroyed.

- The Nomad was scrapped.

- Gippsland Airvan had to be sold.

- Ansett wasnt rescued (we don't have a big enough market for two airlines - economies of scale again).

- Our car industry was closed.

- Etc. You lose count.

But wait! There's more! Not only do the bureaucrats believe all these things and act accordingly, it gets worse!

Should some Australian secondary industry succeed in developing something competitive and thriving, the bureaucrats are enraged and try to kill it because it isn't supposed to be possible! The thinking goes that if Australian xyz company is designing making and selling digital thronomisters around the world, then we must be subsidising them in some way, because this can't happen! Therefore they do what they can to shut them down, starting by the Federal Government ignoring the local product and buying overseas. This is what happened to the RAAF Wamira trainer project (sort of).

So despite Australia being bushfire central there is not a hope in hell that the Australian Government, or any state government is going to support a local capability. The Mandarins in Canberra will tell them its uneconomic and to buy from overseas for the reasons I've elucidated.

Same thing is happening now to the alternative solar energy industry. We should be world leaders, but not if Can'tberra has its way.

The US large air tanker fleet , apart from some units in California, are owned by companies that bid for contracts with the USFS, CDF and other agencies. The US does not provide funding apart from these contracts. In Canada some states own a few CL215T/415's and the rest are private companies on contracts.

The notion here is that we ask the government/s to pay do everything. Re the AFAP cry, those making the statements that Aussie fires should be fought by Aussie crews and assets simply do not understand the intense training and experience required to operate large air tankers in the fire zone. It takes years to become a Captain for example so thousands of hours peddling a Boeing or Airbus anything speeding between 4/5 star hotels isn't the background for this. These fire guys are more akin to fighter pilots not transport types.

McDermott Helicopters has proven the case for private helicopter fire operations and sends aircraft all over the world to fight fires so we do have capabilities here.

John Eacott - great to hear from somebody in the business long-term. Good points. Totally agree with Sunfish about or disgraceful lack of support for homegrown enterprises, what's wrong with us? TBM that generalisation about airline pilots is nonsense. As Spooky 2 said, airline pilots over the age of 60 in the US make that transition and we are no different here - depends on the individual. Certainly this airline pilot nearing 60 was bored silly and keen too be involved in something worthwhile for the country. I had written this article for submission to either The Australian of the Fairfax press and haven't submitted it yet. Naive and slightly simplistic perhaps but we need to do something about this firefighting and have the ability to do it from within. Just needs major political support. We have the people and the brains and unfortunately the fires.

.............

Australia must urgently review its aerial firefighting administration.

For years, on a state-by-state basis, amongst a random array of aircraft we have relied on the seasonal importation from the United States of the effective Erickson Aircrane helicopters to fight these fires.

One can never forget the appreciation of a resident whose house was about to be engulfed by flames. Looking up to the heavens he saw ‘Elvis’ emerging from the smoke, dousing the flames, saving his house and possibly his life.

Recently, we have also imported larger, fixed-wing aircraft such as the BAe 146 and Douglas DC-10.

Rather than relying on imported aircraft, the New South Wales government recently acquired a converted Boeing 737 as a dedicated water bomber. Ex-airline aircraft such as the midsize McDonnell Douglas MD-80 and DC-10 or the Boeing 747 very large air tanker are becoming the standard for aerial firefighting. The 747 can carry seventy-two thousand litres of retardant, released in seven partial drops or one massive deployment.

The great benefit of these larger airframes is they are cheaper to acquire than new aircraft and fast. They are able to reach anywhere between Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide in under two hours and within minutes if based locally.

Current firefighting strategy thus firstly involves smaller aircraft such as helicopters and modified crop dusters dropping retardant directly onto the flames. Secondly, the larger tanker aircraft drop a non-combustible line of retardant ahead of an oncoming fire.

This can mean the difference between a town surviving or being engulfed in an inferno.

In North America, aircraft such as the purpose-built Canadiar CL-215 floatplane utilise North America’s massive system of lakes to scoop six thousand litres of water in less than twenty seconds, then dumping this onto nearby fires.

In Australia, that readily available fresh water is unavailable. Our aircraft primarily operate from fixed bases, using tank water or retardant. Salt water can be used with associated operational and environmental restrictions.

Australia currently employs a state by state approach to aerial firefighting, many of the aircraft being charted from commercial operators. Some intra-state liaison of firefighting assets is overseen by the National Aerial Firefighting Centre.

With increasingly widespread fire outbreaks, there will always be the need for private sector involvement. However, with mega events such as these latest blazes and the Black Saturday and Ash Wednesday fires, there is an urgent need to establish a dedicated, RAAF-like, national aerial firefighting authority.

This autonomous department needs its own fleet of helicopters, small and large fixed-wing fire detecting and firebombing aircraft and its own crew and facilities.

These aircraft must be rapidly deployable across the nation and the region.

When not in use in Australia, the fleet can potentially be leased to countries such as Indonesia. International firefighting will unfortunately become a growth industry.

Accompanying this fleet, we need to quickly establish dedicated facilities at airports nationwide. These large and small airstrips must have rapid-refill water and retardant tanks, fully stocked and ready to deploy at any time. This will minimise turnaround times for both the large and small aircraft and maximise deployment efficiency.

Some of this infrastructure is already operational. The smaller single engine tanker aircraft and helicopters already operate from unimproved airstrips nationwide and do an excellent job.

However a concerted effort must be made to establish an integrated system of large paved and smaller unprepared private and public airstrips, with tanking facilities available at short notice, overseen by one national authority.

If the need be, uncooperative local councils should be overridden in the national interest. This is a wartime-like operational necessity and there can be no place for agenda-driven councils.

As bushfires survivors repeatedly state, this is a war.

The aircraft and air bases can be established relatively quickly and affordably. Certainly far more affordably than the emotional and financial human and property costs resulting from not attacking this issue with urgency.

The large tanker aircraft are not new, being retired airliners. Their conversion to tanker status can be undertaken locally, benefiting local industry.

Larger airports need not be constructed from scratch, they already exist. Near Brisbane there is Amberley RAAF airbase and the expanding but under utilised Sunshine Coast domestic airport.

The Sydney basin is slightly more problematic, having recently seen the closure of smaller airfields such as Hoxton Park and Schofields. Only the RAAF bases at Richmond and Williamstown and potentially the smaller airport at Albion Park near Wollongong have runways of sufficient length. Now is the perfect time to plan for a dedicated facility at the new Western Sydney Airport.

Melbourne has Avalon Airport to the south and Mangalore to the north.

With fires becoming more destructive each season, communities near these airports will appreciate that they have a facility able to defend their houses, businesses and lives from devastation.

Blame for the cause of the fires is a long-term game. We do not have the luxury of time.

Establishing a centralised, well equipped, rapid response aerial firefighting team, free from political partisanship is the fastest way to defend ourselves from these awful fires.

There’s nothing stopping our current government from starting to develop that skill set and operational knowledge base now. We’ve had public run or government contracted services like Coastwatch, Maritime Search and Rescue, Police Air Wing, military etc in this country, and it wouldn’t be beyond the realm of possibility for a National Aerial Firefighting Service to be created, either fully government run or a private contractor supplying Australian aircraft and crew under Australian Government control, and brought up to operational standards within a period of time (drawing on the knowledge base of local and overseas experts).

With Northern Hemisphere Fire seasons extending as late as December and Australian bushfire seasons now starting as early as August the use of foreign assets can’t be sustained long term. Yes it’ll take a few years to get it up and running but it isn’t like this problem is going to go away. It just takes some political will to get it started, which doesn’t exist at the moment.

Al E. Vator thanks for the comment, but I don't claim to be completely up-to-date as I've already demonstrated!

A couple of points; the troops at the frontline were expressing concerns about reaction times and about overseas machines in the 90s, so for 'leaders' to come along with almost grandstanding attacks asking for the same some 20+ years later, impresses no-one except the professionally outraged.

What we need IMO is not necessarily a Government operation but Government support for home grown industries. We should be denying N reg operators access to our contracts until they allow VH reg access to theirs, as should be the case with our Free Trade Agreement. The major operators would soon scream to their Congressmen, etc, when a significant revenue source is threatened. McDermott are a prime example of an Australian operator doing well, but only with all machines N Reg for use in the States. I'm sure that the likes of Kestrel would also be in a better position to employ their machines year round, instead of only during the Australian fire season.

And before someone else says it, CASA needs to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century to make overseas firefighting ops commercially profitable for VH Reg/AOC holders :ugh:

I'm an airline Pilot.

I've seen "Always" (the movie).

Can't be too hard. ;)

If you go back to the 90s, you will find that it was the fire services, by whatever name in each state, that were vehemently opposed to aerial assets.
We had CL215s demonstrated here only to be dismissed as the "fires here are different"

Canadair in their study put that notion to bed.

You do realise scooping aircraft are already based/ utilised here?

Is this what Col Pay was developing when he "bought the farm?".

No. ...........

The Firefighting endorsement is for fixed wing Ag pilots with a minimum of 250hrs of ag.

I am always relieved to have a water bomber or two “in support” of us. It makes the job easier and the less time I spend on the end of a fire rake or knapsack spray the better. There is also the possibility that they might be able to protect us if the fire gets out of hand.

Blackhawk PIC fighting fires at 19 years old.

Makes it easy when daddy owns the company and or helicopter :-)