Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Aussie fire contracts

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Aussie fire contracts

Old 6th Nov 2006, 03:13
  #141 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 1 deg south, avoiding Malaria P Falciparium
Posts: 385
You guys are crazy. There is no way a medium is more cost effetive than a heavy. Sure if you look at the per litre, but its apple and oranges . 3 mediums still cant keey up with the work of one heavy on a rolling IA. They all have there place. But the when you look at endurace and the amount of water you can get on a fire in the shortest period of time , the heavy "trumps" it. Fighting fire isnt strictly about cost effectiveness, its about how effective you are with the tools you have. Who cares if it is cheaper, if you can never catch the fire and you burn homes. I think your tax payers would agree.

Squirt gun vs the fire hose. You can throw water ll day with the medium and never get the same production or accomplish as much as you can with a crane, 61 or a 234.

You dont go to war with just one weapon.
John S or Sir HC ever flown fire? Ever flown fire in medium or worked side by side of a heavy?

Just curious

rotorboy is offline  
Old 6th Nov 2006, 21:12
  #142 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canberra
Posts: 22
skycranes and AN-124 at Canberra

Yesterday a Ukranian AN-124 landed at Canberra airport with 2 Erickson sky cranes for the fire season.
Locals are worried this is the start of late night freighter operations at the airport with its new longer runway.
As a firey on the ground the sight of one of those large orange things is often a welcome sight.
smokey2 is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2006, 01:01
  #143 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Low Places
Posts: 62
limited fixed wing fire work, I work in the industry and am interested in more, also fought fires from the ground for several years. I fail to see how one ac dumping 7000 lt as opposed to three ac dumping 9000 lt in the same time frame is a compromise.
jon s gull is offline  
Old 7th Nov 2006, 08:05
  #144 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Vic.Aust
Posts: 32
Could it be that 2 engines are better than 1

212 versus 214b's

Twin Head is offline  
Old 8th Nov 2006, 20:26
  #145 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 1,050
Can anyone post a link defining the requirements for the HUET and CRM for the 2006 season?
I have done HUET plenty before but am not sure of the currency requirement.

Steve76 is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2006, 08:20
  #146 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 23
Originally Posted by EZY AIR View Post
well if we get another season like the last one 2002-2003, we will all be back to work in what ever they can get there hands on.......... but here in ozz we dont have anought large chopper's to do the work even with all the imports over summer we will be a long way short, if B206's and alike are not doing bucket like we did in NSW we will be sitting back watching roam burn and playing with our fiddle's......
PS wait and see if the fixed wing bommers get work. i have heard that thay are being droped after the last one went in near Ovens

Stick to flight instruction ezy air, you are no good at aerial firefighting industry predictions or spelling.
M18bloke is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2006, 20:26
  #147 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
I'm glad the government's literacy programs are working.
eagle 86 is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2006, 21:57
  #148 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Beyond the black stump!
Posts: 1,279
Could it be that 2 engines are better than 1

212 versus 214b's
Comparing the performance of a 212 to a 214B is like comparing the 214 to the Crane, they are wholly different aircraft and performers.

A loaded, straight, 212 on one engine has all the performance of the 214 on none!

Two engines certainly may be better than one for many applications and environments, but they don't translate into a guarantee of performance, or safety.
Cyclic Hotline is offline  
Old 9th Nov 2006, 23:37
  #149 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 16
Cyclic Hotline

I think Twin Head was referring to which aircraft was preferred by the Government for our bush fires. ie Aussie owned 214b's or imported 212's.
Gary Smith is offline  
Old 10th Nov 2006, 00:21
  #150 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: All The Places I Shouldnt Be
Posts: 1,009
I was under the impression, after talking to RFS that for most of their work it is a requirement to have a twin, hence why Heli Aust teamed up and bought in the Wildcat machines.

Can anyone clarify this further.
Ned-Air2Air is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2006, 06:37
  #151 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Townsville Australia
Posts: 115
CRM and twin-engine requirements

Hello Steve 76 and Ned-Air To Air.

Ned, the intent is for more powerful machines and preference is for twins... however that does not preclude singles provided they can maintain the required HOGE margins that are being considered. This requirement is under development.

Steve 76, I sent you an email re RFS CRM requirements. But I have posted the annex to their RFT which stipulates PIC's requirements here:


and go to the HUET or CRM pages.

Hope this helps.
ConwayB is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2006, 07:40
  #152 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 1,050
Thanks ConwayB, much appreciated.
Steve76 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.