Another forest fire bomber crashes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another one?
I just received an e-mail that a heavy bomber just crashed N. of Denver. It happened about an hour and a half ago.
The wings apparently folded.
Cat Driver.
The wings apparently folded.
Cat Driver.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Air Tanker Crashes in Northern Colorado as Wildfire Threatens Homes
By Jennifer Hamilton Associated Press Writer
Published: Jul 18, 2002
LYONS, Colo. (AP) - An air tanker crashed Thursday while working to control a 1,200-acre wildfire burning near Rocky Mountain National Park, officials said. There was no immediate word on injuries.
Forest Service spokesman Jim Cuthbertson said investigators were on their way to the crash site, about 45 miles northwest of Denver.
Chris Pair said he was videotaping the wildfire when the plane crashed.
"I saw the plane breaking into pieces. I saw about three, maybe four pieces in flames go down," he told KCNC-TV in Denver.
Air tankers, helicopters and about 80 firefighters were battling the fire which has forced residents to flee about 120 homes in the northern Colorado foothills.
The fire was threatening as many as 300 homes, fire information officer Tammy Williams said.
"Things are readily igniting. The fire is obviously growing," she said.
Elsewhere across the West, rain slowed wildfires in Nevada but officials in Oregon posted voluntary evacuation notices in the small towns of Ruch, near the California line, and Paisley, in the central highlands.
More than 161,000 acres have been charred in Oregon during what has been an early and active fire season.
"In my 35 years in the Forest Service, this is the most activity I've ever seen," said David Widmark of the Northwest Interagency Coordination Center in Portland, Ore.
AP-ES-07-18-02 2214EDT
By Jennifer Hamilton Associated Press Writer
Published: Jul 18, 2002
LYONS, Colo. (AP) - An air tanker crashed Thursday while working to control a 1,200-acre wildfire burning near Rocky Mountain National Park, officials said. There was no immediate word on injuries.
Forest Service spokesman Jim Cuthbertson said investigators were on their way to the crash site, about 45 miles northwest of Denver.
Chris Pair said he was videotaping the wildfire when the plane crashed.
"I saw the plane breaking into pieces. I saw about three, maybe four pieces in flames go down," he told KCNC-TV in Denver.
Air tankers, helicopters and about 80 firefighters were battling the fire which has forced residents to flee about 120 homes in the northern Colorado foothills.
The fire was threatening as many as 300 homes, fire information officer Tammy Williams said.
"Things are readily igniting. The fire is obviously growing," she said.
Elsewhere across the West, rain slowed wildfires in Nevada but officials in Oregon posted voluntary evacuation notices in the small towns of Ruch, near the California line, and Paisley, in the central highlands.
More than 161,000 acres have been charred in Oregon during what has been an early and active fire season.
"In my 35 years in the Forest Service, this is the most activity I've ever seen," said David Widmark of the Northwest Interagency Coordination Center in Portland, Ore.
AP-ES-07-18-02 2214EDT
Condolences to everyone affected by this accident.
Sadly it has been confirmed that T-123 a PB4Y was lost tonight on a fire. Thoughts are with the families and colleagues affected by this tragic accident.
News Report on loss of Tanker 123
News Report on loss of Tanker 123
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
It's about time someone put together some hard rules on the design and fatigue life of aircraft for use in these environments. 50 to 60 year bombers, 40 year old transports and maritime aircraft.
God knows, the crews are brave enough. The present operators have to buy and use what they can to afford the rates paid. But we can't go on like this.
If the regulations made it necessary to build and operate new aircraft, then the rates would follow.
God knows, the crews are brave enough. The present operators have to buy and use what they can to afford the rates paid. But we can't go on like this.
If the regulations made it necessary to build and operate new aircraft, then the rates would follow.
PPRuNeaholic
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Cairns FNQ
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect that ORAC is right. The firebombers do an important job and save many lives in the process. It's very sad that two bomber crews have now perished in so short a period of time, while doing that very dangerous job.
Sincere condolences. These two tragedies will affect more than just the families and friends if the crewmembers. It will affect the whole fire-fighting effort and may make life even tougher for those who must fight "the animal" on the ground. A very sad day for many people.
Sincere condolences. These two tragedies will affect more than just the families and friends if the crewmembers. It will affect the whole fire-fighting effort and may make life even tougher for those who must fight "the animal" on the ground. A very sad day for many people.
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad indeed, two brave crews lost in a few weeks.
Instead of recycling somewhat aged aircraft into high performance required fire fighting duties would it not be better to use relatively new purpose built aircraft? (eg. CL415). Or is it just a question of costs? The human costs seem pretty high as of late.
Instead of recycling somewhat aged aircraft into high performance required fire fighting duties would it not be better to use relatively new purpose built aircraft? (eg. CL415). Or is it just a question of costs? The human costs seem pretty high as of late.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montgomery, NY, USA
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of points about these crashes
1. Most firefighting aircraft are considerably older than most other commercially used aircraft.
2. Most of these aircraft fly in moderate to severe turbulence all of the time and consistently perform maneuvers which involve stresses that are above the "norm" of regular usage. This includes steep and rapid climbouts after dropping fire retardant.
3. I would assume that the level of preventive maintanence on these kind of fleets would be somewhat less than a normal commercial fleet, given that the revenue in this operation is not that lucrative.
4. We have had several consecutive seasons of severe wild fires that have placed these fleets in continuous action.
I would also wonder about the possible corrosive propoerties of either the standard "red" fire retardant and also the smoke they are flying through. Given that most of these fires involve large quantities of pine based trees, there has to be elements of turpentine, benzene and other sap base gases in the smoke. What effect does long term exposure to these elements have on the aircraft.
Given all of this, it would probably be a good thing to examine all of the structural elements of these aircraft. If not, considering their age and usage, we can probably expect to see these accidents continue.
1. Most firefighting aircraft are considerably older than most other commercially used aircraft.
2. Most of these aircraft fly in moderate to severe turbulence all of the time and consistently perform maneuvers which involve stresses that are above the "norm" of regular usage. This includes steep and rapid climbouts after dropping fire retardant.
3. I would assume that the level of preventive maintanence on these kind of fleets would be somewhat less than a normal commercial fleet, given that the revenue in this operation is not that lucrative.
4. We have had several consecutive seasons of severe wild fires that have placed these fleets in continuous action.
I would also wonder about the possible corrosive propoerties of either the standard "red" fire retardant and also the smoke they are flying through. Given that most of these fires involve large quantities of pine based trees, there has to be elements of turpentine, benzene and other sap base gases in the smoke. What effect does long term exposure to these elements have on the aircraft.
Given all of this, it would probably be a good thing to examine all of the structural elements of these aircraft. If not, considering their age and usage, we can probably expect to see these accidents continue.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expect to see more P-3's come on the scene in the next few years.
After the problems that the Electra had years ago, and the fix applied, not likely the wings would come off those aeroplanes.
After the problems that the Electra had years ago, and the fix applied, not likely the wings would come off those aeroplanes.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: R4808E
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rolling Thunder,
I agree with you entirely, in fact as the thread opened I thought what about the 415s.
A couple of years ago I was on a cruise ship in Ajaccio, Corsica and there was a fire close-by in the hills. Two Cl415s were soon on the scene and after a few impressive swoops into the harbour to top up their tanks the fire was soon out. They must be a good purchase in this day and age, I managed to get some nice shots as well.
I agree with you entirely, in fact as the thread opened I thought what about the 415s.
A couple of years ago I was on a cruise ship in Ajaccio, Corsica and there was a fire close-by in the hills. Two Cl415s were soon on the scene and after a few impressive swoops into the harbour to top up their tanks the fire was soon out. They must be a good purchase in this day and age, I managed to get some nice shots as well.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Wet Coast
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All US tankers grounded for 48 hours. I would expect the P4Ys to be held longer until the cause is established.
http://www.thedailycamera.com/bdc/mt...274915,00.html
http://www.thedailycamera.com/bdc/mt...274915,00.html
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Dunstable, Beds UK
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Navy_A,
As someone who lives in Corsica I can confirm that we see the Canadairs on a regular basis during the summer.
They have both piston and turbo versions.
I have watched them from very close up on many occasions.
I suspect that the Mediteranean fires (they are in all of that area of south of France and Corsica, as well as Italy and Sardinia) are probably of must smaller magnitude that the US ones.
They also use a big 4 engines tankers and they seem to stay higher covering a large area, then the Canadairs go in at very low level and pin-point.
The Canadairs have separate water tanks and they can drop 1,2, 3 or all tanks.
They normally pick up water ( not retardent) from the many bays in the area.
The have lost 2 tanker over the past few year but both basically hitting the ground in obscured viz. and I have not heard of any structural problem.
The Mediterannean aircraft are Government controlled.
As stated in the thread it does seem to be an age/cost related problem.
It is a case of meeting the price and not quoting a price that the operator can live with.
As someone who lives in Corsica I can confirm that we see the Canadairs on a regular basis during the summer.
They have both piston and turbo versions.
I have watched them from very close up on many occasions.
I suspect that the Mediteranean fires (they are in all of that area of south of France and Corsica, as well as Italy and Sardinia) are probably of must smaller magnitude that the US ones.
They also use a big 4 engines tankers and they seem to stay higher covering a large area, then the Canadairs go in at very low level and pin-point.
The Canadairs have separate water tanks and they can drop 1,2, 3 or all tanks.
They normally pick up water ( not retardent) from the many bays in the area.
The have lost 2 tanker over the past few year but both basically hitting the ground in obscured viz. and I have not heard of any structural problem.
The Mediterannean aircraft are Government controlled.
As stated in the thread it does seem to be an age/cost related problem.
It is a case of meeting the price and not quoting a price that the operator can live with.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got a tour of the Canadair plant in Montreal a few years ago. The water-bombers are made by hand in a small corner of the facility. I think they make just one or two a year.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Canadair 215 and 415 are able to add foam to the water during pickup.
The Canadair 415 has had some serious structural problems with the center section picking up on rough water, but I would imagine it has been solved.
The foam is a short term retardant, about 30 years ago we started injecting wet water, a chemical that made water penetrate deeper when on the surface. We then had Tenagum and some other short term retardant I just can't think of the name right now. These chemicals were a powder that we injected into the tank during the pick up and it worked quite well.
When it mixed with the water it was bright purple.
We also loaded at the land bases with long term retardant at least on the first departure from the fire base, usually we just started to scoop water after the first drop, quicker turn around.
Shortest drop to drop time I ever managed was two minutes and forty seconds. It was on a pininsula sticking out into the lake and I could do the pick up by doing a 180 degree turn on the water.
I flew fifteen years fire bombing and loved the job.
Hell , where else can you fly an airplane you can make empty in a heart beat just by pushing a button? :-)
Anyhow enough of all that.
Cat Driver.
The Canadair 415 has had some serious structural problems with the center section picking up on rough water, but I would imagine it has been solved.
The foam is a short term retardant, about 30 years ago we started injecting wet water, a chemical that made water penetrate deeper when on the surface. We then had Tenagum and some other short term retardant I just can't think of the name right now. These chemicals were a powder that we injected into the tank during the pick up and it worked quite well.
When it mixed with the water it was bright purple.
We also loaded at the land bases with long term retardant at least on the first departure from the fire base, usually we just started to scoop water after the first drop, quicker turn around.
Shortest drop to drop time I ever managed was two minutes and forty seconds. It was on a pininsula sticking out into the lake and I could do the pick up by doing a 180 degree turn on the water.
I flew fifteen years fire bombing and loved the job.
Hell , where else can you fly an airplane you can make empty in a heart beat just by pushing a button? :-)
Anyhow enough of all that.
Cat Driver.
Last edited by Chuck Ellsworth; 19th Jul 2002 at 23:49.
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The CL215 and CL415 were always niche aircraft and a bit of a gamble. I think its a fine aircraft totally suited to its purpose and it has saved many hectares, homes and possibly lives. It never caught on well for several reasons ( not built here, comparitively expensive compared to converted B24s, Hercs, PBYs etc, perhaps not big enough payload etc...).
If it ever catches on, it won't be a hand built in a corner aircraft - they will assembly line them like Challengers.
If it ever catches on, it won't be a hand built in a corner aircraft - they will assembly line them like Challengers.
Don't think the 215 is built any more. That was the original piston version with the R2800's. The 415 is the turbine version, with hydraulic boost flight controls, air conditioning etc. I think they are built at a dedicated factory in North Bay. The problem is, both aircraft are horrendously expensive to purchase outright, and are expensive to operate. Additionally, they are at their most efficient when there is a readily available source of water to scoop. That is not always the case, particularly in the American west, thus the amphibious capability is superfluous. You are as well off with an old, well maintained aircraft as you are with a new 415 from a practical point of view.
A company called Conair has comprimised somewhat. They have taken military surplus Grumman S2F airframes and added modern turbine engines and electronics. The Grumman airframes are built like brick s**thouses, and the Pratts are a proven powerplant.
A company called Conair has comprimised somewhat. They have taken military surplus Grumman S2F airframes and added modern turbine engines and electronics. The Grumman airframes are built like brick s**thouses, and the Pratts are a proven powerplant.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Planet Claire
Age: 63
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the PB-4Y aka a privateer? ie a B-24 with a single tail. If so it is a very old aeroplane indeed. While I take off my proverbial hat to the likes of Hawkins & Powers (if indeed , as it must have been, it was one of theirs) for flying such beautiful and evocative piston powered heavies, surely its time to retire these warhorses in favour of something a wee bit more up to date.
I visited the airfield at Mesa AZ this year. The Grumman S-2 a/c they were converting had modern (powerful) turbo-prop engines and extremely sturdy airframes. The C-130 is not even allowed on the UK register due it's 'no-spar' centre section. As for using a privateer for 'Aerial work'. Hmmmm
In the UK we don't get many area fires. If we did tho', we would not be relying on 40's & 50's aircraft to put 'em oot!
I visited the airfield at Mesa AZ this year. The Grumman S-2 a/c they were converting had modern (powerful) turbo-prop engines and extremely sturdy airframes. The C-130 is not even allowed on the UK register due it's 'no-spar' centre section. As for using a privateer for 'Aerial work'. Hmmmm
In the UK we don't get many area fires. If we did tho', we would not be relying on 40's & 50's aircraft to put 'em oot!
Eight Gun Fighter
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Western Approaches
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pigboat has a valid argument. Tho I think some of these types are perhaps past it for this type of work. I suggest tactical strikes by more modern aircraft built for the stresses - eliminate the fires at early stages. Choppers lift far too little and turn times are too high. Perhaps a few CLs would have nipped the Sydney area fires in the bud...or near bud?
Hey, no one's mentioned the Mars yet.
Hey, no one's mentioned the Mars yet.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Papua New Guinea
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many of the Mars boats are still flying? I recall hearing that one crashed a while back but that maybe one or two others were still working.
How about selling the Privateers to warbird collectors to be refurbished to represent US Navy machines and use the proceeds to help fund newer water tankers? Theres precious few B24's available, flying or not, so youd think someone would jump at a Privateer as a project, espescially a flying one. A navalised privateer would be a hit at an airshow.
How about selling the Privateers to warbird collectors to be refurbished to represent US Navy machines and use the proceeds to help fund newer water tankers? Theres precious few B24's available, flying or not, so youd think someone would jump at a Privateer as a project, espescially a flying one. A navalised privateer would be a hit at an airshow.