Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

How not to fly when aerial firefighting

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

How not to fly when aerial firefighting

Old 14th Aug 2019, 23:00
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 194
Originally Posted by VFR Only Please View Post
Saw this video yesterday. You can barely perceive a fire, except from what might have been lit by his exhaust on that hill.

Just last week a guy in southern France did the deed flying a converted Grumman Tracker. He'd been firefighting for six years and previously flown Mirages for over a decade, so I doubt his skills are in doubt. It's just that the terrain isn't always friendly, the convective turbulence must be brutal, and visibility sometimes pretty minimal. And on bad days they must just get tired. Dangerous business.
A firey was telling me how they lose someone every year. It's a dangerous job, just like it is for the people on the ground.

RickNRoll is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2019, 02:49
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,788
looks to me to be a post by an armchair critic who is full of shiite, and himself...have 2 seasons behind me in a Douglas...it aint easy...exhilarating, frightening, tiring...not easy...the "easy" drop is when you hit something due to complacency...
ironbutt57 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2019, 03:25
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 929
Wake/ downwash raises dust.

Big deal....
currawong is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2019, 04:17
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Beyond the black stump!
Posts: 1,220
It would appear that the Crew shares your concern. They came damned close to buying the farm!

https://www.safecom.gov/searchone_new.asp?ID=23587
Cyclic Hotline is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2019, 16:22
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 429
Originally Posted by Cyclic Hotline View Post
It would appear that the Crew shares your concern. They came damned close to buying the farm!

https://www.safecom.gov/searchone_new.asp?ID=23587
Good follow-up to the event!
Carbon Bootprint is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2019, 17:48
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYYC (Calgary)
Posts: 5,333
As someone said somewhere else about this event: “Target fixation”.
India Four Two is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2019, 00:42
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: West Coast Canada
Posts: 3,698
I spent 17 years in fix wing fire suppression and have got to say that video was hard to watch and the crew was very lucky they did not hit the hill. I never thought this job was especially dangerous as we had good SOP's and excellent equipment. One thing I never like about the US program was, unlike Canada, lead planes were not mandatory. I firmly believe that this near miss would not have happened if they were operating with a lead airplane as the lead airplane would have determined the safe ridge crossing height and min drop altitude before the tanker got low and would have explicitly warned about the ridge on the exit or more likely would have found a better line for the drop.
Big Pistons Forever is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2019, 06:54
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Europe
Posts: 131
As there is no link anywhere - here you go
https://twitter(dot)com/avioesemusic...707137/video/1

Replace the (dot) by a dot :-)
evil7 is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2019, 04:25
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Covid prison
Posts: 283
Thanks evil7.... that is eye watering! The time between ‘miss’ and wake dust says it all.....
goeasy is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2019, 15:41
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far West Wessex
Posts: 2,549
He did not buy the farm. But I'll bet he left a big deposit.
LowObservable is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2019, 01:34
  #31 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 789
Originally Posted by bunk exceeder View Post
Random. I was being witty. But any pilot in command who uses the plane to hit the bushes shall submit, upon request, a written report to the administrator within 10 days. I don’t think bushwork appears in NTSB 830.... Of course you have to throw in Careless and Reckless....
Your C130A accident video, N130HP, on June 17, 2002 does not itself show careless or reckless operation. The video shows that the aircraft is essentially within its normal flight envelope.

The NTSB report suggests that the aircraft may have exceeded the ZFW earlier by up to 232lbs, but at the time of the accident, it was within limits. The report additionally opines that the aircraft may have exceeded the flap extended g limit of 2.0, however that is inconsistent with the wings level near level flight attitude in the video, the aircraft was within the speed limit for the 50% flap that was extended at that time. The report extensively covers the fatigue cracks on the wing center section, which compromised the structural integrity of the aircraft.

The NTSB report suggests that the aircraft was manoeuvring at 2.4g based on "video" at the time of the pull up that occurred before the wing failure, however, the video that has been released does not show a 2.4g pull pitch rate occurring for a speed of 146KCAS. Equally, at 91,000lbs, the actual load on the aircraft did not exceed the 2.0g load limit for the flap extension, being 75% of the permitted weight to be subject to a 2.0g load factor. The load factor itself is a limit, not the ultimate load necessary which would be a 3.0g load at 120,000+ lbs, which well exceeded the manoeuvring at the time of the failure. It is possible that in 2002 there was other video capturing the seconds prior to the pull up that the NTSB could base their statement on, but it is not the video that hit youtube.

Fatigue failures occur at 1.0g when they are ready. Two different aircraft types I have flown have had wing failures at 1.0g, and of course the Piper PA28RT201 loss at Daytona Beach with the CPL candidate and examiner occurred at 1.0g.

The early C130's had demonstrated potential failure of the CWS during hydrostatic testing that led to the inspection program for that area. The outer wing panels had their own issues. Significant fatigue cracking was found at the failure point so I am not sure that passing comment on reckless flying of the deceased has merit or is in good taste.

FYI, in 1994, N135FF, another C130A doing duty in fire fighting lost the left wing at the CWS in level, unaccelerated flight. The critical crack length for propagation was reported at about 1", the 2002 accident aircraft had a crack in excess of 12" prior to the failure on examination post accident.

Last edited by fdr; 28th Aug 2019 at 01:45.
fdr is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2019, 08:08
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Search me - I only just got out of bed ....
Age: 75
Posts: 472
Yes, that was close.

The footage leaves me ever more comfortable with the policy adopted in my part of the world where a fleet of AT-802s are the only fixed wind a/c we use for aerial fire attack. They work very well in our particular spread of variables which come in every new fire situation.
FullOppositeRudder is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2020, 13:19
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: US
Age: 62
Posts: 421
Can’t get facebook link to paste. Interesting fire drop.

https://www.facebook.com/104563622953080/posts/3035325553210191/

https://fireaviation.com/2019/08/14/a-shocking-drop-by-a-bae-146/
Sailvi767 is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2020, 13:45
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: attitude is nominal
Posts: 862
That was close!
Less Hair is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2020, 15:02
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 43
Posts: 320
They'll probably have a talk about it when they get home.

Could happen to most of us, misjudging distance, or altitude, flying in an unknown area.
jmmoric is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2020, 22:10
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 66
This looks not unlike the video that started this thread in August last year.
Rodney Rotorslap is offline  
Old 18th Jun 2020, 23:19
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 327
It is the same video!
Lookleft is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2020, 04:00
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In the sticks
Posts: 7,612
Originally Posted by currawong View Post
Wake/ downwash raises dust.

Big deal....
The shadow merged with the aircraft.
LTNman is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2020, 09:24
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 43
Posts: 320
As long as you continue to see it
jmmoric is offline  
Old 19th Jun 2020, 15:34
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,252
A fine illustration of the danger of the vortices downwind and below, sometimes even above, a ridge crest.
RatherBeFlying is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.