Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Very sad. I was transitting through the area (by car) when this came on the news.

 

Having flown near (only near, not over) a very small grass fire and felt the turbulence and updraft, I have the utmost respect for pilots who are willing to fly over major bushfires. Anyone who taunts such a pilot for being unwilling to go into a situation like that should be made to take a ride over a major fire in a fixed wing aircraft.

 

 

Posted

There are a lot of airframe failures in this game. People on the ground would not have a clue of the control and turbulence factors. There is a lot of HYPE around when fires are being fought. The type of aircraft used is suspect structurally and being investigated.. The operator would have been aware of the planes limitations more than anyone else around, Nev

 

 

Posted
There are a lot of airframe failures in this game. People on the ground would not have a clue of the control and turbulence factors. There is a lot of HYPE around when fires are being fought. The type of aircraft used is suspect structurally and being investigated.. The operator would have been aware of the planes limitations more than anyone else around, Nev

I read an ATSB report about the type, the problem is that they are operated nearly 2oookg over their original design load, and fatigue life was being incorrectly recorded . Whether or not this is the issue in this case is yet to be determined.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
Who's blaming the pilot? Nev

Nobody I thought. But it was claimed he was pressured to fly against his better judgement which is not uncommon.

 

 

Posted

Happens all the time Teckie.. I just wanted to make my position clear. Blaming the pilot is too simple a cop out that is applied most times. Overstressed airframes and hot fire turbulence don't mix. Nev

 

 

Posted

It's instructive to listen to water bomber pilots describe the violent turbulence they fly through to do their drops.

 

Like nothing most of us ever experience.

 

 

Posted
aren't they also 40 years old as well? blaming the pilot seems a bit of a stretch

AT-802? according to wikipedia, first flight 1990.

 

 

Posted
AT-802? according to wikipedia, first flight 1990.

The aircraft was a M 18 Dromader which first flew (prototype) in 1976 .

 

 

Posted
The aircraft was a M 18 Dromader which first flew (prototype) in 1976 .

thanks; the media report that it was an AT-802 was clearly wrong, not the first time.

 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...