Methusala Posted November 19, 2013 Posted November 19, 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/19/pilots-death-fire-service-to-investigate-claims-of-intimidation Just saw this news article on the Guardian, Don
cscotthendry Posted November 20, 2013 Posted November 20, 2013 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.
facthunter Posted November 20, 2013 Posted November 20, 2013 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
M61A1 Posted November 20, 2013 Posted November 20, 2013 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. 1 1
fly_tornado Posted November 20, 2013 Posted November 20, 2013 aren't they also 40 years old as well? blaming the pilot seems a bit of a stretch
Teckair Posted November 22, 2013 Posted November 22, 2013 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.
facthunter Posted November 22, 2013 Posted November 22, 2013 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
Old Koreelah Posted November 23, 2013 Posted November 23, 2013 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.
cooperplace Posted November 23, 2013 Posted November 23, 2013 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.
dazza 38 Posted November 23, 2013 Posted November 23, 2013 AT-802? according to wikipedia, first flight 1990. The aircraft was a M 18 Dromader which first flew (prototype) in 1976 .
cooperplace Posted November 23, 2013 Posted November 23, 2013 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.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now