NSW Boeing 737 Fire Bomber

[M61A1]

Nev, it sounds like you are suggesting that our military pilots are not as skilled/brave as our contract private crop duster pilots, who are presently bombing the fires by flying airtractors at low level in turbulent Smokey, hot air.

 

I would hope that our military pilots have had some training in the art of bombing !  ?

 

I'd reckon those contract Ag Pilots aren't doing everything with a 5 x 5 risk matrix. Since the ADF took up civilian style OH&S things have got much worse for your average military aviator.

 

I don't think most of them would have a problem doing it, just that no one wants to put their name on the document that approved it in case things go tits up.

 

 

[facthunter]

 As it most likely will to some extent. It's fraught with hazards and the equipment is far above the old airliners in value.. abbott ran the hours out of the Allison props in the Orions looking for (votes er.. a plane ) MH 370.  There's a lovely Orion at HARS set up just as if it's ready to a sea search..Nev

 

 

[nomadpete]

Yes, Nev, all firefighting pilots face risks. However, our military are expected to participate in more hazardous activities than the average worker.

 

Even though risk management has crept into military and every other "workplace", don't forget that most of our bush fire fighters are already VOLUNTEERING to work ridiculously long hours in a very hazardous environment. Large numbers of volunteer firefighters are over retirement age. I can assure you that the risk is high for us old farts when we put on our yellows, too. And it is for the pilots already actively participating in firefighting and other emergency activity.

 

I don't excuse the military from hazardous work just because it scores high on a 5x5 risk management assessment. Otherwise they wouldn't be allowed to play with guns and high explosives either at home or overseas.

 

 

[turboplanner]

In terms of risk factor, I don't think the ADF would have any problem slotting in even with a 5x5 risk matrix.

 

They may well be going to New Zealand to bring back burns patients, but that's if the troop carriers can be feasibly converted into burns units and staffed.

 

Same goes for fighting fires; aerial fire fighting has come a long way since someone hung a bucket on a rope below a helicopter and tipped it on a fire.

 

The pilots need to be trained to match the designators on the ground, all the equipment needs to be matched to civilian standards, the feeder strips and water supply has to be matched to the type of aircraft, and then its a matter of how many pieces of equipment the RAAF could supply.

 

I don't have any feel for what, if any, aerial capacity is currently needed in NSW and Queensland, but if we needed more dedicated fire fighting aircraft I suspect it would be just a matter of calling up more fire-fighting aircraft from the US, Canada, South America or Europe.

 

Use of ADF aircraft was just a hypothesis of Skippy, and he hasn't reported any progress on just getting his Zephyr on the fireline yet.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

 

still burning

 

 

[skippydiesel]

.........................................................................................................

 

Use of ADF aircraft was just a hypothesis of Skippy, and he hasn't reported any progress on just getting his Zephyr on the fireline yet.

 

Zephyr has been "on the fire line " for the best part of a week (within 200 meters) - we haven't actually left the ground as aerial activity, from Boeing 737 down, have taken over our airspace (& I wouldn't want to show them up).

 

Zephyr would probably be a cost effective spotter, as we can loiter at 60 knots on less than 8 l/hr and visibility is exceptional.

 

"Elvis" & little pal have jusr arrived back after spending most of yesterday overhead.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Zephyr has been "on the fire line " for the best part of a week (within 200 meters) - we haven't actually left the ground as aerial activity, from Boeing 737 down, have taken over our airspace (& I wouldn't want to show them up).

 

Zephyr would probably be a cost effective spotter, as we can loiter at 60 knots on less than 8 l/hr and visibility is exceptional.

 

"Elvis" & little pal have jusr arrived back after spending most of yesterday overhead.

 

You got infra red on that machine; that's what they mainly use now so you can sit up above the smoke and look down into it.

 

 

[Thruster88]

You got infra red on that machine; that's what they mainly use now so you can sit up above the smoke and look down into it.

 

It would be nice if this imagery was available to the public in real time.

 

 

[Thruster88]

Another great article from Beetoota Advocate

 

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/scotty-from-marketing-visits-rfs-office-to-deliver-the-good-news-they-can-now-sack-gay-people/

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

As usual, Australia’s favourite newspaper tells it like it really is.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It would be nice if this imagery was available to the public in real time.

 

Yes it would.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Another great article from Beetoota Advocate

 

https://www.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/scotty-from-marketing-visits-rfs-office-to-deliver-the-good-news-they-can-now-sack-gay-people/

 

That now makes it:

 

• The infinitesimally small river farmers abusing the Federal Government for screwing up the Murray-Darlin Basin allocations when those are managed and awarded by four State Governments, with live data available to the public
   
  

 

 

 

• Electricity generation in Qld, NSW, Vic, Tas, SA where the States build their own plants, generate their own power, and operate a fantastic power sharing grid with live data available to the public, and the Commonwealth Government is being abused for not generating enough power, using coal-fired generators, emitting too much CO2.
   
  

 

 

 

• And now we have our fire services, where each State manages its own, (which are a mix of full time fire fighters including permanent forrestry fire fighters, and a huge voluntary force) combined into one amalgamous group by a few journalists who decide to stir up the PM for an overarching comment on an organisation which doesn't exist but will certainly mean throuble if they can squeeze out a gaffe about LGBTIetc.
   
  

 

[skippydiesel]

We now have three choppers overhead - Ericson (Elvis), I think a Blackhawk,  just delivered to AU and the spotter ???

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Its quiet now TG - we finished the day with 4 choppers putting out some small fires in the deep gullies that bisect this local. After many days of this, I am beginning to wonder how the bill will be payed.

 

 

[M61A1]

I am beginning to wonder how the bill will be payed.

 

If you’re worried about that then you don’t want the military in there....

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

That now makes it:

 

• The infinitesimally small river farmers abusing the Federal Government for screwing up the Murray-Darlin Basin...
   
  

Turbs that's a quite factual response, but it ignores the leadership role that national governments often take during difficult times- a role this PM has avoided. 

 

John Howard immediately took a leading part in coordinating state responses to the Pt Arthur Massacre. 

 

Various cyclones, floods and droughts have elicited rapid responses from our national leaders, even though they are the responsibility of state governments.

 

Why is Morrison downplaying this crisis and focussing on a non-existant religious discrimination emergency?

 

Could it have anything to do with the growing hordes of overpaid lobbyists who seem to be running this  government?

 

 

[Litespeed]

The bill should be almost  irrelevant as it is when government decides it needs to something.

 

This is quickly becoming a national disaster that will keep on rolling on. We need a war footing mentality to do what's needed. Not just today but for the long term battles of climate change. 

 

The effects of what is happening are just as great as open warfare for those affected. We have a unlimited budget on national security, spend billions on empty detention camps........

 

But whilst Rome burns, Nero has a party with Murdoch jnr.

 

We should have all the resources of government available and modified/trained as needed to respond to any environmental problem and be proactive by nature.

 

If we can get a fire kit for every  C130 and train crews for next year- do it. If they wear out, fine. No resource is useful unless its used.

 

For the damn cost of a pissup contest summit we could have 50 737 firebombers. Owned by the military etc, ready to fight firs or move troops/ firefighters, etc.

 

If we never need to use them, fantastic , that means billions in land and homes and nature did not burn.

 

Question, how many in the armed services, police, security services , Home affairs etc are trained to use a gun?

 

200,000 Australia wide?

 

All to reduce a small risk of crime, refugees, us been invaded etc. 

 

So why do we not have similar levels paid and trained in making sure we can still live here, have water, not burn and a environment that's livable?

 

If we don't spend similar effort and treasure as we would a invasion by enemy- we are all stuffed. 

 

No one likes to hear it or think it, but lives are lost in war , we must do our absolute best to protect firefighters and support staff. But no fight can be had without risk.

 

We need to also realise any malcontent has a extremely effective weapon in fire. That alone should get the hawks in defence worried.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

some interesting infographics

 

https://graphics.reuters.com/AUSTRALIA-BUSHFIRES-SIZE /0100B4QG2FG/index.html

 

 

[skippydiesel]

If you’re worried about that then you don’t want the military in there....

 

Surely the point is that the military are being payed even when they do nothing practical- an opportunity/standing cost, if you will, that we the taxpayer have already committed to - contractors on the other hand are an additional/discretionary cost.

 

 

[M61A1]

Surely the point is that the military are being payed even when they do nothing practical- an opportunity/standing cost, if you will, that we the taxpayer have already committed to - contractors on the other hand are an additional/discretionary cost.

 

For the personnel , perhaps..... for the aircraft operating hours (the most expensive bit).....NOPE

 

As an aside, I would be interested to know just how much money they've thrown at trying to extinguish/control fires in the last couple of months and whether or not it might just have been less expensive just to move people out and let it burn and then compensate them for loss.

 

 

[M61A1]

The bill should be almost  irrelevant as it is when government decides it needs to something.

 

This is quickly becoming a national disaster that will keep on rolling on. We need a war footing mentality to do what's needed. Not just today but for the long term battles of climate change. 

 

The effects of what is happening are just as great as open warfare for those affected. We have a unlimited budget on national security, spend billions on empty detention camps........

 

But whilst Rome burns, Nero has a party with Murdoch jnr.

 

We should have all the resources of government available and modified/trained as needed to respond to any environmental problem and be proactive by nature.

 

If we can get a fire kit for every  C130 and train crews for next year- do it. If they wear out, fine. No resource is useful unless its used.

 

For the damn cost of a pissup contest summit we could have 50 737 firebombers. Owned by the military etc, ready to fight firs or move troops/ firefighters, etc.

 

If we never need to use them, fantastic , that means billions in land and homes and nature did not burn.

 

Question, how many in the armed services, police, security services , Home affairs etc are trained to use a gun?

 

200,000 Australia wide?

 

All to reduce a small risk of crime, refugees, us been invaded etc. 

 

So why do we not have similar levels paid and trained in making sure we can still live here, have water, not burn and a environment that's livable?

 

If we don't spend similar effort and treasure as we would a invasion by enemy- we are all stuffed. 

 

No one likes to hear it or think it, but lives are lost in war , we must do our absolute best to protect firefighters and support staff. But no fight can be had without risk.

 

We need to also realise any malcontent has a extremely effective weapon in fire. That alone should get the hawks in defence worried.

 

You don't suppose it might be simpler to make sure populated areas are adequately clear of combustible material, as people used to do, instead of fining people who do that?

 

There's nothing unprecedented about these fires except for the media hype.

 

Even the ABC seems to have very short memory ( not that that's any real surprise) , as I recall hearing them discuss the likelihood of extreme danger of fire in the future after the last good wet season.

 

 

[Litespeed]

That does not help when whole areas of the country are burning.

 

Sensible clearing around homes and firebreaks are obvious. They are the smaller order issues of a much bigger problem.

 

 

[Litespeed]

For the personnel , perhaps..... for the aircraft operating hours (the most expensive bit).....NOPE

 

As an aside, I would be interested to know just how much money they've thrown at trying to extinguish/control fires in the last couple of months and whether or not it might just have been less expensive just to move people out and let it burn and then compensate them for loss.

 

Tell that to a ancient rainforest that had never seen fire before. Or the koalas that are getting to endangered species. How much is a whole ecosystem worth?

 

Or entire water catchments...

 

It is not just about simple money equations, that thinking has got us into this trouble.

 

Can we just compensate for all the extra deaths of the pollution?

 

Once the true costs are accounted for doing the right thing Is very cheap. 

 

Naturally blind Freddy  pilot knows it costs to actual use a aircraft. But if your using it to fight fires its money saving huge losses.

 

Would you bitch if jet fighters cost money to run in  war?

 

What about bullets?

 

Its the cost of stopping a emergency from escalating. Bloody cheap really.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Turbs that's a quite factual response, but it ignores the leadership role that national governments often take during difficult times- a role this PM has avoided. 

 

John Howard immediately took a leading part in coordinating state responses to the Pt Arthur Massacre. 

 

Various cyclones, floods and droughts have elicited rapid responses from our national leaders, even though they are the responsibility of state governments.

 

Why is Morrison downplaying this crisis and focussing on a non-existant religious discrimination emergency?

 

Could it have anything to do with the growing hordes of overpaid lobbyists who seem to be running this  government?

 

These days governments have to do with perceptions more than facts.

 

If the Prime Minister of the day be it LNP or ALP were to simply say "This is nothing to do with us, it's a State matter" there would be outrage from some of the journalists hated on this site if they mis-call an aircraft make, and on social media to the extent that they would have an electoral problem. What the Commonwealth can do is supply the money collected from our income tax.  For example drought affected farmers, have been eligible for Centrelink payments from the neginning of the drought, the same as someone retrenched in the City, and they can supply financial packages for those who have lost property and livestock, and underwrite insurance companies, and finance repairs to environmental and infrastructure damage.

 

Commonwealth and State Ministers from most Departments meet regularly to discuss issues and find solutions, but the Commonwealth Government doesn't just have the power to walk into a State and take over. That doesn't mean they aren't doing something every day to support the States stretched to the limit.

 

But that's not activity that can be televised for advertising ratings; it's the gaffes that work best.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Tell that to a ancient rainforest that had never seen fire before. Or the koalas that are getting to endangered species. How much is a whole ecosystem worth?

 

Or entire water catchments...

 

It is not just about simple money equations, that thinking has got us into this trouble.

 

Can we just compensate for all the extra deaths of the pollution?

 

Once the true costs are accounted for doing the right thing Is very cheap. 

 

Naturally blind Freddy  pilot knows it costs to actual use a aircraft. But if your using it to fight fires its money saving huge losses.

 

Would you bitch if jet fighters cost money to run in  war?

 

What about bullets?

 

Its the cost of stopping a emergency from escalating. Bloody cheap really.

 

Fire Fighting Aircraft save lives, so we see them operating in areas where people live.

 

The cost of those aircraft can be balanced against the potential loss per property. In most rural propertyies that might be something like $300,000 for a house and sheds and $600,000 for infrastructure, so around $1 million per property. So if you are saving several million per drop, that's economical for the peri urban areas, clusters and farm homesteads and sheds.

 

As I mentioned previously there are plenty more fire fighting aicraft available to be hired, so we don't have to strain our brains looking for thought bubbles like converting our military aircraft to fire fighters.

 

All the above points are valid, and areas like water catchments will be badly damaged as ash is washed into reservoirs along with eroded mud, people die from lung disease from the particulates spread downwind wherever that's been over the past couple of months, forest parks are made safe by felling burnt out trees, re-populating with animals etc.

 

We have much faster ways to bring those fires to an end in open country away from dwellings and that's back burning. Back burning is a lot more complex than I could explain in this space, but simplifying it, People with backburning skills, which take years to build, will take teams downwind, well ahead of the fire spots, and start burning upwind from a secure boundary like a road, a dozer track or even a space cleared by hose. It's only done in stable weather, and the fire burns upwind very slowly because the wind is blowing it back on itself.  One person with a hand held kerosene fire lighter can lay a continuous flame at a 5 km/hr walk. multiply that by a team of people and you can cover quite a distance. Once the fire has burnt a few metres upwind, a second burn can be started further upwind and this quickly comes downwind and burns a bigger fire break. Once that is done and even bigger bite can be taken, and so on until you have a band of black bigger than the spotting distance of the main fire, then you let the main fire run down into the break and it's pretty much all over. Now I stress again, that was just a little condensed version of what's supposed to happen. What does happen can be very different if there's a wind change, or if the fire spots cross the break etc.

 

Where the foreline is as long as it is currently, the next step is to use a fire lighter from a truck, which covers a lot ore distance per hour, but is more haphazard as the fir lighter bounces. I've used both these methods.

 

Aircraft also can be used very effectively in inaccessible country, or where there is a wide contained fire-brake, coast, lake etc. or as is mentioned on the video for lighting the area upwind of the first fire-break.

 

These aircraft drop ping pong type balls inkected with chemicals which catch fire after they've dropped. So depending on the length of fireline you have 4 km/hr as Stage 1, about 30 km/hr Stage 2, and Aircraft dropping speed as Stage 3. All of this is at a fraction of the cost of water or chemical bombers, or fire trucks pumping water. 

 

I would imagine that people with back-burning skills have come in from the US and Canada to beef our numbers of experts up.