NSW Boeing 737 Fire Bomber

[turboplanner]

 

 

 

[onetrack]

That 747 is impressive, and the only way to hit fires. There might be some future as fire bombers for the large numbers of A380's that are rapidly becoming redundant?

 

The A380 can carry 150,000kg in cargo version, that means it would be capable of carrying nearly double the 76,000 litres of water that the 747 carries.

 

I guess the A380 might have some difficulty in finding adequate numbers of runways capable of carrying its weight, and runways of adequate length.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That 747 is impressive, and the only way to hit fires.

 

It can lay 3 km in 15 seconds, so a good tool for quite long fronts, but there are still days where everyone might as well just park. In the 1939 fires it got so hot that the eucalyptus was extracted from the trees as a gas, and sparks flying ahead of the fires were igniting whole valleys one after the other so the only defence was in Dugout shelters to get away from the radiated heat.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Why not go the whole hog and hire a properly large aeroplane, the Antonov?

 

The Govmint could build up a huge fleet of water bombers to replace all the common sense approaches that worked for the last few thousand years...

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...and don't forget that the most suitable aircraft is sitting idle, unused for seventy years:

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-4_Hercules

 

 

[turboplanner]

Why not go the whole hog and hire a properly large aeroplane, the Antonov?

 

The Govmint could build up a huge fleet of water bombers to replace all the common sense approaches that worked for the last few thousand years...

 

Starting with floggers and feet - still the most appropriate for some fires.

 

The farm attack units I was brought up on were two tonne trucks with 1000 litres on the back, about a 6 hp motor going flat out and driving along the flank flat out with poor visibility and U turn when something started to burn, hanging on eyes blilnd from smke and just waving the hose in a pattern past the drivers door; he became the aimer with the truck, and followed by a tractor pulling a scarifier in road gear. Amazing combination on 1,000 acre paddocks of grass.

 

Where the helicopters and aircraft are vital is when a fire heads for an urban area.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Starting with floggers and feet - still the most appropriate for some fires.

 

Yep. Very effective for small grass fires without too much wind behind them.

 

 After lots of experimenting, I found oleander branches to be the best.

 

 

[Thruster88]

Flew up to Armidale today to service one of the 802's we look after. These guy's  are doing a great job stopping small fires from lightning before they get out of control, many of them inaccessible to ground crews.   Plenty of smoke about.

 

 

 

[onetrack]

And that is the secret to stopping large fires - plenty of eyes on the bush to pick the fires up as they start, and to hit them before they get too big and unmanageable.

 

The S.W. of W.A. used to have a large team of firespotters in the tops of the highest Karri trees, often more than 100M off the ground. In the days before drones and firefighting aircraft, they were invaluable, and saved much forest.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-22/early-bushfire-lookout-diamond-tree-turns-75/8047218

 

 

[pmccarthy]

In Vic we have a network of fire spotters in towers. One of my friends does it all summer. The tower room has bearings marked all around the walls and a string hanging in the centre. He can give a direction of smoke within a degree or two a second tower triangulated and they can co- ordinate the smoke within a couple of hundred metres. It is a brilliant system.

 

 

[facthunter]

Airline crews act as fire spotters, or used to. Fires started by lightning strikes are becoming the issue.  What about some high metal towers to attract the big discharges so they don't start a fire. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Airline crews act as fire spotters, or used to. Fires started by lightning strikes are becoming the issue.  What about some high metal towers to attract the big discharges so they don't start a fire. Nev

 

Even better, how about we channel those lightning charges into super capacitors; another source of renewable energy just when you need it most- when the power network gets cut.

 

 

[SplitS]

As a long time CFA firefighter having fought many fires including fighting the Black Saturday fire's here's my take.

 

Arial firefighting is a huge waste of money it make's for good tv but the reality on the ground is they only put out fire's which we can manage with the trucks and car's and in conditions which make's for easy fire fighting. On the days like  Black Saturday they are grounded anyway. The money would be way better spent on bulldozers, trucks and cars.

 

https://priceonomics.com/does-using-airplanes-to-put-out-forest-fires/

 

"Using aircraft on fire's is like spitting on a camp fire"

 

Aircraft should only be used as spotter's anything else is just a stupid waste of money.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

You are mistaken Split S, firebombing aircraft were used on black Saturday, they were ground for an hour but after a wind change they were back at it again. Hundreds of fires from the west of Hamilton and Horsham through to Mallacoota and North to the high country. There were that many fires that no amount of ground crews could get around them.

Of the fires I have seen first hand in the last week ground crews could only reach a couple and there were restrictions because of terrain, aircraft were used to work with ground crews containing fire edges. 

A couple of years ago there were bad overnight fires in the Hamilton area on St Pats day, caused by powerlines blown over. The fire front was that big and extended there was no way ground crews could get to half let alone all the fires. There are times when aircraft work well, everything from a Jet Ranger with a bucket through to a DC 10 have a task when used to their advantages.

 

That article you quote is American, a totally different perspective when it comes to resources.

 

What would you suggest to do with wildfires in remote country with scattered populations? Leave them burn?

 

 

[SplitS]

Black Saturday Once the wind died down, fire intensity and the temp fell the aircraft appeared "Golf clap".

 

No amount of resources where going to stop the fire's on black Saturday however we did save home's more would have been saved if we had more equipment when it was needed not later.

 

"aircraft were used to work with ground crews containing fire edges. " Without the ground crews the fire's are not contained the aircraft are simply  wasting money.

 

"That article you quote is American, a totally different perspective when it comes to resources." So what  you are saying is US fires are different to Australian fires?

 

"What would you suggest to do with wildfires in remote country with scattered populations? Leave them burn?" Wasting money on Arial fire bombers is letting them burn the money would be way better spent else where. Like more controlled burns, more trucks, cars and Dozers.

 

If you have not been on the ground fighting out of control blazes you have no idea, watching from the sidelines in mild conditions is not a good example.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...What would you suggest to do with wildfires in remote country with scattered populations? Leave them burn?

 

Yes. That's what has traditionally happened. Better management of fuel build-up would limit their spread. 

 

As Yenn and others have mentioned, there may be too many restrictions on common-sense hazard reduction burning.

 

Fire-fighting has become an industry, with plenty of vested interests. SplitS has a point about the PR-driven trend to ever-more spectacular water bombers, when prevention may be a better approach. 

 

The RFS and other agencies do a great job, but, like many a government authority, they have become unwieldy and often get it wrong. There are plenty of stories of experienced locals having their initiatives stymied by distant bureaucrats. 

 

That said, I can't remember such a year of atrocious fire weather; for months now we have had a week or more of ferocious winds, with a few precious days respite between.

 

Our Aero Club hanger has been damaged by wind and is full of dusty aeroplanes that haven't flown for months.

 

 

[turboplanner]

For those who don't have much to do with fires or firefighting the above is pretty typical of the opinion fights that go on.

 

Yes, fires in remote country used to be left to burn out, sometimes over months becaise there was no way to get at them other than in some cases 4x4, and others dozing a track to get trucks in. However, people - hikers, campers 4WD explorers, horse safaris began to use our parks like they were exhorted to by governments, and tree changers started to build "off the grid" bush homes, and over time those areas weren't so remote.

 

As far as I know, letting remote fire burn, and back burning are still economic policies where human life and property are not at risk.

 

Aerial fire fighting has made up some of the shortfall where there's a particular reason to  hit a remote fire.

 

But there's absolutely no doubt that the various forms of aerial firefighting have produced specacular saves where there is a cluster of houses or in Peri Urban areas, where the front to be knocked down urgently is less than a kimoetre.

 

It's usually not just aerial, but the Ericcson helicopter knocking out the most urgent areas, pulling water from local dams, so having maybe a 6 minute turnaround, the smaller helicopters (usually 2) spotting behind the Ericcson, and the ground crews (maybe 6) spotting behind the helicopters and putting out posts, logs trees etc.  - that would be for a typical 40 Ha fire in reasonable conditions.

 

Where there is a kilometre of so of fire threatening a community, thye big aircraft can lay chemicals to neutralise the fire front and fuel load to make it feasible for the other teams to fight the fire with success.

 

The ground crews do get right in there, and at one stage the new Isuzu trucks were coming back with quite a lot of cab componentry and chassis equipment melted, when the industry wet over to plastic to eliminate rusting.   Isuzu donated a truck to the CFA to be burnt, and that provided valuable information to design alternative materials for fire trucks.

 

Getting back to the opinion fights, a fire services captain who was a friend of mine told me at one stage they weren't going to buy any more Hinos becaise their new fire truck was useless; couldn't keep it on the road. I went and measured the truck and components and found the tank and some equipment had been placed in the wrong place (where the fieries wanted it), and the front axle was grossly overloaded, so of course it would understeer etc., nothing to do with the Hino cab/chassis, but they fought each other to the bitter end and kept the overloaded trucks rather than fix the problem.

 

Another fire authority had complaints from operators about their Land Cuiser tankers which were built to fight fires in alpine areas. I got someone to weigh one, and found it was so far over its GVM that the solution was to fit a tandem drive rear axle arrangement,giving them 6x6 performance and lower tyre loads. The old 4x4s are probably still out there.

 

Fires like Black Friday, Ash Wednesday and Black Saturday produce a whole different scenario where the best way to save lives is for both residents and fire fighters to stay out of harms way, but there are still opportunities for those fires to be fought on the flanks in the Peri Urban areas.

 

Photo: Black Saturday, the early stages of the deliberately lit Central Gippsland fire; going in the right direction.

 

[SplitS]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-03/veteran-fire-researcher-labels-water-bombers-a-waste-of-money/7134574

 

Water bombing a house can cause as much damage as letting it burn there are very few "saves" and if you inspect a house after a water bomb you would not regard it as saved. Bomb is the key word here.

 

Fire's smaller than 1km are not put out by the fire bombers they are just suppressed it's the ground crews that finish the job and they may as well do the whole job the water bombers are a huge waste of resources.

 

Off topic on the fire truck's. The CFA has a one size fits no one strategy.

 

The type of fires I fight are grass/cropland fire's what we need is lots of water, large pump and minimum fire protection. What the guy's in the forests need is way more protection. There are truck available that can safety drive into a forest fire. I would rather we had cheaper trucks with less fire protection for our grass lands and the guy's that need more protection have the better trucks. But no instead we have trucks that suit no one.  The trucks do not even have run flat tires its so stupid all the flame over protection ( which is over kill for grass lands and marginal for forest fires) and other gear means we can only carry 2000 liters of water. Then you see the fire authority spending $3000 to $14,000 an hour per plane that make zero difference when the chips are down but make for great TV when the weather is fine and the fire is already contained. Insane.

 

 

[turboplanner]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-03/veteran-fire-researcher-labels-water-bombers-a-waste-of-money/7134574

 

Water bombing a house can cause as much damage as letting it burn there are very few "saves" and if you inspect a house after a water bomb you would not regard it as saved. Bomb is the key word here.

 

Fire's smaller than 1km are not put out by the fire bombers they are just suppressed it's the ground crews that finish the job and they may as well do the whole job the water bombers are a huge waste of resources.

 

Off topic on the fire truck's. The CFA has a one size fits no one strategy.

 

The type of fires I fight are grass/cropland fire's what we need is lots of water, large pump and minimum fire protection. What the guy's in the forests need is way more protection. There are truck available that can safety drive into a forest fire. I would rather we had cheaper trucks with less fire protection for our grass lands and the guy's that need more protection have the better trucks. But no instead we have trucks that suit no one.  The trucks do not even have run flat tires its so stupid all the flame over protection ( which is over kill for grass lands and marginal for forest fires) and other gear means we can only carry 2000 liters of water. Then you see the fire authority spending $3000 to $14,000 an hour per plane that make zero difference when the chips are down but make for great TV when the weather is fine and the fire is already contained. Insane.

 

I agree with you on the fire truck design. I have a 1000 litre tank on my trailer unit, and it will pump out in about 15 minutes going full bore, but maybe 45 minutes on posts, limbs, up tree trunks etc., but the 5 tonne CFA truck only has 1500 litres. They have big pumps and hoses because a lot of CFA trucks also cover house fires. You're right about the difference between grass and bush fires; different methods, different training, different risks, different pumping etc. Manpower is a lot more strategic these days. The NSW and Queensland fires have been going long past the capacity of local volunteers. A few weeks ago, a former member of this site took a fire truck up from the Riverina and into bush country in northern NSW, and returned home a few days later. A couple of week later he took a truck and crew up again, and they were relieved and flown home with another crew taking over the truck. This past week what looked like a chartered 737 took a lot of Victorian fire fighters north to take over trucks from fatigued local fire fighters, so there is a need to have standard trucks which can pump from a fire hydrant, a dam or can be used as a base pumps to service a series of trucks so there is some sense to the design, but once they all get going on truck design they tend to fire real bullets based on their own experience and needs. We used to have an exceptional guy in DSE (who was sent to the US every off season to train firefighters in California. He was so sharp he had us takeoff the single rear tyres on 7 tonne 4x4 trucks because the alpine units were rolling over. He traced it to the trucks having to come out of the bush diagonally to join the tracks, and at that point the rims were moving downhill in the tyres shifting the COG down the hill to the point where it rolled the trucks. Result, end of rollovers, but a vicious battle from the Mallee guys who said the dual tyres were hopeless in sand. Unfortunately he retired and the State lost those exceptional skills.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Wooden house survived by having trees cut back so radiated heat was diminished.

 

Ash Wednesday; no need for aircraft.

 

[skippydiesel]

We as a relatively small (population/ tax base) country have a heavy investment in military assets, many of which could be used in fighting fires - why are they not ??

 

 

[turboplanner]

We as a relatively small (population/ tax base) country have a heavy investment in military assets, many of which could be used in fighting fires - why are they not ??

 

They are; but you have to look at what are suitable tasks, like people moving, freight moving, dozers, temporary accommodation, food etc.

 

As much as we've discussed some of the disagreements within the fire fighting ranks, they have to train for all types of fires, all types of risk management, when to bail out, how to fight each different fire etc. Although I've had a lot of experience with low level grass fires for example, there's no way I'd go out and try to fight a bush fire or high flame fire without being one step behind a trained person.

 

 

[onetrack]

We as a relatively small (population/ tax base) country have a heavy investment in military assets, many of which could be used in fighting fires - why are they not ??

 

 

 

Good God, man - Have you taken leave of your senses?? These are mega-million dollar assets, we can't waste them and wear them out, doing such drudgery, as fighting civilian fires.

 

We need to keep them grounded, and wait until we have an opportunity to destroy them totally within an hour of launch, carrying out some noble war action.

 

The general unwashed public, Defence Heads, Politicians and all Public Servants, are in total agreement with this strategy, it's been that way since multi-million dollar military assets were invented.

 

Imagine the outcry if a very expensive piece of military hardware crashed whilst fighting Joe and Josette Smiths, Back-40 fire, that was threatening their dairy shed?? The ramifications would be enormous, and heads would roll. 

 

 

[Blackhawk]

I wrote to Malcolm Turnbull when he was prime minister and the government was selling off the C130's to Indoneasia for peanuts.

 

I suggested they convert them to Fire Bombers to fight australian bush fires plus any other emergency use; never got a response, but Indoneasia ended up with them. (plus multi millions in new spares)

 

 

[skippydiesel]

They are; but you have to look at what are suitable tasks, like people moving, freight moving, dozers, temporary accommodation, food etc.

 

As much as we've discussed some of the disagreements within the fire fighting ranks, they have to train for all types of fires, all types of risk management, when to bail out, how to fight each different fire etc. Although I've had a lot of experience with low level grass fires for example, there's no way I'd go out and try to fight a bush fire or high flame fire without being one step behind a trained person.

 

Are you telling me that the pilots of all those contract aircraft have specialist knowledge of each type of fire situation ??? -

 

My sons friend is a navy pilot (choppers) he said he & all his peers were trained to use the water bombing buckets - they are all very frustrated by the Government's refusal to deploy them.

 

C130 & C27 pilots are trained to do low level freight drops - not a huge leap to doing low level water bombing. Their aircraft can operate out of dirt strips and how hard would it be to have  modular "water" tanks loaded into the cargo bay??.

 

C17's  could be delivering fire fighting resources anywhere in Australia, as they are needed

 

Military drivers could be delivering water, men, materials to the fire site.

 

The military could be providing fully resourced camps, food, medical, etc.

 

The Navy could be delivering resources up & down the coast.

 

We the taxpayer provide all these military resources only to leave them standing idle,  but then have to dig a bit deeper again, to pay for contractors to come in and do the job.