NSW Boeing 737 Fire Bomber

[nomadpete]

When it comes to bush fire fighting, I see some major bureaucratic problems.

 

One problem is inter departmental conflict.

 

For instance, last summer, we had a big fire. Dry lightning  started it in remote rugged country that is 'controlled' by National Parks department.

 

NPWS have their own paid fire fighters. When it started to get a bit big our Tas Fire volunteers got contacted and they had a couple of dozers making a fire break, when the NPWS people announced that it was getting close to knock off time and they had a big drive home, so ordered our guys off site and locked the gate behind them. One dozer driver mentioned that there were still 3hours of daylight left and it would have allowed them to finish the fire break. The fire continued, of course and burned for three months. Nobody has mentioned the resulting  cost of fire bombing, etc, and Tas Fire experts claimed they didn't know about the issue at the time. But in a remote site you can't phone the boss to start an argument.

 

But what would we know? We're ONLY volunteers

 

 

[nomadpete]

SplitS,

 

The fire bombing has helped us in our recent fires when the advancing front was getting too hot and workers were having to withdraw. (Dense forest)

 

They have been shown to help protect houses in the urban fringe.

 

I agree that I can't see them being much use on grass fires.

 

I agree the water bombing poses a high risk to workers on the ground.

 

We have a policy of falling back from the fire front whilst bombing takes place. The risk is not from the water, so much as the risk of dropped branches. The trees are already drought/heat stressed and the water impact can drop a big branch with fatal results.

 

 

[johnm]

No it is NOT a great asset. It's a huge waste of money but makes for good tv. In anything other than very mild fire conditions it is completely useless ......................

 

We continually forget  this / your point of view SplitS !

 

I have not read all the way back but is there some reference that proves your point of view ?  (why are all ? the fire professionals supporting water bomber aircraft ?)

 

 

[turboplanner]

When it comes to bush fire fighting, I see some major bureaucratic problems.

 

One problem is inter departmental conflict.

 

For instance, last summer, we had a big fire. Dry lightning  started it in remote rugged country that is 'controlled' by National Parks department.

 

NPWS have their own paid fire fighters. When it started to get a bit big our Tas Fire volunteers got contacted and they had a couple of dozers making a fire break, when the NPWS people announced that it was getting close to knock off time and they had a big drive home, so ordered our guys off site and locked the gate behind them. One dozer driver mentioned that there were still 3hours of daylight left and it would have allowed them to finish the fire break. The fire continued, of course and burned for three months. Nobody has mentioned the resulting  cost of fire bombing, etc, and Tas Fire experts claimed they didn't know about the issue at the time. But in a remote site you can't phone the boss to start an argument.

 

But what would we know? We're ONLY volunteers

 

LOL, sometimes it's WAR at the front where the real work is done.

 

 

[turboplanner]

No it is NOT a great asset. It's a huge waste of money but makes for good tv. In anything other than very mild fire conditions it is completely useless. On hot windy days it evaporates before it even reaches the fire, it also creates a large risk for the guy's on the ground. One day someone will be killed by a water bomber then there will be an inquiry and "usefulness" of the bombers will be exposed.  Water bombing is a joke and used to cover up the fact the money should have been spend on fire mitigation measures long before the season started.

 

You're talking about two different fire types and I'd agree with the type you're describing.

 

Water bombers are best for Peri Urban areas where big volumes of houses and people are threatened and the fire line is relatively short.

 

The fire I described quite a few pages back, was a grass fire chewing through 4 or 5 metre gorse, and the fire trucks were flanking it, but it was heading for a high density residential cluster of 600 people right on the edge of the grass, so the Erikson crane and two helicopters were brought in and knocked it down fast.

 

 

[SplitS]

We continually forget  this / your point of view SplitS !

 

I have not read all the way back but is there some reference that proves your point of view ?  (why are all ? the fire professionals supporting water bomber aircraft ?)

 

I have linked 2 articles that support my position. No one has linked anything from experienced firefighters in support of water bombers. 

 

Water bombers only work in very mild conditions when they are not needed anyway. I have fought well over 50 fires both grass and forest the only time the water bombers have done anything useful is when they where not really needed anyway. When the chips are down and we are simply doing asset protection they are grounded or unable to drop because they would destroy the assets with their water bomb. When you have a fire running at 40kmhr and spotting over 5km what do you think a couple of over priced planes are going to do? In these situations they cannot do asset protection because the "protection" is worse than letting it  burn they also expose the real fire fighters to increased risk's.

 

There are way better ways to spend thousands of dollars and hour than on an airshow. Having spoken to "professional firefighters" last week they hate the waste of money and want it spent on fire mitigation.

 

A lot of people posting in support of fire bombers have zero idea about what is involved in fighting fires. The water bombers may as well drop $20 dollar bills for all the good they do and at least everyone would see the real cost.

 

 

[turboplanner]

We continually forget  this / your point of view SplitS !

 

I have not read all the way back but is there some reference that proves your point of view ?  (why are all ? the fire professionals supporting water bomber aircraft ?)

 

Because they save lives and expensive assets.

 

They are being used on a tiny fraction of the current NSW/Qld fires, and a good example is the NSW 737 leaving those fires and doing a demonstration on WA.

 

Is it so hard to understand that these are strategic units; no one has said an Apocalypse Now style of 737s, 747s, Hercules, etc will be advancing en masse  on grass and bush fires in the country any time soon.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

let the fires burn themselves out.

 

 

 

[octave]

I have linked 2 articles that support my position. No one has linked anything from experienced firefighters in support of water bombers. 

 

Water bombers only work in very mild conditions when they are not needed anyway. I have fought well over 50 fires both grass and forest the only time the water bombers have done anything useful is when they where not really needed anyway. When the chips are down and we are simply doing asset protection they are grounded or unable to drop because they would destroy the assets with their water bomb. When you have a fire running at 40kmhr and spotting over 5km what do you think a couple of over priced planes are going to do? In these situations they cannot do asset protection because the "protection" is worse than letting it  burn they also expose the real fire fighters to increased risk's.

 

There are way better ways to spend thousands of dollars and hour than on an airshow. Having spoken to "professional firefighters" last week they hate the waste of money and want it spent on fire mitigation.

 

A lot of people posting in support of fire bombers have zero idea about what is involved in fighting fires. The water bombers may as well drop $20 dollar bills for all the good they do and at least everyone would see the real cost.

 

 

 

I have no  "opinion'" on this either way because I have not time spent time researching it. I could tell you what I "feel" but what I "feel" is not important and doesn't contribute much to this conversation.  In order to decide which side of this debate I was on I would be asking myself "what does the evidence show" have there been any rigorous studies undertaken that can quantify the benefits and costs.

 

Here are a couple of studies. I have not read them, which is why I cannot yet decide on this issue.

 

This study is quite old (1987)      https://publications.csiro.au/rpr/download?pid=legacy:2927&dsid=DS1   

 

This one is from 2017       http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/userfiles/submissions/Simon Hattrell Appendix 5.pdf

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Without doubt, water bombing is a great asset. It will never replace boots (and rakehoes) on the ground. But it can cool down a fire front enough to allow the firefighters to stand a chance to control the fire (and to survive). I hope that the general public don't develop an expectation that big expensive water bombers can put out bushfires. They don't.

 

I am with you on this BUT

 

Exhausted filthy people on the fire front, with rakes and hoses does not have the visual impact of a large aircraft, like the Boeing 737, at low level with engines roaring spewing red rain down on the fire - great theater for political advancement - no expense (@ our cost) spared.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I am with you on this BUT

 

Exhausted filthy people on the fire front, with rakes and hoses does not have the visual impact of a large aircraft, like the Boeing 737, at low level with engines roaring spewing red rain down on the fire - great theater for political advancement - no expense (@ our cost) spared.

 

Well, believe it or not, we might be imbeciles staring at the pretty picture on the TV Set, but we tend to want our houses saved when there is a fire, and the Services want to keep within their budgets while doing what they do so well, so it tends to be self levelling.

 

 

[turboplanner]

let the fires burn themselves out.

 

[ATTACH]42643[/ATTACH]

 

The TV News (with the exception of the WA fires) this morning tended to support that with lots of video of dozing and back burning.

 

 

[facthunter]

People eternally look for a one pill or a silver bullet solution. It seems to be human nature to oversimplify. The brain wants an answer, often ANY answer, QUICKLY.  Taking in all the issues and evaluating all possibilities takes hard(er) work and mental discipline. Getting to be rare attributes among our leaders who specialise in "look over THERE.  Nothing happening here and it's (someone else's) fault.Nev

 

 

[skippydiesel]

Well, believe it or not, we might be imbeciles staring at the pretty picture on the TV Set, but we tend to want our houses saved when there is a fire, and the Services want to keep within their budgets while doing what they do so well, so it tends to be self levelling.

 

Turbs - no one has suggested that aircraft do not have their place - what most of us doubters are saying is it's not  the "silver bullet" (Nev) , its extraordinarily expensive and prevention (management of fuel  loads, better structural (location & building standards) planning etc) would likely be very much more cost effective (without the dramatic impact so loved by politicians/bureaucrats ).

 

 

[Yenn]

I have no opinion about water bombers, but I did fight fires many years ago when I was young and fitter than I am now.

 

What I see now is the media making big noises about how wonderful our firies are and how wonderful the government is in looking after people.

 

There is very little mention of where the fires start and how they are handled, nor about back burning or other methods of fighting the blaze.

 

Government loves the publicity as do the senior pencil pushers in the fire fighting organisations. The media love it because they don't have to think, just keep asking the same questions and getting the same answers.

 

The firies are working their butts off in dangerous situations, but we seldom hear from them.

 

 

[facthunter]

Taken a lot for granted Yenn, until they say something or get burned to death. Volunteers are not able to fight fires for months without relief nor are permanents. City fires don't usually go on for more than 4 days and require/use far different equipment and vehicles than Bush fires which can burn until the RAINS COME. Volunteers aren't even guaranteed their "normal" wages or any support for their families while the are away.  Of course you can't CRITICISE the Firies.as individuals. They do their best and often more but we can criticise the SYSTEM and the lack of support  and inadequate inappropriate equipment and expectation we apply to the people doing it and what we, councils and governments should be doing to avoid loss of houses and lives in the NEW normal. IF you can guarantee to survive for 40 minutes you could generally  emerge to do some actions which may well save your house, if it's well prepared and designed. California and here are places we may well have to do a big rethink about all this.  You will never be able to afford the Insurance premiums for large scale destruction of property if we keep doing what we do now. Nev

 

 

[onetrack]

Here's an aerial view of the Coulson B737 doing its first run on the Collie (W.A.) fire yesterday (15/12). You can see from the photo, that 15,000 litres of retardant is still just a "drop in the ocean" against the length of the fire front.

 

The fire is in heavily-timbered Jarrah/Marri forest country, and it's a slow job stopping it. It still depends largely on ground firefighting efforts, and cutting firebreaks and back-burning. 

 

My nephew has an annual contract with DPAW to supply Cat dozers for cutting firebreaks, and he has 2 x Cat D6H dozers sitting on low-loaders, ready to go at all times, between late November and early May.

 

He's on call 24/7 during this period, and he's got 2 hrs to be on the fire site, anywhere in the SW of W.A. as soon as DPAW call.

 

I've seen him work 120-130 hrs a week, snatching a couple of hours sleep in his dual-cab Ford Raptor, and then getting back into firebreak cutting, or running operators back and forth, on shift changes.

 

The B737 air tanker takes an average of 50 mins for a round trip from Pearce airbase to the Collie fire and back. The B737 speed is quite something to see, didn't take long after takeoff to be doing 370kts.

 

It takes 25 minutes to refill, and it did 4 runs on the Collie fire yesterday, and it did have a serious checking effect on this fire, with containment lines being able to be started right after its runs, and the fire danger level has been downgraded today.

 

 

 

[facthunter]

I think it's 250 knots below 10,000 ft most places. Vmo is 388 knots and that's really pushing it. on descent In the old days, when fuel wasn't so much of a problem  and there's NO turbulence likely. Climb at 340knots till you hit Mach .76. General actual (flight planned) still air ground speed 480 knots. Mach .82. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Indonesia ordered 7 of the new CL515, maybe they can rent them to us after their fire season ends?

 

 

 

 

[onetrack]

Nev, the track log for the B737 air tanker shows it travelling at up to FL130 on the way South to Collie, and FL160 on the way back.

 

It also shows 769km/h at one point, which is 415kts, if the tracking has any degree of accuracy.

 

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N138CG/history/20191215/0823Z/YPEA/YPEA/tracklog

 

 

[facthunter]

 388 knots limit is indicated airspeed and has a fair correction for TAS at that level. They could be well under limit indicated speed. I'd be flying it at turbulence penetration speed in bushfire areas and without load it will go a bit higher. (return trip) If the distance is about equal to Canberra to Sydney you would not climb to  the normal level as you just climb and then commence descent on short sectors. There's no cruise. Nev

 

 

[skippydiesel]

7 hours ago, fly_tornado said:

 

Indonesia ordered 7 of the new CL515, maybe they can rent them to us after their fire season ends?

 

Great aircraft but of limited scope in Au conditions - few water bodies large enough to allow the aircraft to do what it does best, scoop water, at flying speed, from near fire  lakes/dams/rivers

 

 

[Student Pilot]

On hot windy days it evaporates before it even reaches the fire, it also creates a large risk for the guy's on the ground. One day someone will be killed by a water bomber then there will be an inquiry and "usefulness" of the bombers will be exposed. 

 

You really have to make your mind up S, either the water evaporates and is useless or it hits hard and does damage, which one is it? There are standard operating procedures for water bombing, drops are OK'd from the ground after ground crews cleared. Have you had any "Actual" experience with aerial ops?

 

As far as Canadairs go, they carry 6000 litres for 24 million each!!!! 802's carry 3000 and usually work in Pairs dropping 6000 in one pass, these are privately owned at no expense to Governments except when used.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

7 hours ago, fly_tornado said:

 

Indonesia ordered 7 of the new CL515, maybe they can rent them to us after their fire season ends?

 

In 5 years if Indonesians have bought 7 Canadairs for roughly 200 million, they (the aircraft) will be U/S and in need of rebuilds, that's if they crew them with expats. If they crew them with local pilots there will be no aircraft left in 5 years. 

 

 

[nomadpete]

My opinion is that the water bombers have their place in the spectrum of tools used the fight fires.

 

However, I was born sceptical, and then spent the next sixtyseven years honing my cynicism.

 

I think we have a populace that has grown to epect that all nasty things that might happen, can be controlled/prevented by our carers (the government machine).

 

Blame it on the cotton wool upbringing perhaps.

 

Anyway, our government likes to play the 'saviour' role. Even on things that that they can't control. For them it's all about votes and grandstanding. So, rather than investing in long term protection such as better funding for fire prevention and fighting, they opt for grandious action such as spectacular airplane water bombers. I enjoyed the airshow early this year as all the water bombing aircraft lined up over our house (the only clear air for miles). They did have a positive effect, slowing the progress of the fire until the weather changed. I wasn't on the fire front but had been ordered to evacuate. Our local firefighting teams reported that it helped a lot. But there is always a airgap between the policy makers and the workers on the ground. Otherwise we wouldn't be relying on volunteer firefighters to do all the dirty work. (PS, I'm one myself)