A common sense idea to prepare for the next fire season

[Old Koreelah]

[skippydiesel]

Great cost effective idea OK and because it is our collective Governments are unlikely to embrace it.

 

The idea is similar to utilising (possibly expanding) our military Hercules fleet - pretty much a no brainier as a seasonal "modular" conversion to a water bomber. The research has already been done - it works.

[facthunter]

They are very high hours. Just use sacrificial pilots? There's one at HARS at Albion Park worth a look at. Nev

[onetrack]

There will be an abundance of new, and almost-new aircraft, available for conversion very shortly, at fire sale prices. I reckon those Orions will go cheap, and just be converted to parts.

[turboplanner]

[ATTACH alt=image.jpeg]55983[/ATTACH]

My cousin's son was flight engineer in Gulf War 1 and 2 in these. A very unusual aircraft. The Flight Engineer sits between Captain and First Officer and operates the throttle and an outer engine is shut down for long range cruise. The aircraft had a missile defence system, and could knock out submarines, so they were set up for very long range. They coul fly from WA and search the southern ocean around Antarctica and did endless hours north of Australia in surveillance for boat people. I'd hate to think how many hours they have on the frames, and I don't know whether they would have the carrying capacity and performance for fire fighting where a lot of steep turns and sharp climbs are required. I'd think the crew cost and crew layout wouldn't be ideal for quick decisions with gum trees and smoke all around.

[onetrack]

They spent many hundreds of hours in just a short time frame, looking for signs of MH370.

[M61A1]

When I saw the post title I thought we were going to get some advice, about clearing around dwellings, controlled burns and firebreaks.

[walrus]

There is no such thing as a quick conversion, even if the airframe, engines, pilots and crews were available.

[Old Koreelah]

When I saw the post title I thought we were going to get some advice, about clearing around dwellings, controlled burns and firebreaks.

Sorry about that, you have a point. In NSW at least we are seeing a "First Saturday" campaign, encouraging people to devote one day a month to tidying up and generally preparing for fires.

[onetrack]

From the news article below ....

 

" Overall, the need for repairs (to the Orions being retired) has begun to ramp up as the (Orion AP-3C) system approaches the end of its service life. Over the last four years, the team at RUAG Australia has applied 286 repairs at Bayswater, 242 repairs at Amberley, and 270 repairs at Airport West ."

 

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/key-enablers/5090-ruag-australia-polishes-sustainment-credentials-as-raaf-p-3c-orions-retire

 

In the final washup, simple economics dictate the cost of major airframe and component reconditioning on high hour 20 yr old aircraft, plus the added cost of conversion to firebomber, means the suggestion is not economically viable.

The money is better off being put towards the purchase or lease of dedicated firebombers that are based on low-hour, newer aircraft.

After all, firebombing involves a high level of duty cycles and high aircraft loadings, so you don't want tired old airframes doing the work.

[SSCBD]

This is what we should have had 10 years ago - six of them.

 

[skippydiesel]

Why do fire bombers have to be "retired" aircraft - in my fantasy, the C130's would be military aircraft, flown, maintained (& routinely replaced as necessary) by the military but tasked with fire fighting when required.

Wheres the problem? Is it not our military? Funded by our tax dollars?

Who dictates that our military cant be used in all sorts of emergency response, right from the start of the situation. This crazy and expensive concept that the military can only be used as a last resort is just illogical.

Our military should not only be trained in warfare but also in emergency response - that means in the aviation context our C130 pilots would be skilled water bombers but should also apply to any military asset that can be used as a civilian emergency response.

[skippydiesel]

This is what we should have had 10 years ago - six of them.

 

 

You sure? - An aircraft developed in Canada for Canadian/North American conditions (may apply to certain parts of Europe as well), where large bodies of fresh water "litter" the landscape. True we could dump salt/sea water on our fires (that's assuming they can "load" in wave condition which I doubts) but who wants salt poisoning of our soils?

[SSCBD]

You sure? - An aircraft developed in Canada for Canadian/North American conditions (may apply to certain parts of Europe as well), where large bodies of fresh water "litter" the landscape. True we could dump salt/sea water on our fires (that's assuming they can "load" in wave condition which I doubts) but who wants salt poisoning of our soils?

They can load salt water in open sea swell (up to 1.5m) as when they put on a show on the Gold Coast 10 years ish ago.

[skippydiesel]

They can load salt water in open sea swell (up to 1.5m) as when they put on a show on the Gold Coast 10 years ish ago.

I stand partly corrected - but my concern over sea water being used routinely, still stands as does the distance of the water from all but coastal fires. One of the 515.s claimed attributes is their ability for fast turn around, compared with other aircraft. This will be significantly degraded if they must load like non amphibious aircraft.

[onetrack]

You don't want salt water being dropped on fires, it's toxic to both vegetation and soils - not to mention airframes and engines. In addition, many fires are distant from oceans, so water supplies closer to the fire are far more useful.

Australia has a major problem with availability of satisfactory water supplies for firefighting, unlike Canada and North America with the vast bodies of fresh water everywhere.

[SplitS]

Spend the money on fuel reduction burns and providing the volunteers with better equipment. Aircraft (water bombers) are the most expensive and the most useless resource during fire events. Water bombers a waste of money for preventing catastrophic bushfires says veteran fire researcher

[Kyle Communications]

We are building a house at our farm and under the BAL (Bushfire Attack Level) rules there has to be no trees within 100mtrs of the dwelling also roofing and all gaps have to be 2.5mm or under. Doors and windows also have to be of a certain type. But if you are really serious about it you fit a sprinkler system over the house and have a protected water source either a metal tank or underground tank or a dam close by and your water supply from the source to be underground. if there is a fire you turn the engine powered pump on like a "firefighter pump" and then split the area.

 

Most people lose everything because they have trees right up to the building and house...98% or destroyed places are like this. Not sure on the rules down south but these are the rules up here now..not the sprinkler system but the rest is. Keeping your property clean is the most effective way to lessen the risk. people are either lazy or couldnt care about it if they dont take the appropriate precautions

[walrus]

Kyle, I saw housing examples, both good and bad, in the Kempsey region last year. I still have my rural fire services cap from that trip. I got a ride home in a C17!

[Student Pilot]

This is what we should have had 10 years ago - six of them.

 

At 30+ million a piece? 6000 litres is the max load. That's 2 X 802's and at 3 million for a new 802.

There are something like 60 X 802's on fires in Oz, all privately owned.