NSW Boeing 737 Fire Bomber

In 1983 the RAAF did a fire retardant trial  with a Hercules

http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invboard/index.php?showtopic=2691

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.

 

Your first point/equation is short on one point - the investment in equipment, be it trucks, helicopters, aircraft has already been made - True the operation of that equipment will be an add on to the budget but surely will be less than that for the contractors who are also out to make a profit (I assume our military will not be seeking this). As it is much of the militaries equipment will require servicing on calendar time alone.

As for your second point - I agree  but it is very hard to put a dollar figure on the emotional toll/dislocation

In addition I would assume the dollars spent on proper prevention, would be significantly less than the cost of the emergency response we now face.

It is typical of Government to "silo/bucket" funding/expenditure, so moneys in one area can be exhausted, while in an other barely touched.

We do not fight hard enough against the cancer of bureaucratic thinking/organisation.

In 1983 the RAAF did a fire retardant trial  with a Hercules

 

http://www.adf-messageboard.com.au/invboard/index.php?showtopic=2691

 

Thanks for that Deanfi - pretty much proved my point  - perfectly feasible, without costly modifications and this concept can be carried through to all general duties/freight type transport .

Thanks for that Deanfi - pretty much proved my point  - perfectly feasible, without costly modifications and this concept can be carried through to all general duties/freight type transport .

 

1. You might like to ask (please not of us) why we don't use our current RAAF fleet for this task. The answer might very well come out of experience with that Hercules.

2. What is proper prevention?

1. You might like to ask (please not of us) why we don't use our current RAAF fleet for this task. The answer might very well come out of experience with that Hercules.

 

2. What is proper prevention?

 

Q1. - the contractors operate a C130 , so I guess they are suitable - it just seem to me that the Herc lends itself to this sort of activity - modular cargo, heavy lift, STOL, etc etc AND could be used for the rapid deployment of fire personnel & equipment - these are the types of scenarios are military transport assets actually train for.

Q2, - widespread use of fuel/hazard reduction burning, when weather conditions allow. Realistic & consistent building regulations that take into account terrain & proximity of forest/fuel. Consistent council rules about clearing around your structures.  

On the hazard reduction point, I can only go by my own experience  - my area (medium to low density development with some actual farms) on the eastern side of Warragamba Dam was "hit" by huge fires in 200/1. I ride in the local bush several times per week and have seen the buildup of fuel for myself.  Since erly 2000 fires, there has been very very little in the way of controlled fuel reduction. People who have lived here for 70 +years say that, other than the occasional token/limited area burn, it has never happened.

My local council seese no problem in issuing building permits for houses on the top of ridge lines, overlooking heavily forested slopes/gullys - go figure!!

The control of fires has been taken over by the bureaucrats and since then there have been more and more fires. Ten years ago it was unheard of for a house to be lost to a grass fire in Central Qld.

Last year the government evacuated Gracemere which has several thousand residents.

It used to be all grazing paddocks, which used to get up to a metre of dry grass, but back burning controlled the fire risk.

It is good for governments to be doing something drastic to supposedly save life and property, but not when they cause to original problem.

I do recall the c130 used in fire bombing needs some mods to wing attach , gust loading flying low level is very hard on airframes ,the F111 suffered from this and the B-52 fleet is having problems with fuselage buckling from low level missions

Don't know if the C130 in this video was modified , probably was , tragic accident ,was in 2014

IF you are serious about this stuff you wouldn't be using fatigued aeroplanes that are NOT strong in the first place. Most Hercs are past their use by date. There would be plenty of them just sitting around out of time. You would always find "someone" to fly any piece of crap but that doesn't mean it's right to do so. Nev

We do not fight hard enough against the cancer of bureaucratic thinking/organisation.

 

At last something I can completely agree with.

 Having bureaucratic and thinking together might justify some examination . I like the saying .They are so confused at Head Office , they are running around stabbing each other in the chest. Nev

IF you are serious about this stuff you wouldn't be using fatigued aeroplanes that are NOT strong in the first place. Most Hercs are past their use by date. There would be plenty of them just sitting around out of time. You would always find "someone" to fly any piece of crap but that doesn't mean it's right to do so. Nev

 

Sooo in a military emergency/response our Herc's would just be garden ornaments??

Australia currently has enough contracted aircraft without using untrained military. Backburning is good, if done correctly and weather cooperation. Last few years there has been very small windows of optimum times to hazard reduce. It's been too wet to burn then after a couple of days of hot weather it's too dry, States now have don't anywhere near enough manpower on the ground with Parks/DELWP to do anything like meaningful reduction. Depots that used to employ 50 full time staff now have 3. CFA average age would be in the region of at least 55? With paperwork outweighing productive time by 2 to 1 and more people actually leaving, it's only going to get worse.

On bad days all the planning and preparations are not going to be enough, look at Black Saturday fires, there were something 200 fires in Victoria from SA to the NSW border. Embers were spotting 40 K's away. You do what you can and get on with it.

The Hercules that lost it wings was  a 1957 model

In depth report

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Publications/Legal_Issues/PearblossomC130.html

FAA and gust link

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_25_341-1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjP55-8jK_mAhXd9nMBHSZYA8sQFjAGegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3dP-bBGmJAAKHmtntx4vBF

Hi Glenn1 - I dont think you have been following the conversation - it would be military assets 1. instead of contractors and /or 2. in support of firefighters.

You appear to be in general agreement with the the need to increase the fuel reduction/hazard  burns but say the Government(s) has not provided the necessary support to do so.

The Hercules that lost it wings was  a 1957 model

 

In depth report

 

http://www.iasa.com.au/folders/Publications/Legal_Issues/PearblossomC130.html

 

FAA and gust link

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_25_341-1.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjP55-8jK_mAhXd9nMBHSZYA8sQFjAGegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw3dP-bBGmJAAKHmtntx4vBF

 

Well I guess, badly flown, maintained or just worn out will do that to any aircraft but is this in support of Nev's comments that our existing heavy lifters are are not much good for more than static display (my words)

IF you are serious about this stuff you wouldn't be using fatigued aeroplanes that are NOT strong in the first place. Most Hercs are past their use by date. There would be plenty of them just sitting around out of time. You would always find "someone" to fly any piece of crap but that doesn't mean it's right to do so. Nev

 

During the famine in Ethiopia in the early 80s it was suggested that Australia provide a couple of retired Hercs. A family member in the Air Force told me they had been stored in the open near the coast and were corroded beyond recovery. 

Alice Springs has only recently opened a long-term storage facility for aircraft.

Hi Glenn1 - I dont think you have been following the conversation - it would be military assets 1. instead of contractors and /or 2. in support of firefighters.

 

You appear to be in general agreement with the the need to increase the fuel reduction/hazard  burns but say the Government(s) has not provided the necessary support to do so.

 

He's trying to give you some good advice.  You've got more than enough responses to drop the obesssion with the Military especially when the supply of dedicated fire fighting contractor aircraft has not been exhausted. You do not fight the total fire front from the air because that's unaffordabe, which is why I went to the trouble of going through the back burning operations where huge areas can be made safe without any aircraft.

DELWP look after Parks..  

Volunteers look after private property and districts do have a problem in attracting young people to train these days.

He's trying to give you some good advice.  You've got more than enough responses to drop the obesssion with the Military especially when the supply of dedicated fire fighting contractor aircraft has not been exhausted. You do not fight the total fire front from the air because that's unaffordabe, which is why I went to the trouble of going through the back burning operations where huge areas can be made safe without any aircraft.

 

DELWP look after Parks..  

 

Volunteers look after private property and districts do have a problem in attracting young people to train these days.

 

Its not an obsession - its an observation - assets we/you have paid for, standing near idle - great investment I dont think. You like our Government(s) probably think its their money, to be squandered as they see fit.

No I dont think aircraft are THE answer in fact I have doubts about their effectiveness (& cost effectiveness) compared to well resourced ground operations and future planning/management/hazard reduction. I do think aircraft have a part to play but not the dramatic overplay our leaders are so keen to fund.

Your last comments - please explain ?? are you a proponent of quranteening responsibility ???

 

Well I guess, badly flown, maintained or just worn out will do that to any aircraft but is this in support of Nev's comments that our existing heavy lifters are are not much good for more than static display (my words)

 

Probably just economics , pilots would have no problem , they do low level evasive stuff all the time but from what I can gather it seems fire bombing is hard on airframes and the raaf is probably trying to get as long as they can out of the relatively  new c130 fleet , who knows , its a complex issue and out sourcing is probably  cheaper

 

Its not an obsession - its an observation - assets we/you have paid for, standing near idle - great investment I dont think. You like our Government(s) probably think its their money, to be squandered as they see fit.

 

No I dont think aircraft are THE answer in fact I have doubts about their effectiveness (& cost effectiveness) compared to well resourced ground operations and future planning/management/hazard reduction. I do think aircraft have a part to play but not the dramatic overplay our leaders are so keen to fund.

 

Your last comments - please explain ?? are you a proponent of quranteening responsibility ???

 

Skip ,I am not necessarily rubbishing the idea in fact I think it does have some merit.  However  answers that seems blindingly simple and obvious or usually more complicated than they might initially seem. If we are going to use military aircraft and pilots they must be trained for the task. Our military spends a lot of time doing joint exercises with the militaries  of other countries in order to ensure that they on the same page and are using practices that  harmonize with each other.

That being said, I do not necessarily see why in the future this could not be part of their training.

Something that Joe public often gets wrong is that they seem to think that we have all of these aircraft sitting on the ground with the pilots sitting around playing cards just waiting for something useful to do, this is not the case.  As I mentioned earlier between 79 and 90 I was  a musician in the RAAF, although I had nothing to do with aircraft I did spend a hell of a lot of time in the back of a C130 and other aircraft traveling around the country and overseas.  Usually we are crammed in the back of a C130 with an engine perhaps being delivered to Amberley or perhaps medical goods for the RAAF hospital, vehicles, cages with RAAF dogs (quite unpleasant to sit next to)   I am not saying that these tasks are more important than this emergency but just making the point that the military  are not sitting idle ever (I can only speak about the RAAF and even then 30 years ago).   

Again not rubbishing the idea but throwing in personnel that are untrained for this type of event in equipment that has not necessarily been tested could end up more expensive than hiring in people with the correct and up to date training in proven equipment.

Since my time in the RAAF many jobs that were done by the RAAF were contracted out after it was found to be cheaper and more efficient.   

Probably just economics , pilots would have no problem , they do low level evasive stuff all the time but from what I can gather it seems fire bombing is hard on airframes and the raaf is probably trying to get as long as they can out of the relatively  new c130 fleet , who knows , its a complex issue and out sourcing is probably  cheaper

 

Its no more "complex" than the politicians/vested interests want to make it, to suit their agendas 

"out sourcing is probably  cheaper" - whaaat!? outsourcing merely relocates the cost to another silo/bucket, giving the illusion of saving and is usually way more expensive IF you compare equal  products/service. Our bureaucracy is a master at fudging the figures & facts to suit their desired SHORT TERM outcome(s)

Hi Octave -

Answer this  - Why, at Richmond Air Base NSW, almost every week day, hour after hour, do C130 & other heavy lift aircraft ,fly round & round, doing bumps & grinds,  when they could be doing something useful (not suggesting that pilots maintaining proficiency is not useful).

Harmonising  between other OS militaries may be difficult (language/culture/ equipment/ etc) but between our military & civilian agencies,  the only thing standing in the way is the will to do it.

The rest - well its just comes down to the political will to do it - nothing technical just will.

Answer this  - Why, at Richmond Air Base NSW, almost every week day, hour after hour, do C130 & other heavy lift aircraft ,fly round & round, doing bumps & grinds,  when they could be doing something useful (not suggesting that pilots maintaining proficiency is not useful).

 

That is easy to answer. Something we used to do in the band was to play at graduation parades for the RAAF flying school (as it was at that time , not sure how it is done now)  During that parade each graduating pilot would be told where their first posting would be. Until this point I think (again this is probably different now) had only flown CT4 and Macchi back in the early days then later it was the Pilatus.    They could be posted to 36 or 37 squadron C130 or to F111 (back in the day) or Orions or Chinooks. They need to learn how to fly and qualify on these aircraft

Apart from that some of those circuits you see would be pilots being retested or qualifying to become aircraft captain.   

They are probably doing training or recurrent checking assy and stuff .Not the sort of thing you would combine with a fire fighting episode but still necessary./ essential.

     Not on an AD HOC basis is the stated aim which is sensible. IF the gov't rushed into it for creating an impression that would be foolhardy and irresponsible. With the right gear and training maybe. I believe that's Littleprouds view  with which a AGREE wholeheartedly. I doubt the cost would end up being better than the hired stuff run from overseas, and unless it is, why do it?.. Nev

If the contract REAL/FULL/UNMASSAGED cost is cheaper than using our existing payed for military assets, I would be very surprised BUT if it is so, then of course, I will wholeheartedly support the most cost effective solution - never in doubt!.