nomadpete

Quote:/

"By your logic only city dwellers deserve fire assistance."

No, what I mean, is that City folk very rarely require bushfire fighters. Because they don't live in the bush.

Cities rarely lose multiple structures to a single fire, which is a regular outcome of bushfires due to the higher risk posed by locating the buildings too close to very large highly flammable bushland.

In this 'user pays'world, why should tree change people avoid proper risk management, and expect others to risk their lives to protect their Greened up tree enclosed (often quite delightful) lifestyle homes?

I realise my generalisation doesn't apply to all cases, but there has been a massive number of people moving out to live a better life in more rural settings, and many seem to expect that if there is a sudden danger, that there will always be someone else ready to rush to the rescue. It's the modern mindset.

In essence, I believe that all those happy 'periurbanites' should realise and accept that their choice of home location MUST come with a caveat -It WILL cost more to make the 'treechange' home SAFELY habitable.

Particularly with respect for fire safety.. They should be paying a premium toward fire fighting organisations, they should have tighter fire resistant specifications imposed on homes. They should have regulated safe areas around buildings. They should (eg: a 10,000 ltrs fire  tank is required in Tas)  have a dedicated minimum amount of water available to defend their buildings.

Basically, the home owners should shoulder a large amount of the expense (responsibility), of living in a more hazardous location than would  a true urbanite where bushfires do not normally present a hazard.

By the way, as far as 'leftist, anti-government mouthpieces' go, even our rightwing forumites aren't too trusting of our government's integrity or honesty.

I'm not sure what your message is, Master Newberry.

If you believe that the ABC is just a dubious leftwing propaganda machine, why do you quote then in your second reference, to prove a point?

Either you believe them or you don't.

So, are you saying that we cynics should all swamp the survey with our opinions, or should we all boycott it (which allows the survey to be swamped by spineless yessmen)?

SOP

Our local council roadside slashers and mowers have caused several callouts this year. One fire was quite big and took a lot of work to extinguish.

It seems that the inter departmental ignorance problem includes power struggles between councils and fire departments, as well as National Parks and a few others.

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)

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.

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

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.

Butch, we presently do have

Quote:

"someone who is well paid with all entitlements ( super, holidays, sick leave, long service and the rest) tell you how to suck eggs"

A bunch of us volunteers recently attended a function where we were addressed by well paid  professional head office blokes. Most of the speech could be summarised as 'we're all doing a great job, be prepared, do your training, and well done chaps, but we all have a hard time ahead this summer.' 

Then he dodged questions relating to allowing anyone to help by using their own equipment such as using the farm tractor to slash a fire break, or heaven forbid, several professional tree fellers were ordered to always wait for a contract tree feller to be called in, if a tree needed felling, also, that we are not permitted to direct road traffic around a hazard,  etc, etc.

This stuff causes resentment in the ranks.

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.

Let's see.

Wet H2O is water.

Steam is water vapour, so it's really not 'water' whilst in a vapour state.

But ice.... Nobody calls it water, nor do they call it 'water solid'. Ice is not wet. Only water is wet.....  So as far as language goes, ice is not water until it melts.

So there!

I don't think Skippy meant that the military should try to start firebombing without the right equipment.

It wouldn't take a lot of foresight in a bushfire prone country, to buy some basic stuff in preparation for the armed forces to assist the people of Australia. Compared to the expenditure on submarines and unfinished fighter jets, it would cost peanuts and would actually be useful.

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 !  ?

Bex. Please.

This is an aviation forum!

Thankfully Phil has started a new thread for further discussion of this important aviation conundrum.

No doubt someone will be able to tell me how to apply the answers to my next circuit practice.

Oh nooo!!!

Now the internet has provided two different answers to the question!

But someone on our forum has gone to great lengths to assure me that the internet is a great source of fast, accurate research!

Maybe I'm better off going back to sitting around the campfire debating our own theories, and drinking (good) wine. The old way was good enough to arrive at the same possibilities as the internet experts did.

So, Marty. You're implying that the advent of the internet would have led to a responsible reduction in my alcohol intake, but also hampered my ability to respond to a debate. If that happened, I would have had to wait until I got married to learn the art of debate.

Bah, I think it was more fun without Google. Sitting around a campfire comparing Google searches just isn't very challenging.

BTW, thanks for the answer.

Quote/"Does a fly do a half loop or a half roll to land on the ceiling? "

When I was a young impressionable bloke, that very question caused a group of us to spend an entire long weekend  consuming excessive amounts of alcoholic voice lubricants, in order to solve this important aviation conundrum. We never did come up with the answer.

Fire bomber briefing.....

In Ross's case, I believe the post crash fire had prevented a meaningful investigation into the cause of power loss.. We will never know what the cause was.

If, as was suggested at the time, there was initially a partial loss of owner before the engine failed, it may have caused Maj to hesitate before taking action.  That would explain a loss of airspeed before he attempted any manoeuvre.

I had a GA912 Lightwing .

I once took off with both fuel taps turned off. I till can't believe my mistake. I am not suggesting for a moment that Maj did this. However, my experience is that my aircraft had sufficient fuel to climb on full noise to a height of about 200 ' before faltering, spooling down, then shortly after that going quiet. In my case, I put the nose down instantly and maintained flying speed until landing in the crop off the end of the strip. I did have that option.

To lose our good friend after similar circumstances shook my confidence totally.

I haven't got over it.

I didn't really know Ross well but I felt closely connected to him. When I sold my a/C it had dashboard labels that he gave me.

Ross, you are greatly missed by all of us, not just your immediate loved ones, but also your extended aviating family.

OME, what activity would you like to see? If you like I'll post something contentious, to get the ball rolling.

Maybe Ian could have renamed it "Let's start an argument"

It'd be nice to see somebody challenge the coppers. They sometimes seem to put themselves above the law.