The Russians have offered to sell us some of these, why the hell won't our government buy some instead of just letting our forests and homes burn, and our people die?
Printable View
The Russians have offered to sell us some of these, why the hell won't our government buy some instead of just letting our forests and homes burn, and our people die?
Pretty impressive.
That plane can saturate 600 yards in one shot, and we fight fires with a bucket hanging from a helicopter. [Rant1]
OK, how about American made? Damn it, there's better ways, use them! Piss away our money on other bullshit, grrrrr.
Take a look at the Russian flying safety record and look at ours.
Airborn firefighting is nothing like it is in the movie Always. I have been doing it for over 20 years and still get scared more often than I would like.
It might lay a line 600 yards long, but how much does it put down? Not much and not very accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by rondog
Helo buckets are very effective actually.
The russians have a lot of decent and effective pieces of equipment. Cold War attitudes have instilled Americans with the "commie junk" complex. If it was the right price I'd buy anything russian.
delete
Seriously? The Lodge Pole Pine is a 100 year tree, most old growth out here is 120-140 years... Well past due in the natural order of things. There would be the blight of Beetle Kill if we (humans) let nature take it's course. Fire is the way the forests rejuvenate. I don't like it, especially with loss of property and loss of life, but if you have a "defendable space" it is far better than relying on Gov't to help/protect you.Quote:
Originally Posted by rondog
There are inherent risks and rewards to living in the mountains and by the oceans... People should do their part to mitigate the risks.
Bingo! Well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by two shoes
Forest fires are a natural event and help keep the soil fresh and the debris low. Humans think they can do better, and let the old and dead growth pile up so things can look more rustic when they build their homes out there. And then they are shocked when the dry, dead forest goes up in flames in a heartbeat.
I'm not saying to eliminate the helos and smaller bombers, but I'm not believing that a large bomber like these wouldn't be useful as a supplemental tool. Hell, even a fleet of C-130's would be good, just don't use ancient, worn-out ones from the 50's like that one that the wings snapped off of.
Wikipedia says the IL-76 can carry 13,000 gallons of water or retardant.
And I understand about how fires are "nature's way" of rejuvination. If that's the case, then why fight the fires at all? Because people build homes and live in those forests, that's why. I just think that we need a better water bomber fleet, and there's better options out there than just helos, crop dusters, small planes, and WWII/50's-era bombers & cargo planes. Modernize the damn fleets with more effective tools!
delete
Kind of like all the people who built in Tornado areas or earthquake areas, or any other place where a natural disaster can destroy a lot of homes.Quote:
Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck
These guys are just bastards for living in the path of a Tornado...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Joplin_tornado
Logging is an effective forest management solution...too back the fucking environmentalists destroyed that industry in Colorado...not to mention that roadless shit that made it hard as hell to mitigate the overgrowth problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by two shoes
delete
What about people that live in coastal areas that are susceptible to hurricanes, tidal surges, tsunamis, etc.? Ever think about what could happen if a huge hurricane hit the Chesapeake Bay dead-on? There's an island on the other side of the Atlantic that's splitting down the middle, and scientists fear half of it will slide into the ocean and send a tsunami across the Atlantic that would hit the eastern US coast, causing a disaster of biblical proportions.Quote:
Maybe if you live in a forested area, you should be obligated to purchase additional fire fighting insurance. kind of like flood insurance. So, us taxpayers dont get screwed every year, because you built a combustible house in the forest.
Maybe people shouldn't live on the coasts or near the oceans, and expect help when disasters strike? Or people who live in grasslands areas shouldn't expect help when big prairie fires are coming?
That is a wonderfully large plane that most likely comes with wonderfully large costs to operate.
delete
They have eight C-130s at their disposal. A DC-10 and a 747. From late April through Thanksgiving I have a suitcase under my desk waiting for the word to go.Quote:
Originally Posted by rondog
The heavier tankers (DC-10, MARS & 747) do not fare well in the mountains at low altitudes. They are going too fast and too high above the fuels/trees. They are very effective in rolling hills. We worked the Austin Texas fires with the DC-10 last summer. Pretty cool.
The old tankers like the PB-4Y and C-130A belly droppers have not been used since late 2002. The pilot of Tanker 130 was a buddy of mine. We worked the same fire a couple weeks earlier in Utah.
Aircraft maint issues grounded the whole P-3 tanker fleet and put Aero Union out of business.
The Russian tankers are cool, but a nightmare to maintain. We offered up our C-130 fleet to them a few years ago when they had that huge fire.
I'm sure hundreds of firefighters on the ground with trucks and other equipment aren't cheap either. One pass from a big water bomber could do what it would take a ground team days to do, without risking firefighters lives. Remember the lives lost on Storm King Mountain?Quote:
Originally Posted by speedysst
Hoser is right. It has a minimal impact on fire suppression, at a very high cost. I knew some of the pilots that flew fire suppression out of Jeffco airport and we lost a plane (and the crew) that flew out of there too. The best method we have is men on the ground with shovels and torches. Tanker planes are great for the cameras but the hard work is still done by hand.
Big cheers to our firefighters. It is a very hard, mostly thankless job that does not pay much... [Beer]
OK, I just thought they would be a good idea. But I certainly have no experience fighting fires. If those that do say the big planes wouldn't work that well, I can't argue with their experience!
+1 bazillion! Thanks to Hoser and all the others!Quote:
Originally Posted by Delfuego
Really, so all the public infrastructure is magically saved?Quote:
Originally Posted by HBARleatherneck
delete
True but in situations like last year where there were very few large fires, the planes still cost money to maintain and park/store. I wonder what the parking fee for a IL-76 is?Quote:
Originally Posted by rondog
I worked on a wildland crew for 3 summers Ron and the guys on the ground are almost more important than the air support. we are the ones going thru knicking trees down so that the fire drops from the crown to the undergrowth and digging the fire line so it stops there. that is how a fire becomes contained. the water just slows it down. to give us a chance to cut lineQuote:
Originally Posted by rondog
The guys on the ground are the most important part. Aircraft, for the most part, do not drop directly on the flames. We drop retardant in the path of the flames to give the ground crews a break to cut a line.Quote:
Originally Posted by DFBrews
We where on the million fire in south fork and actually had to have a slurry drop on us because of a wind change that shit hurts and is sticky!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoser
Hoser,
Do you know why they haven't called you guys out with your C130s?
Leo
Not a clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Leobj
Is there a point where the air traffic itself becomes dangerous because of the number of aircraft operating? I would think that would become a limiting factor at some point.
It is a huge factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by dropped_71chevy
The big Big sky, little plane theory does not work when everyone is working the same fire.
When I flew smoke-jumpers, you definitely had to have your head on a swivel. And that was with just a few airplanes around. Maybe a lead plane, us, and a tanker. I can't imagine what a fire like this has going on in regards to aircraft all over the place.
I have to wonder now that I think about it, why the heck doesn't Colorado have a smoke-jumper base?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColoWyo
The low visibility is one factor. I'm out in windsor and even west of 25 you cannot see shit.
Smoke jumpers are mostly in the north and PNW. The crews i dealt with were all Montana Indians. Insane guys whose only goal is to stop or minimize the fires path, knowing a shift in the wind could be fatal.
And yes the russian flight safety record is dismal to say the least.
Smoke jumpers are initial attack. They are on scene long before visibility is an issue. At least that is my experience as a pilot flying them to the fire and having them jump out of my plane in AK and the NW.
Being one of (if not the) most heavily populated states in the Rocky Mountains, it seems like it would make sense to have a smoke jumper base in Colorado.