Air tanker support?

User avatar
Woodenhead
Guru
Posts: 5188
Joined: Jun 2nd, 2009, 2:47 pm

Re: Air tanker support?

Post by Woodenhead »

cooldude wrote:I have 25 years experience in wildfire suppression, and I hope that this sheds a bit of light on the subject for you all.

It does, I appreciate what you said & I couldn't agree more. But there's a sub-set of folks who ignore all that simply because they are in love with the big old Mars et al. and that won't change no matter what. The same convos come up year after year, like clockwork.
Wealth without work. Pleasure without conscience. Knowledge without character. Commerce without morality. Science without humanity. Politics without principle. Your bias suits you.
canuck500
Fledgling
Posts: 276
Joined: May 29th, 2011, 5:28 pm

Re: Air tanker support?

Post by canuck500 »

People also need to realize that while the states have parts that are similar in topography to BC they have more areas that are wider open. Air tanker tactics are also different, we tend to drop lower for higher concentrations, lower also allows for more accuracy. The Americans tend to drop from higher altitudes which causes the loads to spread over a wider area in a lower concentration. Not that it's totally relevant to this discussion but Canada has a much better safety attitude. The Americans tend to treat their crews like they are expendable.
sherriff
Posts: 63
Joined: Aug 1st, 2012, 9:34 pm

Re: Air tanker support?

Post by sherriff »

I really don't think Americans would treat their fire fighters as they were expendable,,,,,,I mean really?? They actually do not drop from higher altitudes either, height of drop is totally dependant on mitigating circumstances. If dropping water or retardant in enormous amounts onto a forest fire does not help to put it out, then please tell me why we are still doing it, just with smaller aircraft. The only possible outcome could be, with a bigger plane and more water, we will get a bigger suppression of the fire, Please give yourself more credit and admit when water is put onto fire it goes out. It totally depends on the size of the fire as to how much water you need. By the way I do realize we need fire fighters on the ground to fully extinguish the fires. We cannot afford to wait until winter so perhaps the premier could give Global Supertankers a call and get some serious help before this gets worse and it will. I do respect the opinion of another fire fighter but at the same time I can't help but think that a plane capable of maneuvering around the terrain that we have, and at the same time drop a blanket of water three football fields wide for five kilometers and, control the actual water drop like rain, would be detrimental to suppressing a forest fire. The only problem I can see is finding which airport they could operate from. We have them, just have to choose which one. Or, we can wait for winter. The way I see it in another month or so of this we definitely won't have to worry abut a softwood lumber deal or a place to sell cattle. We may need to buy lumber from our American neighbours to rebuild our houses and barns etc.
SheriC
Posts: 2
Joined: Mar 4th, 2013, 1:49 pm

Re: Air tanker support?

Post by SheriC »

sherriff wrote:I really don't think Americans would treat their fire fighters as they were expendable,,,,,,I mean really?? They actually do not drop from higher altitudes either, height of drop is totally dependant on mitigating circumstances. If dropping water or retardant in enormous amounts onto a forest fire does not help to put it out, then please tell me why we are still doing it, just with smaller aircraft. The only possible outcome could be, with a bigger plane and more water, we will get a bigger suppression of the fire, Please give yourself more credit and admit when water is put onto fire it goes out. It totally depends on the size of the fire as to how much water you need. By the way I do realize we need fire fighters on the ground to fully extinguish the fires. We cannot afford to wait until winter so perhaps the premier could give Global Supertankers a call and get some serious help before this gets worse and it will. I do respect the opinion of another fire fighter but at the same time I can't help but think that a plane capable of maneuvering around the terrain that we have, and at the same time drop a blanket of water three football fields wide for five kilometers and, control the actual water drop like rain, would be detrimental to suppressing a forest fire. The only problem I can see is finding which airport they could operate from. We have them, just have to choose which one. Or, we can wait for winter. The way I see it in another month or so of this we definitely won't have to worry abut a softwood lumber deal or a place to sell cattle. We may need to buy lumber from our American neighbours to rebuild our houses and barns etc.

well sherrif,i have to give you a lot of credit for all the views you have provided..i am with you all the way.water on fire makes it go out..why do people want to dispute that with ridiculous quotes like water will not put out fires..why are we told to keep 2 liters of water with us when we are having a camp fire...BECAUSE WATER PUTS OUT FIRE...SIMPLE....so my way of thinking is big takers with lots of water/retardant on board will definitely put out fires..it breaks my heart to see the destruction to date..the loss of thousands of cattle let alone the uncountable wild life lost never mind homes and livelihoods.this is by far not the end..it will take mother nature to finally douse all these fires and SO MUCH more loss is still to come..when it is over I would like the politicians to walk thru the aftermath and view the bodies of all the dead animals and think about the HORRIBLE way they died...as for the usa treating their firefighters as if they are dispensable.REALLY??? come on...think about what you are saying then give your head a shake...
canuck500
Fledgling
Posts: 276
Joined: May 29th, 2011, 5:28 pm

Re: Air tanker support?

Post by canuck500 »

They definitely don't operate to the same safety standards we do. They can get more firefighters killed in a single season then we do in 5 or 6 years. You also can't get down low and maneuver in anything except the flattest terrain with those large air tankers.

It's also a matter of what happens after a tanker goes in and does it's drop. The crews still have to go back in and mop up, they can't do that safely until all the danger trees are accessed and taken down. With a wider drop pattern that takes that much more time to do. Believe what you want to believe. I know people who've worked with the Mars & nobody had a good thing to say about it.
sherriff
Posts: 63
Joined: Aug 1st, 2012, 9:34 pm

Re: Air tanker support?

Post by sherriff »

canuck500 wrote:They definitely don't operate to the same safety standards we do. They can get more firefighters killed in a single season then we do in 5 or 6 years. You also can't get down low and maneuver in anything except the flattest terrain with those large air tankers.

It's also a matter of what happens after a tanker goes in and does it's drop. The crews still have to go back in and mop up, they can't do that safely until all the danger trees are accessed and taken down. With a wider drop pattern that takes that much more time to do. Believe what you want to believe. I know people who've worked with the Mars & nobody had a good thing to say about it.

Crews having to do mop up is what they are there for and the Mars was not mentioned other than by yourself. Let it go man. Having to go in and mop up after the tanker makes the drop is exactly what we are trying to accomplish. What is wrong with that? The terrain in Chile is not flat by any means and Global handled that with no problems. By the way the Chileans love these guys and nothing but good to say about their accomplishments.
rookie314
Übergod
Posts: 1616
Joined: Jun 11th, 2005, 10:00 am

Re: Air tanker support?

Post by rookie314 »

canuck500 wrote:They definitely don't operate to the same safety standards we do. They can get more firefighters killed in a single season then we do in 5 or 6 years. You also can't get down low and maneuver in anything except the flattest terrain with those large air tankers.

It's also a matter of what happens after a tanker goes in and does it's drop. The crews still have to go back in and mop up, they can't do that safely until all the danger trees are accessed and taken down. With a wider drop pattern that takes that much more time to do. Believe what you want to believe. I know people who've worked with the Mars & nobody had a good thing to say about it.


I worked with the USFS fighting fire on helitack for ten years and in regards to safety you're wrong. They have more fatalities for two reasons, extremely aggressive fire behaviour and number of people working fire. I have worked single fires in SoCal with over 1500 people, 300 engines, over a dozen rotary and multiple groups of tankers. They will put more people and equipment on one campaign fire, or complex, than are working all fires in BC right now. The tanker discussions in regards to tactics and operational usage are laymen driven and not based on reality. Unless a fire is hit hard early with water it does little to put out a fire. It can slow it, make it so it can be quided to some degree but it doesn't put it out. Drop to high the water dissipates to much and can evaporate before it hits the ground. It doesn't penetrate the canopy, ever stand under a teee in the rain? It can't get into the roots, crews on the ground do that with rotary bucket support. In short putting out large fires is done, as we saw in 2003 by Mother Nature.
User avatar
cooldude
Fledgling
Posts: 217
Joined: Nov 9th, 2009, 8:37 am

Re: Air tanker support?

Post by cooldude »

rookie314 wrote:
canuck500 wrote:They definitely don't operate to the same safety standards we do. They can get more firefighters killed in a single season then we do in 5 or 6 years. You also can't get down low and maneuver in anything except the flattest terrain with those large air tankers.

It's also a matter of what happens after a tanker goes in and does it's drop. The crews still have to go back in and mop up, they can't do that safely until all the danger trees are accessed and taken down. With a wider drop pattern that takes that much more time to do. Believe what you want to believe. I know people who've worked with the Mars & nobody had a good thing to say about it.


I worked with the USFS fighting fire on helitack for ten years and in regards to safety you're wrong. They have more fatalities for two reasons, extremely aggressive fire behaviour and number of people working fire. I have worked single fires in SoCal with over 1500 people, 300 engines, over a dozen rotary and multiple groups of tankers. They will put more people and equipment on one campaign fire, or complex, than are working all fires in BC right now. The tanker discussions in regards to tactics and operational usage are laymen driven and not based on reality. Unless a fire is hit hard early with water it does little to put out a fire. It can slow it, make it so it can be quided to some degree but it doesn't put it out. Drop to high the water dissipates to much and can evaporate before it hits the ground. It doesn't penetrate the canopy, ever stand under a teee in the rain? It can't get into the roots, crews on the ground do that with rotary bucket support. In short putting out large fires is done, as we saw in 2003 by Mother Nature.


Give rookie314 a cigar! :up:
User avatar
maryjane48
Buddha of the Board
Posts: 17124
Joined: May 28th, 2010, 7:58 pm

Re: Air tanker support?

Post by maryjane48 »

canuck500 wrote:They definitely don't operate to the same safety standards we do. They can get more firefighters killed in a single season then we do in 5 or 6 years. You also can't get down low and maneuver in anything except the flattest terrain with those large air tankers.

It's also a matter of what happens after a tanker goes in and does it's drop. The crews still have to go back in and mop up, they can't do that safely until all the danger trees are accessed and taken down. With a wider drop pattern that takes that much more time to do. Believe what you want to believe. I know people who've worked with the Mars & nobody had a good thing to say about it.

i posted a video of 737 dropping a load in same type terrain here below tree top level to save some firefighters in states .
seewood
Lord of the Board
Posts: 3614
Joined: May 29th, 2013, 2:08 pm

Re: Air tanker support?

Post by seewood »

What were fire fighters doing in a place where they needed to "be saved" ? Should be, or up here anyway the E part of the LACES acronym is escape route....
I am not wealthy but I am rich
sherriff
Posts: 63
Joined: Aug 1st, 2012, 9:34 pm

Re: Air tanker support?

Post by sherriff »

seewood wrote:What were fire fighters doing in a place where they needed to "be saved" ? Should be, or up here anyway the E part of the LACES acronym is escape route....

There are times when things go very wrong at work. For a firefighter this could be having your escape route blocked. Fighting forest fires can and does get dangerous. Damn good thing tanker support was there.
canuck500
Fledgling
Posts: 276
Joined: May 29th, 2011, 5:28 pm

Re: Air tanker support?

Post by canuck500 »

I'll concede your point on the tanker height but I still think there is a serious safety issue when in the time period of 1848 to now there have been only 82 deaths that are wildfire related. http://www.cfff.ca/fallen.html N the U.S. there have been 400 from 1910 to now.https://www.nifc.gov/safety/safety_docu ... y-Year.pdf

The vast majority of the U.S. are form a single cause burn over. I'm sorry if the same thing keeps happening over & over again year after year there is a safety culture issue. Crews are either ignoring there safety rules or they are being pushed into situations they shouldn't be. Even if conditions are more volatile in the states & I'll give you that in some states they are why aren't ways to mitigate the hazard being instilled in the crews? The willingness to back off & let things burn doesn't seem to be considered down there. I'm sorry nobodies house or property is worth having a fire fighter die over. That's why you have insurance. Like I've mentioned I'm not a wildfire fire fighter I just have a boatload of friends who are.

Return to “Fire Watch 2017”