Picture is worth a 1000 words

[tor lives]

:lol: was that the same guy who didn't even know the sky cranes were in town ??? and he was the air coordinator for the western region .........

Yep, that's the one. Talk about having ya finger on the pulse
TOR

[davecana]

So who's in to getting together and getting something from the graveyard and converting it to a firebomber. We've got pilots and LAME's covered with members from this site, so all we need is some cashola. Then we can do one free drop, and show the powers to be of the advantage of a big strategic drop and see what that have to say then. I'm quite sure the public would sit up and take notice. The lack of big fixed wing fire suppression aircraft has boggled my mind for years.

[tor lives]

The lack of big fixed wing fire suppression aircraft has boggled my mind for years.

Agreed, but what really blows my mind even further is that there are supposedly intelligent and well-informed individuals and agencies in this country, (who quiet frankly should know better), that still doggedly persist in arguing against and talking down the effective use of LATs/VLATS in Australia.....despite all the evidence and overseas experience. I just shake my head in disbelief!!!
TOR

[hrtpaul]

Well I've just got back from seeing Disney Planes Fire and Rescue with my little man and I'm even more convinced that dedicated aircraft like this are needed. Maybe these dudes that are in charge should go and see this movie. Being aimed at kids, anyone could understand the usefulness of such equipment. Now to build some fire bombers just to piss them off

[tor lives]

And today's paper



Yeah....these things are bloody useless, a waste of money, and have no place in the Australia because our bushfires are apparently so "unique"
TOR

[Adam the Akrodude]

Hey Paul

You beat me to it! Haven't seen the movie yet with the kids, but it's going to happen. It is my duty as a responsible adult and father to instruct my kids on the merits of LATS/VLAT's!

Perhaps breaking it down into simple terms using this medium is the answer to get this message across? Amazing how some countries that are practically bankrupt still find the money to finance these types of aerial fire fighting assets. It's the whole Murphy's Law thing - if there is a chance of shite happening, over time it probably will. We will one day see 2-3 major fire events in this country and there just won't be the capacity and suitable response times to tackle the situation. Hey, this is all preaching to the faithful here anyway!

Sadly, I fear this country will suffer another bad fire event with loss of life before the powers at be do something about this.

[Adam the Akrodude]

Technical query - in reference to Ray's post above of the BAe-146 at work.

It seems that these aerial fire bombing companies do like 4 engine aircraft, even though this would mean a higher cost for maintenance versus two engine aircraft. I wonder is it just having the safety of having four engines, or just being able to use whatever airframes are available? No doubt having as tough as possible airframes would be a major consideration (max G load) as would the adaptability of airframes to tanker conversion and having a all important decent payload.

It would be interesting hearing from someone who can advise why certain aircraft are chosen over others and why.

[davecana]

Maybe if the seat of Warringah was on fire, maybe the Australian government might see this as a national issue and not just a state thing. And then the federal government may finance some fixed wing assets properly. It's not like you need planes in every state, they can fly from one state to another in pretty quick time. There's a few old 767's that could be converted sitting around the world.

[tor lives]

Maybe if the seat of Warringah was on fire, maybe the Australian government might see this as a national issue and not just a state thing. And then the federal government may finance some fixed wing assets properly. It's not like you need planes in every state, they can fly from one state to another in pretty quick time. There's a few old 767's that could be converted sitting around the world.

I woulda thought that large parts of the Federal Capital burning, (as we saw several years ago), would have been wake-up call enough for the Federal Government where this issue is concerned....but apparently not
You are correct in that you don't need LATs/VLATs for every state....just a core fleet of em that can move around the country as required. And then in our winter you can send them to the northern hemisphere on seasonal lease, thereby making money from them and subsidising the cost of initial purchase/modification/operations. I don't understand why this simple business case does not make sense to the powers-that-be.
TOR

[Cap'n Wannabe]

I'd hazard a guess because it falls into the category of General Aviation....lwhich the powers that be have absolutely no interest in fostering..