The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Australia burns … while the bureaucrats bumble > Comments

Australia burns … while the bureaucrats bumble : Comments

By Tom Robinson, published 2/1/2007

The incomparable IL-76 Waterbomber has flown hundreds of firefighting missions worldwide, stopping every fire it attacked - why aren't we using it?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
It is with significant weariness that I take up the keyboard. The research demonstrates that any aircraft or ground crew can directly attack a bushfire of an intensity at most of 5000 kilowatts per metre of flamefront. The Canberra fires most likely exceeded 70,000. Aircraft have a role to play but it must be very carefully and tightly managed. An article sprinkled with perjorative statements from some one with a vested interest, who has been pushing this particular aircraft for a number of years, doesn't really assist, clarify or frame the discussion. I refer readers to: It really does matter who you are, and where you come from Lobbyists should disclose their agendas, allies and paymasters. Political Philosophy - Leslie Cannold - posted 28/12/2006.
Posted by Peter F Moore, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 10:41:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's one thing to drop water on a runway, it's another to drop water on a "crowning" 20 mile wide and 100 mile long fire front with ember showers up to 20 miles in front of that, travelling at 80kms/hr as hit Canberra and Mt Stromlo.

By the time the authorities could have done anything about saving Stromlo Observatory it was way too late. The Weston Suburbs of Weston Creek were given up by the Emergency Services - A line in the sand being drawn at Streeton Drive where the Federal Police stored the forensic evidence from the Bali Bombings as evidenced by the helicopters protecting these buildings and Heysen Street.

Anyone who is interested in the Coronial findings of the Canberra fires can view them at http://www.courts.act.gov.au/BushfireInquiry/The%20Canberra%20Firestorm%20Report/The%20Canberra%20Firestorm%20Report.htm
Posted by Narcissist, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 10:59:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tom, this is another incondite article dealing with fire management. By suggesting that bushfires be tamed in a matter of hours instead of days through the use of the IL-76 waterbomber threatens our junketeers and their sort-after first class seats on a Qantas jet. How would a state Premier or Minister for Emergency Services – accompanied by his or her spouse just in case they forget what their spouse looks like - justify a fact finding mission to Paris, Rome, Vienna, London, New York and Stockholm to view the latest fire-fighting techniques. If the answer is sitting on the tarmac in Australia having just extinguished a fire there is no need for a fact-finding mission. Do you understand Tom? And as for Phil Koperberg, I am sure deference is due…when he enters a room dressed like a generalissimo he surely outranks everyone. I don’t know whether to bow, salute or just come to attention when I see him on my TV screen.

To suggest that the chief minister and sculptor should reorganize his priorities proves how shallow you are Tom. What is more important; fashioning a statue of a politician or saving Mt Stromlo Observatory?

Until human deaths resulting from bushfires and destruction of dwellings and the smell of bar-b-qued wildlife offends our state governments nothing positive will be done.
Posted by Sage, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 1:35:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the above three posts. I would also like to add another point not raised by the others.

Australia's current bushfire problem is not unique and follows the bushfires problems that have been evident around the world for the last 50 years in particular. However, for most of those 50 years we showed the world how to avoid, or at least minimise the occurrence of these so-called mega-fires. Forget the convenient causes (eg global warming, droughts, El Nino etc). Whilst they play a role, the single, most effective way to combat these mega fires is to control the fuel levels. Whilst this proposition is not as simple as it sounds, Australia showed the world that annual broadscale fuel reduction programs were an effective means of minimising the chances of 1 million hectares burning under severe fire weather more than once a decade over the same area. However, a green agenda has helped reduce that program substantially since the early 1990s.

The result is we have gone from having the fires we want to fires nature wants. It may seem a good warm inner glow feeling to have fires that nature wants until you realise that the majority of Australia's flora and fauna have not seen these extensive hot wildfires from nature for millennia thanks to Aborigines (the exception being the high rainfall tall wet forests which are maintained by these hot fires).

We are in the midst of insidious environmental damage on a similar scale to that of European occupation in the last 200 years and we argue about esoteric causes and how we should put them out. Meanwhile the authorities are now accept loss of houses and deaths as part of their management plans - we can avoid these fires, the loss of life, the destruction of houses and the outrageous costs.
Posted by tragedy, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 6:39:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While I can see this aircraft dropping its load would be both spectacular and effective, I think there is a little bit more to it than just beauracratic resistance.

I am an experianced firefighter and I know nothing about aircraft, especially this size of airplane. It is a 4 engfined jet freighter and carries 41000lts. Common sense tells me the number of airfields that can handle this plane are limited as it requires 6500 ft of runway for take off. There are claims of 15 minutes loading time. presumably with the best inferstructure, adequate size mains and pressure and maybe chemical has to be added to improve the effectiveness. So this begs the question of turn around time from one load to the next. If the turn around time is lengthy, maybe 2 or more would be required to get the best results.

In open country the ground crews could do the mopping up easily but in bushland it is a different story. The Yanks found in Iraq that even after the most concentrated bombing they still needed ground forces to mop up and fire fighting is the same. Dozers would still be needed to construct access for tankers for effective mopping up.

Then there is a question of when to use these aircraft. Do we hit every fire in its infancy or wait untill we get those really bad days or when the fire is in rough country. That is something someone would have to decide and you can bet the hiring fees would not be cheap.

I am certainly not against inovative ideas but the above are a few things to contemplate before we get too carried away.

My information on the Canberra fires is that they were started by lighting 8-10 days before reaching Canberra. If ground crews had gone straight in and extinguished the small fires, it would have been all over next day and Canberra would not have happened.
Posted by Banjo, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 7:30:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article fails to mention Tom Robinson's also an appointee of Russia's emergency measures organization.

Somewhat like the US, Russia administers its emergencies almost always on a national basis and not, as Australia's and Canada's constitution provide, on a provincial or state basis.

Where emergency response efforts fail at the bureaucratic level, you will almost always find local vs central conflict like you did for Katrina.

And therein lies part of Australia's problem. Koperberg can hamstring improvements in national fire protection because he represents Australia's most powerful state.

Recently, Canada's auditor-general stated that Canada, the nation, came up way short on disaster response capabilities, including those for wildfire.

Where the Canadian military responded, stating that it was prepared to tackle the shortcoming head-on, and the IL-76 waterbomber was put to the federal government through minister-of-all-bad-things-which-happen-to-Canadians, Stockwell Day, Day trumped the auditor-general and the Canadian military throwing the problem back to the provinces.

Hasn't there always been talk of a made in Australia national fire strategy and wouldn't the IL-76 waterbomber, able to cover all the nation with its 21st Century range and speed, make great sense?

(The writer is a partner in Global Emergency Response.)
Posted by JohnAnderson, Tuesday, 2 January 2007 11:43:23 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To Peter Moore...I have no paymaster. I have volunteered a decade of my life on this project because it is the RIGHT thing to do. If Australia wakes up and tries the IL-76 Waterbomber, I don't get a cent. All of the Waterbombers are owned and operatated by the Russian Ministry of Emergency Situations. To Banjo...You are right about the need for ground troops for mopping up operations. That is another plus for the IL-76. Not only can it stop a raging bushfire quickly, it can transport forty "Smokejumpers" on the same flight. On its first run it stops the major firefront. On its second run it can drop as many Smokejumpers as required to extinguish any remaining hot spots. I am always saddened by those detractors, many in leadership positions whom have NEVER seen the IL-76 in operation, making comments on how it won't work. Do we ever hear from those same detractors with examples of what WILL work?
Posted by liaison, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 12:30:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tragedy - the increase in bushfires probably has something to do with land adjoining crown land shifting from commercial farming to hobby farming operations. Its no surprise to me to see an increase in bushfires in the Sydney area because the old farming families that used to burn off crown land every September have been replaced by hobby farmers who can't afford to have a fire sweep through their 25 hectares threatening their houses.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 3:24:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Billie

Yes that explains some of the problems but not all. Hobby farming hasn't replaced the limited commercial farming in the Alps, nor has it replaced any forestry farming in the Pilliga, nor is it now in the Blue Mountains NP etc etc. What has also happened more recently in line with the reduction of broadscale precribed burning has been the massive shift of Crown land from productive state forests to NP in NSW and Victoria.

But lets put it in the context of the recent Victorian fires. 750,000 ha burnt and climbing. 23,000 ha spread out throughout the State in small patches is logged a year. So we focus on the impacts of a relatively small and benign disturbance but throw our hands up in the air when a severe bushfire occurs and say it is global warming or drought and ignore the real cause.

When it comes to setting government priorities for spending money, wouldn't it be better for the hospitals and schools if we spend less money on an effective annual hazard reduction program, than spend zillions on big machines to put out preventable fires. Part of the answer is the government doesn't get kudos for quietly burning off - it just gets whingers. But it loves the media attention when it promises to waste buckets of money on fighting large fires and "protecting" its constituents during a major disaster. And the Koperbergs love it because they become more powerful and get a bigger bureacracy. Cynical - you bettcha!! Politicians love being in front of the media and telling us how they are so good and will fix any problem for us (Howard, Beatty, Bracks etc etc). They hate the bad press associated with hazard reduction burning. The smoke from a burn on a calm day will last until the wind picks up. It certainly doesn't hang around for a month or more as we have now during these severe wildfires.

We should start being a bit more honest about this issue at hand so that we can have any hope of managing the situation properly.
Posted by tragedy, Wednesday, 3 January 2007 4:59:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To those promoting the use of the IL-76,
My post was simply voicing the things that came to me while reading the first post. It was not meant to be critical. Pasture improvement has also meant greater fuel loads. Prevention of hazard reduction burning of crown lands has also been detrimental to fire fighting.

Years ago bushfire captians could backburn from roads, as they were bare of fuel but stock transport by truck made this unworkable and firebreaks were better made away from roads.

I fully understand the frustration of trying to get implemented something you feel is of value. When local councils ran the show, I had many a stand up, nose to nose, fight with my Council about funding for communications, tankers, dozers, reconiasance aircraft, ag aircraft and so on.

I would support trials of anything that may help. The more tools field commanders have available to them the better. All appliances have their limitations and some times these can be overcome by methods used or coplimentary equipment or modifacation.

We must be prepared to try inovative ideas. Keep trying.
Posted by Banjo, Thursday, 4 January 2007 8:44:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why on earth would anyone wait nearly 12 years to resurrect this old chestnut?? Politics?? Money??

As someone who has occupied every role in fire management - front line firefighter to top administrative roles, I am more qualified to comment the efficacy of fighting fires with aircraft than most other people - “aircraft experts”, and others who don’t understand fire behaviour. It is not about the biggest, fastest or latest. It is about utility for the purpose and efficacy.

Peter Moore says aircraft are capable of attacking bushfires at the bottom 2-3% of fire intensity but Peter is more generous than me. I suggest 3500 kw/m as the upper limit for aircraft to knock down, BUT NOT EXTINGUISH. There must be people to immediately follow up, extinguishing protected burning material. Without them, waterbombing is about as effective as pouring a can of recycled beer out of an airplane. If anyone suggested a new methodology as: “drive a tanker along a firetrail and spray water from a powerful monitor on both sides of it”, they would be carted off in a strait jacket. But that is pretty much what waterbombing achieves.

I was at the Avalon Airshow, 1995. I don’t recall any widespread acclaim for the IL-76. Yep, I was one of the “fire officials” present. At best I accorded it “possible curio interest” only. [My research into its efficacy overseas just doesn’t match other claims about it.] I have written letters knocking back supply of aircraft, but I have never ever said “We are too busy fighting fires at this time to consider anything new, or, they use too much water”. Not ever!! (Incidentally, PK has jurisdiction in only one state. If the research about the IL-76 matches research about him, no wonder you’ve met a brick wall.)

CHALLENGE: produce an authentic letter from a fire service stating this “too busy, too much water” stuff. Until you can, such allegations remain in the realms of myth and fantasy, along with notions that aircraft are the panacea for fires.
PS: What happened to the "Nero" comment from your original posting??
Posted by Ross Smith, Thursday, 4 January 2007 9:33:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too was at AirShows DownUnder accompanying the crew and Ilyushin representatives. Ordinary people came up to me and asked me WHEN, not IF, the IL-76 was coming to help. They were astounded by the airplane's performance. The announcer was very bullish and excited at every showing. Seeing is believing.

The press was very favorable. Coverage was as good as could be expected from the plane that later became 'most spectacular in show' at Zeltweg, Austria.. The hospitality was marvelous. Experts stayed away from us until I was called into Rod Incoll's office in Melbourne at the end of the show.

Consequently, Australasian Fire Authorities Council sent Vic's Richard Alder to Moscow in October. Richard and I went out to Zhukovsky every day for 5 days to witness an Il-76 run tests to AFAC spec. Ilyushin produced a report. AFAC produced a report. Len Foster was quoted in the Herald Sun this way: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2003/news_03172003_aus.htm

Our information is, many, many states and NZ too were for it. Koperberg/NSW was agin it.

Fill the IL-76 waterbomber with a Pyrocool mix and run it by a few of your bushfires - especially the killer bushfires and property-destroying bushfires. The terrain is ideal.
Posted by JohnAnderson, Thursday, 4 January 2007 11:51:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To "liaison".

I note with a shudder your reference to using smoke jumpers. You show the usual lack of understanding of the Australian experience; our terrain in the areas prone to wildfires is much too dangerous, and the vegetation actively discourages penetration of the canopy to ground level without serious injury. An ancient eucalypt, standing 20-30 metres tall, is not a pretty tree. There are branches sticking out at all angles intertwined with those of its neighbours. A lot of those branches are just waiting for the chance to break and fall on an unsuspecting passer by. Especially if that passer by passed by vertically trailing a parachute.

I am a fairly experienced firefighter who loves working with aircraft, both fixed and rotary wing. They are of a real benefit in slowing down a large fire; they do not however stop a large fire. They have eased my work and worry load significantly many times.

Dump enough water on a small fire and you will stop it moving, possibly even put it out. A large fire simply has too much thermal mass and wind to extinguish that way. Even a good fall of rain (Nature has bigger tanks than the IL and doesn't need to refill) won't stop a bushfire without human intervention.

Turn around times in Australia, given the isolation of cities with runways large enough and infrastructures mature enough to cater for the IL-76D, is a major problem. Add to the mix the fact that fires love company and the number of aircraft required goes up quickly.

I would still rather spend the money on smaller aircraft; a lot more smaller aircraft given what the IL costs to run for a season. And tankers, PPE, training, equipment, etc.

Hmmm, just thinking... if we do move the IL way, we will need to drop other aircraft (such as the publicity generating Skycrane) because the budget bucket is only so big. What happens when the IL fails to achieve mission readiness through a component failure? Eggs in baskets comes to mind.

Lindsay Gorrie
Posted by Roadkill, Friday, 5 January 2007 11:05:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Question:

Which Australian here, fire professional or not, can speak to Len Foster's comments on the IL-76 waterbomber to the Herald-Sun, linked above, the text of which has been captured at FireGlobe, in Germany?

Supplementary question:

Are Foster's comments being avoided for some reason?
Posted by JohnAnderson, Friday, 5 January 2007 12:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To John Anderson re someone speaking to Len Foster’s reported comment: Why not ask Len directly? That way you won’t get second hand stuff that might be inaccurate. I have no idea why he was reported as making such comment. It is not uncommon for high profile persons to be misreported, and if a third party comments about Len it wouldn’t be particularly helpful if they made inaccurate comments.

Regarding your earlier comment about Koperberg/NSW being agin the IL-76 while everone else was for it, you've totally missed the point. Phil Koperberg and/or NSW never held any authority to determine what happens nationally. Neither does any other combination of Chief Fire Officer and State/Territory administration in the other States/Territories hold such powers.

Regarding the reasons you have indicated why the IL-76 was never taken up in Australia: Any State or Territory was quite at liberty to accept any offer of any fire fighting apparatus. In any event, NSW never ever rejected any aircraft on the grounds of "too busy" or "it uses too much water", so those sentiments must have come from somewhere, that according to your records, were all for the IL-76. When you find, and post, the knock back documents or extracts from same, I am sure they will make interesting reading as my take on the states/territories in Australia was that they were pretty much aligned in their views about the IL-76, as well as a myriad of other “here’s your ultimate fire fighting solution”, 99.9% of which would never get off the ground, figuratively speaking.

Regarding the changes to the original posting: there’s been no explanation about why the original wording of the article was changed, especially the deletion of references to “Nero”. You might ask Tom about that one. The rationale for the changed posting should make interesting reading. I believe you should have the opportunity to explain why this change became necessary.

As a partner in Global Emergency Response you should be able to help Tom find the relevant knock-back documents in your files and also indicate why the “Nero” posting was suddenly changed.
Posted by Ross Smith, Friday, 5 January 2007 1:13:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ross: Right. Nobody here speaks for Mr. Foster.

The IL-76 has always been featured as a national resource, like your military; even regional, as per the effort your airplanes put in for the 1997-98 HAZE.

Do you remember John Parkin (d)? John brought the idea further in some radio work he did in South Australia and elsewhere. We remember John with great fondness. John was able to see the future of firefighting, welcomed change, and did the best he could for the IL-76 waterbomber.
Posted by JohnAnderson, Friday, 5 January 2007 2:42:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nobody talking?

Let me put on my lawyer hat here and say it's at least a
arguable that politicians have a duty and that, knowing what
they know about the IL-76 waterbomber, they have failed that duty.

Dennis Kucinich, rumored to again be seeking the US
Presidency, must have had that in mind when he came
out in favour of using the IL-76 waterbomber.

For mainstream US politicians, excepting out Rep Dana Rohrabacher
who spoke to the issue on the floor of the US House of Representatives,
this one's too hot to handle. It would take courage.

Allow me to become cynical, for I think that I have earned it:

For mainstream Australian politicians and Canadian politicians,
it's easy to keep the matter out of the headlines
although, to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's credit,
they did haul a couple of North American bureaucrats in front
of a Canadian national television audience. According to objective
sources, CBC made their arguments look weak.
Posted by JohnAnderson, Sunday, 7 January 2007 11:37:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To John Anderson: re nobody talking. Yep, you’re right. I guess we don’t like the way you try to do business.

There are two things you need to do if you wish to generate sensible discussion:
1) in the original posting (by Tom Robinson) you included some offensive stuff about Phil Koperberg. The posting originally stated:

”… the one man with the power to decide the remarkable plane’s future in Australia was conspicuously absent.
Australia’s own “Nero”, Phil Koperberg, New South Wales Fire Service Commissioner, didn’t attend the demonstration. …”

After some comments were generated, the posting was altered, removing reference to “Nero” and “the one man power” stuff. This sorely puzzled right thinking folk. I bet Koperberg is pretty pissed off with you guys right now and I can fully understand why.

You were invited to explain why the wording changed but you failed to do so. Maybe the site host changed it? What matters is that it was posted in the first place.

2) You indicated that Australian fire services rejected the IL-76 because “we are too busy” or “it uses too much water”. You were given opportunity to stump up with evidence of knock backs of this nature. You failed to do so.

If this is how you do business, I can appreciate why you cannot get past first base. To do that here, you gotta be nice to people. You know the sorta stuff like: “Howdy, y’all havin’ a nice day? Hey, mind if I ask a cuppla questions? ” If you open up with statements about generic groups of people e.g. bureaucrats or politicians, you might just pass muster (and it ain’t a real big might), but when you bluntly target individuals you’ve way overstepped.

You really do need to answer the above questions and you owe Phil Koperberg an open apology via this site for the highly offensive comment you made in your original posting. So now there are three things on your “to do” list: answer the questions and proffer an apology.

As Gabbar once said: “Malo sutra, mais c’est la vie.
Posted by Ross Smith, Monday, 8 January 2007 11:04:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Il-76 waterbomber resistance, generally:

In in a speech to Congress in the US, California Rep. Dana Rohrabacher
fingered Jerry T. Williams, USFS bureaucrat, demanding an accounting.

So far, no Australian, either from the media or from among elected
representatives, has identified the source of resistance to the IL-76 waterbomber.

Australia should follow up on the lead.

Bitter resistance to doing new things with big airplanes is not a
situation unique to the western firefighting agencies. Churchill
encountered resistance to big bombers in WWII and so did American war
hero, Billy Mitchell.

In both cases, the fighting was bitter.

In the case of the IL-76 waterbomber, Koperberg should come out and
face his accusers himself and not send minions. There is too much at
stake to ignore the accusation. The issue is too vital for minions.

Churchill said, in the context of the fight about the big bombers,
"In war, it is not necessary to be nice. It is only necessary to be right."

We're right about the IL-76 waterbomber. Everything else is a
diversion from the real issue; a sideshow; a distraction; a red herring, including your posts, Ross.
Posted by JohnAnderson, Monday, 8 January 2007 10:55:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John; according to your methodology I could, as a firefighter "in the know", claim that Neil Bibby (the CEO of the Victorian Country Fire Authority) did not want the IL-76 and was actively arguing against it behind closed doors. After stating this I could then stand on that unsubstantiated claim and demand that people all over Australia stand to arms and demand an accounting. At some date in the future I could alter my original post and ignore people who pointed that inconsistency out, requiring rather that they join the throng in standing against a common enemy.

The simple fact is that the IL-76D will not work in this country, given its available budget, its lack of suitable airports, and its habit of having a lot of fires at the same time over many thousands of kilometres.

And as for your all-encompassing "We're right" - it is kind of telling that you will not admit that any argument to the contrary could carry any weight. This is commonly called "wearing blinkers" or having "tunnel vision". An unsavoury but possibly more appropriate term is "being a w@nker".
Posted by Roadkill, Tuesday, 9 January 2007 8:43:09 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hard to get away from AFAC's test results and what little is known
about them except short comments published in response to one
reporter's questions in the Herald-Sun 16 March '03, eh?

It's been my experience that such comments are the tip of the
information iceberg. It follows that the Herald-Sun knows much more
than it has published here: http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2003/news_03172003_aus.htm

Certainly CBC knew much more than was captured on the screen when
that nationally-owned network went nationally public with the story.

One wonders when the rest of the Australia-unique information will come out.

Anything ever come of the proposed national fire strategy?
Posted by JohnAnderson, Tuesday, 9 January 2007 10:49:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JohnAnderson and Tom Robinson,
Gee, you blokes go about selling your product in a funny way. You praise the IL-76 but give no information about it. I supplied some basic information, with Googles help, to give readers an indication of what you were talking about.

You infer there is aconspiracy against the IL-76 but do not spell out what this is. You talk of the source of resistance, so what is this source and why. Is it simply because the airplane is Russian made or some thing else.

Maybe the resistance is as Ross Smith said "My research into its efficiency overseas doesn't match other claims about it"

Why is there resistance in Canada and the US. Quote "Its too hot to handle"

You spent 5 days with one Richard Alder who apparently was making a report for AFAC. Did he not indicate to you whether or not his report would be favourable. Can you not access a copy of his report.

How about a list of airports in Australia, or NSW, that can handle the IL-76and if they have the facilities to give optimum loading.

What about a free demo of your airplane on an actual fire? If the IL-76 has flown hundreds of successful missions. No doubt you would have ringing endorsements from those users. How about passing these on to us and the IL-76 should sell itself.

I am in favour of trialing any new apparratus but not at my expense.
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 11:05:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Composing new and creative responses to too-famliar
half-truths and prevarications from hostile Luddites
has become tedious, so I leave you with this from another
publication:

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=10814

THE ILYUSHIN SOLUTION

Re: George H. Wittman's Happy New Year, Vladimir Vladimirovich:

Please inform George Wittman that if he's looking for a hands-on
example of corruption in the U.S. government affecting U.S.-Russia
relations he need look no further than the U.S. Forest Service which
for many years has kept superior Russian firefighting away from the
American victim community.

For details, consult the links page at our website.

Only Rep. Dana Rohrabacher fights the Forest Service on this issue.

Clearing the way for the Il-76 waterbomber would do much to solve the
perception and trust problems plaguing Russia-US relations as well as
solving a few problems during wildfire season.

I might add that due to the fact of U.S. Forest Circus corruption on
this matter, it is at least arguable that the EU, Australia, and
Canada have been negatively influenced. Despite the brave face and
"tradition" of groundbound bushfire management, Australia cannot stand
much more bushfire pounding. Like Associated Press in the U.S.,
however, Australian media largely prefers to keep the waterbomber
under wraps.

-- John Anderson

Global Emergency Response
waterbomber.com
Posted by JohnAnderson, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 1:59:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually John the article mentioned would appear to be another example of you trying to hijack an ongoing conversation. Which was ignored.

As for your contention that "Australia cannot stand much more bushfire pounding" - pure hyperbole. What we can't stand much more of is pushy salesmen (voluntary or otherwise) determined to sell us something we neither want nor could use efficiently.

Australian press doesn't "prefer to keep the waterbomber under wraps" - they are aware that it isn't worth the column-inches.
Posted by Roadkill, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 3:47:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nobody on this thread has come to terms with Len Foster's
favorable Herald-Sun comments, stored in this this item from
FireGlobe, in Germany:

http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/media/2003/news_03172003_aus.htm
Posted by JohnAnderson, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 11:18:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Anderson (said in my best Matrix Agent Smith voice).

What do you wish us to say that hasn't already been said? Let me try it point by point, referring to the article you mentioned.

"The IL-76 could be included in the strategy" : of course it could. So could Canadairs, C130s, the new 747 tanker, etc. As could all current aircraft. "Could" is not the same as "will" or even "should".

"The IL-76 is a very, very good firefighting aircraft," : no argument. It is, in the right circumstances. At issue is our (Australia's) circumstances.

"It would be quite possible, in an appropriate mix of aircraft, for it to play a role." : absolutely. Once again, "possible" not "is gonna happen" or even "probable". And including the IL-76 in the mix will require the removal of something else due to its expense - $1.6 million (four years ago, now approx $1.8 million after inflation) plus operating costs (fuel, airport charges, retardant, maybe even water).

"The aircraft could not be used everywhere" : kinda what I and others have been saying, and the places it could be used need to be strategically important and within practical reach given turn-around times, controlled airspace delays, noise abatement regulations, etc.

The IL-76 has been reviewed and found unsuitable for our overall environment. It is not corruption, weakness of will or anti-russian sentiments. It is practicality.
Posted by Roadkill, Thursday, 11 January 2007 9:06:54 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I took one look at your website, RK, and decided

(a) you weren't Len Foster and that

(b) your interpretations Foster's comments
were simply your interpretations Foster's comments.
Posted by JohnAnderson, Sunday, 14 January 2007 1:10:12 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Anderson.

Congratulations. I am not Len Foster. I never implied I was. Or do you mean in life experience? In that case the answer is still no; everyone experiences life differently. I am me, with my own knowledge and experiences to assist me in interpreting the world.

As for my interpretations being just that; to borrow a phrase from my daughter - well, d'uh! Of course they are my interpretations of Mr Foster's comments. Everytime someone comments on another person's words they are interpreting.

The interpretations took in the context in which the comments were delivered, that is, reported by a third party; thus I can't read the full context in which they were originally made. I am limited to the quoted word.

I attempted to meet you conversation requirement in referring directly to Mr Foster's comments in the media mentioned. I think I applied a measured, balanced view of the comments given my relatively short 14 year experience of fighting fires in the Australian mountain bush both with and without water bombimg aircraft.

I'm not entirely sure what my web site has to do with this but if you have viewed my website then you know that I am "into" innovation. I like new ideas, but I like to ensure that they are practical before jumping in boots and all. I require an even more rigorous approach to reviewing new firefighting ideas from my superiors in the emergency services as, unlike in my everyday working or personal life, lives are on the line.

I attempted to do as you asked. I apologise if I have not measured up to your expectations. Any further comment by myself will be irrelevant, thus I will leave it to you.

Been interesting "talking" to you,
Lindsay "Roadkill" Gorrie
Volunteer Firefighter
Posted by Roadkill, Sunday, 14 January 2007 11:31:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Anderson, one last post. Sorry, I had to...

I refer you to the House of Representatives Official Hansard of 19th March 2003 (http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr190303.pdf page 136). The Illyushin IL-76D gets a rather interesting knock from Mr Wilkie, Member for Swan (Western Australia). He says - and I quote: "The Il-76 has had some 13 crashes in its history, two of which occurred this year—one in East Timor. It is unacceptable that those aircraft are using Perth airport and flying over our residential areas."

Given Perth's relatively low population density (it's the 4th busiest airport in Australia) why would Sydney or Melbourne be any happier to take the aircraft on?

In an attempt to check the veracity of Mr Wilkie's comments I looked further. Politicians are noted for their ability to exagerate, after all. According to the Aviation Safety Network (http://aviation-safety.net/) there have been 33 hull-loss, i.e. aircraft damaged beyond repair, in-flight incidents involving these aircraft not including hijackings or war since 1990. Not very inspiring I'm afraid. Given the urgent nature of operations during a fire emergency, and your statement that flight crews are willing and able to take care of repairs to keep the aircraft flying, I'm not impressed. Safety is paramount.

Good luck in your future endeavours.
Posted by Roadkill, Sunday, 14 January 2007 1:31:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can hardly call an airplane with over a decade of
successful firefighting service; one which is reviewed
by AIR International UK (Dec '05) as the _only_ proven
large new entry into firefighting service an "innovation".

Now this: http://www.vectorsite.net/avmars.html#m7

THIS was an "innovation". The (proven) IL-76 simply continues
the evolutionary process of waterbombing on another plane, so
to speak.

Check out the reasons why the Mars INNOVATION was brought on;
the ease with which it was brought on compared with this day
and age.

And you're STILL not Len Foster.
Posted by JohnAnderson, Sunday, 14 January 2007 3:21:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JohnAnderson,
John, there are a couple of fires burning now where an extra hand would not go astray. One fire in victoria (Gippsland) and another in NSW (Dubbo area). Good opportunity to show what the IL-76 can do.

I would be most interested in the turn around time at each fire. What support you need for loading and what support is required on the fire fronts and your methodology.

Why not approach the CFA of Vic and the NSW Rural Fire Service with a no cost offer. A good showing by the IL-76 would certainly put a stop to the detractors as well.
Posted by Banjo, Monday, 15 January 2007 9:30:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks, Banjo.

You'd need to approach Tom Robinson with these items, Tom's the chief and has the DC connections.

I do know that turnaround time depends on the power of the pumps and distance to the blaze.

I do know that a fire that threatened to get into Los Alamos' nuclear
area drew a free offer in Y2K but the US Forest Service got in the
way and nothing ever came of it. Since that time, "free offers" have
never been extended.*

A time previous, the Russians offered to come in for el Nino's HAZE
fires but the 'international community' wouldn't pick up the fuel tab.
Desparately, the Indos bought on the relatively ineffective US
National Guard C-130s.

NB: A US Congressman thinks Australia's already had the services of
the IL-76. At least, that's the way this speech to Congress admonishing
the US Forest Service reads to me:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2005_record&page=H2530&position=all

Of course, AFAC has by far the most testing. NATO saw the
machine perform here:
http://www.nato.int/multi/photos/2002/m020925d.htm

What a shame.
Posted by JohnAnderson, Monday, 15 January 2007 11:15:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What's the bet, this thing was made in the U.S.A. it'd be here yesterday ?
Posted by itchyvet, Monday, 15 January 2007 11:04:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
After about a decade of fighting off the IL-76 waterbomber
mostly on the basis of oversize, NA bureaucrats are now heralding
the arrival of BIG NA airplanes, only one of which, I am informed,
survives to fight.

Three initial choices are reported here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15065829/

All have been held up. Since Global Emergency Response
has been pushing for the only truly proven aircraft of
the two that remain, and since that aircraft has been
rejected by North America for a decade, you can be sure
every effort will be made to lock on to any possible
success that can be made of the remaining NA entry.

In the US, the FAA has distanced itself from the contention
that the IL-76 needs to be 'certified.' Canada has the
same regulatory position as Australia on importing the service;
namely, that the IL-76 waterbomber can come in on an seasonal basis.

Canada and Australia are toeing the US Forest Service line
on the IL-76 waterbomber, probably for political reasons. There's
no doubt the IL-76 waterbomber is thoroughly capable.
Posted by JohnAnderson, Monday, 15 January 2007 11:51:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can’t let this thread wither for fear future historians erroneously conclude that the matters initially raised were somehow agreed between correspondents. Even though but a minion, I remain a highly qualified minion capable to comment the efficacy, or more bluntly the inefficacy, of waterbombing bushfires with aircraft. The bottom line is that these things don’t put fires out. Sure, they can “knock down” very low intensity fires but they can’t stop a running forest fire dead in its tracks. Never did anywhere and never will!

Just pause and think about fire statistics from those countries where waterbombing has become almost the first attack methodology. Then ask: “If these things are so effective why do those countries continue to experience devastating fires that, in recent decades, are escalating way beyond previous “worst” seasons?”

Canada: owns and operates more waterscoopers than any other country, supplements these with helicopters and other ground loaded waterbombers.

USA: operates the largest fleet of firefighting aircraft globally - from tiny to very large, fixed and rotary wing.

Russia: owns most of the remaining IL-76s and many other lesser sized Berijevs, Antonovs and MI-8 helicopters.

Annual area burnt in these countries is enormous, running up to tens of millions of hectares in Russia.

The statistics are irrefutable – performance just doesn’t match the sales pitch. If these things even half met claims of those trying to flog them, there would be few fire problems in the above countries, indeed anywhere that makes copious use of aircraft. But statistics reveal seriously deteriorating positions in the face of increased aircraft usage.

I have worked in fire management in fifteen countries and almost without exception I get similar responses from experienced fire managers: “Aircraft are inefficient for direct firefighting – they have only limited effect on fires. They look spectacular on TV but they are virtually useless against running fires.”

So it’s not about “certification” or “toeing a line”, big vs. small, rotary vs. fixed-wing, mine vs. yours, or even Russian vs. North American. It is simply about not embracing technology that plain and simple doesn’t work very well. Period
Posted by Ross Smith, Tuesday, 30 January 2007 7:36:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have you actually examined the state of aerial firefighting in the US?
California's most closely resembles your own situation.

Perhaps you've failed to come up with this report:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_46_16/ai_95281483

No new equipment has come into play since publication.
Entire series of (large) aircraft have been grounded for good.

Although a few 'new' entries have been identified, nothing has been chosen.
For a review, check out AIR International's December '05 edition.

This is the latest from mainstream media: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15065829/

I'll go with Tom Robinson's personal experience in Greece with
the IL-76, where it was said the IL-76 was 'a miracle' and 'the
aircraft that saved Athens' i.e. when all the lesser aircraft were
grounded in heavy winds and only the IL-76 could take to the air.

I'll go with Len Foster's statement, previously linked here.

For that matter, I'll go with FEMA's choice, where when forest fires
threatened to get into nuclear areas, FEMA ordered up two (2) Il-76s
with three (3) crew apiece for 24-hour firefighting. That was Los
Alamos in Y2K.

In Canada, our Chief Fire Officer will say that in the case of the
great boreal fires, you can 'steer' them but you cannot put them
down. I submit that is far better than having the fire invade an
entire community or wipe out, say, a ski resort or the Southern
Hemisphere's largest telescope?

In nations using aircraft more extensively than Australia does
there are too many who will find what you have said preposterous
Posted by JohnAnderson, Wednesday, 31 January 2007 12:30:32 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy