The Forum > Article Comments > Australia burns … while the bureaucrats bumble > Comments
Australia burns … while the bureaucrats bumble : Comments
By Tom Robinson, published 2/1/2007The incomparable IL-76 Waterbomber has flown hundreds of firefighting missions worldwide, stopping every fire it attacked - why aren't we using it?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by JohnAnderson, Monday, 8 January 2007 10:55:56 PM
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
| |
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
|
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.