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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.)