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?

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in bushfires in the Sydney area because the old farming families that used to burn off crown land every September have been replaced by hobby farmers who can't afford to have a fire sweep through their 25 hectares threatening their houses.

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.

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.

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??

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.