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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.