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. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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