JohnAnderson,
John, there are a couple of fires burning now where an extra hand would not go astray. One fire in victoria (Gippsland) and another in NSW (Dubbo area). Good opportunity to show what the IL-76 can do.

I would be most interested in the turn around time at each fire. What support you need for loading and what support is required on the fire fronts and your methodology.

Why not approach the CFA of Vic and the NSW Rural Fire Service with a no cost offer. A good showing by the IL-76 would certainly put a stop to the detractors as well.

Thanks, Banjo.

You'd need to approach Tom Robinson with these items, Tom's the chief and has the DC connections.

I do know that turnaround time depends on the power of the pumps and distance to the blaze.

I do know that a fire that threatened to get into Los Alamos' nuclear
area drew a free offer in Y2K but the US Forest Service got in the
way and nothing ever came of it. Since that time, "free offers" have
never been extended.*

A time previous, the Russians offered to come in for el Nino's HAZE
fires but the 'international community' wouldn't pick up the fuel tab.
Desparately, the Indos bought on the relatively ineffective US
National Guard C-130s.

NB: A US Congressman thinks Australia's already had the services of
the IL-76. At least, that's the way this speech to Congress admonishing
the US Forest Service reads to me:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2005_record&page=H2530&position=all

Of course, AFAC has by far the most testing. NATO saw the
machine perform here:
http://www.nato.int/multi/photos/2002/m020925d.htm

What a shame.

What's the bet, this thing was made in the U.S.A. it'd be here yesterday ?

After about a decade of fighting off the IL-76 waterbomber
mostly on the basis of oversize, NA bureaucrats are now heralding
the arrival of BIG NA airplanes, only one of which, I am informed,
survives to fight.

Three initial choices are reported here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15065829/

All have been held up. Since Global Emergency Response
has been pushing for the only truly proven aircraft of
the two that remain, and since that aircraft has been
rejected by North America for a decade, you can be sure
every effort will be made to lock on to any possible
success that can be made of the remaining NA entry.

In the US, the FAA has distanced itself from the contention
that the IL-76 needs to be 'certified.' Canada has the
same regulatory position as Australia on importing the service;
namely, that the IL-76 waterbomber can come in on an seasonal basis.

Canada and Australia are toeing the US Forest Service line
on the IL-76 waterbomber, probably for political reasons. There's
no doubt the IL-76 waterbomber is thoroughly capable.

I can’t let this thread wither for fear future historians erroneously conclude that the matters initially raised were somehow agreed between correspondents. Even though but a minion, I remain a highly qualified minion capable to comment the efficacy, or more bluntly the inefficacy, of waterbombing bushfires with aircraft. The bottom line is that these things don’t put fires out. Sure, they can “knock down” very low intensity fires but they can’t stop a running forest fire dead in its tracks. Never did anywhere and never will!

Just pause and think about fire statistics from those countries where waterbombing has become almost the first attack methodology. Then ask: “If these things are so effective why do those countries continue to experience devastating fires that, in recent decades, are escalating way beyond previous “worst” seasons?”

Canada: owns and operates more waterscoopers than any other country, supplements these with helicopters and other ground loaded waterbombers.

USA: operates the largest fleet of firefighting aircraft globally - from tiny to very large, fixed and rotary wing.

Russia: owns most of the remaining IL-76s and many other lesser sized Berijevs, Antonovs and MI-8 helicopters.

Annual area burnt in these countries is enormous, running up to tens of millions of hectares in Russia.

The statistics are irrefutable – performance just doesn’t match the sales pitch. If these things even half met claims of those trying to flog them, there would be few fire problems in the above countries, indeed anywhere that makes copious use of aircraft. But statistics reveal seriously deteriorating positions in the face of increased aircraft usage.

I have worked in fire management in fifteen countries and almost without exception I get similar responses from experienced fire managers: “Aircraft are inefficient for direct firefighting – they have only limited effect on fires. They look spectacular on TV but they are virtually useless against running fires.”

So it’s not about “certification” or “toeing a line”, big vs. small, rotary vs. fixed-wing, mine vs. yours, or even Russian vs. North American. It is simply about not embracing technology that plain and simple doesn’t work very well. Period

Have you actually examined the state of aerial firefighting in the US?
California's most closely resembles your own situation.

Perhaps you've failed to come up with this report:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0UBT/is_46_16/ai_95281483

No new equipment has come into play since publication.
Entire series of (large) aircraft have been grounded for good.

Although a few 'new' entries have been identified, nothing has been chosen.
For a review, check out AIR International's December '05 edition.

This is the latest from mainstream media: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15065829/

I'll go with Tom Robinson's personal experience in Greece with
the IL-76, where it was said the IL-76 was 'a miracle' and 'the
aircraft that saved Athens' i.e. when all the lesser aircraft were
grounded in heavy winds and only the IL-76 could take to the air.

I'll go with Len Foster's statement, previously linked here.

For that matter, I'll go with FEMA's choice, where when forest fires
threatened to get into nuclear areas, FEMA ordered up two (2) Il-76s
with three (3) crew apiece for 24-hour firefighting. That was Los
Alamos in Y2K.

In Canada, our Chief Fire Officer will say that in the case of the
great boreal fires, you can 'steer' them but you cannot put them
down. I submit that is far better than having the fire invade an
entire community or wipe out, say, a ski resort or the Southern
Hemisphere's largest telescope?

In nations using aircraft more extensively than Australia does
there are too many who will find what you have said preposterous