Very interesting facts about the SuperTankers! Had no idea about the details.

And, I'm confused about the "Eco-Freaks" again They would rather old logs and dead trees stay in the forest and let nature take it's coarse? Now we have these huge mega fires with endless fuel causing a ton of pollution for thousands of square miles and destroying the beautiful forest that they fight so hard and aggressively to protect? I don't know. I'm confused

Forgot to mention that flying into Burbank the night before last there sure looked like a lot of dry grass in the mountains that is all cured out. I think it is going to be a very active fire season. Were I still in college, I would know that I'd be able to pay for my next year of school!

If any of you inventive geniuses out there can invent a way (machines?) to fill, handle, load planes (all very quickly), and bomb with intact water balloons (and retardant balloons), you will then have created a job for airplanes that need higher altitude to bomb fires. At higher altitudes in HOT fire season weather, if you release free water or retardant, a lot of it evaporates and spreads out too much to be effective.
Balloons, on the other hand, would break and splash when they hit the ground at a high velocity, and it is expected they wouldn't spread out as much as liquid water.

NOT an easy problem to solve.....
lc

Grassstrippilot wrote:As far as fires starting, the presence of roads, or the lack of roads, isn't the issue.

Actually, surprisingly or not, it is *THE* central issue. Over 70% of all reported wildland fires are initiated within fifty feet of a road. Over 90% of fires are human caused. The presence of a road is, statistically speaking, the best determinant for assessing fire risk. The data is conflated with the presence of power lines, ag burning, etc., but also allows muffler fires, cigarette fires, etc.

Roads are also the most important determinant in fire control success. Fires are not put out by air tankers, but by engines and pulaskis and piss pumps on the ground.

Tankers are essentially useless on larger fires as the safe drop heights and other factors make retardant drops ineffective. The ultra large tankers have done reasonably well on some range fires on more level terrain. The speed and drop height required in more hilly areas means that in some cases over 2/3 of the water was atomized and dispersed from the load before it hits the ground (measured during *actual* testing). Even lower drops by more maneuverable planes can mean 30%-50% losses, rendering the retardant chemicals marginally effective (they need to remain aqueous to do any good at all).

There's a lot out there for the curious to ponder on all this, but in the end, it's easy to see how this happens:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-wildfires29-2008jul29,0,5666042.story

Grassstrippilot wrote:Were I still in college, I would know that I'd be able to pay for my next year of school!

Exactly. Worked for me!

58Skylane wrote:And, I'm confused about the "Eco-Freaks" again

Not sure where that comes from. The policy of fire suppression from the 30's on was a widely supported policy. A dubious one, but it had support from every political/social persuasion out there. There is gnashing of teeth on all sides during fire season, and gnashing of teeth on all sides when prescribed burns, thinning, or other attempts are made to address the problems. It's a lose-lose situation.

Actually, surprisingly or not, it is *THE* central issue. Over 70% of all reported wildland fires are initiated within fifty feet of a road. Over 90% of fires are human caused. The presence of a road is, statistically speaking, the best determinant for assessing fire risk. The data is conflated with the presence of power lines, ag burning, etc., but also allows muffler fires, cigarette fires, etc.

This is true from the perspective of how and where they get started. The point I was trying to make was if the fuels weren't there, or were less, then either the fire would never have occurred or at least be less severe. And fuels are removed either via thinning or controlled burns.

You forgot one! Cowboy lightning! We had lots of fires without a cloud or other obvious ignition source in sight. Always in an area of interest of ranchers for grazing. We didn't mind. Got us hazard and overtime pay!

Roads are also the most important determinant in fire control success. Fires are not put out by air tankers, but by engines and pulaskis and piss pumps on the ground.

Right on. Tankers merely slow and stear. I've seen a few well placed drops stop flames, but crews with pulaskis or more always have to mop it up. Roads! We didn't need roads! A pair of fence cutters and/or a dozer and we were good to go! I know the environmentalists hated us. Had to rehab some of those dozer lines. No fun.

I just got a couple of emails from the crews on the Poky fire, thanking me for the pictures I got them and, and here is the kicker, telling me how useful they were in their mop up work. That's a joke right, you telling me they don't have air resources on call? I mean, once the bombers are outa there, they (the ground crews, the guys sweating their asses off) don't have air intell? It wouldn't have to be a turbine twin or a helicopter, it could be (knowing the gov.) a top of the line Husky with all the options, so only 320K or so, chump change! Obviously a plane like mine wouldn't be of any use, (?) but for less then 100 K they should have a puddle jumper based nearby just for eyeballing things. Maybe it's (no air resources) because they're stretched thin right now.

M6RV6 wrote:Not that it matters what I think anyway.GT

Not withstanding this excellent post M6, but more in line with posting in general, I had quite the epiphany some time ago with regard to forum posting. Your observation here was central to my enlightenment. With myself in mind mind you; not thinking of you in particular. Not that you would care what I think as we know, but more of a general lesson perhaps. An object one. One atta boy coming your way!. Way to go. Keep it up. Wisdom abounds.

Littlecub wrote:If any of you inventive geniuses out there can invent a way (machines?) to fill, handle, load planes (all very quickly), and bomb with intact water balloons (and retardant balloons), you will then have created a job for airplanes that need higher altitude to bomb fires. At higher altitudes in HOT fire season weather, if you release free water or retardant, a lot of it evaporates and spreads out too much to be effective.
Balloons, on the other hand, would break and splash when they hit the ground at a high velocity, and it is expected they wouldn't spread out as much as liquid water.

NOT an easy problem to solve.....
lc

I wonder if part of the equation is oxygen cut off. Mist. You know? Would water balloons be as effective?

courierguy wrote:I just got a couple of emails from the crews on the Poky fire, thanking me for the pictures I got them and, and here is the kicker, telling me how useful they were in their mop up work. That's a joke right, you telling me they don't have air resources on call? I mean, once the bombers are outa there, they (the ground crews, the guys sweating their asses off) don't have air intell? It wouldn't have to be a turbine twin or a helicopter, it could be (knowing the gov.) a top of the line Husky with all the options, so only 320K or so, chump change! Obviously a plane like mine wouldn't be of any use, (?) but for less then 100 K they should have a puddle jumper based nearby just for eyeballing things. Maybe it's (no air resources) because they're stretched thin right now.

I suspect if they don't have air resources its because of higher priority fires else where in the Geographical Area Coordination Center (GACC,) and nationally. I also suspect if there are any aircraft with a home base at the local BLM...responsible for the suppression on this fire...They have been reassigned to a higher priority fire in the GACC and maybe even to the Rocky Mountain GACC as it is number one priority in the nation right now. The Eastern great basin GACC is number 2 priority in the nation and the Charlotte fire is number 9 priority in that GACC. When there are so many high priority fires in the Nation all at once like there are now, my experience (45 years now) is the Charlotte fire is going to have a tough time getting air resources.

I'm sure the firefighters on the ground are glad to have the intell from your photos. You were smart to check the TFR and contact the tower when you flew over. This is a great story Currier Guy.

They lifted the TFR a couple hours ago, and since I have a buddy with a video production company, and since he knows someone with his own airplane, we're going up tomorrow. He is going to post it immediately on youtube and then get the word out to the local media as that should be the easiest and quickest way to get the info out there for the homeowners. I am, while flying from the front seat, taking a back seat in all this and I told him no shots of the plane or me, it's his baby, I'm just providing the POV. It will be interesting in the rebuilding process to come, to have a visual record of the current devastation, before and after as it were.

Thanks for the in the business viewpoint of the situation.

In 1968 I worked with an old guy in the forest service that had worked on a project to experiment droppig water in plastic tubes out of a DC3. Just remembering his story. The tubes were like heavy plastic bag material, about a foot in diameter. The load of water was all in one long tube which was accordian folded in the DC3. A crew in the back of the plane would throw the end of the tube out the back door as the plane flew low over the intended target. They would push a few feet in length out into the airstream and the rest of the tube would be pulled out by the air stream. I guess that didn't work too well because I have never hear of it be used by any else.

My opinion on the best fire fighting tool in the Urban Interface is large helicopters. Very accurate with their drops and quick turn around. A sky crane with a snorkle can fill in about 40 seconds. Ff there isn't enough swimming pools, a pond or a lake near by the structure guys will have a fold-a-tank or pumpkin they can set up in just a couple minutes and fill from hydrant or with water tenders if no hydrants in the area.

Air tankers are effective for quick attack on emerging fires. They are fast and can keep a fire small untill the fire fighters on the ground can get there. The discussion gets political in a hurry when houses are involed so thats all I'll say about that.

....Would water balloons be as effective?

I have never dropped one from an airplane...... But 'we' did some rather light hearted research several decades ago from a 7 story dormitory window...... and they made one heck of a splash! Within the splash there is a large horizontal component (at least on sidewalks and lawn ) that might be beneficial with the water/retardant going horizontally under trees and deadfall. (?) Hitting a firefighter, though, would be a disaster. I got splattered by FR a couple of times when I was a FF in SoCal. It can knock you a ways with a low direct hit, tho....

....droppig water in plastic tubes out of a DC3.

I see this as a substitute for water balloons-faster to fill and load logistically....
But, I also don't see it as effective...IMHO.....FWIW

entirely speculative....
lc

Littlecub wrote:

....Would water balloons be as effective?

..... But 'we' did some rather light hearted research several decades ago from a 7 story dormitory window...... and they made one heck of a splash! Within the splash there is a large horizontal component (at least on sidewalks and lawn )
lc

We alway used a full trash can. My 3rd floor dorm room window was directly over the entrance to the building. I used to exact a bribe (beer) to allow fellow miscreants to go bombs away on some poor slob, (or slobett). I'm probably still paying for it I'll bet. Karma you know.

A C-130 MAFF has just went down at the White Draw fire in South Dakota, http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/plane- ... fe5e5.html

We alway used a full trash can. My 3rd floor dorm room window was directly over the entrance to the building. I used to exact a bribe (beer) to allow fellow miscreants to go bombs away on some poor slob, (or slobett). I'm probably still paying for it I'll bet. Karma you know.

From 7 stories a trash can full of water with SoCal's low humidity-and the dispersion through the air-we might not have got anyone wet...?
Anyhow, we reserved the balloons for our friends...
And trust me, they got even.
(we were careful to use the 'splash'-and NOT a direct hit. Latex gloves make big water balloons....)

Ah. The innocents of youth.....
lc

lesuther wrote:

58Skylane wrote:And, I'm confused about the "Eco-Freaks" again

Not sure where that comes from. The policy of fire suppression from the 30's on was a widely supported policy. A dubious one, but it had support from every political/social persuasion out there. There is gnashing of teeth on all sides during fire season, and gnashing of teeth on all sides when prescribed burns, thinning, or other attempts are made to address the problems. It's a lose-lose situation.

I'm going to moderate myself and not argue about the eco-freaks

I do understand your comment above, though.