A water bomber question.

[Cat Driver]

215 /415 co-pilots can move into the Fire Boss as they have the experience needed to fight a fire.

[Easy Flyer]

Exactly Cat.
Yes, there is two seat version also. There are pictures of it in this thread.
No one is suggesting the Bombardier captains are to fly them. They should fly the Bombardiers. Is that why they are all so defensive?

[Flybabe]

There has been considerable debate on the practicality of the Fireboss/SEAT aircraft since they appeared on the scene. I don't think you're seeing defensiveness - I wonder if what you're seeing is the result of SEATs being used incorrectly.

Then again, I'm new at this too, so I could be very very wrong. I believe the SEATs are great tool in the box and play a vital role in Initial Attack.

[boeingboy]

Can the 415 not mix it's own retardent on board?

I seem to remember reading that they could scoop water off the lake then - if required - inject some kind of mix to make the retardent. If so - would they not be better as they could do both jobs instead of flying back to s fixed base? (Or maybe it's the Mars I'm thinking of)

[Cat Driver]

In the 70's and 80's we mixed short term retardant on the pick up there were two types gelguard and tenegum.

[NWONT]

With the 415's and also some of our twin otters, after the load has been scooped, we inject a soap based chemical that will create foam when the load falls toward the fire. This will help smoother the flames and stay in the trees longer instead of fall to the forest floor. It is not as effective as long term slurry but better than straight water.

[CLguy]

STL wrote:

I find it hard to grasp if BCFS doesn't have the FW, RW, and ground assets on 5 minute launch in the Okanogan Valley given recent years.

I have no doubt they are! I was commenting on Cat's post stating that it is not just that easy to park aircraft on the water and think they will be airborne scooping water in 2 mins. Ontario tried that years ago with the 215's and found it took longer to get them airborne than having them parked at an airport. You would have to have some support available such as a standby facilities when you are putting people on alert in those temps for 12 to 14 hours a day. You certainly wouldn't have them sitting in the aircraft and then of course there is the refueling issue. That is why it is better to base at the airport because those facilities already exist and yes we are airborne within minutes as well.

STL wrote:

The best method to attack fire is indeed to hit it early with I.A. assets. That means a heli IA crew launched asap, early buckets on the fire while FW assets move into place, and ground troops getting an accurate assessment of what/where/how things need to be deployed.

I certainly don't want to argue with you but I do have to disagree with you on this one. On an initial attack what you have just described here is nothing more than a Goat F*** in the making. Assuming the dispatch comes like we all agree it should, as soon as the smoke is reported, you are probably dealing with a fire that is less than 5 hectares in size and probably even less than that. Assuming water is available you dispatch a couple of 415's and that is it. Everything else will just get in the way and nothing will be accommplished because there just isn't enough room for everyone and valuable time is wasted having everyone circling around waiting the their kick at it. The birddog keeps everything out of the way and if the 415's can't get it then with all the resources you previously mentioned would never have stopped it either. You get some IA crews on deck for sure and possible move them into position if it won't interfere with the 415's circuit and as they fire gets knocked down they can move in with the hoses. The one big mistake I have seen over and over from Duty Officers is the old unleash everything tactic and you end up losing the fire. On initial attack more is not better. Scoopers do not build line they shut the fire down usually attacking the head first and that is what makes the 415 so superior. It can get into the heat on the head where the smaller seats can't. Any Air Attack Officer that is getting 215'415 to build line is wasting a valuable resource. Ontario learned this tactic many years ago and now we stop 96% of all fires at less that 5 hectares!

[Cat Driver]

I have no doubt they are! I was commenting on Cat's post stating that it is not just that easy to park aircraft on the water and think they will be airborne scooping water in 2 mins.

I was not clear in my suggestion.

I meant to say parked near the water on a ramp where they can be serviced and all they need to do is start up and taxi into the water.

I agree that the best way to stop a fire from getting out of control is to have scoopers hitting the head first then the flanks.

Once again the Fire Boss is good for initial attack in an area where there is no tanker base close to hold the fire till the bigger scoopers get there.

Ontario went to scoopers for a good reason.

[hydraulic fluid]

After years of watching the 215(Saskatchewan) fighting fires,my question is why do they not start at daylight?Seems they wait for the winds and heat to increase.They used to do this when Norcanair had the canso,I remember Dale Blair up all night,getting help to get in the plane and working the wee hours of the morning,shutting down when the winds and heat pick up.This goes for ground crews as well,we used to work at night when things were cool,and sleep during the day....rant over

[NWONT]

Here's a couple more water-bomber questions, I think I know the answeres but I have been wrong before. Once an Fireboss is on floats it stays that way, it is not a simple matter to change it back to wheels. My understanding that much of the structure must be drilled apart and reriveted to go back on wheels. Also I've noticed that they have been refered to as operating on water-bombing floats. The ones I've seen scoop water into the hopper in the fuselage not in the floats. This makes the makes the water-bombing activity much safer than Twin-Otters due to the possibility of a water door opening, for any reason, on the pick up run. If this happens, and it has, you will find yourself upsidedown in the water very quickly. If a Fireboss doesn't get airborn after scooping a load he can drop his load back into the lake. A twin otter has the water in the floats, if you power down in the water, after a scoop, you can weigh up to 15500 lbs with much of your floats full of water. When you look out your window and see the tops of your floats are a foot under water that can be a real arsetightner. When the fire season starts to wind down toward the end of Aug, we remove the floats and use them for dropping rabies vaccines, transporting ground firefighting troops, hauling firefighting equipment and wildlife work, such as goose and polar bear surveys. This type of versitility makes the twins a valuable asset.

[sky's the limit]

I certainly don't want to argue with you but I do have to disagree with you on this one. On an initial attack what you have just described here is nothing more than a Goat F*** in the making.

Well,

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I'm sure your experiences in Ontario support what you are saying.

I spend most of my time fighting fires in BC, some in AB, but mostly BC. Here we're dealing with a couple factors you're not out East, mainly mountainous terrain, and very large timber. (see my comment about putting a Bambi bucket down through the top of a 160ft hollow burning Cedar snag) You can contain a fire with bombers, but you're never going to put it out with them, and the most success I've seen here is with a well co-ordinated attack using all three assets. Bombers cannot be dispatched to look at all "possible smokes," or confirmed lightening strikes, it's simply too inefficient, that's what helicopters and IA crews are for. The damage done to a small fire with ground crews and buckets can be very significant, and scores of them are put out regularly without a bomber even showing up.

I regularly bucket and knock down small fires for a fuel cycle before a bomber even arrives on scene - in Alberta too. It's not to say one is better than the other, but to look at this issue from an egocentric point of view - regardless of what machine one drives - makes no sense at all.

As for the Goat F***, well that has everything to do with the people involved and is easily preventable when all parties are on the same program.


stl

[flying4dollars]

Thanks CLguy I agree generally with what you are saying, however I am involved in a project to put Fire Bosses in critical areas in Europe to protect high value properties.

The Idea being the higher number of airplanes would cover a bigger area and as long as they got started hitting the fires as soon as they start the holding of the fires would allow follow up suppression to keep it from growing in size.

By the way Al I am not interested in actually doing any of the flying because I found a new life outside of aviation.

P.S. :

It is not the machine that really counts, it is the skills of the operators that really determines the effectiveness....

Sounds like you're still (kinda) involved to me

[CLguy]

STL I assure you ego has nothing to do with it and I am sorry to have given you that impression but I assure you I am speaking strictly from experience. I have fought fire in pretty much every province and territory in Canada, Alaska, a few of the northern states and South America. Since BC does not have any CL-415 in their so called tool box then you use what you have. Ontario quit using helicopters and buckets on Initial Attack more than 20 years ago although we still use them to support the crews during mop-up operations. We do not use retardant but did in the 70's and played with it a bit again in the 90's but it really has no useful purpose out here. In fact my experience is that if waterbombers are being effective regardless of what part of the world you are in, then there is no need for retardant and vice versa. There is no doubt there are many parts where waterbombers are ineffective and I will be first to admit it, that is where the retardant guys come it. Like has been stated many times it is all about having the right tools in the tool box but when you see a DC-6 dropping retardant along Lake Okanagan you know that someone has grabbed a crescent wrench when they needed a hammer.

I did not mean to imply that we are always the first to a fire as that is not the case. There are times when crews beat us depending on fire location from the nearest forward attack base etc. There are also times when we are not needed and sent back while they handle it but if we are they are moved back off the fire so we can attack it. Of course it wasn't always this way, in fact Cat can attest to this that before the 215 the waterbombers in Ontario were used only to support the crews. They always sent the crews first and when they couldn't handle it they called for air support. With the introduction of the 215 that quickly changed and the airplane became the front line tool. In Chile, South American it was exactly the same when we arrived but by the time we left the 215 was being sent first. It is not ego it is just good fire management.

Remember this started with Initial Attacking a fire not Sustained Attack and again I stand by what I said. More is not always better when the fire is still small!!

[sky's the limit]

Haha,

I love this medium.... endless crossed wires!

Egocentric - centered in or arising from a person's own existence or perspective.

My use of the word has nothing to do with ego as we commonly use the word, rest assured. It's nice to carry on a pleasant conversation on here once in a while!


Anyway,

It's an interesting conversation to have, and you are correct in the assertion that it is the right tools for the job that works best, wherever and whatever they may be. I agree, seeing a 6 bombing next to a lake doesn't make much sense, but if it is on contract and they are paying for it, then I suppose they want to use it. There are plenty of areas in BC where water-bombers don't make sense, hence the use of the retardant guys.

Well, I'll be thinking of you this week as I bucket a few IA targets into submission......

stl

[Mr. North]

I learned a lot on this thread, good convo guys.

Are there any Manitoba or Ontario crews working the fires in BC?

[CLguy]

Ontario has over 500 people based in BC right now located pretty much all over the province. All ground staff, no aircrews YET!!!

Hey STL sounds like there is no shortage of work for you, so fill your boots!! Stay safe!!

[Cat Driver]

All ground staff, no aircrews YET!!!

My bet is you will be here if we don't get some rain.

[Easy Flyer]

The fires in B.C. are now being described as the worst ever. B.C. is now turning to other nations to request aid. Ontario is cold and soaked again this year. Do the crew contract requirements for time off with family prohibit working far away from their home bases?

[CLguy]

Of course not, this is the fire season and there are fires to put out! That far away you usually just work thru your days off if it becomes an issue. Closer to home they do a crew change as we have extra crews to cover that. Provincial policy doesn't allow you to work more than 19 days straight without some time off. This also applies to groundcrews as well.

[CLguy]

Hydraulic Fluid wrote:

After years of watching the 215(Saskatchewan) fighting fires,my question is why do they not start at daylight?Seems they wait for the winds and heat to increase.They used to do this when Norcanair had the canso,I remember Dale Blair up all night,getting help to get in the plane and working the wee hours of the morning,shutting down when the winds and heat pick up.This goes for ground crews as well,we used to work at night when things were cool,and sleep during the day....rant over

I see no one attempted to answer your post so I will give it a go. I can only speak for air crews not ground crews cause where I come from they do work late into the night and very early mornings if required.

There is a couple of reasons and one is that usually at night a fires lays down which means the smoke settles into the area and you are unable to locate for fire lines. In some cases entire valleys are closed in or huge areas and you cannot even tell where the fire is. Now that we have FLIR (Forward Looking Infrared) systems they help some but again you usually end up wasting so much time that you don't accomplish anything.

Secondly and probably the biggest reason is because of the flight and duty time restrictions that are now in place. I can also remember the days when you landed after dark and had the engines running again before daylight and thankfully those days are now gone and for good reason. With the limits in place a Fire Duty Officer never wants to be in a position where his front line assets are all parked in late afternoon or early evening during the peak burning period because the pilots are out of duty time. They are more valuable in late afternoon and evening than they are early morning!

Hope this answers your question!

[hydraulic fluid]

Thanks Cl Guy

[302sc]

For initial attack a bird dog is not needed.

Cat driver, I have flown firefighting since 1987 in BC, alberta , NWT and France .
I have never seen a lone wolf action approved in canada during my time. fact on my last fire bombing stint if a BDO was not available you just did not go.was there a time in canada when this lone wolf activity was approved and which province did approve it .

only in france did I fly tanker(F-27) without the benefit of birdog but there birdog planes are unknown to securite civile and I agree with you that after many seasons a tanker pilot can judge accurately the best course of action over a fire particularly in I.A where time is of the essence but I never had the opportunity to demonstrate that in canada.
regarding the best tanker for forest fires suppression I would like to add my 2 cents by mentioning the B-200 as the ultimate machine in terms of speed , versatility , load ,etc.
these airplanes are starting to be used more and more in europe

[Cat Driver]

302sc:

I flew lone wolf in Manitoba for four years mostly out of The Pas from around 1979 to 1983 as I recall.

At the time Allan Jeffries was Chief of Forestry in Manitoba and he was the person I answered to.

He was satisfied enough with the arrangement that every spring I had a new Chrysler Park Lane supplied so we could drive in comfort and listen to tunes with air conditioning.

Allan went on to become head of CIFFC and I don't know if he is still there or retired.

In the mid seventies we lone wolfed in Chile as well.

During my time in Manitoba I did not have any set schedule such as red days, blue days and green days.

My arrangement was such as I was given the opportunity to decide when I would be at the airport and ready to launch at the first report of a possible fire sighting, and we never missed a fire call because it is not rocket science to figure out the fire risk on a given day.

Manitoba was flat out the best group of forestry people I ever flew for, the N.W.T. were next.

Get to the fire when it first starts.....fly over it to determine its direction of burn and what fuel it is eating and then put the thing down until ground crews and helicopters can take over.

Our success rate was very impressive...just ask Allan if he is still around.

[Rudy]

All these water bomber threads are great for someone like me who has always been interested in that type of flying as a career path. Manitoba uses some AT-802's, correct? Do they own them or has aerial suppression been privatized in that province as well?

[CLguy]

Ontario still does Lone Wolf operations. The Twin Otters are pretty much Lone Wolf all summer and the 415 will do them as well. We would certainly never not attack a fire because a birdog wasn't available. Can't believe it happens but I know provinces or should I say territory where it happens.