fire patrol detection to go the way of the...

[BibleMonkey]

... for fire patrol. The Canadian forest fire co ordination center and bc forest services ...
,,,, manned aircraft.

There are too many trees.
If it is Gods will that they be burnt, it must be so.
You are all sinners for fighting His will.

Jeremiah 21:14
"But I will punish you according to the results of your deeds," declares the LORD, "And I will kindle a fire in its forest That it may devour all its environs."'"
--------------------------

I wonder if satellites will replace humans in aerial observation in a variety of areas, if not sooner - then later, on a larger scale- than will drones.

http://activefiremaps.fs.fed.us/activefiremaps.php

[cncpc]

You're on par with everyone but Donuthole for conjecture, here.

Ha - unlikely, PieBoy. Did you know David or Jan from Nelson? How about Cyril or Larry from Salmon Arm? I bet Geoff from Hope was before your time. All these gentlemen died in BC while conducting fire patrol flights. I can provide you detailed information about what they were doing, why they crashed and what the ramifications of each accident were. I can recount - although I'd rather not - what I saw and felt as I attended one of the smoldering scenes as a young firefighter.

reminds me of another reactionary policy that BCFS was trying to implement years ago. They wanted to make all patrol aircraft twin-engined for safety purposes... until it was pointed out that every crash thus far had been in twin engine aircraft.

This comment displays your misunderstandings; two of the three accidents above occurred in single-engine aircraft.

So before you dismiss contributions as 'conjecture', perhaps we all might be better served if you remember the responsibilities of contributing to an anonymous online forum, and never assume that you know more than anybody else. Because with certain topics (like this one), you don't.

Well, what's your point?

[threepoint]

Conjecture is stuff that can either be true or false because there is no evidence. You still havent offered up any accident reports, and those names mean nothing to me. I also asked for a source for the subjects of this thread, but still nothing. Notice that I said you were 'par with everyone' including me. Your post was obviously directed at me, and here, in this somewhat anonymous forum, you have the same credibility as anyone else unless you offer up some hard evidence.

Saying "to add some actual knowledge" is absolutely meaningless and comes off as arrogant. Maybe I'll just say, "no... ILL add some actual knowledge".

Don C, the former head of air ops for South East Fire Center, wanted all patrols in the SE to be done on twin engine aircraft. At the time, in the South East, all patrol plane crashes (possibly excluding ones from ancient history) were twins. Two twins that have been used for fire patrols have also crashed doing other things within the last 7 years.

That info is second hand, but very similar to lots of other schemes and policies they've had but didn't follow through with, and I figured it fit perfectly with the current subject.

Better?

Those names might mean nothing to you because you didn't work with them or know them. I knew four of them (Geoff was before my time too). As for hard evidence, one can't provide an accident report where one doesn't exist (the link to the 1997 Nelson Air report was provided in this thread).

If you're going to quote Don C (I think the name you're looking for is Courson), then you need to provide some context. What Don wanted was (notoriously) not official BCFS policy, and no formal restriction was ever placed upon single-engined fire patrol aircraft in the SE or any of the other five Fire Centres. Hiring preferences in certain areas were based upon other, let's just say, less quantifiable qualities brought by aircraft companies. So to emphasize my point, there were no "schemes and policies" in regards to fire patrol aircraft that the BCFS (this acronym itself is outdated) "had but didn't follow through".

I'm curious to your claim about "two twins that have been used for fire patrols have also crashed within the last 7 years". There were no such accidents within BC, so perhaps you refer to accidents elsewhere?

[threepoint]

I wonder if satellites will replace humans in aerial observation in a variety of areas, if not sooner - then later, on a larger scale- than will drones.

I believe this is a far more likely scenario. Cost-effective drones are simply too small, fly too low and have insufficient endurance & range to cover the size of the landbase we have. Large, high-flying, military-style drones cost exponentially more than a small aircraft with two observers aboard, and will not be commercially available anytime soon. To repeat a previous comment, I believe there is a place for small, inexpensive UAVs for use in mapping & imaging applications, but they are not adequate replacements for current methods of fire detection.

[Cat Driver]

BCFS (this acronym itself is outdated)

Wow, that must mean Ifly is really ignorant if he is not aware of such a earth shattering bit of information as that.

The BCFS sure had some deep thinkers back in the seventies when they banned water scoopers in BC because water does not extinguish fires.

[DonutHole]

One of twins I think pie is referring to was used in fire patrols and crashed on a personal flight.

[threepoint]

BCFS (this acronym itself is outdated)

Wow, that must mean Ifly is really ignorant if he is not aware of such a earth shattering bit of information as that.

The BCFS sure had some deep thinkers back in the seventies when they banned water scoopers in BC because water does not extinguish fires.

There was no intent to portray anybody as ignorant; you might notice that I used the acronym a few times myself. There is a century of pride associated with the BCFS and its oval emblem, and today's 'correct' acronym may not register with all readers in the same way that 'Forest Service' does. This being said, the use of Wildfire Management Branch has been around for many years now, and anybody professing any level of credible knowledge of aerial fire suppression within BC would be familiar with the term.

I'm not here to defend government policymakers, because some truly unfortunate decisions have been made by some less than qualified people in forestry aviation. I see it every day. But at no point in time were waterscoopers "banned" in BC. What you call a ban was in fact a conscious - and correct - decision not to place waterscoopers on long-term contract within the province. This was not because anybody doubted water worked well at extinguishing fires, it was because there were no suitable aircraft available to deliver the water. The CL-215s did not have the required performance to deliver the amount of water required. The combination of high temps, low RHs and large differences in elevation between scoop source and fire location proved a bit much for the piston aircraft. The Cansos worked well if the fire was about the size of a campfire, located on a beach next to an ocean. Otherwise they peed into the wind by all accounts of those long enough in the tooth to assess them. I suspect this might ire some of the drivers out there, but "facts is facts". CL-415s have excellent performance, but holy hell, do they cost a lot. Too much, in the eyes of the Treasury Boards tasked with approving resource requests, and still, the water/foam combinations did not work as well as the chemical retardant applications.

In busy fire seasons, BC imported CL-415s, 215Ts and called the Martin Mars from Sproat Lake when its corporate owners permitted. None of these aircraft were ever "banned". And...to bring things into the present, of course we know that a group of four amphibious 802s is on long-term contract within BC (and a second group was requested and denied for the 2015 fire season). The 802s can access more water sources and deliver water at a lower cost-per-gallon than previous waterscoopers on offer.

The emergence of a more suitable aircraft may not have worked in time for the old Canso drivers out there, or the 215 guys who wished to fly closer to home, or the Bombardier execs who wanted to sell more flagship 415s, or the new owner of the Mars who wanted to market his 1945 airplane as the answer to today's fire suppression needs. But never assume that all options weren't considered and proper analyses weren't completed. They were. And the decisions reflected the economic and safety needs of the forest industry and general public, not the personal employment needs of internet forum posters.

[Cat Driver]

The Cansos worked well if the fire was about the size of a campfire, located on a beach next to an ocean. Otherwise they peed into the wind by all accounts of those long enough in the tooth to assess them

What was the difference in gallons scooped between the CL215 and the PBY, that made the PBY pee into the wind compared to the load a 215 carried?

They were. And the decisions reflected the economic and safety needs of the forest industry and general public, not the personal employment needs of internet forum posters.

Great, we can get the real story from an expert like you rather than some internet forum poster.

We need your kind of expertise to guide us rather than us internet posters making uneducated assumptions.

[threepoint]

What was the difference in gallons scooped between the CL215 and the PBY, that made the PBY pee into the wind compared to the load a 215 carried?

It was not the difference in capacity, it was performance of the platform. Both types were inadequate to do the job required in British Columbia, hence were not employed on contract for long (PBY), or at all (215).

Great, we can get the real story from an expert like you rather than some internet forum poster.
We need your kind of expertise to guide us rather than us internet posters making uneducated assumptions.

Happy to shed some more light, if you have any questions about aerial fire suppression strategies, tactics, or the policies that dictate them.

[Cat Driver]

Happy to shed some more light, if you have any questions about aerial fire suppression strategies, tactics, or the policies that dictate them.

Thanks, but after spending fifteen years flying them as Captain in both North and South America I think I was exposed to enough tactics to understand how it goes, and for sure I have seen enough policies to last for several life times.

[threepoint]

Thanks, but after spending fifteen years flying them as Captain in both North and South America I think I was exposed to enough tactics to understand how it goes, and for sure I have seen enough policies to last for several life times.

I can't speak to the policies - flawed or otherwise - that you encountered, but if your aerial firefighting experience is limited to Cansos, you might be pleased to note that much has changed since the mid-70s when they were last used in BC. We have plenty of pilots, air attack officers and managers within both government and the air companies that have been born since you last bombed a BC fire. Each of them has brought fresh new ideas and everybody agrees there remains room for improvement.

I personally wouldn't judge a book by its cover I last read forty years ago, but that's just me.

[Cat Driver]

How many fires have you personally bombed threepoint?

[threepoint]

How many fires have you personally bombed threepoint?

What is the threshold number that will ensure my credibility? More importantly, why does the number of fires matter? With who am I competing?

Can you accept that I'm familiar with this topic?

I'll say this: I'm not an air tanker captain. I have directed maybe 500 aerial firebombing missions. Maybe more. I dunno, I don't keep a sticky note.

[Cat Driver]

Well threepoint reading through all your posts on the subject of aerial fire suppression you come across as a condensing Government employee, and I never for a moment confused you with an experienced fire suppression pilot.

I personally wouldn't judge a book by its cover I last read forty years ago, but that's just me.

That above comment supports my opinion.

[Rockie]

Actually he sounds like a knowledgable professional armed with current facts minus any kind of chip on his shoulder. It's ok Cat, he's no threat to your legacy because he has no interest in being one.

[cncpc]

Yes, it was Don Courson who came to the Koots from the Cariboo and put in a sort of regional policy mandating twin engine aircraft. They also had to be high wing. Which meant 337s or Aero Commanders, or I guess Islanders.

So Nelson Mountain Air got 337s, Dave and Ed in Revelstoke got a couple, and from what I remember Norm Babin got at least one, and Robin had one when he took over in Nelson. I remember having some discussion about the policy showing how little Don knew about flying (he did his private licence up at Gideon's in Williams Lake if I remember). That centered around a light twin being more dangerous on one engine than a single with an engine failure. Which in some places may from time to time be true. But I came to Nelson a few years ago and flew a 337 for the guys in Nelson and I have to say that for that area, Courson was giving the little edge to those on board the twins if an engine quit.

There's a lot of places, particularly in the Purcells west of the Trench from Crawford Bay north to the Spires where a pilot would be really up against it in a single with a power loss. Hostile, steep and high terrain where a survivable forced was a low probability. In many cases, the only out came from knowing that all creeks led downhill to water, and those creeks had a pretty steep descent rate. Depending where you were, a single might have made it down to a lake, or even over to the Invermere side. But that one remaining engine on a 337 would greatly flatten out the descent and certainly get you to water, and much more likely to one of the airports around the big Lake.

Same around Arrow Lake and Slocan Lake when up in the Valhallas.

Personally, I think the BC Forest Service are among the best in the world in how they, as non flyers, mandate how aircraft are to be used in their operations. I always got the feeling that they wanted me and my passengers safe home from every flight and I have no prob with that.

I also have no problem with crediting both threepoint and Pie Boy with having valid, experience based insights into their comments.

Drones would never work in the Koots and many other high mountain places in BC.

[threepoint]

Actually he sounds like a knowledgable professional armed with current facts minus any kind of chip on his shoulder. It's ok Cat, he's no threat to your legacy because he has no interest in being one.

Thank you Rockie - you're bang on. My intent was to bring some inside knowledge to the discussion and to stifle the bitter critiques made by people unconnected to the industry. Often, when we disagree with a policy, we resort to slamming the decision makers instead of asking questions or seeking context.

As cncpc mentions, the BCFS is indeed interested in seeing everybody land safely at the end of the day. For the most part, it can boast a well-run aviation program. There are many gains to be made in efficiency and effectiveness and aviation staff training and personal certifications, but I can't think of an industry in which this isn't also the case. General and commercial aviation is definitely not immune from difficult policies and individuals.

Some of the crustier govt individuals have moved on, and younger people are picking up and seeking constant improvement. UAVs will likely be part of the midterm future - in limited use - but to parrot cncpc again, the use of drones in certain areas of the province will be less optimal than more established means of fire detection and patrol.

[DonutHole]

To be fair, some of the critiques come from insiders very much connected to the industry. But hey, I'm always entertained from a good argument from authority

[threepoint]

To be fair, some of the critiques come from insiders very much connected to the industry.

Very true, and I count myself as one of them. Solution-based criticism is welcomed, whereas spouting incorrect statements as facts, accompanied by pettiness and what appears to be a deep-seated grudge is less appreciated.

Somebody, somewhere, back on a long-forgotten tanker base seems to have irritated certain contributors, and it seems difficult for things to be let go.