Doc wrote:Dumb question from a non-bomber pilot.
Why did they not call the US Forestry Service and have Evergreen's (or whoever flies it these days) B747 or whatever the biggest airplane they use, to come help out at Slave Lake?? The bombers on sight (for whatever reason) were inefficient, and ineffective, to say the least. I know the winds were a huge issue, but the town got pretty much written off. The Big Boeing full of retardant might have been a big help? Again, I'm not really knowledgeable on the subject. Tanker One finally arrived on the scene.
I think, Doc, that Slave Lake was a 'one day wonder', driven by extreme winds. By the time that everything could have been organised to get one of those machines up there, it would have been too late.
I don't know enough about the business to understand why the water bombers were ineffective,
Ideally, we'd be on top of small fires as soon as they start, with several loads, so that they don't get a chance to get big and roll along. Once they do, though, often the best plan of attack is to steer a fire downwind, by flanking it on the sides, into something that is not burnable (swamp, lake, etc..) There are times however, where the conditions (dry, windy) etc.. get so extreme that there's not much that we can do except for showing the flag, and waiting for Tanker#1, or for the conditions to moderate somewhat. I suspect that this is what was happening that day, and the town happened to be right downwind. Don't forget that the largest tanker (Mars) only carries 6000 gallons of water, and compared to a fire front where the flames could be 200m wide, and 200' in the air, then it's not really that much. Also, a big fire can kick out sparks and embers that can start multiple spot fires as much as 1 mile downwind, so a big fire can rapidly become unmanageable..
What about spending large amounts of $$ on very good sprinkler systems in any community in an area of concern for forest fires? I'm considering one for my home. I figure a Honda pump down on the dock, a couple of sprinklers beside and on the house would keep stuff too wet to burn?
The sprinkler systems would have to be on a different power source. Wouldn't want them to go TU if the town lost it's power. I think the idea has potential....wet houses wont burn.
A very good, practical, idea for an individual homeowner, especially if you have a nearby water source that is large enough. And, one that is very effective - raise the humidity, and the fire will go elsewhere. I know that, if I lived in an area that was at risk for this type of occurrence, then I'd be setting up such a system...However, on a town-size scale, in the last decade, how many towns have had a fire go through them? I can remember 3: Kelowna, Slave Lake, and Barriere, BC. I think that it'd be a hard sell to taxpayers to set up the large-scale infrastructure required to prepare every town that is at risk for a fire of this nature. Or, you'd require civic cooperation of a type that is completely unknown to North Americans.