Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 26
  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    193

    Default Deplorable Safety Record of Firefighting Aircraft Scored in Report

    Air Safety Week, Dec 9, 2002

    If you look carefully into this piece, you'll
    see the Il-76 waterbomber is recommended.


  2. #2
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,671

    Default

    Prof. Bill Kauffman at the University of Michigan has studied the aerial firefighter problem and believes the Be-200 may not be the best choice. In terms of Russian-built airplanes, he said "the Il-76 may be better".
    "If we were serious, we'd convert and strengthen a half-dozen C-17 cargo jets for aerial firefighting," Kauffman suggested.
    Saying the Il-76 may be better than the Be-200 is not a recommendation. Seems like the expert quoted was more in favor of C-17 cargo jets.

    No beauracratic(sp?) spin. No salesman spin. Just reading the document offered.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  3. #3
    Disillusioned Subscriber Steamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    Surely, there more recent data than 2002. How does the Boeing 747 compare?
    It may seem pretty nice to have that much water available for a drop, but you ain't gonna land either of these behemoths at Joe's Community Sky Park to refill with water. Even considering that longer loiter times are possible, deadheading time to an airport that can handle the aircraft is going to be a major consideration.
    Steve Gallagher
    IACOJ BOT
    ----------------------------
    "I don't apologize for anything. When I make a mistake, I take the blame and go on from there." - Woody Hayes

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Bill shares his views again here:

    http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...68/detail.html
    and here: http://www.desastres.org/ger/vcreportercom.htm

    AFAC shares its views here:

    http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/medi...172003_aus.htm

    Nobody needs to "sell" the IL-76.

    It just sort of sells itself....except to the Smokey Bears
    in Canada and the US.

    Why is that?

    DONCHA LIKE THE RUSSIANS?

    What 747?

  5. #5
    Disillusioned Subscriber Steamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,475

    Default

    What 747?
    There was an article here on firehouse that someone was looking at employing the 747 as a "supertanker". If I recall correctly, I think it said the 747 was capable of dumping something like 20K or 30K gallons of water.

    How much does it cost to operate these larger aircraft versus the smaller platforms?
    Steve Gallagher
    IACOJ BOT
    ----------------------------
    "I don't apologize for anything. When I make a mistake, I take the blame and go on from there." - Woody Hayes

  6. #6
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Can't/won't comment on the 747.

    Show me the 747. The only tests that can be
    found, based on media accounts, show no 747 test load
    has exceeded that of an IL-76 in regular service. That's
    that I am prepared to comment on.

    I can show you a decade operating the other one.

    On a cost per pound liquids delivered to a wildfire,
    based on actuals in the case of Alberta, and on a
    spreadsheet case prepared for BC against ALL firefighting,
    aircraft, the IL-76 is orders of magnitude cheaper than any firefighting aircraft. Cost per pound delivered to a fire is the conventional measure of comparative economies of ff aircraft.

    Now you calculate the cost of NOT using the Il-76 on a homes
    lost basis.

    See Jane's on the Il-76. It's of rugged construction. You can
    land/takeoff this aircraft on rough airstrips. It goes out
    loaded on far less than max gross takeoff weight for firefighting.
    Far less than full fuel; far less than max cargo weight at
    100K pounds liquids and a 4.5 ton set of tanks.

    This is NOT an aircraft built for taking passengers from gate
    to gate. This aircraft was built to drop.

  7. #7
    Sr. Information Officer NJFFSA16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    25 NW of the GW
    Posts
    8,434

    Default

    Why don't you just post your business card in each thread...instead of making us read your loosely veiled sales hype?

    Good grief....your posts have become so transparent...it's pathetic.

    There's nothing worse than a pushy salesperson......
    Proudly serving as the IACOJ Minister of Information & Propoganda!
    Be Safe! Lookouts-Awareness-Communications-Escape Routes-Safety Zones

    *Gathering Crust Since 1968*
    On the web at www.section2wildfire.com

  8. #8
    Disillusioned Subscriber Steamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,475

    Wink Perhaps a problem here?

    quoted from budthespud: This aircraft was built to drop.
    Could this be the reason no one's interested?
    Steve Gallagher
    IACOJ BOT
    ----------------------------
    "I don't apologize for anything. When I make a mistake, I take the blame and go on from there." - Woody Hayes

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    193

  10. #10
    Sr. Information Officer NJFFSA16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    25 NW of the GW
    Posts
    8,434

    Exclamation

    Congrats.....you made my list!

    CLICK

    Add budthespud to Your Ignore List

    "DING" (No sale!)
    Proudly serving as the IACOJ Minister of Information & Propoganda!
    Be Safe! Lookouts-Awareness-Communications-Escape Routes-Safety Zones

    *Gathering Crust Since 1968*
    On the web at www.section2wildfire.com

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    193

    Default

    Who said Cleopatra was the only Queen of DeNial?

  12. #12
    55 Years & Still Rolling hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Thumbs down Bud.

    I've tried to ignore your whining. I have to say this. NO ONE IN AMERICA IS INTERESTED IN YOUR RUSSIAN AIRCRAFT. GO AWAY! And take the damned thing with you. WE DON'T WANT IT. NOT NOW. NOT EVER.
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    193

    Default

    When MSNBC took this one online in '00,
    http://www.vadscorner.com/tooproud.html
    a poll was taken:

    94% of 15K voters were offside with your
    prognostications, woodsey.

    The politicians know this.

    In fact, Rep Dennis Kucinich asked President
    Bush to ask for the airplane during your SoCal
    catastrophe.

    So get ready for you to eat your hat,
    or some crow, or some humble pie.

    And Speak for yourself, chum. You should really
    learn to control that temper online.
    Last edited by budthespud; 08-05-2004 at 12:05 PM.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber ullrichk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deleted by the forum gremlins
    Posts
    1,663

    Default

    The aircraft is probably fine, it's the snake-oil merchants that come with it we could do without.

    If you want to sell the aircraft, buy an ad on the FH website.
    ullrichk
    a.k.a.
    perfesser

    a ship in a harbor is safe. . . but that's not what ships are for

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    193

    Default

    If I were you, I'd be wanting all the information
    I could get on this, not shooting the messenger
    and making dufuses of yourselves in the process.


    When chickens sense that one of the flock is bleeding,
    they all peck away at that chicken until it's dead.

    Well I'm not bleeding and your chicken pecks don't hurt me
    in the least.

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber EFD840's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Eclectic (no, NOT electric), Alabama
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Originally posted by budthespud
    Well I'm not bleeding
    You aren't selling any airplanes either!

    Time to yank those water tanks out of your IL-76 and go back to leasing them to the UN as cargo planes.

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    193

    Default

    You're right.

    The airplanes are too good for the likes of the USFS.

    I think the military needs to upgrade and complement
    MAFFS.

    Take the whole thing and give it to the military. The
    USFS doesn't know a good tanker to trip over one and now,
    they have 8 from the original 33 because they're unfit to
    fly.

    Way to go USFS. Way to bring shame on aviation and shame
    on your institution. Wouldn't know a good tanker to trip
    over one.

    Incompetent. And two American spokesmen say the next thing
    to criminal while another says shameful. That gets us really
    near penetrating immunity from civil suits, only accomplished
    in the rarest of cases but this time, there just may be enough.

    You think you have solidarity on this issue, you're wrong on
    that too.
    Last edited by budthespud; 08-05-2004 at 03:16 PM.

  18. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Ah Bud,
    Get a clue, okay?
    You like to accuse the US Gov't of grounding "unsafe" planes, and not using the IL-76.
    Sad, but the US aircraft went through the FAA certification process to be legally used by the USDA, DOI, and any other agency that needs one. Somehow, you suggest that since these planes are outliving their useful lives, the government should instead certify untested aircraft made by a foreign country that is not subject to the same testing and flight rules, without undergoing the same process. No American aircraft operator would employ an expensive piece of equipment prior to its certification.There's no profit in it.
    And I'm sure you'd be happy if the government suspended its rules, but they aren't doing that for the proven aircraft they have. Why would you expect them to do so with a new one? Would they be exposed to less liability simply because it's newer? Because they didn't build it, just allowed it to be used? Because some politicians, (who, I'm sure, never pander to such banal pressures as, oh, public pressure?) Maybe because Budthespud says so?
    It seems to me that in many ways the Canadian government's aviation standards are even more stringent than the US. Maybe they ought to suspend them, too. After all, Canada seems to lack the numbers of attorneys willing to file lawsuits over anything, and I'm certain their politicians are experts who would only do the right thing, no matter what the consequences.
    Canadair is even now considering whether it is worth going through the process to get certified in the US. (A 4+ year process, mind you...)
    They are trying to determine if they will sell enough aircraft to justify the cost. And remember, those aircraft are type-built (that is; designed to carry and drop water on fires).
    And before you get all hot and bothered about it, the 747 is also in a testing stage, it is not being submitted for certification as a fire bomber yet.
    Maybe the rules do suck. It's possible, but I'm old enough to remember when Thalidomide was okay for use in Europe, but the FDA wouldn't allow it here without testing.
    Seems to me that one worked out, too, eh?

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    193

    Default long post

    Not much in it, but a long post anyway.

    NATO photo: http://www.nato.int/multi/photos/2004/m040625a.htm

    "most spectacular" at Zeltweg airshow: http://www.checksix.de/html/body_solodemos.html

    Welcome to the 21st Century, mate.

    Aussies say it's a very, very good firefighting airplane
    on 4.5 days' more testing than the US Forest Circus.

    If you saw it, you would say so too.

    Do you want your fires out or do you want your Empire and the
    Emporer with No Clothes left intact?

    We think we know what the taxpayer wants and what the FAA has said
    about that.

  20. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Alright Bud, since too many words seem to confound you, let's be short and to the point;
    You seem more interested in selling the IL-76 than you are in the safety of operating the aircraft.
    You make a big deal of the safety record of existing planes in the
    US, but have no interest in proving the safety of your aircraft.
    Why is that, Bud?
    What is your connection to the IL-76?
    You haven't answered that question on any post you've been asked it yet...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts