bullshit government red tape kills 13 in California

[Col. Crackpot]

Dressed links? What's that?

fucking asinine government regulations

[Montcalm]

[Sarcastic mode on]Union asshole "I did my shift screw the rest"[Sarcastic mode off]

[Shinova]

Here's one:

"If the air tankers and helicopters cannot safely fly based on daylight, they cannot respond," said Ray Snodgrass, chief deputy director of the CDF. "We certainly don't want to kill any pilots."

But you're certainly willing to let 13+ people die and thousands of homes get destroyed to protect your precious little regulations and to avoid getting sued, right?

[Stormbringer]

But you're certainly willing to let 13+ people die and thousands of homes get destroyed to protect your precious little regulations and to avoid getting sued, right?

It's a trade off of risks. The civilian planes and helicopters generally don't have the night vision equipment to safely fly or do their job at night and so rather than risk them needlessy they ground them. Yes, this time it resulted in deaths and massive property damage but had they gone, they might have lost the plane and still had people die.

[Shinova]

The article says the sun set about fifteen minutes after that helicopter called for help. I think a tanker could've easily been dispatched during that time to put out the fire.

Remember that they said a single well-placed drop could've killed the whole fire.

[Stormbringer]

The article says the sun set about fifteen minutes after that helicopter called for help. I think a tanker could've easily been dispatched during that time to put out the fire.

Remember that they said a single well-placed drop could've killed the whole fire.

Not unless they already had one loaded and airborne in the neighborhood. It takes a good long time to get a tanker loaded and airborne. They would have been well into dark by the time they got back.

[Sea Skimmer]

It's a trade off of risks. The civilian planes and helicopters generally don't have the night vision equipment to safely fly or do their job at night and so rather than risk them needlessy they ground them.

You can buy a suitable set of NVG's from countless stores. Or they could just use the damn military aircraft which already have pilots trained and fully equipped for the job during the night.

[The Kernel]

But you're certainly willing to let 13+ people die and thousands of homes get destroyed to protect your precious little regulations and to avoid getting sued, right?

It's a trade off of risks. The civilian planes and helicopters generally don't have the night vision equipment to safely fly or do their job at night and so rather than risk them needlessy they ground them. Yes, this time it resulted in deaths and massive property damage but had they gone, they might have lost the plane and still had people die.

Bullshit. Your talking to somone who comes from a family of pilots and I can tell you that these planes are more than capable of flying at night and have all the equipment and training for the pilots to do so.

[Stormbringer]

You can buy a suitable set of NVG's from countless stores. Or they could just use the damn military aircraft which already have pilots trained and fully equipped for the job during the night.

The problem is not all of them have bought it and they don't want some yokel trying to do it seat of the pants in the middle of the nights.

And yeah, they should have called in the military but didn't.

Bullshit. Your talking to somone who comes from a family of pilots and I can tell you that these planes are more than capable of flying at night and have all the equipment and training for the pilots to do so.

There's a major difference between the difficult fire suppression runs and an easy night flight. Have any of them flown those sort of missions at night? Have you?

[The Kernel]

Bullshit. Your talking to somone who comes from a family of pilots and I can tell you that these planes are more than capable of flying at night and have all the equipment and training for the pilots to do so.

There's a major difference between the difficult fire suppression runs and an easy night flight. Have any of them flown those sort of missions at night? Have you?

I'm well aware of the risks involved in night flying at low altitudes thank you very much. What you obviously fail to realize is that pilots are always very, VERY conservative when it comes to flying which is usually a good thing. When there are lives on the line however, sometimes risks need to be taken. Just ask a firefighter about how you need to take risks in order to save lives.

Let me give you an example. When my old man flies his B300, he always makes sure that he is carrying the proper amount of weight so that if one engine fails, he can actually fly normally and land perfectly well on the remaining engine. This is absolutely the right thing to do in this situation because it isn't worth taking risks to carry a couple of extra pounds. However the statistics of an engine failure combined with having trouble landing on the second engine with a slight overload are minescule. Are you starting to understand the level of paranoia that pilots have with their aircraft?

There is always a risk in night-flying at low altitudes, but it isn't nearly as much of a risk as you seem to think. A seasoned pilot can handle it without breaking a sweat. However, because pilots are by nature cautious, they will avoid it wherever possible. In this scenario, it was stupid for them to not take a certain amount of risk considering that the people that got killed were in far greater danger then the pilots.

[Stormbringer]

I'm well aware of the risks involved in night flying at low altitudes thank you very much. What you obviously fail to realize is that pilots are always very, VERY conservative when it comes to flying which is usually a good thing. When there are lives on the line however, sometimes risks need to be taken. Just ask a firefighter about how you need to take risks in order to save lives.

They judged the risks of the mission based on the fact that the fire was at the time relatively small and under control. They didn't judge the risk from a small fire worth the danger of a night time fire supression run. It's day after quarter backing and not much else.

[The Kernel]

I'm well aware of the risks involved in night flying at low altitudes thank you very much. What you obviously fail to realize is that pilots are always very, VERY conservative when it comes to flying which is usually a good thing. When there are lives on the line however, sometimes risks need to be taken. Just ask a firefighter about how you need to take risks in order to save lives.

They judged the risks of the mission based on the fact that the fire was at the time relatively small and under control. They didn't judge the risk from a small fire worth the danger of a night time fire supression run. It's day after quarter backing and not much else.

I won't fault them for the call, even if in hindsight it was stupid. What I originally called bullshit on you for was claiming that these planes somehow lacked the equipment to do this mission. They can and do fly these missions on a regular basis.

[Stormbringer]

I won't fault them for the call, even if in hindsight it was stupid. What I originally called bullshit on you for was claiming that these planes somehow lacked the equipment to do this mission. They can and do fly these missions on a regular basis.

The regulation is in place because some of the planes don't have the gear (the reason for the regulation in the first place) and fire supression mission is dangerous as hell even when it's not done at night. Obviously they don't fly fire suppression missions at night regularly.

[The Kernel]

I won't fault them for the call, even if in hindsight it was stupid. What I originally called bullshit on you for was claiming that these planes somehow lacked the equipment to do this mission. They can and do fly these missions on a regular basis.

The regulation is in place because some of the planes don't have the gear (the reason for the regulation in the first place) and fire supression mission is dangerous as hell even when it's not done at night. Obviously they don't fly fire suppression missions at night regularly.

They train for these kind of missions all the time, so they DO fly them on a regular basis. The reasons the regulations exist is because regulations for flying tend to be overly conservative. Personally, that's the thing that I have a problem with in this situation. It isn't that they made one bad call but that pilots tend to fly by overly conservative rules. In some cases this is a very good thing (why do you think flying is so much safer then driving?) but for pilots that fly fire fighting missions like these, they need to take a good, long look at these rules and weigh the risks involved in the future.

[MKSheppard]

[MKSheppard]

http://www.firehogs.com/

A-10 vs fire!



AeroTech proposes converting retired Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II attack jets into the Next Generation of Airtankers. The conversion involves demilitarizing the military jets, adding an infrared sensor package (the white ball under the nose), a retardant discharge system (the belly tank and pipe) and an aerial retardant reloading system (the probe on the left side of the nose).

[KhyronTheBackstabber]

http://www.firehogs.com/

A-10 vs fire!

AeroTech proposes converting retired Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II attack jets into the Next Generation of Airtankers. The conversion involves demilitarizing the military jets, adding an infrared sensor package (the white ball under the nose), a retardant discharge system (the belly tank and pipe) and an aerial retardant reloading system (the probe on the left side of the nose).

Turn the GAU-8 into the worlds most powerful SuperSoaker.

[Sea Skimmer]

Turn the GAU-8 into the worlds most powerful SuperSoaker.

Better to convert the 105 on an AC-130, we could fill old gas shells with fire retardant for precision fire suppression. Though a normal 50 battalion artillery barrage would be pretty good at stopping fires, a ten minute barrage equals instant firebreak and backfire.

[Vympel]

That firehog idea is just inane. Again- BRING UP THE MIGHTY IL-76!

[Col. Crackpot]

That firehog idea is just inane. Again- BRING UP THE MIGHTY IL-76!

now we're talking! and fill her with heavily carbonated water.

[Sea Skimmer]

That firehog idea is just inane. Again- BRING UP THE MIGHTY IL-76!

The plane is cheep to fly and could carry several thousand gallons of water in external tanks. The FLIR and in-flight resupply ideas are fucking stupid though. The Il-76 being a large four engine jet is not going to be very cheep to fly, the Soviets probably only came up with it because of the vast distances Siberia fires required aircraft to fly.

Anyway, a C-17 laying down a stick of air bursting MOAB's will both smother any fire for about kilometer and clear a nice wide firebreak in the process.

[MKSheppard]

The FLIR and in-flight resupply ideas are fucking stupid though.

In flight resupply is st00pid, but not the FLIR. There was an incident
where tankers couldn't drop retardant on a small fire because of all
the smoke it was causing, allowing it to grow in size. With FLIR, they'd
be able to drop thru smoke, in all weather conditions.

[Sea Skimmer]

In flight resupply is st00pid, but not the FLIR. There was an incident
where tankers couldn't drop retardant on a small fire because of all
the smoke it was causing, allowing it to grow in size. With FLIR, they'd
be able to drop thru smoke, in all weather conditions.

Thick hot smoke will block FLIR.

[Vympel]

Peru uses the Il-76 watertanker was well, I hear ...