Tanker crash battling November fire

H&P was amazing and terrifying all at the same time. But what the hell would a guy like me with no wildland firefighting experience know about Greybull, or boxcars, or dark-hour C130s? Joey, have you ever watched Gladiator movies or done a low pass at Lancaster?

Then you should know why night aerial suppression, especially with fixed wing, isn’t a good idea. At all. And is far more risk than it is any reward. Especially if you have something like the Santa Ana’s going. But instead, you want to argue points that no airtanker pilot would argue, much less advocate for.

Let the ground forces do catch up work during night ops.
 
I think Coulson started doing NVG ops in the Chinook, I can't imagine why a SEAT would be a good idea at night. Terrain closure rate combined with lack of SA in a single pilot crew with such a small load seems like a very high threat low reward kind of gamble.
 
I think Coulson started doing NVG ops in the Chinook, I can't imagine why a SEAT would be a good idea at night. Terrain closure rate combined with lack of SA in a single pilot crew with such a small load seems like a very high threat low reward kind of gamble.

Helo is doable, though still fairly risky versus the reward from it. But still doable, especially in a crew helo. But yes, fixed wing and single engine, with the limitations of NVGs in depth perception, field of view, picture bloom and washout. And it’s not a great idea. I still think let the ground forces work at night and make gains, rather than use any aircraft. Helos for emergency suppression only at night…..ie- entrapped people or crews.
 
Pilot was a retired Hog dude, so I'm sure this was not his first rodeo getting down and dirty on NVGs.

Pilot killed in firefighting crash identified as Air Force veteran

was a Shaw Hog guy back when they had them for a bit, good dude. Problem is, working around a fire has lots of differences from working a CAS op. Granted, he knew both sides of the equation, but marrying them up is still a risky proposition. And the gain for that just isn’t much in totality. Not sure why that company, or the command and control on the fire, thought it absolutely necessary to pursue? That will be the the 400lb elephant so to speak.
 
Seems like another case of where life-saving technology isn't where it needs to be. Modern avionics with SVT and TAWS-B could easily change the risk equation from the CFIT perspective. And when looking at the risk to life and property on the ground even a previous-generation G500 retrofit seems like a no-brainer.
 
I can’t remember his name tho. I think he flew tankers for a hot minute too for the fire service. I might be wrong.
 
I read a tweet from a guy who was at the airport talking to the pilot before he took off. Said he was “really excited to be making history”. I’m not sure the risk versus reward ratio was worth it.

Is there any advantage to fighting a fire at night from the air?
 
I read a tweet from a guy who was at the airport talking to the pilot before he took off. Said he was “really excited to be making history”. I’m not sure the risk versus reward ratio was worth it.

Is there any advantage to fighting a fire at night from the air?

see my previous explanation posts in the thread. Short answer, no; at least for fixed wing. Some places do it rotary wing in certain circumstances.
 
And it seems this particular mission really wasn't the worth the risk, fire is already 100% contained.
 
And it seems this particular mission really wasn't the worth the risk, fire is already 100% contained.

Agreed

- a fire at 100% containment (not full extinguishment, but under control, which is a good thing)

- wanting to be the first to perform a first, either company, individual, agency, or all of the above.

Not a good set of ingredients for the risk vs reward recipe.
 
Back
Top