Firefighting aircraft compilation (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Now them are some firedogs!

Back in 08, a brushfire happened in the hills of Ventura overlooking my home on Ventura Ave. VC Sheriffs brought in a helo with a bucket, and VCFD also got mutual aid from the ANG unit based at Pt Mugu -- in the form of a C-130 with a MAFFS system.

It was amazing watching them work (my home was perhaps 1/2 mile from the burning hillside). Their accuracy was incredible.
 
Indeed. Many folks give their lives for others who have no idea the sacrifices and suffering paid on their behalf, and that crew are among them. Is it a tragedy, or part of the job? I'm not sure, but I'm not belittling their sacrifice either.
Good points. If I was friends, family or colleagues of those three C-130 aircrew I'd be very upset with whatever airworthiness certifying body or ground crew that approved that C-130 to fly ops.
 
Right. And at the same time one knows that when charging into danger, that might be one's ass. There's no easy solution to this sort of equation.
True, but when your life is in the hands of those who provided and maintained the equipment you'd like to hope that they did their job with skill and care.

Looking at this article it seems that the FAA let these pilots down, since the regulations did not exclude or limit elderly military surplus aircraft from being used as water bombers, and the requirements for fatigue cracks did not include deep inspections that aircraft operating in terrible conditions would benefit from.

I'm no pilot, but when I read about these C-130 water bomber pilots in Australia being sent into dangerous wind conditions I must admire them, and hope that they have well maintained aircraft and equipment for the job, Report released for fatal crash of C-130 air tanker in Australia - Wildfire Today
 
True, but when your life is in the hands of those who provided and maintained the equipment you'd like to hope that they did their job with skill and care.

Looking at this article it seems that the FAA let these pilots down, since the regulations did not exclude or limit elderly military surplus aircraft from being used as water bombers, and the requirements for fatigue cracks did not include deep inspections that aircraft operating in terrible conditions would benefit from.

I'm no pilot, but when I read about these C-130 water bomber pilots in Australia being sent into dangerous wind conditions I must admire them, and hope that they have well maintained aircraft and equipment for the job, Report released for fatal crash of C-130 air tanker in Australia - Wildfire Today

You're right that inspection standards should be more rigorous. Indeed, they should be in my mind more rigorous than commercial inspection protocols, because the airframe is subject to much more stress. The airplanes are flying through hot updrafts, probably imposing big demands on wing-spars and such, as well as flying some short cycles under heavy load. As in all firefighting, failure kills people.
 
Last edited:
The C-130 was not designed for the stresses of water bombing.
When a CalFire C-130 lost it's wings* during a drop several years ago, the C-130 as eliminated from it's inventory and a complete evaluation of wing spars was conducted across military and civil operator fleets.
It also spawned a new guideline for load delivery techniques that reduce stress on the wings.
So if any operator maneuvers the aircraft outside of that guideline, they do so at their own risk.

* The CalFire C-130 was conducting a run downslope with a hard pullout at the end of the drop. As the pilot went to pull out, the stress was too great and the wings folded upward and then came off.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back