|
Post by typerated on Mar 10, 2019 20:09:58 GMT 12
And very nice for countries that buy them. But lets hope the NZ government has much more sense!
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Mar 10, 2019 21:01:15 GMT 12
If we had more NH90's, a TAF Squadron would be an ideal location for such a skill set, but that arn't going to happen. A plan for mobilization of the county fixed wing ag fleet is probably the most cost effective. Can anyone tell me why they seem to insist on filling aircraft with dam hoses. Its so labour intensive and relatively slow. Its not hard to have palletize bucket and a trained operater on stand by and just use the nearest telly handler. One reason is to mix the retardant and wetting agent (soap) thoroughly. I spent a few years as a Deputy Principal Rural Fire Officer and worked with several experienced operators. Only one filled from running water (river) and he had a method of stirring the mixture. Iroquois were used occasionally for firefighting and from memory most filled from tankers.
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Mar 13, 2019 18:12:49 GMT 12
Fair call, But I'd suggest it was in the national interest to fund training this skill! I read through this thread and it annoyed the hell out of me. 1) Where is the shortage of skilled, experienced and competent commercial capability that justify the government getting involved? 2) Where is the evidence that removing the handful of dedicated military helicopters we have in New Zealand, total quantity two dozen, from their core roles closes a gap that the 1000+ helicopters on the civil register can't meet? 3) Why is it in the national interest to stop military aircraft performing their core role and competing with the private sector?
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Mar 13, 2019 18:14:51 GMT 12
I disagree.. We (tax payer) pay whoever flys. And in the case of a national emergency a few more flying hours or a brought forward OSD is 2/5 of bugger all consideration. No civilian helicopters have the heavy lift here - You can go down the road of renting specialist firefighting machines like across the ditch though. Either way - I am picking sooner rather than later we will need more than have now! One more rant. "We the taxpayer" do not pay for the cost of fire suppression. We the 'private insurance holder' pay for it. The people who don't have insurance (including 80% of commercial forestry operations), are being subsidised by those who do.
|
|
|
Post by typerated on Mar 13, 2019 18:39:29 GMT 12
Fair call, But I'd suggest it was in the national interest to fund training this skill! I read through this thread and it annoyed the hell out of me. 1) Where is the shortage of skilled, experienced and competent commercial capability that justify the government getting involved? 2) Where is the evidence that removing the handful of dedicated military helicopters we have in New Zealand, total quantity two dozen, from their core roles closes a gap that the 1000+ helicopters on the civil register can't meet? 3) Why is it in the national interest to stop military aircraft performing their core role and competing with the private sector? Good, I am pleased you are annoyed - I also note you are very entitled. Lets start with the concept that national emergencies are not a chance for the private sector to make money. they are ... a national emergency.... The Military should be involved It is not that the NH-90 are military it is that they have much bigger lift capability than anything on the civil register. See some of the heavy hitters (Military, Government or civil contract) in Aussie, Canada, US. We have just a few civilian UH-1s. It depends on the situation but the airspace full of smaller machines carrying little buckets is not always the best. I do have a dog in this game - I was evacuated twice, the fire came very very close. I'd have loved to see an NH-90 working rather than a couple of Squirrels that failed to hold it on the ridge above my place Speaking to people I know in the fire service they of course were very thankful about the helicopter response but agreed more lift is better. Also, yes the tax payer will be paying a lot of money for the fire. This is the polite response - Personally I think the are a very entitled *****
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Mar 13, 2019 18:41:18 GMT 12
I disagree.. We (tax payer) pay whoever flys. And in the case of a national emergency a few more flying hours or a brought forward OSD is 2/5 of bugger all consideration. No civilian helicopters have the heavy lift here - You can go down the road of renting specialist firefighting machines like across the ditch though. Either way - I am picking sooner rather than later we will need more than have now! One more rant. "We the taxpayer" do not pay for the cost of fire suppression. We the 'private insurance holder' pay for it. The people who don't have insurance (including 80% of commercial forestry operations), are being subsidised by those who do. Correct - that is what we pay a Fire Service Levy for. However, in situations of rural fires, there is a mechanism for cost recovery. I recall being involved in two fires where the property owner (or his insurer) has been billed for suppression costs - one in excess of $500,000.
|
|
|
Post by camtech on Mar 13, 2019 18:46:53 GMT 12
Just one more thought about using larger helicopters - unless there are larger buckets, or provision for on-board tanks, the fact that an NH-90 can carry more is irrelevant, as it can still only carry one bucket at a time. Also smaller helos are more manoeuvrable.
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 13, 2019 18:58:02 GMT 12
Hey calm it down guys,there is no need for name calling and anger here.
|
|
|
Post by typerated on Mar 13, 2019 19:15:42 GMT 12
Just one more thought about using larger helicopters - unless there are larger buckets, or provision for on-board tanks, the fact that an NH-90 can carry more is irrelevant, as it can still only carry one bucket at a time. Also smaller helos are more manoeuvrable. Buckets come in different sizes - up to 10 ton! If you can fill a larger bucket from say a small swimming pool complicates this though. Also speed and maneuverability is not always an advantage - In the 2nd fire the Helicopters were queuing up to load and drop. only so much airspace. Here the larger the load the better!
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Mar 14, 2019 6:38:35 GMT 12
One more rant. "We the taxpayer" do not pay for the cost of fire suppression. We the 'private insurance holder' pay for it. The people who don't have insurance (including 80% of commercial forestry operations), are being subsidised by those who do. Correct - that is what we pay a Fire Service Levy for. However, in situations of rural fires, there is a mechanism for cost recovery. I recall being involved in two fires where the property owner (or his insurer) has been billed for suppression costs - one in excess of $500,000. I'm fairly sure the recovery provisions were removed after the new act/merger? Which would be a shame, cost recovery was a good incentive to be adequately prepared (access, fill points, etc) and invest in risk reduction.
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Mar 14, 2019 6:48:02 GMT 12
I read through this thread and it annoyed the hell out of me. 1) Where is the shortage of skilled, experienced and competent commercial capability that justify the government getting involved? 2) Where is the evidence that removing the handful of dedicated military helicopters we have in New Zealand, total quantity two dozen, from their core roles closes a gap that the 1000+ helicopters on the civil register can't meet? 3) Why is it in the national interest to stop military aircraft performing their core role and competing with the private sector? Good, I am pleased you are annoyed - I also note you are very entitled. Lets start with the concept that national emergencies are not a chance for the private sector to make money. they are ... a national emergency.... The Military should be involved It is not that the NH-90 are military it is that they have much bigger lift capability than anything on the civil register. See some of the heavy hitters (Military, Government or civil contract) in Aussie, Canada, US. We have just a few civilian UH-1s. It depends on the situation but the airspace full of smaller machines carrying little buckets is not always the best. I do have a dog in this game - I was evacuated twice, the fire came very very close. I'd have loved to see an NH-90 working rather than a couple of Squirrels that failed to hold it on the ridge above my place Speaking to people I know in the fire service they of course were very thankful about the helicopter response but agreed more lift is better. Also, yes the tax payer will be paying a lot of money for the fire. This is the polite response - Personally I think the are a very entitled ***** Entitled to what exactly? The Nelson fire wasn't a national emergency by any stretch of the imagination. While it was a large fire by NZ standards, it was pretty modest in the scheme of things. I understand it's all very dramatic for those involved, but for those of us with practical experience at emergency response, we have the benefit of being able to breathe through our noses and be a bit more objective. For the even more limited group of people with and understanding of the NH90 capability, the idea that they should be deployed at the drop of the hat is even more bizarre. There isn't a great deal of depth in aerial firefighting in New Zealand, and what a few ground pounders think is largely irrelevant. With 22 machines working the fire, it wasn't a lack of resources that was the issue. Sometimes fire needs to run. I note you aren't demanding the -139s in Taranaki down tools and come to work on the fire. What's the difference?
|
|
|
Post by tbf25o4 on Mar 14, 2019 8:31:16 GMT 12
In relation to the NH900s I'm pretty sure that fire-fighting is not one of the skills currently practiced by the aircraft and crews as they are still developing their military operating skills and procedures. Firefighting by helicopter is a very skilled task and those commercial helicopters used in the Nelson fires came with crews experienced and machines that were capable of containing the fire as required by the controllers. It was not a place to suddenly deploy NH90s and their crews to "learn on the job" Like the SAR role, which used to be purely an air force's primary task in the early days of the Iroquois, this role is now largely carried out by civilian helicopter companies, with the air force assisting in a secondary role. "horses for courses"
|
|
ul450
Flight Sergeant
Posts: 27
|
Post by ul450 on Mar 14, 2019 15:00:22 GMT 12
Personally - I don't understand why we didn't request fixed wing support from Australia: s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/nafc-arena-help/2018+National+Fleet+Poster+A3.pdfCoulson B737airtanker – “Bomber”Role: Firebombing.Two turbo fan engines. Two pilots. Up to 72 Passengers 15,142 litre retardant capacity tank. Drops foam, gel or fire retardant solutions. 850km/h (loaded), 18,200kg Thrust Coulson C130Q airtanker – “Bomber” Role: Firebombing.Four turbo props engines. Two pilots and one flight engineer. 15450 litre retardant capacity tank. Drops foam, gel or fire retardant solutions. 545km/h (loaded), 18,000hp
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Mar 14, 2019 16:33:59 GMT 12
Personally - I don't understand why we didn't request fixed wing support from Australia: s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/nafc-arena-help/2018+National+Fleet+Poster+A3.pdfCoulson B737airtanker – “Bomber”Role: Firebombing.Two turbo fan engines. Two pilots. Up to 72 Passengers 15,142 litre retardant capacity tank. Drops foam, gel or fire retardant solutions. 850km/h (loaded), 18,200kg Thrust Coulson C130Q airtanker – “Bomber” Role: Firebombing.Four turbo props engines. Two pilots and one flight engineer. 15450 litre retardant capacity tank. Drops foam, gel or fire retardant solutions. 545km/h (loaded), 18,000hp Probably because they are in Australia to fight/be available to fight their bush fires. They wouldn't be available to us unless they were in off season, so unlikely.
|
|
|
Post by htbrst on Mar 14, 2019 17:39:45 GMT 12
I'm sure I heard an interview where heavier aircraft in Australia by someone high-up in relation to the Nelson fire that this had been looked into and they could get here if required, but that for the time being they had plenty of resources. Stuffed if I can find the interview now though - it was radio rather than print. Bare in mind that they have C-130 and 737 water bombers available, so technically feasible to be able to return to Australia at short notice (baring potentially paperwork I guess) if needed for something more urgent- the 737's been deployed to Tasmania to fight fires from its Sydney base - it wouldn't be that much of a stretch to go further to NZ. wildfiretoday.com/2018/11/22/a-737-air-tanker-used-for-the-first-time/ On November 22 Air Tanker 137 made the first drop by a Boeing 737 on an active fire. It occurred in the Hunter region of New South Wales, Australia. Screenshot from NSW RFS video.
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Mar 14, 2019 18:07:36 GMT 12
There's a report online of the Australian trials of the very-large tankers (fire bombers). There is defiantly a sweet spot relative to terrain. The 747s and DC10s didn't perform anywhere nearly as well as the smaller aircraft due to shallower approach and departure angles and increased need to clear the airspace of choppers.
|
|
|
Post by isc on Mar 14, 2019 20:14:39 GMT 12
What is the average annual flying hours of an NH 90 pilot compared to the civvy pilots on the fire fighting choppers? isc
|
|
|
Post by saratoga on Mar 14, 2019 21:37:54 GMT 12
20% max
|
|
|
Post by frankly on Mar 14, 2019 22:02:26 GMT 12
What is the average annual flying hours of an NH 90 pilot compared to the civvy pilots on the fire fighting choppers? isc Depends a lot on role Not directly comparable because of the use of simulator for IFE procedural work, which the military crews will practice extensively but the civilian crews generally aren't able to
|
|
|
Post by isc on Mar 15, 2019 1:36:33 GMT 12
Even with a flight simulator the military pilots do not get the every day flight time a civilian pilot gets under all conditions, even if that pilot is "just" spraying some crop of spuds one day, and flying a bunch of skiers to(round here) Mt Hut, or some shooters into the mountains. I imagine the pilots today do similar hours to those done in the 1960s when I was in the industry(admittedly fixed wing), in season the aircraft were coming in for inspection (50hr/100hr) each week. isc
|
|