|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 15, 2024 21:10:00 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 16, 2024 8:12:39 GMT 12
I am pretty sure that Fletchers and Crescos have fought fires before in NZ.
|
|
|
|
Post by thomarse on Feb 16, 2024 9:30:36 GMT 12
I can remember two occasions with bushfires here in Upper Hutt in the late 70s/early 80s. One with Air Contracts Airtruk CJQ and the second with Associated Farmers Agwagons DRZ and DPQ; on both occasions they worked from Trentham Racecourse
|
|
|
|
Post by madmax on Feb 16, 2024 11:05:20 GMT 12
Fire fighting experiments were carried out by Paul legg on Rongotai airfield in October 1956 flying Tiger Moth ZK-BEY while around the same time Ron Woolford undertook trials at Rotorua with James Aviation Beaver ZK-AVL.
|
|
|
|
Post by nuuumannn on Feb 16, 2024 12:06:46 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Feb 16, 2024 12:24:41 GMT 12
Need some of these...  |
|
|
|
Post by aeromuzz on Feb 16, 2024 13:15:20 GMT 12
Need some of these... I was actually thinking along similar lines... Given the seemlying increasing number or scrub and bush fires in NZ, is it time to invest in a couple of specialist fixed wing aircraft for this type of work? |
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Feb 16, 2024 13:49:03 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by ErrolC on Feb 16, 2024 15:38:25 GMT 12
And for the same cost of equipment and crew for one of those you could have how many mid-sized ones? How often would one be better than even only two mid-sized? Australia/US/Europe need different mixes from us.
|
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Feb 16, 2024 16:39:02 GMT 12
NZ aviation tech company Skybase develops pilotless planes to fight bushfires ( link) 6 Jan, 2023  Canterbury-based aviation technology company Skybase has developed pilotless technology to help fight fires. A New Zealand aviation technology company is developing pilotless planes to fight bushfires from the skies.
Canterbury-based Skybase is converting aircraft to fly remotely in a world-leading move designed to revolutionise firefighting. It involves putting high-tech artificial-intelligence computer systems inside Kiwi-made Fletcher top-dressing planes and keeping pilots safely behind computer screens on the ground. The move will mean when conditions - such as poor weather, fading light or firefighter fatigue - ground planes and helicopters, the converted drone aircraft can still take to the air and drop vast litres of water and fire retardant on flames and hotspots.  Michael Read, founder of Skybase, says the technology to convert planes to drones could be used across many different sectors. In a New Zealand-first, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) granted Skybase certification in May 2022 to carry out remotely operated test flights on the condition a pilot was on board. “That was a key moment for aviation in New Zealand,” said Skybase founder Michael Read.
The company, which was founded in Christchurch in 2017, has been testing the technology out of Rangiora airfield, 30km north of the city. Its long-term vision is for the aircraft to be completely autonomous. But for now, they are reliant on pilots to supervise and step in when needed.
The remote pilot on the ground has to be qualified in the New Zealand-made Pacific Aerospace Fletcher - often described as a “workhorse” utility plane - but can be based anywhere in the world. Pilots fly as if they’re inside the cockpit, talking to air traffic control, and watching several monitors. “You’re doing everything from the ground that you would do from the air,” said Read, a former Royal Australian Air Force pilot.
The ground technology is connected to the aircraft through several communication modes, including tracking antennae, satellite and mobile phone network.  A trained pilot controls the aircraft from the ground. And the development of Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet constellation could prove a “gamechangar” in the future.
Read envisages the flight autonomy upgrade system for existing aircraft, dubbed SOFI, also becoming useful for other sectors, including agriculture, mapping, surveillance, cargo operations, first responders, medevac missions and natural disaster responses. The plane can carry 1500kg and could air-drop emergency supplies after floods or cyclones and in weather deemed too dangerous for manned planes. “There are a lot of reasons to do this technology other than aerial firefighting,” Read said. “But right now, that is the focus because [fires] are extremely dangerous and increasingly prevalent.”
He cites key statistics to support his arguments, including that around 80 per cent of all aviation accidents are caused by humans and, in 2021, 17 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions came from uncontained bushfires.  The technology is being trialled at Rangiora airfield.
The ability for pilotless planes to be on standby 24/7 could help eliminate wildfires “as a catastrophic threat”, Read said. “Speed is the key to fighting uncontrolled fires.”
But about 75 per cent of the time, safety regulations around risk factors such as poor visibility mean planes are grounded while the fire burns on. Most blazes start late in the day when it’s hot and thunderstorms are active. And overnight, when manned aircraft aren’t able to fly, can be the best time to fight fires, with lower winds and temperatures. “This technology changes what is possible, unlocking flight at times or in places where it wouldn’t otherwise be possible if a pilot was on board. It increases safety and capability, but also commercial returns,” said Read. “Not having a human pilot on board means the risk benefit is very favourable.”
Skybase expects SOFI units to be rolled out commercially in 2024. www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/nz-aviation-tech-company-skybase-develops-pilotless-planes-to-fight-bushfires/BHT6EWRHMBHF7G33V4DHUIA27Q/
|
|
|
|
Post by McFly on Feb 16, 2024 17:05:09 GMT 12
Fixed Wing Water Bombing in NZ ( link)
Following the Second World War, there were plenty of ex-military pilots and planes. Aerial top dressing of fertiliser became established in New Zealand’s rural areas. A newspaper article claimed that the first water bombing trials in the South Island were carried out at Lincoln on 31 January 1956. The trials were sponsored by the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council with the co-operation of Canterbury Agriculture College. Simulation fires were lit in a fallowed paddock at the college, and two aircraft from Auster Air Services Ltd flew from an adjacent paddock. The fires were in straw and pine branches, laced with diesel, and there was a light wind. One of the planes was a Taylorcraft (360 litres water load), and the other was a Tiger Moth (180 litres). The aerial attacks were not quite as effective as had been hoped. Most of the observers thought that the use of aircraft had possibilities, but there was a lot to learn.
A memorandum to the Minister of Forests from the Director General of the NZ Forest Service AL Poole on 17 April 1970 reviewed water bombing trials over the previous 15 years. The memorandum had probably been prompted by an aerial attack at a Silverstream fire on 6 March that year. Canadians had also been demonstrating a water bomber in Australia early in 1970. The NZ Forest Service had conducted experiments in conjunction with the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council between 1956 and 1959. A report by AR Entrican (then DG) and ER Blake in 1960 effectively squashed all local enthusiasts at that time. Due to a shortage of work during the temporary recession in 1968, air companies endeavoured to revive interest, and the Forest Service made further experiments with a DC3 in Palmerston North in 1968, and with Piper aircraft at Golden downs Forest in 1969. Both proved as ineffectual as previous trials.
During the 1969-70 fire season, Ad Astra Aviation Ltd (Tauranga) and Air Contracts Ltd (Pahiatua) had been promoting aerial water bombing to metropolitan, urban and county fire authorities. Forest Service Fire Control Officers had only been able to evaluate the efforts at the Silverstream (Hutt County) fire on 6 March. One officer was working on the fireline directly below the 900 litre drops. He claimed that each drop was like gentle rain over a 10 to 17 second period, and had no effect on the fire whatsoever. This was in contrast to the fulsome publicity given to the bombing. The officer’s small crew were the only firefighters anywhere near the fire which was most lazy, and could have been dealt with several men using shovels in an afternoon. The memorandum concluded that extravagant claims were being made of the effectiveness of water bombing.
The promotion of fixed wing water bombing continued. In a telex to Conservancies, dated 17 January 1979, the Chief Fire Control Officer, Bill Girling-Butcher stated that ‘we have proved that small loads are ineffectual and large loads wasteful’. He added that in 1976, the Forest Service endeavoured to set up a 7000 litre modular system in which the load is pressurised to prevent slipstream erosion of the drop, but Defence declined the use of a Hercules aircraft. Nevertheless, the air companies persisted, and limited use is made of small agricultural-type planes, such as the Cresco, in parts of the country to drop water and additives. This is in contrast to Canada and Europe where Canadair float planes are a significant firefighting resource, or the US where jet tanker planes as big as DC10’s (45,000 litre loads) and Boeing 747’s (80,000 litre) are available.frfanz.org.nz/history/aerial_support/
|
|
|
|
Post by delticman on Feb 16, 2024 19:07:00 GMT 12
Fixed Wing Water Bombing in NZ ( link)
Following the Second World War, there were plenty of ex-military pilots and planes. Aerial top dressing of fertiliser became established in New Zealand’s rural areas. A newspaper article claimed that the first water bombing trials in the South Island were carried out at Lincoln on 31 January 1956. The trials were sponsored by the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council with the co-operation of Canterbury Agriculture College. Simulation fires were lit in a fallowed paddock at the college, and two aircraft from Auster Air Services Ltd flew from an adjacent paddock. The fires were in straw and pine branches, laced with diesel, and there was a light wind. One of the planes was a Taylorcraft (360 litres water load), and the other was a Tiger Moth (180 litres). The aerial attacks were not quite as effective as had been hoped. Most of the observers thought that the use of aircraft had possibilities, but there was a lot to learn.
A memorandum to the Minister of Forests from the Director General of the NZ Forest Service AL Poole on 17 April 1970 reviewed water bombing trials over the previous 15 years. The memorandum had probably been prompted by an aerial attack at a Silverstream fire on 6 March that year. Canadians had also been demonstrating a water bomber in Australia early in 1970. The NZ Forest Service had conducted experiments in conjunction with the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Council between 1956 and 1959. A report by AR Entrican (then DG) and ER Blake in 1960 effectively squashed all local enthusiasts at that time. Due to a shortage of work during the temporary recession in 1968, air companies endeavoured to revive interest, and the Forest Service made further experiments with a DC3 in Palmerston North in 1968, and with Piper aircraft at Golden downs Forest in 1969. Both proved as ineffectual as previous trials.
During the 1969-70 fire season, Ad Astra Aviation Ltd (Tauranga) and Air Contracts Ltd (Pahiatua) had been promoting aerial water bombing to metropolitan, urban and county fire authorities. Forest Service Fire Control Officers had only been able to evaluate the efforts at the Silverstream (Hutt County) fire on 6 March. One officer was working on the fireline directly below the 900 litre drops. He claimed that each drop was like gentle rain over a 10 to 17 second period, and had no effect on the fire whatsoever. This was in contrast to the fulsome publicity given to the bombing. The officer’s small crew were the only firefighters anywhere near the fire which was most lazy, and could have been dealt with several men using shovels in an afternoon. The memorandum concluded that extravagant claims were being made of the effectiveness of water bombing.
The promotion of fixed wing water bombing continued. In a telex to Conservancies, dated 17 January 1979, the Chief Fire Control Officer, Bill Girling-Butcher stated that ‘we have proved that small loads are ineffectual and large loads wasteful’. He added that in 1976, the Forest Service endeavoured to set up a 7000 litre modular system in which the load is pressurised to prevent slipstream erosion of the drop, but Defence declined the use of a Hercules aircraft. Nevertheless, the air companies persisted, and limited use is made of small agricultural-type planes, such as the Cresco, in parts of the country to drop water and additives. This is in contrast to Canada and Europe where Canadair float planes are a significant firefighting resource, or the US where jet tanker planes as big as DC10’s (45,000 litre loads) and Boeing 747’s (80,000 litre) are available.frfanz.org.nz/history/aerial_support/ I think we have certainly moved on since this report was tabled. The main thing with fires is to hit them fast with retardant from an aircraft as soon as smoke is seen. |
|
|
|
Post by The Red Baron on Feb 16, 2024 20:38:07 GMT 12
The biggest problem with fire bombing here is getting enough water to the planes to bomb the fire.The big ag planes can work off farm strips close to fires but you can't get enough water to them quick enought with tankers to keep up.Similarly if you were to use large aircraft you would need to build Olympic size pools at most airports for them to use.The Canadair float planes need lakes to scoop up water to drop on the fires,we don't have enough lake near the fire like they do in Canada.We also don't have enough big fires here to warrant having large aircraft on stand by all summer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 16, 2024 21:19:53 GMT 12
I also do not believe that grass fires and scrub fires are any worse or more frequent now than they have ever been. Perhaps they are simply getting reported with more intensity, thanks to having a media that is hellbent on promoting disaster stories to get people looking at their newspapers/websites, plus we have the political looneys who promote their climate agendas by claiming this sort of thing never happened in the past...
Plus there was a massive reduction in the number of firefighters under the last government too, which will not have helped the situation at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by typerated on Feb 17, 2024 10:58:05 GMT 12
|
|
Naki.
Flying Officer
Posts: 67
|
Post by Naki. on Feb 17, 2024 21:50:22 GMT 12
.. Plus there was a massive reduction in the number of firefighters under the last government too, which will not have helped the situation at all. Ahhh no there wasn't... |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 17, 2024 21:54:26 GMT 12
The govt shut down a load of stations in the Auckland region and stood down loads of firefighters who refused to get the jabs, just as they did with nurses, doctors and others who refused it. The firefighters were out protesting about the government cuts to staffing levels, they put graffiti over their appliances.
|
|
Naki.
Flying Officer
Posts: 67
|
Post by Naki. on Feb 17, 2024 22:11:19 GMT 12
The govt shut down a load of stations in the Auckland region and stood down loads of firefighters who refused to get the jabs, just as they did with nurses, doctors and others who refused it. The firefighters were out protesting about the government cuts to staffing levels, they put graffiti over their appliances. I'm no fan of the past government but that is not what happened...by the way I work at FENZ and have done for a number of years |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Feb 17, 2024 22:31:25 GMT 12
Well I guess I was misinformed by disinformation. Most of which came from the mainstream media, which figures.
|
|
|
|
Post by oj on Feb 18, 2024 6:45:26 GMT 12
There are a lot of mixed variables here but I remember back in the 50s and 60s the Una hill behind Thames was "torched" every two or three years.
It was just left to burn itself out.
There was no attempt or equipment to fight it and no need as there are no houses there.
Maybe it still occurs. Whether they would fight it today is unknown to me.
|
|
