Nonsense: Il-76 could have "saved California from fires"...

Just read this in a Brazilian Aviation Magazine's website. Absolute nonsense
IMHO...
Of course, the editor is known for his preference for russian aircraft. ;-)
Of course he has the right to have his opinion and prefereces, but I guess
some good sense might help a bit...

For those who can understand Portuguese (or even Spanish) go to
http://www.revistaasas.com.br - Notícias - "Avião russo poderia ter salvo
a Califórnia de incêndios"

My English ain't so good, so forgive me for my poor translation:
Russian Aircraft could have saved California from fires
Nov 15th 2003

The Ilyushin Il-76TD Firefighter aircraft is substantially larger than the
aerial firefighting equipment used by the USA. With a payload of around
42.000 liters of water, this gigantic aircraft was available for helping in
fighting the recente fires that devastated California, and was refused by
the US authorities. A total of 20 lives were lost, 2.800 homes were
destroyed and thousands of acres of land were reduced to ashes. Thought the
Il-76 was repetitively offered by the government of the Russian Federation,
american authorities refused it, in part, because it would "drop too much
water".

The WorldNetDaily quoted congessmen Dana Rohrabacher and Curt Weldon as
having said, during a press conference, that the Russina Government offered
the plane many times to the US. It was refused, among other reasons, for
being too expensive to operate (an unjustified reason), for being unable to
deliver its load while on a "descendent path" (translation??) or for
dropping too much water.

It's a true fact that the Il-76 was never allowed to be tested / make a
demonstration in the US, despite the fact that its huge capacity speaks for
itself - in 10 seconds it can put away the fire in an area 1Km long. The few
that argued in favor of the Il-76 being allowed to at least show its
capabiliteis were labelled as "fanatics".

Testado at the four corners of the world, the Il-76 can deliver a "layer"
(translation??) of water from 100 meters altitude at a speed of 151knots,
without the need of using chemical agents to help extinguishing the fires.
It has a range of 8.000km and can take off from unpaved short runways.

Once again we see a "proteccionism" of American authorities that goes beyond
the realms of logic and challenges good sense, showing the existence of an
unefficient administration, controlled by "grupos de pressão"**, that rather
see its citizen dying than admiting that Russia has an aircraft that could
have done a better job than its American counterparts.

** "Grupos de Pressão": dunno how to translate this. It's something like
"political groups inside the government that have enough power to influence
decisions according to political interests".

Vicente Vazquez wrote:
Just read this in a Brazilian Aviation Magazine's website. Absolute nonsense
IMHO...
Of course, the editor is known for his preference for russian aircraft. ;-)
Of course he has the right to have his opinion and prefereces, but I guess
some good sense might help a bit...

(Snip)

** "Grupos de Pressão": dunno how to translate this. It's something like
"political groups inside the government that have enough power to influence
decisions according to political interests".

Pressure groups?

George Z.

I can see where a craft of that size would work on a flatlands fire, but I
doubt it would do any good or be able to maneuver in the valleys and hills
where these fires were.

Steve R. (MAFFS unit mechanic & got his car coverd in ash from the fires)


"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message
...
Just read this in a Brazilian Aviation Magazine's website. Absolute nonsense
IMHO...
Of course, the editor is known for his preference for russian aircraft. ;-)
Of course he has the right to have his opinion and prefereces, but I guess
some good sense might help a bit...

For those who can understand Portuguese (or even Spanish) go to
http://www.revistaasas.com.br - Notícias - "Avião russo poderia ter salvo
a Califórnia de incêndios"

My English ain't so good, so forgive me for my poor translation:
Russian Aircraft could have saved California from fires
Nov 15th 2003

The Ilyushin Il-76TD Firefighter aircraft is substantially larger than the
aerial firefighting equipment used by the USA. With a payload of around
42.000 liters of water, this gigantic aircraft was available for helping in
fighting the recente fires that devastated California, and was refused by
the US authorities. A total of 20 lives were lost, 2.800 homes were
destroyed and thousands of acres of land were reduced to ashes. Thought the
Il-76 was repetitively offered by the government of the Russian Federation,
american authorities refused it, in part, because it would "drop too much
water".

The WorldNetDaily quoted congessmen Dana Rohrabacher and Curt Weldon as
having said, during a press conference, that the Russina Government offered
the plane many times to the US. It was refused, among other reasons, for
being too expensive to operate (an unjustified reason), for being unable to
deliver its load while on a "descendent path" (translation??) or for
dropping too much water.

It's a true fact that the Il-76 was never allowed to be tested / make a
demonstration in the US, despite the fact that its huge capacity speaks for
itself - in 10 seconds it can put away the fire in an area 1Km long. The few
that argued in favor of the Il-76 being allowed to at least show its
capabiliteis were labelled as "fanatics".

Testado at the four corners of the world, the Il-76 can deliver a "layer"
(translation??) of water from 100 meters altitude at a speed of 151knots,
without the need of using chemical agents to help extinguishing the fires.
It has a range of 8.000km and can take off from unpaved short runways.

Once again we see a "proteccionism" of American authorities that goes beyond
the realms of logic and challenges good sense, showing the existence of an
unefficient administration, controlled by "grupos de pressão"**, that rather
see its citizen dying than admiting that Russia has an aircraft that could
have done a better job than its American counterparts.

** "Grupos de Pressão": dunno how to translate this. It's something like
"political groups inside the government that have enough power to influence
decisions according to political interests".

"George Z. Bush" escreveu na mensagem
...
Pressure groups?
George Z.
Yep. I thought it would be a "false cognate"... :-)

"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message
...
Just read this in a Brazilian Aviation Magazine's website. Absolute
nonsense
IMHO...
Of course, the editor is known for his preference for russian aircraft.
;-)
Of course he has the right to have his opinion and prefereces, but I guess
some good sense might help a bit...

For those who can understand Portuguese (or even Spanish) go to
http://www.revistaasas.com.br - Notícias - "Avião russo poderia ter
salvo
a Califórnia de incêndios"

My English ain't so good, so forgive me for my poor translation:
Russian Aircraft could have saved California from fires
Nov 15th 2003

It was refused, among other reasons, for
being too expensive to operate (an unjustified reason), for being unable
to
deliver its load while on a "descendent path" (translation??) or for
dropping too much water.

Is there such a thing as "too much water" when half of a state is ablaze?

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:24:44 -0800, "å×ÇÅÎÉÊ ïÖÏÇÉÎ" wrote:

"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message
...
Just read this in a Brazilian Aviation Magazine's website. Absolute
nonsense
IMHO...
Of course, the editor is known for his preference for russian aircraft.
;-)
Of course he has the right to have his opinion and prefereces, but I guess
some good sense might help a bit...

For those who can understand Portuguese (or even Spanish) go to
http://www.revistaasas.com.br - Notícias - "Avião russo poderia ter
salvo
a Califórnia de incêndios"

My English ain't so good, so forgive me for my poor translation:
Russian Aircraft could have saved California from fires
Nov 15th 2003

It was refused, among other reasons, for
being too expensive to operate (an unjustified reason), for being unable
to
deliver its load while on a "descendent path" (translation??) or for
dropping too much water.

Is there such a thing as "too much water" when half of a state is ablaze?

If you are a fire fighter on the ground and the water lands on your head
there is certainly "too much water". Of course this "article" is fantasy
and deserves to be ignored.

EOT

Al Minyard

"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message ...
Just read this in a Brazilian Aviation Magazine's website. Absolute nonsense
IMHO...
Of course, the editor is known for his preference for russian aircraft. ;-)
Of course he has the right to have his opinion and prefereces, but I guess
some good sense might help a bit...



Comming from Australia I can repeat some of the objections to large
scale water bombing. Some are plausible, some not.

1 They put out fires too well. A bizzare one but based on the theory
that putting out fires breaks the natural bushfire cycle that reduces
fuel buildup in forrests.

2 Gas turbines can't handle smoke-soot injestion as well as piston
engines.
(You can put on filters)

3 Scooping up water is inconvenient and takes too long. (In Australia
where lasge bodies of water such as lakes are less common Australian
bush fire servieces have prefered helicopters which can use dmall dams
and resorvoirs. In Gerneral the smaller helicopters the size of Bell
212a help, BK117 are better but the only craft that really saves the
day over and aver is the Sikorsjy (now Ericosn) skycrane. Size does
matter.

In Australia the Skycrane water bombers "elvis" and "Gerogia peach"
are hired during the fire season when they are not needed in Nth
America.

4 Water bomnbers are an ineffectve use of money, better to fund more
conventional serivces.
(They can opperate as rescue and utillity aircraft)

Also watrer bomnbers are FAST and can save lives in inaccesibel areas.

Another aspect that probably effects the Americvans may be a touch of
NIH (Not Invented Here).

The Russians are pretty good at outsized aircraft and aerial fire
fighting.

Speaking from personal experience (here in the desert we got smoked out by
the Old Fire at Big Bear, a friend nearly lost his house to the Grand Prix
Fire) when the Santa Ana wind gets blowing downslope at 50 knots, the
humidity is below 10%, the temperature is in the 90s (F), and the local
chaparral vegetation is laden with flammable resins like creosote to make it
unpalatable to browsing animals, then NOTHING is going to make that fire
slow down. Been there and seen that too many times. Water bombers can deter
fires from certain areas but they cannot "save California". If you haven't
seen it with your own eyes, you can't truly grasp the power and the
magnitude of a raging brush fire.

--
Jim Atkins
Twentynine Palms CA USA

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
- Groucho Marx

Speaking from personal experience (here in the desert we got smoked out by
the Old Fire at Big Bear, a friend nearly lost his house to the Grand Prix
Fire) when the Santa Ana wind gets blowing downslope at 50 knots, the
humidity is below 10%, the temperature is in the 90s (F), and the local
chaparral vegetation is laden with flammable resins like creosote to make it
unpalatable to browsing animals, then NOTHING is going to make that fire
slow down. Been there and seen that too many times. Water bombers can deter
fires from certain areas but they cannot "save California". If you haven't
seen it with your own eyes, you can't truly grasp the power and the
magnitude of a raging brush fire.

As long as people insist on living out there in the brushy manzanita covered
hills of Southern California, there are going to be houses lost in fires.

Anyone who builds a house in that environment is taking a big gamble, and they
only have themselves to blame. Maybe an IL-76 in that situation would have
saved some houses. Maybe not. If someone wants to go live in their own
private "stupid zone", its their own business, except for the fact that
firefighters and pilots get killed while trying to help.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

On 18 Nov 2003 23:21:55 GMT, 362436 (Ron) wrote:

Speaking from personal experience (here in the desert we got smoked out by
the Old Fire at Big Bear, a friend nearly lost his house to the Grand Prix
Fire) when the Santa Ana wind gets blowing downslope at 50 knots, the
humidity is below 10%, the temperature is in the 90s (F), and the local
chaparral vegetation is laden with flammable resins like creosote to make it
unpalatable to browsing animals, then NOTHING is going to make that fire
slow down. Been there and seen that too many times. Water bombers can deter
fires from certain areas but they cannot "save California". If you haven't
seen it with your own eyes, you can't truly grasp the power and the
magnitude of a raging brush fire.

As long as people insist on living out there in the brushy manzanita covered
hills of Southern California, there are going to be houses lost in fires.

Anyone who builds a house in that environment is taking a big gamble, and they
only have themselves to blame. Maybe an IL-76 in that situation would have
saved some houses. Maybe not. If someone wants to go live in their own
private "stupid zone", its their own business, except for the fact that
firefighters and pilots get killed while trying to help.


Ron
Pilot/Wildland Firefighter

Especially in California, which refuses to allow property owners to trim
back brush. The good news is that most of the burn areas desperately
needed to burn. Fire is a natural phenomena that clears the forest
floor, thins out trees, and activates the seeds of some needed
flora.

I always have to laugh when I hear some "talking head" on television
saying that "XXX number of acres of forest were destroyed".

Al Minyard