@ffviking I agree with you’re response. There are always different fuel types and loading,
. My initial post probably should have been more to the fact that it’s good to see a larger and more often use of larger and more air resources over all.
4 Likes
Being just 1.44 miles east of yesterday’s Cable Fire, I’m beyond grateful for the aggressive response. The only downfall for us was the air show triggered a serious PTSD response from my partner, who is a 10 yr combat veteran, he panicked.
5 Likes
That’s bittersweet. Hop he’s doing well.
4 Likes
*Hope. Hand surgery, Post-Op week two…typing is a challenge.
4 Likes
There’s a couple ATGS folks on here. We use to use long and short term retardant. And for a while they were using a gel type retardant to dump right on the fire. Can you ATGS folks educate us on what they are using now?
1 Like
Mainly LC95 and MVP-FX. LC95 seems to do a little better at stopping in grass than MVP. A couple seat bases use something like fire ice. Fortress is a new product that was tested in MSO last year, it wreaked havoc on several tankers due to corrosion and mixing it with one of the other two types when there was residual left in tanks, it had some sort of chemical reaction with LC or MVP. Lots of down time as a result, but tanker companies weren’t charged unavailability, although they missed out on flight hour revenue while
Mechanics were trying to fix the problems it caused. Anyway, it got approved for use with LATs, they are testing it on seats this year, out of Ronan.
5 Likes
Back in the day 1980-2007 we used only Phoschek D75R or D75F at Ramona AAB. Both worked well and have been phased out. Read more:
5 Likes
Here a pretty good video of the S-2T from the aviation side. Sometimes the audio isn’t the best.
24 Likes
That was a great clip, thanks for posting.
6 Likes
1 Like
Flyron, is this lawsuit asking for retardant to be declared unlawful period?
It’s like these people don’t even consider the alternative… like the land their trying to protect being sterilized by fire.
And then choke out the same critters with mud and other debris. Oh and minus the forest, too.
2 Likes
This is the group that filed the suit:
Another version of the AP story (perhaps updated):
The lawsuit alleges the continued use of retardant from aircraft violates the Clean Water Act.
It requests a judge to declare the pollution illegal, and was filed in U.S. District Court in Montana by Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics.
I’d need to see their actual prayer for relief, because this doesn’t quite make sense to me. A judge can rule whether a specific drop violated the Clean Water Act, or any other specific ordinance. But a judge can’t declare the practice illegal, that falls to the legislative branch.
4 Likes
I could see the argument if the tankers were dropping directly on a creek, or body of water, But I don’t ever see that happening. Silly Lawsuit
2 Likes
Straight up b.s.
1 Like
I was surprised to see Eugene based and not CA based.
1 Like
I seem to remember from the previous law suit, something about the decision of a no-retardant zone 300 feet from a body of water (lake, stream or river). It was in the court decision.
1 Like
Being a fly fishermen no one wants to see a Big Fish Kill to my knowledge. But if retardant kills some fish and saves a fire from going extended, property and lives so be it. That’s what the hatcheries are for!
Better Red than Dead was the ole Hemet Ryan AAB motto.
6 Likes
My point had nothing to do with the politics of using retardant. Strictly the point that this has been litigated in the not too distant past with same group.
1 Like