I completely agree with you and lest there be any concern, my original comments were not directed towards you but towards the author, Bill Gabbert.
I don’t personally believe that putting what we currently do on steroids and expecting a significantly different outcome is realistic nor is it responsible. I don’t think any of us, myself included would ever turn down more resources. That being said, learning from the past is a pretty good indicator on how we could or should potentially approach the future. By now, it’s pretty clear that the extreme winds in Australia had a major contributing factor towards the T134 tragedy. We also recognize that air asset effectiveness in high wind conditions is marginal at best and places air crews in an extreme risk condition.
As you, @Kevlar stated, boots on the ground is what contains and controls fires. Simply putting more aircraft in a confined airspace is going to further complicate the often very congested over head area on a fire. As CalFire is experiencing, finding air crews with the right experience necessary for the C-130’s is a challenging task and to multiply that x6 is not going to be an easy ask without staffing with less adequate or experienced crews.
There is also a human factor, that absolutely has to be considered. As we see with this pandemic, the general public will always take the easy way out. If they believe that we in the wildland fire community think that the solution to all of our destructive fire situations is to simply add more aircraft, they will sign on to that in a heartbeat and at the same time, believe that will remove their personal responsibility to ensure their property has the necessary clearance and defensible spaces.
And yes, absolutely, it is always going to be that 5% that get away that are the dangerous and destructive ones.
I just believe that Bill Gabbert’s solution isn’t going to change that outcome and will further endanger the public by continuing the cycle which has brought us to this moment in time with all of the wildland factors involved. But Bill is entitled to his opinion just as each one of us here is entitled to our own.