Just got back to the office went down to Colgate Powerhouse and yes they are putting a contingency above the Powerhouse which is above Lake Francis in the Oregon House Dobbins area, second when we drove past Dobbins CAL-FIRE Station at least 7 S/T of Type 3 S/T there, on the way back the out of the powerhouse most S/T were sent out one OES and L/G ST left the fire was looking good lot of work being done by the AT and Copters, lots of retardant down on the Nevada County side of the river
IMO never has been a Safe, Effective or Efficient use of aerial resources pretreating away from main fire lines.
14 Likes
It’s been my personal experience when they start pretreating. The box is about to get bigger… Stay safe
6 Likes
I wonder if they are just trying to take advantage of the use of resources while they have them
1 Like
I’m genuinely interested… are you saying it’s not safe for ground resources because the air assests are not close by supporting them? Or it’s unsafe for the aircraft and if so, please, why unsafe?
1 Like
It’s a waste of time and money. Not that flying tankers is inherently dangerous, building very indirect line is an unnecessary risk for the aircraft/crew. Goal is to be safe, efficient, AND effective. It might be safe, but it isn’t efficient or effective. Can’t pick one or two of the three. There is a reason why tanker studies make them look so bad, it’s because they are overused. They are amazing tools for initial attack. After the first burn period they are nearly useless. Yet they keep being used on worthless projects when it’s extremely
obvious they aren’t effective.
7 Likes
I think it’s creates an unsafe condition anytime a tanker is making a drop; As routine as it may seem.
1 Like
I’ve see a couple times where old, dried retardant has checked up a fire. It was light fuels though.
The water component of retardant definitely makes a difference and is obviously gone when the retardant has sat and dried out.
2 Likes
If I may tie into this subject. In the fuel type we are dealing with it is pointless to pre treat that far out. The retardant isn’t even making it to the ground through the brush. It would make sense if it was to reinforce a dozer line expected to be primary line in order to buy time with spots.
This practice is usually used by ops as a false sense of security for themselves or the public that hasn’t watched brush and timber only consume slightly slower through day old retardant.
7 Likes
It’s a great sign when rabbits start getting chased and posts about the fire diminish. Let’s hope it stays this way.
8 Likes
But hey, it makes for good tv….
3 Likes
I guess the Air folks out there need to read the expert advice here…
7 Likes
No one wants to step on others feet, especially feds, in aviation. Contractors have no problem being honest. Feds spend twenty minutes explaining how the idea is stupid in an extremely passive way, without saying it’s stupid, and the show continues.
2 Likes
Looks like those Helitankers and who ever else is working that hot spot cooled it down nicely. Good job folks from the ground and air. I have deer hunted that area and the canyon held nice bucks. Because it’s steep and ugly! If they can get some mop up done tonite that would go a long way.
2 Likes
Well, I appreciate that you call it out. Nothing like building a second and third line next to a previous line that got burned through because no one was on the ground to back it up. I’ve seen that prob a dozen times this year alone.
3 Likes
Remember that the ATGS works for Ops or the IC. If the Ops or IC requests some indirect retardant, the ATGS is obligated to figure out a way make it happen. Like any other position on a fire, when given an assignment, if you don’t agree based on safety, then offer an alternative.
As an ATGS, I was requested to put in some indirect retardant in 8 foot brush based on values at risk. So we applied retardant at coverage levels 6-8 and then doubled up those drops at the same coverage level. A couple of slop-overs and spots where easily kept within those indirect lines.
It makes more sense to SMASH EVERY FIRE we can with what’s available than to deal with HUGE, CATASTROPHIC fires that have been devastating the west these last few years.
11 Likes
Well then there’s dozer line after dozer line after dozer line that does not hold either. May be cheaper but takes more time to put in does more damage to the ground and needs massive rehab. Doing something is better than doing nothing. Just sayin’…
Not always. Doing something always puts people at risk and uses resources which could be committed to operations which have a higher likelihood of success. This includes things the same people could be doing on IA or back at their home unit if we demobed them from fires which are clearly going to burn for months or until they hit the desert or ocean.
5 Likes
But ya gotta’ try…
I recently witnessed a days worth of indirect line building, with 5 tankers going non stop, just to have someone start a burn out on the green side. Taxpayers will never learn about these atrocities and decision making unfortunately.
5 Likes