Night waterbombing

[UnObvious]

Inspired by the recent post regarding pilots required by Coulson.

Anyone got any experience around this operation?

The whole concept of running two expensive machines slow and steady for a few hours at night to throw a bit of water from one of them to take advantage of the low temp/high RH just seems like a waste of money.

Happy to have my mind changed, but I feel from my unqualified moral high tower that just launching a bunch of mediums at first light could be more cost effective and achieve a similar goal regarding ambient temp/RH.

I haven't personally been around the night ops, but have a bit of experience throwing water when the sun is up. It's a common frustration when you turn up for an 8am brief and then sit until 2pm when the fire is rocking before they launch you.

Thoughts?

[SuperF]

I think you put it perfectly. Launch everything at first light and smack it down before it gets going.

Oh no, let’s wait till we have 100’ flames, then sit back and say “we need bigger toys...”

[Jimmy]

I could see a use for a proper Air Intel machine fitted with EO/IR and NVIS capable at night assisting ground crews detecting hotspots that have jumped containment lines and providing accurate mapping for the Ground commander who can then plan to fight the fire with his ground and air assets at first light.

Fingers crossed new jobs may be created if agencies move to a 24 hour fire fighting capability

[Helical]

From the perspective of those on the ground, having a night aerial ability could have made a huge difference on a number of fires I have been to. Fire behaviour is significantly reduced overnight and the ability to suppress spread and construct containment lines during the reduced intensity could massively reduce the time to get a fire under control.

I am from WA, where the aerial strategy seems to work really well without dependence on LAT's and other PR aircraft.

[Yakking]

I would be really interested to see who they use to fly the role.

Do you take the take the fire guys and give them a NVG rating and some basic IF and hope it all goes well.

Or do you give the IF guys with some NVG under their belts a crack at dropping water?

Both have their pros and cons.

I have never dropped water at night, but spent a bit of time flying low and slow around fires on goggles at night. The goggles lull you into a false sense of security, allowing you to get further into the haze/smoke than the naked eye (The goggle penetrate through the haze to a certain extent).

If you don't have your wits about you, are careless, tired or fatigued, you could easily go IIMC when 'low and slow'. Not a place anyone wants to be. But if you're there, you would want some IF experience to help you recover safely.

I know the ATSB are watching this space very closely and have their reservations about NVG AWK OP's.

Lastly; speaking as a guy who flies more night than day, the novelty wears off flying at night pretty quickly. I wouldn't be pushing for this as an individual.
Flying by day (even early starts) is much more civilised than operating at night.

[Cleared Hot]

I agree with the first post, seems a unnecessary risk, pilots for years have suggested let’s go first light but agency’s never let it happen but waits till afternoon and when it jumps containment lines. I’m sure Victoria pushed for it so they could beat NSW to it and still do it cause they can now. Night time is for relaxing with a beer not risking your life for some forest. Night ops in my opinion and don’t throw the hate is a perfect opportunity for UAV work to take place, they can map, have visual and thermal capability and even conduct aerial ignition, no risk to persons win win.

[Twistgrip]

Inspired by the recent post regarding pilots required by Coulson.
It's a common frustration when you turn up for an 8am brief and then sit until 2pm when the fire is rocking before they launch you.

Thoughts?

Well said UnObvious & Cleared Hot. I’ve been out of that side of the industry for some time now, but many years operating on fires at the time and it was always up at first light get to the briefing early then to sit around under a tree till the hottest part of the day waiting for the agency chiefs to fight it out until we got airborne. Having said that it keeps people in jobs by not working too fast.

Yakking ,it would be fair to say for this kind of operation for 61/ 76 guys they may employ IFR rated guys / ex offshore guys with previous fire experience etc for these night roles, it makes sense, that’s my opinion anyway, there are plenty of guys around that have those quals with lots of fire time under their belts previously.

[godfather007]

Great points folks.
Hurry up and wait... as we know....
Agency idiots!
Not much has changed and I’m sure it won’t change in the near future.
They love fire, it keeps them employed.
Also Keeps the budget rolling.
It’s a shame we lost so many Australian lives, animals and property’s in the last year.
Keep in mind, they spend a lot of $ for people to scan social media posts to eliminate honest opinions and discrimination towards the empire.
Boom! You can get cut off.
Money invested.. income lost.
If you don’t play the system, you don’t get to
play the game

[LHS]

Not being a driver but onboard and have been working on the NSW fires for a while now and seen it all, brief at 0800, launch around midday, knock off at 2030, then try and find a feed. It seems that the body running the show don't want the airborne assets starting early because if the aircraft fly their ten hours and start at, say 0600, they're done and dusted by at 1600 leaving another 4+ hours of daylight with no coverage. I have been on one fire when Parks decided they would split the aircraft, some starting at 0800 and the rest at 1000 so they could cover the day. Good plan but then some of the drivers got anxious that they were missing out and wouldn't get their 10 hours, so left accommodations and got to the staging at 0830/0900, therefore buggering up the plan. There has been mapping ops done in NSW previously, gets expensive as you need a few more pilots, fly the aircraft day and night, doesn't help the ginger beers either. As said before, night time is for drinking, not flying, let the Vics and drones have it.

[Hello Pilots]

Not being a driver but onboard and have been working on the NSW fires for a while now and seen it all, brief at 0800, launch around midday, knock off at 2030, then try and find a feed. It seems that the body running the show don't want the airborne assets starting early because if the aircraft fly their ten hours and start at, say 0600, they're done and dusted by at 1600 leaving another 4+ hours of daylight with no coverage. I have been on one fire when Parks decided they would split the aircraft, some starting at 0800 and the rest at 1000 so they could cover the day. Good plan but then some of the drivers got anxious that they were missing out and wouldn't get their 10 hours, so left accommodations and got to the staging at 0830/0900, therefore buggering up the plan. There has been mapping ops done in NSW previously, gets expensive as you need a few more pilots, fly the aircraft day and night, doesn't help the ginger beers either. As said before, night time is for drinking, not flying, let the Vics and drones have it.

LOL....You mean we want YOU there at 0800 but WE will turn up wheneves.

I bet the Oracle Rob Rogers vision is going to be amazing.

[Heli]

I think you put it perfectly. Launch everything at first light and smack it down before it gets going.

Oh no, let’s wait till we have 100’ flames, then sit back and say “we need bigger toys...”

Ah, the lesson of yesteryear: that's exactly what we used to do!

First light (NSW fires I'm talking about) a Jetranger would go up with AAS and sort out priorities, and the Helitaks would be airborne by 07-08:00 at the latest to start before the dragon awoke. Victoria was renowned for being as SuperF described; crews weren't allowed to sign on before 10:00 and Helitak tasking commenced from 11:00 to try to get as much work out of the duty hours allowed under dispensation. Drivers would only get about four days then have to have a break so efficiency was cr@p and costs involved in changing out crews were quite high, apart from having to battle fires with more ferocity at midday because the early morning opportunities were thrown away.

If we were on a campaign fire in NSW I'd put on two pilots alternating morning/afternoon so we could fly the machine all day, with a crewman to do refuelling etc. Worked exceptionally well but DSE Victoria wouldn't allow that until they invented the idea years later but still wouldn't permit multi crewing without their approval.

Have we gone back to the bad old (Victoria 1990s) days?

[angrywasp]

This type of operation is where SMS can prove effective to try and figure out the risk versus the reward or more specifically a realistic appraisal of the hazards versus effective mitigation of the risks to an acceptable level that would withstand legal scrutiny.
In some US states night fire bombing is conducted where there is plenty of urban background lighting and I understand, with a crew of two. The notion of charging off into the gloom in the middle of the night to extinguish a pine tree really does beggar belief but not that uncommon in NZ some years back. There was a bit of a rethink after a double fatality there back in 2011 or early 2012.
It has been four years since I ceased aerial fire fighting and at that time ground crews were withdrawn before nightfall to reduce risk. So where is the wisdom in sending a pilot up in a helicopter at night ?
The Agency in charge of the fire has considerable responsibility to the safety of all crews be it on the ground or in the air. Other considerations are fatigue and trying to sleep during the day which is common with the airline industry and handled with their FRMS but just how is the average helicopter operators system going to cope with that ?
Cheers Gents.

[SuperF]

The fatality in NZ wasn’t even waterbombing. They had been fighting the fire During the day and were called to get some people that were in the path of the fire, but on a beach.

It was going to be a Night Air Transport, but they never got there.

[angrywasp]

True enough in that it was not water bombing but was conducting night fire fighting operations. The people were on the beach and if required, although unpleasant they could utilize the sea to avoid the fire. My point is that putting an aircrew at risk to fly at night with unseen smoke disrupting visibility was an accepted process at that time. What was learned from this accident and would the agencies involved and the operators make the same sort of decisions now ?

[SuperF]

Angry wasp, I absolutely agree. I hope I didn’t give the impression that I support night ops.

In NZ currently night ops are allowed, however only in exceptional circumstances, defending lives being about it. There has been a big change over here recently and we now don’t have the red rash trying to take over the whole country....

[Smokie]

As someone involved in the program, I’ll have a go at addressing the questions and points. This is a pretty new and unknown section of the industry.

I agree with the point that the entire period of daylight should be used to effectively fight fires rather than launching into the fiercest part of the day. I don’t think anyone on the fire ground would oppose this. The ability to increase tasking throughout the day is one of the aims of the NVG Fire program. (This includes both in the morning and at night when the fire is quietest and most manageable).

The problem is the disparity between the length of daylight during the fire season, (say 0630-2030, thats 14 hours) and flight and duty only allowing10 hours per pilot. To cover the whole daylight period would take 1.5 pilots. That would mean employing 2 pilots, with one of them only being 50% productive, and then thats only on a campaign fire - what about the costs of double crewing for standby periods? Agencies won’t pay for that sort of staffing unless its productive.

So, we are stuck with one pilot per machine. Assuming they can do the required recces, planning meetings etc prior to launch, should fire Agencies use aircraft first thing in the morning knowing the capability will be unavailable in the afternoon? Or do they save the asset until the brown sticky stuff hits the fan later on? From a risk management point of view, they hold the aircraft back until the are really needed. And then again, from a bureaucratic point of view, recces, reports, meetings etc are required before they commit the very expensive air assets. This is all done - or should be - early in the day. I like the way Heli describes the flow of the old days with early launch and a midday crew swap - how the wheel turns, eh?

Now, what if recces, planning and briefing could be done pre-dawn (I know, who wants to get up that early, but you did ask…), day machines launch at first light to hit the hot-spots identified by NVG/FLIR, and continue to manage/control/extinguish the fire until they are out of duty hours, say at about 1500. Afternoon/night crews then come on to continue operations throughout the afternoon and - heres the part the ground firies really love - though last light and into the night.

Firstly, our program is designed to establish whether NVG fire ops can be performed with similar safety margins to already-approved NVG ops (EMS, police etc) and day fire ops. We believe that with correct equipment, personnel and culture we can do this. Tasking is carried out to the existing regulations and restrictions (eg minimum visibility etc)- no new rules are made to allow fire ops to be conducted to lower safety standards. Crews are dual pilot (in many Australian EMS operations they use Pilot and Trained Crewman very safely and efficiently). All crews and aircraft are IFR capable. Briefings are extensive, and procedures strictly adhered to.

Secondly, the program aims to discover if the expense and complexities of NVG fire ops are worth it in terms of operational effectiveness, added safety to ground crews etc. Agencies collect and comb through a lot of data on this. This part of the program is rightfully outside the scope of the operators. That is, we all work on the safety-side, and the Agencies work out if they really do want the service.

Talking about crew, we have highly experienced NVG guys (military/EMS etc), highly experienced fire guys, and some guys with a combination of both. Through training and crew mix, aircraft always have a high level of both fire and NVG experience on board. This is not just a juicy role for ex-military guys. We do ensure however unashamedly high levels of experience and performance. Nobody with no or minimal fire experience will get a guernsey. Experienced day guys without much night are mentored into the role, whilst also imparting their fire experience as well.

Risk-wise, again, this is what the program is looking to establish, control and manage. A very slow “crawl-walk-run” method has been followed since 2017 in a combined effort of Industry Representatives, Client Agencies and CASA. For example, until recently, no night operations were allowed without a planned and co-ordinated day recce involving all aircraft and personnel. A full go/no-go brief - following set guidelines - is then carried out with all involved before any night operations commence.

Work is progressing successfully towards safe methods of tasking for initial attack without the day-recce requirement. This too will be fully risk managed, (possibly only to be conducted in set, known areas, with minimum illumination/weather/visibility limits). If at any stage it appears that a task - or indeed the whole capability - is more dangerous than the accepted and mandated levels, it will be changed or even cancelled altogether.

This has so far been a data-gathering and capability expansion exercise rather than an actual capability. The establishment of the right culture for safe, efficient night operations, both within Companies and Agencies is vital to success. Launching blindly into unknown conditions with inexperienced crew and incapable aircraft to put out a tree on a hill in the middle of nowhere would likely lead to disaster.

Operations. At this stage planned and initial attack operations are expected. This means water-bombing and Airborne Intelligence Gathering to hold the work done by day crews, or more importantly support the poor buggers who are trying to fight the fire at night without aviation support. The provision of fire location, overwatch, intelligence and even troop movement or emergency evacuation after last light will all greatly improve safety and effectiveness of the fight (which only stops at last light for us aviators - the groundies aren’t so lucky).
The protection of houses, villages, assets (communication towers, water infrastructure etc) through the night is another important role. Think Buccan, Michaelago, Tharwa, Port Macquarie or any number of other places that this year had their aviation support leave them to their own devices at last light. Finally, aircraft positioning, troop positioning, and Airborne Intelligence Gathering so that day crews can be fully briefed early the following day to continue the fight also require a night capability.

Having performed these missions both in the urban fringe and very remote, there is always a call to consider terrain, illumination and value of the task. But this is no different to day ops. The crew always has the ability to turn down any task which strays outside the bounds of safety. We have an “all or none” culture where if anybody (at all) involved shows reluctance or refuses the task, we all stand down, without exception.

I hope this has answered some of the questions guys. I’d just like to say that this is a development and demonstration phase of a new capability in what appears to be one of the few sectors of the industry that shows any expansion potential in the short term. No money is being made at this stage, much money is being spent (by operators and government) with a view to increasing effectiveness, and the safety of those on and around the fire ground. Should it prove safe and effective - as I believe it will - it can only lead to expanded opportunity for industry and crews, and so I’d ask that you keep an open mind and remember that its not only Pilots and Crew that look at this site.

Hope this helps.

S

[bladepitch]

Nice post smokie,

[robaussie99]

One of the best posts I’ve ever seen here.
Thanks for the update!

[robaussie99]

Double post

[UnObvious]

Thanks for the reply Smokie.

Nice to hear from someone involved in it.

Wondering from your experience if you've found it to be an effective tool thus far? What kind of difference in suppression are you finding using those night RH/temps?

Regarding the disparity between flight and duty limitations and daylight, if the operator is using Appendix 5 FD Limits, it's a 12 hour duty day, and if using Appendix 5A (which I think most are these days), it's a 14 hour limit.

As much as we all don't feel like rocking up at first light and being held til last light "just in case", the 14 hr duty day is fairly common in other parts of the world especially for firefighting. If that's the job, that's the job, maybe we need to start upping our rates to reflect it.

And for a larger fire, there will no doubt be a number of aircraft hired, providing for a possibility of staggering start times to cover the full daylight period.

And while I hate to bring it up, I do wonder why the agencies aren't incorporating drones at night for IR info on these fires. Realistically they could have some pretty incredible intelligence for that morning briefing at a fraction of the cost, and crews could launch right away and get to work.

Cheers again for the thorough reply.