Tanker 71 drops on a fire near El Cajon, CA May 13, 2022. Ryan Grothe.Two weeks ago we started an occasional weekend feature called Fire Traffic Area. The posts serve as the beginning of an open thread where readers can leave comments about issues not yet covered — or maybe they have been covered. This is literally an off-topic thread. What needs to be pointed out, asked, or discussed within the fire aviation community? You have the floor.
The usual rules about commenting apply. And remember, no personal attacks or politics, please.
9 Comments
I dissent…
Homes or structures at risk of being destroyed within the 7 acres might be saved with one Drop from the Big Tanker??? I’m totally out classed by a lot of you out there and I’m not a firefighter but I thought I’d give my 2 cents. To all you FireFighters out there be safe and god be with you this season.
I feel a sense of pride when I see the air tankers flying since my husband, Frank Prentice, was one of the ueoriginal pilots in the seven tanker tion squadron that stated the whole program in 1955/56, Mendocino National Forest, Willows, CA. There have been 2 written articles recently on the history of the Air Tanker history. May issue of Aviation History and mendofever.com.
Thank you. We owe the present to the pioneers like your husband. They had to learn everything on the job as there were no books on aerial firefighting back then.
That is true! However, Linc Alexander wrote a great book on his 37 years of flying air tankers, from Stearman bi-wing to the larger planes. The name of the book is “Fire Bombers in Hell”. Worth a read!
Ok, tanked helicopters vs bucket. I’ll start by saying I think all water dropping helicopters should be tanked. More efficient, can carry more water, quicker turn around (generally speaking), no chance of dragging or snagging anything (maybe the snorkel, but I’ve never heard of that), more consistent drop pattern, can split loads (vs conventional buckets), don’t have to spend time setting anything up, can fly over roads (or ground crews) without chance of unintentional release, fewer mechanical issues, etc.
If I had a nickel for every time I heard “returning to helibase with bucket problems”, well, I’d have a lot of nickels.
From my view – buckets are lighter, so technically you can carry more water. Tanks are slower on the fill resulting in slower turnaround times. Modern buckets can do split drops. They do have more issues related to setup and their “quick detach” design with long lines but most of that is operator error. Drop patterns are excellent with the multi-drop valves.
The big difference and why most pilots love buckets is the safety on the dip. Getting a tanked ship down low puts you near all the nasty stuff that can ruin your day, and a nice long line can get your bucket into some very tight dips with no risk of a rotor strike. Getting the drop closer to the fire with zero down wash is a pro too – hard to do with a tank.
After watching helicopters drop from the ground and in the air for many years, I’d have to respectfully disagree with the drop pattern and accuracy aspect. I do agree that a lot of operator experience comes into play, but generally speaking, I think tanked aircraft can perform better than bucketed. With a little more speed and height for a trail drop, you get very little rotor wash. A lot of the time, when you’re going into a tight dip site, you’re taking more time to get in and out when the tanked aircraft can go little farther and get in and out quickly, usually without the hazards associated with going into a tight dip site (other than the low height above the water, again pilot proficiency and experience in those conditions). I’ve talked to pilots who are ok with dropping with a bucket or tank, and others that prefer one over the other. I think the mix will be there in the future, but we’re seeing more tanked type 1s than ever before, so there may be a trend. I’m going to go back to the “having problems with my bucket, returning to helibase” argument, and the flying of the bucket over roads and personnel as the biggest issues I see. Thanks for the thoughts.
BTW, I did find this, so it’s not unheard of.
Ojai, California 93023
Sunday, October 1, 2006 11:00 PDT
NTSB Narrative Summary Released at Completion of Accident
The helicopter snorkel snagged on a dip tank and the pilot-in-command (PIC) lost control of the helicopter during a retardant dropping mission. The tank and the snorkel screen fitting both contained 90-degree edges, which allowed them to catch on one another, once they came into contact. These abrupt edges may have increased the likelihood of a snagged condition during flight. The PIC was positioning the helicopter into a second tank and the snorkel became caught on the tank. The PIC applied power and shortly thereafter, the helicopter impacted the ground on its right side. Normal procedures following a caught snorkel are to slowly maneuver the helicopter until the snag becomes free. The PIC had reported 1,620 hours of pilot-in-command (PIC) time in helicopters on his application.
Comments are closed for this article!