Boxes of water dropped on a fire in Israel

2 p.m. EDT August 18, 2021

C-130 drops boxes of water on a wildfire
A C-130 drops boxes of water on a wildfire in Jerusalem, Israel Aug. 17, 2021. Photo by Kobi Richter, Israel Fire & Rescue Authority.

Firefighters in Israel used a C-130 to drop boxes of water on a large fire Jerusalem this week.

The fire was very large, compared to other fires in the country, and burned 6,000 acres. More than 1,500 firefighters assisted for three days before they stopped the spread.

We are working on getting confirmation, but the photo at the top of this article shows what appears to be either PCADS or Caylym/Guardian water boxes being dropped on the fire by a C-130.

UPDATE at 7:52 p.m. EDT August 18, 2021. We heard from Rick Goddard of Caylym who told us the boxes were their products. He said 16 of the Guardians holding a total of about 4,200 gallons were loaded into the C-130, but the crew of the aircraft decided to drop them in two passes of 8 boxes each. The containers all had a "foam additive" and some had blue dye.

Mr Goddard said, "The Guardian has been employed over wildfires every year starting in 2017 in the Carpathian Mountains of Romania, then Attica fire in Greece, and last year in the Peruvian Andes and Amazon basin. This year so far on fires in Macedonia, Peru and Israel."
PCADS
PCADS. Walt Dorn, Flex Attack. Sacramento, March 22, 2016.

 

Caylym/Guardian
Caylym/Guardian. Michael Seaward & Rick Goddard, L to R. Sacramento. March 22, 2016.

We wrote about the Caylym/Guardian boxes in 2013 on Wildfire Today.

The system consists of containers constructed of cardboard, plywood, a plastic bladder, and dozens of yards of straps. They hold 264 gallons each and are designed to be carried in military aircraft such as the C-130 or C-27 using the standard cargo system. The containers when empty weigh 100 pounds. After they leave the aircraft the container lids, attached by four straps, separate, and act like a parachute. The straps then put pressure on the plastic bladders, ripping them open, allowing the liquid to be dispersed. The 100 pounds of the other components, the plywood, and cardboard, fall to the ground tethered by the nylon straps. The plastic bladder, hopefully empty, falls separately.

If these were ever actually used on a wildfire, there would have to be an even greater emphasis than usual on removing firefighters and other personnel from the target area than there is now when only liquids fall from the sky. If a box failed to disperse the liquid, it would be deadly, as could be the plywood if the box was empty. In addition, the owner of the land would either have to be OK with leaving the debris from the containers in place after the drop in perpetuity, or crews would have to search the area and carry it out for disposal in a landfill. Debris removal would need to be included in the estimated costs of using a system like this, which could be difficult or even impossible in some areas, complicated by topography and vegetation. Depending on the climate, it could take many years or decades for the plastic bladder, plywood, cardboard, and straps to decompose if it were not removed.

Caylym boxes fire
Caylym system containers exiting an aircraft. Screen grab from Caylym video.

Here is an eight-second video showing a box drop in Israel. It was uploaded to YouTube August 17, 2021.

In addition to dropping water, the Caylym system delivers the plastic bladder, plywood, cardboard, and straps.

In addition to the boxes, Israel has a fleet of 14 AT-802Fs managed by the Israeli National Police. We have a report that after the fire broke out the fire fighting agency contracted for six additional aircraft from Chim Nir to work with the Air Tractors. They were PT6-powered Turbo Thrush aircraft that are normally used for aerial spraying but had a fire fighting role before they were replaced by the Air Tractors.

Boeing wants to fight wildfires with a howitzer

M198 155mm howitzer

Above: M198 155mm howitzer. Photo by Armyman1989.

We have seen a lot of wild ideas about devices that inventors think could suppress wildland fires, such as a fire extinguisher bomb, a mine-clearing missile to build fireline, a fire truck that would suppress a forest fire without using water, a disposable air tanker, and 2,000-pound containers of liquid dropped from aircraft. Some have been awarded the unenviable “lame-ass idea” tag.

On July 28, 2016 the U.S. Patent Office published a patent application submitted in 2014 by Boeing for an artillery shell fired from a 155mm field howitzer that would deliver fire retardant or another fire suppressing liquid to a wildland fire. Each shell would hold between 1.57 and 3 gallons.

The howitzer shells would release the fire retardant either by an explosive, or by mechanically opening the shell. The release of the retardant would be at a pre-determined time, at a pre-determined altitude, at a pre-determined acceleration, at a pre-determined location, at a pre-determined temperature, at a pre-determined pressure, or at a pre-determined distance.

The application claims:

The gun delivers the fire-retarding material with high accuracy, at a high rate of delivery, at a reduced cost over typical fire-fighting methods such as airplane or helicopter release or ground-based fire-fighters. The fire-retarding material may be delivered continuously or intermittently for long durations, regardless of darkness, weather conditions, or intensity of the fire with reduced risk to those fighting the fire. Some guns may deliver the fire-retarding material within 15 feet of a target at a 15 mile range.

The application gives examples comparing the use of the howitzer and helicopters to deliver water or retardant to two fires that had initial sizes of 28 and 883 acres.

Our calculations based on the basic data in Boeing’s patent application determined that the 28-acre fire would need between 1,663 and 3,178 howitzer shells depending on the capacity of the shells used, 1.57 or 3 gallon versions. The 883-acre fire would require between 71,333 and 140,127 shells.

The application does not describe how many howitzers Boeing envisions being used at the same time to extinguish a fire.

We certainly are no expert on the specifications and use of military artillery, but a quick look at Wikipedia found that the M198 medium-sized, towed 155mm howitzer has a sustained rate of fire of two rounds per minute. Let’s say you had 5 howitzers available for the 28-acre fire, making 10 rounds per minute possible. They would need to continuously fire for about 3 to 5 hours. The 883-acre fire would require 120 to 233 hours (5 to 10 days). And that is assuming that the fire would spread very little during those 3 hours to 10 days. If you had only one howitzer, it would take 5 times as long.

Boeing did not discuss in the application the effects of the noise from firing thousands of rounds from 155mm howitzers. Imagine trying to sleep in fire camp while howitzers are firing.

Boeing says the debris from the shell casing will either “degrade”, “or degradation may not be necessary as the material will be environmentally inert”.

There are many issues with the concept of using artillery shells on a fire. Here are a few:

  • Unexploded shells. Would the fire be off limits to firefighters for days or weeks until it goes out and bomb disposal teams can be deployed to examine the area to declare it safe? Would the bomb disposal teams have to be firefighter qualified? Would it even be possible to find unexploded shells, or might they be buried in the ground?
  • Would land managers be comfortable with the debris left after thousands of the shells explode or come apart?
  • How long during and after the bombardment would firefighters be prevented from entering the fire area?
  • How far would the howitzer sound travel? From how far away would neighbors complain about the noise?
  • The patent application assumes that retardant applied from the air can suppress a fire. Generally, it can’t. Under ideal conditions retardant can slow down a fire, enabling ground-based firefighters the opportunity to move in and actually put it out or stop the spread with water or by removing fuel along the perimeter. If firefighters are not available to take advantage of the temporary slowing of the fire, aerially applied retardant is usually a waste of time and money.

The application mentions that the shells could also be used for nuclear plant fires and hazardous material emergencies. If a howitzer shell fired from miles away is the only way to deal with a nuclear meltdown, then that might be a feasible use for this idea.

The bottom line.

We award the use of howitzers to suppress wildfires a lame-ass idea tag.

Thanks and a tip of the hat go out to Bob and one other person.

Forest Service’s new rule restricts photography in wilderness areas

(UPDATED at 8:15 p.m. MDT, September 25, 2014)

The Oregonian received some additional information from the U.S. Forest Service late today about the requirements of permits for photography in a wilderness area:

Tidwell’s statement said he was attempting to “clarify the agency’s intentions” and would not require a permit for news-gathering or recreational photographs in wilderness areas. Tidwell didn’t explain why others in his agency told The Oregonian the opposite just two days earlier.

On Tuesday, Liz Close, the agency’s acting wilderness director, said the Forest Service would permit reporting in wilderness depending on its subject matter, with exceptions for breaking news. “If you were engaged on reporting that was in support of wilderness characteristics, that would be permitted,” Close said.

The proposed rule states several times that permits are required for “still photography and commercial filming”. It does not specify that still photography for non-commercial uses does not require a permit.

The application for a permit for photography can be denied if a USFS official decides that there is a “suitable location outside of a wilderness area”. It can also be denied if a Forest Service official decides that the project does not have “a primary objective of dissemination of information about the use and enjoyment of wilderness or its ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value”. That is a lot of subjective criteria to put in the hands of a Forest Service employee.

I conducted some additional research, and found that all of the details about this rule are to be found, not in the Federal Register, but in various USFS manuals, which then refer you to another manual, which then says, for example, the price of the photography permit fees are to be determined by each individual National Forest. So, it’s very confusing and time consuming to attempt to find out what the rules really are. There are 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands. Navigating that jungle of bureaucracy could be a full time job.

Radio traffic for emergency management has transitioned from codes, like the the 10-codes (10-4, 10-22, 10-97) to clear text — actually using your words — that can be easily understood, without needing a translator if you are not versed in that particular version of jargon.

The U.S. Forest Service needs to write their rules in clear text.

****

(UPDATED at 3:05 p.m. MDT, September 25, 2014)

The Oregonian, which broke this story, reported today that the U.S. Forest Service is going to extend the comment period for the rule restricting photography in wilderness areas:

Amid growing public outcry, the U.S. Forest Service announced Thursday it will delay finalizing restrictive rules requiring media to get special permits to shoot photos or videos in wilderness areas.

The federal agency will allow public comment for an additional month, until Dec. 3, Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers said, and set up meetings to answer questions from journalists, wilderness groups and the public…

****

(Originally published at 2:56 p.m. MDT, September 24, 2014)

According to OregonLive, the U.S. Forest Service is proposing a new rule that would require reporters to apply for, and if approved, buy a permit to take photos in a wilderness area.

The U.S. Forest Service has tightened restrictions on media coverage in vast swaths of the country’s wild lands, requiring reporters to pay for a permit and get permission before shooting a photo or video in federally designated wilderness areas.

Under rules being finalized in November, a reporter who met a biologist, wildlife advocate or whistleblower alleging neglect in any of the nation’s 100 million acres of wilderness would first need special approval to shoot photos or videos even on an iPhone.

Permits cost up to $1,500, says Forest Service spokesman Larry Chambers, and reporters who don’t get a permit could face fines up to $1,000.
First Amendment advocates say the rules ignore press freedoms and are so vague they’d allow the Forest Service to grant permits only to favored reporters shooting videos for positive stories…

Like the article says, the lines between reporters and an individual with an iPhone are blurry these days. What if a hiker sees something shocking about how the Forest Service is managing a wilderness area and submits a photo to a newspaper which then publishes it? Could they be breaking the law if they don’t buy a permit to take the photo? Does this give the USFS too much power to control what the public knows about how their lands are being managed?  It will be up to the local Forest Supervisor to decide on a case by case basis if the permit should be issued.

Are we going to have to edit the age old advice of, “Take only photos; leave only footprints”, adding an asterisk:

*However, if you are a “reporter” in a U.S. Forest Service wilderness area be sure to apply for and, if approved, buy a permit costing up to $1,500 to take a photograph.

You can read the Forest Service’s proposal here. At the top-right on that page you can click on “Submit a formal comment” if you have an opinion on the topic. You have until November 3, 2014 to tell the Forest Service what you think.

We are giving this our lame-ass ideas tag.

Igniting a controlled burn with buckets of diesel

controlled burn Python Hunter, buckets of diesel
Screen grab from the National Geographic Channel video.

Apparently there is a show on the National Geographic Channel called Python Hunters. I happened to run across this video from the program, which includes a controlled burn. Their objective was not to kill the large snakes, they said, but to drive them out of the brush, or underground.

If you are familiar with controlled burns or prescribed fires, you will not recognize any of the techniques in this video…. unless you prep your prescribed fires by throwing five gallon buckets of diesel onto the vegetation.

Surprisingly, a representative of the Miami-Dade Fire Department is on scene, probably to reduce the chances of the actors killing themselves. The project may have been surrounded by mostly bare ground — it’s hard to tell — so there might have been little chance of the fire escaping.

python hunter controlled burn
Screen grab from the National Geographic Channel video.

Just to be absolutely clear, definitely do not try this technique. Diesel is not as volatile or explosive as gasoline but what they did, shown in the video, is dangerous. If they had mixed gasoline with the diesel, as is usually done when fueling drip torches for a real prescribed fire, or used straight gasoline, there could have been an explosion when they ignited it, depending on the concentration.

NIFC produces wildfire outlook, target audience: children

The External Affairs section at the National Interagency Fire Center has apparently chosen children as their target audience for this “2013 Preseason PIO Podcast” about the upcoming fire season.

It is not clear who should receive the, uh, blame credit, for this innovation, but Ed Delgado, the Fire Weather Program Manager, narrates this two-minute video.

Report: USDA backing away from trashing the USFS logo

USFS-USDA logos

There has been a great deal of dust kicked up over the last couple of weeks about the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s decision to cease the use of the venerable and historic logo of the U.S. Forest Service and replace it with the rather drab and uninspiring USDA logo. The plan was to replace all of the logos throughout the USDA with the USDA logo, not just the Forest Service’s.

We heard from a reliable source today that the Secretary of Agriculture’s office is going to make an exception for the USFS, and allow them to continue using the familiar badge with the pine tree. This is more or less consistent with a Twitter message that the official USFS Twitter account sent out this morning:

But, we’ll have to wait and see if the Secretary’s office follows through and actually gives the USFS logo a reprieve. Secretary Tom Vilsack probably had no idea trashing the USFS logo would create such a s**tstorm.

UPDATE at 4:55 p.m. MT, April 5, 2013:

In a comment, B.Morgan asked, “Does anyone have a picture to post of the Forest Service patch with the rounded top, pre-1970s?” Dick Mangan was kind enough to send along the photo below. Like Dick said in another comment, over those old patches, there was a narrow band of a patch that wrapped over the top of the larger patch. It had the name of the national forest where the wearer worked. Dick explained that the smaller patch in the photo was for the female uniform.

Old USFS patch

Caylym continues to develop containers for dropping retardant

Caylym system
Caylym system dispersing a liquid after exiting an aircraft. Screen grab from Caylym video.

Since Wildfire Today last covered their disposable container for delivering retardant over wildfires,the Caylym company has continued to develop and promote their concept. The system consists of containers constructed of cardboard, plywood, a plastic bladder, and dozens of yards of straps. They hold 264 gallons each and are designed to be carried in military aircraft such as the C-130 or C-27 using the standard cargo system. The containers when empty weigh 100 pounds.

Caylym system exiting an aircraft
Caylym system containers exiting an aircraft. Screen grab from Caylym video.

After they leave the aircraft the container lids, attached by four straps, separate, and act like a parachute. The straps then put pressure on the plastic bladders, ripping them open, allowing the liquid to be dispersed. The 100 pounds of the other components, the plywood, and cardboard, fall to the ground tethered by the nylon straps. The plastic bladder, hopefully empty, falls separately.

The company says 16 units fit inside a C-130. We estimate that each one weighs 2,212 pounds, and 16 of them would hold 4,224 gallons for a total weight of 35,392 pounds. They claim a C-27J can carry 6 units, which would be 1,584 gallons with an estimated weight of 13,272 pounds. A C-130 with a Modular Airborne FireFighting Systems (MAFFS) usually carries 2,200 to 3,000 gallons of retardant, depending on the density altitude and the amount of fuel on board. Last summer the MAFFS were dropping an average of 2,394 gallons per flight.

In November the Romanian Air Force tested the Caylym system using a C-27J Spartan to drop the containers. According to the company:

…Expectations from testing were surpassed — all aspects of safety, handling and deployment of the Guardian System by the C-27J are anticipated to achieve certification from the Alenia test and evaluation team. Follow-up training is planned for the spring of 2013 in Romania.

The C-27J Spartan is an ideal aircraft for the aerial firefighting mission,” said Rick Goddard, managing director of Caylym. “The versatility and responsiveness of the C-27J in a firefighting mission, using the Guardian System gives the Romanian Air Force the ability to drop more than 1,500 gallons (6000 L) per mission, from a safe altitude over all types of terrain, day and night.”

We talked with Rick Goddard, the Managing Director of Caylym, who told us that in their tests the system could deliver six to eight gallons per 100 square feet and even more if the containers were loaded in two rows so that they would exit the aircraft two at a time. Mr. Goddard said they do not expect to spend $100,000 to conduct a standard cup test to determine the exact uniformity and quantity of the retardant coverage until the U.S. Forest Service expresses more of an interest in using the system.

Below is a video that was uploaded by Caylym on January 22, 2013. It shows their containers being assembled, filled, and then dropping from an aircraft.

If these were ever actually used on a wildfire, there would have to be an even greater emphasis than usual on removing firefighters and other personnel from the target area than there is now when only liquids fall from the sky. In addition, the owner of the land would either have to be OK with leaving the debris from the containers in place after the drop in perpetuity, or crews would have to search the area and carry it out for disposal in a landfill. Debris removal would need to be included in the estimated costs of using a system like this, which could be difficult or even impossible in some areas, complicated by topography and vegetation. Depending on the climate, it could take many years or decades for the plastic bladder, plywood, cardboard, and straps to decompose if it were not removed.

Fuel in a bladder bag

Bladder bagMaybe I led a sheltered life as a firefighter, or perhaps I just worked around people who made safety number one, but until today I had never heard of filling a bladder bag (backpack pump) with a mixture of gasoline and diesel fuel and using it to apply the burn mix onto brush or slash piles that were to be burned, or were presently burning. But apparently it is a common practice on some U.S. Forest Service districts, according to a recently released “Lessons Learned” document. Below is an excerpt; the entire document is HERE. After the reported near miss, those practices may change.

================================================================

I was walking down the hall of the district office with one of the district staff when we stepped into a conversation some of the crew leaders and assistant crew leaders where having about a near miss on some pile burning operations the previously day. There had been a flashback of flame toward one of firefighters while using a Fedco five gallon with fuel mix (piss bag/ bladder bag) to fuel the ignition on one of the piles. Some of the group was thinking it was no was big deal, some were trying to defend the action of using the Fedco as a firing tool, some were not sure and others thought it was not the right tool for the job. One individual said “we used to use them in region “X” and on my old forest all time in pile burning no big deal you have to just be careful with the flashback”.

I decided to bring it forward to the group that this is something we need to talk about, some were a little reluctant but everybody joined in. I had someone inform the rest of the folks waiting to go out pile burning that we all needed to talk about this issue and that “the piles would wait”. Someone pointed out “have you ever seen a dry piss bag on a fire and did you think there was fuel on the outside of the bag”?

Burning pileThe employee who had the near miss said his fire shirt had fuel on it. We talked how the drip torch had a spark arrest in it, and you are creating a fine mist at the nozzle when you pump the bladder bag which is also creating flumes which comes back and creates the flash that becomes a very unsafe operation.

The subject came up how to carry 5 gallon of fuel mix up the hill as the gas cans weight down on the arm. We asked those that did not think this was the right device to use, why did they not say anything. They felt that they were not going to use it and the person who filled it up was the senior leader of the group.

“What if this had not been a near miss but more serious we should have spoken up or at least talked about it.” We discussed, both as a group and one-on-one, the actions, planning and proper tools to use. We all need to have more training and discussions of proper tools, safety, and minimizing risks.

 

A fire truck that suppresses fires without water

Image: Industrial Design Served, Fire Knight

This may be another invention to add to the list of Lame-Ass Ideas, but we’ll withhold judgement until more details are revealed.

From what we can gather from the diagrams, it appears that this vehicle is designed to spray sand at a forest fire. Yes, sand. The diagram includes interesting items such as:  sand pump, sand tank, blasting arm, and a vacuum digger.

Fire Knight details
Image: Industrial Design Served, Fire Knight

Other than the sketches, we can find only this description:

AT4FV All Terrain Field-Forest Fire Fighting Vehicle

Fireknight is inspired with hope for future by aiming extinguishing a fire without water. With this important fire extinguisher, Fire Knight, Dr. Hakan Gursu and his team has been deemed worthy of.

It won 2nd place in the “Sustainable Living/Environment Preservation – Rural Sustainable Design category in IDA 09 Competition”, and honorable Mention from “Green Dot Awards 2008, Concept Category”, whatever those are.

It may not meet “light hand on the land” guidelines with the “vacuum digger” and the sand blasting system, if that’s what it is.

It’s great when designers think outside the box when it comes to firefighting equipment. Remember the “Fire Reconnaissance Vehicle”? Not all of the ideas are going to be winners, especially if firefighters are not consulted, but over the last 100 years there have not been a lot of major advances in tools that a wildland firefighter can use. We’re still controlling fires by swinging sharpened pieces of metal attached to the ends of sticks.

UPDATE March 28, 2011:

After careful consideration, we have assigned this concept to the Lame-Ass Idea category. There is no written description that we can find, but it appears that the “vacuum-digger” rotates, loosens, and then vacuums up “sand”, dirt and no doubt vegetative matter, and deposits it in the “sand tank”. Then it is shot out the “blasting arm” toward the fire along with a lot of air. The air would fan the fire while the sand, dirt, and vegetative matter would, at best, cover some of the fire, slowing, but not putting out the combustion. At worst, the “blasting” would blow the fire all over hell while adding fuel to the fire.
Thanks J

Survive a burnover in a water-lined tent?

The same person that designed a new way to move water, in fire hose lined with high-voltage electrical wires, has designed a fire shelter with double walls which can be filled with water from a fire hose. His thinking is that since there is water in the lining of the tent walls, that the tent would survive being burned over, along with the terrified firefighters inside.

water lined fire shelter

At the web site for this idea, the photo is described thusly:

The image above is a proposed water filled protective tent. Assuming that a firefighter is near a water filled hose in a hose relay, the tent can be filled with water from the hose. The water should provide good insulation from the heat of a fire in a burnover situation.

Off the top of my head, some of the issues include:

  1. Weight and size of the contraption. How would it be transported?
  2. Is this a single victim person shelter, or can it hold many people? If multiple firefighters have to inflate their shelters at the same time, I suppose they will simply wait in line for their turn to use the fire hose while the 200-foot wall of flames approaches. I guess we’ll throw out the requirement to deploy and enter your fire shelter within 20 seconds.
  3. What are the chances of it being at the location where it might be needed?
  4. What happens if a hot ember lands on it while it is sitting on the ground uninflated?
  5. You could not really stage these ahead of firefighters on uncontained portions of fireline. If burnovers are possible, the fire is probably moving rapidly. Where would you put it? And carrying them with you while laying hose may not be practical.
  6. If you have a functional hose lay, the chances of needing any kind of fire shelter are reduced. Not completely, but to a degree.
  7. How long would it take to inflate the contraption with water? In that amount of time, firefighters might be able to use their escape route to get the hell out of the area.
  8. How stable would it be in the kind of wind that frequently precipitates rapid fire growth and burnovers?
  9. And, if a hot ember lands on it while it is inflated with water, will it really not be damaged? And what about direct flame impingement with temperatures of 1,472 to 2,192 degrees F?
  10. Would it be cost prohibitive?
  11. Would you bet your life on this contraption?

Guess where we’re filing this?