That was probably more than 15 years ago...today going direct is infrequent and more often cowboyish. One secures the flanks, seeks an anchorpint, and then begins building line and using other fire tactics.
Going direct on a fire is the most effective way to split a head or flank, effectively creating two or more fires, and effectively reducing one's chances to successfully control the fire. This all depends, of course, on the individual fire and it's circumstances, which are legion.
If you're dropping water, which is far less effective than retardant, the only choice is to go direct. Sometimes it's very effective, but most of the time when direct attack is used, it's only because there are few other choices.
A few years ago we were the only tanker in Florida. We were early in the season. We went to a fire south of Punta Gorda, that was pushing a busy highway, moving south. A state air attack was overhead, and we linked up with him on-site. I did a turn around the fire, and found a structure on the east side that could make use of the retardant. The flame front was close to a mile wide, with 250' flame lengths, rolling hard, and moving with the wind which was about fifteen knots at the time, from the North.
The FDF air attack told us to hit the head, go direct. He knew that news helicopters were in the area, and he wanted the publicity. I advised him that we'd lose the retardant and quite possibly split the head, if the retardant had any effect at all. Our best, and really only true option with the load, considering out turn time, was to lay some protection for the structure and buy it some time.
The FDF ATGS said, and I quote, "This is Florida. That's not our style. In Florida, we hit the head."
It was his call, and we flew down a beautiful clear tunnel beneath the smoke column, directly adjacent to the flames, and hit them with a trail drop, coverage level 8.
Two hours later we were back with another load. The first had split the head, crossed the highway, stopped all traffic, risked numerous lives, and took structures (including the one we identified). Thankfully for us, we were stylish in the best Florida tradition.
Aerial firefighters do NOT fight fire. We support ground troops, who do the real work, and the hardest work. Often that involves backing up a handline, or a cat line. It may mean painting a ridge, or more commonly the backside of a ridge to prevent slopover, or even pretreating a field downwind of a burn to prevent or reduce spot fires. It may mean boxing off a helispot or LZ for troop protection. It may mean many things. But on a large fire, going direct is the least effective means of fighting fires.
Like or not, current, time proven doctrine, and one I live by. Over a fire, the first year pilots are evident when they suggest initial attack tactics, because they're always the ones who want to go direct, and usually to attack the head. The more experienced hands are usually the ones who start putting drops where you might not expect it; right along the flanks or from an anchor point...right where they need to be.
The biggest two exceptions for air ops are helicopters which generally go direct on spots or work flanking fires with helibucket drops, and SEATs (Type III, IV) tankers which do a lot of initial attack work at the very early stages...and often will lay an X over the fire or box it at a single tree or two to prevent spread. This is generally always done with retardant, whenever possible.
In big fire situations in timber, going direct has about as much effect as spitting in a furnace, especially with foam, wet water, or just plain water.
