Holy cow!

[Gulfstream 200]

Yes I would say PHUKET. No doubt about it. Then again I say PHUKET a lot.

Hey, watch out for the water snakes in PHUKET too, OK?

 

[buzzer]

United Air Lines had a 727 taking off from Denver in the summer, got some "wind shear" and left long burn marks in the field for quite a ways past the end of the runway from those rear engines. That pic reminded me of that.

 

[mar]

XtremeGod

so how was it flying with Russians?



Drawing on my fine command of language, I said nothing.

 

[Frank Bama]

More Vodka!!!!!!!!!

 

[banned username 2]

I think that avbug's experience, expertise, knowledge, etc, would allow him to do this time after time without worrying about not living to tell about it.

I am pretty sure he knows exactly what he can/cannot get away with and I would be very hard pressed to question someone of his nature.

3 5 0

So basically your saying because I have 2500 hours in 3 engine Falcons that basically I can throw my BFL calculations out the window, as long as I THINK I can make it I will be fine, and nobody better question me?

That is a pretty foolish statement if you really read what you wrote.

 

[avbug]

Les Paul speaks but knows not whence he speaks.

Low minimums for fire pilots? The published numbers for carding are low, but the numbers in the cockpit are not.

It's not about taking chances. You think you're more professional than I am? Doubt it. Nor anyone else I know in the industry. Rather, I do your job, too. This is seasonal, and I do other things; fly in the same environment you do, same equipment you do, same job you do...or very similiar as occasional will have it. (This year is a little different: I had to separate to fulfill the needs of this season, and will be looking again in a few weeks...much like many here).

What "fix" are you talking about? Think it's an adrenaline thing? You haven't a clue. Think it's a time building issue? That's laughable. Most folks doing this no longer log time. Just what is that "fix" you're talking about?

Edge of the envelope? What envelope would that be?

Simply because it's outside your capabilities and you're afraid of it, and you know nothing about it, perhaps you ought to keep your trap shut until you're a little better informed.

Not all aircraft have performance data in order to perform BFL calculations. The AFM for the aircraft I'm flying today is prefaced by a statement that says, "Nothing in this manual should be taken at face value or believed." Nothing on the aircraft is stock, and it's flying under CAM 8. There is no performance data, other than to refer back to the origional data, which was never accurate. It's restricted category, like all tankers.

It's a different world, but don't be so blindly stupid to state that simply because you have no experience in this field, or don't understand it, or because it's outside your small world of experience, that it's unprofessional or wrong or unsafe. You know now whence you speak.

Yesterday we were visited by an opinionated individual who prefaced every statement with "When I worked for NASA..." and then went on to provide me with all the details of my job as he saw fit. This was a man with no fire experience, no tanker experience, no ag experience, and no place to say two words but uninformed opinion. I listened for about 45 minutes, and then said,

"You know, your organization and mine have something in common."

"What's that?" he asked.

"It seems both of us have had aircraft come apart in flight in the past year, huh?"

He didn't say a word.

 

[avbug]

Lester buddy,

I'm not going to bother playing with you. Not going to do it. I think you're the same individual who pops up under a new name freuently to flame and cause problems, and I don't play those games.

No more candy for you.

 

[mar]

The issue is credibility

Les--you have to admit that having only 11 posts to your name and a somewhat confrontation style lends itself to low credibility.

I see your points but I happen to agree with Avbug in this situation. Not every aerial application fits into the tightly managed constraints of airline-style flying.

Without a doubt, almost any sort of operation can be approved by the FAA and thus deemed legal if the proper wheels are greased.

For example: When the DC6 was certified a long time ago in Santa Monica, California it was done so with performance data based *solely* on dry, level and paved surfaces.

Get this: My company has operated DC6s for 30 years off of gravel and frozen lakes...mountain strips with one way in-one way out sloping runways.

Is there performance data for this? Not exactly. Sometimes there are compensatory additions or substractions. Sometimes not.

The point is sometimes, if you look around, you'll find a legal operation that is highly specialized in what some may consider to be unorthodox techniques.

The most important point being that you put people in the front of the airplane who can read between the lines on the performance chart and say, "Yes we can get the job done safely and efficiently without undue risk because we've looked at all the factors and if things go south this is our escape plan."

These people don't see things in black and white. They are comfortable in the grey. It's neither careless nor reckless; nor is it cut and dry.

I wish Avbug would continue to post here because I think he has something to offer---unless, Les, you're truly a troll, but time will tell.

Fly safe.

 

[avbug]

Mar,

I never said I'd quit posting...just interacting with that other guy.

I guess I have a right to comment on airplanes losing their wings, seeing as the aircraft in question were my airplanes: I flew them, trained in them, maintained them, lived in them, risked my life in them, ad infinitum.

I'm sick of hearing people tell me how aging aircraft caused it, poor maintenance caused it, underbudget caused it, yada, yada, yada. I think a good comparison with a two hundred million dollar per operation flight that experienced the same thing is no joke; it's accurate and puts things in perspective. It also serves without elaboration to put down all the stupid uninformed arguements about how "unsafe" we are. In the particular case already mentioned, it was even more appropo, as the gentleman to whom I was speaking couldn't begin a sentence, not one, without using it to inform me he worked for NASA. Every sentence ended with how dangerous aircraft that burn avgas are, how dangerous old airplanes are, ad nauseum.

It was no joke, and if there's anybody here who has the right to make commentary on those events...it's me. Let the other guy talk. He wasn't there. I was. Still am.

 

[mar]

OK! We have a conversation!

Thanks for the responses guys! I'd like to see this conversation continue just a little further so I'm gonna play moderator.

Les--I'm not anonymous. I can think of at least six other members (right off the top of my head) that I know personally. One I went to college with 15 years ago. Others I work with. Some others I just buy beer for!

Over the course of two years and two hundred postings (all archived) you can learn my name is Mike. I grew up in Orange Co. I attended ERAU for four years. I flew in the bush. Then I flew Metros. I have a letter of warning from the FAA and now I work for Northern Air Cargo.

I like to think I have a dirty job but every now and then Avbug reminds me that there is always someone who has it worse than I.

With regards to the infamous joke: Get over it. We have all lost friends in fiery airplane crashes. Two years ago I stopped counting at Eight. Mourn, then move on.

Avbug--I see your point: Safety ain't rocket science. BUT it does require some honesty and accountability.

From what I'm reading about the latest shuttle disaster the real culprit wasn't so much the fact that there was critical damage to the wing structure, BUT that NASA had witnessed the exact same scenario on launch over and over again!!

In other words, NASA really isn't guilty of defective foam--they *are* guilty of seeing the same problem on previous flights and doing nothing about it when they had the chance.

The problem, organizationally, was the culture of "Let's go, things are fine, we have schedules to keep." Individually, the problem was, "Well I told them about that years ago so I did my part."

So...aging aircraft, tight budgets, maintenance discrepancies, etc...yeah, yeah, those are headlines easy for the public to digest, but where is the analysis? The examination of the leadership that allows known problems to continue to exist when in all probability a certain crack will lengthen and eventually fail when exposed to sufficient cycles?

Of course I use the term crack metaphorically. The crack can indeed be in maintenance; or maybe in training.

But so often, in my experience, these things happen in a pattern. An honest supervisor, one with experience, and one granted some authority, may recognize the pattern, rise up out of his chair, and say, "Hold on just one frickin' minute, don't go another step further until we fully understand the LOGICAL OUTCOME of our actions.

For every action (or inaction) has a consequence and too many times have I worked for people that said, "We've done it like this for forty years and it's worked fine."

Ok fine then, put your head back in the sand and let's just *hope* that crack doesn't lengthen.

But I'm a bettin' man, and I'm puttin' ten bucks on the crack.

Fly safe.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Actually, this is a photo of a Russian-designed transport making a b*tchin' short field landing.

 

[bigD]

Ah hell, I might as well jump in here.

Avbug, I'm not going to comment one way or another on the safety of fighting fires, or the prudence of the pilots, etc - I don't know squat about it.

I think the problem here is that the pilots on this board in general have a passion for flying such that they want to soak up and attempt to understand as much about aviation as they can - many times regardless of whether or not it's relevant to the kind of flying that they currently or hope to do in the future.

Obviously operating an aircraft such that you leave the ground at the very opposite end of the runway is something that pilots flying in standard conditions are not used to seeing, and you should expect that making a comment like, "well, we do that all the time - it's part of the job." is going to raise questions. But replying to those questions with, "Because that's the way it's done." doesn't tell us anything.

Some people raise questions in a more tactful manner than others - true. But some of us (myself included) would just like to know the reasons behind the actions, that's all. I'm not asking you to convince me that it's safe. I don't care - I'm not in your shoes, so what I think is meaningless. But really, I'm just curious. Do the planes you operate simply require way too much runway to restrict yourself to fields that are within the BFL (yes, I know you don't have the actual number, but I'm sure you have a pretty good estimate of what it is)? I understand that you've got to get to the fires ASAP, so maybe you don't have the luxury of operating out of airports with miles of concrete. Maybe there's another mile of grass off the end and if sh*t happens at rotation you'd still be able to abort without killing yourselves. Or maybe there is no explanation other than you feel the added risk of not having excess runway is worth whatever the benefits are. I'm sure there are another dozen "maybes" that I haven't listed here, too.

Point is, we don't know, because you're not saying anything other than "we have to operate that way because of the nature of what we do."

 

[avbug]

BigD,

The thing is, it is the nature of what we do. Very often we're restricted to airfields that are much shorter than we might otherwise prefer. Two weeks ago I was sent down on a fire that required reloads at a temporary base at a relatively short airstrip. We were able to make 18 minute turns on the target, vs. 1.5 hours for other aircraft that needed different facilities. With three of us turning, we were hitting it every six minutes, and doing a good job of line control.

Conversely, had we operated from another field, we would have been unable to control the line. A number of structures were threatened. Livestock was in danger, houses, outbuildings, and other property was going to be lost. Between constant air application and two separate backburns ignited by helittack crews, the spread was contained. With the high winds that were pushing that week, there is no way that it would have seen containment without loss of property and potential loss of life.

The only way the backburns worked was by supporting them with retardant lines. The only way those lines held was by rapid reapplication, and the only way that was possible was by operating from that field. It was a narrow runway, shorter than we'd have liked, and it only permitted one airplane to land and load at a time due to the small ramp area. However, it worked. It was well over 10,000' density altitude, and we used every bit of runway, sometimes plus a little. The six foot barbed wire fence at the end, and a set of standard power lines a quarter mile away, were realistic concerns.

Originally my load base was assigned to another established location that was 35 minutes from the fire. That wouldn't have allowed us to see the success we did. It would have put the lives of those on the ground in jeopardy by witholding part of their air support...support necessary to safely conduct the type of firefighting operations we did.

Nobody is asking for a pat on the back. However, it sickens me when those who have never been there try to float uninformed opinions. We were working in high winds, severe and extreme turbulence, within mountainous terrain. On a separate burn nearby, a leadplane pilot called off the operation when he was thrown against the ceiling of his Baron, and broke his headset. (I made an emergency dump the following day when downdrafts behind a ridge took me into the lee side of the ridge). It was rough. It was tiring. It was difficult. We were working against several sets of powerlines crossing the area in the smoke. Visibility was down. Fuels were explosive (and exploding). It was a typical going fire (if there can be called such a thing).

We did a good job under demanding conditions, using the judgement they pay us for. I don't give a whit what the uninformed have to say on the subject. Yes, I see things like that every day...and have since I was nearly eighteen years old. Bottom line is that it's part of the job...and one shouldn't need to justify one's job...only to someone else who would understand it because that person has been there and done it.

We aren't unprofessional, nor do we exercise bad judgement, or even questionable judgement when we work those fires, use those airfields, or carry those loads. I look at every load with a fresh eye, adjusting the load and my use of it according to the very fluid and dynamic conditions that bear on the operation. That's part of that same judgement we're paid for.

It's typical of ag work, and typical of fire, which is part of ag work. It may bother some that we use the full capabilities of the airplane, but then again, it's part of the job, and it's what we get paid to do. Until those that are bothered are put in the position of being required to do what we do, then they needn't be concerned.

 

[Typhoon1244]

This thread reminds me of another that got roaring here about a year ago. This is what I learned then: the kinds of flying many of us do are very, very different from one another. Flying checks in a Baron requires a completely different mind-set from doing flight test in a Citation X.

If I were riding co-pilot for Avbug, and we lost an engine while fighting a fire and I insisted on declaring an emergency, he'd punch me in the ear. What would it accomplish? Our situation was an emergency the moment we took off.

If Avbug were in my right seat and we lost an engine while taking fifty people from Dallas to El Paso, and he refused to declare an emergency, I'd slap him in the mouth with my POH. (Our dispatcher would probably declare for us, in any case.)

The great thing about this forum is that it allows us to get some insight into the other guy's world, but be careful about trying to apply your mind-set and procedures to that world...and that goes for both the storyteller and the listener. A hotel desk clerk shouldn't deal with an intruder by sneaking up behind him and slitting his throat with a K-bar...just as a SEAL shouldn't deal with an intruder by calling the cops.

Lets be friends, people!

(This all started with a wild picture, remember?)

 

[FL717]

I have read this with interest and know NOTHING about aerial firefighting, but that was very well put Typhoon.

Avbug: I gotta go with you on this one bud. In a perfect controlled world maybe "Les Paul" would have a point, but I'm glad you are willing to go out and do the TASK AT HAND. I seriously doubt you just hop in an aircraft and head to a fire without any thought to it at all. Common sense says you don't run into a burning building, but someone has to do it .. because it their job, and they are TRAINED to do it.

For that... I thank you.

 

[katanabob]

Avbug.. when's the best time to send resumes out? (off-season?)

Have competitive requirements shifted at all post Sept-11? (Or maybe more pertinently, is anyone actually hiring?)

 

[rumpletumbler]

That would be kind of cool to have on video. A series perhaps (Sporty's would carry it) or perhaps a live streaming feed. The extreme turbulence channel. I am not poking fun I'd probably buy a video if you would make us one avbug. A nose mounted camera would be nice or for a greater challenge you could use one of those big cameras you sling over your shoulder and film the action yourself while flying, narrating, panning, zooming, bombing, banging your head on the ceiling etc. A multi-tasking maniac! Under the power lines, between the water towers, through the parking lot, down the embankment, V1, beep beep!, toot toot!, crossing the interstate (wasn't fred supposed to be blocking the traffic?), rotate! beep beep! toot toot! Theres a song in there somewhere

 

[Hovernut]

Russian Profile?

...that doesn't look like 35' off the departure end!

 

[avbug]

It was 35' in the cockpit

We did run a camera on a 4Y a few years ago, doing some filming for (I believe) the discovery channel. It doesn't look the same on camera. Ours was under the nose facing aft; they wanted shots of the retardant leaving the airplane, with the fire in the background. I guess it worked out for them, but I didn't think it was very impressive.

Best time for resume's is November through January or February. Resume's are okay, but you really need to be visiting the office of each company in person...wait until the chief pilot is back off contract before you go. In ag work (fire, too), resume's are okay, but don't mean much. Meeting you does. You also need to follow up constantly, and be willing to accept a job cleaning a shop floor, turning wrenches, washing airplanes, or flying a parts airplane initially to get your foot in the door.

September 11th didn't affect us so much, with respect to hiring. The market was flooded with pilots, but not qualified pilots...everybody enters as a copilot. Most tanker operators are unwilling or very hesitant to hire anyone with an airline or military background, so it didn't change the nature of who gets hired, or when. I should qualify that last statement by noting that a number of former military and some former airline folks are in the business, and at least one current major airline pilot is flying fire right now...but by and large we've found too high an attrition rate by folks from those sectors quitting mid-season (the unpardonable sin), or being unable to accept the fire environment.

What has put a crimp in hiring is the loss of 11 airplanes last year. That put 30 pilots who were qualified in tankers on the street, and meant that it's hard to compete for someone coming in. Positions will still open, but for someone trying to get a foot in the door, it's not easy (never has been). Considering it may take 10 years to train someone to upgrade to PIC in some cases, when a choice must be made between a new applicant and an initial attack carded pilot, it's not much of a choice. Bad news for those trying to get in.

The good news is that there are a lot of old timers on the way out, and fresh blood is always needed. It does take time. You may find that you need to get into an air attack platform flying a baron or commander for a year or two or three first. Getting a mechanic certificate with both airframe and powerplant ratings is a real plus...almost mandatory in most cases as you will be working on what you fly (you break it, you fix it). Come to the biannual convention in Reno and make some contacts in person. That sort of thing.

Typhoon, there's a list of people to consider who want to hit me in the mouth. It used to be first come, first serve, but I'm organized now. On arrival, take a number, I'll be with you as quickly as possible.

I wouldn't punch you in the ear, but when you got done talking on the radio, I'd politely ask if we could continue flying the airplane now.

Hotel clerks shouldn't carry Kbars. Too big. I'm not against them taking down intruders, though. As for SEALs, if they're on US soil, they really ought to be making that call. Posse Comitadus and all that.

We really do have them block traffic when we're dropping across the interstate. In some cases, we really are that low. And yes, two weeks ago, there was talk of work beneath the powerlines. It happens.

Let's be friends? Don't know about that, but I promise to put away the kabar while we talk.

 

[100LL... Again!]

Ive had pilots who have never done anything except be a CFI and fly 121 tell me that frieght flying is dangerous and freight dogs are a bunch of risk-takers, and unprofessional to boot.

There is no doubt that check hauling in a piston twin is operating with less margin of safety than jet 121 ops. But jets have crashed too, right? Therefoe it is a matter of personal risk acceptance. What Avbug does might reasonably be called dangerous. My impression is that heaccepts that risk level with eyes wide open, and with knowledge that there is little margin for error. That isnot foolish - just a different personal risk level.

If someone does not acknowledge that the risk is there and does something that is on the edge, then you can make the argument that they are an idiot. Using the critics' logic, anyone who goes into the Marines or becomes a cop in a large city is foolhardy. Great way to get shot at, right. Are you ready to call these people dangerous idiots? I'm not. I've seldom seen former frieght dogs describe the job as really dangerous. Risky? A little. All flying is risky to some extent.

The difference between a person who simply has a high tolerance for risk and a fool is that the fool does not know or will not acknowledge the risk.

What's the last thing a redneck says before he dies?
Hey y'all - watch this!

For some, risk is necessary to feel like they're really livin'.