Možda nam ipak treba strucno lice tj. vatrogasac da nam pojasni? R we missing something?

Ja godinama gledam šta se ovde desava sa tim pozarima. Silni ljudi izgubise sve sto su imali, silna live stock strada svaki put, native wildlife, priroda, izginu ljudi, ostanu invalidi itd.

I šta vidim na tv, vidim one chopere kako nadlecu sa buckets i onim cevima iz kojih prosipaju vodu. Pa vatrogasne kamione, totalno ludilo. Sad, ovdasnje vatrene stihije su sigurno drugacije nego one na Jadranu. Kada vatra zahvati neki bush u Au i krene da unistava tu su u pitanju desetine hiljada hektara. Razmišljam kako bi bilo možda bolje da postoje avioni koji bi odozgo sipali vodu, presecali putanje vatre a onda oni sa zemlje napadali sa kamionima. A ispada da im je onaj Elvis choper highlight u borbi sa pozarima? Zar ne mogu da uzmu na lease avione sa severne hemisfere kada je kod njih zima i drže ih ovde na stand by? Recimo jedan broj aviona a da naprave ugovor da mogu da dovezu još aviona ako krenu pozari za koje je potrebno vise letelica? Najskuplji su zivoti, imovina, priroda. Ako je već takav problem sa pozarima, nešto treba i mora da se menja?

A za piromane bih napravila specijalan zakon, preselo bi im majcino mleko za ceo zivot.

Ko je ovde blesav??

Ground crews essential to firefighting January 10, 2013 12:00AM It is encouraging that aerial firefighting is being debated in these columns, but disappointing that some letter-writers would rebut claims never made. In my article („Fire support from air long overdue”, 7/1), it was never asserted that water bombing could remove the need for ground-based fire crews. Nor was it claimed that aircraft could extinguish bushfires, and certainly not on their own. But a squadron attack directed to a major outbreak can deliver concentrated suppression not possible on the ground, or with helicopters. Many bushfires occur within operational distance of useful water bodies, since the Bombadier can fly along twisting rivers and scoop from dams with only two metres of water in them. The tragic fact remains Bombadiers could have saved most if not all the property in Dunalley by drenching the town. There has never been a serious trial of specialised fixed-wing aircraft in Australia, and nobody seems interested in promoting one. Geoffrey Luck, Killara, NSW

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10858225

Ne znam zašto neće da izadje ceo tekst. Ovo je kompletan, svaka cast ovom coveku.

Fire support from air long overdue GEOFFREY LUCK January 07, 2013 12:00AM  15 comments ONCE again rural communities are being devastated by bushfires that the firefighting authorities are powerless to control. Yet the strategies employed reflect the resistance of entrenched bureaucracies to modern methods and the unwillingness of governments to fund them. Over decades, a volunteer army has been deployed in what have nearly always been lost wars. Thousands of buildings have been destroyed -- some, like Mount Stromlo, national treasures; hundreds have died; there has been huge cost to government, insurance companies, communities and individuals. Yet every fire season, the generals commanding this army order their troops „over the top” in fruitless charges against the enemy -- crown fires in volatile eucalypt forest in inaccessible country. The most devastating fires in Australia's history -- the Black Saturday fires in Victoria in February 2009 -- took 173 lives and cost millions in property damage, yet the focus of the royal commission came down to what individuals should or should not do when uncontrollable firestorms threaten. For example, Katharine Haynes of RMIT University, a researcher for Bushfire CRC, reasonably concluded from studying this and other fires over the past century that residents in risk-prone areas should prepare, stay and defend, or leave early.Advertisement What was not scrutinised was the basic concept of rural fire services built primarily on forces operating and controlled at ground level, hampered by untrafficable trails in inaccessible terrain and dependent for water supply on cumbersome, unmanoeuvrable vehicles. Aerial attack, the principal arm of forest and wildfire fighters in other countries, is still regarded, somewhat grudgingly, as an ancillary support service. For years, vested interests opposed the introduction of aircraft. Until that attitude changes, no government can claim to be taking bushfire-fighting seriously. Greece may be bankrupt, but it supports a squadron of eight specialised water bombers. In the fire season they are controlled by an airborne observer who prioritises the firefronts and directs the attack. Yet years after this strategy was proven, the NSW Rural Fire Service played down the role of aerial support. In the inquiry into the 2002 new year fires in the Shoalhaven district, the written submission of the RFS said: „It is an understatement to suggest that aircraft and their reputed ability to extinguish fires is surrounded more by myth than realism.” Former commissioner Phil Koperberg notoriously opposed aircraft. The lease of the S64 Sikorsky Aircranes had been delayed by bitter opposition on the grounds of cost, because aerial firefighting was always represented as an expensive addition to, instead of replacement for, the investment in the huge volunteer organisations. In December 2006, as fires were burning in Tasmania and Victoria, I wrote to then prime minister John Howard and opposition leader Kevin Rudd, asking them to sponsor the establishment of a national firefighting squadron of water bombers. I nominated the specialist Canadian CL-415 (now designated Bombardier 415) used in 10 countries. When I lived in Italy, I helped set up a local bushfire brigade to deal with small grass and scrub fires, but when a serious fire in the pine and chestnut forest on the hills threatened, it was the Canadair water bombers that saved our village. Canadair operators in several northern hemisphere countries were willing to lease their aircraft to Australia during our bushfire season and their winter. Neither Howard nor Rudd replied to my letters. The huge Sikorsky/Erickson S64 Aircranes that Australia leases from California may look impressive, but they represent gesture politics. What counts in water-bombing is turnaround time and load. Each of the giant helicopters can carry 9500 litres of water, but they take almost a minute to suck it up; they fly slowly to the fire at 100km/hour; and they can remain airborne for less than three hours before refuelling. The Bombardier, a high-wing twin-turboprop aircraft, can scoop up its 6000 litres in 12 seconds, skimming any lake, river or the ocean at 130km/hour, fly to the fire at 300km/hour, dump and return for more while the Skycrane is still lumbering along with its first load. A single 415's ability to deliver 80,000 litres an hour within a 4km radius of its water supply means a squadron could have saved Mount Stromlo in 2003 -- as well as most of the 500 houses destroyed or damaged in the Canberra fires. The Victorian townships destroyed in 2009 were within operational reach of Lake Eildon, 60km away. Both Los Angeles and San Diego have leased Bombardiers to fight their wildfires, but the US has so many mothballed aircraft that their place is increasingly taken by surplus Douglas DC-6 and DC-10 airliners, and ex-military Lockheed Hercules, Neptune and Orion planes. All are more effective and cost-effective than the light helicopters, which can lift only about 1000 litres but are commonly used in Australia because they are available and can attach a bucket without expensive conversion. Every time bushfires take their toll in Australia, there are loud lamentations and even louder excuses. Politicians of all stripes hurry to sympathise with survivors. This is not to criticise them or decry the efforts of the „orange army” -- the thousands of volunteers who risk their lives at ground level -- but isn't it time for a complete rethink about bush firefighting? Every other country with serious seasonal wildfire risk has moved to make aerial attack the principal weapon against forest fire; only in Australia have vested interests rejected the strategy. Shouldn't Australia be funding a modern aerial firefighting force as the principal arm, with the volunteer infantry used for what they do best -- containment, local protection and fuel reduction? Perhaps this time we might get a debate. At $35 million each, a squadron of six Bombardier 415s would cost the commonwealth government only $210m. This is peanuts compared with the recent waste in federal programs. Geoffrey Luck worked for the ABC for 26 years as a senior reporter and news editor.

Gde to piše da avioni uzimaju vodu samo sa mirnih povrsina? Ovaj ABC novinar je tako lepo napisao, uzeo mi je sve do jedne reci iz glave.

Za miniranje topika sleduje tretman mokrim uzetom sa pet cvorova u trajanju 15 puta ova stvar do daske:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_Rd8fSU3DY

OK
Ako određeni avioni sa većim kapacitetom vode ne mogu da budu efikasni, zašto ona ne utrostruce br. letelica koje već koriste? Tri puta vise, 4x, 5x... Niko me neće ubediti da Tasmanija nije mogla da prođe sa manje stete da je bilo vise akcije iz vazduha.

Valjda je brze skliznuti niz sipku nego se strmoglaviti niz stepenice? Ono, svi navale na stepenice pa zastoj. Gore sede u sobi za dezuranje pa kad dobiju uzbunu oni pravo u rupu. Ne znam zaista, to je nejasno kao i tesnoca „garaze” za kamion. Trebalo bi to ispitati da ne živimo u neznanju. :)