Australia on fire

Well raking leaves and cutting back the dead grasses and clutter would help, it's that sort of dry tinder which catches the sparks and causes another fire. Left to collect on the ground this is what will spread the fire to new areas and allow it to catch a hold on trees and other fuel sources which are not quite so dry.

So perhaps, actually, whether you like it or not, the US President had a valid point.
So perhaps, actually, whether you like it or not, the US President had a valid point.
The scale of the fuel load problem is simply too big to rake and remove. The East Coast is basically on big forest. The focus needs to be on providing fire breaks around towns and habitation. The fires aren’t spreading on the ground; they’re jumping forward in the treetops as eucalyptus crowns explode.

Dry eucalyptus leaves have a calorific value approaching that of petrol. They don’t burn, they explode. And many of the tree crowns are dry.
 
What was expected for today in NSW alone - gives some idea of the extent of areas burned.

EN1bIA1UUAAtz8C.jpg


EN1a2XPVUAA4S-R.jpg
 

Dicky Ticker

War Hero
So I'm not sure how to read this one. The Woke BBC, forever pushing environmentally and green theories, is explaining how the indigenous Australians have the perfect solution to bushfires.

Which apparently is to burn the land to reduce the fuel load.

I'm not sure what the difference is between this "cultural" burning and the modern day controlled burns, but I wonder how those who advocated to stop clearing and controlled burns for the sake of the little animals will feel when the ancient and wise peoples tell them to stick a match to it...

Why Aboriginal planners say the bush 'needs to burn'
 
So I'm not sure how to read this one. The Woke BBC, forever pushing environmentally and green theories, is explaining how the indigenous Australians have the perfect solution to bushfires.

Which apparently is to burn the land to reduce the fuel load.

I'm not sure what the difference is between this "cultural" burning and the modern day controlled burns, but I wonder how those who advocated to stop clearing and controlled burns for the sake of the little animals will feel when the ancient and wise peoples tell them to stick a match to it...

Why Aboriginal planners say the bush 'needs to burn'
I think it's probably less to do with burning per se, more that one group cannot be criticised, ever, under any circumstances and the other group must be criticised all the time, regardless of the issue.
 
So I'm not sure how to read this one. The Woke BBC, forever pushing environmentally and green theories, is explaining how the indigenous Australians have the perfect solution to bushfires.

Which apparently is to burn the land to reduce the fuel load.

I'm not sure what the difference is between this "cultural" burning and the modern day controlled burns, but I wonder how those who advocated to stop clearing and controlled burns for the sake of the little animals will feel when the ancient and wise peoples tell them to stick a match to it...

Why Aboriginal planners say the bush 'needs to burn'
On a different tack,the fires on the Yorkshire Moors last year were probably due to a lack of controlled burning. Moorland used to be burned.This cleared the crap out, killed any disease and the new growth shoots were a good food source for the grouse.
Of course it will soon be banned, for environmental reasons.
 
So I'm not sure how to read this one. The Woke BBC, forever pushing environmentally and green theories, is explaining how the indigenous Australians have the perfect solution to bushfires.

Which apparently is to burn the land to reduce the fuel load.

I'm not sure what the difference is between this "cultural" burning and the modern day controlled burns, but I wonder how those who advocated to stop clearing and controlled burns for the sake of the little animals will feel when the ancient and wise peoples tell them to stick a match to it...

Why Aboriginal planners say the bush 'needs to burn'
Oh yes, we get the same in Canada, as our Indians are "noble stewards of the land".
 
Journalist Falls For Drop Bear Prank

My Aussie sister tried that with me.
Some place near the Ettamogah Pub nr Albury. Now closed.:(
Except my dreaded bear decided to fall fast asleep as I carried her around,,,,,,so that fkd it.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure which of the Australian fire threads is the canonical one, so I'll take a chance on this one.
As Australia burns, a plan for a joint seaborne firefighting unit is getting a second look
There is apparently a proposal for Australia and Canada to set up joint water bomber squadrons, based on the premise that the fire seasons in Australian and Canada occur at opposite times of the year.

The proposal involves using a sort of aircraft carrier with a capacity of 14 planes to transport the planes across the Pacific as required. Apparently flying them between the two countries would be a major logistical problem due to some of the countries they would have to pass through.



The proposal was originally submitted to the Canadian government and shared informally with Australia by Davie Shipbuilding and Bombardier in 2016 as an unsolicited proposal.

That didn't go anywhere at that time, but apparently the Canadian government has very recently dusted off the proposal and asked Viking Air (a Canadian aircraft manufacturer who bought the rights to Bombardier's water bombers) about it.

Under the proposal, Canada and Australia would share the annual cost of $145 million as a lease, with the companies backing it providing aircraft, ships, and crews. Other possibilities are also open to investigation.

Water bombers have been used for many years in Canada and Europe, with the purpose built CL-415 being the most common. I believe it is the world's only purpose built water bomber, and has gone through a variety of improved models over the years.

Here's an Australian news channel saying that more water bombers are needed (it does not mention the above proposal).


Here's some water bombers in action, scooping and then going off to a fire. They are used extensively in Canada, where they typically scoop from lakes and rivers. They are also very heavily used in Europe, where they scoop from reservoirs and from the sea. They can typically deliver a lot more water on fires than helicopters because of greater capacity and endurance or conventional aircraft because they can make quick circuits between the fire and the source of water rather than having to go back to an airport to refill.

Here's the manufacturer's web site.
 
I'm not sure which of the Australian fire threads is the canonical one, so I'll take a chance on this one.
As Australia burns, a plan for a joint seaborne firefighting unit is getting a second look
There is apparently a proposal for Australia and Canada to set up joint water bomber squadrons, based on the premise that the fire seasons in Australian and Canada occur at opposite times of the year.

The proposal involves using a sort of aircraft carrier with a capacity of 14 planes to transport the planes across the Pacific as required. Apparently flying them between the two countries would be a major logistical problem due to some of the countries they would have to pass through.



The proposal was originally submitted to the Canadian government and shared informally with Australia by Davie Shipbuilding and Bombardier in 2016 as an unsolicited proposal.

That didn't go anywhere at that time, but apparently the Canadian government has very recently dusted off the proposal and asked Viking Air (a Canadian aircraft manufacturer who bought the rights to Bombardier's water bombers) about it.

Under the proposal, Canada and Australia would share the annual cost of $145 million as a lease, with the companies backing it providing aircraft, ships, and crews. Other possibilities are also open to investigation.

Water bombers have been used for many years in Canada and Europe, with the purpose built CL-415 being the most common. I believe it is the world's only purpose built water bomber, and has gone through a variety of improved models over the years.

Here's an Australian news channel saying that more water bombers are needed (it does not mention the above proposal).


Here's some water bombers in action, scooping and then going off to a fire. They are used extensively in Canada, where they typically scoop from lakes and rivers. They are also very heavily used in Europe, where they scoop from reservoirs and from the sea. They can typically deliver a lot more water on fires than helicopters because of greater capacity and endurance or conventional aircraft because they can make quick circuits between the fire and the source of water rather than having to go back to an airport to refill.

Here's the manufacturer's web site.
Seems to make sense as the insurance costs for the next few years will be astronomical as they recover their payouts, all Australians will end up paying for it, be sure the insurance companies profits won’t be down for long.

I haven’t really looked at the prices but I am sure if it were viable a private company would have done it?

It wouldn’t surprise me that our short minded politicians will do nothing, it’s all burned already so we should be OK for at least another 3 years, let’s kick the can down the road again.
 
I don't know when that article was written but as of 6th January some 4.9 million hectares were burnt off in NSW so hardly 10 times more than the current bushfires.
And temperatures have exceed that recently with, unfortunately, more to come.

And, according to some reports, 183 people awaiting charges of arson related crimes.
1579072187160.png


1579072274247.png
 
Seems to make sense as the insurance costs for the next few years will be astronomical as they recover their payouts, all Australians will end up paying for it, be sure the insurance companies profits won’t be down for long.

I haven’t really looked at the prices but I am sure if it were viable a private company would have done it?

It wouldn’t surprise me that our short minded politicians will do nothing, it’s all burned already so we should be OK for at least another 3 years, let’s kick the can down the road again.
I'm not sure what you are talking about with respect to a private company. A private company has proposed it. The government has to pay for it though, as the government are the ones who own the forests that burn and so are the ones who are responsible for controlling the fires.
 

Dicky Ticker

War Hero
It would be interesting to see where those graphs came from, the first one is particularly useful now. As for the second, the spikes in precipitation mean the grass and shrubs grow like mad, turning everything nice and green. The droughts that follow mean it all dies off and just lies there as fuel unless it is cleared away. That may in part explain the spike in fires a year or so after the heavy rains
 
I'm not sure what you are talking about with respect to a private company. A private company has proposed it. The government has to pay for it though, as the government are the ones who own the forests that burn and so are the ones who are responsible for controlling the fires.
Although called 'National Parks' the forests burning are a state responsibility.

E2A: by responsibility I mean the responsibility to manage fuel loads (on the ground) and maintain access to and within the parks. This hasn't happened; fuel loads have accumulated (often identified as a problem one or two years ago), access by the public has been prevented by locked barriers and fire trails have been allowed to deteriorate and/or be blocked by fallen timber.
 
It would be interesting to see where those graphs came from, the first one is particularly useful now. As for the second, the spikes in precipitation mean the grass and shrubs grow like mad, turning everything nice and green. The droughts that follow mean it all dies off and just lies there as fuel unless it is cleared away. That may in part explain the spike in fires a year or so after the heavy rains
Canada has big fires as well. They're a natural part of the environment. The dominant tree species in northern Canada in fact require fire as part of their natural reproductive cycle.

What makes one fire worse than another is often more a matter of where it is than how big it is. A fire burning in an area where nobody lives is primarily an matter of the value of the loss of harvestable timber. When they affect inhabited areas then that's when the big problems start to stack up. When you get a big fire the main effort tends to focus on trying to keep it away from property, because it's hopeless to expect to extinguish the main blaze.

Man made factors can affect fires, but it's a complex issue with many natural factors coming into play as well. You get a really bad year when a number of those factors line up together.

There are things that Australia can do to mitigate the effects that fire will have on people, but they'll always have fires unless the place turns into more of a desert than it already is.
 

Ritch

LE
I saw this on Twitter the other day of just what some of the guys are facing...

IMG_20200105_162818.jpg


Incidentally, the helicopter in the picture is one of several from the US. It is one of the Sky Crane types that can haul containers amongst other loads but these have been converted to hold a massive water tank and are able to hover, drop a hose into water and refill rapidly. They can be caught on FlightRadar along with some C130 water bombers.
 

Latest Threads

Top