Notices
Like Tree31Likes

Once More Southern Cal on Fire.

Old 11-14-2018, 06:47 AM
  #81  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,834
Default

It will be interesting to see the investigation unfold. If it is determined that their equipment did actually start the fire, I wonder how much liability would be associated to them, rather than to the state for not managing or preparing for the conditions that they experience EVERY SINGLE YEAR, which would have allowed this to go from a small, containable issue to a major disaster.

If it's leaning or determined they have ALL the liability, they should just close up shop until they can figure out what to do. Imagine all the savings if no one has to pay for electricity (they'll just have to generate it on their own!!)

On a slightly different but related subject.... are they flying that new 747 air tanker on any of these fires?? They held off for YEARS in certifying it for putting out fires, yet it has significantly better ability to fight fires without potentially hurting people on the ground or damaging structures like to normal tankers do when they drop one or two TONS of water. The new tanker sprays it out and can cover a much larger area. I've only seen video of the normal helicopters, smaller planes and one DC-10 tanker in any of the recent video. You'd think they'd have that 747 flying 24/7 on these latest fires.
km1125 is online now  
Old 11-14-2018, 08:12 AM
  #82  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,217
Default

Not familiar with state statutes in California, but in Florida they are supposed to prove gross negligence for you to be held liable. For example, it would almost have to be a situation in which you knew a damaging wildfire would result from an activity and continued the activity anyway. It is easier for them to stick you with the suppression costs, which can be substantial, but more difficult to find you liable for damages if you are in compliance with other regulations.

Difficult to put legal liability on the state for lack of preparation.
raystein is offline  
Old 11-14-2018, 08:37 AM
  #83  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,221
Default

Originally Posted by km1125 View Post
If it is determined that their equipment did actually start the fire, I wonder how much liability would be associated to them, rather than to the state for not managing or preparing for the conditions that they experience EVERY SINGLE YEAR, which would have allowed this to go from a small, containable issue to a major disaster.
To which conditions are you referring, and what management practices do you propose? Our drought, combined with high wind velocities, is no more manageable than weather conditions anywhere else. If building homes in fire prone areas is singled out as a manageable issue, then so too is building homes in flood prone areas and in the path of hurricanes. It seems to me that singling out the State of California for fault in the face of a natural disaster is unfair.
Reel 007 likes this.
Pez Vela is offline  
Old 11-14-2018, 08:48 AM
  #84  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,834
Default

Originally Posted by Pez Vela View Post
To which conditions are you referring, and what management practices do you propose? Our drought, combined with high wind velocities, is no more manageable than weather conditions anywhere else. If building homes in fire prone areas is singled out as a manageable issue, then so too is building homes in flood prone areas and in the path of hurricanes. It seems to me that singling out the State of California for fault in the face of a natural disaster is unfair.
CERTAINLY NOT singling out California on this, they are just the current topic for discussion based on the recent events.

California has had Santa Anna winds for centuries and long ago learned about the combinations of fire and winds. Over the last ~100 years, have they been getting better at doing something about the risk to property and life, or have they been getting worse? Based on the available data, I'd say WORSE...and MUCH WORSE. Despite SOME efforts at control, they also have efforts that are VERY counterproductive to that goal.

Then they make some moronic statement about this all being due to "climate change" and think it's the federal government's job to help with the recovery and restoration.

I do think it's just as absurd to build developments in flood zones (think some of the developments in Illinois right around the Mississippi flooding) and in barrier islands. You want to live there, fine, but don't expect any help from the feds when it all goes to hell.

Last edited by km1125; 11-14-2018 at 10:09 AM.
km1125 is online now  
Old 11-14-2018, 12:58 PM
  #85  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location:
Posts: 444
Default

The 747 is flying out of McClellan on a call when needed basis. Wrong about their ability to hurt people versus smaller tankers. 20,000 gals of retardant dropped to low and too fast is devastating. It looks like a bulldozer dug a trench and will easily topple large trees. I'm on the DC-10 and familiar with the hazards.
chasvb1 is offline  
Old 11-14-2018, 03:39 PM
  #86  
Admirals Club Admiral's Club Member
THT sponsor
Marine Advertiser
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 21,786
Default

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ble-blaze.html

First persons to see the fire....
semperfifishing is online now  
Old 11-14-2018, 05:37 PM
  #87  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: somewhere over there
Posts: 3,999
Default

They have been using the 747 and the 10 most of the year. Amazing that it only takes about 30 minutes to refill. Turn around time is less than an hour. (plus flying time to/from McClellan) On Tuesday, the 10 got in 4 drops.

As with most operations, it takes a lot of manpower, coordination, hard dangerous work and the correct tools. The ST and 10 are always the best weapon for various reasons, but damn, they are impressive in operation.



nccoaster is online now  
Old 11-14-2018, 07:53 PM
  #88  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,834
Default

Originally Posted by chasvb1 View Post
The 747 is flying out of McClellan on a call when needed basis. Wrong about their ability to hurt people versus smaller tankers. 20,000 gals of retardant dropped to low and too fast is devastating. It looks like a bulldozer dug a trench and will easily topple large trees. I'm on the DC-10 and familiar with the hazards.
When do they do retardant vs using water?

This is what I read about the water drops:

According to Wheeler, the aircraft can be filled in 30 minutes or less. But it's not just the speed and size that make the SuperTanker powerful; its pressurized tank system atomizes the water when it's released, rather than just dumping it, like a bucket.

"It doesn't break down tree limbs, it won't crush cars or buildings," Wheeler said.And a firefighter or a stranded resident who happens to be under a big dump of water from the aircraft will be fine, Wheeler said."You'll get wet," he said, "but he won't be killed."
Funny... I was searching for this thread and surprised how many other threads on here dealing with "fires in CA". Sure does seem to happen pretty frequently!
km1125 is online now  
Old 11-14-2018, 08:29 PM
  #89  
Senior MemberCaptains Club Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location:
Posts: 444
Default

Gravity or pressurized the intent for both systems is to fall like rain to prevent shadowing. Any aircraft can cause damage as mentioned above. Mr Wheeler WAS the CEO.
chasvb1 is offline  
Old 11-15-2018, 04:35 AM
  #90  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 2,217
Default

The last big fire in the okefenokee a couple of years ago they had two short turbofan tankers at the little airport by my folks house. Looked like BAe 146. The last really big fire I worked on they had a C 130.

I think that the red retardant is usually used in fixed wings because most of them have to land anyway to refill, while the helicopters just dip water from whatever source they can find. A management property I used to work on near the okefenokee had ponds dug with open lanes for safe accessibility by the helicopters.
raystein is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread