'We need our own Elvis': Former fire chiefs warn Australia is unprepared for bushfire peril   :(

March 12, 2019
The Age


Australia’s firefighting capacity will fall short unless it buys its own fleet of water-bombing aircraft rather than borrowing them from overseas because monster blazes burning simultaneously across the globe are becoming the norm, two respected former fire chiefs have warned.

However the federal government says purchasing a national firefighting air fleet would be too expensive and current leasing arrangements are working.

Catastrophic bushfires destroyed homes and devastated parts of Tasmania and Victoria this summer, and the timing of intense winter bushfires in southern NSW last year left experts shocked.


The Erickson air crane, aka Elvis, battles a blaze in Victoria. Two former fire chiefs are concerned such craft will soon be unavailable to Australia.

Former NSW Fire and Rescue commissioner Greg Mullins and former Tasmanian Fire Service chief Mike Brown – who together have 90 years’ firefighting experience – say increasingly overlapping fire seasons in the southern and northern hemispheres, driven by climate change, mean Australia must procure its own fleet of large air tankers and other craft – some possibly operated by the military.


Large water-bombing aircraft such as the "Elvis" air crane helicopter are typically leased from the United States each summer.

However Mr Brown said northern hemisphere locations such as California have begun to suffer year-round fire seasons, and the release of the equipment to Australia in summer cannot be assured.   :o

For example during the destructive 2013-14 bushfire season, Victoria was unable to lease the Elvis helicopter as it was being used overseas.

"It’s become glaringly evident that the [northern and southern hemisphere] fire seasons now overlap, on a regular basis and by quite a margin," Mr Brown said.

"I think you’ve got your head in the sand if you are not accepting that things are really changing out there with the climate.   :(

"There’s going to be a competing demand for these types of specialist resources, and someone is going to fall short … it's time we start looking at building up our own capacity."


He said the military’s experience with running aircraft fleets meant it could partner with fire services to operate large air tankers.

It reportedly costs $20,000 a day to keep the Elvis air crane on stand-by and $11,000 a day to operate. Purchased new, the aircraft cost up to $40 million each.

The NSW government last year committed to procuring a large air tanker and two fixed-wing planes, at a cost of $26.3 million. The air tanker will be the first to be permanently stationed in Australia.

Mr Mullins, former Fire and Rescue NSW chief, said the purchase showed officials were worried about leasing such aircraft in future.

He said current and former fire chiefs had canvassed a "horror scenario" of simultaneous fire seasons across Australia, meaning traditional resource-sharing between states was not possible and "everything gets out of hand".

This summer's Tasmanian bushfires revealed tensions over how limited aerial firefighting equipment should be used. Environmentalists questioned why large air tankers were not used to fight fires in remote bush areas, arguing that while protecting lives and property was critical, natural World Heritage sites should also be saved.

Mr Mullins said large air tankers were "becoming quite crucial in the new fire environment, and we just haven’t got enough". 

"The time is coming when Australia, federally, needs a fleet of heavy water bombing aircraft. We are about the only country with a bad bushfire problem that doesn't [have its own fleet]," he said.

A spokeswoman for federal Emergency Management Minister Linda Reynolds said peaks of the northern and southern hemisphere bushfire seasons "will still normally be some months apart" and three-quarters of the 140 specialised aircraft contracted by Australian states remained in the country year-round.


"State and territory experts advise continued leasing of firefighting aircraft is appropriate because of the very high cost of purchasing and maintaining specialist firefighting aircraft," she said.

"Leasing offers greater flexibility to adjust resourcing levels to forecast risk and to introduce technological advancements."

The National Aerial Firefighting Centre, of which every state and territory is a member, helps co-ordinate the national bushfire response.

NSW Rural Fire Service Commissioner Shane Fitzsimmons said the federal government provides about $15 million a year for the centre to engage local and international water bombing and specialist aircraft for use by fire agencies, and an extra $11 million was committed this season.

He said the centre "has recently submitted a business case to the federal government for increased funding to engage additional water bombing aircraft"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU5xxh5UX4U

China implemented a Missile Strike Policy against Australia a few years back when they 'hacked' into Australia's National Security Agency (ASIO).
The Policy is to fire light-weight but long distance 'petrol-bomb' missiles in strategic parts of Australia that will instigate massive bush-fires all around the country. The Policy will be the 'first wave' of attack against Australia - to set it ablaze and let the nation 'burn'. I'm pretty sure you all know what the secret code-word that the Chinese called this Policy  ;)

We never had the need for these aircraft until the Greenies objected to backburning and other proven control methods

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 13^th, 2019 at 9:48pm:

We never had the need for these aircraft until the Greenies objected to backburning and other proven control methods

Some Greenies may have.  Most Greenies recognise the utility of proper bushfire control methods, Baron.

Nowadays, backburning still remains a valid bushfire control method and it is still used extensively when the winds are in the right direction.  Essentially what they are doing is creating a firebreak - an area or patch of bare ground which inhibits the spread of a bushfire.

Are you sure you aren't mistaken undergrowth removal with small, local fires for the method  of "backburning" where a fire is lit in front of an out of control bushfire to deprive it of fuel?   ::)

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 13^th, 2019 at 9:48pm:

We never had the need for these aircraft until the Greenies objected to backburning and other proven control methods

Really?

We never had major bushfires before the green political movement got underway in the early '70s?

What about the Victorian bushfires in 1969 which destroyed 230 houses?

And Tasmania's 'Black Tuesday', in 1967, which destroyed 1,300 homes and killed 62 people?

'Black Friday' in Victoria, in 1939: 71 dead, and 3,700 homes destroyed.

All the Greenies' fault?

Yes. Any 'extreme' Greenie attitudes is nothing but a backlash against all the 'extreme' over-fishing, deforestation that has been done down through the decades.
I've seen many Greenies in action who are supportive of Forestry, Fishing and more - but just want it all conducted in a conservative, educational, sustainable nature and proof of seeing 'rejuvenation' measures taken.

There is many who see the lack of fire-farming/back-burning as having changed the landscape for the better. Rather than semi-dried out 'Parklands' just for the Emu/Kangaroos to be easily hunted and grassed. There is much 'lush' and vibrant areas of Forest beyond the 'scrubby' look - that appear almost 'Rain Forest' like.

Maybe Australia will be like the rest of the world, in that the rejuvenation is 'rain' based, rather than 'fire' based. That would save a lot of trouble 'long term', but until then - there are many parts that need to be back-burned still. I can't deny that.

Live in a Fire Prone Zone.

Then live in a more fire proof Straw Bale House for starters.  :P

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 1:30pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 9:48pm: We never had the need for these aircraft until the Greenies objected to backburning and other proven control methods Some Greenies may have.  Most Greenies recognise the utility of proper bushfire control methods, Baron. Nowadays, backburning still remains a valid bushfire control method and it is still used extensively when the winds are in the right direction.  Essentially what they are doing is creating a firebreak - an area or patch of bare ground which inhibits the spread of a bushfire. Are you sure you aren't mistaken undergrowth removal with small, local fires for the method  of "backburning" where a fire is lit in front of an out of control bushfire to deprive it of fuel?   ::)

""owadays, backburning still remains a valid bushfire control method and it is still used extensively when the winds are in the right direction.""

A few tree species in Australia benefit directly from it  in regards to seed germination

BigP wrote on Mar 14^th, 2019 at 1:59pm:

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 14th, 2019 at 1:30pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 13th, 2019 at 9:48pm: We never had the need for these aircraft until the Greenies objected to backburning and other proven control methods Some Greenies may have.  Most Greenies recognise the utility of proper bushfire control methods, Baron. Nowadays, backburning still remains a valid bushfire control method and it is still used extensively when the winds are in the right direction.  Essentially what they are doing is creating a firebreak - an area or patch of bare ground which inhibits the spread of a bushfire. Are you sure you aren't mistaken undergrowth removal with small, local fires for the method  of "backburning" where a fire is lit in front of an out of control bushfire to deprive it of fuel?   ::) ""Nowadays, backburning still remains a valid bushfire control method and it is still used extensively when the winds are in the right direction."" A few tree species in Australia benefit directly from it  in regards to seed germination

I think they have evolved to benefit from bushfires in general.   It is how the eucalypts have come to dominate the continent.

Yes - that's true about the Eucalypts.
But there are a lot of areas that are now too lush to catch fire unless under extreme conditions thanks to a lack of 'thinning' out by fire-farming and back-burning.
Sadly, there are vast areas now, that are not like the past 'manicured' Parklands that the Aboriginals of old provided. It's these areas that will take much longer to 'lush' out and thus only provide more 'fuel' for a Wild-Fire.

It's a hard call, as there is no 'blanket' method.
Some places need to be left alone, other's need back-burning and some even more than others.

Personally, I think Whitey's need to 'smarten' up and innovate a living standard that can rise above the 'natural needs' of the environment, if they want to live in such areas... unless they cover it all with cement and tar ?  ::) ::)

Build fire-proof habitation and just let nature take its course, without any disastrous consequences.