Yeah, but as I said, I’m not sure he understands it - it’s more a cultivated instinct. He’s done it all his life, and it’s the one thing he’s successful at, but does he have an intellectual understanding of the dynamics of what he’s doing? I suspect that eludes him.
4 Likes
The TV news choppers have a much faster response time, usually, than aerial attack. (-:
Certainly faster than the USFS fixed-wing fleet, which can take all damn day to get their asses in gear.
Fortunately, here in LA, we have the world’s largest aerial attack fleet – we don’t have to wait around for the permission from the feds, and our helicopters are fueled and ready to go 24x7.
When the disastrous Station Fire burned most of the Angeles National Forest a couple of years ago, what should have been a minor incident snuffed out by immediate aggressive aerial attack turned into a major conflagration precisely because the feds were reluctant to approve ‘unnecessary spending’,’ wasting resources on what was, after all, a minor incident with ground crews already on-scene.
All In all, they spent a shitload of money on that fire because of misplaced priorities, So much for “saving taxpayer dollars.”
The only way to conclude that early, aggressive aerial attack is “a waste of money” is after the fact.
Will the savings from the the times that you’re right balance out the expenses of the times you’re wrong?
Can you prove that?
IME, the amount of equipment that shows up even for small urban fires is usually overkill. But that’s a good thing. In firefighting, “more than you need” is generally the right amount. (-:
(Definitely beats “less than you need”!)
Not the time for penny-pinching and worrying about budgetary bottom lines.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
