Exactly, I did not place too much credibility in their conclusions, as they seemed more typical EU politicization of a topic, vice analysis....

Thank you for the correction, I do believe that FDR did increase the take to huge proportions though, he was a "progressive" kind of guy. "Your chicken in my pot" as he used to say... :)

Actually, Teddy Roosevelt started the snatch, with the best intentions (like all progressives) to preserve wilderness areas as national parks. He didn't envision how out of hand that would get with his successor Presidents.

Excellent articles! Thanks!

Notes:
Cost to operate: $100K = 200K per hour. Ouch!

"Transparent governance arrangements" from the EU study made me laugh. It also made me shake my head when they failed to mention active forest management and instead blamed climate change. The other term which repeatedly appeared under "governance" was "business as usual". [cringe]

All true, it is driven by their business model, private companies doe things different from state and fed, the private seem to have better success, very few fires on Weyerhauser land in Oregon, lots on state and Fed.

The issue was being discussed in 2012 by him as well, I have not found the podcast for the recent one, unless it was a repeat from last year:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/3...

here is a description of the Evergreen Tanker, and their ultimate bankruptcy, part of it die to assurances that they could get the certification and then "hew, haw" about structural integrity over time, but that never seemed to occur tot he FAA applies to ALL planes used for this, the result was a B25 converted that folded in half a few years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergre...

Use of the 747 in Israel:

http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/Wo...

A general article about large aircraft (mainly L1011's):
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150...

In the interests of full disclosure and study, here is a 2008 article from LAT about the perception large aircraft DO NOT provide useful support:

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-wi...
and

A study done by the EU on the whole fire fighting subject including planes:

http://ec.europa.eu/echo/files/civil_...

An article on Chile in Jan 2017, mention s these planes:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/201...

And an article by NBC News (hmmm) about the use of Large Aircraft and are they efficient:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/west...

Herb, look at the above number 2, it lists the whole thing, but note they built it to give the answers the government wanted, by limiting it to small load less than 8K.

Turbulence from a fire is not crashing a 747. Stop it. Maybe there are other budget issues, but crashing is a red herring.

And the resistance it is getting boggles my mind...

Thanks for the interview. The product is effective
And will fight multi billion dollar fire destruction.

Here's an interview by Lars Larson in the PDX market with John Wheeler. Worth a listen...

https://soundcloud.com/the-lars-larso...

Potentially. The critical use of the plane in this regard is the ability to make a precision run at low speed on the target (without stalling). It would be interesting to see how it stacks up against the smaller planes in a side-by-side comparison. One could consider payload, fuel and maintenance costs, accuracy, range, etc. all at the same time.

Although the runways required are long their ability to travel great distances at high speed (faster than smaller aircraft) would probably more than make up for the difference.

My distrust of anything governmental leads me to ask, "Where's the feasability study?"

The Bureau of Land Mismanagement?

Having just returned from Colorado (driven there and back using two different routes) I can honestly say I am appalled by quantity of dead tall pines along side live vibrant ones. The landscape was such that easily there were 2-3 dead standing trees to every live one. I can only assume that the eco-wackos have won the day and would rather sweat out a seasonal storm that will burn many hundreds of acres than responsibly allow a logging company come in to clear out the more than ample kindling.

I took pictures of this, if I could I would post them here.

Debating the jumbo bombers is idiotic. We have horrendous fires from time to time in Northern Arizona, these planes would save lives.

If the planted the trees all at the same time, then they would all mature at the same time and thus clear-cutting would optimize things. In my area they do selective cutting so as to maintain much of the forest for camping, etc. They certainly both have their applications. What I was mainly getting at is that the forest industry takes a long-term view of the resources. They know they have to re-plant so as to have something to cut down when they come back to that area in 20-30 years.

Actually blarman, they clear cut in Oregon, but only in small areas where they have replanted at the 30-40 year mark. Weyerhauser has a whole system built around small scale logging, so that smaller companies can bid on them. They just clear cut a patch about 40-60 acres behind us, and it caught on fire, but was put out fairly quickly. Root cause they think was glass in the brush, reflecting the sun, old glass has cause numerous fires in the end, if the sunlight hits it right. It was the fact it was in a clear cut that made it easy to contain before it got into the woods.

Indeed, I do believe it was FDR who led the land grab, and it has continued till today.

Exactly. Maximum benefit to the customer at minimum cost means best profit margin.

I'd be checking the financial situation of the politicians and companies involved...not to mention, somewhere down the road the BLM outlawing settlements in these "Forest Fire" zones and that land now under the control of the Fed. gov.
Anyone look into Sustainable Development or project 2030?...maybe that's been the plan all along.

It reminds me of a girl I once dated who worked for the BLM (SORRY, won't do that again) and the excuse she gave for destruction of the land on the Arizona Strip. I asked her about a number of new short roads that I saw that went nowhere, were the ranchers doing it? Were they trying to develop water? No, she replied, it was the BLM trying to use up money in their fund so they could get more next year. I was incredulous. So I queried, a rancher who wants to develop a water source has to fill out forms, spend money and time, sometimes years while the BLM determines what kind of environmental impact a rancher might have while the BLM does not worry about impact, it just tears up the land for no reason except to spend money? Yes, was the reply, in the long run the environment will be better served!
Why limit the use of retardant or water to control a fire to 5000 gallons? This limits more than just the largest aircraft, there are those that drop 8000 and 11000 gallons. What I learned in sales is to find out what the motivation is and meet those needs. The motivation isn't to save expenditures, homes, property, forest or lives. The motivation is to spend money and fighting the fire slowly consumes more money than fighting it quickly with larger aircraft. The only determining factor should be the requirement of putting out the fire, not how big is the plane!!??
Ultimately the first argument should be considered, should the federal government control any more than the 10 square miles ceded to it for its operation? No. None! Let people be free to choose at any given moment what is best for their situation and then do it.

No idea, but you can bet that if it were a private company rather than a government agency, they'd be looking to employ the right tool to get the job done.

YES! This was the problem with the huge Yellowstone fires a couple decades back. The old trees were decaying and becoming fire hazards so that a small problem quickly burnt out everything. Logging is a good thing! We need to clear out the mature trees and use them for lumber to decrease the fire hazard and optimize use. And nearly all logging companies replant seedlings and only cut mature trees in their processes now - no more clear cutting.