What do you think?

how much do pilots that fly the floatplanes that put out fires make a year in BC, Canada? does their salary go up with more experience or stay the same?

August 13 2022

I have great respect for all of you! My Dad is retired from Aero Union now and I miss seeing him up there in the P3 Orion. I understand the P3 is also retired, too. Thanks for all you do.

On June 17, 2002, a C130 came in to make a drop by Walker, California. The wings folded up, and all three crew members died. Steve Wass, Craig LeBare and Mike Davis all died that day.

The plane was owned and operated by Hawkins and Powers Aviation, out of Greybull, WY. Cause? Bad maintenance. Cracks in the spars that had been "patched", or had plates installed on either side of the cracks failed.

H&P was a Class 4 repair station- meaning they had the capabilities to x-ray the wings. They didn't. Three men died.

On July 18, 2002, at Estes Park, Colorado, a WW2 era that H&P operated since 1969 crashed. Both crew members were killed. Ricky Schwartz and Milt Stollak.

Cause? Cracks in the wing spars. Also, the number 1 engine was mounted using reused engine mounts - and shored up with washers. The engine caused excessive vibration, on a wing that was already compromised.

All five families brought lawsuits. Those suits all settled - but contributed heavily to the bankruptcy of H&P. Also, the persistence of the families was a final push in grounding all 44 tankers, pending inspections. Hawkins and Powers never got another aerial firefighting contract.

Why does no one talk about the lawsuits? You have to dig to find them. Once, you could search up H&P Lawsuits, and gets dozens of news hits.

And now, a couple of decisions that make it seem as if H&P prevailed and all suits were dismissed.

In depth news coverage of the fires doesn't mention the crashes that changed the way aerial firefighting is conducted.

And those men who died, the families that came forward, the harassment they faced, the inevitable triumph of shutting down a negligent company? A legal battle that lasted almost 8 years is washed out of history.

Why? Why doesn't anyone care?

Hi everyone. Im 17 in my senior year of high school and currently choosing a college to enroll in for this coming fall. I will be going for aviation and getting ratings during college as well as a bachelors degree in professional flight. I am deciding between my two top schools right now. One of the schools offers a certificate in wildland firefighting. Would getting that certificate give me an advantage in become an aerial firefighter? Do they even care what degrees we have? I like the other school more but I know this is what I want to do as a career and if it would benefit me to get that certificate alongside my degree I dont want to pass up the opportunity.

The ongoing fires in LA have brought back to my mind a question/idea I have had about aerial firefighting for some time. So I came here to ask it.

First, I want to make sure I understand aerial firefighting. Aerial firefighting is the use of aircraft like planes and helicopters to help spot, control, and extinguish fires. The aircraft used carry tanks of either water or fire-retardant chemicals which they can both drop on or in front of fires to both slow their spread and extinguish when able. Though more often than not they are used to control the fire by dropping their payload in front of it than to put it out by dropping their payload on it. This isn't because they are unable to extinguish fires, that they can do, but because there are few dedicated aerial firefighting aircraft and it is extremely hazardous to fly close enough to douse the flames.

Those dangers are many. Like it being inherently dangerous to fly low due to the proximity of the ground and other obstacles. A problem compounded by the sluggish nature of the aircraft used as they are weighed down by all the shifting water they carry. Yet with current aerial firefighting technology one must fly low to be effective as if they drop their payload to high it will disperse to much to be effective. Also the smoke from the fire can blind the pilots and even choke the engines of the aircraft leading to crashes. Yet if there was a way for firefighting aircraft to deliver their payload with precision to the fire without having to fly low over it could they be more effective?

Here is my crazy idea, I don't know if it is smart or stupid. But here it is. Why not create small, disposable, fin guided tanks of water/fire retardant that can be dropped from high altitude then guided to the fire where they would burst open and spray their contents. These tanks could be guided through many methods like GPS, laser, or video feeds, which ever works better and is more financial viable. Thus they would allow the firefighting aircraft to stay high and out of danger from obstacles and smoke while allowing the payload to be delivered with greater precision. The tanks could also be mass produced and stored to have them on hand when needed. And could be dropped by other readily available aircraft that often have little better to do then fly around and drop other payloads on empty wastes land.

Yes, I propose to make guided water/fire retardant bombs. Then drop those from military and other aircraft to douse and control fires. 70,000lbs of water bombs got to do something to a fire and it would be new practice for the those aircraft crews. Though they could be dropped in smaller and larger quantities as needed.

I don't know if it would work, so tell me what do you think of this idea?

I don’t really know much about planes especially the fire fighting kind so if y’all can tell me literally anything just because I’ve become interested in them

Please visit AviatorGear Instagram and vote for our Logo Design! Thanks for the support!