Firefighting Aircraft Crashes in Greek island of Evia,

[barkingmad]

Doubt if any survivors from the reported 2 aboard.

[OneHungLow]

Right engine out? DId it clip the trees on the ridge?

Really sorry to see that.



Debris definitely seen falling from the right wing.

[CharlieOneSix]

Very sad. It looks as though he lost the starboard float when he hit the tree. Possibly the impact jammed the aileron?

[tango15]

I have a great interest in this. A good (Portuguese) friend of mine and I had the idea of acquiring two Beriev 200 water bombers and basing them in Portugal during summer in the northern hemisphere, and then moving them to the southern hemisphere in about October/November. This was about 15 years ago, but none of the countries in the northern hemisphere that suffer from these forest fires was interested. The biggest problem is finding crews who can fly them. As we all know, it is very exacting flying, and as we saw so sadly in Greece, one small mistake can be fatal. When Beriev demoed the aircraft in Portugal, it ended up a bit low during an approach to a lake to collect water, and there was some damage to the aircraft.
Of course, such a thing would be impossible at the moment, but the thing that impressed us most after we contacted Beriev was the fact that all their sales and product support was handled by Airbus, which potentially made the whole operation so much easier.

BERIEV 200.jpg (29.55 KiB) Viewed 543 times

Taken at the Hydroavia Air Show in Gelendzhik Russia.

[Rwy in Sight]

None of the crew survived. Fairly young officers 27 and 34 I think.Aviation accident investigation people here is that the lost more than just the flotation pod at the end of the wing maybe damaging an aileron, making difficult to come out of the roll.

tango15 the big drawback of the Beriev 200 is the unsuitability to fight fires efficiently in a hilly or mountainous area by flying in a valleys or terrain that requires a lot of terrain avoiding maneuvers. So sometimes it has to fly higher up making the drop far less effective.

[PHXPhlyer]

Juan's analysis:



PP

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Looks like they were able to stop the roll resulting from the impact, but not to recover the bank angle before the nose dropped too much to be recoverable before they met the ridge again.

I have no experience of this kind of work, but wouldn't it be better to release from a stabilised, wings-level position?
I've only seen Russian mil aircraft dropping bombs in the turn, and they missed by a lot.

[G~Man]

I have no experience of this kind of work, but wouldn't it be better to release from a stabilised, wings-level position?

In a ooerfect world yes, however thaat only really happens on flat terrain. Looks like he was trying to "throw" the load into the slope.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I do get that, but why not fly roughly straight up the direction the camera is pointing in, somewhat right judging by the smoke, wings level, climbing parallel to the slope, and "throw" the load that way?
As flown, he is climbing, turning, and neither of those at a constant rate. The only way the ballistics will work is if God loves him.
Which, tragically, he obviously didn't.
I don't know how to drop water off aircraft, but I do know how to drop things in general off aircraft.
I do understand that water disperses rapidly if not dropped from very low altitudes, and clearly there's quite a breeze.
I cannot see why he would not take a more stable approach path.
A stabilised approach path would have ensured he had clearance from the big tree his starboard float hit, and from the ridge beyond.
The video does not seem to indicate they had other hazards that made the approach they took the only one possible.
I should perhaps add that, whilst RAF weapons ranges are flat, all our normal off range targets were anything but.
I've bunted down into small valleys, stabilised to hit the target, then pulled like a b@stard immediately afterwards to avoid becoming strawberry jam.
Apologies if this sounds, or indeed is, somewhat brutal and insensitive, but I think it's a question worth asking to avoid further tragedies.

[prospector]

This was an Air Force crew, this type of operation would not be part of their forte.

Many of the pilots engaged in this activity are ex Agricultural aviation. Operating that close to the ground. and avoiding obstacles is an everyday part of the job. I know, I carried out Ag Aviation, mostly crop spraying, for 15 years.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I was under the impression that most ag aircraft are single engine.
Since ag pilots are well suited to this, as you say, is multi-engine quals/experience the reason why they are not completely filling the firefighting role, or are there other reasons why a military crew would be used?

The RAF transport crews who did low level drops would also be OK, I would think, but not all mil crews do drops.

[prospector]

""I was under the impression that most ag aircraft are single engine.""

Most are, but in New Zealand there was a fleet of DC3 Dakota aircraft employed in Aerial Topdressing. A load of 5 tons per trip not unusual, They are not used anymore, the field has been taken over by a fleet of turbine powered singles.

The point I was trying to make is that the operating environment is more important than the size of the Aeroplane, and it must be very unusual to have active Air Force personnel engaged in these operations. Perhaps that is not the case when the fire fighting fleet is so busy.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I got your point, and agree.
It would appear that the number of fires around the world is higher than usual this year, and there's certainly a shortage of both military and airline pilots.

[PHXPhlyer]

USAF C-130s used here as fire bombers

Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System

https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets ... ng-system/

The Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System, or MAFFS, Program provides emergency capability to supplement existing commercial tanker support on wildland fires. MAFFS aids the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service. When all other air tankers are activated but further assistance is needed, the Forest Service can request help from the Air Force's MAFFS units. MAFFS is a mission that highlights interagency cooperation.

MAFFS units fit inside C-130 airplanes without requiring structural modification. This allows the units to be loaded on short notice. It takes about two hours to load a MAFFS unit onto the C-130. The C-130s drop retardant from an altitude of about 150 feet through a discharge tube located in place of the left rear paratroop door of the aircraft.
A MAFFS unit can discharge its load -- 3,000 gallons weighing 28,000 pounds -- in less than five seconds. The retardant covers an area one-quarter of a mile long and 60 feet wide. After the plane discharges its load, and returns to an air tanker base, it can be refilled and airborne again in less than 20 minutes.

MAFFS units can drop either water or retardant called "slurry." Slurry is made of 80 to 85 percent water, 10 to 15 percent ammonium sulfate, a jelling agent and red coloring. The red in the retardant helps pilots see where they have dropped previous loads. Along with retarding the fire, the slurry acts as a fertilizer. Because the MAFFS discharges the agent in a mist, slurry does not cause damage to buildings.

Crews who fly MAFFS missions participate in annual re-currency training. Each wing is required to have five certified crews for each MAFFS unit.

In the 1970s, Congress established the MAFFS system after a major fire burned into Long Beach, Calif., destroyed hundreds of homes, and overwhelmed the civilian tanker fleet's ability to respond. Today, one Air Force Reserve Command and three Air National Guard locations participate in the MAFFS Program.

The 302nd Airlift Wing in Colorado Springs, Colo., is the only Reserve unit. The Guard units include the145th AW in Charlotte, N.C.; the 146th AW in Channel Islands, Calif. and the 153rd AW in Cheyenne, Wyo. The 302nd AW has two of the MAFFS units and the Guard has two units each for a total of eight systems nationwide.

PP

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

One wonders about flying hours being curtailed for cost saving affecting currency for non-essential tasking in air forces like that of Greece.