Report 81 Fire Boss Amphibian Single Engine Tanker PDF
Report 81 Fire Boss Amphibian Single Engine Tanker PDF
$9LFWRULDQ*RYHUQPHQWLQLWLDWLYH
>
This investigation was commissioned by the Department of
Sustainability and Environment and the Country Fire Authority
Victoria. It was undertaken by the State Aircraft Unit Victoria.
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Fire Boss amphibious
single engine air tanker:
Final Report, November 2008
Ulmarra New South Wales
Hayden Biggs
1
2
Contents 3
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Executive summary........................................................... 4
Objectives......................................................................... 5
Introduction...................................................................... 6
Findings............................................................................. 7
Recommendations............................................................ 9
Background....................................................................... 10
Seaplanes and amphibian aircraft..................................... 12
Seaplanes................................................................... 12
> > >
Amphibious floats...................................................... 19
Amphibian landing gear system................................. 19
Scooping system......................................................... 20
Foam system............................................................... 20
Overflow and venting................................................. 21
Fire Boss Fire Retardant Delivery System..................... 21
Ram air system........................................................... 22
Discussion......................................................................... 23
Fire Boss AT-802F (1600-shp.)..................................... 23
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
Additional capabilities................................................. 23
Operational base........................................................ 24
Ground based operations........................................... 24
Water based operations.............................................. 25
Take off and landing performance.............................. 25
Operational performance........................................... 25
Scooping operations................................................... 27
Scooping Zones.......................................................... 28
Limitations.................................................................. 28
Risk management....................................................... 29
Endorsement and evaluation zones............................ 29
Initial drop assessment................................................ 30
References........................................................................ 31
List of Appendices............................................................. 31
>
>
4
Executive Summary
The Fire Boss is a highly modified Air Observations and information gathered
Tractor AT-802 which has after market indicates that operating as a single
amphibious floats fitted along with scooper the Fire Boss has a capability
other airframe modifications which which Victoria currently does not have
allows the aircraft to scoop water into access to, by providing high volumes of
the hopper while aquaplaning from suppressant from a SEAT in areas where
suitable water bodies. In addition it there are suitable water bodies in close
has been fitted with a more powerful proximity to wildfires.
engine which produces up to 250-shaft
Operating as a scooping fire bomber
horsepower (-shp) more than a
in Victoria the Fire Boss may be limited
standard AT-802.
by access to suitable water bodies and
It has the capability to scoop up to would require a management plan
3104 litres5 of water in less than for implementation and operation to
fourteen (14) seconds, ram loading effectively use the aircraft in scooping
water at the rate of 400 litres per configuration.
second at over
Uniquely, the Fire Boss still retains
100 kilometres per hour and return
the same capabilities of Air Tractor
within minutes to the wildfire from
AT-802 aircraft with a conventional
either lakes or rivers.
undercarriage6 but provides equal
The Fire Boss has the ability to work as if not better performance in some
a land-based aircraft or as a scooper. circumstances with the addition of a
It can drop an initial load of retardant more powerful engine and additional
and then remain close to the wildfire airframe modifications.
by scooping water from a nearby lake
or suitable water source, injecting foam
concentrate into the load of water.
Notes
1 Is a proprietary name of Fire Boss Limited Liability
Company (LLC) which is a business division of
Wipaire Incorporated USA, a manufacturer of aircraft
amphibious floats.
2 There are two “official” Air Tractor AT-802 models,
the AT-802 (two seat cockpit) and AT-802A (single
seat cockpit).
3 If a fire fighting model AT-802 is equipped with the
Air Tractor computerized fire gate it is called it an
AT-802F or AT-802AF.
4 Refers to a class of aircraft, which has the ability to
scoop up water while skimming across the surface of
a water body.
5 Maximum volume of the hopper.
6 There are two main wheels towards the front of the
aircraft and a single, much smaller, wheel or skid at
the rear, IE "taildragger”.
>
Objectives 5
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Several objectives were identified for consideration during the
investigation into the operation of the Fire Boss in the event it
was positioned or considered for operational use in Victoria.
>
Air Tractor AT-802 single engine air tankers (SEATs) have been utilised
in fire bombing operations in Australia, Canada and Europe for the
past 10 years. Initially AT-802 aircraft were equipped with wheels, and
delivered long term fire retardants7 and suppressants8 onto fires.
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
1) The Fire Boss offers a capability 8) A pilot endorsement for the 15) The current retardant reloading
which is not currently available operation of an aircraft with floats fittings on the Fire Boss are in an
with the Contract or Call When does not automatically qualify inappropriate location because of
Needed (CWN) resources available in the pilot for scooping operations the height of the refilling ports,
Victoria. however it is a prerequisite. The the positioning of the floats and
process of scooping is a separate additional airframe modifications.
2) The operation of the Fire Boss
endorsement.
would require the SAU to develop 16) Current procedures and guidelines
an implementation and operational 9) Because of the complexities for fixed wing fire bombing
management plan for the Fire associated with the take off operations limit the use of water
Boss including but not limited to; and landing procedures and the being dropped from SEATs.
a central Nominated Operational scooping process, landing gear Therefore the SAU would have to
Base (NOB), identify all suitable land down/up, scoops down/up there issue an general approval on behalf
based operating airstrips, identify would be a need for a specific of the Agencies to allow the Fire
optimum Scooping Sources12 and planned proficiency program built in Boss to exclusively use water in fire
classification of Scooping Zones.13 to the engagement period to ensure bombing operations where turn
currency for the pilot. around times do not exceed five
3) There appeared to be no difference
minutes, the operational use would
in the provision of logistical support 10) Gaining access to similar water
be subject to the authority of the
for either a Fire Boss or a wheeled bodies as compared to northern-
respective Incident Controller.
AT-802F. An initial assessment of the hemisphere countries would be
NOB indicated that it had all facilities limited within Victoria and this factor 17) It appears that the size and position
present to maintain a normal SEAT is recognised by both the Operator14 of the floats positively affect the
operation. and the SAU. airflow under the aircraft and as
a result the suppressant dropped
4) There appeared to be no significant 11) The will be a requirement to gain
from the Fire Boss appears to hold
difference in the flight preparation approvals from the relevant water
together better as it exits the drop
and operation of the Fire Boss authorities and management
doors, which would result in a
during take off and landing and bodies to gain access for scooping
polentially narrower pattern on the
circuit procedures. operations on fresh and salt water
ground with more even coverage
bodies.
5) The Fire Boss has the ability to take within.
off and land on most grass and 12) There is a requirement to identify
surfaced runways with reasonable a minimum standard for Scooping
evenness; further investigation is Zones to enable the Agencies15 to
required to eliminate airstrips that determine suitable Scooping Sources
are not suitable. on bodies of water.
6) An initial review indicates that the 13) To ensure efficiency of the Fire
Fire Boss it has the ability to operate Boss it is engaged as a SEAT that
from most fire bombing bases will conduct normal fire bombing
specified in the Cockpit Handbook operations similar to wheeled based
SAU, several facilities have been SEATs and when required considered
excluded because unknown status and reassigned for scooping
of the evenness of the main runway operations when the circumstances
surface, IE Dartmoor. are suitable.
7) There is a difference in the maximum 14) Ideally, engagement provisions for
Notes
take off weight of the Fire Boss the Fire Boss should ensure that it is 12 A water body which can provide areas where the Fire
compared to the AT-802F because of located at a central NOB which fulfils Boss can scoop water.
the weight penalty conceded for the the requirement of a conventional 13 An area within a water body that provides a safe area
for the Fire Boss to scoop with out impediment.
fitment of the floats and additional undercarriage service but has the
14 R & M Aircraft, Ouse Tasmania.
modifications. capacity to utilise the scooping 15 Country Fire Authority and Department of
capability. Sustainability and Environment.
>
8
Findings (Continued)
18) One of the Contract Service 22) The Fire Boss has the capacity to 28) The practice of extending the
requirements for pilots undertaking operate in salt water continuously scooping probes prior to making
helicopter hover filling operations in with a maintenance wash down contact with surface of the water
Victoria is the that they must have at the conclusion of the daily flight body may result in the aircraft
undertaken a formal Helicopter operations. sustaining a loss of directional
Underwater Escape Training (HUET) control and result in the airframe
23) The Fire Boss does not have the
course and it is apparent that the receiving an unnecessary shock
capacity to operate in salt water
scooping operation is similar and impact, all though it may be
with a swell.
will require the same level of risk considered to be relatively minor
mitigation for scooping pilots. 24) Knowing whether the amphibious the cumulative effect may be
floats affect the drop (i.e., detrimental for the equipment and
19) More evident is the requirement to
immediately as the load exits the contribute to increased fatigue on
have undertaken an extensive fly the
tank or later as the load passes the pilot.
wire environment training course,
between the amphibious floats),
most courses are orientated towards 29) If the longitudinal length of a
may allow the AT 802s fitted with
helicopter hover filling operations Scooping Zone are shorter than
a conventional undercarriage to
which have a level of complexity for the minimum specifications and
be modified to improve their drop
approach and departure procedures. it offered generous entry and
patterns. A modification similar to
Similar complexities would apply exit azimuth paths the practice
a pair of inboard wheel spats may
with a fixed wing scooping of conducting a “top up scoop”
have the ability to improve the
operation but would become from the same site should not be
evacuation process of the drop from
extremely exaggerated with the high considered because of the increased
a standard AT-802.
speed traverse and distance that is weight from the previous scooping
covered on the surface of the water. 25) Using water injected with foam operation and the resultant
concentrate and referring to the reduction in performance of the Fire
20) It would be imperative that the
Table 2 and a rudimentary evaluation Boss which may expose the pilot to
intended Scooping Zone is free
indicates that the Fire Boss operating unnecessary risk.
of any potential floating and
as a scooper from a suitable water
submerged natural or man made
body will prove to be effective for a
objects. A higher level of vigilance
distance up to 32-kilometres from
would be required in vegetated
the fire area.
steep and narrow valleys within
scooping water bodies. 26) A basic analysis of airframe costing
between the Fire Boss AT-802F and
21) It is identified that extended and
a Bombardier CL-415 (CL-415) (See
continuous fixed wing scooping
Plate 6) indicates that the Fire Boss
operations conducted in remote
operates for about 1/30th of the
locations and on large water bodies
cost of the CL-415 and carries more
will require a safety monitoring
than half of the volume.
process to ensure an appropriate
response to emergency situations. 27) A preliminary investigation into the
The use of Top Cover16 17 using a availability of suitable water bodies
fixed wing reconnaissance aircraft within Victoria based on the current
would be suitable and the same seasonal weather conditions and
observation process should be water body capacities indicates Notes
applied to helicopter hover fill that there are in excess of 20
operations that are not directly suitable sites for scooping, the 16 A procedure where an aircraft with trained personnel
provides a communications and surveillance of
observed by ground or other aerial majority within the central and multiple hover filling and fire bombing operations
resources. eastern districts of Victoria. Refer to including the safety of ground based resources.
17 Operationally implemented using Firespotter 390, Mt
Appendix 4. Lubra Fire, Grampians 2007.
Recommendations 9
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
1) Register the Fire Boss on the 8) Prior to the Fire Boss being engaged 14) The undertaking of a scooping
Victorian CWN Register to allow for lengthy period of time it would operation with the scooping probes
the aircraft to be used in the event be subject to the modification, extended prior to making contact
the demand for SEATs exceeds the lowering and extension of the with the water surface is prohibited.
current State Fleet resource level. retardant loading facility, to allow
15) The requirement for a “top up
for ground filling with out the use
2) The SAU develops an scoop” is prohibited.
of steps or above shoulders loading
implementation and operational
processes for ground support crews. 16) The SAU and the Operator
management plan for the Fire
undertake an aerial reconnaissance
Boss including but not limited to; a 9) Approval on behalf of the Agencies
survey of proposed Scooping
central NOB, identify all suitable land is given by the SAU for the use
Sources to asses and determine the
based operating airstrips, identify of approved retardant and
availability for scooping operations.
optimum Scooping Sources and suppressants including water for
classification of Scooping Zones. use in fire bombing operations for 17) The SAU continues to monitor the
the Fire Boss. development of scooping aircraft
3) A survey is conducted by the
both nationally and internationally
Operator and the SAU to determine 10) The SAU issues an general approval
and the operational performance of
the status of runway surface on behalf of the Agencies to allow
the Fire Boss in Australia.
evenness for Agency owned and the Fire Boss to exclusively use water
managed fire bombing bases. in fire bombing operations where
turn around times do not exceed
4) If the Fire Boss operates in Victoria it
five minutes and the respective
is engaged as a fixed wing bombing
incident controller is satisfied with
service, which offers an additional
the objective.
capability, it is not engaged as an
exclusive Scooper aircraft. 11) If the opportunity arises The SAU
undertakes an evaluation program
5) If the Fire Boss is engaged it is
to determine any differences in
integrated into normal fixed
drop characteristics between the
wing bombing operations with
Fire Boss on amphibious floats and
consideration given to re-tasking/
the AT–802 with a conventional
swapping the resource with a
undercarriage.
wheeled SEAT if an advantage can
be achieved with the scooping 12) In the event that the Fire Boss is
capability of the Fire Boss. engaged to provide a service and it
undertakes operations in a salt water
6) The Agencies are to obtain all
environment, there is an immediate
relevant approvals from the
provision for a wash down facility.
appropriate water management
authorities for the use of inland fresh 13) The SAU issues a directive that all
water bodies for scooping sources. fixed wing pilots engaged in over
water refilling operations, specifically
7) The Agencies are to obtain all
scooping, must have undertaken
relevant approvals from the
in the absence of a fixed wing
appropriate bay and coastal
underwater escape training module,
management authorities for the use
a formal Helicopter Underwater
of estuarine/coastal salt water bodies
Escape Training (HUET) course.
for scooping sources.
>
10
Background
The most recent program has been the For more than 10 years Victoria has It is capable of rapid turn around times
formal delivery system and drop pattern contracted a minimum of three (3) carrying up to 3104 litres21 and can
assessment of the Martin Mars (Refer to conventional undercarriage Air Tractor scoop a water load from either lakes or
Plate 5). AT-802AF/F fire bombing aircraft and rivers in less than fourteen (14) seconds,
has used them extensively, successfully ram loading water at the rate of 400
Activities include and are not limited to: litres per second at over 100 kilometres
delivering both suppressant and
a. assessment of rotary wing and fixed retardant in fire bombing operations. per hour and return within minutes to
wing aircraft and their suitability for The capabilities of the Air Tractor AT-802 the fire. An important feature of the
use in aerial fire fighting, SEAT are well known and documented Fire Boss is that has been fitted with a
by the SAU. more powerful engine which produces
b. consultation on the design and 1600-shp.
development and operational The Operator, R & M Aircraft, Ouse
assessment of delivery systems and Tasmania20 purchased and imported the The Fire Boss is similar to the AT-802
Fire Boss Air Tractor AT-802F with the and is designed to operate and will
c. the evaluation and development of prospect of providing a scooping fire successfully operate at max take off
land management equipment for a bombing service in Australia. weight 7257 kilograms22 from 1.60
range of activities. kilometre water ways, from water
R & M Aircraft currently provides depths of less than 3.0 metres23 and
As a result of the recent National Aerial a Fixed Wing Fire Bombing Service
Fire fighting Centre’s (NAFC) Invitation with water chop up to depths of
(FWFB-Service) to Victoria, the contract 0.3–0.6 metre24.
to Tender (ITT) for Aerial Fire Fighting service is provided by a PZL Dromader
Services, the State of New South Wales M18A, BOM 365 based at Bendigo. It While the traditional Air Tractor AT-802F
(NSW) selected an Air Tractor AT-802. has been modified with the addition can be loaded with water and retardant
A component of the tender submission of a turbine engine, a larger hopper at an airport, scoops and foam tanks
from the successful bidder included and subsequent airframe and aircraft were added to the Fire Boss, allowing
subject to conditions a Fire Boss, which system modifications. R & M Aircraft are the plane to reload by skimming a
is a highly modified Air Tractor AT-802F no strangers to seeking and providing nearby lake or river.
fitted with amphibious floats. new and innovative equipment and
The SAU was given the opportunity
Wipaire Inc USA. has partnered with solutions.
at the invitation of the R & M Aircraft
Air Tractor Inc18, and a new company, The Fire Boss is a highly modified Air to attend aircrew training and
Fire Boss, LLC19, to create the Fire Boss Tractor AT-802F which has after market endorsement program as well as an
fire fighting system. A set of Wipline amphibious floats fitted along with operational evaluation of the capabilities
amphibious floats, originally designed other air frame modifications which of the Fire Boss. The operator of the
for a de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin allows the aircraft to scoop water into Fire Boss enlisted the services of Air
Otter float plane, (Refer to Plate 7) were the hopper while aquaplaning from Tractor Inc. and Wipaire USA to assist
re-designed to fit the Air Tractor 802. suitable water bodies. with the program.
11
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
The SAU recognised that the
implementation program offered the
ability to inspect, collate and asses the
unique amphibious capabilities of the
Fire Boss first hand.
The SAU was aware that the ability of
the amphibious Fire Boss to operate
may be limited because of the minimal
access to expansive water sources in
Victoria.
Nationally the current perception in
respect to the operation of the Fire
Boss amphibious aircraft is based on a
collection of information and opinions
without critical practical and operational
analysis.
The opportunity to participate in the
Operator’s program provided additional
information for consideration in future
procurement processes in particular the
forthcoming FWFB-Services in Victoria.
Notes
18 Air Tractor Inc. Onley Texas USA
19 Fire Boss LCC. a business division of Wipaire Inc.
20 Contract Service Provider, State of Victoria.
21 Volume specified is the capacity of the hopper not the
actual continuous uplift of retardant or suppressant
during operations.
22 Air Tractor Inc. Onley Texas USA.
23 Fire Boss, LLC.
24 Fire Boss, LLC.
>
12
Seaplanes and amphibian aircraft
Seaplanes
A floatplane has pontoons mounted
> Plate 1. de Havilland
Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter
under the fuselage. Two floats are the dedicated float plane.
most common configuration, only the
"floats" of a floatplane normally come
into contact with water. The fuselage
remains above water. Refer to Plate 1.
A floating hull aircraft utilise the
fuselage as the main source of
buoyancy which is similar to the hull of
a ship/boat in the water, most flying hull
aircraft have small floats mounted on
their wings to keep them stable. Refer >
Plate 2. Short S-25
to Plate 2.
Sunderland 5(AN)
floating hull aircraft.
Amphibious or amphibian
aircraft Fantasy of Flight USA
>
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Scooping aircraft
Scooping type fire-suppression aircraft
> Plate 5. Martin Mars
have been around for many years. scooping floating hull
aircraft.
The early 1960’s saw the development
Coulson Flying Tankers
of the Martin Mars, a floating hull
aircraft which still operates today. The
Martin Mars was the first large scooping
aircraft developed which skims across
the water surface to refill its’ tanks with
the ability to deliver 27,276 litres in a
single or multiple drops. Refer to Plate 5.
During the late 1960’s the Bombardier >
Canadair CL-215 was the first model Plate 6.
in a series of firefighting aircraft able to Bombardier CL-415,
land and take off from short, unpaved "Superscooper".
airstrips. It has an internal tank system
that can hold up to 6137 litres of
water/foam mixture and refills by
skimming. The latest variant is the
CL-415 ("Superscooper") which is
turbine powered. Refer to Plate 6.
In the 1960’s float equipped de
Havilland DHC-6 Twin Otters were
developed and used for fire fighting
operations. The aircraft were equipped
with amphibious Wipline 13000 floats
> Plate 7. Amphibious
scooping de Havilland
which were modified with water DHC-6-300, 1960’s.
holding tanks and probes. The probes
Ministry of Natural Resources
were located on the bottom of the Ontario Canada
floats and were extended to provide
the filling points for the water tanks.
The drop doors, two on the bottom of
each float, and the probes were electro-
hydraulically operated. Refer to Plate 7.
>
14
Summary Air Tractor AT-802 models
Notes
25 Includes aircrew, fuel, foam concentrate and
retardant (specific gravity 1.15-kilograms/litre).
26 Source Air Tractor Inc. USA.
27 Source Air Tractor Inc. USA.
15
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Air Tractor AT-802 Standard Equipment AT-802
The AT-802 carries up to 3104 litres Pratt & Whitney PT6A-67AG 1350-
of fire retardant or suppressant. The shp turboprop engine
standard AT-802 is powered by a 1350- 5-blade constant speed reversing
shp Pratt & Whitney turbine engine. Hartzell propeller
The aircraft has a top cruise speed of
approximately 300 kilometres per hour 75-mm dual bottom loading valves
or 160 knots per hour. It has been fitted 3104 litre fibreglass hopper, with
with a specially designed computer 18-gallon foam tank
controlled fire bombing system known
as the Air Tractor FRDS. Hydraulically driven rotary actuator
to operate fire gate doors
Computer-controlled doors to
provide even flow rate
Interface to select gallons to drop,
coverage level, and ground speed
adjustment
Accelerometer for automatic
adjustment for fire doors
1767 square millimetre vent door
Streamlined fibre glass fairings for
fire gate
812 millimetre low-pressure tires
with dual 4-piston brakes
961 litre fuel tanks
Strobe lights
Nose mounted taxi lights
Air conditioned cockpit
Windshield washer and wiper
7257 kilogram FAA certificated gross
weight
The robustness and power of the
AT-802 enables them to work from
short, less sophisticated airstrips that
>
Plate 8. Bomber 351, AT-802F (Stawell, VIC) delivering a full salvo of water
injected with foam concentrate.
>
16
Summary Air Tractor AT-802 models (Continued)
Notes
28 Coverage level is expressed as the volume of
retardant per unit area. This is an expression of
>
Plate 10. Shows the FRDS longitudinal doors in the open position set
for a full salvo.
17
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Fire Boss Air Tractor AT-802F Key features of the Fire Boss include;
The Fire Boss is a design of Wipaire, Inc. amphibious floats with hydraulically bilge pumping system and water
of Saint Paul, Minnesota and is originally actuated water scoops. in floats warning system are
adapted from the Air Tractor AT-802 incorporated.
Air Tractor Fire Retardant Delivery
aircraft.
System. upgraded turbine engine 1600-shp
Wipaire Inc. has partnered with Air Tractor PT6-67F turboprop engine.
Air Tractor foam injection system
Inc, and a new company, Fire Boss, LLC,
and controls. A new Engine Ram Air Inlet.
to create the Fire Boss fire fighting aircraft.
Wipline 13000 amphibious floats were additional foam tanks in the floats
re-designed to fit the Air Tractor AT-802. supplement the standard firewall
While the traditional Air Tractor AT-802A/F tank.
can be loaded with water and retardant
changes to the hopper venting
at an airport, with the two scoops and
system are incorporated.
additional foam tanks added to the Fire
Boss, it allows the plane to reload by new upper instrument panel is
skimming a nearby lake or river. added to display the scoop related
and system controls and indicators.
The Australian Fire Boss retains the same
size hopper as the AT-802F but has been
fitted with a high performance PT6-67F
1600-shp turboprop engine.
>
Plate 11. Bomber 718 Fire Boss AT 802F, Grafton Airport, NSW.
>
18
Summary Air Tractor AT-802 models (Continued)
Airframe modifications
As a part of the float installation, the
following changes are made to the
conventional undercarriage aircraft:
Ventral fin added for improved
directional stability.
Four auxiliary finlets for improved
directional stability.
The vertical fin is sealed to the
fuselage/stabilizer top for improved
directional stability.
The open fuselage structure near
the landplane tail-wheel mount is
faired over for improved directional
stability.
>
Plate 13. View of the two auxiliary finlets added to each side of the
horizontal stabilizer.
19
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Amphibious floats
The Wipline 10000 amphibious float
is an all aluminium construction with
twelve (12) watertight compartments
of approximately 4353 kilograms
buoyancy, featuring:
hydraulic landing gear retraction
system components and cockpit
controls.
cockpit landing gear controls and
emergency hand pump and system.
float water rudder retraction system
and cockpit controls (the water
rudders are locked centre when
retracted for improved directional
stability).
>
out any water in floats before flight. retractable wheeled landing gear. Left side of image shows,
the retractable nose mounted wheels and centre of image the
two water scoops, one in each float. retractable dual main wheels.
Scooping system
The Fire Boss has two water scoops, > Plate 15. Shows the
one in each float. The scoops are location of scoop which
75 millimetres in diameter and are is forward of the wheeled
hydraulically operated by the pilot. landing gear.
Foam system
The Fire Boss foam system consists of
two individual tanks. The original 68 litre
Air Tractor firewall tank is supplemented > Plate 17. Shows scoop in
by an additional 113 litre tank in each retracted position.
float. A total of approximately 290 litres
can be delivered to the hopper.
The float tanks are optional and one or
both can be removed depending on the
type of operation.
>
Plate 18. Shows
scoop in lowered
open position.
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Overflow and venting
The standard 75 millimetre vent located > Plate 19. Shows the
on the aft right side of the fire gate is original 75 millimetre and
supplemented with the addition of a new 125 millimetre fire
new 125 millimetre vent that exits on gate venting.
the right side of the rear fire gate fairing.
The original hopper vent/door has been
modified to allow for a greater venting
volume during scooping operations.
In the event of an overflow during
scooping operations, a spring loaded
relief valve door is located at the rear
of the main drop vent door located on >
the top of the hopper. Water will exit Plate 20. Shows the
the hopper to the right and forward of upper relief valve
the cockpit windshield. The pilot can door.
see ahead out of the left side of the
windshield during an overflow condition.
>
Figure 1. Both images show the standard Air Tractor FRDS and the location of the fuselage supports
for the amphibious floats which appear to offer no interference to the drop evacuation process.
>
22
Summary Air Tractor AT-802 models (Continued)
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Fire Boss AT-802F (1600-shp.)
A Fire Boss is the result of years of design
and testing from AirTractor Inc. and is
now combined with the performance
of amphibious floats with an integrated
scooping system.
The Fire Boss imported into Australian is
fitted with a new military specification
Pratt & Whitney PT6-67F 1600-shp
turbine engine and is supplied with the
fully certified Wipaire Inc. float system
allowing the aircraft to be operated from
either suitable water bodies and airports.
The Fire Boss still retains the Air Tractor
advanced, patented computer-controlled
fire gate and RFDS to deliver optimum
coverage levels with reasonable accuracy.
>
Operational base
The current Nominated Operational
Base (NOB) is at Grafton Airport.
A review of overseas operations with
the Fire Boss shows all of the known
overseas bases are land based as well.
The infrastructure associated with
refuelling and reloading at Grafton
is not dissimilar to that required for a
conventional undercarriage AT-802.
Temporary mooring bases have been
established during fire bombing
operations overseas however they do
not offer refuelling or retardant or
suppressant reloading capacity.
Note Plate 24. Refuelling operation for the Fire Boss, indicating the height perspective
and showing also the height of the reloading ports under the fuselage.
29 >/= 1.80 metres.
25
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Water based operations In addition the soaking of brakes Poorly executed land based crosswind
and wheel bearings in water may landings are more likely with a
The right-of-way rules for operation floatplane, because the floats on an
not improve their reliability for use in
on water are similar, but not identical, airplane reduce its roll responsiveness,
land based operations. The moving
to the rules governing right-of-way making it more difficult to land in a
parts will need regular lubrication
between aircraft in flight. crosswind. It is possible that the gear
and maintenance, and are at risk
According to Civil Aviation Safety of malfunctioning. Extra vigilance is may be more likely to fail during these
Authority (CASA) regulations, the required because of the potential for scenarios.
definition of a vessel includes virtually foreign objects to jam moving parts.
Many amphibious designs do not
anything capable of being used for incorporate shock absorbers or springs
With land based aircraft, the wind tends
transportation on water, including into the system. If fitted they do not
to make the aircraft weathervane, or
float planes, floating hull aircraft and offer as much absorbing capability as
yaw, until the nose points into the wind.
amphibious aircraft on the water. conventional undercarriage landing
This tendency is minor on landplanes
Therefore, any time the Fire Boss is gear. See also Scooping Operations.
with tricycle landing gear, but does
operating on the water, whether
occur with tail wheel gear equipped
under power or not, it is required to Takeoffs on rough water can subject the
aircraft, and very evident in float planes.
comply with navigation rules applicable floats to hard pounding as they strike
to vessels. consecutive wave crests as experienced
Take off and landing in the sea ocean environment.
Taking off from and landing on water performance Operating on the surface in rough
has several added variables for the pilot conditions exposes the float equipped
to consider. Waves and swell not only The flight management of the Fire Boss
by the pilot has an added complexity of aircraft to forces that can potentially
create a rough or uneven surface, they cause damage.
also move, and their movement must ensuring that during land based take
be considered in addition to the wind off/landing and scooping procedures the
direction during all aspects of the water wheeled landing gear is retracted and Operational performance
based operation. extended at the respective times. The Fire Boss has been operating for the
The new PT6-67F turboprop engine of last six years on fire fighting contracts
A land based aircraft pilot can rely in Canada and Europe. There are
on windsocks and indicators within 1600-shp provides better performance
for take off distance and climb currently six30 Fire Boss aircraft operating
close proximity to the runway. A float in Canada and twenty-three31 aircraft
plane pilot needs to be able to read performance at 7257 kilograms simply
because it has an extra 250-shp or operating in Europe, including Spain,
wind direction and speed from the Portugal, France, and Italy.
water itself. approx 17% more power than a
conventional undercarriage AT-802 with As a land based operation the Fire
Some land based aircraft may be the 1350-shp engine. Boss has the capacity to delivery either
restricted to operating in a certain retardant or water injected with foam
direction because of the orientation The use of lower power settings allows
for a better and more economical fuel concentrate.
of the runway, but the float plane can
usually takeoff or land directly into consumption rate. The volume carried by the Fire Boss in
the wind. Retractable "amphibious" landing initial dispatch from a fire bombing base
gear may not be able to withstand will be dictated by the length and type
Many of the operational differences of runway surface and the weather
between land-planes and float planes as much side loading in crosswind
situations as conventional landing conditions as it is with conventional
relate to the fact that they have no undercarriage AT-802 aircraft.
brakes. The float equipped aircraft gear.
continues moving after the engine is
shut down.
Notes
30 Fire Boss LCC USA.
31 Fire Boss LCC USA.
>
26
Discussion (Continued)
Table 4. Single dispatch activation summary for two Fire Boss aircraft.
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
If a conventional undercarriage AT-802 Scooping operations The discharge is a gravity flow and this
and a Fire Boss were to continually is a result of the ram pressure being
operate from a fire bombing base The average speed of the Fire Boss
reduced and not having the energy
delivering retardant then it would during the scooping operation while on
force the water passed the inline return
appear that the conventional the surface of the water is maintained
valve. The return valve restricts the
undercarriage AT-802 may have the at approximately 85 knots. Prior to the
accidental discharge of any suppressant
ability to deliver a higher volume commencement of the operation the
residue into the water body.
because of the weight penalty for the pilot selects the load he requires and
the system automatically fills to that In a scenario where the Fire Boss is
float gear.
amount. delivering multiple drops in a short
It is possible if the Fire Boss has the period of time the workload on the
1600-shp engine fitted the additional Forces created when operating a hull
pilot will increase to a frequency that is
horsepower may allow it to carry a or float equipped aircraft on water can
similar for a helicopter pilot.
volume equal if not greater to the be more complex than those created
on land. Water friction forces are active In a normal conventional undercarriage
lighter but less powered conventional
along the entire length of a float or SEAT operation the pilot would ferry the
undercarriage AT-802 in some
hull. These drag forces vary constantly aircraft between the loading base and
circumstances.
depending on the pitch attitude, the the fire allowing him a period of time
The optional foam tanks in each float changing motion of the float or hull, to evaluate and plan the operation, the
give an additional foam product to and action of the waves. See also Take time would be reduced for the pilot of
the Fire Boss system. The total off and landing performance. the Fire Boss. This type of scenario may
capacity of the foam reservoirs has require the use of multiple aircrew for
the potential to allow up to 20-three Because floats are mounted rigidly
the Fire Boss during a campaign fire.
minute turn around cycles of for a one to the structure of the fuselage, they
provide no shock absorbing function, While amphibious aircraft appear to
hour period based on a two and a half
unlike the landing gear of conventional be heavier and slower, more complex
hour fuel cycle.
undercarriage aircraft. Potentially and more expensive to purchase and
In flight the Fire Boss appears to fly very damaging forces and shocks can be operate than comparable conventional
similar to conventional undercarriage transmitted directly through the floats undercarriage aircraft they have the
aircraft. and struts to the basic structure of the potential to be more versatile.
airplane. See also Take off and landing
Directional stability would be influenced They have the ability to compete
performance.
to some extent by the installation of favorably with helicopters in some
the floats this would be caused by the Observations indicated that small waves multiple drop scenarios in some
length of the floats and the location and a chop on the water’s surface either circumstances for the same types of
of their vertical surface area in relation fresh or salt water reduced the surface jobs. The have the capacity to offer
to the Centre of Gravity (CG). Because area and subsequent surface area drag longer endurance than the comparable
the floats consist of a large vertical area of the floats allowing for efficient take helicopters, and can achieve a similar
ahead of the CG, they may tend to off processes. The operation of the Fire range of conventional undercarriage
increase any yaw or sideslip. Boss on smooth water inhibited the float aircraft.
performance because of the greater
surface area contact of the floats.
At the completion of the scooping
process and after the floats break clear
of the water surface a flow of water
discharges from the extended scooping
probes. The discharge is what remains
within the loading system which has not
entered the hopper.
>
28
Discussion (Continued)
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Risk management Endorsement and
A rudimentary literature search has evaluation zones
indicated that malfunctions or human The area of operation for the Fire Boss
errors related to retractable landing during the training and evaluation
gear have been the cause of program was the regional Northern
numerous accidents and incidents Rivers area of NSW. The Fire Boss is
with the operation of amphibious located at Grafton Airport and is co-
aircraft in general. located with the Contracted NAFC &
Distraction and preoccupation during RFS NSW conventional undercarriage
the landing sequence play a prominent AT-802A, Bomber 719.
role in gear-up landing incidents that Scooping zone 1, was located on the
occur each year in the United States32. Clarence River adjacent to the township
The gear-up landing incident may also of Ulmara and was used for the aircrew
result from a mechanical malfunction training and endorsement.
that does not allow the landing gear to At the completion of the aircrew
be lowered. program the evaluation program was
The most common accident during undertaken which included the primary
amphibious airplane operations is and two additional zones, scooping
landing in the water with the wheels zone 2 and 3. Scooping zone 4 was
extended. discounted because of the width and
length of the selected site. Refer to also
There is also a very high element of to Appendix 3.
risk associated with undertaking a
scooping operation having the scooping
probes extended prior to the floats
making contact with the water surface.
An observation during the operation
evaluation indicated that the aircraft
suffered a contact shock resulting in the
aircraft “bumping” off the water and
changing direction slightly.
Additionally if the longitudinal length of
a Scooping Zone was shorter than the
minimum specifications but, it offered
generous entry and exit azimuth paths
there is a potential for inexperienced
observers to suggest that with half a
load from the initial scoop the Fire Boss
could conduct a “top up scoop” from
the same site to get a the remaining
volume to fill the hopper.
The request for a “top up scoop” would
place an unacceptable exposure and
risk on the pilot and should not be
considered at all.
Notes
32 National Transport Safety Bureau, USA.
>
30
Discussion (Continued)
Initial drop assessment The volume dropped ranged from 1200 The physical design and size of the
up 2500 litres in accordance with Wipaire’s floats have a significant effect on the
Although no formal drop assessment standard training procedures. All drops flow of air in, around and over the
was conducted with the Fire Boss it was delivered consisted of water only. surface of the floats and fuselage of
obvious that there was some significant the aircraft. The angle and depth of the
differences in the evacuation process of A considered opinion of the investigation
inboard surface areas direct the airflow
the suppressant from the float equipped officer33 after the initial observations of
into the centre of the aircraft.
Fire Boss compared to the conventional the evacuation process is that the drops
undercarriage AT-802. from the Fire Boss would be narrower, The inboard concentration of air flow
shorter and potentially producing a more contains the load to a more stable
All the drops observed during the consistent and uniform distribution of mass and prevents erosion during the
training and endorsement program coverage on the ground than those evacuation process.
were delivered almost immediately from the AT-802 with a conventional
back into the water body after the Further investigation is required to
undercarriage.
completion of the scooping process validate the initial observations and
and clearing water surface contact. Notes assessment.
>
Figure 2. The above images show the full salvo drop. Source Fire Boss LCC, USA.
>
References List of Appendices 31
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Air Tractor, Inc. Olney, Texas USA. Appendix 1 Images of Air Tractor AT 802 aircraft.
Fire Boss LCC St. Paul, Minnesota U.S.A. Appendix 2 General comparison AT-802A/F and Fire Boss AT-802A/F.
Mace Justin, R & M Aircraft. Appendix 3 Endorsement and evaluation zones Ulmara
New South Wales November 2008.
Mathisen Mark, FireBoss LLC.
Appendix 4 Examples of proposed scooping services, Victoria 2008.
Wipaire Inc. St. Paul, Minnesota U.S.A.
Wiplinger Bob, Wipaire Inc. U.S.A.
>
32
Appendix 1
Plate 25. Bomber 354 (Delatite, VIC) a standard one seat Air Tractor AT-802AF fitted with a conventional Source Bryan Rees State
undercarriage, Air Tractor FRDS and a PT6A-65A fitted with a 1295-shp turboprop engine. Aircraft Unit, Vic.
Plate 26. Bomber 351 (Stawell, Vic) a standard two seat Air Tractor AT-802F fitted with a conventional undercarriage,
Air Tractor FRDS and a PT6A-67AG fitted with a 1350-shp turboprop engine.
33
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Fire Boss Air Tractor AT-802AF (1350-shp.)
>
Plate 27. Tanker 83 (Kamloops B.C. Canada) a one seat Fire Boss Air Tractor AT-802AF fitted with the Wipline amphibious undercarriage
with subsequent airframe modifications, Air Tractor FRDS and fitted with a PT6A-67AG fitted with a 1350-shp turboprop engine.
Plate 28. Bomber 718 ( Grafton, NSW) a two seat Fire Boss Air Tractor AT-802F fitted with the Wipline amphibious undercarriage,
Air Tractor FRDS with subsequent airframe modifications and fitted with a PT6-67F 1600-shp turboprop engine.
>
34
Appendix 2
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Fire Boss Air Tractor AT-802A/F (1600-shp.)
Endorsement and evaluations zones, Ulmara New South Wales, November 2008
Figure 3. Shows the Operational Base, Grafton Airport and the Clarence River with the evaluation sites. Source Google Earth
37
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
Scooping evaluation zones
>
Figure 4. Site 1 Clarence
River, Ulmarra, NSW.
Not to scale
Source Google Earth
Figure 6. Lake Belfield Halls Gap, Source Fire Information Systems Group,
DSE 2009.
Grampians Western Victoria.
>
Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker: Final Report, November 2008
>
Figure 8. Barwon Reservoir Otway Region, Source Fire Information Systems Group,
DSE 2009.
Western Victoria
>
Figure 9. Happy Valley Reservoir Falls Creek, Source Fire Information Systems Group,
DSE 2009.
North East Victoria.
>
40
List of Reports in this Series
1. 1977. A Study of the distribution of aerially applied fire 28. 1990. Fire behaviour and Fuel Reduction Burning –
retardant in softwood plantations. R. Rawson. Bemm River. A. J. Buckley.
2. 1978. Low intensity prescribed burning in three Pinus radiata 29. 1991. Fire hazard and prescribed burning of thinning slash
stand types. D. S. Thomson. in eucalypt regrowth forest. A. J. Buckley and N. Corkish.
3. 1978. Fuel properties before and after thinning in young 30. 1987. Monitoring the ecological effects of fire. F. Hamilton
Radiata Pine plantations. D. F. Williams. (ed.)
4. 1979. Using fire to reduce fuel accumulations after first 31. 1992. Assessing fire hazard on public land in Victoria:
thinning in Radiata Pine plantations. P. R. Billing. fire management needs, and practical research objectives.
5. 1979. Some of the effects of low intensity burning on A.A.G. Wilson.
Radiata Pine. P. R. Billing. 32. 1992. Eucalypt bark hazard guide. A.A.G. Wilson.
6. 1980. A low intensity prescribed burning operation in a 33. 1992. Fuel reducing a stand of eucalypt regrowth in East
thinned Radiata Pine plantation. P. R. Billing. Gippsland – a case study. A. J. Buckley.
7. 1980. Some aspects of the behaviour of the Caroline Fire 34. 1992. Monitoring vegetation for fire effects. M.A. Wouters.
of February 1979. P. R. Billing. 35. 1993. Elevated fuel guide. A.A.G. Wilson.
8. 1981. Changes in understorey vegetation in Sherbrooke 36. 1993. Wildfire behaviour in heath and other elevated fuels:
Forest following burning or slashing. R. Rawson and B. Rees. a case study of the 1991 Heywood fire. M. A. Wouters.
9. 1981. Hazard reduction burning in the Big Desert. P. R. Billing. 37. 1993. The accumulation and structural development of the
10. 1981. The effectiveness of fuel-reduction burning: five case wiregrass (Tetrarrhena juncea) fuel type in East Gippsland.
histories. P. Billing. L.G. Fogarty.
11. 1982. A fire tornado in the Sunset Country January 1981. 38. 1993. A case study of wildfire management in the Byadbo
P. Billing and R. Rawson. and Tingaringy Wilderness Areas. A.G. Bartlett.
12. 1982. A summary of forest fire statistics, 1972-73 to 1980-81. 39. 1993. Developing Fire Management Planning in Victoria:
R. Rawson and B. Rees. a case study from the Grampians. M. A. Wouters.
13. 1982. Fuel moisture changes under Radiata Pine. 40. 1993. Fuel reducing regrowth forests with a wiregrass fuel
M. Woodman. type: fire behaviour guide and prescriptions. A.J. Buckley.
14. 1982. Fuel reduction burning in Radiata Pine plantations. 41. 1993. The effect of fuel reduction burning on the suppression
M. Woodman and R. Rawson. of four wildfires in western Victoria. S.R. Grant and
15. 1982. Project MAFFS/HERCULES: the Modular Airborne Fire M.A. Wouters.
Fighting System in Victoria. R. Rawson, B. Rees, E. Stuckey, 42. 1994. Fire behaviour and fire suppression in an elevated fuel
D. Turner, C. Wood, and M. Woodman. type in East Gippsland: Patrol Track wildfire, February 1991.
16. 1982. Using fire to reduce aerial fuels in first thinned Radiata A.J. Buckley.
Pine. P. R. Billing and J. V. Bywater. 43. 1996. Fuel hazard levels in relation to site characteristics and
17. 1982. Fuel properties before and after second thinning in fire history: Chiltern Regional Park case study. K. Chatto.
Radiata Pine. M. Woodman. 44. 2004. Surface fine fuel hazard rating – forest fuels in East
18. 1983. Retardant distributions from six agricultural aircraft. Gippsland. G. J. McCarthy.
B. Rees. 45. 1998. Effectiveness of firefighting first attack operations by
19. 1983. The Bright plantation fire: November, 1982. N. Watson, the Department of Natural Resources and Environment from
G. Morgan, and D. Rolland. 1991/92-1994/95. G. J McCarthy and K.G. Tolhurst.
20. 1983. Otways Fire No 22 – 1982/83: Aspects of fire behaviour. 46. 1997. The development and testing of the Wiltronics T-H
P. Billing. Fine Fuel Moisture meter. K. Chatto and K. Tolhurst.
21. 1983. Otways Fire No 22 – 1982/83: A case study of 47. 1998. Overall fuel hazard guide. G. J. McCarthy, K. Chatto
plantation protection. P. Billing. and K. Tolhurst.
22. 1984. Forest Fire Statistics, 1974-75 to 1983-84. B. Rees. 48. 1999. Development, behaviour, threat, and meteorological
aspects of a plume-driven bushfire in west-central Victoria:
23. 1985 The Avoca Fire, 14 January 1985. P. Billing.
Berringa Fire February 25-26, 1995. K. Chatto, K. Tolhurst,
24. 1985. Fuel management in Radiata Pine following heavy A. Leggett and A. Treloar.
first thinning. P. Norman.
49. 1997. Analysis of fire causes on or threatening public land
25. 1985. Effectiveness of Fuel Reduction Burning – 10 Case in Victoria 1976/77 – 1995/96. C. Davies.
Studies. R. Rawson, P. Billing and B. Rees.
50. 2000. Assessment of the effectiveness and environmental risk
26. 1986. Operational aspects of the Infra-Red Line Scanner. of the use of retardants to assist in wildfire control in Victoria.
P. Billing. CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products.
27. 1987. Heathcote fire: Bendigo Fire No.38 – 1986-87. P. Billing.
51. 2001. Effectiveness of broadscale fuel reduction burning in 68. 2003. Effects of fire retardant on vegetation in eastern
assisting with wildfire control in parks and forests in Victoria. Australian heathlands: a preliminary investigation. T. Bell.
G. J. McCarthy and K. Tolhurst. 69. 2003. Effects of fire retardant on heathland invertebrate
52. 2003. Effectiveness of aircraft operations by the Department communities in Victoria. N. Collett and C. Schoenborn.
of Natural Resources and Environment and Country Fire 70. 2003. Effects of fire retardant on soils of heathland in Victoria.
Authority 1997-1998. G. J. McCarthy. P. Hopmans and R. Bickford.
53. 2003. Modelling transport, dispersion and secondary pollutant 71. 2004. An evaluation of the performance of the Simplex
formation of emissions from burning vegetation using air 304 helicopter belly-tank. H. Biggs.
quality dispersion models. O. D. Valianatos, K. Tolhurst,
72. 2004. Operational performance of the S-64F Aircrane
S. Seims and N. Tapper.
Helitanker – 1997-98 fire season. H. Biggs.
54. 2003. Determination of sustainable fire regimes in the
73. 2008 Underpinnings of fire management for biodiversity
Victorian Alps using plant vital attributes. G. J. McCarthy,
conversation in reserves. M. Gill.
K. Tolhurst and K. Chatto.
74. 2008. Flora monitoring protocols for planned burning:
55. 2004. Analysis of wildfire threat: issues and options.
a user’s guide. J. Cawson and A. Muir.
A. A. G. Wilson.
75. 2008. Flora monitoring protocols for planned burning:
56. 2003. Prediction of firefighting resources for suppression
a rationale report. J. Cawson and A. Muir.
operations in Victoria’s parks and forests. G. J. McCarthy,
K. Tolhurst, M. Wouters. 76. 2010. Adaptive Management of Fire: The role of a learning
network. C. Campbell, S. Blair and A. A. G. Wilson.
57. 2003. Ecological effects of repeated low-intensity fire in a
mixed eucalypt foothill forest in south-eastern Australia. 77. 2010. Understanding, Developing and Sharing Knowledge
Summary report (1994-1999). Department of Sustainability about Fire in Victoria. S. Blair, C. Campbell, A. A. G. Wilson
and Environment. and M. Campbell.
58. 2003. Effects of repeated low-intensity fire on the 78. 2010. Developing a Fire Learning Network: A case study of
understorey of a mixed eucalypt foothill forest in south- the first year. C. Campbell, S. Blair and A. A. G. Wilson.
eastern Australia. K. Tolhurst. 79. 2010. A Case Study of a strategic conversation about fire in
59. 2003. Effects of a repeated low-intensity fire on fuel dynamics Victoria, Australia. S. Blair, C. Campbell and M. Campbell.
in a mixed eucalypt foothill forest in south-eastern Australia. 80. Forthcoming. Guidelines: Facilitating Strategic Conversations
K. Tolhurst and N. Kelly. as Part of Adaptive Management. C. Campbell, M. Campbell
60. 2003. Effects of repeated low-intensity fire on carbon, and S. Blair.
nitrogen and phosphorus in the soils of a mixed eucalypt 81. 2010. Fire Boss amphibious single engine air tanker:
foothill forest in south eastern Australia. P. Hopmans. Final Report, November 2008. H. Biggs.
61. 2003. Effects of repeated low-intensity fire on the
invertebrates of a mixed eucalypt foothill forest in south-
eastern Australia. N. Collett and F. Neumann. Supplementary report
62. 2003. Effects of repeated low-intensity fire on bird abundance 1992. Ecological effects of fuel reduction burning in a dry
in a mixed eucalypt foothill forest in south-eastern Australia. sclerophyll forest: A summary of principle research findings and
R. H. Loyn, R. B. Cunningham and C. Donnelly. their management implications. Department of Conservation
and Environment., Victoria. K Tolhurst, D.W. Flinn, R.H. Lyon,
63. 2003. Effects of repeated low-intensity fire on terrestrial
A.A.G.Wilson, and I. J. Foletta.
mammal populations of a mixed eucalypt foothill forest
in south-eastern Australia. M. Irvin, M. Westbrooke, and 1992. Ecological effects of fuel reduction burning in a dry
M. Gibson. sclerophyll forest: First Progress Report. Department of Conservation
and Environment. Victoria. K. Tolhurst and D. Flinn (eds)
64. 2003. Effects of repeated low-intensity fire on insectivorous
bat populations of a mixed eucalypt foothill forest in south-
eastern Australia. M. Irvin, P. Prevett, and M Gibson.
65. 2003. Effects of repeated low-intensity fire on reptile
populations of a mixed eucalypt foothill forest in south-
eastern Australia. M. Irvin, M. Westbrooke, and M. Gibson.
66. 2003. Effects of repeated low-intensity fire on tree growth
and bark in a mixed eucalypt foothill forest in south-eastern
Australia. K. Chatto, T. Bell and J. Kellas.
67. 2003. A review of the relationship between fireline intensity
and the ecological and economic effects of fire, and methods
currently used to collect fire data. K. Chatto and K. Tolhurst.
www.dse.vic.gov.au