Juan, thanks for pointing the algorithm this way for me. Happy Fourth to all.

Thankful for all those fighting the heat and fire.

Hearing the coordination between ground, air attack and the tanker is what really makes this video cool.

They were actually to big to really be effective, they would drop so much water that all the ground resources would have to be pulled back for safety, and by the time they could be put back on the line, all the time that was bought would be lost. They also couldn't carry fire retardant, and were very awkward in the air.

Availability (and therefore also price). The C-5s are still in service with the US military. Also, there are only 130 C-5 total buld compared to over 1500 747s (in all configurations).

Actually funny fact, they're just straight up to big to be effective in firefighting. Fires are won and lost on the ground, and having to pull back all your ground resources for safety made it so all the time the Martin bought was lost getting back on the lines. Also only 113 of all the water sources in Canada are big enough for them to scoop up from.

This might not his his first drop on this fire...... could be his multiple visit and he and the ground crew have an ongoing strategy. You can't have enough info just from this vid to make the assumptions you made........

@@nickmaclachlan5178 True. So we are both making assumptions then. Sounds like we need more background info on this particular mission.

@@kenyackimec1651 Agreed completely...... that was my point.

You don't always have an air attack. If resources are spread thin or too far away. I've been out of the game a few years but if I remember correctly unless there's more than one aircraft on the incident you don't need air attack. I worked outside of Vegas for years and we had a seat plane close that came in himself and did way more than we ever could. Risky career but im sure they like it that way

@@jaw3964 I worked in Canada just so you know where i have my experience. There are quite a few differences in how we work as compared to what I have seen in the states. I guess whatever works in your area is what is needed but just for info, on any given airtanker fire in Alberta we may use any combination of the fleet of Firebosses, CL 215Ts, Electras, Convair 580s and wheeled 802s. They are set up in 7 groups, each with at least one tanker and a bird dog. On any fire where tankers are dispatched there will always be (usually only one) birddog to do a bunch of stuff: radio work to IC, groundcrews and HQs, on scene fire observations and status reports/pictures, making an attack plan and communicating the plan, the runs, and load types to the tankers, calling for other tanker resources if needed, doing inspection runs, doing lead ins if necessary, load assessments and reload instructions and controlling the airspace for all the aircraft as they come and go for reloads or crews etc. There are two of us in any bird dog, the pilot and the forestry Air Attack officer and any birddog can also act as either the lone birddog or as Air Attack if it we need to split the work if it gets too busy for one. It works pretty well for us but your area works differently I understand. It would be a dream if we could all work out the same system as much as possible so we could help each other out seamlessly when needs arise. Not sure that is possible as even in Canada all the provinces have different ways of approaching this but it sure would make for an interesting conversation.