|
|
|
|
|
[Sign Up Now] to Receive Our FREE Daily SCVTV-SCVNews Digest by E-Mail |
|
|
Inside Weather
Calendar 
Today in S.C.V. History April 26
|
Comment On This Story |
LOS ANGELES COUNTY HEADLINES
Wednesday, Apr 24, 2024
Wednesday, Apr 24, 2024
Monday, Apr 22, 2024
Monday, Apr 22, 2024
Monday, Apr 22, 2024
Keep Up With Our Facebook
|
Tweet This
Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
RSS
|
Latest Additions to SCVNews.com
|
REAL NAMES ONLY: All posters must use their real individual or business name. This applies equally to Twitter account holders who use a nickname.
22 Comments
Duh!!!! Buy the damn thing! Help save time, money and avoid more damage. Families should be able to sue the state, for the lack protection and support.
About time
If every person in CA gave one dollar i bet we could buy one of these, i would gladly pay a tax for this instead of some of the other stupid things they are taxing us for.
My mom and I were totally discussing the same exact thing as you. We were talking about doing a fundraiser even in the schools so that we can get one in California.
Tell brown scrap the high speed project. Take about 50 million from that fed budget and give those planes and helicopters to forestry. At least we wont be scrabbling around looking for extra help. We also need more DC 10 planes as well. At least Antonovich is trying.
Careful with some info from SCVTV isn’t always a irate with their Info so I am told! ?
..dang auto correct… ” I meant Accurate”!!
We need this year round!!!!
I completely support purchasing several of these planes. When they’re used to fight brush fires, the fires are usually put out quickly and before they have a chance to spread. We need access to these planes all year round, not just certain months of the year. Due to the drought, Southern California can have brush fires all year round. We need these planes.
It costs $37mil to purchase one. Taxpayers have been leasing for approximately 20 years at $24K a day during fire season (about 3 months). Taxpayers could have purchased one by now.
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2016/07/26/l-a-county-supervisors-considering-whether-to-buy-superscooper/
Nice thought, but you really don’t know what is involved in owning and opperating big dollar aircraft. Right now we lease for about 2 million dollars a year. A conservitive number for maintenance on such aircraft is about 10% of its value every year, or 3.7 million. Every year just to keep it flying. Now add in millions more for fuel, insurance, training and paying a full time crew, full time maintenance crew and shop, etc. All for an aircraft that is going to sit unused for 6 months of the year. Speciality aircraft like this alos probably have time limits on important structural members like wing spars control surfaces,and such. No problem, just send it back to the factory every 10 years for the 10 million upgrade/refurbish. Sometimes it is cheaper to just rent.
I’d rather spend tax money on a fleet of planes then that stupid bullet train to no where.
Mike Sumner but when we’re not using it lease it out.
Where is a fire season during our winter within reasonable flying distance? Its on the other side of the planet, not feasable. Why do you think we dont have the Canadian planes right now? Because its their fire season right now also. Even then, with a rental rate of aprox. 4 million/6 months its still cheaper to rent.
It’s about time, it’s so stupid they have not purchased this plane along time ago. What’s the hold up!
Exactly!!
Mike A, last thing you do before you leave office, BUY THE DAMN PLANE ! Tell the other 4 supervisors to sit down and shut up !
Canadian population 36 million.
California population 38 million.
Population of USA? 324 million.
Question you should be asking?
Why do we not have this plane in our possession?
The $30 million Superscoopers (SS) are a popular plane with the public and politicians. They are big, yellow and new. The question is are they the best choice. If you compare them with a S70 Firehawk helicopter, which L.A. County Fire all ready has 3, the Firehawk comes up on top. The SS was designed for the Canadian northwest where lakes are prevalent and there are hundreds of miles of open space. Here in SoCal we don’t have as many lakes, more mountains and have the ability to be closer to the fire. The Firehawk can refill anywhere the Superscoopers can as well as a small lake, pool, pond or at a helispot where there are no lakes. Even though it carries 1,000 gallons vs. the 1,600 for the SS, with it’s faster turn around time so it can put much more water on a fire per hour than the SS. Other advantages include the Firehawk can get into areas that the SS can’t, they are more accurate, they are already in the system so maintenance and training is established, they can be staged all over the county at their helispots and they can be used for other missions like search and rescue and air ambulance. The choice should be made by the firefighting experts not politicians. The SS is a good firefighting tool, but is it the best tool for us? For the money in my opinion, more Firehawks would be a much better choice.
BUY THEM! I will gladly pay some of the costs on my property taxes. I don’t understand why it has taken this long to figure it out. I also do not understand what takes 2 or 3 days to get the “heavies” DC10, 747, C-130’s to fight a fire. OH I KNOW BUREAUCRACY! In the meant time WE BURN!,then the mudslides
JUST DO IT!!!!!! Save lives, Save the Gallant Firefighters, and property.
Fire season is all year round now and with the drought, it’s a no brainier buy one of our own. Firefighters need all the help and best equipment possible!!
We need this more than a bullet train!!!
Finially a comment that addresses the practacallity of Scoopers verses helicopters. You did not mention the helitanker (CH-64) which hold 2000 gals verses 1600 can reload and return to a fire much quicker and are much more precise in their drops. Listen to the firefighters who prefer the helicopter and helitanker to the Super Scoopers.