http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=4424 Online perspective from the editors of "AOPA Pilot". Sat, 25 May 2013 04:43:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=4424&cpage=1#comment-171730 ed K Wed, 12 Dec 2012 04:25:43 +0000 http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=4424#comment-171730 with all things Government, common sense and logic are not always involved. I agree that we should not jump on the band wagon to petition DC 10 ‘s be used if they are not needed. But I suspect they are needed, and the 747 tanker as well. how many years de we listen to report after report of un contained wild fires. You don’t fight a house fire with a dixie cup, I say jump on the small fire with a big bucket. A few big tankers will replace MANY small tankers. I think we should petition for more consideration for large tankers, and justification by the forest service if they turn them down. For my part, I don’t want to hear a 4 word explanation “we don’t need them”, I want a detailed explanation that’s filled with common sense. Keep in mind, you dont do an annual and a pre flight on the big birds in 10 hours. They are either ready for a fire season, or they wont be available the whole fire season.

]]> http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=4424&cpage=1#comment-170186 Deltamike197 Sat, 08 Dec 2012 01:03:09 +0000 http://blog.aopa.org/blog/?p=4424#comment-170186 I’m as big a fan of all things aviation as anyone but……our country is BROKE, and its is likely to get worse before it gets better (if it does). If the forest service does NOT need these aircraft then they should NOT be petitioned to take them. I read the AOPA article, admire the guys that had the idea and, that get the joy of flying them. But, if the country does not have a pressing need for them, then I, as a taxpayer, should not be peitioned to accept them or be obligated to pay for them!!

]]>