Examining the Effectiveness of Aerial Firefighting with the Components of Firebreak Requirements and Footprint Geometry—Critics of the Present Practice

Abstract

The negative impact of climate change is increasingly evident in the severity of forest fires. Fires are becoming more intense and can often only be controlled by aerial means. Aerial firefighting is known as a very effective method—in some cases, it is the only option—of suppressing fire, but it is a very expensive solution. Recently, the effectiveness of this method has received a lot of criticism, with some studies showing a loss of between 60 and 95%, so it is worth approaching this issue in a different way. The aim of this study is to estimate losses using a new method that has not been used before. For this purpose, this study focuses on two components: the requirements of the firebreak and the geometry of the footprint. For the first, the rules of thumb of the practice were applied depending on the fireline intensity. One is the required coverage level of the surface with suppressant, and the other is the required wetted bandwidth, which is the firebreak. In practice, the firebreak should be 2–2.5 times wider than the length of the flame. For the footprint geometry, the author used the results of previous studies dealing with footprint formation. At the end, the design of the required firebreak and the simplified design of the footprint, which is an ellipsoid, were compared to each other. The results show that, in the case of a fireline intensity of 3 MWm−1 and a coverage level of 2.4 kgm−2, the loss is approximately 36.4–44.6% for the ellipsoidal footprint alone and 86–87.8% for the total amount of extinguishing agent. The conclusion is that future work should focus not on a more accurate description and understanding of emissions but on developing a technology that can change the shape of the footprint from an elliptical to a rectangular shape.