,
16 tweets,
5 min read
Read on Twitter
So, you might be asking: Why /not/ use planes or helicopters to fight the fire at Notre Dame? Let's talk about it! (1/n)
Your first option would be to use a water bomber like @realDonaldTrump suggests. France owns about a dozen of these CL-415s, which they use for fighting wildfires.
There are a few big problems here, though: availability, filling, and impact.
There are a few big problems here, though: availability, filling, and impact.
The first problem is whether these planes are even available. I don't know the protocols within the French Sécurité Civile, but in Canada, we don't have water bombers ready at a moment's notice year round. They're on call during wildfire season, but certainly not winter! (3/n)
It also matters how long it takes to get there! Even if they were on 10-minute standby, by the time they were requested, briefed, took off, flew to Paris, etc... we're /way past/ the point of saving the wooden parts of Notre Dame. (4/n)
Okay, but let's imagine that they were actually on standby and able to get there quickly. There's still a major problem: where are you going to fill them? You need length (like, 1-2.5 nautical miles!). That's just not available in downtown Paris. (5/n)
You can indeed fill them up from a narrow body of water (check this out!), but you can't be skimming under bridges in downtown Paris! (6/n)
But the third problem is impact. Being under a water drop isn't a mist of happiness - it's a violent wall of water! That means you need to get crews out of the way to avoid injuries, which interrupts /hundreds/ of firefighters working on the ground. (7/n)
An alternative is to use helicopters with buckets below (thanks for the great question, @perreaux!). This does indeed help reduce the violent impact & means you could technically scoop from the Seine, but it delivers less water. (8/n)
But, the bottom line is it wouldn't have really helped. While the roof was burning, dropping water on it would have risked hurrying the collapse. Now that it's collapsed, it's easier, cheaper, and safer to pour water on from ground-based units like they're doing. (9/n)
Air-based firefighting can be helpful on wildfires (and sometimes not so helpful, but that's for another thread at another time!). But, their use case is pretty limited when it comes to 🏙 🔥. At this point, existing ground-based tactics are the best bet. (10/n)
Thanks for listening. Please enjoy a bucket-eye view of a helicopter doing what it does best in the wildland setting! (11/11)
Oh, and if you want it direct from the source, here's @SecCivileFrance pointing out the exact same thing: airborne firefighting in this case risks doing much more harm than good to the integrity of Notre Dame.
The images from the scene are incredibly striking:
I know I said I was done, but can I nerd out on fires & airborne firefighting for one more minute? I tried to keep the thread accessible, but there's another big (and somewhat technical) issue here: whether the water gets to the 🔥 bits.
Imagine there was a fire in your kitchen. Obviously, dropping water on your house wouldn't put it out - it would just roll off your roof! (The same thing happens in forests, by the way: tons of important research on how much of the water actually gets from plane to fire.)
Same problem would have occurred at @CathedraleNotre. You need to get the water to the /fire/, which can often be hidden within the roof or building (vs. simply on top). It's a whole lot easier to get the water to the right places in a complicated urban setting with hoses! /end
