While it feels odd to be advocating surveillance, a massive network of UAVs equipped with infrared imaging would be very useful here.
Have that same network double as forest fire early warning, and it'd probably pay for itself.
Have that same network double as forest fire early warning, and it'd probably pay for itself.
We also had low and slow flying Cessnas for fire spotting, and we were also in the flight line of retardant bombers flying south. So, summers were generally pretty noisy for us as far as aircraft noise goes. The Cessnas & retardant bombers were flying so low, slow & close to the house, you could read the tail numbers with your naked eye. The old bombers in particular really stuggled to gain altitude. We were about 20 miles from the airport, and about 1000 feet over the value floor, and they were seldom higher than straight out horizontal from our deck.
Don't need UAVs for forest fire detection - already have MODIS [0] (and other) satellite imagery for that. New fires are detected via infrared usually in less than 24 hours.
That's not enough. Per the forecasted fire danger map[0]:
"Extreme - Fires start quickly, spread furiously, and burn intensely. All fires are potentially serious. Development into high intensity burning will usually be faster and occur from smaller fires than in the very high fire danger class. Direct attack is rarely possible and may be dangerous except immediately after ignition."
The lesser two classes have similar narratives. Given the speed at which fire spreads, earlier the detection the merrier.
As an aside, I was going to suggest artillery as a potential candidate for immediate response, but it seems that's already been thought up.[1]
[0] https://fsapps.nwcg.gov/afm/current.php?sensor=modis&extent=...
[1] https://wildfiretoday.com/2016/08/25/boeing-wants-to-fight-w...
Last year, a slow moving fire in Montana that started from lightening ended up costing my parents' home after it made a small move, out of town hotspots made a shit call and lit a back burn on a Western facing slope, and then just watched it all burn down in the heat of afternoon and the height of eastern blowing winds. In other words, they lit the fire, expecting it to go west, but hot, dry winds blowing to the east blew it right onto the areas they sought to protect. Lawsuit is still pending, but my parents are at least covered by insurance, but the FWS also showed growes negligence that day, in my opinion.
Prior to that experience, we'd had 3 or 4 lightning strikes in the area. All reported locally, and crews were on site within 48 hours. Difference was, this time, the strike was in very difficult terrain, they couldnt get to it, so they let it burn. They put in fire breaks and ran hoses for sprinklers along the firebreak, but they didn't even have the lines charged for the sprinklers when they lit the back burn. Then, like I said, they just watched while homes burned that they had setup to protect.
Keep taking the money out of it, and these people will go away.