Talk:Helitack

Userbox
If you fly helitack helicopters you may want to add this userbox to your user page!

- Ahunt 00:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks nice! But, what about us poor saps who work on them or around them ;-) --Trashbag (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I take userbox requests! What would you like - one for Fire Fighting A&Ps (US) or AMEs (Canada)? - Ahunt (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay - by popular demand I have created three new user boxes for fire fighting technicians. If any one would like to see different ones please let me know - i am happy to make more ! - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Radio Comms
Ref the list of equipment in medium-lift and light-lift, medium has VHF-FM on 118-136MHz and light has VHF-AM on 118-136MHz - it is normal to work AM on these frequencies but I didnt want to change the entry in medium-lift before checking - comments? MilborneOne (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Good catch - my error, I blame it on the scanner that I used! I fixed it! - Ahunt (talk) 05:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Proper Terms
Ahunt I made the changes I did because I work in fire, I have worked with the crew in that picture that i change the name on, they are Santa Barbara County Crew 1 if u look close they have C-1 on their helmets, and smoke jumpers jump from planes with parachutes, rappellers rappel from helicopters. Mrdude182 (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible reference?
I found this link searching for information on helibuckets. --Born2flie (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Refueling panorama gnangarra.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Refueling panorama gnangarra.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 25, 2010. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2010-06-25. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Helitack
Is Helitack helicopter-based? --Merle Lang (talk) 00:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * First line of the article says "Helitack refers to "helicopter-delivered fire resources"". Does that adequately address your question? - Ahunt (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

File:A fire helicopter with helicopter bucket.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:A fire helicopter with helicopter bucket.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 29, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-03-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks!  howcheng  {chat} 17:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 17:35, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Helitack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025140436/http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20041116-9999-1m16helitack.html to http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20041116-9999-1m16helitack.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041025060657/http://www.aviation.fs.fed.us/carding/searchAircraftOne.asp?ID=1686 to http://www.aviation.fs.fed.us/carding/searchAircraftone.asp?ID=1686

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Helitack. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025140437/http://www.nifc.gov/ihog/chapters/2006chapter06.pdf to http://www.nifc.gov/ihog/chapters/2006chapter06.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:19, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Physical fitness
(1) Helitack is most originally an American wildland firefighting technique, due to tremendous resources needed to manage the vast National Forest system, itself a predominately American conservation idea beginning with the unprecedented Land Revision Act of 1891 and shaped by Gifford Pinchot. This is unsurprising considering the unusual gargantuan scope of the country's expansive forestry needs. Indeed even the term helitack first appeared in the US in a 1956 Los Angeles Times article, which described the "first of a series of tests—tabbed the Helitack Program—on the use of helicopters in firefighting will start next week in the San Bernardino National Forest". The word itself is a portmanteau of "helicopter" and "attack". If you haven't read the Helitack Wikipedia article, it is entirely littered with—nearly nothing but—-descriptions of North American programs and terminology. (2) It is a misconception of world view mindfulness that descriptions must be so general that they could conform to every imaginable program, rendering unreasonably vague and useless information. Keep in mind this is the English language version, not the French, Russian, or Brazilian version. Readers and writers are self-selecting; language does contribute to global viewpoint. However, in time, someone from country XYZ will inevitably round out the topic; this is all part of that process. And yes, Canadians speak English, French, have large forests, and don't carry fire shelters; towards the North American Agreement additional descriptions of their programs are warranted. (3) In the United States the wildfire units conform to the NWCG standards (of which the International Association of Fire Chiefs is a member). Part of these standards are physical fitness, which is also described in the smokejumper and interagency hotshot pages—which are all part of the wildland firefighter series. When the US sends units internationally, it holds these standards. (4) As for the military analogy, not only is it not true, it would actually be silly to not portray some notion of physical fitness in the page about elite paramilitary commandos. Nor does the English version of Navy SEALS give any information about, say, Thai Navy SEALS which just did a famous cave rescue. And even if one small Philippine Navy SEAL unit employed preadolescent Boy Scouts, we need not change the entire language on the SEAL page to accommodate Child Soldiers. The information characterizing physical fitness is informative and certainly does not hurt. (5) Perhaps a lead-in "In the United States..." is all that is needed to accommodate world view without throwing away the proverbial baby with the bathwater. A lot of people look-up helitack because they are curious about career options; to those readers it was a disservice to remove information about the crews such as fitness requirements; helitack after all is an elite firefighting unit. Please be constructive rather than destructive—-the latter is considered trolling. The burden ought to have been reversed: If you think this should be removed then make a case for it on the talk page. Thank you for your consideration and opportunity for civil discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.128.3 (talk)


 * Sorry, but accusing people of trolling who aren't doing so isn't being civil. Please see WP:Trolling for how Wikipedia defines the term. - BilCat (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note. I am quite familiar with helitack and how it works, I worked as a helitack pilot for many years. Wikipedia works as described in WP:BRD, the onus is on you to make a case for including this information, once it has been reverted once. Incidentally you should not have put it back into the article without a consensus here to do so.
 * To the issue: I have worked in several jobs that had fitness requirements, including military. We don't list them in all the relevant articles, simply because in most cases it is non-encyclopedic minutia. There are many requirements for many jobs. Why not list age, education, etc, etc, etc. The argument that people come here for recruiting information, doesn't hold water. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a recruiting tool. I don't see any compelling reason to include this. - Ahunt (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * My due apologies if you dislike my tone. On that note, likewise don't suggest this is all about "recruiting;" that was a straw man response. Furthermore, quite the opposite to "Wikipedia works as described," WP:BRD is an "optional method of reaching consensus...not mandated by Wikipedia policy"! Neither the international point of view or the blanket irrelevancy of physical fitness hold water. I feel that this article strongly appeals to a general audience interested in (wildland) firefighting, and currently narrates a more narrow pilot's point of view. Helicopter Crewmember is not any common job with a mundane physical requirement such as pool cleaner, or city dog catcher, it is a very internally competitive, standardized, and elite position. As a pilot, you do not post the fitness needed for most aircraft in the world, unless it is something elite like piloting a spacecraft. Not only does Astronaut have an extensive training section, it also has  its own page, and actually so does piloting for that matter. I don't see Helitack Crewmember as that different, though it might be ordinary and un-notable to someone who thinks they have a better job. Moreover, physical fitness itself certainly has its own cult following, just as pages appealing to the specifics of every aircraft—which are minutia to most people—does. For example, may "ordinary Joes"—some of them city dogcatchers—want to train like navy seals. This is probably why SEAL Training has its own page too. It's not just the Navy either, in fact the number of elite jobs with unique physical fitness requirements on Wikipedia is too long to list. Last, fitness in this case is notable, because it is on the extreme end of the spectrum. Most fitness requirements are often a mere one-time passive screening; in this case crewmembers are paid to actively enhance their fitness at the NWCG HECM standards. Physical fitness here is not a trivial thing, it follows the employee home and affects them pre-season; it also describes character. As for trolling, I don't know anyone here personally, but it just felt a bit absurd to me to remove that posted fact, but again, I'm sorry. Every article has things that are mundane to some groups of people; consensus by people who post to talk pages is never unbiased. There are many ways to interpret the rules, just like law, whether it be textualism, originalism, strict constructionism or prudentialism—all used to contort outcomes to one's liking. It's not my style or arrogance to censor facts and to play god; that has undue chilling effects. This is a good argument, the post was well in the discretion of the rules and the mission of Wikipedia spirit and body. I'm not here to knock down anyone's sandcastles, or game the system by assembling consensus with a like-minded special wiki interest group, even if I disagree in someone's rightful discretion in their posted facts. There are way, way, bigger fish to fry out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.128.3 (talk)


 * You really need to drop the insults and straw-man arguments here. That is not how we arrive at a consensus on Wikipedia. You had indicated that this article should be useful as a recruiting tool, above, "A lot of people look-up helitack because they are curious about career options; to those readers it was a disservice to remove information about the crews such as fitness requirements". Just for the record I didn't say you were here recruiting, I said "Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a recruiting tool." These are general interest articles, not tools to attract readers to join any particular profession. We don't include information that is only of use for recruiting. As I stated above, my main issue is that the fitness requirements are too US-centric. Wikipedia is not just a US publication, it covers the whole world. If you want to retain this then there are several ways we can do that. First you could add fitness requirements for other jurisdictions. Each Canadian province has its own standards, for instance, as I am sure other nations do, too. If this is a notable topic (meaning that there are third party references available and not just first party standards) and other standards can be added, then it could probably be split into a new article to deal with the topic, such as Helitack crew member fitness standards or better yet, list all the standards, like education, experience, age, etc, and split it to something along the lines of List of helitack crew member standards. Another approach would just be to state that many jurisdictions establish fitness standards for crew members, but that these vary greatly around the world and then list refs that are examples of that, rather than listing the number of push-ups, etc, one solitary country requires. - Ahunt (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'll flesh out the world view. That will also happen in time by others who are subject matter experts in those countries, now that the seed is planted. FYI, just because I said people would be interested in information for career reasons in example does not follow that's the only audience; I was merely making an existential conclusion that the reversion was a disservice towards "some" readers for which I picked one audience. I couldn't imagine or list them all if I tried, and a singular listing was thrift on my part. Notwithstanding, I'm not sure we should be valuing or discriminating against our readers by their motives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.128.3 (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If you can add a more global perspective, than that would be great. I wouldn't count on anyone else adding any text on anything this specialized. The article is 11 years old and hadn't even attracted this general subject until you came along. - Ahunt (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thank you. Again, I'll flesh out a world perspective, but the research and finding citations might take a while. I'm not sure I feel so strong that "Helitack crew member fitness standards" warrants its own list outside of being mentioned here, but I won't object. In the interim, there is a big picture here I'd like to also address. Don't let perfect get in the way of better, that's the nirvana fallacy. This article will probably be continually modified for the next thousand years, long after we are around. Fallaciously requiring that a reversion must be counter-reverted, will result in an article stalling—which may already be the case. So will requiring posted facts to be accompanied with every other possible world scenario. That would unduly severely limit the number of knowledgeable people who would be able to contribute anything; I'm honestly guessing both of us included. I also disagree that anything I edited qualified as the prerequisite bold. And I resent the unilateral misrepresentation of the editing process; there are actually many alternatives to BRD. I suggest you edit, they edit, you edit again or let it go, over reverting statements that are not truly bold. Just for a final perspective, it is hard not to notice that on an article saturated with a widespread North American point of view, a mere fact was reverted based on world view mindfulness and a false assertion of an article's scope. If in the last 11 years no one has complained about this article's absent global perspective, it does beg the questions, "who from another continent is reading the English version and is really being bothered or hurt by it?" and "why is this specific fact really such an issue now?." Food for thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.128.3 (talk)


 * Oh, and the reason I know about SEAL training is because I watched a documentary broadcast on TV about the spectacle and subsequently read the Wikipedia article on it; AND like the targeted general TV audience, I wasn't interest in being recruited. Proof by example (existential conclusion) against appeal to motive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.189.128.3 (talk)