Fact check: Nighttime firefighting with aerial means is not efficient

1. Summary of the results

The analyses overwhelmingly contradict the original statement that nighttime firefighting with aerial means is not efficient. Multiple sources provide compelling evidence that nighttime aerial firefighting operations are actually more effective than daytime operations.

Coulson Aviation reports that nighttime aerial firefighting operations are 10 times more effective than during the day, thanks to optimization of drops, with temperatures dropping and humidity rising at night, making water and retardant drops more potent against raging fires ^[1]. This finding is corroborated by additional sources noting that lower temperatures, increased humidity, and reduced windspeed at night create conditions where fires can be more easily brought under control ^[2].

The practice has gained international adoption, with several countries including the United States and Australia realizing that aerial firefighting at night comes with sufficient benefits to justify the practice ^{[2] [3]}. Research data further supports this trend, showing that 94% of nighttime fire radiative power was detected within wildfires, with 95% of that in large wildfires, indicating that nighttime fire activity has been increasing with larger and more intense fires continuing to burn at night ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original statement fails to acknowledge several critical factors that make nighttime aerial firefighting not only viable but potentially superior:

• Environmental advantages: The statement ignores that nighttime conditions naturally favor firefighting efforts through reduced temperatures, increased humidity, and calmer winds ^{[1] [2]}
• Technological solutions: Missing context includes the development of optionally piloted helicopters (OPHs) for nighttime firefighting and the use of night-vision goggles (NVGs) for aircrews, though experts note that NVGs require expensive and lengthy training and offer limited return on investment ^[5]
• Detection capabilities: The statement overlooks advances in low-light satellite technology and remote sensing for nighttime fire detection, which address the complexity of identifying fires in darkness ^[6]
• Operational safety: Sources suggest that nighttime operations can actually be safer and more efficient than daytime operations, contrary to common assumptions ^[2]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement appears to perpetuate outdated assumptions about nighttime aerial firefighting capabilities. The claim directly contradicts substantial evidence from aviation companies like Coulson Aviation and operational data from countries that have successfully implemented nighttime programs.

The statement may reflect traditional firefighting doctrine that has not kept pace with technological advances and operational innovations. Organizations that benefit from maintaining daytime-only operations might include:

• Traditional firefighting agencies that have not invested in nighttime capabilities or training
• Insurance companies that may prefer to limit coverage to established daytime operations
• Equipment manufacturers focused on conventional daytime firefighting technology

The evidence suggests the statement ignores the increasing intensity and duration of modern wildfires, which continue burning through the night and require round-the-clock response capabilities ^[4]. This represents a significant gap between current firefighting needs and the limitations suggested by the original claim.