USFS cancels large-airtanker contract

MikeD

MikeD

Administrator
Staff member
Due to the NTSB reports on the accidents of a C-130A and a PB4Y-2 in 2002 that resulted in 5 fatalities, the US Forest Service has cancelled the contracts for 33 large airtankers operated by a number of private contractors. Aircraft affected will include P-2, P-3, DC-4/C-54, DC-6, DC-7 and KC-97 aircraft. C-130A and PB4Y-2 aircraft were all grounded in 2002.

Not a very good time to try to get into, or already be in, the aerial firefighting business as it goes with large airtankers. Many of the private companies operating these planes have "all their eggs in one basket" with their firefighting contracts, since because these planes are certificated in the "restricted" airworthiness category, they can't be used for anything else. The only remaining fixed-wing tankers will be the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve C-130s with the MAFFS fire-fighting system, as well as SEAT, or Single Engine Air Tanker aircraft, essentially modified agricultural aircraft such as the Air Tractor, Dromadear, and others.

http://www.nifc.gov/nr_airtanker-contracts.html
 
Great, just in time for peak fire season.

How's that A-10 firehog mod coming along?
 
[ QUOTE ]


How's that A-10 firehog mod coming along?

[/ QUOTE ]

Won't work, IMO. Big problem being CG. You can mount a retardant tank on the center of the aircraft which will carry about 2000 gals of fire retardant. Figuring a nominal 10 lbs/gallon, you have 20,000 lbs of retardant. The 30mm gun system will obviously have to be removed. The gun system itself exists to kill stuff, but also exists as a CG balance against the rear-mounted engines. With the gun drive removed, there's not enough room to install ballast to counter the effect of the aircraft losing 20,000 lbs in 2 seconds, as it goes with rapid aft-CG shift upon release of retardant. The plane would fly OK with a full tank, but post-drop, it'd probably impact the ground not far past the drop point.
 
...hence a bigger fire... and then another firehog dispatched to slurry THAT fire... (repeat)
 
I heard (and read on their site) that Evergreen "Airlines" is working on a air-tanker mod of a 747. There were a few NOTAMs out a few months back affecting Pinal Airfield down near Tucson – it seems evergreen was testing the 747.

Something needs to be done because SEATs and the few ANG tankers out there just aint going to cut it.
shocked.gif
 
So, in essence, BushCo has declared a privatized industry an "inherently governmental" activity, yet he still wants to privatize ATC. Who's driving this bus, anyway?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Who's driving this short, yellow, slightly rusted and dented bus, anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

Corrected.
tongue.gif
 
No AOPA support for grounded airtankers.

In a letter received by an airtanker industry party from AOPAs Ian Twombly:

"Thank you for contacting AOPA. I'm not overly familiar with this issue, but I believe the Forestry Service has decided not to contract certain aircraft. The FAA would make the actual decision to ground the fleet.

I think the footage of the aircraft coming apart in flight probably made the decision for the Forestry Service. I'm sure you'll understand that AOPA doesn't necessarily want to get involved on behalf of a very old fleet that fly under harsh conditions. It's not so much that we don't think the mission is important, but we understand that safety is a primary concern in that business.

Please feel free to contact me with any further questions you may have. Have a nice day.

Ian Twombly
Aviation Services Department
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
1-800-872-2672"
 
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you'll understand that AOPA doesn't necessarily want to get involved on behalf of a very old fleet that fly under harsh conditions

[/ QUOTE ]

I bet they'd jump right in to help a freight dog flying a beat up ole 206, though. Would that not be part of a "very old fleet that fl(ies) under harsh conditions?"

I think the main reason is they don't want to allocate funds on something that isn't as visible as Meigs or the TSA.
 
Saw on the news here two days ago that they're(?) trying to certify a mod 747 in time for the summer fires. It can drop 4 times the chemicals that those C130s could. It sounds like during last years huge fire (hinman I think) that someone offered the use of that big ol Russian 4 jet tanker but the USFS declined. Anyone think the Forest Service will get off their @ss and cut through the red tape to get things in motion by fire season? Oh wait, we had our first fire here 4 weeks ago
confused.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
I heard (and read on their site) that Evergreen "Airlines" is working on a air-tanker mod of a 747. There were a few NOTAMs out a few months back affecting Pinal Airfield down near Tucson – it seems evergreen was testing the 747.

Something needs to be done because SEATs and the few ANG tankers out there just aint going to cut it.
shocked.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm, I'm not at all sure that you can justify your statement. SEAT are very cost effective when used properly. They can operate from more remote and unimproved areas than the larger aircraft often require. They are crewed by one person as opposed to as many as five crewmen or more for the biggies. They are relatively inexpensive to operate. The aircraft are in current production so there are relatively few parts issues. SEATs provide more versatility when combatting numerous fires. Their readiness and response ability is something like 99% of the time. Several (read: many) SEATs can be operated for the same cost as one C-130. The Hercules can only be one place at a time. The cost-equivalent number of SEATs can be deployed on one mission at a time or they can be split to attend to different areas. Because of their quick reaction time they are often able to nip fires in the bud. If they do that they don't need the big tankers.

And man, have you seen how those Hawkins and Powers C-130 wing spars have been giving up the ghost lately?
 
I'm not running the SEATs down ... there just aren't enough of them to go around, right now. There are always a lot more fires than the ones that make the national news – as you probably know. Every little fire takes resources to deal with so that they don't turn into a large fire. Right now we have about three (and two or three have already been put down) here in AZ alone. Hell we had one start just outside the PHX metro area!

Grounding the big tankers (not saying it wasn't the right thing to do, either) has but a big dent in the capability of the FS to fight fires from the air. That's all I was saying.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Grounding the big tankers (not saying it wasn't the right thing to do, either) has but a big dent in the capability of the FS to fight fires from the air. That's all I was saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I got you.

Although I don't think there will EVER be enough fire fighting aircraft available when they're needed.

SEAT is definitely (in my opinion) a step in the right direction.

Now, if they can just figure out how to pay for all they need (of ANY aircraft!).
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Grounding the big tankers (not saying it wasn't the right thing to do, either) has but a big dent in the capability of the FS to fight fires from the air. That's all I was saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I got you.

Although I don't think there will EVER be enough fire fighting aircraft available when they're needed.

SEAT is definitely (in my opinion) a step in the right direction.

Now, if they can just figure out how to pay for all they need (of ANY aircraft!).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that SEAT is just another useful tool in the firefighting toolbox, so to speak, just like heavies, helos, etc. It has it's place where it's most effective and least efffective. You gain mobility, ability to operate from austere fields possible closer to the fire, maneuverability, response time, lower operating cost. At the same time, you accept lower payload, less range, less coverage, etc. It's just another tool that is great when used for it's proper design, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top