747 tanker

[avbug]

I checked Craig out in some of the company airplanes in GEY. I flew with both Steve and Mike. I did my FE checkride in T-130. I'd flown with Rick and worked in the hangar with him, and Milt would borrow my car when he came to town. I did my 4Y type in T123.

It all seems like yesterday. I remember exactly where I was when I got the news for T-130...just getting set to launch on a fire. I was getting set to launch on another when I got the word on T-123...and set to launch on another when a reporter from Colorado called for an interview about fire, and those involved.

It's kind of a jolt to go back over the fatality list and think "has it been that long?" Seems like it just happened, each one.

I swapped airplanes several times last year with Gerry Marais, in SEATs. He was killed in one this year, in Colorado, early in the year. I didn't get to go to the funeral in the end, and has mixed feelings about it. A few weeks later I happened to go through the call list on my phone, and there was his name and number. I dialed the number, not sure what I was thinking. It went to his voice mail, and I listened to his voice for the last time.

I still haven't deleted it off the list...it just doesn't feel right.

 

[stupidpilot]

There's room for civil discussion after you pony up and tell us about your firefighting experience. Your credibility is shot until you back yourself up...else there's really nothing to discuss with you.

Lying does that for you.

1500 gallon Bambi bucket slung under my helicopter. Not the same as fixed wing I know, and obviously I don't have the experience you guys do. But being an ahole for no reason is uncalled for.

 

[avbug]

1,500 gallons in your bambi bucket. You're sure about that? There's a 1,320 gallon, and a 2,000 gallon bambi bucket produced.

How much does that bucket weigh?

For one who claims to be flying a heavy helicopter, you don't seem to know squat about fires...doesn't really add up.

 

[stupidpilot]

It's been a long time. I'm not current. I don't recall whether we used the 1320 or 2000 gal. I was just going from memory. Obviously I didn't recall correctly.

 

[avbug]

It doesn't matter. It could just as well have been a big bucket necked down. Buckets seldom get filled, and even then a lot of it is gone by the time it gets over the fire.

You must have been flying large equipment in any case. Aside from the Vertol, Skycrane, and a couple of Sikorsky's, there isn't a lot that hauls a bucket that big. Chinooks, too...military loads?

Military does some good work, and it's not a major role for military aviators...so they're not expected to know the fire business or be firefighters. They still do a good job and are always much appreciated over the fire.

From the perspective of the person about to lose their house...so is everyone else, too. If you're any of the above, then you've already earned your stripes.

 

[Nevergreen]

To the experienced guys......

Can the 747 flown with an experienced crew actually fight fires and get contracts or is it a giant waste of time and money?

 

[stupidpilot]

Thanks bug. I appreciate the kudos but I feel that we were doing little more than spitting on a bonfire. And it was military by the way. One of our crewchiefs accidentally punched a load over one of the ground guys pickups. It flattened it. Man was that guy pissed. Wouldn't have bothered me too much though. I would have been happy cause I got a brand new truck courtesy of Uncle Sam!

 

[avbug]

Can the 747 flown with an experienced crew actually fight fires and get contracts or is it a giant waste of time and money?

The 747 like the DC10, and every other asset over the fire, is a tool in the toolbox...as we like to say. The most numerous type of fixed wing tanker presently is the Single Engine Air Tanker...large ag airplanes that carry 800 gallons, and are very good initial attack tools, but not ideal for extended large fires. Helicopters are excellent for spot fires, in some cases working fire lines, and for hauling men and equipment in and out of fire divisions, and doing aerial ignition. Not fast, often not hauling large amounts of retardant...but very effective in their niche.

Large air tankers are less maneuverable, but faster, carry more, and have thier own advantages and disadvantages. There's no one-brush-fits-all solution.

The so-called "supertankers" such as the DC10 and the 747 do have something to offer. It's a fairly limited role, best epitomized in the some of the large complex fires we see in Region 5...California. The fires that burn from San Diego past Santa Barbara, with long lines to attack and a lot of urban interface, are places where the "supertankers" can really shine. They're limited by the need to drop higher, with more drift. They're limited by long turnaround times...the longer it takes a tanker to get back to the fire, the greater the chance of the fire hooking or burning through the retardant...and the greater the chances of failure. They're limited by only having two tanker bases in the country that can support them, and the inability to go to most fires and come back to those bases. They're limited by extremely high operating costs, and yes, bu the lack of qualified airmen to operate them over a fire. The fires are hampered by having to move men and equipment off the line when they're dropping, and by pulling back other aircraft and by having to dedicate a single leadplane to their function.

However, they do have their use, and they've been doing well over the fires this year and some of last. There's a lot they can't do, a lot of times they can't fly. They're swept wing aircraft operating in a very decidedly low speed environment...exactly the environment where one doesn't want to operate a swept wing airplane, and in an environment where roll reversals, banks, and pulls in the turn are often part of making a drop...even slips...something you do NOT want to be doing in either the DC10 or the 747.

Yes, there's a place. It's a limited place, and it's this that the government has taken into consideration when applying them and paying for them.

That they're being used presently, especially considering the underfunding that's been available, is largely a political image for the benefit of the public, than a serious nod at fighting fire. Is it a waste of time and money? I don't think so, but time will tell.

I appreciate the kudos but I feel that we were doing little more than spitting on a bonfire.

That's all it really is. We don't put fires out. We just help the people who do...and that's always the man on the ground. We're just another tool to help help them do their job.

One of our crewchiefs accidentally punched a load over one of the ground guys pickups. It flattened it. Man was that guy pissed.

I've broadsided some equipment before. That's another part of ensuring the folks over the fire are qualified and aware...27,000 lbs of retardant at 150 knots can kill troops on the ground. A drop in the wrong place can cause injury or death. A drop at the wrong height, wrong direction, etc, can be ineffective at best, but can actually conribute to the fires. During the "fire storms" in Florida about ten years or so ago, we were topping the trees at a 200' drop height. The trees were so dry and brittle that they broke off and we were actually contributing to the fire...we bumped up to 300' and at one point to 400' on some of the drops.

I hit a 3 man helittack team with 600 gallons of retardant, some years ago. There were communication issues and there was a request on their part for the drop, repeatedly. Never the less, they weren't happy, and I ended up having to write a long report, and attended meetings for three years following that drop, regarding the incident. It happens.

 

[OrionFE]

My buddies in the industry say, the 747 is just too expensive to operate. The P-3's are stripped down to minimum equipment and no FE. Pretty cheap compared to the "whale".

 

[avbug]

It's probably worth noting that Aero Union had a choice of whether or not to keep the FE and decided not to. We had the same choice in the Herc, and decided to keep the FE, and required that all crewmembers on board were qualified as FE, as well.

It's also worth noting that the P3's are operating over ZFW with the retardant load, something none of the other aircraft do.

You're right, though. Dollar for dollar when it comes to delivering retardant, the P3's have faster turnaround times, faster enroute times, an excellent, well-established delivery history, and can operate from any heavy tanker base in the country, without difficulty. Not gonna happen with the 747 or DC10.