Fire Tankers Back In The Air?

[DenverDude2002]

Just read a thing in the paper that said the ban on heavy air tankers was being relaxed and that 5 P-3's have already been given the go ahead and 3 are being used in western colorado.

Any word on when more can be expected to be re-certified airworthy?

 

[avbug]

The P-3A's are indeed flying. I flew on the Table Fire yesterday evening. I made five drops. T-21, a P-3, made two drops, coming out of Battle Mountain with a reload in Pocatello.

 

[mar]

We need a drop or two

Man oh man, we could use some help up here. Haven't seen a drop of rain or retardant for weeks.

And I'm gettin' a smoker's cough on top of it all.

On the plus side we've been busy hauling bulk Jet-A and 100LL to Ft. Yukon and Venetie to support BLM and State Forestry.

Over 300,000 acres burnt but only lost a few cabins so far. I suppose these interior fires aren't too high on the priority list.

Fly safe out there.

 

[Draginass]

I figured that ban by the invertibrates in the government would last until the fire season started.

 

[rchcfi]

Avbug,

It is a great thing the "heavies" are back! I give the SEAT guys their credit and they are amazing at what they do. The only problem was lack of coverage and long load and return times. I flew the Chrome fire all last week and when we got T-20 and T-21 out of BAM, it was nice to have the 40 minute turn times and greater coverage than T-467 which took almost 70 minutes to load and return at LWL. But I will reiterate that you SEAT guys are G-R-E-A-T.

Cheers!

 

[avbug]

I don't know about that. My turn around times are almost always faster than a large air tanker. I deliver the same amount of retardant for far less money than either a large air tanker or any of the helicopters on the fire, most of the time. I may make more runs to the fire, but my lower hourly cost, and my ability to be closer to the fire when it breaks, not to mention my very low initial attack cost and high success rate in IA operations, means that it's far more economical and effective to launch me in most cases.

In the case of the Table fire a few nights ago, my reload time was five minutes. I was closer to the fire than the other assets. The first helicopter to arrive put 70 gallons at a time on the fire, where I put down 600. I put down 1,200 gallons an hour on the fire with my turn times and distance to the drops, where the arriving P-3 put down 3,000 gallons (before the downloading began; now it's 2,550 or less) in the same time. But I can operate for three and a half hours for the cost of one hour of the P-3 time, lending to more flexibility, and the ability to IA five or six different fires during a longer period for the same cost.

Coversely, the P-3 has the ability lay down longer line at a higher coverage level, with greater holdover times on the wet retardant; a distinct advantage.

Each asset has it's advantages and disadvantages. Long turn around times isn't generally one of the disadvantages for the Type IV tanker, however. I've flown several types from large to small, and really enjoy the single engine air tanker ("SEAT"). It's amazingly effective and efficient in it's typical IA role, and I've put it on fires ranging from flatland grass to high timber, PJ, and just about everything else. Always high marks from the ground crews.

There's been a great deal of animosity by large air tanker crews over the increasing use of SEATs on fires, especially since the contract cancellations on May 11th. However, it's unwarranted, and really just a case of sour grapes.

Large air tankers will be returned to operation before long. The cancellation was under the table, illegal, and inappropriate. However, it was also not without merit. Even the P3's have always operated well above their zero fuel weight with just the retardant on board, and have experienced their own share of structural problems, just as every other large tanker has done. Certain of these issues must be addressed, and the operators have always been slow to do so.

Great improvements have taken place over the past two and a half years, but there's a lot more to be done yet.

Not all the large air tankers will be returned to service, I suspect. I believe that the P3's and P2's will see service in normal operations (with certain limits that have been placed on them), but some other type designs probably won't make it back on the fire. Time will tell.

Continue to wear your green ribbons. The green ribbon campain was started two months ago as a passive way of reminding others that this is an important issue and needs to be resolved. A green ribbon is a symbol of solidarity to the tanker operators, tanker crews, ground crews, public, and government troops that all depend on these resources to protect public lands, homes, and lives.

It ain't over yet.

 

[DenverDude2002]

Well I talked to some C130 pilots at the airshow in Colorado Springs on Saturday (the crew was based outta Patterson right there on the field). They we're pissed they had to take over the firefighting duties. Said once they equip a C130 for firefighting duties it'll get maybe 3 years before it heads to the boneyard because the retardent or something does a lot of damage corrosion wise to the aircraft.

Any chance of a P3 getting based outta KBJC for the rest of the season?

 

[avbug]

Nobody is going to be "based" anywhere, as the aircraft are national resources. Right now they'll be moved as needed.

The MAFFS units in the C-130's have nothing to whine about. They've been fairly snobbish and difficult to use this year...they've been ordered to reposition to high fire areas to stage for a potential threat, and have refused. They've said they'll reposition only if there's a fire, and then at their discretion.

They can't fly on a fire without a leadplane. They are required to drop higher, and they have only one coverage level. They can only drop their entire load, no split loads, no variation. They're better than nothing, and they provide a valueable service, but it's only preferred when there's absolutely nothing else.

If they're having corrosion problems, it's because they're too lazy to clean their aircraft. There is no reason that they should be having reduced life issues due to retardant.

Reduced life due to exposure to the fire environment, yes. In 1974, NASA did a study that determined an aircraft over a fire experiences stresses 1,000 times higher than in normal commercial operations, and that's probably fairly accurate...perhaps even conservative. Life reduction due to stresses over the fire is a realistic issue, but not due to exposure to retardant. Retardant and corrosion are only issues for those too lazy to clean their airplane properly.

MAFFS units have not taken over firefighting duties. Not by a long shot.

 

[RockyMnt1]

Which planes won't return??

Avbug,

Any insight into which and how many tankers will not return? Are there specific/common reasons for those not returning, other than the general stress fatigue from the fire environment??

 

[avbug]

I have a theory as to what will and won't return to service, but the topic is very delicate, and very hot right now, and I would rather not say.

None of the large air tankers currently in service were grounded, and not a single contract was cancelled due to maintenance, or any other legitimate reason. The reason that the contracts were cancelled on May 11 was political, with no more reason than certain individuals at the upper levels of two agencies were attempting to protect themselves. The public interest and the interest of the firefighters on the ground and in the air was never considered. It was a selfish, flawed political decision which hopefull will cost those who made it, their careers.

 

[414Flyer]

MAFFS C-130s are about twice the expense as a comparable civilian C-130, if they were flying.

Also the fire fighting system installed on those, is not as effective either. It does not provide for enough penetration down into the forest canopy with the retardant. Its not the fault of the MAFFS pilots, its just the system does not have the capabilities, and they really do not have the experience compared to someone who does it for a career.

I did once hear a leadplane pilot say MAFFS were good for making the top of the ridge/mountain that they want the airtankers to fly into.

I flew on the Cachuma fire near Santa Barbara in early may. It involved quite a descent down the side of a canyon, that MAFFS either could not or would not do.

 

[mar]

I gotta say...

...I don't know how you guys do it all summer long.

The smoke, the turbulence, the low vis.

Here in Fairbanks we're going on our third week of wild fires with no end in sight.

Yesterday I had two trips to Ft. Yukon with more unleaded and JetA. On the first one the vis was reported to be 3 miles. We needed 1.25 for the approach. The wind was calm so I foolishly chose the straight-in approach with no PT and no approach lighting. We went missed as all I saw was the VOR.

Back around for the GPS to the other runway and better lighting and we delivered our low lead.

On the second trip we took a short delay as the vis dropped to our mins of 1.25. I wanted to make sure it wouldn't continue a downward trend. One hour later it came back up to 2 miles and we launched with 4,400 gals of JetA.

Eighty miles out of FYU we picked up the ASOS and it's now 0.25sm FU.

Forget it. I have a headache from the smoke. I'm tired from the heat and the turbulence and doing all the flying (long story) so we turn around and head back to FAI.

Did I mention we have no wx radar in the fuel tankers? On the descent into FAI we find a build-up that was embedded in a smoke layer and beneath that a raging fire that provided the convection for the build-up.

Breathing smoke, sweating my balls off, rubbing my temples we take a pounding at 190KIAS and 92,000# that I would've preferred not to experience in a 50 year old airplane--especially since I'm in the habit of flying with my seat belt loosened, slouched in the seat.

I guess it's what you're used to, but I'll tell you what my friends, I think I'd rather pick my way around in white-out conditions while wearing five layers of clothing, mittens and heavy boots.

Keep fighting the good fight. You guys are as tough as nails.

 

[A Squared]

Smoke.....

.... mar's post brought to mind something that happened last night. As Mar said, there's quite a few fires burning in AK and there's smoke over most of the state. Anyway, We're tooling along at 10,000' and the smoke gets really thick, sort of a dark ominous yellowish color. I look out my window and it's so think I can't see the wing or either of the engines, it's that thick. The number one engine is only 30 feet from my window, but it's completely invisible. I'm sure that this is old hat for guys who fly on fires, but it was a new one for me. Even in the thickest cloud I've been in, I could still see a sillouette of the engine out there

 

[avbug]

There is nothing better than the smell of smoke in the cockpit.

 

[DC4boy]

I'll second that, avbug. Nothing better than looking thru a windscreen covered in ashes.

 

[Jmmccutc]

you fire fighter guys are nuts...where do i sign up???

 

[avbug]

Presently you'll likely have a mighty long wait.

The number of places you an apply is rapidly dwindling.

I'm wondering how many houses need to burn up before someone wakes up, fires Mark Rey and Tony Kern, and gets the air tankers back on contract. How they could ever have been allowed this bonehead maneuver in the wake of the fires in region 5 (southern california) last year, I'll never know.