Tanker Groundings

[bobbysamd]

The government is grounding fire fighting tankers. Here's a link to NPR audio on the story. You need RealAudio.

Essentially, the opinion is that many firefighting aircraft, especially the World War II variety, are being called upon to work harder and to play a greater role in fire suppression than orginally intended. The feeling is that safety is being compromised. Apparently, the three accidents last summer and the unusual fire season "finally got the government's attention," as stated in the story.

Comments? Avbug, comments?

 

[avbug]

After T-123 went in this summer in colorado, a committe called the Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) was formed of industry members and government voices to consider some of the larger issues. Their official report was released this morning.

All C-130A's were permenantly grounded, as were the PB4Y-2's. The grounding of the herc's was too long in coming. It is most definitely time. The 4Y's is an over-reaction to a misunderstood issue, and shouldn't have happened. The 4Y's were the oldest tankers flying, built in 1944, and represented the last five of their kind that are airworthy. (The last four, now).

The 4Y's were grounded because they're getting close to their politically acceptable lives, and putting them back on line was a hard sell. Turbine tankers are the sweethearts of the various agencies, though the turbine tankers are all circa 1956.

Also grounded for now are the USFS Barons (leadplanes), and the Sherpas (smokejump and paracargo ships), pending a safety review.

All tankers which can be cleared in the upcoming reviews will be recontracted and put back in service. All except the C-130A and PB4Y-2.

I anticipate that the P2V-7s and P2V-5's, P-3A's, DC-4,s DC-6's, the DC-7, and the C-97G will be cleared. The CDF S-2's and S-2T's should have no problems. Weather they will continue as tankers remains to be seen, but the industry is going to see some major changes this year.

Unfortunately, the timing coincides with increasing fire activity, continued drought, and a greater need than ever to put these tankers on line.

Most of what is occuring is hype pushed by politicians who don't understand the industry or the ramifications. Hopefully not too many homes will be lost, and not to many firefighters will pay with their lives because the air asseets were barred by the politicians from saving them. We shall see.

Conversely, some of what is happening is long overdue, and will hopefully produce some necessary changes and improvements for crews, companies, the various contracting agencies, and for those who depend on the services these aircraft provide. Again, we shall see.

 

[bobbysamd]

New tankers?

The NPR piece discussed designing and building mission-specific tankers, but said it would be too expensive.

While I won't say the government is made out of money, wouldn't that be an idea? New aircraft designed for the purpose?

Makes sense to me, anyway.

 

[sabreliner]

Time to go buy some of those goofy looking Bombardier tankers?

 

[avbug]

Those goofy looking bombardier projects cost as much as a Gulfstream. They are mission-specific, hauling water very effectively, but are in the same boat as everyone else on land carrying retardant. As much of the natural resources in the US aren't close to ready useable scooping water sources, the increadibly expensive CL-215 and CL-415 aircraft pose little economic benifit.

The flagship sales projects, the CL-415, was a series of big problems from the word go. The French got their airplanes,and parked them due to hull leakage and a host of other problems.

Rather than design a new tanker, which is not necessary, additional funding and support for existing tankers is warranted. Hawkins & Powers developed the turbine conversion of the SP2H to make the turbine P-2; if enough T-56 engines are made available, this would be an ideal tanker.

Some talk has been made about putting later model C-130's on line as tankers. This may turn out to be a resource-limiting and cost prohibitive idea. Concentration should be placed on promoting the resources that are available now.

The most recent anouncement is almost entirely political rhetoric, rather than a sincere wave at safety.

 

[tangodelta21]

Don't forget about the AT-802. I'm sure the guy's in Olney would be happy to build the airplanes to fill the gap. And I'd be happy to fly one.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Avbug,

That story on NPR included the suggestion that there has recently been an over-reliance on tankers. Supposedly the tankers used to be a tool for dealing with serious fire control problems, and now they're being used to fight all aspects of forest fires...perhaps to limit the number of surface firefighters that have to be committed. Supposedly, this policy has doubled or tripled the amount of flying done by tankers per fire, and these airplanes just couldn't take the stress.

Any truth to this?

(One other thing: the Navy has called the Privateer both PB4Y and P4Y...part of the redesignation frenzy after W.W. II. Which is official now?)

 

[skyking1976]

Not to change the subject, but how would one go about applying at Hawkins and Powers Aviation?

Thanks,
Skyking

 

[avbug]

I wouldn't rush to apply at H&P right now. When the season started this year, 11 servicable tankers were on the line: a C-97G, three C-130A's, two P2V-7's, and five PB4Y-2's. Two airplanes were destroyed this year, and seven others grounded. One airplane is a state level contract only (C-97 to Alaska), and that leaves two P-2's.

The P2V-7's (neptunes) are the most complex of the tankers, and have the lowest turnover...and there is a big surplus of initial attack qualified tanker pilots just at the moment. You could apply, but in an average year with nothing like this going on, ten years of needling the company might get you in the door...right now I won't say it's impossible, but it certainly won't be easy.

Additionally, if you want into a tanker operation right now, you'll need exceptional qualifications. At a minimum you'll need a mechanic certificate in addition to your flight qualifications, and most likely you'll need some solid ag and fire experience as well.

The PB4Y-2 was also the P4Y and the R4Y, as well as several other designations. The tanker version is type certificated as the HP-P4Y, and currently a type rating for the airplane is issued as a CV-P4Y.

The AT-802 is in use firefighting, but it's an expensive airplane. Tankers are devided into Types and classifications. The Air Tractor is a SEAT, or Single Engine Air Tanker. Most all SEATs are ag airplanes that are modified for a fire mission. The center of this modification is the drop system, which is a fire door or gate designed to meter a specific drop pattern and volume, and make it variable according to the needs of the incident comander, type of fuel, terrain, drop conditions, etc. This is all calibrated as a coverage level, and the system is what really differentiates the AT-802F (fire) from a standard AT-802 ag airplane.

The problem is that the similiar sized Dromader is a fifth the price. It's easily maintained, can be equally powered, hauls a very similiar load, and does the same job. As a result, it represents the bulk of the SEAT airplanes on contract and CWN (call when needed) assignments.

Another problem faced for those wishing to transition to the 802 is that many insurance companies either want to see significant time in type or simcom training...the mother of all stupid requirements. A simulator for an ag airplane...a little like trying to teach low level aerobatics visually in a sim, or putting you in a B737 sim, and then taking away all the instrumentation.

One thing that will take place this year is a reduction in the role of the tanker. I don't think there's anything concrete yet. However, what's been coming out of the meetings and the national fire center is that air assets will be reduced over the fire for extended attack operations, and will be held in reserve for protection of life and property only, as well as initial attack.

What this means is that a primary use of the tanker is being cut back. That is, a tanker is an important part of fire doctrine, with respect to reinforcing fire lines, and building line in places that ground crews can't go or ground equipment can't work. It's the means for putting a lot of material in tough places in a short period in order to control fire behavior.

They're taking the option of using air assets away from incident commanders, and putting it in the hands of regional managers who are not on scene...someone behind a desk.

The problem lies in the fact that protecting lives and structures takes place when the fire is far from them...stopping it before it gets there, or moving it somewhere else. Waiting until the fire is at your backdoor is a little like waiting until the bad guy is in your house and shooting before calling for help. Just a little late.

The truth is that the budgeting to fight fire isn't available right now, because much of the funding that has been used previously is being put into overseas operations on the "war on terror." We may burn up, but thank God there will be pamphlets available to rain down on a villiage of six in the desert or jungle somewhere.

 

[RockyMnt1]

It is still dry out here!!

Avbug alluded to this but I'll confirm it. My house is situated 2 miles west of the Hayman Co. fire perimeter in the Manitou Experimental forest area. While much of the fuel was expended during the Hayman fire, we still have not had any significant moisture since before the Hayman fire incident. There is no snow on the ground and it is December. I am assuming that the Hayman fire is finally out, but if we don't get any moisture it is going to be another interesting fire season. The last fire season started in March which is normally one of our snowy months. The ski areas seem to be getting some moisture, but the eastern side of the Continental divide is as dry as ever. Now is the time to prepare. Get those evacuation lists and plans together and get that defensible space around the house ready. With fewer air assets available, those that don't prepare are up a creek and insurance companies are taking a really dim view of folks who don't make any effort to protect their property.