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.

 

[RockyMnt1]

Epilog

Terry Barton, the former forest service worker accused of starting the Hayman fire, has changed her plea from innocent to guilty in a plea bargain arrangment relating to the 2 federal charges she was facing (1)starting a fire on federeal lands and 2)lying to investigators). Sentencing will be in Feb, but details of the plea bargain agreement are as follows:

6 years in prison
possible restitution

Barton is free until sentencing on a $600K bond.

133 houmes destroyed
137,000 acres burned
$38 million in damages

There are state/county charges that are also pending after the feds are through with her.

Very sad for everyone/everything involved.

 

[Kaman]

Hello,
The aerial tanker program is one of the government's "dirty little secrets". The program has always been run on a shoestring budget. As anyone that has been to Hemet Valley flying Service over the years can attest to. I've personally seen this operation as well as Aero Union's tanker base a Fox Field in Lancaster, CA.
Aerial tankers fall into a grey area in the Federal Aviation regulations and the individual operators seemingly operate at the whim of the government (and their low-bids of course). I am not trying to sound cynical or make a sweeping generalization, because the men and women that fly these airplanes and maintain them are some of the most talented people in aviation. What is needed is better policing of the industry, but not by government, but by the companies that do business in the dynamic, dangerous and often less than lucrative aerial tanker business.
In an ideal-world a purpose built aircraft would be ideal. As a few of you have pointed out this is already in existence in the form of the CL-415 and 215. These are magnificent airplanes, but beaucoup dinero to buy. Thats why they are only operated by governments or the military. France, Canada and Greece are three countries that have fleets of CL-415s or 215s for the tanker mission. I know some of you think that the militry in the US could perform this mission. Well, it already does in the form of ANG units equipped with C-130s that have the ability to be configured with MAFFS. However, there are only a couple of units that have the firefighting mission, and albeit a secondary or even tertiary mission at that. Based on DoD priorities and the funds available I serious doubt that the scope of the firefighting/MAFFS program will be expanded.
Could the Dept. of the Interior perfom the mission with modern equipment? Yes, but again who is going to pay the bill and what congressmen are going to back another progam to grow the government even more? Not very many, at least in my opinion.
The biggest problem facing the tanker industry besides the obvious lack of adequate internal policing is fleet modernization. On a whole a large portion of the tanker fleet(s) are all approaching critical mass at the same time. More to the point the money is simply not there for them to afford adequate replacements. Sure, the C-130 and the P-3 are rugged aircraft, but most of the models that they are operating are not only long in tooth, but are also very expesive to modify and maintain for the attack mission.
In the end I'm just an individual that has seen this coming for 10 years, and perhaps a lot of people in the industry have too. Hopefully, someone with some leadership ability will take the bull by the horns and get this fixed OR the government is liable to do try and fix it...Anyone remember what happened when they were pressed into service to carry the mail? It was a disaster!


Regards,

ex-Navy rotorhead

 

[dahldale]

Grounded Tankers

Sorry about how long this got, but I had a few little things to say.




As per the prior post about grounded airtankers posted by Kaman, there are a few irregularities, understably posted by someone not familar with the industry.
First off, Aero Union nor Hemet Valley operated thier own tanker bases, these are owned/leased facilities of the US government. Aero Union provides aircraft and pilot services to fullfill contracts let by the US Department of Agriculture. Hemet Valley has not been around for 6 to 8 years, I am not totally sure. As for the "shoe string budget", to anyone associated with the military, yes, I would imagine the budget or spending style seems almost non-existant. As a taxpayer, I think the budget has gotten out of hand with regards to the fire fighting industry. You must realize we are only trying to do one small thing in the big picture, where as the military is trying to deal with many things.
As far as the part about operating in the "grey area", I wil list two numbers which I operate under every day that I show up to work, wether I fly or not. Part 91 & Part 137. There are alot of rules which are contained inside those two very unimportant numbers. I will not get into the many times which the FAA decides to come and visit us over the course of a year to see if we are playing nicely and fairly and by the rules.
To touch on the subject of internal policing, I have many bosses, just as many of you do that police me until there is no end. From your first 135 job to captain of a 777 or 747 or whatever anyones opinion of the Big League is, you are policed.
To address mission specific aircraft, I haven't got a clue as what to tell anyone. What would I like? I would love to be able to operate an aircraft which could withstand +9/-9 g's, I would love that aircraft to be able to cruise loaded with a payload of 45,000 pounds or about 5000 gallons of fire retardant to the fire at 350 knots then be able to slow down to about 130 knots while manuvering inside canyons and around homes in the mountains without having to worry about stalling the aircraft when I through her into a 60 degree bank to make a drop run trying to save someone's awesome mountain cabin. Heck I would settle to be able to just have turbine engines that I would not have to worry about underboosting, overboosting, exceding torque values, shock cooling, and trying to push pistons and PRT turbines through the cylinders or cowlings. But the aircraft I fly now, a Lockheed LP2V-7 Neptune, the predecessor to the P3 Orion, does very very well. Even with those big piston engines on here. At gross wieght of 80,000 pounds I fly off the Cedar City, UT. airport in 101 degree temps. and density altitudes of 10,000 feet, the CL-215, Cl-215T, and Cl-415 would be hard pressed to accomplish that. Then I have to climb to 14,000 feet to clear all those pretty mountains on the way to the fire and work at elevations of around 10,000 feet, I am not for sure but I do not believ the Canadair products can even operate gross wieght at these altitudes. Tell that to Mr. and Mrs. taxpayer as thier beautiful cabin burns up.
Ah, the age old pissin contest about MAFFS, as a person in the industry, albeit not that long, the Air National Gaurd guys and gals that come out to supplment us civilian contractor pilots try thier hardest, but civilian aviation practices and miliyary are two very different monsters entirely. In my opinion that is solely due to money, the military does not have to turn a profit, we do. The military has a large budget, we do not. The military has different rules than civilian operators, this causes alot of frustration amongst the pilots on all sides. Those ANG units put in alot of hard time when they come out to play with us poor ole redneck pilots but I think they like it.
And to cover the last part of Kaman's post about someone trying to take the wheel and steer the beast in the right direction, there are alot of folks out there trying to do just that. You can go to Airtanker.com and go to the message board and read from alot of folks in the industry, please play nice there.
Anything else you folks want to talk about, feel free to wrire back on the board and I will try to answer anything I can and I bet Avbug would help out to.

So, how big a city is Greybull?

 

[Kaman]

Hello,
I honestly don't have a lot of information about Hemet Valley Flying Service, but they had a large facility at the Hemet Valley Airport and they were also a certified repair station. Hemet is also a CDF base and at times have had OV-10s and S-2s operating out of there. It's been awhile since I've been bck to SoCal (1998). Romona, CA is also used as a base during the fire season and was the scene of an unfortunate mid-air between a DC-4 and a Baron. This set-off a cry for opening a seasonal tower, but that never came to anything. Last I heard my old Navy dept head is the airport manager there.
I was almost certain that Aero Union operated a maintenance/storage base out of Gen. Fox field in Lancaster. They had all the rigs for "hot-pumping" agent into the tankers and last time I was there quite a few P-2s were sitting onthe ramp in storage for the off-season.
No doubt the FAA watchdogs the industry, but I think that the track record speaks for itself when it comes to them using less than a sharp pencil when it comes to the tanker industry. This more a matter of necessity than it is of ignorance. The FAA simply doesn't have enough inspectors to birddog what is essentially a government contracted operation.
I agree that is going to be VERY difficult to affordably acquire "new" tankers. Obviously, the CL-415 is out due to cost. Although, it is the aircraft of choice. I can't qoute directly, but the airplane, especially the 415 has outstanding hot and high performance. The airplane is designed to operate at the extreme edge of it's performance envelope. After all that is what tanker flying is and as you can testify it pushes the limits of airplane and pilot. Nor is it forgiving of any mistakes or negligence. Screw-up and you have a pretty good chance of busting your A**.
You guys that do this type of flying have my utmost respect and admiration and I sure hope that you get the tools that you need to do your jobs safely and protect our forest resources and the people that live in the surrounding area.

Fly safe,

ex-Navy rotorhead

 

[DC4boy]

I am certain that Fox field is Fedaral air tanker base. As well as avbug and dahldale, I have hauled retardant out of there, Aero Union is based out of Chico, CA. As far as SEATS, Yellow Canadian airplanes, heavy tankers, S2' s and helicopters, they all have they're place in a effective aerial firefighting aresenal. In my opinion, remove one of those tools, and you reduce effectiveness. I noticed this year, the USFS was relying on heavy airtankers to put fires out. Without ground support, that wont happen. I saw alot of unesassary and ineffective retardant uaeage. That to me is unsafe.
Policy needs to change as well.

Just my 2 cents

 

[Dan CFI/CFII]

Greybull:

It's the right size. One local grocery store, but no supermarket. A nice downtown with literally a block of shops. Walk through town in about twenty minutes. Drive to Laurel, MT (and Billings) is just under an hour if I remember correctly.

Time to move one of these days for me, they put up a second stoplight on my way to work! Two now! And all the non-gringo places to eat have closed shop up here...

Personally I'd love to live in Greybull, but then, I enjoy "rural" living.

Dan

 

[avbug]

Greybull is just about the right size. Dahldale knows about that, cuz his dad flies out of there, also in a P2.

HVFS went under a long time ago. Hemet ceased being a federal base, too. Federal tankers now fly from San Berdoo, while CDF still maintains ops at Hemet. Ramona was cut off for all but DC-4's a while ago, and now mostly caters to lighter CDF traffic. Fox has been a federal base forever, and aero union has no maintenance facility there. Their only mx facility is Chico.

The FAA provides the same oversight to air tanker ops as they do to most operations under Part 137...it's no different. Air tankers still meet the same airworthiness requirements that every other aircraft does...H&P's aircraft were maintained under a phase inspection program, just the same as any Part 121 large airplane...but they see a lot more regular maintenance and timely maintenance...and the crews often take care of squawks as they occur in the field. This doesn't even happen in the military or the airlines. Further, very rarely will you find any other type of operation in which the crewmembers are all qualified mechanics, with the tools, parts, and mx publications on board the aircraft.

Tankers don't see substandard oversight or maintenance. Anyone who thinks so hasn't worked very closely with the industry. A cry went out after T-130 shed it's wings this year, saying that the airplane wasn't properly maintained. Not so. But a properly maintained airplane could never shed a wing or part in flight, right? How about Flight 587, or several other inflight structural failures that have occured on Part 121 airplanes in the past few years? It happens. It just happens that tankers operate in demanding conditions which apply a great deal more stress in a shorter time period, than most any other kind of operation.

The fact is that T-130 was receiving NDI testing via ultrasonic and dye penetrant much more frequently than the scheduled program required. More so than most any maintenance program might have required.

Further, the oversight provided to these airplanes hasn't been lacking. Very thorough inspections of facilities, personnel, equipment, aircraft, and paperwork are conducted. I know for a fact that the maintenance department at H&P, a Part 145 repair station for qualifications concerning almost everything, has won awards from the FAA for their maintenance, practices, and record keeping. They conduct contract maintenance on an international basis. I'm familiar with it, because I was a mechanic and inspector in that repair station.

The CL-415 is not the aircraft of choice. It is a choice, but not the choice.

MAFFS is okay for a stopgap measure, but is severely limited on resource and capability. It is not the answer, but a tool.