Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
- Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
- Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
- Share the passion for aviation
- Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun
Usfs
- Thread starter psysicx
- Start date
Welcome to Flightinfo.com
- Register now and join the discussion
- Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
- Invite your friends
- Share the passion of aviation
- Friendliest aviation community on the web
moving2vegas
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Posts
- 221
"I flew a twin commander doing air attack for a time. The hourly rate was two fifty an hour, with an hour gauranteed a day. Do the math."
avbug- I generally agree with most of what you say but I'm beginning to wonder.....250 an hour? Most commander operators I know get atleast 600$ an hour (or more) and 800$ a day in availability. Minimum. My ship flew 350 hours last season. Now you do the math.
avbug- I generally agree with most of what you say but I'm beginning to wonder.....250 an hour? Most commander operators I know get atleast 600$ an hour (or more) and 800$ a day in availability. Minimum. My ship flew 350 hours last season. Now you do the math.
Aaah, you're questioning my integrity or veracity in the matter, then? You'll note I didn't say when I flew commanders. I've been at this game a lot longer than you, and you might suppose that I flew commanders a little before you...I never stated that those were current prices.
However, a typical day on a tanker pilot gets one fifty to two hundred dollars a day, and one fifty to two hundred dollars an hour. A light tanker gets about eleven hundred dollars a day, and a heavy tanker getting between twenty two hundred and four thousand dollars a day, pilot pay being fairly comparable between the two.
One cannot start the season counting on any flight pay. One can only count on one's daily availability pay; if one counts on more than that, then one is a fool.
If one gets more based on flight pay, then it's purely what flying comes available. Unless the company gaurantees some level of flight pay, few, if any, do, one is faced with the certainty of daily availability (only then if one has a contract), and not even that if one is on CWN.
Extended overtime and flight pay is a speparate issue and is variable and may add or increase one's monthly amount.
If one considers an airplane at eight hundred dollars a day, the monthly rate is twenty four thousand dollars, not eighty thousand dollars. If the aircraft flies more than that and the pilot has an agreement to make an hourly wage in addition to any salary or other arrangement made),then one may factor more money into the equation.
Don't try to insinuate that those holding a contract or an airplane on either an exclusive use or CWN are sitting as fat cats. My airplane runs about eleven hundred dollars a day, and about nine fifty an hour when on exclusive use. Last year it flew sixty hours and change; I flew half of that. Over a 70 day contract, with no days off for the airplane permitted, the aircraft didn't make your eighty thousand dollar figure in daily availability for the entire contract...and that's a tanker, not an air attack airplane. Add to that flight pay...and don't forget to subtract the insurance for the year...over sixty thousand dollars to cover that airplane for it's sixty hours of flying...and any flight pay brought in is out the window. Figure four fifty an hour for DOC's (conservatively), thirty hours of training to the minus for the Safford school, and now we're down to seventeen thousand dollars left after the season.
Now put pilot wages into that at two hundred a day and one fifty an hour, and there are six thousand dollars left over at the end of the season. Don't forget that the government mandated a color change for the aircraft; a complete strip and repaint of an aircraft that size is closer to forty thousand, we can get it done at home for half of that. This means that without considering aircraft payments, we're now into the airplane at the end of the season, starting the next, a debt of fourteen thousand dollars. We haven't even tackled per diem yet, school expenses, the radios mandated, and numerous other costs.
Yet you're going to tell me
An air attack platform isn't bringing in what the tanker should bring in. Certainly it will fly more, but it's definitely not worth more (a different issue)...but all the same, you can't count on the amount of flying because it is unpredictable. The year before last, we flew a hundred hours. Air attack platforms in many cases flew far more. I've seen seasons where far less was flown. The only pay on which one can count is the base availability rate. Perhaps you're getting paid several hundred dollars a day. If you are, more power to you. Sounds like a lot for an air attack platform, but best of luck if you are.
The best I got paid as an air attack was four grand a paycheck; that was my top paycheck, and that was during a lot of flying. Most of my tanker paychecks are less.
However, a typical day on a tanker pilot gets one fifty to two hundred dollars a day, and one fifty to two hundred dollars an hour. A light tanker gets about eleven hundred dollars a day, and a heavy tanker getting between twenty two hundred and four thousand dollars a day, pilot pay being fairly comparable between the two.
One cannot start the season counting on any flight pay. One can only count on one's daily availability pay; if one counts on more than that, then one is a fool.
If one gets more based on flight pay, then it's purely what flying comes available. Unless the company gaurantees some level of flight pay, few, if any, do, one is faced with the certainty of daily availability (only then if one has a contract), and not even that if one is on CWN.
Extended overtime and flight pay is a speparate issue and is variable and may add or increase one's monthly amount.
If one considers an airplane at eight hundred dollars a day, the monthly rate is twenty four thousand dollars, not eighty thousand dollars. If the aircraft flies more than that and the pilot has an agreement to make an hourly wage in addition to any salary or other arrangement made),then one may factor more money into the equation.
Don't try to insinuate that those holding a contract or an airplane on either an exclusive use or CWN are sitting as fat cats. My airplane runs about eleven hundred dollars a day, and about nine fifty an hour when on exclusive use. Last year it flew sixty hours and change; I flew half of that. Over a 70 day contract, with no days off for the airplane permitted, the aircraft didn't make your eighty thousand dollar figure in daily availability for the entire contract...and that's a tanker, not an air attack airplane. Add to that flight pay...and don't forget to subtract the insurance for the year...over sixty thousand dollars to cover that airplane for it's sixty hours of flying...and any flight pay brought in is out the window. Figure four fifty an hour for DOC's (conservatively), thirty hours of training to the minus for the Safford school, and now we're down to seventeen thousand dollars left after the season.
Now put pilot wages into that at two hundred a day and one fifty an hour, and there are six thousand dollars left over at the end of the season. Don't forget that the government mandated a color change for the aircraft; a complete strip and repaint of an aircraft that size is closer to forty thousand, we can get it done at home for half of that. This means that without considering aircraft payments, we're now into the airplane at the end of the season, starting the next, a debt of fourteen thousand dollars. We haven't even tackled per diem yet, school expenses, the radios mandated, and numerous other costs.
Yet you're going to tell me
?
An air attack platform isn't bringing in what the tanker should bring in. Certainly it will fly more, but it's definitely not worth more (a different issue)...but all the same, you can't count on the amount of flying because it is unpredictable. The year before last, we flew a hundred hours. Air attack platforms in many cases flew far more. I've seen seasons where far less was flown. The only pay on which one can count is the base availability rate. Perhaps you're getting paid several hundred dollars a day. If you are, more power to you. Sounds like a lot for an air attack platform, but best of luck if you are.
The best I got paid as an air attack was four grand a paycheck; that was my top paycheck, and that was during a lot of flying. Most of my tanker paychecks are less.
Per the latest Contract Solicitation, 20 tankers are being requested. You can view this solicitation at:
http://216.35.173.248/EPSData/USDA/Synopses/10431/RFP_49-05-05/Final_Solicitation.pdf
These are much different contracts, with 10 at 180 days as the first item. Five tankers are requested for 140 days, and five at 100 days.
The 4Y and C130 are specifically identified as not being considered for contract.
Specifically identified by payload and speed are the DC-4, DC-6, DC-7, SP2H, P2V, and P-3.
I'd like to think that the full 20 will be allotted.
http://216.35.173.248/EPSData/USDA/Synopses/10431/RFP_49-05-05/Final_Solicitation.pdf
These are much different contracts, with 10 at 180 days as the first item. Five tankers are requested for 140 days, and five at 100 days.
The 4Y and C130 are specifically identified as not being considered for contract.
Specifically identified by payload and speed are the DC-4, DC-6, DC-7, SP2H, P2V, and P-3.
I'd like to think that the full 20 will be allotted.
No, you asked if it was my opinion, and I said it was. It still is. I've given you the solicitation, read it for yourself.
Merely because the tankers are being solicited doesn't mean that all positions will be filled with existing aircraft, any more than the fact that everybody had a contract when the season started, meant they'd be going to work. Think about it.
moving2vegas
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Posts
- 221
"Flying Air Attack is like watching porn with your hands tied behind your back........"
That's funny, I like that. Writing that one down. Since you're flying an ov-10 you must be watching the same porn.
As far as air attack pay, I'm done with this topic. I filled out every 23 last season and I just finished my taxes. I know exactly what the plane and I made. No more debate required.
That's funny, I like that. Writing that one down. Since you're flying an ov-10 you must be watching the same porn.
As far as air attack pay, I'm done with this topic. I filled out every 23 last season and I just finished my taxes. I know exactly what the plane and I made. No more debate required.
moving2vegas
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Posts
- 221
Not all of us are just watching.
I'll tell you what does make my spurs dig in though. Three emergency dumps last summer, and each time the air attack calls me as I'm breaking out to ask if I dropped yet, says he doesn't see it on the line. I tell him about the emergency, and he replies, "oh, I wasn't watching."
Lucky I wasn't hurt and relying on him, isn't it? Sometimes nobody's watching.
I'll tell you what does make my spurs dig in though. Three emergency dumps last summer, and each time the air attack calls me as I'm breaking out to ask if I dropped yet, says he doesn't see it on the line. I tell him about the emergency, and he replies, "oh, I wasn't watching."
Lucky I wasn't hurt and relying on him, isn't it? Sometimes nobody's watching.
moving2vegas
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Posts
- 221
Nope...and it's not the limitations I'm worried about. It's the uses. All too often the ATGS doesn't utilize the SEAT as quickly or efficiently as he or she should.
I've had the exact same experience in large tankers, though, coming off the drop, running into a helicopter at the bottom of the run as it popped out of the smoke, and the ATGS wondering what happened because he wasn't watching the run. Nor keeping track of the other aircraft on the fire, apparently.
The Dromader has no "severe limitations" of which I'm aware.
What are they?
I've had the exact same experience in large tankers, though, coming off the drop, running into a helicopter at the bottom of the run as it popped out of the smoke, and the ATGS wondering what happened because he wasn't watching the run. Nor keeping track of the other aircraft on the fire, apparently.
The Dromader has no "severe limitations" of which I'm aware.
What are they?
moving2vegas
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Posts
- 221
Oh.. I don't know....Let's see...
1.how about the ability to climb above 6000MSL at greater than 50FPM with a full load?
2.Fuel crossfeeding issues while turning.
3.Cruise speed and fuel usage suck.
4.Don't handle the bumps well.
Look I'm not $hitting on your plane, I like the M18. It's cheap and does a good job in light/mod fuels. It has a purpose in the firefighting community and I'm all for it. But it's not an 802. Please don't go off on that tangent.
1.how about the ability to climb above 6000MSL at greater than 50FPM with a full load?
2.Fuel crossfeeding issues while turning.
3.Cruise speed and fuel usage suck.
4.Don't handle the bumps well.
Look I'm not $hitting on your plane, I like the M18. It's cheap and does a good job in light/mod fuels. It has a purpose in the firefighting community and I'm all for it. But it's not an 802. Please don't go off on that tangent.
I have to agree with Moving2Vegas on this one. I flew with many SEATS this past year and the M-18 is the only one that sticks in my memory. Why is that you ask? Because it was the only one I had to circle numerous times waiting for him to get to altitude. My mind is fuzzy, but it was like 24NM from the airport to the fire with a change of altitude of about 4,000 ft. He had to form racetracks in the sky trying to motor his way up to 8,000 ft. and it took forever. And I was flying a Commander. That plane in itself is a pig on hot-high scenarios, but it was nothing compared to watching this guy "try" his hardest to get to altitude. After landing, I thought it was funny that he hung a 2 liter Pepsi bottle from some overflow oil line. The next morning, that 2 liter was full!
Been around radial engines much?
Lessee...we carry more than an 802 a lot of the time (lots of those guys hauling out less than six hundred gallons, no matter WHAT the paperwork says), we use less runway, we have a better wing, we have better low speed handling characteristics, we cost less, we're easier to maintain...and what's that about not handling bumps?
Have you flown a Dromader? Didn't think so.
I've taken it in and out of mountain strips that no 802 could use with a load...we use less runway than the 802 and we used it all.
As for 50 fpm...yes, it does get that way, but I've dropped at any altitude requested, often with my full contract load, no problems. A little slower on the cruise, though not by much. I'm also a lot less expensive, certainly less expensive to the taxpayer per gallon of retardant delivered...so yes, by all means, let's go there.
Then again, I've been in heavy tankers when 100 fpm or so was the standard rate of climb...so don't go knocking the dromader on it's climb characteristics. I can put that airplane against a hillside and pop the climb up, use the terrain and the lift...just like one does in a performance limited tanker.
My contract base sits well above 6,000' density altitude pretty much all the time. Lucky for us we don't know what you know, or we'd never get any work done.
I hear 802 pilots badmouthing the M18 all the time...and the truth is always the same. A poor carpenter blames his tools.
My airplane is turbine powered, about like half of the Dromaders on contract. It will go toe to toe with an air tractor, no problems.
As far as crossfeeding and turning...you probably don't know what you're talking about there. I have no issues with it.
Fuel useage "sucks?" You find that a dromader burns more fuel than any other kind of SEAT? I'd surely like to know where you got those performance numbers...especially as we generally take less on the turns than an 802 requires.
You're aware, of course, that current Dromaders from the factory come with a -67 motor (or -65, your choice), and the same capacity hopper as the 802, for less money, with a better wing...right? Probably not.
Good in light to moderate fuels...I was putting loads in Ponderosa and tall fuels last summer at the request of USFS...they requested us by number, and invited us back, again and again. In typical PJ, no problem. Certainly not long line building...but put several of us in rotation, regardless of weather it's a Thrush, 802, or a Drom, and we can hold our own...done it.
You think a Drom is cheap? Bought one lately? Less expensive, yes. Cheap? Not by a long shot. There's a reason it's the most common air tanker in the world, globally...and it's not because it's "cheap."
It's an airplane, and it's got limitations like all aircraft. It's my job to use those limitations. If you, or your ATGS believes that the so-called limitations you've outlined are true, you're sadly misinformed, which only reinforces my point. Dealing with aircraft limitations is my concern, not yours, not your ATGS. The problem we face is that air attacks et al aren't informed enough to know the full capabilities of the aircraft, and thus under utilize it.
Perhaps the most common phrase I hear out there is, "I didn't know you could do that."
Don't believe everything you hear...and certainly don't go around repeating it.
Last edited:
moving2vegas
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
- Posts
- 221
Yes, I knew those folks you pinhead. As I did most of those killed over the past years. I knew the aircraft, too, I spent a good part of the previous season working along side the aircraft that crashed at Safford. I just spent time this past week in detailed discussions with photographs, reports and personal accounts in meeting with the accident investigators who handled both the crashes to which you referred.
First of all, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. No conclusions have been reached regarding either of those accidents. Some discussion has speculated regarding the possibility that the Safford event involved a fuel flow stoppage due to an imbalance, but to date there is no real evidence to support that. Further, the photographs of the fuel tanks, which contained fuel at the scene, show evidence of blowing out due to hydraulic forces from within...they had fuel.
That particular individual did not dump his load. He could have, and didn't. Why, I don't know, and I don't care to guess. He put down nearly vertically in a turn, strongly suggesting a stall spin, for reasons that are yet unknown...glad you have the answers. I just spent time with those who are the closest to having the answers, including the eye whitnesses to the event, and they refused, admantly, to speculate, stipulating that there is NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION. Good for you for having it all figured out.
In SGU, the Dromader that was lost performed dry runs and then went in nearly vertically after having missed the first run. Numerous levels of speculation have been presented, but the bottom line was that he got slow during a low dry run, where he shouldn't have been on a dry run, stalled, and drove into the ground and exploded. You think that's somehow a Dromader limitation, too, do you? You think the ATGS who flies high and dry has the corner on heartache, concern, or tears?
We lost three Dromaders last year; you didn't mention the third.
None of those events to date may be said to be the aircraft's fault, nor may any of them be attributed to any of the "severe limitations" you described. None. Partially because those "severe limitations" don't exist, partially because any limitations that do become problems are pilot error issues, not aircraft issues, and partially because you really haven't a clue what it is that you're talking about.
All those industry experts who privately emailed you are dromader pilots who know the airplane, are they? Tell me all about it.
The source you cited for carding is not current, and uses CWN, not exclusive use airplanes. Numerous additional contracts are being let this year, a total of 90 SEATs are carded and will be provided with CWN contracts. One operator you identified has had half his fleet upgraded with turbine engines, garrets, and is planning on having the other half done by next year. Some of the operators you cite on that web site aren't even in business now. Criminey, don't you keep up? When Jim Pierce died recently, his fleet was sold off...a lot of those aircraft are being operated by different people and companies. Further, apparently you're reading that only aircraft that have a T next to the M18 are turbine powered, which is incorrect. Further than that, a great many of the airplanes to be used this year aren't even carded yet? Now what was it that you were saying?
Good thing you're done; you should have stopped a lot sooner. You'd have sounded a lot less foolish. What is it about flying a season of air attack or so that makes you such an industry expert, anyway?
First of all, you don't know what the hell you're talking about. No conclusions have been reached regarding either of those accidents. Some discussion has speculated regarding the possibility that the Safford event involved a fuel flow stoppage due to an imbalance, but to date there is no real evidence to support that. Further, the photographs of the fuel tanks, which contained fuel at the scene, show evidence of blowing out due to hydraulic forces from within...they had fuel.
That particular individual did not dump his load. He could have, and didn't. Why, I don't know, and I don't care to guess. He put down nearly vertically in a turn, strongly suggesting a stall spin, for reasons that are yet unknown...glad you have the answers. I just spent time with those who are the closest to having the answers, including the eye whitnesses to the event, and they refused, admantly, to speculate, stipulating that there is NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION. Good for you for having it all figured out.
In SGU, the Dromader that was lost performed dry runs and then went in nearly vertically after having missed the first run. Numerous levels of speculation have been presented, but the bottom line was that he got slow during a low dry run, where he shouldn't have been on a dry run, stalled, and drove into the ground and exploded. You think that's somehow a Dromader limitation, too, do you? You think the ATGS who flies high and dry has the corner on heartache, concern, or tears?
We lost three Dromaders last year; you didn't mention the third.
None of those events to date may be said to be the aircraft's fault, nor may any of them be attributed to any of the "severe limitations" you described. None. Partially because those "severe limitations" don't exist, partially because any limitations that do become problems are pilot error issues, not aircraft issues, and partially because you really haven't a clue what it is that you're talking about.
All those industry experts who privately emailed you are dromader pilots who know the airplane, are they? Tell me all about it.
The source you cited for carding is not current, and uses CWN, not exclusive use airplanes. Numerous additional contracts are being let this year, a total of 90 SEATs are carded and will be provided with CWN contracts. One operator you identified has had half his fleet upgraded with turbine engines, garrets, and is planning on having the other half done by next year. Some of the operators you cite on that web site aren't even in business now. Criminey, don't you keep up? When Jim Pierce died recently, his fleet was sold off...a lot of those aircraft are being operated by different people and companies. Further, apparently you're reading that only aircraft that have a T next to the M18 are turbine powered, which is incorrect. Further than that, a great many of the airplanes to be used this year aren't even carded yet? Now what was it that you were saying?
Good thing you're done; you should have stopped a lot sooner. You'd have sounded a lot less foolish. What is it about flying a season of air attack or so that makes you such an industry expert, anyway?
Last edited:
DC4boy
addicted user
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2002
- Posts
- 221
I see air attack positions advertised from time to time. The thing is, most seasonal positions like that are filled (or try to be filled) by November or December, with groundschools and carding usually taking place early in the year.
I think I recently saw a position open on Climbto350 or one of those places, but don't recall...no, wait a second. Avcenter, in Pocatello. I don't remember the details, but I think it was for a piston commander. Pretty sure it was Avcenter. You can probably get their information off the web. To the best of my knolwedge, they're a good place.
As others have said, if you fly a lot, then you can make some money for the summer. You can't count on the flight pay because you simply don't know how much flying there will be. I've had some great summers, and some seasons that weren't so great. Several years ago I got a total of 37 hours. Where, and when, and if...all chance words, which is what flying fire is about; chance. Not chances you take, but the chance that there will be work, or that there won't be work,or that you'll be called...I've sat and watched fires burn time and time again that we weren't launched on, that were on private land, or on a different agencies land, or that they simply didn't need us for, or didn't budet for, or who knows...all I knew was that we weren't working.
Air attack positions are Part 135 positions, usually with decent maintenance. The aircraft and pilots are watched fairly closely by the Office of Aircraft Management, as well as the contracting agency (usually USFS or BLM, but also BIA, various states, etc). Fire contract regulations fairly closely parallel 135 regulations, for the most part. You're limited to a 14 hour duty day, a regular duty day is nine hours, and generally operators pay a particular rate for extended standby for all time past nine hours. You'll be limited to eight hours flying. Maintaining your instrument currency can be a challenge, but try to fly an approach each time you go back to base if you can.
Most air attack positions don't require that you wear nomex (some insist, a lot don't), it's a whole lot more comfortable to some degree than other fire positions. You end up flying little circles a LOT. The ATGS and air attack pilots are always easy to spot at the end of the day because they walk around looking over their right shoulder and can't turn their heads. Looking to the right for three or six hours at a crack leaves you with a sore neck and a tendency to drive in circles.
Air attack platforms can be busy places when things get going on. As a pilot, your job is to position the air attack (ATGS) where he wants to be; position him to watch the fire or orbit portions of the fire where he will direct fire traffic, aircraft, manage airspace, etc. He may have multiple tasks going at once, always multiple radios going at once. You may be monitoring five different radios, and he may be talking on all of them. On bigger fires, complex fires, you may be dealing with 30 or more aircraft, dozens of ground units, as well as handling visiting media aircraft, etc. The ATGS may ask you to take over some of those duties, such as handling one particular radio, talking to the media ships, dealing with helicopters, etc.
I've been over fires when I had several radios going, and the ATGS was busy doing the same, and we passed sticky notes back and forth. Before long, the panel, pedestle, glareshield, and everthing else was covered in notes identifying messages, aircraft positions, whatever.
Perhaps most importantly in the air, the air attack platform may be the one source that is responsible for keeping people alive. It's often the first to arrive over a fire...you'll do fire patrols, and respond to smoke reports. It's often one of the last to leave from over a fire. Wind shifts, blowouts, spotting, and other changes can be observed from the big picture overhead to provide crews on the ground, the ones who really do the firefighting, with timely life-saving information. You see things they can't, and you can literally save their lives. People have died over the years on a number of occasions when timely information from overhead might have saved them, and the value of an air attack over the fire cannot be overstated.
With that in mind, the reward is more than monetary; you lose some personal freedom in being tied down like you are during the season, but you'll also know that you're accomplishing something, and you'll feel like your effort is doing some good. On the minus side, it's seasonal work, and the truth is that seasonal work "sucks." It does. It means getting other work the rest of the year is more difficult, holding a regular job can be a challenge, and consistency and continuity in your life is made tough...it's not for everybody, it's hard on a family life if you have one, and it can be tough just to do simple things like manage bills or check mail.
Several folks who fly air attack have responded here, that either presently fly or have flown. I'd PM them directly for any leads they might have. Their companies might not have openings but they may know who does. Work in this industry isn't always advertised on the front page, and a lot of companies doing air attack work also do other types of work...sometimes it takes a little effort to root out a job. (Ferret out, for any aussies out there). Good luck.
I think I recently saw a position open on Climbto350 or one of those places, but don't recall...no, wait a second. Avcenter, in Pocatello. I don't remember the details, but I think it was for a piston commander. Pretty sure it was Avcenter. You can probably get their information off the web. To the best of my knolwedge, they're a good place.
As others have said, if you fly a lot, then you can make some money for the summer. You can't count on the flight pay because you simply don't know how much flying there will be. I've had some great summers, and some seasons that weren't so great. Several years ago I got a total of 37 hours. Where, and when, and if...all chance words, which is what flying fire is about; chance. Not chances you take, but the chance that there will be work, or that there won't be work,or that you'll be called...I've sat and watched fires burn time and time again that we weren't launched on, that were on private land, or on a different agencies land, or that they simply didn't need us for, or didn't budet for, or who knows...all I knew was that we weren't working.
Air attack positions are Part 135 positions, usually with decent maintenance. The aircraft and pilots are watched fairly closely by the Office of Aircraft Management, as well as the contracting agency (usually USFS or BLM, but also BIA, various states, etc). Fire contract regulations fairly closely parallel 135 regulations, for the most part. You're limited to a 14 hour duty day, a regular duty day is nine hours, and generally operators pay a particular rate for extended standby for all time past nine hours. You'll be limited to eight hours flying. Maintaining your instrument currency can be a challenge, but try to fly an approach each time you go back to base if you can.
Most air attack positions don't require that you wear nomex (some insist, a lot don't), it's a whole lot more comfortable to some degree than other fire positions. You end up flying little circles a LOT. The ATGS and air attack pilots are always easy to spot at the end of the day because they walk around looking over their right shoulder and can't turn their heads. Looking to the right for three or six hours at a crack leaves you with a sore neck and a tendency to drive in circles.
Air attack platforms can be busy places when things get going on. As a pilot, your job is to position the air attack (ATGS) where he wants to be; position him to watch the fire or orbit portions of the fire where he will direct fire traffic, aircraft, manage airspace, etc. He may have multiple tasks going at once, always multiple radios going at once. You may be monitoring five different radios, and he may be talking on all of them. On bigger fires, complex fires, you may be dealing with 30 or more aircraft, dozens of ground units, as well as handling visiting media aircraft, etc. The ATGS may ask you to take over some of those duties, such as handling one particular radio, talking to the media ships, dealing with helicopters, etc.
I've been over fires when I had several radios going, and the ATGS was busy doing the same, and we passed sticky notes back and forth. Before long, the panel, pedestle, glareshield, and everthing else was covered in notes identifying messages, aircraft positions, whatever.
Perhaps most importantly in the air, the air attack platform may be the one source that is responsible for keeping people alive. It's often the first to arrive over a fire...you'll do fire patrols, and respond to smoke reports. It's often one of the last to leave from over a fire. Wind shifts, blowouts, spotting, and other changes can be observed from the big picture overhead to provide crews on the ground, the ones who really do the firefighting, with timely life-saving information. You see things they can't, and you can literally save their lives. People have died over the years on a number of occasions when timely information from overhead might have saved them, and the value of an air attack over the fire cannot be overstated.
With that in mind, the reward is more than monetary; you lose some personal freedom in being tied down like you are during the season, but you'll also know that you're accomplishing something, and you'll feel like your effort is doing some good. On the minus side, it's seasonal work, and the truth is that seasonal work "sucks." It does. It means getting other work the rest of the year is more difficult, holding a regular job can be a challenge, and consistency and continuity in your life is made tough...it's not for everybody, it's hard on a family life if you have one, and it can be tough just to do simple things like manage bills or check mail.
Several folks who fly air attack have responded here, that either presently fly or have flown. I'd PM them directly for any leads they might have. Their companies might not have openings but they may know who does. Work in this industry isn't always advertised on the front page, and a lot of companies doing air attack work also do other types of work...sometimes it takes a little effort to root out a job. (Ferret out, for any aussies out there). Good luck.
Share this page
Latest resources
-
-
-
-
-
AC 90-89C - Amateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing HandbookAmateur-Built Aircraft and Ultralight Flight Testing Handbook
- Neal
- Updated:
