E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn a Neptune Aviation Services hangar in Missoula, Mont., the past, present and future of the U.S. of the firefighting air tanker industry sit side by side. But until more next- generation aircraft are available, pilots continue to fly World War II-era planes in some of the most-difficult flying conditions in aviation, sometimes with disastrous consequences.
On the afternoon of June 3, an aging Lockheed Martin P2V air tanker crashed near the border of Nevada and Utah, killing the pilot and co-pilot.
The same day, one landing gear on a P2V failed to deploy, forcing the plane to circle a landing strip in Minden, Nev., burning off excess fuel before making an emergency landing and skidding to a halt.
Both planes were more than 50 years old.
The day highlighted the dangers that come with piloting one of the U.S. Forest Service’s aging air tankers, which average more than a half-century old.
Six people died in air tanker crashes during firefighting missions this year, and at least 22 have perished in the past decade, according to a review of accident reports from the National Transportation Safety Board.
Critics say it’s no surprise the air tankers are not fit for the rigors of 21st-century firefighting. Many were designed for other missions, then scavenged from the fields of the Pentagon's massive aircraft "Boneyard" in Arizona, and retrofitted to battle wildfires across the country.
“This is the third generation of old military aircraft that have ended up causing multiple deaths,” said Jim Hall, former head of the National Transportation Safety Board. He also was co-chair of a federal commission that issued a critical report on the state of the U.S. Forest Service’s aerial firefighting capability in 2002 recommending the agency modernize its aging fleet.
But a decade later, many of those planes continue to fly -- and crash – often in some of the most difficult flying environments in aviation: remote, mountainous forests and valleys where planes can be jolted by swirling winds and turbulence and forced to fly through heavy smoke and ash.
Pilots say they have seen giant rocks and tree stumps thrown into the air – sometimes hitting planes – due to the powerful convection forces created by intense forest fires. And the weight of planes rapidly shifts as they dump thousands of pounds of water or retardant in mere seconds. The extreme conditions also can prey on the weaknesses of the tankers: Wings have fractured and separated from aircraft bodies. Engines have caught fire. Hydraulic system lines have ruptured.
Steve Kohls / AP file
A Lockeed P2V air tanker operated by Neptune Aviation makes drops fire retardant over a wooded area north of Brainerd, Minn., on April 2, 1998.
“I have serious concerns about both the size and age of the aging air tanker fleet, and fear that it isn’t up to the job of stopping wildfires that grow larger every year,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., chairman of the Forestry Subcommittee. “That’s what I have repeatedly told the Forest Service, as I have pushed them to address this crisis.”
Both congressional and Forest Service leaders recognize the need to update the fleet, but Congress has never allocated funding to pay for new aircraft. President Barack Obama’s 2013 budget proposes $1.97 billion for wildland fire management, down from about $2.2 billion in 2011. It includes $24 million to modernize the air tanker fleet, but that’s a fraction of the cost needed, critics say. Congressional budget proposals, meanwhile, do not include any money for the fleet’s modernization.
Since 2007, one-third of the 79 forest firefighter deaths have occurred in aviation accidents, more than any other cause, according to the National Wildfire Coordinating Group, a coalition of federal and state fire agencies.
“I’ve been on fires in California where people have had their houses burned underneath them twice before- - they rebuilt the third time in the same spot,” said Dick Mangan, a former program leader at the Forest Service’s Missoula Technology and Development Center with more than 30 years experience in wildland firefighting. “The only thing that doesn’t come back are dead firefighters. Grass grows back, the trees come back, houses come back. Dead firefighters don’t come back.”
And as wildfires have grown in size in the last decade – 2012 has seen more than 9 million acres burn, the third-highest amount this century – the number of available air tankers has been halved. Some have been retired from services; others have been destroyed in crashes. The Forest Service estimates its needs 18 to 28 “next-generation” large air tankers, but did not seek a congressional appropriation last summer because of budgetary constraints.
“It is a monetary issue, absolutely,” said Ron Hanks, head of aviation safety with the Forest Service. “The cost, the engineering and the development – they’re costly.”
Industry leaders defend the safety records of the planes. They note that age itself does not disqualify a plane from meeting the Forest Service’s requirements, and properly maintained planes can continue to be airworthy even as they pass 50 years in age.
Dan Snyder, the president of Neptune Aviation Services in Missoula, Mont., said his company has begun buying and retrofitting former British passenger planes to replace the older aircraft. But Snyder, whose company has the biggest air tanker contract, defended the safety records of planes like the P2V.
“It’s an airframe that has really worked well for us,” Snyder said. “It’s taken the stress and strain quite well.”
Still, Snyder acknowledged that many airframes are fast-approaching their life limits. “They can only fly so many takeoffs and landings, which we call ‘cycles,’ and those cycle limits are starting to approach,” he said.
For old sub chasers, the mission has changed
Captain Todd Neal Tompkins understood the risks.
The Boise pilot had flown over wildfires for years, and firefighting often took him away from his family for extended periods during the wildfire season, said his friend, Brian Walp.
“He was in touch with the fact that when he left in the spring to go to work, it may be the last time he’d see his kids,” Walp said. “I think he lived with that idea.”
At 1:47 p.m. on June 3, Tompkins was in a Lockheed P2V that crashed into mountainous terrain while dropping retardant in a shallow valley north of Modena, Utah. Tompkins and co-pilot Ronnie Edwin Chambless died in the crash. The NTSB has not released its final report on the cause.
Scott G Winterton / AP file
The scene near Hamblin Valley, Utah, on June 4 after a P2V air tanker crashed as it dropped retardant on a 5,000-acre wildfire, killing pilots Todd Neal Tompkins and Ronnie Edwin Chambless, both of Boise, Idaho.
The P2V has long been the workhorse of the Forest Service’s aerial firefighting fleet. Designed to track submarines in the 1940s, the P2Vs remained in military use until the Vietnam War.
In the years after Vietnam, the tankers were given a new job: dropping fire retardant on wildfires. Retrofitted to carry retardant but with relatively few other changes, the planes – and similar planes like the Lockheed P3 Orion -- were deployed across the American West.
“Many of these aircraft – P2 and P3s, old submarine search planes – come from the Korean War and Vietnam era,” Mangan said. “They do not have the greatest track record.”
In the past decade, P2V crashes alone have resulted in at least 10 deaths. On Sept. 1, 2008, a P2V crashed and killed the pilot and two passengers after the left engine caught fire during takeoff near Reno, Nev. The following spring, a P2V crashed while attempting to navigate foggy, windy weather in Utah’s Oquirrh Mountains, killing all three people onboard.
“Clearly, those aircraft were not designed for the missions they are flying,” said Hall, the former NTSB chairman. “We recommended a purpose-built aircraft for the types of missions being flown 10 years ago. It could have easily been accomplished during that time.”
The P2V isn't the only plane that has critics worried.
In July, the U.S. Air Force grounded all firefighting-equipped C-130s on loan to the Forest Service from the Department of Defense after one of the turboprop planes crashed in South Dakota, killing four people. While many of the C-130s are significantly younger than the P2Vs, Hall said they simply were not designed to handle the dangerous conditions above wildfires.
But newer, better-designed planes are out of the Forest Service’s reach due to cost.
The Forest Service’s modernization strategy, published in February, includes contracts for next-generation civilian aircraft like the BAe-146, which cost about $7 million apiece and carry 3,000 gallons of fire suppressant -- much less than larger, more expensive tankers. Retrofitting adds $1 million to $4 million to the price tag.
Other retrofitted planes can be even costlier: A new C-130J, for example, which can deliver 4,000 gallons of fire suppressant, costs about $80 million, according to the Forest Service report. Or the agency can lease a C-130 flown by military pilots from the Air Force for $13,740 a day, plus $6,600 for every hour it’s in the air.
All of these options would put a significant strain on the Forest Service’s budget. But inaction also carries a price too: About $55 million was spent each year from 2009-2011 to maintain the current fleet, said Jennifer Jones, a spokeswoman for the Forest Service.
Dug up from the Boneyard
After World War II, the U.S. Air Force established a storage facility near Tucson, Ariz., where dry conditions kept aircraft from corroding. Today, it is officially known as the 309th Aerospace Maintenance Regeneration Group.
But many refer to it by its more colloquial name: the Boneyard.
Since its inception, the Boneyard’s fleet has grown to include planes like the P2Vs and C-130s. Now, with more than 4,400 aircraft and 13 aerospace vehicles from all branches of the military and NASA, the Boneyard operates as a stockpile for military units and government agencies to take parts or entire planes for their own use or to sell to U.S. allies.
For years, these mothballed planes have been called into action to battle wildfires. In 2002, the federal firefighting commission took a closer look at the Boneyard, condemning the Forest Service's practice of using retired military planes salvaged from the facility.
One of those planes was a Lockheed C-130A, registration number N130HP. Built in 1957, the plane was retired from military service in 1978, spent a decade in the boneyard and then was retrofitted with retardant tanks to battle wildfires.
On June 17, 2002, as the plane swept low over a fire in California, its wings separated from the body of the plane, sending it plummeting to the ground. The accident, which was filmed by a witness, killed all three people on board. An examination of the wreckage found fatigue cracks in the right wing, a problem that had been found in other C-130s, according to the NTSB.
The dramatic footage sparked concern about the aging fleet. And in December of that year, the federal commission called its safety record “unacceptable.”
The C-130 crash is not the only example of structural failure. On July 18, 2002, a Vultee P4Y-2 air tanker’s left wing ripped off, sending the plane spiraling into a Colorado mountain and killing two crew members. Cracks in the frame of the aircraft, which was manufactured in 1945, went undetected because they were hidden behind the retardant tank, according to the NTSB report on the crash.
Hall, the chair of the federal commission, said the Forest Service is gradually phasing out these older planes, but not quickly enough, and without funding for newer planes.
“In the same period of time since this report was published, we have fought two wars,” but made virtually no progress in updating the federal firefighting fleet, he said in a recent interview.
At the same time, he said, the fleet has shrunk steadily. In 2002, the agency contracted for more than 40 air tankers.
“Right now, we have 17 aircraft, and that includes the Canadian aircraft that we have borrowed,” Hanks said.
Building for the future but relying on the past
In a hangar in Missoula, Mont., the past, present and future of the air tanker industry can be found side by side.
All nine of Neptune’s planes -- seven P2Vs, and two BAe-146 passenger jets that are being refitted to fight fires -- are under government contract., but the fleet of P2Vs has dwindled in recent years. Neptune will retire two of its P2V Neptunes this year and replace them with BAe-146s.
“The P2Vs that Neptune operates were built in the late 40s, early 50s – so they’re 60, 70-year-old aircraft,” said Ron Hooper, a former government contracting officer who now works for Neptune. “The BAe-146’s were in passenger service over in England, and they’re 15, 16-year-old aircraft.”
Neptune is one of only two remaining air-tanker contractors in the U.S. Last year, the Forest Service ended its contract with Aero Union, a California company that operated P3 Orions. The Federal Aviation Administration said the company failed to follow the scheduled inspections of its air tankers. (Aero Union CEO Britt Gourley said in a letter published in January by Wildfiretoday.com that the company’s “aircraft have always been meticulously maintained and continuously airworthy. He also stated that Aero Union had appealed the contract termination through the judicial process, but in the meantime had been forced to sell the aircraft and lay off its 60 employees.)
In June, the Forest Service announced it would contract with four U.S. companies to lease seven new air tankers, some of which could have been in the air this year. But two bidding companies that lost out protested, saying the contract requirements were vague, delaying the process. The Forest Service requested updated bids, which were due Nov. 1, from potential contractors. The agency has not announced new contracts.
Both Neptune and Minden Air Corp. -- the two current federal contractors -- have begun phasing in retired civilian airliners to replace the military planes. Neptune’s BAe-146s, built by British Aerospace in the mid- to late-1980s, are more nimble than the P2Vs, Snyder said. The planes foster a safer flying experience for pilots and flight crews, he said.
But they aren’t cheap. The BAe-146 cost $20,000 per day to have available plus $10,000 for every hour of flight, according to the USFS. But greater speed and greater suppressant capacity – about 1,000 gallons more than the older tankers – will help offset that.
“It flies twice as fast,” Hooper said. “Our maintenance cost will go down relative to the P2V. So there are a number of advantages for the Forest Service from an operational standpoint, as well as for Neptune, from an operational maintenance standpoint to be upgrading our fleet.”
Minden is building a new BAe-146 service that should be ready in about a year, said Matt Graham, the company’s maintenance director.
In Missoula, Neptune hopes to have four BAE’s available next spring. The remaining P2Vs are scheduled to be phased out within the next five years, Hooper said.
The Murrow News Service provides local, regional and statewide stories reported and written by journalism students at the Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University.
More from Open Channel:
- Kitchen calamity: Reports of shattering cookware are on the rise
- Authorities establish timeline of gun purchases in Conn. school shooting
- Paula Broadwell won't face cyberstalking charges in Petraeus scandal
- New details emerge on private lives of school gunman and his mother
- Mom of suspected shooter, first to die, was avid gun enthusiast
- Rossen Reports: Furniture, TV tipovers threaten children
- North Korean progress on nuclear arms, missiles rattles US, allies
- How outside money was poured into governors' races
- Dental chain accused of hurting kids, bilking taxpayers
Follow Open Channel from NBCNews.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Interesting read from National Geographic...
It's Sunday. But I don't know if it's interesting. Let me get back after I wake up.
Apparently my link to that particular article was removed because it is restricted under the Newsvine articles of a new user.
2. The ability to put HTML links in comments.
I've been a user since 7/2010 and I really don't feel like inseminating newsvine with my seed so I guess people will have to try copying the following text into the browser (the article spans multiple pages, click the continue >> button to read more... very interesting)
ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/07/fire-season/shea-text
The U.S. Air force will be replacing their air refueling tankers so how about this. The best of those being replaced are converted to fight fires and are transferred to the Air National Guard of each state. The Guard will fly them regularly and maintain them. Each state would get say four planes which would be distributed such that every place in the lower U.S. would have 4 to 12 or so air tankers within a few hours flying time and a couple of dozen tankers within 24 hours flying time.
The initial cost of refitting the planes for fire fighting is borne by assessments on the insurance industry (who benefits by reduced fire losses) and the annual upkeep is borne by the National Guard.
We don't have no money for those planes but we have all kinds of foriegn aid money to give out
@Kenn the Dem: Not really a possible solution, as those air refueling tankers (KC-135, military version of the Boeing 707) are stone aged by now as well (+50 years), are huge gas guzzlers and most importantly, aren't able to fly slow enough in low level flights necessary for water/retardant drops...
A much better option would probably to increase the number of Bombadier 415 "Super Scooper", which have a price tag of only $26Mio brand new (compared to the mentioned $80Mio+retrofit for a C-130) and are purpose build for firefighting...
RANDY-802370
Randy, we have plenty of money. The problem is we have a criminal government that wastes more than 25% of our hard earned tax dollars.
Here's a few examples of the waste, fraud, abuse and corruption (WFAC) that infiltrates our government.
The federal government made at least $125 billion in improper payments in 2011.
Washington spends $25 billion annually maintaining unused or vacant federal properties.
Government auditors spent the past five years examining all federal programs and found that 22 percent of them–costing taxpayers a total of $123 billion annually–fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serve.
The Congressional Budget Office published a “Budget Options” series identifying more than $140 billion in potential spending cuts.
Examples from multiple Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports of wasteful duplication include 342 economic development programs; 130 programs serving the disabled; 130 programs serving at-risk youth; 90 early childhood development programs; 75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities; and 72 safe water programs. This report identifies more than $100 billion to $200 billion in annual government spending on 1,500 different programs that are wasteful, duplicative, or inefficient.
A recent report from the Institute of Medicine showed that health care fraud is estimated to cost taxpayers more than $750 billion annually.
We have plenty of money. The problem is we have a government that has been on a spending spree for the past 100 years and We The People haven’t been vigilant. Now we find ourselves with unsustainable debt and unfunded liabilities and the same incompetents that got us into this mess know the only way out is to finally default. Of course they won’t tell us, they’ll just cause the fiscal cliff to happen, then they’ll blame each other and we’ll be the ones to suffer.
When we have this much massive WFAC there is no other solution than to just let the system collapse and then reform our dysfunctional government the way the Founder’s and Framer’s intended it.
Well said Jim. And just think...that's the tip of the iceburg. But many people say that all we need to do is tax the rich and the productive class more. The option of reduced spending is not an option to them.
Oh, and Apple now how more cash on hand than the entire US government. Go figure that. Meanwhile they keep screwing the proverbial pooch and punting the ball.
Very interesting comment re-a-quint. I'm wondering the same thing. I'm not sure of the price but if what you say is correct then like most nations with fire-fighting needs the Canadair now known as Bombardier CL-415 is the aircraft of choice.
Look this up on Youtube which also contains loads more footage of these aircraft in action.
Super Scooper at Puddingstone California Wildfires
All you need is a nearby body of water. The aircraft can also land at airports and be tanked up with fire retardent chemicals. A fleet of half a dozen of these aircraft can knock down a blaze quite fast by repeated water bombing runs. They are extremely rugged and purpose built.
The other great thing about the Bombardier CL-415 is that they have tanks inside that also carry additive either foam or gel that is mixed w/water before the drop. The CL-415 can also land in the water and drive onto land to refuel and fill additive tanks or even do it in the water instead of having to fly back to the airport/runway every trip. The CL-415 takes about 12 to 20 seconds of "scooping time" to fill it's 1,600 gal tanks. As with most wild fires the difference is made in the first few hours and a few AT-802 Air Tractors and a few CL-415 would really make a difference. The big thing is to get the fires before they turn into monsters
Even the Russian Beriev 200 is showing promise although there are not many of them. I know the USFS was supposed to test these planes and they are jet powered and also scoop from the water. I think Putin was even flying one. It is really a pretty amazing aircraft but does need a bit of refinement. I'm pretty sure Spain and or Portugal had one stationed there, actually one of them did crash in Portugal a few years back
Jhawke
Well said Jim. And just think...that's the tip of the iceburg. But many people say that all we need to do is tax the rich and the productive class more. The option of reduced spending is not an option to them.
Respectfully, you are definitely correct on the "well said" part, but totally wrong on the highlighted section above. The overwhelming majority of Americans realize we need BOTH spending cuts AND raising taxes. And there is NO DOUBT that it is about time for the wealthy to start giving back the enormous gains they have made over the last 30+ years. Gains that were almost ENTIRELY at the expense of the lower, lower middle and middle classes.
I think that ordering new aircraft is a must, there's no negative against doing it. They can fight fires better, they can save more lives, more property, and even slow global warming from giant forest fires. You'd save money in the long run, imo...so sped alot now to save alot more later.
ProgressiveforAmerica
Progressive, you realize that the overwhelming majority of Americans can't tell you the difference between the Debt and the deficit. Most Americans have no idea that revenues, with the Bush tax rates, exceeded Clintons 2000 levels in 2007. Most Americans don't know that the "spending cuts" are nothing more than reductions in already bloated budgets.
I guarantee you 95%, or more, of Americans aren't aware of all the waste, fraud, abuse and corruption in our government because our lamestreal Liberal media is too corrupt to expose it all.
We all know that taxing the Barrack Hussein rich bogeymen will do virtually NOTHING to help the economy. The alleged $85 billion of additional annual revenue will pay for 8.5 days of current spending. What do we do about the other 356.5 days? This is purely ideological rather than significant policy. This is just Barrack Hussein punishing the rich for some alleged crime they never committed.
newswinner
The negative is the cost. There are many in our government that don't believe we should spend anymore money unless it is for their particular cause or State.
r-a-quint (1.5)
Agree with your statement 100%. KC are crappier than the P-2's, problem is, our Gov can't get their head around to replace with existing livery. You see, our procurement system wants to spread the money around with overruns and late deliveries. Plus the 415 is foreign made.
BTW am ex-pat living in Spain, they have a wild fire problems and have a bunch of the 415's.
I know what you trolls are going to say about the money spent, for econ hard time, but better spent on Hospitals, infrastructure and fire prevention, than two wars.
JOregon, but it would SAVE a ton of money in the long run. Fema pays for all the houses destroyed in fires. Didn't you know that???
Spend a drop of water now, or spend a bucket of water later. It's common sense.
you guys don't seem to be comprehending (or else are just ignoring) that NONE of the large tankers are owned or operated by the federal government. all of the large and very-large tankers are owned by private companies, and purchased and retrofitted with private dollars. nobody has $8+ million to spend on buying a plane and retrofitting it, unless they are guaranteed a contract to fight federal fire. and the feds don't give contracts unless you have 1) an acceptable/approved platform, 2) personnel lined up to fly them, who have been Initial Attack carded and type rated in the platform, and 3) infrastructure and money to ensure fulfillment of your contract IF you get one. in other words- any new tanker company is going in on a speculative basis. there is HUGE risk for losing millions. and when you start bringing in venture capitalists, like Brit Gourley at Aero Union, they are in it for the money and the money only, and they will steal from their employees and government alike, lose their contract like he did (and 60+ employees lose their living), and then we are back to no tankers and no tanker companies. or when people do front these millions, like Evergreen did with their 747-and then the platform isn't practical and the feds elect NOT to contract with them- it makes future start-up funding even slimmer.
the citizens of this country are just not going to cough up hundreds of millions of dollars to equip and man a federally and owned operated fleet of tankers, that in reality benefit only a fraction of the citizens of this country. the planes need to be replaced because too many pilots die every year- it is a ridiculous percentage. tanker flying is one of the highest-risk jobs in the world. Todd Tompkins death was needless, on a fire of no importance, and his little kids are going to grow up without him. that is the real tragedy
I find it interesting that the Republicans fought to reduce spending on things like fire fighters and their equipment and during the war in Iraq, they raped the states of its equipment and sent it over there. Mean while we have fires up the ying yang and not enough fire fighters or equipment to do anything about them.
THANKS REPUBLICONS FOR DOING THIS TO OUR FIRE FIGHTERS, POLICE FORCE, AND TEACHER.
Then after the shooting, all the sudden the Republicans are like "Oh crap, we need to stop cutting back on the police forces and put one in every school."
WHAT A FREAKING JOKE THE REPUBLICANS ARE.
It's like the Governor of Texas saying how states need to stop taking hand outs from the government, but then when the fires happen and drought, the Governor is like "Where is my hand out?"
Newswinner
I am not arguing against it, it is just how politics work.
The areas where the risk is generally have lower populations (voters).
In my opinion the value is in the lives saved, but our government is in a cut, cut, cut mode. The last thing the GOP will allow is to increase taxes for a small number of homes in the woods.
*Sigh*
The 2002 incident in Colorado happened just a few miles from where I live, I was helping friends evacuate the day it happened. If one knows where to look, you can still see the burned area where the plane crashed from the highway. It was a friggin' decade ago, and nothing has been done about it, and the situation has only gotten worse, the planes are that much older, the beetlekill situation has exploded, and the drought has deepened. Yes it is truly sickening the amount of money the federal government spends on machines that kill people in faraway places, rather than on some planes to fight these fires.
The Canso water bombers are even older but they are still playing a major role in forest fire fighting. Time to bring back the old reliable designs.
After the sequestration there will be plenty of B-52s available.
B-52's..? .. wasnt that some kinda new age bubblegum rock band?
The cost of one week war effort in Afghanistan would probably pay for all the modern water bombers they need.
There are still B-52 bombers flying that were built immediately following WWII. It is a matter of the cost associated with maintaining an old airframe. Most of these old B-52s have been rebuilt over the years to the point where there is hardly a single original part left on the aircraft. In the long run it would be far cheaper to replace these old tanker aircraft with newer planes, the problem is the upfront costs involved. It is hard to look at things in terms of the 10 or 20 year costs when we do our budgeting on an annual basis. I also seriously doubt that the Forest Service would accept planned reductions in their out year budget in return for the up front money. They want the up front money and to maintain the out year budgets at the same level, even though based on their own arguments they should be able to due with less money in the out years if they get newer planes. While there will no doubt be some savings the reality is that it will not be near as much of the big savings in maintenance costs they talk about. These planes fly in punishing conditions and this greatly increases the maintenance costs. This reduced maintenance claim is just a way to try and justify the new planes. The new planes are definitely needed, but they need to be honest with themselves and everyone else that it is not about reducing maintenance costs, it is about safety and capability.
The first prototype B-52 rolled out in 1952 and the introduction date was in 1955. About 744 were produced, the last being in 1962. It is still a good aircraft but I doubt it would be any good for fire fighting. What needs to be done is a purpose built aircraft for the role but the production numbers would be so low it wouldn't be profitable for the manufacturer. And yes, profit does matter because companies do not exist for the sole purpose of supplying cushy well paying jobs. Nope, that is what government does. (sarcasm)
Dave...ca, Bombardier, in Canada, manufactures that specially designed and built fire fighter aircraft previously mentioned. But, they also build a multitude of other products, including snowmobiles and watercraft, of all sizes, as well as the Gulfstream series jets and former Learjet aircraft. They are not as "tunnel vision" oriented as our aircraft manufacturers. (Shoot, they're even involved with developing and building high speed trains.) Maybe some of our businesses could learn about "business diversity," and actually improve their bottom lines.
The Bombardier company has even upgraded the engines and avionics on that water bomber of theirs in the last couple of years. As to the B-52 and KC-135 aircraft, as previously stated, they are very inappropriate for this type of work, as their best efficiency and operation altitudes are higher up, and they are not designed for rapid maneuverability and down low flying, as they are very close to stalling as they come in to land. Plus, they were brand new in the early sixties, fifty years ago, therefore they would require extensive and very expensive structural upgrades for this type of work.
This is a problem that needs resolving, and until a lot of different groups get their heads out of the sand, it will continue to be an ongoing problem, getting more serious every year.
Thank you for bringing up the issue of older planes in forest fires suppression. In this new era of Aviation Safety Management Systems (SMS) the aviation industry should no longer accept the 100 year "trial and error" method where accidents were required to generate and implement great safety measures. SMS are the tools to improve safety.
“I’ve been on fires in California where people have had their houses burned underneath them twice before- - they rebuilt the third time in the same spot,” said Dick Mangan, a former program leader at the Forest Service’s Missoula Technology and Development Center with more than 30 years experience in wildland firefighting."
There's your REAL problem. After the insurance payout, and the second burn they should be FORBIDDEN from building in a fire zone and putting these guys in danger in the first place! If not on their own dime and no more insurance. Sucker bet for the rest of us.
Are these people independently wealthy, stupid or both????
Is this insurance federally subsidized like certain flood insurance so that the homeowner does not pay the true cost of the insurance? Such insurance should be one time only,not renewable for the same area. Even that would be generous.
Chris,I agree with you on this one.I live in California and Sierra Madre is a prime example of people building where they shouldn't have and then rebuilding.Malibu and Topanga Canyon are another prime example of the foolish wealthy building and rebuilding.
Most of the country would be considered a fire zone.
Use the money from the funds to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan and buy fifty planes and helicopters. We would also have money left over to buy at least ten new Coast Guard ships. That is the kind of money going to rebuild those countries. That doesn't include the war costs that will still accrue even after all (I use this term loosely) "Wars are over".
so the aircraft industry maintains its perfect record of never leaving one up there.......good job.
I find it curious that these companies continue to take old planes and modify them to use for the inherantly dangerous business of water bombing. There is a great plane specifically designed to fight fires, the CL-415 is the second generation, and is the best water bomber flying today.
It's time the forest service or the air force took direct control as the private sector is not up to the task. Buy a fleet of new CL-415s, distribute them on a national security basis. Hitting a fire early is the key to fire control.
New 415's cost millions of dollars. It all comes down to economics . Most private companies can't afford to buy them with what they get paid for fighting fires.
The vast majority of accidents are controlled flight into terrain and the age of the airplane makes no difference to a mountain.... The Forest Services decision to ban piston engined planes like PBY's, DC series, Neptunes etc was a stupid bureacratic decision. You can't use a DC-6 built in 1955 but its okay to use a CV-580 built in 1954 ....
in the end gravity is everyones mother.......and she will get you.
Every takeoff is optional, every landing is mandatory.
There are thousands of planes sitting in the desert in Arizona...unwanted and unused.. Why can't these planes be converted to usable fire fighting aircraft.??
Perhaps you should read the article before commenting.
If we weren't spending billions and wasting young folks lives in 'endless'wars' maybe we could buy some new aircraft.......ya think?
The wars like 40 cents of every federal dollar is spent on the Americard. Even when we're totally out of our current war not borrowing to pay for that war doesn't free up any money it merely allows us to borrow less.
anyone ever think that letting fires burn maybe a good thing.letting forest debris accumulate on increases it power the next time it catches.
I have seen a picture of what appeared to be a DC 10 dropping retardant while in what looked like a shallow dive. Not really designed to imitate the Stuka. (I think there was a military tanker version of the DC 10/MD 11.)
Another mistake still being made is to contract with multiple companies for the aircraft. This is an industry used almost entirely for one purpose. Management of the aircraft by multiple companies adds complexity. I believe management of the entire fleet by either one government agency, or private corporation, would be much safer and more effective. I think CALFIRE would be a good example to follow. Nearly all of the companies who've furnished tankers under contract have gone out of business. Having multiple companies involved doesn't seem to be a good business model. This isn't an industry which operates in both the public and private sector, so the benefits of competition don't seem to merit the added complexities in having multiple companies involved.
“I’ve been on fires in California where people have had their houses burned underneath them twice before- - they rebuilt the third time in the same spot,” said Dick Mangan, a former program leader at the Forest Service’s Missoula Technology and Development Center with more than 30 years experience in wildland firefighting.
Ok, who would rebuild a THIRD time? That's just stupid, never mind if it's where you want to live or not, you live in a fire hazard, you take your chances, don't expect the fire crews to save your butt because you chose to endanger them.
It is not stupid,just incredibly selfish if someone else-the taxpayer and the firefighter-are picking up the bill.
The same with people building their house over and over in an area that is below sea level and subject to several hurricanes each year (New Orleans) or anywhere along the gulf coast and East coast. It isn't the taxpayer picking up the bill for someone living in the forrest but they are paying the bill for flooded hurricane areas. The insurance company pays for the forrest residents and then they pass it on to those of us who do not live in the disaster prone areas. One could probably find a good reason not to live anywhere because of the risk. I would guess the forrest is safer than most.
But then again people do live in Chicago and Detroit and those 2 areas are pretty much disasters.
The author somehow missed the fact that Evergreen Aviation of McMinnville OR has a converted Boeing 747 jetliner that can dump an immense 20,000 lb. load of retardant through a computer and GPS controlled nozzle system with incredible accuracy. It was ready to go in spring 2009 in time for the devastating fires in Colorado and elsewhere , but the Forest Service dragged its bureaucratic duff and would not authorize its use. Still hasn't. The big DC-10 air tanker developed by 10 Tanker of Victorville California has seen some use, but again not through the Forest Service. The Forest Service has no backbone for dispatching these big firetankers. They are unnecessarily risk averse. They fear some phantom demon of " Liability" or somesuch. ( Think chicken feces ). The Canadians and Russians have some powerful modern firetanker planes, including some that scoop water out of lakes without having to land so can make many more runs.
Therefore, a large part of the problem of using air tankers to fight wildfires is not structural engineering, it is bureaucratic BS.
You're laughably far off on your numbers Dewdle. The 747 can dump 20,000 GALLONS of retardant. That is about 170,000 pounds.
The Forest Service is so underfunded that they can't even maintain the trash and port-a-potties. With all the budget-cutting in Congress, they are a easy target. I can see why they are unable to buy expensive aircraft.
You want the fleet updated? Have a congressman from each house on the plane when it fights fires.it will amaze you how quick the money will be found
Ric
Flew these planes in the mid 60's in VP-771 from NAS Los Alamatos . California. they were OLD than.
Why not take the 21 C-27J cargo aircraft the AF ANG is using and will forced to retire soon because of Defense cuts enforced by the Obama administration and use them for fire fighting. Most of these aircraft have less than a 1,000 hours on them.
They would rather give those planes away for FREE to foriegn governments as military aid as the did with the C-27A's.
The Forest Service is so messed up from the last ' Tanker Scandal " with the C-130A's the Career Bureaucrats at the Forest Service will do nothing but run the last private air tanker contractors out of business.
its a crime using some of the aircraft they use or allowed by contract to be used
Why ? Is it a crime that the USAF is using and flying planes just as old.
Good story. One question. If you had ANY doubts about an aircraft's flightworthiness as a pilot, mechanic, crew member why would you fly? Something tells me there is more to this story. Is there pressure to go up in these flying coffins from superiors? Pressure from ground fire fighters? Or, dare I say, pilot cockiness/recklessness?
How much does it cost to buy new firefighting aircrafts? Deduct it from the foreign aid we give to Pakistan and attend our own needs.
then add the taxpayer monies from Ovomit's wookie disbarred wife's 17 vacations and all his green fees. and why not?
Instead of sending billions of our dollars to Pakistan, Afghanistan and other worthless countries why don't they use this money to buy new fire fighting planes for the U.S.? Our Congress is worthless.
They should at least try retrofitting ejection seats in the airplanes to at least give the pilots a shot at surviving an air frame loss.
To eject where, into the forest fire?
Most of the burning part of a forest fire is only about 1/4 mile wide. The back part fuel is already used up and the front part hasn't started burning yet. The planes fly at over 100 miles an hour and the pilots would usually be far from the flames on bailout.
Nice to see an article on MSNBC which doesn't delete all technical information on the grounds it is "too scary" or "too boring".
Sad to see some readers thought the latter.
Next time some whiny, tax-cheat, 1%'er moans about the Government taking their tax money and not putting it to good use. Show them this article...
The 1 % ers pay about 30% of all the taxes paid in the country.
I just just about bet you don't pay any taxes at all.
The 1%ers CAN afford to pay those taxes. Us little people can't afford any more taxes or our kids might go hungry. Which sounds better to you??
The 1% don't whine about paying taxes bashir...you lefties whine that they don't pay enough...their "fair share" as you guys call it.
the income tax is the only tax and the rich pay more than anyone else dodge? is this what you guys are pushing this crap still?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/poor-americans-state-local-taxes_n_1903993.html
Total U.S. taxes are barely progressive, as shown in this table and chart from Citizens for Tax Justice. The bottom 99 percent pays a 27.5 percent total tax rate on average, while the top 1 percent pays an average 29 percent tax rate, according to 2011 data from Citizens for Tax Justice.
ring wing lies and lies and lies. if truth came out their pieholes, their heads would explode.