Retired aviation professionals to conduct the 6th air tanker study

A crew of retired and current aviation professionals has been assembled to conduct the sixth in an unending series of air tanker and helicopter studies. We wrote about this latest study on June 7 after it was awarded by the U.S. Forest Service to AVID LLC, a company in Virginia. While I could not find any mention of air tankers or wildfire on AVID’s web site except in mentioning one possible function of an unmanned aerial vehicle, the effect of that apparent lack of experience may be minimized by their shrewd hiring of a staff of experts for this $380,000 contract.

Tanker 45 on the Whoopup Fire

Tanker 45 dropping in the smoky Ferguson Canyon on the Whoopup Fire, protecting structures. Photo by Bill Gabbert

Dennis Hulbert, who retired from the U.S. Forest Service after serving as the Aviation Officer for the California Region, told Wildfire Today that he is a part of an assembled a group of professionals that will conduct the study with AVID. The team includes a retired National Assistant Director (Aviation), a Fire Planner/Forest Fire Management Officer/Incident Commander, several retired NASA employees, and some “Industry Professionals PHD- types”. In addition, AVID has some unique aircraft synthesis and analytical tools that can be used to assist these folks.

The AVID/Hulbert group will be guided by an in-house collection of federal employees who are subject matter specialists.

Mr. Hulbert believes that his group needs to define performance measures for firefighting aircraft that would be acceptable to the Office of Management and Budget and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General, both of which have been critical of the USFS’s earlier air tanker proposals for procuring expensive Lockheed C-130J aircraft costing $80-90 million each. Tom Harbour, National Director for Fire and Aviation for the Forest Service, and Mark Rey, former Undersecretary of Agriculture (a position that oversees the USFS) who is now a lobbyist for Lockheed, have both recommended the purchase of C-130Js, but Mr. Harbour may be moving away from that position.

In addition to defining air tanker performance measures, the group should also define them for the U.S. Forest Service, such as an implementation schedule, with dates and names of responsible officials, for moving forward. Accountability can be an effective tool.

The Forest Service should have made decisions about the long-term composition of the fire aviation fleet 10 or 20 years ago. But since they continued to kick the can down the road year after year, and crash after fatal crash, this approach, wielding the expertise of actual wildfire aviation professionals, might be what it will take to move the process forward. Aviation professionals were used in the first four of the earlier studies (and there may have been some on the secret RAND study), but little followup occurred.

Share
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , by Bill Gabbert. Bookmark the permalink.

About Bill Gabbert

Wildland fire has been a major part of Bill Gabbert’s life for several decades. After growing up in the south, he migrated to southern California where he lived for 20 years, working as a wildland firefighter. Later he took his affinity for firefighting to Indiana and eventually the Black Hills of South Dakota where he was the Fire Management Officer for a group of seven national parks. Today he is the creator and owner of WildfireToday.com and Sagacity Wildfire Services and serves as an expert witness in wildland fire. If you are interested in wildland fire, welcome… grab a cup of coffee and put your feet up. Google+

4 thoughts on “Retired aviation professionals to conduct the 6th air tanker study

  1. “Industry Professionals PHD- types”, from the air tanker industry? Why not include air tanker pilot professional? I know one with 40 years experience who has a wealth of knowledge about the mission and aircraft.

  2. Because a tanker pilot with thousands of drops is not considered a subject matter expert. He/she obviously have a vested interest in furthering their career and thus their credibility is called to question.

    A retired atgs however, ( who has witnessed said drops), would be a subject matter expert. In fact, (not really), the contracting officer is probably a better subject matter expert because he /she understand how the convoluted pay structure works. So let’s ask the accountants (and the Rand experts) what the best makeup of the fleet should be. I’m sure their computer models and excel spreadsheets will enlighten us ( non subject matter experts) how to fight fire ( from the air ) in the most cost effective method possible.

    Message to the sixth study subject matter experts……
    …..look North AND to CalFire if you want to learn how to fight fire from the air.
    Back to my rye n coke…..Eh.

    • The air tanker pilot I’m talking about is recently retired. He knows and understands aircraft, air tankers, retardant tanks, drop systems, and aerial wild land firefighting inside and out. How can anyone make a decision about what they want in an air tanker if they don’t have this knowledge?

      • Tankergypsie-
        Your friend is exactly the type of professional that should be included in these studies…..
        …..but that makes too much sense.

        The Government does not want industry professionals or aircraft manufacturers input for their studies.

        Rand was specifically told not to seek input from manufacturers.

Comments are closed.