Aero Union says P-3 air tankers could be available in 4 to 6 weeks, if requested

Aero Union's P-3s at McClellan
Aero Union's P-3s at McClellan
Aero Union’s P-3s at McClellan. Aero Union photo

Four employees of Aero Union contacted Wildfire Today and followed up with a letter, saying the company still exists, in spite of the attempt to sell their assets in a February auction. The air tankers and the items related to the Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) did not sell in the auction. Aero Union still controls the assets and they have not been turned over to a bank, according to Thomas F. Dooney, the Chief Financial Officer, who called us and signed the letter along with Leigh Ann Ackermann (Director of Operations), and two Co-Directors of Maintenance, Jerry Edwards and Mike Prunty.

CNN did a story on the state of the air tanker fleet (below) and pointed out that the Aero Union P-3 air tankers meet the FAA standards but “sit idle because they don’t meet US Forest Service requirements”.

The Forest Service cancelled the contract for the company’s eight P-3 air tankers saying that the company did not meet the safety standards which were specified in the contract. The USFS requires a Continued Airworthiness Program be followed for the air tankers they have under contract, all of which are at least 20 to 50 years old. The last P-3s were produced in 1990, and 8 of the 9 large air tankers remaining under exclusive use contracts are P2Vs that were built in the 1950s.

The employees that contacted us said the USFS has recently indicated a willingness to consider the P-3 under a “legacy contract” in 2013, for older, not “next generation” aircraft. The four of them said some of the eight Aero Union P-3s could be flying over fires in 4 to 6 weeks if they had a contract with the USFS. In order for that to happen some financial issues would have to be resolved and maintenance would have to be done on some of the aircraft. Seven of them are sitting at McClellan Air Force Base near Sacramento, and one was in the middle of major maintenance when the contract dispute occurred and is still torn down.

However, the P-3 appears to meet the USFS specifications for their next generation air tankers, which require turbine engines, a cruise speed of 300 knots, and a 3,000-gallon capacity.

 

Typos, let us know HERE, and specify which article. Please read the commenting rules before you post a comment.

Author: Bill Gabbert

After working full time in wildland fire for 33 years, he continues to learn, and strives to be a Student of Fire.

26 thoughts on “Aero Union says P-3 air tankers could be available in 4 to 6 weeks, if requested”

  1. The re-wing for the Orion looks like the best destination for our hard earned stimulus dollars. THAT would level the playing field. The numbers required to maintain a FAR 121 type maintenance program could be justified. The Orion is still the right airplane at the right time and place.

    0
    0
  2. Well, Leww

    This sure proves a point,,,,that I never really did believe in….
    Are you ready for it??

    “you have to work a program from the inside and follow ALLLL channels to improve the system!”

    Hell, the military / DoD does a BETTER job, in procurement, than many of the LMA’s. yeah yeah yeah… $600 hammers….a 20 hammer after all the trips through the contract office!!

    Thanks for some insight and some confirmation for what we knew already!

    Someday, there will be TRUE aviation leadership after every one of the personnel in FAM DC either holds a military aviation background or have to PAY for their very own pilots and mechanics licenses. Then they will know the true hurt and “givingupness” of ones paycheck at the expense of the “Grand Experiment.”

    I get there are SOME folks with a REAL background in aviation…it is not the Tom twins nor is it a good to great majority of District, Regional, or other USFS types foresters who can speak policy but have neither turned a wrench nor flew an airplane or a helicopter

    0
    0
  3. I retired after 31 yrs as a contracting officer with 27 in the Forest Service, 2 in the Defense Contract Admin Ser(during Vietnam) and 2 summers in Fire on engines, the second, 1961, on the Plumas NF(R5) about 25 air miles from the Aero Union base in Chico. Over 25 of those years was in Northern Cal on Type 1 Incident Mgmt Teams, during which I had the privilege of working on Type 2 teams when needed, working with Arne Masoner when developing and implementing the ICS system out of Riverside, serving as a trainor in Acquisition Mgmt and Fire Procurment/ Contract Admin across the Western states for 20+ years(over 700 poor souls had to endure such presentations) and while doing this I was able to enjoy attending Fire Camps and ICP’s on somewhere over 400 incidents across North America. A bit more is that I was privileged be able to start working on wildfires at the ripe age of 7yrs old with full active participation in volunteer on line at age 13 with the Cal Div of Forestry.
    Having now been retired for 12 years but living within the Lassen NF, and less than 4 miles in front of the Chips fire of 2012, while seeing the columns of 3 other such incidents within 30 miles I am quite apalled at the Gov’t fire services I have seen over the past 15 years. I pushed what I considered to be many advances(especially in contracting crews, engines etc) in fire work during my last 12 yrs service, but now that it is just “fire Mgmt” as compared with “fire suppression” I see that now the Fed Agencies just look at as a grand experiment in “fun service”, the leadership doesn’t ‘live with it’ just attend as opportunity and whim provides.
    Aero Union had the best planes P3 Orion(although they lost one in Spring training-about 30 miles from where I sit writing this msg) for the job I saw during my career, actually I was able to serve as line coordinator(for ‘borate drops’ by TBM’s B17’s and several biplanes on a three Class E fires on the Six Creeks NF in 1960, and work with many other air operator’s including Avery Aviation(Hawkins/Powers). While the P2V still flys-though with several incidents and fatalities plus a much senior fleet to the P2, I would relish reading a review report from the FS on both the CO’s DOF and their leadership’s kneejerk decision to cancel to AU contract. I venture that such a review by unbiased persons, not ‘expert’s in decision making, but common sense taxpayers, would well conclude that the landscape of our forest and rangelands has suffered much and the taxpayer has lost a significant sum while fiddling with the Grand Reviews and overkill Air Tanker studies(supplemented by the fiasco in oversight of Carson’s “Operations untruth’s-Greed”, of the past decade(preceeded by similar but smaller missteps.
    However, as a nation it well appears that the will to do right and tell truth-face-the- facts, while producing sleep inducing philosophical strategic designs has passed the point of no-return in political will and that old saw, common sense.
    I am not aware of a law or moral reason that precludes the decision making needed to lead out of wilderness of catastrophic environmental loss which could be greatly reduced by using all the public exigency authority available to bridge the gaps ahead in getting to the grand design air support forces acquisition action necessary to diminish the loss to our environment. Leww

    0
    0
  4. I worked at Aero Union for seventeen years, 1989-2006. After Dale Newton died and his kids sold the company to a equity investment firm I saw the handwriting on the wall. The new owners didn’t care about airplanes, just profit.
    The so called co-directors of maintenanence have always been butt-buddies and were always the kiss-ass guys with their nose up the bosses butt. Guess they don’t need a job…. Jamie

    0
    0
  5. I wonder how many of the P-3’s could pass FAA airworthiness requirements if they had to be certified under FAA part 23 or part 25 and carry passengers. The quote below from the blue ribbon panel study of 2002.

    “The Forest Service has neither the skilled technical staff nor the budgets to ensure air tanker airworthiness. That, it believes, is the FAA’s responsibility. But the FAA is not doing that job, leaving the responsibility to aircraft operators, who are encouraged by the Forest Service contracting process to minimize maintenance costs.” http://www.nifc.gov/aviation/av_documents/av_blueribbon/brp_120202.pdf

    The FAA focus is on the safety of commercial use [not public use] civil aircraft. Ex military aircraft are not covered very extensively by any program when they are adopted for public use.

    The P-3’s were Navy aircraft that were operated under a Navy fatigue life monitoring program that uses cumulative load/life cycle monitoring vice the damage tolerance analysis monitoring common to commercial and USAF aircraft. To operate the P-3 under a damage tolerance analysis monitoring program that would pass FAA part 23 or 25 requirements would require an extensive and expensive structural engineering program with Lockheed support.

    The ex-Navy P-3’s might have been the best available from AMARC but they were in AMARC because they were the most expensive to maintain and had relatively less fatigue life remaining compared to the active P-3 inventory.

    The part that is missing in the whole Federal air tanker program is a good airworthiness program and standards designed to provide adequate flight safety for air tanker operations.

    0
    0
  6. Thanks for calling a spade a spade.The wing design on P3 and electra are getting fatigue and stress cracks, patch and repair etc,These aircraft where the ones the navy did not want to keep anyway so aero union knew they had lots of work ahead,very expensive to maintain,

    0
    0
  7. Aero Union was a great place to work, UNTIL, Brit took over. He raped the company to maximize his profits at the expense of the airplanes. I have seen to factual proof as to why the US Forest Service pulled the contracts. All is conjuncture here. On all 8 of these P-3’s, the wings are nothing but patches and major repairs. Every year we had multiple fuel leaks do to wing plank cracking. Most all the boost pack hyd cylinders were worn beyond spec, but they continued to install and use. On of the P-3’s did in fact crash near a fire, I think in Montana, T-24? T-26 crashed due to pilot error during a training mission near Chico. So at least 2 of them have in fact crashed.

    0
    0
  8. I worked for Aero Union in 91. I helped with Modifing the first 5 ot 6 P-3’s. Hands down the best job I ever had. It sucks that they are not flying anymore. Mr. Newton must have rolled over in his grave. I hope to see them flying again. Areo Union set the bar for the industry, they need to be flying.

    0
    0
  9. Maybe Aero Union should have stayed in Chico, and spent their funds complying with USFS and / or FAA regulations instead of burning cash moving to McClellan.

    0
    0
  10. Half the people listed are the ones that drove the company into the ground. Why should anyone trust them?

    0
    0
  11. As I have said in the past all of aero union planes where carded before the season started except two that where getting heavy maintenance done… To help complie with the continued airworthiness program set up by avenger (retired engineers that helps design the airplane). The initial 6 planes carded and where on contract, fighting fires when the usfs pulled the contracts out from underneath the hard working, dedicated employees of aero union. All the planes will probably need to go is your typical annual inspection… Come on MAN ( usfs)!

    0
    0
  12. I hope they can pull this off. If they need experienced people to get up and going, I’d come back to work. I retired after the H&P accidents in 02.

    0
    0
  13. Tom Dooney – would you please provide your contact details? I am working with an investor who might be of great assistance to you.

    0
    0
  14. The P-3 Orion is the best air tanker the industry has ever had. Many of us would love to see it back working fires. The viability of AUC was destroyed when key people were laid off and equipment and spare parts needed to support the aircraft were sold. I do hope someone can put it back together.

    0
    0
  15. Somebody blinked. I do hope they can get back into the air. “Legacy” contract? could open doors
    for the remaining DC products…
    Hmm..

    0
    0
    1. That seems to be a slight exaggeration.

      I sure hope that there’s not a push to get these in the air just to have one auger into a hillside.

      Keep the faith folks.

      0
      0
      1. You have to be kidding. Not one P-3 ever suffered a fatality in or near a fire. Meanwhile P-2’s and C-130’s are killing crews all over the country. Get real.

        0
        0
        1. Correct sir, perhaps a poorly constructed sentence- I was getting at the hope that fast tracking and political (and economical) pressures don’t cause a catastrophic short cut in getting the P3’s up before the end of fire season.

          0
          0
        2. The airplanes don’t (usually) get the crews…..the crews get themselves in trouble. It does not matter how many drops you have or how modern the equipment is. Every mission has inherent risk and no lead plane, infra red, turbine engine or other newfangled equipment will save your bacon if you misjudge a turn, descent rate, slope illusions, wind, turbulence, sun, smoke, or forget to jettison your load. We are all fallible and it could happen to any one of us if we let our guard down…..or if our number is up. Depends I suppose if you believe in Fate.

          I have many dead friends who were “good sticks” that got suckered into trying too hard.

          0
          0
  16. Now let’s see some support on this website for the few folks at AUC that can make this happen!!!

    0
    0
  17. “Willingness under a legacy contract?”

    WOW! After driving the nail last year…USFS grabbing for straws….proof is right there. Hopefully the four folks have an airtight deal that if contract is awarded….might make the USFS and their program showing a weakness for abruptly cancelling contracts especially when it meets “next gen” turbine power and tanking reqs!

    Four employees showing the willingness..luuuuv it!!

    Now how many of those P3’s have real problems??

    I am sure the major MX was and is typical heavy checks and probably includes allll the the NDT and CAP functions with it. Let us wait and see…..many of the P3’s probably weren’t in that bad of shape…..only knee jerk reaction at the highest of levels!!

    Far as many of us know….AUC was and still is one upstanding company with those 4!!

    0
    0
    1. Extactly,there is hope and I say if
      they can pull this off (and if they can get contracts-and funding because of the contract.) light the candle.!
      Especailly if the contract is multi -year..

      0
      0

Comments are closed.