MAFFS training in Wyoming

MAFFS training at Camp Guernsey, Wyoming,
Wyoming Air National Guard MAFFS training at Camp Guernsey, Wyoming, April 16, 2012. Photo by Mr. Dewey Baars.

Last month the two Modular Airborne Fire Fighting Systems (MAFFS) air tankers based at the Channel Islands Air National Guard base in Port Hueneme, California participated in training for wildfire assignments. This week the two Wyoming Air National Guard MAFFS C-130s based in Cheyenne did the same thing. On Monday through Thursday they loaded the 3,000-gallon tanks with water instead of retardant, and flew 100 miles to practice dropping on the rolling terrain of Camp Guernsey in southeast Wyoming.

Besides the four MAFFS aircraft mentioned above, there are four others in Colorado and North Carolina, for a total of eight. The military C-130s are used only when the commercial air tankers on contract are totally utilized on going wildfires.

An article at trib.com has more details about the MAFFS training, and also has this about the federal fleet of air tankers:

…The number of commercial tanker planes under Forest Service contract has declined from 44 in 2002 to 11 this year. The planes are getting old and more expensive to maintain.

Western senators have taken note. Last month, four of them asked the Government Accountability Office to look into whether the Forest Service has done a good job of assessing its aerial firefighting needs.

Last week, Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado also expressed concern about the 1950s-era Lockheed P-2Vs that compose the remaining fleet.

“I am unconvinced the USFS’s current air tanker fleet is prepared to adequately address an immense wildfire or even what is sure to be a long fire season,” Udall wrote to Forest Service Chief Tom Tidwell.

The U.S. Forest Service is eager to work with Congress to develop a quicker and more effective commercial tanker plane fleet, said Tom Harbour, national director of fire and aviation for the Forest Service.

The Forest Service didn’t call on the military planes at all in 2009, he said, and it’s not a certainty it will need to in the months and years ahead.

The Wyoming National Guard produced a 2.6 minute video about the training.

Air tanker with cracked wing spar may not return to service; and solicitations for more air tankers

Tanker 07, Whoopup fireThe P2V air tanker that had the 24-inch crack in a wing spar and skin, causing the FAA to issue an Emergency Airworthiness Directive in February, still has not been repaired and it may not return to service. Dan Snyder, President of Neptune Aviation which operates the aircraft, designated Tanker 10, told Wildfire Today on Wednesday that he is not sure if it will fly again as an air tanker this year. Of the nine P2V air tankers that Neptune has on contract with the U.S. Forest Service, Tanker 10 will be the last to go through their off-season maintenance cycle this year. When the mechanics get to it, they will evaluate what it will take to make it airworthy again, and then the company will make a decision about the its future.

If it can’t be repaired, Mr. Snyder said it will be replaced with another air tanker, probably a jet-powered BAe-146. He said additional BAe-146s are presently being converted from airliners to air tankers, like Tanker 40, which was converted by Tronos and leased to Neptune. When asked if the additional air tankers are being built at Neptune’s facility in Missoula or at Tronos’ hangars on Prince Edward Island, Mr. Snyder would only say they are being built in “various locations”. According to Mr. Snyder, Neptune is being proactive in acquiring additional “next generation” air tankers that are newer than the 50+ year old P2Vs, even though they do not have a contract yet for anything other than the nine P2Vs currently under contract, plus interim approval for Tanker 40.

Tanker 40, the BAe-146, is young compared to the P2Vs, but it is no spring chicken, entering service in 1986. Tronos installed a tanking system that may be a one-of-a-kind; a cabin-pressure-assisted gravity drop design. According to the official U.S. Forest Service Airtanker Drop Test Report, produced after tests in July, 2011, the aircraft uses three to six psi of positive air pressure in the cabin of the aircraft to help push the retardant out of four nozzles. Other pressurized systems, such as those used on Evergreen’s 747 and the military C-130 MAFFS, use 20 to 100 psi created by on-board air compressors. In the BAe-146, after a retardant drop, the USFS report says the lowered air pressure is slow to replenish.

The report concluded:

The system produced drops meeting all line length requirements, but failed to produce consistent results for all coverage levels with any volume released. Additionally, pattern quality generally suffered when the aircraft released all the retardant onboard; analysis indicates that the aircraft would generally produce acceptable pattern quality on the grid if the final 400 gallons of any load was not released.

During the tests ground personnel unfavorably evaluated the tank’s fill system. The Interagency Airtanker Board only gave the aircraft “interim approval”, rather than full approval as a federally contracted air tanker.

We asked Mr. Snyder for more details about the BAe-146. He said “air pressure was not a factor in the delivery of the retardant. The problem was the trail off on half load drops, this is the issue we have been working at addressing the past winter.” He said he “can’t provide specifics due to the proprietary nature of the tanking system”.

Mr. Snyder told Wildfire Today that since Tanker 40 returned from a major planned maintenance at Prince Edward Island on February 26, Neptune has been working on the tank system in an effort to improve the drop performance. He said the company has also been transitioning some of their P2V crew members into the BAe-146 program, undertaking “an aggressive pilot training program which includes several weeks of ground school covering aircraft systems and operations, BAe-146 simulator flight training, in aircraft operational experience, and pilot certification with our in house examiner.”

We found nine flight plans for the BAe-146 originating from and landing back at Missoula, most lasting 17 to 49 minutes, that were filed between March 2 and April 2.

Minden Air Corp. is also converting a BAe-146 and hopes to have it flying over fires this year. Tim Christy, the Director of Flight Operations for Minden, told us that the tank system is conventional, consisting of a 3,000 gallon internal retardant tank and a computer controlled constant flow door system which will rely on gravity, rather than a pressurized system, to force the retardant out of the tank.

Air tanker list

The list of large air tankers on contract this year that we copied from the National Interagency Fire Center web site on March 24 showed 12 aircraft, including Tanker 40, the BAe-146. The latest list dated April 4, 2012, below, does not include Tanker 40. We asked Mr. Snyder why, and he was not aware of it, and he did not know why it was not on the list. We asked Jennifer Jones, a spokesperson for the USFS about the list and she said according to their aviation staff, Tanker 40 still has interim Interagency Airtanker Board approval.

But the list does include Tanker 10, which as described above, may or may not be repaired.

Federal contract air tanker list 4-4-2012

Solicitations for additional air tankers

The U.S. Forest Service expects to begin awarding contracts before the end of April from the responses they received to their solicitation for “next generation” air tankers which closed February 15, 2012. The specifications required that the aircraft can hold 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of retardant, be turbine-powered, and cruise at 300 knots.

Since the contracts for the existing 11 “legacy air tankers” expire at the end of this year, it is probable that the U.S. Forest Service will issue a solicitation for the older air tankers before the 2013 fire season. It is unlikely that a large number of next-gen air tankers can be put on contract in 2013, so we may have to keep the 50+ year old war birds flying for a least a few more years. But, it is tough to predict what the USFS will do when it comes to managing large air tankers.

The Department of Interior has contracted for two water scooper air tankers for the last few years and a similar solicitation closed on April 6. Here is an excerpt:

Requirement for two multi-engine, amphibious, water scooping, tanker aircraft in support of water application for fire suppression missions. …Services shall be for the exclusive use of the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs and U.S. Forest Service in support of wildland fire suppression in the State of Alaska and the Lower 48 States.

Another scooper?

Grumman HU-16 Albatross
Restored US Navy HU-16C, built June 1953. Wikipedia.

Marsh Aviation may be converting amphibious piston-engined Grumman HU-16 and G-111 airframes into turbo-prop, amphibious air tankers. If “Marsh Aviation” sounds familiar to you, it’s because the company converted 23 military surplus S-2 airplanes into air tankers for CAL FIRE, and eventually replaced the piston engines with turbine engines, making it possible for the aircraft to carry 1,200 gallons of retardant.

According to Wikipedia (consider the source):

Conversion will include the installation of new 1,400 US gallon (5,300 litre) retardant tank with an automated control system operating a variable quantity/constant flow release system, major titanium modifications to the load-bearing airframe, the installation of a quick-change cargo/passenger floor, new Honeywell TPE331-14GR/HR turbo-prop engines, new EFIS cockpit, new electrical system including new starter-generators, new hydraulic pumps and an upgraded hydraulic system, as well as such optional features as an APU.

Colorado sheriff says no charges to be filed for escaped prescribed fire

Lower North Fork Fire downslope drawThe sheriff of Jefferson County Sheriff told a reporter that no criminal charges will be filed for the escaped prescribed fire southwest of Denver that burned 4,140 acres, and may have caused the death of three local residents at their homes. Sheriff Ted Mink said in an interview conducted by 7NEWS reporter Marshall Zelinger:

We’re not saying that somebody should not be held accountable. All we’re saying is there’s no criminality that we have come up with.

The Sheriff’s office completed their own investigation of the escaped fire, but worked with the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. This was a separate investigation from the one initiated by Governor John Hickenlooper’s office, which Wildfire Today covered on April 16, the day the report was released.

Here is an excerpt from an article at thedenverchannel.com:

“The reports confirm previous assumptions that a prescribed burn conducted by the Colorado State Forest Service caused the fire. Based on the review of all available documents and witness interviews, it was determined that the CSFS followed or exceeded the parameters set by the Lower North Fork burn plan, and that no criminal violation of the Colorado Revised Statutes occurred,” the Sheriff’s Office report said.

However, a report by the governor’s office, released on Monday, showed that the state forest service violated its own burn plan by not patrolling the area of the controlled burn on that third day — Sunday — the day before the controlled burn blew up into the Lower North Fork Fire.

“How can the Forest Service follow and exceed the burn plan and violate it at the same time?” Zelinger asked.

“All I know is they did not go out there on a Sunday,” Mink replied. “The burn plan says periodic monitoring, and it doesn’t give a prescribed day or time or day or whatever the case is. You can interpret it in different ways. We interpreted it that they did follow and exceed it in the criminal part of our investigation.”

The Sheriff is wrong when he said: “The burn plan says periodic monitoring, and it doesn’t give a prescribed day or time or day…” The plan, according to page 50 of the report, states: “The fire will be directly patrolled and monitored for a minimum of 3 days following the initial burn, and then until significant moisture is received or the fire is declared out.”

The fire was not patrolled or checked on March 25, the third day after ignition of the prescribed fire. On that day at 12:15 p.m. the National Weather Service issued a Red Flag Warning for the following day, March 26, the day the fire escaped, for strong winds and low relative humidity. The Colorado Forest Service (CFS) was aware of the Warning and decided that since the fire had been mopped up within 200 feet of the line that it did not need to be checked on the third day, March 25.

On March 26, the CFS planned to check the fire and if there were no new smokes within 200 feet of the control line, they would remove all of the water handling equipment, including the hose lays, portable pump, and a portable water tank. At 5:51 a.m. that day, the NWS issued an updated Red Flag Warning for low humidity and strong winds of “8-13 mph with gusts to 25 mph, increasing to 22-32 mph with gusts to 60 mph in the afternoon”. In spite of that forecast, the CFS stuck with their plan of checking the fire with three people, using a pickup truck instead of a fire engine, and they would remove the water handling equipment.

The report stated that the failure to patrol the fire on the third day did not contribute to the escape on the fourth day, concluding that the strong winds blew burning embers from unburned sections of the fire into and possibly across the 200-foot mopped up area, re-igniting some portions of the blackened area, and ultimately starting at least three spot fires across the line, one of which could not be controlled. It stated that some of the factors contributing to the escape of the fire included:

  • Strong winds on March 26.
  • Unburned fuels within the burn unit.
  • Residual heat remaining within the burn unit.
  • Mopping up only 200 feet from the fire line during the wind event.
  • The 3-person crew working on the fire on March 26 using a pickup truck instead of a fire engine.
  • An inaccurate weather forecast on March 22 (the day of the prescribed fire), which predicted a cooling trend on March 25 and moderate winds on March 25. The wind event for March 26 was first predicted on March 24.
  • The unusual method of fire spread consisting of numerous burning embers blowing across the ground “like little burning fleas moving across the ground”.

Wildfire one-liners, April 17, 2012

The Honey Prairie fire in Georgia was declared out after one year. It started April 28, 2011.

Check out the photo gallery of multiple master streams and a tower-ladder being used on a brush fire in North Carolina.

A cannon fired during a celebration started a brush fire in Maine. It turns out there’s no law against firing a cannon in Maine.

A Royal Air Force Tactical Air Transportable Fire Unit helped extinguish a fire in the UK which was started by a military flare.

The Governor of Colorado asked the USFS to conduct a review of the Lower North Fork Fire, looking at suppression, evacuation, communication, and weather conditions. Wildfire Today analyzed the review of the escaped prescribed fire yesterday.

 

Report released for Colorado’s Lower North Fork escaped prescribed fire

Lower North Fork Fire prescribed fire reportColorado’s Department of Natural Resources has released the official review of the Lower North Fork prescribed fire southwest of Denver which escaped on March 26, 2012, destroyed 22 homes, burned 4,140 acres, and killed three local residents at their homes. The 152-page report (a very large 11.8 MB file) only addresses the management of the prescribed fire, and does not cover the suppression of the wildfire, the three fatalities, or the controversial evacuation procedures during the wildfire.

Lower North Fork Fire prescribed fire report mapAfter reading much of the report, which includes a great deal of boiler-plate information not directly related to the escaped prescribed fire, I was able to summarize some of the important points:
Continue reading “Report released for Colorado’s Lower North Fork escaped prescribed fire”

2 fire boats and 40 engines fight brush fire in Maryland

Marina fire
Photo by Bryan Agee

A brush fire at the Holiday Point Marina in Edgewater, Maryland developed into a four-alarm incident on Sunday. It was reported as a brush fire, and over a period of several hours was fought by about 94 firefighters, 40 land-based units, and two fire boats. The fire spread to one structure and at least one small boat.

Marina fire
Photo by Anne Arundel County PIO
Fire Boats at marina fire
Photo by Bryan Agee
Marina fire
Photo by Anne Arundel County PIO