Air tanker studies

CL-415_LA_County
CL-415. Photo: LA County FD

(Note: we edited this on 9-10-2011 to add two additional air tanker studies that we became aware of today.) 

As we wait for another air tanker study to be completed, someone reminded me of one that was completed in the mid 1990s. Luckily, a summary of the study was published in the US Forest Service’s Fire Management Notes. We found out today that two of the reports about the 2009 fatal helibase rappel accident that we had linked to have been removed from the Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center site, so we put a copy of this edition of FMN on our Wildfire Documents page, along with the Blue Ribbon Panel report we refer to below.

Called the National Air Tanker Study (NATS), it had two phases. The first was released in 1995 and had this recommendation:

Phase 1 used initial-attack efficiency analysis to recommend staffing for 38 large airtankers nationally. These 38 airtankers, as staffed in the 1996–98 National Airtanker Contract, came from the existing fleet, which had retardant tanks that range in capacity from 2,000 to 3,000 gallons (7,570 to11,360 L). Goals for phase 1 were to optimize the existing available large airtanker fleet and to find the best airtanker base locations. Accordingly, the optimum number of 38 airtankers was determined based on an aggregate of geographic-area analyses called “scenarios.” In each scenario, the number of large airtankers was increased and decreased from existing levels to determine the number within the geographic area that minimized total airtanker program costs (fire suppression costs plus net value change costs).

Phase 2 had eight recommendations. Here is one of them:

Establish a future fleet of 20 P3–A aircraft, 10 C–130B aircraft, and 11 C–130E aircraft.

So the study recommended 38 to 41 large air tankers. It seems odd, then, that there are now 11 large air tankers under exclusive use contracts and the USFS keeps saying we have plenty. Tom Harbour, the Forest Service’s director of fire and aviation, referring to the cancelled contract for the six P3 air tankers operated by Aero Union in July, was quoted by aNewsCafe.com on July 31, 2011:

This contract termination notwithstanding, we possess the aircraft support needed for this year’s fire season.

And an article from the Riverside Press-Enterprise published on September 3, 2011, happens to be on Senator Dianne Feinstein’s web site. In this article, Mr. Harbour is referring to the air tanker situation:

This fall in SoCal, we’ve got more than enough stuff to cover the fire needs.

While it may have been a reasonable decision for the USFS to cancel the Aero Union contract for the six P3 air tankers based on safety, this just further exposes the fact that we we keep losing air tankers in chunks, in addition to an average of one a year being lost in a crash. In 2002 we had 44 large air tankers. Now we have 11. As we have said many times before, a long-term large air tanker strategy should have been developed and implemented shortly after the two mid-air wing failures in 2002. It’s been nine years and nothing significant has been done. And nobody has been fired.

To summarize, there have been at least three five air tanker studies either completed or overdue for completion in the last 16 years:

  1. 1995-1996, National Air Tanker Study (NATS) was summarized in Fire Management Notes. The study recommended 41 large air tankers be staffed nationally. While there should be debate about the models of aircraft they suggested, the sheer numbers of air tankers may still be valid, since recent recommendations for future air tankers (3,000-5,000 gallons and speed of 300 knots) have similar performance capabilities as those that were recommended in this 1996 report, which was a capacity of 3,300 gallons and a speed of 260 knots.
  2. Blue Ribbon Panel report. (1.1Mb) Federal Aerial Firefighting: Assessing Safety and Effectiveness; Blue Ribbon Panel Report to the Chief, USDA Forest Service and Director, USDI Bureau of Land Management; December 2002. This five-person panel was co-chaired by Jim Hall, former Chairman of the National Transportation Safety board. They were tasked with identifying weaknesses and fail points in the aviation program, focusing on safety, operational effectiveness, costs, sustainability, and strategic guidance. The panel (on page 17) seemed to shy away from recommending that we acquire additional ex-military aircraft and leaned toward development of “a fleet of purpose-built, turbine-engine, fixed-wing air tankers based on well-defined requirements”. Their report said: “The panel believes obtaining and outfitting newer military aircraft, such as C-130s and P-3s, would only perpetuate a cycle that has proven to be unsustainable and dangerous. Unless the FAA and operator community change its methods, one could expect to see another cycle of structural failures and pilot fatalities within a decade or two.”
  3. 2005 Wildland Fire Management Aerial Application Study. This study recommended 34 to 41 air tankers.
  4. 2009, National Interagency Aviation Council. This study endorses the acquisition of 25 new large air tankers which was recommended in the 2005 study. It projects on page 21 the number of large air tankers increasing from 19 in 2008 to 32 in 2018, and 3 scoopers. This takes into account the air tankers on hand when the report was written plus additional acquisitions. It also considers attrition through age of retiring P-3s and P-2Vs. The table with the numbers is below. The report recommends on page 73 that the new air tankers be C-130Js.
  5. The study by the RAND Corporation that was due in January of 2011. This study is supposed to craft still another large air tanker strategy, meant to guide the Forest Service’s acquisition of air tankers in the years to come. The U.S. Forest Service intends for the report to remain secret and has refused a Freedom of Information Act request. Copies of the report have been leaked.
  6. UPDATE September 26, 2011. The USFS announced they intend to give the Rand Corporation still another contract for still another study. This, apparently, is not a joke. UPDATE October 12, 2011. After the USFS announced that they would give a non-competitive contract to Rand, they changed their mind and are opening it up to competition. UPDATE June 12, 2012; the contract for this study was awarded to AVID. It is required to be completed by the end of 2012.
Air tanker numbers, projected through 2018
The number of firefighting aircraft on exclusive use contracts, not CWN, projected through 2018. Source: page 21 of the 2007-2009 report referenced above.

Here is an interesting excerpt from a letter from the USDA Office of Inspector General, written in 2009 to the Chief of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, responding to the US Forest Service’s “replacement plan for firefighting aerial resources”:

…For example, FS’ initial attack success rate has dropped since it began losing air tankers in 2004 due to safety concerns. By 2007, FS’ success rate had dropped from 98.8 percent to 97.3 percent. FS estimates that this 1.5 percent decrease represents approximately 150 more fires that escaped initial attack and cost FS an additional $300 million to $450 million to suppress. In comparison, new airtankers cost up to $75 million each. So, if FS can demonstrate that new, faster, more reliable, higher-capacity airtankers increase the agency’s initial success rate, then it can show that acquiring them is cost effective.

If we have learned anything from history, around 2017 to 2022 we will be left with three to five large air tankers on exclusive use contracts and we should be expecting a new air tanker study. And nobody will have been fired.

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.

12 thoughts on “Air tanker studies”

  1. Simply amazing! The western U.S. is going up in smoke. 9 air tankers left {down from 98 in 1982} the USFS says we have enough resources to handle the situation. And there are 2 DC-10s and a 747 sitting on the ground, and still, nobody has been fired! Absolutely Outrageous!

    0
    0
  2. Bill, You are the first person that I’ve found that will actually print the TRUTH! Thank You!

    0
    0
  3. The USFS issued direction to the field that anything relating to airtanker availability was to be deferred to the Public Affairs Office, Washington Office Detached (Boise, ID).

    Seems anytime the USFS doesn’t wan’t the real story to get out, they put out a “gag order” to the field and redirect all inquiries to either Boise or DC….

    So much for transparency…. Gov Minus 2.0

    0
    0
  4. Funny… I was watching the west flank of the Dollar Lake fire try to run over the containment line yesterday and when retardant was ordered it was over 45 minutes before it even arrived to start its flyover. There are two tankers on contract with the State of Oregon but due to the fed’s objections of using DC-7’s they will use them on Federal incidents but wont pay for them.
    Time for some leadership on this and many other issues plagueing the USFS.

    0
    0
  5. MEANWHILE……The cadre of existing experienced tanker pilots grows older, gets disgusted with the FEDS and moves on to more secure employment. Some of us had dedicated our lives to tanker flying, I now realize I have wasted my life. Good luck finding qualified pilots.

    0
    0
  6. The first draft of the new rand report was sloppy at best. Thats why it’s being delivered late. They are essentially having to start over because many of their assumptions were wrong. I think if they have something together by 2012 I’ll be shocked. I propose that the readers and commentators at wildfire today come up with their own strategy. This would be useful because there are so many different opinions and backgrounds found in the commentary. It could be a “real-world” approach vs a computer-modeled RAND report approach.

    0
    0
  7. The demonstrate comment about the new air tanker the FS wants and could cost up to 75 mil$ per unit. My understanding is the c130j which I’m assuming your talking about, has already demonstrated that it does and will not work as well as the current comparable resources the FS has. The following comment that I’m going to write was straight from the mouth of a MAFFS pilot, “with three thousand gallons of retardant we have 45 minutes to dispense it before we reach are zero fuel weight”, also stated “that the new system was much heavier than the last”. I bet if anyone told that to who ever is behind this political push for these new platforms, also most likely has no real world aviation background, they would probably give you a blank stare and say yeah well there c130j’s look I have the brochure right here look at the picture, there’s a rainstorm in the background and its helping those poor people in that third world country. The guy I talked to at lockheed said that they are really nice, and they come with a free tank of gas! If the USFS wants a reliable 4 to 5 thousand gallon tanker thats not pressurized, they will need to have a purposed built fleet from a manufacturer that will far exceed 75mill a unit. $ Mainly for the development. What ever that report says they are still going to rely on private contractors, into the far off future. C130’s are not the answer! I thought these guys were anti military aircraft.

    0
    0
  8. “””For example, FS’ initial attack success rate has dropped since it began losing air tankers in 2004 due to safety concerns. By 2007, FS’ success rate had dropped from 98.8 percent to 97.3 percent.”””

    This is just as likely if not more so due to hotter drier weather than fleet size…

    0
    0
  9. It’s expensive! 30 new c-130’s are 75 million bucks a piece. That’s 2.2 billion bucks. Ben Bernake should be able to print it!

    0
    0
  10. That blue panel report makes me laugh, I want to know how much they charged for that fine piece of journalism. What I find entertaining is that all they find is how everything is F’d up across the board. With the exception of Conair, Interesting. I bet this new report will talk about how C130J models with a garbage maffs unit will save the world, and there should be thousands of them terrorizing fires from the air. Good luck Harbour.

    0
    0
  11. Tom Harbor was wandering around the Shadow Lake ICP on Wednesday, instead of looking for solutions to this problem. This afternoon air tankers were ordered for the Shadow Lake fire but the three tankers in the dispatch area were responding to initial attacks. I cannot believe that he could say with a straight face that there are enough air tankers. Even with 40+ available tankers there would be times of shortage. Meanwhile more and more fires grow large, thousands of firefighters have more exposure hours, homes burn and we spend millions of dollars herding these large fires around waiting for a change in the weather.

    0
    0

Comments are closed.