On Monday Wildfire Today interviewed Dan Snyder, the president of Neptune Aviation, about Tanker 40, their new jet-powered air tanker that is working its way through the federal government’s approval process. We have written about this aircraft several times, as recently as September 23, but until now it has been difficult to obtain any information about Tanker 40 from Neptune. They have been hesitant to talk about it because they have been in a research and development mode and wanted to protect proprietary information about this completely new type of air tanker. However, some information about the aircraft is still being held close to the vest. When I asked Snyder if the retardant was pumped out of the 3,000-gallon tank by compressed air, he said he was not able to disclose any details about the tanking system other than its capacity.
He confirmed the information we obtained from US Forest Service spokesperson Jennifer Jones about the “interim approval” that the USFS granted for Tanker 40 recently. He said this status is normal for any air tanker with a new tank design after they have passed a test in which retardant is dropped from the aircraft onto a grid where it is collected in measuring cups. That is the objective part of the approval process by the Interagency Air Tanker Board (IATB). The subjective portion will begin after Tanker 40 is signed up on a contract with the USFS and will involve opinions expressed by lead plane pilots, ground-based firefighters, and the staff at air tanker bases. I asked if another aircraft would shadow the tanker and observe from the air or record the drops with infrared imaging equipment, and Snyder said he does not expect that would happen.
Neptune presently has nine P2V tankers on contract. Minden has two P2Vs, making a total of eleven large air tankers on federal exclusive use contracts, compared to the 44 we had in 2002. The BAe-146 will be able to use the same air tanker bases that the P2Vs use.
The one-year contract that is being negotiated for Tanker 40, which Snyder hopes to be in place before the 2011 fire season ends, will be unlike your standard air tanker contract. It will not be a standard Call When Needed or Exclusive Use contract, but will be considered “additional equipment”, which is sort of a hybrid of the two. When, and if, the USFS sees a need for an additional air tanker based on nationwide fire conditions, they will activate it and it will be managed and compensated like an exclusive use air tanker.
The new contract and interim status are expected to last one year, after which the aircraft could be given full approval by the IATB. When that occurs, Snyder said Neptune will probably convert additional BAe-146s into air tankers.
Lynn,
While both DC10s are carded to fly, 10 Tanker only has enough crew members to fly one. Because of the Texas fires, they did not have to close there doors on Sept. 15th. In fact, they were able to bring back a couple of their laid off crew members to avoid a lapse in coverage for the state during crew rest. The cwn contracts don’t pay unless you are activated. Because of their extended stay in Texas, 10 Tanker will be able to stay open for several months (although everyone in the company is taking a 20% pay cut starting in November)
I appoligize to Mr. Gabbert for my rant’s. We have survived the Dyer Mill fire and Riley Rd fires now and am just passionate about this subject. I can’t help but wonder now the what ifs of had they been here earlier or if not at all, what could have been saved or what more lost. Dyer Mill did not have the denseness that Riley did but I still wonder. These fires where stopped 300 feet and 1/4 miles from my house respectivly, so yes I think like a civilian more than a FF now days at times. Yes we where not a Bastrop but very will could have been.
Quite the contrary,
The USFS has kept the DC-10 actively engaged on a CWN contract now for months… even though there hasn’t been a USFS mission since the Hill Fire. Most of the DC-10 flights this year have been made on the USFS CWN contract in support of state and FEMA missions.
The DC-10 has been activated three times this year in the United States and once in Canada. On April 17 it was dispatched to Texas for a week or two using a CAL FIRE CWN contract. Then on June 9 using the same CAL FIRE contract it was sent to the Wallow fire in Arizona. And on September 7 it was again sent to Texas, this time on a recently-signed CWN contract with the U. S. Forest Service. The USFS no doubt paid for the Wallow fire assignment, but we are not sure who paid for the two assignments to Texas–the USFS, Texas, or FEMA. It is a good bet, however, that FEMA will end up paying most of the cost.
I don’t agree with the statement: “I have to wonder why it appears the USFS is trying to do away with these VLAT…”.
The DC10 was activated as CWN resource for the Forest Service at the same time that the 3 AeroFlite CL215s and various Convairs (CV580 and CV480).were brought into service to augment the Forest Service fleet.
I believe that time period was roughly late in the 3rd week in August.
During that period, while under a USFS contract, the DC10 flew many fires including the Plateau Fire (AZ-ASD), Motor Fire (CA-SNF), Hill Fire (CA-BDF), and Canyon Fire (CA-KRN).
After the Canyon Fire, T-910 (and numerous other airtankers) have been in TX since 09/07/2011.
P.S. – Based upon the CFMA agreement, either the USFS or CAL FIRE can utilize each others CWN contracts for the ordering of resources (or aircraft)… the only real difference is where the billing documents are forwarded for payment.
Did you relize that Cal-fire no longer had T-910 on contract CWN or other wise due to budget cut’s, I guess I need to reread there page seems they also had a call by call review of USFS request for A/C, both have cut the VLAT’s and several P-3 from service. Someone will correct me preferably Mr Gabbert, USFS only has 11 smaller tankers on contract, they may well be CWN as well. Have a good day Ken, and an even better week
Lynn- CAL FIRE and the USFS have CWN contracts with 10 Tanker Air Carrier for one or both of their DC-10s. The USFS has 11 large air tankers on exclusive use contracts plus a one year evaluation contract with the new Tanker 40, the BAe-146.
So 10 does still have a cwn with Cal-Fire and usfs. TY Mr.Gabbert, knew I would get the right info from you, I had read some where that 10 was closeing due to not haveing any contact with either, guess a cwn is better than nothing. Hope it keeps them going.
Contrary to what? Yes they have been on a CWN contract, I don’t think that’s the issue, not working for 10 or associated with them not sure how that works to be able to keep a company above water,so to speak, between maint and crew pay, Cal-fire no longer has a contact with them, which to me means no money comming in which lets me understand a crew being layed off and a bird sitting on the ground, it also lets me understand why they would have closed there doors around 15 sept had it not been for them being called in to the Texas fires…In our instance they where a life saver so to speak in being able to drop the heavy loads making it possible for FF to be a little safer and houses saved, this was not a grass fire or light fuels this was a heavly tree with thick canapy area with under growth so thick with youpon and vines with other growth so thick you cant see two feet into it, saving lives and property and stopping fire is the issue here nothing else. 10 tankers drops where able to do that where some of the seat drops never reached the ground, they as well as 10 where very good at stopping the fire in the tree tops. I love the lighter A/C in the right conditions and fuels, but this was just not it for them in certain areas, Air FireFighting is a team, just like on the ground it’s team work. Air doesnt put them out but helps and its much more dangerous for the ground crews with out them. So which makes more sense one plane that carries a few thousand gallons more than what it takes 3-C130s to carry or 3-C130s trying to make that drop. I was able to count 7 in and outs I was told by one of the FF it was 10. This was not a baby fire for this took the big boys to make it stop and help contain it. My hope is we will never need 10 again, but sure hope it’s there if needed again. Its like having a fire extinguisher around hope you never need it, and know that it may not stop the fire by it’s self but it still helps. It’s a form of insurance that if there, will get used.
I as a person whom has had to watch from a distance from being evacuated due to, two wild fires in Texas and an ex FF of ten years, have two suggestions on this matter, have the A/C 10 Tanker,40 Tanker and the 747 due the drop tests in one day, once passed give them a one year contact, then leave it to the FFs and wildland crews to give reports and recommendations another wards the people who’s safety is dependant on theses A/C to have a say and have it count. Yes no two fires are the same but there there on the ground where it counts and in the line of fire, no pun intended. I have seen the 10 work it’s magic of hitting hard and cooling things down. I wish we had had it when I was working, every A/C has its place in this team work, but sometimes you don’t have enough helio’s and a seat just can’t drop enough or heavy enough when quanity is needed. I have to wonder why it appears the USFS is trying to do away with these VLAT, which I dont consider 40 to be. JMHO.
Thanks Gary, I apologize for my negativity but seeing the DC10 not getting a fair shake all these years has led to a great deal of frustration. Cal Fire were the only ones willing to give them a chance (at least until their budget was cut this year). Because the USFS was only willing to give them a CWN contract this year when Cal Fire couldn’t renew their exclusive use contract, 10 Tanker laid off all but one crew and had scheduled to close their doors on Sept. 15th. If the fires in Texas happened 2 weeks later, there would have been no crews left at all. Is it so much to ask that they be given a fair chance and the same type of contract given to the new kid on the block?
Congrats to Neptune. They passed the grid and got IATB approval. It does not matter if it is gravity or other. It passed the same test all tankers do. It does not matter how many times it did the test (it passed). It is not an subjective test. You either make repeatable line length numbers or not. The IATB test do not decide which tanker is capable of IA. The Dc 10 may not be the first choice for IA but there is no data to eliminate it from a modified IA role. As a tool in the tool box its limits still need to be defined and that will only come with a trial and a open mind. So far it has proven to be very valuble tool when given the chance. Why not a evaluation contract for the Dc 10 and 747 to get all the facts? What is the USFS afraid of. Will they find out that they can do the job and many times quicker and cheaper?You can find fault with every tanker but you should look at all the posibilites and do so based on fact (including reports from Lead Planes/ASM’s). There is almost 6 years of data out there but apparently the Cal Fire Leads and BLM ASMs evaluations do not matter to the USFS management. This points to an agenda other than defining the capablities of a tanker.
Gina,
The DC-10 platform went through the same testing and approval processes from 2004 to PRESENT that Tanker 40 is being approved to start on a 1 year evaluation. Not sure why you’ve been bagging on them (Neptune, Tanker 40) in your latest posts.
In fact, as a “devils advocate”, you could say they’ve (10 Tanker Air) been given a “5 PLUS YEAR” evaluation and correction period while NONE of the other air tanker PROVIDERS have been given the same consideration of platform development and consideration as they attempt to develop/evaluate new platforms… (BAe146, Be-200, Q400, CL415, etc.. and OLD platforms).
The DC-10 has design and delivery problems that aren’t being “fixed” (or being even attempted to fix) even though there is a loyal following of bloggers thinking the DC-10 will save the world and trying to influence folks.
Hmmm… Spamming every blog to tout the DC-10 effectiveness (Bill, I apologize) isn’t getting us ANYWHERE closer to an effective airtanker fleet.
CAL FIRE and USFS agree on the DC-10 effectiveness… It’s a tool in the tool box… It’s NOT an effective IA airtanker.
It has it’s place…. it’s purpose.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/douglas-dc-10-air-tanker-deemed-unsuitable-for-australian-347844/
I’m curious as to why the DC10 wasn’t given the same subjective period. They passed their grid test right away.
Well it did take 56 tries to pass the grid test. No wonder they are keeping it so hush hush
I hate to say it but it sounds like at the end of whatever kind of contract they get they might want to start getting a replacement tank ready. Also there is nothing new about that tank, Maffs and the 747, are pressurized and as for interm contracts are normal, thats a crock my friend the IAB from what it sounds are not impressed so their not going to hand out a full exlusive use contract to something that has produced poor test results. If the cup testing was flawless the first go around with a unanumous approval you would’nt see and hear all this BS about that plane, it would be out doing its job. GRAVITY TANK.
Richard,
Watch (and listen) to the Neptune video as it releases before you THINK it is a pressurized system like the MAFFS or 747. It IS NOT a pressure tank. LISTEN. Hear the “clap… clap.. clap”? Hello.
http://missoulian.com/news/local/article_4cc0276e-ea4a-11e0-a4c5-001cc4c03286.html?mode=video
So let me get this straight the sound your reffering to in the video of a claping noise leads you to believe that this tank is not pressurized. Im guessing your thoughts on this must be some sort of vent system on the top of the tank to provide a head pressure to prevent structral damage to the tank when the retardent is released, found on gravity tank systems. That do make a fluttering type noise, clapping, dont think so. Take a look at their door system were it is in relation to the tank and the area of the four doors, if you still come to the conculsion that its not pressurized and in fact a gravity system, you might want to call up the brainacts at M I T and inform them that the laws of physics have been rewrote by a tanker company in Montana.
Have a nice day Ken.
Have a nice day also Richard.
The Neptune system for T-40 is proprietary info at this time… but it’s not rocket science… or protected by patent as best I can tell.
New technology, innovation, and science? Most likely.
They obviously have something that works and has met the initial testing and SHOULDN’T be clouded by such negative comments as “sounds like at the end of whatever kind of contract they get they might want to start getting a replacement tank ready”.
You got a dog in the race?
Not personally but I know some people who have decades of Tank design and manufacturing knowledge that when it comes time for approval their system will be ready. How long has Tronos been at this? There Idea for the tank system fits their needs not the needs of the operator or the forest service, again I’d be suprised if there is another one manufactured, by tronos.
Let me shed some light on this. Tanker 40 has a Neptune designed and built tank in her. They pulled the tronos system out and tossed it. That’s why they were not flying last year like everyone thought they would be. Minden is still working on their 146 they are just going the slow route last I heard from them is that they were going through the FAA inspection to get the aircraft type certified as an airtanker in the restricted category of aircraft.
Jason the box you are refering to is the Montana state flag.
What’s the significance of the black box on the tail?
Its the Montana State Flag
Congratulations Neptune. Keep it up and some of us may come out of retirement.