Having only 9 large air tankers on full time exclusive use contracts is a major reduction from the 44 we had in 2002, but after September 4, 2012 there may be only 6 working, unless the U.S. Forest Service extends them beyond the mandatory availability period specified in their contracts. The above chart, which we prepared using data supplied by the National Interagency Fire Center, shows the mandatory availability period for the 11 air tankers that we started with at the beginning of the 2012 fire season. We lost two on June 3 when one crashed, killing the two person crew, and a second that was damaged after the landing gear failed to fully extend upon landing.
Knowing at the beginning of the fire season that only 11 air tankers would be available, the USFS still only scheduled each air tanker on a staggered basis for five to six months each, rather than extending the beginning and ending times for each of these limited resources. In a normal wildfire year with normal weather, the fire season in the northern latitudes begins to decline in September. We no longer have “normal”, and even if we did, having only 6 air tankers after September 4 makes it impossible to initial attack new fires with both air and ground resources, increasing the chance that some fires will become large, destructive, and very, very expensive to suppress. Some may even cause fatalities and destroy hundreds of homes as we have seen too often this year already.
As a minimum, during the short term, the availability periods for all nine air tankers that are left on long term contracts should be extended until November 30, IF the vendors can supply crews to maintain and fly the aircraft during those time frames. And the three very large air tankers, the two DC-10s and the 747, should be brought on and awarded long term exclusive use contracts.
In addition, instead of shutting down every air tanker for one day a week while the flight crew takes a well-deserved day off, bring in a relief crew to fly the aircraft for one or even two days. And even use relief crews to give the pilots a week off once or twice a summer, reducing the hardship on them and their families. This could improve the turnover rate of flight crews who are typically away from home for much of the year.
Before the end of this year, Neptune expects to bring on two additional BAe-146 air tankers, and Minden has plans to deploy one BAe-146. In 2013 there should be four more air tankers: an additional BAe-146 from Minden, two MD87s from Aero Air, and one RG85 from Aero Flite.
For the long term, the USFS should, instead of adding just 7 air tankers over the next two years, that number should be increased to 25 to 30 over the next 4 years, bringing the total number of air tankers to 35 to 40.
*Note about the chart: The ending date for Tanker 40 is unclear, since the contract list, as shown above, lists the date as October 43, 2012.
Well said Nick. M and Bill G.
The DC-10’s and the 747 are probably one of the most important additions to the aerial firefighting fleet in the past 6 years. As mentioned they perform a task it would take 4 aircraft to do in a single drop. As far as the comments go about the airspace having to be cleared when the DC-10 comes in are false. In all fires there is a rotation of rotary and fixed wing. When ANY fixed wing tankers come on scene the rotary winged tankers back off for safety or work another flank of the fire until the fixed wing tankers rotate back to reload. All fixed wing tankers are given safe holding altitudes, distances from each other, as well as drop locations, and dropping order via lead air attack. The comment about the DC-10 not being able to operate in canyons i.e. mountainous terrain and not make low drops is also false. As can be seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3UZnHa4jBs
Great comments here on a great story
… just a couple questions: @Bub: you a pilot or former pilot or just a wannabe? @DRD: which Secretary you hashing at? and @McCoy: yay Dougs! and @”formerH&P” good point on the number of tankers!!
and @Mike b.
http://www.lies.com/wp/images/2009/12/srsly.jpg
Butler’s 3000gal DC7’s are still around on Oregon contracts… but no one mentions them either. No P3’s Dc7’s or
working 130’s. Gone. No questions, no answers…
4y’s were an amazing ship. We worked behind ‘ol Igor out of Billings, always impressed with the performance.
But when throwing out the bathwater we
must include the baby…
Rebel, what is the hourly rate for the dc-10? Why does the airspace over the fire have to be cleared when the dc-10 shows up? Why does it take so long to drop a load, in other words why do the other planes have to wait so long? I have nothin against the plane and definately the people! You have to agree the operatin cost and hourly rate are so high that is the reason the usfs won’t give them anything other than a cwn contract. While the airplane is very impressive it doesn’t do canyons well where a lot of the fires are in the inaccessible areas. It doesn’t really do low and slow well and from all the drops I have ever seen it do by the time the retardant hits the ground it is all over the place and not a break line anymore. So I do agree with you from the seats all the way up to the vlat all the planes have there place. I apologize for offending anyone.
Mike B. — The DC-10 does not “do low” well? Check out these photos, HERE, HERE, HERE, and especially HERE.
But you’re right, that the DC-10 should not be used for diving down into steep canyons. And a P2V or SEAT should not be used for treating a ridge line or gently rolling terrain if the DC-10 is available which can do it much faster and, I understand, at equal to or less than the cost per gallon for delivered retardant than smaller air tankers.
We need a mix of aerial firefighting tools. No one aircraft is the perfect answer to every situation. And if we put most of our eggs in one basket, when a model is grounded because a defect is found, then we have a problem. Variety is the spice of life!
Bill,
Why is it everyone in the media, including yourself, quotes the number 44 as the number of air tanker we had back in 2002.
That is misleading.
Yes, indeed in August of 2002, there were 44 airtankers. But just two months earlier in June of 2002 there were 53.
Why does everyone leave out the 4 C130s and 5 PB4Y-2s. 53 minus tanker 130 and tanker 123 meant 51, but then all three remaining Hercs and four 4Ys were grounded, shutting down seven more, leaving us with 44.
Did we not do a good enough job flying Hercs and 4ys to even be counted today?
Dont you think the REAL number 53 would further illustrate the loss of the fleet?
Why is this myth perpetuated?
Isnt this an insult to not only the crews of Tankers 130 and 123, but all the pilos who ever flew a 4Y or C130.
Essentially, just like the Soviets did, we have erased the images and memory of those who have fallen out of favor. Lets not forget the truth.
Former H&P: There is no conspiracy. I strive for accurate information and appreciate your input. Can you provide a source for your numbers?
I am not sure where one would look for that information Bill. I dont happen to have any of the 2002 Federally Contracted Air Tankers lists like the one you have above.
However, I know for a fact that the number was 53 before the H&P crashes of 2002. Without access to some archived documents, I would have to resort to counting the old companies and the number of aircraft they had contracted. If someone could come up with some old documents, it would certainly show the true numbers. It has always bothered me since 2002 that no one bothers to count Steve Craig Mike Milt and Rick. Their accidents are what brought this current crisis to the attention of the public almost ten years ago. Since then, the only change has been…it’s gotten worse.
Mike B, you say “Let the dc-10 and 747 go away. They may carry huge loads of retardant and amaze everyone that sees them but the cost to operate them is immense. They are to big to get into most attack bases and can’t fight a fire like the smaller airplanes” You are incorrect about ten tankers DC-10s. Cost per gal is less expensive than any other Tanker. There are only a very few bases they cannot work from as the runways are too short. They can and do fly from any state and drop on a fire in another state just like T911 did yesterday and when used early OR late on an IA they contain the area(s) they were requested to contain. How many P’s 3 would it take to do that 3? 4? They (the dc-10s) may be just a spectacle to you and others like you but the fact is they are a proven efficient tool in the Aerial Firefighting toolbox, there is a place for them along with the other sized Tankers out there, they ARE a professionally run company with exceptionally skilled Pilots, FE’s and Maintenance personnel so Plu-leez, show some respect! I say keep the DC-10s!
6 airtankers in September? What about next year when the majority of the p-2’s C.A.P program grounds them? Don’t hear much ot anything about that usfs? Or is that to touchy of a subject to bring up with the us blazing right now and the usfs caught in a horrible situation. Let the dc-10 and 747 go away. They may carry huge loads of retardant and amaze everyone that sees them but the cost to operate them is immense. They are to big to get into most attack bases and can’t fight a fire like the smaller airplanes. There is a simple solution that the usfs can fall to and that is the p-3′ s. the article last week says they can be back flying in 4-6 weeks. There isnt a better aerial firefighting plane. Let’s get them back up usfs.
Doesn’t matter. Sec. of AG says all is good. September is a slow month anyway.
Yeah…I don’t want to go home and see the fam. Keep me out longer and longer. It’s already a 6-8 mo. commitment. Sorry, 1 or 2 weeks here and there doesn’t cut it. Why the hell do think there is so much turnover for such a great job? This is one of the biggest issues within the industry. Better home time = pilots that stick around=experience=safe and competent crews. It’s an investment made by the FS and the companies that’s well worth it. But it would be too easy to figure out.
Bill, 10 Tanker Air Carrier have only 124 days left before they have to shut their doors unless the PTB @ the FS give them an exclusive contract.