In 2002, two mid-air wing failures of large air tankers caused five deaths and resulted in the number of contracted air tankers being dramatically reduced by eliminating some of the oldest World War II era bombers that had been converted to air tankers. At that time we had 44. Today there are 11 on standard exclusive use contracts. Even after five studies since 1995 about the future of the air tanker fleet, the U.S. Forest Service still has not made a decision about the future of the program and how to reconstitute the fleet.
On May 19, 2011, the Chief of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, spoke on the issue in a Senate hearing:
[Senator Lisa] MURKOWSKI: What is the strategy for — for replacement of the aging air tanker fleet? And where do you see that going?
TIDWELL: Well, I was hoping to have that completed by now. But the RAND Corporation that’s doing the study for us have not completed their work. We’re hoping to get that here in the next month or so. And so once we receive that, that’ll probably be the last piece of information we need to move forward with our strategy.
Chief Tidwell was referring to the Rand Corporation study that was due in January, 2011. There are reports that the USFS has received it and it is heavy in its recommendations for scooper-type air tankers. But there is a strong bias against that type of air tanker within the higher levels of the USFS. So they are going to pay for still another study, probably hoping that this next one will give them the answer that they want. The USFS paid Rand $840,092. It is unknown what this next study will cost the taxpayers.
At another Senate hearing June 14, 2011, Chief Tidwell said:
In the next 10 years more than half of our large air tankers will need to be replaced and we are studying the options and will be making a recommendation to you by the end of the summer.
We are now well past the June-July and “end of the summer” deadlines promised by Chief Tidwell.
We submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on September 19, 2011 to obtain a copy of the Rand study, but we have not yet received it.
On September 23 we submitted some questions to the USFS about the future of the air tanker program. Yesterday we received the reply below from spokesperson Jennifer Jones.
Unfortunately, question number 6 was not answered. Is the USFS going to wait until this next report I’ll call “Rand Revisited” is received to make decisions about what recommendations to make to Congress? For such an important issue, and one that has languished for almost 10 years, it is inconceivable that the USFS still does not have a plan, or even a time line to develop one. Or, if there is a time line, why it is secret. Continued dithering and indecisiveness by the U. S. Forest Service is not acceptable.
The “answers” to our questions, as provided by the U. S. Forest Service, are in italics.
=================================================================
This web site, dated August 15, 2011, says the USFS intended to award a non-competitive contract to the Rand Corporation for another study, Rand’s second study, about the air tanker and helicopter situation.
Questions:
1. Is the amount of the contract $7 million? If not, what is the amount?
Due to the responses received expressing interest in this contract, the U.S. Forest Service decided to withdraw its sole source determination. A competitive acquisition will be conducted. There is no fixed amount for the contract. Bidders will submit prices and the price will depend on who is awarded the contract. Price is one of the factors that will be considered during the contract award process. There currently is no contract in place. The government develops an Independent Government Estimate that is used during the evaluation of cost proposals. The contract value will be identified at the time of contract award.
2. What are the deliverables, and what is the due date?
The deliverables are still being finalized and will be identified/included in the Statement of Work or the Specification that is included in the Solicitation. A due date will be negotiated with whoever is awarded the contract. Often times delivery due dates are identified in the Statement of Work or the Specification; however, it is also possible that the U.S. Forest Service may opt to allow interested offerors to propose delivery dates in their proposal or to negotiate with the successful offeror after award.
3. What was the product of Rand’s earlier contract to study the air tanker issue? Was their product satisfactory? If not, why not?
The product of the earlier contract included an evaluation and an analysis of the U.S. Forest Service aviation program to determine the optimum mix of helicopter and airtanker assets; a forecast of the agency’s future needs for these aviation assets; and a cost/benefit analysis of the helicopter and airtanker options. The product was satisfactory; however the final analysis requires refinement due to inadequacies in input data.
4. Why is another contract being awarded for this issue, right after Rand’s other contract?
Additional research is needed to assist the U.S. Forest Service in determining the appropriate composition of a mix of fixed-wing airtanker and helicopter/water scooper aviation assets that optimizes the public’s return on investments in wildfire suppression.
5, What was the amount of money paid to Rand for the earlier contract?
$840,092.00
6. When will the USFS make a decision about the long term management of the large air tanker fleet? It was promised by the end of the summer, 2011.
The U.S. Forest Service is committed to modernizing the Large Airtanker fleet. The agency is currently developing a strategy to modernize the Large Airtanker fleet in coordination with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and the Office of Management and Budget and plans to submit it to Congress as soon as it is completed.
As a person who has a long term interest in the tanker industry, I read these articles with great interest as well as laughable skepticism. The fs just like our nat. govt., is totally dysfunctional and should be removed as the spear tip of the tanker industry. These days they have zero credibility. Lives lost. Availability in the toilet because planes need to be replaced. And more bandaid aircraft on the way. Not to mention all the other needs of the industry that are not addressed for various reasons.
If the fs really gave a crap and had accountability to boot….we would’t be here now…or for the last 15 yrs.
ODF is stil flying the DC7s. Forestry grounds them but still flys the DC3. They were all supposed to be evaluated. Look here https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=97cb7100463717120f14f9f3c1c0858c&tab=core&_cview=0
See Mike this is the kind of mind set the jokers in Washington have. They think we will not see because its in another place or it’s another study for a different department so it doesn’t apply. Yea right! Theres allways someone who will find it and show the rest whats really going on. Thanks Mike
Is the militay being paid/charging the true cost of operating it’s aircraft? Lets say a private company goes out and buys a late Model used C-130, purchases a tank system, get insurance, hires a flight and ground support crew, buys fuel and takes care of all the other expenses. It is going to be expensive, any thing with aircraft is expensive.
Now in the off season the C-130 could be used for other things once the tank is pulled out so they could make some additional income. But it is still an expensive undertaking.
Who makes the best and most effective driops. That I do not know and will leave it alone.
Last time I checked the military is used as the final resource if private contractors are not aviliable.
This is with out questions a very complex issue.
It’s always easy to blame the Forest Service for the airtanker program.
When MAFFS are activated, there are “no costs” to the requesting federal agencies.
I know.. it’s a shell game. It’s been going on a long time.
Federal agencies ARE PROHIBITED from billing each other for reimbursement of services provided (except for DOL-OWCP, DOL-OSHA, and very few other circumstances.)
Much of the actual costs of airtanker usage are buried in the “shell game” happening between the USFS, Dept of Interior (BLM, NPS, FWS, BIA), DoD, FEMA, and various State and International users….. but somehow…
No funds can be exchanged??….. and the USFS must “somehow” fund and support the national airtanker program even though it only owns (has a mission for) 193 million acres of protection.
Maybe the next version of the Rand Corporation Studies will account for some of the “shell games” and shift some of the funding burden to DHS (FEMA), DoD, and the States????
If not…….??
Ken
You hit it on the head the “shell game” as its called is played by all government departments. What money? Its paper paper paper!!! Trying to take tankers to the private sector is manageable yes expensive because your shell game ties up funds for up to 6 months or more so private sector providers charge more because they know they have to wait, and wait, and wait. Do you blame them? I don’t!
If you cut the FAT (excess crap)and make those payments within 2 weeks of billing and pay set rates for service, no one wants to do it! Why? They can’t get rich off Uncle Sam. Didn’t $500.00 submarine hammers teach is that lesson? Oh wait it hasn’t been in the news for some years so we forgot about that.
They could make a reasonable living but that’s not what big business wants to do. To use an example; Exxon had 54 billion in profit 2009 part of that profit came from fuel sold to the US government (about 8 to 10 %) at market price is that fair to the American public NO but we let them get away with it don’t we. Cost plus 15% would be more fair but do they do that nope! they don pay the $1.00 or so in road taxes we pay. big deal!
Just like a suggestion of privatizing the USFS, USDA, and other government misfits it results in miss spending, fouled up paper trails and no accountability which is a bigger train wreck than we have now.
Every time you dangle a carrot in front of a horse he will try to eat it. Does he look at it not really but he smells it and will follow it anywhere. It burns my but that most Americans are like this but they see $$$$ and they don’t smell. Who cares if the military is a final resource or not. Question is do you want to pay the military for hauling the same C-130 to 26 base hops a year because there bored and need flight time or it to sit idle on a flight line doing nothing for years till it’s useless? Or is it wiser for it to be used for a worthwhile purpose? Makes sense to me.
Were all so worried about missions and job descriptions wake up and smell the coffee folks! We can’t afford to do that much longer our country is at the point of bankruptcy! Some things are just going to have to do double duty, and the right left and middle of the roaders are just going to have to deal with it! The people are tired of paying for studies and fact sheets and bean counters that LIE. The future of America will be bang for the buck and the bureaucratic red tape is going to get its wings clipped. Mark my words it’s already happening, people are tired of SOS or it can’t be done because its not their mission. WHO CARES? DO IT! Save us some money Mr. Politician instead of screwing is as usual. I’m off the soap box.
Bill
You know I dont pipe up often and when I do it’s beacus I just can’t stand it any more. I have been in the fire service 30+ years and sit and listened to these IDIOTS! You have a great point “get rid of them” only one problem is the fools in washington will put another jerk that doesnt know didly squat in there and he will continue the SOS regiment just like the jerk before him.
900 thousand dollars hmmm I believe that would have paid the start cost on 2 air tankers or a real good down payment oh duh that would have been smart.
I have the solution for the whole thing but not one of the jerks in washington would want to hear it.
How many C-130’s are in the USAF inventory? I believe the number is about 600 or more the C-130 is fuel efficent and can carry a large payload 47,000LBS . or even the C-130J there are 200+ of them and their payload is 75,000 Lbs they both have a rear gate. For that matter any transport medium to large with a rear gate has the potential to do this.
Wow now heres the genius. We alread have trained pilots that can hit a barrel with a flour sack at 200 mph, Ground crews that are used to working on them and we already pay them. So why not fit the aircraft with some sort of slide in unit that can deliver the retardent, Whats the big problem? The USAFR would love to help and large number of them would be helping save their own homes. And now your not using those (ok I wont use the word) USFS bone head survey but it works. Whats wrong with that? oops sorry wait that would make scence! sorry politicans wouldnt understand that. Ok i’ll shut up now.
Anonymous has hit on several key problems not only with USFS but other land managment agencies. I have seen good leaders retire early out of frustration, potential leaders crushed and left to rot in back water jobs because they brought up uncomfortable situations that needed to be delt with and some individuals with no leadership skills and zero knowlege on what they should be doing promoted to positions they can do real damage in.
As a good friend in the FS said that even as a senior official in Washington she was beaten down every time she came up with a new idea and total idiots (had to use your reserved word Bill) promoted around her. She retired early.
Well I hope the tanker problem is solved but hopefully it will not turn out like the V-22 Osprey.
Yep to anonymous
More reasons the USFS aviation program out to be taken away from the entire land management program.
Wanna pull the “safety card” on this one? Continue playing the game as they are….and it will become a safety issue. All the preaching in the world isn’t going to save this. If this can not get settled in the next two years or less, hopefully Congressional leadership will force the upper mgmt into decisionmaking and if it requires removal, so be it.
There are plenty of us unemployed foresters and aviation professionals out here to take the USFS and land management programs a new direction and that includes all the former aviation professionals from the military, airtanker operators, pilots, mechanics, and others in the aviation field.
All it takes is a little education and intestinal fortitude from others mentioned here. What is going on now is proof that all the leadership training from USDA and USFS has NOT taken a hold from anyone who has been to a “leadership school” and has EFFECTIVELY put the learning into motion!!
There will be very few nuggets of info or progress forward until SOMEONE steps up and leads.
The USFS has turned into a dysfunctional bureaucracy fragmented by all its “moving parts” and conflicting Agency direction and mission… It’s a TRAIN WRECK happening before our eyes as NOBODY is in charge or willing to take a chance of heading in a NEW or FORMER direction..
It’s all a problem of: field vs. manager vs. line officer vs. bean counter vs. contracting officer vs. “mission” vs. political correctness vs. DOING WHAT IS RIGHT.
Someone with some FORTITUDE needs to step up… LEAD… and just FIX the problem.
“Analysis Paralysis” is a Forest Service SELF IMPOSED problem because we won’t fire the incompetent or non-team players keeping US away from the “mission”.
IMHO.
Thanks for the reply, Kevin
No matter what…The LATprogram is a SIGNIFICANT capital outlay for any operator…just ask Neptune and Minden Air with Tanker 40 and Evergreen with the 47 and Tanker 10 LLC.
The Air Program was never cheap to begin with and now with 5.65 to 7.00 US Dinero for jet fuel and 100 LL hovering around the same…do not know where the Agencies are going to start getting any kind of deals. Federal Gov out of peoples lives? Kind of a dream..
Somewhat like having studies done for purpose built aircraft for airtankers…unless USFS gets with industry…..the same ol same ol will occur…tanking already existing aircraft into airtankers and then wondering for the next 60 yrs on how to solve the problem.
Problem would be solved when Congress and GAO says to USFS….pony up or shutup. The reliance on MAFFS will be shortlived if there is another OEF/OIF exercise and to depend on the USAF year after year might show signs of wear. I know the USAFRes and Guard loves the mission. They are the professionals at delivery and they know their aircraft. So it is time for the Congress and USFS to approach Boeing or Lockheed and PAY the piper…cuz aircraft do not come cheap and to expect anyone one tool up for 25-40 aircraft only and then walk away like the USFS did with H&P and AUC even with the MX issues….would make ANY aircraft manufacturer wary about building a few aircraft to support a mission in the goodness of their hearts due to lack of planning and management of land issues!!
Leo – I totally agree that just using them on federal fires is against inter-agency cooperatioin but CalFire recently issued a statement SIGNIFICANTLY limiting the use of their tankers on non-SRA fires in California. Also, it was more a shot at people who want the federal government out of their lives and are behind the movement to never spend federal money on anything, which only contributes to the mess as air tankers are a big capital investment no matter who owns them.
Only use it where Federal resources are needed? That pretty much flies in the face of all the “interagency hype” that the land management agencies have lectured everyone about the ICS system which “they invented.” That is somewhat true but that was started with CDF and USFS in 1970.
It is pretty well known that there are plenty of neighbors outside of the Federal fences when a wildland fire gets up and rolling, and to say Federal resources on Federal projects could be shortsighted.
On to the airtanker issue, the USFS has had over 60 years to adapt and 2 studies under a single source contract is preposterous when that agency has been well known for requirements of at least the 3 bid process. Aviation has evolved over 103 years now, about the same time the USFS has existed. To say industry hasn’t tried to work with the USFS is another fallacy. Just ask the folks at Hawkins and Powers Aircraft and Aero Union Corporation….you’ll get a different viewpoint. Granted there were “issues” but the are issues in the contracting out a sudy 2X in a row to the same company who has not answered anymore than the agencies themselves. It is high time that the airtanker program is turned over to an agency such as the FAA (which there arguments about) and hand it over to them and industry who know this better. Just because the land management agencies hold the cards in the contract process, it does not make them or the Agencies themselves aviation professionals. When Agency professionals start holding pilots licenses and aircraft maintenance licenses, and have Phd’s in Aviation Management with a strong industry background and NOT just land management backgrounds, it may be more believable that they have been “trying” to improve the Large Airtanker program. Another study? That IS the paralysis of the analysis! A true NATO mission……No Action Talk Only…seeems to fit the “comittment” to the LAT program!!
Something this site doesn’t seem to account for is the fact that the USFS does not own any of these tankers – if that were the case frustrations would be justified. Since that is not the case and I don’t see that model changing for cost reasons, the USFS needs a partner willing to buy and contract out new aircraft – could the reason this has not happened be that there are not cost effective options out there? If that is the case then there must not be sufficient market demand for this service and in a capitalistic society we must accept that large air tankers are not market supported and therefore should not exist! (of course I am joking here – real solution is that we should have our own tanker procurement program but only use it in places where federal help is wanted)
The ol tried and trus “we need more money and time in order to get it right response”. So who is most at fault the USFS or Congress?