MAFFS C-130 training in Boise April 21, 2017. Photo by Bill GabbertThis wildfire season in the 48 contiguous states so far is turning out to be one to be remembered. Today nearly 25,000 personnel are working on suppressing 93 large fires across 14 states. In addition, another 47 fires are being managed under a strategy other than full suppression.
In May the Forest Service said they would have 34 large air tankers (LAT) if needed — 18 on Exclusive Use Contracts guaranteed to work, plus 8 “surge” LATs guaranteed to work for a shorter period of time, and another 8 on Call When Needed (CWN) status. Of those 16 surge and CWN aircraft, only 5 could be produced in July. One LAT, a 737 owned by the New South Wales Rural Fire Service in Australia, has flown across the Pacific to lend a hand.
On July 14 the National Interagency Fire Center upgraded the Preparedness Level to 5, which was the earliest date in 10 years.
There is a shortage of Incident Management Teams (IMT). All available Type 1 IMTs, 14 of them, are assigned, plus 24 Type 2 IMTs. The National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group (NMAC) decreed on July 18 that all requests for Area Command, National Incident Management Organization (NIMO), Type 1, and Type 2 IMTs must be approved by them.
All of the LATs available and under contract to the US Forest Service are being used. There are no more. So what’s left?
The FS frequently says they can call on eight military C-130’s equipped with 3,000-gallon Modular Airborne FireFighting Systems (MAFFS). Since the 1970s the agency has committed a great deal of time and taxpayer funds coordinating with the Defense Department, annual training and certification, and when activated, paying the large costs associated with operating the aircraft. Each requires a seven-person crew, additional support personnel, and often a third conventional C-130 for every two MAFFS that are activated. They have not changed much since the 1970s. Instead of spraying retardant out of the lowered cargo ramp it goes out the left side troop door. They have two onboard air compressors that occasionally work, but still rely on huge industrial grade compressors on the ground to pressurize the spray system.
MAFFS training, Boise, April 21, 2017. Photo by Bill Gabbert.Until a couple of days ago only five of the eight MAFFS had been working for the last several weeks. Late this week a sixth was brought on. Four military bases each have two MAFFS and are responsible for having personnel available to activate them in less than 48 hours. Two National Guard bases have activated only one. Wyoming’s 153rd Airlift Wing and California’s 146th Airlift Wing each have one parked.
During a virtual meeting July 27 with Western Governors to discuss wildfire preparedness, President Joe Biden was told that their states need more aviation resources, help with obtaining aviation fuel, and more boots on the ground.
On August 4 Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the Governors’ request for additional aviation resources, “… Came to my desk. One of the challenges we’re working on right now is making sure we get the Defense Department personnel necessary to fly the planes. So sometimes it’s not even the planes, it’s the pilots, the people who know how to fly these planes…I was given instructions to… make sure we have the people in the planes to fly them.”
The Secretary was most likely referring to the MAFFS. But it is the Secretary of Defense who needs to take action to provide flight crews.
OPINION
The Forest Service was only able to acquire, to help protect our homeland from wildfires, 31 percent of the CWN aircraft they said they expected, and 75 percent of the MAFFS.
If what we’re doing is not working, will continuing to do the same thing bring different results?
If the Air Force can’t 100 percent support the MAFFS, an evaluation of the program by a completely independent group is warranted. Is there a better way to provide this service, or should a MAFFS 3.0 be designed and built? The analysis must be configured to insure that the FS does not have the ability to skew the objectives or the findings to fit any preconceived biases. And I’m not recommending a multi-million-dollar “study” that could take years. Simply get 8 to 10 subject matter experts in the same room to come up with a plan.
The President needs to order the Department of Defense to take care of two important issues:
- Staff the MAFFS with qualified personnel so the equipment can be used to help protect our homeland.
- Order the Air Force to complete the conversion of the seven Coast Guard C-130’s into air tankers. They have been slow-walking this project and the $150 million Congress appropriated to get it done since December, 2013. Coulson Aviation has converted a C-130 into an air tanker in six months. It may not have required a new wing box, but eight to ten years is not reasonable.
If the President does nothing to kick the Air Force in the butt, Congress should hold hearings.
Apparently no viable contingency plans have been developed for this shortage of LATs by NMAC, Interagency Airtanker Board, and the leaders in the FS, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Bureau of Land Management.
Not surprisingly, having only 18 LATs on exclusive use contracts is a strategy doomed to failure. That number is 26 fewer than were on EU contracts in 2002. Is this progress?
One of the lessons learned this year and others like it, is, Congress must appropriate adequate funds for the five land management agencies to pay firefighters a living wage, conduct more prescribed fires, and have at least 40 large air tankers and 50 large Type 1 helicopters on exclusive use 10-year contracts instead of 1-year contracts.
We often say, “air tankers don’t put out fires”. Under ideal conditions they can slow the spread which allows firefighters on the ground the opportunity to move in and suppress the fire in that area. If the winds are too strong or firefighters are not nearby, in most cases the flames will eventually burn through or around the retardant. During these unprecedented circumstances brought on by the pandemic and drought we need to rely much more on aerial firefighting than in the past. And there must be an adequate number of firefighters available to supplement the work done from the air. It must go both ways. Firefighters in the air and on the ground support each other.
For new fires that have a suppression objective, attacking them with overwhelming force from both the ground and the air can sometimes keep a small fire from becoming a megafire that burns homes and threatens the safety of our citizens.
Here is what I have been saying since 2012:
(Bill Gabbert is not actually a doctor.)
38 Comments
Bill,
An additional note should be the reliability rate of these MAFFS. So far, since their activation June 28 until today, Aug. 14, they have had an 84% availability rate. Meanwhile, almost all of the contracted Airtanker companies are operating at 98%-99% availability.
Secondly, let’s just be honest, the system is an oversized Aquanet can that sprays a mist at a CL4, at best. Most of the time, they’re just painting the line so other contracted tankers can come along and double up later. Either do it right (RADS II or another gravity fed type system) or move out of the way.
Lastly, just one final reminder…. We’re all paying for it. I don’t care if it’s USFS, DOI, or DOD, the government doesn’t make any money; it uses OUR money. MAFFS is, without question, the most expensive $$ per gallon delivered to a fire imaginable.
Free up those same funds, contract it out to a handful of private companies, utilize them EFFICIENTLY and effectively, and stop wasting our taxpayer dollars on MAFFS. (I know people on here watch Tanker TV. Think of the times a private tanker company has sat in MFR, RDM, RTS, hell even BAM or CDC, and several other bases around R5 and never fired up an engine while MAFFS flies all day. Those planes could easily fly to R5, fly all day and be back at the other bases in short order with far more reliability and effectiveness.)
How dare you go after our brave men and women suggesting their work is essentially a waste of time? You are just shamelessly trying to promote whatever your true agenda, working for some competitive company most likely. Face the facts, sometimes we need all the help we can get, and thank God we have some people in uniform to step in when they are asked. These guys are trying, the USFS are trying, and it sure makes a difference to someone who’s house or life was saved!
As it relates to MAFFS not being cost effective or a good use of tax payer money -remember MAFFS cost is not even even close to the dedicated aircraft. Be real. And you are comparing apples to cucumbers. Military has this as a side mission, for a few months a year, while the dedicated planes collectively costs billions every year for one mission only. And don’t forget the major point in why the US military chooses to spend more money on things, like deployment, infrastructure, staff, equipment, it’s because it’s also training for their real military missions. Logistics, planning, low level flying, loading, LAPEs, load masters, mechanics, etc etc. This is all part of real world deployment, but when they go into foreign theatre, it’s much more demanding and less room for error (deploy to Chico vs deploy to Djibouti…see how it helps to learn things 500 miles from home?). It helps prepare them, in many ways, and now they are actually saving the tax payer money by killing two birds with one stone. But contractors won’t see that, because they can’t see past their own agenda.
Really who cares? You’re better of with spray cans of retardant.
I particularly like how the FS and BLM have flooded the skies with aluminum while doing NOTHING to increase aerial supervision capacity. Seems smart.
Seems like Coulson PR machine is in full gear. Must be afraid that the MAFFS II is a real threat if it was truly ever funded.
Just another recycled air tanker article to get the peanut gallery sitting in the cheap seats spun up again Bill and you know it, when all you do is knock tanker management and the size of the fleet. So if it was a perfect world how many supper sonic 747s, vlats, lats, seats, ands scoopers is the perfect amount for the land management agency’s to have? Since you’re the smartest person in the room. Can you please give us some numbers please?
And then you can quit writing about a bunch of what if scenarios, that never amount to anything.
If you had read the article you would have seen the numbers.
Regarding your advice to quit writing — THAT’s not going to happen.
40 and 50 is at best a WAG on your part. How did you come up with those numbers?
It is easy, “Earl”, to anonymously criticize the work that others do, without coming forward with a better idea. What is your number?
First visit here, Earl?
Dr. Gabbert is “point on” If the Federal land management agencies are going to use the MAFF program, a MAFF III system should be designed that would delivers above coverage level four. I feel that the C 17 aircraft with a retardant delivery system of 5000 U.S. gallons, and a coverage level that would be effective in all fuel types, CL 8. should be explored. Was on a hand crew building line in mature timber, probably forty trees per acre when a MAFF II aircraft sprayed a load of retardant over us. Very little (no effect on ground fire) no drip down from leaves and needles. Thought to myself, what a waste of man and machine. Aircraft height and speed appeared to be adequate. The retardant reminded me of floating cotton candy (pink) at the time. OR as Dr. Einstein stated”……………….let keep doing the same thing …………………..”
We all love the A rm Chair Quarter Backing by Those not actually on the Front Lines. It’s always so easy to tell Everybody how You think It should be done when You are subjected to sitting on the Sidelines because You were not good enough for the First String. **Sighs** I bet You think the 747 is the top Drop Platform too right? Reach for the Stars but remember to keep Your Feet on the Ground firmly.
It is very easy to criticize someone who DOES something or expresses an unconventional thought. If you have a better idea, enlighten us please. Do not keep us in suspense. Show us your wisdom.
Bring back the 747
No wisdom here…..how about the FS go about the true business of forest management and a re working logging, brush disposal, the 10 AM rule before they go out and maybe let some one else take care of the MAFFS program….certainly by now all the C130 load masters collectively probably know more about the system than most in the USFS air program. Proprietary? Maybe….
You MIGHT get the AF to move under Congressional action….but apparently alot in the forestry world don’t carry much clout in DC to get more money to fund the programs as evidenced by leadership so far.
There’s a loooong way to go in this realm…and criticism from people who work on aircraft have opinions, too
Never once read a pilot on these two websites ever tell a firefighter how to run a Pulaski….Its time for the USAF to work its own magic and REEVALUATE how the USFS does its forestry practices before they start evaluating other programs!
The MAFFs is a flag-waving resource at best. Never mind the laughably-inept retardant dispersal system, and the small army required to service the planes on the ground, military resources are best doing what they were designed to perform: military missions.
The US agencies have been told how to solve the problem of a lack of large airtankers for over 20 years, and they refuse to address the solutions:
Design and offer long-term (10 year minimum) contracts to attract investment by quality operators.
Don’t award on price alone. Consider safety record, corporate culture, industry experience, pilot qualifications, customer support, value-added features, current manufacturer support of the converted airplane, regulator certification, retardant tank design, ability to relieve pilots & engineers in the field, dispatch reliability etc and award points accordingly.
Do away with the ridiculous “rest day” for the airplane. It doesn’t get tired, the crew does. Hire each plane for xxx consecutive days, and let the vendors figure out how to keep it crewed, maintained and operable – as per FAA regs – so that’s it’s available every day for the term of the contract. Hint: they already know how to do this.
If a vendor does not meet the minimum specs of the bid, the vendor is disqualified. No protesting, better luck next time. There’s a prominent vendor in the US who isn’t working in their home country because they either don’t bid on, or fail to meet the mandatory specs of available RFPs. They have only themselves to blame.
Pair each airtanker (or group of airtankers) with its dedicated ASM/birddog plane with pilot + agency air attack supervisor. This team is dispatched to a fire, and throughout the course of a day they can be split up (to work with other groups etc), as long as they roost at the home base each evening, to meet the AMEs etc. They can stay at a given base all season, or be moved around as conditions warrant, but these are carefully-considered base changes, not daily leapfrogging around the lower 48. That’s exhausting and inefficient.
The ASM plane can fly lead & show-me runs at ‘treetop’ level, not be resigned to orbit above in the stratosphere. This suggestion will ruffle the feathers of the USFS lead plane pilots who revel in solo low-level glory, and let’s be honest, between them, they’ve seen maybe a half dozen drops for themselves, so their drop assessment skills are underdeveloped..
Forget the bigger is better mantra. Sometimes (DC-1o), a really big airtanker can be well-designed and highly effective. Anything with a pressurized dispersal system (BAe-146, 737, MD-87, 747), is as useful as teats on a bull. You can negate the need for blazing-fast en-route speed to a fire with intelligent positioning of your airtanker groups to minimize dispatch distance. Look at your decades of fire occurrence data for clues on which bases to use, and when.
Finally: travel. Get out of Boise and see what other places are doing because man, how the heck does Canada have 1/9th of our population and like 4x the number of large airtankers, with enough spares to send to us every year? And they achieve this by paying a lot less than we do for the aircraft rates.
PS: sorry Bill, but Dr. Gabbert’s prescription for keeping new fires from becoming megafires works for only a few seasons, then it becomes one of the primary reasons we experience megafires today. We need more enlightened philosophies than the post-1910 Hit it Hard Hit it Fast caveman theory.
I totally agree with Dr.Bill but hitting it hard and heavy on initial attack lacks one thing to allow for this to be done and that is total forest management. This includes timber harvesting, thinning, brush removal, and YES, off season burning to thin out the forest.
We have historically done an excellent job killing fires up until the climate change which has allowed the “forest “ to overwhelm us nationwide, now we MUST return to managing the growth of OUR vegetation, combined with the rapid initial attack and AM policy. Remember all of you own the FS lands and the tenant is not doing a good job.
Facts please.
The Bae, 737, and the MD, are GRAVITY tank sytems.
74 and MAFFS are and were the pressurized systems.
Yes, Jed, you’re correct. However, is there no pressure assist to get the retardant at max coverage levels through those small holes on the Neptune tanker? Compare the tiny doors on the MD-87 and 737 with the much longer & wider doors on the DC-10, RJ, P3, 580, Q400, etc. I’d really like to see some side by side comparisons on drops at higher coverage levels (6, 8, max).
The point of all the photos below is to suggest that some airtanker tank designs are better than others, and to a firefighter, that’s the entire purpose of their being.
Neptune BAe-146: https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/491736853047414656/
Erickson MD-87: https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/569494315362327975/
Coulson’s 737: https://www.planespotters.net/photo/964649/n137cg-coulson-aviation-boeing-737-3h4wl
GST B-744: https://www.airlive.net/worlds-largest-fire-fighting-aircraft-the-boeing-747-global-supertanker-reached-bolivia-to-help-fight-the-amazon-fires/
Compare to:
10 Tanker DC-10: https://fireaviation.com/2019/02/06/dc-10-air-tanker-en-route-to-chile/
Airstrike P3 (scroll down for belly view): https://fireaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/T-12flying.jpg
Conair RJ-85: https://skiesmag.com/press-releases/bae-146avro-rj-dominate-u-s-forest-service-airtanker-contracts/
Conair Q400: https://wildfiretoday.com/2021/01/15/conair-to-replace-their-legacy-air-tankers-with-q-400s/
Conair CV-580: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Conair/Convair-580-AT/6152597
Short sighted. In fire season, you put the fires out and fast. The wild lands controlled burns, logging, whatever happen in the off season.
I agree with Bill–think of LATs as the fire engines of urban fire departments. At first call of a structure fire, you dispatch overwhelming force (typically 2 engines, a truck, a rescue, batt chief, etc) and first equipment there commences to fight the fire until the batt chief shows. First captain there can call the 2nd alarm. We need to have enough LATs, and not waiting for Boise to ok the alarm, to have quick shows and experienced initial attack pilots to lay level 8 lines not waiting for a lead. Then overwhelming force till the ground guys arrive. We’ll know the job’s getting done when fire insurance rates go down, which (btw) will probably pay for the cost of all this.
This week (last seven days) Cal Fire (Dr. Gabbert Rx) for containment was successful about one hundred times (saved the patient) here in California. I wonder if the two new starts in Utah where in prescription? (time to deliver first load of retardant). If you falter in administering the medicine (retardant) within the twenty minutes, expect the patient to “spit-the-bit. Escape containment.
Overwhelming IA is what is going to save the patient. Cal Fire has no problem with pulling the pin on IA with a “high index” dispatch. An example of one in an area I worked was: 8 Cal Fire engines, 4 county engines, 3 Cal Fire dozers, 4 Cal Fire hand crews, 2 county water tenders, and 6 S-2T tankers. In addition, 2 USFS engines, a USFS hotshot crew, and a USFS dozer were on the IA being this area fell within the mutual threat zone. Two battalion chiefs, and one division chief were also dispatched. I want to add that this area has a big wildland/urban interface problem.
Dr. Gabbert,
Interesting prescription.
Interesting title.
Doctor, please tell us which University you earned your Doctorate, and whether your final theses was in the study of Fire Science.
If it is an Honorary Degree in recognition of your many years of fire-fighting experience, please tell us which University bestowed the Doctorate upon you. Congratulations.
(Your biography seems to be missing this information).
If you are not in fact a Doctor please stop using the title.
Please advise us to what rank you achieved on the El Cariso HotShots back in the 70s.
What other qualifications have you achieved to write such “prescriptions”?
I fully support the sharing of opinions on this website.
Especially if you own, operate and are editor for the site.
However, in your website’s Rules for commenting the first gatekeeper asks “Is it true”.
Well……is it?
It literally says (Bill Gabertt is not a doctor). If you want to badger and belittle people, Facebook is readily available.
Touchy, are’nt we today !
There’s no 747 to bring back.
MAFFS are not the most efficient, or cost effective. They are, however available, and when resources are stretched thin, and the fire is burning NOW, it’s not about what can be done in the future: it’s about attacking the fire now.
While the call is always for more, more, more, when it comes to funding, few want to pay. No country, no state, no agency, was willing or able to pay for the 747. The nation lowballed maintenance and use of the heavy tankers for years, resulting in unnecessary losses and deaths, and ultimately to withdrawal of most of the fleet from the field. It’s still recovering. More pay, but few contracts; it’s operators have to be able to pay people year round to provide those aircraft, pilots, mechanics, and support. They don’t simply begin costing when the fires start.
The actual firefighting is still done on the ground, and it’s on the ground where money needs to meet the men and women who put themselves between the fire and the public. The pay for a wildland firefighter is still unacceptable, still lags far behind, and still needs to be uppped. The support for those who give their all is insufficient. The resources are insufficient. More boots, better pay, and a recognition that the real cost of fighting fire doesn’t begin and end at the fire.
Pay the people, buy the resources, train, and keep people coming back. Those who do come out of a drive and something more than money…because the money isn’t that great.
The skies can be an aluminum cloud, and it still won’t replace boots on the ground.
Stop dangling exclusive use carrots and pulling them; operators need to be able to depend on the income to keep the aircraft and personnel moving, and they often are six months to a year behind in performing the service, and seeing the pay. There’s a big disconnect.
What’s not needed are emotional responses. No pie-in-the-sky wild ideas. You can’t bring back what doesn’t exist. For the future, certainly, if the funding can be found. Initial attack, as always, is critical.
Dr. Gabbert is a title that I started to use on this site. It was not his idea. After five decades of wildfire fire fighting in most I.C. positions I am always impressed with his knowledge and insight. I have never talked with Mr. Gabbert or even texted but a few times since this site was started. Many of my colleagues who I have worked with tanker pilots, hot shot supervisors, ATGS etc. follow my comments and share info that Mr. Gabbert has presented. Speaking for the group (wildfire professionals) we have never meant a fire professional that is so in tune, consistent with accurate facts and knowledgeable as Bill. If you had any knowledge of wildfire management, organization, and future direction of tomorrows challenges you would have know why we call him the DOCTOR. If you are bored, could you buy a copy of my book, Daredevil Dads by Tam Rodwell, Amazon. I am in one of the chapters. (little ad for me)
MAFFS are political, which is fine, as long as you can provide what you say you can. 8 (or 7, for awhile) has been the number for a long time. Have 8 been requested? If so, and the last two aren’t available, then that’s a problem. But working with the NG has always been a challenge (fixed and rotor wing) because FF is not their primary mission. Glad to have them, if they’re available when they say they can be.
I agree they are political. The National Guard units who maintain and fly them likely get added funding for supporting that mission. However, that is not their primary mission. They will never be able to continuously put all MAFFS in the air considering a C130s inspection schedule, the need for training aircraft to keep pilots current and to train maintainers, real world deployments, multi lateral exercises etc. They are nice to have as a back up, but I wouldn’t consider them a primary tool in the toolbox.
Well said
25 years I’ve been in DC doing policy research and public relations outreach related to policy. For the past 2 years I’ve been immersed in the wildland fire and aviation topic. Reading everything coming out of the Dept of Ag (USFS), Interior, BLM, House, Senate. I usually know a few hours before Gabbert when, for example, the USFS sits in front of Senate appropriators and tells them “all set Senator, nothing more needed in the wildfire aviation front.”
And then my anger leads me to search the massive media universe for credible, informed stories hammering on this annual example of USFS’s criminal neglect.
Time and again there’s only one journalist writing in-depth, thought leading stories on this subject — Bill Gabbert.
The commenter above attacking Bill might consider agreeing to one point. The wildfire aviation topic is a real issue. What we got now ain’t working. Too few aircraft of many types, etc. Dialogue is a must. Without Gabbert, there is no dialogue online.
^ The above post by FXS not only hits the nail on the head but also makes that nail bleed.
Thank you FXS. My thoughts exactly.
Bill nails it–has been nailing it- for a while. Seems to me, just like an urban fire department, wildfire fighting, on the ground and in the air, should show up with overwhelming force at first call, and then add to that as needed. I’m not the one to say how to get that done, but I think that’s what should get done. We should have enough LAT’s with experienced pilots who can start the job before Lead even gets there. Again, the comparison to urban fire departments. The first engine or truck starts to work until a Batt Chief arrives. We’ll know we have enough LAT’s when home owners fire insurance rates come down.
Bill, thanks for being here for the troops!!!
MAFFS is still effective and best option for preserving life and value of aircraft. Why else would it be in use for so long? Company is US based and still in production and USFS still employing effectively. Why are they not scaling up contracts here? With new funding and urgency it would seem like a good time to increase these types of resources.
The real truth is, if they wanted to make a difference, they could fund additional maffs II systems with the actual industry…the people, companies, parts, and training. Buy some brand new ones at $3million dollars, and outfit 20 aircraft. Buy some spare parts, train some crews, and really place them around. Contract with the actual manufactures of the systems, parts, and services, not just some independent contractors maintaining the system The same price they pay for some RJ85s per year and they can have 20 maffs positioned on call. And great if the DoD splits some of the bill and cross trains our men and women in uniform. Seems like a win win.
Good Gawd, Greg
Why would you bring some common sense into the MAFFS argument? Some folks seem to forget that the MAFFS system is tied to the USAF aircraft….you know the aircraft with a PRIMARY mission of defense
Common sense isn’t so common, but IF there are these magical MAFFS II out there, we best get get some Unicorn C130s out of the desert everyone keeps yammering about and outfit them. Of Course, it would take some COLLABORATION with Big AF and AMARG to get some of those released
But I do know better…the C130 in the AF system isn’t dead yet and AMARG recycles parts everyday and maybe just maybe powers above all of us chirping about MAFFS, can get their collective fannies out of Washington and get working with AMARG
Comments are closed for this article!