(This article was first published on Fire Aviation)
This 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.
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 often burn over, 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 supporting 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.)
Maffs is very effective, and has been for years. Anything else is spin.
MAFFS is based out of CA 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.
With continued record heat, extreme drought and near year round firefighting calendars, we may need a LOT MORE then you estimated in your article.
Good luck with getting a “living wage” for Firefighters via our congressional rep (and life long politician) McClintock, he thinks that Firefighters are just “unskilled labor.”
put a webcam on every other PG&E high voltage tower.
On a 8/14 I was able to witness an IA on the SQF, the Waggy incident, I am guessing it was a lighting start. The alert webcams that are in place in CA our an amazing tool. This fire had great potential, slope and heavy fuels, with an aggressive air and ground attack they nailed this thing.
There have been many successful stops of recent on IA using this time proven strategy.
Maybe it’s time for the feds to truly consider getting into the tanker business, as in ownership of a robust fleet, yea I know, it’s a lot of money, it should be very obvious to all, mega fires are here to stay. And maybe having a few less of these mega fire will help pay for such a program.
Bill thank you informative article, and mostly thanks for your dedication in getting these stories out, I hope that some of our elected officials also visit this site, they could learn a lot…..
Peace….
I totally agree that we need more large air tankers. In the early 90s we on the Winema National Forest in our fire planning determined that the point we had a high probability of not succeeding at initial attack was when the ERC was 40 and above. We then changed our dispatch response and added an automatic dispatch of a large air tanker when the ERC was 40 and above. As a result of that change we altered the frequency of large fires. We went from having a large fire on the average one ever year and a half to going several years without one and when we had one is because no large a tanker were available. Often I would hear back from the IA folks that the air tanker drop was the difference between success and failure. Once in awhile you will end up with a load of retardant that wasn’t needed but when you consider the cost of a fire that escaped IA it is insignificant. We are in a situation this year that the ERC in most areas in the west is far above an ERC value of 40 but because of the inadequate number of large air tankers automatic dispatch of an ERC value of 40 can’t happen. I have seen ERC charts on units that are above the historic values for the period time but we are faced with an inadequate number of large air tankers to improve the success of IA.
What happened to the 16 million that Congress approved for MAFFS 2.5. What happened to Improved MAFFS program engineered by Strata-G Solutions (stratag-inc.com under projects).
Great question. I think the program was a dud andthere were/are intellectual property issues with MAFFS.
Bill, what are the “strategies other than full suppression?” “In addition, another 47 fires are being managed under a strategy other than full suppression.” Thanks!
Fires that are not completely suppressed on the assumption that there will be benefits to the vegetation and ecology if a fire is allowed to run its course. There can be locations on these fires where specific points are protected, such as private property and structures.
How does that relate to the Chief’s Letter on managed wildfires, or does it? Thanks!
Where do you suggest additional LATs come from? They are converted by private companies, who are given contracts to operate the aircraft. A couple companies are Canadian, yet they still get contracts over American companies. What’s the point in producing more aircraft if a contract isn’t guaranteed, and even worse, is given to a non-American company over American owned? There is only so much vendors can offer. Recently, aside from the slow (normal in the past) year in 2019, vendors aren’t complaining. They make more money on CWN in a shorter amount of time than EU anyway. Most vendors are operating at maximum capacity as it is. So unless more private companies want to get into the tanker game, which is a huge feat, the fleet won’t be growing. That isn’t the governments fault.
Why are Canadian companies getting contracts over American companies when it’s milllions in US tax payer money? There should be like 30 of these MAFFS systems/planes in action while the country is burning and lives are at stake.