Coulson Aviation has moved their aircraft operations to the desert of Southern California. They signed a five-year lease at the Thermal airport near Palm Springs for 25,000 square feet of hangar space and 7,000 square feet for offices. It will be the base for their three C-130s, 3 Boeing 737s, 5 CH-47 Chinook helicopters, three S-61 helicopters, and Blackhawks.
The bushfire season in Australia was virtually rained out, and Coulson’s aircraft spent more time on flood response than fires. The company also had aircraft in Chile which will soon be on their way back to the U.S.
While in Australia the Civil Aviation Safety Authority approved Coulson’s use of night vision goggles in their helicopters.
In an interview on March 23 with Fire Aviation, Wayne Coulson, CEO, said the length and coverage level of the drop pattern from the CH-47 may be competitive with the C-130, so this Spring they will take it to be tested at the grid. He said one of the specifications for a retardant drop is for it to be 50 to 100 feet wide, and if they configure the CH-47 drop to be 50 feet wide it may achieve coverage level 6 (6 gallons per 100 square feet) which is one of the most commonly used coverage levels.
Coulson’s CH-47 Chinook N42CU. Coulson photo, 2020.Mr. Coulson also said the three water-carrying helicopters in Southern California’s Quick Reaction Force will have the capability of dropping gel during initial attack, in this case, BlazeTamer. The concentrate will be carried in a small tank in the helicopter and if needed mixed into the water. But they also have access to a mobile long term retardant base where retardant can be mixed and supplied for helicopters in a roadside turnout or parking lot.
In addition, Coulson is “looking at the option of a real time retardant delivery system” — a 6,000-gallon former fuel truck from which helicopters could hover-reload with retardant. It could be dispatched along with the mobile retardant base and Quick Reaction Force helicopters.
With a CH-47, Mr. Coulson said, “We can fly 30,000 to 40,000 gallons an hour, which would be what a large air tanker could produce all day long in eight drops.”
No one ever accused Wayne Coulson of thinking small.
In the interview I asked him about the status of the retardant delivery system in the former Coast Guard C-130s that one day will be transferred to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Coulson was awarded the contract to install the tanks years ago, but working with the U.S. Air Force, which is required by a law passed eight years ago to convert the seven aircraft into air tankers, has its challenges. It now looks like the earliest those seven air tankers will take to the skies will be in 2024, CAL FIRE Director Joe Tyler told Fire Aviation yesterday.
Former Coast Guard C-130, 1714, at McClellan, Nov. 17, 2021. It may one day be converted by the US Air Force into an air tanker for CAL FIRE. Photo by Mike McKeig.A person who asked to remain anonymous told Fire Aviation that when discussing the requirement of converting the C-130s into air tankers, a very high-ranking US Air Force official resorted to profanity, showing contempt, irritation, and resentment.
14 Comments
Strong profanity?!? Like “Goshdarn!” and “Heck No!” ?
What’s the military coming to…
Tanked Chinooks (and Cranes), the biggest bang for the buck!
Damn right!!!!
There is no width requirement for retardant drop patterns.
Which requirement is the Air Force looking at with contempt? All requirements for the conversion of the C-130 were issued by the air force.
The “requirement” of the 2019 National Defense Act (NDAA) is that the US Air Force was/is, by that act, required to perform all the necessary depot level work (including replacing wingboxes as need) and upgrading the aircraft to carry a retardant system (RADS II).
In which case we can now pose the following question to the US Air Force:
How’s that National Defense Act C-130 thing for Cal Fire thing working for ya?
On December 27, 2013 President Obama signed the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act which directed the Coast Guard to transfer seven HC-130H aircraft to the U.S. Forest Service. The legislation also directed the Air Force spend up to $130 million to perform needed maintenance on the aircraft and to convert them into air tankers. After the Forest Service lost interest, another act of Congress in 2018 transferred the seven aircraft to CAL FIRE, to take effect after being fully converted by the Air Force. The bill also increased the appropriation for the work from $130 million to $150 million.
https://fireaviation.com/2021/03/24/opinion-congress-should-hold-hearings-on-air-force-delays-in-converting-c-130-air-tankers/
This is going to be fabulous!! I am seeing a Fleet of red & white Semi Tractors pulling bright stainless Tankers red lights flashing horns & sirens blaring belching smoke racing through the mountains chasing the thirsty Chinooks!
“ A person who asked to remain anonymous told Fire Aviation that when discussing the requirement of converting the C-130s into air tankers, a very high-ranking US Air Force official resorted to profanity, showing contempt, irritation, and resentment.”
Did this person elaborate on why? Could it be that this high ranking US AirForce official has more “US Air Force” things to spend time on? Maybe this high ranking US Air Force official thinks that the RD and test program is better worth the time, instead of incessant advertising by CalFire and Coulson with an overwhelming message that is someone else’s problem., other than their own.
Everyone forgets the 20 yrs in Iraq and the ‘Stans and the resets to mission aircraft, expecting everyone to hop to their project….. Maybe to those chirping the heaviest about the speed of the USAF….consider the speed of your own Agencies, please. Maybe we can get back to the 10 AM policy and “worrying about keepin ‘ em small and then maybe things will come around. Maybe USAF and Lockheed designated project managers read these pages, too.
Sadly, that is a good line to re-read….
“Consider the speed of your own Agencies”.
I have never seen a Government aviation maintenance Agency that has any ‘speed’ worth considering. (Quality yes, speed no).
Let’s not get into WHY that is the case. I’m sure there are many reasons. We just have to accept that the C130 overhauls will be a long, slow process.
Instead, let’s get back to the subject of this thread….Coulsons.
I’m sure they could get the wing boxes (etc) overhauled pretty quickly if you gave them $150 million.
Until then…..keep waiting.
IMO tanking these wonderful machines is/was a huge mistake. By tanking them you just reduced your potential dipsites by a massive percentage. Instead of being able to plop a powerfill bucket into a small beaver damn or swimming hole, now you need Lake Michigan in order to accommodate clearance for such a large ship (a rather large concern when water is hard to find anyway). As a HLCO I find myself continually burdened by this. I find great dipsites, close to the fire only to find out they’re non viable for these massive ships, when they’re tanked.
What a crock of crap, 2800 gal to 3500 gal is still 2800 gal.
Ps. You’re county work is all prevailing wage someone’s going to sue you for $100k + dollars. Check the precedent Williams v Snsands Inc.
Step away from the pipe, my friend.
So, are these just practice endeavors? Is it going to be this noisy even if there aren’t any fires nearby. The noise pollution is horrible! Wah wah.
Comments are closed for this article!