Helicopter 12 drops on a fire near El Cajon, CA May 13, 2022. Ryan Grothe.A few weeks ago Wildfire Today started an occasional weekend feature called The Staging Area, a concept borrowed from The War Zone’s Bunker Talk. The posts serve as the beginning of an open thread where readers can talk about issues not yet covered. Or maybe they have been. It is literally an off-topic thread.
Jeff left a comment at The Staging Area, June 3, 2022:
Bill, what do you think about having one of these topics over on the Aviation side? Maybe call it the “Fire Traffic Area”?
So here we are. The inaugural edition of The Fire Traffic Area.
The usual rules about commenting apply. And remember, no personal attacks, please.
For those who don’t get the reference, there are rules and procedures that regulate and organize the operation of aircraft over a fire. Here are excerpts from NWCG Standards for Airspace Coordination, pages 126-127, dated May, 2018.
“The FTA was developed by aerial firefighting personnel to provide a standardized initial attack airspace structure and protocol to enhance traffic separation over wildfires or other incidents. The structure and communication requirements are patterned after Class D airspace with some specific differences. It emphasizes established communications, procedures to ensure clearances are received, understood, and followed. An aircraft should NOT enter the FTA until it receives a clearance.
“Participating aircraft must adhere to TFR regulations as established by the FAA. If, for example, the boundary of a TFR polygon exceeds the 12-mile initial contact ring, clearance will still be required in order to enter the TFR. If the TFR boundary is within the 12-mile ring, proceed with standard FTA communication procedures.
“The standard FTA utilizes a minimum 5 NM radius from the incident latitude and longitude, although a radius greater than 5 NM may be utilized if needed by the incident. The 3,000 AGL minimum FTA ceiling may also vary if additional vertical room is needed by the Aerial Supervisor to accommodate the operational requirements of participating aircraft.
“There is an initial Contact ring established as a 12 NM radius from the designated center point, and a 7 NM NOCOM ring where aircraft must hold until contact is established. If no communications are established, an aircraft may not penetrate the FTA any further. The NOCOM holding options include a 7 NM option or a quadrant option.”
(UPDATE July 21, 2022: Some of the documents associated with the NWCG Standards for Aerial Supervision, PMS 505 were revised this month, including the Fire Traffic Area (FTA) which was announced by the NWCG today. We deleted the now obsolete diagram and replaced it with the new version below. The full two page document, PMS 505d, can be downloaded here.)
NWCG Fire Traffic Area (FTA), page 1 of 2. Revised July, 2022.
NWCG Fire Traffic Area (FTA), page 2 of 2. Revised July, 2022
20 Comments
With all due respect, Bill, it would be more appropriate to call it the “IP” or Initial Point. You need to be cleared into the 5nm FTA prior to breaching 7nm No Comm ring. I dig the concept though!
My $.02
Wow! Thanks for posting that FTA graphic. I’ve never seen that before. Being a scanner and FlightRadar24 follower of many wildfires over many years I really appreciate seeing that!
Just today I was following a CalFire fire and I specifically remember one of the S2s calling ’12 NM out’. Being a non-pilot, now I feel just a little bit smarter.
All tankers call at 12nm with a standard script announcing intentions. Sometimes they are given clearance to enter at the 12 mile call but, if they are not then they proceed to 7nm. At seven if they are not cleared yet they hold and “racetrack” at the 7nm “no comm” ring while they await clearance into the FTA.
Over a fire you either have a TFR OR an FTA but not both. The FTA exists on an IA or small, short duration fire. Once the fire looks like a long haul, and a TFR is established, than the airspace is predicated upon a TFR although the 7nm No Comm ring stays static. At that point they absolutely have to call for clearance into the TFR whether it is at 12nm or greater since the TFR is a primary/mandatory FAA authority and the FTA isn’t even codified by the FAA.
Assuming that the TFR is for the fire. If you have an IA within a pre-existing “non-fire” TFR, you would still have a FTA withing that non-fire TFR.
I guess, but I think we can stipulate that is an ultra rare event.
Also, if you get a fire in Death Valley should also exercise care not to get LC95 near the Devils Hole Pupfish.
If the TFR is for 5nm radius then the 7nm nocom ring would still apply. Also, the vertical separation requirements within the FTA still apply within the TFR.
And, an IP doesn’t normally apply to all aircraft, but can at the direction of the Air Attack or ASM.
Correct.
Over a fire, there is nearly always both a FTA and a TFR.
A TFR is a temporary flight restriction, which is a legal temporary change to airspace, restricting all traffic. The fire traffic area is a concept used for fire aircraft.
A TFR is not always established over a fire, but much of the time, it is. The Fire Traffic Area concept always applies, regardless of whether there is a TFR or not.
Doug,
Well, it depends who you ask. The “knowledge” being dispensed from Washington and Regional levels is that “You either have an FTA OR a TFR…but not both” That is verbatim.
Can’t say I agree with that specious statement at all but that is what is being sold from up high in the Generalscheduleoshere.
A TFR provides no specific communication requirement, which is to say, the TFR doesn’t establish the 7 or 12 mile rings. It’s well to remember the reason the FTA was developed in the first place and the rules that apply within, harking back to a mid-air collision between two S-2’s.
The TFR will stipulate a communication requirement with the controlling agency, but that’s it. The TFR will never specify altitudes to be flown over the fire, left or right orbit, separation, IP’s (if applicable), etc. The TFR merely exists to exclude non-participatory, non-IFR aircraft from the airspace.
TFR’s are formed for fires, national security areas, VIP requirements (president, etc), and other reasons, but the fire traffic area is for fires, regardless of the agency, regardless of whether a flght restriction has been issued.
A TFR applies to the airspace and is applicable to all aircraft. The fire traffic area has no regulatory restrictions on non-participating aircraft. While a TFR legally excludes everyone, a fire traffic area won’t be known to anyone but fire aircraft, isn’t announced or put in a NOTAM, doesn’t require a flight restriction, and imposes no burden on any aircraft except those participating in the fire. A private pilot flying from A to B is responsible for knowing and avoiding a TFR; the same private pilot has no way of knowing, or avoiding a fire traffic area.
The Fire Traffic Area is not a part of the national airspace system; temporarily restricted airspace is. the FTA isn’t NOTAM’d, but a TFR is. Aircraft responding to a fire within a TFR are still responsible for the 12 and 7 mile rings, The separation standards, the direction of the lead/asm/air attack, communication with other aircraft, and all the procedures and processes by which we operate. Such information is not available by NOTAM or general knowledge to other aircraft.. Air traffic control may route IFR aircraft through a TFR, and has knowledge of a TFR; ATC will not be aware of the presence of a fire traffic area.
A TFR does not alleviate participating aircraft from observing FTA procedures. A FTA does not impose requirements on any other aircraft, in lieu of a TFR, and the FTA has no legal authority, is not a part of the national airspace system, is not available by NOTAM, and does not change the status of the airspace around a fire; it merely establishes universal procedures for participating aircraft.
The FTA was updated in April, here is the new one, not a lot of changes really…
https://www.nwcg.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pms-505d.pdf
The FTA always exists, it is an agency thing, the TFR is a legal thing. Yes the TFR can be much bigger than 5 miles when these huge fires happen. You still need legal clearance to enter the TFR even if the work area is still 20 miles away, up in the TFR somewhere. That can also be referred to as the AO or Area of Operations. There can be multiple AO’s in a TFR on the same fire.
The standard TFR for Initial Attack is now a 7nm radius (14 mile diameter) to match the “no-comm ring” so it’s easy to tell on your Garmin or iPad or whatever you use, where to stop and wait for clearance. The Fire Traffic Area (FTA) is STILL 5 miles. This is where you should be at your assigned altitudes. Again, a big polygon TFR, you might be 20 miles away but still need clearance to enter the TFR. On those huge ones, 12 or 7 isn’t as important, you just can’t enter the TFR without clearance.
An initial point (IP) is normally used for air tankers when the pattern is very busy. We generally never think of 12 miles or 7 miles as an “IP”. The IP is best when it’s an easily identified point on the VFR sectional map, and a bit offset from the route the tankers will likely take to return to the tanker base. It’s good for holding VLAT’s while you get the LAT’s dropped, then bring the DC-10 in to avoid wake turbulence, or same concept with SEATs.
Also, the SAS (Standards for Aerial Supervision, formerly the IASG or Interagency Aerial Supervision Guide) has a lot of new language or updates, with the latest version coming out earlier this year (2022). TFR ceiling is now 4,500 feet AGL with the 7nm radius as the standard for Initial Attack, but can be adjusted as needed.
The “Buz or Bus” fire, August 27, 2001, in MEU
You don’t have to wait to call 12 miles out anymore, you can call inbound 25 miles out if you like, especially if you are a fast mover. 7 miles out is a definite hold if no cleared in comms are established. FYI.
With all due respect, the FTA has nothing to do with the FAA unless a TFR has been established. FTA’s will be established on any interagency initial attack, and non participating aircraft don’t need to follow those rules. There is no NOTAM or TFR. Once the incident goes big, then a TFR can be requested, from the FAA.
“Airplanes will become a permanent feature of the ceaseless battle against fires in the National Forests”–1919 Forest Service news release. https://i.imgur.com/8cG4wMz.jpg
Bill,
I thank you for all your efforts and information provided on this site. Being a retired AA from Cal Fire, and working as an AD for the FS it’s nice to have updated information available.
Flyron
On a slightly different topic … What is it with the FS in the WO not willing to admit more large airtankers are needed? There must be something more to it than simple ignorance of the topic. When a person who has control of the money asks you if you have a greater need for large airtankers and you say NO, on two different occasions, I don’t really understand what their issues are in that regard. Even the FS’s own airtanker studies done now years ago, show they need almost double what they have on exclusive use (EU) now, and that was then and not now with a much greater need.
I guess since you can’t fix stupid… I would be interested in knowing/discussing how many large air tankers are not being utilized? I’ve been retired for a number of years now and the airtanker contractors have changed in that time. What is out there that isn’t being used on CWN and does the CWN aircraft usage show that indeed more EU contracts are justified?
Adding yet another topic; Quick Reaction Force (QRF). I enjoyed reading about this project on this site and on the 60 minutes piece that I thought was well done. I was a bit confused by some criticisms of this idea. I think it’s a forward thinking idea using new technology that can have a great advantage in the quick containment of new starts. I would hope more out to the box attempts at new and effective means of attack is done.
Enjoy reading the many viewpoints posted here, Thanks Bill for your work on this site.
I’d like to throw another topic out there and see if there is a general consensus amongst aerial firefighters. This concerns standard target description. Since ground crews aren’t taught how to communicate with aircraft, I thought I would toss out a few concepts based on my 40+ years working with aircraft in the air and from the ground. First of all, crews should start off by describing their objectives for the aircraft. Often times this is all that’s needed for the aircraft to go to work. “Air Attack, we’d like to keep the fire from reaching the structures at the head of the fire”. AA can formulate a plan based on the aircraft in route or on order.
Second, avoid telling the aircraft which direction to drop. There are a lot of factors that go into deciding which direction to approach and line up for the drop. Hazards, wind, sun, visibility, terrain all play a part in making the most effective use of the water or retardant. Give the pilot’s the discretion on which way to drop. It’s best to describe the drop between two points. “Helicopter 4PJ, drop along the fire line between my location on the road and the bottom of the drainage”.
Lastly (for now), use the fundamental parts of the fire for your target description. Right flank, left flank, heel and head are all universally taught and known as the parts of the fire, even if it’s a spot fire or slop over. Using “north flank” or “west side” of the fire is confusing to pilots and aerial supervisors because they are constantly maneuvering to get in a position to see what you’re talking about, and your “south” may not be the same as their south.
I’ve seen a lot of this miscommunication on fires already this year, as well as over the past several years, and if you agree with my observations, then one thing we can do is help the folks on the ground get on the same page.
Thinking outside the … US Box.
After the Bus Fire (south of Ukiah, CA) in 2001 and the midair collision between 2 Tankers, Tanker Pilot Jim Cook came up with the FTA concept which later was implemented by CDF and USFS and later received a Walt Darran Award for it. It’s been working for 21 years…
It appears, there is more and more international cooperation and I believe the FTA could or should be considered as a standard operating procedure by every country fighting wildland fires with Aircraft.
My 2cts
Comments are closed for this article!