Air Tanker 101, an MD-87, drops on the Moonfish Fire in Big Cypress National Preserve in south Florida in May, 2020. It was dropping plain water, rather than retardant or another chemical, due to the sensitivity of the Everglades ecosystem. Photo by Megan Hurrell.The Oregon Department of Forestry has awarded a three-year contract to Erickson Aero Tanker for the use of one large air tanker for assisting wildland firefighters. We were told by Nicholas J. Hennemann, a Public Affairs Specialist for the ODF, that it started on June 25, 2021 and is guaranteed 75 days with an option to extend beyond 75 days.
Initially the air tanker being supplied will be Tanker 101, which was the first of Erickson’s MD-87s to make a drop on a fire — in 2014 on the Two Bulls Fire west of Bend, Oregon.
Its primary base is Medford, but is a state-wide asset and can also be centrally located in Redmond based on fire activity.
Mr. Hennemann said it may be dispatched out of the state based on the Northwest Compact and other agreements.
The ODF also has contracts for seven single engine air tankers, two of which are Fire Bosses on floats.
T-101 first ever drop on a fire, June 7, 2014 on the Two Bulls Fire. Photo by Jim Hansen, from an air attack ship.
5 Comments
June 25 to June30 T-101 was on ODF -CWN (call when needed) agreement. The ODF Exclusive Use contract started July 1.
It makes me wonder why these large tankers are not dropping water a lot more. The would be able to carry 50% more and with the massive amount of gallons could certainly start fighting fire directly, rather than indirect like with retardant. With modern GPS tracking it isn’t necessary to see the drops anymore, a Satloc system could easily point you to exactly the spot for successive trail drops.
An added bonus would be faster fillups and a huge decrease in cost.
The MD87 is especially suitable for this task.
Sigh. Anyone have time to correct these inaccuracies?
I’ll add my 2 cents,
Water vs retardant: apples and oranges. retardant=long term allowing resources time to get in and support it (well, that’s how it’s supposed to go). Water=short term, needs continuous application, which, in an air tanker, would commit that tanker for longer periods of time and since we don’t have that many, is impractical. That’s why helicopters (and some fixed-wing that are designated to be mainly local resources) are better suited to continuously support an incident with nearby water sources (key-nearby). Knocking down the fire allowing ground resources to get in and put in line quicker.
Please remember to use aircraft only when necessary, when there is active spread, that will work for you to reduce the flame lengths, allowing you to get in and contain the fire. Never use aircraft to help you mop-up. Aircraft will be few and far between this year, if you use it sparingly, it will be more available for you and others that need it.
Jay,
Aircraft must have 50% more capacity, and they don’t.
Fighting fire with retardant is done directly and indirectly. The effort is not to simply throw as much water as possible at a fire, because there are not enough firefighting aircraft on the planet to stop some fires; the point of using the aircraft is to use it effectively with tactics to slow, redirect, or otherwise affect fire behavior to support the ground troops. Simply dropping water doesn’t cut it. When water drops are used from the air, they’re used sparingly and either only where ample water can be obtained quickly, (bucket dips, scoops, etc), or where the environment won’t allow or support retardant use.
I don’t know if you’ve ever piloted a firefighting aircraft, but I’ve yet to fly a single drop in which I could do the drop based on GPS. Every drop is visual. Every single one. It’s judgement, and it’s got to account for stop, start, drift, height, fuels, slope, speed, etc. Every drop is judgment, and one has got to see the target, the line, the start and stop points, the hazards, the escape, and if working with other aircraft, the other aircraft.
Satloc isn’t appropriate for use on an MD-87. Satloc won’t work for setting up a succeeding drop, because the start point may not be the ending point of the previous drop, the same drop line, or account for dynamic changing conditions, movement in the fire line from when the previous drop took place, changes in smoke and visibility, etc.
Sometimes retardant is the best use, sometimes water. Sometimes foam, sometimes gel. Sometimes aircraft can’t be effective or even fly due to visibility, winds, or other factors. Some fires may be best attacked with a small load and precision drops; boxing a burning tree before it turns into a large fire, for example. Sometimes what’s needed is a small drop that can get in and fill a gap, support a hand crew or burnout or dozer line, or create a safe zone. There are a lot of tools in the toolbox, each with advantages, and disadvantages. There’s a reason that we don’t simply get drop coordinates and do everything by GPS. There are numerous reasons why we drop long-term fire suppressants or retardants ,vs. water, and there are times when there’s a valid reason why we don’t. There’s a reason that all firefighting aircraft aren’t equipped with SATLOC, and why even those that are, don’t typically use it. There’s a reason we get the target visually, and why we get a good, solid verbal target description, then describe it in different language to ensure we all are on the same page.
A shift from retardant to water does not equate to a 50% increase in volume, incidentally, but if it magically did…where would we put it?
If you want faster fill-ups and turn-times, use a SEAT. If you want larger quantities, use other types of aircraft, but the fill rate will be the same…just longer for larger aircraft that take more retardant. Turn times will be faster with smaller aircraft. some will get to the fire faster. Some require more time and distance to set up. Some must fly farther to access a tanker base that will accommodate them. A fire near a lake with a Type 1 helicopter or CL-415 maybe the way to go; a SEAT nearby, or several SEATS may be an advantage. a large air tanker or VLAT may offer distinct advantages; the circumstance, tanker availability, fuel type, rate of spread, threats, fire behavior, winds, base type and proximity, and numerous other factors affect what’s best for the fire, and most of the time, it comes down to what’s available at the time.
Comments are closed for this article!