Wildfire Today

Waldo Canyon Fire, Colorado Springs

Bill GabbertJune 24, 2012March 23, 2019UncategorizedColorado, Colorado Springs, MAFFS, Waldo Canyon Fire12 Comments

The map of the Waldo Canyon fire above shows heat detected by a satellite at 3:35 a.m. June 24.

=====================

UPDATE at 2:35 p.m. MT, June 24:

The map below shows information about the fire’s location from two sources. The red line is the product of an infrared mapping flight by an aircraft at 11:07 p.m. June 23. The squares with the dots represent heat detected by a satellite about four hours later at 3:35 a.m. June 24.

===================

UPDATE at 12:52 p.m. MT, June 24

The Denver Post reported at 12:16 p.m. today that:

…Air resources consist of a helicopter with four helicopters on order. Two heavy air tankers and additional resources are on the way.

Surely this can’t be correct, that there is only one helicopter and no air tankers working on the fire.

===================

UPDATE at 10:32 a.m. June 24:

We have confirmed that two Modular Airborne FireFighting Systems (MAFFS) C-130 air tankers have been activated. Jennifer Jones, a spokesperson for the U.S. Forest Service, told us that the agency requested that the aircraft be in place between noon and 6 p.m. MT on Monday. This is the first time the MAFFS air tankers have been used this year.

======================

9:16 a.m. MT, June 24, 2012

The Waldo Canyon fire west of Colorado Springs has burned approximately 2,500 acres, according to the City of Colorado Springs in a 6:12 a.m. MT update. That site and InciWeb will provide detailed information about the fire, including evacuation notices. However, the InciWeb web site has been having problems, probably due to a large number of people trying to find information about the fire.

There are no reports of any structures being lost.

The map of the fire we have here shows heat detected by satellites at 3:35 a.m. MT, June 24. It shows the fire being less than two miles from the Kissing Camels golf course and very close to Manitou Springs.

Approximately 1,050 homes have been evacuated. Garden of the Gods Park and Garden of the Gods Visitor Center are closed.

A Type 1 Incident Management Team was ordered within a few hours of the first report of the fire. A Type 1 IMTeam is the largest and most qualified team that manages wildfires and other all-hazard incidents.

We are checking on an unconfirmed report that at least one military Modular Airborne FireFighting Systems (MAFFS) C-130 aircraft has been activated. Two are based at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs 11 miles from the Waldo Canyon fire. Through yesterday, none of the eight MAFFS around the country had been used on fires this year.

We will post more information about the Waldo Canyon fire later. Check back with us for more details.

Firefighters in Colorado are working 8 large wildfires

Bill GabbertJune 23, 2012August 25, 2019UncategorizedColorado, Colorado Springs, Waldo Canyon Fire8 Comments

The map of Colorado shows eight large wildfires that are keeping firefighters in the state busy today. (Map: Google/MODIS/Wildfire Today)

10:15 p.m. MT, June 23, 2012

New fires reported today include:

State Line Fire, near Bondad
Waldo Canyon Fire, west of Colorado Springs. Estimated at 2,000 acres at 9 p.m. Saturday night. A Type 1 Incident Management Team has been ordered. Approximately 1,050 homes have been evacuated.
Treasure Fire, east of Leadville
Woodland Heights Fire, near Estes Park, 21 structures confirmed damaged.

There is not a great deal of information available about these new fires, but here are some resources to check:

City of Colorado Springs (for the Waldo Canyon Fire)
Rocky Mountain Area Coordination Center
InciWeb
(updated at 3:57 p.m. MT, June 24: More information about the Waldo Canyon Fire)

Smoke map, June 23, 2012

Bill GabbertJune 23, 2012September 12, 2012Uncategorized

Today’s map, showing the distribution of smoke produced by vegetation fires.

Legislation introduced to double the number of military MAFFS air tankers and restrict the use of foreign air tankers

Bill GabbertJune 23, 2012December 11, 2012Uncategorizedair tanker, legislation, MAFFS16 Comments

MAFFS II unit being transported on a carrier, ready for installation in a C-130J

Proposal to reactivate old MAFFS units

A California congressman has introduced legislation requiring that the eight old, first generation Modular Airborne FireFighting Systems (MAFFS), which can be used as needed in military C-130H aircraft to fight wildfires, be made available to units of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve. The eight older MAFFS were replaced by nine second generation MAFFS II units within the last four years and the old units can’t be used in the more modern C-130J aircraft. The C-130Hs still in service are being targeted as potential air tankers by Representative Elton Gallegly from California who introduced the bill.

MAFFS air tankers are supposed to be activated only if all of the privately owned air tankers on federal contracts are committed. None of the eight military MAFFS have been used yet this year.

MAFFS C-130 Las Conchas 6-27 — MAFFS C-130J makes a drop on the Las Conchas fire in New Mexico, 6-27-2011. Photo: Jayson Coil

Currently eight of the nine new MAFFS II units are assigned and available to be used in C-130Js at bases in California, Wyoming, Colorado, and North Carolina. Representative Gallegly’s bill, H.R.5965, would require that the one spare MAFFS II and the eight first generation MAFFS that are in storage be made available and ready for activation if needed for wildfire suppression. That would increase the numbers of MAFFS air tankers to 17.

There is at least one obstacle that would have to be overcome in order to implement the Representative’s proposal. The military has indicated that they are not interested in expanding their role in suppressing wildfires. According to the Conference Chairman’s Report from the Aerial Firefighting Conference held in Washington, D.C. in 2011, Lt. Col. Bryan Allen of the Air National Guard said that given the nation’s operational tempo, he would not be comfortable with extending this role for what are essentially warfighting assets. And Clark R. Lystra of the Office of Secretary of Defense reported that an increase in the use of military assets to combat wildland fires had been rejected by the Department.

If you want to know more about the MAFFS II units, we covered the details in an article we wrote in 2009.

Restrict the use of air tankers from a foreign government

The proposed legislation has an additional requirement:

The Chief of the Forest Service may not procure air tankers to fight wildfires from a foreign government unless the Chief of the Forest Service certifies to Congress that MAFFS air tanker support available from units of the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve is being fully utilized or is not sufficient to address wildfires on National Forest System land.

On June 6 the U.S. Forest Service announced that that they had arranged to temporarily hire a CV-580 air tanker from the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre. At that time the two DC-10 air tankers based in California that carry five times more retardant than the CV-580s were not hired. Then on June 11 the USFS announced that they had activated on a call when needed contract (CWN) one of the two American-based DC-10s and also borrowed three more Canadian CV-580s. The USFS currently does not have a contract with Evergreen’s American-based 747 air tanker that carries 10 times more retardant than a CV-580.

A Canadian-owned, UK-built air tanker is being used today on fires in the United States. Missoula-based Neptune Aviation is leasing a BAe-146 from Tronos, the Canadian company that converted the airliner into an air tanker. Neptune has been awarded a contract for two more BAe-146s and expects to bring them on later this year. Aero Flite of Kingman, Arizona was also awarded a contract recently, for one air tanker, and is partnering with Conair of Abbotsford, British Columbia to convert an RJ85, which is similar to a BAe-146.

Status of the proposed legislation

The bill has only been introduced and has seen no action other than being referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.