Dauntless Air’s Tanker 210, an Air Tractor 802F, makes a demonstration drop in San Diego County in 2017.A private organization’s offer to pay $1.5 million to help lease two single engine air tankers for Napa County, California was refused by CAL FIRE, according to a report in the Napa Valley Register.
Growers/Vintners for Responsible Agriculture intended to obtain the Air Tractor 802F Fire Boss water-scooping aircraft from Dauntless Air.
Napa County has suffered through numerous large devastating wildfires in recent years that have destroyed about 1,500 structures.
The county contracts with CAL FIRE to operate the Napa County Fire Department. This year they expect to have a FireHawk helicopter based in the county that can carry up to 1,000 gallons of water, but it will be subject to being dispatched anywhere in the state. The AT-802F can hold up to 800 gallons.
From the Register:
“CAL FIRE officials said their own water-dropping helicopters hold more water than the single-engine Fire Boss scooper planes and can refill from smaller reservoirs. The two Fire Boss planes might slow and complicate the helicopter response, CAL FIRE said.
“[CAL FIRE Director Thomas] Porter in an April 16 letter to Napa County wrote that his agency doesn’t support the current concept and will not pursue adding the Fire Boss planes to the agency’s fire protection agreement with the county. He didn’t elaborate.
“A letter to [County Supervisor Belia] Ramos from CAL FIRE Local 2881 went further. Union President Tim Edwards wrote that CAL FIRE has a fleet of over 60 firefighting aircraft. The aviation program has the highest standards in personnel training and fleet maintenance.
“Flight costs and insurance and other expenses for the two Fire Boss planes would be beyond the $1.5 million offered by Growers/Vintners for Responsible Agriculture to lease the planes and crews. Based on last year’s 90 wildfire dispatches, these extra costs could reach $2 million, county Fire Chief Geoff Belyea said.
“CAL FIRE officials said the agency wouldn’t pay for flight costs until after the Fire Boss planes had operated for four hours. Before then, the cost would be borne by the county.“Private, non-CAL FIRE aircraft are not part of these standards and would hamper the established deployment and operational procedures currently in place,” he wrote.”
32 Comments
Bill, please email me for the details of this seven month project. We should talk. Hope that you respond. Rd
Truly sad that CalFire can’t seem to fathom the value these aircraft could bring to Napa and so many other places in CA. I’ve seen them successfully used in SoCal last year and heard they run in many states around CA. Hopefully just a matter of time. The last quote is hard to understand. Is CalFire saying “private, non CalFire aircraft” get in the way of their operations? That couldn’t be the case as they always bring in these types of aircraft as the season progresses. Lastly, what a gift these local citizens are offering! Have to love that some people care so much that they’re willing to supplement resources out of their own pockets!
I don’t think it’s as easy as saying “here you go”. They do mention additional cost involved, and Fire Bosses aren’t a part of their program, so they may not have a plan in place to incorporate them into the mix. It certainly is a nice thought, and a good tool to use under certain conditions. Maybe they could help out in other ways, for example by providing for a CWN helicopter during the hottest part of the season that stays local.
I don’t see how it could be that complicated. Contract resources get used every season, whether it’s engines or aircraft. And fixed wing are used with rotor wing all the time so I also don’t see how it would hamper helicopter operations. This whole situation is very confusing to me.
The more you poke at this the more you can see the reasons CAL FIRE may have responded they way they did. Perhaps they should have put a few more words into their letter.
The growers association should just bite the bullet if they want this, get a 137 certificate, lease or buy the aircraft, get them carded , hire the pilots and get them carded and then enter CWN agreements with the county and with CAL FIRE. They would be like any other company doing CWN fire supression and I would guess CF would be happy to have them on the list. The county could use them on fires under their jurisdiction and CF would have them onboard if needed.
They could be a bit more creative and perhaps just give the aircraft to one of the companies that already does 137 work for their members ( a bid competition might work) and funnel the funding through them if they don’t want the oversight responsibility.
If CF started making these ” one off” agreements it would most certainly spiral out of control. They have a chain of operation that works for them and most of the time for us.
Very well said, Roscoe.
“I have an airplane and I want you to use it in the fire program” has been a little drama playing for many years. The wishful backers of the IL-76 were both persistent and dramatic about their aircraft for at least 20 years. That plane was never gonna get a tanker contract in the Western U.S. but still they ranted on about it. Several others have come and gone. Like Roscoe says (but in short form), put your money where your mouth is. Just offering aircraft is like trying to donate your pickup truck to the Marines and then being insulted when they decline.
Think you two are missing what it seems the vintners were/are trying to accomplish…from the articles I’ve seen written on this issue in the Napa papers, these aircraft and this operator (and the other Fire Boss operator) have CWN contracts with CalFire already. Seems as if the Vintners are/were just trying to fund the effort to get the aircraft prepositioned in the area to complement the CalFire efforts. If the operator already has a CalFire contract (which was called up last summer), then they must know how/be able to integrate with CalFire and other aerial assets, yes?
Also don’t believe the vintners goal is to run the aircraft on fires, but instead allow the County and CalFire to dispatch as needed….seems like they were/are just trying to ensure assets are in the area….
Don’t believe Cal Fire has ever contracted for single engine scoopers. They might have them on the availability list, but one has never been paid by cal fire to be available for fire dispatch. It would be a significant change. While the SEAT aircraft have good capabilities, there are aircraft more suited to operating in the area, like the CH47 or UH60 and can deliver more water, more precisely.
Out of curiosity, why the fire boss, and specifically dauntless aviation?
Bubba,
Were they trying to get CF to somehow contribute? It didn’t sound like it to me. If they are already on the CWN list for CF then they can put the aircraft where ever they please. If they get called, good for them, if they don’t ever get called it would be because preexisting State assets are on the job or there is no niech for them to fill on a particular fire.
Cal Fire has regulations prohibiting the contracting of SEATS. The feds use them but not Cal Fire. The easy solution here would be for e the vintners to contract two scoopers since those are already approved for state use. Or even two helos. SEATS are a non-starter for Cal Fire and have been for decades.
While occasionally SEAT platforms make small inroads to California, they’re always federal, and California in general tends to use them very little, even when immediately available.
Calfire has been openly hostile to SEATs in some locations, as are certain places in California.
It is completely reasonable for the public to not understand how more aircraft can create a less effective air attack on a wildland fire, but CAL FIRE aviators have had a long tradition of looking at innovative technologies and employing them when it is appropriate, so their advice should be trusted (the DC10 was spearheaded by Chief Reese decades ago). I was taught that each size and type of aircraft is one tool in the toolbox. Each tool has its place and when employed at the appropriate time, those tools are effective. Trying to use each tool without a plan creates an ineffective product. There are a ton of air resources in California and they can be at fires quickly. Increasing the punch of those individual resources produces more of an effect than increasing the number of resources (there is only so much air space over a fire, it is critical the resources selected are the most effective). Type 1 helicopters like the CH47’s and UH60’s drop 1.5-6 times as much water per drop at a slower drop speed (translates to accuracy) and can operate in worse air (smoke conditions have been extreme in California). A lot of private vendors have been acquiring those from the military and have created a very effective mix of contract aircraft.
Where SEATs shine is in the rugged and remote states around California. With California’s large population comes an inordinate number of small airports with JET-A. Therefore, fuel is in abundance and the thirsty helicopters can be serviced quickly. The states surrounding California don’t always have the luxury of a lot of fueling sites, so the fuel efficient PT6 on the SEAT makes an effective tool in those rugged, remote locations.
When possible, CAL FIRE prefers multi-engine aircraft. The potentially catastrophic crash of Copter 101 a few years back clearly demonstrates the reasons why one engine aircraft working in close proximity to a lot of ground firefighters can be problematic. SEATs have a higher accident rate that multi-engine tankers.
I am certain that the firefighters of CAL FIRE appreciates the support of the Napa County Vintners. I suggest that dialogue continues to happen between all the parties involved so that they can develop a safe, coordinated air response. I am sure that the vintners would question a group of firefighters spreading fertilizer on their crops without developing a quantitative estimate on the size and type of fertilizer that would be most effective, and likewise, the firefighters should be consulted for their expertise.
Aerial firefighting is unique and very specialized. You cant just “jump in” with your plane and start dropping water as you please. Could very likely result in disaster.
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a SEAT “jump in where ever” the pilot pleased. SEATS are incorporated on a fire the same as every other air asset, talking on the same radio frequencies, using the same communication procedures, standardized at the national level and throughout the aerial fire industry. SEATs fly in the same fire traffic area, and work independently as initial attack, with leads, and with dissimilar aircraft. They drop alongside VLATS, large air tankers, helicopters, other SEATs, scoopers, etc.
SEATs don’t simply drop in and start dropping “where they please.” It doesn’t work like that.
OH MAN, I HAVE A GREAT IDEA!!
I have purchased 25 drones and I have outfitted them with custom-designed communications apps and purpose-built weather sensors and smoke filters for visibility and remote-control devices .. and I want to DONATE these to Cal Fire and thus make my county 50% safer (studies I found somewhere online indicate that deployed drones with weather sensors might improve safety observations over fires by as much as 50%).
How do I get the county and state funding for this? And where do I drop off my drones after they’re paid for?
Well played Ms. Sarcasm!!
To Mar.vista’s earlier question…not sure why Dauntless, but I’m guessing the Fire Boss because its pretty inexpensive as compared to helos. More than a wheeled SEAT, but much more productive if scoopable water is in the area…
Silk Road Dog…I know the guys at AirSpray pretty well…they told me that both them and Dauntless have had CWN contracts with CalFire for the last 5 years+…..if the prohibit them, why do the have a CWN with them?
Having survived numerous wild fires in the SBNF over the past 40 years it was with great enthusiasm to see the Fire Boss aircraft arrive at Big Bear Lake,Ca. during the El Dorado fire in 2020.
Watching the skilled pilots fly sorte after sorte supporting the front line was insperational.
Reminiscent of General Patrons tanks at the Battle of the Bulge during WWII each aircraft picking up 800 gallons of water from the lake every 15 minutes and returning to the battle for hours on end.
Every community with an available water resource should have these aircraft as first responders….not as a last resort.
As anyone who has controlled multiple assets in a high tempo operation will tell you, throwing more traffic into the mix can not only complicate things exponentially but ultimately be dangerous. I would imagine lake and reservoir dunks get crowded enough with several types of helo assets each with their own flight profiles and performance envelopes. Now add fixed wing scoopers and you complicate things way out of the 800 gallons they deliver are worth.
Task loading in SEAT aircraft is to put it nicely “significant ” with little time during approach and scoop to be rubber necking for other traffic such as helicopters in a drunk or such.
I applaud that the vintners and growers are stepping up to provide additional assets, but let CALFIRE decide what works in the “life in a blender” world of fire aviation.
If they want to help have em throw money into getting the MAFF 2 C130 into the air or buy support equipment that will keep the existing fleet doing what they do longer.
SEATS are great at what they do, in areas that are scarce and assets scarce their speed can make a difference but in a tight mix like most of CA’S fires it would be like throwing a Corvette into the shriners on mini bike parade routine… looks good but hoses up more than it helps…
How is using a SEAT like “throwing a corvette” into the mix? SEATs operate just like every other aircraft on the fire. Every other agency, both state and federal, recognizes the use and is able to function just fine with SEATs alongside VLATs, large multi engine tankers, and helicopters, and SEATs integrate seamlessly everywhere in the system, including on fires in California…the issue isn’t the SEAT, but calfire’s inability to accept that.
You describe the task saturation in the cockpit as though you fly or have flown SEATs, but your description indicates that you have not and don’t know anything about them.
Visibility from the cockpit of an 802 is excellent and the SEAT pilot spends considerable time “outside” the cockpit, scanning for traffic, as opposed to inside looking at instrumentation.
Why is it that on a Calfire operation, you believe that a SEAT has greater difficulty working with traffic on water pickups or drops, when SEATs integrate just fine with USFS, BLM, BIA, every state agency, and on local fires nation wide, and also on federal fires in California?
Cal Fire yet again showing that they can’t change with the times. The Air Tractors have a great track record of being reliable. They are carded and approved type 3 air tankers and easily can integrate into Cal Fire ops. They can also haul retardant just like every other tanker in the fleet and cost a whole lot less to operate than a CH-47 or a Firehawk / blackhawk. They are effective and useful and have a longer time on station than a helicopter does. 4 to 4.5 hours of fuel as opposed to 2.5 on a type 1 helicopter. In all reality though sounds to me like there is more to this story on the Cal Fire side than is being told.
Yes. SEATs have a greater accident rate than multi engine air tankers and are not as accurate as helicopters.
Mar.vista…can you provide a link to that data…? Might be helpful to see
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5292552.pdf
https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2019-04/fy17avsumm.pdf
kelly….data doesn’t support the claim…the 2017 stats show SEATs as one of the safest platforms…especially when considering fatal accidents…LATS and helos have more accidents…2010 data has a weird one year spike (2007) on accidents, but all the other years are “0”. Don’t think this is all the data on hours out there, but instructive…if I’m missing something, point me to the pages….
> > “data doesn’t support the claim”
That’s why I posted the links.
Compare flight hours
You stated that the mishap rate for SEATS is higher. Rate is based on mishaps/100,000 hours, thus the number of hours is irrelevant when determining rate.
Again, you have something that shows a higher rate, post it.
There are more SEATs flying than large air tankers, and many of the hours flown by seats show up on BLM, BIA, and state fires, not just USFS fires. When SEATS do work from USFS tanker bases, they’re often brought in as CWN or on BLM contracts; I’ve done many of them myself.
The notion that SEATs are subject to higher mishap rates is ridiculous, as is the notion that they may not be as safe.
SEAT pilots operate in the same airspace as every other asset, using the same procedures, on the same radio frequencies. SEATs do initial attack or follow leads, just like everyone else. SEATs hold out of the fire, or go in for the drop just like every one else. They use the same fire traffic area. SEATs receive a high degree of oversight, and are assigned managers. There’s nothing cowboy or rogue about the operation, including the annual training and certification.
https://fireaviation.com/2020/08/27/summarizing-the-aerial-firefighter-line-of-duty-deaths-during-a-recent-49-day-period/?hilite=%27SEAT%27%2C%27accident%27%2C%27rate%
Single engine aircraft have had a higher catastrophic accident rate than multi engine aircraft in the wildland fire service. When the engine goes, it is done. The large air tanker fleet has experienced loss of engines and there has not been a catastrophic crash from that since the advent of the “new generation” aircraft. Since switching to twin turbines on the fixed wing fleet, CAL FIRE has not had an accident from lack of power. It is imperative that pilots recognize the limits of their aircraft and guard against pushing the envelope; that’s when accidents happen. SEATS have a niche, but CAL FIRE is requesting fewer resources with more punch. Fire Bosses cannot deliver more water, more precisely than a CH47 in high and hot conditions with close agricultural ponds. If there is a choice in contracting for resources, CAL FIRE will make the judgement based on the ability of the aircraft to deliver the most product, in the shortest amount of time, with the greatest margin for safety.
Is there work to be done to mitigate the accidents / near misses on the large airtanker side? Affirmative – including ensuring pilots admit their limits without shame or fear of reprisals. When I see pilots who are boastful or won’t admit their limitations, I immediately question their judgement. When I see pilots hedge at flying in smoky conditions, but won’t say I can’t do it today, I question their judgement. These are some of the same attitude traits I have seen create accidents with ground pounders for years. They’re not specific to aviation, they’re human traits.
CH47’s don’t work as well in the open, arid deserts of the great basin; that’s where SEATS have made their mark as a fuel efficient alternative to large aircraft. SEATS do excellent work in the FTA as competently as their large brothers, they just don’t carry as much, and when the need is volume, it is easier to use one large aircraft with a large volume, rather than several small aircraft. Please keep in mind it’s not personal, it’s physics.
I’d rather have a tanked CH-47 in open, lighter fuels. The kicker is the water source. 5-10 minute turnarounds (or less) would make it ideal. 2-4 Fire Bosses with short turnarounds would do the trick also. Agree, SEATS (Fire Bosses) work well in the FTA. CALFIRE just doesn’t have a plan to include them into their idea of an efficient aviation program. Nothing wrong with that.
Hang on there. You cherry pick a 49 day period and use that to show rate of mishaps, numbers, or any other meaningful statistic? Hardly scientific.
How many hours were flown by each? How many types in use? Operations? You picked an article at a time when a mid-air collision occurred; it had nothing to do with having one engine. By that metric, the S-2 would be a disaster…which also isn’t true.
As for “when the engine goes, it’s done,” I may be one of the few here who has experienced an engine failure in a single engine tanker. I’d beg to differ on your assessment. Moreover, after a successful forced landing, I returned to service in the same aircraft and kept fighting fire. So, not done.
It’s not physics at all. Nor is your assessment remotely scientific.
You seem to take a stab at the SEAT community by referring to pilots who fail to refuse to fly, or drop. You mention it in context of the large air tanker community, but your post is about SEATs. I can tell you that on occasion I have refused a drop, or refused a dispatch; it may be due to thunderstorms, wind or weather, fire conditions (visibility). I have done the same in large air tankers. The culture on both sides has been, and is such that when one makes a call in the name of safety, that’s the end of the discussion. I guarantee that if I refuse a dispatch, or a drop based on my safety call, I will not face recrimination; neither will anyone else on the fire. What’s your point?
SEATs are not niche aircraft. They’re Type 3 air tankers.
The AT 802A FireBoss uses the PW PT6 as a powerplant.
What is the engine failure rate of all the variants of the PW PT6 engine family of all aircraft including fixed wing and helicopters? (Not just tankers).
What is the engine failure rate of rate of the PW PT6 of the variant used in the AT802?
Is the problem with the AT 802 Fireboss delivery system ( Boss! De plane! De Plane!) or is it pilot error that leads to single engine tankers going down? How many? How many were during AG crop spraying? How many were dropping on fires?
How many S2F tankers have gone down and how many S2T’s have gone down from pilot error? From engine failures?
How many S2F’s and S2T’s are in service? How many AT 802A’s are in service in either AG ops or as fire tankers?
Comments are closed for this article!