Ice on the landing gear of Air Tanker 861 after dropping water on the Oak Fire, Dec. 27, 2021. Photo by Chief Pilot Chris Doyle.Monday afternoon December 27 a fire southwest of Denver burned 152 acres and prompted evacuations.
The Oak Fire was reported around 2 p.m. southwest of Columbine, southwest of the C470 highway which was temporarily closed. West Metro Fire said it started near the C470/Kipling intersection west of the Westerly Apartments in an open space area with several trails and heavy foot traffic. The specific cause is still under investigation. The evacuations were cancelled Monday evening.
Oak Fire, on the southwest side of Denver, Dec. 27, 2021. Photo by West Metro Fire.A single engine air tanker from CO Fire Aviation was mobilized from Fort Morgan, Colorado, flown by the company’s Chief Pilot Chris Doyle. The Air Tractor took off at 3:46 p.m. and 20 minutes later landed at Northern Colorado Regional Airport NCRA near Fort Collins to get a load of plain water which took about 10 minutes. It then made the 19-minute flight south to the fire where it quickly sized it up, dropped the water just before sunset, and returned to NCRA.
Air Tanker 861 (N803NZ) drops on the Oak Fire Dec. 27, 2021. Still image from West Metro Fire video.
Flight path of Air Tanker 861 (N803NZ) while working the Oak Fire Dec. 27, 2021. FlightAware.The fire was driven by strong winds. Buckley Air Force Base on the east side of Denver recorded 22 to 28 mph out of the south with gusts to 35 while the relative humidity was in the high 20s with the temperature in the high 30s. However it was cooler on the other side of the city at a higher elevation near the fire, judging from the ice seen on the landing gear in the photo above.
Firefighters always get a lot of satisfaction conducting a mobile attack. The videos below show how an engine drives near the edge of the fire while one or two firefighters operate nozzles while walking, sometimes one in front of the engine and another picking up what’s left behind the truck. Or a second engine could followup, making sure all the heat near the edge is extinguished.
Two strike teams have been ordered. Firefighters hitting flames near 470. pic.twitter.com/ym8LzFdYjy
— WestMetroFire (@WestMetroFire) December 27, 2021
The #OakFire has slowed somewhat, but it’s still being driven by strong winds. There are no air resources available in the region. Neighboring fire districts are assisting on the ground. Two buildings at the Westerly Apts have been evacuated. 1/2 pic.twitter.com/XwmpxkR8cW
— WestMetroFire (@WestMetroFire) December 27, 2021
Oak Fire, Dec. 28, 2021. Photo by West Metro Fire.
27 Comments
This drop was yet ANOTHER publicity stunt by either a Metro cheif or County Sheriff.
Although structures were threatened early on in the fire, by the time the SEAT made it’s drop (of water) it was on a dead flank, far away from structures, next to a highway, with an engine a couple chains way and in an engine accessible area.
Not to mention this fire probably had 300+ people on it since it was a HUGE response typical of the front range.
Overall a worthless, unanchored water drop next to an engine to score Twitter points merely a month after a pilot was killed 60 miles to the north.
I agree with the comment from Louden.
Aviation has no place for hero’s.
It would appear that CO Aviation has a hard time saying NO!
Plain water? Only hero’s would post a picture of the tailwheel frozen like that. Lucky he didn’t lose directional control landing.
Time to reel that outfit in.
How does ice on a locked tailwheel cause a loss of directional control?
Has this occurred in any 802 you’ve flown? It hasn’t in any I’ve flown.
Ice on a tailwheel. Scaaaaaary. Drama.
These kinds of showboating publicity stunts have got to stop! C’mon! There were hundreds of resources and dozens of engines on that grass fire!!!!! What was the point of having a single SEAT drop WATER next to dozens of engines, in freezing conditions, right before sunset next to a major highway with power lines all over the place?????
Louden is spot on!
So if you’re working a fire in the Southern Hemisphere, do you change direction of your rotation?
And if you have an incident ON the Equator, then what?
Just kidding!
Happy Holidays
CoFire does what they do because they love what they do. The best pilots in the world are with CoFire. It is the pilots choice to fly or not to fly, nobody is forced to do anything. Just because there was 1 fatal accident do you think the company should shut down? If that is the case than I think all highways need to be shut down because there is fatal accidents on them daily! If someone dies in the military they don’t shut down the military. Astronauts have been killed but their still sending people to space. Things can’t just stop!
Comments like yours Chris lead me to believe that you are with the company or are somehow connected to it, or you do not understand the safety culture of wildland fire aviation. As mentioned above when and where that drop occured gave little tactical advantage. Yes it is the pilot’s final decision, but having worked around many operators over the years, I can say that some companies have a culture that rewards unnecessary risk taking. And I am seeing an unfortunate pattern developing with this operator. Legit the first question anyone ordering the flight needs to ask is, is the flight necessary, and is there another way to do it on the ground. We should not be transferring risk on to pilots. What leads me to believe that this company does not have the culture to safely work in fire aviation is seeing them again flying in very windy conditions in the foothills only a month after one of their pilots did the same and was killed. Maybe they think they need to prove something, but not at the risk of killing people.
Is it necessary for you to drive to down the road? Other drivers are a hazard, road conditions may very, and I’m sure you have driven with not so great weather conditions. Take your own advice and stop worrying about what other people are doing when it does not concern you at all! Stay out of peoples lives and businesses and worry about yourself. You have no idea what happened that day or who called who or what conditions were like at the time of the phone call, and it’s not like a tanker plane can just change its mind and flip a U turn and go park. No it is easier and safer to finish a started job than to land a loaded plane with the extra 6400+ lbs of water weight on it and if they did an emergency dump to land some liberal tree hugger will be bitching about that in anyway possible and start a bunch of nonsense about it. This is why it’s so hard to make a living these days because everyone cries and sues
Doyle,
Yeh, we drive cars on roads, I just wouldn’t go take a drive on an ice covered road to get a candy bar which is the equivalent of what you’re talking about.
It seems you’re pretty flippant about risk v. gain and even go so far as to insinuate your pilots are expendable if the glory payoff is high profile enough. A spent grass fire right at sunset, with water? Yeh, “Is this flight necessary?” You know as well as I do that their are designated Jettison areas and nobody is going to say a word about a pickled load of water.
You need to tell these County and Metro guys no when they ask you to
do dumb missions…not just pocket the cash.
I’m not Doyle and this is not my company. Ur comment is like the rest of them, running your mouth with out knowing any facts
The IC should have cancelled the drop. The IC makes the decision (or should) on what to order, and if it’s necessary. Pilots don’t make that call.
A tanker company got called for a drop. The tanker company made the drop. Not really a sky-is-falling moment.
There do seem be certain ones that keep posting comments asking “is this drop necessary?” Point of fact: no drop is necessary. However, if the drop can be done, in the judgement of the pilot in command (not the peanut gallery), when a call or resource order comes in, the PIC makes the call to go do the drop.
Yes, water freezes. Yes, equipment was on the ground to work the fire. Yes, tankers drop frequently in concert with ground troops and vehicles, and yes, a tandem-ahead drop in concert with ground equipment is a common, standard practice for tankers. Yes, powerlines are present in that area, and YES, pilots doing these drops are very familiar with working around powerlines. Yes, the drop occurred close to evening, and YES, it’s perfectly acceptable to drop and return prior to dark. Done it many times myself, as has every tanker pilot flying fires. Yes, ice formed on the tailwheel assembly, and NO, that’s not a disaster or a problem.
Given that structures are being lost today and conditions are favorable for fire behavior, the peanut gallery might reconsider second guessing the drops.
A small fire with men and equipment available isn’t “necessary” until it becomes a big fire and structures are lost? When does it become “necessary?” Lives lost? What’s the dividing line?
Fire can be fought without air resources. When they’re called for, if the drop can be done safely or reasonably, I don’t presume to tell incident commander his business. If I can fill the resource order, I do so. If I can’t, I say, “no.” We are in a can-do business.
I have seen very small fires that were wisps of smoke turn deadly and take structures, with little warning. I find chanting from the peanut gallery, “it’s not necessary (yet)” to be unwise and in light of structure loss right NOW in the same area…particularly distasteful. But then, perhaps none of you are losing your home at the moment.
Is it okay if we go fight this one, or is this one unnecessary, too?
A single drop of water from a SEAT Doug? Anyone supporting that decision has to be joking…
Who said anything about a single drop of water? Or did you not mean that literally? You mean a single load of water to the fire? Comments have been made that the line was cold. Look at the picture. Clearly those comments are untrue. Comments have been made that machinery was available on the ground. Clearly that is irrelevant. Comments have been made that personnel were on the ground and thus the drop unnecessary. Clearly that comment is also irrelevant, as it’s commonplace to use aircraft while personnel and machinery are in play on a fire.
Comments have been made that the fire was small, and therefore the drop unnecessary. First, a small fire becomes a big fire, and that’s why we fight them when they’re small. Second, ultimately no resources are “necessary.” Let it go long enough, and the fire will go out. Of course, it might take a thousand homes with it as a fire did in the same area, a day later…so “necessary” is somewhat subjective. The mission is to fight the fire. Resources are used to fight the fire. The incident commander chooses what resources to order.
One drop, as in a single load, is a joke? I’ve made many drops: hundreds, perhaps thousands, that involved one load of water, foam, or retardant, to a fire. It may be that night fall approached, or fire conditions changed, or resources were needed elsewhere, or the drop proved ineffective due to wind, terrain, fuel, or changes in the fire. It may be that I determined not to go back after making the drop for safety reasons, or environmental, meteorological, mechanical, physiological, or operational reasons. It may be that the drop effectiveness (and thus the desirability of subsequent drops) wasn’t known until that first drop, as is often the case over a fire. It maybe that one drop was needed to box in a tree, fill a gap in a line, hit a hot spot, or fulfill some other goal or requirement of an air attack, or incident commander. I’ve been to a great many fires in which I did just one drop. A flight is a joke because there’s only one? Less of a joke when there are more? The joke is divisible by the number of drops? So many fallacies in your assertion, so little truth.
If an incident requests a drop and I can do it safely, I do not presume to tell the IC his business. I go do the drop. I may see that further drops aren’t warranted. The IC may see it. The air attack, lead, or those on the line reporting back to any of the above, may see it. It really doesn’t matter. The call was made, and an operator and aircraft rose to the occasion, and every single argument made here against that drop, is fallacious and ill-informed, for reasons already discussed.
In the off-season, when retardant is in storage, when loading manifolds broken down and pumps winterized, when aircraft are off contract and pilots no longer available or doing other jobs, the fact that an air resource was able to fill that order and make a drop is an accomplishment, and criticism of that drop unwarranted.
For the want of a nail, a horse shoe was lost. For the want of a shoe, a rider was lost. For the want of a rider a battle was lost, and for want of a battle the war was lost. For want of the war the nation was lost, and all for the want of a nail. We ought not overlook the elments of the fire; they all have their place and their importance. The tanker is there to serve the needs of the IC. It’s his or her battle to fight and unless you or I step up and are assigned that role, it’s not our place to attempt to rule the roost from the floor of the coop.
Doug, I agree with most of your comments in other posts, and with this one as well. Reading some of these comments, and with a recent fatality from the same company, that people are scrutinizing everything. The SEAT world is under a microscope amplified ten fold. Cockpit video cams with music in the cockpit doesn’t help anything either. Posting Pictures of Ice on an aircraft structure, though most of us know is non concerning, just gives them more ammo. People need to be careful what they post or publish to the public. Keep it professional.
BTW, Seriously, who listens to music in a FTA.
It is possible that the music was added to the video after the flight.
Numerous tankers have posted video with music attached. One of my favorite is Grupo 43, from Spain, who did a great job; they’ve done one for multiple years. I like 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w6N3LQ5uR8
I sent clips of drops I did a few years back, to my son while he was on duty in Kuwait. He put together a video using his cell phone, with my clips, music, and sent it back to me (uses the same music as the Grupo 43 video, above). I wasn’t listening to that music during the flight. I put together another using Enya, and you guessed it: Enya wasn’t playing during the flight.
Here’s the thing: whether the pilot happened to have music in his helmet during the drop isn’t really your concern, nor anyone else’s.
SEATs aren’t “under the microscope.” There are twice as many SEATs as all other fixed wing tankers combined. They have an enviable safety record, despite recent claims here to the contrary. Music in a headset or helmet does not detract from operations, especially if it doesn’t impede communications, and most communications systems that enable it cut out music if audio transmissions occur, or one can disable it or turn it off when the workload is higher. Frankly, sitting directly behind the engine and loud exhaust, especially in a SEAT, active noise reduction can be a real blessing, and music isn’t a bad thing either. It reduces fatigue.
You manage to drive and listen to music on your car radio, don’t you?
As for the video, perhaps it would be better to determine if the music was actually playing in the pilot’s helmet, before making accusations, and even better to avoid trying to tell the pilot what he should or shouldn’t be doing in that cockpit.
As for ice on the tailwheel assembly, it gives no one “ammunition.” Not one soul that commented negatively on that ice gave any indication of being anything but ignorant on the subject, and I very much doubt any of them has a single hour of flying time in the 802. How would they now? Whining about things they don’t know, isn’t “ammunition.” It’s ignorance. What’s next? Complaining that a stripe is too wide, or they don’t like the color of the pilot’s helmet?
I’ve seen far more retardant caked on the tail wheel stinger, fork, tailwheel, locking mechanism, and even underside of the rudder. The drop in that picture, despite claims of useless and dropping on a “cold line” can be seen otherwise, in the picture that was posted. Dropping water in freezing temperatures WILL cause some ice aft of the tank, which includes the tailwheel area. I see nothing in the picture of that tailwheel assembly that suggests a hazard, or a loss of control. It’s a locked tailwheel, and the locking mechanism isn’t hindered in that picture. When the airplane lands, that gear assmebly flexes, and it’s clear from the picture that ice has broken off, as it will. There’s considerable rotational force on that tailwheel. The lock is a steel pin that is spring loaded, and controlled by a steel cable from the cockpit, and is locked when centered on the runway. No ice in that picture is interfering with rotation of the wheel, turning of the assembly (eg, making a turn on the ground), the locking mechanism, or the stinger on which the assembly rides.
It seems some simply want to complain. Again, its especially ironic that some complain about the airplane dropping on a fire outside Denver, considering the level of damage from a subsequent wildfire outside Denver. Every large fire I’ve ever fought began as a smaller fire, and dropping on a smaller fire is far more ideal than the massive effort and loss associated with a large one. Never the less, this is the mentality that often guides the use of air resources over fires: wait until well into the burn period to start using aircraft, rather than using them to rapidly and aggressively apply lines of retardant while the fire behavior is lower in the morning…when the retardant might be more effective, with less wind, lower fire behavior, better flying conditions, less drift, and so on. Instead, the reality is that often IC’s wait to accrue the cost of retardant delivery until far less than ideal conditions. It’s not necessary. It’s not warranted, yada, yada. But that decision making is wrong. Every tanker pilot knows it, often watching the fire burn, knowing he or she could be on it, working it, waiting for that call…often waiting until the fire takes off as relative humidity drops, wind picks up, and the fire is off to the races.
Only once, in several decades of fighting fire, have I ever refused to back to a fire, because I felt the drop wasn’t necessary. Once. That occurred in a C-130, when we arrived over the fire to find it cold black, with a single pickup truck on a mesa, watching the fire. When we asked where they wanted the retardant, we were told to string it out through the black, anywhere, and then told “load and return.” We refused. The government wanted to show maximum use of turbines that year, over piston tankers, and wanted as many hours, days, and drops as they could on the turbine airplanes. Such blatant abuse of the resource was too much; we said no, and went back to Grand Junction to hold.
Other than that isolated incident many years ago, I can’t recall second guessing an IC or a resource order. If they wanted the retardant (or water, or gel, or foam), and I could safely bring it to them, I did. I might refuse a particular drop for safety (up canyon, through smoke, bad exit, etc), but would counter with what I could do, or make a suggestion, which is often accepted. I don’t do the IC’s job for him or her. Just my own. I don’t let others do my job for me, either. My job in the cockpit is to make the safety of flight decisions; it’s not the job of the peanut gallery or the armchair quarterbacks to fly my airplane for me, or decide what I should and shouldn’t do in that cockpit.
Thanks Doug for the details. The folks chirping, maybe they ought produce their FAA certs and show us their true understanding of SMS systems. The PIC is ultimately responsible and I personally worked worked many cold nights and days on ramps servicing helicopters and acft and in the last 5 yrs have seen retardant build up on tailwheels….thanks for the ( one pilots) view. The fire seasons will be longer and it may change maintenance and flying standards in future
BUT…yesterday’s 80-115 mph winds in the Boulder….im not to sure many SEATs, LATs, and VLATs, even if were available, many a PIC would be evaluating even suiting up and lighting up turbines…
Might want to step down from your soapbox Doug, sounds like your defending things in your interests. SEAT operator?
How about you speak for yourself, rather than telling me what I should or shouldn’t say, John? I speak very well for myself.
My interests? I don’t fly for the operator in question (either of them). Yes, I have experience in SEATs. And large air tankers (carded in three types). Also air attack, and six years of firefighting on the ground. A few type ratings. International experience, yada, yada. That’s largely irrelevant, as my comments apply regardless of what I might do, or not do, or my employer.
If you’re able, contribute to the conversation. Use your words.
I think/know that I should listen to what Doug has to say. Why?
Because he has been there, done that, got the hat, got the tee shirt and a whole buncha merit badges too.
As an IC in my career, I wasn’t the guy in the cockpit and I cannot, should not, will not tell that pilot how to do his/her job. That is not my job. As an IC I set the goals but the pilots and aircraft ops people set the tactics to meet those goals. Then I get out of the way!
While the ICS structure isn’t a democracy, a good IC is open to what the people in the boxes have to say and better be open what is being said in order to meet the incident goals. and adjust those goals and plans accordingly.
Professionalism is and a professional follows:
A code of conduct
A code of ethics
A code of professional standards (coupled up with a body of knowledge)
And that, boys and girls, is what Doug does and is. If Doug wants to tell me something, I’m going to listen and fully consider what he has to say.
Doug is speaking from experience. He has nothing to gain. In aviation, that’s usually regarded as good advice.
I assume the peanut gallery is pissed off state of CO folks, whom didn’t get a shiny new toy to play w at Christmas.
Listening to music as while I work keeps me in tune while I do my job
… stop throwing rocs
It’s not the ice on the tail wheel but how much was built up on the leading edge of the wing that would concern me. Or does this SEAT have deice boots?
The 802 does not have deice boots, and is not approved for flight into known icing conditions.
Why do you suppose the 802 in this picture would have any ice on the leading edges of the wings?
The ice formation is the result of dropping water in freezing conditions. The water exits the underside of the airplane and falls and streams aft. Ice formation will be in the same place as retardant, when dropped; on the belly and the tailwheel assembly.
It would be nearly impossible to reach the wings. Why would you imagine ice formed on the wings?
Comments are closed for this article!