In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Chief of the Forest Service Tom Tidwell said the agency hopes to obtain the C-27J aircraft that the Air Force may decide to declare surplus, and the USFS would outfit them with scaled down versions of the Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) tank systems that are used in military C-130s. When asked, he said the C-27Js would hold 1,800 gallons of retardant in the MAFFS unit. When used in C-130s, the systems can carry up to 3,000 gallons, during favorable density altitude and fuel load conditions.
MAFFS unit in Cheyenne, showing the 2-person loadmaster crew. May 7, 2012. Photo by Bill Gabbert.
Some would say that choosing a MAFFS design rather than a conventional gravity powered tanking system is misguided. The retardant in a MAFFS is pumped out by a complex compressed air system and the delivery has been criticized as not being able to penetrate tree canopy as well as a gravity system. A MAFFS would have a much lower retardant capacity since it requires an air compressor, tanks for compressed air, and a complex system of additional valves and piping. All of that extra equipment means less capacity for carrying retardant. It also requires two loadmasters, in addition to the two or three person air crew, to operate the MAFFS, doubling the personnel cost.
I just don’t see the advantage of installing a MAFFS unit in a government-owned air tanker rather than a conventional gravity system. It holds less retardant and does a less than desirable job of retarding the spread of a timber fire.
Sure, you would be able to remove the MAFFS and use the plane for hauling cargo in about a day, but how often during the winter does the USFS need seven cargo planes? It could be used during fire season to haul firefighters, smokejumpers, and fire equipment, but then that makes it unavailable as an air tanker. So you’re either going to use it for hauling stuff, or as an air tanker, but not both.
It should be relatively simple to scale down an Aero Union gravity tank, which has been tested, approved, and used for decades in C-130s, to fit into a C-27J.
Coulson is using an Aero Union designed tank, slightly modified, for the C-130Q they are building right now in San Bernardino. The tank has wheels, and Britt Coulson told Fire Aviation that they can install or remove the tank in about 30 minutes, making it available to haul cargo.
Coulson’s C-130Q undergoing tank installation and inspections earlier this month in San Bernardino, California. Coulson photo.
A Colorado Senator wants the federal government to override a protest that could delay the acquisition of seven next-generation air tankers this fire season.
Following the May 6 announcement by the U.S. Forest Service of their intention to award exclusive use contracts to five companies for the use of seven air tankers over a five to ten year period, one of the companies that failed to receive an award, Neptune Aviation, filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office. Unless the GAO grants emergency authority, Neptune’s action could delay by up to 100 days, until August 26, the date by which the new contracts could take effect.
Colorado Senator Mark Udall issued a statement saying the GAO protest should be overridden because Colorado lives and homes are at stake:
…”Wildfire season is coming, and I refuse to force Colorado communities to watch as preventable and containable wildfires are allowed to threaten lives and homes simply because of contractors’ squabbles. Make no mistake about it: This is an emergency, and this shortsighted protest will leave the U.S. Forest Service with outdated, Korean War-era air tankers to fight modern mega-fires,” Udall said. “That’s why I am calling on the U.S. Forest Service to override the protest filed this week and move forward with its next-generation air tankers contracts. Lives and homes are at stake, and I refuse to stand idly by as red tape suffocates any chance of the U.S. Forest Service finally acquiring these much-needed air tankers.”
Following the contract awards earlier this month, Udall cautioned private contractors that “Needless and costly delays will leave the Forest Service to fight modern mega-fires in the coming months with Korean War-era planes.”
Neptune’s protest is the second time awards for next-gen air tankers have been protested. The USFS began the contracting process for the next-gen air tankers November 30, 2011. On June 13, 2012 they announced awards for four companies, Neptune, Minden, Aero Air, and Aero Flite, which would have provided a total of seven air tankers. However two companies that were not going to receive contracts, Coulson Aviation and 10 Tanker Air Carrier, protested the awards, and the Government Accountability Office upheld their protest. At that time the contracts had not actually been signed, since negotiations about reimbursement if the contracts were cancelled had not been completed. The USFS went back to the drawing board. They amended and re-announced the solicitation on October 5, 2012 with a response due date of November 1, 2012. And on May 6, 2013 the USFS announced, again, their intention to award contracts.
The protest process worked during Round 2 for Coulson and 10 Tanker; they lost out in Round 1 and their protests led them to awards in Round 2. Neptune no doubt figures they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by their protest. The company has invested heavily in converting BAe-146s; conversions on two are complete and were used on fires in 2012. They have two others that they hoped to convert this year.
Neptune knows the contract protest backwards and forwards, since Ron Hooper, their CEO, as recently as November, 2010 worked for the U.S. Forest Service as the Director of Acquisition Management for the agency. His name is also mentioned in a summary of the 1987 U.S. Forest Service “airtanker scandal”. When qualified as a contracting officer, he reportedly made a determination after the transfer of the 28 aircraft to private companies that the transfer was void and they should be returned to the government. At the time Mr. Hooper was the staff assistant to the Forest Service Deputy Chief for Business Operations. (More information about a GAO bid protest.)
Of the five companies that are slated to receive the new contracts for the faster, more dependable, and higher retardant capacity next-gen air tankers, only one has aircraft that are close to being ready to drop retardant on fires. 10 Tanker Air Carrier’s DC-10 Very Large Air Tankers which carry 11,600 gallons have been used on fires for years and should be ready to go. The other vendors are still in the process of physically converting their aircraft into air tankers and then have several hurdles to overcome.
After the contracts are actually signed and awarded, the companies have 60-90 days to complete the process of outfitting their aircraft with a tank design; prove the tank design in a controlled environment (dropping retardant into a grid of cups on the ground); be issued a Federal Aviation Administration Type Certificate; develop a maintenance and inspection program (Structural Integrity Program) for use of the aircraft as an airtanker and receive approval of it from the FAA; and be approved for a field trial (dropping retardant on real fires) by the Interagency Airtanker Board (IAB).
It would be surprising if all seven of the aircraft can meet these requirements in the time allotted. Coulson Aircrane, which is slated to receive a contract for a C-130Q, appears to be the closest other than 10 Tanker’s DC-10. Coulson is installing a retardant tank designed by Aero Union that previously had been approved by the IAB, however Coulson made some modifications. And various models of C-130s have been used as air tankers for decades.
The other companies, Minden Air, Aero Air, and Aero Flite, are converting, respectively, a BAe-146, two MD87s, and two AVRO RJ85s, all of which may be using new tanking systems that have not been tested until this year, at least on those models of aircraft.
For example Aero Air, also known as Erickson Aerotanker, may have problems with retardant being ingested into the MD87 jet engines mounted behind the wings. Designing and installing new tank systems on aircraft that have never before been used as an air tanker, such as the MD87 and AVRO RJ85 can expose some challenges that have to be overcome.
Retardant tank, freshly painted, for Coulson Aviation’s C-130Q. Coulson photo
Coulson’s tank for their C-130Q
Coulson Aviation is putting the finishing touches on the 3,500-gallon retardant tank for their C-130Q, and they expect to roll it into the aircraft soon. Yes, it has wheels. Britt Coulson told Wildfire Today that they can install or remove it within 30 minutes. With or without the tank the air tanker can be pressurized. Without the tank, the C-130Q could be used for hauling cargo, or even smokejumpers, I suppose, if it were approved as a jumper platform.
Last week we posted an article, with photos, about the work the company is performing on the aircraft in a hangar in San Bernardino, California.
According to Mr. Coulson, the company bought from Aero Union “all the rights, engineering, and the drawings. We re-drew everything in Solidworks and re-designed the tank then manufactured it.” They are working with the USFS on the requirements for tests that involve dropping retardant into a grid of cups on the ground.
Use a similar tank for the C-27J?
Mr. Coulson said they are very interested in building tanks for the C-27J (an aircraft that the USFS may inherit from the Air Force) based on the same design, but scaled down to hold less retardant. He said the company responded to the U.S. Forest Service’s Request for Information posted in August to provide tanks for the aircraft, but the agency has not solicited for actual contract proposals yet. He believes the C-27J could carry somewhere between 2,500 and 3,000 gallons in an internal gravity-fed tank. Not all knowledgeable aviation folks we have talked with are optimistic that it could carry that much of a load. We have heard 1,800 gallons mentioned, and my own estimate is 1,800 to 2,300, but I am no expert.
(UPDATE, May 20, 2013: It was pointed out to us that converting the military version of the C-27J into a civilian air tanker would result in thousands of pounds of hardware being removed, perhaps with 2,000 to 4,000 pounds of weight savings. This could increase the retardant capacity by as much as 450 gallons, raising our estimate of the tank size to 2,000 to 2,650 gallons. This assumes an internal, gravity-fed tank system. A pressurized design, like the military MAFFS, would have a much lower capacity, requiring tanks for compressed air, additional valves and piping, and an air compressor.)
The Air Force has decided they don’t want any of their five-year-old C-27Js. You have to wonder why an agency would want to give away hundreds of millions of dollars worth of almost-new aircraft.
Tom Harbour, the U.S. Forest Service National Director of Fire and Aviation Management, was quoted in the Missoulian Tuesday on the subject of the C-27J:
“We are still working with the Department of Defense to see if we can get up to seven C-27J Spartans,” Harbour said. “If we acquire those platforms, we would modify them so we could use them as a medium air tanker. They’re not the size that is going to be able to carry type 1, large air tanker-capacity tanks, but we think they’re a very capable platform.” The Spartan is an Italian-made turboprop-powered cargo plane. The U.S. Air Force has offered to transfer up to 14 of the planes free to the Forest Service. Harbour said the plane is capable of carrying smokejumpers, but has only had preliminary testing as a retardant bomber.
If the USFS does procure and convert the C-27Js into air tankers, they may choose to pay contractors to fly and maintain them, similar to the CAL FIRE model for their 23 S-2T air tankers. CAL FIRE’s current support contractors are DynCorp and Logistics Specialties Incorporated. DynCorp provides air tanker and airtactical plane pilot services, and all aircraft maintenance services. (All CAL FIRE helicopters are flown by CAL FIRE pilots, but maintained by DynCorp.) LSI provides procurement and parts management services.
Fire Aviation has learned that some USFS aviation personnel have talked informally with DynCorp about a government-owned, contractor-operated program. According to the Missoulian article, Neptune would also be interested in bidding on a contract to provide these services.
Is the Air Force buying more C-27Js?
And just to confuse the issue further, when I was searching FedBizOpps.gov for the USFS Request for Information about the C-27J retardant tanks, the search results included a Sources Sought Synopsis survey placed there by the Air Force May 10, 2013. The agency is looking for companies that can manufacture more C-27Js. While the military says they don’t want the ones they have, and are giving those away and saying good riddance, they are considering buying more. Their reasoning is, they are….
…contemplating procurement of C-27J aircraft, in accordance with Congressional language that states “The secretary of the Air Force shall obligate and expend funds previously appropriated for the procurement of C-27J Spartan aircraft for the purposes for which such funds were originally appropriated.”
Here’s an idea.
Instead of buying more C-27Js at $53 million each, contemplate instead, if it is economically feasible, designing and building some purpose-built air tankers to enhance our homeland security.
File photo of a MAFFS II unit being loaded into a C-130 at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, September 9, 2011. Air Force Reserve photo.
Military C-130s can be used as surge resources when the privately owned contracted air tankers are committed to going fires or initial attack. They are transformed into air tankers when outfitted with the 3,000-gallon slip-in Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS).
Here are ten things you may not have known about MAFFS air tankers.
Operating one of the eight MAFFS aircraft costs $5,000 to $6,000 per hour. This is paid by the U.S. Forest Service or is charged to the fire.
After the crash of MAFFS 7 on the White Draw Fire near Edgemont, South Dakota in 2012, the “MAFFS 7” number was retired.
Since one of the MAFFS slip-in units was destroyed in the crash, MAFFS 9, a new number, is using what was the spare ninth unit. Now there is no spare unit.
The U.S. Forest Service supplies the ground-based marshaling and retardant loading personnel when MAFFS are activated.
Maintenance and repairs of the MAFFS slip-in units are performed by a crew of six technicians supplied by the USFS. Some of them are former Aero Union employees. The MAFFS units were made for the USFS under contracts awarded to Aero Union.
The Aero Union company, after going through bankruptcy, now consists of one person who is dealing with the remaining financial issues until the doors are closed for the last time. If any new MAFFS units are manufactured, it would likely be done by another company.
The USFS has copies of the technical and engineering documents and they believe they have the rights to have additional MAFFS 2 units manufactured if they desired, according to what we were told by a person who is very knowledgeable about the system. The bank that now owns Aero Union may or may not agree.
The retardant is pumped out of the 3,000-gallon tank by compressed air stored in two tanks at 1,200 psi. The compressed air tanks on the new MAFFS 2 units are refilled by two onboard air compressors which can fill the tanks in 15 to 20 minutes. Or, they can be refilled by one of six portable USFS air compressors on the ground (in about 14 minutes) that are moved around to air tanker bases as needed when the MAFFS aircraft are activated. The first generation MAFFS 1 units, no longer used, did not have onboard air compressors and had to be refilled on the ground. The contracts for the MAFFS 2 units specified that the air tanks had to be refilled by the onboard air compressors in no more than 30 minutes.
The military personnel working on a MAFFS aircraft typically fly for seven days, and then are relieved by a replacement crew.
The USFS has no plans to ever again use the first generation MAFFS 1 units.
A MAFFS air tanker is being refilled with compressed air and water during training at Cheyenne, Wyoming, May 7, 2013. The compressor (on the left) is one of six owned and operated by the USFS, and is moved around to air tanker bases as needed when MAFFS are activated. Photo by Bill Gabbert.
As Wildfire Today told you on October 2, a Canadian company, Air Spray, has opened a facility in Chico, California which will be used for converting air liners into air tankers. They have already acquired a used BAe-146 and intend to convert it into a next-generation air tanker.
The Chico ER reports that Air Spray has hired eight former employees of Aero Union, a California-based company that went out of business after the U.S. Forest Service cancelled their contract for supplying eight P-3 air tankers, citing safety concerns.
Not only is Air Spray employing former Aero Union workers, but they have leased from the city of Chico one of the hangars formerly occupied by Aero Union.
Air Spray Aviation Services operates Lockheed L-188 Electra “Longliner” air tankers and Turbo Commander 690 “Bird Dog” aircraft in Canada. When they complete the BAe-146 conversion in Chico, they expect to begin other conversions at the facilty.
Four employees of Aero Union contacted Wildfire Today and followed up with a letter, saying the company still exists, in spite of the attempt to sell their assets in a February auction. The air tankers and the items related to the Modular Airborne FireFighting System (MAFFS) did not sell in the auction. Aero Union still controls the assets and they have not been turned over to a bank, according to Thomas F. Dooney, the Chief Financial Officer, who called us and signed the letter along with Leigh Ann Ackermann (Director of Operations), and two Co-Directors of Maintenance, Jerry Edwards and Mike Prunty.
CNN did a story on the state of the air tanker fleet (below) and pointed out that the Aero Union P-3 air tankers meet the FAA standards but “sit idle because they don’t meet US Forest Service requirements”.
The Forest Service cancelled the contract for the company’s eight P-3 air tankers saying that the company did not meet the safety standards which were specified in the contract. The USFS requires a Continued Airworthiness Program be followed for the air tankers they have under contract, all of which are at least 20 to 50 years old. The last P-3s were produced in 1990, and 8 of the 9 large air tankers remaining under exclusive use contracts are P2Vs that were built in the 1950s.
The employees that contacted us said the USFS has recently indicated a willingness to consider the P-3 under a “legacy contract” in 2013, for older, not “next generation” aircraft. The four of them said some of the eight Aero Union P-3s could be flying over fires in 4 to 6 weeks if they had a contract with the USFS. In order for that to happen some financial issues would have to be resolved and maintenance would have to be done on some of the aircraft. Seven of them are sitting at McClellan Air Force Base near Sacramento, and one was in the middle of major maintenance when the contract dispute occurred and is still torn down.
However, the P-3 appears to meet the USFS specifications for their next generation air tankers, which require turbine engines, a cruise speed of 300 knots, and a 3,000-gallon capacity.
File photo of a MAFFS II unit being loaded into a C-130 at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado, September 9, 2011. Air Force Reserve photo.
The military C-130 air tanker that crashed in South Dakota Sunday, killing four and injuring two crewmembers, was carrying one of the nine Modular Airborne FireFighting Systems II (MAFFS II) that exist. The MAFFS II hold 3,000 gallons of fire retardant which is pumped out the left side paratroop door using compressed air generated by an air compressor built into the system. The U.S. Forest Service had these and the eight first generation MAFFS built by a contractor, Aero Union, which had been converting aircraft into air tankers for decades.
But after the USFS cancelled their contract for the company’s eight P3 air tankers over a safety inspection issue, Aero Union closed their doors, laid off their employees, and a bank took over their assets, including the aircraft and everything related to manufacturing the MAFFS. The bank attempted to sell them at an auction in February, but the aircraft and the MAFFS items were not bought.
The MAFFS units are very specialized, complex systems. Without Aero Union around to provide repairs and parts, now there is a question about how to maintain and repair the systems.
Mead Gruver, a reporter for the Associated Press working out of Cheyenne, Wyoming, has been closely following what I am calling the Air Tanker Crisis and the management of what is left of the air tanker fleet, down to nine full time large air tankers after being cut by 80 percent since 2002. Here is an excerpt from an article he wrote today about the MAFFS:
…Forest Service officials insist the system is and will remain viable for years to come.
Meanwhile, the Forest Service has contracted technicians in California, Wyoming and Idaho to maintain the MAFFS. An in-house engineer at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, can help troubleshoot any bugs, Fisher said.
“In any new system you’re going to have some issues come up, and we’ve been able to work through them,” [Scott Fisher, MAFFS coordinator for the Forest Service] said.
Aero Union’s last chief executive, Britt Gourley of Seattle, declined to comment on the system’s continued viability.
“I may have my personal opinions, but I keep them to myself. I don’t know. I wish the Forest Service well and wish all the folks involved well,” Gourley said.
On March 25 I sent emails to four Senators, one congresswoman, and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. I took advantage of my right, and my responsibility, as a citizen to express my opinion on the pitiful state of our air tanker fleet. And I was not shy, which will not surprise the regular readers of Wildfire Today, about providing my analysis of how we got to this point, with the fleet only a shell of what it was 10 years ago, reduced by 75 percent. The land management agencies, and especially the U.S. Forest Service, own this debacle.
In addition to the Senate committee, which holds regular hearings in which wildfire issues are discussed, the recipients of my letters included Senators Ron Wyden and Lisa Murkowski.
It is probably a coincidence, but on March 27 and 28 numerous media outlets ran stories saying that four senators sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office asking the agency to review “the nation’s depleted fleet of firefighting aircraft and the remedies needed in the face of increasingly severe fire seasons.”
The senators that signed the letter were Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.; and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
If there are going to be any significant improvements in the air tanker fleet, it will have to be a political solution. The land management agencies, and especially the U.S. Forest Service, have proven that their strategy is “sit on our hands and make no tough decisions”.
If you have an opinion on this issue, let your senators and representatives know.
Here are some excerpts from the Associated Press article that appeared in newspapers and web sites around the country.
A group of Western senators says the U.S. Forest Service may not be moving quickly enough to build up and replace the fleet of aging planes that drop fire retardant on wildfires.
The senators asked the Government Accountability Office on Tuesday to evaluate whether the Forest Service has done a good job of analyzing the types and numbers of aircraft needed, the cheapest way to get them, new technologies, and where the planes will be based.
“Concerns have increasingly been raised that the federal agencies responsible for responding to wildland fires _ the Forest Service and four agencies in the Department of Interior _ do not have the appropriate number and mix of aircraft that will be needed for wildland fire suppression operations,” said the letter signed by Sens. Ron Wyden, D-Ore.; Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
[…]
Last month, the Forest Service adopted a new strategy for replacing the fleet with newer, faster and more cost-effective planes.
[…]
Wyden complained that the Forest Service’s strategy is woefully lacking in specifics that would allow comparisons of different types and costs of aircraft so choices can be made. Meanwhile, a “perfect storm” is shaping up of dry weather and thick stands of forests that have not been thinned.
“Trying to get these tankers and the fleet ready for serious fire seasons seems to be almost the longest running battle since the Trojan war,” he said. “The West doesn’t have the luxury of just sitting around while everything goes up in smoke.”
I don’t know if we will ever see another Aero Union P-3 air tanker flying over a fire in the United States, but to refresh your memory, check out this simulation of two P-3s working a fire near Aguanga, California.
A P-3 Orion drops on a fire near Cedar City, Utah in 2006. From zionhelitack.blogspot.com
The CEO of Aero Union, Britt Gourley,said the company has appealed through the judicial process the U.S. Forest Service’s cancellation of their contract for Aero Union’s eight P-3 Orion air tankers. The USFS terminated the contract July 29, 2011, saying safety inspections were not being completed, and shortly after that the company laid off 60 of their employees. At that time, six of the eight P-3s were active on contracts. This left only 11 large air tankers on exclusive use contracts with the USFS.
Mr. Gourley told Wildfire Today on Monday that after their contract was cancelled halfway through the fire season, and now with the aircraft sitting for almost six months, their financial situation has forced them to sell their assets. As we reported on January 1, Aero Union has put their aircraft up for auction, which will culminate in the opening of sealed bids on February 28 at McClellan, California.
Mr. Gourley said his company complied with all of the requirements in the USFS contract and claims the P-3s have “always been meticulously maintained and continuosly airworthy”. He hopes the aircraft will be flying over fires again this summer, if not in the United States, then in another country.
Mr. Gourley feels the USFS has a strong predisposition toward the C-130J as an air tanker platform and is unwilling to give serious consideration to other aircraft. He said another option for an air tanker would be to acquire military surplus P-3s and “re-wing” them with current technology and kits developed by Lockheed which cost about $18 million each.
It would be surprising if a private company could work out the finances for the procurement and then the USFS contracting arrangements to purchase and operate new C-130Js with a purchase price of about $90 million each. But if the USFS adopts a different air tanker paradigm, in which the aircraft are government-owned and contractor operated, then it’s a whole new ball game. It is hard to imagine the U.S. Government coming up with the money to buy a fleet of new air tankers. A more realistic variation on this is to acquire some gently-used C-130Js that have been thrown away by the military.
It is hard to understand how the US Government can come up with trillions of dollars for military aircraft, ships, and equipment, but the USFS has to contract for air tanker platforms that have been deemed no longer worthy of being used by the military.
MAFFS II, built by Aero Union and sold to the USFS. Photo by Aero Union
In addition to the eight Aero Union P-3s that are up for auction, the company is selling intellectual property consisting of patents, jigs, drawings, and tooling for their MAFFS II 3,000-gallon slide-in retardant tank system for C-130J. The USFS has already purchased eight of these second generation units which are used by Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve units on wildfires if all of the privately owned air tankers are already working on fires. If a new company purchases the MAFFS II intellectual property and manufactures more, you could have one of your own for approximately $5.2 million.
