Coulson to build a C-130H air tanker

C-130H and Firewatch 76
Coulson’s C-130H and Firewatch 76. Photo by Coulson.

Update at 1:20 p.m. MT, March 14, 2013: Brit Coulson told us a few days ago that they no longer plan to place a 5,000-gallon tank in the aircraft. It will be a 3,500 US gallon capacity tank instead.

****

The U.S. Forest Service may begin awarding contracts within the next several weeks based the responses to their solicitation for “Next Generation” air tankers which closed February 15, 2012 . The list of attendees at the January 11 pre-proposal conference provides some clues as to which companies are interested: Coulson, Cherokee Holdings, Erickson, Minden, Lockheed Martin, Aero Flite, Firebird, and Conair.

Britt Coulson, of Coulson Aviation, told Wildfire Today that they submitted a proposal for a C-130H which they intend to convert into an air tanker. The company has been in the aerial firefighting business since 1986 and currently has a fleet of five Sikorsky S-61 helicopters, two Bell Jet Rangers, and a very high-tech Sikorsky S-76. The S-76, or “Firewatch 76”, is outfitted with an array of sophisticated sensors for evaluating air tanker drops and the speedy helicopter serves as a bird dog or lead plane for their huge Martin Mars amphibious air tanker. In 2010 Coulson loaded the S-76 onto a 747 and transported it to Australia where it worked as an aerial platform for observing and evaluating drops made by 10 Tanker Air Carrier’s DC-10 air tanker when the state of Victoria tested the 11,600-gallon air tanker.

The Coulson C-130H was previously operated by the military, which put about 10,000 hours on it, then NASA picked it up and added another 3,000 hours. Now at 13,000 hours, the 30-year old aircraft is not very aged from an hours point of view, certainly when compared to a used airliner which might have four to eight times as many.

C-130H internal gravity tank
5,000-gallon internal retardant tank. Image provided by Coulson

Coulson has a design for a 5,000-gallon internal retardant tank that they intend to put inside the C-130H. They told us that a full 5,000-gallon gravity-fed tank weighs about the same as a pressurized 3,000-gallon tank that is used on the military MAFFS air tankers. The gravity tank does not have to have the heavy accessories like an air compressor, multiple smaller tanks, and complex piping. Gravity tank systems are much less complicated than pressurized systems. Colson will install constant-flow doors which will provide a dependable and consistent application of retardant.

One obstacle that could interfere with Coulson’s plans is the rumor that the U.S. Forest Service is looking for reasons to exclude ex-military aircraft from the awards from this “next generation” solicitation. Coulson said their C-130H meets all of the specifications in the solicitation, so they will be extremely disappointed, to say the least, if their proposal is disqualified or ignored based on the ownership history of the aircraft.

On the other hand, former Undersecretary of Agriculture Mark Rey, who oversaw the Forest Service when he worked in D.C., might be pleased. His new employer, Lockheed Martin, who hired him to lobby the federal government to buy the company’s “firefighting equipment”, would very much like to sell to the USFS or private companies a few dozen brand new C-130Js at $80 to $90 million a pop. Mr. Rey resigned from his post with the Department of Agriculture in January, 2009 and by July 6 he had already filed a Lobbying Report as a Lockheed Martin employee. This is interesting, because the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, according to Wikipedia, “prohibits Cabinet Secretaries and other very senior executive personnel from lobbying the department or agency in which they worked for two years after they leave their position”. In 2011 Lockheed Martin spent $15.2 million on lobbying in Washington.

RAND to release air tanker study next month

Wildfire Today has learned that the RAND Corporation intends to release the air tanker study they performed for the U.S. Forest Service. The USFS has refused to release the $840,000 study even after receiving a Freedom of Information Act Request, saying “…the report is proprietary and confidential Rand business information and must be withheld in entirety under FOIA Exemption 4″. Their refusal letter went on to say: “The data, analysis, and conclusion in this report are not accurate or complete.” The USFS letter also said they wanted “to protect against public confusion that might result from premature disclosure.”

The RAND Corporation has a different view, and told us that they have no problem releasing the report after they complete a quality assurance review in late May. They would have released it sooner, but there was uncertainty as to whether the USFS would ask them for additional analysis.

This was the fifth study on air tankers since 1996. A sixth one will begin in a few weeks.

Here is the timeline since October, 2009 for the air tanker Analysis Paralysis:

  • October, 2009:The USFS awards contract for air tanker study to the RAND Corporation.
  • August, 2010: RAND completes the study (according to the RAND Corporation). USFS decides they need additional analyses “in order to add details to RAND’s analytic model that were not originally requested”, (according to RAND)
  • May, 2011: RAND completed the additional analyses and briefed the results to USFS officials. Afterwards the USFS said even more analysis is needed in order to to re-examine the modeling assumptions RAND and the Forest Service had previously agreed to make.
  • August, 2011: The USFS announced that they intended to award a second contract, a non-competitive contract, to the Rand Corporation for an additional analysis of the air tanker issue.
  • August, 2011; two weeks after the previous announcement, the USFS canceled the solicitation, “due to the responses received expressing interest in this procurement”.
  • February, 2012: USFS advised RAND that no additional analysis would be requested.
  • March, 2012; USFS posts a solicitation for an analysis, titled “Firefighting Aircraft Study”. Responses to the solicitation due by April 20, 2012. After the contract is awarded, the report will be due near the end of 2012.
  • Late May, 2012: projected date for RAND to complete a quality assurance review of the final report in order to proceed with publication and the release of the document.

Below is RAND’s view of the history of the report, which they provided to us a few days ago:

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

“March 29, 2012

Comment on U.S. Forest Service study

In October 2009, the RAND Corporation competed for and was awarded a U.S. Forest Service contract to determine the number and mix of large aircraft the service requires to support U.S. wildland fire suppression. RAND completed the work in August 2010. The Forest Service and RAND agreed at that time that additional analyses were warranted in order to add details to RAND’s analytic model that were not originally requested.

RAND completed these additional analyses and briefed the results to Forest Service officials in May 2011. Afterwards, the Forest Service suggested that further analyses might be requested – not because RAND had failed to complete the planned analyses correctly, but because of a desire to re-examine the modeling assumptions RAND and the Forest Service had previously agreed to make. RAND and the Forest Service discussed the possibility of such analysis, but in February 2012 RAND was advised by the Forest Service that no additional analyses would be requested. At that time, RAND initiated a quality assurance review of the proposed final report in order to proceed with publication. We expect to release that publication by the end of May 2012.

Contrary to suggestions that may have appeared in online or other reporting, RAND does not consider its reports or briefings on this work to be proprietary or business-sensitive information. RAND distributes and disseminates its reports following completion of analysis and a thorough quality assurance review. Dissemination of the Forest Service report in question was delayed because of uncertainty as to whether the scope of the work would be expanded for additional analyses.

Andrew Morral,

Director of the RAND Homeland Security and Defense Center

The RAND Corporation”

Secretary of Agriculture responds to Senators’ concerns about air tankers

DC10 dropping
Tanker-911, a DC 10 airtanker, drops retardant on the Wallow fire above Greer, AZ, as the Del Rosa Hotshots wait in a safety zone, June 11, 2011. USFS photo by Kari Greer

The Secretary of Agriculture said in a letter to congress that large air tankers, such as the P2V, are often more effective and provide faster response than very large air tankers like the 747 and DC-10.

Wildfire Today has obtained a copy of a letter that Thomas Vilsack, the Secretary of Agriculture, sent to Senator Lisa Murkowski and other senators who expressed concerns about the management of the federal air tanker fleet. Mr. Vilsack’s letter, dated March 29, 2012, is a very late response to a letter that the senators wrote on February 10, 2012. We can speculate on the timing of Mr. Vilsack’s response, but it comes shortly after a highly publicized letter dated March 27, 2012 that Senators Murkowski,Jeff Bingaman, Ron Wyden, and Dianne Feinstein wrote to the Government Accountability Office requesting an “independent third-party review….of the Forest Service and the Interior agencies’ efforts since 2002 to identify the number and types of firefighting aircraft they believe are needed to respond to wildland fires”. Some of the topics the senators asked the GAO to consider in the March 29 letter included:

  • whether the methodologies the agencies used to evaluate the number and types of aircraft needed were appropriate in meeting current and anticipated wildland fire challenges;
  • whether the methodologies the agencies used to evaluate the best approaches for meeting these needs were comprehensive and inclusive;
  • what range of alternatives the agencies considered, as well as those they did not consider, in assessing their needs and the ways to meet them.

Mr. Vilsack, in his March 29 letter, told the senators that the solicitation for the “next generation” of large air tankers which closed on February 15, 2012:

…should provide up to three next generation large airtankers this year and up to ten additional airtankers in 2013, contingent upon private industry’s ability to develop, test, and gain approval of these aircraft.

He also said the Forest Service is collaborating this year with the Department of the Interior on two contracts to provide water scooper aircraft. For the last few years the DOI has contracted for two CL-215 water scoopers.

Mr. Vilsack’s letter places the blame on the state of Texas for not deploying very large air tankers to “the Texas fire situation” due to the “high cost” of the aircraft.

Here is another quote from Mr. Vilsack’s letter:

Large air tankers are often more effective and provide faster response than the very large airtankers. This is because the large air tanker fleet can be deployed across a broader geographic area. The current airtanker base system has been developed to minimize the distance to a fire from the base, with average airtnaker mission flights that are generally less than 50 minutes, round trip. Costs increase and efficiency is reduced when airtankers must fly longer distances, regardless of their speed.

As you noted, the draft RAND report of July 2010, which was a preliminary draft and not the final report, recommended that field evaluaiton of water scoopers and very large airtankers be done. The Forest Service has begun the Aerial Firefighting Effective Use and Efficiency Study, which will evaluate water scoopers, large airtankers, very large airtankers, and helicopters.

It is interesting that Mr. Vilsack says this additional study, the sixth air tanker study in the last 17 years, will evaluate very large air tankers after they were specifically excluded from the 2010 study by the Rand Corporation which cost the USFS $840,092. The solicitation for the new study mentions large air tankers, but says nothing about very large air tankers:

Define the utility and operational parameters of large airtankers (LAT), heavy helicopters (defined as Type 1), and water scoopers in accomplishing the variety of aviation missions supporting wildfire management…

When you only have 11 air tankers, like last year, requiring that they be widely scattered across the United States making rapid initial attack only rarely possible, it is hard to support Mr. Vilsack’s characterization that very large air tankers are less effective than smaller air tankers. SOME additional air tankers, even if they can’t reload at every air tanker base, are better than none. Then there is the speed factor. The 11 P2Vs under contract now cruise at 225 mph while a 747 and DC-10 cruise at more than 550 mph. And the P2Vs carry 2,000 to 2,400 gallons, while the very large air tankers can hold five to ten times more, 11,600 to 20,000 gallons, requiring fewer trips back to an air tanker base to reload.

And I’m not saying very large air tankers are the answer to our air tanker shortage, but beggars can’t be choosers — we only have 25% of the fleet we had 10 years ago. Some of the money saved by not contracting for those additional 33 air tankers could be put toward alternatives, even if they are expensive. Air tankers don’t put out fires, firefighters on the ground do, but the very large air tankers could be one tool in the firefighters tool box, as part of a mix of aircraft including helicopters, single engine air tankers, scooper air tankers, and large air tankers.

Monday wildfire one-liners, March 26, 2012

Screen grab from report about Colorado wildfire conditions
Screen grab from CBS Denver report about Colorado wildfire conditions

Excellent photos of a P2V and an Air Tractor 802A at Jeffco Air Tanker Base in Colorado.

Annual wildfire refresher available, online and by DVD. Warning: a lame, pointless video with audio will automatically play for about 15 seconds when you visit the NIFC web site.

Video report about wildfire conditions in Colorado.

U.S. Forest Service starts women’s firefighting boot camp.

Two boys ordered to pay $10,000 each for starting fire near Gardnerville, NV.

New Hampshire man uses gasoline to ignite brush pile, is treated at hospital for burns on hands and face.

Two Single Engine Air Tankers begin their 7-day journey from Australia to the United States.

Meteorologist gives early prediction of a normal fire season for the northern Rockies.

One home and two outbuildings burn in three-acre wildfire in Chimayo, NM.

During the past 10 years, the Alabama Forestry Commission’s staff has been reduced by more than 300 employees.

USFS to pay for another air tanker study

P2V air tanker
P2V air tanker flying off into the sunset. Photo by Bill Gabbert

Stop me if you’ve heard this before.

The U.S. Forest Service is going to pay for still another air tanker study. The agency has issued a solicitation (AG-024B-S-12-0003) for private contractors to produce a report that:

…proposes at least three (3) alternatives that demonstrates the effectiveness of airtankers, heavy helicopters and water scoopers (defined in terms of aircraft use, aircraft characteristics, bases, contracts, costs, dispatching, mission objectives, tactics, strategy and communications).

This will be the sixth air tanker study in the last 17 years. Here is the list:

  1. 1995-1996: National Air Tanker Study (NATS)
  2. 2002: Blue Ribbon Panel report
  3. 2005: Wildland Fire Management Aerial Application Study
  4. 2007-2009: National Interagency Aviation Council, Interagency Aviation Strategy
  5. 2010: “An Examination of the United States Forest Service’s Need for Large Aviation”, by the Rand Corporation
  6. 2012: (this new study: “Aerial Firefighting Effective Use and Efficiency”)

(More details about these studies.)

The secret Rand air tanker study

In 2010 the USFS hired the Rand Corporation for an air tanker study that is being kept secret. The agency would not provide a copy of it even after we requested it under the Freedom of Information Act. They replied, saying “…the report is proprietary and confidential Rand business information and must be withheld in entirety under FOIA Exemption 4”. Their refusal letter went on to say: “The data, analysis, and conclusion in this report are not accurate or complete.” The letter also said they wanted “to protect against public confusion that might result from premature disclosure.” But, according to Jennifer Jones, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Forest Service in Boise, the agency paid the Rand Corporation $840,092. What a deal for Rand, for submitting an inaccurate and incomplete report.

The new study

This new report must be submitted within 154 days after the award, which makes it due as the 2012 fire season is winding down, probably in October or November.

The USFS ordered the writers of the 2010 Rand report to specifically exclude Very Large Air Tankers (VLAT) from their study. The new solicitation does not exclude them in writing, but neither does it include them. It requires the contractor to:

Define the utility and operational parameters of large airtankers (LAT), heavy helicopters (defined as Type 1), and water scoopers in accomplishing the variety of aviation missions supporting wildfire management…

The solicitation repeatedly refers to “large air tankers (LAT)” being studied, so it appears that again VLATs will not be included since they are not mentioned at all. Apparently the USFS thinks they already have enough information about the DC-10, 747, and any other air tankers that can carry 5 to 10 times more retardant than the air tankers we are currently using. In other words, “My mind is made up. Don’t confuse me with facts”.

The aborted study

This is at least the second solicitation for an air tanker study that has been issued since the 2010 Rand report. The USFS announced on August 15, 2011 that they intended to award a second contract, at that time a non-competitive contract, to the Rand Corporation to continue studying the air tanker issue. It seemed counter-intuitive that anyone would award another contract, especially a non-competitive contract, to a company that months before had produced a similar product the same buyer described as inaccurate and incomplete. Two weeks later the USFS canceled the solicitation, “due to the responses received expressing interest in this procurement”. The USFS has not announced that any contracting officers or high-level managers were disciplined or fired over that debacle.

Why pay for another air tanker study?

This additional air tanker study continues the analysis paralysis of the last 17 years. Continuing to kick the can farther down the road decade after decade allows our leadership in Boise and Washington D.C. to postpone the terrible ordeal of making a decision. Their air tanker strategy appears to be: “Make no tough decisions, but continue to order and pay for study after study until we retire. Then let someone else deal with it.”

And while Rome our forests and grasslands burn, the USFS leadership fiddles around, making only 11 or 12 large air tankers available on exclusive use contracts this fire season, 75 percent less than we had 10 years ago.

Another theory about why the USFS repeatedly pays for more studies is that they will keep doing it until an “unbiased” outside expert submits a result that the agency silently is hoping for. For example, the 2010 Rand report recommended an emphasis on scooper air tankers. But the USFS has never awarded an exclusive use contract for scoopers, unless the two that USFS Chief Tom Tidwell referred to when he testified before Congress on March 6 turn out to be exclusive use. (He may have been referring to the two CL-215 scoopers that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has had on contract.)

It is a common belief that USFS leaders have a strong bias against scoopers, even though many agencies have had great success with them, including: Los Angeles County, Minnnesota, North Carolina, Department of Interior, Canada, and several countries in Europe. According to the Rand report, when a suitable body of water is reasonably close, a scooper can deliver more gallons onto a fire and at a much lower annualized cost than a conventional air tanker or a large helicopter, especially when considering the cost of retardant, which ran $1.97 per gallon on the Fourmile fire in Colorado in 2010.

On a news program today someone described military officers as being decisive. My first thought was that effective managers and leaders in the fire service are decisive. (As proof, I offer the 2008 Sprint-Nextel commercial.) I’ve worked with hundreds of them. Then I thought about the inability of the U.S. Forest Service leadership to make a decision about a specific and detailed long term air tanker strategy.

The White House declares Open Government – except for the U. S. Forest Service?

I can’t find anything in this new 62-page solicitation that says the information submitted will remain private, secret, proprietary, or confidential — or, that the public is likely to be confused by its disclosure. I will be very interested to see if the U.S. Forest Service treats this report, like the Rand report, as secret as the information held in the vaults of the CIA. Mr. Tidwell and Tom Harbour, USFS Director of Fire and Aviation, should remember that the cover-up is worse than the original crime.

Open Government, President Obama
From the White House’s web site: http://www.whitehouse.gov/open

The principles of Open Government, as described by Mr. Tidwell’s boss, do not necessarily apply to the operations of the CIA, but the U.S. Forest Service is in a very different category.

Will 12 air tankers be enough this year?

P2 air tanker
P2 air tanker on Whoopup fire near Newcastle, WY, July 18, 2011. Photo by Bill Gabbert

The 2011 wildfire season was relatively slow in the United States with the exception of Texas and two very large fires in Arizona and New Mexico. During most of the season there were only 11 large air tankers on exclusive use contracts and this year we are starting with 12. Ten years ago there were 44.

Air tanker contract list 2012

The request for proposal that the U.S. Forest Service issued on November 30 could result in as many as seven additional air tankers on contract over the next two years — up to three this year and four in 2013. However, these additional “next generation” air tankers that can hold 3,000 to 5,000 gallons of retardant and cruise at 300 knots do not exist. Potential vendors will have to be given contracts and then they will begin converting recycled airliners into air tankers, a lengthy and very expensive endeavor. After that, the aircraft will be required to undergo extensive testing which could lead to approval by the Interagency Air Tanker Board (IATB).

Minden BAe-146 in hangar
Minden’s BAe-146 during the conversion process. Photo: Minden, used with permission

One next-gen air tanker has partially completed this process. Late last year Tronos and Neptune received interim approval for a converted BAe-146 airliner which is being leased and operated by Neptune. At the end of 2012 the IATB will consider it for full approval, based on its performance on fires and how it functions at air tanker bases. Minden Air Corp. is also converting a BAe-146 and hopes to have it flying over fires this year.

The Chief of the Forest Service, Tom Tidwell, told a congressional committee on March 6 that this year the USFS will contract for two scooper air tankers (presumably CL-215s or CL-415′s) for the first time. We have a call in to the agency to find out if they will be on exclusive use or call when needed contracts. If they are exclusive use, this would bring the total up to 14 (counting the interim approval of the Neptune/Tronos BAe-146), still less than one-third of the size of the air tanker fleet 10 years ago.

In a letter dated March 7 that Ken Pimlott, the Director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) wrote to Mr. Tidwell, he expressed concern about the decline of the USFS air tanker fleet, which has put pressure on CAL FIRE to bail out the USFS when there are fires on federal lands within the state. Mr. Pimlott also said that the Large Airtanker Modernization Strategy developed in January is not sufficient “to meet the needs of the combined federal, state and local wildland firefighting missions” and that it does not consider the potential of very large air tankers (VLAT), such as the DC-10s and the 747.

The USFS has no interest in awarding exclusive use contracts for the VLATs, and has only offered call when needed contracts with no assurance that a company will receive any income. Evergreen said their business model for their 747 air tanker can’t be sustained with occasional use and did not sign a CWN contract. 10 Tanker Air Carrier is struggling to maintain one of their two DC-10s and a crew on a CWN contract.

An article by Ben Goad in the Press-Enterprise also addresses these issues. Here is an excerpt:

…Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has been critical of the Forest Service’s handling of the situation, said she agreed with Pimlott that the Forest Service’s plan falls short.

“Millions of Californians work and live in high-fire threat areas, and a failure to address this issue jeopardizes lives and property,” said Feinstein, D-Calif. “Chief Tidwell admits the Forest Service lacks aviation assets to meet the wildfire response need, yet he has not requested sufficient funds to make the acquisitions, nor has he provided Congress with a timetable.”

Harbour maintained that the Forest Service is actively pursuing new contracts with tanker vendors and said he hoped to bring as many as eight into operation over the next two years, with two or three going into service this year. He acknowledged that the shortage could strain resources in the coming fire season.

“I worry about it, but that’s why 900 engines and 11 air tankers and 120 helicopters and eight (Defense Department) aircraft make me sleep a little bit better at night,” he said. “I worry about it, but we plan and prepare to deal with it.”