Tag: air tanker

Bill Moss was kind enough to take these photos and send them to us, of Neptune’s new air tanker 40 being tested at the Missoula airport today. He was not aware it was going to be tested but was able to quickly take a couple of shots. Thanks Bill!

The aircraft is a BAe-146 that was converted by Tronos from a passenger airliner into an air tanker.

After taking these he said he called Neptune to ask when the next test would occur, but they don’t want to give out that information, saying only “keep watching”.

Like we said yesterday, we are still offering a free Wildfire Today mug for the first very good photos of Tanker 40 being tested. Send your photos to bill d o t wildfiretoday a t g mail d o t c o m. If you can’t figure out that spam-defeating address, drop us a line at our Contact Us page.

Below is another photo from a different source of Tanker 40 on the tarmac at Missoula today.

Continue reading “Photos of the new jet-powered air tanker being tested”

KPAX is reporting that Neptune Aviation is going to test a “new generation of air tankers” beginning today, July 26, at the Missoula International Airport.

Beginning on Monday, there will be multiple aerial retardant drops on a U.S. Forest Service grid at the airport.

The grid elevations are one of several steps in the process to develop the new generation of air tankers.

We are thinking that they will be testing their new Tanker 40,  Neptune Aviation’s BAe-146 conversion, that we covered on May 26. This drop testing is no doubt part of the process to confirm the retardant coverage, part of the process toward obtaining certification from the Interagency Air Tanker Board.

Win a free Wildfire Today coffee mug!

The first person to submit a very good photo of Tanker 40 dropping will win a Wildfire Today coffee mug! (Not just ANY photo — it has to be a very good photo.) Send your photos to bill d o t wildfiretoday a t g mail d o t c o m. If you can’t figure out that spam-defeating address, drop us a line at our Contact Us page.

UPDATE @ 7:45 p.m., July 26

I don’t know if Neptune tested Tanker 40 today or not, but here is a photo of it sitting in a hangar at Missoula airport this evening.

An amphibious Bombardier “Superscooper” air tanker was used to help extinguish a fire on board a container ship 60 miles off the coast of Malaysia. The fire started on July 7 after the container ship M/V Charlotte Maersk left Port Klang (map) in Malaysia bound for Oman. There are reports that an explosion in one container caused the fire, which spread to 150 others.

In addition to the Superscooper, some of the resources brought to the ship to assist the crew with the fire included:

• 1 Malaysian Coast Guard vessel assisting with fire fighting monitor
• 1 Salvage master
• 1 Malaysian coast guard vessel stand-by
• 1 Fire fighter expert team leader
• 4 tugs with fire fighting capabilities
• 7 Fire fighting experts
• Special container cutting and fire fighting equipment
• 1 Chemist

Some of the containers were burning at 1,000 degrees Celsius, and each had to be opened and extinguished one at a time, after cooling for four to six hours. A thermal camera was used to evaluate each area before firefighters began their close-in work.

After two days of firefighting the fire continued to burn, but it had been contained to the 150 containers. The main infrastructure of the vessel was not affected, and the engine, thrusters, and other equipment was still operational.

A report on July 15 said the “fire had been put out”, but some areas were still too hot for firefighters to enter. And, “There was only smoke, no more fire”. Hmmmm. How does that old saying go? “Where there’s smoke….” I forgot the rest. But we could find no other reports about the fire after July 15, so they must have eventually fully controlled it.

More information.

P.S. — the fire has a wet line all the way around it. What’s the problem? 😉

Thanks Kevin

The National Transportation Safety Board has released a “probable cause” report on the August 20, 2009 crash of a single engine air tanker (SEAT) 125 miles northeast of Reno, NV in which pilot Dave Jamsa of Minuteman Aerial Applications was killed while working on the Hoyt fire. Because of damage to the aircraft, the investigators can’t determine with certainty why the SEAT seemed to stall at the end of what appeared to be an attempt at making a retardant drop. One theory is that the drop was attempted but the drop system was not armed, and no retardant was dispersed. The weight remaining in the aircraft, when the pilot expected it to be much lighter after the drop, made it impossible to gain enough altitude to avoid impacting the terrain.

The drop system is normally not armed in order to avoid inadvertent drops, and it should be armed shortly before the intended drop. It is possible that the pilot forgot to arm the system, a fairly common mistake, which prevented the retardant from being dispersed. But this is just a theory, and the exact cause may never be known.

NTSB Factual Report 6/2/2010

Probable Cause Report 7/1/2010

The National Transportation Safety Board has released their Preliminary Report about the P2V-5 air tanker that ran off the end of the runway while landing at Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport in Colorado on June 26. It contains no surprises and confirmes the early reports about a hydraulic system failure on Tanker 44. Here is the complete narrative from the report.

On June 26, 2010, about 1300 mountain daylight time, a Lockheed P2V-5 airplane, N1386C, was substantially damaged during a landing roll overrun at the Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport (BJC), in Broomfield, Colorado. The pilot and co-pilot were not injured. The airplane was registered to Neptune Aviation Services Inc., of Missoula, Montana, and operated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forestry Service, under an exclusive public-use firefighting contract. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company flight plan was filed for the fire suppression flight. The local flight originated from BJC at 1150.

According to the pilot, following a “normal” retardant drop, the main hydraulic system failed. The airplane was configured for landing via emergency hydraulic pressure and an emergency declared. The pilot continued, that the landing was routine; however, when he attempted to stop the airplane using the emergency system brakes there was no response. The airplane rolled through a fence, went down an embankment,and came to rest nose down on a city street. The pilot and co-pilot were able to exit unassisted.

Updated on Jul 20 2010 3:14PM.