Tag: Photo by Bill G

USFS to buy thousands of satellite emergency notification devices

SPOT — Example of a Satellite Emergency Notification Device. Photo by Bill Gabbert

The U.S. Forest Service has issued a solicitation indicating that they intend to purchase thousands of Satellite Emergency Notification Devices (SEND). The specifications listed by the USFS require that the device be able to:

Determine location using GPS.
Send via satellite an emergency message containing the device’s location after pressing an “SOS” button. A monitoring facility would then notify a nearby emergency services agency.
Track location by sending the device’s location via satellite every 10 minutes, minimum, if activated by pressing the TRACK button.
Display the tracked locations on a map on the internet.
Send a pre-programmed HELP message including the device’s location.
Send a “check-in” message, including the location, after pressing a “check-in” button.

I have used one of these for years. In fact, the photo is my “SPOT Satellite GPS Messenger“, which is a second generation SPOT device. I always carry mine when I am on an extended motorcycle trip, or sometimes on a 4-wheeled vehicle trip. The two features that I like best about it are the SOS which works via satellite even when there is no cell phone service, and the tracking feature so that my family or friends can know where I am. If I’m running late, they can check the map on the web site and know that I’m still on the road and moving… or not.

On the solicitation the USFS says they want the devices because:

Forest Service employees routinely work in the wilderness. Their main mean of communication while in the wilderness is 2 way radios. Normally the employees use mobile and handheld radios to communicate their locations and status to the dispatch center. Approximately 20% of the forest is outside of the area of coverage of radios because of terrains.

It will be interesting to find out if they can use this device to track multiple wildfire suppression resources on one map. Will a dispatcher be able to see where all of their engines and crews are? Could it even be displayed on a smart phone? Will an Incident Commander or Branch Director have access to a map that shows where their firefighting resources are? This could add an element of safety. At times like this I think of the Esperanza fire, and wonder if it would have made a difference if the Operations Section Chief or Division Supervisor had had maps in front of them that displayed the location of Engine 57 at the top of that drainage before the fire overran their location. Could five lives have been saved?

Actually, using this little portable device for mass resource tracking is a half-assed approach, rather than putting professional-quality location-tracking devices in all wildfire suppression rolling stock and radios…like many professional-quality fire departments, police departments, and ambulance services have been doing for years.

I am not entirely fluent in translating contracting-speak into English, but it appears that the USFS has $1.2 million burning a hole in their pocket and they want to use all of it over the course of one year to buy as many devices as they can, to include a year of service — monitoring, mapping, and satellite messaging. A SPOT Personal Tracker is listed for $60 to $170 on Google, and a year of service costs $99. There are other brands out there with different pricing. The government would no doubt get a deal if they buy a few thousand, so picking some numbers out of the air, if they pay a total of $120 per device for a year, that would be 10,000 units. WOW. Even if they pay retail at Best Buy for a SPOT device, on sale now for $60, then pay retail for service, $99, that’s 7,500 of the little things.

Here is another excerpt from the USFS solicitation:

4.3 Minimum delivery requirements shall be 1,000 units 30 days ARO; 3,000 units (or the balance of the total) 60 days ARO; 5,000 units (or the balance of the total) 90 days ARO; and the balance 120 days ARO.

This technology is evolving rapidly, and since the SPOT is on sale at Best Buy, maybe the company is about to introduce a third generation device. DeLorme has an inReach device that can apparently do most if not all that a SPOT can do, but can also send AND receive text messages… anywhere. It’s a little pricey, costing several times more than a SPOT.

UPDATE, January 14, 2014: The U.S. Forest Service bought 6,000 of the devices. There is a discussion of them in the report of an ATV accident that occurred on the Schoolhouse Fire in New Mexico in 2013.

Thanks go out to Robert

South Dakota: Firefighters gain upper hand on Apple fire

Firefighters on the Apple fire 8 miles southeast of Custer, South Dakota have completely lined the fire and burned out the indirect line we reported yesterday. The fire was first detected at about noon on Wednesday and started from a lighting strike on Monday.

Today the 132 firefighters will be mopping up, strengthening firelines, and mitigating the hazards from possible falling trees along Flynn Creek Road. The weather today and tomorrow will be challenging, with the relative humidity in the teens and 15 mph winds gusting up to 22 mph.

The two National Guard blackhawk helicopters have been released.

While the completed and burned-out fireline meets the definition of 100% containment, the Incident Commander is calling it only 15% contained. This has been a trend in recent years, with ICs confusing the terms control and contain.

The dispatch system has had to reach out far and wide to find resources for this 546-acre fire. We know of one engine crew in the Greater Yellowstone area that was dispatched Thursday night to the fire. Hand crews came from Montana and other states. Soon after it started on Wednesday, the IC requested two large Type 1 helicopters. One of the orders has been filled, and that was with a Kmax helicopter which barely (if that) qualifies as a Type 1. The other order was still unfilled as of Thursday night. The two large air tankers that arrived empty at Rapid City more than 6 hours after the first initial attack resources were dispatched had to be stolen from the Lower North Fork fire in Colorado. At the time that fire was reportedly “15% contained”, but as discussed above, containment percentages have become meaningless. The statistic can no longer be used for prioritizing fires.

Photo by Bill G

USFS to pay for another air tanker study

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:

1995-1996: National Air Tanker Study (NATS)
2002: Blue Ribbon Panel report
2005: Wildland Fire Management Aerial Application Study
2007-2009: National Interagency Aviation Council, Interagency Aviation Strategy
2010: “An Examination of the United States Forest Service’s Need for Large Aviation”, by the Rand Corporation
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.

air tanker open government Photo by Bill G study

Will 12 air tankers be enough this year?

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.

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.”

air tanker Ken Pimlott Photo by Bill G Tom Harbour

Park fights beetles with fire, not saws

American Elk prescribed fire, Wind Cave National Park. October 20, 2010. Photo by Bill Gabbert

The Rapid City Journal has an article about how Wind Cave National Park in the Black Hills of South Dakota uses prescribed fire, in part, to help prevent and control pine beetles. Below is an excerpt. It may be one of the last excerpts we can show from that newspaper, since they plan to put up a pay wall on their internet site.

Wind Cave wages war on beetles without using saws

They don’t use logging machines and chain saws in the battle against the mountain pine beetle in Wind Cave National Park.

They use fire. And sometimes, they don’t use anything at all.

The federal park, which covers almost 34,000 acres in the southern Black Hills, has a management plan for the pesky bugs that is dramatically different from the logging-based attack in the Black Hills National Forest and nearby private and state forest.

It’s a plan that has been evolving since the 1970s, with fire as the main management tool — depending on funding and favorable weather conditions.

“We really don’t do any cutting of trees right now,” said Greg Schroeder, the park’s chief of resource management. “We have in the plan the ability to do some thinning if we can’t get areas burned. But if we get them burned, we’ll pretty much mitigate the pine beetle problem.”

That’s easier to say and do in Wind Cave, which has more than twice the acreage of grass as it does of forest. The park also is at a generally lower elevation, where pine beetles haven’t in the past been as big of a problem in the Black Hills.

Those advantages, along with a decades-old management plan based on healthy forest standards of thinner tree stands, more variety in tree age and species, and periodic prescribed burns have created a forest that is more resistant to beetles, Schroeder said.

The Journal also has an article about their law enforcement rangers catching three people from Minnesota last weekend attempting to steal about three dozen elk antlers, as well as animal skulls and rocks.

beetles Photo by Bill G prescribed fire

SEAT at Hot Springs, SD

Air Tanker 466 at Hot Springs — Pilot Jim Fournier with Air Tanker 466. Photo by Bill Gabbert

With South Dakota and other Northern Great Plains States suddenly coming into wildfire season a single engine air tanker has been positioned at the airport at Hot Springs, South Dakota. An air attack platform, a King Air, is also on standby at Rapid City and a Blackhawk helicopter is available from the National Guard base at the Rapid City airport.

We spent a few minutes at the Hot Springs air attack base today and talked with Base Manager Winston Cadotte and pilot Jim Fournier. Tanker 466 is under contract from New Frontier Aviation and is operated by Taylor Aviation.

UPDATE: earlier we identified the aircraft as an Air Tractor 802, but Scott in a comment said it is a Dromader, and we now believe he is right. It appears to be a M-18T Dromader. Sorry for the confusion.

Air Tanker at Hot Springs — Air Tanker 466 at Hot Springs. Photo by Bill Gabbert

air tanker Hot Springs Photo by Bill G South Dakota

USFS reduces the number of helicopters on national contracts

When we reported on some of the statements that the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service made on Tuesday when he testified before a congressional committee, some of the information about the availability of helicopters raised my curiosity. Chief Tom Tidwell said there will be 30 large Type 1 helicopters on national contracts this year compared to 34 last year, but not all of those last year were Type 1, so this year, according to Chief Tidwell, there will be a net increase in the number of gallons of water that can be carried.

We confirmed that yes, there will be 30 helicopters on national U.S. Forest Service contracts in 2012. The Request for Proposal that the agency issued was for 34 helicopters, but the USFS decided to eliminate four — at Alturas, CA; Oakridge, OR; Orland, CA; and Porterville, CA.

It is debatable whether all 30 of them are Type 1 helicopters, as Chief Tidwell stated. Eight of the 30 are K-1200 (K-Max) ships that have a capacity of 680 gallons of water in an external load, according to the capabilities listed on two of the K-Max contractors’ web sites. The standard for a Type 1 helicopter is for it to be able to carry at least 700 gallons. If someone is listing the K-Max as a Type 1, it is very close to the minimum number of gallons, while as you can see in the chart below, the other helicopters on contract this year can carry from 900 to 2,650 gallons.

The K-Max has by far the cheapest hourly rate of all of the helicopters on contract this year– about 1/6 of the largest Type 1s. And it has by far the smallest capacity. However, the USFS Chief feels free to say all of the helicopters on national contract are Type 1.

One change that was noted in the new contract is that the Boeing Vertol 107 that was at Custer, South Dakota, is being replaced with a smaller K-Max, reducing the number of gallons carried by 38 percent. A cynic might think that in this case the USFS is strictly saving money, with little regard to firefighting capability.

The National Interagency Aviation Council study that was approved by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group in July, 2008, recommended that there be on contract in 2012, 34 Type 1 helicopters, 47 Type 2 helicopters, and 100 Type 3 helicopters. The same study recommended that there be by this year 23 large air tankers plus 3 water scooper air tankers on contract, for a total of 26, and by 2018 a total of 35 (32 plus 3).

Since the number of large air tankers on USFS national exclusive use contracts has decreased by 75% since 2002, down to 11 today, it is difficult to understand the logic of decreasing the number of helicopters. A rational person would attempt to fill the void with more, rather than less. A rational person would also be alarmed that the unable to fill rate for air tanker orders in 2011, a slow fire season in most of the country, was 30 percent.

This state of the wildfire aviation program can be attributed to management that is characterized as lethargic, apathetic, indifferent, timid, passive, indecisive, and afflicted with the Peter Principle and analysis paralysis, as evidenced by the five wildfire aviation studies over the last 16 years that are sitting on shelves, largely ignored. This sorry state of the program has existed for the last 10 years. The citizens deserve better from the stewards of the land.

air tanker helicopter Photo by Bill G

South Carolina lawmakers considering law that would protect prescribed burners

The South Carolina legislature is considering a bill that would eliminate frivolous lawsuits over smoke created by a prescribed fire. House Bill 3631, the “Prescribed Fire Act” would protect the property owner unless gross negligence is proven. This would change the present language of “negligence” to “gross negligence”, raising the bar in proving damages in a lawsuit. The bill is in the hands of the Senate Fish, Game and Forestry Committee and should be placed on the calendar within the next few weeks.

It would stipulate for prescribed fires:

A prescribed fire plan must be prepared before the State Commission of Forestry authorizes the prescribed fire.
At least one certified fire manager must be present.
Prescribed fires are considered to be in the public interest and not constitute a public or private nuisance when conducted pursuant to state air pollution statutes and smoke management guidelines.
Prescribed fires are considered the property right of the property owner.

Current South Carolina law, Section 48-34-50 reads as follows:

No property owner or lessee or his agent or employee conducting a prescribed fire pursuant to this chapter is liable for damage, injury, or loss caused by fire, resulting smoke, or other consequences of the prescribed fire unless negligence is proven.

The new bill removes smoke from the “negligence” category and requires “gross negligence” for any lawsuits.

Below is the full text of the bill, H. 3631, as of February 22, 2012 at 10:16 AM:

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

A BILL

TO AMEND SECTION 48-34-40, CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, RELATING TO THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CONDUCTING A PRESCRIBED FIRE, SO AS TO FURTHER SPECIFY SUPERVISION REQUIREMENTS FOR A PRESCRIBED FIRE MANAGER AND TO REFERENCE SPECIFIC REGULATORY AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CONDUCTING A PRESCRIBED FIRE; AND TO AMEND SECTION 48-34-50, RELATING TO LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY A PRESCRIBED FIRE, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT A PROPERTY OWNER, LESSEE, AGENT, OR EMPLOYEE IS NOT LIABLE FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY THE RESULTING SMOKE OF A PRESCRIBED FIRE UNLESS GROSS NEGLIGENCE IS PROVEN.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:

SECTION 1. Section 48-34-40 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

“Section 48-34-40. Prescribed fires conducted pursuant to this chapter:

(1) must have a prescribed fire plan prepared before authorization to burn is given by the State Commission of Forestry, and the plan must be on site and followed during the burn;

(2) must have at least one certified prescribed fire manager present ~~and~~ who must consider both fire behavior and smoke management issues while supervising the burn from ignition until it is declared safe according to certification guidelines;

(3) are considered in the public interest and do not constitute a public or private nuisance when conducted pursuant to state air pollution statutes, smoke management guidelines, as provided for in Regulations 61-62.2, or a successor regulation thereto, and ~~regulations~~ other statutory provisions applicable to the use of prescribed fire, as provided for in Chapter 35 and Chapter 2, Title 50; and

(4) are considered a property right of the property owner.”

SECTION 2. Section 48-34-50 of the 1976 Code is amended to read:

“Section 48-34-50. No A property owner or lessee or his agent or employee conducting a prescribed fire pursuant to this chapter is not liable for damage, injury, or loss caused by fire, ~~resulting smoke~~, or other consequences of the prescribed fire unless negligence is proven. A property owner or lessee or his agent or employee conducting a prescribed fire pursuant to this chapter is not liable for damage, injury, or loss caused by the resulting smoke of a prescribed fire unless gross negligence is proven.”

SECTION 3. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.

—-XX—-

Photo by Bill G prescribed fire

Followup on crack found on P2V air tanker

P2V air tanker on the Whoopup fire, 7-18-2011. Photo by Bill Gabbert

Neptune Aviation has provided more information about the 24-inch crack they found on a wing spar and skin on one of their 50+ year old P2V air tankers, which prompted the Federal Aviation Administration to issue an Emergency Airworthiness Directive. The EAD required that all P2V airplanes be inspected within 24 hours of receiving the directive. Neptune and Minden, who operate all 11 of the large air tankers on U.S. Forest Service contracts, which are all P2Vs, did not find any similar cracks on the other aircraft during the FAA required inspections.

Here are some excerpts from a news release provided by the American Helicopter Services and Aerial Firefighting Association:

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

Missoula, MT…Neptune Aviation, the country’s biggest operator of large airtankers, reports that its fleet of ex-Navy P2V Neptunes remains wildfire mission-ready, following the discovery of a crack in the left wing of one of its tankers during a routine scheduled inspection in late January of this year. Although that one airtanker remains out of service pending an engineering evaluation, the remaining nine P2Vs were never grounded–thanks to quick action by the operator.

“We were the ones who discovered the problem and notified the FAA’s Flight Standards District Office (FSDO) in Helena, MT, and at the same time filed a Service Difficulty Report through the FAA’s electronic reporting system,” said Dan Snyder, President of the Missoula-based company. “We then developed inspection criteria, which we took to the FAA’s Aircraft Certification Office (ACO) in Denver after we had inspected our entire fleet. The ACO asked us to provide the details of our inspection criteria, and then used that as the basis for the emergency airworthiness directive (AD), which was issued for all P2V operators in the US.”

[…]

Snyder pointed out that Neptune’s maintenance and inspection criteria are in full compliance with the approved Continuous Airworthiness Program (CAP), implemented by Neptune, and mandated by the US Forest Service (USFS) in 2004. “Neptune Aviation has always been at the forefront of dealing with the aging aircraft issues involved with the current tanker fleet. The fact that we detected this problem before it led to a catastrophic failure indicates that the CAP is doing its job,” he said.

In fact, Neptune Aviation is in the forefront of efforts to replace its Post-World War II tankers. Last year, it secured interim approval from the USFS for deployment of a modified BAE 146 jet, formerly in air carrier service, and is proposing that aircraft for the air tanker role. “We will be responding to the US Forest Service’s Next Generation Tanker Solicitation by the February 15, 2012 deadline,” Snyder reported. “Our intention is to add more aircraft to the US Forest Service airtanker fleet under this solicitation, while continuing to maintain our current P2V tanker fleet.”

air tanker Photo by Bill G

Air tankers pass FAA mandated inspections

Lead 6-5 and Tanker 45 — Lead plane 6-5 and Tanker 45, a P2V, on the Whoopup fire near Newcastle, WY, July 18, 2011. Photo by Bill Gabbert

The inspections that the Federal Aviation Administration required within 24 hours of receiving their Emergency Airworthiness Directive (EAD), cleared the other ten P2V air tankers. Yesterday we reported that after a 24-inch crack was found in a wing spar and skin on one of Neptune Aviation’s P2V-7 air tankers the FAA issued the directive requiring that all P2V aircraft be inspected. The EAD said:

This condition, if not detected and corrected, could result in significant loss of structural integrity of the wing.

The NTSB investigation found that the Hawkins and Powers C-130A air tanker that crashed on June 17, 2002 near Walker, California when the wings fell off, had a series of fatigue cracks in the skin panel of the right wing which grew together to become 12-inches long.

The Missoulian has more information about the results of this week’s inspections:

“We had one aircraft with significant cracking,” Neptune president Dan Snyder said Wednesday. “But is this another Aero Union situation, where we have zero tankers for the fire season? No. The tankers will be back up.

We cut pieces out of the aircraft, but we still don’t know what caused it.””

Mr. Snyder was referring to the cancellation of the U.S. Forest Service’s contract with Aero Union’s eight P3 Orion air tankers over a safety inspection issue. This reduced the fleet from 19 air tankers at the beginning of the 2011 fire season to 11. Aero Union then shut down and is auctioning their air tankers and other assets. In 2002 there were 44 large air tankers on USFS contracts.