In August the U.S. Forest Service issued a Request for Information (RFI) asking for potential vendors that could supply aircraft which could be used as Aerial Supervision Modules. Their intention was to contract for 7 and later up to 15 aircraft outfitted with high-tech sensors including sophisticated video capability and infrared. The planes would have a duplicate aft crew station with the capability to manage aerial supervision operations in its entirety. The airplanes would be able to carry one pilot, an aerial supervisor, a trainee aerial supervisor, and an instructor.
Friday, before the government shut down, the USFS issued another RFI that is similar to the other one in many ways. The details are HERE in a Word document.
In this new one they are looking for “up to 15″…
…Aerial Supervision/ Lead Plane aircraft to perform initial attack, extended attack, and lead plane operations in support of nationwide wildland firefighting operations.
They are expecting to contract for groups of five aircraft on each line item, with the five being the same make/model and near-identical configuration.
The RFI in August did not mention lead plane and was looking for turboprop dual-engine or single engine. The new one specifies turboprop or jet, and dual-engine. There are some differences in speed requirements, but the Infrared/Electro-Optical sensing systems with color camera and FLIR systems are similar.
At first glance the August RFI seemed to be seeking aircraft to be used as air attack, especially since it did not mention lead plane anywhere in the document. However both RFIs require a “FAA approved smoke generating system”, which would be used in a lead plane role.
The Forest Service seems to be moving away from separate Air Attack and Lead Planes, and wants to combine the two jobs into one aircraft. This, in spite of the deaths of 19 members of the Granite Mountain Hotshots on the Yarnell Hill Fire June 30.
The report from that fire on Page 43 includes this:
The ASM working the fire was very busy fulfilling leadplane duties, which limited their ability to perform full Air Attack responsibilities over the fire at the same time.
The ASM did not hear some of the radio calls from the Granite Mountain Hotshots saying they were in trouble and needed air support.
Our opinion:
If there is any chance in hell that combining the Air Attack and Lead Plane roles into one aircraft had ANY part to play in the deaths of the Granite Mountain 19, then this move by the USFS to eliminate lead planes is misguided and will make fighting wildland fires even more dangerous than it is already. This decision, if it has been made, must be reconsidered. The wildland fire agencies need to solicit input from not just the pencil-pushers and accountants who may be trying to fight fire on the cheap, but actual ground and air-based firefighters need to have a chance to provide their input.
10 Comments
I’m not an expert but from my aviation experience it would seem to me that if you want to ensure reliable VHF comm for the ASM mission, you have to stay high enough to maintain near line of sight with all ground crew.
And …
If you want to do a good job as a lead plane, you have to get low enough to mark the drop zone.
Pick one.
You may not be an expert, but you know more than these folks.
I understand why you might have dual CAPABLE aircraft, but to me as a non-expert, like bean, it seems the roles are very different.
Are the ASM and Lead Plane roles usually filled by agency personnel, or are they contractors? My understanding is that the ASM is an IMT function, while the Lead Plane role, like the tankers can rotate through a region on a daily basis.
Is it April 1st? Who comes up with this hair-brained ideas? How many of these “think tank geniuses” have entered a smoke filled fire area packing 27,000 pounds of retardant, slow, flaps to 15 degrees, and only hoping to see that lead through the windscreen with turbulence so rough that your eyes become blurred. That system ASM/Lead, isn’t broken. So if I read this right there would be more supervisors than air tankers. From the folks that do ATGS/ASM I understand that what we need is suppression (air tankers) capability not more supervision. Another thought tanker pilots are carded (captains) as initial attack. Does that mean anything?
There is a benefit of having more ASM platformsnationwide and in some complex fire conditions there is a need for both ATGS and ASM to manage the fire traffic area lower key incidents involving a LAT an ASM could do it all. It is a very tough process to become qualified on the air attack side to sit in an ASM, resulting in a limited pool of ASM platforms.
I’m afraid this might be driven by liability. It will be interesting what the next few years produce, but I fear for our current LP/ASM brethren.
Take a look at the great ARTICLE written by IA Captain Dean Talley. It’s a fine representation of why we need the stick with the current program.
They (USFS) know better, now don’t they?
NOW let,s ask the pros of ISR …. They may have a suggestion about high altitude vs low
But once again…… Mission creep…now let us add some more issues on an already task saturated environment.
The good idea fairies are all running amok at the USFS…..once again….doing MORE on the cheeeeeeep. for an organization bent on cheap and mission creep…this is the greatest ideas since sliced bread.
I can’t imagine going into a big, nasty, smoky fire without a lead. The function of a lead is just that, lead. Somewhere outside the seven mile airspace your eyes are scanning and talking with the lead. Or making an orbit to wait for your time to entire the fire. The lead “picks you up” and talks you to the drop (what to expect) and the escape after the drop. Liability, the air tanker crew makes the final decision if they can execute the drop. Leads understand, if you decline a drop. The lead will usually say “well lets try something else over on this side of the fire, follow me.”
Oh that “Good idea Fairy” you know when she is about-having family
in the Military,- her wiles enchant micromanagers everywhere..
If enacted this program will get people killed. One thing. this:”extra
crew station/dual control ” thingy. -As far as I know there are no 690 Commanders/King Airs so equipped. Certification? FAA? now what?
It grinds on and on…
For an expert opinion, ask the USAF AWACS people how they would like to do their mission and also be a Forward Air Controller at the same time.
Comments are closed for this article!