Airtanker Groundings/Aging Aircraft
Wed May 19, 2004 8:26 am
For those that are not following the current debacle in the USA right now a quick recap.
The US Govt, based on an NTSB report regarding the structural failures of two air tankers last year has terminated all contracts for heavy fixed wing aircraft. That puts Aero Union, Neptune, H&P and all the other operators out of the business of firefighting. The current mindset is that there is no way to accuratly assess the airworthiness of an ex military aircraft because the service records may be incomplete or missing. The dangerous trend here is that two crashes from one operator has been turned into a national grounding. There are other forces at work here, so its not just a crusade against old planes. Many in the fire service are opposed to air tankers as they fall outside of their direct control and would rather "own" more of their industry by repacing them with more ground pounders and helos. The Helicopter tanker people have been fighting them as well, as the big tankers can go out and get a fire without a helicopter having hte speed to even get within a couple states.
The danger is that the precedent for a warbird grounding has been set, as an entire industry has been idled just prior to contract start. Extreme vigilance must be taken for the warbird industry as any ex warplane can be either construed as a hazard to safety or security resulting in draconian reactions from Washington. See the Associated Airtanker Pilot Board for places to email or write.
Old propliner fans may only have a year or two left to photograph the remnants of the once mighty fleet. I was up in Chico a few weeks ago and remember revisiting the P-2/P-3 fleet before they all shipped out, hoping it would be a safe year.....now I hope that some of them will survive at all.
Joseph Scheil ex T-115
The US Govt, based on an NTSB report regarding the structural failures of two air tankers last year has terminated all contracts for heavy fixed wing aircraft. That puts Aero Union, Neptune, H&P and all the other operators out of the business of firefighting. The current mindset is that there is no way to accuratly assess the airworthiness of an ex military aircraft because the service records may be incomplete or missing. The dangerous trend here is that two crashes from one operator has been turned into a national grounding. There are other forces at work here, so its not just a crusade against old planes. Many in the fire service are opposed to air tankers as they fall outside of their direct control and would rather "own" more of their industry by repacing them with more ground pounders and helos. The Helicopter tanker people have been fighting them as well, as the big tankers can go out and get a fire without a helicopter having hte speed to even get within a couple states.
The danger is that the precedent for a warbird grounding has been set, as an entire industry has been idled just prior to contract start. Extreme vigilance must be taken for the warbird industry as any ex warplane can be either construed as a hazard to safety or security resulting in draconian reactions from Washington. See the Associated Airtanker Pilot Board for places to email or write.
Old propliner fans may only have a year or two left to photograph the remnants of the once mighty fleet. I was up in Chico a few weeks ago and remember revisiting the P-2/P-3 fleet before they all shipped out, hoping it would be a safe year.....now I hope that some of them will survive at all.
Joseph Scheil ex T-115
Wed May 19, 2004 10:51 am
OK being UK based, we don't suffer from forest fires to the same extent as the US and Oz and as such, I am unaware of the 'specialist fire fighting' air equipment other than the ex-military air fleet.
So, lets say, California suddenly take light!
If I understand things correctly, specialist firefighters are dropped into the area by ex-military aircraft/helicopters>
I also assume that most, if not all 'water bombers' are ex military and therefore assume that this fleet is now grounded?
So, whats there to protect the locality other than ground based fire fighters?
Tony
So, lets say, California suddenly take light!
If I understand things correctly, specialist firefighters are dropped into the area by ex-military aircraft/helicopters>
I also assume that most, if not all 'water bombers' are ex military and therefore assume that this fleet is now grounded?
So, whats there to protect the locality other than ground based fire fighters?
Tony
More Governmen stupidity
Wed May 19, 2004 3:30 pm
I'm amazed that this comes after the phenominal fires of the last few years though I doubt this will last too long. Unfortunately all it will take is one military aircrew to die, or some firefighters to die from lack of support, or one senators vacation home to go up in smoke, and this policy will change.
The military is stretched thin at them moment and I doubt they are going to want to take over all aerial firefighting duties. And to think that aerial firefighting is not needed is moronic and obviously a decisin made by those that live in areas not prone to fires.
The military is stretched thin at them moment and I doubt they are going to want to take over all aerial firefighting duties. And to think that aerial firefighting is not needed is moronic and obviously a decisin made by those that live in areas not prone to fires.
new tanker aircraft
Sat May 22, 2004 3:10 pm
I was reading this mornings paper, and it said they are modifying 747's for the job and that they could be done and ready to fly by July. The article also said that they would carry 20,000 gallons of water and retardent. That is almost ten times more then what the current fire bombers use. Could you imagine a 747 that low and manuevering like the C-130's and C-54's
Sat May 22, 2004 3:50 pm
Specialized fire-fighting aicrafts are called Canadair CL-415s.
We can sell a bunch to you guys you know?
180 KIAS cruise speed, overpowered engines and Canadian toughness!
We can sell a bunch to you guys you know?
180 KIAS cruise speed, overpowered engines and Canadian toughness!
Sat May 22, 2004 4:07 pm
That's odd that the 415 wouldn't be certified in the US. The CL-215 is type certificated here.
Sat May 22, 2004 4:58 pm
What do I care if they are not certified? It's your problem, not mine!
Our houses are well protected from the fleet of 14 CLs we have in the province.
But still, very strange for them to be un-certified....
Our houses are well protected from the fleet of 14 CLs we have in the province.
But still, very strange for them to be un-certified....
Sat May 22, 2004 5:12 pm
Nothing can ever beat an aircraft specificly designed for the job. The CL-215's here in Minnesota have served us quite well. One was even used to put out an auto-salvage yard that started on fire a year or two ago.
As to weather or not the aircraft is certified, this seems to be the critera the US Forest Service is going to be contracting for tankers in the future. They seem to think that a type certificate automaticly makes an aircraft which has been flown hard more structurally sound.
Look at question 9 here(warning pdf file), it specificly says that Canadair CL-215 and CL-415 aircraft are available.
As to weather or not the aircraft is certified, this seems to be the critera the US Forest Service is going to be contracting for tankers in the future. They seem to think that a type certificate automaticly makes an aircraft which has been flown hard more structurally sound.
Look at question 9 here(warning pdf file), it specificly says that Canadair CL-215 and CL-415 aircraft are available.
Sat May 22, 2004 5:38 pm
dj51d wrote:Nothing can ever beat an aircraft specificly designed for the job. The CL-215's here in Minnesota have served us quite well. One was even used to put out an auto-salvage yard that started on fire a year or two ago.
As to weather or not the aircraft is certified, this seems to be the critera the US Forest Service is going to be contracting for tankers in the future. They seem to think that a type certificate automaticly makes an aircraft which has been flown hard more structurally sound.
Look at question 9 here(warning pdf file), it specificly says that Canadair CL-215 and CL-415 aircraft are available.
Your right, a specifically designed aircraft is usually best for the job, though expensive. However, the CL 215 wouldn't be desired by the USFS since they want turbo-prop aircraft (they've been pushing this trend for awhile) so only the CL-415 would be an option.
Last edited by Scott Rose on Sun May 23, 2004 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Not Quite the arguement.
Sun May 23, 2004 5:51 pm
While we can go round and round arguing about the CL-415 and its merits, the CL-415 is a very expensive aircraft that would need friends to operate on the Federal Level down here. The plane has none. The Federal Government has cancelled all large aircraft contracts and while the reason (aging aircraft) has some merit, their solution is to use ground personel. The Feds believe all fires are won exclusivly by those on the ground, and thus aircraft like the 415 are considered expensive toys. There has been a huge battle in the last decade over this idea, and the days of the fixed wing tanker may be numbered. The rotor wing CH-54 has many supporters, and the ground fire personel can vote and pay union dues. No pilot is a member of any firefighting union, and none of them vote in the elections of fire officials. Its been a while coming, but its still a surprise.
By the way, the PBY-5/6 scooper is dollars to dollars(Can) the best aircraft for the job. 28M buys a whole pod of them!
By the way, the PBY-5/6 scooper is dollars to dollars(Can) the best aircraft for the job. 28M buys a whole pod of them!
Sun May 23, 2004 6:06 pm
It may be expensive, but it quickly pays for itself when it works fighting fires.
Over here, they saved lots of towns since they're around!!
Over here, they saved lots of towns since they're around!!
Sun May 23, 2004 6:55 pm
No matter what the Forest Service decides to do, more money will be needed if they plan to replace the grounded heavy tankers. It is however, at this point quite clear that in the current political climate that money will not be made available. The current level of funding provided for heavy air tankers is barely adequate. I wonder how effective Evergreen's super tanker will turn out to be. Even if the 747 does win a contract, is it really fixing the problems we have seen, or merely delaying them for a few more years? The prototype supertanker is already a 30 year old airframe. Here we run into money again, who is going to be able to afford new 747s? There is still the problem of operating the aircraft in an environment it wasn't designed for. At this point in time, I don't see any real changes as likely.
As for the Canadair 415, I'm not convinced that cost is the entire issue. It's quite sad, but I get the distinct impression the major problem those in power have with the 415 is not invented here syndrome.
As for the Canadair 415, I'm not convinced that cost is the entire issue. It's quite sad, but I get the distinct impression the major problem those in power have with the 415 is not invented here syndrome.
Sun May 23, 2004 6:58 pm
As for the Canadair 415, I'm not convinced that cost is the entire issue. It's quite sad, but I get the distinct impression the major problem those in power have with the 415 is not invented here syndrome.
I did not wanted to say that, but it seems to me that it's the reason too.
Look at all the countries who use the plane! They have nothing but raves for it!
Italy just bought 3 mores and I have this SAR version in mind for the RCAF...
This just in on air tankers...
Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:48 pm
Nearly 120 New Planes to Fight Fires
New York Times 06/02/04
author: Associated Press
c. 2004 New York Times Company
BOISE, Idaho (AP) - The federal government, buffeted by criticism of a decision to ground aging air tankers, announced Tuesday that it will contract for nearly 120 more aircraft to fight wildfires this summer.
Heads of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service Tuesday defended the decision to ground 33 large firefighting air tankers -- which are able to lay down large swaths of fire retardant -- because of safety risks.
They also said they would contract with private companies for up to 38 air tankers and 71 large and medium-sized helicopters to take up the slack. The extra firefighting help will cost about $66 million.
The move, announced by the National Interagency Fire Center, comes amid heavy criticism from congressional leaders, firefighters and others in the West, where wildfires have burned through thousands of acres.
``These additional aircraft will enable fire managers to fully maintain their ability to stop nearly 99 percent of all fires on initial attack and continue to protect communities,'' Forest Service chief Dale Bosworth said in a statement.
The federal agencies also said that eight U.S. military C-130 aircraft equipped with a retardant-dropping system were available.
The suspension of the aging air tankers came after a recent National Transportation Safety Board report on three fatal air tanker accidents. All happened within the last 10 years.
The new aircraft will join a fleet of more than 700 firefighting planes and helicopters, officials said.
New York Times 06/02/04
author: Associated Press
c. 2004 New York Times Company
BOISE, Idaho (AP) - The federal government, buffeted by criticism of a decision to ground aging air tankers, announced Tuesday that it will contract for nearly 120 more aircraft to fight wildfires this summer.
Heads of the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service Tuesday defended the decision to ground 33 large firefighting air tankers -- which are able to lay down large swaths of fire retardant -- because of safety risks.
They also said they would contract with private companies for up to 38 air tankers and 71 large and medium-sized helicopters to take up the slack. The extra firefighting help will cost about $66 million.
The move, announced by the National Interagency Fire Center, comes amid heavy criticism from congressional leaders, firefighters and others in the West, where wildfires have burned through thousands of acres.
``These additional aircraft will enable fire managers to fully maintain their ability to stop nearly 99 percent of all fires on initial attack and continue to protect communities,'' Forest Service chief Dale Bosworth said in a statement.
The federal agencies also said that eight U.S. military C-130 aircraft equipped with a retardant-dropping system were available.
The suspension of the aging air tankers came after a recent National Transportation Safety Board report on three fatal air tanker accidents. All happened within the last 10 years.
The new aircraft will join a fleet of more than 700 firefighting planes and helicopters, officials said.
Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:51 pm
Great news bdk!!
Do you know what kind of planes they'll be getting?
Do you know what kind of planes they'll be getting?