Burning Colorado

[AcroBoy]

Colorado crew.

http://xfinity.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20120702/US.Western.Wildfires/?cid=hero_media_den

The article did not say Colorado crew. It did say a crew member's family from NC was notified.

 

[gkainz]

This latest report http://wildfiretoday.com/ notes that the Lead/Spotter encountered severe downdrafts coming off CORRECTION - approaching - the drop area...

 

[denverpilot]

The article did not say Colorado crew. It did say a crew member's family from NC was notified.

You're correct. NC crew.

(That's really weird. Almost like that article was re-filed. Probably confusion that Northcom is at Petersen on the part of the article writer.)

 

[ejensen]

Timelapse of the Waldo fire. 16+ minutes, if you can't watch it all start around 6:30. Nothing I can think of on earth can stop something like this. Fort Collins fire was similar in its behavior.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBA7eHY022k&feature=youtu.be

 

[Everskyward]

Great video!

 

[DouglasBader]

This makes the point for more qualified crews and tankers louder than any other comment I could make. Sigh. You guys needed more birds and people.

More aircraft would not have prevented this fatality. Neither would more pilots.

It takes about ten years to train a fire pilot. There are no jobs for those who might like to enter the profession. There are no aircraft.

The government doesn't provide the aircraft. Private vendors do that. Don't blame the government if the aircraft aren't available. The government doesn't provide the pilots. Private vendors do that.

It's not a volunteer fire department. Tanker operators are professionals, as are the crews who work for them.

Wish those in charge all the way up the chain from bottom to top would have realized that this was a brewing problem, about 10 years ago -- or if they did, they'd been a lot louder with complaints in the interim.

To what end? People crying louder leads to people with sore throats...not to private vendors fielding more aircraft.

If you'd had them, MAFFS could have continued to be held in reserve. I worry that the "blood from the turnip" is folks trying to make the system profitable. Worries me.

MAFFS is always held in reserve; it's not the first choice to have over a fire. They're not tanker pilots, and not experienced fire pilots. They're military pilots, and dropping retardant on fires is but one mission with which they can be tasked. It's not a priority mission.

Folks trying to make the system profitable? Of course folks are trying to make the system profitable. It's a business. It's an industry. Aerial firefighting is a professional segment of the aviation industry. Again, we're not volunteer firefighters, and we're not out here out of a humble sense of good will. It's how we feed our families.

You don't seem to get this: the government doesn't provide these aircraft. Private vendors and private crews seek work; we're here to be profitable. We're here to make a living. It's what we do.

Agree with the other poster's comment about the lack of forest management. Certainly another reason why tanker numbers should have been going up and not down... if you're going to leave beetle-kill standing, which is about all you can really do with beetle kill, you HAVE to be prepared to defend the housing.

Pine borer is one component of forest issues, but the USFS and other agencies don't sit idly by and simply wait for the next fire. You don't need to leave bug kill standing, but you do need defensible space. People who build in the forest or urban interface areas are asking for trouble when they don't prepare accordingly.

Why should the tanker numbers be going up? So more can die fighting fire? Do more can sit and wait for 65 mph winds to stop blowing?

 

[Tom-D]

The US government provides contracts to those who fight fires. When it does not, the fire fighting companies lay off pilots and workers and they find other employment, and leave fewer people to call when we need them.

Andthat is what has happened in the last few years, If you doubt me, ask Aerounion .

 

[DouglasBader]

No, the government provides some exclusive use, and the rest of the fleet goes with CWN or Call When Needed flying.

Andthat is what has happened in the last few years, If you doubt me, ask Aerounion .

That is NOT what happened to Aero Union.

 

[Tom-D]

That is NOT what happened to Aero Union.

what did?


http://anewscafe.com/2011/08/14/aero-union-closes-2-weeks-after-canceled-forest-contract/

read the article here http://anewscafe.com/2011/07/31/for...loses-u-s-forest-service-contract/#discussion

then the comments it was a hatchet job by the forest service. over paper work of the pilot certificates.

 

[Clark1961]

what did?


http://anewscafe.com/2011/08/14/aero-union-closes-2-weeks-after-canceled-forest-contract/

read the article here http://anewscafe.com/2011/07/31/for...loses-u-s-forest-service-contract/#discussion

then the comments it was a hatchet job by the forest service. over paper work of the pilot certificates.

Master Bader likes to argue and doesn't understand the business...

 

[denverpilot]

It's very very rare to have government paying a private firefighting company in any other form of firefighting. Usually it's a jurisdictional district and an elected Board of Directors who can be voted out, sitting above a professional staff who does not have ultimate budgetary control.

Lots of checks and balances built into your local firefighting organizations.

I fear that one of the reasons this current heavy tanker setup isn't working, is that when it comes to Federal government, they put this out at lowest bid. And the private sector bids lower than it requires to add to the fleet. To make a profit.

So... I say this is government not regulating the business they bid for. And they're bidding far too low for sustainability of that business.

And there's no way anyone in their right mind can say that less than ten heavy tankers, nationwide, is adequate in any year... There are fires in six States right now. Let's just pretend there is only ONE fire I each, when there's actually multiple in all six.

That would be a minimum of 2 tankers per State, for a total of 12 that need to be airworthy, crewed, and operational during fire season to be barely capable of supporting a single Type 1 team per State.

If it really does take ten years to train a tanker pilot, I hope the companies started hiring and bidding appropriately to hire the Class of 2022 this year? No?

My point has been and continues to be, that government is off spending money by the trillion son their banker buddies and has neglected this particular core resource for so long that it's almost to the point of ripping it apart and starting over. They aren't broke if they can print trillions for the banks. Their priorities are just completely screwed.

Hire guys like Doug into mentoring roles, to teach and fly, buy 12 *brand new* aircraft that aren't 50 years old at a bare minimum, and commit to figuring out how many should be operational and build up to that level and *maintain* it, by law. Elect Board of Directors to oversee expenditures and set goals.

In other words... build something the People can be proud of... Instead of printing trillions for bank bailouts.

(And I use bank bailouts just because they're the ,ost obvious form of waste and outrageous spending in recent times. Pick any wasteful Federal spending -- say those fancy bizjet cards for Senators and Congressmen... Tell the they get to ride in Coach like the rest of us until they rebuild the fire fleet.)

Building stuff that lasts, or just voting to top off the pockets of campaign donators? Firefighting falls pretty squarely in the "government should do this" category. Cash for Clunkers? Not so much.

I'm not being partisan about it either. We need to expect results that matter and are measurable out of government leaders. They are trying hard to make sure everyone's sooooo sick of hearing about Partisan BS, that no one notices whether any of them are effective at their traditional government jobs or not.

And We The People are stupid enough to say, "No more talk about politics!" when a topic
Iike this one comes up. Because they've filled our heads with so much partisan junk on the TV and media that we equate politics with that crud.

Worse, we then we don't want to talk turkey about real government effectiveness and jobs done or failed.

Doug, I don't want to see people die at their jobs. Some jobs are inherently dangerous. I rather see the best tanker pilots in the world teaching the next genration, now. And the powers that be, building a tanker force of new enough aircraft that they're not folding in half underneath the kids. You act like when you're done there need not be any planning to prepare for what comes after you retire. I say we've failed you guys miserably not holding politicians feet to the fire (literally in fact) to be rebuilding your industry now. We've also failed to demand a new tanker... One that can withstand another 50 years.

What are you going to train the next generation to fly, Doug? The same old WWII and Cold War crates you guys have stressed and beat up for 50 years?

44 aircraft at the peak may have been too many. I don't know. You tell me. But it's clear that less than ten means we all let the pendulum of momentum swing too far the other way.

Maybe government could buy a few less nudie scanners for TSA next year and buy some tankers? Stop having tanker contracts be a part-time as-needed thing and include money for year-round training?

These are the kinds of questions and debates I want to see our so-called "leadership" elected officials asking. And fixing.

I suspect, they won't. Mainly because the places that burn are the places with lowest population density.

They only care about us for electoral votes in swing years. The real money is on the coasts. It'll take more of California burning again to really get their attention.

Realistically, we're just good for a quick photo op and on to the next $10K a plate supporter's dinner... Doesn't matter which Party at all. They're the same.

 

[denverpilot]

CSFD video.

 

[DouglasBader]

then the comments it was a hatchet job by the forest service. over paper work of the pilot certificates.

Again, that's not what happened. Aero Union was purchased by a British company that parceled it out, outsourced all the maintenance, and ran it into the ground. The P-3's were grounded because of several issues, all stemming from Aero Union's refusal to do the maintenance and to provide the required inspections. That, coupled with the loss of key personnel in the training crash of a P3 several years ago, ultimately lead the company to close the doors. The government ultimately cancelled the contracts because Aero Union wouldn't comply with the contract requirements and demonstrate that the inspections were performed, and that the aircraft were in compliance.

Aero Union had been operating over ZFW for years, and I've personally been present when the landing gear collapsed while the aircraft were sitting in the pit. Add to that cracked wings and other issues, and the end was coming sooner than later. Aero Union's ability to remain open as long as they did was as much shiny paint as anything, but after the British company took it over, it was all downhill after that. The articles you read may make it sound like they got the pointy end of the stick, but they put themselves in that position and the end was inevitable.

It's very very rare to have government paying a private firefighting company in any other form of firefighting.

No, it's not. Tankers get contracted by vendors. Fire crews often get contracted by vendors. Meals and fire catering is by vendors. Water tenders are contracted by vendors. Dozers are contracted by vendors. Helicopters are contracted by vendors. The list goes on and on. The government doesn't own these things; the government contracts them out as needed. The government contracts everything from maintenance and meals on military bases to much of the work on disasters, to fires, to wars. The government contracts most of what it does. In this case, involving fire, it's required to do that. The military can't be brought in unless there are no other private contractors who can get the business first.

Even the lead planes and ASM modules (BLM leads) are leased aircraft from Dynamic Aviation. Those are government aircraft flown by government pilots, but are owned by private firms. The government has never been very good at keeping and maintaining it's own pilots and aircraft.

I fear that one of the reasons this current heavy tanker setup isn't working, is that when it comes to Federal government, they put this out at lowest bid. And the private sector bids lower than it requires to add to the fleet. To make a profit.

No, it is not to the lowest bidder. It's put out on a value-based bid. Lowest bid hasn't been the case for a long, long time. We used to put a C-130 on the line for under three thousand an hour; quite a bargain. Today a tanker is on the line for nine to eighteen thousand an hour. It used to be that pay in the shop when working on a contract airplane was about six dollars an hour. When the policies changed regarding support for government aircraft, pay bumped up initially to about twenty bucks an hour for the maintenance. That was then. Today, pay is better, the fleet has been reduced with a few core aircraft that are better supported and funded, and better utilized, and we don't have to hop the fence at night any more to work on our own aircraft when the government couldn't see us.

The private sector does not bid lower than it requires to add to the fleet.

You keep saying that the heavy tanker setup isn't working. Why do you say that? It works fine.

If it really does take ten years to train a tanker pilot, I hope the companies started hiring and bidding appropriately to hire the Class of 2022 this year? No?

There's no school, and no class. It's all on the job training, and yes, it takes about ten years for someone to get an upgrade on the average, or longer. The companies aren't going to start hiring; there's no movement. Most experienced tanker pilots don't get out after a few years; there's no room to come in. Most of this keep doing this until we're no longer able, or we die. Many of us do other jobs as well, or do other things, and come back to this each year, or like me, keep coming back (no matter how hard we try to go do something else).

That would be a minimum of 2 tankers per State, for a total of 12 that need to be airworthy, crewed, and operational during fire season to be barely capable of supporting a single Type 1 team per State.

The nation couldn't afford to maintain a "Type 1 team per state." There's no such thing. Federal resources move around the country as required. If eleven airplanes are sitting in Region 5 in California and a fire breaks in Colorado, a resource request is processed to the National Interagency Flight Center in Boise, and tankers are dispatched to Colorado. Tankers go where the fire is. They don't sit in each state waiting for a fire; it doesn't work that way.

You cling to the idea that tankers are there to put out the fire. We're not. You see big, emotional media stories like Waldo Canyon (et al), and seem to think that extra tankers would have made a difference. They wouldn't. In an extreme wind-driven fire, the fire can't be put out, and it's extremely unsafe to fly in 65 knot winds. In fact, the BLM issued an edict about eight years ago that put a cap of 30 knots of windspeed over the fire for flight operations, primarily for SEAT operations (Type III tankers). The turbulence in there can be severe to extreme (the definition of which, aside from being violent, is that the aircraft is not under your control).

I rather see the best tanker pilots in the world teaching the next genration, now. And the powers that be, building a tanker force of new enough aircraft that they're not folding in half underneath the kids. You act like when you're done there need not be any planning to prepare for what comes after you retire.

You've been watching "Always," with Richard Dreyfuss, haven't you?

You know that movie wasn't realistic, right?

What are you going to train the next generation to fly, Doug? The same old WWII and Cold War crates you guys have stressed and beat up for 50 years?

Presently the largest number of tankers in the country are Type III Air Tractor AT802's, at 800 gallons. The P2V's are operating at reduced loads since 2003; they were 2450 gallon tankers, now 2000 gallon tankers. The BAE-146 is coming on line at 2000 gallons. The DC10 is online, albeit extremely expensive, at 28000 gallons (but has very limited applications), and Evergreen lost it's teeth with nearly 30 million invested in the B747, that nobody contracted or used.

The Bierev 200 is available at two hundred million dollars; you won't be seeing very many of those online. The CL215, no longer new by any stretch of the imagination, is available, but slow, doesn't carry a lot, and needs a lake to pick up if it's going to be productively effective. And it's expensive. Who's going to donate fifteen million a copy to pick them up?

The Canadians, you'll note, are flying WWII "crates" and cold-war era aircraft, too.

Hire guys like Doug into mentoring roles, to teach and fly, buy 12 *brand new* aircraft that aren't 50 years old at a bare minimum, and commit to figuring out how many should be operational and build up to that level and *maintain* it, by law. Elect Board of Directors to oversee expenditures and set goals.

None of us in the industry want to see that happen. The government can't handle it. It wouldn't work. Talks have been held on numerous occasions about nationalizing the industry, with the government buying the aircraft and contractors providing the crews, or even the government doing both. It doesn't work. It's been well established.

What "brand new" aircraft do you propose?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Again, that's not what happened. Aero Union was purchased by a British company that parceled it out, outsourced all the maintenance, and ran it into the ground. The P-3's were grounded because of several issues, all stemming from Aero Union's refusal to do the maintenance and to provide the required inspections. That, coupled with the loss of key personnel in the training crash of a P3 several years ago, ultimately lead the company to close the doors. The government ultimately cancelled the contracts because Aero Union wouldn't comply with the contract requirements and demonstrate that the inspections were performed, and that the aircraft were in compliance.

Aero Union had been operating over ZFW for years, and I've personally been present when the landing gear collapsed while the aircraft were sitting in the pit. Add to that cracked wings and other issues, and the end was coming sooner than later. Aero Union's ability to remain open as long as they did was as much shiny paint as anything, but after the British company took it over, it was all downhill after that. The articles you read may make it sound like they got the pointy end of the stick, but they put themselves in that position and the end was inevitable.

That pretty much jives with what I have heard about Aero Union's demise.

 

[Anthony]

This is jut not right. Those poor folks!

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (CBS4) – Some evacuees from the Waldo Canyon Fire are returning home to find they were burglarized.

One couple’s car was stolen right out of their garage. Thieves also took jewelry and computers.

“It’s almost as bad as a house burned down because you feel violated. There are people out there who prey upon victims and people that are already suffering, so I feel like I’ve been hit by a train,” said Waldo Canyon Fire evacuee Linda Burton.

So far 22 homes have been reported as being burglarized while evacuees were waiting out the fire.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/07/01/waldo-canyon-fire-evacuees-burglarized-vandalized/

 

[Matthew]

That was a concern of my folks. The Woodland Park PD already knew who was gone because of mandatory evacs, but wanted to be contacted by anyone leaving voluntarily so they could keep an eye on things. A lot of people, like my folks, loaded up extra belongings in a spare vehicle, then parked it in the middle of whatever large parking lot they could find. Looters would have had a lot to choose from if they had gotten around to breaking car windows.

 

[DouglasBader]

Unfortunately, that's very common during big fires, and any large disaster.

Prior to 09/11, guess which agency had the largest law enforcement force in the United States? FBI? No. A military branch? No. DEA? No.

The United States Forest Service.

 

[ejensen]

Unfortunately, that's very common during big fires, and any large disaster.

Prior to 09/11, guess which agency had the largest law enforcement force in the United States? FBI? No. A military branch? No. DEA? No.

The United States Forest Service.

Probably depends on how you define ' law enforcement force '. I wrote quite a few ticket for petty offenses in my career but it didn't make me a LEO with arrest and firearm authority. This report from 2000 shows the FS at the bottom. See page two.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fleo00.pdf

 

[Skip Miller]

Probably depends on how you define ' law enforcement force '. I wrote quite a few ticket for petty offenses in my career but it didn't make me a LEO with arrest and firearm authority. This report from 2000 shows the FS at the bottom. See page two.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fleo00.pdf

I guess it also depends on how you define "agency". If you include more than Federal, the New York City Police Force numbers about 34,500 uniformed LEOs.

-Skip

 

[ejensen]

I guess it also depends on how you define "agency". If you include more than Federal, the New York City Police Force numbers about 34,500 uniformed LEOs.

-Skip

You're right, I just assumed Federal. Looked back and Doug didn't restrict it.

 

[DouglasBader]

Interesting. May be that it was by percentage of personnel or as a percentage in the agency. I always thought it strange that the USFS had the law enforcement presence that it did.

The budget to maintain that, and many of the other law enforcement activities, came from fire. Fire was the catch net that brought in the budget to do most everything else. Insufficient budget was always the case until federal fires got so large that severity funding was allocated. The only concern after that was to make sure it all got spent by the end of the fiscal year, to preclude budget cuts the following year.

In any government unit, funding surplus at the end of the year is considered bad.

 

[denverpilot]

Sigh. Bigger picture Doug. Bigger picture.

Again, that's not what happened. Aero Union was purchased by a British company that parceled it out, outsourced all the maintenance, and ran it into the ground. The P-3's were grounded because of several issues, all stemming from Aero Union's refusal to do the maintenance and to provide the required inspections. That, coupled with the loss of key personnel in the training crash of a P3 several years ago, ultimately lead the company to close the doors. The government ultimately cancelled the contracts because Aero Union wouldn't comply with the contract requirements and demonstrate that the inspections were performed, and that the aircraft were in compliance.

Aero Union had been operating over ZFW for years, and I've personally been present when the landing gear collapsed while the aircraft were sitting in the pit. Add to that cracked wings and other issues, and the end was coming sooner than later. Aero Union's ability to remain open as long as they did was as much shiny paint as anything, but after the British company took it over, it was all downhill after that. The articles you read may make it sound like they got the pointy end of the stick, but they put themselves in that position and the end was inevitable.

I didn't say how or why Aero Union went under and frankly I don't care about individual contractors in this discussion. Sounds like they dug their own grave from your version of the story, which is fine by me. Contractors come and contractors go.

No, it's not. Tankers get contracted by vendors. Fire crews often get contracted by vendors. Meals and fire catering is by vendors. Water tenders are contracted by vendors. Dozers are contracted by vendors. Helicopters are contracted by vendors. The list goes on and on. The government doesn't own these things; the government contracts them out as needed. The government contracts everything from maintenance and meals on military bases to much of the work on disasters, to fires, to wars. The government contracts most of what it does. In this case, involving fire, it's required to do that. The military can't be brought in unless there are no other private contractors who can get the business first.

Even the lead planes and ASM modules (BLM leads) are leased aircraft from Dynamic Aviation. Those are government aircraft flown by government pilots, but are owned by private firms. The government has never been very good at keeping and maintaining it's own pilots and aircraft.

You assume a lot. Where did I say WILDLAND Fire.

In the BIG PICTURE of firefighting overall, we maintain firefighting forces. Let's call them, wait for it... Fire Departments.

They're government entities, top to bottom with elected Citizens on the Board of Directors.

They tend to operate reasonably well. Not perfect, but well.

No, it is not to the lowest bidder. It's put out on a value-based bid. Lowest bid hasn't been the case for a long, long time. We used to put a C-130 on the line for under three thousand an hour; quite a bargain. Today a tanker is on the line for nine to eighteen thousand an hour. It used to be that pay in the shop when working on a contract airplane was about six dollars an hour. When the policies changed regarding support for government aircraft, pay bumped up initially to about twenty bucks an hour for the maintenance. That was then. Today, pay is better, the fleet has been reduced with a few core aircraft that are better supported and funded, and better utilized, and we don't have to hop the fence at night any more to work on our own aircraft when the government couldn't see us.

Again, my point was that it's bid at ALL to the private sector. This type of work is not supposed to be a profit center at all.

Your own stories prove that it WAS bid out on the lowest bid possible until the industry was falling apart at the seams and it changed to value-based later. The initial contracts sound negligently low then, and the current ones sound reasonable but there's not enough of them.

I'm as conservative as they come in most things, but not Police and Fire. I want highly trained, well paid Police and Firefighters and I'll happily pay for it... At the expense of just about any other social program designed to make individuals dependent on government.

Pay for and find a permanent firefighting force equipped with excellent gear and keep them at high readiness. That's the goal.

No different than paying for the same goal in our military.

The private sector does not bid lower than it requires to add to the fleet.

You keep saying that the heavy tanker setup isn't working. Why do you say that? It works fine.

Proof is in the pudding on that one, Doug. We had 44 tankers, we now have less than ten and borrow from Canada and crank up MAFFS.

I'm sorry, but if you have to call in the Reservists, it's not working.

You can't complain that the MAFFS guys and gals aren't trained well enough and will get killed (and now, have...) and in the same breath say the private fleet was ready for this year.

You still haven't answered my question -- Would the Type I management teams have ordered more resources if they were available?

Later, you admit the industry isn't growing. No new pilots. No plan for the future.

Is the overall prediction that wildland fire will naturally be decreasing or increasing over the next decade? How does this match with current staffing and number of aircraft in the pipeline to replace the aging ones?

There's no school, and no class. It's all on the job training, and yes, it takes about ten years for someone to get an upgrade on the average, or longer. The companies aren't going to start hiring; there's no movement. Most experienced tanker pilots don't get out after a few years; there's no room to come in. Most of this keep doing this until we're no longer able, or we die. Many of us do other jobs as well, or do other things, and come back to this each year, or like me, keep coming back (no matter how hard we try to go do something else).

And that is exactly what I'm saying is wrong, Doug. I'm saying fund a full-time force ready to go and get training cranked up. It can't be done without a commitment and understanding that the current force isn't adequate to handle the need.

There's no movement because the force overall isn't growing. If the demand is going up and the force remains the same size, is that going to lead to success or failure?

The nation couldn't afford to maintain a "Type 1 team per state." There's no such thing. Federal resources move around the country as required. If eleven airplanes are sitting in Region 5 in California and a fire breaks in Colorado, a resource request is processed to the National Interagency Flight Center in Boise, and tankers are dispatched to Colorado. Tankers go where the fire is. They don't sit in each state waiting for a fire; it doesn't work that way.

I never said that States need a Type I team per State.

I asked how many aircraft are needed to cover fires in six States simultaneously. Which just happens to be where we are right now. In reality.

I said number of aircraft needs to go up, not number of Type I teams. I know fully well how many there are.

They're management teams. I know how the Logistics Branch works... I've had the training...

We are talking about aircraft here, not management teams. Number of airworthy, ready-to-go, crewed, aircraft. I don't know how much clearer I can be, Doug.

How many are needed for multiple fires in six or more States, simultaneously?

You cling to the idea that tankers are there to put out the fire. We're not. You see big, emotional media stories like Waldo Canyon (et al), and seem to think that extra tankers would have made a difference. They wouldn't. In an extreme wind-driven fire, the fire can't be put out, and it's extremely unsafe to fly in 65 knot winds. In fact, the BLM issued an edict about eight years ago that put a cap of 30 knots of windspeed over the fire for flight operations, primarily for SEAT operations (Type III tankers). The turbulence in there can be severe to extreme (the definition of which, aside from being violent, is that the aircraft is not under your control).

Again, I have never said any such thing, Doug. I know full well the fire can't be extinguished by an aircraft. It's behavior can only be modified, and that with a good bit of luck on the wind and weather. Maybe Waldo Canyon (or any other fire) was inevitable, but this country has fielded thousands and thousands of aircraft in the past to fight worse foes than fires. We have just lost our public willpower to crank up a real honest to God, permanent wildfire fighting force under the Air Ops Branch Directorate side of ICS. I fully understand air assets can't stop big fires.

I also understand the various types. We're talking about heavies right now. Stick to the topic. Type I tankers. How many?

What I'm saying is, we could be hitting fires harder as early as possible. There were only two heavy tankers hiring Waldo Canyon for three days.

Three days to make a stronger stand. Maybe, just maybe, it wouldn't have been able to jump the ridgeline.

If the management team had four tankers? Six?

I've never stated the exact number needed. What I've said is that looking from the outside with plenty of emergency management experience and watching some really good emergency managers and learned from them, I doubt they would have turned down those assets.

... but we as a Country have failed to provide them. The system is broken.

Whether that's by paying much more for contracts or cranking up a real honest full-time Federal force... I don't care. It'd be money a lot better spent than on lots of other things government wastes money on.

You've been watching "Always," with Richard Dreyfuss, haven't you?

You know that movie wasn't realistic, right?

I shred most Hollywood movies. They're stories for bedtime. Your question seems to be yet another awkward attempt to discredit someone on your side.

You're a weird duck, Doug. I really do like your singular focus on the nitty-gritty of fighting fire with airplanes. I can't seem to zoom you out on the lens to the wide-angle mode though.

You're so "close" to it and convinced the current system is the only possible methodology of paying for and maintaining a fleet, you're completely missing my point and questions about overall resources.

Put yourself in the Incident Command Post and forget about the airplanes for a while. I keep asking this and you don't answer...

If you were the IC or AOBD and knew you were watching the largest fire in Colorado Springs history on Day 1... Ground zero. It's 1000 acres and will be 4000 by nightfall...

Everything in your training says this one is going to take off and run on you and you have only 48 hours where it will even be at a size where there's a 25% chance of slowing it down...

And you know the ridgeline where you can't put any guys with Pulaskis because when the wind comes up... Not IF but WHEN... they're going to be BBQ'd alive... is your ONLY possible way of stopping this fire from crossing that ridgeline. It is your absolute best line of natural defense between the fire line and Colorado Springs city streets...

How many aircraft would you order? No strings attached, no budget.

How many would it take to HOLD that ridgeline? Not put the fire out, not any Hollywood BS...

How hard and how often would you need to hit it to slow or stop it at the ridge. It can go everywhere else, but not over that ridge.

How many?

That's the question I want answered. And a plan in place to make sure the next IC or AOBD has that resource level.

Presently the largest number of tankers in the country are Type III Air Tractor AT802's, at 800 gallons. The P2V's are operating at reduced loads since 2003; they were 2450 gallon tankers, now 2000 gallon tankers. The BAE-146 is coming on line at 2000 gallons. The DC10 is online, albeit extremely expensive, at 28000 gallons (but has very limited applications), and Evergreen lost it's teeth with nearly 30 million invested in the B747, that nobody contracted or used.

The Bierev 200 is available at two hundred million dollars; you won't be seeing very many of those online. The CL215, no longer new by any stretch of the imagination, is available, but slow, doesn't carry a lot, and needs a lake to pick up if it's going to be productively effective. And it's expensive. Who's going to donate fifteen million a copy to pick them up?

The Canadians, you'll note, are flying WWII "crates" and cold-war era aircraft, too.

Understood. Now we're outside of direct fire management and entangled in some bigger problems, including the destruction of our heavy manufacturing industries.

But that said, if the government weren't off doing other ridiculous stuff and instead were asking someone with Capital to build them a fleet... Say, they had their priorities right and while all of us were first noticing that we're flying a 50 year old fleet, the politicians were banging the desk and writing performance-based contracts to build the next generation of tankers now...

It would be a boost for the entire industry.

This is how my grandfather's generation thought.

Government wasn't there to govern or be invading people's personal lives, it was there to give structure and funding to projects the Citizenry wanted.

Infrastructure projects, not money wasting social change plans.

They had leaders. True leaders. Not money-grubbing $10K a dinner-plate speech-givers.

The outcome was an objective goal. They rallied people behind them.

Built the world's largest dam (at the time), built the Interstate Road system from scratch, hundreds of thousands of bridges, reservoirs, etc.

And... They also saw government as the providers of the systems and structures to repair, maintain, defend that infrastructure they built. Not a platform for ideals and false promises. Your ideals and morals were your own.

A shared resource that was paid by all and built and run by all. Sure, graft was part of it, but the decision to DO was not based on the graft. It was based on the greater good, graft just came along for the ride and was kept in check by the greater good motivation.

Not some social program where the money just disappears and there's nothing to show for it.

Massachusetts is paying to install talking urinal cakes to tell idiots not to drink and drive. We've completely lost our minds when it comes to priorities.

The firefighting aircraft numbers dropping and not being replaced is the same disease and epidemic that has thousands upon thousands of bridges crumbling and some ready to fall. Somewhere along the way we got tired of government just handling infrastructure that made things better for all of us, and started believing it was for personal handouts with no work involved. People worked hard to build that infrastructure and maintain it. Some even died.

Now we apparently want talking urinal cakes? When did that happen?

Let's say we just stop maintaining Hoover Dam or name any other large one... How long until it bursts and kills many people below, and cuts off irrigation and drinking water it provided?

We, as a country, are not maintaining the aerial firefighting force. In fact, your own admission about hopping fences to not be seen to get the job done, effectively argues that it has never been adequately maintained.

I'm arguing that we should.

None of us in the industry want to see that happen. The government can't handle it. It wouldn't work. Talks have been held on numerous occasions about nationalizing the industry, with the government buying the aircraft and contractors providing the crews, or even the government doing both. It doesn't work. It's been well established.

Where are the documents that show why? "Well established" comes from open discussion with outsiders, you know. Talks with whom, and where, and where are the transcripts? And what was the proper solution given that wasn't executed?

Those are broad statements but without objective reasons, it doesn't stand to reason that government can run a police force, a regular fire department, public works, even garbage collection in some municipalities, and then say they can't operate a tanker force.

They seem to fly fleets of military bombers just fine with sad but acceptable human life loss levels for those jobs.

And why can't guys like you be paid to show them how?

What "brand new" aircraft do you propose?

The one we haven't built yet because we're shortsighted and cheap. The WWII aircraft can't hold the line forever.

We need a significant investment in a new tanker design. One built to your needs.

Those are my points, and almost none of what you've responded with has been anything I didn't already know. I'm still stuck n the one question: How many heavy tankers does a fire season like this one require? It's impossible to engineer a solution without knowing the true needs of the system.

 

[Chip Sylverne]

Michigan. It's Michigan with the talking urinals.

 

[ejensen]

Interesting. May be that it was by percentage of personnel or as a percentage in the agency. I always thought it strange that the USFS had the law enforcement presence that it did.

The budget to maintain that, and many of the other law enforcement activities, came from fire. Fire was the catch net that brought in the budget to do most everything else. Insufficient budget was always the case until federal fires got so large that severity funding was allocated. The only concern after that was to make sure it all got spent by the end of the fiscal year, to preclude budget cuts the following year.

In any government unit, funding surplus at the end of the year is considered bad.

I was around the USFS for 34 years and saw the LEI develop from one special agent in a Region to one on each District and Forest with zone patrol captains. IMHO it all went downhill since the mid-80s when the local Ranger and Forest Supervisor lost control and the LEO were stove piped from DC. Budget came off the top. Then came the vest, assult rifles, light bars, evidence rooms, and so on.

I would bet we're headed for a National Fire Organization soon probably multi-Agency. BLM is really lop sided with fire.

Depending on the Region, fire may or may not have been the major funding. California for sure, not so much in CO-WY or the Northeast. Timber was king for a long time. The last few years lots of Mountain Pine Beetle money has come for salvage and mitigation.

LEOs are around most fires both to investigate and watch for the thefts, traffic and such.

 

[denverpilot]

DOI in general right now is run by a nincompoop we Coloradans provided.

He's an embarasent and partisan hack.

His experience managing anything is he let's his brother run their family ranch while he cashes the checks.

As a Coloradan, I apologize for sending that weenie with his fake cowboy hat.

Just like I apologized for sending Fred Peña. Lord what a waste of good Oxygen that guy was...

 

[DouglasBader]

I didn't say how or why Aero Union went under and frankly I don't care about individual contractors in this discussion. Sounds like they dug their own grave from your version of the story, which is fine by me. Contractors come and contractors go.

I was responding to another poster, not to you. Specifically, I was responding to the other poster's statement.

You seem nonchalant about contractors coming and going, but that's really not true. Contractors go; they don't come. When they're gone, the tankers are gone, because the tankers belong to, and are provided by the contractors.

You assume a lot. Where did I say WILDLAND Fire.

In the BIG PICTURE of firefighting overall, we maintain firefighting forces. Let's call them, wait for it... Fire Departments.

They're government entities, top to bottom with elected Citizens on the Board of Directors.

You're talking about the fires in Colorado, and you've specifically invoked air tankers. If you're not talking about wildfires, are you hoping for tiny air tankers that will drop retardant on your couch?

Of course you're talking about wildfires.

I've been on four different fire departments, however, and none of them operate as you've described.

I've flown aerial firefighting for eight different companies. None of them operated that way either.

Again, my point was that it's bid at ALL to the private sector. This type of work is not supposed to be a profit center at all.

Your point is incorrect. It isn't all put to the private sector, but should be, and it most definitely should be profit based. Again, we are NOT volunteer firefighters.

Today I dropped alongside UH-60's doing bucket work with 600 gallon bambi buckets. They weren't volunteer firefighters either, and were collecting a wage. None of us do this without pay.

No company providing the pilots or aircraft does, either.

When the state fights a federal fire, the state bills the feds. When the federal government fights a fire on state lands, the state gets billed. At every level, billing takes place. Absolutely it's done for an exchange of money. In the case of the contractor providing pilots and aircraft, the exercise isn't done for one's health. It's a job. I dropped on several fires today in which structures were threatened. While no doubt the people who own or live in those structures have something for which they can be grateful, I'll get paid for my time over the fire. Not particularly well, but I will get paid. It's a profit based system, from each hotshot on the ground to each tanker pilot in the air. We get paid.

Pay for and find a permanent firefighting force equipped with excellent gear and keep them at high readiness. That's the goal.

That is not the goal. It may be your goal, but it is not the goal.

That kind of pie in the sky thinking has been bantied around for years, and the government has proven again and again that they can't handle it, whether it's keeping their barons running over the fires, or maintaining their OV-10's, they couldn't do it (hence, the bronco's went to Colombia and the barons got parked). Now they fly contracted king air's.

Where is this "excellent gear" that you keep talking about? Where are these shining new air tankers that you freely bat around? Which aircraft?

Proof is in the pudding on that one, Doug. We had 44 tankers, we now have less than ten and borrow from Canada and crank up MAFFS.

Three of them crashed this year.

You have a very naive, simplified view of the use of tankers. Those tankers (and it was far more than 44, and still is) were never government property. While under contract, they were classified as a national resource. Presently four DC-10's are tanked and ready to fly; the government isn't using them because they're too expensive. Evergreen lost their shirt on the 747; where is it being used? For cargo. Who had the expense and effort of developing and certifying the BAE-146 as a tanker? Minden and Neptune. Not the government.

You seem to think that somehow the public is "owed" or entitled to air tankers. They're not.

You seem to think that firefighting isn't complete or possible without the air tankers. You're wrong.

You seem to think that more is better, or that unlimited funding and resources are available to procure or pay for the use of tankers. Entirely untrue.

Several years ago the government released statements regarding tanker use, strongly encouraging fire units NOT to use tankers unless absolutely necessary, and noted that tankers were NOT to be used for line-building.

Tankers are NOT there to put the fire out. I really don't think you grasp that concept. You seem to have this mental idea that there are big fires, and if we had enough tankers, then there wouldn't be big fires. It's a ridiculous, extremely naive thought process that shows a gross misunderstanding of the application of aerial resources and wild land fire in general.

You still haven't answered my question -- Would the Type I management teams have ordered more resources if they were available?

They might or they might not; the team doesn't order it; the IC or division commanders on a type 1 incident put in a resource request, which is forwarded from region to national. Simply because they request a tanker doesn't mean they'll get it, and simply because they get it doesn't mean the tanker will agree to fly the fire. Frankly, with 65 knot winds over the fire, it's not happening. With the drop smoked in, it's not happening. A unit can call for a fire asset all they want; it doesn't mean they'll get it.

Type 1 teams manage fires; so do type II and III; at any level one may call for tankers. You appear to have the misguided notion that a type 1 team is more entitled, or that the team will turn to the use of aerial firefighting as the means to snuff out the fire, and it simply doesn't work like that. Not only is that not possible, but it's foolish thinking.

Later, you admit the industry isn't growing. No new pilots. No plan for the future.

No, I said there's no movement in the industry. If you want to spend ten or more years trying to get your foot in the door, and then another 10 years upgrading, by all means. I certainly did, but few will, and most that start, don't make it very long. Those who do stay, stay a long time. Those who stay a long time and don't leave don't make openings for others coming on board.

You act as though the industry owes you and the rest of the public something. We don't. We don't owe it to you or anyone else to hire "new blood." We don't have an obligation to train up the next generation of tanker pilots. Nor do we recruit them. If someone wants to get hired and stick with it, then more power to them. The limited industry training programs out there like Safford and McClellen and other programs are only available to those who have jobs; they don't open it up to anyone who wants to attend. There aren't enough seats, and unless someone is a bonafide part of the industry, they've no business simply showing up and training or attending. You can't simply waltz into a battle tactics class at an army school, and you can't tap dance into an armament course at a USAF school. It's only for those who are in the service (fire service, in the context of this conversation). No big surprise there.

I'm not a benevolent volunteer missionary of aerial fire. I am a worker. I draw a wage. Recruiting others into the industry isn't part of my job description, nor presently is training them. If I do provide training, and I have, it's going to be at the behest of my employer, I will get paid for the service, and it will be someone that the employer has already hired. I was recently asked to provide some training in that capacity, and under the circumstance, I declined. Thats my right, and whether or not you agree with it is meaningless and irrelevant to me.

Is the overall prediction that wildland fire will naturally be decreasing or increasing over the next decade? How does this match with current staffing and number of aircraft in the pipeline to replace the aging ones?

The number of aircraft is a function of the contractors who field them. These are not publicly owned aircraft. These are private aircraft fielded for hire by private contracting companies who bid for the awarded contracts on a value basis.

Which aircraft do you propose we use to replace aging aircraft for firefighting?

You offer up misguided questions, and have no answers to offer. When may I expect your offer to be on the table? How many millions will you invest in developing the next tanker?

The B52 is an "aging" aircraft, but still the front-runner for long range manned bombing missions. Clearly the military doesn't see it as a has-been. In fire, the P2V is still going strong. Type III AT802's are still going strong; many of them new. The BAE-146 is coming on line; one is already fighting fires. More are on the way. What you don't seem to be able to understand, or perhaps you simply can't make the connection, is that these aren't obligations on the part of firefighting companies; they're business ventures. If the tanker companies quit providing services tomorrow, it's no skin off the government's nose; firefighting continues, as it's done by people on the ground. Not in the air. Tankers are simply there to help support ground operations, and no more.

I'm sorry, but if you have to call in the Reservists, it's not working.

You can't complain that the MAFFS guys and gals aren't trained well enough and will get killed (and now, have...) and in the same breath say the private fleet was ready for this year.

We call out military units every year, and we did every year when many more large air tankers were available. Additionally, many states contract tankers, from the DC-7 in Oregon to the CL-215's in Minnesota, to Single Engine Air Tankers all over the country.

I don't complain that the MAFFS units aren't trained well enough. A statement that they're not aerial firefighters is true. They're filling one mission of many with which they are tasked. That's not a complaint. It's a fact.

The aerial firefighting industry was ready to go this year, as always, and go it did. As always.

There's no movement because the force overall isn't growing. If the demand is going up and the force remains the same size, is that going to lead to success or failure?

The demand is always up. Everyone lets the brush grow right up under their redwood deck, fails to build defensible space, and then screams bloody murder when the emotions get flowing. The sky is falling, chicken little! The sky is falling. Heavens to Betsy, what shall we do? We need more air tankers! If ten is good, then ten thousand is better, right?

Where are you going to get the money to fund this mythical project of yours? What aircraft? You strike me as someone who runs in circles on issues like this shrieking "somebody do something!" yet who has no clue what to do.

Ah yes...form a board of directors. Good idea.

I asked how many aircraft are needed to cover fires in six States simultaneously. Which just happens to be where we are right now. In reality.

How many are needed for multiple fires in six or more States, simultaneously?

You didn't ask that, but now that you have, the answer is very simple. It's impossible to say.

Every fire is different. Every drop is different. Some fires are not appropriate for aircraft. Some can make excellent use of aircraft. Aerial fire assets are tools in the toolbox, as we like to say. Not the be-all and end-all of wild land fire. How many aircraft? As many as are being used on a given day. How much funding is available? Who owns the land? Who's paying for the resource?

I've worked fires where we simply couldn't fit another aircraft into the mix. I've worked fires with over 50 aircraft in the air over the fire, or working the fire. There really is such a thing as too much of a good thing. You keep coming back to the mentality that if you put enough tankers in the air, your problems are solved, and it doesn't work that way.

Again, I have never said any such thing, Doug. I know full well the fire can't be extinguished by an aircraft. It's behavior can only be modified, and that with a good bit of luck on the wind and weather. Maybe Waldo Canyon (or any other fire) was inevitable, but this country has fielded thousands and thousands of aircraft in the past to fight worse foes than fires. We have just lost our public willpower to crank up a real honest to God, permanent wildfire fighting force under the Air Ops Branch Directorate side of ICS. I fully understand air assets can't stop big fires.

You want a firefighting air force, then? Tens of thousands of tankers? Reminds me of a notice I saw on the bulletin board recently by an individual who proposed grounding all the tankers in favor of a cloud of helium balloons that he would float of fires to produce artificial rain. Why not have ten thousand tankers, all publicly funded? Why not? Let's be realistic.

There's no such thing as the "air ops branch directorate," and ICS is a management system. It only comes into being in the artificial, temporary environment of an incident. There is no existing directorate. One is created, built for a temporary time, then dissolved away into nothingness when the incident has ended. It happens hundreds of times every year. You talk as though such a thing actually exists, as though it's an organization waiting to be peopled and populated, and staffed with pilots and aircraft. It's not. There's no such thing. It's nothing more than a temporary assignment during a temporary incident.

If you want tens of thousands of aircraft (which the military doesn't have, let alone a "permanent firefighting force"), you'll have to fall back to those antiquated, aging aircraft that you abhor. Do you propose we bring back tens of thousands of aircraft to bomb the forests into submission?

Do you have any idea what the cost is of a delivered gallon of retardant, on a fire?

... but we as a Country have failed to provide them. The system is broken.

No. To be "broken," such a system would have had to have existed at some time. It never did. Aerial firefighting in tankers has always been a privately funded, privately developed, privately offered, and privately run industry.

The country has never provided that service. It's been privately offered to the public by private companies. Not the government. There's no system to break.

I also understand the various types. We're talking about heavies right now. Stick to the topic. Type I tankers. How many?

We weren't talking only about large air tankers, or specifically Type I tankers, but seeing as you've narrowed the field so drastically, why not? So we're clear, now you want to restrict the conversation only to one type of tanker. Got it.

You're ruling out the majority of the tankers, of course, and dismissing entire systems such as CalFire (California CDF) and their fleet of tankers and air attack platforms, as well as numerous other types of tankers. Why not simply talk about one airframe, then? Shall we restrict it just to C-130's, or just to P-3's, or DC-7's?

Stick to the topic? You're all over the place, and it's nearly all irrelevant and deeply misunderstood.

Let me know when you've got the funding to develop and purchase this mythical firefighting force. What are you going to do with it, when there are no fires?

You're so "close" to it and convinced the current system is the only possible methodology of paying for and maintaining a fleet, you're completely missing my point and questions about overall resources.

Put yourself in the Incident Command Post and forget about the airplanes for a while. I keep asking this and you don't answer...

So close? Too close to the current system? Which of us has a life-long career in the business? I'm too close to it? Would I be better off uninformed and outside the system? If I'm "close" to the industry, it's because I just spent my day fighting fires in real time, landing at sunset sweaty, tired, and beat up. I've been doing it for a long time. I've done it on the ground and in the air, in single engine air tankers, large multi engine air tankers, air attack platforms, point to point, fire patrol, and numerous other duties. I've been involved with and had so much ICS training up the yingyang in and out of fire over the last few decades that you could say I'm "close" to the system. You could also simply speak the truth and say that I have some experience.

I've answered and you're not listening. You're floating around wild ideas and myths. You're imagining grandiose concepts that have no grounding in reality. You're writing fiction. You're too busy looking for the silver lining, too busy developing plot that you've forgotten to check your facts. The industry, in fact the entire wildfire operational world, isn't close to what you seem to imagine it to be.

If you were the IC or AOBD and knew you were watching the largest fire in Colorado Springs history on Day 1... Ground zero. It's 1000 acres and will be 4000 by nightfall...

Everything in your training says this one is going to take off and run on you and you have only 48 hours where it will even be at a size where there's a 25% chance of slowing it down...

And you know the ridgeline where you can't put any guys with Pulaskis because when the wind comes up... Not IF but WHEN... they're going to be BBQ'd alive... is your ONLY possible way of stopping this fire from crossing that ridgeline. It is your absolute best line of natural defense between the fire line and Colorado Springs city streets...

How many aircraft would you order? No strings attached, no budget.

How many would it take to HOLD that ridgeline? Not put the fire out, not any Hollywood BS...

How hard and how often would you need to hit it to slow or stop it at the ridge. It can go everywhere else, but not over that ridge.

How many?

That's the question I want answered. And a plan in place to make sure the next IC or AOBD has that resource level.

There's little else to do here but roll my eyes and sigh. You need a basic course in aerial firefighting to understand, as clearly you don't, or you wouldn't ask such a ridiculous question.

We don't get to choose whether or not we hold a ridge. God does that.

Plastering a ridge with retardant doesn't stop a fire. Nor does it prevent a fire from spotting over the line.

Pretreating fuels only works in the immediate short-term. Simply painting a ridge in the hopes that over the next few days the fire might punch that ridge and stop is a waste of retardant and a very poor tactic. There are some occasions when this is done on a small scale, but to do it on its own merits in the hopes that only the retardant will "hold the ridge" is generally futile and foolish.

The number of acres isn't particularly important. It makes for an emotionally-enticing media story, but it's not really our focus. I'm sure a thousand acres to four thousand in a day sounds big to you. It doesn't to me, and it doesn't sound like the sky is falling. It's a fire. It's dealt with accordingly. It's not dealt with by inventing a ten thousand aircraft tanker force which paints the ridge line into submission in the hopes that fire behavior will fit that one particular model.

What good will "holding the ridge" do when it spots past the line, builds it's own weather, and begins putting out fire beyond that ridge? I've seen that happen many, many times, and frankly, the mentality which says "hold the ridge" is the same mentality which says "hit the head of the fire." It's silly thinking.

Now we apparently want talking urinal cakes? When did that happen?

I have no idea what you're talking about, but given your propensity for skipping about, then arbitrarily limiting the conversation as it suits you to narrow fields such as only talking about type 1 tankers, who really knows?

Let's say we just stop maintaining Hoover Dam or name any other large one... How long until it bursts and kills many people below, and cuts off irrigation and drinking water it provided?

You're comparing the hoover dam to the tanker industry? Who paid for the hoover dam? The taxpayer? Who owns the hoover dam? The government?

Who paid for the tankers? Private Companies? Who continues to pay for them, to maintain them, to fly them, to offer them or retract them, and to crew them? Private companies? Yes. Private companies. You're going to tell a private company how many aircraft it needs to field? You're going to tell me what I can or can't' fly over a fire?

We, as a country, are not maintaining the aerial firefighting force. In fact, your own admission about hopping fences to not be seen to get the job done, effectively argues that it has never been adequately maintained.

We as a country never maintained the aerial firefighting force. We as a country never had an aerial firefighting force to maintain. We as a country have only ever benefitted from private industry which has developed, maintained, crewed, and operated the aerial firefighting aircraft. These don't belong to the country. These aren't something that you or anyone else gets to direct or control, other than administering the contracts. You say that we as a country haven't maintained the aerial firefighting force, but there isn't one, it doesn't belong to the country, the country has never had one, and the country has never maintained one. Perhaps you need to rethink this entire concept.

Where are the documents that show why? "Well established" comes from open discussion with outsiders, you know. Talks with whom, and where, and where are the transcripts? And what was the proper solution given that wasn't executed?

Those are broad statements but without objective reasons, it doesn't stand to reason that government can run a police force, a regular fire department, public works, even garbage collection in some municipalities, and then say they can't operate a tanker force.

They seem to fly fleets of military bombers just fine with sad but acceptable human life loss levels for those jobs.

And why can't guys like you be paid to show them how?

This subject has been revisited many times in the past. The aerial firefighting industry knows it's not realistic. The chameleon government knows this too, though it's spots change as does it's staffing. The government has failed repeatedly when it comes to keeping their own wild land fire equipment; only a little is available, and much of that is leased form private industry (that maintains it and owns it).

The government isn't interested in guys like me to show them how. They think they know how, and it hasn't worked yet. It won't. If you knew much about the history of aerial firefighting, you'd understand this quite well. You don't know the history or the industry, but you're bound and determined to argue it as if you do.

The one we haven't built yet because we're shortsighted and cheap. The WWII aircraft can't hold the line forever.

We need a significant investment in a new tanker design. One built to your needs.

We're not using WWII aircraft to "hold the line." We're not flying WWII aircraft.

Not even the Type I tankers to which you alluded and artificially used to limit the conversation.

I have time and experience flying and maintaining those aircraft, by the way. I'm quite familiar with them. Are you? You keep saying you already know it all, but you're wrong on almost every count, and after you've proposed a mythical, imaginary firefighting air force, you're proposing to use aircraft which don't exist. You want new aircraft, but can't say which ones, and your answer is to use ones that haven't been invented. Who is going to fund the development of these aircraft, the ones that haven't been invented, and then pay for them to be available for a few months out of the year?

Those are my points, and almost none of what you've responded with has been anything I didn't already know. I'm still stuck n the one question: How many heavy tankers does a fire season like this one require? It's impossible to engineer a solution without knowing the true needs of the system.

How many heavy tankers does a season require?

Zero.

How many can it support? That depends on the funding in any given year. The industry can support as many as can be paid, up until the money runs out.

 

[denverpilot]

I stopped reading halfway through Doug, because you continually make up things you think I believe. It's ridiculous even trying to have a rational conversation with you.

Example, you say I think Type I teams are "more entitled" than other teams. This is of course, retarded. And I've explained that I understand ICS. Where did this made up idea come from?

You also say you've been on numerous fire departments that don't operate the way I've described for governance. I guess the largest department in the Metro Denver area and multiple others that do operate that way today, as large District-based organizations, pooling resources and personnel, aren't doing it... and it's not happening at their Headquarters a mile from my home. A place I visit regularly for other purposes.

A personal friend who's an elected Board member overseeing the organization isn't doing what he's doing either, I guess.

My City Councilwoman that lives down the block must also be telling lies about the district too.

Our district-based organization completely annexed an entire city's department last year or maybe slightly into the previous year. That department asked to be annexed.

How many years ago were you on a department? City Departments are slowly disappearing in all but the largest cities here and conglomerates of what used to be City departments are now operated in larger District fashion. It's been this way for at least a decade here, and started in the late 1990s. The District is overseen by elected Board members from all represented areas in the District.

Anyway, reading page after page of things you made up in your head -- that you either think I believe, or just pulled straight out of thin air, gets old. You're not willing to answer direct questions nor entertain any ideas claiming that they've all been tried, with no documentation of same nor any reference material showing what was wrong with anything attempted in the past.

I'm sure you were there and saw it, in person, but if no one has bothered to put it in writing, why should the public who pays the bills believe any of it? No offense intended, but you must admit, it comes across as someone who wants to protect the business interests of the private firm holding a lucrative contract more than anything.

Speaking of that, you keep repeating the phrase that no one is doing firefighting for no pay. I'm still trying to figure out where you think I ever said firefighters should work for free? It gives your statements a strange sense of desperation about something financial, I can't put my finger on. Repeated statement that the 747 and DC-10 were too expensive kinda reads that way too...

And over and over and over you keep saying I think tankers put out fires. I don't know how that keeps coming up either. I have never said that they do. When I asked about resources and possible ways to slow a specific fire at a specific ridge here two days before the isolated thunderstorms that blew 65 and shoved it over the ridge into a city, you focused on the fact that I said a Type I team was there and would have been the crew that asked for the resources, and didn't answer the question posed.

It's time for this thread to be over and my thoughts and comments to go to the folks paying the bills. They can ask that the companies come have a little chat in D.C. if they choose to, and I can watch it on CSPAN I guess. I prefer to discuss with folks I meet in the rank and file, but something is very wrong with your discussion capability.

Repeating the same comments over and over that are triggering your made up assumptions of things I never said, possibly based on weird comments you've seen elsewhere (???) and your fixation on those items, is somewhat worrisome. Makes me think at the very least that you're significantly fatigued. I'm assuming you've had some long flying days recently, so that's to be expected. If it's not that, I don't know what it is... the repetition of the same statements over and over that weren't what I asked after they were brought up and acknowledged in a normal discussion, is just plain odd. I can't imagine this conversation going this way in person. I've acknowledged your points and agree that I understand them, and when I ask pointed questions, you go back to them at each "over".

I see glimpses of things that might hint at a motivation to obfuscate and confuse anyone reading along, but no answers to direct questions posed. This is usually a delaying tactic in debate, and it isn't worth continuing the discussion if you're going to play that game.

 

[N801BH]

WOW.... Just Wow..

Doug sees this fire season as income and from 1000AGL....

Nate sees this at ground level, first hand....

I can tell ya, if my home was in the path of a wildfire I would want EVERY available asset the guv can scrape up to help in the attack....

Instead the taxpayers have bought the POTUS a million + dollar bus to campaign in...

Rant off.....

lil ben.

 

[Everskyward]

Let's keep this thread out of the SZ. It has been inching closer all along.

 

[N801BH]

Let's keep this thread out of the SZ. It has been inching closer all along.

Sorry you feel this way.......

Doug made the statement " How many heavy tankers does a season require?

Zero.

How many can it support? That depends on the funding in any given year. The industry can support as many as can be paid, up until the money runs out. "

I simply pointed out the government has its spending priorities completely out of wack and I used an well known fact to drive that home. It ain't spin zone material if ya point out the obvious.... And I don't care which side of the aisle the BS is coming from either... IMHO.

 

[DouglasBader]

I guess the largest department in the Metro Denver area and multiple others that do operate that way today, as large District-based organizations, pooling resources and personnel, aren't doing it... and it's not happening at their Headquarters a mile from my home. A place I visit regularly for other purposes.

A personal friend who's an elected Board member overseeing the organization isn't doing what he's doing either, I guess.

My City Councilwoman that lives down the block must also be telling lies about the district too.

If you say so. I don't live in Denver. None of the departments on which I've worked, however, have operated the way you describe, be it fire districts, county departments, or municipal city fire departments.

The federal fire systems don't work that way either.

Doug sees this fire season as income and from 1000AGL....

A thousand AGL??

15 to 60'. Where do you normally fly?

You go do it in winds and canyons then tell me all about it. Not really a sunday walk in the park. I think I might have reached a thousand AGL enroute to the fire, the other day.

Nate sees this at ground level, first hand....

As an outsider sitting on the ground not fighting fire, perhaps. Big difference.

An outsider, sitting on the ground, watching CNN, and not knowing what he's talking about, too.

Very big difference.

When I asked about resources and possible ways to slow a specific fire at a specific ridge here two days before the isolated thunderstorms that blew 65 and shoved it over the ridge into a city, you focused on the fact that I said a Type I team was there and would have been the crew that asked for the resources, and didn't answer the question posed.

You can't keep your story straight. You keep telling me that I'm not answering your question, and you keep telling me that your question is about a type 1 team needing resources to "hold the ridge."

Tankers don't hold the ridge, and pretreating two days in advance doesn't do that, either.

I'm sure you were there and saw it, in person, but if no one has bothered to put it in writing, why should the public who pays the bills believe any of it? No offense intended, but you must admit, it comes across as someone who wants to protect the business interests of the private firm holding a lucrative contract more than anything.

I see. I'm actually a qualified aerial firefighter.

Apparently you're not.

As for what's been put in writing, it's been done and documented, many times. You must be referring specifically to what's been in the newspapers, then?

Who cares? That's entertainment. I don't have time to read the paper, presently. I'm too busy fighting fire.

I see glimpses of things that might hint at a motivation to obfuscate and confuse anyone reading along, but no answers to direct questions posed.

Your questions have been answered with more information than you merit, but your refusal and inability to understand is your problem. Not mine.

Every available resource was attached to the fire.

Next time build more defensible space and don't act stupidly. People might stand more of a chance.

 

[N801BH]

Ok Mr MasterBader................

I fly lower then you daily so low lever stuff in not an issue for me... You make it out to be some kind of gods gift to a chosen few " perfect " pilots...


Nate has a good angle as he questioned the fact that "ALL AVAILABLE" firefighting resources where not mobilized to slow down the Colorado inferno.... You are paid by the day so in reality you guys don't want to quench the fire early on, as that would cut into your paycheck...

If the brains of the operation had brought out the DC-10's and the Evergreen 747 to slow down the fire before it hit ridgeline then maybe 350+ families would have a home left... You just sit there and claim you are flying your a$$ off , but yet seem to have PLENTY of time to post about your long days flying missions and doing the best you can do... Your last post is at 2:04 PM... You should out there flying water drops... not playing on the computer.... .. I call BS.....

 

[DouglasBader]

Nate has a good angle as he questioned the fact that "ALL AVAILABLE" firefighting resources where not mobilized to slow down the Colorado inferno.... You are paid by the day so in reality you guys don't want to quench the fire early on, as that would cut into your paycheck..

Nate does not have a "good angle." He has a twisted misunderstanding.

All resources available were used. A fleet of ten thousand extra air tankers wouldn't have been feasible, cost effective, useful, or available, and wouldn't have done any better. We're not bombing europe into submission, and flying numerous tankers in close proximity in the smoke, along with helicopters and other assets is dangerous.

Nate has watched "Always" too many times.

More isn't necessarily better, and what was available was used.

Despite all available resources, often the fire exceeds man's ability to prevent, fight, or control. That's reality.

If the brains of the operation had brought out the DC-10's and the Evergreen 747 to slow down the fire before it hit ridgeline then maybe 350+ families would have a home left... You just sit there and claim you are flying your a$$ off , but yet seem to have PLENTY of time to post about your long days flying missions and doing the best you can do... Your last post is at 2:04 PM... You should out there flying water drops... not playing on the computer.... .. I call BS.....

Ah, another armchair expert.

You're going to dictate when I should fly now, too. I don't make that call. When I get an order, I fill it. I don't simply go freelance. It doesn't work that way.

I flew fires today, thunderstorms moved in. We were advised of impending 50 knot winds, the airshow was grounded, and we secured the airplanes and waited. I spent the afternoon soaking wet after taking care of the airplanes. It's quarter after ten at night; I just finished working on one of the aircraft, and it's time to get my first meal of the day. My previous posts have been close to one in the morning locally.

Nate wants to redirect and narrow the conversation to get the answers he wants to hear, and you want to tell me what I can do with my computer or time during the day or night. Is there anything else the two of you would like to direct or control before you're through inventing stories, myths, and magically funded firefighting air forces?

The 747 was never funded or used; the program died. The DC-10 has been used very little, and the remainder of the fleet isn't cost effective. Tanker bases that can accommodate it aren't available in most places. It's usefulness and appropriateness is very limited in the firefighting arena. Simply because there's a big airplane out there that can hold a lot of mud doesn't mean it's the right one for the job. Again, aerial fire doesn't work that way. You're quite the expert though, aren't you?

I fly lower then you daily so low lever stuff in not an issue for me... You make it out to be some kind of gods gift to a chosen few " perfect " pilots..

I said nothing of a chosen few. As for the low altitude record, that's been tied more than a few times, and there's no way to top it without digging a bigger hole. Knock yourself out.

I said nothing about god's gift or a chosen few. Or perfection. You did, though.

 

[N801BH]

Thank you for your thoughts Mr Masterbader........

Delete.... too crude a joke for the masses...

 

[denverpilot]

I have not done anything (nor could I, you can type what you like) to limit your topics, Doug. I have only pointed out that you're skipping like a broken record and not answering my questions.

I believe that's the third time you've brought up that (stupid) movie, and I already answered that one. Saying I've watched it too much three times in one thread, doesn't make it true. Sorry.

If you wish to interpret that as me somehow wanting to limit your options for discussion or ideas, that's your prerogative. I'm not.

Anyway, just for additional info... Evergreen issued a press release that I missed earlier... They're not even allowed to be awarded a contract to fly their 747 anymore under current USFS procurement rules.

Only small companies are allowed to bid, per their words.

http://www.evergreenaviation.com/pdf/Supertanker_Statement_062912.pdf

 

[Alexb2000]

I believe that's the third time you've brought up that (stupid) movie, and I already answered that one. Saying I've watched it too much three times in one thread, doesn't make it true. Sorry.

Nate-

I always wondered why Richard Dreyfuss had to come back and help Holly Hunter find love?

I mean was it because he never treated her right in life, so it was a kind of punishment?

One thing I loved, the movie showed the kind of person that would be a real tanker pilot. I'm sure in real life there are some repetitive bores, with a chip on their shoulder, but that wouldn't make much of a movie. Also, the flying scenes were amazing and I'm sure pretty accurate.

On a serious note: I sure wish they would get that Evergreen 747 tanker fired up, that thing would put out some of these big fires double quick.

Oh well, government, what can you do?

 

[wabower]

I got a sneaky suspicion it's not his real name anyway, so probably doesn't matter.

Thank you for your thoughts Mr Masterbader........

Delete.... too crude a joke for the masses...

 

[Tom-D]

Airtanker scandal
Main article: U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal
Aero Union was one of the contractors involved in the U.S. Forest Service airtanker scandal. With the grounding of the U.S. Forest Service's aging C-119 Flying Boxcar fleet in 1987 (some of which were operated by Aero Union) due to safety concerns the Forest Service found its aerial fire fighting capability greatly reduced. In order to quickly replace the retired aircraft and modernize the fleet the USFS, organized a deal with the Department of Defense and the General Services Administration to exchange the grounded planes with more modern C-130a Hercules and P-3 Orion aircraft. The unpublicized exchange program eventually allowed six different contractors to acquire twenty-eight aircraft at no cost, without a bidding process or public access. The exchange of these aircraft was found to have been illegally carried out by the USFS and instead of merely allowing the contractors to operate the aircraft many of their titles were transferred, effectively giving many of the aircraft away for free. At least four of the planes transferred were dismantled for parts by Aero Union and TBM. Aero Union exchanged planes with the USFS, with the government retaining the titles and ownership, and was charged with maintaining and operating them for firefighting duties. Instead Aero Union dismantled some of their planes and sold the parts for a profit. Aero Union made an out of court settlement with the government over its actions but this was later challenged in court.
Closure
On July 29, 2011 the U.S. Forest Service announced that it had canceled its 6 plane contract with Aero Union after the company's planes failed their required safety inspections. In April 2011 Aero Union had voluntarily disclosed that its planes were not current on inspections and were in violation of the contract. The contract, worth about $30 million a year, made up about 95% of the companies income. Less than a month later Aero Union informed its employees that they were out of work and that the company was shutting down operations. That August Aero Union failed to make its lease payments to the City of Chico and the lease was declared invalid by the city that September due to concerns that the city would be unable to re-lease the facilities if they became tied up in bankruptcy proceedings. Reduced to a staff of 5 people after the last round of layoffs, down from approximately 230 in 2008, CEO Brett Gourley claimed “The company is in sort of hibernation mode” and was looking for other sources of income. Aero Union has since completely shutdown all of its facilities, websites and other points of contact and is assumed to be out of business. In February 2012 PMI held an auction of Aero Union's aircraft assets, including 8 P-3 Orion aircraft, various spare parts and their intellectual property (MAFFS II and FIREHAWK firefighting systems). Only 2 aircraft were bid upon and those bids were rejected as being to low. In May 2012 another auction of tools and equipment, but no aircraft, parts or intellectual property, went through with the majority of it selling.

end quote from Wikipedia
working in the navy's P3 engine shop we often traded parts with aero union as we had some T56-8-A engine parts left in stock and they had some T-56-14A stuff we could use.

I dealt quite often with Aero Union both in training their employees and Parts When I retired in 07 that was a well run and safe company, but after the hassle of the disassembly of the 4 aircraft the US Government had a woody for them and sent in the FAA on behalf of the Forest service and used every tool in their power to put that company out of business. and that is the opinion I formed by talking to the employees that I still communicate with.

It was Powers and Associates that lost the C-130 when the wings came off due to an illegal repair. not Aero union.
I know the lead pilot that quit a few weeks before that accident, and I belived him when he said there was no maintenance, no training , or experience at Powers and Associates, and that is why he quit.

I find hard to believe that the folks here have their ear as close to the industry as they try to make us believe.

 

[ejensen]

It was Powers and Associates that lost the C-130 when the wings came off due to an illegal repair. not Aero union.
I know the lead pilot that quit a few weeks before that accident, and I belived him when he said there was no maintenance, no training , or experience at Powers and Associates, and that is why he quit.

I find hard to believe that the folks here have their ear as close to the industry as they try to make us believe.

Two weeks after the C-130, my old Forest lost a PBY4 northwest of Boulder. The fire crew that put out the ensuing fire was offered counseling after. Plane was from Hawkins and Powers, Greybull, WY.

I agree.

 

[Tom-D]

Two weeks after the C-130, my old Forest lost a PBY4 northwest of Boulder. The fire crew that put out the ensuing fire was offered counseling after. Plane was from Hawkins and Powers, Greybull, WY.

I agree.

I was offered the DOM position at Greybull, with Hawkins and Powers, I went up and interviewed, and took the tour, as we walked around I got the feeling that they were flying junk, this place was a dangerous operation, and said "No Thanks"