Burning Colorado

[denverpilot]

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

Folks is plural, and there is only one person here claiming to be an insider.

The more I read about the "industry", the more I believe it should be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up. What a mess.

 

[Tom-D]

Folks is plural, and there is only one person here claiming to be an insider.

The more I read about the "industry", the more I believe it should be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up. What a mess.

Agreed the whole dept needs an overhaul, our forests are in a total mess and could be managed much better.

But the greenies want nature to take its course and the results are major fires, not found in areas that are managed by private enterprise.

We here in the northwest see control burns, trimmings, thinnings and other management tools use to grow the largest product of our state. (trees) but the only big fires we see are those started on US forest service land.

 

[DouglasBader]

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"

When was that? I find that hard to believe.

The more I read about the "industry", the more I believe it should be dismantled and rebuilt from the ground up.

No experience in the industry, don't know what you're talking about, yet you're an armchair expert. And apparently an expert on the incident management system. Are you a civil air patrol expert, by chance?

Thus far you've not got a single thing right. You go ahead and write your senator, though. That will make you feel better, and it's sure to change everything to the way you think it ought to be.

Your expert input into how aerial fire ought to be conducted should be invaluable.

Two weeks after the C-130, my old Forest lost a PBY4 northwest of Boulder.

T-123. It was three weeks after the loss of T-130, it was in Estes Park, and killed Rick Schwartz and Milt Stollack. Both friends.

So were Steve Waas, Mike Davis, and Craig LeBare, in Tanker 130.

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.

That is incorrect. It's a popular version, but incorrect.

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.

This is also incorrect. Are in intentionally lying, or simply making this up because you don't know?

The wing didn't fail because of an "illegal repair."

Which "lead pilot" is that? Are you referring to the Chief Pilot, who was responsible for the training? Who had no experience at H&P? Many there had 30+ years of experience, and training was conducted regularly every year, including well known industry guest speakers, ground, flight, and some simulator training.

Maintenance was extensive, and the company held every Part 145 repair certification but one, as well as running it's own machine work. They did piston, turboprop, and turbojet, had an automotive shop, and worked on and supported helicopters, too. They also had their own avionics shop and personnel. A dedicated clean room, the ability to flow their own nozzles and pressure test any hose or component, and even the ability to test and certify most shop equipment from meters to torque wrenches was available.

You alluded earlier to having some knowledge of Aero Union, and your knowledge was sorely lacking. You weren't even close to understanding why they closed shop. You're insinuating inside knowledge about H&P now, which isn't remotely accurate, and even suggesting that the company offered you the Director of Maintenance position (displacing Tim Mikus, were you?). Even after the loss of T-123 and T-130, he was in place...at what point did you wander in?

After the tanker operation closed the doors, the facility continued as a maintenance facility...not bad for a place with "no maintenance."

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.

No, it wouldn't.

Every asset is a "tool in the toolbox" for firefighting, from the OV-10 to the DC-10. Single Engine Air Tankers (SEATS--Level III tankers)) are heavily used assets, as are the P2V's. Air attack platforms are in constant use, as are Air Supervision Modules (ASM's) and Lead planes. No one asset is appropriate on every fire or for every request.

Often, an aircraft needs to paint a line in a tight place, to support a hand crew or a dozer. This isn't the place to put a 747 or a DC-10. I doubt you've got experience in either of those aircraft; I do. I doubt you've got experience dropping retardant. I do. I can tell you that there are places and uses for each type of tanker or aircraft, but also that none of them are primary firefighting assets. They're luxuries or additional assets over and above the use of people on the ground. Tankers don't put out fires. People on the ground control them, and use tankers sparingly to help them do their job. The tanker is not there to extinguish fire, except in a few select circumstances.

Several posters here have alluded to the idea that an air force of tankers, operated in some quantity capable of bombing europe off the map, could be used to put out fires. Not so. It doesn't work like that, and large fires handily exceed the capability of mankind to stop. We don't strive to put them out; we strive to control them in a manner that allows them to stop burning. Backburns and backfires, control lines, defensible space, and natural barriers are common tools and tactics used to control fires. Tankers are also an asset, used generally to back up what's being done on the ground. We don't paint lines across mountains to stop fire, because fire will burn through a retardant line.

Retardant is a temporary measure which is used to support people on the ground doing the hard work. Retardant is temporary in nature. Pretreating an area can have some small measure of success, but it won't prevent crowning fires, and if allowed to dry or lay ground or ladder fuels over, it will burn right through or under the retardant. I've dropped retardant inside the US and out, as well as coast to coast, from Florida to Washington, Texas to Minnesota, as well as foam and water and gel. I've worked with local firefighters, state and county firefighters, the military, the federal level firefighters from the USFS to the BLM to the BIA working fires from the air, and on the ground.

Pretreating fires won't stop spot fires, either. There are numerous tactics in aerial fire that are used to try to prevent them, but spot fires that start from burning material straying downwind, to burning animals running out ahead of the fire and setting things alight, to fires causing their own weather and that weather's lightening starting other fires continue to be a control problem. One can't pretreat the forest. When things spot over a line, one can only try to work the spot fire, and often that isn't feasible because of the advancing head of the fire, and because of smoke laying over the target.

On a large fire, it's not uncommon to have thirty or more aircraft in operation at any one time, from large air tankers to single engine air tankers to various helitankers and helittack aircraft, as well as news and media helicopters, air attack platforms (air tactical group supervisors), ASM platforms, and lead planes. There is no radar separation. Visibility is sometimes very low. The nature of fire work means working below the highest terrain, often in canyons or narrow valleys, often with numerous types of dissimilar aircraft on dissimilar missions. Often smoked in, often with strong turbulence that can simply make air rough to severe downdrafts and rotors, and severe or even extreme turbulence in wind-driven fires, it's not safe or sensible to try to fly a firefighting air force into a canyon. One ends up with dead pilots and falling debris, ala the mid-air between two of Calfire's S-2's a few years ago, over a fire.

In the midst of that, the fire operations are hampered by local private pilots violating TFR's to have a look, and even by ATC vectoring airline aircraft through the fire. I've broken through a column of smoke on a drop run only to find a media helicopter hovering on the other side, trying to get the winning camera shot.

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.

Their words are self-serving and inaccurate.

The bid process to which they refer has nothing to do with the current fire state, but is for the future, and is for a smaller tanker than the 747.

The 747(s) offered by Evergreen were -100's, which may not mean much to you, but means a lot to anyone who flies 747's. The -100's used motors which were unreliable and subject to high maintenance requirements as well as failures and flame-outs, especially at low power settings (during a descent into a retardant drop, for example). I've experienced them myself in 747-100's. The airplanes are the oldest and highest time 747's left flying in the world today. Evergreen spent a lot of money to tank and offer their first one, and the only one who would take it the offered price was California. California renigged and didn't contract the tanker, and Evergreen tried a round-the-world publicity tour by dropping retardant around the globe, to promote the aircraft. Nobody wanted it or took it on. Evergreen eventually put it back in service flying cargo, which is what it was doing in the first place.

Evergreen tried with a second tanker, with no success.

None of the Evergreen team that actually flew the 747 were firefighting pilots.

Tanker 10 offered the DC-10, and had similar experiences. They've used it a bit more, but it's also extremely expensive, which is a big consideration when budgeting out a fire. The cost per gallon to deliver the retardant is high.

Tanker 10's pilots weren't aerial firefighters either, and managed to damage the aircraft by striking trees on their first actual fire drop a few years ago, taking out a leading edge device, part of an engine, and a flap.

Both the DC-10 and the 747 are incapable of using most tanker bases, limiting their use to only a handful of places in the country. Most tanker bases are also unable to handle aircraft of that size, and aren't located in places with big enough runways, or that have ramps and taxiways with a big enough bearing ratio to handle the weight, or the width to handle the wingspan.

Each aircraft required it's own dedicated lead plane, limiting the operational radius and use of the airplane. Due to the limited bases, the "supertankers" required much longer ferry distances to and from the fire, reducing utility and increasing turnaround times. They're impressive to watch, not so much on the fire, but on TV. They also shut the airshow down over a fire; everyone has to pull back, including ground troops, when they come in to do a drop.

They have their uses, but the uses are limited, and just like any other tanker, they're not there to put out the fire. They're tools in the toolbox, and very specialized ones, at that.

Everygreen's assertion that they can't bid because they're not a small company is inaccurate. Evergreen can't bid that project because they're not offering anything that falls within the bidding specification. Del Smith got out of the tanker business years ago; he preferred other CIA connections to tankers, and parked his P2's at Marana (where they're still sitting). Other operators used the CIA connections to get the C-130's and P3's before the whole process broke down. It's a very, very different story to what was suggested above regarding Aero Union: it involves the CIA, counter narcotic operations out of Marana and Mena, and a host of other things that make for quite a story, but that are also very public by now and bordering on ancient history. Evergreen has a lot more in the mix than simply not being a "small business." Their assertions are very inaccurate.

 

[denverpilot]

Ah, once again with things I never said, Doug. It's tiring. Never said I was an expert on anything.

And the only expert I can find who'll even admit it in a public forum won't answer direct questions and throws around insults toward everyone.

Can you see where this hurts the image of the industry enough that many of us paying the bill, might think we're having smoke blown up our backsides?

I never once have EVER said aircraft can PUT OUT fires in anything I've posted. (Some others here have.)

All I've said is that a larger force gives fire managers more tools in their arsenal. I'd far more like to see you guys funded and crews training today -- even if it's for fires ten years hence -- than wasteful spending on the broken central banking system, for example. (I'm trying to keep my thoughts about that as much out of the thread as I can, since that's SZ material. Some leaks in, I'm human.)

Your responses seem to indicate that more resources are useless and there's no hope to train crews right and that the fleet aging isn't an issue.

I'm just an interested Citizen taking a stance after minimal training while doing my day job, and that's a lot more than most folks do. I write the checks, so I have a vested interest. So many folks don't seem to realize they're part of the system and don't care.

All I've heard from you is "no, no, no, no, no". Let's hear it. What is needed in wildland fire? Real ideas.

My generation has to keep priorities in mind more than previous ones. The growth that spurred things like Aero Union (whether good or bad, they were huge compared to what's out there today) isn't returning anytime sooner than my 70s at the earliest. When the Boomer generation really drops off into full retirement, we have to be willing to say which things are important enough to fund, and which need to be chopped. Hard. Dead. The funding won't be there to do it all.

I'm willing to send the letters, fight for the right things, etc. I'm also not naive and know that one guy's letters and interest don't fix anything overnight.

But if we're not committed to making things better for you guys now (and learning from your successes and mistakes and ripping out the mistakes with prejudice because there isn't time nor money to make them again), we're going to fail. Getting the ideas out there means everything in the modern world where the decision-maker is just as likely to find the next big idea via a Google search that hits this thread, as they are to find it anywhere.

It's your chance to say, "Here's what makes it better." All we're getting is attacks and "you're all wrong". You can be so proud of what you've done that you don't teach the next generation how to take over, it's really up to you. What should we be fighting for?

I've got limited time and resources and if guys in the industry spend all their time with their guard up telling younger guys to back off, I'm fine with that. Fly the old stuff until it fails and then retire, leaving a gaping hole in mission readiness. That seems to be the plan in most U.S. industries. We can outsource the whole damn thing to the Canadians, apparently.

 

[Alexb2000]

Let's see levity doesn't work, reason doesn't work, what's left?

Not much, except: Just don't feed the trolls.

 

[Clark1961]

Nay saying everything, while offering no alternatives, really does say volumes about some posters.

Yes it does. Particularly when you consider that air assets *are* used to put out fires. I lived up in the hills west of Denver and watched both rotorcraft and SEATs used to put out small fires (while ground crews were hiking in).

Master Bader doesn't know all that he claims to know.

 

[DouglasBader]

I write the checks, so I have a vested interest.

Meaning that you're a taxpayer?

Every one of us on the fire line is a taxpayer. We have the same interest, and none of us wants to see things burn. Quite frankly, many of us would be happy to never turn a propeller or start an engine during the fire season, if it meant we weren't needed; we don't have any vested interest in dragging it out; in fact for most operators, they make more money when the aircraft don't fly.

Artillery batteries with silver iodide shells to cause rain over the fires and/or change the weather somewhat?

I don't know if you've ever been involved with atmospheric research or weather modification. I have. Your idea smacks of firing cannons into the atmosphere to punch holes in the clouds; a civil war era thought.

Weather modification doesn't work that way. Neither does aerial firefighting.

200 747 tanker aircraft X $30M (guestimate) per = $6B

We don't have use for one 747 air tanker, let alone 200 of them. The acquisition is much, much less. We bought twelve of them for sixteen million, cash. Tanking them is another matter, as is operating them over fires.

How about training and equipping the national guard?

Already done. I've been working alongside national guard blackhawks all week.
Don't forget MAFFS. Funding an appropriations, however, work differently with the guard vs. federal resources.

How about using all the jail/prison labor, 23,000 in CO alone?

Prisoners are used in some states. However, one doesn't simply make a prisoner into a firefighter. A firefighter needs to be fit, and a firefighter needs to be motivated. Telling someone to dig a fire line, then trying to control them, as well as making the prison guards fire qualified (a necessity in the foreground) isn't as simple as you might think. There's a lot of liability in putting prisoners in a wildfire, too; not just for what can happen to the prisoners (wards of the state, county, city, or federal government through which they're incarcerated), but what can happen to the public if they escape.

How about the government forcing all of the local people on unemployment to work the fire or lose benefits?

Stupid and unconstitutional, but somewhat creative.

People on a fire who aren't qualified or fit enough to be there die.

If someone is misfortunate enough to be unable to find work, then they should be "forced" to become a firefighter?

Firefighting is a skilled profession; it's actually an occupation. It's not something we force on prisoners or the unemployed.

You can't show up at a fire today and beg to work the line; you're not qualified, and you won't be allowed...to say nothing of the unknown unemployed who are to be "forced" to be there.

How about using every possible logging resource in the area?

To do what? Log?

How about Nate's idea of using every local fire department?

Local fire departments are often used or often respond in varying capacities, but let's not forget that the department which takes off to go fight a wildfire isn't there to fight fire for the people who are paying them.

SEATs are often filled or serviced by local fire departments. Local departments do work brush fires, but are usually not equipped or trained for full-on wildfire operations. Few, if any have, or know how to use a fire shelter. Many departments are volunteer.

How about having 10,000 guys on seasonal work visas trained and ready for fire season?

There are already thousands of trained and qualified seasonal firefighters out there: professionals. We don't need to bring people in on work visas. We've already got them here.

I never once have EVER said aircraft can PUT OUT fires in anything I've posted.

Of course you didn't. Then again, you were also the one that wanted a ten thousand aircraft firefighting air force capable of bombing europe into submission, but also were the same person to say that you weren't talking about wildfire. You want a massive tanker force, but it's not for wildfire, and you aren't talking about putting out the fire. What do you plan to do with this massive force? This is the massive force, remember, that's made up of aircraft that don't exist yet. You're a long range thinker.

It's unfortunate that you're not on the fire line. We could use thinking like that. Someone has to serve the meals.

What is needed in wildland fire? Real ideas.

Asked and answered, repeatedly. What's needed? What's out here right now, fighting fire.

The growth that spurred things like Aero Union (whether good or bad, they were huge compared to what's out there today) isn't returning anytime sooner than my 70s at the earliest.

Aero Union was huge? No, it was one of the smaller companies, actually. They had flashier paint, though.

Fly the old stuff until it fails and then retire, leaving a gaping hole in mission readiness.

I'm not flying old stuff.

Are you?

Yes it does. Particularly when you consider that air assets *are* used to put out fires. I lived up in the hills west of Denver and watched both rotorcraft and SEATs used to put out small fires (while ground crews were hiking in).

No, they're not. Helicopters and SEATs are used for control, and only to control for ground forces. Ground troops put out the fires. I've hit single tree fires in a Dromader or AT802 and split the load to put an X over the fire, but that doesn't contain it and that doesn't put it out. It simply holds it long enough to get ground assets on the fire. Containment is made by putting a control all the way around the fire, and even if I box it with retardant, I haven't contained it, as the retardant isn't a control line.

You watched the ground crew hike in, meaning the ground crew was working up to the fire, where they'd do the job. Certainly as an air asset we can initial attack a fire: I do it all the time, and have done it for many years. That doesn't change the fact the we don't put out fires. We are there to serve the ground troops who do control and put out fires.

 

[Tom-D]

When was that? I find that hard to believe.

05/6 time frame.

That is incorrect. It's a popular version, but incorrect.

Funny the men I knew at Aero union thought it was spot on.



This is also incorrect. Are in intentionally lying, or simply making this up because you don't know?

If you know Greg Speck (CDR USN Ret.) you should call him and ask why he quit.

I am not an expert on fire fighting, and I don't presume to know the reasons you say what you do.

Around 2005/6 I was looking for another job other than the master engine mechanic at the T-56 rebuild facility at NAS Whidbey, and Powers was looking for a T-56 mechanic to do the DOM position.

I applied, and did the drive and the interview, I was accepted for the position, but didn't like what I saw in so far as the accepted maintenance practices the company was doing. So I simply denied their offer.


You should go there and see what they fly, and you'll know why I didn't give up a good to go there.

the picture was taken summer 2010

 

[DouglasBader]

You should go there and see what they fly, and you'll know why I didn't give up a good to go there.

I know what they flew; they don't fly, and haven't for some time, as their air assets were sold at auction years ago. They quit flying in 2003. You came there in 2006?

If you know Greg Speck (CDR USN Ret.) you should call him and ask why he quit.

I know Greg Speck. Good man. Nice RV4. He wasn't there long, and he left prior to 2000.

Around 2005/6 I was looking for another job other than the master engine mechanic at the T-56 rebuild facility at NAS Whidbey, and Powers was looking for a T-56 mechanic to do the DOM position.

I applied, and did the drive and the interview, I was accepted for the position, but didn't like what I saw in so far as the accepted maintenance practices the company was doing. So I simply denied their offer.

What you claim you saw was years after the company ceased tanker operations. Interesting claim.

Greg Speck was never the lead pilot, incidentally. He flew seasonally in the C-130A, and referred to it as a "great part time job."

As for what you think you know about Aero Union, do a little more research. You're not even close.

 

[denverpilot]

How about Nate's idea of using every local fire department?.

Just for clarification, something I said may have been misconstrued if that was a take-away from it.

All local assets were fully engaged here. My District's firefighters covered calls in most of the Denver Metro area while Denver, Aurora, and tons of other Departments headed south with not just "spare" equipment, but gear need to normally cover their jurisdiction. My District rolled their own gear from stations all over the district to the houses of the other agencies and stood watch there while those folks headed to Colorado Springs.

The fiscal/technical term for this is "Mutual Aid" and is covered by a pile of MOU's taller than Me, of printed out, that define what different districts and departments will do for one another when assets are stretched beyond reason. Those documents detail who's paying, what gear can be spared in specific circumstances, and are exceedingly detailed these days.

To trigger those assets to move like that requires a request for those specific assets by the fire managers at the scene. They then stage and get assigned under a unified command structure at the other end. Various political and fiscal triggers also have to happen to trigger authorizations to pay those folks when they arrive.

There's a lot of organization behind the scenes to make all that happen.

One small but important example out of many, is dissimilar or incompatible dispatch radio systems, gear, training levels, etc. Denver City and County, for example, has all of their Public Safety assets on a M/A-Com trunked analog radio system that's completely incompatible with the agencies who have Motorola analog trunked systems or who've decided to join the Statewide cooperative 800 Mhz APCO Project 25 digital trunked system.

One of our engine companies standing watch at one of their houses means digging out more M/A-Com radios for their use from a cache, or utilizing limited Mutual Aid frequencies and analog or telecom links between dispatch centers. It isn't necessarily just, "drive a truck over and switch channels on the radio".

So... my thoughts thus far have been on how to revamp the Federal resources...

Local agencies typically don't contract or utilize air assets for fighting fires on Federal lands. City style non-wildland assets can help most effectively once the fire reaches a city.

My question has always been how to attempt to modify fire behavior to try to keep it from reaching that stage.

The Colorado Springs fire started on top of a mountain a significant distance outside of town. The winds that came up on the third day whipped it right down into town. As Doug has said, it is often impossible to stop that.

My question has been, if the resources were available on the hot, windless days prior to the fire run, if tanker assets could have helped. Doug says no. Ok. His opinion. I respect it.

I agree with your assessment about the money. We print money out of thin air for stupider things. Far far stupider things.

It's time we get our priorities straight. In my opinion, anyway.

We got significant rain. That's the real fire stopper. The Governor lifted the State fire ban.

I don't think that's wise, considering it's only June. Many Counties disagree and left their bans in place. He has an awful track record, since it was his so-called controlled burn and his staff neglecting it, that was the first significant wildfire starter this year in a local mountain community...

 

[steingar]

Funny I just read an article about this today. We're building a perfect storm for forest fires in the US. We've been suppressing them for a long time, but they're part of the natural process of forest evolution. As a result, when fires start, they're really bad.

Add to that the fact that more an more people are moving into areas where wildfires normally occur. People often cause fires, both by accident (cigarettes, matches, barbecues, etc...) and on purpose. More people, more fires.

Add to that everyone's favorite Spin Zone topic, climate change. A mild dry winter and hot dry summer are making all these areas more prone to forest fires.

I'm really sorry it's jamming up folks here. I just hope everyone is smart enough to get out of the way of these things, the stuff in your house can be replaced, you, not so much.

 

[gkainz]

<snip> We got significant rain. That's the real fire stopper. The Governor lifted the State fire ban.

I don't think that's wise, considering it's only June. Many Counties disagree and left their bans in place. He has an awful track record, since it was his so-called controlled burn and his staff neglecting it, that was the first significant wildfire starter this year in a local mountain community...

Just yesterday I was commenting that I thought the fire ban would continue thru the summer, regardless of the deluge of rain we were standing in. Looks like I was wrong. This morning a friend suggested the decision was driven by eco-tourism impacts.

 

[Matthew]

My folks aren't into these new-fangled computers, so I had to wait for them to get the pictures from Walgreens and mail them to me.

What the scanned image doesn't show very well is the orange color at the base of the smoke. That's the reflection of the flames underneath. This was taken from their yard and the fire was on the upslope side of that ridge.