luckydog
Charter Member 2014
.....a 747 just sittin' there ??
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/...-use-the-biggest-firefighting-tool-available/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/...-use-the-biggest-firefighting-tool-available/
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
What's Up with the Forest Service????
- Thread starter luckydog
- Start date
:isadizzy:
Dang that is just strange and stupid.
Dang that is just strange and stupid.
aeromed202
SOH-CM-2014
Is it a money thing? Is it that more and smaller AC can deliver roughly the same quantity per unit area/time and more nimbly than a 747? I have a relative in the USFS but at the moment I'll bet he's got his hands full.
Navy Chief
Senior Member
The reason it's not being used is current administration budget cuts.............
TeaSea
SOH-CM-2014
Your answer is in paragraph #2 of Evergreen's letter.......
And frankly, it's Evergreen's fault and their letter is clearly intended to somehow paint the Forest Service as idiots. I'm sorry, Evergreen are the idiots.
Since the Forest Service is a entity of the U.S. Federal Government, it is subject to the auspices of the Federal rules on contracts and contracted service procurement. These rules are written so as to force Federal Agencies to "Spread the Wealth" so to speak. Specifically, 8A organizations (small, minority, veteran owned business's) must be given priority in any contract negotiation, and in some instances will be the only companies allowed to compete. Why? Well, because IT'S THE LAW!!!! The Forest Service doesn't get the break the law. You can ask your congressman why it's the law. BTW, the former Ted Stevens of Alaska is one of the reasons it's "the law" and he's generally perceived of as a hero of aviation.
Evergreen admits they they are not an 8A. Well, the way you get around that is that you sub to an 8A. Companies do it all the time....that's why there is an Alaska Native owned company running all services at MacDill AFB. The big company takes the risk, the little company gets a cut and a chance to compete. I've a retired Army Officer friend who does work for State and Federal agencies all the time specifically as an 8A, She's a vet owned, minority owned business, with a particular specialty, and she builds teams and coalitions constantly to bid on government contracts. Oh, she does good work too which always helps.
So, if Evergreen can't figure this out....which is something people do around their kitchen tables all across America....then frankly I've no faith in their 747 to stay in the air. We are not talking graduate level business work here. I can establish a minority, vet owned, small business this week, and sub them out......(Hell, I have an LLC already....took 200 bucks and an application to set it up)... have them give me call.
And frankly, it's Evergreen's fault and their letter is clearly intended to somehow paint the Forest Service as idiots. I'm sorry, Evergreen are the idiots.
Since the Forest Service is a entity of the U.S. Federal Government, it is subject to the auspices of the Federal rules on contracts and contracted service procurement. These rules are written so as to force Federal Agencies to "Spread the Wealth" so to speak. Specifically, 8A organizations (small, minority, veteran owned business's) must be given priority in any contract negotiation, and in some instances will be the only companies allowed to compete. Why? Well, because IT'S THE LAW!!!! The Forest Service doesn't get the break the law. You can ask your congressman why it's the law. BTW, the former Ted Stevens of Alaska is one of the reasons it's "the law" and he's generally perceived of as a hero of aviation.
Evergreen admits they they are not an 8A. Well, the way you get around that is that you sub to an 8A. Companies do it all the time....that's why there is an Alaska Native owned company running all services at MacDill AFB. The big company takes the risk, the little company gets a cut and a chance to compete. I've a retired Army Officer friend who does work for State and Federal agencies all the time specifically as an 8A, She's a vet owned, minority owned business, with a particular specialty, and she builds teams and coalitions constantly to bid on government contracts. Oh, she does good work too which always helps.
So, if Evergreen can't figure this out....which is something people do around their kitchen tables all across America....then frankly I've no faith in their 747 to stay in the air. We are not talking graduate level business work here. I can establish a minority, vet owned, small business this week, and sub them out......(Hell, I have an LLC already....took 200 bucks and an application to set it up)... have them give me call.
Hey All,
The use of air tankers is complicated.
There are issues with aircraft speed and maneuverability and landing capability and carrying capacity and risk to the aircraft. Nobody designs aircraft specifically for fire fighting - they are all adapted. If we could drop retardant from 15,000 ft then the biggest jets dropping the biggest loads would be great with no risk of loss of the airframe. But that isn't reality. There are real reasons why WWII to Korean war aircraft commonly converted to turboprops are preferred and they are fewer and fewer in number. Depending on the fire location and topography that 747 may well be absolutely worthless and/or not in any way cost effective. Bigger is not always better.
On this site there has been much discussion about military aircraft and their replacement but a far more critical need is for air tankers and it is never discussed. The air tanker situation is basically critical and needs to be dealt with. There are some real good potential tankers out there but they are not American (BAE 146 comes to mind). Imagine the politics over this!
Don't be so quick to judge the appropriateness or not of that 747 sitting parked.
-Ed-
The use of air tankers is complicated.
There are issues with aircraft speed and maneuverability and landing capability and carrying capacity and risk to the aircraft. Nobody designs aircraft specifically for fire fighting - they are all adapted. If we could drop retardant from 15,000 ft then the biggest jets dropping the biggest loads would be great with no risk of loss of the airframe. But that isn't reality. There are real reasons why WWII to Korean war aircraft commonly converted to turboprops are preferred and they are fewer and fewer in number. Depending on the fire location and topography that 747 may well be absolutely worthless and/or not in any way cost effective. Bigger is not always better.
On this site there has been much discussion about military aircraft and their replacement but a far more critical need is for air tankers and it is never discussed. The air tanker situation is basically critical and needs to be dealt with. There are some real good potential tankers out there but they are not American (BAE 146 comes to mind). Imagine the politics over this!
Don't be so quick to judge the appropriateness or not of that 747 sitting parked.
-Ed-
hubbabubba
Charter Member
There's also a new, in-production ag plane adapted for fire suppression. Was featured recently in another thread, can't remember what it was called.
As far as the 747 is concerned I think the main reason it's sitting is Evergreen's refusal to accept the "fly when needed" type contract. They held out for the guaranteed income deal and didn't get it. Can't blame them I suppose, keeping that plane and a crew on standby must cost a pretty penny.
If the government is contracting with private operators do they really care who built the aircraft they're flying?
As far as the 747 is concerned I think the main reason it's sitting is Evergreen's refusal to accept the "fly when needed" type contract. They held out for the guaranteed income deal and didn't get it. Can't blame them I suppose, keeping that plane and a crew on standby must cost a pretty penny.
If the government is contracting with private operators do they really care who built the aircraft they're flying?
Hey All,
Not as much American as before. There is an USFS approved BAE 146 in action in the US. The USFS does approve all aircraft used - likely a liability issue.
The issue as I understand it mainly comes down to money.
In talking to a CV 580 pilot in Kamloops a couple weeks ago - just before he went to the Colorado fires - about 100 flight time hours is a pretty average fire year - 200 hours is a big year. Now think about the economics of flying a 747 only 100 hours a year on fires while maintaining the plane and crew all year. You can probably see why they don't want call when needed contracts.
-Ed-
Not as much American as before. There is an USFS approved BAE 146 in action in the US. The USFS does approve all aircraft used - likely a liability issue.
The issue as I understand it mainly comes down to money.
In talking to a CV 580 pilot in Kamloops a couple weeks ago - just before he went to the Colorado fires - about 100 flight time hours is a pretty average fire year - 200 hours is a big year. Now think about the economics of flying a 747 only 100 hours a year on fires while maintaining the plane and crew all year. You can probably see why they don't want call when needed contracts.
-Ed-
Ed, have you watched the promo video from Evergreen? There they've made it clear that they can fly at 140 kias at 800' AGL with full safety...
...even when fully loaded.
Hey All,
From Wildfire Today blog...
I think some companies are sensing some real opportunities to supply air tankers. I'm amazed that there is apparently no interest from any "major" American aircraft manufacturers.
Sorry for posting so much but this is of interest to me as I am a fire management specialist.
-Ed-
From Wildfire Today blog...
I think some companies are sensing some real opportunities to supply air tankers. I'm amazed that there is apparently no interest from any "major" American aircraft manufacturers.
Report: U.S. company buys 10 Russian air tankers
There is a flurry of chatter that a company in the United States has purchased 10 Russian-built air tankers. This is not exactly true. David Baskett, President of TTE International Inc., has said for years his plan is to purchase 10 BE-200 amphibious air tankers and then lease them to operators in the United States.
Mr. Baskett told Wildfire Today Friday that he ”signed a contract to buy 10 planes to be delivered over a few years”. He did not specify if any money has actually changed hands, but until the FAA approves the aircraft to be used in this country, which may or may not happen any time soon, and until he has a contract from the U.S. Forest Service or another agency, which may or may not happen at all, it would be foolish to spend $300 to $400 million on Russian-built air tankers.
BE-200 air tanker at Santa Maria, California, April, 2010. Photo courtesy of Michael Lynn.
But we have to give Mr. Baskett credit for pursuing his dream with vigor. He arranged for the expenses to be paid for two USFS employees to travel to Taganro, Russia the home base of the Beriev company, the manufacturer of the aircraft, to conduct the first phase of an air tanker evaluation using specs of the Interagency Air Tanker Board. Reportedly the result of that evaluation was mostly positive in relation to performing as a scooper air tanker, but not as a conventional retardant-carrying air tanker. The IATB requirements are very different for the two types. In the future it may also be qualified for retardant.
Mr. Baskett is in discussions with the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management about using the aircraft in this country, and is attempting to set up a test of the air tanker in the U.S. to compare its performance to other aircraft, including the military MAFFS C-130.
In April, 2010, Mr. Baskett brought a BE-200 to the United States to attempt to drum up some interest in the aircraft. It was on display at Santa Maria, California for a couple of days and made some demonstration drops.
The BE-200 can carry 3,000 gallons of retardant loaded at an airport, or water it scoops from a lake.
Sorry for posting so much but this is of interest to me as I am a fire management specialist.
-Ed-
airattackimages
Charter Member
USFS (F&AM) Fire and Aviation Management... The M really stands for Mismanagement.
The Forest Service has done nothing over the past 25 years to address the aging fleet or airtankers. That's why the fleet has done nothing but dwindle down from several dozen Type I and Type II airtankers to the whopping 9 we now have covering the entire country. There used to be 5 and 6 times as many of them, but years of inaction have taken their toll. They have only taken 2 actions over the past 25 years; cancelling contracts and commissioning studies on what to do. They've killed off numerous businesses, Aero Union last year (the most capable company) and most recently 10 Tanker Air Carrier the owner of the two DC-10s -- they'll be closing for business at the end of this season.
One business that won't be closing because of the USFS is RAND Corporation, to whom they have awarded no less than a dozen studies on what to do with airtankers. Each study costs millions of taxpayer dollars. Then, they do nothing with each study when its completed. Something they HAVE done numerous times is upon receiving a RAND study, they immediately, within a matter of days, pay several more million to RAND to start a new study. It's a joke within the industry that all the USFS knows how to do is commission a study, then commission a new study to study the study before ordering a new study.
It's a typical government bureaucracy. More capable of mismanagement and wasteful spending than anything else. Incompetence. And this is why year after year there are less and less tankers than the year before. Now that there will no longer be any VLATs, there's another tool missing from the toolbox. Evergreen got smart and decided to quit screwing with the USFS and just get out. They're a big enough company, they can afford it. 10 Tanker can't. The USFS has a history of using companies up and then kicking them to the curb to rot.
The sad thing is, people will have to get used to the Colorado Springs experience. These fires only get harder to fight with the USFS shooting holes in its fleet.
The Forest Service has done nothing over the past 25 years to address the aging fleet or airtankers. That's why the fleet has done nothing but dwindle down from several dozen Type I and Type II airtankers to the whopping 9 we now have covering the entire country. There used to be 5 and 6 times as many of them, but years of inaction have taken their toll. They have only taken 2 actions over the past 25 years; cancelling contracts and commissioning studies on what to do. They've killed off numerous businesses, Aero Union last year (the most capable company) and most recently 10 Tanker Air Carrier the owner of the two DC-10s -- they'll be closing for business at the end of this season.
One business that won't be closing because of the USFS is RAND Corporation, to whom they have awarded no less than a dozen studies on what to do with airtankers. Each study costs millions of taxpayer dollars. Then, they do nothing with each study when its completed. Something they HAVE done numerous times is upon receiving a RAND study, they immediately, within a matter of days, pay several more million to RAND to start a new study. It's a joke within the industry that all the USFS knows how to do is commission a study, then commission a new study to study the study before ordering a new study.
It's a typical government bureaucracy. More capable of mismanagement and wasteful spending than anything else. Incompetence. And this is why year after year there are less and less tankers than the year before. Now that there will no longer be any VLATs, there's another tool missing from the toolbox. Evergreen got smart and decided to quit screwing with the USFS and just get out. They're a big enough company, they can afford it. 10 Tanker can't. The USFS has a history of using companies up and then kicking them to the curb to rot.
The sad thing is, people will have to get used to the Colorado Springs experience. These fires only get harder to fight with the USFS shooting holes in its fleet.
Hey All,
A quick update - the C130 that crashed on the white draw fire in South Dakota on sunday had a crew of 6 onboard - 4 are dead 2 are in the hospital. Nine children no longer have a father. They were air national guard from Charlotte. RIP
Apparently the lead plane encountered a severe downdraft starting a run on the fire - the C130 didn't make it. It is under investigation. All C130 air tankers were grounded for awhile but are flying now.
The weather near fires can be severe with the column updraft from the heat which can help generate severe downdrafts. It is however something to ride the curl just ahead of a crownfire and below the smoke in a chopper. Many pilots won't do it.
-Ed-
A quick update - the C130 that crashed on the white draw fire in South Dakota on sunday had a crew of 6 onboard - 4 are dead 2 are in the hospital. Nine children no longer have a father. They were air national guard from Charlotte. RIP
Apparently the lead plane encountered a severe downdraft starting a run on the fire - the C130 didn't make it. It is under investigation. All C130 air tankers were grounded for awhile but are flying now.
The weather near fires can be severe with the column updraft from the heat which can help generate severe downdrafts. It is however something to ride the curl just ahead of a crownfire and below the smoke in a chopper. Many pilots won't do it.
-Ed-
Yes, unfortunately.
One of the local News networks in the state here had their Doppler/VIPIR records of a severe storm very near the fire at the time.
Shows strong evidence of possibly a severe downdraft on the backside of the storm cell, around the time the National Guardsman were in the same area.
The local rancher who's property the plane crashed on, stated he heard statements from the authorities that it looked like the C130 just dropped out of the sky.
http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm/Rancher_Heard_Plane_Crash_Near_Edgemont/?Id=133925
Really unfortunate incident, as it was one of the members first mission.
The local news channel in Charlotte had a story on the NC ANG crew as they were leaving for South Dakota to help fight this fire.
Also we had a few Firefighters die while fighting a fire near this one last year in August.
Plus a second fire in the area was started by lightning this weekend.
Here in So Dak, we give thanks to all of the North Carolina Air Guardsman for helping with the fires.
Our thoughts and prayers are with all of them and their families.
http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm/Four_Confirmed_Killed_In_C130_Crash/?Id=133943
View attachment 68544