WT Forums

<b>Lawmaker Says Plan To Replace Fire-Fighting Aircraft Inadequate</b> (Posted: Tuesday, June 15, 2004)
[Aerospace Daily & Defense Report, June 15, 2004]

A U.S. Forest Service plan to replace 33 tanker aircraft used to fight wildfires in the West with three times as many smaller aircraft is inadequate, according to Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)

Flake has introduced a bill to require the temporary reinstatement of contracts for the larger tankers, which were canceled in May by the secretaries of agriculture and the interior.



"I believe that the Forest Service's plan to replace these tankers is more expensive, more dangerous, and ultimately less effective," said Flake in a statement released earlier this month.

The tankers, mostly aging ex-military aircraft, were ordered to stand down after three of the heavy-duty fixed wing aircraft crashed in 2002. On May 10, 2004, the Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior terminated the contract for the large air tankers used in aerial fire fighting due to concerns about their airworthiness. The decision also was in response to the findings and recommendations of an April 2004 report from the National Transportation Safety Board on the tanker accidents.

In June 2002, the wings broke off a Lockheed C-130A Hercules air tanker while fighting a blaze north of Yosemite National Park, killing its three-person crew. Shortly after the C-130A went down, a Vultee PB4Y-2 Privateer crashed in Denver. Hawkins and Powers Aviation of Wyoming owned both aircraft.

Members of the House Resources Committee and the House Transportation Committee met with officials from the Forest Service, the FAA and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in early June to discuss plans to compensate for the loss of the tankers. Flake, a member of the House Resources Committee's Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, said that meeting convinced him that legislation would be needed to ensure the service is prepared for the next fire season.

In addition to writing the bill to reinstate the contracts, which he introduced June 9, he also is drafting legislation that would certify tankers that met FAA requirements as of May 31, 2004.

The Forest Service, in a letter sent this month, asked eight of its air tanker vendors to provide information on the current condition of their aircraft, their operational life limit and the adequacy of the maintenance and inspection programs for their continued airworthiness for fire fighting.

"FAA, NTSB, and third party engineers have informed the Forest Service that the fatigue life of some air tanker structures may already be exceeded due to widespread and multisite fatigue damage from prolonged operations," the letter says.

The agency said that evaluating widespread fatigue and multisite damage not addressed by current inspection programs is central to preventing structural failures in the air tanker fleet.

"This must be addressed before returning an aircraft to service. This requires that valid life limits be determined for each aircraft type, as well as establishing where each aircraft is in relation to this life limit. This process may involve teardowns, fatigue testing, and detailed engineering analysis. We will continue to work closely with industry, the FAA, and the Department of Defense to help operators gain access to relevant data and testing facilities," the Forest Service said.

- Kathy Gambrell




THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"It may be crap to you, but it's bread and butter to us"

_________________
????

Here we go again, this comes up about once every year or so....

http://www.firehogs.com/

Ugly But Well Hung

I was in Missoula, Montana recently and saw some of the firefighting fleet there. They are truly museum pieces. On a quiet night I'll bet you can hear the wings cracking.

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"It may be crap to you, but it's bread and butter to us"

Edited by - a10stress on Jun 15 2004 08:17 AM

_________________
????

Explains why that PB4Y that used to fly around here hasn't been seen for awhile... Hope the crew made it out.

"In this life, after a few years we are unfaithful to what we have been, to what we wished to remain immortally."

--<i>Remembrance of Things Past</i>

Marcel Proust

Won't work, IMO. Big problem being CG. You can mount a retardant tank on the center of the aircraft which will carry about 2000 gals of fire retardant. Figuring a nominal 10 lbs/gallon, you have 20,000 lbs of retardant. The 30mm gun system will obviously have to be removed. The gun system itself serves as a CG balance against the rear-mounted engines (in addition to killing things). With the entire gun system removed, there's not enough room to install ballast to counter the effect of the aircraft losing 20,000 lbs in 2 seconds, as it goes with rapid aft-CG shift upon release of retardant. The plane would fly OK with a full tank, but post-drop, it'd probably impact the ground not far past the drop point.

Coupling the gun system with the rertardant, you'd have a 30mm SuperSoaker, right?<img src=icon_smile_clown.gif border=0 align=middle>

"Live every day like it's the last, 'cause one day you're gonna be right!" Ray Charles

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

Dice I agree, however this time the article failed to mention the A-10 or the supposed "Firehog" program.

Faugh ah Ballaugh -Clear The Way-

_________________


Faugh ah Ballaugh ~ Clear the Way

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Dice I agree, however this time the article failed to mention the A-10 or the supposed "Firehog" program.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I know but my contacts say it's been mentioned in other places.

Ugly But Well Hung

Other problem is that I doubt Congress would allow it. In the late '80s, there was a program between the US Forest Service and the DOD where former USAF C-130As at DM were to be traded to the Forest Service and passed to private airtanker operators, and the airtanker operators would trade back to the USAF their old C-119s, A-26s, B-17s, C-54s, etc to be given to the USAF museum for their programs. Known as the "historic aircraft trade", the 130s were to be retained "for fire use only" as airtankers, with title retained by DOD. Turns out, in the wildfire off season, these planes turned up in Kuwait and Colombia flying "cargo" missions for "a customer". Also, the two USFS personnel facilitating the program got some serious kickbacks, as well as titling the aircraft to the private operators...a big no-no. DOD didn't like that, and a lot of heads rolled with some prison time. Only 8 of those 130s released in the program still exist (as well as some P-3s), but all are currently grounded as a result of the unrelated contract termination this season of all large air tankers. Two of the 130s crashed in California due to structural failure, one in 1994 and one in 2002 (the one filmed).

In any event, ever since then, Congress has been reluctant to allow DOD to release any aircraft slated for "forest fire usage". When the A-10 actually was being considered a number of years back, it was also uncovered that some of the fuselages that were to be released out of AMARC as "spares" actually were slated to go down south to central/south America to supplement current State Dept ops there. The kabosh was put on the Firehog program pretty quick. I forget the ex-Hog pilot's name that's pushing this program, but IMO, he's living a pipe-dream.

LOL mike yea your right. That would be a great idea coupling the gun with the retardent. A 30 mm super soker would be awsome i wish i had one of those when i were a kid <img src=newicons/anim_lol.gif border=0 align=middle>. Of course with a toy like that you would be sure to kill something in the process.... o well it porbably woud have died in the fire anyways <img src=icon_smile_tongue.gif border=0 align=middle>.

I'm not against the A-10 being used for other purposes, but my beef is with the guy that is pushing the idea.
Can't take any criticism. I gave up posting on his site because he won't listen to anybody that has more than surface knowledge of the A-10 or won't sing praises about the A-10.
Dice you know how fast modifications move and how involved they get. This guy thinks he can just slap on a pair of big engines and go flying.
He has all these ideas about how to mod the jet that would make it more effective than the current tankers. My question had been, since the web sight leads you to believe the passion is to get wildfires put out and save homeowners from being burned out,and since getting the A-10 is likely slim to none, why not develop those ideas for the current tanker force and make them more effective?
I can't remember the response exactly but whatever it was didn't measure up.
I really don't think there is much support for the idea in the firefighter community as well.
I've been hoping the subject would go away.
Cheers
db

Being responsible means sometimes pissing people off.
Gen Colin Powell ret

has anyone looked into purpose built aircraft for this mission. hell cosidering the dangers why have UAVs not been explored.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
has anyone looked into purpose built aircraft for this mission. hell cosidering the dangers why have UAVs not been explored.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I'd like to investigate it. It would be interesting to see what unique features there would be relative to the current aircraft types used for this purpose. It probably would be more fruitful to develop a fire retardant "bomb" in various sizes with cheap (IR?) guidance, air burst fuzing etc. That way, almost anything could drop it safely from altitude. Has anyone looked into that either?

THE CRAPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"The F-22...It's the poo"

_________________
????

One of the posts I read brought up a subject I hadn't thought about before and that was extreme change in air temperature the fire creates at low level flight and the effect if has on a turbine engine due to the high inlet air temperature.
db

Being responsible means sometimes pissing people off.
Gen Colin Powell ret