LA Times writes about aging air tankers

Author Bill GabbertPosted on Categories Fixed wingTags ,

The LA Times has an interesting article about our aging air tanker fleet.

Air tankers Rapid City
Two of Neptune’s air tankers at Rapid City during the Myrtle Fire, July 21, 2012. Photo by Bill Gabbert.

W.J. Hennigan, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, describes himself on Twitter as an “aerospace writer intrigued with the military-industrial complex. If it soars, shoots, or explodes, I cover it.” But he had never written about fire aviation until he began researching a story about air tankers a couple of months ago. The product of his work appeared on the front page of Sunday’s LA Times, an article that revolves around the small, aging fleet of aircraft that drop retardant on wildland fires.

If you follow fire aviation closely, you will not find much new information in the article, but the fact that it appeared on the front page of a nationally respected newspaper makes this an important step toward educating the public and our elected representatives about the deteriorating air tanker fleet.

There are a couple of videos in the article that are worth watching, and be sure and check out the map showing USFS-contracted air tanker crashes since 1994 that have killed 34 aviators.

We’ve said repeatedly that you can’t fight fire on the cheap (here, here, and here), but that’s exactly what the federal government is trying to do. Below are some excerpts from the article:

Aviation companies have to keep bids low to win government contracts, and old military aircraft come cheap. Neptune Aviation Services Inc. of Missoula, Mont., has a Forest Service contract to operate eight large air tankers, the most of any company. It flies Lockheed P-2Vs, an aircraft first built in 1946 to hunt for Soviet submarines.

[…]

“We’re doing the best we can, realizing we can’t do it on the cheap,” said Tom Harbour, the Forest Service’s director of fire and aviation management. “When you look forward, by golly, do we have a problem. We need more aircraft and much more capability.”

 

Thanks go out to Jim, Doug, and Tony.

Typos, let us know, and please keep in mind the commenting ground rules before you post a comment.

8 thoughts on “LA Times writes about aging air tankers”

  1. You know Gordie, I suppose you do not want to put that out to the rest of us on the Internets…

    If that is the kind of response you get from a “career professional” maybe it it is time to put it out there to show the marginalization of Federal Types who, they themselves, BARELY know anything about something as expensive as aviation.

    Someday, the Public will know and to realize that these are the clowns who might have a degree, but have NO true aviation operational background to make judgements above other folks suggestions!

    Those “career professionals” at any Fed or State level are to keep an open mind and listen to their constituents

    But fear not my friend, there are folks that have marginalized my aviation background in the emergency management world. Aviation, to the uninitiated, or those who don’t care….is very apparent in the world today……..’cuz we been doing this so long this way in the Agency, that it / we KNOW there is only one way to do things because we/ I have been doing it this way for 25 to 30 years…

    Yes, I too have heard it tooooo often and the chirping is high due what aircraft cost even at the micro State level

    You can get my email addy from Mr Gabbert….if you want to discuss

  2. No, I’ve mulled it over since I received it. And while it didn’t come right out and call me any names, it basically told me I didn’t know what I was talking about, but used some inaccurate information. I felt, and still feel as if I were brushed off. As a taxpayer, 26 year firefighter and with an engineering background (ok, Civil may not apply, but I can still think), I hate being marginalized. I am sitting here writing a reply after 6 weeks. I know that my suggestions were slightly unconventional. And while I have (very rarely) had an opportunity to duck mud, I’m not an aviation professional. OTOH, I have a son-in-law with thousands of hours in the air, and I ask passable questions.

    I think they are too fixed on LATs. To the point of tunnel vision. And in the EMS world, tunnel vision allows people to get sicker. The P-2s that right now are the most numerous planes on contract aren’t Type 1 tankers. A plane that size would fill the bill. If we could find a (relatively) cheap 1800 to 2200 gallon aircraft in the air quickly say before the 2015 season, it would buy us time. Hmmm, 2015 is short term. My, the time flies. Dang Argon-ST study.

  3. …….do we have a problem. We need more aircraft and much more capability.

    Reaaaallly? Is this who folks hire to head up USFS – FAM

    Prettttty much sums up the quality of leadership heading up an agency that really needs to be retuned for the real world.

    It truly is amazing he let himself be quoted ……. An obviously out of touch statement, at best!

  4. Don’t get rid of the letter you (idiot). How unprofessional of Tommy. Pressure has a way of clouding a persons ability to function and think straight. Is this the same group in the F.S./NASA that had reservations about using VLAT’s? Let the past be the past. Get the numbers up (air tankers available daily) and think twenty minutes from “report to retardant” on the fire. There is too many weak links in the Fed system. My hero of the summer was the AFMO in Arizona who “pulled the pin” on a seven acre fire using the DC 10. The other fire was seven acres at one time. Thanks so much for a trip back in history, the Hirth Boys.

  5. No matter how you look at it, the USFS has gotten itself between a boulder and a dozer blade. They are on a fixed income, have to provide for immediate needs and look to the future at the same time.

    Right now, with all that is happening in the government, they have no chance, in light of the GAO report of getting the elected officials to take more money out of our pockets.

    In the near term, obviously, every tanker in the sky is relatively old, even the newest NextGen aircraft is AT LEAST 12 years old (RJ-85). The P2s are obviously running on borrowed time (not to say they aren’t great aircraft, but structurally they have a fixed lifecycle). We need to get something done 2 seasons ago. Hopefully every contractor with a NextGen award can get their full complement of allowable aircraft working before next season fully ramps up.

    And they need to get a realistic long term strategy figured out. To me, it makes no sense to embrace an aircraft that doesn’t fit the strategy. If you require a minimum of 3000 gallons from a contractor, then you should require that minimum for your long term fleet. I personally don’t think that’s the right approach, but hey, I have a personal letter from Tom Harbour calling me an idiot for suggesting other approaches already. I would love to see them adopt an overall strategy that embraces SEATS, scoopers, some P2 (Type 2) size aircraft, some LAT and VLAT aircraft, and manages them all nationally.

    I have invited the Easter Bunny to Thanksgiving, too.

  6. Just for the record. The Hirth accident in Pa. was a PV2, Tanker 38, build in 1945.
    “we’re doing the best we can”…….Hope I never here those words from my stock broker.

      1. Thanks Kelley for the web sites. I thought it was Gordie. No wonder I drive around with my left turn signal blinking all the time.

Comments are closed.