The National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group issued a memo on June 16, 2014 that they hope clarifies which air tankers will be dispatched when filling an order. This is apparently in response to issues that developed at the incident level, air tanker bases, dispatch offices, or coordination centers after adding the next generation air tankers into the mix. The short version of the policy is in the second paragraph of the memo:
All [large air tankers] LATs and [very large air tankers] VLATs shall be dispatched in rotation (first in/first out), regardless of the location of the incident…
Following that statement, eight exceptions were listed, such as, is a lead plane or Aerial Supervision Module (ASM) required and on scene, are there special requirements at the fire, and MAFFS are put at the bottom of the rotation at the beginning of each day. Another exception is:
Airtankers are returning to contract availability after day(s) off, in which case these airtankers begin at the end of the rotation line at their assigned base. Airtankers that work a seven day schedule do not rotate out of their position.
Coulson’s C-130Q, for example, does not have days off, and works seven days a week. Most, if not all, of the other large air tankers have scheduled days off. When 10 Tanker Air Carrier submitted their DC-10 bid for the next generation air tanker contract, they also included a proposal to not have days off, but the U.S. Forest Service did not select that option.
The first quote seems to say that no matter the relative location of the fire and the aircraft, the next air tanker in rotation will be dispatched even if it is 2,000 miles away. We checked with a person closely involved with the issue and received clarification about the clarification memo. In almost all cases, we were told, the air tankers to be considered for dispatching will be selected from those at the top of the rotation at the air tanker base nearest the fire.
The entire memo in MS Word format can be downloaded by clicking HERE.
It also provided information about who pays for the daily availability of the air tankers:
Daily availability for all LATs and VLATs on the Exclusive Use contract with the Forest Service is paid by the Forest Service Washington Office and is not charged to the using agency/fire. The using agency/fire is charged only for the cost of retardant and the flight rate. Additionally, as the costs of using the VLATs are similar to LATs, cost alone is not sufficient reason for not using the VLAT in rotation. Reference the flight rate chart for more information.
Below, is a table that was included in the memo:
The memo also referred to the document issued on May 1 that was in response to the request in the report for the Yarnell Hill Fire about how to use very large air tankers.
Maybe R&D, maybe tanking, maybe costs associated with STC
All of this could be a factor…and after 10 years we’re now worried about 3K in costs?
After ten years we have spent that 100 fold in “other suppression” costs
There is a large variability in the daily standby costs, which are paid by the U.S. Forest Service, and not by the fire. The next-gen air tankers cost $26,162 to $34,000 per day for aircraft on 5-year contracts, while the old P2Vs are $11,100 to $16,089 per day. And of course the number of gallons varies also, from 2,082 in a P2V to 11,600 in a DC-10.
DAILY STANDBY RATES, 2014
–Neptune P2V: $14,301 to $16,089
–Minden P2V: $11,100
–Neptune BAe-146: $30,846
–Minden BAe-146 (when it enters service): $27,400
–Aero-Flite RJ85 (when it enters service): $26,642
–Erickson AeroTanker MD-87: $26,162
–Coulson C-130Q: $34,000
–10 Tanker DC-10, T-910: $27,285 (5-year contract)
–10 Tanker DC-10, T-911 & T-912: $37,285 (1-year “additional equipment”)
Just looking at the numbers – it appears that the BA146 is not very cost effective per gallon versus flight hour cost. Where the DC10 is spot on and C130, RJ and MD87 are useable assets when comparing gals per flight hour cost! How can the same type aircraft be over $3K difference in flight hour?
Having worked with coordinating different contractors on adjacent construction projects before, absolutely yes. Put it in writing, then the Base Manager has some back up on which aircraft is parked first. I do see it as an issue however when you NextGen aircraft is dispatched first, and has time to make another round at the end of the day, while a piston aircraft doesn’t. I think the likelihood of that happening is pretty low.
“Are there that many air tankers at a Federal air base that the staff needs a memo on rotation?”
Simple answer: YES.
At our base last week, we had 3 LATs and a VLAT.
Are there that many air tankers at a Federal air base that the staff needs a memo on rotation? I thought that was insulting. After a forest uses its two closest air tankers who will be next (Fed air tankers) and from how far. Within the Region hours, between Regions days, if at all. Too many hoops to jump through. I wonder if NMAC even know this is a problem; providing the I.C. with air tankers as quickly as possible in hopes of containment in the first burning period.
I’m surprised nobody has commented about the fact that Neptune’s BAe-146s are costing $1500 more an hour than Minden’s, and $3500 an hour more than the the AeroFlite RJs.
I bet that had an impact on their not getting the original contract, and am kind of disappointed that cost wasn’t negotiated to a number that is closer to the other similar aircraft.
Of course, it’s not showing the other numbers, so maybe the annual fixed costs are lower.
Did you notice the difference in cost between the P2Vs? Neptune was nearly double what Minden’s was. Minden’s T-48 now out of commission however.
New generation, same old gripes that we had in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s.
Someone might one more trip than the next guy.
Maybe a simple edit from “location” to “jurisdiction” would CLARIFY the clouded intent of the memo???
It is kinda like CAL FIRE ATGS’s ordering “Type 3 or greater airtanker, multi-engine” to avoid having SEATs assigned.
The information is for each tanker base. “First in / first out” applies to the in-base rotation.
This is the 3rd iteration from NMAC…. the previous one being that VLATs would be on rotation just like all of the other LATs.
After concerns from experienced ICs and line officers… as well aviation professionals…. THIS memo was a compromise between the contracting officers (bean counters) and the wildland fire professionals (practitioners) to find common ground and meet the mission.
I sure hope a 4th version isn’t needed to explain “right tool, right place, right time”.
More and more wildland fire science is being wrongly treated like rocket science….
Ken, your “rocket science” quote reminded me of another quote — from a fire researcher:
Agreed!!
NMAC acts like there are hundreds of air tankers. Rotation, that is for tow trucks. So if you are at the top of the list, you OVERFLY four or five tankers sitting on the ground and available, makes Federal sense. Sounds like zones of influence and initial attack has left the Federal system. 10 Air Carrier six day coverage only, brilliant. Being surrounded by a national forest I had hopes of seeing a Federal tanker arriving within the initial attack period on a new fire. What was I thinking? Nothing is changing! Slow air attack (tankers) response equals big, big fires.
You’ve got your information wrong about how rotations at a tanker base work.
Chill out… This letter addresses “in-base” rotation.
There won’t be over flying of other airtankers.
There is no reason to always be so negative. How about applauding progress and improvements?…. or do you just like to stir the s**t?
In the article we wrote:
Closest resource. Not a tough concept to get one’s head around. Problem is it hasn’t been working very well. We’ll see if this fixes it.