Above: Screenshot from video shot by Jim Watson, Pilot of T-850 GB Aerial Applications, over the Horse Park Fire.
Jim Watson, pilot of the GB Aerial Applications single engine air tanker T-850, shot this video while flying over and dropping retardant on the Horse Park Fire in southwest Colorado May 28, 2018. He was working with Lead 28.
A spokesperson for Fort Carson, a U.S. Army base south of Colorado Springs, admits that 20 fires in the last 12 months have been a result of training activities on the base, according to KOAA. Below is an excerpt from their report:
On March 16, a fire caused by live ammunition training on a Fort Carson artillery range burned nearly 3,000 acres off Mountain Post property, destroying two homes, numerous outbuildings, and dozens of vehicles. Sunday, a wildfire caused by shooting on the Cheyenne Mountain Shooting Complex public shooting range burned more than 2,000 acres and forced the total closure of a roughly 10-mile stretch of I-25 for more than an hour.
Local residents and elected officials are wondering if there is anything the base can do to minimize the number of fires started by training, such as reducing dangerous activities during periods of elevated fire danger.
Ten years ago this month the pilot of a single engine air tanker was killed while helping firefighters on the ground contain a fire that started on Training Area 25 at Fort Carson. Wildfire Today wrote about the report released by the National Transportation Safety Board, which indicates there were very strong winds that day when Gert Marais died:
At the time of the crash, a U.S. Forest Service person on the ground who was directing the SEAT estimated that at the time of the crash the wind was out of the southwest at 30-40 knots. Winds at the Fort Carson airfield, 5 miles from the crash site, were between 20 and 40 knots from 1300 to the time of the accident at 1815.
Strong winds like occured on April 15, 2008 often indicate high wildfire danger if the relative humidity is low and the vegetation is dry.
Thanks and a tip of the hat go out to Bean. Typos or errors, report them HERE.
Above: File photo of two Thrush 510G aircraft, a standard model and one with a dual cockpit. Thrush photo.
(Originally published at 6 p.m. MDT December 27, 2017)
The state of Georgia’s Forestry Commission has purchased two Thrush 510G Switchback single engine air tankers (SEATs).
The 510G model was introduced by Thrush in 2012 featuring a redesign of everything forward of the firewall including a different engine, the 800 shp GE H80 turbine.
The version acquired by Georgia has a dual cockpit and control systems, unusual in a SEAT, but it enables the aircraft to serve in a training role for Georgia Forestry Commission pilots.
The “Switchback” part of the name is an option which means in addition to delivering 500 gallons of water or fire retardant, it has the ability to switch from agricultural spray duties to firefighting capabilities in a matter of minutes thanks to its unique fire gate delivery system. These were the first Switchbacks delivered by Thrush, even though they have sold more than 100 510G’s.
“We’re extremely proud to be adding the Switchback to our aerial firefighting fleet,” said Georgia Forestry Commission’s director, Chuck Williams. “It boasts many advantages for our firefighting efforts and heralds an exciting new chapter in our commitment to protect and conserve the more than 24 million acres of timber land across our state. You’ll see these aircraft deployed not just for rapid fire suppression – but also in the very important role of rapid fire detection, which can sometimes make all the difference in being able to contain a wildfire, versus having it become uncontrollable.”
Specifications of the 510G:
Working speed: 90-150
Stall speed as usually landed: 55 mph
Take-off distance at 10,500 pounds: 1,500 feet
Landing Distance as Usually Landed w/Reverse: 350 feet
Above: Tanker 466 operated by New Frontier Aviation reloads while working a wildfire south of Angostura Reservoir in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Nebraska, Colorado, South Dakota (and other states) typically have SEATs on contract during the summer. Photo by Bill Gabbert.
Here is a list of the companies that currently have Single Engine Air Tankers (SEATs) under U.S. Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management contracts. This list does not include SEATs working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs or other federal or state agencies.
USFS, exclusive use:
Air Spray USA, Inc.
BLM, call when needed (or “on call”). There are no SEATs under BLM exclusive use contract at this time:
Above: Tanker 892, a SEAT, drops near the Aldrich Lookout Tower on the Sunflower Fire in Grant County, Oregon in 2014. Photo by Todd McKinley.
For the previous three years the Bureau of Land Management had 33 Single Engine Air Tankers (SEAT) under Exclusive Use (EU) contracts. As we enter the 2017 wildfire season there are none.
In 2014 the agency awarded EU contracts for 33 SEATs that guaranteed one year with a 100-day Mandatory Availability Period and four additional optional years. In 2016 the vendors were notified that two optional years, 2017 and 2018, would not be activated. One of the affected aircraft companies told us that the BLM said the reason was a lack of funds. (UPDATE May 31: Jessica Gardetto, a BLM spokesperson, responded today to an earlier mail from us, explaining that the funds allocated in that 2014 contract had been spent, therefore they had to start over again with a new contract.)
Currently the only BLM SEAT contract in effect is a Call When Needed, or On Call contract that was awarded several weeks ago. A couple of days ago there were seven SEATs actively working in the Southwest Geographic Area on an On Call basis.
An aircraft vendor that operates SEATs told us that one of the issues his company is concerned about is the evaluation process for rating and selecting which vendors receive contract awards. He said the BLM places far too much emphasis on the empty weight of the aircraft while not considering enhancements that may add weight, but contribute to effectiveness and safety. The lightest SEAT is automatically favored, he said, while those with a backup radio, single point fueling behind the wing, GPS, a better performing Trotter retardant gate, ADS-B, larger engine, or a larger prop are penalized.
He said, “I just want to see a fair and impartial evaluation”.
One of the factors that almost destroyed the large air tanker industry around the turn of the century was the U.S. Forest Service’s over emphasis on the lowest bid price. This forced potential tanker vendors to resort to discarded aircraft designed for World War II and the Korean War and gave them little incentive to perform routine but expensive inspections and maintenance. In 2002 when the wings literally fell off two large air tankers in mid-air killing five crew members, the USFS started to re-think their lowest cost policy. Over the next 10 years the number of large air tankers on EU contracts declined from 44 to 9. Following that lost decade the USFS contracting process and the vendors’ fleets were reinvented.
Jessica Gardetto, a spokesperson for the BLM said, “The BLM will ensure that we have adequate SEATs/wildland firefighting resources for the 2017 fire season, regardless of how we contract our aircraft. The BLM will provide an adequate response to all wildfire activity, whether it’s an extreme, normal, or below-normal fire season this year.”
Efforts are underway in Colorado to better evaluate how water enhancers delivered from a single engine air tanker can be more effective than retardants in fighting wildfires.
Colorado historically has only loaded long-term retardant into SEATs. These chemical concentrates are mixed with water and alter fuels so they do not support combustion. Retardant is dropped adjacent to — or ahead of — the fire to create a chemically induced fire break at its perimeter.
Molecular bonds from water enhancers, however, slow evaporation by creating a thermal protective coating. SEAT drops of water enhancers are mainly used in direct attack to slow or halt the fire’s rate of spread long enough for ground resources to access the fireline and mop up or supplement the knockdown process.
These gels have generally been limited in use in recent years, and field testing has been minimal. Information about water enhancers’ availability, use and effectiveness is sparse at best.
Observe and evaluate drops of water enhancers on wildfires and record information about 1) whether the water enhancer stopped or slowed the forward advance of the fire; 2)whether the water enhancer reduced fire intensity to a sufficient level for ground crews to manage the fire; and 3) whether the water enhancer persists on the surface fuels long enough to prevent hotspots from redeveloping or the fire from burning through the drop.
Determine whether water enhancers delivered from a SEAT are effective on wildfires in Colorado. Effectiveness will be viewed in terms of how effective the products were in achieving the desired suppression objectives.
Collect as much data as possible regarding the effectiveness of water enhancers used during initial attack and on emerging fires.
Share lessons learned from the evaluations with interested parties, including cooperators and researchers.
Test and evaluate newly developed ground-based mixing/batching equipment to assess the efficiency of the mixing and loading processes and the ability of the equipment to reduce response times.
“SEATs loaded with water enhancers will respond to fires on State and private land, as well as to fires under the jurisdiction of BLM, the National Park Service, and USFS. Mixing will be at the recommended ratios in the USFS Qualified Products List for each product on all drops. For the first load on each fire, State and Federally contracted SEATs will respond to the incident with water enhancer unless the ordering unit clearly specifies the need for LTR instead.
Decisions regarding where, when and how to apply a particular aerial retardant or suppressant are typically under the discretion of the Incident Commander, so if at any time the Incident Commander or the Air Tactical Group Supervisor feels that the enhancers are not performing as desired, the Incident Commander can immediately order that the SEATs be loaded with retardant.
The three water enhancers being evaluated in the study are: FireIce HVO-F, BlazeTamer 380, and Thermo-Gel 200L — each is approved by the U.S. Forest Service for use in SEATs.
The Center of Excellence for Advanced Technology Aerial Firefighting, with support from the Division of Fire Prevention and Control’s Aviation Unit and the Bureau of Land Management, is conducting the study.
After weighing input from researchers and firefighters, investigators will compile a preliminary and final report about the project’s findings.
A single engine air tanker (SEAT) struck a powerline while on final approach for a water drop on a fire in northern Idaho. At the time the pilot was not aware of the strike but after making the drop noticed that there was some damage to the left wing. The accident occurred July 28, 2016.
“…New Approach Brings SEAT Over an Undetected Powerline
The SEAT, based out of McCall, was dispatched to the fire near Kooskia, Idaho at 1529 hours. The line strike occurred on the SEAT’s second load delivered to the fire. The first load was split and applied on two different runs prior to a Lead Plane arriving on scene.
On the second load, the SEAT was a little off of the line set by the Lead Plane and the SEAT Pilot was unsure of exactly where the Lead Plane wanted the drop. This prompted the SEAT Pilot to make a dry run.
At this point, the ATGS, who was circling overhead, instructed the Lead Plane to give the SEAT a target and let him work his own approach. The SEAT came back around in a fairly tight circle which created a different final approach than had previously been used. This new approach of the flight line brought the SEAT over a powerline that had not been identified prior to the strike. The Pilot identified the location of the known powerline across the draw and concentrated his attention on the approach as he was lining up for the drop.
Pilot Informs ATGS He Might Have Hit Something
The angle of the bank caused the nose and the right wing of the plane to create a blind spot, obscuring Power Pole 2 from view. The angle of the sun and the dark color of the powerlines would have made them basically invisible against the backdrop of the terrain. The Pilot was unaware of the strike at the time it occurred with the only indication being a brief sound that was not part of the “normal” sounds experienced in the aircraft. The flight was bumpy due to turbulent air that is normal on hot summer days in canyon country. Following the successful drop, the Pilot informed ATGS that he might have hit something.
Pilot Notices Vortex Generators Missing from Left Wing
The Pilot flew back over the drop area and confirmed that the known powerline was still intact. He did not locate the poles from the line that had been struck. As he was heading back to the dip location, he looked out at his left wing and realized that numerous vortex generators were missing. The vortex generators are glued on the wing and have been known to come off in flight, but normally only under extreme cold or hot weather conditions. Normal flight is not affected by missing vortex generators. Their purpose is to add stability, lift, and performance during dipping and dropping maneuvers. All controls of the aircraft were functioning normally.
At this time, it had not been established that a wire strike had, in fact, occurred. The Pilot was initially going to return to the dip site for another load when the ATGS recommended that the SEAT fly to the Lewiston Air Tanker Base to check for possible damage (56 miles with crash/rescue services). The Pilot informed ATGS that he was returning to base at McCall (83 miles without crash/rescue services).
The wire strike was first confirmed when the Pilot was on the ground in McCall and was able to see the black marks from the wire on the wing. At this time, the Tanker Base Manager in McCall alerted Dispatch to notify personnel on the fire that a wire had been struck and of the potential for hot wires on the ground…”