Colorado lawmakers push for the state to develop aerial firefighting fleet

A few hours before the 800-acre Galena Fire started on Friday west of Fort Collins, Colorado, two state lawmakers were quoted as saying they were going to introduce a bill in the legislature directing the state to develop their own aerial firefighting fleet. According to the Coloradoan, soon after the fire started before noon on March 15 firefighters requested air tankers but none were available.

Senators Steve King and Cheri Jahn plan to introduce a bill this week that would create a program similar to those in the states of California and Oregon which have their own fleets of aerial firefighting assets.

“We are pushing our luck when we think that the federal government will come flying in to save Colorado when it’s burning,” Senator King told 7NEWS.

Below is an excerpt from an article at Denver’s CBS4 which was published at 9:54 a.m. on March 15 just before the Galena Fire started:

“People have said ‘Oh my gosh, how in world will you ever pay for that? Oh my gosh, how can you make this?’ You know what, we can either keep saying that for the years to come or we can take hold of it and say ‘This incredible idea and we need to figure out how to make it work,’ ” Jahn said.

One idea is to make it a public-private partnership.

“Can you imagine what advertising value would be if you had a Colorado Rockies sign on tail of slurry bomber?” King said.
If the state were unrestrained by federal rules, pilots of state air tankers might be able to do night drops sometimes, which federal pilots don’t do now.

“We have night vision goggles. We have GPS. We have all sorts of technology that the federal government does not even recognize or allow their firefighters to use,” King said.

When the Waldo Canyon Fire erupted in Colorado Springs last year there were 29 other large fires burning throughout the country and nine large air tankers to fight them all. With 4 million acres of dead trees in Colorado, the danger of another waldo canyon isn’t going away.

UPDATE: We started a contest for Photoshopped images of aircraft with advertising.

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

13 thoughts on “Colorado lawmakers push for the state to develop aerial firefighting fleet”

  1. Canadian Convair 580s operated by Conair and the government of Saskatchewan spent a couple months fighting fires in Colorado last year. Kelowna Flightcraft owns the Type Certificate for the Convair 340/440/580 family and has plenty of airframes in reserve for conversion to cargo aircraft or air tankers. Expect we will see more CV580s operating in the US this summer. Running two engines is less expensive than running four on an ex-military P-3.

  2. You know

    I talked to the CO Agricultural Aircraft Association folks bck a few months doing some inquiries

    The conversation was spirited!! I loved it! A helo mech (me) talking to to the big guy of the orgainization…..

    I can HONESTLY feel for these guys and the sometimes profit margins that some of these folks make and after, chemical. aircraft insurance, flight trainin g and re currency, 100 hours inspections and annuals, paying pilot and field spotters and more equipment and jet fuel running $6-7 USD and 100LL running nearly the same……………………….

    Do u and I mean EVERY LMA type here, do you honestly think that any of the folks in Hickeloopers administration or any other for that fact, REALLLY REAAALLLY understand what it takes to operate “at the convienience of the Government?” I can fully , fullly understand the lack of return on any or if it were my aircraft, on a CWN contract when I was making payment spraying fields. Did I mention the insurance man??? Oh he may not like you dropping spray booms in order to drop 800 gallons of mud at a time……..that just might jack up the insuranace rates from $5 – 10K USD if your carrier sees u on a CWN or Exclusive Use deal and u did not indicate to him….think the LMA’s and GO State Government want own those costs? Maybe they could invite the USFS to do and SEAT or another airtanker study….ohh wait…bad idea…they need something done within the next 2-4 years and not waiting 20+

    Does anyone in Gov (State or Fed) really understand the true cost of aircraft operation??

    Take the VLAT….that scares the hell out of em, when the pennies start flowing to 3 engines and let’s be real honest here…………..

    Jets are economical at higher altitudes….thinking you are saving peeeeenies to deliver mud at 120 knots drinkin Jet A in excess of 100 lbs per hour at ridgetop altitudes, dropping mud, then pouring the cobbs to 3 or 4 spools, …..think that is not less than 1500 to 6500 ++++ USD per hour???

    CO politicians, like CSU, who saw there fire program get shifted to Public Safety probably did not get the weather or cost per flight hour memo….

    I feel that USFS is going to learn, in short order, this season what the true costs of “Next Gen” reaaaly are going to be about. Something like the costs of SEATS will increase by a few fold when the bills start coming in!

    I hope the State of CO gets the same spirited conversation as I did with CO AAA…they will learn in short order that building contracts MAY not always be at the convienience (sp) of Government. Some body with the SEAT will be convieniently spraying fields. This idea of Exclusive Use and CWN will no longer be out of ones goodness of their hearts…..count on that!

    Maybe the will have to paint naked women as nose art like they did BITD….oh waiiit that would not be PC

  3. Contact numerous high ranking elected State officials about this coming fire season. The response was about the same from all, WHATEVER? My response “sorry to have bothered you.” Goverment “management” reminds me of the old Mel Brooks movie Blazing Saddles.

  4. How much could one REALLY spend to put their name on an air tanker and expect to get enough exposure to make it worth it?? My thought is that exposure is limited and the costs high, does it make any sense at all?? You’re talking the cost of running a low level NASCAR team to run a tanker company for a year with 1/1000 the exposure.

    Interesting to hear that some of the P3’s have sold. I figured maybe a foreign buyer might eventually get a few. Would think it would make sense to get a couple with the support equipment required.

  5. Hmm, heard rumors about three of the best P-3’s being sold-nothing more,
    other than buyers are not Californian and possibly Native Tribe money..
    Also the DC-7’s aren’t gone…
    Interesting times…
    The states are moving ahead of the Feds…
    I can see an Indian Casino ads on the side of a P3 or
    DC7 (Or a DC 10)…

  6. Time has almost ran out, fire season is close-by. For those three or four state govenors that are sincere about doing something. Contact 10 Air Carrier and go for a exculsive use contract. Forget the Feds. Show your voters (unlike Ca.) that you care. One DC-10 can be within an hour of the four states.

  7. Last year the Colorado Army National Guard identified 10 UH-60’s and 5 CH-47’s along with aircraft commanders qualified to provide interagency support. One drawback, the governor has to activate them and pay for them. The letter of agreement is good until 30 June 2013. So if you don’t see the Guard flying fire fighting missions it’s because the Governor didn’t activate them.

    As for SEATS in Colorado: The Colorado Division of Fire Prevention and Control has issued their “2013 Provisional Wildfire Preparedness Plan”. On page 7 they propose “reducing the number of contract SEATS from 3 to 2 …”. Not much contract money there to attract the ag guys.

    To be fair, they also want to consider a cwn for VLAT’s. Unfortunately, nothing they are considering will provide initial attack capability. The total fire aviation budget including use of Guard assets for Colorado in 2013/2014 is $1.296M

    Colorado is still looking for firefighting on the cheap so I hope the billboard air tanker plan works. I don’t care if it’s the Coors Silver Bullet, as long as its initial attack and working the fire.

  8. Here’s a thought…. pretty way out there but in a perfect idealistic world…. .

    Crop dusting companies utilize SEAT platforms and Type 3 Helicopter platforms. If you are a duster driver chances are you are already pretty adept at the basic skills needed for air attack.

    What if a consortium of ag companies got into the mix? Much of the year that things are gonna burn, their aircraft are already probably hot and flying over the fields just east of the Rocky Mountain front and in the larger agricultural valleys. On a moment’s request would there be any possibility of an “immediate changeout” of ag-related equipment to, in the least, some light IA equipment? Dropping the spray boom on a chopper and grabbing a bucket for instance?

    I know. This is way way out there but some potential resources are already there. Then again, so is National Guard. Hmmm. I think I’ll grab another whiskey.

  9. Sponsored Tankers;
    Funny… I suggested this idea few years ago.
    Insurance companies, Banks, Ketchup, whatever….
    It could pay the program entirely or a part of it.

  10. Not sure what the state’s costs were with the fires last summer, but having a fleet ready doing IA should help keep fire sizes down a bit, thus saving money in the long run. Pay for itself even??

    Cal Fire obviously can make it work. What kind of aircraft would be suitable to Colorado?? And where would they come from??

    Advertising on an air tanker?? Novel idea, though I don’t see the payback being too high.

    Good discussion to get the ball rolling….

    1. Rumor has it that CO, AZ, NM, are in talks to develop there own shared air program. The governors have met on this issue.

  11. Not knowing much about fire-aviation, I have no idea about night drops with goggles, but it sounds fishy. Can you just picture a “slurry bomber” coming over the hill with nascar style advertising on it?

Comments are closed.