Forest Service moving to one-year contracts for air tankers

This appears to be a result of inadequate funding for firefighting by the Administration and Congress

number of large air tankers under exclusive use contract
The number of large air tankers under exclusive use contract by the U.S. federal government, 2000 through 2018, at the beginning of the wildfire season.

The U.S. federal government has taken steps over the last 16 years that have reduced the number of large air tankers on exclusive use contracts from 44 in 2002 to 13 in 2018. After the wings fell off two air tankers in 2002 killing five crew members, the Forest Service, the agency responsible for managing the program, began cancelling contracts for World War II and eventually Korean War vintage aircraft that had been converted to fight fire.

BAe-146 Devore Fire, air tanker,
Tanker 41, a BAe-146, drops retardant on the Devore Fire in Cajon Pass in southern California, November 5, 2012. Photo by Rick McClure

There was no substantial effort to rebuild the fleet until 11 years later when the USFS began awarding contracts for “next generation” air tankers. A few years after that the last of the 50-year old P2V tankers were retired. Following the half-hearted attempt at rebuilding the program, the total number of tankers on contract rose to 20 in 2016 and 2017, but by 2018 had dropped to 13.

The policies being implemented recently could further reduce the number in the coming years.

In 2016 the USFS awarded a one-year exclusive use contract for two water scoopers, with the option for adding four additional years. In 2017 at the end of the second year the USFS decided to not extend the contract for 2018. But during the 2018 fire season they hired the scoopers on a Call When Needed (CWN) basis. An analysis Fire Aviation completed in February, 2018 found that the average cost to the government for CWN large air tankers is much more than Exclusive Use aircraft that work for an entire fire season. The daily rate is 54 percent higher while the hourly rate is 18 percent higher.

The practice of advertising one-year contracts is now metastasizing, with the solicitation issued by the USFS on December 3 for one-year contracts for “up to five” large air tankers. These potential contracts also have options for four additional years, but could, like the scoopers, be cancelled or not extended at the discretion of the USFS. If the agency decides to award contracts for five aircraft, it would bring the total up to 18.

Earlier this year the USFS shut down the program that was focused on converting seven former U.S. Coast Guard HC-130H aircraft into air tankers. Now they are being moved to the aircraft boneyard in Arizona until the planes can be transferred to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as required in legislation in August. From 2016 to the summer of 2018 one of the HC-130H’s was used occasionally on fires with a borrowed retardant tank temporarily installed.

Air tankers are very expensive to purchase and retrofit. Most of the jet-powered tankers being used today before being converted were retired from their original mission and are decades old, but two models of scooper or large air tankers can be purchased new. The CL-415 amphibious scooper cost about $37 million in 2014 but Bombardier stopped building them in 2015, and the new owner of the business, Viking, has not resumed manufacturing the aircraft. A new Q400 can be ordered from Bombardier with an external retardant tank for around $34 million.

Most air tanker operators in the United States prefer to buy retired airliners like the BAe-146,  DC-10, or variants of the C-130 and convert them to carry and dispense retardant. Retrofitting alone runs into the millions. Few if any vendors can simply write a check to purchase and convert an air tanker, so they have to convince a lender to give them large sums of money usually even before they have a contract with the USFS. With this new one-year contract policy, obtaining those funds could be even more difficult.

Below is an excerpt from the Missoulian:

“They’re only offering a one-year contract,” said Ron Hooper, president of Missoula-based Neptune Aviation. “We can’t go to the bank with a one-year contract to finance airplanes. They just laugh at us.”

Even if a vendor received a guaranteed five-year contract it can be difficult to establish and implement a long-term business plan that would make sense to their banker and the solvency of the company.

The province of Manitoba just awarded a 10-year contract for the management, maintenance, and operation of their fleet of seven water-scooping air tankers (four CL-415s and three CL-215s), supported by three Twin Commander “bird-dog” aircraft.

If the occurrence of wildfires was rapidly declining, reducing the air tanker fleet would make sense. However everyone knows the opposite is happening.

(The two charts below were updated February 2, 2019)

Wildfire Acres Burned 1985-2018

In the late 1980s the average size of a wildfire in the U.S. was 30 acres. That has increased every decade since, bringing the average in the 2010s up to 101 acres.

1985-2018 wildfires average size decade
More acres are burning and the fires are growing much larger while the Administration and Congress reduce the capability of the federal agencies to fight fires.

For the last several years Congress has appropriated the same amount of funds for the U.S. Forest Service, for example. But meanwhile, it costs more to pay for wages, fire trucks, office expenses, travel, and more expensive but safer more reliable air tankers. This leaves less money for everything including vegetation management, prescribed burning, fire prevention, salaries, and firefighting aircraft.

In addition to the reduction in air tankers, the largest and most efficient helicopters, Type 1’s such as the Air Crane, were cut two years ago by 18 percent, from 34 to 28.

In 2017 the number of requests for Type 1 helicopters on fires was close to average, but the number of orders that were Unable To be Filled (UTF) was almost double the number of filled orders. In 2017, 60 percent of the requests were not filled — 220 of the 370 that were needed. That is by far the highest percentage of UTFs in the last 18 years. The second highest was 46 percent in 2012.

number type 1 helicopters firefighting order requests filled
Aircraft can’t put out fires, but under ideal conditions they can slow the spread of a fire enough to allow firefighters on the ground to move in and put them out.

It might be easy to blame the USFS for the cutbacks in fire suppression capability, but a person in the agency’s Washington headquarters who prefers to not have their name mentioned said it is a result of a shortage of funds appropriated by Congress. The Administration’s request for firefighting in the FY 2019 budget calls for 18 large air tankers and intends to maintain the 18 percent reduction in Type 1 helicopters, keeping that number at only 28 for the third year in a row.

What can be done?

These one-year firefighting aircraft contracts need to be converted to 10-year contracts, and the number of Type 1 helicopters must be restored to at least the 34 we had for years.

In addition to aircraft, the federal agencies need to have much more funding for activities that can prevent fires from starting and also keep them from turning into megafires that threaten lives, communities, and private land. More prescribed burning and other fuel treatments are absolutely necessary.

The only way this will happen is if the President and Congress realize the urgency and pass and sign the legislation. The longer we put this off the worse the situation will become as the effects of climate change become even more profound.

wildfires climate change
The cumulative forest area burned by wildfires has greatly increased between 1984 and 2015, with analyses estimating that the area burned by wildfire across the western United States over that period was twice what would have burned had climate change not occurred. Source: adapted from Abatzoglou and Williams 2016.

Typos, let us know HERE. And, please keep in mind our commenting ground rules before you post a comment.

12 thoughts on “Forest Service moving to one-year contracts for air tankers”

  1. Bill, it was Bombardier that stopped building the 415, not Viking. Viking bought the 415 program after Bombardier 415 stopped production.

      1. Viking is building CL-415 EAF right now (concerting cl 215s) and they are considering a cl 515.

        1. “Building” may be too strong a description. Longview Aviation Asset Management (LAAM) of Calgary, Alberta, is using kits supplied by Viking and is retrofitting and upgrading eleven existing CL-215’s to include the winglets, finlets, higher operating weights, increased capacity firebombing system, and foam injection system seen on CL-415’s. We wrote about this in May, 2018.

  2. Bill ;
    Good informative article that points out our severe deficiencies in FF equipment!
    The Canadians,at least are mostly progressive in that regard. I guess we will have to try and borrow aircraft from them ,if available ?

  3. Bill: Aircraft can’t put out, (extinguish) fire ? Since when ?
    I do hope you are pulling our leg. Pls explain, Thk’s.

    1. Patrick,

      To a bureaucrat or Congressman, when you don’t know how many of anything you need, any number is acceptable.

      This is summary of excellent studies by Australia [ there are no comparable US studies] on air tanker effectiveness.

      After you’ve read thru that one try this one.

      From my point of view as an experienced aviator with significant military tactical aviation time and Washington D.C. time, no US agency has defined or determined, with actual data, the effectiveness of air tankers to the extent that anyone can present a clear cogent argument on the numbers of air tankers by class and type that would be required on an annual basis to support firefighting in the US.

      From my past experience in D.C. if you don’t have an “air tight” case for required objective aircraft inventory and a clear explanation of the trade-offs and negative consequences of not having the required numbers, your chances of competing effectively in the Washington “budget wars” and getting funding from Congress for your programs are about ZILCH. At that point, your only hope is politics and unsupported arguments.

      The best hope the USFS has is to get the AFUE study in high gear and get out a substantive report on air tanker effectiveness in time to fight for increased air tanker funding in the next budget cycle.

      1. Bean,

        AFUE is a joke and waste of taxpayers money. We had one of the AFUE guys at a meeting I was at recently and that individual couldn’t answer any of our questions. His standard response was its coming in the report. If they can’t answer questions from folks inside the agencies I doubt they will have anything put together enough to take to congress.

        1. If you’re right, see the second to last paragraph in my comments above. I hope you’re wrong.

          Unsupported arguments have been tried before and the GAO told the Forest Service to come back with hard data. It also appears that politics is not working for them.

          Maybe Churchill was right:
          “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else.”

          1. I’m skeptical the current cadre of Congress and the GAO would be in favor of restoring air assets for wildland agencies with additional data and studies to substantiate aerial fire fighting effectiveness. I picture the same outcome of what our military branches (who do provide data and analyses for what they need) experience when they attempt to persuade Congress into funding our military forces…

            The AFUE program should conclude it’s study and publish their results. If they are inconclusive so be it and move on.

  4. Steve,

    Please check the 2018 NDAA to see how the services made out in aircraft procurement funding.
    USAF requested $15,430,849,000 Congress authorized $18,420,649,000. Similar story for Navy and Army aviation.

    Hard data collected from actual operations that would enable the USFS to understand, develop, and explain requirements and the consequences of not meeting inventory objectives is the only way to underpin a budget request that will withstand the usual budget scrutiny of the “long knives” searching for savings.

    Maybe the AFUE study is like their C-130 program. Both were a political push from the outside of the organization. Both had a “not invented here” stigma. The USFS has to want tankers. Any organization has to want a program to succeed or it will certainly fail.

    1. 2018 was a great year for military funding, although not so much in previous years.

      I agree that the FS has to want an airtanker program which I don’t think the current leadership does.

Comments are closed.