Associated Press reporter Jeff Barnard has written a number of articles about wildland fire, as you can see in the results of a Google search for his name and “fire”.
With him not being a newby on the subject it was surprising to see what he wrote near the bottom of an article about the “old Coast Guard planes” the U.S. Forest Service will be using as air tankers.
Just how effective air tankers are in stopping the spread of wildfires in the West remains a matter of belief rather than fact. In 2013, the U.S. Government Accountability Office noted that there is no scientific data to support air tanker use.
He is saying it is not factually true that air tankers are effective in “stopping the spread of wildfires”.
There is no doubt that in certain weather, fuels, and topography conditions air tankers are of no value, except to CNN and other video vendors. However, many firefighters will say it is a FACT that when burning conditions are not extreme air tankers can often, but not always, slow the spread of a fire enough to allow firefighters on the ground the time to move in and stop the spread.
Air tankers certainly can’t “stop the spread” of all “wildfires in the west”, but under the right conditions, they can effectively slow the spread, which with adequate followup from ground firefighters can result in stopping a fire from spreading.
As we have said before, an aggressive initial attack on new fires with overwhelming force within the first 10 to 30 minutes, with resources from both the ground and the air, can reduce the number of fires that become megafires, potentially saving tens of millions of dollars.
The headline of Mr. Barnard’s article is, “Forest Service will use old Coast Guard planes to fight fire”.
Here’s the Australian study on air tanker effectiveness:
Letting go of the “belief rather than fact” comment for the moment, let’s assume the statements within the article are correct. Is the move towards Hercs really just an attempt to get “faster planes that can carry bigger payloads”? Surely there are other factors at play.
And are these new, ahem, not quite as old aircraft designed to last only ten years before being deemed “too old to fly”? That doesn’t seem like the most effective use of taxpayer funds to me. Fast forward to 2029, then what?
What factors might you have in mind?
The Hercs carry a heavier payload thus more liquid on a fire at once of more multiple drops if door configuration allows.
The BAe 146 and Electra carry much though not as much as the Herc.
Hercs and Electras are fast at low altitude – 350 Knots.
Hercs have been used for some years by USFS, tragically including some old models that were not properly maintained. Recently National Guard Hercs were used, fitted with an easily removable tank and discharge system. The alternative is a removable tank that requires underfloor modification – that’s what the Coulson Hercs use.
What about the Operational Retardant Effectiveness (ORE) study from the 80s?
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/wfcs/documents/Operational_Retardant_Evaluation_1985.pdf
http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/fire/wfcs/documents/Operational_Retardant_Evaluation_Update.pdf
Thanks Dan. I added those to the list of air tanker studies at WildfireToday.com/Documents.
Do not worry,help is on the way. I recently sat in on a presentation at a tanker base.The USFS has a new study underway. There is a KingAir with cameras,IR,streaming video etc now flying around studying air tanker drops.The folks doing the data collecting are USFS employees with groundpounder experience. Supposedly the study is funded for 3 years but expected to go 5. I’m sure most tanker crews have already seen these folks but the rest of us may not have. We know that the USFS has only the best of intentions “sarcasm” when scrutinizing the Tanker community,oh and yes the Helis will be filmed also.Forgive me for being skeptical,but I believe the USFS would love to do away with private contractors,contracts etc.This will surely be another way to show the superiority of their upcoming C130 program compared to the private contractors. Stand by and watch them try to say private companies just cant do the required job. I hope I’m wrong but signs are pointing otherwise.
Airtankers don’t stop fires. Air tankers support those on the ground, who do. Modification of fuel fire behavior, and modification of fire behavior to support ground tactics has always been the rule.
There are rare cases in which a drop stops or secures a small fire, such as boxing a tree or x’ing it out, generally slowing or stopping spread until ground personnel can be on scene, and a great deal of line-building is done to assist ground troops contain fires or secure flanks.
The notion that there is no evidence showing effectiveness of air tankers is ridiculous. Of course air tankers are effective. How effective depends on numerous factors and is variable on a drop by drop basis. The issue is always one of the proverbial tool in the toolbox; different tools for different circumstances. In the dynamic fire environment, there is no one single tool. Fires continue to be ground operations; aircraft operate on fires as tools at the disposal of ground troops.
Doug is spot on. It’s a tool and does and does not have a place.
Though like the Lochness Monster…. I have seen retardant put out a fire….albeit small(1/2 acre). …don’t tell anyone.
France / Spain and Italy all use retardant or water to put their fires out with aircraft more then ground crews. France actually will have either an S2T or CL415 in the air for hours during thee day, just waiting for a puff of smoke. These periods are also used for pilot training during most of the fire session and when there is a fire, an Air Tanker is here first choice on target. Yes, I have spent time with the French tankers in southern France for a summer, very different ideas about aerial fire fighting, both them and USFS concepts are effective in there own way.
Look for the AU study showing that small fires can be extinguished with use of an AT802 but the periphery of a large fire would take several AT802s to keep ahead of its spread.
It appears the study was done before AU started using very large helicopters (they like Erickson’s S-64s) and large airtankers (BAe146 and Herc).
Of course a multi-drop large tanker should be able to cover much of the periphery quickly.
I wish it was as easy and clear-cut as that, Keith.