U.S. Won't Use Air Tankers for Wildfires

The Guardian (U.K.) ^ | May 10, 2004 | IRA DREYFUSS

[Stoat]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Just as the 2004 wildfire season is opening, the government on Monday grounded an aging fleet of 33 former military tankers that had been among the biggest weapons in its arsenal for fighting the blazes.

The Forest Service and the Interior Department terminated contracts with private companies for use of the planes after the National Transportation Safety Board determined their airworthiness could be not assured. Three such planes crashed between 1994 and 2002, killing seven crew members.

Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth said that, in the wake of the NTSB report, continuing to use the tankers posed ``an unacceptable risk'' to aviators, ground firefighters and communities near the blazes.

The fixed-wing planes, some of them as old as 60 years, had been used primarily in initial attacks on fires and protecting buildings when fires were moving toward urban areas, said Dan Jiron, a spokesman for the Forest Service.

He said the government still has the use of 491 other aircraft, including smaller fixed-wing planes and helicopters. ``It's serious, but we will be able to do our job,'' Jiron said.

The tankers were each capable of dumping from 1,700 to 2,500 gallons of water a minute.

The Forest Service grounded the fleet of tankers it had under contract after two crashes in 2002.

The planes were reactivated after a new inspection program was developed at the Energy Department's Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, N.M., but the NTSB said in its report last month that maintenance and inspection programs were still inadequate.

``It was apparent that no effective mechanism currently exists to ensure the continuing airworthinesss of these firefighting aircraft,'' the report said.

Complete information on the stresses that the planes endured in firefighting was not available, the report said. Nor was there complete information on maintenance and inspection dating back to the planes' use in the military.

Investigators who reviewed the crashes in California and Colorado in 2002 said the aircrafts' wings could not take the strain. In the California crash involving a C-130A, the wings snapped off and the fuselage plunged to the ground, killing three people on board.

Planes from the now-grounded fleet probably were used to fight a current fire in California, Jiron said. ``We always use what fleet we have available to use,'' he said.

However, the planes were not used on Monday, he said.

Fires also are burning in Montana, Arizona and Minnesota. They are fueled by drought, which has been worsening in many areas in the West, drying pasturelands and leaving forests parched. The National Drought Mitigation Center's Drought Monitor now classifies the West as being in a state of exceptional drought, worse than its initial classification of abnormally dry.

The government will have to shift firefighting tactics with the loss of the 33 planes, Jiron said.

Firefighters will target blazes with helicopters and cropduster-type fixed-wing aircraft, Jiron said. These aircraft can be more accurate than the big planes when they drop their payloads, and they can resupply with water closer to the fire, he said.

The government also can activate eight military C130s equipped to carry water, he said.

``This is a loss, but it is not something we can't address now that the curtain is raising on fire season,'' Jiron said.

To the government, the loss of planes is not an insurmountable problem. Firefighters still should be able to do their inherently dangerous job ``with or without air support,'' it said.

But one aviation officer in the Forest Service, Bill Pierce, called the grounding of the 33 tankers ``a major loss'' that could raise the risks involved with firefighting.

``It's a real hazardous situation, not having the tankers,'' said Pierce of the Humboldt-Toiyabe Forest Service office in Reno, Nev.

[Stoat]

Readers wishing to learn more about firefighting air tankers may wish to go to Global Emergency Response

There's a wealth of information there about the U.S. Forest Service's continued lack of interest in aggressively addressing the wildland fire situation in the USA. The Russian government has for years had a standing offer of the use of the massive Ilyushin aircraft for testing and use in the US, free of charge, with the only request being fuel for the aircraft and temporary housing for it's crews...and the U.S. Forest Service has always declined. These mammoth jet air tanker s dwarf even the largest firefighting air tankers in the U.S. arsenal, and have been proven effective in huge wildfires in Russia, Greece, Australia and elsewhere.

Rep Dana Rohrabacher R-CA and Curt Weldon, R-Pa have worked hard in past times to help in these matters, as discussed here: "Could Russian Waterbomber Save California?"

but apparently it's all fallen apart at this point. If your home burns this year as a result of a wildfire, be sure to send a nice thank-you to the U.S. Forest service, who have done everything they can to block measures to pursue truly effective wildland firefighting methods.

[tertiary01]

Ping

[Carry_Okie]

Why fight a fire when you can get paid overtime to stand and watch?

[Carry_Okie]

Forest Service firefighting has become a circus.

[Carry_Okie]

Time to repost an oldie but a goody, lest we forget who's principally responsible for this mess.

Sierra Club Conservation Policies

Fire Management on Public Lands - Conservation Policies

Sierra Club Policies Main

	Articles of Incorporation
	Bylaws and Standing Rules
	Purposes and Goals
	Conservation Policies

Sierra Club Conservation Policies

Fire Management on Public Lands

1. Fire is a natural, integral, and valuable component of many ecosystems. Fire management must be a part of the management of public lands. Areas managed for their natural values often benefit from recurring wildfires and may be harmed by a policy of fire suppression. Long-term suppression of small wildfires may build up conditions making occasional catastrophic conflagrations inevitable.

2. Every fire should be monitored. Naturally occurring fires should be allowed to burn in areas where periodic burns are considered beneficial and where they can be expected to burn out before becoming catastrophic. Human-caused fires in such areas should be allowed to burn or be controlled on a case-by-case basis.

3. In areas where fire would pose an unreasonable threat to property, human life or important biological communities, efforts should be made to reduce dangerous fuel accumulations through a program of planned ignitions. New human developments should be discouraged in areas of high fire risk.

4. When fires do occur that pose an unacceptable threat to property or human life, prompt efforts should be undertaken of fire control.

5. In areas included in or proposed for the National Wilderness Preservation System, fires should be managed primarily by the forces of nature. Minimal exceptions to this provision may occur where these areas contain ecosystems altered by previous fire suppression, or where they are too small or too close to human habitation to permit the ideal of natural fire regimes. Limited planned ignitions should be a management option only in those areas where there are dangerous fuel accumulations, with a resultant threat of catastrophic fires, or where they are needed to restore the natural ecosystem.

6. Land managers should prepare comprehensive fire management plans. These plans should consider the role of natural fire, balancing the ecological benefits of wildfire against its potential threats to natural resources, to watersheds, and to significant scenic and recreational values of wildlands.

7. Methods used to control or prevent fires are often more damaging to the land than fire. Fire control plans must implement minimum-impact fire suppression techniques appropriate to the specific area.

8. Steps should be taken to rehabilitate damage caused by fighting fires. Land managers should rely on natural revegetation in parks, designated or proposed wilderness areas, and other protected lands. Where artificial revegetation is needed, a mixture of appropriate native species suited to the site should be used.

9. The occurrence of a fire does not justify salvage logging or road building in areas that are otherwise inappropriate for timber harvesting. Salvage logging is not permitted in designated wilderness areas or National Park System units.

Adopted by the Board of Directors, March 17-19, 1989

---

Up to Top

Time to repost an oldie but a goody, lest we forget who's principally responsible for this mess.

Sierra Club Conservation Policies

Fire Management on Public Lands - Conservation Policies

Sierra Club Policies Main

	Articles of Incorporation
	Bylaws and Standing Rules
	Purposes and Goals
	Conservation Policies

Sierra Club Conservation Policies

Fire Management on Public Lands

1. Fire is a natural, integral, and valuable component of many ecosystems. Fire management must be a part of the management of public lands. Areas managed for their natural values often benefit from recurring wildfires and may be harmed by a policy of fire suppression. Long-term suppression of small wildfires may build up conditions making occasional catastrophic conflagrations inevitable.

2. Every fire should be monitored. Naturally occurring fires should be allowed to burn in areas where periodic burns are considered beneficial and where they can be expected to burn out before becoming catastrophic. Human-caused fires in such areas should be allowed to burn or be controlled on a case-by-case basis.

3. In areas where fire would pose an unreasonable threat to property, human life or important biological communities, efforts should be made to reduce dangerous fuel accumulations through a program of planned ignitions. New human developments should be discouraged in areas of high fire risk.

4. When fires do occur that pose an unacceptable threat to property or human life, prompt efforts should be undertaken of fire control.

5. In areas included in or proposed for the National Wilderness Preservation System, fires should be managed primarily by the forces of nature. Minimal exceptions to this provision may occur where these areas contain ecosystems altered by previous fire suppression, or where they are too small or too close to human habitation to permit the ideal of natural fire regimes. Limited planned ignitions should be a management option only in those areas where there are dangerous fuel accumulations, with a resultant threat of catastrophic fires, or where they are needed to restore the natural ecosystem.

6. Land managers should prepare comprehensive fire management plans. These plans should consider the role of natural fire, balancing the ecological benefits of wildfire against its potential threats to natural resources, to watersheds, and to significant scenic and recreational values of wildlands.

7. Methods used to control or prevent fires are often more damaging to the land than fire. Fire control plans must implement minimum-impact fire suppression techniques appropriate to the specific area.

8. Steps should be taken to rehabilitate damage caused by fighting fires. Land managers should rely on natural revegetation in parks, designated or proposed wilderness areas, and other protected lands. Where artificial revegetation is needed, a mixture of appropriate native species suited to the site should be used.

9. The occurrence of a fire does not justify salvage logging or road building in areas that are otherwise inappropriate for timber harvesting. Salvage logging is not permitted in designated wilderness areas or National Park System units.

Adopted by the Board of Directors, March 17-19, 1989

---

Up to Top

[DryFly]

Perhaps not a bad idea.

[EGPWS]

``It was apparent that no effective mechanism currently exists to ensure the continuing airworthinesss of these firefighting aircraft,'' the report said.

That being the case they have decided wisely.

Contiued airworthiness MUST be maintained, lest the aircraft be patched together with auto parts and radio shack components and crews would be flying on more "prayer" than "wing".

[tertiary01]

I guess it's getting to be like everything else... if we can't have 100% perfection, 100% of the time then we won't do it at all.

[Stoat]

Of course you're right, but the point here is that it's been the negligence of the U.S. Forest service throughout the past several decades that has allowed this situation to come to pass.
Naturally, nobody here is advocating the use of unsafe aircraft. The point here is that a history of negligence, poor planning, and buckling under the pressure of radical environmentalist demands has created this unacceptable situation, where we are now even more under-served than before.

[Conservative4Ever]

I look out my office window everyday at a mountain range here in SoCal with square miles of dead fir trees. Enviroweenies wouldn't let the diseased trees be cut down. Now we have another fire season, another year of drought and I pray to God we don't have the another horror like last year.

Red

[Stoat]

Thanks so much for your great links! It's very much appreciated. :-)

I don't think that it would be inappropriate to remind people of the "contributions" from the Sierra Club and other similar organizations when the wildfires occur...

[HiTech RedNeck]

One would think the insurance companies getting "burned" by these wildfires would be tickled to pitch in to keep these craft in good shape. And they might get good advertising that way... here comes the Allstate plane, here comes the Mutual of Omaha....

[Stoat]

I agree with your sentiments, but I would suggest that prayer may not be enough in this case.
So many wildfires are set by people, just for a thrill or some other sick reason, that we can, unfortunately, be fairly well assured that it WILL happen again this year.

A few things to consider:
1. Mandatory death penalties for arsonists who set fires resulting in the death of a human.

2. Mandatory life sentences for other convicted arsonists.

3. A class-action suit against the U.S. Forest service for extreme negligence

4. Criminal charges for gross negligence and the willful endangerment of life for the directors of the U.S. Forest Service.

Anyone else care to add to the list? :-)

[EGPWS]

The point here is that a history of negligence, poor planning, and buckling under the pressure of radical environmentalist demands has created this unacceptable situation, where we are now even more under-served than before.

Well said, and I agree whole heartedly.

However, the use of unsafe, or not proved safe aircraft is not a precedence that is conducive to alleviating the issues at hand, in all reality it would just perpetuate this sorry scenario.

I apologize if I have veered from the focus of the thread for if I have it has been unintentional.

[Porterville]

Why risk your life for a burning tree in an aging fleet of crap-ass planes? Wildland firefighters do not get paid anything to risk their lives for a whole bunch of ingrates that hold contempt for the job.

[Myrddin]

I'm not sure how many of the last year's arsonists were actually terrorist elements. What is certain is that this announcement will bring the arsonists of every stripe a feeling of empowerment. They can light fires with the certainty that there is insufficient ability to put them out.

There are parties within Homeland Security that are inclined to believe that a campaign of massive wildfires in the west is part of the jihadi agenda.

[Stoat]

No apologies necessary :-) The resistance to even testing the Ilyushin waterbombers here in the US appears to be entirely political, as they are well-proven in many other countries. The IL-76 is not a new aircraft design by any means, and has been used as a waterbomber for decades. The U.S. Forest service, when pressed on this issue in times past, has claimed that the mountainous regions of many wildland areas in the US would be unsuitable for the planes but that's simply not true. They have been used extensively in mountainous regions in Russia and Greece. The USFS is blocking the use of these aircraft based upon reasons that they're not stating, because their stated reasons are obviously and demonstrably invalid. While the USFS plays politics, people's homes burn and lives are lost...there's simply no excuse for this profound negligence that they are perpetrating.

[Myrddin]

Wildland firefighters do not get paid anything to risk their lives for a whole bunch of ingrates that hold contempt for the job.

Good observation. After the wildfires in San Diego were brought under control, a special ceremony was arranged to thank the firefighters. It was poorly attended.

[Stoat]

Excellent point...to do massive damage, a terrorist wouldn't even need to smuggle dirty bomb components across the Mexican border, he would only need to bring a matchbook to one of our National Parks, which have been allowed to become terribly overgrown with underbrush and deadwood thanks to the policies put forth by shrill and hysterical, anti-American "environmental" groups.

[Stoat]

Many wildland firefighters are minimum-security convicts, and this policy of using such people doesn't help the public's perception of the fire service.

The other firefighters who are there because they WANT to be, not because they HAVE to be, are hamstrung not only by this NFS policy of using convict labor but also in terms of the profound lack of support in crucial areas, such as the proper maintenance of firefighting aircraft.

I predict, sadly, that 2004 will be a particularly bad fire season.