Forest Service Putting Up Smokescreen About Using Super Tanker?

Just two years ago, the Hayman Fire roared through the Rockies, blackening 138,000 acres and destroying more than 130 homes. It cost roughly $240 million to fight. Did that fire have to grow to that size? Did that many homes have to burn? 7NEWS Investigator Tony Kovaleski has exposed a troubling trail of conflict and red tape inside the U.S. Forest Service.

Earlier this month, after years of problems, the Forest Service grounded its fleet of air tankers. 7NEWS asks: has the government wasted taxpayer money on outdated, dangerous and underperforming aircraft while ignoring bigger, faster and newer technology?

Twenty-three months have passed since the Hayman Fire and Ray and Linda White, who lost their home to the fire, are still angry.

"They should have got the fire out over at Lake George where it started," Ray White said.

The fire destroyed their cabin and destroyed any confidence the couple had in the U.S. Forest Service.

"If it would have been jumped on those first two days, this never would have happened," Linda White said.

"The people from the Forest Service seem to have a vested interest in continuing to ineffectively fight fires," said Kauffman.

Following three fatal crashes of Forest Service aircraft back in 2002, a blue ribbon committee also criticized the Forest Service and its fleet, writing in its final report that "a number of potentially viable options were routinely dismissed as too expensive before being carefully examined."

"I would say it's almost criminal that the Forest Service has not brought over here five years ago or 10 years ago these Ilyushin 76s," Kauffman said.

The Ilyushin 76, a Russian waterbomber, is one of several supertankers that experts say can take aerial firefighting into a new era. They're planes that can deliver a liquid payload nearly four times larger then biggest plane used last year.

"It's a remarkable aircraft. It does a remarkable job and it could've been here for nine years fighting fires if it had not been for the hurdles placed in its way by the U.S. Forest Service," said Tom Robinson, who represents the Ilyushin 76.

Proponents of the Il-76 accuse the U.S. government of creating red tape to keep the plane from dousing fires. The Russians even offered the plane for the Hayman Fire.

In a letter obtained by 7NEWS, the city manager of Colorado Springs asked Gov. Bill Owens to cut through the bureaucracy and bring in the Il-76, writing, "It would be a shame to not have a tool such as this."

When asked what kind of difference the Il-76 would have made on the Hayman Fire, Robinson said, "It wouldn't have stopped the fire from becoming a fire, but it would've stopped it from being 90 percent as large as it (was)."

Tom Landon, who is with the U.S. Forest Service, laughs at the idea that the Il-76 could have save 90 percent of the homes burned in the Hayman Fire.

"There's not a catch-all tool out there that would have saved the homes there on the Hayman Fire," Landon said.

In the wake of the blue ribbon committee's criticism, the Forest Service says it's now seriously considering two super tankers -- a modified 747 and a modified DC-10.

But experts say its unlikely any super tanker will be approved to fly and fight fires this year.

"Why didn't they use it? What was there fear?" Linda White wondered. "They should have tried it, and it makes me angry that they didn't do it."

Families like the Whites are left to wonder what may have happened two years ago and what might happen this summer. A governor's spokesman said he did receive a letter from the Colorado Springs city manager but he has no record of responding to the request in any way.

Developers of the 747 are hoping to have the plane approved and ready to fight fires this year but that's only if they can get the green light from the U.S. Forest Service.

Weather turning wildfire outlook from bad to worse.
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=local&story_id=052404a1_wildfires

I wasn't aware that it took a person of a certain
political stripe to suffer from wildfire or even to
organize to defend from them. After all, firefighting
is something the taxpayer pays for. And the taxpayer
gets to ortganize how that's done, up to and including
the ANG in the case of large air tankers.

I do know that in the pioneer days, often one town
with taxpayer resources would refuse to send
another town (or anybody outside the town's tax grab)
to help with taxpayers' superior firefighting resources.

Then, there are the cases where everybody pitched in
to help on the fire (or even to build a barn in the
aftermath). Is that socialist too?

After all, firefighting is something the taxpayer pays for.

And pays, and pays, and pays. The worse the forest gets, the more we pay. The more Federal bureaucrats get involved the slower they get. The slower and more ineffective the firefighters are, the more money they make. That's just how the motivational architecture works. Did you read that link I put op on the other thread about the Winter Fire?

I do know that in the pioneer days, often one town with taxpayer resources would refuse to send another town (or anybody outside the town's tax grab) to help with taxpayers' superior firefighting resources.

Ever heard of a cooperative contract?

Then, there are the cases where everybody pitched in to help on the fire (or even to build a barn in the aftermath). Is that socialist too?

Not at all. Volantarism has nothing to do with socialism. Of course, today the wood for the barn would come from Siberia because the charred poles on FEDERAL land a half mile away would be off-limits because the courts let them rot before deciding what to do (besides, the sawmill is long gone). Then the brush comes up and together with the residual fuels you get an even hotter fire a decade or so later.

Great system. At least the lawyers are making money.

I don't think you read the Douglas Gantenbein
pieces, Carrie.

Here: http://slate.msn.com/id/2066948
and http://slate.msn.com/id/2090573

I try not to get into great, huge ideological
discussions.

One thing's clear. You have no safe large air
tankers (from private industry) and you are left
with government ones alone for this season.

When you, whatever your political stripe, attempt
to shut down a thread concerning 1st responder,
lifesaving methods, you seem confused.

I don't typically patronize Slate, but upon reading the first article, it doesn't impress me. I am quite familiar with what happened in the Hayman Fire. It reinforces my thesis that we need to get the Feds out of the firefighting business.

I try not to get into great, huge ideological discussions.

That's what this website is for. It isn't an advertising page.

When you, whatever your political stripe, attempt to shut down a thread concerning 1st responder, lifesaving methods, you seem confused.

First, I didn't attempt to shut down the thread. I didn't flag the AdminModerator. I didn't advise Jim Robinson. I advised Stoat to get Jim Robinson's permission. That is all.

You have no safe large air tankers...

Absolutely correct, however, the Ilyushin isn't "safe" either because flying an air tanker is inherently hazardous. The question is one of RELATIVE risk, not "no risk." On that point, neither of us knows how bad the condition of those old tankers really is. There may be no good reason for grounding the fleet, other than to for the bureaucrats to hose the taxpayers for more money, take more National Forest out of production to please the likes of Georgia Pacific and Weyerhaeuser, and place more lands off limits to the public. As such, the bureaucrats have screwed it up again.

I can guarantee you, you will have wildfire disasters
this summer in the US west.

But I cannot guarantee you won't have the Il-76s
around to help out.

You may wish to join the Forest Service effort in
keeping them out while you still have a chance. You
seem to fit the bureaucrat profile closer than you
do an emergency responder profile.

I can guarantee you, you will have wildfire disasters this summer in the US west.

Of course. It's a matter of policy.

But I cannot guarantee you won't have the Il-76s around to help out.

Why would you guarantee we won't have them?

You may wish to join the Forest Service effort in keeping them out while you still have a chance.

Pray tell, why would I do that? I want nothing to do with the USFS.

You seem to fit the bureaucrat profile closer than you do an emergency responder profile.

Hogwash. I prevent problems instead of pretending (much less expecting) an emergency responder will protect my property. I live in fire adapted habitat that has been thinned and weeded for fifteen years. A fire here this summer would help me immensely. If there is a fire here this summer, I intend to take a walk and watch it. The only threat to me is my neighbor's eucalyptus grove three hundred yards from my house.

It is a worthwhile project to get the word out
among people who need to know what their
government is doing with choices.

By cautioning that this is not the place to launch
such a project, I see you as a bureaucrat.

A bureaucrat is, at once, lazy and powerful.
By saying 'no' to worthwhile projects, like
getting the word out on the IL-76, as you have
tried to do here, you exercise your penchant for
both.

Hence, like a bureaucrat, you become the enemy of
Free Republic members you say you seek to serve.

By cautioning that this is not the place to launch such a project, I see you as a bureaucrat.

Nonsense. Wouldn't you assist someone new to a forum by advising him not to develop a bad reputation with the management? That's what I was doing.

By saying 'no' to worthwhile projects, like getting the word out on the IL-76, as you have tried to do here, you exercise your penchant for both.

Given that I haven't "prevented" a damned thing, this is a bald-faced mischaracterization of what I did say. All I did was suggest that Stout ask the owner of the website if it's OK for you and he to promote the IL-76 as a solution to the USFS tanker problem.

You have yet to prove that the US tanker fleet is really that hazardous. You have yet to prove that the IL-76 is the best solution. There was NOTHING preventing you from doing that but your refusal to exercise a common courtesy out of respect for private property.

Hence, like a bureaucrat, you become the enemy of Free Republic members you say you seek to serve.

Prove it. I made a suggestion; I haven't prevented a damned thing. So far, you've made an ass of yourself by refusing to ask Jim Robinson if it is OK for a manufacturer's representative to tout the efficacy of his product on FR and lobby for FReeper support in Congress. Involving Freepers in crass commercialism without the owner's consent is what would be damaging to FR.

I can't help it if you will not accept your own U-Mich senior aviation guru's conclusion that your bureaucrats are close to being criminals.

Michigan is relatively flat with large lakes having good approaches. Most water bomber applications in the West, where the worst fire hazards reside, involve extremely mountainous terrain and very small sources of water.

I am no expert on water bombers. If you wish to tout the quality of your product on this site, I suggest you get permission. That you have refused to do so, shows your true intent was never a concern about the health of America's forests.

"I wish this administration would do some serious house cleaning in the USFS and NPS. Their incompetency knows no bounds."

This same nonsense is rampant in every agency of the government. The entire bureaucracy needs an enema. These lackies have too much power over all our lives and as long as they have the union backing to the point they can do no wrong and bought off politicians nothing is going to change. I'm told by a Forest Service employee that they now must give preference to hispanics for jobs.

John Lehman, former Secty. of the Navy and on the 9-ll commission puts it this way:
"Two big lessons glare out from what our investigations have discovered so far. Number one, in our government bureaucracy today there is no accountability. Since 9/11—the greatest failure of American defenses in the history of our country, at least since the burning of Washington in 1814—only one person has been fired. He is a hero, in my judgment: [retired Vice] Admiral John Poindexter. He got fired because of an excessive zeal to catch these bastards. But he was the only one fired. Not any of the 19 officers lost their jobs at Immigration for allowing the 19 terrorists—9 who presented grossly falsified passports—to enter the country. "

I don't know who you are, but Carry_Okie and others on this forum have done more than you can ever imagine...for YEARS....to help with finding answers to the wildland fire problem. I suggest you get more familiar with a private site, it's rules, etc. before you attack someone who was trying to be gracious to you. You just lost ALOT of support. What a shame.

This problem you have with the IL-76 and the
US Forest Service is _A LOT_ bigger than Carrie
and it's _A LOT_ bigger than you and me.

+ I'm a lot nicer in person than I am on a chatline
but you need to realize, Auntie, that we are at war
with wildfire.

Winston Churchill had an awful public row (like the
US' famous Billy Mitchell had a row) with military
people who wanted to use small/medium bomber aircraft
in WWII.

In sidelining the generals who favored smaller bombers, Churchill was criticised for being nasty. He replied to Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the RAF:

"You know, in war you don't have to be nice, you only have to be right."

If you and Carrie not part of the war effort against
wildfire, that's OK.

In the early going, we were nice to everyone until
they started lying to us and giving us the old
bureaucratic runaround, which is what Carrie's up to.

You never gave anyone a chance to discuss the merits of which plane, etc. was best. You simply attacked before you knew what any of us would say in that regard. We know about the fire dangers, we've been fighting it for years, including Carrie_Okie.
Here's one example:

"I'M ASHAMED OF THIS" Interview with a 'copter Wildfire Fighter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/726849/posts

I'm done with this "non-discussion".

At one time, there was some question whether
I should be allowed to be here in the first
place.

As if somebody would make money.

As if this waterbomber weren't a public interest item
at all.

As for aircraft, I don't want to discuss other
peoples' aircraft; especially unproven ones.
(The Il-76 waterbomber has been in service for
years and years.)

As for knowledge with which to proceed to make the
assessment whether the US Forest Service is in breach
of a duty which would make them accountable for
failure to use the IL-76, let the articles be your
guide. You can get to them simply by dialing up
"Il-76+waterbomber" at Google or whomever.

I mean, I cannot force knowledge into your head
if you are not receptive.

Carrie's best course of action, had she wanted me not
to discuss the IL-76 at all (not uncommon in the US
BTW) was to have Mr. Robinson put a stop to it right
away. Not by flogging this thread with endless
blather demonstrating to me she had done not one iota
of online research and was simply burning up bureaucratic
bandwidth. Did she want to be a moderator at one time?

If I have sinned, I know I can confess my sins and
God will forgive me. If somebody has wronged me (of
which many over 10 years) then I am prepared to forgive
them.

Effectively, Carrie has won this round. She
should actually be elated and so should you.

I don't know about you but where I come from,
it is considered bad form to rub it in or hit a
person when they're down.

By ragging Russia on this waterbomber, you hit out
at their pride and you ruin a perfectly reasonable
opportunity to get the best they have to offer,
which is considerable.....

You know the old business saying? "Find a need and
fill it."?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.