World's largest firefighting aircraft grounded by U.S. Govt

More than 50 large wildfires are scorching land this morning across the western U.S. But a new firefighting tool is sitting idle in an airport hangar in California because the U.S. Forest Service refuses to let it fly.

The converted Boeing 747 jet, nicknamed the SuperTanker, can drop almost twice as much fire retardant as the largest airtanker currently in service.

"We're the very largest in the world -- there's nobody out there that comes close," said Jim Wheeler. His company, Global SuperTanker, turned a 747-400 series passenger jet -- one of the biggest in the sky -- into the world's largest fire extinguisher.

"We can drop a line of retardant about three kilometers long, about a mile-and-a-half," Wheeler told CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmann, as the plane performed a test run in Colorado last fall.

But in this country, it's virtually worthless unless the U.S. Forest Service gives it permission to fight fires -- something the agency has yet to do, even though the plane was certified by the FAA last September, and has since fought fires in Chile and Israel.

"The frustration factor is exceptionally high," Wheeler said. "It's very hard to watch property burn and lives lost, and we can't get in and help."

In May, the Forest Service issued a request for new airtankers, but said it would only give contracts to planes with a dispensing capacity of between 3,000 and 5,000 gallons. The supertanker can drop more than 19,000 gallons of water or retardant at a time.

Wheeler said, "It begs the question: if your house is on fire, are you going to call the smallest, slowest fire truck?"

Some firefighter advocacy groups suggest the Forest Service might be trying to control its budget, causing delays for the plane, which could cost as much as $250,000 a day to operate. The Forest Service says it can't comment on the dispute because Wheeler filed an official protest last month.

According to Wheeler, the aircraft can be filled in less than 30 minutes. But it's not just the speed and size that make the Supertaker powerful; its pressurized tank system atomizes the water when it's released, rather than just dumping it, like a bucket. "It doesn't break down tree limbs, it won't crush cars or buildings," Wheeler said.

And a firefighter or a stranded resident who happens to be under this big dump of water will be be fine. "You'll get wet, but won't be killed," Wheeler said.

"There's a lot of cost involved in doing this, a lot of testing and a lot of paperwork, and I think that scares most people," Wheeler replied.

California's fire agency currently has an agreement to use the plane, but can't deploy it until the Forest Service gives its approval. It's an expensive aircraft, but at a time of ever-growing wildfires threatening lives and property, Wheeler feels his service is a bargain. "You're not going to put out a 4,000-acre or larger fire with buckets and helicopters. It's just physically impossible," he said.

This is a very lopsided article. It does not present counter arguments at all. Let me take up the side that is missing.

I have been watching the bombers work several fires in my area of late. What good is a HUGE line of retardant or water if the fire is not moving in a straight line? The head of a fire is composed of lots of fingers. It is rarely going to line up perfectly straight. So the line the super tanker is laying down will go largely to waste. AND it will use up huge quantities of water and retardant that might be used by smaller planes to hit specific spots. Imagine you are building a house. You have a couple normal nail guns that run off your compressor. You can use that compressor to power them and nail all day long, nail after nail, board after board. Your friend comes to help and he brings his super nail gun. It will empty your air compressor in one shot and the compressor will take almost a minute to refill. What’s more, this super-gun shots one massive nail the equivalent of 8 nails. You try to tell him you don’t need a super nail. You are only putting 2 - 3 nails in the end of each board. The super gun will only slow you down. He gets indignant. Bigger is better he says.

Looks, that requirement from the gonervnment for 3 to 5 thousand gallons was written by the organization that uses these planes to fight fires all the time. They know what size is effective and what isn’t.

Oh and also the larger air tankers disrupt Air Attack operations while they make their pass. They don’t fit well in the normal pattern because they are so cumbersome. Plus in rough terrain the 747 isn’t going to be able to get down low enough for a good drop.

Thank you for referencing that article gattaca. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

"World's largest firefighting aircraft grounded by U.S. Govt"

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Regarding this issue, patriots are reminded that they need to develop the following habit concerning any law, regulation or action that they hear about concerning the unconstitutionally big federal government.

Since the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress has repeatedly shown that it cannot be expected to do its duty to police the feds, patriots need to check every action of the feds against the powers that the states have expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds, Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers a good place to start.

And if no clause is found which reasonably justifies the action then the action is probably unconstitutional imo.

In this case, not only have the states never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to tax and spend for firefighting services, but non-elected federal bureaucrats have no constitutional authority to make decisions about such issues, even if the states had delegated such power to the feds imo.

Drain the swamp! Drain the swamp!

Remember in November ’18 !

Since Pres. Trump entered the ’16 presidential race too late for patriots to make sure that there were state sovereignty-respecting candidates on the primary ballots, patriots need make sure that such candidates are on the ’18 primary ballots so that they can be elected to support Trump in draining the unconstitutionally big federal government swamp.

Such a Congress will also be able to finish draining the swamp with respect to getting the remaining state sovereignty-ignoring, activist Supreme Court justices off of the bench.

~~Noting that the primaries start in Iowa and New Hampshire in February ‘18, patriots need to challenge candidates for federal office in the following way.~~

While I Googled the primary information above concerning Iowa and New Hampshire, FReeper iowamark brought to my attention that the February primaries for these states apply only to presidential election years. And after doing some more scratching, since primary dates for most states for 2018 elections probably haven’t been uploaded at this time (March 14, 2017), FReepers will need to find out primary dates from sources and / or websites in their own states.

Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.

Patriots also need to find candidates that are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed below.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphasis added].” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.

Thanks for the clarification.

So, why doesn’t California fund this?

I’m a little torn here. I think it was evil that 0vomit allowed Texas to burn and stood by doing nothing as a political ploy. I don’t think that Trump should do “paybacks” by letting Democrat states burn in retaliation. But I also don’t think that every time there is a disaster - regardless of red state/blue state - that it is the responsibility of the federal government (taxpayers) to pay for it.

That said, if the federal government wasn’t confiscating such an obscene amount of our income, there would be a lot more for us to take care of ourselves. Sending money to Washington in order to give Washington the power to dispense small amounts back to the states just feeds the massive bureaucracy and wastes our money.

/rant

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.