AP labels the 2012 Colorado wildfires worst in state history in this story.
My friend and fellow climate skeptic, nationally syndicated radio host Lars Larson, asks some pointed and pertinent questions about what appears to be some of the most idiotic policy ever devised by government. Since we’ve been covering some of the folly of trying to link the fire to global warming, I thought this government folly with trying to put it out would go along with the issues discussed here. – Anthony
He writes in an email to me from Friday:
I have new questions rolling around in my head every day but there are at least four things I know for sure this morning. This year the U.S. Forest Aervice will spend north of a billion dollars fighting forest fires across America. Billions of dollars worth of trees owned by the American people will go up in flames. And a $50 million dollar airplane that could put those fires out faster sits on the ground in Arizona because the U.S. Forest Service refuses to hire Evergreen Aviation. Now you may be saying, “There must be a good reason”. That’s what I thought, but then I remembered that government is capable of multibillion dollar stupidity on a daily basis. The Forest Service offers no explanation whatsoever.
And evergreen aviation points out that their 747 supertanker fire fighting plane has been hired by Mexico and Israel to fight fires and earned high marks. It drops ten times as much water as the biggest forest service tanker in use…and does it at half the cost per gallon. It’s big enough and fast enough to cover fires anywhere in America…and the forest service refuses to use it…and it’s your forests that are going up in flames.
Today’s statement from Evergreen Aviation about why the U.S. Forest service refuses to use its 747 flying supertanker firefighting plane.
http://www.evergreenaviation.com/pdf/Supertanker_Statement_062912.pdf
==========================================================
Date: 6/29/12
Evergreen International Aviation Statement Concerning the Supertanker
We felt compelled to release this statement due to the overwhelming amount of calls we have received concerning the availability of the Evergreen Supertanker. We at Evergreen are saddened by the fire devastation now taking place in many Western US states. For over 60 years, we have supported the US Forest Service in its important mission to battle and control fires, and it is our desire to continue this rich history of service. While our helicopters continue to work fires for the State of Alaska under State contracts, unfortunately, our Boeing 747 Supertanker Very Large Air Tanker (VLAT) aircraft awaits activation with the US Forest Service.
We have never been told why we have not been activated by the US Forest Service, so we can only speculate as to why we face this outcome:
1. We were offered a Call-When-Needed (CWN) contract a few years ago by the US Forest
Service (proving our technical viability), but we were never called into action resulting in
a multi-million dollar loss to our company as we were required to maintain and have
flight crew available should we be called. The only contract that will sustain a VLAT
program is an Exclusive-Use contract, which provides an income stream to sustain the
program even if the asset is not utilized. We invested over $50M to develop this asset in
the firm belief that we could better control fires as we proved in Israel and Mexico under
CWN contracts that we could afford to offer at the time.
2. There have been recent changes to the US Forest Service procurement policies. Today,
only small businesses are eligible for contract awards concerning air tanker assets;
Evergreen is not a small business and, therefore, is excluded from consideration for any
award.
3. The US Forest Service’s specification for Next Generation Air Tanker aircraft limits tank
size to 5,000 gallons. The Supertanker’s tanks hold about 20,000 gallons, which is
considered outside the USFS specification. The USFS just awarded contracts to four
small businesses with aircraft equipped with these smaller tanks, and excluded the
Evergreen Supertanker. Since World War II, tank capacities have been in the 3,000 to
5,000 gallon range, yet we continue to face the growing threat from mega fires today. We
believe the Supertanker represents an overwhelming response to this growing threat.
Please contact your state representatives in Washington DC to demand an examination of their current procurement policies concerning VLAT aircraft. The US Forest Service says it best: “Only YOU can prevent wildfires.”
==============================================================
Here’s Lars Friday interview with Evergreens VP:
Here’s Lars interview with Evergreen three weeks ago:
Here are videos of tanker that could be fighting fires in Colorado and elsewhere…that have killed Americans, burned houses, destroyed public property and timber
Where’s the President?
Check out my new page and “like” me at The Lars Larson Show
Howard says:
June 30, 2012 at 3:57 pm
…Because it doesn’t work. Looks good for the Tee Vee news and punters.
Actually, it works quite well, when the controller has an appropriate drop area for it.
Evergreen is a well known CIA contractor looking for media hype to suckle more lucre from Uncle Sugar.
Evergreen is a contractor specializing in large aircraft. They’ve done work for the CIA, the military, and for NASA — EA had the maintenance contract to support the Super Guppy 747 that hauled the space shuttle around.
Chalk this one up to Obama’s need for job figures. Those Who Are So Much More Intelligent Than We Are figure that four 5,000-gallon asset companies provide the same coverage as a single 20,000-gallon asset company at four times the number of employees. What the bureaucrats don’t realize is that they’re not going to find more than a handful of aerial firefighting companies who qualify as “small business” operators — USFS *does* realize that, and won’t issue an official statement because the bureaucrats there only have two choices:
1. lie to cover the administration which handed them that ridiculous requirement, and make themselves look like complete incompetents now and mendacious fools when the lie is exposed, or
2. tell the truth and get fired.
It’s the Chicago Way.
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
June 30, 2012 at 7:18 pm
The 747 would be blasting a huge area with water that was well outside the burn area they are trying to hit.
You’re underestimating both the intelligence of the aerial controller and the experience of the pilots. We used to get very creative at arcing the water into a fire without overflying it or sending the bucket into the rotor system.
Would it make sense to plan ahead with fire-breaks and selective thinning of the forests? Just curious.
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says June 30, 2012 at 7:18 pm
…
Larry Ledwick: The convair 580′s and P2V’s take about 4 minutes to actually load the slurry. Total time on the ground when in max effort attack, with 4 – 6 planes in rotation out of Jeffco Airtanker Base was about 14-18 minutes between takeoffs on average. Often you have one on final approach as the freshly loaded tanker is on the taxi way or holding to begin their takeoff roll as soon as the run way is clear.
NC
Larry Ledwick: Not to be the devils advocate, I do see some problems with the VLAT application in our terrain and environment.
Addressed in previous post.
Larry Ledwick: The fire lines that they are trying to hit do not need, and cannot really use a 1/4 mile wide, 3 mile long drop.. Due to the terrain, fire lines or hot spots are much shorter and irregularly shaped, often on very steep terrain.
What about ridgelines or areas either side of ridgelines?
Larry Ledwick: If loaded with slurry, the VLAT would just about empty the Jeffco Airtanker facility tanks in one pass, they have 3 tanks with the upper mark on the tanks at 11,000 gallons so their on hand stock is about 33,000 gallons when full. I am not sure if that is a concentrate or the actual mixture loaded on the planes though. Water is not as effective as the slurry in terms of its persistance (ability to provide fire suppression for a period of time) and its ability to penetrate to and smother the hot spots.
A: Shoe-horning the VLAT into present facilities as if it were a conventional tanker would not make sense; This should be considered in a different class given the volume of material it is capable of delivering as well as the flight profiles a 747 aircraft must adhere to.
B: The references/material on the Evergreen website mention only fire retardants as payloads, not water; it makes complete sense to use this flying delivery platform with materials that give yield the most ‘effect’.
Larry Ledwick: In any case the tanker base is not suited for 747 flights. Rocky Mountain Metro airport where the Jeffco Air Tanker Base is located is at an altitude of 5670 ft, with a longest runway of 9000 ft (29R-11L: 9,000′ x 100′ Grooved Asphalt).
No worrys; there are several suitable A/P further out the VLAT can make use of; the Evergreen website shows Peublo as one sush suitable A/P. They say: “Generally, the runway requirements for the Evergreen Supertanker are 8000 feet.” At STP? Safe assumption for now.
Larry Ledwick: Maybe someone can tell us what the minimum take off roll is for a fully loaded VLAT at a density altitude of 8,000 – 10,000 ft which is often see here in hot weather.
Fortunately, the VLAT in tanker configuration even with 20,500 gallons of retardant is still 150,000 lbs below its maximum takeoff weight capacity … providing an enhanced safety margin. Also, the weight of a fully loaded Supertanker aircraft is still below the maximum landing weight, meaning the pilots will not have to dump an entire load if landing with the load still on board.
Larry Ledwick: The largest Jet planes that fly out of RMMA are the corporate jets. The runways are not strong enough or long enough to service even small commercial jets. According to my calculations even at zero fuel and empty the 747 is too heavy for the runways.
Answered/addressed previously.
Larry Ledwick: Aircraft Weight bearing capacity on the longest runway:
Single wheel: 55.0
Double wheel: 75.0
NC
Larry Ledwick: The airport is only 10 air miles from the location of the Flagstaff fire, and about 60-70 air miles from the High park fire west of Ft Collins and slightly farther from the Colorado Springs fire, so air sortie time using the conventional tankers is not that long. If the VLAT flew out of a larger air field like DIA or Peterson which is significantly farther from the fires (with the exception of the Colorado Springs fire and Peterson), I suspect the smaller air tankers could in total deliver more fire retardant “on target” in a given amount of time than the VLAT could.
Again, consider the VLAT for ‘strategic’ vs ‘tactical’ use. This might be a paradigm shift in asset use that commanders are unable to ‘make’ or consider?
Larry Ledwick: I have been watching and photographing the slurry bombers and helicopter drops for the last few days on the Flagstaff fire. The air tankers have to use some very creative approach flying to get the slurry drop on target in those deep ravines and steep slopes.
Paradigm shift; addressed above, also consider for specific purposes rather than as ‘one more asset to be allocated in a simple manner’ (e.g. ridgeline proactive fire retardant application vs fighting active flames w/water)
Larry Ledwick:The 747 would be blasting a huge area with water that was well outside the burn area they are trying to hit. That creates significant risks for the fire crews on the ground and structures they are trying to protect. It does not do much good to stop the fire short of a structure but in the process to flatten buildings, and blow out windows with the “over shoot” of the drop.
Ahem; fire retardant application would seem to be the intended load for the VLAT, as opposed to just water … not excluding water of course.
Larry Ledwick: When I was training for my red card, they made a point of telling us to keep an eye on the slurry bombers and make sure you did not get hit by the drop, It carries a significant impact and can injure or kill people on the ground and destroy equipment.
Roger that.
Larry Ledwick: The links below are pictures of the terrain the drops are being made in on the Flagstaff fire which is similar to the others in the area. It is very unlikely they can make good use of a water/slurry drop that is longer than 1/4 mile or so.
Larry Ledwick: (images copyright Larry Ledwick)
http://blackhorsephoto.net/wild_fire/slurry_drop_12C_0490a_web_sm.jpg
http://blackhorsephoto.net/wild_fire/slurry_drop_12C_0423a_web_sm.jpg
http://blackhorsephoto.net/wild_fire/slurry_drop_12C_0334a_web_sm.jpg
Larry Ledwick: The VLT might however have been useful during the Last Chance Prairie fire last week that burned almost 45,000 acres in a day and a half.
NC
Larry Ledwick: The other question is does the VLAT require any specialized ground infrastructure that is not available at the larger airports that are designed to service the big jets of this class?
See previous disc. above
Larry Ledwick: Regarding the National Guard activation, the law prohibits the government from competing with free enterprise. That is why they can only be activated when conventional free enterprise resources are totally allocated. If not, the military resources would quickly put the private contractors out of business. It is sometimes a frustrating policy but essential to keep government in their proper place. I don’t want the government taking food off the table for hard working private enterprise operations who have invested a good deal of their own money into creating a business. If the military could be activated on a first call basis, they would kill all these small commercial tanker operations out right.
NC
Larry Ledwick: Larry
_Jim
Gee…. From an administration that does Gun Walking To Mexico in the effort to ban guns; would we expect them to put out fires that could instead be attributed to Global Warming?
R. Shearer says:
June 30, 2012 at 7:39 pm
In perspective, “On October 8, 1871, the Peshtigo, Wisconsin forest fire consumed over 1.2 million acres of timberland. In its wake, 1,182 people were killed. This fire is considered to be the most deadly fire on American historical record.
=============================================================
It happened to occur on the same day as The Great Chicago Fire. It just didn’t get the press coverage.
_Jim says:
June 30, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Jim,
You’re singin’ to the choir, Mate! What drives me to exasperation is anyone (private citizen or government bureaucrat) mincing words and wasting time on the perceived union or politically correct status of any capable emergency aid group, person, or company while simultaneously our neighbors are dying (in blunt fact) in massive conflagrations! The cold blooded heartlessness and vicious partisanship of that union/PC, enviro-mental crap borders on murder.
If your neighbor died because you stopped the ambulance to check the EMT’s union cards and verify the vehicle has a current emissions certificate, you killed him. The people blocking use of forest thinning, controlled burns, and effective firefighting asset use are directly killing people by their politically correct obstructions.
MtK
All the talk about efficiency and cost etc is just so much balderdash.
If it helps the situation you use it ! End of discussion.
The fact is this will be used as an example of global warming so agenda-21 can move forward.
When in fact it was largely caused by mismanagement of the land resources by the feds.
Bill Tuttle says:
June 30, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Larry Ledwick (hotrod) says:
June 30, 2012 at 7:18 pm
The 747 would be blasting a huge area with water that was well outside the burn area they are trying to hit.
You’re underestimating both the intelligence of the aerial controller and the experience of the pilots. We used to get very creative at arcing the water into a fire without overflying it or sending the bucket into the rotor system.
========================
This is the part when I make an enemy.
Were you flying a 747 ?
Are you qualified to fly a 747 ?
Would it be your first choice to put out a fire ?
The nature of fire is that you “Put a small fire out before it has a chance to become a big one”.
The motto of the FOREST CIRCUS is: “Don’t put a small fire out, let it build into a wonderful, major cataclysm, making us rich, fat and important.”
I hold the Forest Circus responsible for intentionally letting this and hundreds of other fires build to unstoppable levels by their greed. This nasty habit started long ago when they hesitated at fires, because fire was natural…….
This has happened way too many times.
The forests will never be healthy until the loggers are allowed to return to the woods to do their jobs. Western forests must be ribboned with cleared areas where fires can be stopped. Which would also help the economy.
Yes I have seen their “creativity” many times, some of them are truly artists at making the red stuff wet stuff.
I agree as you probably already know the Forest service is “procedure bound” in much of the things it does, heroic creativity or good judgement is not always demonstrated when things are getting out of hand (see storm king mountain)
I think “if” the asset was already available and standing by with appropriate infrastructure set up, its best use would be as you mentioned to make strategic fire lines along ridges etc. to box the fire in case other more tactical attacks do not stop the fire at the burn area.
The problem is, that probably, no one wants to be the first to use it, and no operational procedures exist for a new technology. It gets to be sort of an aerial ballet as it is keeping all the air craft properly coordinated over a burn. The other day we had 3 Sikorsky sky crane helicopters making water drops, and 2 – 4 slurry tankers along with the air attack twin all trying to keep out of each others way over a relatively small burn area. Clearing a corridor for a heavy is something they probably have not sorted out procedure wise (proper separation, avoidance of wing tip vortex etc.).
Personally on a dollar for dollar basis they could accomplish a lot more in my estimation by getting some C-130’s in the hands of the fire contractors, than by building special infrastructure to support a rarely used asset like the VLAT. They would have a more modern airframe than the current slurry bombers, that has current parts inventory.
Larry
Having fought such fires and directed air-tankers doing drops, let me say this…. Those who are not familiar with major fires underestimate their intensity and vastly over-estimate the effectiveness of aircraft, even those as large as the 747. The drop-zone may sound large to the uninitiated, but on a bad day the wind carries burning material a great deal further that 1/4 of a mile, with the result that failure of such breaks is the norm, rather than the exception.
Government services have a (well-earned) reputation for disregarding the taxpayer’s wallet, but in this case, cost-effectiveness has probably been a significant part of the decision-making process. It is easy to talk about $-per-gallon dropped, without regarding the difference between hitting Colorado – which is a fair-sized chunk of territory – and the far more limited areas of the fire-front where (and when) it can make a practical difference. Retardant dropped where the fire can simply burn around it is wasted $$. So is retardant dropped on the black.
Ultimately, aircraft do NOT extinguish fires. They are only ever a supporting tool for the crews on the ground….. and big fires are only ever controlled when the weather moderates. Therefore we need to retain a reasonable level of cynicism over media claims that one piece of kit will make all the difference. Air-tankers are good, but not magic.
Regards…. Peter (Air Attack Supervisor)
Scarface has a good point: crises are good for causes. If the worst wildfires in Colorado’s history didn’t exist, the AGW lot would have to invent them.
Does the federal government have a monopoly on fighting forest fires? Why can’t the State of Colorado hire the 747 to help put out fires threatening the life and property of Colorado citizens in Colorado Springs and elsewhere?
A further note to encourage healthy scepticism… Check the Evergreen videos, and note that they only show drops made in relatively calm conditions. Ask yourself why that is, when airtankers are required to drop loose, finely-divided material.
Intense, rapidly-spreading fires of the kind that cause the most damage and loss of life do not occur in calm conditions.
“Most members of the U.S. Forest Service joined because they had a mission to grow trees. But, in order to grow trees, they need a richer and more powerful Forest Service. And, because of various laws passed by idiot Congress, the only way for the Forest Service to become richer and more powerful is to cut the trees it grows. When the Forest Service manages a forest for recreational purposes, the recreation fees go to the U.S. Treasury. But the Forest Service gets to keep a portion of revenue from logging and gets appropriations from Crongress to manage land that’s logged. The results are unfortunate. In Tongass National Forest in Alaska, it costs the Forest Service $100 in access roads, environmental impact studies, and so forth to get a tree ready to be cut. That tree then sells for $2. In the real world this would be a $98 net loss. But for the Forest Service it’s a $102 gain to the budget.”
P J O’Rourke All the Trouble in the World (1994)
I declare myself a reviewer and thoroughly endorse the book.
Anyway, the point is that the government has always totally screwed up environmental management. Whether it be letting forests burn or encouraging the Forest Service to sell logging rights for an expansion of their budget, or many, many more things. The environment is too important to be entrusted to the State.
I think as commenter’s above have stated wait to see how your Government uses this situation. Why let a good disaster go to waste, especially when you can poor the proverbial fuel on it.
Reblogged this on As The Days Of Noah Were… and commented:
Interesting read… Colorado wildfires wouldn’t have been that bad if the US government actually cared. What exactly are the US citizens paying heavy taxes for if the government doesn’t use it to save their lives?? Creepy…
u.k. (us) says:
June 30, 2012 at 9:32 pm
@ur momisugly me (June 30, 2012 at 8:34 pm)
This is the part when I make an enemy.
Nope, not at all — those are good questions.
Were you flying a 747 ? Are you qualified to fly a 747 ?
Rotary- and fixed-wing Army time, currently FAA licensed for rotary-wing commercial, light helicopters up to heavy-lifters, but I have a *lot* of friends and contacts in the Big Iron world, including guys who fly the fire-bombers.
Would it be your first choice to put out a fire ?
That would depend on the terrain, the altitude, the size of the fire, the availability of suitable airfields and water sources — there’s no one-size-fits-all — and if I were flying as a controller or as a dropper. As a controller, I’d want a mix of fixed and rotary assets — fight the main axis of the fire with the fixed-wings and keep the helicopters busy on the periphery, especially along the firebreaks. As a pilot, I’d want to stick with a helicopter, either a B-205 (UH-1H) for work at 6,000 MSL and below and either an S-64 or an Mi-17 for work above 6,000 feet.
Peter W. says:
June 30, 2012 at 10:29 pm
A further note to encourage healthy scepticism… Check the Evergreen videos, and note that they only show drops made in relatively calm conditions. Ask yourself why that is…
Because those are promo videos and camera crews don’t like it when they’re bouncing around, too. If you’re trying to say that the 747 can’t fly in turbulence, you’re badly mistaken.
E.M.Smith says:
June 30, 2012 at 8:54 pm
“Gee…. From an administration that does Gun Walking To Mexico in the effort to ban guns; would we expect them to put out fires that could instead be attributed to Global Warming?”
Just to get my hypothesis for explaining Fast and Furious out there: its main direct intent was obviously to arm the Mexican Drug Cartels. Unlike the Bush Adm. program, Operation Wide Receiver:
1] The weapons were not tracked and have been recovered only at crime scenes – apparently sometimes merely as “throw downs” so that the perps don’t get immediately caught possessing a weapon. I’ve heard that about 76% of the ~1600-2000 weapons are still at large.
2] The Mexican Gov’t didn’t know about it.
The payoff for the Obama Adm. would be illegal Campaign contributions, laundered, say, through La Raza. In addition, the Obama Adm. is Communist, thus criminal. Criminals at this high level naturally favor doing business with like minds and m.o.’s. Which also explains why the Obama Adm. decided to prosecute California-legal pot dispensaries, and partially explains its war on Arizona’s attempt to interdict illegals, including the drug operatives, who certainly want to set up more shop in America’s cities.
From the post:
From Evergreen’s website: “about 7 times the volume of the federal government’s largest air tanker.”
I kinda assume that means (or includes) the military C-130 planes outfitted with the Forest Service’s 3,000-gallon Modular Airborne Firefighting Systems (MAFFS).
All eight planes (six operated by Air National Guard units and two by the Air Force Reserve Command) are now staged at Peterson Air Force Base on the east side of Colorado Springs. They’ll work whichever fires they’re needed at.
By cost, by houses burned, by houses and cars broken into by thieves … as a human rather than a tree, I’ll buy the idea that it’s the worst so far. 😉
Well, maybe they’ll get around to it; I’m not going to stress over it. I saw something somewhere (can’t recall at the moment) that said Evergreen had wanted an exclusive-use contract from the Forest Service – which I think meant having a plane and crew ready 24 hours a day – and the USFS wouldn’t agree. Could be a valid cost-saving argument if still true.
Is there only one tanker based on a 747 in the world? (I don’t know.) And it’s so little used in the US that it’s available for missions on other continents … to me this suggests that there isn’t much call for 20,000-gallon supertankers.
Does that all fit on Air Force One? /sarc
Yeah, CSpgs (as we lovingly call it) is the center of Colorado’s political conservatism … and also a regional center for religious conservatism. That’s why the internet has been carrying messages saying that the city is getting what it deserves or that some specific individual or organization should lose everything.
Thanks, Kos, there’s plenty of government working on Waldo Canyon alone between the civilian federal government, the military, two county governments, various towns and cities, and the angels sent down to decide whether Colorado should be the setting where the End Times begin.
Evergreen’s 747 has been used in Arizona and California as well as abroad. But those may not have been the Forest Service … so maybe no USFS employee wants to be the first from his/her agency to use it.
C-130s? Will you accept them if they’re military rather than private? 🙂 Four have been at the Waldo Canyon fire, and four more arrived Saturday.