Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
US Firefighting Tankers  
User currently offlineCbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1551 posts, RR: 5
Posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2757 times:

Hey everyone,
Heard a rumor going around today that the US forest service has canceled the contracts with the heavy tanker operations, and instead are sticking to helicopters, and smaller tankers. Can anyone confirm this???? From what I hear the service canceled the contracts due to safety of the aging fleet. Wonder what would happen to those old birds if this is true. Any thoughts, comments??
Cheers


ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13039 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2711 times:

From what I read in the news, some (about 30 or so) of the a/c used for tankers have been grounded. Recall how one a/c had it's wings fall off last year (?) so need to ground popular older models. Will have to switch to smaller a/c and helicoptors, saying that they can drop water with more precision.

User currently offlineCitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2425 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2696 times:

The Forest Service and the Department of the Interior Monday terminated contracts with the owners of 33 aging firefighting aircraft, saying their airworthiness can no longer be assured.
The surprise decision comes in the wake of three crashes involving such older aircraft between 1994 and 2002. Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth said the aircraft -- some of them more than 60 years old -- an "unacceptable risk" to those who fly them, firefighters on the ground and people who live in areas threatened by wildfires.
The aging planes include the DC-4, DC-7 and P-3.
The Forest Service had grounded tankers in 2002, after two firefighting aircraft went down while on the job in California and Colorado. In both cases, wings folded on the aircraft as they were in flight.
Most of the aircraft suspended two years ago were reinstated to flying status after they were inspected by the Energy Department's Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque (NM). But last month, the NTSB reported that maintenance and inspection programs were not adequate.
http://www.fs.fed.us/



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineCbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1551 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2655 times:

ohh ok, thanks a lot for the info. What do you think will happen to those DC-4s, DC-7s, and P-3s. I sure hope some of them get a good home. I am currently in Prescott, AZ and there was a P-3, and a DC-4 stationed out here up untill a few days ago. Sad to see them gone.
Thanks



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently online4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2997 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2636 times:

I'm real bummed about this, on 2 levels.
First, a few weeks back, I had one of the DC-7s fly low over be headed to Mesa Falcon Field. So low and so beautiful. It is depressing to bar these classics from the skies from an aviation perspective.

Second, as an Arizona resident, and with the fire season just getting going in a state with a 9 year drought and millions of standing dead trees resulting from the bark beetles, it will be sad to see so many acres burn this summer as a direct result of this. I can't believe they did this without a replacement.

If my home burned in a fire these planes could have stopped, I know who I would sue.



Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
User currently offlineRNOcommctr From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 827 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2578 times:

The action also covers C-130's.


I'm sorry, ma'am, I don't work for the airline.
User currently offlineMasseyBrown From United States of America, joined Dec 2002, 5368 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2522 times:

Are the two Martin Mars still flying in Canada? The Discovery Wings half-hour about these two was one of their best shows.


I love long German words like 'Freundschaftsbezeigungen'.
User currently offlineCbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1551 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2499 times:

from what I have heard around here, yes the Martin Mars are still flying in Canada. They of course will remain up there during the fire season!


ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineClipperNo1 From Germany, joined May 1999, 672 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2405 times:

I guess this kills Evergreen's plans to utilize some of the 747 mass stored at the moment. Glad I got that video clip of the prototype tanker.


"I really don't know one plane from the other. To me they are just marginal costs with wings."� Alfred Kahn, 1977
User currently offlineStarrion From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1126 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2389 times:

It only covers the older fleet.

One reason they are grounded is stress damage from so many years in high stress ops. The stored 747's offer a non-stressed alternative, but it remains to be seen if they are actually effective.



Knowledge Replaces Fear
User currently offlineCbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1551 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2327 times:

does anyone know where you can get that video of the 747 tanker??? Would really like to see it!!
Thanks



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineAlphascan From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 937 posts, RR: 13
Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

Going to miss seeing those old DC-7s flying so low overhead in Northern Minnesota. Now all there will be to see are red Saab 340s.


"To he who only has a hammer in his toolbelt, every problem looks like a nail."
User currently offlineTristar2000 From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 274 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2284 times:

IMO, no firefighting a/c is as efficient as the Canadair water bombers which can unload tons of water and refill in a few seconds where a body of water is available.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Alfredo La Marca
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Niksa Radicevic




View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Jerry Search
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Dietr Clarq



User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6387 posts, RR: 54
Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2242 times:

I think that all forest fire prone European countries in the Mediterranean area have the Canadair water bomber. Portugal, Spain, France, Italy, Greece. Why not the USA?

Where there is a lake or a wide river it can do the job of at least ten old DC-7 or such.

If I remember well, then one of the US water bombers, which folded its wing a few years ago, was even a WWII Conwair B-24 Liberator bomber!!! Another one was an almost fifty years old C-130A.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineRotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 3
Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2205 times:

Tristar: The Los Angeles County Fire Department used Canadair 215s and 415s for a few years in the early and mid 90s. By in large, they were pretty uneffective...

They were instituted in response to the Malibu fire, as a political action to make it look like the politicans were doing "something", all along hiding the fact that they were virtually useless in the California environment. Winds were too high, the terrain was too rough, and the proximity to dippable water sources was too far. Throw in a little wind and pretty much any water source is off limits (ask the Canadair pilot who ripped a sponson off in the Pacific thanks to a mild chop). Their drop system combined with the performance they were capable of meant it often took up to 10 drops to get one solid load of water on the target they were aiming for... those things sure looked good swooping in to heroically save the house on the burning ridgeline (exactly what the politicians wanted), but if I was the owner of that house, I'd feel much safer with an S2 or Helicopter swooping in. Thats why the CDF didn't buy Canadairs, and the LACoFD is spending its seemingly infinite budget on new helicopters instead of longer leases on the 415s.

IMHO, the best solution to the cancellation of the tanker contract is the A10 "Firehog"... the warthog is designed to fly low and slow with a heavy load every day of the week. The plan they've got set up for them now means they'll be able to dump much more accurately, much closer to the fire than ever before... even at night. If only the politics would clear up...

-Mike



The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6278 posts, RR: 34
Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2157 times:

"The action also covers C-130's"

Only the civilian ones. The USAF, through the ANG, has 10 C-130s that are available.

I'll say that the contract cancellation is silly though, I've seen the 3 ARDCO C-54s at Ryan field, and they are in better shape than most airliners I've seen at Hamilton or Evergreen.

There is much gnashing of teeth here about what will happen next, but I doubt anyone in Arizone knows about the Canadair, it's too darned obvious.



Quit calling an airport ramp "Tarmac" and a taxiway "runway".
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2155 times:

Water is a crappy thing for a fire bomber to carry. Retardant is where it is at.

This rulling is complete B.S.

I love how they announced it right at the start of fire season. You think the forest service could have decided at the start of winter so that some lead time to consider alternatives would exist. As it is now, Alaska just lost two of the four heavy tankers that it normally contracts. The remaining two are a pair of DC-6's chartered in from Canada.




OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6278 posts, RR: 34
Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 2142 times:

And the decision just cost a man here in Arixona his heart and soul. And 14 people their jobs at ARDCO. There are also 2 other companies in Arizona but I don't know the owners.

I wonder who will be blamed if the Santa Cruz mountains burn this year? Or the Rincons? Either of those would make last years Santa Catalina fire look like childs play without heavy aircraft.



Quit calling an airport ramp "Tarmac" and a taxiway "runway".
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 18, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2123 times:

Alaska is looking at maybe chartering more single engines....read Ag-cats. to do suppression work.

I am just waiting to see some poor firefighter get killed, because there isn't any large tanker support.

A lot of the area's in this state are not in range of helo's and smaller aircraft.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineIMissPiedmont From United States of America, joined May 2001, 6278 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

And here in Arizona, most mountain areas are not accessible to vehicular traffic meaning that without large aircraft, the fire will burn. Helicopters as Ag aircraft are only able to aid the ground crews and when it takes 2 days to get them on site, the battle is already lost.

On the positive side, a wilderness fire does have beneficial effects. It can also be a catastrophe.



Quit calling an airport ramp "Tarmac" and a taxiway "runway".
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29791 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2110 times:

I predict an ugly fire season.

All to satisfy Jim Hall's ego  Pissed



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineSkydrolboy From Canada, joined Sep 2003, 341 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 2073 times:

Yes, the Martin Mars are definetly flying in canada, mainly in British Columbia.

The company I work for converts Convair 580's into air tankers, and is looking at converting some Convair 5800's into air tankers aswell. So far the Convairs have only flown in Canada and in France, maybe now we can start making some for the US.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Craig Woolford



User currently offlineStearmanNut From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2055 times:

I fail to understand how aircraft like the 2002 Colorado crash of a PB 4Y and C-130, having such flaws as long-existing wing spar cracks, were ever signed off by A&P's in the first place. Is there some FAR maybe that allows "temporary use" aircraft to fly without a valid airworthiness certificate?

I would like to see the new Evergreen 744 air tanker in action.

I have also seen Air Tractor model 802 water bombers in Italy, France and in Spain, I've seen them on floats.

Maybe some investments in more Canadair 415's and MIL 26 helicopter water bombers?



If wishes were horses, a Tail Dragger I would fly...
User currently offlineNorthStarDC4M From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 2991 posts, RR: 37
Reply 23, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2016 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Maybe some investments in more Canadair 415's and MIL 26 helicopter water bombers?


Alas, the CL-415 is basically finished. Production finished almost 2 years ago and the line is currently being disassembled for transport and storage (probably at Mirabel or Downsview). Bombardier had high hopes for the 415 when it moved production to North Bay, but no new orders have been forthcoming. There are currently 3 CL-215s and 1 CL-415 here in North Bay, stored.

The 415 cannot be beaten for "water on target". In a 2 hour timeframe a 415 can dump twice as much or more than any land based aircraft (i doubt even the 747T will match it). This is due to its short round trip pickup to drop. It can use any good sized lake, the ocean or a straightish river and return to the fire site long before any landbased plane can fly back, land, taxi, park, get reloaded, taxi, takeoff and get back to the fire.

The main problem the 415 had was price (3.5 million USD give or take) vs conversions of older land planes (500k USD to 1,500k depending).



Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
User currently online4holer From United States of America, joined Feb 2002, 2997 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (10 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1975 times:

The main problem the 415 had was price (3.5 million USD give or take) vs conversions of older land planes (500k USD to 1,500k depending).

And don't forget that many fire prone areas (Arizona, California, etc) do not often have much in the way of "good sized lakes, oceans or straightish rivers" to do much good.



Ghosts appear and fade away.....................
25 Tristar2000 : And don't forget that many fire prone areas (Arizona, California, etc) do not often have much in the way of "good sized lakes, oceans or straightish r
26 L-188 : It should be noted that this new rule does not apply to Canadian registered aircraft. So the exact same aircraft now have to be charted from Canadian
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Finally Some Common Sense Over US Tankers posted Sun Jul 4 2004 13:49:45 by L-188
Airbus/Boeing; KLM And US AirForce 767 Tankers posted Fri Mar 29 2002 18:12:28 by PW100
UA: Only US Major Without A Merger In The Past 20? posted Sat Nov 25 2006 16:03:13 by Zrs70
US Airways Express (Piedmont) ABE-MDT? posted Fri Nov 24 2006 23:30:40 by SHUPirate1
US Airways Again Reshuffle European Flight Numbers posted Thu Nov 23 2006 07:50:58 by Jimyvr
US Airways Closed To Muslims? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 21:28:09 by Rdwootty
Rules On Investment In US Based Airlines posted Wed Nov 22 2006 20:47:55 by Qwame
US/HP Integration, Recent Experience posted Tue Nov 21 2006 22:58:14 by Konrad
Pay Grade At US Airways (West) posted Tue Nov 21 2006 01:28:42 by Malaysia
HP/US Focus Flights posted Tue Nov 21 2006 00:00:47 by SkyHarborsHome