Jump to content

Thanks to the crews fighting the fires in NM


Fräulein
 Share

Recommended Posts

So, what you are saying is, you want to finish putting the commercial aerial fire fighting companies out of business to support further government waste and bureaucracy? You actually want to see the aerial fire fighting industry further decimated?

There was an entire commercial industry that until 2002 - 2004 had that job and was wiped out.

What happened? It would take more space than available here to explain it. Those who were part of the industry at the time know all too well.

Every time a MAFFS C-130 takes off it robs the private sector of the resources to survive and government incentive to fix a failed program.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The C-130 MAFFS and MAFFS II are supposed to only be used for emergencies, when the commercially leased planes are unavailable or already used. It is supposed to supplement existing resources, not replace them. The cost of outfitting every unit with MAFFS II would be cost-prohibitive and wasteful, kind of like making every herk a KC-130.

The problem with the commercial industry is the cost of replacement aircraft. Most of that fleet is extremely old, and flying high airframe-stress missions does not help. The flexibility of the current system is good, as those planes are used as freighters most of the time, but are prioritized as firefighting aircraft. The problem is that the government isn't willing to pay enough so that new(er) aircraft can be acquired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel sure the people who,s homes were endangered didn't stop to ask if the water drops were from privats companies or GVT aircrafe.

It seems as though these last fires were too big for the private sector to handle and help had to come from where ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jansen you hit the nail right on the head, I don't think it can be explained any better!

A few times while in California fighting fires with our MAFFS birds I did sometimes wonder who was running the "show".

CDF seemed to call most of the shots until things got very active and out of control, then the USFS would step in.

Based out of Redding we were watching the area around Redding go up on smoke with fires in all directions and new ones showing up

by the hour, CDF was sending all the air assets and contractor aircraft out to fight them, while 4 MAFFS birds sat on the ground all ready

to go, but we had to "stand down" until late afternoon. Then around 1600 we would get the "launch" order and fly as long as they could (sunset).

Then back to Redding, rinse them down, reload and refuel and get them ready to "stand down" until the next day around 1600.

This was back in '94, '95 timeframe.

Just my 2 cents worth.

73, Rex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what you are saying is, you want to finish putting the commercial aerial fire fighting companies out of business to support further government waste and bureaucracy? You actually want to see the aerial fire fighting industry further decimated?

There was an entire commercial industry that until 2002 - 2004 had that job and was wiped out.

What happened? It would take more space than available here to explain it. Those who were part of the industry at the time know all too well.

Every time a MAFFS C-130 takes off it robs the private sector of the resources to survive and government incentive to fix a failed program.

You sound like a union man, Fritz! ;)

I don't pretend to know all the details surrounding the downfall of the commercial firefighting companies, but I do believe that the loss of the C-130A model & the Privateer by Hawkins & Powers in '02 was the beginning of the end. The lack of maintenance records and the subsequent demands of USFS for maintenance documentation for aircraft used in aerial firefighting probably was the steepening of the death spiral and the end of the legacy WWII-Korea era planes being used. I used to love watching those old radial-engined bombers w/jet-assisted takeoff operate - nothing like it!

However, while I'm happy to be proven incorrect on the beginning of the end and the precipitating events, I don't see how outfitting military units with MAFFS puts anyone out of business...

USFS contracts are lucrative deals, to be sure. To be paid $5K to sit "alert" for a weekend in your Thrush ag-sprayer full of water/retardant for spot brush fires or $25K for a month + $500/hr for a DC-3 for smoke jumpers (older contracts available via a bit of googling), I can see where the private companies don't want the military involved.

But the Air National Guard and Reserves are just such a force - they come in after hurricanes and hand out water, help clean & rebuild. They come in after floods and do the same. Why are these natural disasters any different? Why are forest fires special? It's because they're more predictable than hurricanes or floods and people bet large sums of money that there will be fires they can go fight and an industry springs up around it.

Follow the money.

Current guidelines (used when commercially leased planes are maxed out) are sufficient - nobody is stealing food out of the mouths of your children. Using the "keep the military out" mentality, you're doing what one of my old DOs used to say: "you have to show pain to get help" - so you'd have to have hundreds of thousands of acres burn, who knows how many homes, lives, and resources burn, just to prove a point and get the funding you (not you personally, Fritz) desire for the fire fighting industry to be rebuilt. As a homeowner, a father, and someone who has "things" I'd like to keep, I want every available resource fighting fires...and I want it now. I don't care who does it, how they do it, how much it costs or who pays, really. I'd be asking questions about why the military, with this unique capability, IS NOT fighting the fires? Why are they being forced to "wait"?

*donning my flame retardant suit* (pun intended)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UNION! GOOD GOD, I've never been so insulted!!!! :cool: O.K., you are right, the H&P losses of '02 were the "end of days", definately apocolyptic events for an industry struggling already. I can't speak to the "SEAT's", (Single Engine Air Tankers, the Thrushes, Air Tractor's etc., the USFS was always willing to pay more for those and Helicopters. The issue here is that in '02 there were over 40 "Large" Airtanker contracts. Today there is only 18 because the USFS will only use the P-2V's and P-3's. We will not dicuss the DC-10's and 747's, thats apples to oranges.

The companies that operated the large airtanker fleets had year round expenses with overhead, investment in tank technology (there were only 5 Aero Union RADS systems installed in the C-130A's. The first was done for TBM Inc. at something in the area of $250,000.00, but TBM paid much of the Non Recurring Engineering (NRE) as well as supplied some of the engineering staff. The last C-130A RADS cost $750,000.00. That's only the tank.) When the aircraft were recieved there was investments in the aircraft themselves, maintenance, inspection, radios. The typical cost to place the aircraft "in service" ran in the $150,000.00 to $200,000.00 range on top of the tank. We havn't even put the first drop of fuel in it yet. These fixed costs were designed to be amortized over a number of years. Most operators hoped to reclaim their investments in 10 - 12 years. But after that investment capital was required to pay for ever growing costs to replace and repair expensive components like engines and propellers. Having bought more than a few cargo compartment cooling turbines in my life I can tell you at $25,000.00 to $35,000.00 a whack it doesn't take long for a profitable summer to go south in a hurry. Ever think about how much 23699 costs? Up until the price of oil went crazy it typically sold for $5.00 to $6.00/quart. That makes a case $120.00 ea. A flight crew by the time the taxes, benefits, hotels, per-diem and rental cars were paid might cost an operator around $160,000.00 to $200,000.00 for 180 days or more. We also haven't paid the overhead yet. Hangar rental and utilities that cost in the range of $5,000.00/month and secretarial/parts personnel and mechanics that work year round. Those are expenses that most people don't give much thought to. More overhead? How about those operators who would need to borrow money, as most businesses do. Finance charges on million or even multimillion dollar loans. How about a little profit for the owner. After all, we don't fly airplanes to fill the sky with sheetmetal and organized rows of rivets, we fly them to make money.

The operators all had to supply their own fuel, at a fixed cost, until the fuel market became so volitile (no pun intended) and then were allowed an "economic price adjustment". The C-130A drinks between 640 and 700 gallons of fuel an hour. In todays world the hourly fuel burn alone is about $3,000.00/hour. Now we have to pay the flight crew, and daily or hourly wages is a small part of it. As contractors to the gov'mint you are required to pay certain levels as well as benefits. The compitition was always very stiff between the companies and the USFS admits after the fact they got everything "on the cheap" and suffered for it later.

Now to be fair, there is plenty of blame to go around for the demise of the industry. No one is as clean as a preachers sheets. The point is it is 10 years since 2002 and the commercial fleet remains broken and devastated. I attended meetings with the USFS in the years following the destruction of the program. We asked them, "what do you want?", they said, "we don't know, what can you give us? Build something, if we like it we'll try it, if we don't, flush your investment down the toilet and take the losses on your taxes". What the hell kind of answer is that? Some people would claim the airtanker industry is like any other service industry, build it, if they don't buy it, tough luck, your out of business. That isn't how manufacturers who build specialized aircraft for the government do it. They get capital from the government to build the mousetrap. If the government doesn't buy it they absorb minimal losses.

It is undeniable the USFS not only is under no obligation to accept what you may invest millions of dollars in, but don't have to use it if they do. It is a high risk business not just from the business model perspective, but to life and limb and as such the return on the investment should be very good. But the USFS told operators they were only allowed to make an 18% profit. It is not possible to adequately maintain the aircraft, pay high quality well trained professional flight crews and mechanics as well as retain investment capital for upgrade and replacement of equipment (read aircraft) on 18% profit margins. Look at the time it takes to field a "new" aircraft today. Can you imagine now, being so far behind the power curve it would be possible to replace the fleet? We are at least 6 years away from the introduction of a new proven viable, accepted aircraft type in the aerial firefighting fleet. I'm sorry to say, Rome has burned to the ground while Nero was fiddeling.

So lets address the MAFFS. Good on the Guard and Reserve units that operate them, congratulations, you get extra funding and the empire lives on. As a retired Air Guardsman I know how the system works. Funding, and the only way to get more funding (or keep it), is to have a justifiable mission. Now, I don't want anyone taking me out of context here, I did not say they shouldn't work at all, you are right, they were intended to be a surge capability when the commercial assets were inadequate to meet the need, at a time when there were almost triple the available commercial assets as tody. The problem is that law was changed a number of years ago. They can be called up any time the USFS deems it necassary, commercial fleet available or not. The availability of the MAFFS for use by the USFS has resulted in a cushion that has allowed the continuation of the staus quo. How can there be a commercial fleet? Lets face it, they have "gotten buy" for the last 10 years. Where's the incentive? There are fewer commercial assets available for the last 10 years and for the last 10 years MAFFS has flown more hours than before the fleet demise. Who needs commercial assets anyway?

There is a lot to this story and a lot that many people don't want to talk about, but US Herk, I want to thank you for putting up such a good post with such a great demeanor. It's always a pleasure to have a "discussion" with people who are intelligent. Oh that's right, that would be all Herky lovers everywhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent posts from US Herk and Fritz! There are points in both posts I agree with but do not have the background to say who is most right. As Fritz said it was a VERY good discussion without either of you going postal. Very refreshing in this day and time. Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure that Fritz, with his first-hand experience, is a far better informed person than I am. I do see where even using the (apparently old) construct of only using MAFFS when the situation exceeds commercial assets could well become a death spiral the commercial outfits. This is speculation on my part, but seems reasonable given the perspective gained by Fritz's post: Once the commercial fleet was grounded (mostly due to the H&P incidents of '02), the commercial fleet capacity was far more quickly exceeded and MAFFS called in sooner and more frequently than previous to '02. If USFS continued to meet need in that manner, where is the incentive to pay any more than they were?

Still, it smells like a union argument! ;) Haha!

I researched USFS contracts, specifically for DC-3/C-47 operations, a few years ago. The SEAT program looks like a lucrative way for a fellow with a spray plane to earn some pretty good money in the off-season - at least based on my limited understanding of it. But even DC-3/C-47 non-firefighting operations (ie - trash haul & smoke jumping) is practically non-viable due to the maintenance documentation requirements in place now. As I understand it now, effectively, you have to be able to prove the maintenance history of the aircraft back to origin. This means, all logs back to manufacture - something all but impossible with the overwhelming majority of military surplus aircraft like the bombers of old and even the venerable & well-proven DC-3.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...