Jeffco Tanker base High Park Fire Operations

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is that all as large of tankers as they can get???

Id think that military cargo planes and refuelers could hold a lot more...
 
No, Evergreen aviation operates a 747 tanker and another company operates 2 DC-10s.

Aero Union corporation operated 8 4 engine P3 Orions but lost their contract this year with the NFS.

The only remaining tankers used outside of Cal Fire in California in the United States, for the most part, are P2V Neptunes (twin engine radial bomber in the video).

Congress just passed funding for 8 new heavy tankers to replace Aero Union's P3s.

The Candian company Conair (whiche operates the twin turbo prop in the video), is converting 4 engine jet commuter planes into tankers. From what I've read, those will be the next generation of reliable aircraft for aerial firefighting.

The problem with the super tankers like DC-10s is they are limited in the airports they can operate out of because they need long run ways.
 
Some ANG C-130 can be used for dropping fire retardant.

When I was with the 145th Airlift Wing they were fighting fires with a few of their Hercules.
 
The state of the heavy firefighting aircraft fleet is beyond reprehensible. 10 years ago there were nearly 40 heavy aircraft in service. Due to their age and poor safety record, most of that has been retired. At the start of the fire season this year, the US had 11 capable heavy air firefighting planes, but has already lost two (one crashed into a mountain when it veered off course from its lead plane in Utah and the other in a landing incident in Nevada). What is left is largely P2V aircraft that are 50+ years old. The military has capable aircraft, but they are not allowed as part of the on-call services available to the forest service and others, unless a certain threshold of criteria are met, which has not as of yet.

The 747 supertanker is out of business as of this year. It is currently parked at Marana, AZ (which was its home base as well) without engines. Its operating costs were too high and nobody was interested in paying the bills.

At least one of the DC-10 is working a fire in New Mexico.

The Forest Service has been studying what to do with the fleet for years and keeps kicking the can down the road. The latest plan didn't add any new airframes to the fleet until 2020 at the earliest. The wildfires this year cut a bunch of red tape as indicated in the link above.

A sad, sad state of of affairs.
 
MNgopher, I just read that they want at least a dozen of the BAe-146 4 engine jets in the next few years. Neptune aviation (that operates all the P2Vs) has had successful tests and they're on target to start acquiring more of them with a target of 12 aircraft.

For this fire season, the western United States is screwed. Today, the High Park fire blew almost out of control again because of high temps, low humidity, and wind. A new fire has started west of Colorado Springs and is exploding in growth. There are no more heavy tanker air assets unless Canadian companies are used.
 
I did just see that the President cut through some red tape to authorize the Bae Jets in the next two years. Sad it had to come to this.

Keeping close tabs on the High Park fire - sad to watch lots of my old stomping grounds burn up...
 
Large planes, small planes, and helicopters are all used for different tactics in firefighting. A large tanker, like a airliner, is laying down a barrier away from the fire, such as on a ridge line a couple of ridges away. The smaller the aircraft, the closer it gets to the fire and needs to be manueverable in the mountains. Helos drop right on the fire.

It's not a simple case of bigger is better.

The firefighting fleet is unbelievably old, even the ANG and Reserve birds.
 
Certainly agree that bigger is not always better in the game. The biggest issue I see is that by waiting so long to fix the problem, some of the tools in the toolbox are being lost. There is a time and a place for large scale aerial firefighting.
 
I used to live about 4 miles from Jeffco - in Broomfield. At that time, there were a few PB4Ys operating as tankers. That was the Navy version of the B-24, with a different empennage...and the sound of those 4 big radials as the tankers lumbered overhead gaining altitude with a full load would send a chill down my spine!

As many have noted, the firefighting fleet was old, and a few of the older planes broke up under G due to corrosion in the main spars and other issues, killing the crews. It's always been a thin profit margin business...

Hard to believe that the BAE-146 will offer any operating cost advantage...

The Colorado ANG, based in COS, has C-130s that can be outfitted with the tanks and spray nozzles. They train for the mission, but I don't know the criteria for when they get tasked to support...
 
Last edited:
"The US is stretched so thin that Canadian air tankers have been called in."

I know that in years past, it was standard procedure to have several leased Canadian "Super Scoopers" from Quebec (if I recall their home base correctly) relocate to Southern California for several months over the fire season, both planes and Canadian crews. They were a primary airborne strike force for any major wildfire in the area.
 
Yeah I work 10 minutes from the rocky mountain airport. Tanker 44 ran off the runway recently due to hydraulic failure. Tanker crash Bummer the 747 is down.
 
Originally Posted By: TC
"The US is stretched so thin that Canadian air tankers have been called in."

I know that in years past, it was standard procedure to have several leased Canadian "Super Scoopers" from Quebec (if I recall their home base correctly) relocate to Southern California for several months over the fire season, both planes and Canadian crews. They were a primary airborne strike force for any major wildfire in the area.


No US company wants to buy any of these?...
 
It all comnes down to figuring out how to own and operate any aircraft while actually making a profit under the terms of the agencies that pay for it. Or, as an alternative, owning and operarting the aircraft themselves. (As an example, the Minnesota DNR owns and operates two CL-215s which work well here given our abundance of surface water). To date, the USFS is not willing to pay rates sufficient to allow for a significant update.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top