Fire study pits scoopers vs. tankers

[BorderGuy]

This will raise a few strong opinions...

http://www.pe.com/local-news/politic...s.-tankers.ece

[ikickittoyou]

Obviously the writers of this report weren't on the hill in LA watching 3 out of 4 drops evaporate before it hit the ground. I'm sure "super scoopers" have their place given it is a calm day in light fuels on a prominent ridge with a wide birth. For what it's worth, I'll take a heli-tanker over a "super scooper" any day. For the cost, I'll take two.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9676.html

[firefish]

Obviously the writers of this report weren't on the hill in LA watching 3 out of 4 drops evaporate before it hit the ground. I'm sure "super scoopers" have their place given it is a calm day in light fuels on a prominent ridge with a wide birth. For what it's worth, I'll take a heli-tanker over a "super scooper" any day. For the cost, I'll take two.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9676.html

Just out of curiousity, who do they talk to when they do these studies? From my personal experience, with the fires named in the studies(I was at most of them), it didn't matter what plane was dropping or what they were dropping! These were extreme wind fires and no efforts by air or ground units did much to stop fire spread. The only efforts that amounted to much in the way of 'success' were occasional saves in structure protection. I think education of the public and the politicians is lacking when they seem to think they can just throw more or bigger aircraft into any fire scenario and all will be well. There are times when all we can do is evacuate the populace and hope for some slivers of success in the big picture during these conflagrations.

[Captain85]

Politics, politicians providing the good citizens of the state a show.

Most folks have no idea how air drops work, they assume a drop(s) will extinguish a fire in short order.

Also, money is to be made by the contractors flying those scoopers.

[Brcommo]

I'm curious how scoopers would work in some of the more arid parts of the U.S. where lakes large enough and free of traffic are not available. It seems to me a more effective approach would be tankers and portable retardant plants set at airports closer to the fire. The theory that the scoopers don't have to land as often is marginally valid. They still have to enter a pattern over a lake and descend and approach, fill and climb out. All which uses just about as much fuel as a conventional aircraft. Cycle time is better, but only if you're close to the fire.

[firephotoguy]

There is another thread in this that has not been addressed, and that is the constant lawsuits regarding the use of phoschex. The USFS got hit with that again this year and if I recall the outcome, the court told USFS no retardant near watersheds or sensitive habitats on USFS fires.

I am not comenting on the validity of the case, but if that was taken into account by RAND that might be a part of the decision.

I have had to maintain high speed boats made of aluminum, and they are not traveling anywhere near as fast over the water as the scoopers, and the maintanence on that aluminum skin is intensive. I think RAND may be off on their estimate of maintanence as well. The water being ingested and skimming on is like rough sandpaper that will wear out the parts faster.

The skimmers are also a much slower flying aircraft and I did not see that accounted for in the report. This point meaning that you would need more aircraft to do the same job, so of course your costs go up.

In California large bodies of water that the scooper can use are here, but, they are in use by the general public as a playground pretty much year round thus increasing the likelihood of a bad accident, and the closest one that can handle one of the planes may be in another county a ways away from the fire, thus increasing trip time. There is always the ocean but using that much saltwater on the forest may not be a suitable option in the future maintanence of the resource. Still alot of questions to have answered.

We need to remember they are still a tool and should be looked at in that manner they should not be excluded because of personal predispositions, but should be given the apropriate place in the box.
If that is all you have for the fire it is still better than nothing.

[OneUp2Rider]

I think Rand would do better sticking with reports about killing people and blowing stuff up. There are not a lot of water sources in the west where scoopers can scoop and take off. I think the researchers are wonks who've never been near a fire in their lives. After reading the report, it was obvious that they did not seriously consider or study helitanker effectiveness.

On the Gold fire in 2005 as an ASGS I had to run a cost comparison for NRACC comparing heavy air tanker costs vs. helitanker costs for the fire. The turn around times to the tanker base in Missoula were about 15 minutes. We had a portable retartant plant on the fire (which the report neglects to study), and the helitanker turns were about 5 minutes. Even with the larger capacity, the airtankers were beaten badly, which is common sense. The cost per gallon wasn't even in the ball park for heavy airtankers. All three modes of delivery have a place and certain advantages in given situations. But gallon for gallon per dollar, helitankers with a close water source or a retardant plant come out best.

One other peeve with his report. So how does Rand, who accepted fed. $$ to study this, have the legal copyright? Shouldn't this report be public domain?

[caseyjudd]

Firephotoguy:

You bring up a very appropriate issue in that the study fails to address or take into consideration the 2011 Fire Retardant Avoidance Plan which has resulted in 12,000 maps identifying avoidance areas for retardant on 98 national forests. As for politicans, I once had a California congressman ask me why mothballed B-52 bombers weren't being used as tankers. Believe it or not there are some folks on the Hill who understand some of this but the effort to educate politicians will be a never-ending battle.

[arff]

In looking at cost comparisons, what can a scooper do in its off season ?

If fire is all but they travel the world for fire, that expense still has to be accounted for.

CWN Helitankers are usually taken off jobs for fires, and when the fires are over, they go back to lifting or logging or something to earn money and spread their costs to other income producing tasks.

Airtankers while great to have available, are not an inexpensive single use proposition. In the case of CDF, they seem to have a year round use which allows for some aircraft to be down for proper maintenance while keeping enough aircraft available for the time of the year.

[OTROcar#40]

Airtankers-Scoopers-Helicopters are all tools to fight fire just like engines and tenders. They all have a place and time that they are the correct tool for the job at hand. Somebody sitting in an office some where can not make the decission which tool to use not seeing the fire. This report is like somebody saying that you need to only use a polaski to dig trail in duffy soils, BUT maybe a shovel will work!