From: Avweb
Aerial Firefighters OK’d To Fly
With wildfire season upon us, the Forest Service has decided that its fleet of large firefighting aircraft is fit for service, despite a fatal accident during a training run in April. The Forest Service has contracted for nine P2V tankers and seven P-3 Orion turboprops, as well as a DC-7 that will be used to gather data on wildfires. The aging aircraft have come under scrutiny in recent years after several fatal crashes caused by structural failure. “Aerial firefighting is an inherently high-risk business,” Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey said last week in a news conference. “Our job is to minimize that risk.” Rey said the aircraft would be periodically inspected for signs of fatigue. Firefighters will have the following aerial resources at their disposal this season, according to the National Interagency Fire Center: at least six large helitankers and helicopters and more than 700 helicopters total; 28 single-engine airtankers as well as about 70 on standby; six CL215 and CL415 airtankers; eight military C130 aircraft outfitted with modular airborne firefighting systems; seven P3 airtankers; and up to nine P2V airtankers (once additional inspections are completed). In the next couple of years, Rey said, the government will be looking for a new generation of aircraft to fill these roles as many in the current fleet reach their life limit, which is set at 15,000 hours for the P2Vs and 19,000 hours for the P3s.
The US was reduced to helicopter fire fighters for about a year, and several firebomber companies have gone out of business, resulting in some veteran a/c on the market. The P-3 Orions were brought back in first, and there’s been a fatal crash since. In Canada, they’ve carried on with fixed wing throughout.
I’m not au fait with the US fire departments, but it should like the whole thing was a political bearpit and some very odd legislation to ground the fixed wing units. Why here? Well, the firefighting arena is where lots of old aircraft are still earning their keep.
Comments, corrections, additions?
By: TEXANTOMCAT - 4th June 2005 at 19:57
Surely Pensacola would take a Mars on – it would be criminal not too – I appreciate she’s a big bird but if Evergreen can look after the Spruce Goose – come to think of it what a sight a Mars next to the SG….
By: ZRX61 - 4th June 2005 at 19:21
I also find it interesting that the Forestry Service is prepared to allow Air Force C-130 tankers to be used.
Scary ride, the unit I was with (146th MAW ACC) does fire bombing in California & I blagged a couple of jollies one weekend.
By: HP81 - 4th June 2005 at 15:25
It certainly has been a slightly bizarre situation, I still can’t understand how the FAA can be kept out of the certification process.
From what I have read & been told by engineers I would much rather be in a DC4/6 or 7 than an Electra or Orion during a fire control mission. These are very hard on the airframe.
By: Skymonster - 3rd June 2005 at 15:11
This has been an interesting affair throughout. After the tragic accidents involving a Privateer and a Hercules, it was the Forestry Service that withdrew the heavy tanker contracts – the FAA did not pull the tickets, which were in the “experimental” category anyway. The Forestry Service therefore could, in some respects, be deemed to have created its own problem, and it caused surprise at the time because it was felt that the Forestry Service didn’t have the appropriate personnel with airframe experience to make decisions on the airworthiness or otherwise of heavy airplanes. It is indeed ironic that the state of Oregon, recongising the problem that had been created, contracted directly with Butler Aircraft for two DC-7 tankers a year or more ago, despite the other heavy tankers remaining grounded as a result of the Forestry Service decision. Even now, its notable that the Forrestry Service are saying that they’re going to inspect and make decisions on the heavy tankers, rather than deligating that sort of decision to the FAA. The Aero Union P-3 accident in April was, I believe, a training accident rather than another structural failure. I also find it interesting that the Forestry Service is prepared to allow Air Force C-130 tankers to be used, whilst commercial C-130s are still covered by a blanket ban – whilst I accept that the commercial a/c are somewhat older than those the military operates, outright airframe age isn’t the only concern.
On the subject of warbirds, it is indeed true that many an Avenger, Tigercat, B-17 and even the odd Constellation on the US show circuit today owes its intermediate existance to the tanking and/or spraying industry. The three extant Privateers however are more of a concern – thus far, little interest has been shown in taking on the now grounded Hawkins and Powers Privateers as “war-birds” or even as museum pieces. And whilst the future for the Mars appears to be fairly secure for now, I understand one or two spares are a concern and in the longer term when they are retired I really do wonder whether any museum would have the resources to take one on and actually look after it properly – I suspect Penscola would be the only safe-ish bet.
Andy
By: JDK - 3rd June 2005 at 13:04
…and my interest, the Martin Mars.
By: Maple 01 - 3rd June 2005 at 12:52
True enough, if it wasn’t for the fire bombers there would be fewer B-17s, Privateers, Avengers, Tigercats etc
Sign In
June 3, 2005 at 4:14 am