7638
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: aerial tankers, super tankers sit on the ground while the US burns!!
URL: http://calfire.blogspot.com/2012/07/maffs-debate-continues.html
|
read it and weep for the loss of homes, pets, livestock and all that could have been prevented had the US forest service decided to use the most potent fire fighting aerial super tankers, C130s that other countries use with great success. Watch the US burn baby burn as the antiquated laws, political wrangling amongst US forest service hierarchy continues to be CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT in it's firefighting decisions. Debate over use of MAFFS fuels an old battle (snips but read the whole article) WASHINGTON — Wildfires burn out of control, destroying homes, lives and property while expensive aerial tankers sit on the ground amid complaints that not enough is being done to battle the flames. An Air Force report released just a few years after the federal government developed the Modular Airborne Firefighting System(MAFFS) sounded the same alarms heard this summer as crews have struggled to contain a system of stubborn wildfires that have raged across the Rocky Mountains and elsewhere through the western states. In a prelude to the protests heard over the past couple of weeks, the report raised concerns that the portable tankers had been relegated to "a secondary role" and were not being used extensively to battle national fires. "The bureaucratic tangle and frustration a requesting agency must face to activate MAFFS has served only to distract from the overall value of this unique firefighting system," said the report, which outlined in exhaustive detail the history of the aerial tankers. The cause for the consternation then — and now — is a federal law that says the government-owned tankers cannot be mobilized until all available commercial (privatized) firefighting planes have been pressed into service. ... The Forest Service says the MAFFS tankers were never intended for use in all fires but were meant to be deployed when a "surge" capability is needed to help crews on the ground. But other experts say aerial tankers such as the MAFFS units are most effective when mobilized early. "The philosophy in fire management is if you are going to suppress a fire, you hit it hard and you hit it fast," said Mike Flannigan, a wildland-fire professor at the University of Alberta in Canada. "If you detect a fire right away and you send crews or aircraft to it right away, that is when you are going to have your success." Once a fire spreads across a wider area, an aerial attack becomes about as effective "as spitting on a campfire," Flannigan said. Historically, MAFFS units have not be activated until the fires are huge, "and then you're at a disadvantage," said Ed Bellion, a retired vice commander of the 146th Airlift Wing. "We always felt like we could be out there using this, and we're sitting on the ground," said Bellion, who lives in Camarillo. "It can be very frustrating. It would be like being a fireman, and they just don't call your truck out of the firehouse. You think, 'Good God, we have this asset. We're available, and nobody wants us.' " ... In 2003, the Forest Service had 44 fixed-wing commercial planes at its disposal. Now it has eight. Some of the aging commercial planes have crashed while in service, and others have been grounded. |
7654
From: Logan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: aerial tankers, super tankers sit on the ground while the US...
| Burning the forests is the intent/plan, making fewer places for rebels against the gov. to hide is the reasoning. Thus super tankers would put the fires out too soon. Destroying everything is no problem for these sub-humans. |
Responses:
None
7640
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Why doesn't the US forest service use Evergreen's 747 Supertanker????
|
lots of talk now about the forest service refusal to use this plane to fight fires. It's capablilities are far beyond what they use now. Red tape, govt rules, all sorts of things add to a perfect storm of damage done to Americans who are defenseless to fight these fires while the US Forest Service turns a blind eye to what is available to save billions of taxpayer dollars. BTW, the 2002 Bisquit fire, the largest fire that year cost us 138 Million dollars because of USFS ineptitude! Just another example of what firefighters are talking about now - it's a huge discussion that needs to be addressed NOW! WHERE THERE’S SMOKE THERE’S FIRE: USFS NEEDS TO COME CLEAN ON WHY THEY WILL NOT EMPLOY EVERGREEN’S 747 SUPERTANKER Posted on June 28, 2012 by aviationintel.com Another year goes by and while much of the American West is on fire the most potent fire bomber ever created sits idle in the Arizona desert. Evergreen’s mammoth 747 Supertanker, developed at a cost approaching $50,000,000, can drop 26,000 gallons of retardant over an area 300 feet wide and almost five miles long. The big fire bomber can also make any number of “smart” tactical drops of any requested size utilizing its unique pressurized tanks and dispersal system. It’s ability to haul huge volumes of wet stuff to where it is needed most equals roughly the capacity of 20 S-2 Trackers or 8 P-3 Orions. Additionally, its ability to loiter for hours allows for fantastic flexibility for command staff directing resources in the air and on the ground. Also, the big jet can be used as a command and control platform or transport while still retaining its colossal fire dousing capabilities. Sounds like a fire fighter’s dream machine right? Well the US Forest Service does not apparently think so. For years the Super Tanker has been brushed aside and shunned from the smoldering infernos that wreak havoc across America during fire season. Some would point to the fact that the Supertanker cannot be used in deep valleys and other tight places, yet another “very large air tanker” (VLAT), “Tanker 910,” which is based on a DC-10 airframe, has seen use around the American West over the last few years, and from what I have heard the jet is very much appreciated by its customers. Furthermore, Tanker 910 can only drop about half of what the Evergreen Supertanker can, so why on earth would this aircraft get called to the front lines while Evergreen’s jumbo remains grounded? Seeing as the VLAT concept has already been proven Tanker 910 I cannot think of any logical reason as to why the Supertanker would remain on the sidelines aside from possible cost issues. Although does cost really matter when you are fighting an out of control fire that can destroy whole towns or even cities? |
7641
From: Bill Silver Eagle, [DNS_Address]
Subject: from what I recall
| A while back there was a story, on one of the satellite channels, and I don't remember which one, about the Evergreen 747 air tanker. What comes to mind from that story is that due to operating costs as well as logistics of filling that puppy with retardant ... I seem to recall Evergreen requires a certain number of guaranteed flight hours before it will commit the 747 tanker. Ain't capitalism grand? |
7645
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: from what I recall
|
I read that too in researching yesterday. Can't blame them, they put 50 million bucks into developing it. Israel and Mexico, Spain have used the supertanker. Methinks there's some politics there too - it ain't like the Forest Service is broke. They sure could have used on the Colorado Springs fire to save homes. |
Responses:
None
7643
From: jeffersonzuma, [DNS_Address]
Subject: they don't want to put them out; it is their 'controlled burns'
| They use a 747 model for the slow, low surveillance flights where they have the noise turned down nice and low and no visible chemo coming out of it. They do not want to put out the fires as soon as we peons want to and know we can. They are doing their management policy, just like the biscuit scam. The more you look into it the more it really stinks of just what the 'management policy' is. |
Responses:
[7646]
7646
From: sheila, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: they don't want to put them out; it is their 'controlled burns'
| that's so right on Dex! That's exactly the problem!! |
Responses:
None