<<"We've gotten so dependant on the new technologies our career has gained that we have forgotten that the Wildland firefighters of the past did the same job we did with less. Granted it was not as safe as it is today, they still got the job done.">>

I've often thought about the differences, and have concluded that it is not at all true that it was more dangerous then, nor that early wildland firefighters "did the same job we did.....". The primary differences are: MUCH greater fuel load per acre now (consequently significantly more dangerous), and the increased urban interface problem (adding danger and difficulty, reducing options, and contributing to a need for more aggressive tactics). Our technologies have merely allowed us to more or less keep pace with the increased demands of the job.

CDF Mike in Arroyo Grande (retired)

There was a letter I posted on theysaid 5/27 that laid out how ROSS would be implemented in CA. ROSS is coming.

CDF knew all along we had to go to ROSS. What made it final was last fall's firestorm where the federal fire agencies in CA were using both systems and trying to interface with CDF. This created serious problems.

SoCal CDF

AT pilot's wife

> They have stated that the Airtankers are only 20% effective.

Negative. What the report says is "During the past 3 years, airtankers delivered about 20% of all the suppressant (retardant, foam and water) used on fires." That statement does not pass any judgment on the "effectiveness" of them. I have yet to hear anyone suggest that air tankers can be replaced completely with type 1 helos.

On another note: Hilarious! www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0530B1-talker30.html

OD

I too had the good luck to work with Paul on wildland fires and Rx fires early in my career. He was as interested in the rookies as he was in the overhead, perhaps even more so. My regret is an echo of so many others. I wish I had learned MORE from him.
JJ

I hope everyone has an inspiring and safe Memorial holiday.

Mellie

QUESTION TO ALL YOU FIREFIGHTERS????

Do you know who <snip> is????????

AT pilot's wife

Anyone who wants to jump into the AT name calling, feel free to go on over to the AT board and do it. Please read their posting policy first. Ab.

Hi Everyone!

Yesterday, CDF held the CA ROSS Evaluation Collaborative Meeting with CA Wildland Fire Agency Management to make a decision on the implementation of ROSS in CA. Attendees were:
Ray Quintanar - FS
Ron Raley - FS
Julie Vogan - FS
Doug Waggoner - BLM
Sue Husari - NPS
Jose Merjil - BIA
Jim Wright - CDF
Ray Snodgrass - CDF
Ernylee Chamblee - CDF
Rich Green - CDF

The following decisions were made:

1. Federal CA agencies will implement ROSS by May 1, 2005
2. CDF will implement ROSS no later than January 1, 2006
3. An Interagency Transition and Implementation Plan will be written and completed this summer
4. The CREW (Core Members) will stay in tact to work on:
   • Cost Share Agreement for items needed requiring funding for all agencies (for T1 lines, etc.)
   • Research & Complete Connectivity Process from NITC to GACCs & SAC (T1 lines)
   • Service Level Agreements
   • Establishing Federal & State (2 positions) participation on the ROSS Change Board
   • Establish CA ROSS Training Plan
   • Process to utilize ROSS data for customization of reports (such as Governor's Report, etc.) & back-up for a CA database
   • Work with ROSS Team on input from Altaris & WILDCAD interface properties & compatibility, when funds are (final) approved for the generic ROSS-CAD Interface
5. CDF will internally discuss the need for a dedicated CDF ROSS Implementation Coordinator
6. A Letter of Intent will be distributed to units under the CWCG Letterhead (& signatures) outlining these decisions

1. They MUST go through the normal ordering channels/organization, so GACCs know what is being committed. No wiggle room here.
2. Protocol must be set up on how to do this so it is happening in the same manner (GACCs need to establish some basic Business Practices from GACC to ECC for this summer)

There were a few forests that desired to use ROSS as a practicing tool in filling out of state orders. NOT all ECCs have to do this. If you have a desire to do it, contact your GACC and let them know. I think this will ready us for implementation and use the training that has been accomplished.

There are still many decisions to be made & researched for the items listed above. The decision yesterday allows us to move forward in starting the process of implementation. I know you may have other questions but all will be known in due time!

Thanks to everyone for helping ROSS happen in California!

passed on by SoCal CDF

Sincerely,
"We will never forget"

Lawnchair riders wow that's pretty good, but I do take offense to that statement. Well, being a former fed and R5er and now working for CDF/Riverside Co. Fire I think that is an ignorance and neglect on your part of not being properly informed about other depts. My thing is that you need to show tolerance and if your a supervisor its important that you do not reflect your beliefs to your crew. We all have folks on in both of our depts. That do not represent us well. Now that I work there I have worked with some excellent fireman who are "on there game" and have seen more of the world in the inner city than I would have in some shack up next to the foothills waiting for a fire raking rocks to stay busy! The reason why some of those folks are riding a lawnchair or sitting is they may have been up since midnight running calls and are now on a fire, if you think its easy I offer you a ride out exper. that will change your life and outlook on it!

SoCaLFF

Grand jury says San Diego County command center operated poorly during fires -- Seven months after the devastating October firestorms, San Diego County's grand jury has announced it agrees with the observations of many North County residents and officials ---- that the county's emergency operations center did a poor job of disseminating information about the disaster to the public. The 14-page report released Tuesday also said the grand jury determined that the federal Emergency Alert System was an inadequate tool to warn the public about catastrophes such as the wildfires, and urged county supervisors to look for new warning systems such as the "reverse 9-1-1" system the board voted to buy in March. Gig Conaughton in the North County Times -- 5/27/04

On another topic:
60 listings on the CLUB 52; good MEMORIAL DAY beginning!

Where are the hellprincesses, engine slugs, dozer dusties, camp kids, etc. Wildland Fire Terms gonna be outdone by the dirt darts, desk jockeys and grey bears?
< wants to see CDF/OES lawnchair riders pass the boot & get on the buggy!

R5 PITA

I don't think that many here disagree that the current fleet has been allowed to age well beyond what it should have been, and that too many tankers go down each year in part due to the age of the fleet. My concern is the apparent lack of concern shown by the agencies. If you go back to some of the first posts you will find a quote from an agency rep stating (roughly) that the loss of AT's is nothing to be concerned about, they are just one tool and can be replaced with others, nothing about the possibility of greater acres burned, or higher costs due to larger fires, or safety issues for the ground pounders who are losing the support of the large fixed wings, or safety issues resulting from other aircraft being jammed into the AT role. I don't criticize the agency for dropping the contracts since they determined that it was a safety issue, but what are they thinking by passing this off as nothing more than being short some shovels this year?

Several people seem to show some ignorance to what it is AT's do

Yes Dozers can put in better line, but they are slow, limited by terrain, and it is not wise to stick them right at the head of the fire. They also don't do anything to retard the fire allowing resources to close on the black.

Helicopters are nearly as fast but don't carry the same kind of load, for comparison try taking a 1" line into a structure fire, now try it again with a 2.5", the application rate is key, not just the total water applied. 250 gallons applied in one minute will leave you with a blackened room, the same applied over 10 minutes will find you washing off the foundation. Even the biggest helos only carry 1/3 to 1/2 the load of a tanker, plus lets not forget how old those Skycranes and Chinooks are, anyone notice how many Marines died in CH46's due to mechanical failure, those 46's are roughly the same age of those 47's and had USMC logistics supporting their maintenance, not a company with limited resources.

AT's provide rapid deployment of "scratchline" faster than most other resources can even reach the fire.
They also have very little concern for topography (if you've ever seen a P3 dropping downslope in the Kern canyon you will understand there are few places they can't go) and have the nearly unique ability to safely attack the head allowing all those flanking or indirect resources time to complete their jobs.

For those claiming the AT's just make others stand around while they work, AT's are not intended to directly support the ground pounder, helo's do that job much better. AT's keep the fire at bay allowing ground pounders to get up close and personal or time to get the heck out of the way of the fire when things don't go right.

Anyone who thinks this will stop with the heavy AT's better look at the other resources out there, the helo's safety record might be looked at, certainly more ff are killed in helo's than engines, and the helo fleet isn't exactly full of spring chickens. Air ops by their nature are more hazardous than ground ops. This year AT's, next year no SJ's and rotor heads? I wouldn't wait for the agency spokespeople to speak up for these programs.

The agencies should have been honest and upfront, the grounding of the AT fleet is going to cost money and acreage and there is nothing out there that can do the job of a heavy AT. Money is needed now to outfit a modern purpose built fleet of AT's or the public needs to accept larger fires and losses in the interface. It looks to me like years and years of neglecting to tell the public what it is that the USFS, BLM, NPS, F&WS, BIA and the other ABC's of federal wildland fire I am leaving out has come home to roost, nobody seems to care because the government is telling them it doesn't matter.

Fedfire

We posted this already, but here it is again for those that missed it. Also check the Wildland Firefighter Foundation. Ab.

> So I guess having been in the presence makes you an A&P, structural engineer and all around expert on aircraft.........HMMMMMMM???

Well, if you are going to claim that I am not in a position to have the opinion that they are unsafe I would like to know how YOU or NMAirBear are in the position to claim they ARE safe. Perhaps I am mistaken and one of you are a structural engineer. But unless that is the case, I would have to say that we are in the same position -- having to fall back from our own opinions onto those of the experts.

So far, the experts (the NTSB) have deemed them unsafe (not a surprise since a study in the early 90's said this was coming). So I ask you: what puts you in a position to claim they are safe? I'm not saying that EVERY heavy tanker is unsafe, but I think we definitely need some new machinery if we are going to be putting people on them and flying them over the public as well as our firefighters. (Have you been on one of those things? And sorry if you don't like having them referred to in that way, but its not like they are sensitive about it.) I recently read a letter written by a family member of a tanker pilot who died in a crash thanking us for taking that step to keep our people safe. Now I ask you, how can you tell those people that we have done the wrong thing? Learn to live without for the time being.

E,
I liked your post. Let's move on and do what we can. And I sincerely hope that we do NOT bring back contracts for planes that have been deemed unsafe BY THE NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION BOARD!!! Let's get some new equipment in there or at least ones deemed worthy of flight by the FAA. Till then-we'll do the best we can without them.

Be safe everyone,
OD

“The solution is not to get rid of airtankers; they are a safe, efficient, and cost effective tool that has been proven almost worldwide. Like every tool, their use is not without risks. The solution is to break the chain (swiss cheese anyone?) of risk that we can control by intervention in the faulty process of procurement and/or maintenance of non-airworthy airtankers. New airtankers (long term) or at least new inspection procedures of what we have (short term, these things are still getting older) is the answer. Either will require intervention by the congress and will cost money. Also, the USFS/DOI will have to change contract requirements to favor awarding of contracts to operators with newer aircraft.”

The aerial firefighting pilots of these aircraft and the companies that employ them are and have been committed to supporting us the ground fighter in our annual battle with wildfire. Talk to any of the pilots….They will tell you (as you should have learned in Basic Aviation class) that they are there to SUPPORT the ground troops. That support at times comes in the form of rapid initial attack, holding fires in check, reducing BTU’s and buying time for ground firefighters to get the final lines in.

Obviously the airtankers have been glamorized over the years (as have aviation resources during wartime) and the publics’ perception is often that the retardant from the airtankers is the final blow to putting raging wildfires to bed. This is not the fault of the Airtanker Pilots or airtanker industry. This is our own poor information dissemination at work.

Please take the time to think of how many times you were supported by airtankers allowing us the ground folks to “hook the fire” and or save improvements and valuable natural resources.

NMAirBear,

I sincerely hope you are correct in your post that the heavy fleet will be retuning to us soon. My toolbox is not the same with half of it idle.

Yactak

If you want to add the CDF (Type 1) Teams to your Team Page, here is the southern Line Up
Team 6 George Haines San Benito/Monterey
Team 7 Gary Marshal Tulare
Team 8 Rick Henson San Diego
Team 9 Pat Kerrigan Madera-Mariposa
Team 10 Lee Winton Amador Eldorado

FC180

Thanks, I always scramble to find those to list on the fires of the season page. Ab.

HUTCH

Scan and send in the photos - history, ya know... Ab.

Jason

Would everyone please check the Type I IIMT page and the Type II IIMT page? I have updated them to the best of my knowledge without resorting to phone calls. I think I have good info on the Type I Teams, but the Type II Teams except for R5, R1, R2 and R3 are more questionable. For example, I haven't changed ICs for the Washington and Oregon teams without websites and Alaska teams without websites.

Thanks very much for help in updating. These pages are always available via the Links page under Federal.

Ab.

My opinion is that there is no FS grand conspiracy to put AT companies out of business.

From everything I've read and heard, the WO was as blown away by the NTSB report as any of us.
Given the issues of legal liability and not having any way to do inspections, all the FS could do is cancel
contracts. (NTSB evidently didn't buy the Sandia Lab inspections or didn't know of them, WHAT?)

There's another chronology on the AT message board that lists some of the relationships between NTSB,
FAA and FS that helps clarify some of this...

Mellie

This massive fire is the direct result of the lack of heavy airtanker availability when it was under 400 acres. We have snuffed many similar fires over the years on the Lincoln in similar weather conditions when heavies were available.

How would a dozer work in your neck of the woods? A strike team of dozers could put in some serious line or at least ring the ranches that the fire is heading for. Think of the rehab work for the crews this fall. Maybe even think about using the new dozer line as fire breaks for next year. Just try to think outside the box.

crips triggers
shooter

NorCal Tom

Narrowband
Narrowband Exceptions

The mention of audio cutting out when a wideband
analog signal is fed into a digital radio operating in
narrow band analog, is caused by the way the Motorola
digital audio processing chip handles analog sound
levels.

When the chip receives a audio signal greater than it
is designed for it, it distorts badly and/or audio
shuts down completely. It has a really fast recovery
time after shutting off but sounds terrible.

For your info, all digital radio manufacturers have to
use a Motorola chip as they own patents on it and are
the only company that makes it. Motorola also has a
strong lobbying force in Congress. Big corporations in
bed with the government again?

COMT

Captain of The Ghost Ship.

"Is this new Digital Narrowband radio craze, which I assume is pushed by Homeland Security, going to cause problems with the C (Communications) in LCES?"

The digital narrowband craze was not created by the Dept. of Homeland Security. The FCC is requiring that we switch from wide band to narrow band. That way they can sell the frequencies in between, making more money while creating more radio spectrum. Many agencies have decided on their own to also switch over from analog to digital. There are many advantages to digital, which I won't go into here.

As long as a digital-narrowband radio has been approved by the NWCG, all Communications Unit Leaders should be able to program it at the Incident Base. If someone shows up with a radio the techs have never heard of, it's unlikely they will be able to program it. If the radio is field-programmable, the radio user should be trained to program it before they arrive at an incident. If it's not field programmable, it should not be brought to a large interagency incident. Don't depend on a radio tech being available to reprogram your radio. All new radios should be (better be) backward compatible, able to operate in analog OR digital mode.

But another question is interoperability between the radio frequencies commonly and traditionally used at large incidents and the new 800 MHz trunking system radios that many states and local organizations are transitioning to, such as Colorado, South Dakota, and many agencies in California. These are NOT compatible, and unless a person carries 2-3 radios, people can't talk to each other on emergency incidents. This is where the C in LCES is disrespected. The reviews after the 2003 fires in Southern California pointed this out very eloquently.

Jackson

Unless I'm mistaken there have been about 40 AT related deaths since 1990.
I'd have to look up the MTDC/NWCG reports or on the AT Board. It may be
a few more than 40. On average that's more than 2.5 deaths per yr since 1990.

If you count all AT pilots and crew flying, you can come up with the percentage
that 2.5 is of the AT total. 200 is the number that represents the same percentage of
groundpounders. I didn't write down the total groundpounder numbers. I also
didn't record the total AT (pilots and crew) numbers. They must be out there
somewhere. I'll ask around.

NorCal Tom

I heard one statistic that made me cringe. 2 1/2 AT people die per year. If that was
translated into groundpounder deaths, it would be 200 groundpounders per year.
Unacceptable!

NorCal Tom

-We are screwed, really screwed, by the recent fell swoop grounding of heavy airtankers (ok canceling of contracts). Everybody needs to be really aware of the safety issues that face us now that we have one less very important tool in the shed. We are already seeing a different approach (i.e. confine, contain) to initial attack here in New Mexico and I am not convinced that it is safer for firefighters or anybody in the longer term. SEATs do not do the job of heavy airtankers in timber and the heavy helos and their dipsites are just too far away in most IA cases. Let us hope that there will somehow be a positive outcome from what right now appears to be a totally WRONG DECISION!!!

Just saw this post and wanted to express a thought or 2 on it. Air tankers are just o