California County Government SAR Ops....A Boondogle?

[SASless]

Fire district underestimates cost of helicopter
Andrew McIntosh of The Sacramento Bee used state public records to show that "the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District spent at least $790,000 to refurbish and equip a military surplus helicopter for firefighting and rescues, more than twice the $300,000 budget its elected board originally approved for the project." A member of the fire district's board called the vehicle "a toy for the chief." Eight other California counties or cities have firefighting helicopters. "Documents show district officials grossly underestimated the need for costly spare parts, that some expenses were labeled 'operating costs' when the aircraft wasn't operating and that the board approved the helicopter hoping that it might generate revenue to defray costs, but little money has been raised."

Let's get this straight....use taxpayer money to set up a helicopter operation and then "charge" for that service? Should the county government be directly competing with the private sector and using tax money to do so?

[B Sousa]

Sasless
Maybe you would prefer, Pay as you go Fire Departments and Police..
Anyway I think you will find the generation of revenue was to come from other Governmental agencies utilizing their services. Peter to pay Paul if you will.

[SASless]

Bert,

How do you say "competition"?

If one government agency buys a brand new 212, equips it for fire fighting, then "leases" it out to other countys or the state....(all this being done with the local county residents' tax money) is that not direct competition to the private sector?

Does that not fly in the face of the basic tenets of what this country was predicated upon?

The US Forest Service by law, has to utilize private sector sources, prior to using State/County owned equipment. The USFS Dispatch centers are required to document all instances of that use and must certify there were no private sector equipment available.

The fact the government operations invaribly costs more is an issue as well as the harm this practice does to the local economy, tax base, and resources that can be called upon in times of crisis.

Due to the fact most fire fighting being a seasonal thing, private operators use their aircraft on other work to subsidize their fire fighting operations thus reducing that cost. By having other work, the private operators can keep more aircraft in operation and thus when a real crisis occurs, the government has a much larger base of assets to draw from. Likewise, most private sector operators hire seasonal personnel and thus do not have the burden of cost the government operations do, thus cost less to staff.

[Lama Bear]

I agree totally with SASless. If the true costs of many government operations were made public many more programs would be in jeopardy.

"Peter to pay Paul if you will." Where did Peter get this money? One government agency funding another is the fiscal equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. It doesn't work in the long run.

[SASless]

http://www.smfd.ca.gov/helicopterreport.htm

The study has valid points but was designed to buttress the desire to get into their very own helicopter fire fighting operation it would appear. A point by point critique of the statements that show as "facts" might prove there is a problem with their justifications in that they did not investigate alternative means solving issues.




Funding issues and other non-publicized reasons for getting into the Helicopter Fire Fighting business is pointed out in this excerpt from a Professional Forum in California.

Note: Type 3 refers to a standard type of Fire Fighting Vehicle and OES stands for Office of Emergency Services


The real cash cow though for local government is the state Emergency Fund, or what we in CDF call the 00900 fund. These local fire departments build their type 3's up for the wildland areas they are acquiring in their annexations to grab the tax base for the expensive homes as people move into the country. The deal hits when the local fire departments basically "hire" out the engine to CDF or the USFS for thousands of dollars a day (in California, the OES reimbursement rates are used), in effect making the engine a revenue producer for the department. Ask yourself, as a fire chief, how I can make money in a fire department. The answer?, go to a CDF or USFS fire! Send your engine to enough of these funding sources and you have a way to keep buying more and more toys for your own sand box.

Here is a recent great example....

Word has it that Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District is building up two UH1H Huey helicopters based on a CDF design. One will be a front line staffed ship, the other to be used as a spare. What fires and rescues do you think these aircraft are going to fly on? Sac Metro? Sure, but the real cash cow will be the CDF front country surrounding them and the 00900 fund that comes with it. It will be interesting to see how that piece of equipment is used. Stay tuned. I guess on the other hand, CDF gets a new helicopter and only has to pay for the flight time.

CDF is doing a TERRIBLE job of marketing itself in the fire community and to the public. The department, because of its resource agency affiliation, is failing to capitalize its strengths as California's fire department. Even though CDF is the third largest fire department in the United States, the public has no name recognition with CDF let alone the fire side of it.

[Shawn Coyle]

It's one thing to have the helicopters available for firefighting - a pretty specialized mission, and one that is already a 'government' responsibility. But what also happens in LA county is that the S-70's are also used for medevac work, and this cuts down the amount of commercial activity in that field. The pay for the medics for the county is significantly higher than in the commercial field, and yet, (from what little I know on the subject) the commercial operations have highly experienced nurses on board as well as paramedics.
Seems like unfair competition.

[Stan Switek]

Let's get this straight....use taxpayer money to set up a helicopter operation and then "charge" for that service? Should the county government be directly competing with the private sector and using tax money to do so?

Is that any different than billing the public for a paramedic response?

[SASless]

Stan,

If the Hose Holders show up on my doorstep and put out the Microwave Dinner I leave in the microwave for two hours....do they send me a bill?

If my friendly neighborhood police officer gets lost and wanders into my neighborhood and collides with a burglar making off with my TV....do they send me a bill?

If a Chippie forgets himself and stops to see why I am parked on the side of the Freeway and waving a white rag....and he calls for a zone wrecker to tow my broke down car....does the CHP send me a bill for the phone call?

If the state, county, or city government provides an essential emergency service...should I pay cash out of pocket for it other than the taxes I pay?

[brushfire21]

I am going to be treading on thin ice here, but here goes.

I am a Fire Captain here in Northern California (going to start PPL and CPL over the next 6-12 months in the off seasn), and myself, a crew and engine are "hired" by CDF and OES on occasions. On Type-3 cover assignments, we staff the local CDF station when they are out of county on the BIG one and have no resources left. I am on a County Dept, so we will cover any of the CDF stations throughout the County. As far as building the engines for a money maker, please guess again. The money made is on a per hour basis of aprox. $50/hr (pending the hired equipment contract rate that was set up at the beginning of the year). So to hire out a $300,000 dollar Type-3 fire engine, you will not make much back on that initial $300,000 that was used to buy it. SOme dept do over charge for personal, and this is where they could be making some extra money on the side.

As far as government funding other gov't agencies, I won't argue this, but in this County the local tax payers did pay for the piece of apparatus (whether it be a copter of wildland engine) and if its not covering the home base where the taxpayers expect it to be (but instead on an OES assignment in SoCal for instance, helping out other Counties in need), there is a cost to send that crew and engine out of county. Why should the local county pick up the tab for 5 engines (engine strike teams have 5 engines with 3-4 crew members each plus leader for the group) and not get reimbursed for the wages and operating expenses of the team? Your talking Thousands of dollars per day out of the county coffers.

Same goes with helicopters owned by local fire districts. I do think its wrong to buy equipment that is solely going to be used for re-imbursement on Fed or state fires to try and make a buck. But on the Fire Engine side of the firefighting industry, there is not enough private FF's to fill the need, and usually they do not have the training or equipment to do the job (same can be said for some Paid and Volunteer Fire depts as well). Typically, the local FD's and CDF want to put the fire out. Private industry comes in, and they take there time mopping up time so they can charge more. We want to go home, so we get the job done, and done right....

One last thing the above statement that is reposted from a "Profesional Forum" leaves out, is that there is more Interface areas than there was 20 years ago. People are moving into the forests and into the wildland areas, and the local districts are having to buy engines to deal with these newer threats, that didn't exist 20 years ago. Along with this, 99% of the FD's in california have a master mutual aid agreement to assist OES in case of an emergency, either on a non-paying or paying agreement. If you have a resource, then you get hired out if your the closest and the need arises becuase there is an arsonist running around setting 20 fires and stretching resources (Oct 2003 in SoCal).

Please don't lambast the local fire districts for trying to fill a need, but if a dept is trying to make money on those resources to recoup the costs, then the tax payers need to know this. I am sure I will get some hate mail on this, and it may have been slightly off basis somewhat, but I am just offering the other side of the fence view point. Peace guys.

[SASless]

Brushfire,

There is nothing in your post that would deserve "hate mail". The point I am pushing has nothing to do with mutual aid and dispatch of essential service equipment to other jurisdictions. Fire Wagons...tend to be specialized equipment that serve unique purposes.

The thrust of my argument is in special cases, this one being the use of helicopters in firefighting, there are private sector operators who are the better choice for providing the air assets than are government run operations.

As you note, the wildfire fighting business is a sproadic, seasonal affair and a lot of the time the equipment sets idle and will do so for months. Helicopter operators find ways to use those off periods to generate revenue for those aircraft as a normal part of their business. Exactly as you describe with the Type 3 wagons, these assets can then be called into service when needed for the purpose of fighting fires. The Fire Agency only has to provide the manpower for ground crews as the helicopter operator provides the aircraft, fuel bowser and maintenance support, and flight crews.

You will also agree the private sector also provides water trucks, porta-potties, tents, food services, equipment transport, bulldozers, pack mules, and a myriad of other equipment and services for CDF and Federal fires in addition to helicopters.

Southern California has a longer Fire Season than most places thus having an immediate response capability is important. The State of Washington for example is comitted to a quick response to fires with the goal of keeping them as small as possible and that makes good economical sense. They as a practice do not keep a WA DNR aircraft at their main hangar but rely upon the helicopter operators in the area to do that for them. Response times for some of the operators (from time of call to time of launch) was less than ten minutes on the average...some times much shorter than that.

Cooperative agreements and good prior planning can provide the service at professional standards using private sector equipment and pilots and do so at a much lower cost and investment of tax monies when it comes to helicopters.

As these "interaction zones" increase....interesting concept. If the city did not annex these areas for the purpose of gaining tax revenues, and thus the people living out in those areas had to rely upon volunteer fire agencies as they have in the past....the city would not have the expense or need to provide services that cost money would they. Maybe what we really have is a self inflicted wound by the city governments.

Politics drives all of this as we well know. Even the Fed's are playing their games with the firefighting contracting but that certainly is another issue. Funny how the Feds could manage to arrive at a situation where the Type II contract wording (medium helicopter) was still being written within days of the start of fire season.

[NickLappos]

SASless said, "there are private sector operators who are the better choice for providing the air assets than are government run operations."

SASless has finally admitted why he posted this whole self-serving thread. It is the old Public vs Private argument, and those who stand to make a buck are the ones touting the private solution.

Give it a rest, SASless, or else why don't you advocate a Private Army instead of thet old bloated green one I was in? What do you mean "better"? That they pay YOU instead of a county employee? Give it a rest, the taxpayers said what they want.

[SASless]

Nick dear boy....

The taxpayers never had a say in the decision...that is the point. There has never been a referendum on these matters to my knowledge.

As to self serving interests....since you still probably have a financial interest in Sikorsky in the form of stock...I can see your support of the FireHawk program also has a bit of "self interest". We never did get to the bottom line on that operation...as to what it really costs the taxpayer. As I recall you still owe us some accounting statistics for that evaluation. Do you (Sikorsky) offer the private operator in Florida the same support you do the California Government operation politically and in the form of financing, leasing, and parts pricing?

I do not recall a word out of you about that private operation....was that an oversight or did Sikorsky cater to a government operation because they could get a "better return" on their investment by selling to a government agency where profit/loss is not a consideration? Remember the Four Hundred Dollar Hammer concept when selling to the government...after all it is only taxpayer money we are talking about here...not real money.

While we are talking taxes here...private operators pay property tax, sales tax, income tax, social security tax, workman's comp tax, unemployment tax, business license fee, vehicle license fees, registration fees, fuel tax, road use tax, ....how much of that is lost to the government that has its own air force at taxpayer expense when a private operator could provide the same service?

The other side of the coin when talking of private industry who can make a buck is the government bureaucrat that is trying to enlarge and protect his domain at taxpayer expense.

The question is who can provide the service at the least overall cost to the taxpayer who has to pick up the tab without any say in the decision.

[NickLappos]

Touchy, touchy! The answer to all your questions about "do you.... " is "Yes", there is no special deal for governments, SASless. The same power by the hour and pricing is available to anyone with some long green.

Regarding how the taxpayers get to consent, unless I am totally confused, we are a representative republic, and a referendum is NOT required to legally and properly buy toilet paper or helicopters.

Your silly argument about privatizing everything is so transpearent and self-serving. On one hand you post until your fingers hurt about mindless cheap private operators who can't equip, train or operate properly, and crash all the time, and then you turn around and decide that no governmental body should do anything that can be found in the Yellow Pages. Give it a rest, SASless!!

The day LA Country Fire Engines are painted with commercial logos and driven by private operators, and LA Policemen are fired and replaced by private rent-a-cops, I will listen to your rant. Until then, get off the horse and admit that governments CAN and WILL operate hardware for their taxpayers.

[SASless]

Fire King makes splashy debut
‘The Swiss army knife of helicopters’ designed to save time and money on blazes
By PAUL FATTIG
Mail Tribune
MERLIN — Jeff Schwanke grimaced while leaning into the rotorwash of the thundering helicopter as it dumped a waterfall onto the tarmac at the Josephine County airport.

But the forester in charge of the Oregon Department of Forestry’s Southwest Oregon District didn’t really mind the wind or the chilly spray.
"This is a real positive step in the right direction," he shouted. "It brings enough punch to do us a lot of good and it doesn’t cost an arm and leg."

He was among about 50 people, mostly from local firefighting agencies, watching Wednesday’s demonstration of the Carson S-61 Fire King, a new Type 1 (heavy) helicopter developed by Carson Helicopter Services Inc., based at the airport.

"The Forest Service is interested in new technology as it relates to fire suppression," said Patty Burel, spokeswoman for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, speaking for agency personnel watching the demonstration.

"We’re always interested in new ways to do things."

Using a Sikorsky S-61 helicopter as a base, the firm has developed and added a state-of-the-art composite main rotor, beefed up the engine, made room for 15 firefighters and installed a belly tank capable of holding 1,000 gallons of water to produce what it touts as the most advanced firefighting helicopter in the sky.

"It’s kind of like the Swiss army knife of helicopters," observed Joe Rice, a helicopter pilot and operations director for the firm.

With the Fire King, a wildfire can be attacked, a fire crew dropped off and injured picked up, said Steve Metheny, the firm’s executive vice president.

"And we can do it faster than any helicopter out there," Metheny said.

Moreover, the airship’s efficiency means big savings for taxpayers, Rice said.
For instance, flying at 10,000 feet, the cost of operating a Sikorsky Skycrane is about 92 cents per gallon of water, compared to about 47 cents per gallon for the more efficient Fire King, he said.

"That may not sound like much but if you are delivering 5,500 gallons an hour, you are saving $2,475 per hour," Rice said. "If we fly an eight-hour day, that saves $19,800 a day. It adds up."

The Fire King, which costs some $6 million fully equipped, is the only Type 1 helicopter that can carry both 15 firefighters and has a 1,000-gallon belly tank.

Composite rotor blades were originally created by NASA, but Franklin Carson, who started the firm in 1958, purchased the rights to develop them for commercial use, Rice said. The firm’s East Coast headquarters is in Perkasie, Pa.

After 11 years of research, they were first used by Carson helicopters for firefighting during the 2004 fire season.

"It’s the most efficient rotor blade ever produced commercially," Rice said, noting it increases lift capacity by some 2,500 pounds and increases the airspeed by about 15 knots.

With the modifications, the aircraft can cruise along at 130 knots, lift 11,000 pounds beyond its own weight, fly for three hours without refueling and take off at 12,000 feet above sea level, Rice said.

Moreover, the new blade’s life is double that of the traditional metal blade, he said.

"We can move more people, lift more water and do it faster with more efficiency," Rice said.

Equally important is the belly tank, he said, noting that with a traditional line and bucket, the heavy helicopters must fly around populated areas because of regulations in that airspace.

However, that’s not the case with the FAA-approved belly tank, he said.

"We can launch directly over towns," he said. "We can respond faster."

The water from the tank can be dispensed at eight different levels, from a fine spray to slow a fire down to a gullywasher to flood a hot spot. It also carries 30 gallons of fire-suppressing foam.

The aircraft can be loaded with water in less than 30 seconds.

A half dozen Fire Kings equipped with the new tank and composite blades will be flying in the 2005 fire season, according to Bob Madden, the firm’s director of corporate development.

Of those, two will have the 15-passenger carrying capability, he said, noting that each must be approved by the FAA.

The tanks are manufactured in Medford while the blades are built at its Pennsylvania base, he said.

The firm’s goal is to contract the Fire Kings out to resource management agencies as well as sell the new rotor blades, Rice said

[ShyTorque]

The day.......(when) Policemen are fired and replaced by private rent-a-cops, I will listen to your rant. Until then, get off the horse and admit that governments CAN and WILL operate hardware for their taxpayers.

Good thing you don't live in "glorious UK" under this amazing present government of ours, Nick.... :(

[B Sousa]

Sasless
I now have a better idea as to where your coming from. The Government vs. Contractor thing has been going on since the first Bell 47 hit the firelines. It aint gonna end soon and I dont have the answer for you. I do know that handled properly the overall charge to the "Taxpayer" is less than paying for contract services.
I have worked for a few and sprayed a bit of water in my day and know for a fact that contract operators screw the taxpayer more than any politician could hope to on his best day of making Pork.
The latest gig, being Battery Hobbs vs. Flight time.......
I think the only reason some operators are not in jail is because the problem is too big.
As to private contractors being any better than in place trained firemen, thats up for debate. Many have been in the field for years and are dam good pilots etc, but many Fire Departments can claim that also.
Basically the only reason that Government agencies use contract resources is because they dont WANT an Air Force. I think it may be cheaper.