Another forest fire bomber crashes

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I just received an e-mail that a heavy bomber just crashed N. of Denver. It happened about an hour and a half ago.

The wings apparently folded.

Cat Driver.

[Airbubba]

Air Tanker Crashes in Northern Colorado as Wildfire Threatens Homes

By Jennifer Hamilton Associated Press Writer
Published: Jul 18, 2002

LYONS, Colo. (AP) - An air tanker crashed Thursday while working to control a 1,200-acre wildfire burning near Rocky Mountain National Park, officials said. There was no immediate word on injuries.
Forest Service spokesman Jim Cuthbertson said investigators were on their way to the crash site, about 45 miles northwest of Denver.

Chris Pair said he was videotaping the wildfire when the plane crashed.

"I saw the plane breaking into pieces. I saw about three, maybe four pieces in flames go down," he told KCNC-TV in Denver.

Air tankers, helicopters and about 80 firefighters were battling the fire which has forced residents to flee about 120 homes in the northern Colorado foothills.

The fire was threatening as many as 300 homes, fire information officer Tammy Williams said.

"Things are readily igniting. The fire is obviously growing," she said.

Elsewhere across the West, rain slowed wildfires in Nevada but officials in Oregon posted voluntary evacuation notices in the small towns of Ruch, near the California line, and Paisley, in the central highlands.

More than 161,000 acres have been charred in Oregon during what has been an early and active fire season.

"In my 35 years in the Forest Service, this is the most activity I've ever seen," said David Widmark of the Northwest Interagency Coordination Center in Portland, Ore.

AP-ES-07-18-02 2214EDT

[Cyclic Hotline]

Sadly it has been confirmed that T-123 a PB4Y was lost tonight on a fire. Thoughts are with the families and colleagues affected by this tragic accident.

News Report on loss of Tanker 123 (http://www.thedenverchannel.com/den/news/stories/news-156485320020718-070719.html)

[ORAC]

It's about time someone put together some hard rules on the design and fatigue life of aircraft for use in these environments. 50 to 60 year bombers, 40 year old transports and maritime aircraft.

God knows, the crews are brave enough. The present operators have to buy and use what they can to afford the rates paid. But we can't go on like this.

If the regulations made it necessary to build and operate new aircraft, then the rates would follow.

[OzExpat]

I suspect that ORAC is right. The firebombers do an important job and save many lives in the process. It's very sad that two bomber crews have now perished in so short a period of time, while doing that very dangerous job.

Sincere condolences. These two tragedies will affect more than just the families and friends if the crewmembers. It will affect the whole fire-fighting effort and may make life even tougher for those who must fight "the animal" on the ground. A very sad day for many people.

[Rollingthunder]

Very sad indeed, two brave crews lost in a few weeks.

Instead of recycling somewhat aged aircraft into high performance required fire fighting duties would it not be better to use relatively new purpose built aircraft? (eg. CL415). Or is it just a question of costs? The human costs seem pretty high as of late.

[patrickal]

A couple of points about these crashes

1. Most firefighting aircraft are considerably older than most other commercially used aircraft.

2. Most of these aircraft fly in moderate to severe turbulence all of the time and consistently perform maneuvers which involve stresses that are above the "norm" of regular usage. This includes steep and rapid climbouts after dropping fire retardant.

3. I would assume that the level of preventive maintanence on these kind of fleets would be somewhat less than a normal commercial fleet, given that the revenue in this operation is not that lucrative.

4. We have had several consecutive seasons of severe wild fires that have placed these fleets in continuous action.

I would also wonder about the possible corrosive propoerties of either the standard "red" fire retardant and also the smoke they are flying through. Given that most of these fires involve large quantities of pine based trees, there has to be elements of turpentine, benzene and other sap base gases in the smoke. What effect does long term exposure to these elements have on the aircraft.

Given all of this, it would probably be a good thing to examine all of the structural elements of these aircraft. If not, considering their age and usage, we can probably expect to see these accidents continue.

[411A]

Expect to see more P-3's come on the scene in the next few years.
After the problems that the Electra had years ago, and the fix applied, not likely the wings would come off those aeroplanes.

[Navy_Adversary]

Rolling Thunder,
I agree with you entirely, in fact as the thread opened I thought what about the 415s.
A couple of years ago I was on a cruise ship in Ajaccio, Corsica and there was a fire close-by in the hills. Two Cl415s were soon on the scene and after a few impressive swoops into the harbour to top up their tanks the fire was soon out. They must be a good purchase in this day and age, I managed to get some nice shots as well.

[PaperTiger]

All US tankers grounded for 48 hours. I would expect the P4Ys to be held longer until the cause is established.

http://www.thedailycamera.com/bdc/mtn_towns_news/article/0,1713,BDC_2428_1274915,00.html

[Cyclic Hotline]

More on this story from airtanker.com.

airtanker.com (http://www.airtanker.com/wwwboard/messages/8755.html)

[GotTheTshirt]

Navy_A,
As someone who lives in Corsica I can confirm that we see the Canadairs on a regular basis during the summer.
They have both piston and turbo versions.
I have watched them from very close up on many occasions.

I suspect that the Mediteranean fires (they are in all of that area of south of France and Corsica, as well as Italy and Sardinia) are probably of must smaller magnitude that the US ones.
They also use a big 4 engines tankers and they seem to stay higher covering a large area, then the Canadairs go in at very low level and pin-point.
The Canadairs have separate water tanks and they can drop 1,2, 3 or all tanks.
They normally pick up water ( not retardent) from the many bays in the area.
The have lost 2 tanker over the past few year but both basically hitting the ground in obscured viz. and I have not heard of any structural problem.
The Mediterannean aircraft are Government controlled.
As stated in the thread it does seem to be an age/cost related problem.
It is a case of meeting the price and not quoting a price that the operator can live with.

[Huck]

I got a tour of the Canadair plant in Montreal a few years ago. The water-bombers are made by hand in a small corner of the facility. I think they make just one or two a year.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

The Canadair 215 and 415 are able to add foam to the water during pickup.

The Canadair 415 has had some serious structural problems with the center section picking up on rough water, but I would imagine it has been solved.

The foam is a short term retardant, about 30 years ago we started injecting wet water, a chemical that made water penetrate deeper when on the surface. We then had Tenagum and some other short term retardant I just can't think of the name right now. These chemicals were a powder that we injected into the tank during the pick up and it worked quite well.

When it mixed with the water it was bright purple.

We also loaded at the land bases with long term retardant at least on the first departure from the fire base, usually we just started to scoop water after the first drop, quicker turn around.
Shortest drop to drop time I ever managed was two minutes and forty seconds. It was on a pininsula sticking out into the lake and I could do the pick up by doing a 180 degree turn on the water.

I flew fifteen years fire bombing and loved the job.

Hell , where else can you fly an airplane you can make empty in a heart beat just by pushing a button? :-)

Anyhow enough of all that.

Cat Driver.

[Rollingthunder]

The CL215 and CL415 were always niche aircraft and a bit of a gamble. I think its a fine aircraft totally suited to its purpose and it has saved many hectares, homes and possibly lives. It never caught on well for several reasons ( not built here, comparitively expensive compared to converted B24s, Hercs, PBYs etc, perhaps not big enough payload etc...).

If it ever catches on, it won't be a hand built in a corner aircraft - they will assembly line them like Challengers.

[pigboat]

Don't think the 215 is built any more. That was the original piston version with the R2800's. The 415 is the turbine version, with hydraulic boost flight controls, air conditioning etc. I think they are built at a dedicated factory in North Bay. The problem is, both aircraft are horrendously expensive to purchase outright, and are expensive to operate. Additionally, they are at their most efficient when there is a readily available source of water to scoop. That is not always the case, particularly in the American west, thus the amphibious capability is superfluous. You are as well off with an old, well maintained aircraft as you are with a new 415 from a practical point of view.
A company called Conair has comprimised somewhat. They have taken military surplus Grumman S2F airframes and added modern turbine engines and electronics. The Grumman airframes are built like brick s**thouses, and the Pratts are a proven powerplant.

[brain fade]

Isn't the PB-4Y aka a privateer? ie a B-24 with a single tail. If so it is a very old aeroplane indeed. While I take off my proverbial hat to the likes of Hawkins & Powers (if indeed , as it must have been, it was one of theirs) for flying such beautiful and evocative piston powered heavies, surely its time to retire these warhorses in favour of something a wee bit more up to date.
I visited the airfield at Mesa AZ this year. The Grumman S-2 a/c they were converting had modern (powerful) turbo-prop engines and extremely sturdy airframes. The C-130 is not even allowed on the UK register due it's 'no-spar' centre section. As for using a privateer for 'Aerial work'. Hmmmm
In the UK we don't get many area fires. If we did tho', we would not be relying on 40's & 50's aircraft to put 'em oot!:confused:

[Rollingthunder]

Pigboat has a valid argument. Tho I think some of these types are perhaps past it for this type of work. I suggest tactical strikes by more modern aircraft built for the stresses - eliminate the fires at early stages. Choppers lift far too little and turn times are too high. Perhaps a few CLs would have nipped the Sydney area fires in the bud...or near bud?

Hey, no one's mentioned the Mars yet.

[Rollingthunder]

I continue to be amazed.


2055 views and 17 comments.

2038 with no opinion.

[Knave]

How many of the Mars boats are still flying? I recall hearing that one crashed a while back but that maybe one or two others were still working.
How about selling the Privateers to warbird collectors to be refurbished to represent US Navy machines and use the proceeds to help fund newer water tankers? Theres precious few B24's available, flying or not, so youd think someone would jump at a Privateer as a project, espescially a flying one. A navalised privateer would be a hit at an airshow.

[Dockjock]

here's Conair's site
www.conair.ca

[Chuck Ellsworth]

There are two Martin Mars still operating based at Sproat Lake here on Vancouver Island.

They are operated by Flying Tankers Ltd. a group of forest companies. They almost shut them down last year, however they are flying again and have been to Alberta and as far as I know are due to go back there or to Sask.

I wouldn't be suprised for them to go to the U.S as they are capable of really beating a fire to death with 6000 pounds of foam / water per drop.

One of the best fire fighting machines however has to be the S64, they really proved their worth in Australia some months ago.

By the way a Super Cat will keep up with a CL 215 and can pick up in a higher x/wind. I have had the CL215 guys ask me to move to another lake because they could not handle the x/wind that the Cat could. :D

Cat Driver

[ExNeptuneDriver]

One of the problems the contractors in the USA face is dealing with the contracting procedures with the government agency. They are limited in what they can provide in maintenance by the amount designated in the proposal of the contract. If more mechanics are required in during a heavy season it is hard to get the funds to pay them. With the negociated bidding procedure operators have to budget their resources based on the previous few years accounts. The contracting system needs some repair to enable the operator to provide what is needed, when they need to do it.
As the system is today, the cost of buying new aircraft (ie, CL-414 or other new aircraft) is prohibitive. The bottom line is that operators can not operate in 2002 with a 1975 budget!!

NOTE: Chuck Ellsworth... I think the Mars can pack 7000gal or 60,000lbs of water instead of 6000 lbs. I may be worng! I love your part of the world up there!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Hi Exneptune dr.

Yeh, my mistake, I meant 60,000 pounds of water. I was thinking Imperial gallons at ten pounds per. gal. and just screwed up when I typed it.

The Flying Fireman had two Neptunes but could not get them approved by Transport Canada as fire bombers so they were sold to the U.S.

Can you believe it , the Neptunes were ex Canadian Navy and we wanted to use them for forest fire supression.

These fu..in morons in TC wouldnt approve them, where do they find these idiots?? :mad: :mad:

Cat Driver

[ORAC]

LA Times:

........The U.S. is unique in its dependence on commercial operators for aerial firefighting, a legacy of Depression-era efforts to support private business......

.......At the core of the debate is an arcane 1932 law that restricts activating federal personnel and resources until all commercially available firefighting aircraft have been used up......

.......Still, calls for modernizing the fleet have been growing, and some members of Congress have pushed local initiatives to help bolster federal programs.........

Last month, the California Air National Guard's 146th Airlift Wing in Ventura County, which is one of only four federal government units designated to help fight wildfires, received the first newly manufactured aircraft in its 80-year history.....two new C-130J Hercules cargo planes ...equipped to drop retardants on wildfires.

But the 146th, .... can be deployed only as a last resort because of the 1932 law. Irked lawmakers introduced legislation in Congress this week to permit the Forest Service to tap military aircraft without first exhausting the supply of commercial aircraft....

........The California Department of Forestry operates 23 Grumman S-2T and S-2A air tankers.................

[ICT_SLB]

While the 415s are more efficient as a scooper they have, in fact, been certified by the USDA Forest Service as meeting their land tanker requirements (fill within 45 seconds from memory).

Not sure if their initial cost ($16M?) is an arguement when you see the estimates of real estate & timber costs for any one of these fires. The crews, too, deserve the best equipment we can provide - it's a hard, skilled & risky job at the best without the possibility of airframe failure.

Maintenance can never cope with the sort of stress fatigue you get in low-level flying - the USAF completely rebuilt a C-140 Jetstar used by their Checker squadron and it was just as bad after less than 200 hours. Transport Canada has a stress recorder on their Flight Inspection aircraft and apply about a seven to one multiplier for some ops! Makes you think about the total time and equivalent time these aircraft really have.

[hobie]

Exposing crews to all the risks associated with old or unsuitable equipment is almost certainly a national discrace! ........ I can compare it with the current practice in the European country that I live in ...... most of our school kids are Bused to school using machines typically 20 years old ...... I often see Tourists looking at them in amazement as they belch there way on there journeys at snail pace ...... I cant imagine what the structural strength or brakeing ability is compared to modern vehicles ....... I have no doubt that it will take a disaster to make the "Powers that be" wake up and do something about it ...... as for the U.S. Pilots, how many more will have to die before the problem is fixed?

[knilaus]

In relation to the discussion on the merits of converting aged warbirds into firefighters vs using CL415's you may be interested in reading this article from Wildfire News, which basically outlines the case for and against CL415 with examples from the California County of Los Angeles. Apparently, this is a topic of much controversy in the firefighting 'industry':

http://www.wildfirenews.com/fire/articles/cl415.html

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I took the time to read the article on the CL415.

Of all the comments in the very long article the most accurate and truthful are the statements by Al Hymer's.

The comments regarding open ocean water pickups are pure rubbish. ( the comments were not Al's )

Cat Driver

[swashplate]

Canadair CL-415 (http://www.airliners.net/open.file/244178/L/)

....from 'Airliners.net'


Would it not be possible to fit these old a/c with Ejector seats for the crews? Or too much $$$$/too difficult? :(

Seems a rum deal for the blokes who have to fly 'em.... :(:(

[Xeque]

I've sat on the holiday beaches of Greece and watched the guys flying the Canadairs drop down to refill in the bays and then go on up to where the fires are burning to drop their loads.

I have nothing but admiration for these guys and what they are doing.

I am not fully aquainted with what goes on in American aviation but in the good old corporate tradition of "the cheapest bidder always wins" I can see that there can be instances where old and seriousy deficient equipment is pushed into situations where it (the equipment) may be found wanting.

Given a company ethos like "There's a fire - let's go! - but let's invest as little as possible" - there is always some poor bastard who wants to take his chance, make a buck or two and turn a blind eye to safety and basic common sence - maybe like the two guys in this tragic instance

[Xeque]

too low too slow - would ejection work?

[ExNeptuneDriver]

As Murphy's law dictates.... Only at the worst possible time will anythnig happen. Bailing out over a fire would be a hard option for me to consider. Also where a plane comes apart like the last two, you don't have time to get out. G forces would prevent it. Take a look at some of the sky diving accidents. In the numerous engine failures, mechanical problems I have had, I was too busy trying to fly the plane to think of getting out. I had the flaps stick full down on a B-17 in a deep canyon one day. I got low enough over the river to count fish before we got them up and started gaining altitude. There have been several lives saved by crew jumping out, a c-119 with an engine fire in Alaska.

On the CL-414.....it is a good aircraft for certain areas. One of the problems I see is the fact that water is not available in a lot of fire areas. They would have to reload at a land base and with the size of the load they carry, this would not fit into thew USFS requirements. This is the reason the B-17, B-25, B-26 and etc. are no longer used on federal contracts.
I have seen them work in Alaska where to lake was almost on down wind to the fire. They were impressive to watch. One load hanging in the air and they were scooping another!

[Iron City]

Re Transport Canada's stress recorders on their flight check aircraft: A number of years ago they lost a flight check King Air when the wing fell off, so they are rightly concerned with structural fatigue.

AS far as the economics of new aircraft for contract firefighting and use of contractors vice government owned assets you can probably go through the arguments on both sides yourself. Doubt that the Forest Service has the cash at any one time to put on a contract to pay for new aircraft, and since they are specialist aircraft that can not be easily converted into hauling passengers or freight and after being fatigued and worked they have no residual economic value beyond $.10/pound the companies have no economic incentive either. Makes it hard to justify new aircraft.

There have to be bags and bags of old C-130s in various boneyards that have lots of airframe life remaining that could be economically converted and operated for a few seasons each, use up their remaining airframe hours before their date with the smelter. Would old Nord 262s, Shorts, and other over the hill passenger and cargo aircraft be useful? Not the FEDEX fleet of Flacons, of course.