Sikorsky FireHawk
 

I have been enthralled by these beasts and ask your collective wisdom on this aircraft.

1. How are they going during the busy fire season? Much downtime?
2. Operating costs?
3. Size of belly tank.
4. Are they in a restricted category or on the civilian register?

Extremely interested.

Many thanks chaps/chappettes. ;)

I heard the government owned ones stay broke....and have real availability problems...but do not know that for a fact.

Also heard they are very expensive to operate as compared to comparable sized aircraft.

The Honorable Board of Supervisors
County of Los Angeles
383 Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration
500 West Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Dear Supervisors:
AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASING AGENT TO COMPLETE AND EXECUTE ALL
NECESSARY DOCUMENTS RELATIVE TO THE ACQUISITION OF A 500-HOUR
MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND SERVICE FOR THE SIKORSKY S-70 FIREHAWK
HELICOPTER
(ALL DISTRICTS) (3-VOTES)
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD ACTING AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF
THE CONSOLIDATED FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT:
Authorize the County Purchasing Agent to complete and execute all necessary purchasing
documents relative to the acquisition of a 500-hour maintenance inspection and service for the
Sikorsky S-70 Firehawk Helicopter, not to exceed $200,000.
PURPOSE/JUSTIFICATION OF THE RECOMMENDED ACTION
The purpose of this recommended action is to authorize issuance of a purchase order to
provide a 500-hour maintenance inspection and service of the Sikorsky S-70 Firehawk
Helicopter #16, Serial Number 702453, as required by our “Total Assurance Program”
maintenance agreement with Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation. Labor, expenses, and service for
the 500-hour maintenance inspection will be performed at Barton Heliport and shall include six
helicopter mechanics and one quality assurance representative.
----
FISCAL IMPACT/FINANCING:
Pursuant to the Budget Correction Plan that was transmitted to your Board on August 18, 2000, these replacement helicopters and related equipment will be 100% leased-purchased in order to maintain a minimal prudent reserve over the next three years. The Chief Administrative Office and the Internal Services Department has negotiated a ten year lease-purchase financing package provided through Sikorsky by GE Capital Public Finance for the following items (costs include sales/use tax):

· $21.1 million for two S-70A FIREHAWKS from Sikorsky.
· $ 2.0 million for EMS interiors/avionics from Air Methods.
· $ 1.3 million for water tanks/extended landing gear from Aero Union.
· $ 0.6 million for ground support equipment from Sikorsky that our mechanics will need to maintain the helicopters.

The projected annual cost for this lease-purchase is $3.4 million ($1.6 million for 2000-01). Each of the vendors for this acquisition will be funded from an escrow fund established under an escrow agreement among the County, GE Capital and the State Street Bank as escrow agent. The $25 million in purchase costs will be deposited by GE Capital into the escrow fund upon execution of the Sales Agreement and then funds will be disbursed at County direction according to the payment terms established in the purchasing documents.

Under the TAP, there is a minimum annual requirement of six hundred flight hours and the flight hour rate is fixed at $924 hour through December 31, 2003, resulting in a minimum annual cost of $554,000 during this period. The TAP hourly flight rates are then increased for the next three calendar years: $989 for calendar year 2004, $1063 for calendar year 2005, and $1148 for calendar year 2006. For the remaining six calendar years, the increase each calendar year will be a minimum of 1.5%. The maximum increase that can be imposed in any one calendar year is capped at 11%, with any excess being recovered in future years of the agreement. However, the actual hourly flight rate used during these six calendar years will be determined by a formula using the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Producer Price Index-Commodities for aircraft parts and auxiliary equipment. Both the District and Sikorksy have the right under TAP to ask for a change in this formula if either party believes that the formula is not equitable to that party based on a schedule of actual part prices to be provided annually by Sikorsky. The hourly flight rate used for the last six months of the TAP agreement (January through June of 2013) will be the rate used for calendar year 2012.

The Department will pay TAP costs due in the current fiscal year (estimated at $100,000) from available funds in its Services & Supplies budget. The information provided by Conklin and de Decker indicate that using TAP to procure helicopter parts will cost us $1.2 million more over the 12 year term of the agreement than if the District were to purchase these parts on an as-needed basis. However, this cost is offset by avoiding an up-front parts inventory cost of at least $4.5 million (which would have to be immediately replenished for critical parts) and the fact that TAP serves as insurance that the District will not incur substantial unexpected costs due to catastrophic failure of parts. In addition, the District will no longer be incurring costs to purchase parts for the three Bell 205’s.

Following the appropriation adjustments from the Department’s Helicopter ACO Fund included in Attachment III, our District will have sufficient funding to pay for the helicopter training and lease-purchase costs of the helicopters due in the current fiscal year. The $1.6 million in lease payments due in the current fiscal year will be funded from the Department’s Other Charges budget through a combination of the $1.4 million budget adjustment attached. The $655,000 for Sikorsky training services due in 2000-01 will be funded from the Department’s Services & Supplies budget by the attached reallocation to the budget. Future TAP costs will be funded by annual increases in revenue received by the District from property taxes and reimbursement for services provided to other agencies.

Attachment IV is the Sales Agreement with Sikorsky for the helicopters, ground support equipment. Attachment V is the TAP Agreement with Sikorsky. Both agreements have been approved as to form by County Counsel.


We will be selling the three Bell 205’s and associated parts as surplus once the FIREHAWKS are operational. These sales are expected to provide approximately $4.6 million of one-time monies to help finance future lease-purchase payments. If in the future we were in a cash position to
buyout the lease-purchase, we would go back to the Board for the authority necessary to do that in order to minimize financing costs.

Lotta words, but SASless, you are wrong again!

$1000 per hour to haul 10,000 lbs of water per trip is mighty fine.

Nick

BTW That pretty Huey of yours weighs 10,000 lbs doesn't it? Firehawk could load and drop one every three minutes, huh?

Thanks Rotormatic. Very in depth.

There are obviously aircraft out there that are alot more cost effective per gallon/litre of water than many others and by the sounds of it the FireHawk is one of the cost effective ones.

Of course we can't all have these big machines flying around dropping huge amounts of water and many places only have access to the smaller AS350, BK117, B205, B412 and the like which would have a much higher cost per litre of water than the big machines.

I saw an Aussie news story the other day about two AS350's with water tanks fitted fighting a blaze near Brisbane and the cost/litre per hour for those aircraft dropping 1000 litres would be fairly high. Even worse when you use a B412 dropping 1500 litres!

Nick,

How many private sector companies are operating FireHawks?

I am not knocking the airframe...just the concept of Taxpayers taking it in the shorts for something that could be done far better and cheaper by the private sector.

Throw us an Excel spread sheet of the program costs would you? I want you to convince me that the total cost of the Two Firehawks is as stated in that document....and I do not mean the per hour flight charges alone....weight the per hour cost to include all costs...lease, insurance, manpower costs, overhead, real estate costs, right on down the line....lets see a line item by line item cost breakdown of the FireHawk Program and see what the taxpayer is paying for 1,200 flying hours per year. If those per hour costs are increased at the max rate of 11% as stated....that becomes a darn nice rate....especially when all the other costs are factored in.

Throw in the cost of the bases, fuel, personnel, retirements, workman's compensation....depreciation...all of the costs and one sees a much different set of numbers.

The private sector is the correct place for firefighting aircraft to come from....in that they can be used for other work when not needed for fires and can be used in jurisdictions other than just the one that owns them if publically owned.

Commerical operators employ people that pay taxes...and pay property taxes...fuel taxes...payroll taxes...out of proceeds earned from their services. Public Agencies only spend tax money....that comes from private business and private citizens....and that is bad business if the government is doing something that private business can do.

As these public agencies grow their own airforces...the assets within the private sector disappear....and in times of crisis are then not available to respond to disasters.

You take away fire work from commerical operators....and sooner or later...they will wither and die on the vine.

The Firehawks are an expenditure that only public agencies can afford in that they do not have to make a profit
The most cost effective method of fighting wildfires is prevention followed by aggressive suppression before the fires develop any size. That has been proven by the disastrous fires a few years ago when the CDF elected not to send aircraft as it was approaching dark and the fire took off overnight and nearly burned down Southern California.

Anytime a public agency starts telling me how cost effective they are....I know someone is lying.:mad: :mad: :mad:

Nick

Are the FireHawks able to be put on the civil register or are they under the restricted category??

I would be interested to hear from any of the pilots who fly the FireHawk.

I'm not sure about the system in the US but in Australia the S70C should be able to be registed as the C model was for civil use and for sale to countries with problems getting military versions eg; China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, though the main problem would lie in the spare parts supply as with only about 30 or so C models build any part available are actually for UH60 /S70A so the problem of military parts on civil machines rears its head.
The problem of maintenance , yes the Blackhawk is a high maintenance aircraft but not through Sikorsky's doing , if It was operated and maintained along the lines of most civil Helos, the maintenance would be greatly reduced, I worked on Blackhawks for 5 years and have worked on Super Pumas for 7 years now and I know which is easier to maintain and it aint the Super Pussy!!
If you look in Europe the average Super Puma flys well over 1000 hrs per year while a military S Puma is lucky to do 500 if you carried out the maintenance on a civil macine like a military one it would be on the ground more than it flys , a military 500hrly i have seen with Swedish, French and German S Pumas has taken up to 6-8 weeks while a civil one will be lucky to be down for a week or the serviceing is broken into zones for progresive maintenance, the maintenance is not to a lesser standard than the military operators, but the military machines are over maintained and on differant maintenance systems ,I believe if the Firehawk was maintained in a staggered maintenance system like cvil machines and not based on the US army system the costing would be lower and servicability higher. I think the Firehawk is a great Helo but unfortunatly there are only military operators of the Blackhawk family in general and unlike the S Puma which has a large civil as well as military operating base there is not the experiance base to draw on for civil use

Does anybody know which other companies utilise the FireHawk other than LA County Fire?

Any countries outside the US?:confused:

"BTW That pretty Huey of yours weighs 10,000 lbs doesn't it? Firehawk could load and drop one every three minutes, huh?"

Humm... someone from GE told me that the CT-7 engine was never evaluated for RHL operations, and threatened turning my company into the FAA if we ever operated an aircraft with the CT-7 engines performing RHL operations....

How does the Firehawk do that?

Does the S92 TC limitation for 4 lifts an hour have anything to do with the engine design?

"R00024BO Revision 4 Sikorsky Model S-92A April 26, 2005"

"NOTE 10 External lift operations limited to 4 lifts per hour."

The S92 and the Firehawk share the same basic engine family right? One is the commercial version, and one is a military version.

Do the TM's for the engine in the Firehawk address RHL?

Correction. These guys are using T-700's not CT-7's. The Army does not have a RHL limitation on this engine. A loop hole yes.

Rotormatic and SASless,

You started this stuff the last time Firehawk was discussed, and you were told you were wrong then, too. I guess your selective memory only remembers what it wants to, huh?

The engines on the Firehawk are just fine, thank you. They are part of the TAP package.

Oogle, the aircraft is certified as Restricted catagory, as it is not FAA certified to a normal catagory. It is operated by LA County, who are public use, and therefore need no certificate at all, anyway. They operate it under its flight manual, of course.

The sensitivity that SASless and rotormatic show is the jealosy that some operators have when public entities assume tasks that they think they can charge for. They do not want to have cities, counties or states operate, rather they want to have contracts to do that work.
Most US cities have police and fire professionals who are publicl employees. Having a county owned fire/rescue helicopter is just like that, but not good enough for rotormatic or SASless, whose jealousy shines through in their posts.

My son flys a government-owned Army helicopter in Iraq. Why don't you bid on that job, guys? I don't hear you grubbing for that contract. Give LA County a break, they are doing a tough job.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, DC 20546–0001

And

U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Adelphi, Maryland 20783–1145

Simulation of Crack Propagation in Engine Rotating Components Under Variable
Amplitude Loading

The crack propagation life of tested specimens has been repeatedly shown to strongly depend on the loading history. Overloads and extended stress holds at temperature can either retard or accelerate the crack growth rate. Therefore, to accurately predict the crack
propagation life of an actual component, it is essential to approximate the true loading history.

In military rotorcraft engine applications, the loading profile (stress amplitudes, temperature, and number of excursions) can vary significantly depending on the type of mission flown.

To accurately assess the durability of a fleet of engines, the crack propagation life distribution of a specific component should account for the variability in the missions performed (proportion of missions flown and sequence). In this report, analytical and
experimental studies are described that calibrate/validate the crack propagation prediction capability for a disk alloy under variable amplitude loading. A crack closure based model was adopted to analytically predict the load interaction effects. Furthermore, a
methodology has been developed to realistically simulate the actual mission mix loading on a fleet of engines over their lifetime.

A sequence of missions is randomly selected and the number of repeats of each mission in the sequence is determined assuming a Poisson distributed random variable with a given mean occurrence rate. Multiple realizations of random mission histories are generated in this manner and are used to produce stress, temperature, and time points for fracture mechanics calculations.

The result is a cumulative distribution of crack propagation lives for a given, life limiting, component location. This information can be used to determine a safe
retirement life or inspection interval for the given location.

Several assumptions have been made to simplify the FASTRAN II simulation and to fill in for certain unknowns about the actual usage of the engine. First, it was assumed that the engines are ‘pooled’ at the depot. By this it is meant that an engine returned to the depot for maintenance will not necessarily return to the original ‘owner’ but will go to the first unit requiring an engine. This allows us to model the selection of each block of missions with an appropriately partitioned uniform random variable.

The probability of selecting a particular mission and ambient condition is directly linked to the fraction of time the engine is expected to spend performing that mission/ambient condition combination as described by the Army mission mix specification

Another, and perhaps oversimplifying, assumption is that, while stationed with a unit, the aircraft will perform one mission exclusively. For example, aircraft stationed at a training facility perform only the training mission. It was also assumed that the block length (number of missions between removal of the engines for overhaul at the depot) could be modeled as a Poisson process. The purpose of using a Poisson distributed random variable, as opposed to a fixed block length, was to more closely model the
actual engine usage (the T700 has no scheduled overhaul interval).



Summary and Conclusions
The FASTRAN II crack propagation analysis code, which is based on the crack closure model, accurately predicts crack propagation in surface cracked Kb bar specimens under variable amplitude loading.

A method of estimating crack propagation life distribution of helicopter engine rotating components subjected to thirty different missions of varying severity, length, and probability of occurrence, has been developed. This method utilizes several random variables to generate simulated engine histories that are then fed into the FASTRAN II crack propagation analysis code.

There is a direct correlation between the mean number of missions between removal for
inspection/overhaul and the variance in the predicted crack propagation lifetimes. Extra caution is therefore necessary when determining the retirement life or a safe inspection interval for critical rotating components. A more accurate accounting of the actual usage of the engines would also seem prudent.

Years ago I worked on a 214ST (sn 28102) with Lloyd Helicopters in Australia , before Lloyds got the a/c it was used for Logging in New Zealand , supposedly without the knowledge of Bell or GE, because before the a/c was used for offshore the engines were replaced by GE and all the dynamic system went back to Bell for o/haul. When I asked about the engines as i'd worked on Blackhawks which may to multiple lifts in a short time , I was told that the CT7 was not approved for high lift cycles unlike the CT58 which was and the T700 was military and under a differant set of rules. Has this changed with the CT7-6/8 .

Nick, I actualy worked on 214ST\'s in Australia and Europe for a few years and it is my second favorite helo after the Blackhawk and I much prefer the ST to the Super Puma or S76.

Nick: Wake up! Sasless and Rotormatic are right on. The government needs to stay out of the commercial helicopter business. We can't afford them. Have you turned your TV on yet and watched the Army Helicopters moving the sand bags? Last weekend we watched one of Carson's S-61 lap the entire field every turn. If I am a tax payer I want the S-61. Save the Army for war which is what they are suppose to be doing. Did you see the Army with the water bucket? I think they close their eyes before the drop. Not their fault but it's not what they are trained for. The government needs to stay out of the EMS and Fire business. Leave it to the pros.
I wish your son the best in Iraq. I can also tell you some are bidding on contracts in Iraq. And yes there are privately owned Gunships......
Open your eyes!

214 ST’s, otherwise known as water magnets or bounce bounce crack! You would never want to fly any further across water than Sydney Harbour ;)

Brainerd Helicopters out of Florida operate two S-70s on US Forest Service CWN contracts. They don't have tanks fitted as far as I know. Everytime I've worked with them, they have been using a Bambi bucket/long line with a video camera/cockpit screen for bucket work.

The story I was told, as near as I can remember, is that one of the aircraft came from the Sultan of Brunei (or one of his daughters) and the other was came from the Queen of England (via an engine manufacturer who was using it to test their engines for a possible engine alternative)

Nick,

If I am so wrong....produce that Excel spread sheet with the cost data I asked for. I am not from Missouri...but they have the right idea...."Show Me!".

I am not jealous of the Guvmint and their fancy helicopters...but I am damn sure not inclined to look favorably at the guvmint using my tax dollars to compete with private business.

The police and fire department are standard government operations....usually because it cannot be done effectively by private industry and in the case of the Police...require government powers that cannot be delegated to private business.

Forest fire fighting...brush fire fighting...using helicopters and airplanes is and should be a business done by private industry. SAR can be done by private enterprise....case in point is Bristow Helicopters in the UK undercontract to the Coastguard there. I would suggest with the pisspoor SAR coverage offered in the Gulf of Mexico by our USCG....we should do the same thing there...hire civilians.

There is no way a government run operation dedicated solely to firefighting can be as cost effective as private industry.....prove it to me otherwise by posting your cost analysis.

As Mustang Pilot rightly states....watching the video of Army Blackhawks and Chinooks slinging those big white bags of dirt/rocks/concrete to the levee's made my heart hurt. A total waste of assets......the Blackhawk fighting the building fire along with the three fire boats was a real study in frustration.

Those two scenes were plainly obivious the wrong crews and aircraft were dedicated to the task....no insult to the crews...they were doing their best but were not experienced or equipped to do that work. Civilian longline pilots simply out work the military when it comes to specialized flying that the civilians are doing on a daily basis and the military rarely does and then does it poorly to begin with.

1-1. PURPOSE. This order prescribes how the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) certifies restricted category aircraft. It applies to Aircraft Certification Service (AIR) personnel, Flight Standards Service personnel, anyone designated by the Administrator, and organizations associated with the certification process. This order details the responsibilities and procedures for certification of restricted category aircraft under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) § 21.25. It supplements Order 8110.4, Type Certification; Order 8120.2, Production Approvals and Certificate Management Procedures; and Order 8130.2, Airworthiness Certification of Aircraft and Related Products.

a. When the FAA certifies military-derived aircraft, the aircraft includes the airframe, engines, and propellers. The FAA does not award military engines and propellers stand-alone engine or propeller TCs.

4-12. LIFE-LIMITED PARTS. The applicant must determine and include all life limits and mandatory inspections in the airworthiness limitations section of the maintenance manuals. The FAA must approve the life limits and mandatory inspections. The existing limitations associated with the military usage can be applied to the special purpose, if the applicant shows such operation is equivalent to the military design specifications and how the military used the aircraft. The applicant must justify how the new special purpose usage conforms to the military loads and fatigue design objectives.

a. If the aircraft or engine load and fatigue spectra in the special purpose operating environment is not the same as that in the military, the applicant must develop the required data to substantiate and set appropriate airworthiness limitations. This would likely require the applicant to develop a fatigue or damage tolerance methodology.

b. The applicant should account for previous service history in terms of accumulated fatigue damage for each individual life-limited component, when determining fatigue lives, inspection requirements, or any other limitation for the special purpose operation.

----

Inquiries were made of the major manufacturers, those whose products are routinely used
for fire suppression missions. The manufacturers were asked, did or does the fire fighting
mission, in and of itself have a significant influence in determining the fatigue lives of the
flight critical parts and/or components on your products? The following responses have
been paraphrased

Sikorsky’s engineering test pilot, with responsibility for their S-70 “Firehawk”
program, also stated that no special allowances had to be made relative to
the “fire fighting mission”.

SASless,

Why? You wont buy one!

Ok Nick,

I will readily admit I will not buy one....however you made a statement that purported the per hour cost of a Firehawk to be approximately 1000 USD per hour.

I challenged that statement and stated it was not correct. I suggested you could convince me by putting out how you arrived at that figure and still pay for training, insurance, personnel costs, utility bills, HAI entrance fees, retirement gifts, and Secretary Appreciation day flowers and candy.

You care not to do that...thus I can only assume you do not have those figures at hand and thus they were not considered in your calculations or those of the county when justifying the 1000 USD figure.

At three bucks a gallon....the fuel costs alone are going to be quite significant....and Winged S parts I know are not cheap. Throw in the pilots wages....County Bureaucratic scale with fully funded pension and such....with other benefits....the 1000 USD figure is not achieveable....by anyone....much less the government.

Also...as long as the state and county governments are building airforces....thus cutting out contract revenues for private operators....there is no reason for private contractors to dedicate such investment into assets that might be under bid by public use only air operations who do not have to show their real costs and fund themselves at great cost to the taxpayer.

It would help you immensly, SASless, if you read the other posts before you wrote your responses. The $1000 per hour is in rotormatic's post, as the contracted maintenance rate with the county of LA. You don't have to believe it, but it would be nice if at least you read it.

Of course, just reading it is not enough, you'd have to understand it. It is the maintenance cost, so that fuel, pilots, insurance and lots of other stuff is not included.

Table I: Army Mission Mix Specification

Blackhawk T700 Mission profile

Troop Assault 11.40

Resupplying 7.40

Aeromed Evacuation 23.30

Replacing Units 6.70

Transport of Recon. 5.20

Reinforce/Reposition 10.50

Troop Extraction 5.80

Aerial Command Post 4.40

Sling Load 8.40

Training 16.90

Totals 100.0

All values in % of engine operating life

Note sling load (external load) only 8.4% of operating proflie.

What % is the RHL profile of the Firehawk?

Was the Firehawk mission profile evaluated during the TC process?

rotormatic,

WHAT IS YOUR POINT WHEN YOU POST ALL THIS TRASH? Do you have one?

Let me educate you:

What he is saying is that the Firehawk is now doing 90% of its work in the external load/ high lift cycle enviorment and the mission profile was only planned for 8.4% and that they have no plans to adjust for that. Such as the S-61 and the Bell 214B have done.

Look at the S-92. It can only do 4 lifts an hour I'm told.

Something has to give.

Nick

I always read your posts with interest but have one question.

You mentioned that since the L.A. county helicopters are "public use" they need no certificate (I paraphrased here) but surely they are operated under Part 133 and as such "has a valid standard or restricted category airworthines certificate" (Pt133.19 (a) (3))

Most of my companies firefighting helicopters are contracted to domestic government agencies and require either a restricted or standard category TC.

As an aside, to put the "R" in RHL try logging

:D

Mustangpilot....

Any idea of what the real cost per hour would look like on the Firehawk if all costs were added in to the direct hourly costs quoted by Rotormatic et al....and not Nick Lappos?

I wonder what the fuel costs alone for the FireHawk would be?

You reckon the State of California or LA County can be as cost effective as a private operator in the Southern California area is if computed on a cost per gallon or cost per flying hour?

If one assigns only the amount of overhead costs to the fire fighting when the aircraft is not used for other work....meaning the fire costs would accept all other overhead costs and not share the costs on a simple prorata basis....I can see no way the Fire only aircraft can be cost effective. Do you?

Using Sikorsky Data found doing a google search...and amending the fuel costs to 3.00 USD per gallon I come up with a per hour direct operating cost of 1430 USD before any other costs are applied. That number includes fuel, lubricants, Retirement Parts Cost, Labor rate of 54 USD, Overhaul and Repairs, and Engine Overhaul. (All assuming no additional wear and tear from doing repetitive external lifts beyond the 8.4% figure originally calculated for the aircraft I would assume.)

PT6ER,

The concept of public use is important and not very well understood. The US Army has to ask nobody's permission when it designs, builds, tests, produces and operates entire types of aircraft. The FAA cannot ask what the blades are made of, nor can they ask the Army pilots what type of license they have. That is because the Army is in "public use" and actually above the reach of the FAA. Now that that has sunk in, substitute for "Army" in that statement "LA County" or "Fargo, ND" or "State of Mississippi" and you get the drift.

In short, any FAR that the US Army or LA County chooses to operate to is voluntary.

rotormatic,

When you can design build or test a helicopter, you will be qualified to understand the stuff you publish. Until then, try to think really hard, really, really hard "Who designed the Black Hawk?" Then think really really hard (even harder, maybe) "Who guaranteed the maintemance costs that are part of the contract with LA County?"

Now if you really really thought about it, you might realize that the guys who wrote that contract are the same as the people who know the Black Hawk better that anybody, even you. That means they already thought about those questions (the ones you are still thinking about). That also means they are much more into the problem than your ten-words-deep understanding of fatigue life, or cycles.

When someone reads the book to people who wrote the book, its like the time I showed my Dad how to shoot pool.

Nick,

The USFS rates the S-70 at a fuel burn of 160 gph, an S-61 at 170 gph, the S-70 shows a load capability of 9,000 pounds and the S-61 (Carson's) at 11,000 pounds. The difference in revenue shows the 61 earning 123 USD more than the S-70 (2885 USD vice 2762 USD) which would suggest the 123 USD would more than pay for the extra ten gallons of fuel. That begs the question of what the Direct Cost for the S-61 is vice the S-70 and whether the LA County folks would be better off by contracting with Carson's vice running their own operation.

Link to a discussion of the Firehawk by an LA Pilot.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/cgi/rw/...03firehawk.htm

According to the FAA website, Type Certificate Data Sheet H5NE covers the S70A It is in the restricted category. The Sikorsky homepage designates the Firehawk as an S70A but not knowing the serial numbers it is hard to see what applies.

What fun this is eh?

Generally, it would appear, having a dedicated single use flight department is more expensive than the alternative and that is what makes fractional ownership so appealing. Therefore it is hard to believe that it was cheaper for LA County to purchase and run S70A Firehawks against renting, on a seasonal basis, a helicopter that is used on other duties whilst not firefighting and therefore amortizing costs over a longe period. Do they use them for other duties? Big boys like their toys as well and that is a big factor even in our highly cost conscious world.

I have to 'fess up that I am biased against self ownership since I would prefer the customer rent my helicopters. So there is my freshly ground axe out in the open :D

You guys miss the point, I think. Maybe you should go downtown and tell your fire departments to sell their fire engines, you know some people with buckets and axes, huh?

Don't the LA people get a vote? Oh, yea, they do, and they use a county fire department to fight fires, with a multiple use helicopter.

Knowing those LA County guys as I do, and the great job they do, I think they have more in common with SASless than he would admit.

Regarding a "right" to have contractors bid on every/any thing, I don't think so. I personally want cops, firemen, prison guards, and army guys working for the public, mostly because I don't want any cheap-ass lowest bid contractor thinking that my home on a hillside is better protected with a run-out 40 year old design.

Anyone who thinks a Black Hawk isn't better suited doesn't earn my confidence! The question that LA County has answered is the one they ask regularly, what can be trusted to keep the fire off my family's butt? They answer it yearly when the approve their budget, and the Fire Hawks they buy.

The forestry service airplane structural failures (how many, three?)have shown us how bad contractors are at actually delivering a safe dependable product, haven't they?

I believe the CL415 that came apart in France was government owned wasn't it?

As for firefighters, a lot of California's rural firefighting is already contracted out, all be it to another state entity, namely CDF. There are also a lot of privatly run jails out there too. We live in an "outsource" world I'm afraid.

I certainly do not think the Firehawk is ill suited but I'm interested if you think the S64 / CH54 and S61 firefighters rank as "run-out 40 year old designs" because the domestic and worldwide customers of Carson, Evergreen, Siller and Erickson don't think so.

Ahh, it must be nice to bleed UTC blue eh Nick? Just need to get them P&W engines on the rest of the Gulfstream range and it will be a perfect world!! (I have my 401K still residing in Connecticut too!!).

"In short, any FAR that LA County chooses to operate to is voluntary."

There are certain rules LA county needs to comply with...

SECTION 5. PUBLIC AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS

1. GENERAL.

A. Historically, public aircraft have been exempt
from many of the requirements in FAA regulations
applicable to civil aircraft, including those governing
aircraft airworthiness and flightcrew certification. The
passage of Public Law 103-411 (the Independent
Safety Board Act Amendment of 1994) made a major
change in the definition of “public aircraft.” This
change caused many former public aircraft operations
to become subject to the regulations governing civil
aircraft and pilot certification.

B. Legislative History.

The general purpose of the new law, as reflected in the legislative history, is to extend FAA regulatory oversight to some government aircraft operations.

In part, Congress determined that government-owned aircraft, which operate for commercial purposes should be subject to the regulations applicable to civil aircraft.

SUMMARY AS OF:
10/4/1994--House agreed to Senate amendment with amendment.

(Sec. 3) Revises the application of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) economic and safety requirements of public aircraft to include governmental functions such as firefighting.....

rotormatic, your post has nothing to do wth this discussion, but don't let that stop you!

PT6ER, I think your membername tells me you are the UTC guy! If I speak in stong terms about the Black Hawk, it is because I have 2500 hours in it, and was an SIP who trained the first Amy pilots in it. For guys to prefer a 45 year old S61 to it is simply worth a strong post or two, and exposes us to ask why they make it a Fire Hawk issue when in reality, they have strong commercial interests to defend, and it has nothing to do with the aircraft.

If SASless and rotormatic had the contract, there would be no discussion, they would fly Wright Flyers on the contract, if it made them an extra buck. They would defame the Black Hawk if it made the an extra buck, just as fast.

This thread has little to do with Fire Hawk, and lots to do with stone cold business.

Now Sasless - you started this!

Let's stick to the aircraft itself. That's why I posted in the first place.

If you have a beef with Govt. Dept's doing work of commercial operators - talk to the bureaucrats. They are the ones who make the decisions.

I tell you right now - if LA County Fire Dept offered me a job flying one of these amazing aircraft, I'd jump at it. These are the guys who are professionals in the firefighting game and would probably outrun alot of "commercial operator" pilots - BECAUSE THEY DO IT EVERYDAY.

So saying "....move over guys and let the real men have a go" would not work in this case.

The real fact of life is that if the commercial operators would tender for a contract like this - they wouldn't be flying FireHawks.

"rotormatic, your post has nothing to do wth this discussion, but don't let that stop you!"

Mr. Lappos:

You brought up FAA oversite of public aircraft operations.....

And your post had nothng to do with use of the Fire Hawk.

Sorry Nick, You lose that one. Rotormatic is correct. Trust me, you won't beat him on FAR's. You did bring it up.

You are also wrong about the factories knowing everything about lift cycles. In the 214ST they wanted me to pay them $1,000,000.00 to do all the testing before they would support me. Obvioulsy they won and I ran.

There is no way the government can compete with the the HAwk or any other helicopter. Their figures are bogus and they don't include any overhead. Remember, the maintenance contract on the HAwks is part of the sales pitch. That is the only way LA was going to buy them. That's why it is so cheap. And guess what, it's working. They are buying yet another one!

Maybe a good idea as an industry, might be to determine the real cost and at least substantiate the argument?

Get your good friends at the HAI to make a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the actual operational cost for these helicopters.

Be sure to specify;

All acquisition costs.
All Management costs.
All maintenance costs.
All Facility costs, including overhead and utilities.
All training costs.
All support costs, including contractors and consulting.
All travel costs, including vehicles charged to this operation.
All incidental expenses/per diems.
A complete breakdown of pay and benefits, including retirement for each and every person who is costed against this operation.
Fuel costs.
Any insurance and liability costs.
All overhaul and repair costs, not included in the maintenance package.

And while you're at it.

Make the exact same request for that other Government boondoggle - the Cobra project that the USFS keeps hidden away from prying eyes.

I have a sneaking suspicion that once they see the bottom line numbers for these projects you won't hear too many complaints about the cost of commercial operators performing these missions. The hourly rates for all the commercial operators bidding government contracts are public domain information, so why not do the same for the Government operators?

Mustang-

On regs, rotormatic is WRONG, the LA County fire operations are NOT run by FAR, no matter what long posts he makes, and how he flogs his keyboard. He IS beaten on FAR;s because LA isn't using them.

Regarding maintenance cost, I have no earthly idea what you or SASless are talking about, and I will bet you don't know either. The Fire Hawks are covered by a factory guaranteed maintenance contract - a full aircraft "power by the hour". It is a moneymaker for Sikorsky, and provides assured expenses for the operator. It covers components and replacements, so I do not know how you think "the maintenance contract on the HAwks is part of the sales pitch" as if it not somehow a contract, nonetheless. After 9,000,000 hours of Hawk flying, Sikorsky knows what it costs to run one, even with rotormatic scribbling down the cycles and muttering as he does so.

Also, I believe the "government" does not have to compete, it just does, like the Army in Iraq or my town's fire department. I stand by my point, the Fire Hawk is not the discussion here, the fact that you guys don't get to bid is the point, isn't it?