Firebomber Publications Blog

Wildfire News Of The Day (the Firebomber Publications blog) provides comprehensive international wildfire news. Subscribers include over 10,000 personnel from fire agencies, contractors, and government entities on five continents. "BEST NEWSLETTER I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY 32 YEARS IN THE FIRE SERVICE" - San Diego Fire Department Chief Brian Fennessy.

Thursday, November 30, 2006

FEDS PASSING THE BUCK

It seems that the US Forest Service has decided to pass the buck on fire suppression costs. An Associated Press article today about plans to reduce the amount the feds will pay on future wildfires was disquieting to say the least (Federal audit says let forest fires burn). Wildfires in Southern California can get pricey, especially when they invade the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Considering that the feds had to pay over $1.5 billion in fire suppression costs this year, they've evidently decided that they need to stop paying everybody else's bills as well.

Whether people will consider this to be fiscally responsible or not, it looks like the financial burden of fighting fires in California could very soon fall on California. This brings up the question of how best to fight fires before they get out of control. I submit that the DC-10 Supertanker is a good place to start. Fire managers on the Day Fire indicated that, had Tanker 910 been used within the first three days after ignition, the fire could have been snuffed. As it was, the feds forbade using the aircraft on federal land (most of the affected area was national forest), and it was only at the moment the fire began threatening the town of Ojai that the DC-10 made retardant drops, which, by the way, stopped the fire's progress towards the town. The Day Fire cost over $74 million to suppress. How much of that cost could have been avoided had Tanker 910 been used in the initial attack?

And in the case of the Esperanza Fire, the cost was much higher - not so much in dollars as in lives. There are five firefighter families which have been impacted by the loss of a family member due to that fire. Never mind the financial cost to whoever ends up paying for the fire, the human cost was way too high. Had the DC-10 been used immediately to fireproof the line where those firefighters were working, the outcome of that fire could have been much different. When it finally got on the fire, it was able to increase containment from 6% to 65% in just a few drops. So why fire officials are still debating the effectiveness of this aircraft is a mystery to me, especially in light of the feds plans for ducking financial responsibility on suppressing fires in the future. Let me know what you think at marcher47@firebomberpublications.com.

8 Comments:

  • At 3:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I am a retired state fire administrator and I'm amazed at how "On target" this author is. He has some very good reliable sources and from my 42 year experience I can tell you the Forest Service is now a dichotomy of contradictions. Their Missoula Fire lab evaluates fire retardant gels and then approrves the gels but states that twof the products they have approved for use cannot be used on any federal land fires. Why did they approve those two for use if they are fobidding thier use? This klarge air tanker fiasco alerts me to some behind the scenes collousion with Evergreen Aviation. That is something agood investigative journalist might want to investigate and report to the public aboput.

     
  • At 10:31 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Great site, I am bookmarking it!Keep it up!
    With the best regards!
    David

     
  • At 12:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Great resource. keep it up!!Thanks a lot for interesting discussion, I found a lot of useful information!With the best regards!
    Jimmy

     
  • At 8:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Good afternoon.I should say, that Your site is really great. Design, layouts, structure, logos...Everything is so awesome!Thanks a lot once more!Iam deffinetely bookmarking this site!
    With the best regards!

     
  • At 11:50 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Hello, great site, I found a lot of useful information here, thanks a lot for Your work!
    With the best regards!
    Frank

     
  • At 12:23 PM, Blogger for a moment the lie becomes truth said…

    Who are you? When has an airtanker of any size stopped an established fire in anything besides grass? Airtankers are an excellent support resource. Only a fool of a fire manager would expect an airtanker to stop a fire and not back it up with people on the ground. I watched that DC-10 drop one day after taking a lot of airspace and time just to turn and get into position. Bigger is not better. Agility and accuracy is where is is at from the air. It is time to educate the public that once a fire is well established and with weather conditions against you there is nothing humans can do to stop the forward rate of spread until weather, topography and fuels are in your favor. We need to stop throwing 1,000 dollar bills from the air just to make film crews and the unknowing public happy.

    To even suggest that an airtanker of any size would have been effective in preventing the Esperanza fatalities is irresponsible. The fire started at 0111 in the morning. Any good airtanker pilot is asleep at that hour. How many air drops would have been made with 50mph winds?

     
  • At 12:39 PM, Blogger for a moment the lie becomes truth said…

    Who are you? When has an airtanker of any size stopped an established fire in anything besides grass? Airtankers are an excellent support resource. Only a fool of a fire manager would expect an airtanker to stop a fire and not back it up with people on the ground. I watched that DC-10 drop one day after taking a lot of airspace and time just to turn and get into position. Bigger is not better. Agility and accuracy is where is is at from the air. It is time to educate the public that once a fire is well established and with weather conditions against you there is nothing humans can do to stop the forward rate of spread until weather, topography and fuels are in your favor. We need to stop throwing 1,000 dollar bills from the air just to make film crews and the unknowing public happy.

    To even suggest that an airtanker of any size would have been effective in preventing the Esperanza fatalities is irresponsible. The fire started at 1:11am. Any good airtanker pilot is asleep at that hour. How many air drops would have been made with 50mph+ winds? Shame on you. Your "expert" status has no validity.

    By the way helicopters are far more agile, versatile and accurate than airtankers.

    I will say one thing for you, It is a wise man that does not bite the hand that feeds him.

     
  • At 9:25 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    what's with all the gargage and ad posting in these comments? What idiots. I agree with the bottom post, no tanker would have changed the fatalities at Espernza. They were in a bad spot defending an unoccupied second home. 40/50 mph winds are not aerial firefighting material, and especially at night...air ops just don't happen then. It is frustrating though when Feds won't inital attack aggressively, and then it burns onto CDF or someone else's land when it is a roaring unstoppable monster, and the cost kills all taxpayers

     

Post a Comment

Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

 
www.hypersmash.com