World's largest firefighting aircraft grounded by U.S. gov't
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Update: California activated the SuperTanker to fight its first U.S. wildfire in August 2017.
More than 50 large wildfires are scorching land this morning across the western U.S. But a new firefighting tool is sitting idle in an airport hangar in California because the U.S. Forest Service refuses to let it fly.
The converted Boeing 747 jet, nicknamed the SuperTanker, can drop almost twice as much fire retardant as the largest airtanker currently in service.
"We're the very largest in the world -- there's nobody out there that comes close," said Jim Wheeler. His company, Global SuperTanker, turned a 747-400 series passenger jet -- one of the biggest in the sky -- into the world's largest fire extinguisher.
"We can drop a line of retardant about three kilometers long, about a mile-and-a-half," Wheeler told CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmann, as the plane performed a test run in Colorado last fall.
But in this country, it's virtually worthless unless the U.S. Forest Service gives it permission to fight fires -- something the agency has yet to do, even though the plane was certified by the FAA last September, and has since fought fires in Chile and Israel.
"The frustration factor is exceptionally high," Wheeler said. "It's very hard to watch property burn and lives lost, and we can't get in and help."
In May, the Forest Service issued a request for new airtankers, but said it would only give contracts to planes with a dispensing capacity of between 3,000 and 5,000 gallons. The supertanker can drop more than 19,000 gallons of water or retardant at a time.
Wheeler said, "It begs the question: if your house is on fire, are you going to call the smallest, slowest fire truck?"
Some firefighter advocacy groups suggest the Forest Service might be trying to control its budget, causing delays for the plane, which could cost as much as $250,000 a day to operate. The Forest Service says it can't comment on the dispute because Wheeler filed an official protest last month.
According to Wheeler, the aircraft can be filled in less than 30 minutes. But it's not just the speed and size that make the Supertaker powerful; its pressurized tank system atomizes the water when it's released, rather than just dumping it, like a bucket. "It doesn't break down tree limbs, it won't crush cars or buildings," Wheeler said.
And a firefighter or a stranded resident who happens to be under this big dump of water will be be fine. "You'll get wet, but won't be killed," Wheeler said.
Strassmann asked, "Why hasn't someone done this until now?"
"There's a lot of cost involved in doing this, a lot of testing and a lot of paperwork, and I think that scares most people," Wheeler replied.
California's fire agency currently has an agreement to use the plane, but can't deploy it until the Forest Service gives its approval. It's an expensive aircraft, but at a time of ever-growing wildfires threatening lives and property, Wheeler feels his service is a bargain. "You're not going to put out a 4,000-acre or larger fire with buckets and helicopters. It's just physically impossible," he said.
Tags
Who is online
130 visitors
Would be a really good time to 'operational test' this airplane. I understand the need for caution when it comes to new tech for use of airplanes fighting fires, but the California Wildfires are a real disaster and anything that can help should be used........
As a CA resident, I totally agree. Maybe it is time to get the courts involved to override the decision and use the damned thing for what it is intended.
How much more of Cali will burn before it gets through the courts? This would be a good time for someone higher up in government to step in and get this figured out.....probably at the cabinet level......
Something must have changed. I saw the super tanker being used earlier on the news.
That's good news!
The fact is that it wouldn't be an 'operational test'. The Supertanker has been in operation for over 2 years and has been used to fight fires in multiple countries AND states, including CA. It was used to fight the Oroville fire last year.
So that begs the question: Why is the US Forest Service refusing to allow it to be used now?
The Government could call it whatever it wanted to, to get the plane in use, was the point.
Perhaps I am being a bit cynical .. but there is no money to be made in stopping this fire .. ? … conspiracy theory, most likely .. yet I have friends on hot shot crews and forest service workers .. they are disgusted .. I am told the forest service could call fighters in much earlier to a fire, but wait til it is a battle to fight - these firefighters are towing the mark while the powers that be call the shots
putting my Soapbox away ..
In general I am sure you are correct. This costs substantial money so people are calculating personal / political risk. Will the cost be worth their personal benefits?
Sucks, but this is unfortunately commonplace.
I have been told the forest service is ignoring some fires, akin to the old let it burn policy, as a way of forest management .. makes me cry!
I can see that as part of a strategy. When one is facing a problem too large for one's resources, one makes critical choices.
Good point, yet if those choices were made wisely and forests were cleaned up (I can provide videos of how to do the works .. step by step) some wildfires might not be so devastating (?) making our national forest healthy again actually creates jobs .. reducing fuel for wildfires, as well as assisting in countering climate change ...
I have never actually hugged a tree .. but they are my thing .. and environmentalists have protected US forests to death - now it is possible the forest service as a potential way of management - are hanging them out to fry.. let 'um burn...
now I am putting Soapbox away... shutting mouth now..
Evening Colour..Yes we use burn offs to remove debris to reduce bush fire risks...all conditions are noted when and where to do these burn offs...California and my State Victoria are two of the most fire prone areas of the world unfortunately..our climate and terrain and very similar and we to face this hell every year...The Ericsson sky cranes are used here from the USA to their fullest extent and any other flying aircraft..Bit confusing why they would have the best weapon sitting on the ground over there???...We have sent over 100 firies and the Kiwis have sent over 30...So I hope they all stay safe and there is no more loss of life....In a few months we will be in the same position, the annual dance with the devil will begin...Good luck stay safe and always watch the sky......
I've heard many forresters, for years, discuss the benefits of forrest management, but the voice of the Green Movement seems to think it's best to leave the forrest to manage itself-and the result are these fires.
Hi shona .. sorry I missed you..
It is a mystery as to why .. doubt the truth will ever be know what caused the delay / or the non use of the aircraft - unless conditions are just too bad to it to fly, yet I think that would only a temporary at the moment delay...
My thoughts are always with the firefighters on the ground .. I will keep your fighters and the Kiwi's in my thoughts as well...
Sometimes I think that 'management' has been promoted to its highest level of incompetence - and now 'they' are calling the shots.. I no longer trust the government to manage even the trees in this nation, haven't for quite a few years..
The modern day logger is all about management and forest health..
That's known as the Peter Principle.
The problem is that the Peter Principle is SUPPOSED to promote them to a position where the do the least harm.
This demonstrates the insanity of depending on private enterprise for essential public services.
Why doesn't this aircraft belong to the service that fights forest fires?
Guessing budget, R&D dollars, etc., etc. along with typical beauracratic red tape. As noted below, this has been going on for 13 years. It needs to be fixed and fixed now.
In this case though the private sector is not inhibiting operations. They have resources that the government is unwilling or unable to tap.
This is actually the 2nd Supertanker, with equipment salvaged from the first one and this Forrest Service BS has been going on for 13 years.
Evergreen Airlines actually went bankrupt after modifying one of their planes in 2006 or 2007 but the Forrest Service refused to use it for unknown reasons.
Here we are 13 years later in the same red tape BS.
Out of curiosity, what happened to the first one? The link wouldn't populate at this computer.
Evergreen was a viable airline with an idea to create the wworld's largest firefighting plane, so they took a good 747 cargo air frame and modified it to a first class douser.
Well the Forrest Service would never pay them or let them use it so it sat until they went bankrupt. The plane sat in a desert graveyard until 2013 when Global bought it cheap but the plane had been too salvaged to fly again, so Global bought a used 747 and retro fitted the firefighting equipment.
The bulge on top of the 747 is outfitted like an AWACs to be a command and control center; truly visionary stuff that the Forrest Service has ignored for years.
Evergreen was a wild and diverse company which the government should have stepped in and done something for them; instead they were trated pretty badly all the way around.
It would be highly appropriate if the Global plane were allowed to fight the growing blaze in Oregon.
Thanks SP. My connection here doesn't always cooperate.
Could the government be doing a payback due to majority Democratic voting?
13 years, Buzz. Don't see this as a partisan problem, more of a buearacratic one.
Yeah, you're probably correct. Israel should buy the plane to fight the fires Hamas is setting - and then to load up and drop raw sewage on the Hamas arsonists. Of course although the UN doesn't give a shit about the arsonists, they sure as hell will pass a resolution against Israel for the sewage.
Most likely they are just that inefficient and some government bureaucrat is looking for a brown paper bag full of cash to cut the red tape.
Has the US Forest Service explained what their concern is for not giving it the green light to operate?
The Super tanker has been used in Israel and Chile yet we can't/won't use it in the US...
The largest wild fire in California history and we are not using the plane. What am I missing. Has the forest service said why they are not using it.
E.A Here are some Hints::
1) Fire-retardant and deadly pollution
2) Salt water and Damage to the Land for years maybe decades
Doubtful. They are already using those things with tools that allow smaller coverage, whichmeans it must be done more times, increasing the environmental impact of more emission emitting vehicle sorties instead of less sorties.
E.A doubt to your hearts content, take the time and do some research!
Epistte and Kavika,
It says in the seeded story that because a complaint has been lodged, the Forest Service won't discuss. Seems liek an easy way for a government agency to duck the question.
I saw that in the article Spike and it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I would think that if there was a complaint that it would be addressed and the Forest Service would get the program rolling.
Yeah, one would think there's far more going on than what meets the eye. Above, Paula said that on the news they had video of it flying.....maybe some movement?
I found an article where it flew in 2017 and fought wild fires...This sure is strange.
This plane was in the air working a fire yesterday -
The article has 20 photos in a slideshow format.
Here's another article from the 7th,
Though their paint schemes are similar, the Boeing 747 is not owned by Coulson Aviation, which is converting retired Southwest Airlines Boeing 737 passenger jets into firefighting jets.
Coulson Aviation converts old Southwest Boeing 737s into firefighting Fireliners
Coulson Aviation CEO and President Wayne Coulson is hoping his first Fireliner jet will be ready to join the fight against wildfires in July or August.
"Cleveland National Forest"
Easy for untrained personnel to mistake the 747 for the 737, one has 4 engines and a hump and the other two, but from the ground looking up, one c an make a mistake.
I admit I wouldn't know one from the other without being told. As far as the rest of it is concerned there has to be some (at least half) valid reason the forrest service would be using one supertanker and not another.
E.A Agree. so could it be that one needs to use a dispersant, that is more damaging, while the other has more options, you know " Viscosity " Issues?