Is the Airtanker Industry Dying?
By Mike Padilla

The airtanker business in the United States is in a state of crisis and everyone, except perhaps the federal government, knows it. We’re down to our last 18–19 large airtankers (LATs), which are expected to have only a few operational years left.

For years, wildland firefighting strategists across the country have relied on airtankers as part of the aerial firefighting force that supports their ground operations. The need for aerial firefighting aircraft is universally accepted by wildland fire managers as well as the public; therefore, the argument isn’t whether firefighting aircraft are useful, but rather how and when specific types of aircraft should be used.

For more than 2 decades, the airtanker program has been in decline, as the federal agency that originally encouraged and promoted aerial firefighting has been unsuccessful in advancing its renovation and growth. The government doesn’t appear to want to address the problem until it becomes a major crisis, but to many people within the wildland firefighting industry, we reached the crisis level a long time ago.

Airtanker History
The United States has fought wildland fire with aircraft for decades, beginning on Aug. 12, 1955, when the Nolta brothers, flying out of Willows, Calif., used converted crop-dusting planes to make the first water drop on the Mendenhall Fire in the Mendocino National Forest. Over the years, we’ve continued this low-cost tradition of taking aircraft not designed for aerial firefighting and modifying it by attaching custom-made systems to do the job. Every so often, we find a larger aircraft and put a larger tank on it, which has resulted in our use of Boeing 747 and DC-10 supertankers.

The agency leading the way in using airtankers has been the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and, to a lesser degree, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Both agencies have been unable to maintain an airtanker program for national firefighting efforts, but it’s not for lack of trying.

A Good Idea Gone Bad
In the early 1990s, the USFS attempted to use the Historical Aircraft Exchange Program to replace its aging fleet of contracted World War II aircraft. This effort is a glaring example of a good idea gone bad. Through this program, USFS aviation managers and private enterprise tried to upgrade older firefighting aircraft with newer government “excess” aircraft, but some contractors were found to be using these aircraft for business other than firefighting, which was a violation of their intended use.

This, along with other violations of accountability, resulted in criminal and disciplinary actions taken against government employees and contractors, freezing the airtanker program in time. Federal aviation managers became leery of programs that introduced newer aircraft for fear that what happened to their fellow employees could happen to them. But many seasoned federal aviation managers felt that it was becoming dangerous to do nothing to improve the fleet and that it would take a catastrophic event to wake up the agency to the plight of the airtanker program.

A Wake-Up Call
Just such an event occurred in 2002. Two airtankers crashed that year, one near Yosemite and another in Colorado. Video footage was taken of both crashes, graphically underscoring the dismal state of the federal air program.

Initial investigations identified the major culprits of both crashes as aging aircraft and poor maintenance practices by contractors. A Blue Ribbon Commission, established to investigate the current state of the federal airtanker program, identified a number of other fundamental problems, including program oversight and a lack of responsibility taken by federal agencies.

Prior to 2002, airtankers had been involved in accidents for years, but after the Yosemite and Colorado crashes, many of the program’s tragic shortcomings were exposed. This resulted in intense but short-lived pressure from the public on the USFS to do something. As a result, the USFS canceled more than half of its airtanker contracts, citing airworthiness issues, and it began the long and arduous task of identifying what constituted an “airworthy” airtanker and how to acquire them.

Ultimately, it was found that only one company was to blame for the airframe failures that caused the 2002 crashes. But the responsibility to address the larger issue, ensuring the operational safety of the airtanker industry, lay with both government and industry. They both share the blame for taking a haphazard approach to long-term maintenance. They both failed to understand the maintenance and operational history of ex-military aircraft, as well as the unique problems involved with using older aircraft for aerial firefighting.

In an effort to keep firefighting costs down and in response to public outcry concerning the high costs of wildland firefighting, agencies have demanded that contractors keep their costs down. As a result, aircraft maintenance, pilot and mechanic training, and, ultimately, safety, have suffered the consequences.

What’s Being Done Now?
There are and continue to be efforts, although generally ineffective, made by numerous agencies and individuals to address the airtanker issue. So far, the only substantive response to the downsizing of the large airtanker fleet has been to increase dependence on helicopters and single-engine airtankers (SEATs), which are used extensively by the BLM.

The introduction of the Boeing 747 and DC-10 very large airtankers (VLATs or supertankers), as substitutes for the LATs, which are the backbone of the federal airtanker program, has been very sporadic and has met some resistance because of costs and operational inexperience in deployment. The search for a replacement LAT airframe is at a standstill due to stalled efforts to find a “purpose-built” aircraft, the lack of an appropriate surplus airframe and the costs associated with both.

Dissecting the Problem
But resolution to the problem doesn’t lie solely in addressing how to replace the aging fleet of remaining airtankers. The problem is multi-faceted, thus the solution must be multi-faceted.

The first and probably most significant facet of the problem: money. It’s not surprising that government firefighters, who started out on a shoestring with crop dusters in California, became accustomed to getting a bargain. Since then, they’ve continued to make every effort to keep costs down, as they rightly should, but they’ve failed to recognize that there comes a point when constantly trying to save money and cut corners results in compromising safety that could be obtained via aircraft modernization and pilot proficiency.

To make matters worse, with the present government bailout reaching into the hundreds of billions of dollars, costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and public concern about the rising deficit, it wouldn’t be surprising to see yet another outcry for more fiscal responsibility foisted on an industry already struggling to stay alive.

Fear of Technology
In an industry built on one of man’s greatest innovations, flying, you’d expect to see a group of hearty, innovative individuals who embrace new technologies like a kid would embrace the newest computer game. Interestingly enough, the introduction of new technology in this field is met with much skepticism. This is probably because new technology challenges old, time-tested equipment and strategies in a business fraught with dangers both political and physical. So, when looking to the future, whether you’re a contractor or a government agency, you’re always engaged in an exercise in how to navigate the safest route, or maintain the status quo. This attitude has created a vacuum that’s being filled by the uneducated and inexperienced.

Looking to the Future
If the past is any indication of the future direction of the airtanker industry, we’re in for a bumpy ride. Since the downsizing of the LAT fleet, the USFS has been staging a series of miss-starts. Through multiple conferences, reports, studies and meetings, the USFS has attempted to get to the heart of the problem and has had a number of course changes, which have yet to produce a viable, long-term solution.

Cases in point: The USFS’ recent efforts to present a plan to Congress to fund a $2.5-billion aircraft replacement program was met with a blistering rebuke by the Department of Agriculture’s Office of Inspector General, which charged the USFS with essentially not being an advocate of its own plan to modernize the airtanker fleet.

The agency had also planned to buy and use C-130J aircraft using National Guard and active-duty crews, but that plan was strongly opposed by military war planners who feared a negative impact on the availability of military crews and aircraft. This same argument is also being made by military planners who see their helicopter crews and equipment being drawn into more domestic firefighting efforts.

Obviously, there’s no easy solution to this problem. No single innovation, aircraft or interagency committee will be the golden arrow that will save the day. Therefore, we need to reconsider what we expect of our aerial firefighting fleet and recommit to working together to embrace a common vision with the simple goal of providing a safe, professional aviation program that aggressively attacks wildland fires from the air.

A National Strategy
The solution to reversing the decline of the airtanker is not only in acquiring more aircraft, but in the ability of government to articulate a national aerial firefighting strategy based on sound program fundamentals that reflect (at the very least) the following guidelines:
• Sound aircraft maintenance practices;
• Well trained, professional pilots and mechanics;
• The newest and best maintained aircraft available;
• Operational procedures that are based on safe and practical operational practices; and
• A national and regional management team made up of professional aviation personnel with extensive experience in aviation safety, flight and tactical operations, as well as modern aircraft maintenance and engineering practices.

The vision for the future of the airtanker industry could very well be built on a consortium of government-owned and contractor-maintained/operated aircraft under one agency that’s dedicated solely to the development and stewardship of aerial firefighting. This type of partnership between the private and public sectors has proven to be the most cost effective and efficient.

A Final Word
Is the United States airtanker industry dying? I would have to say it is dying a death of a thousand cuts. We should put the old industry out of its misery and move on to something better, safer, more updated. To do that, we must avoid repackaging the status quo and bravely step forward into a better future.

Chief Mike Padilla (ret.) has been involved in government wildland firefighting and aviation for more than 40 years. In 2009, he retired as Chief of Aviation for CAL FIRE. He currently holds ratings as a commercial helicopter/airplane pilot, with more than 8,000 total flight hours.

Copyright © Elsevier Inc., a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE to FIRERESCUE