Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
PSA
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 6/30/2012 7:00:38 PM EDT
its just sitting on the ground in AZ



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/30/in-colorado-wildfires-worst-in-state-history-why-wont-the-forest-service-use-the-biggest-firefighting-tool-available/





We felt compelled to release this statement due to the overwhelming
amount of calls we have received concerning the availability of the
Evergreen Supertanker. We at Evergreen are saddened by the fire
devastation now taking place in many Western US states. For over 60
years, we have supported the US Forest Service in its important mission
to battle and control fires, and it is our desire to continue this rich
history of service. While our helicopters continue to work fires for the
State of Alaska under State contracts, unfortunately, our Boeing 747
Supertanker Very Large Air Tanker (VLAT) aircraft awaits activation with
the US Forest Service.



We have never been told why we have not been activated by the US
Forest Service, so we can only speculate as to why we face this outcome:



1. We were offered a Call-When-Needed (CWN) contract a few years ago by the US Forest


Service (proving our technical viability), but we were never called into action resulting in


a multi-million dollar loss to our company as we were required to maintain and have


flight crew available should we be called. The only contract that will sustain a VLAT


program is an Exclusive-Use contract, which provides an income stream to sustain the


program even if the asset is not utilized. We invested over $50M to develop this asset in


the firm belief that we could better control fires as we proved in Israel and Mexico under


CWN contracts that we could afford to offer at the time.



2. There have been recent changes to the US Forest Service procurement policies. Today,


only small businesses are eligible for contract awards concerning air tanker assets;


Evergreen is not a small business and, therefore, is excluded from consideration for any


award.



3. The US Forest Service’s specification for Next Generation Air Tanker aircraft limits tank


size to 5,000 gallons. The Supertanker’s tanks hold about 20,000 gallons, which is


considered outside the USFS specification. The USFS just awarded contracts to four


small businesses with aircraft equipped with these smaller tanks, and excluded the


Evergreen Supertanker. Since World War II, tank capacities have been in the 3,000 to


5,000 gallon range, yet we continue to face the growing threat from mega fires today. We


believe the Supertanker represents an overwhelming response to this growing threat.








 
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:05:00 PM EDT
Looks like a private company complaining about government contracting to me...color me shocked.

Probably less expensive to use other aircraft.
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:13:38 PM EDT







Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:15:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By costanza:
Looks like a private company complaining about government contracting to me...color me shocked.

Probably less expensive to use other aircraft.


This.

Having been involved in wildland firefighting, I'm not going to second guess USFS's decision to not call on the supertanker.  I imagine it's got long cycle time, high facility requirements, and is very expensive.

If they can get 4 5,000 gal tankers at less than the cost of a 20,000 gal tanker, they're going to use the smaller ones.

That 747 probably has some utility on some wildland fires, but it's not going to be good for precision drops around firefighters.
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:17:16 PM EDT
Evergreen has some badass toys. They are mighty spensive to contract.

They also have bat-chit crazy pilots. I think it was an Evergreen 747 that confirmed mach 1 on a water drop run. (I understand it happens and not that big of a deal?)

They are impressive to watch and wish they would get contracts here in Ca when we burn.
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:36:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By NwG:
Evergreen has some badass toys. They are mighty spensive to contract.

They also have bat-chit crazy pilots. I think it was an Evergreen 747 that confirmed mach 1 on a water drop run. (I understand it happens and not that big of a deal?)

They are impressive to watch and wish they would get contracts here in Ca when we burn.


I seriously doubt it.
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:39:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Frank_The_Tank:
Originally Posted By NwG:
Evergreen has some badass toys. They are mighty spensive to contract.

They also have bat-chit crazy pilots. I think it was an Evergreen 747 that confirmed mach 1 on a water drop run. (I understand it happens and not that big of a deal?)

They are impressive to watch and wish they would get contracts here in Ca when we burn.


I seriously doubt it.


They claimed it for a few years then I stopped hearing about it. Control surfaces maybe, whole aircraft I thought BS. Didn't know.

Still badass aircraft
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:41:02 PM EDT
I know nothing about the situation (using the aircraft) but why wouldnt all resources be used in this case?



Just a thought is all


 
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:42:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2012 7:43:53 PM EDT by luvpilot]
Originally Posted By Frank_The_Tank:
Originally Posted By NwG:
Evergreen has some badass toys. They are mighty spensive to contract.

They also have bat-chit crazy pilots. I think it was an Evergreen 747 that confirmed mach 1 on a water drop run. (I understand it happens and not that big of a deal?)

They are impressive to watch and wish they would get contracts here in Ca when we burn.


I seriously doubt it.


747 Max MMO is .92

1.0 is a non event

Christ you wouldn't want to know what I've seen Learjets do
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:45:54 PM EDT
I was thinking the other day that a B-52 might make an interesting firefighting plane.



But this might have it beat.


 
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:46:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Frank_The_Tank:
Originally Posted By NwG:
Evergreen has some badass toys. They are mighty spensive to contract.

They also have bat-chit crazy pilots. I think it was an Evergreen 747 that confirmed mach 1 on a water drop run. (I understand it happens and not that big of a deal?)

They are impressive to watch and wish they would get contracts here in Ca when we burn.


I seriously doubt it.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-12-20/travel/9204250793_1_passenger-plane-freighters-test-pilots

They mention it in that article. It was supposedly during an emergency descent.
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:50:01 PM EDT
Gov contracting....where the process is the product.  
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:52:09 PM EDT




Originally Posted By costanza:

Looks like a private company complaining about government contracting to me...color me shocked.



Probably less expensive to use other aircraft.


Evergreen Aviation is a stand up outfit. They won't go broke if that tanker never moves again.



Their point is that the USFS procurement policies are fucked up....and precluding the ustilization of a substantial asset in the protection of life & safety.



Ask a few of the family members of the fire victims around Colorado Springs how they feel about the USFS not availing itself of this asset.

Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:53:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2012 7:54:16 PM EDT by learath]
Originally Posted By FedDC:
Gov contracting....where the process is the product.  


They probably just didn't pay the right bribe Voluntary Campaign Contribution.

ETA:
Originally Posted By akrado:
They must donate to the wrong people.    

You owe me a drink!
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:53:13 PM EDT
They must donate to the wrong people.  
 
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 7:58:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By nv_Dave:
Originally Posted By Frank_The_Tank:
Originally Posted By NwG:
Evergreen has some badass toys. They are mighty spensive to contract.

They also have bat-chit crazy pilots. I think it was an Evergreen 747 that confirmed mach 1 on a water drop run. (I understand it happens and not that big of a deal?)

They are impressive to watch and wish they would get contracts here in Ca when we burn.


I seriously doubt it.


http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-12-20/travel/9204250793_1_passenger-plane-freighters-test-pilots

They mention it in that article. It was supposedly during an emergency descent.


I thought they were referring to low-altitude <10K  where fire bombers operate.  I realize there have been a couple of examples of large transport aircraft exceeding mach 1, just not at low altitudes.  

Link Posted: 6/30/2012 8:03:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2012 8:04:12 PM EDT by SIRIUS1]
I wonder just how much 20  super tanker runs would cost. I would love to see the people donate to pay for that just to snub the gov't.

If evergren had any sense they would show up and exstiguish it and begin a press campaign to explain just hoow effective and cost efficient contracting them would be.

Also, why is it that the national guard dosn't prorcure and operate the most cost effective and efficient platform, the super tanker?
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 8:06:03 PM EDT



Originally Posted By SIRIUS1:


I wonder just how much 20  super tanker runs would cost. I would love to see the people donate to pay for that just to snub the gov't.



If evergren had any sense they would show up and exstiguish it and begin a press campaign to explain just hoow effective and cost efficient contracting them would be.



Also, why is it that the national guard dosn't prorcure and operate the most cost effective and efficient platform, the super tanker?


iirc, there was a law passed in the 90's that says that the NG can not be brought in until there are no more commercial assets available...



 
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 8:06:21 PM EDT
Bureaucracy, how does it work.
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 8:06:28 PM EDT
We're going to need fucking AN-124 water tankers the way shit's going this year.
 
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 8:10:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By luvpilot:
Originally Posted By Frank_The_Tank:
Originally Posted By NwG:
Evergreen has some badass toys. They are mighty spensive to contract.

They also have bat-chit crazy pilots. I think it was an Evergreen 747 that confirmed mach 1 on a water drop run. (I understand it happens and not that big of a deal?)

They are impressive to watch and wish they would get contracts here in Ca when we burn.


I seriously doubt it.


747 Max MMO is .92

1.0 is a non event

Christ you wouldn't want to know what I've seen Learjets do



I have had AF pilots tell me that a KC is very capable of breaking mach as is,  Gasp!  The buff!  
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 8:15:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dragracer:
Bureaucracy, how does it work.


Funny, you found about the only thing bureaucracy *does not* do!
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 8:16:19 PM EDT


EVERGREEN'S 747 could have saved a lot of homes and timber.


http://www.gizmag.com/evergreen-supertanker-the-worlds-largest-firefighting-aircraft/9565/
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 8:20:01 PM EDT




Obama Shrunk Aerial Firefighting Fleet…While CO Burns Obama Fiddles?

Colorado’s ‘Epic Firestorm’ Reveals Danger of Air Force Cuts

Colorado’s wildfire has exploded into an “epic firestorm,” in the words of Colorado Springs fire chief Richard Brown.
Over 30,000 people have evacuated, and already hundreds of homes have been consumed.
Ironically, the U.S. Air Force Academy has also been evacuated, at the very time that Colorado desperately needs more Air Force C-130s to fight the massive fire.


http://blog.beliefnet.com/watchwomanonthewall/2012/06/obama-shrunk-aerial-firefighting-fleet-while-co-burns-obama-fiddles.html#ixzz1zLE1ZwuW
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 8:23:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GurkaDin:


EVERGREEN'S 747 could have saved a lot of homes and timber.


http://www.gizmag.com/evergreen-supertanker-the-worlds-largest-firefighting-aircraft/9565/


I had the opourtunity to work for Evergreen when I was 19,  had the job,  Did what seemed to be a 9 million page app and background checks and passed the federal crap to work on the flight lines.  Being the young and dumb dipshit I was I took a job at a body shop working on cars instead.   There was no second thoughts when I got the offer to restore aircraft for a company specializing in restorations of P-51's,  I took that job in a heartbeat.

Evergreens fleet is AMAZING!
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 8:26:45 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SIRIUS1:
I wonder just how much 20  super tanker runs would cost. I would love to see the people donate to pay for that just to snub the gov't.

If evergren had any sense they would show up and exstiguish it and begin a press campaign to explain just hoow effective and cost efficient contracting them would be.

Also, why is it that the national guard dosn't prorcure and operate the most cost effective and efficient platform, the super tanker?


The way that our government operates, that would have probably been the end of Evergreen as a company. The FAA would be instructed to make sure nothing with Evergreen on its tail ever went wheels up anywhere in the USA.

If they came in and dropped, saving 99 out of 100 houses, they would probably get sued by the 1 homeowner who lost his. Also, additional lawsuits by various green organizations and possibly the EPA over environmental damage caused by the volume of water hitting the ground at one time. It could hit an endangered species, cause erosion or some such bullshit.


Link Posted: 6/30/2012 8:27:37 PM EDT
sent link to drudge!
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 8:32:45 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/30/2012 8:44:38 PM EDT by Goodn]
Originally Posted By Atomic_Ferret:
Originally Posted By SIRIUS1:
I wonder just how much 20  super tanker runs would cost. I would love to see the people donate to pay for that just to snub the gov't.

If evergren had any sense they would show up and exstiguish it and begin a press campaign to explain just hoow effective and cost efficient contracting them would be.

Also, why is it that the national guard dosn't prorcure and operate the most cost effective and efficient platform, the super tanker?


The way that our government operates, that would have probably been the end of Evergreen as a company. The FAA would be instructed to make sure nothing with Evergreen on its tail ever went wheels up anywhere in the USA.

If they came in and dropped, saving 99 out of 100 houses, they would probably get sued by the 1 homeowner who lost his. Also, additional lawsuits by various green organizations and possibly the EPA over environmental damage caused by the volume of water hitting the ground at one time. It could hit an endangered species, cause erosion or some such bullshit.





Unfortunately,  I don't think your theory is too far off.  



Link Posted: 6/30/2012 8:34:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ElectricSheep556:
We're going to need fucking AN-124 water tankers the way shit's going this year.  


Arkansas has two crop dusters. I shit you not, they use fucking crop dusters here. They're modified for belly dump though. I spent about the half the day on a 150 acre fire and they weren't even putting a dent in it. Snowed the shit out of a crew not smart enough to get in a truck though.
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 9:02:21 PM EDT



Originally Posted By FredMan:



Originally Posted By costanza:

Looks like a private company complaining about government contracting to me...color me shocked.



Probably less expensive to use other aircraft.




This.



Having been involved in wildland firefighting, I'm not going to second guess USFS's decision to not call on the supertanker.  I imagine it's got long cycle time, high facility requirements, and is very expensive.



If they can get 4 5,000 gal tankers at less than the cost of a 20,000 gal tanker, they're going to use the smaller ones.



That 747 probably has some utility on some wildland fires, but it's not going to be good for precision drops around firefighters.
That being said, if a city is burning and you have your 4, 5000 gal. tankers flying, why not put that big bastard up as well? Is it cheaper to rebuild a city?





 
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 9:02:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Frank_The_Tank:
Originally Posted By NwG:
Evergreen has some badass toys. They are mighty spensive to contract.

They also have bat-chit crazy pilots. I think it was an Evergreen 747 that confirmed mach 1 on a water drop run. (I understand it happens and not that big of a deal?)

They are impressive to watch and wish they would get contracts here in Ca when we burn.


I seriously doubt it.


They may or may not went Mach 1, but they know how to make short landings and do unique things with 747's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbYi8QnEU7I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3i-3rv_6ss&feature=endscreen&NR=1
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 11:23:45 PM EDT
2. There have been recent changes to the US Forest Service procurement policies. Today,
only small businesses are eligible for contract awards concerning air tanker assets;
Evergreen is not a small business and, therefore, is excluded from consideration for any
award.



These changes are not "recent." A friend who worked for a federal agency (this was the early 1990s) offered to install a network in the building. He got his prices together, checked to get the best prices for the agency...

...and was told to re-do the bid. Seems that the companies he wanted to buy from were not minority- or female-owned!
Link Posted: 6/30/2012 11:36:00 PM EDT
Was told by some experienced AF wildland firefighting aircraft weenie that the Evergreen aircraft cannot go as low as other lower aircraft AND consumes too much airspace when operating (he basically explained that it needs a much bigger buffer around it vs. other aircraft). Also, due to it dropping water/retardant from much higher, the water is not as dense or too fine or some crap to be effective? It has been a few months since we talked about it. May remember to ask him on monday........TT
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 12:02:36 AM EDT
They could be using the two Martin Mars or the two CalFire DC-10's too.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 12:07:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/1/2012 12:08:14 AM EDT by GLHX2112]
Originally Posted By KA3B:
They could be using the two Martin Mars or the two CalFire DC-10's too.


Ditto.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 12:16:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/1/2012 12:19:21 AM EDT by Choncer]





Originally Posted By FrankSymptoms:





2. There have been recent changes to the US Forest Service procurement policies. Today,


only small businesses are eligible for contract awards concerning air tanker assets;


Evergreen is not a small business and, therefore, is excluded from consideration for any


award.

These changes are not "recent." A friend who worked for a federal agency (this was the early 1990s) offered to install a network in the building. He got his prices together, checked to get the best prices for the agency...





...and was told to re-do the bid. Seems that the companies he wanted to buy from were not minority- or female-owned!
Have a friend who works in bid writing and acquisitions for a large private contractor.  He laughs about how many guys he buys from who have wives or friends that own businesses just to side step this kind of bullshit.





"Chuck owns 30% of Polaris.  Chuck's wife owns a small Polaris retail shop.  We buy from Chuck's wife."  (Names and companies have been changed to prevent government trolls from being tattle tales)



When companies like 5.11 send him price sheets and he still has to go buy from mom and pop shop at 20% markup (which of course gets passed on to the gov at 35%).
 
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 5:53:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TampaTyron:
Was told by some experienced AF wildland firefighting aircraft weenie that the Evergreen aircraft cannot go as low as other lower aircraft AND consumes too much airspace when operating (he basically explained that it needs a much bigger buffer around it vs. other aircraft). Also, due to it dropping water/retardant from much higher, the water is not as dense or too fine or some crap to be effective? It has been a few months since we talked about it. May remember to ask him on monday........TT


On the big fires out west, a fire will evaporate thousands upon thousands of gallons of air dropped water if it's dropped from too high up.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 5:55:35 AM EDT




Originally Posted By Sandit:

I was thinking the other day that a B-52 might make an interesting firefighting plane.



But this might have it beat.





A B-1 carries more ordnance than the B-52.



Not sure about water though.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 4:57:09 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 5:08:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By VRMN8R:
I know nothing about the situation (using the aircraft) but why wouldnt all resources be used in this case?

Just a thought is all
 


For the same reason that he refused help with the gulf oil spill?
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 5:09:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TampaTyron:
Was told by some experienced AF wildland firefighting aircraft weenie that the Evergreen aircraft cannot go as low as other lower aircraft AND consumes too much airspace when operating (he basically explained that it needs a much bigger buffer around it vs. other aircraft). Also, due to it dropping water/retardant from much higher, the water is not as dense or too fine or some crap to be effective? It has been a few months since we talked about it. May remember to ask him on monday........TT


While the rules may keep them up high I have seen the Evergreen 747's do some LOW drops. Below 500'

Even if they are up higher they have no problem delivering huge amounts of water / chemical of the fire. They do a shit ton of testing to know how exactly how much will reach the target at x speed and alt. They have models to tell them what kind of drop is needed talking into account speed, alt, winds, fire type,.... Everything.

When they want to they can seriously damage shit by dumping everything right the fuck now while low and slow. Like knock down a house amounts of water.

Expense and bad blood keep them from being used.

Some of the film from the Evergreen fleet in and around the middle east fighting wildfires are sweet. Unrestrained by the rules out here.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 6:21:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Frank_The_Tank:
Originally Posted By NwG:
Evergreen has some badass toys. They are mighty spensive to contract.

They also have bat-chit crazy pilots. I think it was an Evergreen 747 that confirmed mach 1 on a water drop run. (I understand it happens and not that big of a deal?)

They are impressive to watch and wish they would get contracts here in Ca when we burn.


I seriously doubt it.



http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-12-20/travel/9204250793_1_passenger-plane-freighters-test-pilots


Tom Cole, a spokesman at Boeing Commercial Airplane Co., said original flight tests of 747s conducted in 1969 and 1970 took 747-100 models to speeds of Mach 0.99.

In addition, Boeing knows one case in which a 747 operated by Evergreen International made an emergency descent at speeds that exceeded Mach 1, he said.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 6:36:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GLHX2112:
Sounds like somebody just lost a C-130 Tanker.


http://www.blackhillsfox.com/2012/07/02/breaking-news-air-force-tanker-goes-down-in-fall-river-county


2 transported, 4 mia.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 6:37:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GLHX2112:
Sounds like somebody just lost a C-130 Tanker.
http://www.blackhillsfox.com/2012/07/02/breaking-news-air-force-tanker-goes-down-in-fall-river-county


No other news, if a C-130 has gone down there would be a lot more traffic on the net.

Link Posted: 7/1/2012 6:39:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Dan_Gray:
Originally Posted By GLHX2112:
Sounds like somebody just lost a C-130 Tanker.
http://www.blackhillsfox.com/2012/07/02/breaking-news-air-force-tanker-goes-down-in-fall-river-county

2 transported, 4 mia.


Link? Nothing on Google, even the link the OP provided does not work.

Link Posted: 7/1/2012 6:43:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Originally Posted By Dan_Gray:
Originally Posted By GLHX2112:
Sounds like somebody just lost a C-130 Tanker.
http://www.blackhillsfox.com/2012/07/02/breaking-news-air-force-tanker-goes-down-in-fall-river-county

2 transported, 4 mia.


Link? Nothing on Google, even the link the OP provided does not work.



Report says its a c-130 with 3 transported to the hospital.

www.argusleader.com/article/20120701/ARGUS911/120701005/Update-3-people-from-C-130-crash-taken-hospital?odyssey=mod|lateststories&nclick_check=1
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 6:53:50 PM EDT
Not long after I posted the link that crappy site when down.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 6:56:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/1/2012 6:58:19 PM EDT by Keekleberrys]
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 7:03:18 PM EDT
In 2003 I lived in Utah and we had a nasty wildfire on the mountain right behind our house.  They used all kinds of aircraft to fight that one, including a 747.

Of course Zero wasn't in charge then.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 7:05:12 PM EDT
$$$$$$ and those can only paint a long line. The other tankers are way more maneuverable.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 7:08:29 PM EDT
The 747 delivery cost is half the rate per gallon.
 
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top