Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Part 91 and Low Time
firefighting B747-400 Cleared to Fly!! >

firefighting B747-400 Cleared to Fly!!

Notices
Part 91 and Low Time Jump pilots, crop dusting, and other Part 91 jobs

firefighting B747-400 Cleared to Fly!!

Old 09-13-2016, 09:55 AM
  #1  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Dec 2015
Posts: 142
Default firefighting B747-400 Cleared to Fly!!

Global SuperTanker firefighting B747-400 Cleared to Fly
Makanakis is offline  
Old 09-13-2016, 07:52 PM
  #2  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 45
Default

Saw this Aircraft doing a test drop the other day driving down I-10 what a sight.
yz450f177 is offline  
Old 09-13-2016, 10:02 PM
  #3  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,923
Default

Not yet. It still needs Air Tanker Board approval.

Then someone to pay the bills.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 09-14-2016, 05:06 AM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
tomgoodman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2006
Position: 767A (Ret)
Posts: 6,248
Default

Originally Posted by JohnBurke View Post
Not yet. It still needs Air Tanker Board approval.

Then someone to pay the bills.
Wouldn't smaller tankers offer more flexibility at a lower cost? Is aerial fire suppression more like strategic bombing or close air support?
tomgoodman is offline  
Old 09-14-2016, 06:21 AM
  #5  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

I think a little of both, Tom.

Smaller planes, such as the Canadair CL-145 have advantages in their quick reload time: dip into a lake, scoop, and back you go to the fight. Works well in Canada, with more lakes than the western US.

Planes such as Hercs, Neptunes, and Trackers have limited loads, and long transit/reload times.

The idea with a Supertanker is either one big drop for strategic fires, or lots of tactical drops (since capacity is huge, and loiter time significant).

The drop-aiming system is supposed to be a force-multiplier, too.

I watched Evergreen's Tanker program with interest, as a former Evergreener. Boeing was involved as they saw a huge worldwide market for older 747 conversions. The story was.....they (Evergreen) didn't have the right connections. For some reason, whether political, or if Delbert Smith was charging too much money, they were rarely invited to play, even when there were big fires (Colorado in 2013 comes to mind), where there "...weren't enough tankers available..."

It only played in a few big fires. It performed very well, but was never utilized to its full capacity.

And that is a shame.
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 09-14-2016, 10:43 PM
  #6  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,923
Default

I watched Evergreen's program as both a 747 guy and an aerial firefighter. Their problem, aside from not having an airworthy aircraft most of the time, was the expense. Tankers work on a daily availability rate, which is charged for each 14 hour workday of availability in any given 24 hour period, and also per flight hour. Evergreen's airplane was exceptionally expensive on both counts. Ultimately, the USFS didn't bite, and only Calfornia took it, and it ended up without a contract on a call when needed basis.

In the end, Evergreen represented it as available CWN, when it had no engines.

As far as the VLAT (Very Large Air Tanker), the phrase most often used is "different tools in the tool box." Presently the only VLAT is the DC-10.

The most common tanker in the national fleet is the Air Tractor 802 Single Engine Air Tanker (SEAT), an 800 gallon turbine airplane. More SEATs are operational and available than all the large air tankers combined. There's really no "strategic" vs. "tactical" wildland firefighting. Just firefighting. All the aircraft in the fleet work on fires that range from a single tree to tens of thousands of acres, desert grass to forest timber. It's not uncommon at all to have multiple aircraft types working the same fire, including the SEATs on the same drop line, fire flank, or target as the VLAT.
JohnBurke is offline  
Old 09-15-2016, 05:54 AM
  #7  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

John:

Thanks; interesting stuff I had not heard.

As a non-firebomber: what is CWN?
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 09-15-2016, 07:41 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Posts: 393
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
John:

Thanks; interesting stuff I had not heard.

As a non-firebomber: what is CWN?
Call When Needed. Think of it like being on short call reserve.
HPIC is offline  
Old 09-17-2016, 10:01 PM
  #9  
Disinterested Third Party
 
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 5,923
Default

The term changes back and forth but OC and CWN are On Call and Call When Needed, which designate a type of contract. All tankers operate under a contract with the federal government or a state; the open contract is CWN, and federal CWN aircraft are available for use or release at any given time. A CWN aircraft has no guarantee of use; it's entirely up to the government when it starts, when it's released, and there's no way for the crew to now when they'll be called out or when they'll go home.

The other kind of contract is EU or Exclusive Use; these are contracts with designated start and end dates, and guarantee a certain amount of time to the government. Typical exclusive use contracts are anywhere from 90 to 120 days or more. The aircraft may have a particular designated base to start, but the if the contract is federal, the aircraft is classified as a "national asset" and can (and does) go anywhere in the country on a moment's notice.

Exclusive Use contracts have a known period of guaranteed availability and pay, but are also always available for pre-season and post-season use, which makes them more like CWN aircraft.

Aircraft and crews are paid for daily availability, or a daily rate for being available up to 14 hours a day. Depending on the aircraft and contract, typically hours over 9 are also paid a small additional override, up to 14 hours. Some contracts pay an hourly flight rate, while others have a monthly salary paid to the crews, and no hourly rate (designed to eliminate the incentive to fly, in the interest of making safe go/no-go decisions). The aircraft earns daily and hourly rates, regardless of what the crew is paid. Some contracts include per diem, others don't, though most all operators pay their personnel per diem whether the government pays the contractor, or not.
JohnBurke is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Regularguy
United
72
09-29-2016 08:16 AM
2StgTurbine
Technical
32
10-30-2015 12:24 PM
captain_drew
Flight Schools and Training
38
12-05-2012 08:29 AM
A320fumes
Major
3
03-21-2007 07:05 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices