Why is the Evergreen Supertanker not there? Read and see why.

http://www.evergreenaviation.com/pdf/Su ... 062912.pdf

Date: 6/29/12
Evergreen International Aviation Statement Concerning the Supertanker
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.
Please contact your state representatives in Washington DC to demand an examination of their
current procurement policies concerning VLAT aircraft. The US Forest Service says it best:
“Only YOU can prevent wildfires.”
Evergreen International Aviation, Inc. Tel: 503.472.9361 http://www.EvergreenAviation.com

Bob Stromberg of Evergreen Aviation: Forest Service wrote rules disallowing use of the Super Tanker

http://soundcloud.com/thelarslarsonshow ... -evergreen

Maybe they got caught landing at Mile High

I know I wish it was flying here right now.

Just because a company, without being asked to develops a machine that that company thinks is a good idea, doesn't necessarily imply that the thing really IS a good idea.

So, wait till there's news about fires and see if you can get voters to lean on Congressional reps..

Then, the congress may stuff that massively expensive machine down the FS throat.

And, guess who'll pay that availability cost all fire season, every year, whether it's a useful resource or not?

MTV

Seems like maybe with an CWN they would get used when they were needed.
I agree with MTV, I was partnered up in a t337 on a CWN and made lots of money one year, and lost some the next!!
We had it on an exclusive for a few years and we made great money to have it sitting there with pilot and mechanic, toes up drinking cold water out of there cooler.
That's called business!!
There is a DC 10 out there that was also built up by another company, is it being used??
If the need arises it should be able to be used, but it sure should not be shoved down any ones throat.
Not that it matters what I think anyway.
GT

When I was home last, the news in SLC was reporting that it was in use in UT.

MTV makes a valid point. Firefighting wildland fires is usually feast or famine. No fires or lots of fires. I spent lots of summers building fence in the rain lamenting about how little money I was making that summer because nothing was burning.

All I will say now is watching the gov do what they call forest management I am not impressed.

Where I live they continue to take out roads that can be used as fire breaks and access. Dig them up gone.

When the logging roads are gone you can't effectively access the area to thin. So the fuel load builds and one day it catches fire and you can't stop these monster fires. Just try to keep them away from the homes.

G'Day

I'm not sure what all the relevant parameters are, but I'm sure it is more complex than just "bigger is better". Looks like the jumbo Very Large Aerial Tankers might be constrained by terrain, turbulence and other conditions to fly above the optimum AGL altitude for best deployment of retardant. They may not be a good match for the rugged terrain in the Colorado fires.

This from the NASA evaluation of the 747 and DC-10 tankers:

USAGE RECOMMENDATIONS: The major recommendations for employment that
result from this study relate to required terrain clearance, the type of terrain, availability
of qualified lead planes, low-altitude maneuvering limitations, and size and shape of the
desired delivery zones. The analysis suggests that for level or gently rolling terrain
where level to slight descents (< 6-7%) are required, VLAT-class aircraft could probably be
employed with few restrictions as long as they remained above 300’ AGL during the
delivery. Power margins for this class of aircraft, even considering the possibility of
single engine failure during delivery, may actually permit climbing deliveries over very
gradual slopes of less than 3 – 4 % grade, provided suitable egress options are
available. Usage in very steep or rugged terrain is not recommended unless deliveries
can be performed with minimal maneuvering, a lead plane is available, and adequate
terrain clearance is available at the wingtips as well as on centerline. Until significant
experience is gained on VLAT platforms, at least 400’ terrain clearance should be
maintained in this kind of scenario, and a climb must be initiated before any turns. It was
also found that on-board systems like auto-throttles and combined use of both radar and
barometric altitude alerts could reduce pilot workload as well as provide improved
situational awareness. These findings are also based on pilot comments generated
during multiple simulated deliveries using high-fidelity visual simulators over various
terrain types, as well as on direct observation of experienced aerial firefighting crews
performing both airborne and simulator retardant delivery runs.

I agree, they came up with the concept on there own & spent millions to get it certified. The USFS didn't ask them to build a better mouse trap. Their 747 is great at building line on gradual terrain, over a mile at a time. Fire behavior in mountainous areas is different than the 'wheat field' in the interview, In the conditions they are dealing with a long thin line isn't effective. And at $30K per load, isn't as cost effective as a SEAT or C-130. Higher precision, lower drops, faster turn times & still as effective.

Making a plea for the public to demand its use & pressure the FS is desperate, several time he says 'we need an exclusive use contract' which sounds like extortion to me. If they were on a CWN basis now I wonder if it would even be used here safely. Smaller air tankers & even Tanker 10 have the ability to salvo the load & get out of a bad situation, something the 747 can't do.

OregonMaule wrote:All I will say now is watching the gov do what they call forest management I am not impressed.

Where I live they continue to take out roads that can be used as fire breaks and access. Dig them up gone.

When the logging roads are gone you can't effectively access the area to thin. So the fuel load builds and one day it catches fire and you can't stop these monster fires. Just try to keep them away from the homes.

G'Day

You are spot on there. Don't forget the other side of the coin: people building homes where maybe they shouldn't...or at least after they build them, they should put in fire breaks and don't. Then people have to go put their life on the line to protect them when all that fuel goes up in smoke.

OregonMaule wrote:When the logging roads are gone you can't effectively access the area to thin. So the fuel load builds and one day it catches fire and you can't stop these monster fires. Just try to keep them away from the homes.

Queen's Canyon here had nearly a 100yrsof old dead stuff. In this climate, stuff doesn't rot away. It needed to be thinned. No good way in there, and at one point the Forest Service was working to thin it but the environmentalists fought it saying nature can take care of itself. Well it did Tuesday. An ember went into Queen's Canyon, or shall we say Tenderbox Canyon, and it exploded, then the winds took it into the city. It didn't matter if they expected it or had every resource in the world, it was impossible to stop. ~350 homes, 2 dead, handful missing, all within a couple hours. I've never seen a fire move downhill like that in my life.

I make my living assisting Federal contractors acquire contracts. Evergreen's claim that they can't play because all new contracts are set aside for small businesses in disingenuous at best. I set up teaming arrangements ranging from Prime-Subcontractor relationships to joint ventures all the time that enable large businesses such as Evergreen to participate in small business set-aside contracts. Maybe I should call 'em.

Best,
O-2

Also, remember, the air tanker community had some ugly heavy tanker losses not too many years ago. Most of those big airplanes have been worked hard, and the turbulence and maneuvering in the mountains at low level is NOT what the 747 was designed for. Having a wing come off one of those wouldn't be my idea of a good time.

MTV

OregonMaule wrote:Where I live they continue to take out roads that can be used as fire breaks and access. Dig them up gone.
When the logging roads are gone you can't effectively access the area to thin. So the fuel load builds and one day it catches fire and you can't stop these monster fires. Just try to keep them away from the homes.

It is true that fire roads limit access to terrain for fire fighting and thinning operations.

Unfortunately, studies by fire scientists and by the forest circus confirm that THE primary risk factor for fire danger is the presence of a road- closed, open, public, private, by a wide margin.

In fact, one study showed a significant reduction in fire activity for areas where roads were shut down as a study case, and a step increase in an area where roads were expanded/open to the public.

Worse is the finding that fires associated with roads tend to be more severe due to the obvious human element, whereas lightning stikes were often slower spot fires (the present fires being an obvious counterexample).

So- roads are associated with significantly more fires of greater severity, and make putting them out easier. Take your pick.

This problem would look very different if people quit starting fires in the first place. Until then, the motivations to close roads include reducing fire risks in many places, as unfortunate as it is.

It would be really cool to see a 747 bombing the colorado springs suburbs, though.

'soyAnarchisto

The 747 air tanker is not the answer to the urban/wildand interface fire problem.

Don't feel too sorry for Evergreen. They have made plenty money off Government contracts.

I worked for Evergreen for 9 months in 1988. It was the worse job I ever had and that includes all the shit jobs like busboy, ditch digger etc. I got a good feeling for their management culture then and after reading the press release it sounds like it has not changed. They used to tell us "we're not barnstormers, if a customer doesn't want to commit to a long term contract we won't turn a wheel for them". Sounds like business as usual.

As far as fires starting, the presence of roads, or the lack of roads, isn't the issue. The real underlying issue is the stock piled fuels that are in the hills from decades of a 100% suppression policy. Tadpole also brought up another key element: controlled burns and thinning. The severity of fires could be marginalized if these two things were used more often. But unfortunately, as he stated, the ecofreaks won't have it. In areas where people and structures coexist, the fuels have to be removed one way or another. Either owners have to have sufficient fire breaks around their properties or controlled burns/thinning has to be done. If not, Mother Nature will eventually take care of it. And when she does...stand back!

We flew over southern Utah and northern Colorado today. Drift smoke every where and thick! Glad I'm no longer down there swinging a Pulaski.