new fire started last night, caled lassen ic, off of L line and 32 near butte meadows, started about 8:30 ish, thier on butte support BTU, as the incident commander was putting in request last night for today, some of the replies back from dispatch for equipment and personnel was "at a premium" and "limited supply". What i was wondering is there a chance that Cal-Fire could run out, as in personnel and equipment?
new fire started, Have ?
- Thread starter SCPD
- Start date
- Status
It is quite possible that there are no air tankers available for this particular fire. As for the other types of firefighting resources (engines, helicopters, crews, dozers), there are plenty of these still available.
These resources have to travel from greater distances when there are many fires going on at the same time. Also, the fewer resources there are sitting in stations in a geographical area, the more likely a small fire will escape the initial attack and become an extended incident.
California has more than CAL FIRE to fight incidents like the Lassen fire in BTU. They can call on USFS, BLM, NPS, BIA for mutual aid. They can also request through CAL EMA that OES engines and water tenders and local government engines respond. Currently this is occurring for the fires in Lake county and possibly other areas as well.
There is also a Western states mutual aid agreement. California can request help from any number of western states. Recently, we have sent some resources to the Elko, Nevada area fires to assist our neighboring state.
Another factor in all of this is cost. For example, CAL FIRE pays for dozer operators and equipment already. But if no CAL FIRE equipment is available, they hire private dozers to work on a fire. That incurs an additional cost and with budgets the way they are now, a balance has to be struck in managing fires safely but also cost effectively.
These resources have to travel from greater distances when there are many fires going on at the same time. Also, the fewer resources there are sitting in stations in a geographical area, the more likely a small fire will escape the initial attack and become an extended incident.
California has more than CAL FIRE to fight incidents like the Lassen fire in BTU. They can call on USFS, BLM, NPS, BIA for mutual aid. They can also request through CAL EMA that OES engines and water tenders and local government engines respond. Currently this is occurring for the fires in Lake county and possibly other areas as well.
There is also a Western states mutual aid agreement. California can request help from any number of western states. Recently, we have sent some resources to the Elko, Nevada area fires to assist our neighboring state.
Another factor in all of this is cost. For example, CAL FIRE pays for dozer operators and equipment already. But if no CAL FIRE equipment is available, they hire private dozers to work on a fire. That incurs an additional cost and with budgets the way they are now, a balance has to be struck in managing fires safely but also cost effectively.
ScannerDude244
Member
They been moving up a lot of engines up north BDU been here a few times. I also notice hollister airbase only has one airtanker this year?
Last edited:
According to calfirepilots.com, there should be 2 tankers and an air attack:
Air Tanker 80
Air Tanker 81
Air Attack 460
Hollister
That could be outdated, of course.
ScannerDude244
Member
Does Cal fire contract private fire service for fire engines? I just heard brush 54 go in quarters in King City. And I know that's not a local gov unit.
BlueZebra
Member
No, CalFire doesn't contract, or at least I have never, in 35 years, heard them hire private engines.
BlueZebra
Member
ScannerDude244
Member
Most of the state engines are gone sounds like a outside county fire agencies E374 and E370 covering BEU even volunteer departments are covering stations.
Last edited:
A fire is not called "xfire IC." IC stands for "Incident Commander" and every fire has one. You will hear dispatch centers calling the IC, but that doesn't mean it is part of the fire name.
As far as I know, California's air tankers don't leave the state. They are -numbered 70-99 so they must have 25 or more of them. I think most of them are S-2's so they aren't real big, but they maneuver very nicely. Minnesota might have some of its own airtankers, but I think they are the only other state that does. California's are actually owned by the federal government, though the U.S. Forest Service and are leased by Cal Fire.
BlueZebra
Member
CalFire's tankers will do initial attack and emergent need assignments into nearby areas outside of the state. For example, this year, two Grass Valley tankers worked a fire outside of Carson City, Nevada when structures were threatened and no Fed tankers were available.
All are S2Ts, and I believe there are 23. A couple numbers have been retired due to unfortunate events.
All are S2Ts, and I believe there are 23. A couple numbers have been retired due to unfortunate events.
Last edited:
Not. They're owned by the State of CA and flown by contract pilots.
ScannerDude244
Member
CAL FIRE first began using airtankers in the 1950s when agriculture spraying
planes were used to drop water on i res. In 1958, CAL FIRE, then CDF, contracted with a private airtanker service for the use of their converted World War
II aircraft. By 1970 the department began to evaluate the use of former military
Grumman S-2 aircraft. Over the next ten years CAL FIRE continued to build up
its l eet of S-2A airtankers.
In 1993, CAL FIRE obtained 16 North American OV-10A aircraft from the US
Navy. The OV-10s replaced the O-2s that had served the department well
for more than 20 years. The OV-10’s turbine-powered twin-engines helped
meet the needs for the next-generation Air Attack platform.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/AviationGuide_FINAL_webbooklet.pdf
planes were used to drop water on i res. In 1958, CAL FIRE, then CDF, contracted with a private airtanker service for the use of their converted World War
II aircraft. By 1970 the department began to evaluate the use of former military
Grumman S-2 aircraft. Over the next ten years CAL FIRE continued to build up
its l eet of S-2A airtankers.
In 1993, CAL FIRE obtained 16 North American OV-10A aircraft from the US
Navy. The OV-10s replaced the O-2s that had served the department well
for more than 20 years. The OV-10’s turbine-powered twin-engines helped
meet the needs for the next-generation Air Attack platform.
http://www.fire.ca.gov/communications/downloads/AviationGuide_FINAL_webbooklet.pdf
Just for clarity, a few lines lower it states:
"By 2005 all of CAL FIRE’s airtanker fleet had been converted to S-2T
airtankers."
Not, not??
CAL FIRE - Federal Excess Personal Property (FEPP)
Despite your confidence, I believe Exsmokey is correct on this one:
"For example, the CAL FIRE Aviation Program acquired $25 million worth of FEPP in 1996 alone, mainly in the form of 20 military S-2E/G airtankers that are being retrofitted as turbine fire fighting aircraft. While the Department pays for the retrofitting, the aircraft were free. On a much smaller scale, one CAL FIRE unit saved $8,000 by acquiring shop rags from the FEPP Program. As FEPP is loaned, when CAL FIRE no longer has a need for the property, it is turned back to the federal government which offers it to other government agencies and eventually sends it to public sale."
Last edited:
There is some sort of restriction based on military aircraft only being able to be owned by federal agencies. I know that federally contracted aircraft are military surplus but are sold to private contractors, so I don't know how that relates to the aircraft California operates. California does not obtain aircraft from the military directly. I have no idea how some private individual collectors obtain military aircraft eventually, such as the P-38's and P-51's seen at air shows and races around the country.
The avalanche artillery used at ski areas is not owned or operated by the ski areas themselves. It is loaned to the Forest Service by the military and operated by Forest Service employees. Members of ski patrols employed by private ski areas actually go on the clock as Forest Service employees while they operate the guns. The ski area pays this federal salary under a collection agreement so the dollars don't come out of the federal budget. When I was working for the FS a full time permanent FS employee had to be present on the mountain the operation during the shoots, even if it was just me only qualified as a ammo loader. The ammo was purchased by the Forest Service again using funds collected in the collection agreement. The inventory was eventually signed off on by the Forest Service. All this sounds like a lot of hoops that should not matter, but military policy and the U.S. Code requires it.
Knowing and observing what occurs for the administration of a ski area under special use permit allows me to understand that there are some real interesting arrangements made for military property. A U.S. Code (laws passed by the Congress, signed by the president) allows federal agencies to surplus fire apparatus to states and local governments. The agencies are not allowed to directly give it away. Other equipment, such as a regular pickup truck used as a patrol with a slip on pump tank combo are sold through a bid process to private citizens, but the slip on unit itself is disposed of as fire apparatus.
Somewhere in the recesses of my mind (therefore subject to the tricks memory plays on us) is a piece of information that the Forest Service leases the S-2's to the State of California at a rate of a dollar per year. This again because the state can't actually own military surplus. This has been the subject of some prior threads. Some skeptives have researched this and found the above to be the situation. I just remember it from my FS years and my constant question asking.
Last edited:
My $0.02:
Rubicon05, you are right--the aircraft are at a premium. Federally, there is a shortage of air tankers.
Currently, 4 Air National Guard and Reserve units have activated MAFFS-capable C-130's to supplement the tanker supply. Two of those units are operating in Boise, 2 in Sacramento.
Nationally, we are at preparedness level 4, as is Northern California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The Eastern Great Basin (ID, UT, parts of CO and AZ) is at PL5 (critical drawdown). The other regions of the country are at PL2 or PL3. I think given the number of fires nationwide, there is significant competition for the federal tankers.
The lightning events of the past couple days in Northern California have sparked several large fires. New incidents typically get priority over existing fires when assigning air tankers. However, several of the Northern California fires (Chips, Ponderosa) are threatening communities, which means that tankers assigned to these fires can be put in a no-divert status.
As you probably know, air tankers cannot fly indefinitely. Each pilot has a an 8 hour/day limit and a 42 hours/6 days cumulative limit, at the Federal level. CAL FIRE may have further restrictions. So you sometimes hear aircraft "timing-out" due to the pilot reaching a flight time limit.
Currently, Federal and California helicopter drawdowns are at "Critical" levels (less than 1/3 of initial attack helicopters available). Several California Air National Guard Blackhawks are currently seeing use over the fires performing bucket drops.
Rubicon05, you are right--the aircraft are at a premium. Federally, there is a shortage of air tankers.
Currently, 4 Air National Guard and Reserve units have activated MAFFS-capable C-130's to supplement the tanker supply. Two of those units are operating in Boise, 2 in Sacramento.
Nationally, we are at preparedness level 4, as is Northern California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The Eastern Great Basin (ID, UT, parts of CO and AZ) is at PL5 (critical drawdown). The other regions of the country are at PL2 or PL3. I think given the number of fires nationwide, there is significant competition for the federal tankers.
The lightning events of the past couple days in Northern California have sparked several large fires. New incidents typically get priority over existing fires when assigning air tankers. However, several of the Northern California fires (Chips, Ponderosa) are threatening communities, which means that tankers assigned to these fires can be put in a no-divert status.
As you probably know, air tankers cannot fly indefinitely. Each pilot has a an 8 hour/day limit and a 42 hours/6 days cumulative limit, at the Federal level. CAL FIRE may have further restrictions. So you sometimes hear aircraft "timing-out" due to the pilot reaching a flight time limit.
Currently, Federal and California helicopter drawdowns are at "Critical" levels (less than 1/3 of initial attack helicopters available). Several California Air National Guard Blackhawks are currently seeing use over the fires performing bucket drops.
the biggest problem i have heard for the fires north of me(ponderosa,chips,reading) is the smoke is not rising due to the down canyon winds, 1 female pilot i overheard today stated the only time the smoke clears is when the fires flare up and create an up draft, pretty misreable conditions, don't know if you can hear from your area but the ponderosa is on Cal-Fire command 7 and tac 22, the chips fire aircraft are using USFS air to ground 6, great conversations to listen to, and the Shasta Sheriff on the evac's.There is a twitter pic from Cal Fire or USFS from the reading fire of a blackhawk with flourecsent pink tail numbers on the side, great color combo, arny green and pink. And if someone could confirm this, i've been catching Susanville ECC with a pl of 100.00, it's not listed in the database, but the town's being dispatch to are in the area?
Last edited:
What frequency are you catching?
If it is 154.4450, then I think it is in the database:
http://www.radioreference.com/apps/db/?ctid=200
Last edited:
- Status
