Northern California Coordination Center on WildCAD

[zerg901]

WCCA-ONCC

this url is new for 2021

aka 'North Zone'

'Resources" is the only subfile that they update (once or twice a day)

list federal wildfire "national resources" - handcrews, air attack, initial attack helicopters (USFS and BLM), smokejumper planes (J) - callsign and N number

no airtankers listed

(these are my best guesses about this URL and info)

if you use FlightTracker etc while scanning, this info can correlate N numbers to radio ID / unit IDs - (if FlightTracker etc does not already do that)

for example - N911VR Flight Tracking and History - FlightAware - 911VR is owned by Rogers Helicopters and is H516 - was operating in Stead NV recently

 

[es93546]

There are more helicopters in North Ops than what is shown. Helos 507 and 509 are the special recon "Firewatch" helos that were transferred from the military to the U.S. Forest Service. They are not on contract, they are owned by the FS and the pilots are full time USFS employees. They can be used for air attack and as helicopter coordinators as well as doing the night flying using FLIR. They produce those great maps showing what areas are very hot, those with moderate heat, areas with only spotty heat and cold areas. It is outstanding information for operational planning. Most of this had been done by fixed winged aircraft on contracts prior to this.

Here is a link to an article about these helos: Firewatch Helicopters

All of North Ops exclusive use Type 2 and 3 helos are shown. They haven't shown any of the Type 1 helos, some of what have external water tanks and were called "Helitankers" for many years. They don't list all the Interagency Hotshot Crews, just 4. North Ops has 20 USFS and 1 BLM hotshot crews. They show 2 of the 3 air attack ship in the GACC, they've left out AA-06, which is based at Chester on the Lassen National Forest. They also left out an area wide air attack unit, AA-50. This is all from the Calif. Mob Guide of 2021.

 

[norcalscan]

I just saw this and looked at the resource list and it's nowhere near accurate in mapping NOPS rotor wing to tail numbers. Not sure what the heck they're trying to show here. Fixed wing is a mess as well. Below is what's what for this year and a few notes going back a few years

502HQ - Copter 502 KNF Scott Valley, rappel
402PJ - Copter 503 KNF Happy Camp
205BT - Copter 506 SHF
205GH - MNF Orland - T2 2020
212BT - Copter 510 LNF Chester
N20PF - Copter 512 PNF Quincy
212HP - Copter 514 TNF Grass Valley
911VR - Copter 516
811KW - Copter 517
FHQB - Copter 520
33HX - Copter 522
534HQ - Copter 527 LPF
205WW - Copter 527??
612TA - Copter 528 LPF
386HQ - Copter 530 LPF
44HX - Copter 553 BLM Ravendale
12HX - Copter 553 BLM Ravendale (2017)
6HE - Copter 553 (2018?)
262HQ - Copter 554
247AC - Helitanker 743
545DF - Nevada DF C402
987SF - Nevada DF C403
777SF - Nevada DF C405

 

[es93546]

I just saw this and looked at the resource list and it's nowhere near accurate in mapping NOPS rotor wing to tail numbers. Not sure what the heck they're trying to show here. Fixed wing is a mess as well. Below is what's what for this year and a few notes going back a few years

502HQ - Copter 502 KNF Scott Valley, rappel
402PJ - Copter 503 KNF Happy Camp
205BT - Copter 506 SHF
205GH - MNF Orland - T2 2020
212BT - Copter 510 LNF Chester
N20PF - Copter 512 PNF Quincy
212HP - Copter 514 TNF Grass Valley
911VR - Copter 516
811KW - Copter 517
FHQB - Copter 520
33HX - Copter 522
534HQ - Copter 527 LPF
205WW - Copter 527??
612TA - Copter 528 LPF
386HQ - Copter 530 LPF
44HX - Copter 553 BLM Ravendale
12HX - Copter 553 BLM Ravendale (2017)
6HE - Copter 553 (2018?)
262HQ - Copter 554
247AC - Helitanker 743
545DF - Nevada DF C402
987SF - Nevada DF C403
777SF - Nevada DF C405

I've not seen a list with the tail numbers since 2013.. They change from year to year due to different companies winning bids. I think the bids are for multiple year operations. In California the tail number is not used over the air like it is in the rest of the country. The Inyo's ship flew over the 4th of July parade in Mammoth Lakes and it had the wording "Helicopter 525 - Fire" shown on the bottom. I'm not sure if this is required in the contract. Now if they could require "H-xxx" on each side of the ship and this nationwide, it would be a large improvement. For a firefighter on the ground it is difficult to hear all the FAA tail numbers and relate that to the type of the ship, where it is from and what it will be doing on the fire. Air attack and other aircraft personnel can ID the ships from the air by sight, but the radio traffic is very confusing. You have to keep a list that says, for example, 45 Hotel Xray Tango is a Type 3 helo from the Humboldt-Toiyabe NF in Bridgeport in R4 and 627 Oscar Mike is a Type 2 from Prescott in Region 3. The helitanker designation using the 700 series numbers appears to be gone as well.

Your list is missing information for the following:

Note: the FAA airport designator is shown in parenthesis.

H506 - Shasta-T - Trinity Helibase (TRI)
H516 - Eldorado - Pacific Helibase (PAC)
H517 - Stanislaus - Bald Mtn. Helibase (76CA)
H520 - Sierra - Trimmer Helibase - Rappel Qualified (TRM)
H522 - Sequoia - Peppermint Helibase (PMT)
H523 - Sequoia - Kernville Helibase (L05) "Lima Zero Five"
H525 - Inyo - Independence Helibase (2O7) "Two Oscar Seven"
H527 - Los Padres - Arroyo Grande Helibase (ARG)
H528 - Los Padres - Santa Ynez Helibase (IZA)
H530 - Los Padres - Chuchupate Helibase (CHU)
H531 - Angeles - Fox Field Helibase - Night Operations (WJF)
H532 - Angeles - Fox Field Helibase (WJF)
H534 - San Bernardino - Heaps Peak Helibase (HPS)
H535 - San Bernardino - Keenwild Helibase (KEN)
H538 - Cleveland - Ramona Helibase (RMN)
H551 - Yosemite NP - Crane Flat Helibase (CFL)
H552 - Sequoia-Kings Canyon NP - Ash Mountain Helibase (2CA0) "Two Charlie Alpha Zero"
H553 - BLM Northern CA District - Ravendale Helibase (RAV)
H551 - BLM CA Desert District - Apple Valley (10CA) "One Zero Charlie Alpha"

The complete list is available in Chapter 50 (Aircraft) in the annual California Interagency Mobilization Guide. It never shows the aircraft tail numbers. The term "Helicopter" is always used not "Copter."

I'm not sure if Helicopter 531 and 532 are the same ship, with 531 being used at night and the same ship being used as 532 in the day. I think not, the night ship has additional night vision equipment and the day ship is subject to dispatches to other areas. I think the night helicopter experiment the USFS is conducting is on the Angeles NF only.

 

[952Media]

Helicopter is what the resource is, Copter is the correct ICS identifier for radio use. (Taken directly from the latest 420-1)

“H” can either be Helitender, Helitack, or Helitanker
“C” is for Helicopter

Also, the aircraft are being identified by partial tail numbers, as that is how they are identified in AFF (Automated Flight Following). The partial list I attached is from the Dixie Fire.

 

[es93546]

Helicopter is what the resource is, Copter is the correct ICS identifier for radio use. (Taken directly from the latest 420-1)

I've seen that reference before. When I was working for the USFS we never used the term "copter," it was always "helicopter." My training and annual refreshers included a discussion of using the term "helicopter." I will have to listen more carefully to the 3 national forests I can receive from my location. I don't think I've heard the term "copter" at all. I can also listen to CDF as well and I've not noticed the use of the "copter" there either. On tac frequencies I also hear the term "helo" and "ship" used. I used the same terminology in the early 1970's and then into the early 2000's when I retired.

I really don't care what people call a helicopter except when the term "chopper" is used. That term instantly identifies the speaker as a newbie firefighter, a member of the news media, someone in the TV or movie business or a member of the public who does not know very much about firefighting. Helicopters don't "chop" anything. Fixed wing aircraft don't fly, they suck (refers to the movement of air over a wing and how lift is provided). Helicopters don't fly either, they beat the air into submission! Actually they suck also as they are called "rotary wing" aircraft. In firefighting you never hear the word "chopper," or at least in my own experience.

 

[952Media]

If you don’t believe me, I’d be more than happy to attach some audio clips. I only live about a mile from the Airbase, and listen to “Copter” 404 respond multiple times daily. I can even dial in the base Victor frequency for you if need be.

 

[es93546]

WCCA-ONCC

this url is new for 2021

aka 'North Zone'

'Resources" is the only subfile that they update (once or twice a day)

list federal wildfire "national resources" - handcrews, air attack, initial attack helicopters (USFS and BLM), smokejumper planes (J) - callsign and N number

no airtankers listed

(these are my best guesses about this URL and info)

if you use FlightTracker etc while scanning, this info can correlate N numbers to radio ID / unit IDs - (if FlightTracker etc does not already do that)

for example - N911VR Flight Tracking and History - FlightAware - 911VR is owned by Rogers Helicopters and is H516 - was operating in Stead NV recently

I didn't remember that following flights of wildland fire aircraft on flight tracking software apps usually requires the FAA number. Although I've clicked on certain aircraft and found the R5 helo number or the Air Attack number listed. I can usually tell aircraft assigned to fires just by looking at their flight paths, what reload base they are using, the model of the aircraft, etc.

 

[es93546]

If you don’t believe me, I’d be more than happy to attach some audio clips. I only live about a mile from the Airbase, and listen to “Copter” 404 respond multiple times daily. I can even dial in the base Victor frequency for you if need be.

Interesting, it's not that I don't believe you, I'm just relating my own experience. Maybe CDF identifies their helos that way and the USFS does not. At least they are not on the east side of the Sierra. I'm currently in the middle of an antenna project and can't hear the Sierra National Forest, so it is possible that they are using the term. Like I said, I need to focus on this and listen to what term is being used. They might be saying "copter" and my brain is hearing "helicopter" as that is the way I was trained.

 

[952Media]

Flying right now on the Dixie. This is not a civilian app, it’s right off the AFF screen

 

[es93546]

Flying right now on the Dixie. This is not a civilian app, it’s right off the AFF screen

I usually use Flightradar24. I see an aircraft east of Lake Almanor, but clicking on the aircraft doesn't bring up any ownership info that helps. Like you say, just the flight path tells the story.

 

[es93546]

Helicopter is what the resource is, Copter is the correct ICS identifier for radio use. (Taken directly from the latest 420-1)

“H” can either be Helitender, Helitack, or Helitanker
“C” is for Helicopter

Also, the aircraft are being identified by partial tail numbers, as that is how they are identified in AFF (Automated Flight Following). The partial list I attached is from the Dixie Fire.

I think I mentioned that nationally the partial FAA identifier is being used. It is not being used in USFS R5 or more properly, North and South Ops California. This for the Type 3 and 4 ships, with a Type 2 or maybe more, assigned to each national forest, the two large national parks and the two BLM Districts of the 3 in the state. When I started with the USFS in Region 3, all the helo numbers started with a 3 and each forest had several numbers assigned to them. My first experience with helicopters was in "Helicopter 336." Grand Canyon NP had then and still does a dry lease helo, that is stationed at the south rim. It is the primary medic helo for the park, they have another for fire initial attacks. Sometimes they trade roles if the situation requires it. The primary med helo still retains the number it had in the 1970's, "Helicopter 368." The NPS has two of these year round dry lease helos. The other is at Everglades NP. A dry lease is where the NPS provides the daily maintenance , the pilot and fuel and the helo owner just delivers the ship and does the required "hours used" type maintenance.

 

[es93546]

The registration of that aircraft shows it is owned by someone from another part of California, so it is likely under contract to the USFS. The agency owned aircraft usually show up as such on Flightradar24.

 

[Tower5153]

CAL FIRE helicopters go by the callsign “COPTER” 404, 106, 406, etc. It’s been that way for many, many years (since ICS typing began). If they say anything other than this, they are in violation of department policy, end of story.

Federal aircraft seem to be called by whatever fits the bill of the day. This week alone I’ve heard “Copter”, “helicopter”, and “helo”, all on the primary dispatch frequency, while flying incidents. The funny thing is, the R5 USFS agreed to use ICS/Firescope terminology in 2007, but largely fail to do so.

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but using partial tail #’s goes on daily in all of R5. I just spoke with ”Six-Papa-Juliet“ yesterday. 2 weeks ago “Eight-Romeo-Hotel” was doing troop shuttles and bucket work. I understand that helicopters assigned full time to R5 have dedicated call signs, but a blanket statement of using partial tail numbers is “not being used in R5”, or “not in North Ops or South Ops” is totally incorrect.

As far as flight following apps, the civilian versions are much different that the AFF program the wild land agencies use. AFF tracks the majority of its aircraft by tail number, not call sign. It’s a daily occurrence to hear an aircraft ask if they are “positive AFF” only to have the dispatcher come back and ask for the tail number. Comparing Flightradar24 to AFF is apples to oranges.

Lastly, just because you hear something on the scanner doesn’t mean it’s correct, in policy, or ”the way it’s done on 3 forests I listen to“. While it may have been correct 10 years ago, 5 years ago, or even 1 year ago, it probably changed last week based on a new policy or someone‘s interpretation of the old policy. NONE of the Forests in R5 remotely do things the same way, let alone talking on the radio using correct ICS terminology or identifiers. I heard a Rec unit on the EDF using basic CB jargon last week (“Anybody on the project got their ears on?”) CAL FIRE got rid of the Slow/Moderate/Rapid ROS terms years ago, but I still hear them every day.

 

[es93546]

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but using partial tail #’s goes on daily in all of R5. I just spoke with ”Six-Papa-Juliet“ yesterday. 2 weeks ago “Eight-Romeo-Hotel” was doing troop shuttles and bucket work. I understand that helicopters assigned full time to R5 have dedicated call signs, but a blanket statement of using partial tail numbers is “not being used in R5”, or “not in North Ops or South Ops” is totally incorrect.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. The Type 2 & 3 initial attack exclusive use helicopters assigned to each national forest in R5 use the 5xx number assigned to that forest. Of course they are also used for extended attack as well. The Type 1 and 2 helicopters used for water and retardant dropping use the tail number.

Lastly, just because you hear something on the scanner doesn’t mean it’s correct, in policy, or ”the way it’s done on 3 forests I listen to“. While it may have been correct 10 years ago, 5 years ago, or even 1 year ago, it probably changed last week based on a new policy or someone‘s interpretation of the old policy. NONE of the Forests in R5 remotely do things the same way, let alone talking on the radio using correct ICS terminology or identifiers. I heard a Rec unit on the EDF using basic CB jargon last week (“Anybody on the project got their ears on?”)

If you think the differences between national forests in California are significant, you should see how different each USFS region (9 of them) differs from each other. There are some benefits and liabilities to the decentralized organization that the USFS prides itself on. When I was in the USFS I would be that 80% of my fellow employees stayed in one region their entire careers. They may have transferred to many different forests, but usually those in the same region. When I arrived on the Inyo NF, it was my 4th national forest, but it was also the 3rd region I had worked in. Many of my coworkers had not worked on another forest, let alone one in another region. I faced an incredible amount of resistance trying to make some changes based on what had been used successfully in other parts of the U.S., even though I ended up in the best USFS region in my experience, the Pacific Southwest Region (R5) on the Inyo, one of the best and most innovative forests in that region.

Non fire function employees are a mixed bag when it comes to radio use. During my years with the USFS I worked with and supervised a wide variety of these people. It could sometimes be very difficult to train them to use the radio. Some were incredibly nervous using the radio. Some didn't understand the reasons for the procedures or were people who were sort of anti-procedure types. Most of these were seasonals or volunteers. The permanent employees were much better, they usually listened to a lot of radio traffic prior to getting on the air themselves and they received some good radio training in a classroom type setting using well written guides given to them to keep. With the incredible cutbacks the agency is experiencing the USFS doesn't have a lot of recreation people in the field anymore and the use of volunteers is heavy. It is even harder to train them now as the agency is accepting people who may only work a day here and there in a month. I don't have official statistics available, but the non fire functions in the agency have 50%, maybe even less, of the staff they had 20 years ago and far less than 30 years ago. On the Inyo NF, where I retired from, volunteers have a 3 number radio designator, for example "Rec 212" is the 2nd volunteer working for the paid position with the ID "Rec 21." I haven't heard a similar procedure being used on other national forests and for the listener they can't distinguish a permanent from a volunteer. I don't think anyone outside of the federal natural resource agencies can understand the profound changes that the funding cutbacks have had on the agencies. I don't think anyone takes into account what the establishment of 6,900 new fire positions have had on the USFS as it was not allowed to increase the 29,000 positions it has now or the 7,000 vacancies it is dealing with. When the new fire positions were established per the 2000 National Fire Plan, 6,900 positions in other functions had to be vacated. There are several reasons for the huge number of vacancies, with the most prominent being the pay, with politics, indifference or even hostility from the public, a potential workforce that no longer sees themselves as working an entire career for one company or agency among many others.

I'm not disagreeing with the need for the positions, new/upgraded apparatus and improvements to facilities that resulted from the National Fire Plan. I had been keenly interested in fire ecology since my senior year in high school. I studied the 1940-1970 science that predicted a crisis that loomed if we didn't shift from controlling fire to managing fire and it was tough watching that science largely ignored by politicians and the public during my career, all while watching increasing amounts of fuel and the fuel ladder getting worse. The plan has not been fully funded and needs to be. Given what we are now experiencing the 2000 plan probably doesn't go far enough and certainly not fast enough. However, the increases have come with a huge price to the other functions of the USFS. There are other resources in crisis as well. If fire required 6,900 new positions then the total employee ceiling should have increased commensurately.

The challenges of radio training were even greater during the time I was a member of our town's CERT organization. Trying to get them to stop using radio procedures they had observed on TV/movies was incredibly difficult. They would use the old "me TO you" order of calling, "over," "out," "roger," the thinking they are talking on a phone where they can interrupt someone else, holding the radio upside down and lord knows what else.

CAL FIRE got rid of the Slow/Moderate/Rapid ROS terms years ago, but I still hear them every day.

What is Cal Fire using to describe the rate of spread now?

 

[Tower5153]

I guess I didn't make myself clear. The Type 2 & 3 initial attack exclusive use helicopters assigned to each national forest in R5 use the 5xx number assigned to that forest. Of course they are also used for extended attack as well. The Type 1 and 2 helicopters used for water and retardant dropping use the tail number.



If you think the differences between national forests in California are significant, you should see how different each USFS region (9 of them) differs from each other. There are some benefits and liabilities to the decentralized organization that the USFS prides itself on. When I was in the USFS I would be that 80% of my fellow employees stayed in one region their entire careers. They may have transferred to many different forests, but usually those in the same region. When I arrived on the Inyo NF, it was my 4th national forest, but it was also the 3rd region I had worked in. Many of my coworkers had not worked on another forest, let alone one in another region. I faced an incredible amount of resistance trying to make some changes based on what had been used successfully in other parts of the U.S., even though I ended up in the best USFS region in my experience, the Pacific Southwest Region (R5) on the Inyo, one of the best and most innovative forests in that region.

Non fire function employees are a mixed bag when it comes to radio use. During my years with the USFS I worked with and supervised a wide variety of these people. It could sometimes be very difficult to train them to use the radio. Some were incredibly nervous using the radio. Some didn't understand the reasons for the procedures or were people who were sort of anti-procedure types. Most of these were seasonals or volunteers. The permanent employees were much better, they usually listened to a lot of radio traffic prior to getting on the air themselves and they received some good radio training in a classroom type setting using well written guides given to them to keep. With the incredible cutbacks the agency is experiencing the USFS doesn't have a lot of recreation people in the field anymore and the use of volunteers is heavy. It is even harder to train them now as the agency is accepting people who may only work a day here and there in a month. I don't have official statistics available, but the non fire functions in the agency have 50%, maybe even less, of the staff they had 20 years ago and far less than 30 years ago. On the Inyo NF, where I retired from, volunteers have a 3 number radio designator, for example "Rec 212" is the 2nd volunteer working for the paid position with the ID "Rec 21." I haven't heard a similar procedure being used on other national forests and for the listener they can't distinguish a permanent from a volunteer. I don't think anyone outside of the federal natural resource agencies can understand the profound changes that the funding cutbacks have had on the agencies. I don't think anyone takes into account what the establishment of 6,900 new fire positions have had on the USFS as it was not allowed to increase the 29,000 positions it has now or the 7,000 vacancies it is dealing with. When the new fire positions were established per the 2000 National Fire Plan, 6,900 positions in other functions had to be vacated. There are several reasons for the huge number of vacancies, with the most prominent being the pay, with politics, indifference or even hostility from the public, a potential workforce that no longer sees themselves as working an entire career for one company or agency among many others.

I'm not disagreeing with the need for the positions, new/upgraded apparatus and improvements to facilities that resulted from the National Fire Plan. I had been keenly interested in fire ecology since my senior year in high school. I studied the 1940-1970 science that predicted a crisis that loomed if we didn't shift from controlling fire to managing fire and it was tough watching that science largely ignored by politicians and the public during my career, all while watching increasing amounts of fuel and the fuel ladder getting worse. The plan has not been fully funded and needs to be. Given what we are now experiencing the 2000 plan probably doesn't go far enough and certainly not fast enough. However, the increases have come with a huge price to the other functions of the USFS. There are other resources in crisis as well. If fire required 6,900 new positions then the total employee ceiling should have increased commensurately.

The challenges of radio training were even greater during the time I was a member of our town's CERT organization. Trying to get them to stop using radio procedures they had observed on TV/movies was incredibly difficult. They would use the old "me TO you" order of calling, "over," "out," "roger," the thinking they are talking on a phone where they can interrupt someone else, holding the radio upside down and lord knows what else.



What is Cal Fire using to describe the rate of spread now?

Slow/Dangerous/Extreme

I can really care less about the radio stuff, as long as the mission is carried out safely. You seem to like to assert that “things aren’t done that way in Region 5” or “I never heard that during my career“, when in fact, it does happen on a daily basis. I can tell you that the other folks who posted on this thread listen to this stuff daily, and are in a very busy area of the state. Do you think they would lie to you? Is it possible that things change? Could the USFS have a local agreement with the CAL FIRE unit that may cause differences?

As far as the helicopter stuff, I give up. You’ve said so many different things I can’t keep them straight. Let me end it with this: Exclusive use helicopters assigned to a Forest go by the 5xx number assigned to that forest, just like you said.

ALL other helicopters (except CAL FIRE and Local Govt) go by a partial tail number, no matter what ICS type of helicopter it is, or what’s it‘s assigned mission is.

I‘ve attached a list of the helicopters assigned to the Dixie Fire for your reference.

 

[es93546]

Slow/Dangerous/Extreme

I can really care less about the radio stuff, as long as the mission is carried out safely. You seem to like to assert that “things aren’t done that way in Region 5” or “I never heard that during my career“, when in fact, it does happen on a daily basis. I can tell you that the other folks who posted on this thread listen to this stuff daily, and are in a very busy area of the state. Do you think they would lie to you? Is it possible that things change? Could the USFS have a local agreement with the CAL FIRE unit that may cause differences?

As far as the helicopter stuff, I give up. You’ve said so many different things I can’t keep them straight. Let me end it with this: Exclusive use helicopters assigned to a Forest go by the 5xx number assigned to that forest, just like you said.

ALL other helicopters (except CAL FIRE and Local Govt) go by a partial tail number, no matter what ICS type of helicopter it is, or what’s it‘s assigned mission is.

I‘ve attached a list of the helicopters assigned to the Dixie Fire for your reference.

I hear so very few Cal Fire responses in the eastern Sierra that I didn't know what their current rate of spread nomenclature. I will listen to what local fire departments use as they are quite often on scene prior to Cal Fire.

I guess I'm getting so old that people don't understand me or I'm wrong most of the time. I will keep that in mind as I read threads and contemplate writing a post. It's OK, the wind has been taken out of my sails by someone else on another thread as well. Losing cognitive functioning is hell.