[Senate Hearing 108-29]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 108-29
AERIAL FIREFIGHTING SAFETY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS AND FORESTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO RECEIVE TESTIMONY REGARDING THE ISSUES UNCOVERED AS A RESULT OF THE
BLUE RIBBON PANEL'S FINDING ON AERIAL FIREFIGHTING SAFETY AND TO LEARN
WHAT THE AGENCIES ARE DOING TO RESPOND TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THAT
REPORT
__________
MARCH 26, 2003
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
87-175 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
DON NICKLES, Oklahoma JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming BOB GRAHAM, Florida
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee RON WYDEN, Oregon
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
CONRAD BURNS, Montana EVAN BAYH, Indiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
JON KYL, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
Alex Flint, Staff Director
James P. Beirne, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman
CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Vice Chairmaa
GORDON SMITH, Oregon RON WYDEN, Oregon
JON KYL, Arizona DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri EVAN BAYH, Indiana
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Frank Gladics, Professional Staff Member
Kera Finkler, Democratic Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Broadwell, William R., Executive Director, Aerial Firefighters
Industry Association........................................... 13
Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho.................... 1
Hamilton, Larry, National Director, Office of Fire and Aviation,
National Interagency Fire Center, Bureau of Land Management,
accompanied by Dr. Tony Kern, Assistant Director of Aviation,
U.S. Forest Service............................................ 8
Hull, Jim, State Forester and Director, Texas State Forest
Service; and Jim Hall, President, Hall and Associates.......... 4
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 23
Powers, Duane A., Director of Operations, Hawkins & Powers
Aviation, Inc., Greybull, WY................................... 17
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 3
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 25
AERIAL FIREFIGHTING SAFETY
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2003
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E.
Craig presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator Craig. Good morning everyone and welcome to the
Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee's hearing on the Blue
Ribbon Panel report on Federal aerial firefighting safety and
effectiveness.
I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Craig
Thomas of Wyoming. Others of the committee should be joining us
throughout the morning. I must tell you that yesterday, Senator
Craig and I were talking about doing tag team so that we would
get all of your testimony and not shut this subcommittee down
because of the budget process on the floor at this moment, but
we have been given a window of reprieve because we were good
Senators yesterday and worked hard and got more work done than
we had thought we might.
I want to especially welcome the co-chairs of the Blue
Ribbon Panel, James Hall, president of Hall and Associates and
former Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board,
and James B. Hull, the State forester and director of the State
of Texas Forest Service. Thank you for taking time to serve on
the panel and for coming to testify. Gentlemen, thank you.
I also want to welcome Larry Hamilton, BLM Director of
Aviation at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise,
Idaho, and also Tony Kern, Assistant Director of Aviation for
the U.S. Forest Service.
Last but not least, I would also like to thank William
Broadwell, executive director of Aerial Firefighting Industry
Association, and Mr. Duane Powers, president of Hawkins and
Powers Aviation, Incorporated from Greybull, Wyoming for
attending today. Gentlemen, thank you for taking time out of
your schedules to be with us.
It is never easy to perform oversight on complex issues
relating to the health and safety of people who perform
incredibly difficult and dangerous tasks such as extinguishing
forest fires and protecting ground firefighters with support
from the air.
I hope that we will all listen to the testimony offered
today in a proactive rather than reactive manner. We need our
agencies and their contractors to address these issues and to
make the changes needed to reduce accidents now and in the
future. We need to know that they understand the issues and
have developed a strategy to improve the safety of these
operations.
While it is clear to me that many of the issues we face
will not be resolved overnight, I want the wildland
firefighting community and their families to know that this
Senator will work to reduce the risks faced by these courageous
people.
I want to make a couple of observations that I fear could
be lost if we only focus on the eight major findings in the
report. This report documents an increased use of aerial
firefighting over the last decade. Planes and crews are putting
in nearly double the amount of hours over these fires than they
were only a decade ago. The increase in aerial firefighting has
caused dangerous wear and tear on the fleet of aircraft and on
their crews. Like it or not, we will continue to be calling on
planes, helicopters, and their crews to fly into remote rugged
terrain in smoky and hazardous or hazy conditions under less
than favorable turbulent weather conditions in order to assist
firefighters to put these fires out.
I do not want the agencies or the public to overlook the
importance of reducing the hazardous fuels on our public lands
before these fires start. When we have thinned our forests and
have removed the hazardous fuels, fires are less intense. Our
ground crews can be utilized to directly attack these fires and
our aerial assets can be safely utilized to put these fires
out.
I think our aerial safety issue is rooted in the
overstocked, insect-infested forests that we are now asking
these people to work in. Until we address the hazardous fuels
build-ups, we are fooling ourselves to think that new, fully
certified retardant planes with the best trained crews possible
can overcome the inherent dangers of aerial firefighting. It is
our failure to demand timely fuel reduction that is putting our
firefighters, our aerial firefighting crews, the public and our
forests at needless risk.
This is not to say that aircraft do not have to undergo a
major revamping. I believe they do. I think the report argues
that. But if we can reduce how often we have to rely on these
planes and helicopters, we will reduce the wear and tear they
sustain and reduce the amount of time we put these people in
harm's way.
At this point, I have an open mind as to what type of
aircraft to use for these tasks and what the correct mix of
fixed-wing and helicopter aircraft should be. I will rely on
Federal wildland firefighting agencies and their contractors to
work that out.
I do want to know specifically what steps have been taken
to address these issues listed in the report, including mission
muddle, for this season.
I do want to know what is being done to deal with the
grounding of 11 heavy retardant planes and 11 lead planes.
Most importantly, I hope I will see and understand that the
only part of the fire triangle of oxygen, heat, and fuel that
we can hope to influence is how much fuel is left in the
forests. Until we address the hazardous fuels issue, we are
fooling ourselves to think that newly, fully certified planes
and the best trained crews are beyond danger.
I encourage each of you to resist reading your testimony,
to summarize your prepared remarks. Both your written and oral
testimonies are a part of the record. Again, I thank you for
being here.
I would turn to my colleague, Craig Thomas, for any opening
comments he would have.
STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS, U.S. SENATOR
FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
holding this hearing. I thank all of you for being here.
As is often the case, we are looking at a problem here, one
that needs to be resolved. We clearly are going to have fires.
We clearly need to do something about them. I think we clearly
have identified some problems and what we have to do is find
some answers.
Certainly there has been a great reliance on air tankers to
do some of the things that have to be done, reliance on
contractors. I hope we can continue to do that. This is an
activity that could very well and should be done in the private
sector, to the extent that it can be.
We had, of course, a number of difficult accidents last
year, and we need to do something about that.
I am very pleased the Blue Ribbon Panel's report is here. I
think we can focus a good deal on that because many of the
solutions I think are there.
Contractors rely on surplus military aircraft. I guess I am
a little surprised that we have not done more. We have gone
from 130As to 130Hs, and there must be some out there somewhere
that are not being used very much. There is no reason for us to
be using 40-year-old airplanes when there are some probably in
Arizona that ought to be being used.
But in any event, one of the problems obviously has been
the number of agencies that have been involved in what appears
to me at least to be a disconnect between the Forest Service
and the BLM and the FAA in terms of doing the things that they
do best. Even though they are in different bureaucracies, I
cannot imagine why we cannot work it out to where you use the
expertise from one agency when it is needed in one that does
not have that kind of expertise. I believe that is partly where
we are.
The other, of course, is if we are going to continue and do
have these older aircraft, there need to be standards for which
they are required to maintain. And then the payment has to
reflect the cost of some of those improvements that we do. It
is my understanding in the way that these contracts are made
that that is not always the case.
So in any event, I think we have a great opportunity today
to deal with the problem that all of us would like to resolve,
and we appreciate your being here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Craig, thank you very much.
Now with our co-chairs, we will start alphabetically. How
is that? And that is difficult, folks. We have got to go
through the first name. We have got a middle initial there, but
we usually then go to the last name. So we will start with
James Hall. Jim, thank you very much for being here. As has
been mentioned, Jim is president of Hall and Associates and
former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board.
Please proceed.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, with the permission of the chair
and Senator Thomas, we have arranged our presentation for Jim
Hull to go first, the State Forester of Texas. So if that would
be okay, I will have him proceed. We have divided the report
up.
Senator Craig. Well, the chairman cannot say no.
[Laughter.]
Senator Craig. Mr. Hull, welcome. As I mentioned earlier,
Jim is the State forester and director of the State of Texas
Forest Service. And I did not know that the State of Texas had
a Forest Service, but I do now.
Jim, welcome.
STATEMENT OF JIM HULL, STATE FORESTER AND DIRECTOR, TEXAS STATE
FOREST SERVICE; AND JIM HALL, PRESIDENT, HALL AND ASSOCIATES
Mr. Hull. Mr. Chairman, Senator Thomas, I am going to
resist the opportunity to educate you on the forests of the
great State of Texas.
Senator Craig. I asked that question yesterday, and then I
educated myself. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hull. But it is a real pleasure for co-chair Jim Hall
and me to be here today to discuss the findings of this Blue
Ribbon Panel with you. We will do that very briefly and just
hit the high points.
As you recall, following the tragic air tanker tragedies
and fatalities last summer, the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM
commissioned this blue ribbon task group to take a look at what
was going on and identify the key information that could be
valuable in developing information for the planning and the
safe and effective future use of the aviation program. As a
State forester that is a user of these aerial resources, I can
tell you that aviation resources are vital to fire protection
not only in the West, but across the entire United States.
We were asked specifically to identify the weaknesses, the
fail points that might be present in the current aviation
program.
We were also asked to focus on five basic areas: safety,
operational effectiveness, cost, sustainability, and strategic
guidance. We spent some 3 months crisscrossing the Nation,
visiting with Federal and State employees, contractors, pilots,
consultants, a number of interested citizens and wildland
firefighters throughout the Nation.
Very quickly, I will identify and briefly describe the
first four of our findings and co-chair Hall will address the
following four.
First, the safety record of fixed-wing air tanker and
helicopters is unacceptable as far as the management in the
wildland fire arena. We found that contractor personnel flying
these large air tankers are subject to lower safety standards
than government personnel that are flying the lead planes and
the smoke-jumper type aircraft.
But what we also found was that both contractor and
government aerial firefighting operations are being conducted
at lower safety standards than we feel like can be justified,
certainly less than any reasonable employer would expect of
their employees.
We found that the aircraft, none of them--or very few at
any rate--have voice and data flight recorders to assist in
monitoring stresses and then certainly follow-up should a
tragedy occur.
The second finding emphasizes the fact that nationwide the
wildland firefighting is dealing with an environment that has
changed and risks that are changed, new areas that we need to
be involved with. As you described, Mr. Chair, so eloquently,
we have this buildup of fuel throughout the Nation in our
Nation's forests. We are also experiencing prolonged drought
throughout most of the Nation that we have experienced
personally in Texas and other States. And then we have this
very rapidly expanding rural/urban/wildland interface situation
with all of the population. And you put all of that together,
it is bringing a new environment in which we must deal and
respond to wildfires.
However, what we are finding is that fire policy to address
all of this is not evolving at a rate that is essential to
address the situation.
One of the statements we made in the report I want to read
word for word because I think it is very important at this
point. Possibly the single largest challenge now facing the
leaders of these Federal agencies is to foster much greater
cooperation and collaboration among working-level staffs,
contractors, States, and certainly the Congress and the
Administration to raise the standards of aerial wildland
firefighting in the United States.
The third finding deals with the aircraft themselves. The
FAA has categorized these retired military aircraft used for
firefighting as ``public use aircraft.'' And basically that
says, you are on your own, and we found a lot of that. There
are very few checks and balances in place to ensure that these
aircraft are safe to fly.
Further, we found that the current air tanker fleet is
being operated outside of their original design intent with
very little formal mechanisms in place to evaluate their
capability to be used in this wildland firefighting
environment. We feel like that under the current system of
aircraft certification, contracting, and operation, the program
as it is right now is simply unsustainable.
The fourth finding you mentioned a while ago and I will
mention it quickly, ``mission muddle.'' There is no single body
in charge of aviation. Instead, there is a variety of missions,
philosophies, unclear standards amongst the Federal land
management agencies. As a result, the firefighting risks remain
higher than necessary because of these mission differences, and
so far they have not been recognized, reconciled, or expressed
to the degree that they should.
At that point I will ask co-chair Chairman Hall to
continue.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, Senator Thomas, it is a pleasure to
be here before the committee.
I would like to address the four final weaknesses, or fail
points, that the Blue Ribbon Panel identified which are
culture, certification, contracts, and training, and just a
word on each one of those.
The safety culture seemed to be either absent or, as in the
case of the mission, muddled. We have, obviously, a number of
agencies involved here, and the one common thing that we found
across the agencies was probably insufficient contract funding
in order to provide adequate knowledge of the aircraft
condition, insufficient training, inspection, and maintenance,
which has resulted, of course, in a deplorable safety record
for the air tankers and a less than acceptable safety record
for all the other aircraft.
Senators, this reminds me a lot of while I was at the NTSB,
U.S. Air had five major accidents which the board looked at
very closely, and there had been a merger of several airlines
and several cultures trying to co-exist together. You have to
have a safety culture that is consistent, and I think we found
this not just in the mission but obviously in the culture, the
impact of so many different organizations trying to steer the
direction.
On the subject of certification, there seemed to have been
a misunderstanding of the role of the Federal aviation
aircraft. There was no certification of these aircraft for the
mission that they were attempting to perform, and of course,
with public use aircraft, there is no real air worthiness
oversight by the Federal Aviation Administration. This puts the
Forest Service in the untenable position of being both the
contracting agency and the regulator which is a situation that,
unfortunately, rarely works.
In the area of contracting, which I think is an extremely
important area, there seemed to be an emphasis on cost
efficiency and an absence of contract provisions that
emphasized safety results and required a demonstration of
safety, no emphasis on judgment, experience, safety records,
past performance, and obviously a lack of knowledge and
awareness, it appears, in the contracting process of what is
required for a safe aviation program.
And finally, in the area of training, we found inadequate
funding to provide the type of training that is required in
crew stress and fatigue, in turbine engine operation and
reporting processes and workload management and crew resource
management in particular.
We looked at several different options which are in the
final report of things, although we were to look not at
recommendations but strictly at fail points and omissions. We
did see, in Canada and in the State of California with their
operations, models that the committee members may want to have
committee staff look at more deeply in terms of potential
directions to go in this area.
Finally, let me say on behalf of the co-chairman, the other
panel members, that we were honored to have this assignment. We
had the opportunity to have a full briefing with Dale Bosworth,
the head of the Forest Service, and Kathleen Clark, the head of
the Bureau of Land Management. Both Mr. Kern who is here this
morning and Mr. Hamilton and all the staff and folks we met
primarily on our travels throughout the Western States were
most cooperative, and we hope that this work in some way will
help the committee, as well as the agencies, in providing a new
direction and a new safety standard in this aerial firefighting
area.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hull and Mr. Hall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jim Hull, State Forester and Director,
Texas Forest Service; and Jim Hall, President, Hall and Associates
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we are pleased to be
here to discuss findings of the Blue Ribbon Fact Finding Panel on the
aviation programs of the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
I am Jim Hull, Texas State Forester and I served as co-chair of this
Blue Ribbon Panel with Jim Hall, former chair of the National
Transportation Board who will join me in this presentation. We
represent the entire Panel that also included Mr. Ken Johnson of
Canada, Dr. Earl McKinney of Ohio and Mr. Bill Scott of Colorado.
Following the tragic air tanker fatalities of last summer, the
Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management jointly established our
independent commission to identify key information for planning the
safe and effective future of the aviation program that is so essential
for effective wildland firefighting across the nation. We were tasked
to identify weaknesses and fail points in the current aviation program,
focusing on safety, operational effectiveness, costs, sustainability,
and strategic guidance. We spent three months gathering information
from federal and state employees, contractors, pilots, consultants,
interested citizens and firefighters. We issued our report to the Chief
of the Forest Service and Director of the BLM in December 2002. The
panel identified a wide variety of issues, and we will briefly
summarize the eight principal findings.
Unacceptable Level of Safety--The safety record of fixed-
wing aircraft and helicopters used in wildland fire management
is unacceptable. Contractor personnel flying large air tankers
are subject to a lower safety standard than government
personnel flying federally owned and operated lead planes and
smoke-jumper aircraft. The level of safety for both contractor
and governmental aerial firefighting operations is lower than
can be financially justified and is less than expected for any
responsible employer. The aircraft do not have voice and data
flight recorders to assist in accident investigation.
New Environment, New Risks--A considerable build-up of fuel
in the nation's forestlands, three-plus year's of severe
drought conditions and an expanding wildland/urban interface
have significantly changed the way land managers must consider
fighting wildfires. Different philosophies and firefighting
tactics are required to combat the ever-increasing number of
large fires. However, current fire policy to address these
changing circumstances has been slow to evolve and this
negatively impacts the utilization of aviation resources.
Possibly the single largest challenge now facing leaders of
these federal agencies is to foster cooperation and
collaboration among working-level staffs, contractors, states,
and the Congress and Administration to raise the standards of
aerial wildland firefighting in the United States.
Aircraft-The FAA has categorized retired military aircraft
used for firefighting as ``public use aircraft,'' meaning that
there are few checks and balances to ensure these aircraft are
safe to fly, beyond obtaining the initial FAA Restricted
Category type certificates that are issued once the aircraft
are placed into firefighting service. Further, all aircraft in
the current airtanker fleet, are being operated outside their
original design intent with little or no formal evaluation in
the low-level firefighting environment. Together these pose
serious safety hazards as underlined by recent in-flight
structural failures. Under the current system of aircraft
certification, contracting and operation, key elements of the
aerial wildland firefighting fleet are unsustainable.
Mission--The variety of missions, philosophies, and unclear
standards of federal land management agencies creates a
``mission muddle'' that compromises the safety and
effectiveness of aviation in wildland fire management. As a
result, aerial firefighting risks remain higher than necessary
because the mission differences among agencies have not been
recognized, reconciled, and expressed as a common operations
plan with clear lines of authority. There is no single body in
charge.
Culture, Organizational Structure, and Management--The
structure and management of federal wild fire agencies is ill-
suited to conduct safe and effective fire aviation operations.
While the passion and ``can do'' spirit of firefighters is
admirable, it has masked agency management, and has contributed
to over aggressiveness in piloting large air tankers. Contract
specifications do not require necessary knowledge of aircraft
condition, training, inspections, and maintenance. This has led
to operator's bids that do not adequately provide for these
factors and to an unacceptable safety record for large air
tankers.
Certification--Because the FAA has abrogated any
responsibility to ensure the continued airworthiness of
``public-use'' aircraft, both the FS and BLM have been placed
in the untenable position of determining whether an aircraft is
safe to fly. Neither the FS nor the BLM are staffed or
qualified to make airworthiness assessments. Although these
aircraft are FAA certified, the certification processes do not
require testing and inspection to assure airworthiness for the
new mission. This is unacceptable.
Contracts-Government contracts for air tanker and helicopter
fire management services do not adequately recognize business
and operational realities or aircraft limitations. This is
particularly evident in aviation contracts that do not require
a safe operation.
Training--Training is under-funded and inadequately
specified for helicopters, large air tankers, and other fixed-
winged operations. The lack of training in several well-known
and effective contemporary aviation management areas has
contributed to a stagnant, rather than improved accident rate
over time.
Although the panel was not tasked to provide recommendations, we
felt it important to identify existing models and strategic
alternatives that might be useful for government program managers as
they charted their future.
The panel thought that the Canadian model was especially
noteworthy, where the government established specific airworthiness
standards and then appropriated resources to flight test and evaluate
each proposed model of airtanker to ensure that it was safe and
sustainable as a fire fighting aircraft. This resulted in a maintenance
and inspection program that far surpasses anything we saw with U.S.
vendors--a program that acknowledges aircraft ``age'' faster when
operating in the firefighting environment.
The panel also noted the current model used successfully by the
California Division of Forestry, where the government owns and controls
the configuration and inspection of the aircraft, but the private
sector maintains and operates them during the fire season. Although we
did not visit the military aerial firefighters, we were briefed on the
use of Air National Guard assets and their excellent safety record. We
believe that each of these options should be carefully evaluated as a
possible solution to the current set of challenges.
In conclusion, the panel wants to commend the Forest Service and
BLM for their courage in establishing the Blue Ribbon Panel, but also
to encourage them to look carefully at the full range of options,
including the possibility of outsourcing the entire program to a
separate entity that can specialize in the complexities inherent in a
large-scale aviation operation. The panel would also encourage
appropriators to work closely with the administration to assure funding
for near term modernization of both the airtanker and lead plane fleet,
and to ensure that the funding remains sufficient to sustain these
operations in support of the public interests.
Thank you for allowing us this opportunity to share the panel's
testimony and we are prepared to answer any questions that you might
have at this time.
Senator Craig. Well, on behalf of the subcommittee and the
full committee, gentlemen, thank you for your work, and I thank
the clarity of your findings and what you are suggesting.
Now let me move to Larry Hamilton, BLM Director of Aviation
at the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise. Larry,
welcome. Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF LARRY HAMILTON, NATIONAL DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF FIRE
AND AVIATION, NATIONAL INTERAGENCY FIRE CENTER, BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. TONY KERN, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
AVIATION, U.S. FOREST SERVICE
Mr. Hamilton. Good morning. Mr. Chairman and Senator
Thomas, we are pleased to be with you this morning to discuss
the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of the Interior fire
and aviation program.
I would also like to thank the Blue Ribbon Panel for their
outstanding work. They got a lot of work done, covered a lot of
area in a very short period of time, and this report has been
very helpful to us in making some changes already this year,
and I want to talk about a few of those here this morning.
Also with me today is Dr. Tony Kern. He is the Deputy
Director of the Forest Service's fire and aviation program and
he will be here to assist in answering any questions that you
may have.
You are very much aware of the kinds of fire seasons we
have had here, and those were very eloquently described in your
opening statement. So what I would like to do is move to some
of the things that we are doing in response to the findings in
the Blue Ribbon Panel.
First, the Forest Service and BLM have not renewed
contracts on nine C-130A and PB4-Y retired military air tankers
that were determined to pose an unacceptable risk to public and
firefighter safety. And then we are also requiring that the
remaining 33 air tankers go through an enhanced inspection
program prior to returning to firefighting duty.
Because of these safety concerns, we have also retired 11
of our 19 existing Beech Baron 58-P lead planes that have
exceeded the 6,000 hour safe life limit. Within the next couple
of weeks, we plan to replace up to 10 of these planes with
newer, more efficient and safer aircraft through long-term
leasing.
Secondly, the agencies have prepared mitigation and
contingency plans as a result of losing some of these aircraft.
We are planning on increasing the number of single-engine air
tankers for initial attack and reducing the number of large air
tankers that we use on large fire suppression activities. BLM
sponsored an intensive single-engine air tanker pilot training
academy which is a requirement for all pilots staffing these
aircraft.
Third, the Forest Service and BLM, through a contract with
the Sandia National Laboratories, are also continuing to
analyze the safety of all of our air tankers and their use in
aerial firefighting. The lab is analyzing the existing air
fleet in three phases, focusing first on the Lockheed P-3
Orion; second, the Douglas DC-4s, -6s, and -7s; and third, the
Lockheed P2-V Neptune. It is anticipated that P-3 aircraft will
be available in the near future. As a matter of fact, we have
two of those aircraft that have been certified at this point
and are available to us.
We are also working to increase the use of other aircraft
and reduce our reliance on retired military planes. For
example, we are contracting for more Type I heavy helicopters,
to use them in conjunction with the single-engine air tankers
for initial attack and extended attack. A combination of these
efforts will reduce our reliance on large air tankers.
Finally, one effort that the Forest Service recently
completed on behalf of all fire management agencies is an
aviation action plan for 2003. This plan identifies actions to
be taken to improve our fire management operations. It focuses
on the four critical areas that have been identified here:
safety, preparedness, security, and cost containment. It also
provides direction to assure safety, appropriate staffing,
management oversight, planning, and training for wildland
fires.
I know you are interested in the finding on mission muddle.
We have done a couple of things in response to that. One is
that we have written new policy for our national multi-agency
coordinating group there at NFSI. When we go to preparedness
level 4 and 5, our aerial assets now will be managed at the
national level. So we will not have the problem that we have
had in the past where we have had geographical areas that could
horde these assets or refuse to make them available in other
areas.
The other thing that we have done is we are in the process
of hiring a project manager. We have a list of candidates. It
is an outstanding list of candidates, and we have people from
outside the Federal agencies who have applied for this job. We
will shortly be making a selection for that position.
Given the scope of the report, it will take us some time to
implement all the findings, but I want to assure you we are
working on that very diligently.
While early indications are that this fire season could be
as challenging as last year's and the 2000 fire season, we are
still continuing to improve safety in our aviation program. We
hope that the steps described above will meet our needs here
this fire season.
This concludes our remarks and we would be happy to answer
any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hamilton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Larry Hamilton, National Director,
Office of Fire and Aviation, Bureau of Land Management
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we are pleased to be
with you this morning to discuss the United States Department of
Agriculture's Forest Service (FS) and Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) fire aviation program, and our efforts
to ensure the safety of our firefighters and our contractors and to
show what both agencies are doing to be adequately prepared for the
upcoming fire season. With me today is Dr. Tony Kern, Assistant
Director, Fire and Aviation Management, USDA Forest Service.
BACKGROUND
The interagency fire aviation program is a large and complex
program that has been operating aviation assets for natural resource
purposes since the 1920s. The FS and BLM own, lease, or contract for
nearly 1,000 aircraft each fire season, with annual expenditures in
excess of $250 million in recent years. Aviation missions include fire
retardant and suppressant delivery, reconnaissance, infrared imaging,
aerial photography, leadplane and air supervision operations, and
smokejumper delivery. The programs are managed with full interagency
cooperation by approximately 200 personnel at the national, regional,
state and local levels.
The fleet is extremely mobile during the fire season, and often
operates in a high risk, low altitude environment in and around the
wildland urban interface. Although they are primarily intended for
initial attack, aviation assets are often deployed on large fires. The
decision to deploy aircraft on a fire depends on many factors,
including safety considerations for firefighters, the likely
effectiveness of suppression from the air, the stage of fire
suppression, the condition and terrain of the land, and fire behavior.
The last several fire seasons, heightened by continued drought and the
build up of fuels on public lands, have resulted in more intense and
larger fires. These fires have placed increased demands on aviation
resources and the interagency aviation program. We face several
challenges in providing aerial firefighting capability during this fire
season and into the future.
Last year proved to be one of the worst fire seasons in the last
half century, one in which 73,000 fires burned approximately 7.2
million acres of land. The severity of the 2002 fire season was
magnified by several fatal aerial firefighting accidents, including the
crash of one C-130 aircraft, one PB4Y-2, and an Aerospatiale SA 315B
Lama helicopter. In total, six aircrew members were killed in these
incidents. In response to these tragedies, the FS and BLM jointly
established an independent panel called the ``Blue Ribbon Panel'' to
investigate issues associated with aerial wildland firefighting in the
United States. The report identifies eight key findings that are
determined to be essential for planning a safe and effective fire
aviation program. Mr. Chairman, we look forward to discussing the
Panel's findings, and ongoing efforts to ensure that both the FS's and
BLM's fire aviation program is adequately prepared to address wildfires
in the upcoming fire season and beyond.
THE BLUE RIBBON PANEL
The joint FS and BLM independent Blue Ribbon Panel was tasked with
identifying weaknesses and ``fail points'' in the current aviation
program, focusing on safety, operational effectiveness, costs,
sustainability, and strategic guidance. These four areas were addressed
as they relate to the various types of firefighting aircraft, including
the operation and supervision of airtankers, leadplanes and air
supervision modules, helicopters, and air attack platforms. With input
from the public via town hall meetings held across the country and
comments received from other interested parties, including Federal and
state governments, industry, and other interest groups, the Panel
developed eight key findings, which it believes are critical for
planning a safe and effective fire aviation program. These key
findings, more fully discussed in the chairman's testimony, are in the
following areas: aircraft safety records; aircraft operations; staff
training; aircraft certification; contracts; agency missions; culture,
organizational structure, and management; and changing fire
environments and new risks. The Panel did not advocate solutions or
make recommendations, although it identified several strategic
alternatives and organizational models.
EFFORTS TO IMPROVE THE FIRE AVIATION PROGRAM
The Report identified various concerns about aircraft safety,
including the airworthiness of aircraft that were operating outside of
their original intended design and the appropriate levels of
maintenance and training to ensure safe operations. The Report also
identified a lack of training in contemporary aviation management areas
that has contributed to an unacceptable accident rate. The FS and BLM
have already taken several steps to address these issues.
First, the FS and BLM have not renewed contracts on nine C-130A and
PB4-Y retired military airtankers that were determined to pose an
unacceptable risk to public and firefighter safety. We are also
requiring the remaining 33 airtankers to undergo an enhanced inspection
program prior to returning to firefighting duty.
Because of serious safety concerns, we have retired 11 of our 19
existing Beech Baron 58-P leadplanes that exceeded the 6,000 hour safe
life limit. Leadplanes are utilized to direct airtanker tactics and
provide aerial supervision. Within the next couple of weeks, we plan on
releasing a Request for Proposal to replace up to 10 of these planes
with newer, more efficient, and safer aircraft through a long-term
lease. Further risk mitigation steps include reducing the retardant
load on the airtankers and reducing exposure through direction to the
field to use the airtankers primarily for initial attack.
Second, the Agencies have prepared contingency plans to mitigate
the loss resulting from suspension of certain airtankers. To address
these shortages, the FS and BLM are planning to increase use of Single
Engine Airtankers (SEATs) for initial attack and reduce use of
airtankers for large fire support. The SEATs will be pre-positioned as
needed to improve initial attack coverage. Airtankers that are
available for duty will principally be used for initial attack, as
originally intended, instead of their increasing use as support for
large fires. Recently, the BLM sponsored an intensive SEAT pilot
training academy, which is a requirement for all pilots staffing these
aircraft.
Third, the FS and BLM, through a contract with the Sandia National
Laboratories, are also continuing to analyze the safety of all types of
airtankers for their use in aerial firefighting. The Lab is analyzing
the existing airfleet in three phases, focusing on: a) the Lockheed P-3
Orion, b) the Douglas Series (DC-4, DC-6 and DC-7), and c) the Lockheed
P-2V Neptune.
a) Lockheed P-3 Orion: The Sandia Labs has forwarded its
analysis of the Lockheed P-3 Orion airtankers to the FS, BLM,
and the FAA. The FAA has evaluated the report and mission
inspections are underway. It is anticipated that P-3 aircraft
will be available in the near future;
b) Douglas Series: Analysis of the Douglas line of aircraft
is underway. Because the Douglas aircraft are generally used
for commercial purposes, they have a better-documented
maintenance history than retired military aircraft. These
aircraft are not available for firefighting use until the
analysis and required inspections are completed; and
c) Lockheed P2-V Neptune: The final phase will be the
analysis of the Lockheed P2-V Neptune. This analysis is not
complete, but we look forward to receiving it. These aircraft
are not available for firefighting use until the analysis is
completed.
We are also working to increase the use of other types of aircraft
to reduce our reliance on retired military planes. For example, the FS
and BLM are contracting for additional Type I heavy helicopters for
their use in conjunction with SEATs for initial attack and extended
attack fires. We are also encouraging the private-sector large-
airtanker industry to propose different airframes for consideration as
next-generation airtankers. These aircraft can carry anywhere from
2,000 to over 11,000 gallons of retardant. Some of these aircraft could
be available as early as 2004. Also, SEAT manufacturers are gearing up
to provide additional aircraft by the 2004 contract year and future
years.
The combination of these efforts will reduce our short-term
reliance on large airtankers and provide a solution until those large
airtankers that are qualified can be returned to service. It is our
intention to closely coordinate with the Sandia National Laboratories
and solicit the assistance and cooperation of the FAA in determining
which airtankers can safely be returned to service. We are equally
committed to partnerships with the private sector in developing newer
technologies and reducing our dependence on aging, retired military
aircraft.
The Forest Service recently completed on behalf of all fire
management agencies an Aviation Action Plan for 2003. The Plan
identifies specific actions to be taken to improve fire management
operations. It focuses on four critical areas--safety, preparedness,
security, and cost containment--and provides direction to assure
safety, appropriate staffing, management oversight, planning, and
training for wildland fires.
Given the scope of the Blue Ribbon Panel's Report, it will take
some time to fully address the other identified issues. We will
continue to strive to improve program efficiency and cost effectiveness
in all areas of the wildland fire program, including the fire aviation
program, as directed by the President's proposed FY 2004 budget. In
particular, we will continue to develop and begin using the new
interagency fire planning system to optimize cost effectiveness for
fire readiness resources. Throughout this work, our primary emphasis
has been and will continue to be the safety of the public as well as
our firefighters and contractors. Accordingly, our efforts will ensure
a coordinated approach to developing a safe and effective aerial
firefighting program in which all firefighting agencies are in
lockstep.
CONCLUSION
While early indications are that this fire season could be as
challenging as last year's, the FS and BLM are continuing to improve
the safety and effectiveness of its fire aviation program. Fire
aviation continues to play an integral role in combating wildland
fires. We feel that the steps described above have adequately prepared
both the FS and BLM to address this year's fires. This concludes our
remarks. We'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Senator Craig. Well, Larry, thank you very much.
Tony, do you have any additional comment?
Dr. Kern. No, sir. I am basically here to answer some
questions.
Senator Craig. Thank you very much.
We have been joined by Senator Murkowski. She has an
opening statement. Senator, if you do not mind, could we
complete this testimony and then we will come to you for your
opening statement? And then we will go to questions of all who
are here. Okay?
Senator Murkowski. Fine.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much.
Let me now then turn to William Broadwell, executive
director of the Aerial Firefighting Industry Association. Are
you gentlemen in tandem this morning?
Mr. Broadwell. No.
Senator Craig. Separate testimony. All right.
Mr. Broadwell. Separate testimony.
Senator Craig. All right. Bill, we will start with you.
Please proceed.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM R. BROADWELL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AERIAL
FIREFIGHTERS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Broadwell. Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to participate in
this hearing.
My remarks will be very brief. You have my statement for
the record and it provides the association views on the Blue
Ribbon Panel report in much more detail, as well as what we are
doing for this fire season.
Just by way of introduction, the Aerial Firefighters
Industry Association consists of nine large fixed-wing air
tanker companies, two heavy lift helicopter companies, two
single-engine air tanker companies, and seven sustaining
members. We provide aerial firefighting services throughout the
United States, and several of the companies are working in the
international scene.
We are largely a large fixed-wing air tanker-focused
association. Our nine companies represent all but one company
that contracts for large fixed-wing air tanker contracts with
the Forest Service. We, by no means, represent though the large
number of helicopters and single-engine air tanker companies
that are available to the Forest Service.
First, let me say that the association members believe the
Blue Ribbon Panel accomplished a great deal on accurately
identifying shortfalls in the Nation's aerial firefighting
program. They had a lot of data to review. They had a short
time to do it. They had a lot to filter, and we think that they
got it right for the most part. We believe, as a result of the
actions that should be taken as a result of their findings,
that the large air tanker industry will be transformed to a
much safer, more effective aerial firefighting fleet,
providing--and I want to emphasize ``providing''--the program
is properly funded.
Now, just a few words on where we are in preparation for
the upcoming season. You were briefed on the fact that we were
working with the Sandia lab to review the inspection
procedures. I want to tell you, though, that the air tanker
companies have been proactive in that area and had started that
process way back in the late summer or early fall and during
this winter maintenance period, have broken the aircraft down
as far as they could to be able to examine all the critical
members in their aircraft and to conduct sensitive tests on
those. A lot of those procedures have been validated by the
Sandia Labs. Some of them need upgrading and they have made
those recommendations and we will do it.
We do not look at that process, though, as the end of the
process. We look at there being a follow-on program which a
couple of our companies are already investigating, and that is
to develop a model air worthiness program that will be
applicable to all future air tankers, either resale or built
for the mission. That type of process will include full
examination of the environment in which we fly, damage
tolerance tests to be able to identify the critical areas
within the aircraft that need to be monitored. And that will be
followed by installing a structural monitoring system which
will constantly monitor the actions of the aircraft, stresses
and strains it undergoes, so that you can validate your
inspection program and you can also identify where overstress
has occurred. You can pull it off the line, do your proper
inspections, and put it back on the line again.
While it is too early to tell exactly the full cost of such
a program, we have been told that you could do the
instrumentation and do the analysis for about $100,000 per
aircraft, and then for another $5,000 to $10,000 per year per
aircraft, to manage the structural monitoring program.
So, where do we go from here? While we recognize that the
older aircraft requires higher maintenance costs, we still
maintain the most cost effective immediate, medium-term
solution to the modernization process remains the sale and
conversion of excess military aircraft under the Wildfire
Suppression Aircraft Transfer Act of 1996. I am not saying we
propose we get these aircraft and we operate them forever.
First of all, we have to have this model air-worthiness program
by which they would be operated by. But we say purchase them
for a set period of time, given that when you purchase them
like 10 to 12 years, maybe 15 years depending on how the
program goes, and then park them, and then get on with it. But
it will give us time to be able to transition to aircraft that
are better built for this mission. It is going to take time.
However, right now we do not see anything that is
immediately on the horizon that is cost effective for this
area, and that is why I am proposing that we continue on with
this excess military aircraft. After all, the United States is
one of the few countries in this world that has excess aircraft
paid for by the taxpayers already, and they could get a
continuing return from these aircraft.
Now, the Blue Ribbon Panel proposed several within-funding-
constraints solutions that should be investigated by the Forest
Service. We question whether these options are feasible within
current funding constraints and their cost effectiveness, and
we recommend that before any serious consideration be given to
any of these options that a complete cost analysis and an
apples-to-apples comparison be conducted with existing
commercial programs.
So what do we need to continue on in the future besides
this model air worthiness program which we are already working
on? We need a strategic plan from the Federal agencies that
specifies the aerial firefighting resources required to support
the agency's wildland firefighting mission. The operators need
this plan in writing so that they know what to buy for. They
are not going to put millions of dollars into a program if they
do not know what needs to be.
We also need adequately funded contracts that include
incentives for high standards of maintenance, training, and
safety, that rewards research, development, and innovation, and
sets aside some money for future modernization.
Given the plan and the proper funding, we believe the
commercial large fixed-wing air tanker industry is fully
capable of providing safe and effective operations into the
future.
Thank you. I am available for any questions, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Broadwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of William R. Broadwell, Executive Director,
Aerial Firefighting Industry Association
The Aerial Firefighting Industry Association (AFIA) is a nonprofit
trade association organized for the purpose of advancing the
effectiveness and long-term stability of the commercial aerial
firefighting industry through high maintenance standards and aircraft
availability, and proactive safety and training programs. Current AFIA
membership consists of nine large, fixed-wing airtanker companies, two
heavy lift helitanker companies, two single engine airtanker (SEATS)
companies, and seven sustaining members. The airtanker/helitanker
companies provide aerial firefighting support to all regions of the
United States during the regions' peak fire season through federal and
state contracts. AFIA is currently a large airtanker focused
association in that the nine large, fixed-wing airtanker companies
represent all but one large, fixed-wing airtanker company that
contracts through the Forest Service for aerial firefighting services.
We believe the Blue Ribbon Panel accomplished a great deal in
accurately identifying shortfalls in the nation's aerial firefighting
program in a relatively short fact finding and analysis time frame.
They had a significant amount of data to review and filter, and in our
opinion, they got it right for the most part. However, several of their
observations warrant comment before discussing actions the large,
fixed-wing airtanker companies are taking to ensure safe and effective
operations in the future.
Current operators are not without engineering support for their
airtankers. P-3 and P-2 operators are able to obtain product support
from Lockheed. The operators of Douglas made aircraft have received
product support from the Douglas (now Boeing) engineers over the years
and that service continues. For airtankers where OEM product support
has not been available, the companies have contracted with FAA
certified structural engineers for their engineering work. With this
support, and implementation of a more rigorous inspection/repair
program supported by structural monitoring systems, the large airtanker
fleet will continue to provide valuable aerial firefighting services in
the future.
The statement that contractors do not have a financial incentive
and are ``not required to ensure their aircraft are safe to fly''
ignores the moral responsibility our operators exercise to ensure the
safety of their aircrews, and the financial losses they experience from
losing an aircraft. They do not purposely send their crews out in
unsafe aircraft. What the Blue Ribbon Panel uncovered, however, was
that existing inspection and repair programs were not adequate for the
environment in which the airtankers were being flown. The operators, in
conjunction with the Sandia Laboratories, Airworthiness Division, have
addressed that shortfall in the short term, and will continue to work
on a long-term program applicable to all future airtankers, both new
production and converted resale aircraft.
Many of the training shortfalls mentioned in the report have been
the subject of discussion in the biennial aerial firefighting workshops
held in the past, which have proven to be a valuable exchange of
information between pilots and the agencies. The National Aerial
Firefighting Academy has been a great innovation and contributor toward
coordinated training. Crew resource management has been in the
curriculum from time to time, but not consistently. The Association has
been a big supporter of the Academy (all but the new hire pilots have
attended at least once) and has recommended the addition of a flight
phase since its inception. The panel has correctly identified the lack
of incentives or accountability in the contracts process for
maintaining well-managed training programs. We would welcome the
opportunity to work with the Forest Service in establishing basic pilot
training and proficiency requirements and a management system for
ensuring accountability in the program.
As recommended in the most current published strategic guidance
promulgated in the National Study of Large Airtankers to Support
Initial Attack and Large Fire Suppression, 1995/1996, the Association
members believe the most cost effective modernization option for large,
fixed-wing airtanker companies remains the sale and conversion of
excess military aircraft under the Wildfire Suppression Aircraft
Transfer Act of 1996 (PL 104-307), and we recommend continued pursuit
of this goal as an immediate, but medium term (10-12 years), solution
to the modernization process. Ultimately the companies would like to
procure aircraft built specifically for the mission. We do not agree
that acquiring and converting newer, excess military aircraft would
only perpetuate a cycle that has proven to be unsustainable and
dangerous, given that a more rigorous inspection/repair program is now
being implemented. The cycle cited by the Panel occurred without
adequate means to measure the wear on aircraft engaged in aerial
firefighting. New procedures will ensure that critical areas of the
aircraft will be continuously monitored and evaluated with structural
monitoring systems and their inspection/repair programs adjusted
accordingly. The United States is one of the few countries in the world
that has an excess of aircraft sitting in preservation. These aircraft
are capable of being operated safely as airtankers given they are
maintained under rigorous inspection/repair programs developed from
comprehensive damage tolerance assessments.
The Blue Ribbon Panel identified four ``within funding
constraints'' options that could be explored to ensure safe, effective
aerial fighting operations. We question whether these options are cost
effective and strongly recommend they be thoroughly analyzed and
compared on an ``apples-to-apples'' basis with existing and future
planned commercial aerial firefighting programs. Several of these
options have been proposed in the past with apparent little regard for
the ultimate taxpayer cost, but more for the emotional impact of the
moment.
The large, fixed-wing airtanker companies have been proactive in
pursuing more rigorous inspection/repair programs, having initiated
their program review and modification before release of the Blue Ribbon
Panel Report. As follow-on to the one-time structural inspections
conducted last summer, the companies began evaluating their current FAA
approved airtanker inspection programs with the assistance of
independent non-destructive inspection (NDI) laboratories, structural
engineering firms and the FAA. The ultimate goal was to ensure all
critical structural areas were inspected at intervals necessary to
ensure safety of flight. During the winter maintenance period, the
aircraft were disassembled to provide access to all the structural
members and sensitive NDI methods, e.g. x-ray, eddy current and dye
penetrant, were used to inspect the aircraft structural integrity.
Repairs were made where required. Following release of the Blue Ribbon
Panel Report, the Forest Service contracted with the Sandia
Laboratories, Airworthiness Assurance, to assess each company's
inspection/repair program to validate and/or modify as necessary to
ensure the most effective inspection procedures possible were being
accomplished. We anticipate this process will be completed by April
15th, and all airtankers that meet the new standards will be on
contract for the 2003 wildfire season.
The Sandia review of the large, fixed-wing airtanker companies is
just the first phase in developing a total inspection/repair program
that will serve as the model for all airtankers in the future. Several
of our companies have already started initiating this process on their
own. The next steps will include an evaluation of the operating
environment to establish a load spectrum in order to understand the
loads imposed and the effects of those loads on firefighting aircraft.
From that analysis a damage tolerance assessment (DTA) will be
developed that will identify critical stress areas and critical stress
crack lengths and growth rates. Based upon the DTA, an inspection
program will be designed that thoroughly addresses structural elements
of the aircraft. This will ensure the aircraft are inspected properly
for the operational environment in which they are being operated.
Coupled with these programs will be a ``Structural Health-Monitoring
Program'', whereby the aircraft will be properly instrumented to ensure
events of harsh or unusual usage are quickly identified. The structural
health-monitoring program will allow a company to identify when an
overstress event has occurred, remove the aircraft from service, and
take appropriate inspection/maintenance action. The program will also
be invaluable in the continual monitoring of existing inspection
programs and adjusting inspection intervals as appropriate. While exact
costs for the ``model'' airworthiness program are not available since
the program development is still in its beginning stages, rough
estimates for instrumenting an airtanker and conducting a damage
tolerance assessment are $100K per aircraft, with the cost of managing
the structural health-monitoring program at $5-10K per aircraft per
year.
Key to the successful implementation of the ``model'' airtanker
airworthiness program will be adequate contract funding. As the Blue
Ribbon Panel correctly identified, the short-term pursuit of cost
efficiency by federal agencies responsible for wildland aerial
firefighting has been reflected in contracts that do not reward value,
performance and safety. The large, fixed-wing airtanker program has in
fact been under funded for years, which has led to the present concern
over its sustainability without a major upgrade of its airworthiness
program. Some estimates place the under funding at 50-100% of current
contract funding levels. Implementation of the enhanced inspection/
repair programs, transition to an all turbine-powered fleet, and
allowances for future modernization will further increase funding
requirements. In fact, at a briefing with Forest Service aviation
personnel several weeks ago an aerial firefighting resource plan for
CY-2008 was outlined that was estimated to cost 300% more than is
currently budgeted. The exact costs will remain undetermined until the
Forest Service publishes an official aerial firefighting requirements
document. The bottom line, however, is that even with the increased
budget required to properly support a first class large, fixed wing
airtanker program, we believe that commercial aviation is still the
most cost effective resource to provide aerial firefighting support.
The National Study of Large Airtankers to Support Initial Attack and
Large Fire Suppression determined the benefit-cost ratio of the 1995
large, fixed wing airtanker fleet was 8.7:1. The study estimated the
benefit-cost ratio of a fleet of 41 turbine-powered airtankers (20 P-
3A, 10 C-130B, and 11 C-130E aircraft) with 3000-5000 gallon retardant
capacity to be 6.38:1. The large, fixed-wing airtanker companies have
in fact supplied effective aerial firefighting support to Federal and
State agencies for over 40 years. They employ highly trained crews
whose primary job is to fight wildland fires. They have the best
delivery equipment available that is certified in accordance with
strict Federal standards of performance (IAB performance
specifications), and they are responsive and always available.
We look forward to participating in the team effort to ``raise the
standards of aerial firefighting in the United States''. We just need
the long-range strategic aerial firefighting resource plan and the
funding required to maintain, train and operate safely and effectively.
Senator Craig. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Broadwell. We
appreciate that testimony. We will be back to you with
questions in a few moments.
Now let me turn to my colleague from Wyoming for the
introduction of one of his constituents.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are very
pleased this morning to have Duane Powers. He is president of
Hawkins & Powers which is a pioneer in the aerial firefighting
techniques. They have been in business, I think, for over 40
years. And I think they are the second largest aerial
firefighting company in the Nation. They have been very
involved here and very involved in the safety aspects and so
on. So, thank you very much for being here, and we appreciate
hearing your experience and your suggestions.
STATEMENT OF DUANE A. POWERS, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, HAWKINS &
POWERS AVIATION, INC., GREYBULL, WY
Mr. Powers. Thank you, Senator Thomas.
Mr. Chairman, members of this special subcommittee, I am
Duane Powers. I am a mechanical engineer and have served 20
years as a naval aviator. I am an aerial firefighting pilot.
That describes my occupation in a few words. I deliver air
drops of fire retardant to slow down the spread or extinguish
forest and wildland fires.
I am proud to say that our employees have had a hand in
saving national parks, Federal forests, grasslands, the Los
Alamos National Laboratory, and even towns and communities.
Whether it is a motel, a rail car, a burning pile of massive
scrap tires, we put them out.
More formally, I am a co-owner of Hawkins & Powers
Aviation, a renowned firefighting operation based in Greybull,
Wyoming.
My father and his partner began flying and combatting
forest fires more than 40 years ago. They are pioneers in the
business and to this day their sons, my son, my daughter
continue this proud tradition as a third generation family
business.
We operate a variety of aircraft, including helicopters and
a number of aircraft for fire suppression. These are air
tankers you have heard so much about. Like other contractors,
many of our aircraft are retired military aircraft, C-130As,
PB4-Y2 Privateers, P2-V Neptunes. These aircraft have served
this Government well, but we do not want to fly them long term.
We are flying these aircraft because that is what the Federal
agencies could afford.
Hawkins & Powers has spent millions of dollars and worked
year after year to try to modernize its fleet to no avail. As
discussed by the Blue Ribbon Panel, our industry is caught in a
low-cost paradigm.
I would be remiss if I did not point out that two of our
aircraft, the C-130A and the PB4-Y2 Privateer, were involved in
fatal air tanker crashes during the 2002 fire season. We lost
wonderful friends, crew members, dedicated employees. Our
business reputation, our stability, our morale were greatly
affected.
As a result we have taken a close and agonizing look at how
we have maintained our aircraft, trained our crews, and
operated our business. As a family-owned company responsible
for more than 150 employees, we have always prided ourselves on
being morally upright and totally cognizant of our employees'
safety.
I can say that we have been rewarded in our introspection.
The FAA has thoroughly examined our aircraft and our staff and
gives us exceptional marks. We have reflected with our
employees on improving the already tight aircraft maintenance
system and have developed new tougher procedures and internal
inspections, as Mr. Broadwell has pointed out.
Over the past 30 years, we have been among the preferred
aerial firefighting contractors for Federal and State agencies.
Some of our contracts such as those for the State of Alaska and
national park continue to this day.
Our relationships with the Federal firefighting agencies
have ebbed and flowed over time, with changes in policy,
politics, Federal management strategy. At times it is difficult
to know whether the agencies regard us as friends, partners, or
simply the lowest-cost vendor.
I am here today to speak directly to the findings of the
Blue Ribbon Panel and how Hawkins & Powers has reacted to that
report and its recommendations. We believe the panel did an
excellent job of identifying the issues, problems, and
challenges of managing aerial firefighting. We agree with many
of the eight findings and trust that the decision will form a
framework of new proactive, progressive philosophy about using
aerial firefighting resources.
Key to those relationships with the contracting agencies,
we believe a new dialogue must be created between Federal
agencies and the contractors, contractors which have performed
key firefighting assistance over the years, and this dialogue
must be grounded in partnership and cooperation.
Hawkins & Powers believes and agrees with the Blue Ribbon
Panel that traditionally Federal agencies' contracts had a
narrow cost focus. Thus, contractors are focused on how safely
to get the best aircraft and the best crews put to work with
limited financial support.
Over the years, more than 100 million acres of valuable
forest lands have been preserved and saved as a result of air
tactics. This industry and Hawkins & Powers have served the
Federal Government and our country well. The taxpayers benefit
greatly from having private industry participate in the
Government's firefighting efforts. Hawkins & Powers looks
forward to an overall greater understanding of the service
provided by large air tankers and improved utilization and
support for that service.
We agree heartily that there needs to be a new approach
towards providing modernized, well-suited aircraft for this
type of firefighting. Even though it was not recommended by the
Blue Ribbon Panel, most of Hawkins & Powers' fleet is now
grounded. The Forest Service and the BLM stop orders, issued
after the Blue Ribbon Panel report--we are dismayed by this but
continue and are committed to finding a solution.
Time is of the essence, especially for the 2003 fire season
that forecasts to equal the losses of last year. Planning for
this year should provide effective, qualified air tankers and
get them back into the air.
The plan to use primarily small, single-engine planes,
helicopters is clearly flawed and questioned by responsible
wildland fire veterans. It is simply wrong to stop utilizing
effective firefighting aircraft that are currently available.
Aircraft such as the Privateer that have in recent months been
completely inspected, reengineered, and repaired should be
utilized this summer and throughout the short-term transition
to newer equipment. Like our industry association, I submit
that later model aircraft owned and operated by private
industry should be considered.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the Blue Ribbon
Panel has clearly raised expectations about our Nation's
wildland firefighting policy and how it should be implemented.
This administration has conceived the Healthy Forests
Initiative to focus attention on preservation of these
resources. As an air tanker pilot and contractor, I have been
able to see the damage that wildfire can do and I have been
proud to have saved valuable forests and public lands. I would
just be proud to be part of the new solution.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts with the
committee. I would be pleased to respond.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Duane A. Powers, Director of Operations,
Hawkins & Powers Aviation, Inc., Greybull, WY
Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for the
opportunity to appear as a witness in front of this Subcommittee and
share Hawkins & Powers Aviation's perspective on the issues uncovered
as a result of the Blue Ribbon Panel Report on Aerial Firefighting and
the agencies response to that report.
I am Duane Powers, a co-owner and Director of Fixed Wing Operations
at Hawkins & Powers Aviation, Inc., which is a private contractor that
provides large airtanker and helicopter aerial firefighting services to
federal and state agencies. My background in aviation includes a degree
in mechanical engineering, serving in the Navy for 20 years on active
duty and the reserves as a Naval Aviator and 3,000 hours experience
flying aerial firefighting aircraft for Hawkins & Powers Aviation, Inc.
Hawkins & Powers Aviation, Inc. (H&P) is one of the most
experienced firefighting companies in the United States and has been
operating since 1969. In 2002, the federal government contracted with
H&P to provide ten of the forty-four large airtankers for use as aerial
firefighters. H&P is extremely innovative and serves the federal
government well in consistently striving to improve aerial firefighting
resources.
After the tragedies of last year, H&P participated in a public
hearing held by the Blue Ribbon Panel and provided information to
assist the Panel in its purpose. Overall, it is Hawkins and Powers
belief that the Blue Ribbon Panel did an excellent job of discerning
the problems that plague our industry and its relationship with the
firefighting agencies.
While I believe that all eight of the Blue Ribbon Panel's findings
should be considered, due to the commendable proactive approach by
airtanker companies in pursuing aggressive inspection and repair
improvements, many but not all of the conclusions should be implemented
into future aerial firefighting programs. I would like to take the
opportunity to discuss those findings that most directly pertain to
contractors; particularly safety, contract, aircraft, certification and
training. Initially, it is important to restate that in response to the
Blue Ribbon Panel the airtanker contractors have taken a proactive
approach in pursuing aggressive inspection and repair improvements.
SAFETY
H&P is a small family company that employs approximately 150 people
and operates out of Greybull, Wyoming. Due to the size of our operation
and our love for what we do, Hawkins and Powers' management also serves
as pilots during the fire season.
The founders, Dan Hawkins and Gene Powers continue to fly, as do
myself, Dan's son Bob Hawkins and my son, Ryan Powers. This industry is
a family and we would never sacrifice safety to the detriment of our
crews and company.
Safety is what drives our decisions and our continuing effort to
progress and modernize. As the Blue Ribbon Panel identified, safety has
a price and the ``Funding for the aerial firefighting program appears
to be either inadequate or ineffectively distributed.'' (page 5). H&P
agrees with the Panel's statement that the ``remaining ex-military
large airtanker fleet is probably at risk of being withdrawn from
future operation, unless a major investment is made in testing,
inspection, and maintenance to ensure airworthiness.'' (page 5).
However, any aircraft that is put into service for the purpose of
aerial firefighting must receive this level of support, including newer
versions of ex-military aircraft and newly manufactured multi-role
aircraft. The industry as a whole needs support from the federal
government in the costs of testing, inspection and maintenance of the
existing fleet until the long-term solution is put in place. H&P has
developed extensive Level 1, 2 and 3 non-destructive inspection (NDI)
programs and utilizes an FAA certified class 4 repair station for
inspection and maintenance of its aircraft. In house Level 2 NDI
certified technicians are in place and receive periodic recurrent
training.
The BRP stated that ``nothing in the current airtanker contract
provides incentives for contractors to operate safely.'' (page vi).
Beyond any lack of a positive re-enforcement incentive built into the
contract, H&P and other contractors do have a moral responsibility to
ensure that their aircraft are safe to fly. Contractors also have a
financial incentive through safe operations to protect against lawsuits
and maintain strong relationships with insurance companies. We must
concur that the cost of safety has a price, and we as an industry have
never been reluctant to make those investments.
Naturally, the result is that the customer must be expected to
share in an increased cost. It is important to point out that the
aircraft improvements and work done since last year were not
anticipated in current contracts. Given the findings of the panel, it
would seem logical that the firefighting agencies will benefit from the
improved aircraft and should reward this further investment in safety.
Is this a legal obligation? Perhaps not. We would submit it is
certainly a moral obligation, for the preservation of our crew members'
lives, and the federal lands and forests.
CONTRACTS
H&P agrees with the BRP that traditionally the federal agencies'
contracts had a narrow cost focus that did not reward value,
performance and safety. Contractors were focused on how to safely get
the best aircraft and crews put to work with limited financial support.
As a result, contractors, like H&P, could not transition to newer
aircraft and needed modernization. Rather, contractors were directed by
the government, through the contracts, to do the best with what they
had.
This industry and H&P have served the federal government and our
country very well. The taxpayers benefit greatly from having private
industry participate in the government's firefighting efforts. H&P
believes that the relationship between private contractors and their
customer, firefighting agencies, is at a turning point. We must advance
together to protect the value of our national parks and federal lands.
We look forward to an overall greater understanding of the service
provided by large airtankers and improved utilization and support for
that service.
As Mr. Broadwell explained, the contractors have been extremely
proactive in looking at their aircraft and how they can be improved, as
well as their maintenance and inspection programs. H&P has completely
dismantled, conducted NDI, re-engineered and improved its PB4Y-2 and P-
2 airtankers. This re-engineering and improvements were made without
the assurance that any of those substantial repair costs will be
reimbursed by the firefighting agencies. Consequently, we are
apparently being asked to provide services this summer under the prior
level of funding for repair costs.
Contract modifications must be written that financially support the
services requested. It is imperative that the agencies continue to
evaluate the Blue Ribbon Panel's findings and proceed to effectively
respond. There is an absolute, definite need for a better exchange of
information to overcome the disconnect found by the Blue Ribbon Panel.
Better exchanges of information should also be perpetuated between
federal program management and contracting offices, in particular as it
relates to the contracts attempt to carry out management objectives
while inadvertently creating disincentives for modernization, safety,
industry sustainment and a broader competitive base. An increase in
communication, both internally and with industry, will improve aerial
firefighting in the short and long term.
H&P looks forward to the agencies remedy to the BRP's finding that
``The agency cannot require its aircraft contractors to ensure a high-
level of safety and quality maintenance, yet provide the associated
oversight, while also striving to obtain the lowest-price services
possible.'' (page 30). As this system continues to move forward,
firefighting agencies should refocus on ways to determine what is
needed to accomplish the overall objectives of an aerial firefighting
program, and analyze critical areas that currently may not be
supported.
AIRCRAFT
In regards to Aircraft, the Panel stated that ``Private Operators,
for the most part, have done an admirable job of keeping these aging
aircraft flying.'' (page iii). H&P found that, although not true in all
aircraft models, the Blue Ribbon Panel was correct regarding the
C130As, when it stated that contractors ``are handicapped by receiving
little, if any, support from former military operators and the
aircraft's original manufacturer.'' (page iii). The firefighting
agencies must be able to adequately pay for appropriate levels of
support necessary to field and sustain safe equipment. H&P and the
industry are moving ahead and making repairs on the current large air
tanker fleet. The federal government must move forward as well and
directly provide the funding and support for the existing aircraft over
the next 3 to 5 years and the future modernization of the aerial
firefighting fleet.
Unfortunately, an immediate shortage of firefighting capability is
created due to a lack of communication and commitment with industry
regarding funding repairs. Additionally, the necessary transition is
threatened by ignoring the fact that aircraft, such as DC-4's, are
being inspected and returned to service, while similar aircraft like
the PB4Y-2's have been fully inspected, repaired and approved by the
FAA yet remain grounded.
It is in this nation's best interest that firefighting agencies be
able to make decisions with a reasoned and objective approach, rather
than having to deal with political issues or the glare of media
scrutiny.
When the Panel made its findings, those findings applied to the
entire fleet, not specific aircraft, with one exception. It did
question the viability of the Beechcraft Baron lead planes. The C130As
and the PB4Y-2s were not mentioned, yet they have been among the
grounded aircraft. Nonetheless, we have gone ahead and completed
engineering modifications on our PB4Y-2s, and those modifications have
been completed and approved by the FAA.
I particularly want to address the status of the PB4Y-2 Privateers,
often a workhorse of aerial fire attack. As you may know, the Forest
Service has directed us not to fly those aircraft, and has refused to
contract them for this fire season. We know these aircraft are well-
suited for fire attack, and have significant fire-stopping
capabilities. We submit that it is not crucial which aircraft you are
using if you go to the extent of ensuring the airworthiness, as we
have, then those aircraft should be and can be used in the short-term
until another resolution to the overall issue is found.
It is simply wrong to stop fighting fire with proven large fixed
wing aircraft such as the PB4Y-2 for two to three years until new
equipment is ready. We all know that it will take a long time to
develop the right type of aircraft and make the fleet available and
affordable for private contractors.
It is a mistake to believe that helicopter water drops, or small
splashes by single-engine crop-dusters, will have the same
effectiveness as a full-scale large airtanker drop. While the federal
agencies' have been actively working to justify the currently reduced
contracted resources as adequate, responsible wildland fire managers
know this is not true, and they fear for results generated by this
policy. The general public knows as well, and persons who choose to
live in the urban-wildland fire interface zone cannot be comfortable
with this decision.
Although we are not discussing the long-term solution today, I
would echo Mr. Broadwell's comments that industry obtaining and
outfitting newer military aircraft, such as a later model C-130, should
be considered and would not perpetuate a cycle that has proven to be
unsustainable and dangerous for the following reasons: newer model C-
130 aircraft, such as the E and H models, are currently supported by
the military and the manufacturer. Additionally, newer military
aircraft have been structurally improved and reinforced aiding in
durability and performance.
Further, federal firefighting agencies have recently identified the
need for newly manufactured, zero-fatigued aerial firefighting aircraft
that have been designed to perform a multi-role mission, such as
retardant and smokejumping delivery with real time infrared imagery.
H&P and Basler Turbo Conversions have worked closely over the past
three years to design, manufacture and certify in standard category the
Fire Guardian, a multi-role aerial firefighting aircraft that fully
meets the mission profiles of retardant delivery, smokejumpers and real
time infrared coverage. This versatile new aerial firefighting platform
will be available for in the field evaluation this summer and have the
benefit of a damage tolerance analysis and structural health monitoring
program.
CERTIFICATION
In its findings regarding certification, the BRP identified a gap
between the FAA requirements on operators, the agencies' contractual
requirements and what could occur if the contractors had sufficient
financial resources and engineering expertise. H&P has always placed an
emphasis on outside engineering, specialized NDI and implemented safety
precautions despite its out of pocket expense. During the past six
months, the FAA aircraft certification offices have strengthened their
oversight and support for aerial firefighting aircraft certification.
This support from the FAA addresses the need for enabling new aerial
firefighting aircraft development.
I cannot stress enough that time is of the essence, especially for
the 2003 summer firefighting season. Additionally, the inability of the
federal firefighting agencies to deal with the planning for this season
appears to be shortsighted and punitive toward airtanker operators.
TRAINING
Hawkins and Powers agrees with the Blue Ribbon Panel that
``training is under funded.'' (page 34). Hawkins and Powers maintains
one of the most comprehensive training programs in the industry. During
a recent inspection conducted by a team of Federal Aviation officials,
it found that ``The skill and knowledge tests required for pilots are
backed by a comprehensive flight crew training program, which is not
required by Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR). Further the officials
were impressed that the training program covers everything from how to
drop a load on a fire to aircraft performance and that a Crew Resource
Management (CRM) program was also in place. To H&P's credit, training
records, also not required, exceeded even FAR Part 135 requirements,
and that average experience in terms of flight hours is impressive and
many pilots have been with H&P for years. Overall, the FAA was
impressed with crew training and qualifications.''
The level of training that Hawkins and Powers Aviation conducts is
not fully supported by the contracts and is subsidized through other
sources of revenue within the company due to the importance and the
commitment by management.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, we must agree with the critical finding of the Blue
Ribbon Panel, ``Possibly the single largest challenge now facing
leaders of these federal agencies is to foster cooperation and
collaboration among working-level staffs, contractors, and states to
raise the standards of aerial wildland firefighting in the United
States.''
H&P has risen to the challenge of protecting American communities
and resources by air, and is prepared to rise to the challenge of
cooperation and collaboration as well. We look forward to working with
the agencies with the shared goal of creating the best aerial
firefighting program in the world.
Senator Craig. Duane, thank you very much for that
testimony.
We have been joined by the ranking member of the
subcommittee, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. Ron, we will turn to
you in just a moment for any opening comment. Senator Murkowski
has not made hers, and I suggested we finished the panel first.
We have just completed their testimony.
So let me turn to Senator Murkowski. First we will turn to
you and then we will start the questions. Thank you. Senator,
please proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
members of the committee.
It is important to be discussing how we can not only
improve the safety, the track record of those involved with
aerial firefighting, but in Alaska we are particularly
concerned already this year. It is just March. We have already
had some wildfires. We have not had the winter that the East
Coast has enjoyed back here. We have a very low snowpack this
year. It is very, very dry already. We have had some winds, and
as you know, we have forest fires that consume millions of
acres in my State.
We have been afflicted with an infestation of insects, the
spruce bark beetle, that are killing our trees, our forests, at
a huge rate and laying fuel on the forest floor that just adds
to that problem.
So I have a very keen interest in ensuring that when these
fires happen, as we know that they will, that we have the
capability to respond.
We have had, I think, a pretty successful interagency
relationship, a cooperation. We fight the wildfires in Alaska
through a partnership of the Alaska Fire Service and the
State's Division of Forestry in partnership with the BLM and
the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife, and Forest
Service. The Alaska Fire Service provides fire protection on
194 million acres in the northern part of the State while the
Division of Forestry manages fires on 150 million acres in the
southern part. And then the U.S. Forest Service manages those
wildfires in the national forests.
I do not know about you. I have flown over just about every
part of my State, but looking down, I cannot tell the
difference between what is the national forest, whose
jurisdiction this would be up there. So there has to be a
cooperation. There has to be a sharing, and I understand that
sharing for the most part works.
Last year the Alaska Fire Service and its partners flew
more than 8,000 flight hours without incident. So for us up
north, that is a good track record. They attribute this safety
record in large part to an all-eyes aviation safety philosophy
that ignores these agency boundaries in an effort to identify
the safety problems and basically put out the fire. That is
what we want to hear. That is what my constituents want to
know. We do not care whose jurisdiction it is, whether it is
the Division of Forestry, the Fire Service, the BLM. We just
want to know that it is happening.
As I have indicated, what we want to know is that we have
got the resources that are available out there. I understand
that the Alaska Fire Service is expecting to receive its first
tanker on the 1st of June and a second tanker a week later. And
we want to make sure that these resources are going to be
available so that these will be coming on line so that we will
have the ability to deal with the fires as they come,
recognizing that one of our greatest assets in Alaska, which is
our size, is our geography, is also a huge impediment to us.
You cannot have aircraft that can only go a short range. We
need to be able to travel hundreds and hundreds of miles in
order to reach the situation.
So just a little bit of background as to Alaska's
situation. I am sure it is not news to you. But I would urge
the Federal aviation resource managers at the national level to
work closely with the Alaska Fire Service and the Alaska
Division of Forestry to address Alaska's needs this summer as
we anticipate again a really tough year in my State. And as you
have indicated, several of you on the panel, you expect that on
the West as well.
So I appreciate the testimony, and thank you, Mr. Chairman,
for the opportunity to say a few comments.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator From Alaska
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Chair for
convening this important hearing on the safety of the federal aerial
firefighting fleet. Wildland firefighting in Alaska is conducted by a
well-coordinated partnership of the Alaska Fire Service and the State
of Alaska's Division of Forestry. The Alaska Fire Service is itself a
partnership of the resource management agencies, including the Bureau
of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Forest Service.
Under an interagency agreement, the Alaska Fire Service provides
wildfire protection on 194 million acres in the northern part of our
state, while the Division of Forestry manages fires on 150 million
acres in the southern part. The U.S. Forest Service manages fires in
national forests. However, resources are shared among the agencies and
interagency incident management teams are deployed to manage the most
severe fires.
The State of Alaska and the Alaska Fire Service each contract for
aviation resources. I am pleased to note that the open lines of
communication, which are a natural outgrowth of our partnerships, pay
big dividends for aviation safety in Alaska. Last year, the Alaska Fire
Service and its partners flew more than 8,000 flight hours without
incident. They attribute their stellar safety record in large part to
an ``All Eyes Aviation Safety Philosophy'' that ignores agency
boundaries in an effort to identify safety problems.
The idea is simply to maximize the number of eyes looking for
possible problems and to report them immediately to appropriate
authorities. The goal is to recognize and correct problems before they
become links in an accident chain, through respectful and courteous
communication. I would like to commend the Alaska Fire Service, the
State Division of Forestry, and their partners for this progressive
approach to safety issues.
While the ``All Eyes Safety Philosophy'' has proven to be effective
in managing the human factors that contribute to accidents, it is no
less essential that our wildland fire aviators have access to safe
equipment and that the standard operating procedures under which they
operate promote safety. I look forward to hearing from our expert panel
on how we can improve in these areas.
Mr. Chairman, we don't have much time to resolve the issues that we
are discussing today. Southcentral Alaska, which includes the Anchorage
Bowl and the Kenai Peninsula, is presently in a low moisture situation.
This is also the part of our state with the greatest population
density.
Other areas in the State may be more vulnerable this year due to
the light snow pack. The spruce bark beetle has drastically changed
some forests in my State. Trees infested by the beetle are especially
vulnerable to fire. Many of these areas are not accessible by road.
The State of Alaska is expecting an early fire season and has been
talking about bringing on one of their air tankers in mid-April. The
Alaska Fire Service would expect to receive its first tanker on June 1
and a second tanker a week later. They are wondering whether it is
reasonable to expect to have these resources in time for the coming
fire season.
If there are not sufficient federal aviation resources in Alaska,
the State Division of Forestry will, of necessity, have to fill the
gap. The potential loss of federal air tankers to Alaska could mean
that the Alaska Fire Service will need to rely on the State for all of
its retardant needs, assuming that those resources are not fully
deployed in the areas of Alaska that the State is responsible for
protecting. If state resources are fully deployed, many of our Native
villages, which are protected by the Alaska Fire Service, could be left
especially vulnerable.
I would urge the federal aviation resource managers at the national
level to work closely with the Alaska Fire Service and the Alaska
Division of Forestry to address Alaska's needs for this summer. If we
don't come to some decisions soon, perhaps we will win the battle for
aviation safety, but lose the war against wildland fires in Alaska.
That too would be a tragedy.
I thank the Chair and the panel and look forward to an informative
hearing.
Senator Craig. Senator Murkowski, thank you very much. Now
let me turn to my colleague, Senator Ron Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to
commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I think it
is another important initiative that you have taken on. And I
think you know how strongly I feel about working cooperatively
with you, whether it was county payments last week, some
Senator victory in terms of getting the additional $500 million
for firefighting. And we know, as Senator Murkowski has
correctly said, that this is going to be another brutal summer
in the West. I am absolutely convinced we are going to have
infernos all over the West, and I agree very much with what
Senator Murkowski has said and what you have said, Mr.
Chairman. I look forward to working with you.
I also want to commend the administration. Mr. Kern and Mr.
Hamilton are here. I thank what the Chief and Director Clark
are doing in terms of the Blue Ribbon Panel. It is a statement
that the administration recognizes the seriousness of the
problem and that is very important. It really, just looking at
the report, shows that we have seen that there has been a lack
of oversight, and now what we have got to do is get beyond sort
of the blame game and the finger-pointing and work in a
bipartisan way to address the safety and service questions for
the future.
There is no doubt in my mind that aerial firefighting is
one of the most effective methods of initial response to
wildfire events. But there is trouble. You look, for example,
at what we saw with the Biscuit Fire in Oregon. Repeated
appeals for air tankers were denied due to the lack of
available assets, and the Biscuit Fire grew into Oregon's
largest in history. And then we had the well-publicized crashes
last summer as well, which indicates we have got a challenge
here, and we are going to work in a bipartisan way to do it.
The only other point that I wanted to mention, Mr.
Chairman, for you and our colleagues, Senator Thomas and
Senator Murkowski, I am very interested in introducing shortly
legislation to amend the Public Safety Officers Benefit Act so
that we could provide death in the line of duty benefits to the
survivors of those federally contracted air tanker crews who
risk their lives on public lands and to protect the property of
our citizens. I think our staffs have already begun some
discussion about that, and I just want to reiterate my desire
to work with you, Chairman Craig, Senator Thomas, Senator
Murkowski. There is nothing partisan about something like this,
and obviously, for colleagues who are interested, we are open
to making changes and suggestions. And for colleagues in the
administration, we are anxious to work with you all on it.
Thank you for the chance to make the statement, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Craig. Well, Ron, thank you very much. I too enjoy
our cooperative working relationship and we hope here we can
accomplish a great deal and improve the situation that is now
before us.
Let me start. We will do 5-minute rounds and move as
quickly as we can. We have an open window of time here that
should be adequate enough for us.
Mr. Hall, given your service as chairman of the National
Transportation Safety Board and your extensive experience in
the transportation, safety, and crisis management areas, was
the failure of the FAA to provide sufficient oversight and the
failure of the Forest Service and the BLM to understand that no
oversight was occurring with these public use aircraft
surprising to you?
Mr. Hall. No, sir. First, Mr. Chairman, let me point out--
and I think it is important the committee understand--that the
National Transportation Safety Board is investigating these
accidents. I spoke with some of the board members and they
anticipate in about 6 weeks that that report and its
recommendations will be made public. So that will also be
available for you.
During my tenure at the NTSB, I had a growing concern about
the area of public use aircraft. If you remember, Senator
Craig, Senator Pressler was the one who passed legislation,
after the unfortunate tragedy that took the life of the
Governor of South Dakota in an accident, for the NTSB to begin
investigating and looking at public use aircraft.
As you know, the military is structured with its own safety
program and safety centers. The Air Force, the Navy, the Army
all have their own safety centers and work very hard at safety,
and we could just look at the combat situation now in Iraq and
see how important that is.
As well as the FAA in commercial aircraft. But the whole
area of commercial use, government-owned/government-operated or
government-owned/government-contracted aircraft has been an
area that the FAA has essentially taken hands off because they
do not feel they have the responsibility and the authority in
that area and do not have the funding to adequately do their
job. So it did not surprise me to see an absence of oversight
or certification.
I think the Forest Service and the BLM are put in a very
difficult position, as the report points out, of being both the
contractor and the regulator of this system.
Senator Craig. Do you know of any other public agencies
that might be utilizing the public use aircraft for other
purposes that might suffer the same problem of no oversight?
Mr. Hall. Well, of course, this goes throughout the
Government use area. Of course, the Coast Guard has a very
large fleet, the Customs Service. There are other large
aviation fleets, but a lot of the coordination is left to the
General Services Administration, and it has been my opinion
that very little has really been done in trying to set
standards of regulation and oversight over public use aircraft.
It really varies on the level of funding from one agency to
another in how effectively the safety issue is addressed.
Senator Craig. Well, given what you know of the steps the
Forest Service and the BLM are now taking in response to your
report, are they making the progress that you would have hoped
they would be addressing in the issue that the panel surfaced?
Mr. Hall. Well, Mr. Chairman, this morning is the first
time really we have heard, unfortunately--not unfortunately,
but our responsibilities ended in December. I have not been in
a position of tracking this.
Senator Craig. The report was your charge.
Mr. Hall. Yes, sir.
However, it would appear to me that the most important
thing, as Senator Murkowski pointed out, is regardless of how
many agencies might be involved, you have one aircraft. The
certification of that aircraft, the operational and safety
standards for that aircraft, and the oversight of that aircraft
operation, if you are going to have a good aviation safety
program, needs to be consistent, and we do not need to have, as
we pointed out with mission and with safety, a muddle as a
result of all the different organizations being involved.
Senator Craig. Let me ask my last question of this round,
and let me ask it of you, Mr. Hull. The Blue Ribbon Panel
report indicates that this is the end of the third cycle of
similar accidents with ex-military aircraft. It is clear from
much of the information that you cited in the report that the
Forest Service and the BLM and NASA have all studied these air-
worthiness issues in the past. In all of the information in the
old reports that the Blue Ribbon Panel studied, was there any
indication that the FAA, the Forest Service, and the BLM's
disconnect on air worthiness had been identified in the past?
Mr. Hull. Certainly as we looked at past information, and
the third cycle that you are referring to whereby military
aircraft would be acquired, they would be used for a while,
then various types of accidents would occur, and then we would
start the cycle over again with a new set of planes. And we are
reaching that point again now. There have been reports in the
past, but like so many reports, studies, and so forth, we did
find, I believe, that the lessons of some of the studies of the
past simply had not been pursued to the degree that we are
seeing with this one.
I think the report that has come out now is evidence of a
wake-up call, that the Secretaries of the Interior and
Agriculture, the Chief of the Forest Service, and BLM
recognized that something had to be done, and we provided the
information.
It is very encouraging that the information that we
provided as part of this panel is now being used very
seriously. What I was afraid might happen would be that we
would see a lot of denial or trying to prove that the findings
were not accurate. I am not hearing any of that. Everything
that I am hearing is a positive step, use this as a baseline to
move forward, and I congratulate each in the role that they are
playing in this.
Senator Craig. Thank you. My time is up. Let me turn to
Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. Thank you.
Mr. Hamilton, you have reduced the number of planes,
grounded some planes, not contracted some planes. How do you
propose to deal with the needs this coming season?
Mr. Hamilton. Well, there are a couple of things we are
doing, Senator. As I mentioned earlier, 2 large air tankers
have been returned to service and we are anticipating another
12 to 15, and that will be down from the 44 that were available
last year.
I also wanted to respond to Senator Murkowski's concern
about having air tankers in Alaska. That is our number one
priority in the Bureau of Land Management, Senator, to have
those two air tankers up there this year.
Senator Thomas. Why are they returned? What have you done
differently that causes them to be returned?
Mr. Hamilton. You mean to Alaska?
Senator Thomas. No, just totally--4-Ys, for example. You
have not returned those. Do you have any standards? Has anybody
said, we have looked at the planes, they are now safe?
Mr. Hamilton. Okay. You are talking about the C-130s and
the PB4-Ys.
Senator Thomas. I am talking about anything that you are
going to be using now. Are there standards? Has somebody who is
in authority in the area, like the FAA, certified these
airplanes?
Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. What we have done is we have
contracted with Sandia Labs to review these aircraft and they
are sending their reports to the FAA, and we have been working
closely with the FAA, the Forest Service, BLM, and the Sandia
Labs. As I mentioned earlier, two P-3s are returned to service
and they are looking at these other aircraft, and we hope to
have this done by June.
Senator Thomas. I see.
You mentioned, Mr. Hull or Mr. Hall, that you think there
is going to be follow-through in terms of the air worthiness
for public use aircraft. Who is going to do that? How do you
see that happening? Who is going to certify it and so on? And
do you have any suggestions?
Mr. Hall. Senator, I am not aware that anyone is actually
stepping into that responsibility at the moment. We had
suggested, obviously, looking at the Canadian model where there
is a certification process that is based on the environment in
which these aircraft have to operate, and the Canadian
government has a certification process in which maintenance and
operational minimums and standards are established. I believe
that there continues to be a hole in the whole area of public
use aircraft and the responsibility for those aircraft.
The board was clear, Senator, not to get into the issue of
any particular aircraft operation, but clearly to look at how
you would go about effectively setting standards regardless of
what type of aircraft is used.
Senator Thomas. I am just concerned that it does deal with
a number of different agencies, and we may end up with the same
sort of ``that is your thing or your thing,'' and no one
assuming the responsibility.
Mr. Powers, I think I have indicated that under the
contracting arrangement and the payment arrangement, that it is
very difficult for the private operators to do the kinds of
safety things that we are talking about. Is that the case?
Mr. Powers. Yes. It is very difficult. Most of the
innovations and proposals that have been presented historically
over the last 10, 15 years are rejected due to issues of cost.
Senator Thomas. That is interesting.
How do you propose to deal with that in terms of how you
pay for these services if they are going to cost more? Are you
prepared to put them in as a part of the contract, or are you
still going to say whoever can do this the least expensive way
gets the contract?
Mr. Hamilton. With your permission, Senator, I would like
to have Dr. Tony Kern answer that question.
Dr. Kern. Thank you.
I think if I can try to capture where we have been and
where we are and where we hope to go, obviously we are going to
function within the constraints of whatever budget we are
given. But if we assume the same amount of money--I believe
that Duane is absolutely correct. In the past, what we have
done is we have a certain pot of money and we have an
established need, for example, of 41 air tankers, and we have
then turned the contracting personnel loose, and a negotiation
process between the Government and the contractors is worked
until we got 41 air tankers out of that pot of money.
The way that we intend to move now and, in fact, the way
that we are working this year--so this has already been
implemented--is that we have the same pot of money. That has
not changed, but what we do now is we set certain standards.
Right now Sandia with the FAA is helping us establish those
standards. It is just the first phase of higher standards
because of the time constraints. Instead of dividing the total
number of required air tankers into it, you divide the
standards into it, and that is going to give you a number of
air tankers. That is the same process that we intend to use in
the future.
What that will do is likely--certainly raise the standards
of safety and performance of those aircraft and do exactly what
Mr. Powers has suggested we need to do. However, the down side
of that is that the number of aircraft that will be available
will be reduced. So at that point in time, we will have less
available firefighting capability unless we look at other
resources that may be available to do that job. But that is the
intended process.
Senator Thomas. Good. Thank you. I guess it would be pretty
naive to think you could have a safer fleet at the same price,
would it not?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
And just to follow up with that, though, we may now have a
safer fleet in the air, but you have increased the risk on the
ground because you may be less able to adequately deal with the
fire that you are fighting. In certain parts of my State where,
quite honestly, you do not have any human life around that is
at risk, but in the State of Idaho, as we saw with the fires
last year, how do you balance all that? Obviously, it is a
funding issue ultimately, but I would like to think that at
some point we are not compromising safety in the air for the
safety on the ground. It is certainly a Catch-22.
Dr. Kern. No, you are absolutely correct. I will ask Larry
to comment on this with me, but I believe that that dynamic is
ongoing all the time. We, in fact, have recognized that
potential risk and issued an NWCG, National Wildfire
Coordination Group, safety alert to the field already this year
saying, hey, there may be fewer aviation resources available to
you, especially early on. So brief and train this year for
those potential consequences.
I am willing to accept the fact that reduced resources may
result in some increased acres burned, but I guess I would
completely reject the fact that that should ever put a human
being at risk. We ought to be smart enough to be able to
operate in that environment where we can get people out of
harm's way. Ideally we want both to happen, but we recognize
that trade-off. We have pushed the information to the field,
and then as soon as we can get the resources back up to where
they really need to be, we ought to be safer all the way
around.
But certainly that equation is in play in both directions.
Last year, following the tragedy in the Thirty Mile burn-over
up in Washington, many of the ground risks were mitigated by
having air come in. So it is the same thing in both directions.
So, a point well taken. I will turn this over to Larry for
a moment, if I might.
Mr. Hamilton. I guess I would add a couple of things to
that. One is, as a result of the National Fire Plan, we have
been able to increase our predictive services capability. So we
have fire weather meteorologists located in our geographic
areas, as well as the National Interagency Fire Center. What
that enables us to do is, based on predictions they are making,
put assets in areas where we think we have got ignition
probability.
The other thing that we have done is we are replacing our
capability with single-engine air tankers and more Type I heavy
helicopters. So we will probably be pretty close to being able
to deliver the same amount of retardant, as long as we do not
have a terrific fire season to deal with this year.
Senator Murkowski. Let me ask you, Mr. Hamilton. You had
indicated that the two air tankers would be returned to Alaska.
So am I correct in assuming that what we anticipate to be
delivered on, I guess it was, the 1st of June and then a second
delivery on the 7th or the 8th, are these two tankers that we
have had previously?
Mr. Hamilton. Well, it may not be those two tankers. What
we have to do at this point is see what gets certified and
released, and then we will sit down with the Forest Service and
see what is going to work best in Alaska and the lower 48. But
as I mentioned, Alaska is our number one priority because, as
you described, it is a different beast to deal with up there
because of the distances.
Senator Murkowski. So we can expect that.
And then just as a last quick question. Apparently the
State has contracted for two Canadian air tankers. The Fire
Service has traditionally relied upon the resources contracted
by the State to supplement our Federal aviation resources.
These Canadian aircraft have apparently not been carded for
interagency use, and I am wondering if you are working with the
State and the Alaska Fire Service to assure that this
contracted aircraft is going to be available. Are you following
this?
Mr. Hamilton. Yes, ma'am, we have solved that problem.
Senator Murkowski. It has been solved.
Mr. Hamilton. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murkowski. Okay, so we are good with our Canadian
tankers as well.
Mr. Hamilton. Yes, ma'am.
Senator Murkowski. Good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Senator.
Let me do a series of questions to try to break us into
where we are and where we need to be, and it goes something
like this. We had X number of aircraft available at the
beginning of last fire season. We have less aircraft available
at the beginning of this fire season, with apparently some
beginning to come online. You have heard Mr. Powers talk about
much of his fleet being grounded.
So I guess the questions I would want you all, those of you
who can respond, to respond to, you know, how many P-3s will be
available and when? How many Douglas aircraft will be available
and when? How many P2-Vs will be available and when? And then
how many single engines does it take to replace one heavy? And
is that really going to work, or are we really facing a fire
season in which we are going to be substantially under-planed?
Larry?
Mr. Hamilton. One thing that I have here--and I am not sure
you want me to read down through it, but I would be glad to
provide it as part of our testimony--and that is where we have
contracted SEATs in the past and where we have new SEATs
contracted for this year and where they are located and the
cost.
Senator Craig. Why do you not provide that for the record?
We would like to know that.
Mr. Hamilton. Okay, I would be glad to do that.
And then I will have Tony answer the first part of your
question.
Dr. Kern. The hard data on that is just not yet available
because of the Sandia process that is going on. But let me do
the best I can with it.
Senator Craig. And add to that comment, is Sandia giving
you some time line?
Dr. Kern. Yes, sir.
The process that we are currently undergoing is part of a
larger process that spans several years, probably 3 years. The
first initial effort that we are going through is Sandia is
doing basically an historical evaluation of the inspection and
maintenance procedures and looking at the qualifications of the
vendors. Now, that is not as deep as we would like to go. We
are not doing any engineering analysis, those sorts of things,
but we plan to instrument aircraft to get there next year. So
that process speeds it up considerably.
We have the P-3 final report that we received a week and a
half ago, got it to the FAA. They reviewed it. They had some
comments. We made some adjustments, went back. We have a letter
from the FAA that basically says, a prudent risk-mitigation
step. Now, it is important to point out the FAA is not
approving any maintenance procedures or changing anything. They
are informally helping us out with this process because of the
public use aircraft.
The P-3 inspections then by the contractors to comply with
the Sandia inspection requirements began last week. We have
already been out to provide contract inspections on two
aircraft. One is at Fort Smith, Arkansas. The other is flying
to Brainerd, Minnesota as we speak. But the rest of the P-3s
will be inspected as soon as the company that owns them calls
us to bring them on. So we expect the full number of P-3s--and
I do not have that number off the top of my head--available
with the possible exception of one that the FAA came back and
said we have some concerns about this particular tanker. So
that will take some more care and feeding on that aircraft.
We have a draft report on the Douglas 4, 6, and 7s.
Senator Craig. Let us stay with the P-3s for a second. So
based on what you had available last fire season and what
appears will be available this fire season--where is the
difference?
Dr. Kern. Probably minus one, and that could get remedied
anytime in the near future. There were some special concerns
about a specific aircraft that showed some cracking in an area
that the Navy had tested to failure in the past. That is the
kind of thing Sandia brings to the table because they were able
to pull those pieces of the puzzle together. So all available
minus one.
The Douglas products. We have a draft report. We expect the
final report by the end of this week. The FAA is already
reviewing the draft report. So they have promised to turn that
back around within 2 weeks of receipt, which was the day before
yesterday. So at the conclusion of that review, we expect to
get another letter from the FAA which will indicate whatever
their thoughts and concerns are regarding the Sandia report.
And the same process will take place. The contractors will
call us. They will say it cost us this much to inspect the
aircraft. We are ready on tanker 66 and 67, and we will have
our inspectors out there. I believe we will have Douglas
aircraft in the air by the middle of April. That is my
estimate.
The P2s represent a different challenge.
Senator Craig. Let us stop there and again, the same
question. Based on what you know now in that process, how many
will we be down from from last season into this season?
Dr. Kern. That is going a little bit out on a limb, but
having read the draft report, I would say that it is likely
that all or perhaps maybe one or two short of all will be
returned to service.
The P2-Vs represent a little bit different challenge
because they are operated under multiple restricted type
certificates, and the maintenance inspection procedures are
different from company to company, and they are owned by
multiple companies. So that is a far more difficult estimation
to make at this point in time.
We expect that we will have the initial P2-V report around
the middle of April. April 15 is what Sandia has given us for a
target date. And then assuming that they come up with the
findings similar to the P-3 or the Douglas, then that process
will run similarly, about 2 weeks for the FAA to turn it
around, and we will have potentially 33 air tankers, which is
all of the remaining ones available, sometime in early to mid-
May.
If you would have asked me 3 months ago whether we would
have gotten there, I would have told you, not a very good
chance. So I am pretty satisfied with the pace that we are
proceeding.
Senator Craig. So the last question, as we deal with P2-Vs,
we will have the same number?
Dr. Kern. That, sir, is very hard to project at this point
in time because it represents a little bit more complex
challenge for Sandia, and I do not want to speak for them.
Senator Craig. Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I think it is very important that
the committee is aware that the Blue Ribbon Panel report looked
at the issue not just of safety, but we also addressed
effectiveness. And in looking at effectiveness and resources,
we looked at two issues: one, the mission because obviously you
have to clearly define what the mission is that is to be
accomplished by the aerial aviation firefighting structure. We
found that was inconsistent, whether it was to be used for
initial attack or how the aviation assets were to be used.
There seemed to be the type of muddle that we had referred to.
And in regard to resources, the panel said specifically on
page 22 that we found that large supplemental appropriations,
typically triggered when fires grow to a certain size, suggest
that the base funding profile is insufficient to control fires,
while too much funding is devoted to the control of escaped
wildfires. So if you go back and look at the total dollars,
whether it is base funding or supplemental that is being spent,
I think it was the panel's feeling that if more of the funding
could be front-loaded and there could be a clear mission, that
the resources would be better used and the mission better
accomplished.
Senator Craig. Larry.
Mr. Hamilton. Yes. Mr. Hall brings up a really good point,
and I ran out of time and was not able to cover the one thing
he just mentioned with mission muddle. Another change that we
have made this year is we have changed our policy on these
large air tankers, that they will be used for initial and
extended attack and not used on these large project fires. So
the utilization of the aircraft is going to be different this
year than it has been in the past. So that is a little change
in our strategy, and that comes right out of the report.
And then the other issue that Mr. Hall brings up is our
preparedness funding versus our suppression funding. But as a
result of not using some of these large air tankers this year,
without any additional funding, what we have been able to do is
in the West, 30 SEATs are assigned on exclusive use contracts.
That is up 18 from 2002. So that means we have got 57 available
on call when needed, and that is up from 42.
We also have 20 smoke jumper aircraft, and then we have
nationally over 500 exclusive use and call-when-needed
helicopters. So we think we are going to have the capability
that we need this fire season.
Senator Craig. Senator Thomas.
Senator Thomas. We have heard the panel and the agencies
respond. I would like to hear that contractors visit a little
bit. For instance, on this inspection and putting back into
play, you have been concerned I think about the PB4-Ys. What is
the situation there?
Mr. Powers. Well, it has been a proactive approach on the
company's side. The agencies have refused to participate or
look into the technical merits of the engineering repairs and
return to service that has been approved by the Federal
Aviation Administration. So, so far there has been no
participation or willingness by the agencies to consider that
aircraft.
Senator Thomas. How do you respond to that, Mr. Hamilton?
Mr. Hamilton. I will have Tony respond to it.
Dr. Kern. There are a couple, I believe, of definitions we
need to make clear. First of all, the Forest Service has not
grounded any aircraft. Only the FAA has the authority to ground
aircraft.
Senator Thomas. Wait a minute now. You cannot contract,
though, can you, which effectively grounds them.
Dr. Kern. It grounds them for Forest Service and
interagency use. Certainly they could do other contracts with
States, international and other----
Senator Thomas. But you have effectively grounded them when
you say you are not going to contract for them.
Dr. Kern. For Federal use, that is correct.
Senator Thomas. So let us be clear about that.
Dr. Kern. Right. There are other air tankers that fly
internationally quite often, so I just want to make sure that
that is clear as well.
I would, I guess, respond by saying that the discretionary
contracting decision was made with careful deliberation and not
in isolation. In fact, we did receive and review the technical
aspects on the PB4-Y and many on the C-130A as well. The
Chief's decision was made in consultation with NTSB engineers,
the FAA, the Blue Ribbon Panel, the internal Aviation Safety
Manager Council and operations staff, as well as Sandia
National Labs. So these decisions were not made lightly. So I
am convinced that we gave all of those considerations fair play
in this decision.
Senator Thomas. I guess my question is if you are going to
look at standards on others, if these standards can be met on
this aircraft, why would they not be used?
Dr. Kern. Sure, and I think that is a fair question.
Unfortunately, we have a tragic history with structural
failures. My numbers may----
Senator Thomas. On the 130s.
Dr. Kern. Well, it goes back much further than that. There
were B-25s, three C-119s, C-130s, and now a PB4-Y. I believe
there were actually three each on the B-25s and the C-119s. In
every case in our past, when we have had an in-flight
structural failure, it was followed up by corrective actions
approved by the FAA, put back together with the best intent by
the contractors, and there was a subsequent structural failure.
Additionally, I think that part of this decision process
was made by what resources we had available. We basically had
that same pot of dollars, and we had to make some
determinations on where we wanted to go in the future. The 4-Y,
unfortunately, being the age it is and the low capacity for
delivery and primarily because of the safety issues, it was
determined to be an unjustifiable risk to bring that aircraft
back on contract with the history that we have.
Senator Thomas. Any comment, either of you?
Mr. Powers. Well, one comment that I would like to add is
that we have talked a lot about the inspections and the mandate
by the fire agencies for industry to inspect their aircraft.
But most recently the guidance that we have received from the
contract agencies is that any repairs that are found and made
to the aircraft to bring them into air-worthiness condition
will not be paid for by the Government. So we are kind of, from
an industry point of view, trying to provide equipment on a
good, high level of safety and air worthiness, but the agency
is not willing to fund the costs to do that. So the only place
that that money can come out of is the pocket of the operator/
contractor.
Mr. Broadwell. Senator, I think your comment is very valid
in that if we can design an air-worthiness program for our
aircraft that are currently in the fleet, would that not be
very applicable to an aircraft like the PB4-Y. I do not have a
history on either that C-130A or the PB4-Y, but I understand
the C-130A comes with a lot of baggage, with which I am just
not totally familiar.
But the PB4-Y, I was not aware of any such thing, and in
fact, Gene Powers wrote a very detailed letter to the Chief on
the history of the PB4-Y. The safety record appeared to be very
good for that aircraft. There have been incidents with them in
the past, but not related to any structural problems that I am
aware of.
Senator Thomas. I suppose it is oversimplified, but what I
am really dealing with is if a piece of equipment can be
certified and qualified and meet standards--we ought to be
talking about standards----
Mr. Broadwell. Exactly.
Senator Thomas [continuing]. And not agency decisions that
are not necessarily on standards. That is my whole point. Thank
you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Craig. Let me read something from the report, and
then Mr. Hall and Mr. Hull, maybe you would wish to respond to
this. Page 8. They also found that the Forest Service and the
BLM leaders are not well-versed on aircraft certification
worthiness.
Finally, collaboration among the many Federal and State
agencies associated with firefighting, each with a different
mission and culture, has created a situation where engaging all
employees and contractors in a clearly defined task is
difficult.
The Federal Aviation Agency has abrogated any--and this is
the dark print--responsibility to ensure the continued air
worthiness of public use aircraft, including ex-military
aircraft converted to firefighting air tankers. Although these
aircraft are awarded an FAA-type certification--I assume that
is as they transition out of one service into another--the
associated certification processes do not require testing and
inspection to ensure that the aircraft are air worthy to
perform their intended missions.
So I guess that also says that while they are certified
out, they are not certified into the new mission based on, if
you will, the protocol or the condition of that mission.
Now, and then FAA says, we do not have money or we do not
follow the aircraft. And they argue absence of money. Do they
argue absence of authority? Because they are certifying and
that certification has a certain attitude about it, if you
will, by all who see it and all who get it. Please respond to
that, if you could.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, your comments are exactly on
target. The fact that there is a certification has led
unfortunately to an impression with many that these particular
aircraft were certified for the new mission that they are to
perform in the Forest Service. As you said, what it implies, of
course, or what the FAA actually does is just accept the old
military use as certification under a restricted use category
of service.
In our meeting with the Federal Aviation Administration--
and let me say at this point, Mr. Chairman, a point that
Chairman Hull and I should have probably mentioned. We did
attempt to meet with the Department of Defense, but were
unsuccessful in doing that.
But in our meetings with the Federal Aviation
Administration and with their most able Administrator, I think
they would basically state that they do not have either the
funding or the authority in this particular area.
This again leads me to the concern that I have had that the
FAA is the aviation and air-worthiness authority for the U.S.
Government and they have a structure in place where one
category, public use aircraft, is then given to the General
Services Administration or the FAA points to GSA as the
coordinator for this, to me defies common sense. But it is a
mission that the FAA traditionally has not had.
I am pleased to see that they are working cooperatively now
with the Forest Service and the NTSB, but I think the panel
would recommend a system similar to the Canadian system where
there is a formal regulatory structure in place where in
Canada, obviously, to just give you one example, I think, if I
remember correctly, it was 7 hours for every flight hour over
the fire in terms of determining the actual operational use of
the aircraft for maintenance, structural inspections, et
cetera. So we felt that the Canadian model, if we continued,
was an excellent model to look at.
But the present system, I do not think, has been fixed
based on the testimony I have heard this morning, and it
certainly is one that needs to be addressed hopefully by this
committee.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Larry, respond to that, if you will, but respond in this
context, and let me dress it up a bit for you. I had said
earlier in reading the report, that the panel found that the
Forest Service and the BLM leaders are not well-versed on
aircraft certification and worthiness. Now, of course, we are
having a third party, Los Alamos, look at it, and they do have
expertise in that area, and they are establishing a protocol by
which certain things get done to correct the problems and allow
these aircraft to go back into service.
Is that to say then that you assume you have the talent and
the ability to develop a certification process or an air
worthiness process after you go through this that continues a
level of air worthiness for these aircraft you contract? Or
should there be another authority that oversees you to make
sure that you are following through on a consistent basis?
Culture versus talent. Can you respond to that?
Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir, Senator, I would be glad to respond
to that. We certainly endorse the Blue Ribbon Panel's finding.
We do not want to get into the business of certifying aircraft.
We feel that is not part of our mission. There are other
Federal agencies that do have that as their mission, and we
would welcome the oversight in setting the standards.
Dr. Kern. May I add a comment to that?
Senator Craig. Please do, Tony.
Dr. Kern. In the interim, though, we have no choice.
Senator Craig. No, I am not arguing that point. I am
arguing reshaping the system after the fact and working
forward.
Dr. Kern. I just wanted to make sure. Right now we have
accepted the role as regulator and contractor.
Senator Craig. Duane.
Mr. Powers. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Our company has had 40 years
of work with the FAA on certifying aircraft, and what has
changed since the accidents--our company was thoroughly
investigated by the FAA, and in the investigation, the FAA
determined that there were weaknesses within the Federal agency
in terms of how they determined the mission profile
compatibility of the aerial firefighting aircraft that were
taken from military and put into commercial operations.
That has been beefed up considerably in recent months. Our
company has been developing a new aerial firefighting aircraft
platform, and we are working closely with the aircraft
certification offices in Denver and in Washington, D.C. on
developing a strategic health-monitoring program. That is a
series of inspections for the life of the airframe and, also
before that is developed, determining what the actual loads and
stresses on that airframe are so that we know exactly what we
need to be looking at in the future.
So we do have an opportunity to put aircraft like this into
service. This particular aircraft is available this summer.
However, the cost basis of the previous military aircraft run
$500,000 to $1 million. This new aircraft is going to come in
somewhere around the $5 million range. However, it is a zero-
fatigue structure, and it has the benefit of the enhanced
oversight of the FAA's certification process that has changed
in the last few months.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
I am running out of time and I do appreciate you fellows'
valuable time.
Mr. Hull, you may want to respond to this after the fact. I
am going to ask the question of Mr. Hamilton, and it was in
relation to a comment you had made, Larry, to see if this fits
the scenario that we may be looking at as relates to single-
engine, smaller aircraft, less capable versus large bomber
aircraft. You said you will use the heavy craft for initial
attack. Does this mean your agency will now put more emphasis
on initial attack and be putting out all fires in wilderness
and remote areas?
My point is quite simple. The urban/wildland interface and
the growth of people presence, and we see the shift to that to
protect those human structures. And yet, the really big fires
that really got away last year that destroyed a lot, we let
them sit for days because we were not into the initial attack
business. Does the configuration of your aircraft now--what
does it argue?
I guess we could step across the line into Canada, and they
say every fire is a fire, go get it, put it out now. But we
were not doing that, and we lost millions of acres of valuable
watershed and habitat as a result of that. It somehow appeared
to be expendable, and yet it was a matter of resource
allocation in part.
Could you respond to that, Larry, and Mr. Hull?
Mr. Hamilton. Yes, sir. As you describe, there is a major
dilemma there for us. With the condition that the forests are
in, we may see a fire get started in a wilderness area and the
plan is to look at that as a fire use kind of event. Yet, when
you have the fuels build-up that we do and the drought, we will
see fires that can cover anywhere from 5, in some cases 19,
miles in a day. So then you have got a crown fire that is
coming out of the wilderness area into a wildland/urban
interface. So that makes us think very hard about initial
attack.
I think as you are aware, last year our average was that we
caught 99 percent of all the fires that were started, and that
is a real testimonial to our initial attack capability.
The point I was trying to make earlier is that we have
referred to mission muddle. I think we had some mission creep
in the way we were using our large air tankers, and sometimes,
sir, we refer to that as political retardant when the local
Congressman or Senator calls and wants to know where that air
tanker is and there is a television crew out there wanting to
get some fantastic footage.
What we have to get back to is that this is the best tool
we have in our tool box for initial attack. When you get into
these large project fires--the Biscuit Fire is a good example--
there are water sources all over that and heavy helicopters are
much more effective when you are into that kind of firefighting
scenario. So it will be at a national level utilizing this tool
for initial attack and make sure that it is not being used on
these larger fires.
Senator Craig. Mr. Hull.
Mr. Hull. I really applaud the emphasis that initial attack
has been given here. You mentioned the Canadian model that if
essentially there is smoke, go put it out. We have 50 models
like that here in the United States. That is the role that
State foresters play in our State agencies. We cannot afford to
have big fires. So often, as we had utilized in a cooperative
effort these Federal contracts for large air tankers,
helicopters, and so forth, we too have found that because these
valuable resources were being used to create fire lines on the
large fires, drop water on large fires where it was
questionable as to whether or not it was really doing a whole
lot of good, it took those resources away from what we consider
the absolute most important role here, and that is initial
attack.
So any return to that I think is going to go a long way to
keep fires small in the first place. While there is lots of
conflict and firefighters have almost been blamed to a certain
degree for the build-up of fuels because we have done a pretty
good job through the last decade, but a lot of that good job
was done because of the commitment to initial attack back
through the years. And here recently because of this thing
called managed wildfires or fuel treatment, that sort of gets
muddled in with initial attack in firefighting, I think it has
caused some of the problems that we are seeing here and the
considerable more use of air tankers doing things besides
initial attack, and thus, the more use, the quicker that these
old planes are wearing out.
Senator Craig. Gentlemen, we are about to conclude, but let
me ask of you is there anything that you would want on the
record that you have not, by statement, put on the record yet?
I will give you all that opportunity if you will be reasonably
brief.
Mr. Hull. Thank you very much for the opportunity to be
here.
I would just sum this up by saying as we crossed the Nation
numerous times looking at this, we found a tremendous committed
group of Americans working at all levels of government, the
private sector, and contractors and everywhere that are
committed to fixing the problem. And I think there is great
hope that we can all have in that.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. I would just like to stress, Mr. Chairman, what I
view as the responsibility of this subcommittee and your
counterpart. I think this area needs additional oversight.
There needs to be additional regulatory authority put in place,
clear lines of authority drawn so that you know and the
American people know who is accountable.
I think one of the things that probably has not been
addressed this morning to the degree I would like to have seen
because of the time is the whole contracting issue. If the
procurement process is not changed so that these contractors
are given adequate funds to put in place the safety programs
that are required, I think we will be revisiting this issue
again.
Thank you very much.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Mr. Hamilton.
Mr. Hamilton. Senator, on behalf of all the Federal
agencies and the National Association of State Foresters that
serve with us there at the National Interagency Fire Center, we
want to thank you for your support and I would again like to
invite you out this fire season and any of your staff.
Senator Craig. I will be there.
Mr. Hamilton. So I look forward to seeing you this summer,
sir.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Dr. Kern. The one area we did not touch on, which I think
is vitally important that we look into, is the systemic
collection of data and analysis on how effective our retardant
and water drops are. It is not air tankers or helicopters that
assist the ground firefighter, it is water, foam, and
retardant. And right now we do not have a very good pool of
data to match the right tool to the right circumstance. So the
Blue Ribbon Panel pointed that out. It was buried a little bit
to us, but that one struck me as the real key to the kingdom
for the future. So we need to push to get that data collection
analysis process started.
Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Kern.
Mr. Broadwell.
Mr. Broadwell. Yes, sir. Tony took the words out of my
mouth much more eloquently. What we think is needed is for us
all to know what is required out there to successfully do the
mission each year. We have talked all around that, but that is
the other plan that is needed, is what is required so we have
something to build to.
Just for a matter of record, we are concentrated on 33 air
tankers being available. We do have five spares, four of which
are P2-Vs and one is a DC-7. So there is some flexibility
regarding commercial assets.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
Mr. Powers.
Mr. Powers. Thank you. I would like to just reaffirm two
very important comments that Mr. Hall made, the one regarding
the contract situation. It just absolutely has to change and
that has to change immediately in terms of how do the contracts
support and pay for the services that are being asked for and
actually required and needed.
The other part of it is that I think there could be some
shift of funds to do more up front to get our aircraft into
service and sustain them over a short period of time. Also, as
I mentioned, there are opportunities for new developed aircraft
this summer, but again you are taking that step up. We need to
get some funding to allow that type of equipment to be starting
to phase in.
Senator Craig. Thank you. Gentlemen, thank you all very
much for your time, and certainly the co-chairs for the work
they have done with this panel and the report. It is an area
that this hearing will not resolve, but we will build a record
from which we hope to gain some resolution working obviously
with the BLM and the Forest Service and the other appropriate
agencies involved. It is critical that we have, obviously, this
fleet of aircraft, that they be safe, that they be properly
certified for the missions at hand, and I think you have all
touched on all of the right touchstones today from which we
will move forward. But we thank you all very much.
The subcommittee will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]