What's Up with the Forest Service????

[luckydog]

.....a 747 just sittin' there ??

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/3...ool-available/

[Dangerousdave26]

Dang that is just strange and stupid.

[aeromed202]

Is it a money thing? Is it that more and smaller AC can deliver roughly the same quantity per unit area/time and more nimbly than a 747? I have a relative in the USFS but at the moment I'll bet he's got his hands full.

[Navy Chief]

The reason it's not being used is current administration budget cuts.............

[TeaSea]

Your answer is in paragraph #2 of Evergreen's letter.......


And frankly, it's Evergreen's fault and their letter is clearly intended to somehow paint the Forest Service as idiots. I'm sorry, Evergreen are the idiots.

Since the Forest Service is a entity of the U.S. Federal Government, it is subject to the auspices of the Federal rules on contracts and contracted service procurement. These rules are written so as to force Federal Agencies to "Spread the Wealth" so to speak. Specifically, 8A organizations (small, minority, veteran owned business's) must be given priority in any contract negotiation, and in some instances will be the only companies allowed to compete. Why? Well, because IT'S THE LAW!!!! The Forest Service doesn't get the break the law. You can ask your congressman why it's the law. BTW, the former Ted Stevens of Alaska is one of the reasons it's "the law" and he's generally perceived of as a hero of aviation.

Evergreen admits they they are not an 8A. Well, the way you get around that is that you sub to an 8A. Companies do it all the time....that's why there is an Alaska Native owned company running all services at MacDill AFB. The big company takes the risk, the little company gets a cut and a chance to compete. I've a retired Army Officer friend who does work for State and Federal agencies all the time specifically as an 8A, She's a vet owned, minority owned business, with a particular specialty, and she builds teams and coalitions constantly to bid on government contracts. Oh, she does good work too which always helps.

So, if Evergreen can't figure this out....which is something people do around their kitchen tables all across America....then frankly I've no faith in their 747 to stay in the air. We are not talking graduate level business work here. I can establish a minority, vet owned, small business this week, and sub them out......(Hell, I have an LLC already....took 200 bucks and an application to set it up)... have them give me call.

[EasyEd]

Hey All,

The use of air tankers is complicated.

There are issues with aircraft speed and maneuverability and landing capability and carrying capacity and risk to the aircraft. Nobody designs aircraft specifically for fire fighting - they are all adapted. If we could drop retardant from 15,000 ft then the biggest jets dropping the biggest loads would be great with no risk of loss of the airframe. But that isn't reality. There are real reasons why WWII to Korean war aircraft commonly converted to turboprops are preferred and they are fewer and fewer in number. Depending on the fire location and topography that 747 may well be absolutely worthless and/or not in any way cost effective. Bigger is not always better.

On this site there has been much discussion about military aircraft and their replacement but a far more critical need is for air tankers and it is never discussed. The air tanker situation is basically critical and needs to be dealt with. There are some real good potential tankers out there but they are not American (BAE 146 comes to mind). Imagine the politics over this!

Don't be so quick to judge the appropriateness or not of that 747 sitting parked.

-Ed-