Fighting fire in the heat of the day: an analysis of operational and environmental conditions of use for large airtankers in United States fire suppression
Crystal S. Stonesifer A C , David E. Calkin A , Matthew P. Thompson A and Keith D. Stockmann B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Rocky Mountain Research Station, US Forest Service, 800 East Beckwith Avenue, Missoula, MT 59801, USA.
B Missoula Technology Development Center, US Forest Service, 5765 Highway 10 West, Missoula, MT 59808, USA.
C Corresponding author. Email: csstonesifer@fs.fed.us
International Journal of Wildland Fire 25(5) 520-533 https://doi.org/10.1071/WF15149
Submitted: 8 August 2015 Accepted: 24 December 2015 Published: 31 March 2016
Abstract
Large airtanker use is widespread in wildfire suppression in the United States. The current approach to nationally dispatching the fleet of federal contract airtankers relies on filling requests for airtankers to achieve suppression objectives identified by fire managers at the incident level. In general, demand is met if resources are available, and the dispatch model assumes that this use is both necessary and effective. However, proof of effectiveness under specific conditions of use in complex environments has not been empirically established. We geospatially intersected historical drop data from the federal contract large airtanker fleet with operational and environmental factors to provide a post hoc assessment of conditions of use for the 2010–12 fire seasons in the conterminous United States. Our findings confirm previous results demonstrating extensive use in extended attack. Additionally, we show that use is generally within guidelines for operational application (aircraft speed and height above ground level) and often outside of environmental guidelines suggestive of conditions conducive for most effective use, including drop timing with respect to response phase (initial attack v. extended attack), terrain, fuels and time of day. Finally, our results suggest that proximity to human populations plays a role in whether airtankers are dispatched, suggesting that prioritisation of community protection is an important consideration. This work advances efforts to understand the economic effectiveness of aviation use in federal fire suppression.
Additional keywords: aerial suppression, fire economics.
References
Anderson H (1982) Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research paper INT-122. (Ogden, UT)Blakely AD (1983) Monoammonium phosphate: effect on flammability of excelsior and pine needles. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research paper INT-313. (Ogden, UT)
Blakely AD (1985) Combustion recovery: a measurement of fire retardant extinguishment capability. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research paper INT-352. (Ogden, UT)
Blakely AD (1990) Combustion recovery of flaming pine needle fuel beds sprayed with water/MAP mixtures. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research paper INT-421. (Ogden, UT)
Bright EA, Coleman PR, Rose AN, Urban ML (2012) LandScan 2011. Oak Ridge, TN, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Available at http://web.ornl.gov/sci/landscan/landscan_data_avail.shtml [Verified 06 August 2015]
Calkin DE, Stonesifer CS, Thompson MP, McHugh CW (2014) Large airtanker use and outcomes in suppressing wildland fires in the United States. International Journal of Wildland Fire 23, 259–271.
| Large airtanker use and outcomes in suppressing wildland fires in the United States.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Davis J (1959) Air drop tests: Willows, Santa Ana, Ramona 1955–1959. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station and California Air Attack Coordinating Committee, Research paper 17382 4–60 2M SPO.
GAO (2013) Improvements needed in information, collaboration, and planning to enhance federal fire aviation program success, Report GAO-13–684. Available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-684 [Verified 06 August 2015]
George CW (1982) Measurements of airtanker drop conditions during firefighting operation. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research paper INT-299. (Ogden, UT)
George CW (1984) An operational retardant effectiveness study. Fire Management Notes 46, 18–23.
George CW (1992) Improving the performance of fire retardant delivery systems on fixed-wing aircraft. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Research paper INT-400. (Ogden, UT)
George CW, Blakely AD, Johnson GM, Simmerman DG (1977) Evaluation of liquid ammonium polyphosphate fire retardants. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, General technical report INT-41. (Ogden, UT)
George CW, Ewart GF, Friauf WC (1989) FLIR: a promising tool for air-attack supervisors. Fire Management Notes 50, 26–29.
Gesch DB (2007) The national elevation dataset. In ‘Digital Elevation Model Technologies and Applications: the DEM User’s Manual’, 2nd ed. (Ed D Maune) pp. 99–118. (American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing: Bethesda, MD)
Gesch D, Oimoen M, Greenlee S, Nelson C, Steuck M, Tyler D (2002) The national elevation dataset. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing 68, 5–11.
Giménez A, Pastor E, Zárate L, Planas E, Arnaldos J (2004) Long-term forest fire retardants: a review of quality, effectiveness, application and environmental considerations. International Journal of Wildland Fire 13, 1–15.
| Long-term forest fire retardants: a review of quality, effectiveness, application and environmental considerations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Interagency Airtanker Board (2013) Procedures and criteria for the Interagency Airtanker Board. National Interagency Fire Center. (Boise, ID) Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/contracting/airtankers/IAB%20Procedures%202013%20Section%20VII%20Tank%20System_.pdf [Verified 06 August 2015]
Jewel JW, Jr, Morris GJ, Avery DE (1974) Operating experiences of retardant bombers during firefighting operations. NASA, Langley Research Center, Report TM X-72622. (Hampton, VA) Available at http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19750002862.pdf [Verified 27 July 2015)
Jewell S (2015) SO 3336 – The final report: an integrated rangeland fire management strategy. US Department of Interior. (Washington, DC) Available at http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/rangeland/documents/IntegratedRangelandFireManagementStrategy_FinalReportMay2015.pdf [Verified 21 July 2015]
Johnson CW, George CW (1990) Relative corrosivity of currently approved wildland fire chemicals. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research paper INT-437. (Ogden, UT)
Katuwal H, Calkin DE, Hand MS (2016) Production and efficiency of large wildland fire suppression effort: a stochastic frontier analysis. Journal of Environmental Management 166, 227–236.
| Production and efficiency of large wildland fire suppression effort: a stochastic frontier analysis.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 26513321PubMed |
Keeley JE, Aplet GH, Christensen NL, Conard SG, Johnson EA, Omi PN, Peterson DL, Swetnam TW (2009) Ecological foundations for fire management in North American forest and shrubland ecosystems. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-779. (Portland, OR)
Lafon CW (2010) Fire in the American south: vegetation impacts, history, and climatic relations. Geography Compass 4, 919–944.
| Fire in the American south: vegetation impacts, history, and climatic relations.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Legendre D, Becker R, Alméras E, Chassagne A (2014) Air tanker drop patterns. International Journal of Wildland Fire 23, 272–280.
| Air tanker drop patterns.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
National Multi-Agency Coordinating Group (2015) National interagency mobilization guide. National Interagency Coordination Center. (Boise, ID) Available at http://www.nifc.gov/nicc/mobguide/index.html [Verified 27 July 2015]
NICC (2011) Wildland fire summary and statistics annual report 2010. National Interagency Coordination Center. (Boise, ID) Available at http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2010_statssumm/2010Stats&Summ.html [Verified 27 July 2015]
NICC (2012) Wildland fire summary and statistics annual report 2011. National Interagency Coordination Center. (Boise, ID) Available at http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2011_statssumm/2011Stats&Summ.html [Verified 27 July 2015]
NICC (2013) Wildland fire summary and statistics annual report 2012. National Interagency Coordination Center. (Boise, ID) Available at http://www.predictiveservices.nifc.gov/intelligence/2012_statssumm/2012Stats&Summ.html [Verified 27 July 2015]
Noonan-Wright EK, Opperman TS, Finney MA, Zimmerman GT, Seli RC, Elenz LM, Calkin DE, Fiedler JR (2011) Developing the US Wildland Fire Decision Support System. Journal of Combustion 2011, 168473
| Developing the US Wildland Fire Decision Support System.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
NWCG (1986) Firefighters guide. National Wildfire Coordinating Group PMS 414–1, NFES 1571. (Boise, ID)
NWCG (2014) Interagency aerial supervision guide. National Wildfire Coordinating Group PMS 505, NFES 002544. (Boise, ID) Available at http://www.nwcg.gov/sites/default/files/products/pms505.pdf [Verified 06 August 2015]
Pastor EP (2004) Contribució a l’estudi dels efectes dels retardants en l’extinció d’incendis forestals. PhD thesis. Spain: Technical University of Catalonia. Available at http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/6445;jsessionid=CA2C3BD53E362FC25527D4B5C385F6EC.tdx1 [Verified 06 August 2015]
Pérez Y, Pastor E, Planas E, Plucinski M, Gould J (2011) Computing aerial suppression effectiveness by IR monitoring. Fire Safety Journal 46, 2–8.
| Computing aerial suppression effectiveness by IR monitoring.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Plucinski MP, Pastor EP (2013) Criteria and methodology for evaluating aerial wildfire suppression. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22, 1144–1154.
| Criteria and methodology for evaluating aerial wildfire suppression.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Plucinski M, Gould J, McCarthy G, Hollis J (2007) The effectiveness and efficiency of aerial firefighting in Australia, Part 1. Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, Technical report A0701. (Melbourne)
Plucinski MP, McCarthy GJ, Hollis JJ, Gould JS (2012) The effect of aerial suppression on the containment time of Australian wildfires estimated by fire management personnel. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21, 219–229.
| The effect of aerial suppression on the containment time of Australian wildfires estimated by fire management personnel.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Robertson K, Fogarty L, Webb S (1997) Firebombing effectiveness – Where to from here? National Rural Fire Authority, Forest Research Institute, Fire Technology Transfer Note N.11. (New Zealand)
Rokhsaz K, Kliment LK, Nelson J, Newcomb J (2014) Operational assessment of heavy air tankers. Journal of Aircraft 51, 62–77.
| Operational assessment of heavy air tankers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
SILVIS Lab (2012) 2010 Wildland urban interface – public land adjusted (GIS dataset) Available at http://silvis.forest.wisc.edu//maps/wui/2010/download [Verified 06 August 2015]
Soil Survey Division Staff (1993) Soil survey manual. USDA, Soil Conservation Service Handbook 18. Available at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/ref/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262 [Verified 06 August 2015]
Solarz P, Jordan C (2000) Ground performance pattern of the Neptune P2V–7 airtanker. USDA Forest Service, Missoula Technology and Development Center, Report 0057–2848-MTDC. (Missoula, MT)
Sommers WT, Coloff SG, Conard SG (2009) Synthesis of knowledge: fire history and climate change. Joint Fire Sciences Program, final report 09–02–1–09. Available at http://www.firescience.gov/JFSP_fire_history.cfm [Verified 26 October 2015]
Stonesifer CS, Calkin DE, Thompson MP, Kaiden JD (2014) Developing an aviation exposure index to inform risk-based fire management decisions. Journal of Forestry 112, 581–591.
| Developing an aviation exposure index to inform risk-based fire management decisions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thompson MP, Calkin DE, Herynk J, McHugh CW, Short KC (2013) Airtankers and wildfire management in the U.S. Forest Service: examining data availability and exploring usage and cost trends. International Journal of Wildland Fire 22, 223–233.
| Airtankers and wildfire management in the U.S. Forest Service: examining data availability and exploring usage and cost trends.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Tidwell T (2012) Hearing before the [US Senate] committee on energy and national resources to consider the president’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2013 for the Forest Service. (Washington, DC) Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-112shrg74080/pdf/CHRG-112shrg74080.pdf [Verified 06 August 2015]
US Department of Interior Wildland Fire Management (2012) Budget justifications and performance information: fiscal year 2013. Available at http://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/2013/upload/FY2013_WFM_Greenbook.pdf [Verified 06 August 2015]
US Department of Transportation (2011) National Highway Planning Network geospatial dataset. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/processes/tools/nhpn/2011/ [Verified 06 August 2015]
US Fish and Wildlife Service (1995) Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl; final rule. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/federal_register/fr2829.pdf [Verified 16 March 2015]
US Fish and Wildlife Service (2013) Environmental conservation online system – Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida). Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile?spcode=B074#crithab [Verified 16 March 2015]
US Geological Survey (2013) LANDFIRE data products (GIS dataset) US Department of Interior. Available at http://landfire.gov/index.php [Verified 06 August 2015]
USDA Forest Service (1990) Comprehensive status report on the operational retardant evaluation (ORE) study. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, RWU-4402. (Ogden, UT)
USDA Forest Service (2015) Aerial firefighting use and effectiveness (AFUE). Fire and Aviation Management. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/aviation/afue/index.html [Verified 06 August 2015]
Vega JA, Cuíñas P, Fonturbel T, Pérez JR, Vega DJ, Pérez-Gorostiaga P, Fernández C, Jiménez E (2007) Comparing the effect of polyphosphate and foam addition to water on fire propagation in shrubland. In ‘Proceedings of the 4th International Wildland Fire Conference’, 13–17 May 2007, Seville, Spain. Available at http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/sevilla-2007/contributions/doc/SESIONES_TEMATICAS/ST7/Vega_et_al_SPAIN_Lourizan.pdf [Verified 06 August 2015]
Viegas DX, Cruz MG, Ribeiro LM, Silva AJ, Ollero A, Arrue B, Dios R, Gómez-Rodríguez F, Merino L, Miranda AI, Santos P (2002) Gestosa fire spread experiments. In ‘Forest Fire Research and Wildland Fire Safety, Proceedings of the IV international Conference on Forest Fire Research’, 18–23 November 2002, Coimbra, Portugal (Ed DX Viegas) pp. 1–13. (Millpress: Rotterdam). Available at http://www.comets-uavs.org/papers/RAMIRO-ICFFR-2002.pdf [Verified 06 August 2015]
