National Guard and Fire Fighting, PLEASE READ

[sikorskypilot]

Aerial Firefighting Industry TAKE ACTION NOW!

 

Update on Firefighting Legislation

 

The U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1404, the Federal Land Assistance, Management, and Enhancement Act, "Flame Fund," on Thursday, March 26 by a vote of 412-3. A dangerous amendment (see page two highlighted in yellow) was added to this bill to require that the wildland fire management strategy include a plan, developed in coordination with the National Guard Bureau, to maximize the use of National Guard resources to fight wildfires.

 

The amendment was originally to be offered by Congressman Jim Matheson (D-Utah), however, at the eleventh hour, the Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Congressman Nick J. Rahall (D-West Virginia) offered the National Guard amendment instead. Passage of the Flame Fund legislation (H.R. 1404) has been a priority for Chairman Rahall, especially since the House passed similar legislation last year and the bill never came up in the U.S. Senate.

 

The House considered numerous amendments prior to final passage, including ones adopted by voice vote to adjust language requiring the Interior and Agriculture departments to submit a fire management strategy to Congress. The amendments require revision of the strategy every five years, and the plan will have to address the impacts of climate change and invasive species on wildfire risk.

 

This legislation comes as wildfire costs are increasing, with fires intensifying in the drought-stricken West, and suppression now takes up 48 percent of the U.S. Forest Service’s budget. This has squeezed funding for other federal programs, including activities aimed at preventing forest fires.

 

Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico), Chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has introduced a companion bill (S.561) this year. S.561, as currently drafted, does not contain the National Guard language that was added by amendment to the House bill.

 

HAI has contacted the offices of all U.S. Senators on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, as well as all senators who cosponsored S.561. HAI is encouraging the industry to make their voive heard in Washington, DC on this issue.

 

This is a critical firefighting issue that affects all helicopter operators, especially those under contract to the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service. The state of the U.S. economy is grim, and significant emphasis has been placed on helping large corporations, auto manufacturers, and financial institutions. Should the National Guard language be added to the Senate bill and the final legislation signed by President Obama direct the maximum use of National Guard resources to fight wildfires, firefighting operators will be significantly affected by this action which could limit the use of commercial firefighting resources.

 

Many HAI operators conducting firefighting operations across the United States are small businesses and are the backbone of the aviation industry. They are an indispensable component of this nation’s economy. It is imperative that Congress understand their value when considering legislation.

 

The more HAI firefighting member companies blanketing the U.S. Senate with phone calls and emails about this dangerous House provision, the more success we will have in demonstrating to Congress the vast importance of our aerial firefighting assets to the American economy. Please do not depend on other employees or other companies to carry your message to Washington. Every operator should encourage the sending of messages from at least five of their employees to their elected U.S. Senators on this issue. Each state has two elected U.S. Senators – this translates to at least 10 messages from each company. HAI maintains a Congressional Link on our homepage at www.rotor.com which will assist you and your employees in sending a message to your U.S. Senators on this issue.

 

S.561 has been co-sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-California), Maria Cantwell (D-Washington), Orin G. Hatch (R-Utah), Tim Johnson (D-South Dakota), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Patty Murray (D-Washington), John Tester (D-Montana), John Thune (R-Dakota), Mark Udall (D-Colorado), Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon).

 

If you reside in a state represented by any of the senators listed above who are co-sponsors of S.561, you should make contact with them and bring to their attention the provision added to the House bill that would facilitate the maximum use of National Guard assets – these assets include fixed wing as well as helicopter assets.

 

This legislation could be considered very soon by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. HAI has prepared a chart with contact information (telephone and email) for each member of the committee. Please take a moment to send a message to the Senators from your state, particularly if they sit on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

 

Here are some talking points you might consider on this issue:

 

You are opposed to any initiative to expand the role of the Air National Guard in wildland firefighting.

Directing the use of National Guard assets as an initial response would be in direct competition with private enterprise. The National Guard is currently used in an adjunct role during severity wildfire conditions. Supplying routine wildland firefighting aerial resources is not an appropriate role for military assets.

Firefighting is not an inherently governmental function, nor a military mission. Current Federal policy does not advocate competition between the Federal and private sectors. Existing law permits federal goods and services to be used whenever, in the judgment of the federal agency head, the resources cannot be provided as conveniently or cheaply by commercial contract. The National Guard amendment added to the House Flame Fund legislation does not improve on existing law.

Tax paying entities and small businesses in your state would be jeopardized by such competition with helicopter operators. Talk to your Senator about your company, your employees, the work you perform, the training and experience you possess, and the value of the aircraft you operate.

The Federal government’s aerial firefighting function is more than adequately performed by a cost effective, professional industry within the U.S. consisting of private sector companies.

Fighting wildland fires requires a great deal of training and expertise. Scarce training dollars and assets could be better spent on other missions required by National Guard units. To be part of an integrated firefighting team, all services of all participants must be available on a predictable and reliable basis.

HAI cannot emphasize how important this issue is, especially during this difficult period of economic uncertainty our country is facing. If you need help in contacting your U.S. Senator, contact HAI Legislative Affairs staff in Washington at 703-683-4646 or email, nicole.graves@rotor.com.

 

The battle will not be over in fighting this dangerous amendment until all the differences between the House and Senate versions of this legislation are sorted out by a joint House-Senate conference committee. Our best changes for ultimately prevailing will be to ensure the National Guard amendment is NOT added to the Senate Bill, S.561.

 

As information becomes available, HAI will be in contact with our members. Pass along this information concerning the potential maximization of National Guard firefighting assets to as many of your friends, co-workers, and associates as possible.

Edited April 27, 2009 by sikorskypilot

[edspilot]

Another issue to remember:

 

As with the early years of medical air transport, which started with the law enforcement agencies doing the transporting, very few agencies do the operations now. Why, because the commercial operators took the government to court and claimed:

 

"my tax dollars are going to government agencies to compete with me, the commercial in the private sector."

 

Then most of the agencies had to get out of the medical transport work because it was not their primary focus, took jobs away from small businesses and the agencies had an unfair advantage over the commercial operators becuase they (gov't) did not have to pay salaries, thus operate cheaper.

 

For history, the original organization was ASBEAMS, now it is something but this is the tact I would take to fight this if it gets past.

 

Just on old guy's opinion that was part of the ASBEAMS group when it started back on the 70's.

 

Good luck,

 

edspilot

[Darkhorse]

I'm probably going to bring down the fire with this one because I'm really not sure how I feel. This is probably one of the few area's where the government (National Guard) is more equipped to handle a situation than the private sector. I am all for keeping people employed but in this situation your boiling things down to lives and homes in a lot of cases and a jet ranger with its 50 gallon bucket and a bell 212 with its 300 gallon bucket (if it can take a full bucket based on alt/temp) is no contest to a blackhawk with a 6 or 800 gallon or a Chinook with a 3000 gallon bucket.

I love Huey's and I have fought fires with them alot, they are good for small and confined fires. I have fought fires with Chinooks and have sat there for weeks without flying a single hour as not to compete with the commercial sector. The kicker is, the aircraft was not being charged when it wasnt flying but the crew was being payed a good wage for 12 hours a day every day just to sit.

To sum up, are we saving lives and homes or are we just spreading out money? It seems like alot of wasted money all around for crews that arent flying on one side, and aircraft that are not optimal on the other side yet they both come together on the payroll. Don't get me wrong, Erickson and Columbia have the equippment but imo there are alot of acft on fires that are paying the company bills but in reality are not making a defference on fires.

I'm not meaning to offend anyone so don't take this as a personal attack. I'm open to thoughts I havent considered.

[Pogue]

I sympathize with your position, but for the record at the state level supporting fire fighting efforts (on ground and in the air) is very much one of the National Guards missions.

[sikorskypilot]

thank you for your input. But also look at it this way. The civil industry specifically trains their pilots and crews to fight fires. Most of the time operators pre position their helicopters to high risk areas and man them on their own dime waiting for a fire call. In south carolina there were multiple helicopters within 1 hrs flight from that location. One of them was cromans S-61. But since the government used the guard for fighting the fire croman got called all the way down to southern florida.

 

The civil market helicopter have faster turns than the guard. So you get more bang for you buck when it comes to the cost per hour. Our company helped save multiple home in San Diego 2 years ago, and look at all the military our there. I love the guard, wanted to join myself. A few of our pilots are in the guard or have been. The guard has a role to fill and so does the private sector.

[sikorskypilot]

Again the main topic was written by Rotor.com and not by me. I have not edited it in any way; I just support their views on this subject.

[Justin DBC]

I think this issue comes down to the state needing to use the best asset for the job. We are talking about emergency situations in which peoples homes and lives are in jepordy. If the fire isn't threatening homes, great. Utilize the smaller companies and let them get their piece of the pie. What upsets me is when we are sitting on ass waiting for the call with several UH-60Ls including a firehawk while a fire is burning out of control through neighborhoods because no one wants to hit the button. Our aircraft have the ability to do pax hauls, rescue operations, and drop a much larger volume of water on the fire. You could always get a lot more smaller aircraft, but then you're cluttering an already congested airspace.

 

I can understand why a lot of the civil operators are upset, but politics and economics should never come before saving peoples lives and homes. In an emergency situation we should use every available necesary asset we can get our hands on. Doing anything less than that should be based on availability, not what entities provide the assets.

 

Just my $0.02

 

J-

[Goldy]

Justin- I understand the frustration and delays in calling out the military. Just know that having been around the public safety sector for 25 years now, there are just as many situations where I cant get someone to make a call to the department next door!..or worse, we know that department needs help but can't respond because they haven't "requested" us yet.

 

Here's to "real" interoperability and mutual aid !

 

Goldy

[Justin DBC]

Justin- I understand the frustration and delays in calling out the military. Just know that having been around the public safety sector for 25 years now, there are just as many situations where I cant get someone to make a call to the department next door!..or worse, we know that department needs help but can't respond because they haven't "requested" us yet.

 

Here's to "real" interoperability and mutual aid !

 

Goldy

 

Yup. There must be some complex formula to this whole thing that's above my pay grade, because it doesn't seem that it needs to be as complex as higher-ups make it out to be.

 

J-

[adam32]

Yup. There must be some complex formula to this whole thing that's above my pay grade, because it doesn't seem that it needs to be as complex as higher-ups make it out to be.

 

J-

 

Nothing is as complex as the higher-ups make it out to be...

[Darkhorse]

The civil market helicopter have faster turns than the guard. So you get more bang for you buck when it comes to the cost per hour.

 

I'm not trying to get in an arguement but a 60 and a 47 are much faster than just about any civil helicopter fighting fires, the water they carry is far more than about any civil helicopter so i truly dont think your getting near the bang for the buck in that respect.

I don't know what it is today but in 1999 the guard charged $2500 per flight hour to the forest service for a CH-47, Columbia helicopter charged 10k or 12k per hour for their 47...not nearly the bang for the buck.

I was just clarifying but my main concern is lives and homes, I have nothing against anyone making a dollar.

[adam32]

I'm not trying to get in an arguement but a 60 and a 47 are much faster than just about any civil helicopter fighting fires, the water they carry is far more than about any civil helicopter so i truly dont think your getting near the bang for the buck in that respect.

I don't know what it is today but in 1999 the guard charged $2500 per flight hour to the forest service for a CH-47, Columbia helicopter charged 10k or 12k per hour for their 47...not nearly the bang for the buck.

I was just clarifying but my main concern is lives and homes, I have nothing against anyone making a dollar.

 

Quick turns don't mean much if they can't put the water on the fire...

[Justin DBC]

Quick turns don't mean much if they can't put the water on the fire...

 

 

Hey now... Don't blame me... Blame the CDF managers

[Marc D]

Saving lives---Saving homes.

 

Saving lives is rarely necessary by air, and could be done in emergency situations by the Guard.

 

Saving homes? I'm sorry, but let them burn. Everyone knows a fire will come, yet nobody protects their home. And why should they when billions of dollars will come zooming their way when a fire comes.

 

Let's get real here.

 

It's more like, suck off the government tit as long as you possibly can and fight off anyone who tries to get on with you.

 

A few years back I watched a single wide get 5 dumps of retardant around it to save it from a grass fire. You do the math. Saving homes! Of course it was at the end of the season and the tit was starting to dry up.

 

Marc D.

[Justin DBC]

Heh... Kinda hard to disagree with you on that one. Some people's homes go up regardless of how much effort they put into fireproofing their landscaping, but there are some people will just ignore the risk and literally add more fuel to the fire.

 

J-