Posted by MikeM (173.16.156.10) on December 17, 2009 at 18:05:32:
In Reply to: Re: Air Tractor sets the pace posted by Rusty on December 15, 2009 at 19:33:08:
Russ,
SEATs are primarily a BLM resource. Not a USFS resource. The BLM isn't attempting to supplement the USFS.
What's the truck that stays with the SEAT for? You say you've flown SEATs. You don't know?
The nurse truck is a contract requirement; it's part of the SEAT package. It's there to mix retardant.
Your point regarding "800 gallons on a 100 nm turnaround" is what, exactly? You criticize the truck, then the distance...when the truck means the aircraft can be based at points closer to fires.
Yes, you are knocking SEATS, and it's a tired, and dead argument. You clearly don't think they're being used "right," but haven't indicated what you think "right" is.
SEATs are an initial attack resource, and get used in other capacities, too. Large Air Tankers are an initial attack resource, and get used in other capacities, as well.
I can tell you I've lapped P3's on fires before while flying an 802 or Dromader...I've put more retardant on the fire and at a lower cost...because I was nearby and made more trips in a shorter time period, and kept putting retardant on the fire...as opposed to long turnaround times and expensive ferries for the P3 to make it back to a large air tanker base, reload, and return.
Does this mean the SEAT is better or the P3 is better? Of course not. I think we all agree on the well-used understand that everyone is a different tool in the same toolbox.
An 802 hauling 800 gallons is doing what a S-2 used to do before being re-engined. That's not bad...but the 802 is doing it for a good price, especially considering the flexibility to operate from much smaller airfields than a large air tanker can use, and the flexibility to operate anywhere, even from roads (done it), without needing to bring in or set up a tanker base. It's a self-contained package.
An initial attack dispatch from 100 miles away is still initial attack, if one is the initial attack party. Bear in mind that large air tankers are supposed to be initial attack aircraft too. Line building never the intended use of air tanker resources, but often it's the main focus.
SEATS seldom fly 100's of miles. It's rare. It's very common for large air tankers to get repositioned or dispatched long distances, however.
You indicate that you've seen SEATS operating large complex fires more than any other kind. I've not seen this to be the case, though I've certainly worked a number of fires in concert with helicopters, large air tankers, and other assets, while flying a SEAT.
Conversely, I've also made drops in heavy tankers on single trees, and I've done three hour missions to make a single drop in large air tankers. I timed out one day doing two drops in a large air tanker...working alongside CL215's that were dropping every few minutes. Who do you think was more efficient, there?
Had SEATs been available in that case, they'd have managed to put out a lot more retardant than we did in a large air tanker.
Most SEATs operate on a CWN basis without any seasonal guarantees. They operate for considerably less money, and are available in larger numbers with a lot of flexibility regarding operating location. SEATs are primarily a BLM asset, and don't operate in the same manner or with the same dispatches that a large air tanker does. One simply doesn't get picked up in Ft. Huachucha and sent to Moses Lake, in a Dromader. That's not an atypical dispatch in a P2V or P3.
These things said, there's no valid reason why a SEAT shouldn't be called to participate on a large or complex fire. By your reasoning, we should consider dropping anything smaller than a DC-10...because everything else pales in comparison. In fact, the disparity between the DC-10 or B747 and a P2 is considerably greater than that between a P2 and an 802.
Yes, the 802 carries less than a P2V or a P3. We get it. Yes, it's a little slower than some large air tankers (though not really that much, considering we used DC4's for many years). Big deal, really. It's also less expensive than large air tankers, sometimes considerably more so on a gallon-for-gallon basis when based near the fire.
At the end of the day it's another tool in the box. I'm really tired, quite frankly, of hearing people decry the SEAT platform as useful only for small initial attack. The SEAT is effective as an air tanker, every bit as much as a large air tanker is effective; it puts retardant on the fire, period. You can put it down all you like by suggesting it's slower...but it's not the only slower aircraft out there, and aircraft like the 802 aren't all that slow, really. Speed for close fires is largely immaterial. The ability to respond from, or use nearby airports is material, however, and it's something the SEAT can do very well...especially as it brings it's own individual portable tanker base. You can decry the capacity of the SEAT...but then you can only do so by comparing it to a large air tanker...and you have to ignore the comparison between the large air tanker and the DC10 or B747 in that case.
You say you've flown SEATs, but your comments certainly don't sound that way.