Why California Burned

[King of the Americas]

So, during the holidays I got to speak with all my far flung relatives, one of which is married to an engineer who works aboard one of the largest air cranes/water planes, who's job it is to douse forrest fires from the air.

She noted that the owner the plane is a company that 'bids' on an annual contract to do such work. AND that 'they' decide which fires are bad enough to send planes to, or not.

Appearantly, they underbid, so much so that they couldn't afford to fight 'all' the fires that they needed to.

So when the last of the California fires began, they had their biggest air cranes grounded, because it wasn't cost efficient...

Was this aspect already discussed?

If so was there any conclusion, as to criminal negligance of this company, NOT doing hte job they bid on to do?

[Lisa Simpson]

I know that at least one of the 'super scoopers' we have during wildfire season is leased from Canada and we have to wait until their wildfire season is over before they send it to us.

[shadron]

Was this aspect already discussed?

If so was there any conclusion, as to criminal negligance of this company, NOT doing hte job they bid on to do?

A group of skeptics is not the likeliest place to get a legal opinion on this. If your facts concerning the hiring of the planes to suppress the fires is correct, then whether it is negligence, a criminal matter, or, rather, breach of contract, a civil matter depends on the what the contract they signed has to say. I imagine that it would only be criminal if the contract stipulated that breach would be a criminal matter, and whether the state can actually make such a stipulation. It could also be the fault of the state contracting agency to not be specific enough about requirements, or to not having consulted sufficiently beforehand with the experts. As is usual in such an affair, there'll probably be lots of wiggle room for everyone concerned to duck and cover.

[casebro]

California burned because God willed it.

I guess He thought that earthquakes were not enough vengeance to make up for all our free living. I guess the rest of the country has 'winter' to keep them in a state of grace. Honest. I heard it on the radio on Sunday morning.

But, if the water tanker companies were at the break even point, they could have easily asked for more money. I believe the fire season was over? Time to negotiate a short term contract, for heavy ruples?

I don't know how we would ever know what is in the contracts. Until then, I am skeptical. I was here and saw the winds that make taking off and landing hazardous, not to mention low level aerobatics. in mountains. in smoke.

I'd guess that the contracts have an annual retainer fee, plus a per flight hour cost. The hourly cost for flying a plane is too high not to have an hourly rate in the contract. More flying equals more profit. I would think the hard part would be in keeping the planes AWAY from a fire.

[Lisa Simpson]

The fire season was not over at the time of the California wildfire. It's usually Sept.-Dec., with the worst being October and November.

[tsg]

She noted that the owner the plane is a company that 'bids' on an annual contract to do such work. AND that 'they' decide which fires are bad enough to send planes to, or not.

Well, just from my experience bidding on government contracts, I can tell you this isn't very likely. If it is true the person who wrote the contract is grossly incompetent. Let's just say that writing a contract that is going to the lowest bidder that lets the contractor decide how often they are going to respond is a monumentally stupid thing to do.

Without any evidence beyond a third hand story, I'm calling BS.

[Tokenconservative]

I think we all know the REAL reason: Global Warming.

There have never been wildfires in CA before, and if we only sign Kyoto, there never will be again!

Tokie

[casebro]

Well, just from my experience bidding on government contracts, I can tell you this isn't very likely. If it is true the person who wrote the contract is grossly incompetent. Let's just say that writing a contract that is going to the lowest bidder that lets the contractor decide how often they are going to respond is a monumentally stupid thing to do.

Without any evidence beyond a third hand story, I'm calling BS.

Can I add just a small caveat? :

The folks I know who have bid on government contracts write their own contracts. Seems the SOP is that the buyer finds a supplier he likes, and saves himself the trouble of writing things up. The vendor then makes criteria calling for his own product by specs, brand, etc. But I do doubt that fire bombers get paid NOT to fly. Not with public endangerment at stake. And if we can hear about it here on the net, some whistle blower would find it easily. How long would it take before some consumer advocate blows the whistle on the evening news?

[tsg]

Can I add just a small caveat? :

The folks I know who have bid on government contracts write their own contracts. Seems the SOP is that the buyer finds a supplier he likes, and saves himself the trouble of writing things up. The vendor then makes criteria calling for his own product by specs, brand, etc. But I do doubt that fire bombers get paid NOT to fly. Not with public endangerment at stake. And if we can hear about it here on the net, some whistle blower would find it easily. How long would it take before some consumer advocate blows the whistle on the evening news?

I know it is common practice for vendors to write product specifications, usually in such a way that they are the only ones who can meet them, but the actual performance section of the contract is usually written by those who need the service. Given that the story claims the contractor underbid it, my guess is he had at least some competition and was not the sole bidder as is usually the case when the bidder gets to write it.

[fishbob]

So, during the holidays I got to speak with all my far flung relatives, one of which is married to an engineer who works aboard one of the largest air cranes/water planes, who's job it is to douse forrest fires from the air.

She noted that the owner the plane is a company that 'bids' on an annual contract to do such work. AND that 'they' decide which fires are bad enough to send planes to, or not.

Appearantly, they underbid, so much so that they couldn't afford to fight 'all' the fires that they needed to.

So when the last of the California fires began, they had their biggest air cranes grounded, because it wasn't cost efficient...

Was this aspect already discussed?

If so was there any conclusion, as to criminal negligance of this company, NOT doing hte job they bid on to do?

I have not seen this bid specifically, but have seen similar ones. Typically, these are not open ended - signing on to fight every fire (an unknown quantity) for a fixed amount of money would be unreasonable and the government does not typically issue unreasonable contracts because they know that unreasonable terms can not be enforced. The contract most likely required that planes be made available for a fixed period of time and that a certain number of fire-fighting hours would be flown. If the period was up or the number of hours met, the contract was basically over. By 'underbid', I would suspect that your far-flung relative meant that the number of flights called for in the contract were not enough to deal with the number of fires. This is not the company's fault, and not really the government's fault either.

To bad they didn't have Sylvia Brown help write the contract.

[QBinBee]

California burned because God willed it.

I guess He thought that earthquakes were not enough vengeance to make up for all our free living. I guess the rest of the country has 'winter' to keep them in a state of grace. Honest. I heard it on the radio on Sunday morning.




Since the fires began only a few weeks after the infamous "Folsom Street Fair" here in SF (Where this year the "Last Supper" was depicted with men in bondage) I heard quite a few Evangelists claim that this was God's vengence for the evils of San Francisco.

I think someone needs to help God with his aim. Being 500 miles off is just a bit too pathetic.

[Lisa Simpson]

I think someone needs to help God with his aim. Being 500 miles off is just a bit too pathetic.

When you've created everything (heavens and earth) 500 miles probably close enough.

[QBinBee]

When you've created everything (heavens and earth) 500 miles probably close enough.

Yet he was able to hit Soddom and Gummorah (sp?) dead on?

Also, Southern California is like the last bastion of conservative thought in this "God-hating State" (words of the evangelist who made the claim). Why would God attack the last few friends he had here?

Maybe senility is catching up with the gagillion year old fart.

[Lisa Simpson]

Southern California is conservative?!?! I think the preacher was confused. While Orange County may still be fairly conservative, Los Angeles and San Diego are less so. Really, Central California is the heart of conservatism in the state.

[greymatters]

Everytime you hear about the annual southern California wildfire, listen to the news closely. Whenever you hear Ventura County mentioned, it will almost always be along the lines of, "Ventura County homes seem to have been spared during this wildfire season."

Ventura County has one thing that the other counties don't: strict laws that anyone living in the backcounty areas must clear the brush from 100 feet in their homes. Almost every other county in southern California has "environmental" laws that prevent the clearing of brush, which is largely how these fires travel.

[Lisa Simpson]

Um...I think Angelenoes have to clear the brush from their houses too. I don't know about Orange County, because I don't live in a brush fire area.

LAFD: http://lafd.org/brush/100feet.htm

[Travis]

We have the 100 foot clearance law here in Tuolumne County too.

[King of the Americas]

She said her husband was "...on the ground not flying, while the fires were raging..."

He claimed that "...we could have help put those fires out...", she said.

Why else would "...the biggest planes in the fleet..." "...be on the ground..."?

[tsg]

[b]She said her husband was "...on the ground not flying, while the fires were raging..."

He claimed that "...we could have help put those fires out...", she said.

Third hand anecdotes does not evidence make. All we have is your assertion that someone we don't know and can't question believes this to be the case based on supposed claims from someone else we don't know and can't question.

Why else would "...the biggest planes in the fleet..." "...be on the ground..."?

If they indeed were, which so far has not even been supported, it could be any number of reasons which don't necessarily include impropriety by the contractor. Otherwise it's just an argument from ignorance.

[King of the Americas]

I didn't say it was evidence...

I ASKED why else would they be on the ground???

I said that was HIS claim, not mine.

Argument from ignorance...?

Are you kidding me?

The guy says they were on the ground...she says he was, He WAS on the ground. This is a fact that isn't up for dispute.

Why?

There were LOTS of fires, and planes to use against them, so why were they flying??

[technoextreme]

I didn't say it was evidence...

I ASKED why else would they be on the ground???

I said that was HIS claim, not mine.

Argument from ignorance...?

Are you kidding me?

The guy says they were on the ground...she says he was, He WAS on the ground. This is a fact that isn't up for dispute.

Actually it is. Do you know how many stupid rumors got started because a friend of a friend of a family member? Your story like many other conspiracy theories. It's too obvious for only one person to figure out the facts. Im sure there was a legitimate reason just not what your family member told you.

[tsg]

I didn't say it was evidence...

I ASKED why else would they be on the ground???

You are assuming they were, and for the reasons specified in the claim. Neither has been substantiated.

I said that was HIS claim, not mine.

It is your claim that he claimed it. Or, rather, it is your claim that she claimed that he claimed it.

Argument from ignorance...?

Are you kidding me?

Not at all. "What else could it be" is almost invariably an argument from ignorance. The answer is, "just about anything else. Why is this the explanation you conclude is the correct one?"

The guy says they were on the ground...she says he was, He WAS on the ground. This is a fact that isn't up for dispute.

In fact, it is. "He said, she said," isn't evidence. We don't even know who "he" or "she" are except that they are "far flung" relatives of yours.

Why?

There were LOTS of fires, and planes to use against them, so why were they flying??

Like I said, any number of reasons that don't necessarily include impropriety on the part of the contractor. Without more information, we can't know.

Just to summarize, here is the list of assertions from your OP that have no supporting evidence except your word:

a) you have a distant relative
b) who is married
c) to an engineer
d) who works for a company that operates air cranes
e) that had the contract for putting out the California fires
f) that allowed them to decide when they would do that
g) and that decided not to because they underbid the contract
h) and they were probably criminally negligent in doing so.

Asking "why were the planes on the ground when they could have been putting out the fires" assumes that a) through g) are all true and implies that h) is the only reasonable explanation. I'm willing to concede that a) and b) are quite likely true and that c) probably is. d) is less likely but not unreasonable. e) is wholly unsupported. f) depends on e) being true and assumes that "he" had knowledge of the precise terms of the contract, which he may not have had, and which are dubious for reasons I have previously stated and not been addressed. g) is unsupported and also relies on e) and f) being true. h) is thus a huge leap based on scant evidence.

[Crossbow]

So, during the holidays I got to speak with all my far flung relatives, one of which is married to an engineer who works aboard one of the largest air cranes/water planes, who's job it is to douse forrest fires from the air.

She noted that the owner the plane is a company that 'bids' on an annual contract to do such work. AND that 'they' decide which fires are bad enough to send planes to, or not.

Appearantly, they underbid, so much so that they couldn't afford to fight 'all' the fires that they needed to.

So when the last of the California fires began, they had their biggest air cranes grounded, because it wasn't cost efficient...

Was this aspect already discussed?

If so was there any conclusion, as to criminal negligance of this company, NOT doing hte job they bid on to do?

I have been working for the government for quite some time now and I also know a few things about flying, and I have to say this whole story sounds rather fishy to me (to say the least).

First, there is only the third hand account of this one person (a pilot) about why the plane was grounded. The fact is, that the pilot may not know what the reason for the grounding is unless it is due to some mechanical problem with the plane or a problem with the weather. As for funding the missions, the pilot may not know any of those details. He just flys the thing where it is supposed to be and when it is supposed to be there.

Second, if there really was a problem with the company who was doing the aerial fire-fighting work, then surely some sort of contingency could be worked out. Such as using the company that had the next lowest bid for example. Or provide the first company with some extra funds. Or such other thing.

Third, I have not seen any other confirmation of this story. True the fires were quite bad, but I have not seen any accounts that involve the aerial firefighting aspect of it.

[King of the Americas]

Alrighty, so this "far-flung" relative is a first counsin of mine, who lives in New Mexico, thus the "far-flung" description. Her husband isnt a pilot, he is a "flight engineer", who runs the water lift & drop systems.

She said that she "...saw all 4 of the biggest air cranes on the ground...", while the fires were in full swing, and that "...this year their group had already seen more action than in years past..."

Then she explained who funds their company, and how their company was chosen to do the job.

So, if the weather was fine, and there was nothing mechanically wrong with the planes, then why not fly?

Hearsay, third hand knowledge, or outright speculation, we sill have facts to start with.

And the 'fact' is that the biggest air cranes were grounded, as California burned.

IF a company bid on the job, and 'their' advisors decide whether or not to fly, COULD they be held criminally responsible for not putting out fires?

OR

Would their lawyers have written the contract to insure that they'd be covered for just such an occasion?

The whole story just seemed 'weird'...

I came here hoping for some insight from people who know more about such things, than I do.

I did not mean to present a concrete ironclade case against this company, or any such thing. I just thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

[casebro]

SOoo, while fires were burning in California, some planes were sitting on the ground 1,000 miles away in New Mexico? Some conspiracy.

[tsg]

Hearsay, third hand knowledge, or outright speculation, we sill have facts to start with.

No, we don't, and that's the point. All we have is hearsay and third hand knowledge. The facts are completely missing.

More correctly, the only facts we have is that you claim somebody you know claims these things happened. Everything else is speculation based on the assumed truth of those claims.

I did not mean to present a concrete ironclade case against this company, or any such thing. I just thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

That's what we're doing, starting with the reliability of the assertions. But your insistence on asking the question "why were these planes on the ground" assumes the claims are not and cannot be in doubt. They are.

[fishbob]

Alrighty, . . . .

She said that she "...saw all 4 of the biggest air cranes on the ground...", while the fires were in full swing, and that "...this year their group had already seen more action than in years past..."

Then she explained who funds their company, and how their company was chosen to do the job.
. . . . . .
So, if the weather was fine, and there was nothing mechanically wrong with the planes, then why not fly? . . . . .



Why? See post 10.

Also, apparently you received an explanation of who contracted the company - in New Mexico. Howzabout you let us know who it is. Feds or State? Is this agency also responsible for fires in California?

[Crossbow]

Alrighty, so this "far-flung" relative is a first counsin of mine, who lives in New Mexico, thus the "far-flung" description. Her husband isnt a pilot, he is a "flight engineer", who runs the water lift & drop systems.

She said that she "...saw all 4 of the biggest air cranes on the ground...", while the fires were in full swing, and that "...this year their group had already seen more action than in years past..."

Then she explained who funds their company, and how their company was chosen to do the job.

So, if the weather was fine, and there was nothing mechanically wrong with the planes, then why not fly?

Hearsay, third hand knowledge, or outright speculation, we sill have facts to start with.

And the 'fact' is that the biggest air cranes were grounded, as California burned.

IF a company bid on the job, and 'their' advisors decide whether or not to fly, COULD they be held criminally responsible for not putting out fires?

OR

Would their lawyers have written the contract to insure that they'd be covered for just such an occasion?

The whole story just seemed 'weird'...

I came here hoping for some insight from people who know more about such things, than I do.

I did not mean to present a concrete ironclade case against this company, or any such thing. I just thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

Sorry, but this story of your still sounds rather fishy to me.

First of all, there are quite a few aircraft which are used for firefighting in California.

Second of all, the state of California has several aircraft of its own to do firefighting work.

Third of all, while I have been able to find cases of firefighting aircraft to be grounded due to weather and maintenance issues, but I have not[/] seen any cases of firefighting aircraft being grounded due to funding problems. If you have such data, then please post it.

Below are a couple of articles which spell out these points.

http://www.aopa.org/advocacy/articles/2007/071023wildfires.html

[u]GA pilots, airports key in firefighting efforts

...

Four Grumman S-2 airtankers, each carrying 1,200 gallons of fire retardant, were operating out of Ramona Airport on Oct. 23. All operations at Ramona had been grounded earlier in the week as a result of high winds, turbulence, and smoke, according to ASN volunteer Ian Hollingsworth, who was forced to evacuate his home on Oct. 21.

...

In addition to the 23 Grumman S-2T airtankers, 11 UH-1H Super Huey helicopters, and 14 OV-10A air tactical aircraft operated or used by the California Department of Forestry, numerous other aircraft, including a variety of military helicopters, a DC-10 Super Tanker, and six C-130s modified to carry 3,000 gallons of fire retardant each, had been called in to assist California’s firefighting efforts. The aircraft were operating out of a combination of GA, air carrier, and military airports.

http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/2007/hot0710.html

Hot Shots

...

Twenty miles north, pilot Chris Holm and co-pilot Andy Harcombe are going through their final checklists before takeoff from Santa Maria Municipal Airport. Their four arms wave and interweave in a carefully choreographed routine of flipping switches and pulling levers in their Lockheed P2V, a Cold War-era maritime patrol airplane converted to air tanker duty for firefighting. The airplane's two 18-cylinder, supercharged Curtiss Wright radial engines rumble like a gang of Harleys, and as the airplane prepares to take off, the whine of two Pratt & Whitney J34 boost jets cuts in. The airplane — with its 2,500-gallon load of fire retardant — begins rolling down the runway. The half-century-old relic shakes and rattles like an ancient school bus as it lifts into the air. By the time it has passed the airport boundary, the lumbering aircraft has barely reached 500 feet agl. At around 700 feet agl, Holm gently puts the airplane into a shallow bank and turns it toward the rising column of smoke.

...

Yet, the Forest Service today has fewer than half the 33 heavy air tankers it did in 2004, following a series of in-flight breakups that prompted the agency to cancel all its air tanker contracts pending a review of the fleet's airworthiness. At the time, the fleet averaged 48 years old, with some airplanes as old as 60 years. In response, the Forest Service enacted strict guidelines regarding maintenance that, among other things, required air tanker contractors to establish and monitor the "operational service life" of the airplanes, something not even considered or required by the FAA when any of the airplanes were built. Neptune and Aero Union of Chico, California, which operates eight four-engine Lockheed P-3 Orions for the Forest Service, together with Lockheed Martin, scrambled to develop procedures to comply with the new rules. The rest of the fleet, although legally airworthy by FAA standards, was forced into retirement.

...

[Babylon Sister]

IF a company bid on the job, and 'their' advisors decide whether or not to fly, COULD they be held criminally responsible for not putting out fires?

It is unlikely that they would be held responsible if the company had a CWN (call when needed) contract with the USDA Forest Service. I don't know about other agencies or the California Department of Forestry (who were primarily responsible for fighting the last batch of fires.)

Under the definition of CWN: "There is no guarantee the
Government will place any orders and the Contractor is not obligated to accept any orders."

You can see the full FS contract at the following: http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/contracting/helicopters_cwn/helicopters_cwn.htm

[King of the Americas]

Thanks BS.

This was indeed helpful.

---

Thanks to the rest of you for your skepticism, it too is greatly appreciated.

[Beerina]

So basically no humans, in either the company nor the government, thought that there'd be "lots" of fires, where "lots" is defined as "way out the statistical range".

Sounds like a better contract would be, "Pay for X amount (which will keep the planes in shape and the pilots trained, and for little-x amount of firefighting) plus rate Y for any additonal fires beyond little-x."

If only a human, somewhere, had encountered this kind of contractual problem before. :rolleyes:

[rwguinn]

It is unlikely that they would be held responsible if the company had a CWN (call when needed) contract with the USDA Forest Service. I don't know about other agencies or the California Department of Forestry (who were primarily responsible for fighting the last batch of fires.)

Under the definition of CWN: "There is no guarantee the
Government will place any orders and the Contractor is not obligated to accept any orders."

You can see the full FS contract at the following: http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/contracting/helicopters_cwn/helicopters_cwn.htm
I also suspect that had they taken the airplanes from New Mexico ("The Charbroiled State") to California, the breech of contract penalties would be pretty stiff...

[King of the Americas]

I'd also like to add, that my cousin and her husband live in New Mexico, but they don't always fly out of there directly to the fire.

Which sounded stupid to me, since 'he' is the only one working. He is home for most of the year, and then when fires break out they fly him (and sometimes he takes his wife along) to whatever airport is closest the fire. Then they jump on the air -ranes and take off

This year they had them 'sitting' at an airport, ready to fly, but they didn't use the largest air-cranes during the last part of the season for the California fires, for whatever reason.

I 'think' they live in New Mexico, because there IS an airport there that they fly out of 'regularly', but she also noted that they go to where the fires are and fly out from there.

To be honest I'd hoped to get some more information from the other posters here. This is the place I come when I need factual information on almost anything

[Babylon Sister]

I'd also like to add, that my cousin and her husband live in New Mexico, but they don't always fly out of there directly to the fire.

Which sounded stupid to me, since 'he' is the only one working. He is home for most of the year, and then when fires break out they fly him (and sometimes he takes his wife along) to whatever airport is closest the fire. Then they jump on the air -ranes and take off

This year they had them 'sitting' at an airport, ready to fly, but they didn't use the largest air-cranes during the last part of the season for the California fires, for whatever reason.

I 'think' they live in New Mexico, because there IS an airport there that they fly out of 'regularly', but she also noted that they go to where the fires are and fly out from there.

To be honest I'd hoped to get some more information from the other posters here. This is the place I come when I need factual information on almost anything


My guess is that they weren't used because the CDF felt that they had enough air support with the big tankers, SEATs and Type II and III helicopters they had. (The CDF are very possessive about their fires.)

Also, that last big spate of fires had some very dangerous flying conditions with the fast, erratic winds. It just wasn't safe to have planes and helicopters in the air for much of the time the fires were burning.