I can’t remember if this is the third time; there was the “Mark Rey going to jail” case, and a more recent case (that maybe led to the NPDES permit requirement? Whatever happened to that?)
But maybe some went by when I wasn’t paying attention.
I first heard about this from The Hotshot Wakeup last weekend. According to his industry sources, the USC study (cited in the case, apparently) involved formulations that are no longer used.
I asked Andy why just the FS and not other wildfire agencies. Here’s his answer:
Contracting for all federal leases of aerial retardant aircraft is done by the FS. The FS also controls retardant formulation approvals through its Qualified Product List.
Here’s a link to the Missoulian article.
Here’s a copy of the complaint, thanks to Andy for sending!
That’s all I know..
Here’s a few related question for experts that I’ve never heard answered..
When Senator Sheehy wants only one federal agency (FAA, I guess) to check planes and not the FS, what does the FS check that’s different? It seems like that would be good to know, but I don’t see that in the stories. Also, I had heard that some new formulation, supposed to be more gentle to the environment, had negative impacts to the interior of aircraft, which raised questions about the FS adequately checking on that… but never heard the rest of the story.
Here’s a good story on the background to the certification issue, the FS’ possibly outdated role, and Sheehy’s possible conflict of interest:
https://www.etxview.com/sen-sheehy-who-started-aerial-firefighting-company-wants-to-end-usfs-aircraft-inspections/article_d7b269a6-29ce-5009-89ea-ec9a3456fdd2.html
Thanks, Rich, that’s a really good article, but I would still like to know what exactly the FS checks for that the FAA does not. Or do the people who want to keep both checks just want the same things to be double-checked? I can see either way.
Good question. I’m guessing the FS checks for certain operational conditions (steep dives, quick turns, sudden weather changes, all in an active fire steep topography context) that the FAA -focused on commercial aircraft – doesn’t. But Sheehy and the tanker folks (at least some of them) seem to refute these arguments. One of the plethora of things I’m not is a fire aviation expert. It would be great if someone who is could weigh in here.
I’ll pose the question to knowledgeable pilots – is it harder to (a) drop retardant on an active fire or (b) land a commecrial aircraft at Juneau? Explain your answer, being brief but specific.