Cost-benefit analysis of aerial firefighting
By Kelsey Ray, High Country News
When large wildfires blaze, the public counts on airplanes to put them out. Pilots fly air tankers over mountainous terrain and drop fire retardant — up to nearly 12,000 gallons per trip — onto the dense forests below.
The bursts of red slurry bring hope to those whose homes are imperiled. Politicians and the media thrill at the sight and clamor for more.
But is it safe? And is it effective enough to justify the high costs?
The U.S. Forest Service, which saw its large air tanker fleet shrink to just nine planes in 2012, has 20 air tankers on exclusive-use and call-when-needed contracts for the 2015 season, plus one under Forest Service operation. Spokeswoman Jennifer Jones said the agency is working to bring up to 28 air tankers into service.
Nobody who has been anywhere near a fireline thinks aircraft put out fires. They don’t. Aircraft provide for crew safety, reduce flame length and reduce rate of spread. This enables crews to work closer to the fire, and generally work to save life and property or valuable natural resources. Aircraft are absolutely a part of the mix of assets that should be available. But do not think for a minute they are a panacea, they are not.
I think given the situation with fires throughout California and the likelihood of fires increasing Iit make sense having an airport with a firefighting plane and care flight located here.
I wish we had the money for some aerial firefighting aircraft. I think it would be a big help living where we do. But we can’t even afford to overlay our city streets in town or hire more police officers to get rid of the scrumbums living around here. OLS