Managing Aerial Firefighting Activities on Airports (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Wildland fires have been increasing dramatically in the past decade; the six worst fire years, as measured by the number of acres burned, have occurred since 2000. While the reasons for this record can be debated, the reality remains; the destructive effects of wildland fires are on the increase. With more people building and living in the wildland urban interface zone, the losses from fire are increasing too. Suppression of these fires has stretched resources to the point where fire suppression dollars are now being moved from other basic services and programs. Resources to fight these fires have also dwindled with the decertification of a number of large fixed-wing aerial tanker aircraft for reasons of safety. Although no one fire attack method is more valuable than another, the ability to attack a fire from the air with large quan- tities of retardant or water is an important tool in this battle, a battle in which airports play an important role. The objective of this report is to provide a review of current airport and agency—primarily the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)—practices, policies, and procedures at airports called upon to support aerial wildland firefighting suppression efforts. Since the early years of the twentieth century, the USFS and the Bureau of Land Management have been in the forefront of wildland firefighting suppression efforts. Those efforts have met with varying levels of success and have withstood a variety of changes in forestry management practices over the years. In the 1970s, the management practices established in 1926, commonly called the 10-acre policy and the 10:00 a.m. policy developed in 1935, were questioned and new prac- tices, such as “prescribed natural fire,” or as it was more commonly known, “let-burn,” were developed and deployed. When the wildland fires of 1988 hit Yellowstone National Park, those practices were again modified. As management philosophy and approaches changed, so did the practical use of aerial firefighting resources. The effects of the changes rippled through the aerial wildland fire- fighting community, including airports. In recent years, safety concerns developed over the use of older C-130 aircraft, ultimately reducing substantially the total cadre of large fixed- wing aircraft. Changes in management with the advent of the DHS, the changing role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the growing requirements to implement, on a national level, the National Incident Management System have all had impacts on wildland fire management. As the practices of federal agencies changed, state and local agencies also changed. Even- tually, airports that support the aerial wildland firefighting operations had to adapt to these federal, state, and local responses. Ten airport operators (representing 13 airports), two commercial helicopter operators, and one regional fire center manager were interviewed to gather insights on the current state of airport practices that support aerial wildland firefight- ing suppression efforts. The interviews followed a series of questions about community and economic matters, contracts, operations, and general business practices. Although the interviews were structured, the interviewees were encouraged to freely discuss matters related to the topic of the study and to offer information on the subject that they believed Summary managing aerial FireFighting activitieS on airportS

2 was important; interestingly, the guideline questions appeared to have adequately covered the topic, as no interviewee believed there were additional topics to discuss. The results of the interviews revealed several themes, but more often pointed out that rela- tionships, policies, practices, customs, and procedures have a local flavor and style reflective of the nature of the airport, region, and local municipalities. A common theme discovered during the interviews was the very positive and high value that was placed on relationships between the airport operators and the user agency, in most cases, USFS. Airport operators with resident USFS operations praised the agency as tenants and were universally interested in keeping and expanding its presence at the airports; those airports without a permanent USFS operation were actively pursuing the establishment of a full-time base at their facilities. Other common themes noted from the interviews included specific operational issues with helicopters, security and access control issues at airports subject to Transportation Security Regulation 1542, and fuel flowage fees. On the issues of noise and other negative impacts to the community resulting from aerial operations, very few problems were identified. Economics and financial matters were another area where interviewees had strong opin- ions and information to offer. The discussions focused on matters of fees and charges, and, as was expected, there was little consistency among airports, with the exception that each airport did charge airport users some form of fuel flowage fee. Contract provisions, rules and regulations, fee rates, insurance requirements, and use areas were all topics where local traditions and practices prevailed. During the research of the available literature, it quickly became apparent that there was a dearth of written material on the subject of the role of airport operators in supporting aerial wildland firefighting suppression activities. The literature is voluminous concerning the internal operations of the various wildland firefighting agencies and the operations of aircraft; when airports are mentioned, it is on a subject like establishing landing zones for helicopters—information already known to most airport operators. There are likely several reasons for the lack of information on the subject. The first reason is that while aerial wildland firefighting support operations have their unique aspects, the primary functions performed are not unique; pilots operate their aircraft and airport operators provide facilities for aircraft operators. The second reason is that the operational and techni- cal matters related to aerial wildland firefighting support—that is, taxiway width, runway length and width, weight bearing requirements for surfaces, turning radii, and safety prac- tices and procedures—are all matters that airport operators manage on an almost daily basis and are documented in numerous FAA Advisory Circulars. Contractual and public relations issues are generally matters of local custom and practice, particularly those legal matters associated with agreements such as the creation of rules and regulations for the airport. What the literature does contain that could be useful to airport operators is a bit of history and information about how the various federal and state agencies are structured and function. A basic understanding of these matters would likely benefit most operators’ understanding of “how,” “why,” and “by whom” aerial wildland firefighting activities are conducted. Airport managers who are new to this or want to know the state of the arts might benefit from this information. In closing, it should be noted that the greatest resources on this subject are the airport man- agers themselves and their willingness to share ideas and information. As long as this living library is open, there appears to be no need for further research on this subject.