Despite firefighting prowess, the Russians aren’t coming

While the Southeast’s largest wildfire in more than a century was still smoldering in Georgia after burning 903 square miles, a fresh conflagration reared its ugly head in California, and an American pilot from Virginia — employed by the Russian government — said his organization could have prevented most of the wildfire destruction and loss.

The highly frustrated Tom Robinson serves as chief of Global Emergency Response and is the international liaison to the Russian government, which has offered the Ilyushin 76 (IL-76) four-engine prop plane to the U.S. Forest Service each year since 1995, he claims.

According to Robinson, the IL-76 tanker aircraft could do in days or hours what takes the U.S. Forest Service weeks and even months to accomplish:fight the nation’s wildfires.

While insurers face costly claims in high-value residential areas and, in some cases, discontinue writing policies due to wildfire proximity, Robinson said his efforts to curb the destruction are being stonewalled by the U.S. Forest Service.

Exacerbating the issue, Robinson claims, is that wildland firefighting has become a major seasonal business for thousands of vendors under USFS contract — businesses that have become ingrained in dependent local economies.

“It (USFS) [is] the enemy,” Robinson said. “Inflated prices on items such as equipment, fuel, box lunches, bottled water, portable Johns, clothing, snacks, etc., have turned wildland firefighting into a multi-billion dollar enterprise for many, while our brave firefighters are forced to risk their lives, relying on outdated and inefficient apparatus supplied by ‘good old boy’ USFS contractors,” he said.

Federal officials say Robinson is frustrated by a contracting process that others have willingly met.

Rose Davis, a spokeswoman for the National Interagency Fire Center in Idaho, said the Russian planes are not certified by the Federal Aviation Administration, and that the Russian aircraft would have to go through the same pre-contractual procedures that every other contracted flyer undergoes.

“The Russian planes do not meet the requirements of the Interagency Tanker Board,” Davis said. “And FAA certification is a prerequisite for all of our contractors.”

While Robinson said the USFS continues to “sign contracts to utilize small, antique [WWII-vintage], ineffective and often unsafe air tankers to protect our nation from the ever-increasing damage, injuries and deaths caused by the annual wild land fires,” the Forest Service has an ample fleet of various aircraft at its disposal — and many more waiting in line to help, she noted.

“The Forest Service owns 18 aircraft of different kinds for use as smokejumper platforms, to fly infrared missions, for air attack — also called Air Tactical Group Supervisor platform — and a few that work in forest health monitoring doing surveys for bugs, fungus, inventory work, etc.,” Davis said.

“We are leasing 10 aircraft for more ATGS planes. These also double as lead planes as needed, by the way,” she said.

Robinson contends the Russian aircraft will not comply with the FAA certification process because he said he was told by USFS officials that the tankers would not be used even if the aircraft were FAA-certified.

“This is an ultra-modern plane, and the only one that can fly at night when winds are calm, the most efficient time to put a fire out,” Robinson said. “This is an emergency situation. We’re not asking for preferential treatment, just a level playing field.”

Maintaining that if employed, the Russian tankers would positively affect the U.S. government’s bottom line — and associated private and corporate insurance-related costs — Robinson pointed to a May 2006 Government Accounting Office study titled, “Wildland Fire Management: Lack of Clear Goals or a Strategy Hinders Federal Agencies’ Efforts to Contain the Costs of Fighting Fires.”

In part, the report stated that “although the firefighting agencies have established a broad goal of suppressing wildland fires at minimum cost — considering firefighter, public safety, resources and structures to be protected — there is no defined criteria by which to weigh the relative importance of these often-competing priorities.”

In the past decade, “annual wildland fire appropriations to control and suppress wildland fires, including appropriations for reducing fuels, have increased from an average of $1.1 billion from fiscal years 1996 through 2000 to more than $2.9 billion from fiscal years 2002 through 2005. Adjusted for inflation, the appropriations increased from $1.3 billion to $3.1 billion,” the GAO’s 2007 updated report indicated.

The GAO report said firefighting officials in the field lack a clear understanding of the relative importance the agencies’ leadership places on containing costs, and therefore are likely to select firefighting strategies without due consideration of the costs of suppression. The agencies also have yet to develop a vision of how the various cost-containment steps they are taking relate to one another or to determine the extent to which these steps will be effective, according to the GAO report.

The GAO recommended that the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior improve cost-containment efforts by establishing clear and measurable objectives and a strategy to achieve them. The GAO requested that this information be in front of Congress in time to prepare for the 2008 fire season.

The report acknowledged that the Forest Service and Interior agencies “have initiated a number of steps” to reduce accumulated fuels, acquire and use firefighting personnel and equipment, and select firefighting strategies to help federal agencies contain wildland fire costs, but it also noted that the effects of these steps on containing costs is unknown because many of the steps are not yet complete.

The Forest Service and Interior generally disagree with the GAO’s findings, and stated that the GAO did not accurately portray some of the agencies’ actions to contain costs. They neither agreed nor disagreed with the GAO’s recommendations, according to last year’s report.

Robinson summarized the GAO report as showing that one hand doesn’t know what the other hand is doing inside the Forest Service. For him, the solution is obvious: to allow the IL-76 to come in and demonstrate its capabilities.

Furthermore, Robinson said the insurance industry could be instrumental in lobbying for the plane’s use — and funding its introductory tour. He said for $1 million, he can place a plane at U.S. hot spots for three months.

Bob Hartwig, chief economist with the Insurance Information Institute in New York, said that while insurers support all the efforts of firefighters in regard to protecting property and homes and lives, it is difficult to comment on issues concerning military aircraft and FAA certification.

“Obviously there is a more fundamental problem, and I can’t weigh-in on the political, military and safety aspect of the issue,” Hartwig said. “The solution is probably not calling in a Russian aircraft every time. Every asset that can be brought to bear would be welcome, but I am not qualified to say to the FAA that the benefits of the Russian aircraft would outweigh whatever risks there might be with that type of plane.”

U.S. Representative Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said he is involved in trying to expand the availability of the tanker type aircraft in case of emergency.

“I’ve done my best to try to convince the Forest Service at a time when the old fleet has diminished and to take steps to increase their capacity,” Rohrabacher said. “I talked to the top people at the Forest Service and they briefed me — explained it away to their satisfaction. It’s hard to understand their reasoning. They have not taken the steps necessary for either the Russian program or in the United States.”

Rohrabacher agreed that FAA-certification is not necessary, and he said the Forest Service’s mindset is that of “the good old boy network.”

“If they’re caught without the ability to call on the appropriate measures, it will be a great disservice to our people,” Rohrabacher added. “I have yet to get a satisfactory answer from the Forest Service. And insurance companies that insure homes and property should also be involved, but they’re not responding,” he concluded.