Fire Management Notes, V 59, No 1, Winter 1999

8/4/2019 Fire Management Notes, V 59, No 1, Winter 1999

1/40

Volume 59 No. 1 Winter 1999

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

THE FUTUREOF

NATIONAL SHARED

RESOURCES

THE FUTUREOF

NATIONAL SHARED

RESOURCES

Fire

Managementnotes


2/40

Fire Management Notes is published by the Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.The Secretary of Agriculture has determined that the publication of this periodical is necessary in the transaction ofthe public business required by law of this Department.

Subscriptions ($8.50 per year domestic, $10.65 per year foreign) may be obtained from New Orders, Superintendentof Documents, P.O. Box 371954, Pittsburgh, PA 15250-7954. A subscription order form is available on the back cover.

Fire Management Notes is available on the World Wide Web at .

Dan Glickman, Secretary April J. BailyU.S. Department of Agriculture General Manager

Mike Dombeck, Chief Robert H. Hutch Brown, Ph.D.Forest Service Editor

Jose Cruz, Director Michael DudleyFire and Aviation Management Submissions Coordinator

Donna M. PaananenConsulting Editor

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities onthe basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, andmarital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who requirealternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contactUSDAs TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building,14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TDD). USDA is anequal opportunity provider and employer.

Disclaimer: The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience ofthe reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement of any product or service by the U.S. Department ofAgriculture. Individual authors are responsible for the technical accuracy of the material presented inFireManagement Notes.

This issue ofFire Management Notes isthe second in a series of two focusing on

wildland fire aviation management. Manythanks to all contributors for sharing theirexperience and expertise with the wildlandfire community.

GUIDELINESFOR CONTRIBUTORSEditorial Policy

Fire Management Notes (FMN) is an interna-tional quarterly magazine for the wildland firecommunity.FMNwelcomes unsolicited manu-scripts from readers on any subject related tofire management. (See the subject index of thefirst issue of each volume for a list of topicscovered in the past.)

Because space is a consideration, long manu-scripts are subject to publication delay andeditorial cutting;FMNdoes print short pieces ofinterest to readers.

Submission GuidelinesSubmit manuscripts to either the generalmanager or the editor at:

USDA Forest ServiceAttn: April J. Baily, F&AM StaffP.O. Box 96090

Washington, DC 20090-6090tel. 202-205-0891, fax 202-205-1272Internet e-mail: abaily/[email protected]

Hutch Brown, EditorFire Management Notes4814 North 3rd Street

Arlington, VA 22203tel. 703-525-5951, fax 703-525-0162e-mail: [email protected]

If you have questions about a submission,please contact the editor, Hutch Brown.

Paper Copy. Type or word-process themanuscript on white paper (double-spaced)on one side. Include the complete name(s),title(s), affiliation(s), and address(es) of theauthor(s), as well as telephone and faxnumbers and e-mail information. If the sameor a similar manuscript is being submittedelsewhere, include that information also.

Authors who are affiliated should submit acamera-ready logo for their agency, institu-tion, or organization.

Style. Authors are responsible for usingwildland fire terminology that conforms tothe latest standards set by the National

Wildfire Coordinating Group under theNational Interagency Incident Management

System.FMNuses the spelling, capitaliza-tion, hyphenation, and other styles recom-mended in the United States Government

Printing Office Style Manual. Authors shoulduse the U.S. system of weight and measure,

with equivalent values in the metric system.Try to keep titles concise and descriptive;subheadings and bulleted material are usefuland help readability. As a general rule of clear

writing, use the active voice (e.g., write, Firemanagers know and not, It is known).Provide spellouts for all abbreviations.Consult recent issues (on the World Wide

Web at ) for placement of the authorsname, title, agency affiliation, and location,as well as for style of paragraph headings andreferences. Inhouse editing can be expeditedif authors have their manuscript reviewed by

peers and by someone with editing skills.Please list the name(s) of reviewer(s) and/orthe editor when submitting manuscripts.

Tables. Tables should be typed, with titlesand column headings capitalized as shown inrecent issues; tables should be understand-able without reading the text. Include tablesat the end of the manuscript.

Photos and Illustrations. Figures, illustra-tions, overhead transparencies (originals arepreferable), and clear photographs (colorslides or glossy color prints are preferable)are often essential to the understanding ofarticles. Clearly label all photos and illustra-tions (figure 1, 2, 3, etc.; photograph A, B, C,

etc.). At the end of the manuscript, includeclear, thorough figure and photo captionslabeled in the same way as the correspondingmaterial (figure 1, 2, 3; photograph A, B, C;etc.). Captions should make photos andillustrations understandable without readingthe text. For photos, indicate the top andinclude the name and affiliation of thephotographer and the year the photo was

taken.

Electronic Files. Please label all diskscarefully with name(s) of file(s) and system(s)used. If the manuscript is word-processed,please submit a 3-1/2 inch, IBM-compatibledisk together with the paper copy (see above)as an electronic file in one of these formats:

WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS; WordPerfect 7.0 orearlier for Windows 95; Microsoft Word 6.0 orearlier for Windows 95; Rich Text format; or

ASCII. Digital photos may be submitted butmust be at least 300 dpi and accompanied bya high-resolution (preferably laser) printoutfor editorial review and quality controlduring the printing process. Do not embedillustrations (such as maps, charts, andgraphs) in the electronic file for the manu-script. Instead, submit each illustration at

1,200 dpi in a separate file using a standardinterchange format such as EPS, TIFF, orJPEG (EPS format is preferable, 256Kcolors), accompanied by a high-resolution(preferably laser) printout. For charts andgraphs, include the data needed to recon-struct them.

Release Authorization. Non-FederalGovernment authors must sign a release toallow their work to be in the public domainand on the World Wide Web. In addition, allphotos and illustrations require a writtenrelease by the photographer or illustrator.The author, photo, and illustration releaseforms are available from General Manager

April Baily.
http://www.fs.fed.us/land/fire/firenote.htmhttp://www.fs.fed.us/land/fire/firenote.htmhttp://www.fs.fed.us/land/fire/firenote.htmhttp://www.fs.fed.us/land/fire/firenote.htm


3/40

CONTENTSOn the Cover:

THE FUTUREOF

NATIONAL SHARED

RESOURCES

THE FUTUREOF

NATIONAL SHARED

RESOURCES

Counterclockwise from upper right tolower right: A Lockheed P3A Orion(Aero Union T00) under national con-tract to the USDA Forest Service mak-ing a retardant drop on a wildfire in

Arizona in 1996. Recommendation 2of the 1996National Airtanker Studyspecifies that the P3s, along with C

130E models, should be part of thefuture large airtanker fleet (see relatedstory by Don Carlton and MichaelDudley). Photo: Courtesy of Tom Story,Tempe, AZ, 1998. John Day Helitack,

Malheur National Forest, PacificNorthwest Region, conducting rappeltraining for new crewmembers, part ofthe national shared resources being

examined under the National AerialDelivered Firefighter Study. Photo:

Brad Gibbs, USDA Forest Service,Malheur National Forest, John Day,OR, 1998. An Erickson S64 type 1

helicopter making a drop on a fire inMalibu, CA, in 1996. This is one of thehelicopter types evaluated under the1992 National Study of Type I and Type

II Helicopters to Support Large FireSuppression, updated in 1997 (seerelated story by Joe Krish). Photo:Courtesy of Tom Story, Tempe, AZ,1998.

The FIRE 21 symbol (shown below and onthe cover) stands for the safe and effective useof wildland fire, now and in the 21st century.Its shape represents the fire triangle (oxygen,heat, and fuel). The three outer red trianglesrepresent the basic functions of wildland fireorganizations (planning, operations, andaviation management), and the three criticalaspects of wildland fire management(prevention, suppression, and prescription).The black interior represents land affected byfire; the emerging green points symbolize thegrowth, restoration, and sustainabilityassociated with fire-adapted ecosystems. Theflame represents fire itself as an ever-presentforce in nature. For more information onFIRE 21 and the science, research, andinnovative thinking behind it, contact MikeApicello, National Interagency Fire Center,208-387-5460.

Firefighter and public safety is

our first priority

Volume 59 No. 1 Winter 1999

Planning National Shared Forcesfor the 21st Century............................................. 4

Michael Dudley

National Airtanker Study: An Overview ...................... 6Donald W. Carlton and Michael Dudley

Followup on the 1992 National Type 1Helicopter Study................................................. 10

Joseph F. Krish

Airspace Coordination During Floridas1998 Wildfires .................................................. 13

Julie Stewart

News Helicopter Partnership Model ........................ 16Robert W. Kuhn

Minnesotas New Mix of Fire Aviation Resources ...... 19Sheldon Mack

Privatizing Aerial Wildfire Detectionin South Carolina ................................................ 22

Ken Cabe

Small-Format Aerial Photography............................ 25Gary E. Laudermilch

Modular Airborne Fire Fighting SystemsSucceed in Indonesia ........................................... 27

Joe Madar and Ginger Brudevold

Fire Management PartnershipLeads the Way in Utah ........................................ 31

Gary Cornell

Seventeen Smokey Bear AwardsPresented for 1997 ........................................... 33

Judy Kissinger

Author IndexVolume 58 ....................................... 37

Subject IndexVolume 58 ...................................... 38

SHORT FEATURESGuidelines for Contributors ....................................... 2

October Fury: Documentary on

1947 Maine Wildfires ........................................... 5Jim Downie

NARTC Course Catalogfor 199899 Available ........................................ 18

Hutch Brown

Florida Modifies FEPP for IncidentCommand Communications .................................. 24

George L. Cooper

New Fire Safety Web Site for Children ..................... 30Hutch Brown

Management notesFire


4/404 Fire Management Notes

ational shared resourcesfirefighting resources that arefunded directly by the USDA

The results of these four studies will help guidethe Forest Service and its interagency partners

into the year 2000 and beyond.

PLANNING NATIONAL SHARED FORCES

FORTHE 21ST CENTURY

Michael Dudley

Mike Dudley is an aviation managementspecialist for the USDA Forest ServicesWashington Office, Washington, DC.

NForest Services Washington Office,such as airtankers, smokejumpers,and lead planesare essential tosuccessful wildland fire manage-ment across the Nation. In 1991,the Forest Service began planningthe future of national sharedresources with a report preparedby a team led by Jim Mann, at the

time the regional fire and aviationdirector for the Forest ServicesNorthern Region.

Manns report on how to managethe analysis process for planningnational shared resources led theForest Service to convene a groupof wildland fire managers todevelop a process and blueprint toguide the Forest Service into the21st century through a series of

studies on national shared re-sources for large wildfire suppres-sion. The resultingNationalShared Forces Task Force Report(NSFTFR), completed in 1991,recommended a specific scheduleof interagency studies to deter-mine the most efficient staffinglevels for national resources,including airtankers, helicopters,smokejumpers, improvements totheir support facilities, and themost cost-effective methods fortheir procurement.

National HelicopterStudyThe first study, completed in 1992,was the National Study of Type Iand Type II Helicopters to Support

Large Fire Suppression. The studyrecommended the most efficientquantity of, and staffing for, type 1and type 2 helicopters to placeunder national exclusive-use con-tract for supporting extendedattack and large wildland firesuppression. Since 1993, basedon recommendations from thisreport, national staffing for type 2helicopters has resulted in sub-stantial annual savings to theFederal Government. Currently,staffing for the 1999 fire seasonstands at seven national type 2helicopters. The 1992 study wasrecently reviewed and updatedwith regard to type 1 helicopterneeds (see related article by JoeKrish).

Airborne FirefighterStudy

The second study chartered by theNSFTFR Steering Committee, theNational Aerial Delivered Fire-fighter Study, is in progress. Thestudy is designed to providemanagers with information,guidance, and decision support

regarding the mix, numbers, andlocations of smokejumper, heli-tack, and rappel crews in thecontext of other initial-attackresources.

National AirtankerStudyThe third study, theNationalAirtanker Study (NATS), wascompleted in two phases. Phase I,completed in 1995, recommendeda national fleet of 41 large air-tankers. Phase II, completed in1996, gave 16 recommendations toguide the airtanker program forthe next 20 years (see relatedarticle by Don Carlton and MikeDudley). A key conclusion of NATSphase IIthat airtanker basefacilities are as important as theaircraft themselvesresulted inthe National Airtanker SupportBase Improvement project forfiscal year 1999.

Tactical AerialResource

Management StudyThe fourth study, the TacticalAerial Resource ManagementStudy (TARMS), was drafted inApril 1998 and is scheduled forcompletion in fall 1998. The studyis designed to provide managers


5/405Volume 59 No 1 Winter 1999

with information, guidance, andsupport for national and geo-graphic-area decisions affectingthe National Leadplane, Air Tacti-cal Group Supervisor, and Helicop-ter Coordinator Programs.

The results of these four studieswill help guide the Forest Serviceand its interagency partners intothe year 2000 and beyond. Byfollowing the recommendations inthese studies, we will be betterprepared to meet the challengesahead in 21st-century wildland firemanagement. For more informa-tion on the national shared re-sources studies, contact MikeDudley, Aviation Management

Specialist, USDA Forest Service,Fire and Aviation Management,P.O. Box 96090, Washington, DC20090-6090, tel. 202-205-0995,fax 202-205-1272, e-mail: mdudley/[email protected]. s

The aviation management triangle reflects the essential elements ofsound, professional aviation management. Aviation management is aservice function. Our objective is to provide safe, cost-effective, andappropriate aviation services.

The foundation of aviation management is safety. If the missioncannot be accomplished without compromising safety, say No!Ensure that there is an acceptable level of risk through sound riskmanagement.

Strive for cost-effective aircraft use. Question requests that are notcost-effectiveexplain why and recommend a better solution.

Use the right aircraft tool for the job. Question inappropriate re-questsexplain why and recommend a better way. Do whats right!

In October 1947, droughtconditions, high winds, andheavy fuel loads combined todrive dozens of wildfires across220,000 acres in southernMaine. The fires damaged morethan 36 communities, virtuallywiping out 9 towns and leavingmore than 2,500 people home-

less. During one week alone,15 separate fires burned at least5,000 acres each. Propertydamages exceeded $70 million,nearly $3 billion in todaysdollars.

OCTOBER FURY: DOCUMENTARYON1947 MAINE WILDFIRES

Jim Downie

Jim Downie is the fire preventionspecialist for the Maine Forest Service.

On the 50th anniversary of thesedisastrous wildfires, the MaineForest Service, along with WGMETelevision in Portland, ME, pro-duced the documentary OctoberFury. Featured on the WGME andMaine Public Broadcasting Tele-vision stations in October 1998,the documentary gives firsthand

accounts of what it was like tofight and escape the 1947 confla-grations.

The Maine Forest Service is nowoffering this 23-minute documen-tary for sale on a limited number

of videotapes. Included on eachVHS tape is old film footage fromThen It Happened, an earlierdocumentary. To purchase a copy,send a check or money order for$26.15 (which includes tax) toBronson Communications, Inc.,141 North Maine Street, Brewer,ME 04412. Sales proceeds go to

support the fire prevention pro-grams sponsored by the MaineState Federation of Firefightersand the Maine Fire Chiefs Associa-tion. For more information,contact Jim Downie at207-827-6191. s



arge airtankers play a vital rolein supporting initial and ex-

tended attack on wildfires

NATIONAL AIRTANKER STUDY: AN OVERVIEW

Donald W. Carlton and Michael Dudley

Don Carlton, who served as the committeechairperson for the National AirtankerStudy, is a fire protection planningconsultant and a retired fire protection

planning specialist for the USDA ForestService, Fire and Aviation Management,Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR;and Mike Dudley is an aviation manage-ment specialist for the Forest ServicesWashington Office, Washington, DC.

Lnationwide. TheNational Air-tanker Study (NATS) was char-tered in 1994 to provide informa-tion, guidance, and support tomanagers for national and regionaldecisionmaking that will affect thenational airtanker program and itssupporting components over thenext 10 to 20 years. In this context,national refers to the Federalairtanker fleet and base structure

that together support wildland firesuppression and use.

Study OverviewPurpose. The NATS had twophases, each with a differentpurpose:

Phase 1, completed in April1995, determined the most effi-cient number of large airtankers

and their most effective initialstaffing locations for supportingboth initial attack and extendedsuppression on large wildfires.The goals were to optimize useof the existing available large-airtanker fleet and to find thebest airtanker base locations. Byproviding a foundation for deter-mining short-term agency needs,the phase 1 study laid the basisfor the 199698 large-airtanker

contract solicitations by the

With the proposed fleet of airtankers,

average aircraft speed and retardant capacitywill increase, enhancing the Nations capability

for initial and extended attack.

USDA Forest Service and theU.S. Department of the Interior(USDI).

Phase 2, completed in November1996, was designed to determinelong-term agency needs for largeairtankers to support wildlandfirefighting. Accordingly, phase 2will form the basis for large-airtanker contract solicitationsby the Forest Service and USDIfrom 1999 to 2015, or until thestudy is revised. The goal forphase 2 was to optimizeall rea-sonable airtanker base and fleetpossibilities for the national

airtanker program to guide itsmodernization in a way thatbalances airtanker supply withagency demand. The phase 2study made recommendationsregarding optimum airtankernumbers, sizes, and performancecriteria by location, specificallyfocusing on airtanker size andperformance in relation to eco-nomic efficiency and suppressioneffectiveness.

Both phases of NATS providedanalytical support and modeldevelopment for decisionmaking.Both displayed the interrelation-ships and tradeoffs among differentairtanker capabilities and locationsin support of initial and extendedattack. The difference is thatphase 1 focused on the short term,

particularly on Federal large-airtanker contract solicitations for199698, whereas phase 2 focusedon the long term and futuresolicitations.

Methods. Both phases examinedhistoric large-airtanker uses andtrends on an interagency basis.Initial-attack data taken from theNational Fire Management Analy-sis System (NFMAS) were added todata on use of airtankers to sup-port large wildland fire suppres-sion. Forces used for initial attackare analyzed and justified using theNFMAS and the Fire Management

Activity Plan employed by theUSDI Bureau of Land Management(BLM) and Bureau of Indian Af-fairs.For this reason, the Inter-agency Initial Attack Assessment(IIAA)model was applied to helpanalyze the impact that differentairtanker platforms and/or airtank-er base alternatives might have onexpected acres burned, fire sup-pression costs, and net valuechange costs (that is, the costs

used to describe the algebraic sumof the positive and negative effectsof a wildland fire). For study pur-poses, local initial-attack forces re-mained constant as airtanker staff-ing and locations changed. Wherethe IIAA model was outdated orunused for an area, an equivalentprocess was allowed, as long asconsistency was maintained.



StudyRecommendationsPhase 1Phase 1 used initial-attack effi-ciency analysis to recommendstaffing for 38 large airtankersnationally. These 38 airtankers, as

staffed in the 199698 NationalAirtanker Contract, came from theexisting fleet, which had retardanttanks that range in capacity from2,000 to 3,000 gallons (7,570 to11,360 L). Goals for phase 1 wereto optimize the existing availablelarge airtanker fleet and to findthe best airtanker base locations.Accordingly, the optimum num-ber of 38 airtankers was deter-mined based on an aggregate of

geographic-area analyses calledscenarios. In each scenario, thenumber of large airtankers wasincreased and decreased fromexisting levels to determine thenumber within the geographicarea that minimized total airtankerprogram costs (fire suppressioncosts plus net value change costs).

In addition, the phase 1 reportaddressed the tradeoff betweeneffective initial attack and efficientsuppression support on large wild-land fires. The phase 1 studydetermined that, for all agenciesfrom 1993 to 1994, the averagequantity of retardant delivered perfire was 30,392 gallons (115,043 L)for fires ranging in size from 100to 5,000 acres (40 to 2,000 ha), and202,205 gallons (765,407 L) forfires 5,000 acres (2,000 ha) or

larger in size. The study also ana-lyzed and displayed, on a biweeklybasis, Forest Service fire occur-rence for wildland fires greaterthan 100 acres (40 ha) (size classesD through G) from 1970 to 1993,and the same type of data for theBLM from 1980 to 1993. Takentogether, this information allowed

calculation of the expected numberof airtanker plane-days needed tosupport suppression on largewildland fires from 1980 to 1993.

Based on this calculation, thephase 1 report recommendedstaffing for 3 additional largeairtankersfor a total fleet of 41large airtankers. The additionalthree airtankers will augment theNations capability for large wild-land fire suppression while freeingaircraft for initial attack.

StudyRecommendationsPhase 2The phase 2 study made 16 recom-

mendations, some of which areshown here by number in theorder they appear in the study.

Airtanker Procurement. A goal ofthe phase 2 study was to optimizeall reasonable airtanker base andfleet possibilities for the nationalprogram. To do so, the studyidentified potential fixed- and

* The 1,000-gallon (3,790-L) lower limit was set by the studys charter. Aircraft with lesser capacities should beconsidered as part of NFMAS analysis within local areas, such as national forests or BLM districts.

rotor-wing aircraft platforms that,when tanked, would have a retar-dant capacity of 1,000 gallons(3,790 L) or more.* These aircraftwere evaluated based on factorssuch as aircraft cost per gallon ofretardant delivered. Some aircraftwere highly rated when analyzed ina particular situation, but did notperform as well as others whenviewed from a national perspective,where mobility and efficiencywithin a wide range of fuel andtopographic situations are critical.

Based on such considerations, thephase 2 report made severalrecommendations pertaining toaircraft procurement, including:

Recommendation 1: Procureexcess military aircraft, the mostcost-effective way of acquiringairtanker platforms.

Recommendation 2: Establish afuture fleet of 20 P3A aircraft,10 C130B aircraft, and 11 C130E aircraft (fig. 1).

Figure 1A C130 dropping retardant on a 1994 wildfire in southern California. C130sare part of the new generation of large airtankers specified in recommendation 2 of theNational Airtanker Study, phase 2. Photo: Cecil Stinson, Jr., USDA Forest Service, ShastaTrinity National Forest, Redding, CA, 1994.



For initial attack on wildland fires,aircraft speed has a high value. Theaverage distance from an airtankerbase to a wildland fire will be 91miles (146 km) for the airtankerbases recommended for implemen-tation in the phase 2 report. Withthe proposed fleet, average aircraftspeed will increase, in terms oftrue air speed, from 221 to 260knots and retardant capacity willincrease from about 2,450 gallons(9,270 L) to about 3,300 gallons(12,940 L).

Peak-Period Demand. During peakperiods of fire activity, airtankersneeded to support initial attackmight already be engaged in sup-

pression support on large wildlandfires. To address this concern, thephase 2 report made the followingrecommendation:

Recommendation 5: Use MobileAirborne Fire Fighting Systems(MAFFS) during peak periodswhen all available commercialaircraft are committed. Upgradeeight MAFFS units. Commitfunds to designing, developing,

and acquiring MAFFS units tomeet established performanceand effectiveness criteria.

Airtanker Bases. Efficient air-tanker use is predicated on fullyfunctional airtanker bases. Theairtanker base support facilities aretherefore just as important as theaircraft themselves. However, asproducts and aircraft have changedover the years, airtanker bases have

evolved in response to short-termneeds rather than long-term plan-ning. As a result, facilities andequipment have sometimes failedto meet acceptable standards forsafety, health, and sanitation.

The phase 2 study solicited infor-mation from each existing air-tanker base on its physical statusand on the capital improvementsneeded to meet the standards setforth in the 1995InteragencyRetardant Base Planning Guide,

Fixed and Rotor Wing. For each

airtanker base, the study deter-mined fire suppression and netvalue change costs and consideredseveral alternatives, includingclosing the base. The phase 2report then made two recommen-dations:

Recommendation 7: Restructureairtanker base locations andnumbers to support the future

airtanker fleet and to provide forthe most efficient use of thecapital investment and mainte-nance dollars available for physi-cal facilities. Close 11 airtankerbases, relocate 2 bases, andestablish 2 new bases (fig. 2).

Recommendation 8: Develop anational initiative to fundimprovements and investmentsat airtanker bases.

In 1998, the Forest Service startedan Airtanker Base Support Initia-tive to obtain funding for fiscalyear 1999. The initiative has se-cured $8 million in funds (fromthe Fire, Construction, andOther budget line item) for threenew bases and improvements toairtanker bases in seven regions,including new construction at sixbases and planning and design atseven bases. The Forest Servicewill pursue the initiative in subse-quent years to obtain the funding

needed to complete all ForestService priority 1 and priority 2bases. The BLM is also working ona capital improvement project forfiscal year 1999.

Figure 2Airtankers in the pits, working a southern California fire out of HemetAirtanker Base (ATB), Hemet, CA. Hemet ATB has been replaced by a new Forest ServiceATB currently under construction at San Bernardino International Airport (the formerNorton Air Force Base), where a temporary base is operating until the new base iscompleted. These changes result from recommendations 7 and 8 of the National AirtankerStudy, phase 2. Photo: Bob Will, USDA Forest Service, San Bernardino National Forest,

San Bernardino, CA, 1996.



Airtankers are a unique resourcethat can be quickly mobilized to fly long distances

in short periods of time to provide high firelineproduction rates on wildfires.

Airtanker Mobility. Successfulinitial attack depends on maintain-ing mobile firefighting resourceson days when many wildland firesignite. Fires tend to ignite inclusters, mainly due to lightningstorms. These episodic ignitionsare highly correlated to wildfires insize classes D through G. Figure 3shows the correlation for one geo-graphic area in 1 year. The situa-tion is similar in other geographic

areas and in most years. Duringsuch episodes, wildland firefight-ing agencies require a ready staff-ing of airtankers, lead planes, andair tactical group supervisor air-craft. Any constraints that restrictaircraft mobility hamper initial-attack efforts, especially duringepisodic wildland fire outbreaks.

To meet the demand for aerial fire-fighting resources during episodicfire occurrences, airtankers mustbe as wide ranging as possible.Airtankers are a unique resourcethat can be quickly mobilized to flylong distances in short periods oftime to provide high fireline pro-duction rates on wildland fires. Tokeep airtankers mobile, the flow ofairtankers must be managed at thehighest practical level of coordina-

tion. Effective strategic manage-ment is best achieved at Geo-graphic Area Coordination Centersand the National InteragencyCoordination Center in Boise, ID.Airtanker mobility is greatest whencosts for airtanker bases and avail-ability are met through inter-agency funding.

Figure 3Correlation between the totalnumber of wildfires per day and thenumber of class D through G wildfires perday on Federal lands in the northwestern

geographic area in 1994. EpiDays aredays with a large number of wildfires,usually due to episodic ignitions. Note the

high correlation between EpiDays anddays with a high number of class Dthrough G wildfires. Sixty-eight percent ofclass D through G wildfires are from

episodic ignitions.

To maximize airtanker mobility,the phase 2 report made theserecommendations:

Recommendation 10: Fund,manage, and control airtankersin a manner consistent withtheir status as national aerialfirefighting resources.

Recommendation 14: Providefunds on an interagency basis tomeet the costs of airtanker basesand availability.

For additional information on all16 recommendations in the phase2 study or for a copy of the NATS,phase 2, contact Mike Dudley,

Aviation Management Specialist,Fire and Aviation Management,USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box96090, Washington, DC 20090-6090, tel. 202-205-0995, fax 202-205-1272, e-mail: mdudley/[email protected]. s



elicopters for wildland fireaviation operations, thoughexpensive to buy and maintain,

The demand for type 1 helicoptersto support large wildfire suppression

has more than tripled since 1992.

FOLLOWUPONTHE 1992

NATIONAL TYPE 1 HELICOPTER STUDY

Joseph F. Krish

Joe Krish is the helicopter manager at thePrescott Fire Center and Henry Y.H. KimAviation Facility, USDA Forest Service,Prescott National Forest, Prescott, AZ.

Hare invaluable in supporting largewildfire suppression. Wildlandfirefighting agencies thereforecontract each year for helicopterservices. Although fire seasonsdiffer in severity, each year a cer-tain quantity of helicopters will beneeded. Contract costs can be re-duced if the quantity of helicopters

needed on a steady basis can bereliably estimated in advance.

Purpose of the StudyEstimating the steady quantity ofhelicopters needed was the pur-pose behind theNational Study ofType I and Type II Helicopters toSupport Large Fire Suppression,completed in 1992. The studyexamined historical fire records

and previous demand for type 1and type 2 call-when-neededhelicopters and recommended themost cost-effective quantity ofthese helicopters to place undernational exclusive-use contracts.The study concluded that up to$4 million per year could be savedby contracting 2 type 1 helicoptersand 7 to 13 type 2 helicopters.Thanks to the 1992 study, there arenow 7 type 2 helicopters under

national exclusive-use contractsfor the 1998 fire season (seesidebar). However, there are still

no type 1 helicopters under astandard exclusive-use contract.*

In 1997, I followed up on the 1992study as a partial graduation re-

quirement for a course in technicalfire management. The goal of the1997 followup was to review theresource orders from 1993 to 1997and use the same methods andprocedures as in the 1992 study todetermine whether there had beenan increase in the demand for type1 helicopters.

MethodsThe 1992 study and the 1997 fol-

lowup both had two parts: datacollection and data evaluation.

Data Collection. All requests fortype 1 helicopters go through theNational Interagency CoordinationCenter (NICC) in Boise, ID. TheNICC records the resource ordersfor type 1 helicopters from allagencies. From the NICC, I ob-tained copies of resource orders for

type 1 helicopters from 1993 to1997, along with mobilization and

* During the 1997 fire season, an exclusive-use type 1helicopter was contracted for the USDA ForestServices Pacific Southwest and Southwest Regionsthrough regional/local funding. However, unlike thenational exclusive-use contracts for type 2 helicopters,this contract awarded no daily availability to thecontractor and is therefore ignored here.

demobilization dates, vendorinformation, N number of theassigned helicopter, informationon whether the order was canceledor filled, name and size of the fire,

and name of the requestingagency.

NATIONALEXCLUSIVE-USEHELICOPTERCONTRACTS

Currently, there are no nation-ally funded type 1 helicopters

under the exclusive-use con-tracts called for in the 1992National Study of Type I andType II Helicopters to SupportLarge Fire Suppression. How-ever, there are seven type 2helicopters under nationalexclusive-use contracts that arefunded under the guidelines setforth in the study. These heli-copters are located in:

Region 1Dillon, MT; andSt. Regis, MT.

Region 2Durango, CO.

Region 4Challis, ID; andOgden, UT.

Region 6Chelan, WA; andJohn Day, OR.



In addition, the Southwest Re-gions fire planner provided mewith information on all fires, classC and above, in the National Inter-agency Fire Management Inte-grated Database (NIFMID). Bycross-referencing the NIFMID datawith the resource orders, I wasable to fill in some of the missingdata. This allowed me to assign afire name and size and even a costto the resource order for everytype 1 helicopter.

The figures for both the 1992 studyand the 1997 followup were con-servative. Even though all requestsfor type 1 helicopters must travelthrough the NICC, after a type 1

helicopter is assigned to a Geo-graphic Area Coordination Center(GACC), it may be reassigned with-in the GACC without transmittal ofthe new incident information backto the NICC. New requests for type1 helicopters can therefore gounrecorded. This was the case, forexample, during the severe 1994fire season, when type 1 helicop-ters were in unusually highdemand.

Data Evaluation. The second partof the study evaluated the data todetermine the most cost-effectivequantity of type 1 helicopters toplace under national exclusive-usecontracts. A computer modelingprogram was used to establish thetotal program cost of meeting thedemand for type 1 helicoptersunder exclusive-use contracts.Models were devised for quantities

of exclusive-use-contract helicop-ters ranging from 0 to 20, with theremaining demand met throughcall-when-needed helicopters. Onevariable in calculating each modelwas length of the contracttheshorter the contract, the larger thequantity of type 1 helicoptersneeded to meet the demand.

Helicopter 68U filling itsBambi bucket from a3,000 gallon (11,350-L)pumpkin to help

suppress a 1997 wildfireon land managed by theUSDI Bureau of Land

Management in south-ern Nevada. This heli-copter is one of the

seven type 2 helicoptersfunded nationally as aresult of the 1992 Na-tional Study of Type Iand Type II Helicoptersto Support Large FireSuppression. Photo:Tim Lynch, Malheur

National Forest, JohnDay, OR, 1998.

Helicopter N1168U with helitack crew, stationed at John Day, OR. The funding for thisS58T type 2 helicopter under national exclusive-use contract resulted directly from the

1992 National Study of Type I and Type II Helicopters to Support Large Fire Suppression.Photo: Brad Gibbs, Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR, 1998.



ResultsData. From 1989 through 1991,102 requests were made for type 1helicopters, including:

88 percent by the USDA ForestService;

8 percent by the other Federalwildland fire managementagencies (the USDI Bureau ofIndian Affairs, Bureau of LandManagement, National ParkService, and U.S. Fish andWildlife Service); and

4 percent by various Stateagencies.

From 1993 through 1997, 518requests were made for type 1

helicopters. Ninety percent of therequests came from the ForestService.

The 1992 study found that thenumber of requests for type 1helicopters averaged 34 per year.The 1997 followup found that thisfigure had more than tripled to104 per year for the 199397period. The average number ofdays that a contractor could expect

to remain on an incident rose from6.5 days during the 198991 periodto 8 days during the 199397period.

Evaluation. The model that mostclosely resembled the actualdemand for the 5-year period from1993 to 1997 was 6 type 1 helicop-ters under 105-day contracts. The

peak period of demand was fromabout the third week in Junethrough the first week in October.

ConclusionContracting for helicopters tosupport large wildfire suppression

is very expensive for the Americantaxpayer. Call-when-needed ratesfor type 1 helicopters range from$12,000 per day to more than$30,000 per day. In 1996, theFederal Government paid morethan $26 million to one helicoptercompany alone. To save costs,these resources must be utilized inthe most effective and efficientmanner.

The facts are these:

The need for type 1 helicopters,in terms of both demand andduration, has risen substantiallysince 1992. Demand has morethan tripled.

Relying solely on call-when-needed helicopters costs theGovernment considerably morethan placing an appropriatequantity of type 1 helicopters

under national exclusive-usecontracts.

Large wildfires are not goingaway. Until the problem of fuelbuildups is solved, there willcontinue to be large wildfires.

The need for wildfire suppressionis not diminishing. Currentpolicy is to extinguish all

wildland fires unless a firemanagement plan is in place.

The original 1992 study recom-mended placing two type 1 heli-copters under national exclusive-use contract. This recommenda-tion was cautious because thereare no reliable data on actualavailability costs. Beginning withtwo type 1 helicopters undernational exclusive-use contractwould accomplish two things:

1. It would establish a baseline fora cost analysis using actualversus estimated dollars.

2. It would reduce financial risk inthe event of a slow fire season.

The most critical time period(when large wildfires are mostlikely to occur) could be coveredby staggering the start dates forthe helicopters. The helicopterscould follow the normal pattern offire seasons by beginning in theSouth, then moving to the South-west, then to the northern Rockiesand Pacific Northwest, and finallyto the Pacific Southwest.

For more information on thenational helicopter studies, contactJoe Krish, Prescott Fire Center/Henry Y.H. Kim Aviation Facility,2400 Melville Dr., Prescott, AZ86305, tel. 520-771-6168, IBM:jkrish/r3,prescott; e-mail: jkrish/[email protected]



Through teamwork, the number ofdangerous intrusions into airspace neededfor aerial support to fight Floridas wildfires

was kept very low.

AIRSPACE COORDINATION DURING

FLORIDAS 1998 WILDFIRES

Julie Stewart

Julie Stewart is the regional interagencyairspace coordinator, USDI Bureau ofLand Management, Fire and AviationManagement, State Office/Regional Office,Portland, OR.

The 1998 fire season was excep-tionally severe in Florida dueto unusual drought conditions.

Thousands of wildfires burnedalmost half a million acres(200,000 ha). Aircraft poured infrom across the Nation to supportfirefighting efforts and disasterrelief.

Challenging AirspaceConditionsThe influx of aircraft put airspacecoordination over Florida to thetest in what many aviation person-nel consider one of the most com-plex cases ever. Several factorscontributed to the complexity ofFloridas airspace:

Local geography played a signifi-cant role. Because the terrain isflat, Floridas general aviation

pilots are used to flying at rela-tively low altitudesusually at2,000 feet (610 m). As a result,the Federal Aviation Administra-tion (FAA) was reluctant to issueany temporary flight restrictions(TFRs) for airspace above 2,500feet (760 m) (see sidebar at theend of the article). Many disasterrelief aircraft were thereforeinitially forced to fly above theTFR.

Floridas skies were alreadyheavily trafficked. Large num-bers of aircraft are routinelyflown by military pilots, generalaviation pilots, and pilots for

commercial operations such asflight schools, skydiving schools,airports, banner towing, and themedia. For example, many future

airline pilots go to central Flori-da to find various types of basictraining offered by commercialenterprises (a large industrythat, within the TFRs, was allbut suspended during the wild-fires). The arrival of numerousdisaster relief aircraft in Floridaenormously complicated analready difficult job of airspacecoordination.

The many TFRs established to

facilitate wildfire aerial suppres-sion and disaster relief over-lapped and needed tracking andcoordination.

Special AirspaceCoordinationArea Command brought in anairspace coordination specialist,Julie Stewart, regional airspacecoordinator for the USDI Bureau ofLand Management in Portland,OR, to manage the TFRs andcoordinate with the FAA andDepartment of Defense (DOD). Inaddition, the airspace coordinatorhad to plan the evacuation ofairports, establish temporary airtraffic control towers, help arrangeinternational approach and depar-

ture routes, and deal with theshutdown of many major flightschools and skydiving facilities dueto the TFRs.

Tanker63, a C130 on standby at the Lake City temporary retardant base in Florida, oneof four such bases set up across Florida to meet suppression needs during the 1998 Floridawildfires. At the height of the wildfires, a total of 157 tactical aircraft were operating inhighly complex airspace. Photo: Dale Alter, USDA Forest Service, Winema National Forest,Klamath Falls, OR, 1998.



All the TFRs affected numerousairports within their boundaries,but TFRs issued under FederalAviation Regulation (FAR)91.137(a)(2) do not close airports.General aviation is allowed tocontinue flying from one airport toanother within a TFR. Many pilotstook advantage of this but wereupset when they discovered thatthe TFR would not allow them topractice flying traffic patterns atairports (an important part of pilottraining).

The Area Commands airspacecoordinator consolidated numer-ous small TFRs into one largeTFR reaching from St. Augustine

to Melbourne, FL. Ongoing team-work with the FAA built mutualtrust, especially during PresidentClintons visit, when FAA regionalheadquarters personnel workedwith the airspace coordinator inplanning the Presidents visit.Coordination culminated in aneed-to-know conference callinvolving Area Command, the FAA,and affected air operations direc-tors, who received careful instruc-

tion on the protocol associatedwith Presidential movements.

The White House was very sensi-tive to the need to continuewildland fire aviation operationsover Florida without interferencefrom the Presidents visit. Unex-pectedly, the Presidential Protec-tion Division did not invoke thePresidential TFR, a moving TFRthat goes wherever the President

goes. Instead, Area Commandplaced an air operations liaison,Dennis Brown, an air tacticalgroup supervisorfor the USDAForest Service on the KlamathNational Forest in Yreka, CA, inthe Daytona Beach Tower. Bykeeping the Secret Service and FAA

briefed on fire suppression flights,the air operations liaison pre-vented their disruption.

Lessons LearnedSeveral procedures worked ex-tremely well in facilitating airspace

coordination:

A central point of contactstreamlined the process byacting as focal point for all FAAand TFR coordination for theentire State.

A national transponder code(1255) for identifying airbornesuppression resources was put tothe ultimate test, and numerousFAA controllers raved about its

success. Morning pilot briefings, evening

air operations conference calls,and daily TFR briefs were faxedto the FAA, air operationsdirectors, DOD, and dispatchcenters. The reports firmlyestablished the locations of theTFRs.

Air operations directors facili-tated airspace coordinationthrough their willingness to

reduce or modify TFRs in size,configuration, and altitude toaccommodate local commercialtraffic for such activities as ban-ner towing, flight school, andmedia overflights.

Coordination with DOD was extra-ordinary. With few exceptions,DOD aircraft maintained altitudesat 13,000 feet (4,000 m) or higher

and stayed away from wildfires. Forgeneral aviation traffic, the FAAissued press releases reminding allpilots, before flying,to check theirNotices to Airmen for informationon TFRs. As a result, the numberof intrusions was very low (by mid-July, less than 20 had been re-ported).

Coordination with the FAA wasconsistently outstanding. The FAAprofessionals were proactive andgenerous with their assistance andadvice. Area Command establishedgood teamwork with staff in sever-al FAA facilities, including the FAAWashington Office, Regional Head-quarters, Jacksonville Center,Gainesville Flight Service Station,and Flight Standards DistrictOffice.

A key player was the liaison officernamed by the FAA WashingtonOffice to assist in coordinationefforts, Lacy Wright, from theFAAs Southern Regional Head-quarters. The FAA has suggested

continuing the liaison with AreaCommand during future coordina-tion efforts on large wildfires. Asthe Florida wildfires were ending,wildland fire aviation personnel(including Julie Stewart, the air-space coordinator for Area Com-mand; Tim Elder, an airspacecoordinator trainee for the FloridaDivision of Forestry; and MikeDudley, an aviation managementspecialist for the Forest Services

Washington Office who was repre-sentingArea Command) met withFAA personnel at the JacksonvilleCenter and Daytona Beach Towerto ease the way for future coordi-nation. Issues discussed included:

The need for a national memo-randum of understandingbetween wildland fire aviationagencies and the FAA to ad-dress

Activating temporary towers ina way that standardizes theiruse nationally, and

Initiating and training airtraffic controllers.



Constraints in the regulationsgoverning TFRs. The intent ofFAR 91.137(a)(2) is to provide asafe environment for disasterrelief aircraft. However, the FARpermits five exceptions for air-craft operating inside the TFR(see sidebar), which can createsafety problems. Future coordi-nation with the FAA will includediscussions on improving imple-mentation of FAR 91.137(a)(2).For example, the FAA is scruti-nizing the clause in the law thatallows general aviation pilots tocontinue to fly from airport toairport within the TFR.

Airspace coordination is an essen-

tial part of wildland fire aviation.The Florida wildfires challengedour capabilities for safe and effi-cient airspace coordination, high-lighting our strengths and weak-nesses. As we continue to build ourairspace program within our agen-cies, we can learn lessons from thisexperience for future training andin revising the current InteragencyAirspace Coordination Guide.

For additional information onairspace coordination, contactJulie Stewart, Regional AirspaceCoordinator, Bureau of LandManagement, Fire and AviationManagement, State Office/RegionalOffice, 333 Southwest 1st Street,P.O. Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208,tel. (503) 808-6728, e-mail:[email protected] s

FEDERAL AVIATION REGULATION GOVERNINGTEMPORARYFLIGHT RESTRICTIONSFOR

WILDLAND FIRE AVIATION

Temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) necessary for wildland fireaviation operations are governed by title 14, Code of Federal Regula-

tions (14 CFR), section 91.137(a)(2). Paragraph 91.137(c) describesthe particular circumstances under section 91.137(a)(2) that allowcertain exceptions that couldpose a risk to suppression aircraft unlessmanagers are aware of the aircraft operating under these exceptions.Text follows.

91.137 Temporary flight restrictions.(a) The Administrator will issue a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) designat-

ing an area within which temporary flight restrictions apply andspecifying the hazard or condition requiring their imposition,whenever he determines it is necessary in order to

(2) Provide a safe environment for the operation of disaster reliefaircraft;

(c) When a NOTAM has been issued under paragraph (a)(2) of this

section, no person may operate an aircraft within the designatedarea unless at least one of the following conditions are met:(1) The aircraft is participating in hazard relief activities and isbeing operated under the direction of the official in charge of onscene emergency response activities.(2) The aircraft is carrying law enforcement officials.(3) The aircraft is operating under the ATC [air traffic control]approved IFR [Instrument Flight Rules] flight plan.

(4) The operation is conducted directly to or from an airportwithin the area, or is necessitated by the impracticability of VFR[Visual Flight Rules] flight above or around the area due toweather, or terrain; notification is given to the Flight ServiceStation (FSS) or ATC facility specified in the NOTAM to receiveadvisories concerning disaster relief aircraft operations; and theoperation does not hamper or endanger relief activities and is notconducted for the purpose of observing the disaster.(5) The aircraft is carrying properly accredited news representa-tives, and prior to entering the area, a flight plan is filed with theappropriate FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] or ATC facilityspecified in the Notice to Airmen and the operation is conductedabove the altitude used by the disaster relief aircraft, unlessotherwise authorized by the official in charge of on scene emer-gency response activities.



The news helicopter partnership

provides a way for media pilots to get the newsfootage they need without risking lives.

NEWS HELICOPTER PARTNERSHIP MODEL

Robert W. Kuhn

Bob Kuhn is the national fixed-wing basespecialist for the USDA Forest Service,National Interagency Fire Center, Boise,ID; and the forest aviation operationsspecialist for the USDA Forest Service,Tonto National Forest, Phoenix, AZ.

T

he advent of turbine airtankersin 1990 changed the world of

wildland fire aviation. Air-tanker base support systems,procedures for airtanker loading,airtanker use over a fire, and evenairtanker tracking by dispatchoffices all had to be modified toaccommodate the new capabilitiesand requirements of the LockheedP3A Orion and C130 Herculesairtankers. Aerial firefightingoperations had to be overhauled toexploit this new aerial firefighting

resource.

Near Collisionin MidairThe operational changes werekeenly felt when, in June 1990, anews helicopter came a few rivetheads away from colliding with aP3 airtanker that was entering anincident. The helicopter pilot hadacquired seasonal experience in

wildland firefighting operationsbefore working full-time for thenews media. Having flown forseveral different Federal agencies,he was familiar with the type andlevel of aviation activity overincidents. He was also familiarwith the standard temporary flightrestriction (TFR) on flying below2,000 feet (610 m) above groundlevel (AGL) within a 5-mile (8-km)radius of an incident.

As he had done so often before, thepilot settled in at 500 feet (150 m)above the TFR ceilingthat is, at

2,500 feet (750 m) AGLto avoidincursion into the restricted air-space. He then established a link tohis news station and began filmingthe lumbering piston-poweredairtankers as they struggled overthe hot desert floor far below.

Suddenly glancing up, he saw avibrant orange streak followed by aflash of white, then the familiarrust color of fire retardant thatdries in the slipstream on the bellyof an airtanker. In another instant,blue sky reappeared. Recallinglater that the colors in this se-quence had completely filled hisrange of vision, the pilot wonderedhow his helicopters rotor system

had missed hitting the turbineairtanker that passed within feet ofhis aircraft.

News Footage and Aerial RiskMedia pilots are constantly drivenby the need to obtain better foot-age than their competitors. If theydont, they are soon replaced. Toget what they need to win ratingsfor their news programs, they are

well fundedtheir annual budgetsoften exceed $1 million. With somuch at stake, media pilots areexpected to take risks, althoughthis is rarely acknowledged by theindustry.

But in this particular case, thehelicopter pilot saw little risk.Intimately familiar with aerial

firefighting operations as hesupposed he was, he thought hecould position his helicopter in asafe zone without violating FederalAviation Administration regula-tions. What had changed, as thepilot so suddenly and dramatically

learned, was that a new type ofairtanker was working the incidentusing new operational procedures.Instead of lumbering far below likethe piston-driven airtankers thepilot well knew, this turbine air-tanker swooped down from itscruising altitude high above, whereits turbine engines are most effici-ent,at speeds reaching 250 knotsdirectly into the TFR on theincident.

After his narrow escape, thehelicopter pilot realized that hewould no longer be able to safelyobtain dramatic shots of aerialfirefighting. Moreover, his level ofrisk would skyrocket if his methodof operating didnt change. Con-cerned, the pilot contacted thelocal national forest, which ar-ranged a meeting with five local

media pilots, their camera opera-tors and producers, and represen-tatives from the interagency fireaviation community. The goal ofthe meeting was to find a way forthe media pilots to get the footagethey needed to please their newsstations without risking lives. Inexchange, the news programswould agree to publicize the



wildland fire communitys preven-tion message.

Partnership for SafeAerial News CoverageMeeting planners realized thatopen communication and flexiblemanagement would be key toaddressing the media pilots con-cerns. The planners asked localagenciesto establish special phonenumbers for the news media intheir dispatch centers and to pro-

vide the names of fire informationspecialists who would act as mediacontacts. Before the meeting, theorganizers contacted air tacticalgroup supervisors (ATGSs) toreview and modify initial aircraftcall-in procedures on incidents toaccommodate the needs of newshelicopters. After compiling theinformation, planners presented it

at the meeting to the media pilotsin the form of an interagency

directive. The package included:

A map showing local jurisdic-tional boundaries.

Special phone numbers for thenews producers and pilots to usein contacting dispatch centers toobtain radio frequencies used onan incident and to request entryinto an incident area, whether ornot a TFR was in place.

The types of requests by the news

stations (flying over the incident,landing on the incident, or both)that would be accepted for relayby the controlling agency forapproval by the ATGS or leadplane.

A description of the time typi-cally needed for the dispatcher tocontact the ATGS or lead plane

for approval of a media pilotsentry request.

Instructions on how to use inci-dent radio frequencies and onprocedures to follow in contact-ing the ATGS or lead plane 10miles (16 km) from the incident.

For each stations news desk,phone numbers (office andpager) for fire information spe-cialists (with the caveat that if anews desk called the dispatcherinstead of the fire informationspecialist to obtain fire informa-

tion, the dispatcher might ab-ruptly terminate the call).

Media representatives at themeeting welcomed these initiativesand agreed to abide by the airspacerestrictions outlined in the pack-age, for the safety of all concerned.In the spirit of cooperation and

Local news media pilots pose with Smokey Bear in the spirit of cooperation between the media and the wildland fire aviation community.With Smokey at the Forest Service ramp in Phoenix, AZ, are (from left) Bruce Haffner, KTVK TV 3; Scott Clifton, KPHO TV 5; Rick Crabbs,

KSAZ TV 10; Mike McDonald, KPNX TV 12; and Fritz Holley, KNXV TV 15. Photo: Courtesy of Tom Story, Tempe, AZ, 1998.



collaboration, a news helicopterpartnership was born. To cementthe partnership, the agency repre-sentatives then met with the fireincident dispatchers so that theagreed-upon operational proce-dures could be implemented ateach fire management office.

The following day, there was anincident that attracted media cov-erage because it was on thewildlandurban interface boundarybetween the national forest and thecity of Phoenix. As agreed in themeeting, the media helicopter pi-lots called the incident dispatcher,who initiated the procedures in thedirective. The new system worked!

The first partnership meeting, heldon June 26, 1990, established aframework for continuing dialogbetween media pilots and the wild-land fire aviation community.Meetings are now held annuallyduring the first week of the air-tanker contract. Participation hasexpanded to include representa-tives from the three local law en-forcement agencies that operate

helicopters, municipal fire depart-ments, the Federal Aviation FlightStandards District Office, the U.S.Air Force Air Space Coordinator,Air National Guard units, local airtaxi vendors, and agency and con-tract rotor- and fixed-wing pilots.The format of the meeting haschanged little since that first en-counter in 1990 between the P3airtanker and the news helicopter.Only once in 8 years of cooperation

has a media pilot landed unan-nounced on a large incident (dueto a communication error).

Partnership BenefitsLocal agencies now operate withthe media as part of the team overan incident. Through experience,the news helicopters now blendeasily into the traffic flow directedby the lead plane or ATGS, who

places them where they can swiftlyobtain the footage they need fortheir news editors without endan-gering other aircraft. For its part,the local wildland fire communitynow has a potent partner in com-municating the fire preventionmessage by showing the States4 million television viewers thedestruction caused by human-ignited fires. In addition, localnews coverage of airtanker bases,

helicopter rappelling, fire crewmovements in and out of State,and even campground openingshas increased dramatically sincethe inception of the program,enhancing the publics under-standing of the challenges facingwildland fire managers. Throughflexible management and opencommunication, the media, inci-dent commanders, aerial supervi-sors, and dispatchers can all work

together to accomplish their goalsin a safe flying environment overwildfires.

For more information on thenews helicopter partnershipmodel, contact Robert W. Kuhn,USDA Forest Service, TontoNational Forest, 2324 E. McDowellRoad, Phoenix, AZ 85006,tel. 602-225-5356, e-mail:

rkuhn/[email protected]

NARTC COURSECATALOGFOR199899

AVAILABLE

Hutch Brown

The 199899 course catalogfor the National AdvancedResource Technology Center(NARTC) is now available.The catalog describes 12courses on topics includingfire effects, fire behavior, firearea growth, fire risk assess-ment, aerial retardant use, firein ecosystem management,

fire management leadership,advanced incident manage-ment, area command, theNational Fire ManagementAnalysis System, the Multi-agency Coordination Group,and the Interagency AviationManagement and Safetysystem. Courses lastingseveral days each will be heldfrom October 1998 to April1999 at the NARTC facility inthe Sonoran Desert nearTucson, AZ.

To obtain the catalog,contact the National AdvancedResource Technology Center,Pinal Air Park, Marana, AZ85653, tel. 520-670-6414,fax 520-670-6413, e-mail:[email protected]. s

Hutch Brown is the editor of FireManagement Notes in Arlington, VA.



MINNESOTAS NEWMIXOF

FIRE AVIATION RESOURCES

Sheldon Mack

Sheldon Mack is a helicopter operationsspecialist for the Minnesota InteragencyFire Center, Grand Rapids, MN.

For years, wildland firefightingagencies in Minnesota reliedprimarily on light helicopters

and on large airtankers with acapacity of 2,000 gallons (7,600 L)or more to support ground person-nel during fire suppression. Weused a conventional mix of aircraftsegregated by altitude: helicoptersflew between ground level and 500feet (150 m); lead planes preparedfor their next runs at 1,000 feet

(300 m); large airtankers moved inracetrack patterns at 1,500 feet(450 m); and air attack orbited at2,000 feet (600 m).

Today, a new set of aircraft hasjoined the mix. DeHavillandBeavers on floats now drop wateron fires, deliver cargo, and deployfirefighters (fig. 1). Two CanadianCL215s, each with a water-scooping capability of 1,400 gal-

lons (5,300 L), work at up to 200feet (60 m) above lake level (fig. 2).Canadian bird dogs, various typesof aircraft used in lead-plane andair-attack roles, share the airspaceover Minnesotas fires. A single-engine airtanker (SEAT), with itsreduced payload but dramaticallyincreased turnaround time, worksthe flanks of fires (fig. 3).

Creating the New MixThe new mix does not alter therole of wildland fire aviation.Firefighting still happens primarilyon the groundits still the folkson the firelines who stop most

Figure 1A USDA ForestService DeHavilland Beavermaking a water drop. Thehighly versatile Beaver can alsohaul cargo and transportpersonnel. With its floats, it canturn a lake into an instantlanding zone. Photo: Minnesota

Department of Natural Re-sources, Grand Rapids, MN,1997.

wildland fires. Aviation assets areprimarily to make life a little easierfor these folks; that hasntchanged.

What has changed are budgets. Asagency budgets have shrunk, thenumber of permanent agencyemployees has decreased. Vacan-cies are left unfilled, and the aver-age age of our firefighters has in-creased. We are often asked to domore with less at a time whencosts are rising. In 1997, contractsfor large airtankers exceeded thenumber of airtankers available. In

response, the cost of airtankersshot up, once again proving thelaw of supply and demand.

With leaner budgets and increas-ing costs, whats an agency to do?Continuing our old mix of aircraftwas not the answer. In 1984, thewildland firefighting agencies in

Minnesota joined to form theMinnesota Incident CommandSystem (MNICS) partnership, a bigstep toward combining wildland

firefighting assets. MNICS partnersinclude the Minnesota Departmentof Natural Resources (DNR) andDivision of Emergency Manage-ment; the USDA Forest Service;and the USDI Bureau of IndianAffairs (BIA), National Park Service(NPS), and U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. MNICS working agree-ments have created a systemwhereby Federal and State re-sources can be easily borrowed,

exchanged, and mixed. Today, itdoesnt really matter whetheryoure a BIA suppression crewforeman, a DNR squad boss, aForest Service SEAT coordinator,or an NPS airtanker base manager:youre first and foremost anMNICS resource available to allMNICS partners.

Medium and large helicopters, Beavers,Twin Otters, SEATs, and CL215s

help fill the gap between light helicoptersand large airtankers.



In addition, Minnesota participatesin the Great Lakes Forest FireCompact (GLFFC), which alsoincludes the States of Wisconsinand Michigan and the Provinces ofManitoba and Ontario. Establishedin 1989, the GLFFC allows wild-land firefighting resources to beshared among participating Statesand Provinces.

The MNICS and GLFFC agree-ments added instant diversity toour fire aviation toolbox. Type 1helicopters, OV10s, Beavers,SEATs, and more are now readilyavailable through our Federalpartners; helicopters, CL215s,bird dogs, and more are now

available through our Canadianpartners. The result has beenincreased sharing of a wide varietyof aviation resources as well astraditional caches and groundforces.

Training forthe New MixThe new water-scooping and otheraircraft now available added com-plexity to the task of managing theairspace over fires. A lot of trainingwas needed to make aviation man-agers feel comfortable with thenew mix. It didnt happen over-night. Canadian CL215s wereadded to the training mix only in1996, with SEATs following in1997. Agencies within MNICS tookthe lead by individually sponsoringparticular courses. With assistancefrom out-of-State instructors,

most training was conducted at theMinnesota Interagency Fire Centerin Grand Rapids, MN. Since 1996alone, 194 students from variousStates and Provinces have spent atotal of 3,712 hours improvingtheir aviation skills.

Formal courses are taught usingNational Wildfire CoordinatingGroup (NWCG) standards. Al-though training to nationalstandards can be difficult, it isessential for full integration of allaviation assets across agencies. Thepayoffs come when you can easily

and safely incorporate help fromother agencies into your fireprogram.

Refresher training for air tacticalgroup supervisors (ATGSs) headedthe list of new training require-ments. Water-scooping and floataircraft create a unique challengefor airspace management. Aircraftsuch as the CL215 and Beaveroperate at altitudes that commonly

separate our more conventionalaircraft. The usual vertical separa-tion of fixed- and rotor-wing air-craft into upper and lower zones ofoperation doesnt work for theseaircraft. Horizontal as well as verti-cal separations are clearly impera-tive, and aviation managers had tolearn how to apply them. To add tothe depth of our ATGSs, we madesure that they met the national

requirements detailed by theNWCG in its Wildfire QualificationGuide, 3101.

Next, we invited our Canadianpartners to a controlled trainingsession. Minnesota shares a borderwith both Manitoba and Ontario,making it easy to look north whenaviation resources are in short

supply. But before we could exploitthis opportunity, we needed tosynchronize operations with ourCanadian partners. In discussionswith CL215, bird-dog, and lead-plane pilots and with air-attack andother personnel, we talked aboutdifferences in operating procedure

and terminology, and we conversedabout tactics and communication.After everyone felt comfortabletogether, we conducted a jointcontrolled training operation,followed by a detailed debriefing.The final product was a combinedoperating plan and written agree-ment.

Other types of training included:

Specialized manager training tosafely and efficiently integrateSEATs into our fire aviationoperations. Minnesota is new tothe SEAT business, but so far theSEAT has met with approvalfrom the folks on the ground,who value its help in suppressingwildfires.

Mixmaster and fixed-wing basemanager refresher training for

all airtanker base personnel,including general training onSEAT operations and techniquesfor filling a Canadian CL215with water or foam.

Training on operations for ourupgraded mobile retardant plantand for two newly developedSEAT support vehicles to makethe SEAT even more versatile.

Figure 2A Canadian CL215scooping water from a lake. Thisaircraft, with its 1,400-gallon(5,300-L) water-scooping and

optional foam injectioncapabilities, is an excellent tool

for firefighting support in theLake States. Photo: MinnesotaDepartment of Natural Re-sources, Grand Rapids, MN,

1997.



Training for air operationsbranch directors and air supportgroup supervisors. It is impera-tive that incident commandersand incident management teamsunderstand their aviation op-tions, risks, and opportunities.

For agencies thinking about ex-panding their training: Go for it.You must be prepared to helpyourself, but once you get started,youll find a lot of assistancethroughout the national system,including numerous instructorswho love to help.

Whats Next?Safety, efficiency, and cost-effec-

tiveness remain essential ingredi-ents for a successful aviationprogram. Large airtankers willcontinue to be an important andintegral firefighting tool, but asthey become bigger, faster, andcostlier, the gap between lighthelicopters and large airtankerswill continue to grow (fig. 4). Inthe Land of 10,000 Lakes,medium and large helicopters,Beavers, Twin Otters with tanked

floats, SEATs, and CL215s are allexcellent tools to help fill this gap.

What about other kinds of mixes?They are certainly possible, par-ticularly in view of the growingneed for aviation assets to supple-ment ground forces. The military

Figure 4Although firefighting happens primarily on the ground, fire aviation support isvital today, especially on large wildland fires. But as large airtankers become bigger,faster, and costlier, the gap in fire aviation between light helicopters and large airtankerswill continue to grow, inviting the use of a new mix of aircraft.

L

evels

offire

ac

tivity

Large airtankers

New mix of aviationresources

Light helicopters

Dozers

Bombardiers

Trucks

Crews

Handtools

Figure 3A single-engineairtanker (SEAT) working a fire.What the SEAT lacks in payloadit makes up in shortenedturnaround time. Photo:

Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources, GrandRapids, MN, 1997.

continues to release numerousaircraft of various types, and theFederal Excess Personal Propertyprogram does an excellent job oftracking the aircraft available toState firefighting agencies. Mean-while, private enterprise continuesto seek out new customers, trying

to fill market gaps by offering

creative solutions and takingfinancial risks.

What will the future hold? Theanswer may be as varied as aircraftmakes and models. Whatevermight be in store, stay tuned, stayinformed, stay trainedand beprepared to mix it up!

For more information on MNICSand its wildland fire aviationprogram, contact Sheldon Mack,Minnesota Interagency Fire Center,402 SE 11th Street, Grand Rapids,MN 55744, tel. 218-327-4573, fax218-327-4527, e-mail: [email protected],DG: S.Mack:R09F09B. s



ircraft used as high, mobileobservation platforms offermany advantages in detecting

Now in its fifth year,South Carolinas system of contracting

for aerial wildfire detection has reduced costsand improved efficiency in fire detection

and suppression.

Ken Cabe is a fire information officer forthe South Carolina Forestry Commission,Columbia, SC.

PRIVATIZING AERIAL WILDFIRE DETECTION

IN SOUTH CAROLINA

Ken Cabe

Awildfires. However, aircraft arenotoriously expensive to acquire,operate, and maintain. Today,wildland fire managers face thechallenge of utilizing the advan-tages of aerial wildfire detectionwhile keeping costs to a minimum.

Over the past 5 years, the South

Carolina Forestry Commission(SCFC) has met this challenge bysuccessfully applying the conceptof privatization in its aerial wildfiredetection program. Our experiencehas shown that using private con-tractors for aerial wildfire detec-tion, if done prudently and judi-ciously, can promote efficiencyand reduce costs.

Hard ChoicesSouth Carolinas wildfire detectionsystem has evolved along the samelines as in many other SouthernStates:

During the 1930s, a network offire towers was established tosupport what was then a purelyground-based wildfire detectionsystem.

In the 1950s, contract aircraft

carrying fire-trained agencyobservers began to supplementfire tower detection.

In the 1980s, fire-trained agencypilots flying Federal excessaircraft were added to the mix.

In 1993, when the SCFC finallyclosed its tower system in favor oftotal reliance on aerial detection,the agency faced some hardchoices. Should it add planes andpilots and handle the job inter-nally? Should it contract for planesand pilots but have trained agencyobservers accompany them? Orshould it contract the entireoperation for aerial detection andfirefighting support to the privatesector?

In making its decision, the SCFCconsidered these tradeoffs:

Handling the entire job inter-nally would provide highlyskilled, fire-trained pilots forboth general wildfire detectionand assistance to firefighters onthe ground during an incident.However, it would also be veryexpensive in terms of personalservices and fleet maintenance.

Using agency observers in con-tracted aircraft would reducecosts for fleet maintenance butwould keep personal-servicecosts high.

Contracting the entire aerialfirefighting support effort wouldreduce costs but eliminate fire-trained observers needed to

assist ground forces on an activeincident.

A Mix of Public andPrivate ResourcesThe answer was to use a combina-tion of agency and contractedprivate resources. We decided totrain contractors to handle routinedetection work on their own, saidPaul Watts, the aviation managerfor the SCFC. This approacheliminated the need for ride-alongobservers and reserved our fire-

trained staff pilots for work onactive incidents.

Quality Controls on Contractors.According to Watts, contracting foraerial detection involves a lot morethan just hiring a plane and pilot.Prospective bidders must submitqualifications, including refer-ences, and must specify the num-ber of qualified pilots and planesavailable and the home base and

ownership of those planes.

Were looking for dependability,availability, and quality, saidWatts. Each qualification item isevaluated on a point basis, andcontractors who measure up areasked to submit bids. When bidsare received, the prices are factored



into the grading system, and eachcontractor is evaluated once again.

Cost is important, but its onlyone part of the equation, Wattsnoted. This is not a low-biddecision.

Performance requirements underthe wildfire detection contractspecify that planes and pilots willbe available on 1 days notice,

South Carolina Forestry Commission planes continue to help ground forces suppresswildfires like this one. Photo: South Carolina Forestry Commission, Columbia, SC.

A contract detection plane located and sized up this South Carolina wildfire. Photo: SouthCarolina Forestry Commission, Columbia, SC.

365 days per year. To ensureavailability, providers must have

one pilot and one backup for eachplane under contract. Contractflights must be totally dedicated towildfire detection and may not beused for pilot training, passengerferrying, or courier service.

Every pilot operating under adetection contract must be trained

in radio procedure, dispatchoperations, and basic fire sizeup.Field training and flight testsadministered by staff pilots arerequired before a contract pilot iscertified to perform detectionservice. Additionally, each planemust be equipped with an externalantenna and a contractor-providedradio that operates on SCFCfrequencies.

Are contractors interested inbidding on such a demandingcontract, and can they offer theservice at a reasonable price?Absolutely. Heres the key: everyannual contract guarantees aminimum number of paid flight

hours. We get lots of interest inour contracts, observed Watts,and hourly rates are essentiallythe same as theyve always been.

Ongoing Role for Agency Pilots.Operationally, SCFC staff pilotsstill handle aerial wildfire detec-tion when fire danger is low. Asdanger increases, contractors arecalled into service and staff pilotsare reserved for use in handling

incident reconnaissance in supportof firefighters on the ground. Thiscombination of resources makes20 planes available for dispatch onany given day.

General detection routes arepredetermined for each plane butmay be modified based on firedanger and occurrence. Routes arecircuits rather than point to point,allowing pilots to check suspicious

smokes that lie off their immediateline of flight. The area of responsi-bility assigned to a single detectionplane ranges from 1,400 squaremiles (3,600 km2) to about 4,000square miles (10,000 km2), depend-ing on the days wildfire condi-tions.



When a suspected wildfire islocated, the pilot uses a preparedchecklist to provide its specificlocation and sizeup information tothe dispatch center. Upon comple-tion of the report, the detectionplane immediately resumes flyingits assigned route. Decisions ondispatch of suppression forces arehandled by the dispatch center.

Benefits ofPrivatizationSince 1996, the SCFC has providedcontract detection service for

national forest lands in SouthCarolina. We had already discon-tinued our towers and were usingcontracted aerial detection, saidCharlie Kerr, the USDA ForestServices fire management officerfor South Carolina. Since theSCFC was flying the entire State, itjust made good sense for us to usetheir system.

Now in its fifth year of operation,the system is working well forSouth Carolina. According toWatts, it provides fire managerswith flexibility in assigning

appropriate aerial resources whenand where needed. That flexibilitytranslates into significant costsavings and improved efficiency inboth fire detection and fire sup-pression.

For more information on SouthCarolinas aerial wildfire detectionsystem, contact Ken Cabe at theSouth Carolina Forestry Commis-sion, P.O. Box 21707, Columbia, SC29221, tel. 803-896-8820, fax 803-798-8097, e-mail: [email protected]. s

In 1997, the Fire ResourceSection of Floridas Division ofForestry, Forest ProtectionBureau, received funding toconvert an 8-foot by 30-foot

(2.4-m by 9.1-m) Federal ExcessPersonal Property (FEPP) officetrailer into a communicationscenter for an incident commandpost. The command post will beused by interagency fire andemergency services commandteams for incidents statewide.

All modifications and improve-ments cost less than $50,000.Work was accomplished prima-

rily at the Division of ForestrysWhite City Work Center and theFabrication Shop in Lake City,FL. Modifications include:

FLORIDA MODIFIES FEPP FOR INCIDENT COMMANDCOMMUNICATIONS

George L. Cooper

George Cooper is a fire resourcemanager for the Florida Division ofForestry, Forest Protection Bureau,Fire Resource Section, Tallahassee, FL.

A state-of-the-art communica-tions center, featuring:

A telescoping 75-foot (23-m)antenna tower, mounted at therear;

Two remote radio kits, UHF, VHF, 800-MHz, and FAA

radios; Telephone, cellular phone, and

fax and copy machines;

A computer and printer; Mobile and base station an-

tenna masts; and Two ergonomic chairs, a

workstation, and storage

facilities for forms. Roof-mounted air conditioningand wall-mounted thermostati-cally controlled propane heat.

A 75-foot (23-m) power cablewith a commercial powerhookup as well as a self-contained generator.

All new paneling, floor tiles, andcarpeting.

Corkboards and whiteboards forstrategic planning sessions.

A conference table and fourchairs in the command section.

Interior and exterior storagecompartments.

An 8-foot by 20-foot (2.4-m by6.1-m) rollup awning.

Exterior flood lights and anincident command post strobelight. s

New incident command post followingribbon-cutting ceremony officiallyinaugurating it into service. Photo: George

L. Cooper, Florida Division of Forestry,Forest Protection Bureau, Fire ResourceSection, Tallahassee, FL, 1997.



he Bureau of Forestry in thePennsylvania Department of

Conservation and Natural

Fire management personnel

have found small-format aerial photographyuseful in making wildlandurban interface plans.

SMALL-FORMAT AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY*

Gary E. Laudermilch

Gary Laudermilch is a forest entomologistfor the Pennsylvania Department ofConservation and Natural Resources,

Bureau of Forestry, Division of Forest PestManagement, Wellsboro, PA.

*The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in thispublication is for the information and convenience ofthe reader. Such use does not constitute an officialendorsement of any product or service by the U.S.Department of Agriculture. Individual authors areresponsible for the technical accuracy of the materialpresented in Fire Management Notes.

TResources has a huge need forupdated map data. The Bureausfire protection, insect suppression,recreation, and timber manage-ment activities all demand exten-sive use of reliable, up-to-datemaps. This requires constantupdating of map data.

Primarily to support its insectsuppression projects, the Bureau

sought a cost-effective and timelyalternative to traditional mapupgrade techniques. Traditionallarge-format mapping photogra-phy, though very precise, wasprohibitively expensive, and satel-lite imagery lacked sufficient de-tail. Early experiments with small-format aerial photographs indi-cated that they are the mostpractical means of acquiringtimely data and that they canprovide reasonable precision whenmanipulated with software thattakes advantage of recent develop-ments in computer technology.

Acquiring the DataIn 1992, the Bureau discoveredand purchased ACCUPHOTOTM, asystem manufactured by GenisysResearch and Development, Inc., of

Utica, NY. Based on global posi-tioning system (GPS) data, thesystem is specifically designed forsmall-format photography. Acomplete system costing about$8,000 has a flight control unitthat houses a 12-channel GPS

receiver and serves as an interfacebetween a laptop computer and astandard 35-mm SLR camera.Using raw GPS data, photo missionplans created on the computerpermit a photo center to be tar-geted to within 300 feet (91 m).Significantly closer tolerances canbe achieved with the addition of areal-time differential correctionradio link.

In flight, the system navigates thepilot of a light aircraft equippedwith a camera port to the targetlocation. At the planned photo cen-ter coordinates, the system auto-matically fires the camera. A com-puter file is generated that records,for each camera firing, the actualposition of the antenna, whichroughly equates to the photocenter on the ground. Additional

data recorded include date andtime, exposure number, flight linenumber, and photo index numberalong the flight line. These datamake it possible to catalog theresulting photographs and relatethem to a position on the Earthssurface. After cataloging, it is easyto retrieve the correct photo for apoint of interest within the photocoverage area.

Digitizing the DataHowever, acquiring the photo-graphs is only part of the equation.Although the photographs them-selves hold a great deal of usefulinformation, they must be con-verted to digital format to realizethe full potential of the data theycontain. Eastman Kodak Companydeveloped a process for convertinga traditional 35-mm film negativeinto digital data and installingthem onto a compact disk, whichmakes the data usable in a com-puter environment. This servicebridges the gap between photogra-phy and the digital world, wherethe options for handling and

manipulating data are almostendless. The cost of digitizing aphotograph is less than $1 perframe, and the turnaround time isapproximately 1 week. The serviceis available through most photo-processing vendors.

Now that photographic images canbe viewed on a computer, severalproducers have created computersoftware that allows photographic

images to be referenced to a loca-tion on a digital map, and therebyto a position in the real world. Ineffect, the computer is suppliedwith the information it needs tocalculate the geographic positionof all points on the photographbased on the position of a fewknown ground locations.



Figure 1One of many applications for small-format aerial photography is tracking the wildlandurban interface to improv