Romney wants FEWER firefighters

“Less than a year ago, the same administration seemed to be doing its best to leave the Forest Service ill-equipped to deal with the mounting wildfire threat, by summarily cancelling a contract with a company that furnished roughly one third of the wildfire-fighting tankers in the agency’s already-depleted fleet. That action might loom large as calls mount for an investigation into why the agency’s air assets seem inadequate to meet the threat.”



http://www.gazette.com/opinion/obama-14 ... rages.html

Martin Ent Inc wrote: “Less than a year ago, the same administration seemed to be doing its best to leave the Forest Service ill-equipped to deal with the mounting wildfire threat, by summarily cancelling a contract with a company that furnished roughly one third of the wildfire-fighting tankers in the agency’s already-depleted fleet. That action might loom large as calls mount for an investigation into why the agency’s air assets seem inadequate to meet the threat.”



http://www.gazette.com/opinion/obama-14 ... rages.html

And of course it fails to mention that the contract was canceled because the contract aircraft (60 - 80 year old aircraft) did not even come close to meeting safety standards. And of course it failed to mention that President Obama signed off on contracts for the next generation of wildfire tankers.

Yes it did, you didn't even read it, just like your hero LJ just make something up as a reply.

The Obama administration canceled the government’s contract with Aero Union — a company with 60 employees that had been under contract with the Forest Service for 50 years. Though it canceled that contract, the administration had no plan for an immediate replacement. Aero Union CEO Britt Gourley told Human Events the administration provided no details on why the contract was ended.

A Forest Service official said the contract was cancelled over safety concerns, but the company had recently passed its annual inspection.

Maybe AeroUnion didn't donate enough to Obama's re-election campaign?

Martin Ent Inc wrote: Yes it did, you didn't even read it, just like your hero LJ just make something up as a reply.

The Obama administration canceled the government’s contract with Aero Union — a company with 60 employees that had been under contract with the Forest Service for 50 years. Though it canceled that contract, the administration had no plan for an immediate replacement. Aero Union CEO Britt Gourley told Human Events the administration provided no details on why the contract was ended.

A Forest Service official said the contract was cancelled over safety concerns, but the company had recently passed its annual inspection.

It must be embarrassing to be you and to be so inaccurate.


US Forest Service Cancels Airtanker Contract with Aero Union
"California company did not meet agency’s safety standards

WASHINGTON, July 29, 2011–The U.S. Forest Service announced today that it has terminated its contract with Aero Union of Sacramento, Calif., because the company failed to meet its contractual obligations. The company was providing six airtankers under exclusive-use contracts to the Forest Service.

"Our main priority is protecting and saving lives, and we can't in good conscience maintain an aviation contract where we feel lives may be put at risk due to inadequate safety practices” said Tom Harbour, director of the Forest Service’s Fire and Aviation Management program. “This contract termination notwithstanding, we possess the aircraft support needed for this year's fire season."

The Forest Service has access to additional aviation assets to meet operational needs. Two other private companies provide 11 large airtankers under exclusive-use contracts. In addition, there are two very large airtankers available through a “call when needed” contract, as well as eight military firefighting aircraft.

The five-year contract the Forest Service signed with Aero Union in 2008 required participation in a continued airworthiness program, which included a Fatigue and Damage Tolerance Evaluation and structural inspection program. In April 2011, Aero Union informed the Forest Service that the Federal Aviation Administration found the company was not in compliance with its mandated structural inspection program requirements.

Because of the extraordinary stresses placed on aircraft during aerial firefighting and to prevent catastrophic failures and ensure safety, the Forest Service adds requirements to its airtanker contracts that are specific to the agency’s firefighting mission. The Forest Service will not use aircraft that do not meet its requirements.

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The Agency manages 193 million acres of public land, provides assistance to State and private landowners, and maintains the largest forestry research organization in the world."

http://www.fs.fed.us/news/2011/releases ... nker.shtml

Nice smokestream, but the USFS has no clue how to handle an air tanker program.

They are now on what, the 6th study, and did nothing until the sh*t hit the fan?

Something the Dog Said wrote: Those republican congressmen who voted for the immoral Ryan budget are being awfully quite about how it would decimate the federal funding for fighting wildfires.

You mean the federal funding would only be reduced by 10%. You do know the meaning of the word decimate... yes?

For 3 1/2 years we have heard cut....cut....cut.....it seems like the conservatives wanted to cut money from every federal program they could, and were not inclined to allocate any money for infrastructure. Shrinking the role of the Federal Government was their goal, let the states handle their own affairs. But wow....when the need is in their own back yard, and threatens their homes, their neighborhoods......it's all about where are the federal dollars, where is the federal assistance.

Aren't firefighters local public employees and volunteers for the most part, even many of those fighting national fires

Thus, the former gov.'s perhaps future president's opinion on local firefighting staffing is about as important as my opinion about what he eats for dinner. I would assume the last thing we would want is to tax nationally and the redistribute some of that money back to just certain localities for certain tasks at the will of the presidential candidate or congress - what a mess that would make ;P

If we want more or less firefighters, we can make that happen without ever interacting with the fed - we will have to do something that many Americans are very opposed to, paying our own way. At least in CO those that don't like paying their own way can always pawn it off on tourists and pretend they are still financially responsible locals ;P

I suggest that those with concerns about fire fighter funding both contribute some $ to the dept and volunteer ;P

Why even bring this up? Aren't most fire dept costs court and retirement costs or is that just locally ;P

Also, in addition to public fire fighters, the service is also available on the open market privately, thus there can never really be a lack of firefighters relative to the resources at hand and the demand for their services.

Exactly right PE, state and local governments hire police, firefighters and teachers and are the ones who decide if we need more, fewer, or same. Romney and Obama shouldn't be talking about it or deciding it.