Information Report FF-X-71.

February, 1979

THE USE OF AIR TANKERS

IN CANADA 1957-1977

A. J. Simard

Forest Fire Research Institute

Canadian Forestry Service

Department of the Environment

240 Bank Street

Ottawa, Ontario

K1G 3Z6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

Number of Air Tankers: 1957 to 1973

1970 to 1973

1974 to 1977

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure

1. Number of Fixed Wing Air Tankers in Canada

2. Total Capacity of Fixed Wing Air Tankers in Canada

3. Relative Totals for Air Tanker Use Statistics

Page

1

1

5

18

4

13

15

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Number of Fixed Wing Air Tankers Used by Fire Control Agencies in 2 Canada (1957-1973).

2. Ownership Status (1957-1973) 2

3. Number of Fixed Wing Air Tankers Used by Type (1957-1973) 3

4. Total Air Tanker Capacity by Type (1957-1973) 6

5. Fixed Wing Air Tanker Use by Agency (1970-1973) 7

6. Fixed Wing Air Tanker Use by Type (1970-1973) 8

7. Helicopter Use by Make and Model (1970-1973) 10

8. Air Tanker System Totals (1970-1973) 10

9. Range in Total Use Statistics for Air Tankers in Canada (1970-1973) 12

10. Relative Values for Air Tanker Use Statistics (1970-1973) 15

. 11. System Costs by Type of Air Tanker (1970-1973) 16

12. Total System Costs (1970-1973) 17

13. Total Fire Management Expenditures (1970-1973) 17

14. Fixed Wing Air Tanker Statistics by Agency (1974-1977) 19

15. Retardant Dropped by Fixed Wing Air Tankers by Agency (1974-1977) 21

16. Fixed Wing Air Tanker Statistics by Type (1974-1977) 22

17. Retardant Dropped by Fixed Wing Air Tankers by Type (1974-1977) 23

18. Helicopter Use by Agency (1974-1977) 24

19. Helicopter Use by Type (1974-1977) 25

20. Fixed Wing Air Tanker Costs (1974-1977) 27

21. Helicopter Costs (1974-1977) 28

22. Retardant Cost (1974-1977) 28

23. System Costs (1974-1977) 28

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to the dozens of persons whose names are unknown, who were responsible for compiling air tanker statistics for individual fire management agencies over the past 20 years. The effort represented by this report is insignificant relative to the thousands of man-hours that have been invested in the original tabulation and summarization of the data. Without data from individual agencies, this report could not have been prepared. Thus, although only one name appears on the cover, this report was, in fact, authored by many.

On a more pragmatic note, the author expresses his sincere appreciation to Mrs. Audrey Laing who managed to type both the tables· and text in the midst of considerable turmoil. Finally, a note of thanks is also issued to Mr. Neil Bruce for providing editorial comments.

PREFACE

The reader will note the use of Imperial gallons rather than litres for quantity of retardant dropped. The original survey (1957-1973) was prepared prior to the requirement for metric conversion. In addition, the vast majority of agencies still provide retardant data in English rather than metric (SI) units. Thus, in the interest of uniformity, English units are retained. Further, due to impending major program changes in the Canadian Forestry Service, it was felt that a delay caused by converting the retardant data to metric units would have jeopardized publication of the statistics contained herein.

ABSTRACT

This report provides a comprehensive set of statistics describing the use of air tankers for wildland fire control in Canada from 1957 to 1977. ,It considers the number and type of aircraft used, the amount and type of retardant dropped, system costs, and trends in the data. Annual statistics are presented by province, by air tanker type, and for Canada as a whole. It is concluded that: (1) air tanker systems constitute one of the largest single expenditures in fire management and (2) there is a potential for realizing significant savings through increased interagency sharing of fixed wing air tankers.

RESUME

Ce rapport fournit une vue d'ensemb1e des statistiques qui ont trait a l'utilisation de l'avion-citerne au Canada pour la periode de 1957 a 1977. II fait etat du nombre et des types d'aeronefs utilises, de la quantite et des types de produits retardants 1argues. des coOts du systeme et des tendances qui se degagent des donnees. Les statistiques annuelles sont fournies par province, par type d'avion-citerne, ainsi que pour Ie Canada dans son ensemble. L'auteur conclut (1) que les depenses reliees a l'utilisation des avions-citernes constituent un des items les plus importants en gestion forestiere et, (2) qu'une collaboration plus etroite entre les organismes, en vue d'assurer une meilleure utilisation des avions-citernes, permettrait probablement d'epargner d'importantes sommes d'argent.

THE USE OF AIR TANKERS IN CANADA

1957-1977

A. J. Simard

Introduction

It is useful at the outset of any analysis to determine the relative scale of the system under consideration and the magnitude of possible improvements which might be realized. To this end, when the air tanker productivity project (Simard, 1978) was initialized, a survey of air tanker use by fire management agencies across Canada was undertaken. This survey addressed a number of questions:

1. How many and what type of air tankers are being used?

2. How much and what type of retardant is being used?

3. How much money is being spent?

4. What are the trends in each of the above?

Unless otherwise stated, the information in this survey was compiled from reports presented by provincial fire managment agencies at the annual meetings of the Canadian Committee on Forest Fire Control (Anon 1958-1978). In certain cases, portions of the statistics for individual agencies had to be estimated. Some information was either not given or presented in a format that rendered it unsuitable for this compilation. In such cases the most compatible average values were used. Thus, while the statistics presented here are not perfect, a reasonable effort has been made to render them as complete and accurate as possible.

Number of Air Tankers 1957 to 1973

The first and most obvious survey would consider numbers and types of air tankers in use. Table 1 summarizes this information for each fire management agency for the period 1957-1973. Table 3 contains the same information except that it is listed by air tanker type. Of the fifteen air tanker types listed in Table 3, thirteen are currently in use. Of these, seven air tankers (the Martin Mars, DC-6, B-25, Tracker, Twin Otter, TBM and Snow Commander) can be considered of minor overall importance in terms of numbers, in that together they amount to less than 20% of the total number of aircraft listed. The

Table 1 Number of Fixed Wing Air Tankers Used by Fire Control Agencies in Canada (1957-1973)

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

Alberta - 3 ? ? 3 2 3 4 4 6 8 8 10 18 12 16 7

British Columbia - 4 4 9 9 12 18 17 12 12 19 17 18 26 23 17 21

Manitoba - - 1 1 1 - 1 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 6 6

National Parks - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5 ? 2 2

New Brunswick - - - 4 2 1 - - 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 8 4

Newfoundland - - 2 3 2 2 2 4 4 6 7 7 6 5 5 5 5

Northwest Territories - - 1 - 1 1 2 - - 2 - - - 5 16 13 11

Nova Scotia - - - - - - 1 1 2 1 3 4 3 3 3 4 4

Ontario 1 40 44 43 44 43 43 43 41 41 40 40 40 43 45 47 43

Quebec - - 4 3 6 5 6 7 7 7 7 7 6 12 20 21 23

Saskatchewan - - - 1 1 1 3 4 4 4 10 10 13 7 15 19 19

Yukon Territories - - - - - - - - 2 2 - 2 2 1 6 11 2 N

Totals 1 47 56 64 67 67 79 82 82 87 101 103 106 133 133 169 147 ~

Table 2 Ownership Status (1957-1973)

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 - -

Owned 1 40 47 47 50 50 51 55 53 56 57 57 55 55 69 72 73

Leased - - - 12 11 16 26 26 21 24 44 37 38 34 42 45 45

Casual - 7 9 5 8 1 2 1 8 7 2 9 13 44 42 52 29

Totals 1 47 56 64 69 67 79 82 82 87 103 103 106 133 153 169 147

Leased + Owned (%) 100 82 81 92 88 99 98 99 91 92 98 91 88 67 73 69 80

Table 3 Number of Fixed Wing Air Tankers Used by Type (1957-1973)

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

DHC-2 Beaver - 30 36 38 39 34 40 36 26 17 18 7 11 6 13 13 13

N2S Stearman - 2 - - 2 2 3 4 4 3 3 - - - - - -

DHC-2-I1 Turbo-Beaver - - - - - - - 2 6 16 25 30 28 28 27 26 29

DHC-3 Otter 1 10 11 11 12 12 15 12 12 14 15 15 16 20 18 19 18

G-164A Agcat - - - - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 2 - - -

S2D Snow (Thrush) - - - - - - - - - 4 7 12 9 9 8 11 4

DHC-6 Twin Otter - - - - - - - - - 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 4 w

TBM Avenger - 5 4 12 8 12 12 12 12 8 11 11 11 20 14 16 9

PBY5A Canso - - 5 2 7 7 9 15 20 20 18 22 22 28 39 35 27

CS2F Tracker - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 5

B-25 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 5 5 4 3

A-26 - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 9 10 22 16

CL-215 - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 12 15 15

DC-6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 2

JRM-3 Mars - - - 1 1 - - 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Totals 1 47 56 64 69 67 79 82 82 87 101 103 106 133 133 169 147 I

4

rema1n1ng six each constitute somewhere between about 10% and 20% of the total number. Thus, there were half a dozen major air tanker types in use in Canada in 1973, with no single type constituting more than 20% of the total.

The numbers in Tables 1 and 3 could be misleading, in that they represent all reported uses. As a result, aircraft ownership status by year was deter­mined. The results are listed in Table 2. In the case of owned or leased air­craft, there is no problem with duplication, whereas some casual aircraft are known to have been reported more than once. In some cases, it was obvious from the reports that aircraft were lent from one agency to another. In other cases, it was not possible to determine whether or not a casually hired aircraft was unique or had been reported previously. Thus, the total number of air tankers operating in Canada is known to be less than the grand total including casual aircraft but more than the owned plus leased aircraft. It is subjectively estimated that between one-half and three-fourths of the casual aircraft are duplicates. Thus, it can be reasonably concluded that in 1973 between 125-130 fixed wing aircraft were used as air tankers in Canada. The trend in numbers of fixed wing air tankers is shown in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. Number of Fixed Wing Air Tankers in Canada

175 ------------------------------------------------------------

s­o.> .0 E :::J

150 -------------------------------------------- ----

125

100

Total Reported Uses

~t------ ___ fj '/

/'" --~

/ ~---------t-----------

'---..-/ Owned and Leased Only

z 75 i::::':. __ ~~ ______ - -

50

25

r I

r _r

---~--------------------- --------------------------/ /'"

- ~------------------------------------------------------

V

O~~~~------~----_.------._----_.------._----_.------r_----I

1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974

Date

5

It is interesting to speculate on the reasons which could account for the significant increase in the number of casual aircraft reported to have been used since 1970. It could be an improved data collection system in that a new organ­ized reporting form was first used in 1970. It could also represent increased sharing between agencies. The latter cause might appear suspect in view of the fact that aircraft have been shared from the earliest days to a limited extent. It should be noted that the increase took place during a period when a national air tanker fleet was under active consideration. While the fleet did not evolve, the concept of sharing, which it embodied, may have had a greater impact than has heretofore been realized. Finally, the increase may represent an actual increase in air tanker use. For example, it can be seen that the number of owned and leased aircraft increased significantly in 1971. It is apparent from review­ing the Exchange of Information Reports that the first step to buying or leasing an aircraft has traditionally been that of casual charter for one or more years for testing purposes. In all likelihood, all three factors and probably others are involved to some 'extent in the increased number of casual aircraft. It is not possible to draw a conclusion based solely on the available information.

The trend toward larger aircraft is clearly evident in Tables 3 and 4. It can be seen that with the exception of the Mars, the largest capacity aircraft in use in Canada prior to 1969 was the 800 gal. Canso. Note that all aircraft added to the system since 1969 had capacities of 800 gal. or more. Despite this trend, however, the smaller aircraft do not appear to be diminishing significantly in numbers in recent years. For example, half of the aircraft which operated in 1973 had tank capacities of 500 gal. or less. Yet, this same half only comprises 17% of the total capacity. This suggests that despite current trends toward larger aircraft, smaller machines will have a significant role to play for some time to come.

1970 to 1973

Air tanker numbers and capacities present an incomplete picture of the air tanker industry. Other characteristics of interest are hours flown, retardant dropped, and system costs. Data on these characteristics have recently been accumulated in sufficient detail to permit tabulation of national totals for the period 1970 to 1973. Table 5 shows hours of use and retardant dropped for fixed wing air tankers by agency. Table 6 discloses the same information by air tanker type.

Hours of use are a somewhat more meaningful measure of the demand for air tankers than numbers or capacity, inasmuch as they are directly related to fire suppression. For example, it can be noted that whereas Ontario owns 30% of all the air tankers in Canada, their total hours of use are about 14% of the national total. This reflects the fact that their aircraft are multipurpose and are not

Table 4 Total Air Tanker Capacity by Type (1957-1973) (Imp. Gal.)

57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73

DHC-2 2700 3240 3420 3510 3060 3600 3240 2340 1530 1620 630 990 540 1170 1170 1170

N2S 480 240 240 360 480 480 360 360

DHC-2-II 280 840 2240 3500 4200 3920 3920 3780 3640 4060

DHC-3 180 1800 1980 1980 2160 2160 2700 2160 2160 2520 2700 2700 2880 3600 3240 3420 3240

G-164A 480 480 480 480 480

S2D 1000 1750 3000 2250 2250 2000 2750 1000

DHC-6 400 800 800 1200 1200 1600 1600 1600 (j\

TBM 2500 2000 6000 4000 6000 6000 6000 6000 4000 5500 5500 5500 1000 7000 8000 4500

PBY5A 4000 1600 5600 5600 7200 12000 16000 16000 14400 17600 17600 22400 31200 28000 21600

CS2F 800 4000

B-25 1900 4750 4750 3800 2850

A-26 2000 9000 10000 22000 16000

CL-215 1200 14400 18000 18000

DC-6 2500 5000

JRM-3 6000 6000 6000 12000 12000 ~2000 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000 12000

Totals 180 7480 11220 19000 21510 17060 19860 30160 39820 40530 43110 46910 50720 75660 91140 107680 90020

Table 5 Fixed Wing Air Tanker Use by Agency (1970-1973)

Hours Flown Water DroEl~ed * Retardant DroEEed * (1000 Imp. Gal.) (1000 Imp. Gal.)

70 71 72 73 70 71 72 73 70 71 72 73

Alberta 1506 1160 1105 353 - - - 26 556 1262 1025 152

British Columbia 3886 2811 1000 2500 5678 427 425 1200 2500 184 450 1000

Manitoba 460 228 1171 819 541 909 1954 1446 - 92 220 219

National Parks 94 1857 44 65 185 4190 163 - 23 270 13 50

New Brunswick 276 277 304 68 - 102 26 - 125 60 54 15 '-J

Newfoundland 277 89 629 364 1000 530 1643 220 - - - -Northwest Territories 118 1288 814 549 89 5400 2145 990 5 249 35 145

Nova Scotia 45 53 85 72 30 21 55 137 - - - -I

Ontario 1912 1815 1589 433 1320 2364 1966 - 37 170 326 630

Quebec 1050 1384 1350 640 2600 8331 5000 2666 - - - -Saskatchewan 1440 600 3228 1290 1972 685 2884 2570 - 400 500 1500

Yukon Territories 7 321 392 40 - 250 16 - 10 208 146 18

Totals 11071 11884 11712 7194 13415 23209 16238 9256 3220 2894 2770 3730

Average 10465 15304 3154 ------- -- - ~~--------- - ---

* Includes short-term retardants.

Table 6 Fixed Wing Air Tanker Use by Type (1970-1973)

Hours Flown Water DroEEed * Retardant DroEEed * (1000 Imp. Gal.) (1000 Imp. Gal.)

70 71 72 73 70 71 72 73 70 71 72 73 I

DHC-2 105 177 1562 357 38 96 364 157 - - - -DHC-2-II 963 469 690 334 276 471 473 87 - - - 88

DHC-3 1481 855 1843 628 523 1257 1379 592 - - - 144

G-164A 138 - - - - - - - 62 - - -

S2D 785 498 531 68 - - - - 195 168 133 15

DHC-6 289 390 420 122 432 1085 971 44 - - - 118

TBM 2029 1877 939 1250 - - 26 - 1470 1012 344 400 (Xl

PBY5A 3894 3356 3867 2771 6368 10103 9024 6872 2229 1761 1479 1798

CS2F - - 79 164 - - - - - - 139 218

B-25 118 145 90 134 49 - - - 59 223 67 92

A-26 1059 1398 802 1021 10 - - - 1171 1614 605 685

CL-215 5 738 965 250 21 5462 4000 1504 - - - -DC-6 - - 1 98 - - - - - - 2 172

JRM-3 209 9 - - 3678 50 - - - - - -

Totals 11071 11884 11712 7191 13415 23269 16238 8356 3220 2894 2770 3730 ~----------------.- .. _----_._ ... _------------ --------"------"- .... _-- ----~--------------- .. --

* Includes short-term retardants.

9

justified on the basis of air tanker operations alone. An additional benefit is that with hours of use, the problem of duplicate tabulation is eliminated. Another problem arises, however, in that in some instances the reported hours cover more than air tanker operations and it was not possible to segregate the air tanker use component. Thus, as in the case of air tanker numbers, hours of use may present an inflated picture of the total system. With this caveat in mind, the data in Table 5 indicate that during the period of the survey, an average of about 10,500 hours were flown annually by fixed wing air tankers.

Clearly, the above argument can be carried further by considering the quantity of retardant dropped. The latter should be directly related to the needs of the fire suppression operation. Quantity of retardant dropped has the dual advantages of no duplication and it does not incorporate any activity other than air tanker operations. Data from Table 5 indicate that an annual average of 15.3 million gallons of water and 3.1 million gallons of retardant were dropped by fixed wing air tankers on forest fires in Canada.

Short-term retardants often could not be segregated on the basis of the available information. As a result, they are intermixed with both of the above categories depending on how they were reported. To be precise, the headings should read: water and short-term retardants; short-term and long-term retardants. This difficulty no doubt accounts for much of the discrepancy between the data presented here and those of Canwest (1974).

Examining the use statistics discloses a significantly different picture of the nature of the industry fleet than that obtained from numbers of air­craft. In 1973, ten out of thirteen aircraft types constitute only 30% of the total flying hours. The remaining three (the TBM, Canso, and A-26) comprise 70% of all hours flown. Clearly, they are the most used aircraft. Further, of the three, Cansos fly more hours (38.5% of the total) than the TBM and A-26 together (31.4%). Thus, in terms of the number of hours flown, the Canso was obviously the workhorse of the Canadian air tanker industry in 1973.

If gallons of water dropped are considered, the picture becomes even more one-sided. Only two aircraft, the Canso (74.2%) and the CL-2l5 (16.2%) drop 90% of all the water. Obviously, as of the end o£ the survey period, the Canso receives by far the widest use. It should be pointed out that data for the Mars are unavailable. While the number of hours flown by the Mars would not likely be significant relative to the total, the quantity of wate.r dropped obviously would be. If we consider retardant dropped, Cansos account for nearly half of the total production. If only long-term retardants are considered, four air­craft share the limelight. The A-26 is obviously the most used at 43.3% of the total, followed by the TBM (25.3%), the Tracker (13.8%) and the DC-6 (10.9%). These four aircraft accounted for 93.3% of the long-term retardant dropped by fixed wing aircraft in Canada in 1973.

Helicopters have been used as air tankers almost as long as fixed wing air­craft. It was not until 1970, however, that data were accumulated in an organ­ized manner. Table 7 presents a summary of helicopter use for the period 1970

10

Table 7a Helicopter Use by Make and Model (1970-1973)

Number Hours Flown

70 71 72 73 70 71 72 73 - - - - - - - -

A10uette II - 4 12 12 - 309 401 412

Bell "G" Series 2 8 1 7 767 2144 42 135

Bell 204 2 7 8 7 560 740 469 365

Bell 205 2 1 4 1 90 5 128 34

Bell 206 2 6 8 19 24 342 131 534

Sikorsky S-55T - - 10 4 - - 564 187

Sikorsky S-58T - 1 5 2 - - 285 14

Miscellaneous 2 2 7 3 767 181 423 54

Totals 10 29 55 55 2208 3721 2443 1735

Table 8a Air Tanker System Totals (1970-1973)

Number Hours Flown

Helicopters 10 29 55 55 2208 3721 2443 1735

Fixed Wing Air Tankers 133 133 169 147 11071 11884 11712 7191

System Totals 143 162 224 202 13279 15605 14155 8926

Average 183 12991 71 hrs. per acft.

11

Table 7b Helicopter Use by Make and Model (1970-1973)

Water DroEEed * Retardant DroEEed * C1000 Imp. Gal.) (1000 Imp. Gal. )

70 71 72 73 70 71 72 73 - - - - - - - -

Arouette II - 277 488 509 - 2 25 -

Bell "G" Series 44 388 6 18 - - - 6

Bell 204 543 714 303 146 - 76 5 84

Bell 205 95 3 170 52 - 2 - -

Bell 206 24 194 141 1747 - 64 8 -

Sikorsky S-55T - - 627 167 - - 28 22

Sikorsky S-58T - - l38 12 - - 10 -

Miscellaneous 44 121 160 39 - 22 - 6

Totals 750 1697 2033 2690 - 166 76 118

* Includes short-term retardants.

Table 8b Air Tanker System Totals (1970-1973)

Water Dropped Retardant Dropped

Helicopters 750 1697 2033 2690 - 166 76 118

Fixed Wing Airtankers 13415 23269 16238 8356 3220 2894 2770 3730

System Totals 14165 24966 18271 11046 3220 3060 2846 3848

Average 17112 93,500jaircraft 3244 17,700 gal. per acft.

12

to 1973. Two points are of interest. First, only about half of the agencies in Canada report having used helicopters. Thus, a table listing the use by agency would be of limited value. Second, data are not available from two large agencies. Thus, the totals listed in Table 7 are perhaps as much as 25% lower than the actual use.

Of the seven helicopter types listed in 1973, four models constitute 81.7% of the total of 55 aircraft. Of these four, the Bell 206 (34.5%) and the Alouette II (21.8%) predominate, but not overwhelmingly, as the Bell G series, and the Bell 204, each constitute 12.7% of that total. Examination of the number of hours flown discloses much the same picture. Of the total of 1,735 hours flown in 1973, 75% were flown by three models: the Bell 206 (30.8%), the Alouette II (23.7%) and the Bell 204 (21.0%). None is a clear leader in this case. On the other hand, the amount of water dropped present~ a different picture. Only two models, (the Bell 206 and theAlouette II) account for 84% of the total of 2.7 million gallons dropped in 1973. Of these two, the Bell 206 is by far the more significant in that it dropped 65% of the total. Rela­tively little long-term retardant was dropped by helicopters and an analysis of these data would be of little value.

In Table 8, helicopters are compared with fixed wing aircraft and system totals are computed. It can be seen that there are one-third as many heli­copters as fixed wing aircraft and that the former flew about one-third as many hours. In terms of production, however, the helicopters dropped only 12% as much retardant (based on the averages for 1970-73) as did the fixed wing aircraft. The trend, however, is clearly in favour of helicopters. In 1970, the amount dropped was only 5%, whereas in 1973 the proportion had increased to about one-third, thus equalizing the ratios of number of aircraft and hours flown. Helicopters are apparently not very popular when it comes to dropping long-term retardants. They average about 100,000 gallons per year or about 3% of the amount dropped by fixed wing aircraft.

For all aircraft combined, based on 4 years of data, we see that an average of 183 aircraft were used annually in 1973; they flew a total of about 13,000 hours per year; and they dropped a total of 17.1 million gallons of water and 3.2 million gallons of retardant each year. The ranges are summarized in Table 9.

Table 9 Range in Total Use Statistics for Air Tankers in Canada (1970-1973)

Number Hours Water * Retardants * (Imp. Ga1.) (Imp. Gal.)

Low 143 8926 11,046,000 2,846,000

Average 183 12991 17,112,000 3,244,000

High 224 15605 24,966,000 3,848,000

* Includes short-term retardants.

13

Number of air tankers provides an incomplete impression of the size of the "industry".Y The total carrying capacity of the aircraft is also highly signi­ficant •. For example, looking at the number of aircraft over the years, in 1958 there were nearly one-third as many aircraft (47) as there are today (147). Looking at Table 4, however, the total capacity of the system in 1958 (7,480 gal.) was only one-twelfth as large as was the case in 1973 (90,020 gal.). Thus, both the number of aircraft and the average tank capacity have been increasing (the latter more steadily and rapidly than the former) during the l7-year history of the industry in Canada.

The trend in total tank capacity during this period is indicated in Fig. 2. Note the effect of the loss of a 6,000 gal. capacity Mars during the 1961 fire season! Clearly, system capacity represents a more realistic portrayal of the growth trend over time than numbers of aircraft. Fur.ther, the state of the system is more closely represented by leased plus owned aircraft rather than total reported uses.

Figure 2. Total Capacity of Fixed Wing Air Tankers in Canada

100 450

(j) 80 z 360

9 ...J « (!)

/---. .", (j)

w ...I 60 « -------------------------------------------- --/~--------- 270 ~ II: w a. :E

~ 40 « (j) :::> o ~ 20

/1 _/ ___ :4::'":::::;;:~:::-::-

-----------------------------~~~ -----------------------~ Leased and Owned Aircraft Only

...J

o z «

180 ~ o :I: I-

90

o ~--~~------.-----~-----.------._----_.------r_----._----_+ 0 1958 1960 1962 1964 1966 1968 1970 1972 1974

Date

Y· The term "industry" is used in a broad sense to indicate the sum of all activities related to the use of aircraft in a direct fire suppression role in Canada. In this survey, it includes publicly as well as privately operated air tanker fleets.

14

The conclusions with respect to trends which would emerge from studying Tables 6 and 8 (hours of use and retardant dropped), are quite different from those which would be drawn based on data from Tables 3 and 4 (number of air­craft and tank capacity). To render the four sets of data comparable each observation was divided by the mean for ~he four year period (Table 10).

Based on numbers of aircraft or system capacity, it would be easy to con­clude from Figs. 1 and 2 that the industry was still in a period of growth and that 1973 simply represented a light fire year. Examining the trend of hours of use and retardant dropped in Fig. 3 suggests, however, that the industry has perhaps already reached a peak and that from this point, annual totals will reflect seasonal severity more strongly than system growth. More aircraft may be added and capacity increased, but whether or not hours flown and retardant dropped follow suit remains to be seen. It would seem from Fig. 3 that addi­tional aircraft will simply mean fewer hours flown per aircraft. Since, on the average, only 71 hours were flown per aircraft per year for the four-year, period, it is reasonable to wonder how much more, if any, the system can grow.

The last characteristic of the air tanker industry to be considered here is its cost. Using hourly cost data given by Simard and Forester (1972) and data from Tables 6· and 7, total expenditures for each air tanker type were calculated by year. The results are presented in Table 11. Because a fixed hourly cost was used, Table 11 reflects average costs rather than true yearly values adjusted for inflation.

Annual air tanker system totals are presented in Table 12. From Table 12, it can be seen that, on the average, an estimated 5.7 million dollars was spent each year on air tankers between 1970 and 1973. This consists of 4.8 million dollars for fixed wing aircraft and 0.9 million for helicopters. In addition, about $500,000 was spent for retardants (assuming a cost of 35 cents per gallon for long-term retardants and .02 cents per gallon for short-term). Thus, the estimated average annual total expenditure for air tanker operations in Canada, in 1973, was 6.25 million dollars.

To determine the relative scale of this outlay, it is instructive to con­sider it in the light of total expenditures for fire management activities across Canada. Values for the years 1970-1972 are listed in Table l3.~ It can be seen that air tankers involve about 10% of the total fire management budget.

~ Forest Fire Research Institute -Information on file.

15

Table 10 Relative Values for Air Tanker Use Statistics {1970-1973)

1970 ill!. 1972 1973 -- -Number .78 .88 1.22 1.10

Capacity .83 1.00 1.18 .99

Hours 1.02 1.20 1.09 .69

Retardants .85 1.38 1.04 .73

Figure 3. Relative Totals for Air Tanker Use Statistics

1.4 --------------------------

/\ / \

1.2 - - - - - - - - - -t -~ - - ~- -/ / "'.\

1.0

r .-'1 \\

.8

\~ Ret.

Hrs .

. 6~--------r_------_.--------r_------~ 70 71 72 73

Date

16

Table 11 System Costs by Type of Air Tanker (1970-1973)

Fixed Wing

(1000's of Dollars)

$LHr. 1970 1971 1972 1973 -- -- - --DHC-2 270 21.0 35.4 312.4 71.4 DHC-2-II 267 257.1 125.2 184.2 89.2 DHC-3 244 361.4 208.6 449.7 153.2 G-164A 205 28.3 - - -S2D 219 171.9 109.0 116.3 14.9 DHC-6 790 228.3 308.1 331.8 96.4 TBM 330 669.6 619.4 309.9 412.5 PBY5A 553 2153.4 1855.9 2138.4 1532.4 CS2F 482 - - 38.1 79.0 B-25 445 52.5 64.5 40.0 59.6 A-26 467 494.5 652.9 374.5 476.8 CL-215 1630 8.1 1202.9 1573.0 407.5 DC-6 790 - - 0.8 77.4 JRM-3 1620 338.6 14.6 ? ?

Helicopter

(1000's of Dollars)

$/Hr. 1970 1971 1972 1973 - - -- --A10uette II 275 - 85.0 110.3 113.3 Bell "G" Series 200 153.4 428.8 8.4 27.0 Bell 204 550 308.0 407.0 258.0 200.8 Bell 205 600 54.0 3.0 76.8 20.4 Bell 206 260 6.2 88.9 34.1 138.8 Sikorsky S-5ST 600 - - 338.4 112.2 Sikorsky S-58T 700 - - 199.5 9.8 Miscellaneous 400 306.8 72.4 169.2 21.6

17

Table 12 Total System Costs (1970-1973)

1970 1971 1972 1973 -- -- --Total (F.W. Aircraft) 4784.7 5196.5 5869.1 3470.3

F.W. Retardant (Long) 346.8 396.5 451.8 553.7 " " (Short) 44.6 35.2 29.6 43.0

Total (Helicopters) 828.4 1085.1 1194.7 643.9

H. Retardant (Long) - 58.1 26.6 41.3

Total Aircraft Costs 5613.1 6218.6 7063.8 4114.2 " Retardant Costs 391.4 489.8 508.6 638.0

Total Airtanker System Costs 6004.5 6708.4 7571. 8 4752.2

Total Fire Management Costs 58,143 66,495 53,707

Aircraft % of Fire Management 10.3% 10.1% 14.1%

Table 13 Total Fire Management Expenditures (1970-1973)

(Millions of Dollars)

1970 1971 1972 - --Fire Management 58.1 66.5 . 53.7

Air Tanker 6.0 6.7 7.6

Percent 10.3% 10.1% 14.1%

Average

4830.2

437.2 38.1

938.0

31.5

5752.4 506.8

6259.2

59,448

11.5%

Average

54.45

6.25

11.5%

18

1974 TO 1977

Some significant changes in the air tanker industry have occurred between the completion of the original survey and publication of this report. This 'section will consider the impact of recent changes on the present day industry. It will also consider likely trends in the immediate future.

The data in Table l4a indicate that the total number of fixed wing air­craft used in Canada has stablized at an average of 150, with a variation of about + 10 aircraft in any given year. This trend, having been evidenced for six years is likely to continue. The data in Table l4b shows that the number of leased plus owned aircraft appears to have stablized at 125, with casually rented air tankers taking up the slack.

The total hours of use during the period 1974-77 (8,800) have on the average, declined relative to 1970-73 (10,500). While it is safe to conclude that the hours of use are not increasing, it is unlikely that they are, in fact, decreas­ing. Most likely, the hours of use have stablized at approximately 9,600 + 2,750 hours per year. Note that the seasonal variability of flying hours Is much larger than number of air tankers. This is to be expected, since for the most part, the number of air tankers is determined before the fire season, based on anticipated demand. In contrast, flying hours are based on actual demand which, as is well known, varies considerably from one year to the next.

It is instructive to note the average number of hours flown per aircraft in Table l4b. There is no distinction between owned and leased air tankers (66 vs. 65 hrs.), while casual aircraft fly far fewer hours (26). In examining air service contracts used by Canadian forest fire control agencies (Anon, 1973) there is a clear trend to guarantee a minimum number of flying hours per season per leased aircraft. The minimum is generally between 100 and 200 hours per season. This is a reasonable clause, considering the needs of the leasing agencies. As a result, however, much of the air tanker budget is spent for air­craft availability rather than aircraft use. It is clear, that there are more aircraft used as air tankers than is justified by the total demand acrc>ss Canada.

The principle reason is that each agency has attempted to become as nearly self-sufficient as possible. Consequently, to have adequate aircraft available during severe fire outbreaks, an excess number must be on hand for much of the lease period. While Some sharing of air tankers between agencies has taken place during recent years, there is room for more. It would appear that, for Canada as a whole, there is a significant benefit to be gained by increasing interagency sharing and by establishing formal mechanisms whereby resources could be quickly moved from one region to another. If each agency could rely on resouces from other regions during difficult fire periods, it could reduce the number of aircraft required for individual fleets thereby realizing a signifi­cant saving in the cost of fire management.

19

Table 14a Fixed Wing Air Tanker Statistics by Agency (1974-1977)

NUMBER HOURS OF USE

74 75 76 77 74 75 76 77

ALBERTA 11 10 16 10 921 488 707 658 BRITISH COLUMBIA 18 18 12 15 * * 233 1,173 MANITOBA 6 6 11 8 1,228 695 2,366 447 NATIONAL PARKS 1 3 2 3 32 75 141 68 NEW BRUNSWICK 9 8 11 6 310 336 397 360 NEWFOUND LAND 5 10 5 5 218 1,024 1,340 177 NORTHWEST TERRITORIES 7 11 6 7 159 572 311 337 NOVA SCOTIA 4 4 4 4 200 242 206 130 ONTARIO 55 47 51 49 1,580 2,385 3,819 1,604 QUEBEC 21 21 21 21 1,314 3,460 1,222 1,594 SASKATCHEWAN 10 19 8 11. 313 768 491 698 YUKON TERRITORIES 2 3 3 5 125 113 94 178

--'-

TOTAL 149 160 150 144 6,400 10,158 11,327 7,424

Table 14b Fixed Wing Air Tanker Statistics by Agency (1974-1977)

NUMBER BY HOURS OF USE BY OWNERSHIP STATUS OWNERSHIP STATUS AVERAGE HRS./ACFT

74 75 76 77 74 75 76 77

OWNED 80 76 72 84 3,788 6,974 6,588 3,359 5,177 66.4 LEASED 39 51 47 45 1,906 2,372 3,828 3,627 2,933 65.2 CASUAL 30 33 31 15 706 812 911 438 717 26.5

TOTAL 149 160 150 144 6,400 10,158 11,327 7,424 8,827

LEASED 119 - 127 119 129 + OWNED

20

Moving on to quantity of retardant dropped (Table 15), a slight increase in the annual average from 15 to 18 million gallons of water occurred between 1970-73 and 1974-77. The later figure is likely to be a reasonable average in the future with a rang~ of + 5.5 million gallons. For long-term retardant, an average of 2.1 + 0.7 million gallons were dropped. For short-term retardants, the average quantity was 2.3 + 1 million gallons. 3/

Between the periods 1970-73 and 1974-77, the total quantity of retardant dropped has increased from 3.1 to 4.4 million gallons. Whether the latter average will stablize or continue to increase cannot be determined from the available data.

Examining air tanker statistics by type (Table 16) indicates that there are four dominant air tankers. The DHC-2-II Turbo Beaver, the PBY5A Canso, the Douglas A-26, and the Canadair CL-2l5 account for 70% of the number of aircraft operating in 1977. The latter three account for 70% of the total flying hours and the total capacity of the industry. From the capacity data presented in Table 16, it would appear that the air tanker industry in Canada has stabilized at a total capacity of 100,000 gal. The PBY5A and the CL-2l5 account for 92% of all water dropped in Canada (Table 17). For long-term retardant, 57% is dropped by the A-26, while the S2F and DC-6 account for another 36%. Overall, it is clear that the industry in Canada is dominated by a handful of medium to large size air tankers.

Table 18 lists helicopter use statistics by province. The totals for 1976-77 are considered representative of the true state of the industry, in that prior to 1976, the data tends to be incomplete. Thus, an average of 100 heli­copters are used each year in an air tanker role. In contrast to fixed wing aircraft, two-thirds of the total number are hired casually rather than leased or owned. It would appear that about 3,000 ± 1,000 hours are flown each year by helicopters in dropping retardants. Average hours of use per helicopter is not meaningful in that their use as air tankers normally constitutes only a small part of the total flying time. Finally, an average of 4.1 million gallons of water were dropped by helicopters. It is interesting to note that the amount of short and long-term retardant dropped is insignificant relative to the amount of water dropped.

In examining helicopter use by type (Table 19), it can be seen that the Bell 206 has emerged to dominate the industry, constituting 50% of the total number of helicopters used. Interestingly, no other single model amounts to more than 10% of the total. Further, the 206-B accounts for 65% of the total hours of use and 50% of the total water dropped.

3/ Note that most of the apparent decrease in short-term retardants between 1976 and 1977resulted from Manitoba's combination of water and short-term retardants into a single total. Thus, the apparent annual variation is much larger than the actual variation.

,

Table 15 Retardant Dropped by Fixed Wing Air Tankers by Agency (1974-1977)

----

ALBERTA BRITISH COLUMBIA MANITOBA NATIONAL PARKS NEW BRUNSWICK NEWFOUNDLAND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES NOVA SCOTIA ONTARIO QUEBEC SASKATCHEWAN YUKON TERRITORIES

TOTAL

* Data not available ** Included with water

(1,000 IMP. GAL.)

LONG-TERM WATER RETARDANT

74 75 76 77 74 75 76

30 32 88 2 382 114 206 * 119 * 1,570 418

1,200 748 454 3,066 10 46 24 9 8

24 12 20 38 57 47 708 2,640 4,538 920 2 20 367 111 297 60 391 158

238 258 217 177 2,540 2,544 9,739 4,573 729 535 926 6,914 10,000 7,495 9,500 2

432 881 334 1,019 12 15 48 22 2 3 14 67 75 56

12,128 17,484 23,009 19,733 1,312 2,770 1,867 .. ~ - ~--------

77 74

143 391 1,498 *

275 3

68 58

138 170

325 **

109 784 128

2,412 1,678

SHORT-TERM RETARDANT

75 76

145 197

1,029 3,727 45 86 94 98

255 336

** **

321 756

1,889 5,200

77

296 ** **

2 50

202

**

500

N I-'

Table 16 Fixed Wing Air Tanker Statistics by Type (1974-1977)

NUMBER OF AIRCRAFT HOURS OF USE·

74 75 76 77 74 75 76 77

DHC-2 5 9 3 3 166 418 155 47 DHC-2-II 27 27 21 28 429 755 1,300 344 DHC-3 17 19 15 12 1,073 1,047 1,355 418 G-164A 6 360 S2D 8 4 5 302 295 368 DHC-6 2 3 2 2 131 234 493 201 TBM 7 10 5 38 26 PBY5A 28 31 41 34 2,030 3,883 4,683 2,078 CS2F 6 6 8 12 496 550 727 538 B-25 2 4 4 33 98 91 A-26 25 22 26 22 679 464 738 1,413 CL-215 18 20 19 18 1,031 2,293 1,377 1,703 DC-6 4 5 5 3 31 103 105 231

TOTAL 149 160 150 144 6,400 10,158 11,327 7,424

TOTAL CAPACITY (Imp. gal.)

74 75 76 77

450 810 270 270 4,320 4,320 3,360 4,480 2,040 2,280 1,800 1,440

1,440 2,000 1,000 1,250

800 1,200 800 800 3,500 5,000 2,500

22,400 24,800 32,800 27,200 4,500 4,500 6,000 9,000 1,600 3,200 3,200

20,000 17,600 20,800 17,600 33,600 24,000 22,800 21,600 10,000 12,500 12,500 7,500

105,210 101,210 116,130 94,530 -----.---~~

N N

Table 17 Retardant Dropped by Fixed Wing Air Tankers by Type (1974-1977)

(1,000 IMP. GAL.)

LONG-TERM WATER RETARDANT

74 75 76 77 74 75 76 77 74

DHC-2 108 310 158 55 DHC-2-II 275 567 604 405 1 DHC-3 820 905 1,203 595 4 3 G-164A 68 S2D 24 9 30 28 46 58 DHC-6 422 482 1,368 508 2 TBM 1 10 29 1 PBY5A 4,235 6,966 10,579 7,677 138 83 72 56 1,620 S2F 541 535 886 409 B-25 25 90 33 A-26 22 2 3 2 477 301 453 1,378 CL-21S 6,222 8,242 9,082 10,489 2 DC-6 2 2 97 130 405 467

TOTAL 12,128 17,484 23,009 19,733 1,312 1,200 1,867 2,411 1,678 L.. ____ ---- .. -.-.- .. --- .... ---~

SHORT-TERM RETARDANT

75 76

94 98

1,795 5,102

1,889 5,200

77

50

453

21

26

550

N W

26

Between the periods 1970-73 and 1974-77, the use of helicopters in direct attack of fires has increased relative to fixed wing aircraft. There are now two-thirds as many helicopters in use as there are fixed wing aircraft. Heli­copters still fly about one-third as many hours, but they drop 22% as much water, which is twice their percentage of the total relative to 1970-73.

Taken all together, about 250 aircraft are used as air tankers in Canada. They fly a total of about 12,000 hours per year. They drop an average of about 22 million gallons of water and 5 million gallons of retardant on forest fires each year.

Air tanker costs for the period 1974-77 were computed somewhat differently than for the period 1970-73. An hourly cost, based on information provided by a commerical operator, was used for fixed wing aircraft. 4/ This was multiplied by the number of hours flown to determine the operating costs listed in Table 20. An additional annual basing cost was multiplied by the number of air tankers reported. This was subsequently reduced proportionally to reflect only the owned plus leased aircraft. Summi~g the operating and basing costs yields the total fixed wing air tanker cost.~ As can be seen in Table 20, the total fixed wing air tanker cost for Canada averages about 9 + 1 million dollars per year.

Total helicopter costs are listed in Table 21. Since the use of helicopters as air tankers is only part of their total role, the hourly rates in Table 21 are based on casual charter which incorporates a proportional share of the basing cost. All together, it can be seen that the cost of using helicopters as air tankers averages 0.75 + 0.5 million dollars per year.

Retardant costs are calculated in Table 22. Note that the cost per gallon is an average for the four-year period. Current costs are significantly higher. The total cost is obtained by multiplying the cost per gallon times the number of gallons dropped. The average retardant cost per year is 1 + 0.3 million dollars. -

Finally, total system costs are shown in Table 23. It can be seen that the fixed wing aircraft component of the system constitutes 83% of the total cost. It is clear that if significant savings are to be achieved across Canada, it is this component that fire management agencies will have to concentrate on.

4/ Conair Aviation Limited, Abbotsford, B.C., personal communication.

5/ Note that hourly costs for casual aircraft are higher than those shown in Table 20. Since casual aircraft fly only 8% of the total number of hours, this discrepency can be considered insignificant.

Table 20 Fixed Wing Air Tanker Costs (1974-1977)

FIXED WING OPERATING COSTS

$/HR. 74 75 76

DHC-2 77. 12,782 32,186 11 ,935 DHC-2-II 87. 37,323 65,685 113,100 DHC-3 90. 96,570 94,230 121,950 G-164A 90. - - -S2D 90. 27,180 26,550 33,120 DHC-6 159. 20,829 37,206 78,387 TBM 152. - 5,776 3,952 PBY5A 234. 475,020 908,622 1,095,822 S2F 244. 121,024 134,200 177,388 B-25 295. 9,735 28,910 -A-26 295. 200,305 136,886 217,710 CL-215 379. 390,749 869,047 521,883 DC-6 611. 18,941 62,933 64,155

TOTAL 1,410,458 2,402,225 2,439,402

FIXED WING TOTAL 7,919 9,454 9,404 (l,OOO'S)

* (Owned + Based)/(Tota1)

77 $/ACFT. 74

3,619 20 100 29,928 25 675 37,620 20 340 32,400 20 -

- 20 160 31,959 30 60

- 25 175 486,252 50 1,400 131,272 40 240

26,845 40 80 416,835 40 1,000 645,437 200 3,600 141,141 80 320

1,983,308 8,150

9,365 *O+L 6,509 T

BASING COSTS ($1,000)

75 76

180 60 675 525 380 300 - -80 100 90 60

250 125 1,550 2,050

240 320 160- -880 1,040

4,000 3,800 400 400

8,885 8,780

7,052 6,965

77

60 700 240 120 -60 -

1,700 480 160 880

3,600 240

8,240

7,382

N -...J

......

28

Table 21 Helicopter Costs (1974-1977)

$/HR. 74 75 76 77

ALOUETTE II 275 50,325 8,525 1,650 31,900 ALOUETTE I I I 300 .., 3,000 14,400 32,700 BELL 204 490 55,860 114,660 255,290 191,100 BELL 205 630 52,920 37,170 143,010 136,080 BELL 206 250 84,500 31,500 137,500 709,750 BELL 212 700 64,400 35,000 235,900 26,600 GAZELL 300 8,400 - 5,700 13,200 HUGHES-500 250 3,500 2,500 3,000 79,500 SIKORSKY-55 375 171,375 375 47,250 73,875 SIKORSKY-58 425 41,225 10,625 113,475 12,325 MISCELLANEOUS 250 - 1,000 2;250 8,750

TOTAL 532,505 244,355 959,425 1,315,780

Table 22 Retardant Cost (1974-1977)

$/GAL. 74 75 76 77

FIXED WING - SHORT-TERM .10 167,800 188,900 520,000 55,000 FIXED WING - LONG-TERM .45 590,400 540,000 840,150 1,084,950 HELICOPTER .45 97,000 2,000 - 9,900

TOTAL 855,200 730,900 1,360,150 1,149,850

Table 23 System Costs (1974-1977)

($1,000'

74 75 76 77 AVERAGE

FIXED WING 7,919 9,454 9,404 9,365 9,035 HELICOPTER 532 244 959 1,316 763 RETARDANT 855 731 1,360 1,150 1,024

TOTAL 9,306 10,424 11,723 11,831 10,822

29

Overall, the use of air tankers for fire control in Canada costs an average of 10.8 + 1.2 million dollars per year. While this represents a significant 'increase relative to the 1970-73 period, it does not represent an increase rela­tive to fire management costs in Canada. In 1977, 96.4 million dollars were spent for fire management across Canada. 6/ Air tanker expenses for that year were 11.8 million dollars or 12.3% of the total - essentially the same percent­age as for the period 1970-73. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that air tankers will continue to constitute 10-12% of the total expenditure for fire control in Canada. This is, and will continue to be, one of the largest, if not the largest single expenditure in the fire management budget.

The implication for administrators, managers, and researchers is clear. The acquisition, allocation, and utilization of air tanker resources is a key element of any fire management system. Consideration of these activities should receive a high priority in keeping with their significance. By so doing, the cost-effectiveness of air tanker systems will be maximized.

REFERENCES

Anon, 1958-1978. Exchange of Information Reports, Canada, Nat. Res. Counc., Proc. Ann. Meet., Can. Comm. For. Fire. Cont ..

Anon, 1973. Samples of Air Service Contracts Used by Canadian Forest Fire Control Agencies 1973, Canada Nat. Res. Counc., Can. Comm. For. Fire. Cont.

Canwest Fire Management Ltd., 1974. Long-term Retardants and their Use in Canada, Rpt, prepared for: Env. Can., Nor. For. Res. Cntr., Edmonton, Alta., 124 pp.

Simard, A. J., 1978. Development of a Computer Simulation Model to Determine Air Tanker Productivity and Effectiveness, U. of Wash., ColI. of For. Res., Seattle, Wash., Ph.D. Dissert., 253 pp.

Simard, A. J. and R. B. Forster, 1972. A Survey of Air Tankers and their Use, C.F.S., For. Fire Res. Inst., Ottawa, Ont., Int. Rpt., FF-17, 152 pp.

6/ Brady, R. P., Forest Fire Research Institute, information on file.