The companies running them just work out of specific facilities they have identified that support the aircraft and loading them.They just have not been allowed to do it in the US, so maybe that issue has not been tested yet.

Doc, not to disagree, but to disagree with you, Evergreen Aviation pioneered the large passenger jet conversion process about 20 years ago, there was a huge (I mean huge) fire in southern Oregon that scorched a huge chunck and houses. They asked to be allowed to use it and were told no. It has been a continual fight ever since, and this interview was with a former FS senior manager, who explained it this way: "If we allow those planes, then we would cut the time and people involved by 30% or more, resulting in a significant budget cut for the FS". The planes are modified to drop a precise pattern, and have additional lift mechanisms and specific flight deign additions to make the perfectly safe to work this way.

Here is some articles that discuss the issue:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/worlds-la...

This report suggest the issue is they are "locked into" a model with sizes of 1-5K gallons:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_br...

Here is an article for 2015 asking the same questions:

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/west...

The planes have been called to several overseas countries, and worked perfectly fine. I think it is more if an "get out of the box " issue, than hard problems. People do not spend millions on something they do not have a good idea will work for what they are building it for (at least not in the private sector).

If a forest fire puts property at risk, then aiding in stopping it is a legitimate function of the government. Doing it in the most cost efficient and swiftest way is, of course, the desired way to do it. So, what's the problem? Simple. The Forest Service is a government entity, and as such can be relied upon to do it the least efficient way even though a better alternative is available. In any case, private firefighters would do a better job. If government gave up taxing for the service, private firefighting companies would spring up .like grubs on a dead cat.

More gov't red tape and bungling.

Still a symptom. I'm looking to address the root cause.

Yes, I do have something specific in mind.

Not enough logging! The problem with the national forests is the "Tragedy of the commons" "No one" owns it so it isn't taken care of. The government would have a lot more revenue to protect it if they were taking an income from it rather than just sitting on it. It doesn't even generate taxes. Some western states have terrible problems due to the large volume of Federal lands that generate no tax for the state, yet the state has to build roads through and around these giant tracts on non productive land.

This is primarily a budget issue. The per hour cost of big aircraft is pretty high. There's also a safety factor involved, as the air above a fire is very turbulent, and a big aircraft crashing with a sizable fuel load could create a big fire source.

There's also a tactical factor involved, as smaller aircraft can be more precise in where they drop their loads, getting into difficult terrain that would challenge a big aircraft. The Forest Service has noted this, with experience over the years using the big Martin Mars seaplanes (only two left flying). If the terrain is very hilly, they'd rather use a mix of helicopters and dedicated smaller aircraft like the CL-412, especially designed for firefighting.

Then there's the retardant dispersal issue. What seems like low altitude for the big aircraft (much higher than a small aircraft can achieve) can result in a wider spread of retardant, reducing the effective concentration levels. There's more to the issue than just gross payload.

There is logging in the National Forests, at least in Colorado. There may need to be more or different patterns of logging, but that's not addressing the root cause of the problem; it's addressing a symptom.

Yeah, but I'm looking for more of a structural solution.

Large airplanes don't vote. Government employees do. Any questions?

Let’s see here. Forest management has been successfully denied by the greens, even private forests to a great degree. Forest fires have gotten worse due to lack of management and the government debates the use of larger aircraft to fight the larger fires. Who would expect anything else?

Allow people to log in National forests. It will reduce the available trees to burn and make money.Trees are actually a crop which needs to be harvested and managed. It will also actually help Bambi as it will create more diversity in the forest, rather than a bunch of stands of trees all the same age.

The solution is rational thought.

The only relevant concern I can see is that smaller planes can operate out of a wider variety of locations. Those jumbo jets require looooong runways for takeoff (and landing), limiting their effective operating areas - especially in the remote forests of the west. Since that wasn't mentioned, I don't think it's the problem. My fear is that this has become one more area for graft.

Good answer. We can only enforce that by not electing pols who will appoint bureaucrats who think such regs are a good idea, yes?

I agree with the solution but it's a fix that may take a generation or two to implement.

Right now we have a President who may overrule such regs (the Forest Service is part of the Executive Branch) but he won't be in office forever. Eventually another liberal will be in the White House.

How can we build in a structural solution that will prevent another Administration from screwing around with these kinds of rules?

Don't draft regs limiting the carrying capacity of firefighting aircraft to 5000 gallons. Don't put any top limit on it.

"We're from the government and we're here to help." -- Ronald Reagan speaking of the nine most terrifying words in the English language

So, what's the solution?

Yep, competing special interests buy their influence and stupidity erupts...

The whole system of government management is
a train wreck. In Ca several million trees died due to a logging ban on "managed" forests. They suffered from over growth,to simplify it. I will find a link to the ca. Mismanagement and edit it in.http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-dea...

I would think that the people who get burned out, would be, uh, "burned up" over this little issue...my wife said she heard a radio discussion where a former FS worker says they refuse to do this because if they put them out quicker and cut costs, they get less money the next year. They spent 1.7 billion, that is chump change in the bloated budget, they could double it and cut welfare funding by 5%.

The idiots at the national forest agency and the bureau of land management are all about mismanagement.