Legislators From Fire-Swept Areas Seek Answers at Air Guard Base

Two state legislators representing the fire disaster areas of San Diego and Baldwin Hills toured the California Air National Guard base in Van Nuys Tuesday, asking why Air Guard cargo planes equipped with firefighting equipment sit on the ground there while brush fires consume forests and homes.

“Damn good question,” commented a crusty National Guard colonel in a heavy Southern drawl as he watched the tour go through a room where pilots and crew members waited to be called out on retardant-dropping missions.

“I’ve got 16 boys here from North Carolina and we’re real tired of sitting around on our tails all day.”

Col. William T. Bundy, commander of the 146th Tactical Airlift Group of Charlotte, N.C., one of four Air Guard and Air Force Reserve units around the nation that are trained and equipped for aerial firefighting, complained that his men had flown only one mission all day Tuesday against the fire threatening San Luis Obispo.

No Missions on Some Days

The eight planes from the four units, which have been gathered at Van Nuys Airport since last week, flew a total of 21 missions Tuesday. On some days they have flown none.

Assemblywoman Gwen Moore (D-Los Angeles), standing amid the parked C-130 aircraft, said she plans to introduce legislation next week to make it easier for California to send National Guard planes on firefighting missions, free of restrictions by the federal government and dependence on private companies.

Assemblyman Larry Stirling (R-San Diego), who made the tour with her, said he would co-sponsor the legislation and may hold hearings in San Diego later this month.

Moore represents the Baldwin Hills district where 48 homes were destroyed by a flash fire July 2. Stirling represents the Normal Heights area of San Diego, where 64 homes burned June 30.

Moore and Stirling visited the headquarters of the 146th Tactical Airlift Wing, one of two California-based units trained to make aerial retardant drops.

Delaying Factors

The Assembly members complained about a complicated combination of factors that limits and delays for 12 hours to two days use of National Guard planes in retardant-dropping missions.

Those factors include the fact that the U.S. Air Force can dictate use of the aircraft, the U.S. Forest Service’s control of aerial firefighting, contractual dependence on a chemical retardant supply company and a federal law giving civilian firms first crack at all aerial firefighting missions.

Civilian tanker pilots “fly six months of the year and politic the other six to protect their bread and butter,” Stirling complained.

“This is insane,” Moore snapped at one point at the officers giving the tour. “You’re the California National Guard, part of the state government that we support, and the State of California could burn down and your planes can’t respond because the federal government has all this red tape.”

Air Force Control

Although the Air Guard is part of the California military forces, under the command of the governor in peacetime, its aircraft remain U.S. Air Force property. In practice, the Air Force has first say over what missions they fly, Air Guard officers said.

Moore and Stirling said they were not surprised to learn that, until the outbreak of a series of disastrous fires this month, the wing had not been used against a fire in California in five years--but did fly missions against forest fires in Italy and France in the summer of 1983, an expedition that was not made public at the time.

“Two of our planes went over there at the request of the Italian government and flew missions on fires in Italy, Sicily, Crete, southern France, a bunch of places, for about two weeks,” said Capt Mike Ritz, the wing’s public information officer.

“They told me not to publicize it.”

The Italian government reimbursed the United States for the expense, he said.

For aerial firefighting, the wing’s C-130 cargo planes can be fitted with modular airborne firefighting systems, or MAFFS, which spew 3,000 gallons of liquid retardant in eight seconds from two nozzles at the rear of an aircraft. The system can be installed in a C-130 in about two hours.

Forest Service Owns Units

The U.S. Forest Service owns the eight MAFFS units in existence, National Guard officers said. After an outbreak of forest fires in 1970 led to calls by local governments for help from military aircraft, three of the Forest Service units were assigned to the 146th.

The five others were divided among an Air Force Reserve unit at March Air Force Base and National Guard units in Wyoming and North Carolina.

The Forest Service has a contract with the Monsanto Chemical Co. to supply the retardant, which is made by mixing a powder, rich in iron oxides, with water. Most of the delay in getting National Guard tankers off the ground on fire missions involves waiting for the Monsanto and Forest Service teams that mix and load the chemical, according to Col. Ron Kludt, director of plans and operations for the office of the state adjutant general.

To use its MAFFS units, the Forest Service enlists the help of another federal agency, the Air Force. Using its authority over National Guard planes, the Air Force then turns them over to the Forest Service, Guard officers said.

Restriction on Missions

The Forest Service, in turn, allows the planes to fly only when civilian tanker companies cannot possibly meet all the mission requests.

Stirling complained that the arrangement “turns the California National Guard into an air-taxi service for the U.S. Forest Service.”

Moore said she did not want to discuss details of her proposed legislation, but said it probably would include appropriations to train California Department of Forestry crews to prepare the retardant mixture, replacing the U.S. Forest Service and chemical company teams. She said she also intends to investigate the possibility of the state’s buying its own MAFFS units to equip C-130s, which would remain under state control during fires.

Guard officers said the MAFFS units cost about $5 million to $6 million each, and that the retardant costs about $4,000 a load.