The new S70i Firehawks which Cal Fire acquired are very exciting machines. I hope it works out for them. After reviewing the pros and cons I am left wondering if this was the best choice. The S70s capabilities are very impressive, the expenses are also impressive. I pledge my support however I wish Cal Fire would be more forth coming about ALL aspects of this new copter.
Kirk Van Patten
Ukiah
I thought CAL FIRE was very forthcoming on the hawks. If you look at the contract, there were very specific items that the department wanted. They have been tweeting about it’s effectiveness since last year almost on the daily. The department can now do night flying operations that only other agencies have been doing. These machines have been battle tested by the military and the civilian version appears to have taken many of those attributes. Yes they are expensive to fly, but remember the old adage you get what you pay for. All aviation assets are expensive to fly. It was time to move out of a Vietnam era aircraft.
I fully agree that it is time to upgrade. However in their spec sheet did CDF request the hawk not have VMP capability? If you question Unit Chiefs do they know that the current S70s are NOT compatible with the current VMP tools. Many bases are facing massive expenses to build the infrastructure necessary for the S70. There are enormous expenses associated with night flying. True these NVG expenses would come with any copter but to advertise this ship has the capability to operate at night is very misleading. What is the maintenance record of the S70? I have been told by a very good source that one of CDFs S70s had a double engine failure. The Firehawks are a very good tool. Are they the best choice? I’m not sure. Again I wish CDFall the best.
Kirk
They’ve been open and the VMP aspect is not a surprise. They’ve been able to adapt by utilizing existing 212’s. AMU was very forthcoming with the technical aspects of each ship. I’m not sure where the breakdown is, but the department has been open and transparent about the helicopter as issues are discovered.
My comments will be short. After a 35 year career with CDF I noticed many changes, some good some bad. In the old days the Division/Department was very transparent. Today the PIO folks follow the corporate model. If its good news pump it up, if it’s bad news ignore it, it’ll go away. This corporate model has been working well. However the truth suffers greatly. I won’t get into details here but in the past 15 - 20 years there have notable PIO decisions (unrelated to aviation) that have left my head spinning. The S70 hawks will be a tremendous asset. My issue is how it is spun. On another positive note I am glad to see more expenditures towards ground resources.
You certainly know how PIO works right? Any department PIO is a spokesperson for his/her agency and is relaying the information to the public with a message that is approved by the department for release. So the comment that PIO decisions have left your head spinning is most likely not that PIO’s decision (although some PIO’s are not as good as others). Regardless, I think it most likely was not your intent to “throw a bullet” at PIO’s.
You are correct no bullets at PIOs. I guess my main target with regard to public information would be management (sac level). This level goes way up, beyond CDF management.