vefccsc
This page intentionally left blank.
U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute System
Implementation Project
Change Management and Implementation Plan (CMIP)
June 2015
This Change Management and Implementation Plan (CMIP) is based on the deliberations of the RamAir Change Management Action Team (RACMAT). It documents a strategy for managing change
associated with implementation of a ram-air parachute system in the U.S. Forest Service Smokejumper
Program.
Prepared For:
USDA Forest Service
3833 S. Development Ave, MS 200
Boise, Idaho 83705-5398
Prepared By:
On Course Safety, LLC
PO Box 428
Maupin, Oregon 97037
This page intentionally left blank.
Approvals
Prepared By:
U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project
Change Management Implementation Plan (CMIP)
Ram-Air Change Management Action Team (RACMAT)
(Please see Appendix 1B in the CMIP for a list of RACMAT members.)
Reviewed By:
_________________________________________________
Art Hinaman, Assistant Director, Aviation Management
_______________________
Date
Reviewed By:
_________________________________________________
Dan Olsen, Deputy Director, Fire and Aviation Management
_______________________
Date
Approved By:
_________________________________________________
Tom Harbour, Director, Fire and Aviation Management
_______________________
Date
i
This page intentionally left blank.
ii
Acknowledgements
Sincere appreciation is extended to the many people who played significant roles in the development of
the Change Management Implementation Plan (CMIP) for the U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute
System Implementation Project: Tim DeHaas, for providing constant leadership; Sarah Doehring, Bobby
Sutton, and Seth Hansen, former members of the Ram-Air Change Management Action Team (RACMAT);
Jeff Robinson, Gary Atteberry, Nate Hesse, and Michael Noe for their part as acting RACMAT members;
Shane Ralston, Lisa Outa-Perkins, and others for the information and expertise they brought to the
meeting room; Don Carlton of Fire Program Solutions for his work with ram-air change management;
and Art Hinaman for his invaluable contributions to the process. The RACMAT performed in an
exceptional manner, applying a new process to a challenging issue. Their efforts, commitment, and
friendship are greatly appreciated--thank you.
iii
This page intentionally left blank.
iv
Executive Summary
The Director, Fire and Aviation Management, has made a decision to begin a measured transition to a
ram-air parachute system in the U.S. Forest Service smokejumper program. A “square” ram-air
parachute system will eventually replace the “round” FS-14 parachute system currently in use.
The reasons behind the Director’s decision include a need for improvement and innovation in equipment
to optimize operational capabilities of the U.S. Forest Service smokejumper program. Ram-air
parachutes enable smokejumpers to deploy in higher winds, allow slower vertical and horizontal speeds
to help minimize impact landing injuries, and promise future advancements in technology.
This Change Management and Implementation Plan (CMIP) outlines a process for implementing this
change. Pre-decisional work on the CMIP has been ongoing, and a Decision Memo will be issued
announcing and directing the change. Development of the CMIP was modelled on a process outlined in
the Change Management and Implementation Guide (2011). This guide is cited in the Safety
Management System (SMS) Guide which has been adopted as direction by the U.S. Forest Service.
The CMIP addresses all aspects of the change process. It summarizes policy and objectives, lists tasks
and tips pertinent to transition management, outlines a change implementation process, summarizes
data to be collected and analyses to be performed, addresses risk management and quality and safety
assurance needs, and promotes communication and training efforts. All related to the change to a ramair parachute system.
The CMIP was developed based on the deliberations of a Change Management Action Team (RACMAT).
During development of the CMIP, concern for the well-being and safety of employees was held as an
overarching goal. The CMIP outlines a strategy for the agency to implement this change--successfully
transitioning personnel from round to ram-air parachutes--while minimizing the impacts and risks
associated with this change.
The CMIP is a living document that can be updated as needed by the RACMAT. Background information
is included in the Appendices. It also includes an Action Tracker to ensure that action items identified by
the RACMAT are assigned, addressed, and completed in a timely manner. An Operations Plan will be
developed to provide further detailed guidance to implementation of the U.S. Forest Service Ram Air
Parachute Systems Project.
v
This page intentionally left blank.
vi
Table of Contents
Approvals ....................................................................................................................................................... i
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... iii
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ vii
Chapter 1 - Change Management Policy and Objectives .............................................................................. 1
A. Change Policy....................................................................................................................................... 1
1. Leader’s Intent ................................................................................................................................. 1
2. Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
3. Goal of the Change .......................................................................................................................... 2
4. Smokejumper Program Leadership and Management ................................................................... 2
5. Ram-Air Change Management Action Team (RACMAT).................................................................. 3
6. Project Organization ........................................................................................................................ 4
7. Roles, Responsibilities and Accountability ...................................................................................... 5
B. Objectives of the Change Management Implementation Plan (CMIP) ............................................... 5
1. National Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 5
2. Smokejumper Base Objectives ........................................................................................................ 6
3. Measurement of Progress ............................................................................................................... 6
Chapter 2 - Transition Management ............................................................................................................. 7
A. The Transition Period .......................................................................................................................... 7
B. Assessing Transition Readiness ........................................................................................................... 7
C. Planning the Transition ........................................................................................................................ 7
D. Role of Leaders in Transition ............................................................................................................. 10
1. Project Leader................................................................................................................................ 10
2. Base Managers .............................................................................................................................. 11
E. Transition Monitoring Team .............................................................................................................. 12
Chapter 3 - Change Implementation Process ............................................................................................. 13
A. The National Strategy ........................................................................................................................ 13
B. Human Resource Considerations ...................................................................................................... 14
C. Initial Smokejumper Base Plans ......................................................................................................... 14
1. Missoula Smokejumper Base ........................................................................................................ 14
2. West Yellowstone Smokejumper Base .......................................................................................... 14
3. Grangeville Smokejumper Base ..................................................................................................... 14
4. McCall Smokejumper Base ............................................................................................................ 15
5. Redmond Smokejumper Base ....................................................................................................... 15
6. North Cascades Smokejumper Base .............................................................................................. 15
7. Redding Smokejumper Base .......................................................................................................... 15
D. Operations Plan ................................................................................................................................. 15
E. Measurement of Success ................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 4 - Change Planning and Data Collection ...................................................................................... 18
A. Project Documentation ..................................................................................................................... 18
B. Administrative Direction Documents ................................................................................................ 18
C. Ram-Air Change Management Action Team (RACMAT) .................................................................... 18
1. Purpose of the RACMAT ................................................................................................................ 18
2. Duties of the RACMAT ................................................................................................................... 19
D. Documentation Process .................................................................................................................... 19
vii
E. Change Management and Implementation Gap Analysis ................................................................. 20
F. Contingency Plan for a Critical Event during Implementation ........................................................... 21
Chapter 5 - Change Risk Management Processes ....................................................................................... 22
A. Change Risk Management ................................................................................................................. 22
B. Identify and Assess Current Smokejumper Program Risk Assessments ............................................ 22
C. Identify Hazards, Risks, and Mitigation Measures Related to the Change ........................................ 23
Chapter 6 - Change Quality and Safety Assurance Process ........................................................................ 24
A. Purpose of Change Quality and Safety Assurance............................................................................. 24
B. Responsibilities for Change Quality and Safety Assurance................................................................ 24
B. Data Monitoring and Analysis of Change Activities and Methods .................................................... 25
C. Evaluating Performance of the Change Implementation .................................................................. 25
D. Identifying Emerging Hazards and Changes ...................................................................................... 26
E. Confirmation of Quality Assurance Processes ................................................................................... 26
Chapter 7 - Change Management Promotion ............................................................................................. 28
A. Change Management Communication Plan and Processes .............................................................. 28
B. Training Materials and Methods to Implement the Change ............................................................. 28
Glossary and Acronyms ............................................................................................................................... 30
References .................................................................................................................................................. 36
Appendices .................................................................................................................................................. 38
Appendix 1A - Change Management Action Team Charter.................................................................... 40
Appendix 1B -- Change Management Action Team Members ............................................................... 42
Appendix 1C -- Delegation of Authority to Project Leader ..................................................................... 44
Appendix 1D – Project Organization Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................ 46
Appendix 2A – Smokejumper Questionnaire Regarding Potential Transition........................................ 48
Appendix 2B – Data Summary of Smokejumper Responses to a Potential Parachute Transition ......... 50
Appendix 2C -- Smokejumper Evaluation of a Potential Transition to Ram-Air Parachute System ....... 60
Appendix 2D -- Transition Monitoring Team Charter ............................................................................. 76
Appendix 3A -- Decision Memo .............................................................................................................. 78
Appendix 3B -- Human Factors and Human Resource Considerations................................................... 80
Appendix 3Ca -- Missoula Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan.......................................................... 82
Appendix 3Cb -- West Yellowstone Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan ........................................... 84
Appendix 3Cc -- Grangeville Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan ...................................................... 86
Appendix 3Cd -- McCall Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan ............................................................. 88
Appendix 3Ce -- Redmond Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan ........................................................ 92
Appendix 3Cf -- North Cascades Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan ............................................... 96
Appendix 3Cg -- Redding Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan ........................................................... 98
Appendix 4A – Smokejumper Base Ram-Air Readiness Assessment (results)...................................... 100
Appendix 4B -- Smokejumper Base Preparedness Review Checklist (results) ..................................... 102
Appendix 4C – Smokejumper Program Gap Analysis of Directives and Programmatic Policy (results)104
Appendix 4D -- Detailed Description of Smokejumper Programmatic Documentation ....................... 106
Appendix 4E – Process to Document Changes in Equipment and Procedures..................................... 108
Appendix 5A – Ram-Air Risk Assessment (November 2014) ................................................................ 110
Appendix 5B -- Safety Impact Analysis for Smokejumper Operations and Smokejumper Aircraft
Operations ............................................................................................................................................ 123
Appendix 5C – Programmatic Risk Assessment and Safety Assurance Report for Smokejumper
Operations and Smokejumper Aircraft Operations .............................................................................. 125
Appendix 5D – U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute Change Implementation Risk Assessment ..... 127
Appendix 6A -- Smokejumper Base Ram-Air Readiness Assessment (blank form) .............................. 129
viii
Appendix 6B -- Smokejumper Base Preparedness Review Checklist (blank form) ............................... 131
Appendix 6C – Smokejumper Program Gap Analysis of Directives and Programmatic Policy (blank
form) ..................................................................................................................................................... 133
Appendix 7A -- Communication Plan .................................................................................................... 135
Appendix 7B -- Revised Forest Service Smokejumper Training Guide.................................................. 137
Action Tracker ........................................................................................................................................... 139
ix
This page intentionally left blank.
x
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 1
Chapter 1 - Change Management Policy and Objectives
A. Change Policy
1. Leader’s Intent
Leader’s intent is as follows (see Decision Memo):
1. Smokejumpers will implement a U.S. Forest Service ram-air parachute system by a date to be
established.
2. The excellent safety outcomes associated with the smokejumper program will be maintained
and enhanced. Continue to monitor all parachute systems throughout transition and
implementation.
3. Individual choices of National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) bargaining unit
employees and non-union employees will be honored to the maximum extent possible while
emphasizing the agency's intent to achieve full transition to a ram-air parachute system.
4. The implementation will be directed and led through the U.S. Forest Service Fire and Aviation
Management Director.
5. The process will be developed and executed according to this Change Management and
Implementation Plan (CMIP).
6. U.S. Forest Service Line Officers in the smokejumper chain of command will give their full
support to this implementation.
7. No degradation of smokejumper capability will occur during the implementation period.
2. Background
The U.S. Forest Service currently has seven smokejumper bases in the Northern, Intermountain, Pacific
Southwest, and Pacific Northwest Regions (Regions 1, 4, 5 and 6, respectively). U.S. Forest Service
smokejumper staffing averages about 300 annually. U.S. Forest Service smokejumpers perform initial
attack on numerous wildfires each year, often taking on some of the most intense and remote fires.
U.S. Forest Service smokejumpers have used a variety of parachute systems over the 75 year history of
the program. All of these primary parachute systems have been round in their design. The currently
used round parachute system has been developed to near its performance potential. As parachute
systems have evolved, ram-air parachute systems offer a greater opportunity to address the following
U.S. Forest Service objectives:
•
To increase operational capabilities so that fires may be staffed during more severe
environmental conditions (winds, turbulence, etc.) thereby reducing fire suppression costs by
catching high potential fires at the earliest opportunity, instead of waiting for more favorable
parachuting conditions.
•
To accomplish the first objective without increasing and with the goal of reducing the likelihood
of serious and minor injuries attributed to parachute landings.
1
CHAPTER 1
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
In pursuit of these objectives, the Director, Fire and Aviation Management, has directed that the U.S.
Forest Service smokejumper program begin a measured transition to a ram-air parachute system (see
Decision Memo, Appendix 3A).
3. Goal of the Change
The goal of the change is to enhance the effectiveness of the smokejumper program while maintaining
excellent safety outcomes in a highly challenging environment.
4. Smokejumper Program Leadership and Management
Smokejumper program leadership and management have components at the National Forest, Regional,
and Washington Office levels.
Five of the seven U.S. Smokejumper Bases are managed as subunits of host National Forests, while two
of the seven bases are managed as subunits of their respective Region’s Fire and Aviation Management
programs. Supervision of the seven U.S. Forest Service Smokejumper Bases is outlined in Figure 1.
Managed as a Subunit of a Host National Forest (5)
Smokejumper Base
Host National Forest
Grangeville, Idaho
Nez Perce-Clearwater
McCall, Idaho
Payette
North Cascades, Washington
Okanagan-Wenatchee
Redmond, Oregon
Deschutes
West Yellowstone, Wyoming
Custer Gallatin
Managed as a Subunit of Region’s Fire and Aviation Management Program (2)
Smokejumper Base
Region
Missoula, Montana
Northern (1)
Redding, California
Pacific Southwest (5)
Figure 1 – Summary of Smokejumper Base Management
Each smokejumper base has a Base Manager who is responsible and accountable for the smokejumper
base and its personnel.
In addition to the two Regionally supervised bases, Regional Fire and Aviation Management personnel,
including the Regional Fire and Emergency Operations Officer and Regional Aviation Officer, give
technical guidance and support to the smokejumper program in the Regions.
Smokejumper program direction and standards are developed through a variety of processes by the
Washington Office, Fire and Aviation Management staff. Direction and standards are documented in
Agency manuals, handbooks and guides, as well as in the annual budget advice document.
Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management has two smokejumper bases in Boise, Idaho and
Fairbanks, Alaska.
2
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 1
5. Ram-Air Change Management Action Team (RACMAT)
The U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project Change Management Action
Team (RACMAT) was formed to facilitate the change to a ram-air parachute system. Leadership of the
U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project will be by a Project Leader. This
Project Leader will serve as the lead of the RACMAT for the implementation and transition effort, with
responsibilities to plan, manage, monitor, and document the process.
The RACMAT consists of the following:
Regional
Aviation Officer
(RAO)
Rep
Regional
Aviation Safety
Manager
(RASM)
Rep
MTDC
Smokejumper
Equipment
Project
Leader
Ram-Air
Parachute
System
Implementatio
n
P j tL d
Ram-Air
Change
Management
Action Team
(RACMAT)
Line Officers
Team Rep
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager
Smokejumper
Base Managers
National
Federation of
Federal
Employees
(NFFE) Reps (2)
Figure 2 – Positions on the Ram-Air Change Management Action Team (RACMAT)
See Chapter 4, C. of this plan for additional information on the Ram-Air Change Management Action
Team (RACMAT), including purpose and duties of the RACMAT. Also see the RACMAT Charter (to be
developed) and Appendix 1B for a list of RACMAT members.
3
CHAPTER 1
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
6. Project Organization
The U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project organization is as follows:
National
Smokejumper
Program Manager
(existing position)
Ram-Air Parachute
System
Implementation
Project Leader
(new position)
Project Training Lead
(new position)
SMS Specialist (Safety,
Quality and Safety
Assurance, Data
Management)
(new position)
MTDC
Smokejumper
Equipment Specialist
(existing position)
MTDC
Ram-Air Parachute
System Specialist
(new position)
Figure 3 – Project Organization
Subgroups designated to support the implementation are:
•
•
•
•
•
Parachute Loft
Training
Operations
Safety
Communications/Public Relations
Delegation of Authority to the Project Leader will be developed. See Appendix 1D for an in-depth look at
the roles and responsibilities of the U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation
Project Organization.
4
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 1
7. Roles, Responsibilities and Accountability
The roles, responsibilities, and accountability for planning and implementing the change are as follows:
Management
Level
Washington
Office, Fire and
Aviation
Management
Regional Fire and
Aviation
Management
Units
Roles
Responsibilities
Accountability
Lead, organize, fund, and
manage the
implementation.
Provide oversight and direction to
the U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air
Parachute System Project Change
Management Action Team
(RACMAT).
As established
in the Action
Tracker portion
of the CMIP.
Engage the National
Federation of Federal
Employees (NFFE) in the
process.
Provide active staff
support in preparing for
and promoting the
implementation.
Ensure that the implementation is
fully communicated to interested
parties.
Fully understand and support
each phase of the
implementation.
As established
in the Action
Tracker portion
of the CMIP.
Implement the Smokejumper
Base Manager's tasks as assigned
in the Change Management and
Implementation Plan (CMIP).
As established
in the Action
Tracker portion
of the CMIP.
Ensure implementation of
the Change Management
Implementation Plan.
Smokejumper
Base Managers
(and their
supervisory
organization at
either the National
Forest or Regional
level)
Provide active leadership
in preparing for and
leading smokejumpers
through the transition,
taking advantage of
opportunities to position
themselves for transition
implementation.
Actively support other
Smokejumper Base Managers
with their implementation
efforts.
Provide subject matter expert
(SME) support to the Project
Leader.
Figure 4 – Roles, Responsibilities, and Accountability
B. Objectives of the Change Management Implementation Plan (CMIP)
1. National Objectives
1. Assure safety throughout implementation.
2. Meet leader’s intent and goal of the change.
3. Assist individual choice of employees while adopting the ram-air parachute system during the
transition phase over the next 10 years.
5
CHAPTER 1
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
4. Continually and effectively communicate throughout the process.
2. Smokejumper Base Objectives
Objectives of specific bases will be determined in the Operations Plan.
3. Measurement of Progress
The Action Tracker at the end of this CMIP will provide the status of each action item in the plan. The
Action Tracker is one measurement of progress for the change.
6
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 2
Chapter 2 - Transition Management
This chapter addresses the change from the personal level for the smokejumpers and designs and
schedules events, actions and processes that move the people through the transition phases. Transition
is the result of incorporating change into the system which then impacts the people within a particular
program.
A. The Transition Period
The Transition Period begins when people are starting to recognize a change may be coming and ends
when the change has been made and everyone is working comfortably again in their positions. It is the
time and process by which smokejumper personnel get through the change.
B. Assessing Transition Readiness
The intent of the assessment is to get a sense of how ready those within the smokejumper community
are to handle change. The RACMAT should:
1. Determine how this can be accomplished throughout the transition process at all smokejumper
bases by soliciting input from the entire community via a questionnaire. (Input was obtained
through an online questionnaire in the fall of 2013 by the National Federation of Federal
Employees Forest Service Council and is available in Appendix 2A.)
2. Review the results and address the concerns of the smokejumper community within the
transition strategy. This is documented in the Communication Plan.
3. Determine other data gathering processes or devices to provide for anonymous feedback from
the smokejumpers.
4. Determine the capability of the workforce, base by base, to handle the change.
5. Determine variations in the Transition Plan for bases less capable and bases more capable.
C. Planning the Transition
Transition planning starts where the smokejumper community currently is, how they operate and do
business. It then works forward to where the organization wants them to be operating in the future.
Key elements in planning the transition include the following:
1. Share the purpose of the change to help prepare smokejumpers and others (i.e., family
members) for the transition. This information is documented in the Communication Plan.
2. Assemble documentation for transition planning. See Chapter 4, Data Collection for more
information on documentation that should be assembled.
3. Communicate timelines and events to the smokejumper community, including the following:
a. Provide information on the development of the CMIP and identity of the RACMAT
members.
7
CHAPTER 2
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
b. Provide a schedule of when training will be taking place and for whom.
c. Provide a timeline for specific changes at each base (for example, loft modifications).
d. Schedule site visits, clearly identifying the reason for the visits.
e. Schedule a visit to each base for an “all hands” question and answer session with the
Project Leader and Base Manager.
f.
Consider scheduling other events that honor the past.
4. Educate all involved, including National leadership, Regional leadership, smokejumper
leadership, smokejumpers, smokejumper pilots, committee members, and the Aerial-Delivered
Firefighter (ADFF) Steering Committee, about the differences between change, transition, and
implementation. Figure 5 summarizes the difference between these terms.
CHANGE
TRANSITION
IMPLEMENTATION
Definition
Change involves
developing a means of
placing something new
into a current system or
program to address a
given problem.
Transition is the result of
incorporating change into the
system which then impacts the
people within a particular
program.
Implementation means to
carry out, put into action,
perform, to complete, to
satisfy or to fulfill.
How it
Applies to
this Project
The change in this case
is incorporating a new
ram-air parachute
system to “increase
operational capabilities”
into a current program
that has 75 years of
successful operating
experience with round
canopies.
In this case, the transition
primarily impacts
smokejumpers, smokejumper
base managers, smokejumper
base leadership, smokejumper
families, and fire management
“customers.”
Implementation of the
change is a detailed,
multi-layered plan of
action for making the
change to a ram-air
parachute system within
the U.S. Forest Service
smokejumper program.
Implementation details
will be outlined in an
Operations Plan.
Figure 5 – Change, Transition, and Implementation
The Ram-Air Change Management Action Team (RACMAT) must be:
8
•
Knowledgeable about changes effected at each base, including what is being lost and what is
being gained.
•
Prepared to help each base manage and encourage their people through the transition.
•
Prepared to educate fire management customers about the impact of this change on services
provided by smokejumpers. (See the Communication Plan.)
•
Able to recognize the emotional response of people, including being able to identify which
transition phase each person or group is in. See Figure 6 for a description of the three transition
phases: the Ending, the Neutral Zone, and the New Beginning.
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 2
TRANSITION PHASES
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
The Ending
The Neutral Zone
The New Beginning
The first phase in the process of
transition.
The second phase in the process
of transition.
The third phase in the process of
transition.
Whenever there is a change
implemented into an
organization, employees and
managers alike have to let go of
something. Endings create a
sense of loss or require letting
go of something, and that is
where management will find
themselves dealing with
resistance.
The period after the change
implementation has begun. The
old ways are gone, but the new
way isn’t “comfortable” yet or
working satisfactorily. This is
where management could get
impatient with the time it seems
to be taking for the change to be
fully operational and effective.
A difficult time for both the
organization and the workforce.
This phase is marked by new
energy and confidence. People
have moved past a sense of loss
and have sorted out their place
and future within the change
process. They are once again
comfortable in their work.
Figure 6 – The Three Phases of Transition
Tip: Do not rush people
through each phase. Move
people through each phase at
a pace that will effectively
bring them on board.
The RACMAT should re-evaluate the transition processes of the Change Management and
Implementation Plan at each base when that base is in the Neutral Zone. Items that should be
considered in this re-evaluation include:
1. Evaluate how well the change and transition are going. The Transition Monitoring Team
(TMT) is a team selected to closely track the implementation of change to provide
independent assurance that the change is successful. Gather reports from the TMT. Create
a second questionnaire to ascertain smokejumper views of the progress of the transition.
2. Review strategies. Are they working as expected?
3. Review resources. Are resources still available at the necessary level to support the
transition?
4. Are the objectives being met? If not, should they be adjusted?
5. Make all appropriate adjustments.
6. Make a contingency plan for an exit strategy if the change and transition are not going well.
The RACMAT must establish a process for obtaining progress reports from the field. This process could
include the following:
1. Designate a Transition Monitoring Team (TMT) to closely track implementation of the
change to provide independent assurance that the change is successful.
2. Develop anonymous reporting processes.
3. Identify one person per base who can receive concerns from base personnel and who can
effectively provide feedback to and from the RACMAT.
9
CHAPTER 2
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
4. Develop trigger points for reporting. (A trigger point is a particular circumstance or situation
that causes an event to occur.)
In order to adjust for a more effective outcome, the RACMAT should track what helps and what hinders
the organization, the smokejumpers, and related personnel as they go through the process. This
tracking should include a means of feeding that information back into the change plan. It should also
include a means of feedback to the organizational change management process to assure continual
improvement.
The RACMAT should give as many people as possible a role in the transition and change. This has the
following benefits:
•
People become invested.
•
Helps align people with leadership.
•
People’s knowledge and skills become available to the decision-makers.
•
Giving smokejumpers a role to play brings their energy to the table and they begin to
move forward, rather than sitting back and waiting to be told what is next.
The RACMAT should ensure that dual parachute system capabilities are supported until the transition is
complete. Identify when to stop investing in the change, and develop the hard trigger points for a pause
should there be a need to do so.
D. Role of Leaders in Transition
This section outlines tips for the Project Leader during each phase of transition. It also covers tasks and
suggestions for the Base Managers during the three phases of transition.
1. Project Leader
The Project Leader’s role is to (1) lead the U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation
Project in collaboration with the RACMAT, and (2) lead the smokejumper community through the
transition. Figure 7 displays tasks and tips for the Project Leader during each phase of the transition:
PHASE
Before the Transition…
TASKS / TIPS
Remain positive.
Develop a 1-minute speech that explains the purpose of and processes
involved in the transition. (This speech should be included in the
Communication Plan.)
Assess the level of trust between the smokejumpers and their leaders.
Determine if the periodic assistance of a Human Factors Specialist
would be beneficial for the project. If so, determine how to best utilize
the Human Factors Specialist(s) throughout the transition.
During the Ending…
10
Don’t overreact to opposition and resistance.
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 2
Communicate by actions. Do this by visiting other bases, providing
timely assistance, allocation of funds and resources in a new way, and
by conducting a ceremonial event to honor the past.
In the Neutral Zone…
People need control, understanding, support, and clear priorities.
Utilize the Transition Monitoring Team (TMT) to hear what is happening
in the Neutral Zone.
During the New Beginning…
Provide enough flexibility in the system to allow for customization of
the situation that fits.
Leader transition is usually ahead of the community, but allow
followers to catch up.
After the Transition…
Consider organizational improvement in style, methods, and resources.
Make suggestions on how the organization can learn and improve
transition management based on your experience with the process.
Figure 7 – Tasks and Tips for the Project Leader during the Transition
2. Base Managers
Figure 8 displays tasks and tips for the Smokejumper Base Managers during each phase of the transition:
PHASE
Phase I: The Ending…
TASKS / TIPS
Provide the difficult information up front with much detail as possible.
Describe what goes and what stays throughout each aspect of the
change.
Inform personnel of what is “over” and if it is over for everyone.
Recognize that people need to process the information and allow some
time for this.
Recognize the perceived loss and its impact on your employees. Don’t
ignore it.
Do not mistake the emotional impact of perceived loss as bad morale.
Engage employees in the process to help alleviate uncertainty and give
back some sense of control.
Communicate triggers that ensure the informational message reaches
the targeted people, as quickly and as often as necessary.
Identify dates of scheduled events such as training and readiness
assessments, and if the dates shift, communicate that information as
soon as possible.
Honor the past for what it has accomplished and mark the ending as
meaningful and memorable.
Help people to progressively disengage from the past.
Note that the way things are today is the result of past change. A good
reference is the National Smokejumper Training Guide, Chapter 1,
History of Smokejumping, which outlines the many changes in the
program since its inception in 1939.
11
CHAPTER 2
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Ensure people know where to find support throughout the process.
Phase II: The Neutral Zone
Be aware of a decrease in people’s effectiveness and monitor
occurrence of the following: (1) Some people may look elsewhere for
work or miss work more often, (2) Old problems may re-emerge, (3)
Priorities may become confusing, (4) Turnover may rise, (5) Teamwork
may become undermined, (6) People may become polarized,
disorganized, and/or slower to recognize safety concerns or hazards.
Encourage, reorient, and redefine outlooks, attitudes, and values.
Allow people to be creative.
Identity opportunities for improvements to be made that have long
been requested.
Protect against or delay new changes until the smokejumper
community is more prepared to handle them.
Watch for perceptions of showing preference of one group over
another.
Utilize the transition monitoring team/people/source.
Protect people, encourage people, give structure, and provide
opportunities.
Work with local union representatives on working conditions.
Conduct “town hall” meetings with employees and their families.
Phase III: The New Beginning
Utilize the Communication Plan to ensure people are a part of the
communication process throughout all phases of transition.
Help the smokejumpers picture what the future will look like following
the change and transition.
Be consistent.
Maintain momentum by ensuring quick successes.
Symbolize the new identity.
Celebrate successes.
Figure 8 – Tasks and Tips for Smokejumper Base Managers during the Transition
E. Transition Monitoring Team
The function of the Transition Monitoring Team (TMT) is to provide awareness to the RACMAT in
foreseeing the effects of the change and reactions to it. They can provide unfiltered communication to
the RACMAT, review effectiveness of the communication to the smokejumper community, counter
misinformation and rumors, and catch concerns before they get out of hand.
Develop a Transition Monitoring Team. Identify and communicate what their purpose is, who is on the
team, and how they will communicate with the RACMAT and those in the field. The purpose of the TMT
is to provide reports to the RACMAT who will then be able to report to senior leadership on how the
transition is progressing.
12
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 3
Chapter 3 - Change Implementation Process
A. The National Strategy
Some U.S. Forest Service Smokejumpers at the Northern Region’s three smokejumper bases have been
training with ram-air parachutes since 2008. Entering the 2015 fire season, these three bases have
approximately 82 smokejumpers trained and qualified in the ram-air parachute. The Department of
Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Land Management (BLM) smokejumpers have provided assistance through a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Northern Region and the BLM.
This experience with training, loft activities, and jumps with ram-air parachutes place the Northern
Region in a key role, both able to add to their numbers of ram-air qualified smokejumpers and in a
position to assist other Regions with their implementation.
Elements in forging the National strategy are as follows:
1. A realistic range of time to accomplish the service-wide transition is 10 years.
2. Having a predictable, multi-year stream of funding to support the implementation and transition
is essential.
3. Mixed loads of FS-14 round parachutes and ram-air parachutes will continue until completion of
the implementation.
4. Qualifying a smokejumper on only one parachute system at a time is a sound guideline.
5. Ensuring that the national smokejumper operational capability is not diminished during the
transition is of key importance.
6. Using current methods, the total time to train an experienced smokejumper on a ram-air
parachute system is five weeks.
a. Consider use of a “train the trainer” program to develop qualified U.S. Forest Service
ram-air instructors.
b. An academy approach to training would require additional analysis.
c. Training offered by contractors is a positive potential component of the training of ramair smokejumpers.
7. Getting representatives of Region 4, Region 5, and Region 6 smokejumpers to Region 1 for a
dialogue with their counterparts is a key step.
8. The U.S. Forest Service smokejumper program will go from a high skill and high parachute
experience workforce to a high skill and low parachute experience workforce in the early years
of the parachute system transition.
9. It will take much of the transition period to reacquire experience and confidence.
10. Personnel dedicated to the implementation are of key importance to transition success. Roles
required include a U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute System Project Leader, Project Training
Lead, Safety Management System (SMS) Specialist (Safety, Quality and Safety Assurance, Data
Management), and MTDC Ram-Air Parachute System Specialist.
11. Establishing a U.S. Forest Service ram-air parachute systems equipment position at the Missoula
13
CHAPTER 3
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Technology Development Center (MTDC) is essential.
12. Develop a National Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the BLM. Revisit
MOU yearly as the transition progresses.
Establishing a detailed, multi-year National strategy will take additional analysis, planning, and
involvement of Regional and National Fire and Aviation Management Program Leaders.
B. Human Resource Considerations
Identifying, understanding, and consistently and openly dealing with human resource considerations
brought on by the transition are crucial to the project’s success. In this regard, the National Federation
of Federal Employees (NFFE) has assigned two representatives to work with the Ram-Air Change
Management Action Team (RACMAT). Fire and Aviation Management has identified two Assistant
Directors to work with NFFE throughout the project.
The RACMAT has identified a number of human factors. Most of these can be addressed without input
from the Albuquerque Service Center (ASC). Some, however, will require ASC to evaluate and advise the
RACMAT on how to proceed. See Appendix 3B for a detailed list of human factors.
C. Initial Smokejumper Base Plans
These plans are initial estimates made by the Smokejumper Base Managers.
1. Missoula Smokejumper Base
Depending on some personnel factors, Missoula Smokejumper Base will achieve full implementation in 6
to 10 years. They strongly suggest that alternative training methods be considered. They are concerned
that those who learn the ram-air system are learning it as they were trained. There are opportunities for
innovation in ram-air parachute training that should be explored. In this regard, updating the
programmatic guides for the smokejumper program is of key importance. See Appendix 3Ca for the
details of the Missoula Base Plan.
2. West Yellowstone Smokejumper Base
Twenty-three of the 26 jumpers at the West Yellowstone Smokejumper Base are qualified on the ram-air
parachute system. Two of the three current round jumpers express a desire to transition in 2016.
Rookies and transfers will be hired to staff 30 total smokejumpers in 2016, and they will be trained on
the ram-air parachute system. One jumper will utilize the FS-14 round parachute system for several
more years. See Appendix 3Cb for the details of the West Yellowstone Base Plan.
3. Grangeville Smokejumper Base
The Grangeville Smokejumper Base will train three additional ram-air smokejumpers in 2015, which will
give them a total of seven out of 30 smokejumpers using the ram-air parachute system. See Appendix
3Cc for the details of the Grangeville Base Plan.
14
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 3
4. McCall Smokejumper Base
The McCall Smokejumper Base has one highly experienced former BLM ram-air smokejumper,
specifically, one who has experience in training rookie candidates and veteran smokejumpers in ram-air
flight. With the ability to utilize this smokejumper as a trainer, assistance from the Northern Region,
dedicated funding, and an assumption that equipment and manufacturing won’t delay training, McCall
could potentially complete the transition to a ram-air parachute system within six years. The time frame
for full implementation could be reduced if there is an ability to export McCall smokejumpers for
training elsewhere. Consideration for this assumes that U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land
Management Smokejumper Training curriculum is identical. For this transition to be successful, newly
trained ram-air smokejumpers should not have collateral duties such as spotter or overhead duties in
their first year. See Appendix 3Cd for the details of the McCall Base Plan.
5. Redmond Smokejumper Base
Redmond Smokejumper Base leadership has developed some general ideas on implementation, with
many assumptions. They assume that other smokejumpers will be able to assist them with all aspects of
the transition. They will need assistance in working with the Regional Fire and Aviation Management
unit to develop a full understanding of the intent of the change and implementation. See Appendix 3Ce
for the details of the Redmond Base Plan.
6. North Cascades Smokejumper Base
North Cascades Smokejumper Base overhead have considered the initial steps that need to be taken to
implement a ram-air parachute system. See Appendix 3Cf for the details of the North Cascades Base
Plan.
7. Redding Smokejumper Base
Redding Smokejumper Base would like to pursue qualifying about 10 smokejumpers as soon as possible.
Region 5 Smokejumper Management is concerned about the ability of the ram-air parachutes to
perform in some of California’s topography and would like to get feedback from experienced Redding
jumpers on the performance of the ram-air parachute system. Based on feedback from experienced
Redding smokejumpers, ram-air implementation in Region 5 will go as fast or as slow as practical, while
still meeting full implementation within 10 years. See Appendix 3Cg for the details of the Redding Base
Plan.
D. Operations Plan
An Operations Plan will be developed after the Decision Memo is signed, tentatively in the fall of 2015.
The Operations Plan will detail actions that will be taken to implement the Change Management
Implementation Plan (CMIP). It will be developed by the Ram-Air Change Management Action Team
(RACMAT).
E. Measurement of Success
Implementation actions associated with the CMIP are shown at the end of this document in the Action
Tracker. This Action Tracker will be updated by the Project Leader at intervals to be determined and will
15
CHAPTER 3
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
serve as a way to measure the success of the change.
16
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 3
This page intentionally left blank.
17
CHAPTER 4
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Chapter 4 - Change Planning and Data Collection
A. Project Documentation
Assembling pertinent documentation is crucial for the success of the transition. Documentation from
the first inception of the ram-air parachutes as a trial in Region 1 was not formalized into a study or
change plan. Hence, data that is needed to complete the desired documentation must be assembled,
including test documents, decision documents, and delivery system data.
Begin to gather documentation from the Region 1 experience with introduction of the ram-air system
into the U.S. Forest Service. Gather as much supporting information as is available and begin to organize
a documentation process. Documents from all previous activities will then become the supporting
information for the ram-air system implementation.
•
Collect information from the Region 1 ram-air program, BLM, and smokejumper management
(i.e., loft, training, operations, and management considerations).
B. Administrative Direction Documents
Administrative direction documents must also be assembled, including the following items that were
addressed in Chapter 1:
•
Obtain in writing the leadership structure, responsibilities, and accountabilities at all levels.
•
Identify and document who has the safety responsibilities, accountability, and authority.
C. Ram-Air Change Management Action Team (RACMAT)
1. Purpose of the RACMAT
The Ram-Air Change Management Action Team (RACMAT) is formed for the effort of guiding the
smokejumper program through the planning, implementation, and transition of the change to the ramair parachute system. Under the leadership of the U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute
Implementation Project Leader, the RACMAT serves as the steering committee for planning, managing,
monitoring, and documenting the process.
Ram-Air Change Management Action Team Checklist
Identify size of RACMAT.
Determine if experience base of members is
appropriate.
Provide change management and/or transition
management training or orientation as needed for the
group to understand team tasks and challenges in
guiding the process.
Figure 9 – RACMAT Checklist
18
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 4
2. Duties of the RACMAT
Duties of the RACMAT include the following:
1. Assign roles and responsibilities such as leadership, sub-groups, communication plan, and
documentation processes.
2. Facilitate a ram-air readiness assessment nationally and at each base.
3. Develop the Change Management and Implementation Plan (CMIP).
4. Perform detailed planning for the change process which includes collection of documentation
for loft, training, operations, communication, and personnel, at a minimum.
5. Development of the implementation process, including events, dates, training activities,
facilities, equipment, etc.
6. Ensure progress of the implementation process, including the attainment of benchmarks and
significant milestones.
7. Document and share successes and challenges with the change and transition process.
8. Develop the transition management strategy as identified in Chapter 2.
9. Develop the change risk management and quality and safety assurance processes.
10. Closely monitor the transition through the three Transition Phases—the Ending, the Neutral
Zone, and the New Beginning—both nationally and at each base.
D. Documentation Process
The documentation process describes all of the elements of the CMIP and provides a storehouse for
change management activities and any adjustments to the plan that may be required during the
implementation process. It should be centrally located to provide ease of access for those who need to
consult the data. The documentation process establishes an archive for historical data in order to
capture the starting point and continual improvements along the way.
The documentation process should include, but is not limited to:
1. Purpose for change documents.
2. Change management policies and objectives.
3. Change management processes and procedures.
4. Change Management Action Team Charter.
5. Change management risk assessment and mitigation documents.
6. Change quality and safety assurance documents.
a. Action Tracker.
b. Measurement of success documents (benchmarks and milestones).
c. Identification of emerging hazards through After Action Review (AAR) documents and
reporting systems.
19
CHAPTER 4
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
d. Improvement measures for effectiveness of the plan.
7. Communication plan and outputs.
8. Training programs and outputs.
9. Transition management strategy and outputs.
10. Outputs from the change management processes.
Access to documents should be centrally located with a data management position and a National
Smokejumper website should be developed with links to the following:
1.
Ram-air transition information
2.
Malfunction Abnormality Reporting System (MARS) database
3.
Smokejumper Parachute Landing Injury Data System (MTDC)
4.
Mission incident reports
5.
National Operations Report
6.
Base reviews
7.
Aviation Safety Communiqué (SAFECOM) reports
8.
Annual Smokejumper Base Reports
9.
National Smokejumper Reports
10.
Lessons learned
11.
After Action Reviews
12.
Documentation of defined roles, responsibilities, and authorities
13.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) documents
14.
Smokejumper Base Ram-Air Readiness Assessments
15.
Gap Analysis checklists
16.
Questionnaire, questionnaire results, questionnaire response analysis reports
17.
Risk Assessments
18.
Risk Assessment Action Plans
E. Change Management and Implementation Gap Analysis
Gap analysis is a tool to help determine (1) what policies, procedures, guides, manuals, training and
other arrangements are already in place and might readily receive the ram-air parachute system and
implementation, and (2) where there are “gaps” that may require further development. A gap analysis
may also help determine where there are vulnerabilities that arise as a consequence of the change and
the interaction between people and the specific features of the change.
The RACMAT will design a Smokejumper Base Ram-Air Readiness Assessment Checklist that will meet
gap analysis intent and outline requirements for implementation of a ram-air system at each base. A
20
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 4
blank copy of this checklist will be inserted in Appendix 6B of the CMIP, while completed checklists will
be stored in a central data management location. A Smokejumper Base Preparedness Review Checklist
will also be developed for use during preseason base reviews. This checklist will include known gaps in
readiness. Sources that can provide detailed information for items that may be appropriate to include
on these checklists to meet the intent of a gap analysis can be obtained from the National Aviation
Safety Branch Chief. Also consider the following:
1. Complete current work being performed including loft, training, and canopy evaluation.
2. Develop a Memorandum of Understanding with Bureau of Land Management.
3. Input to the Interagency Smokejumper Operations Guide (ISMOG).
4. Input to the U.S. Forest Service National Smokejumper Training Guide.
5. Identify Forest Service smokejumper canopy program gaps. See the BLM Canopy Evaluation
Process.
Subgroups should consider the following items:
Subgroup
Items to Consider in Gap Analysis
Loft
Loft procedures
Input to changes in ISMOG
National canopy evaluation process
Training
Training procedures
Input to changes in ISMOG
U.S. Forest Service National Smokejumper Training Guide
MTDC
Canopy evaluation plan
Input to changes in ISMOG
Figure 10 -- Subgroup Considerations for Gap Analysis
Once the gap analysis is complete, it will provide the Change Management Implementation Team a
“snapshot” of the readiness of the smokejumper program as a whole. Gaps in readiness will be
identified and then addressed to ensure a safe and successful implementation of the change.
F. Contingency Plan for a Critical Event during Implementation
Events may occur which require rapid assessment and possible course correction during
implementation. Examples of this type of event could be the inability of needed ram-air parachute
system equipment to be procured in a timely manner for training, a mishap during training, a rise in
safety concerns, or equipment concerns that might initiate a safety stand-down. Should an event of this
type occur, the Assistant Director, Aviation Management and staff would need to rapidly assess the
situation, include the RACMAT in an analysis of the situation, and determine the pathway forward.
Depending on the type of event, and timing and duration of the problem, alternatives ranging from
short-term pause to much more drastic action could be implemented. A key to success in this effort will
be to have viable alternatives available throughout the implementation process. A contingency plan for
a critical event during implementation of the change will be developed by the RACMAT. It will be
identified and developed in the Operations Plan.
21
CHAPTER 5
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Chapter 5 - Change Risk Management Processes
A. Change Risk Management
The change risk management process is designed to manage the risks related to and introduced by the
changes implemented into and impacting the smokejumper program. Specifically, hazards must be
identified, and mitigation measures identified, defined and rated for their efficacy and cost benefit. The
criticality (degree of impact to safety) of a system or activity must be identified along with the hazards.
Approaching hazard identification from several perspectives can help reveal hazards. Three different
perspectives or processes can be used: predictive, proactive, and reactive. These perspectives are
summarized in Figure 11.
Hazard
Identification
Approach
Description
Predictive
This approach applies known information about a system or
activity to the anticipated future operation.
Proactive
This approach identifies hazards within the current program or
system that may exceed current controls if a change is introduced.
These hazards are identified through employee reporting systems,
questionnaires, and program data that may be available through
annual reports, manufacturer information, and other sources.
Reactive
Since it is very difficult to completely and accurately identify all
hazards when introducing a new approach, a reactive process is
important to gather hazard information that can only be identified
when the change has been put into operation for a period of time.
These hazards are identified through monitoring methods
including After Action Reviews, etc.
Figure 11 – Hazard Identification Perspectives
B. Identify and Assess Current Smokejumper Program Risk Assessments
In 2010, the Northern Region (Region 1) completed four hazard and mitigation measure tables regarding
the Smokejumper program. These risk assessments are as follows and can be found in the document
data archives described in Chapter 4:
•
U.S. Forest Service Parachute System (FS-14)
•
Bureau of Land Management Parachute System (Ram-Air)
•
U.S. Forest Service Region 1 Operations Using Two Systems
•
U.S. Forest Service Smokejumper Aircraft
In March 2013, the U.S. Forest Service accepted the Safety Impact Analysis for Smokejumper Operations
and Smokejumper Aircraft Operations (U.S. Forest Service 2013).
22
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 5
In the fall of 2014, the U.S. Forest Service updated the three Region 1 hazard and mitigation measure
tables that related to parachute systems and proposed an implementation plan (Programmatic Risk
Assessment and Safety Assurance Report for Smokejumper Operations and Smokejumper Aircraft
Operations, Washington Office Implementation Plan, 2014). See Appendix 5A for the updated hazard
and mitigation measure tables. Risk assessments are in place that are continually revisited to monitor
the effectiveness of hazards and mitigation measures and to document newly identified hazards.
C. Identify Hazards, Risks, and Mitigation Measures Related to the Change
A separate risk assessment should be developed that specifically addresses the hazards and mitigation
measures related to and introduced by the changes implemented into and impacting the smokejumper
program.
23
CHAPTER 6
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Chapter 6 - Change Quality and Safety Assurance Process
A. Purpose of Change Quality and Safety Assurance
The purpose of the Change Management and Implementation Plan (CMIP) is to assure safety throughout
implementation, and meet leader’s intent and the goal and objectives of the change.
The change quality and safety assurance process provides feedback on controls and hazard mitigation
measures identified in the change risk management and other risk assessment documents pertinent to
the smokejumper program. This process is the primary source for evaluating the effectiveness of
controls as they are put into action in the field. It also assures that the intent of the Change
Management and Implementation Plan (CMIP) is being met.
Change Quality Assurance
Before
During
After
Are we ready?
Are we mitigating risks?
How well is it working?
Figure 12 – Change Quality Assurance: Before, During and After
B. Responsibilities for Change Quality and Safety Assurance
The following responsibilities for Change Safety Assurance should be assigned:
1. Identify activities and actions that should be accomplished by the Ram-Air Change Management
Action Team (RACMAT).
2. Identify activities and actions that should be accomplished by smokejumper safety personnel
and aviation safety personnel.
3. Determine information that needs to be collected and analyzed within the data information
archives.
4. Determine how After Action Reviews will be captured, documented, and reviewed. As
appropriate, ensure timely updates are made to the ISMOG and MOU with the BLM. Consider
annual updates completed by February 15.
5. Review effectiveness of the Transition Monitoring Team (TMT).
6. Assure change leadership and organizational requirements are met. Ensure key supervisory
positions at the base, Forest, Regional, and National levels are filled.
7. Verify the risk assessment and mitigation measures in the field.
8. Ensure quality assurance feedback to the Change Management Action Team is timely.
9. Determine how to capture emerging hazards and trends. Determine how to expeditiously
communicate, mitigate, and incorporate them into the Change Management and
Implementation Plan (CMIP).
10. Document the sources of these emerging hazards and trends. Ensure they are included in the
data information managed by the SMS Specialist (Safety, Quality and Safety Assurance, Data
Management) position.
24
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 6
B. Data Monitoring and Analysis of Change Activities and Methods
Schedule analysis reviews that look at documented activities to ensure trends and emerging hazards are
not slipping through the implementation unnoticed. Schedule these reviews to allow for a broad look
over extended periods of time (semiannually, annually, etc.).
Tools that can be used to measure success and shortcomings include the following:
1. After Action Reviews
2. Field Observations
3. Malfunction Abnormality Reporting System (MARS) Database
4. Smokejumper Parachute Landing Injury Data System (MTDC)
5. Aviation Safety Communiqué (SAFECOM) Reports
6. SAFENET
7. Interagency Smokejumper Master Action Database
8. Smokejumper Base Ram-Air Readiness Assessment (to be developed) results
9. Forest Readiness Reviews
10. Base Reviews
11. Smokejumper Base Preparedness Review (to be developed) results
12. Gap Analysis results and action plans
13. Action Tracker progress and timeline achievements
14. Risk Assessments
15. Mission incident reports
16. Process for documenting change of equipment and procedures (to be developed)
C. Evaluating Performance of the Change Implementation
A primary finding for Change Safety Assurance is whether or not the change implementation is meeting
the objectives defined in Chapter 1, A. Change Policy, 1. Leader’s Intent. If benchmarks or milestones
intended to keep the change implementation on track are not being met, feedback through the system
via the Transition Monitoring Team, the Safety Management System (SMS) Specialist, reporting system,
or other means should trigger modifications to meet the objectives.
Considerations in evaluating performance of the change implementation include the following:
1.
Measure success through accomplishment of timeline or activity targets and benchmarks.
2.
Validate effectiveness of safety elements, training processes, loft procedures, and
documentation reviews.
3.
Eliminate or modify risk controls that have unintended consequences or have run their
course.
25
CHAPTER 6
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
4.
Ensure a feedback system is built into the Communication Plan and Transition Monitoring
Team to provide for communication to the Change Management Action Team,
management, and smokejumper community.
5.
Verify the risk assessment process through observations and other methods as it is being
used in the field or workforce.
D. Identifying Emerging Hazards and Changes
This is the opportunity to assess risk or hazards that have been identified during field observations and
implementation activities. It is also a time to identify changes that are taking place that weren’t
anticipated. Hazards identified during change implementation should be fed back into the risk
management process and mitigated. Unanticipated change processes that begin to work for the
program should be recognized. Update the Change Management and Implementation Plan (CMIP) with
the more effective and efficient actions. Continually work to improve the CMIP.
E. Confirmation of Quality Assurance Processes
This is the opportunity to ensure current quality assurance procedures and processes will encompass all
new changes implemented into the system (i.e., ensuring the ram-air system can be identified in
SAFECOM and SAFENET categories).
26
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 6
This page intentionally left blank.
27
CHAPTER 7
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Chapter 7 - Change Management Promotion
Change management promotion provides a means of continual, effective, and targeted communication
to ensure the correct information is being provided to the intended audience.
A. Change Management Communication Plan and Processes
A draft Communication Plan has been developed (U.S. Forest Service Communication Product, Topic:
U.S. Forest Service Smokejumper Program Transitioning to Ram-Air Parachutes). It will be updated when
a Decision Memorandum is signed, continually updated as needed, and held outside of this plan.
B. Training Materials and Methods to Implement the Change
New training, including materials and methods, needs to be developed, tested, documented,
implemented, and evaluated. Until training materials are developed, the U.S. Forest Service will use the
BLM Ram-Air Training Manual (RATM).
A Training Plan will be part of the Operations Plan. The U.S. Forest Service Smokejumper Training Guide
(2008) will be revised and is included in the CMIP by reference.
28
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CHAPTER 7
This page intentionally left blank.
29
GLOSSARY
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Glossary and Acronyms
AAR -- After Action Review
AAD – Automatic Activation Device
ADFF -- Aerial-Delivered Firefighter
Aerial-Delivered Firefighter (ADFF) – A firefighter who is delivered by a fixed-wing aircraft or a
helicopter.
After Action Review (AAR) – A structured review or debrief process for analyzing what happened, why it
happened, and how it can be done better by the participants and those responsible for the project or
event.
Albuquerque Service Center (ASC) – Consists of the U.S. Forest Service’s National Service Centers for
Human Resources, Budget and Finance, and Information Management.
ASC -- Albuquerque Service Center
BLM -- Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Land Management – A U.S. Department of Interior agency that sponsors two Smokejumper
Bases, one in Boise, ID and one in Fairbanks, AK.
Change – Change involves developing a means of placing something new into a current system or
program to address a given problem.
Change Management – Considerations and plans to manage internal and external disruptions to an
organization or program.
Change Management Action Team (CMAT) – A team chartered to develop a CMIP and provide guidance
for a change management and implementation project. The CMAT for the U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air
Parachute System Implementation Project is referred to as the RACMAT (Ram-Air Change Management
Action Team).
Change Management and Implementation Plan (CMIP) -- A detailed plan that describes the steps and
processes that will be used to achieve the goal of the change. The Change Management Team is
responsible for development of the CMIP; the Project Leader is responsible for tracking accomplishment
of the plan.
Change Safety Assurance – A safety process of management functions that systematically provides
confidence that the organization's change processes are meeting the safety controls identified in the
Change Risk Management process and is on schedule.
CMAT – Change Management Action Team
CMIP -- Change Management and Implementation Plan
30
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
GLOSSARY
CPS -- Complete Parachute Solutions (CPS) of Coolidge, Arizona
Criticality -- Relates to the potential consequences of equipment being improperly operated or an
activity being incorrectly executed.
Department of Interior (DOI) – A Department of the Federal government responsible for numerous
natural resource agencies and programs, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
DOI -- Department of Interior
FAA - Federal Aviation Administration
FS-14 parachute – The main parachute currently used by U.S. Forest Service Smokejumpers. It is a 28
gore poly-conical canopy which comes in three sizes: 32 foot, 30 foot, and 28 foot. Each size is designed
for jumpers of different weights. The H-5 harness and FS-14R reserve are used with the system.
Because of its shape while deployed, it is often referred to as a “round” parachute. Round parachutes
are purely a drag device unlike the ram-air types. A round parachute provides no lift.
Gap Analysis -- The purpose of a safety management system gap analysis is to locate safety processes
within a program where elements are not being performed. This creates “gaps” between the safety
processes of a program and implementation on the ground. This analysis will help disclose which
processes may exist and are minimally effective as well as processes that are in place and are being
implemented well at the field level.
Implementation – Implementation means to carry out, put into action, perform, to complete, to satisfy
or to fulfill (www.dictionary.reference.com).
Interagency Smokejumper Master Action Database – A web-based database that tracks smokejumper
activity, including but not limited to fire assignments, fire and practice jumps, and parachute records.
Used to generate summary reports and statistics, it went into production in 2004 and currently stores
data from 2004 to present.
ISMOG -- Interagency Smokejumper Operations Guide
ISPOG -- Interagency Smokejumper Pilot’s Operations Guide
Malfunction Abnormality Reporting System (MARS) -- MARS is a database maintained on the U.S.
Forest Service Intranet by the Missoula Technology and Development Center (MTDC). This site was
developed to track any abnormality or malfunction in the equipment involved in getting the
smokejumper from the airplane to the ground. There are actually two MARS databases, one maintained
by the U.S. Forest Service at MTDC, and another maintained by the BLM that is included in the
Interagency Smokejumper Master Action Database.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) – A formal agreement between agencies authorizing
collaboration on a common project.
Missoula Technology and Development Center (MTDC) – One of the two Technology and Development
Centers of the U.S. Forest Service. MTDC includes the U.S. Forest Service’s Parachute Technology
Project.
31
GLOSSARY
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Mixed Load(s) -- Smokejumper flights that contain personnel equipped with ram-air parachutes and
others equipped with round parachutes.
MOU -- Memorandum of Understanding
National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE) – The union that represents a large number of U.S.
Forest Service bargaining unit employees.
NFFE – National Federation of Federal Employees
Outputs – Results of a process, plan, or activity that is documented and communicated throughout the
program or organization.
Parachute system – Term used to describe the major components of a parachute delivery system which
includes deployment method, harness, containers, main and reserve parachutes, and their sub
components.
Phase I “The Ending” – The first phase in the process of transition. Whenever there is a change
implemented into an organization, employees and managers alike have to let go of something.
Endings create a sense of loss or require a “letting go” of something and that is where management
will find themselves dealing with resistance. (Bridges, W., Bridges, S. 2009. Managing Transitions:
Making the Most of Change. Third edition. Perseus Books Group, Philadelphia, PA. pg. 4-5.)
Phase II “The Neutral Zone” – The second phase in the process of transition. The Neutral Zone is the
period after the change implementation has begun; the old ways are gone, but the new way isn’t
“comfortable” yet or working satisfactorily. This is where management could get impatient with the
time it seems to be taking for the change to be fully operational and effective. A difficult time for both
the organization and the workforce. (Bridges, W., Bridges, S. 2009. Managing Transitions: Making the
Most of Change. Third edition. Perseus Books Group, Philadelphia, PA. pg. 4-5.)
Phase III “The New Beginning” – The third phase in the process of transition. This phase is marked by
new energy and confidence. People have moved past a sense of loss, and have sorted out their place
and future within the change process. They are once again comfortable in their work. (Bridges, W.,
Bridges, S. 2009. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Third edition. Perseus Books
Group, Philadelphia, PA. pg. 4-5.)
QA – Quality Assurance
Quality Assurance (QA) – Quality assurance evaluates for compliance to current and future policy and
standards; effectiveness of the policy and standards for us; and suitability of the policy and standards in
achieving U.S. Forest Service goals.
RACMAT – Ram-Air Change Management Action Team
Ram-Air Change Management Action Team (RACMAT) – The U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute
Project Change Management Action Team. A team chartered to develop the CMIP and provide guidance
for the U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project.
32
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
GLOSSARY
Ram-air parachute -- Also referred to as a “square” parachute. All Bureau of Land Management
smokejumpers and selected U.S. Forest Service Northern Region smokejumpers utilize them as their
primary main parachute including the DC-7 and CR-360 models. Ram-air parachutes are highly steerable
and can generate lift.
RASM -- Regional Aviation Safety Manager
RATM – BLM Ram-Air Training Manual
SAFECOM – U.S. Forest Service Form FS 5700-14, SAFECOM: Aviation Safety Communiqué, used to
report aviation mishaps or hazards; this form also is approved for interagency use as Form AMD-34.
SAFENET – A program with a form designed for reporting and correcting unsafe situations and for
sharing critical safety information related to fire operations (wildland and prescribed). It has three
primary purposes: (1) to provide immediate reporting and correction of unsafe situations in fire
operations, (2) to provide a vehicle for sharing important safety information throughout the fire
community, and (3) to provide long-term data to assist in identifying trends
(www.fs.fed.us/fire/safety/safenet/safenet.html).
Safety Management System (SMS) – A quality management approach for controlling risk that provides
an organizational framework for constructing and supporting a sound safety culture that actively
controls exposure to risk. SMS includes safety policy, safety risk management, safety assurance, and
safety promotion.
Smokejumper Base Preparedness Review – An on-site review of a smokejumper base to determine its
general preparedness prior to a fire season. A checklist will be developed to facilitate and document this
review. A blank copy of the checklist will be inserted in Appendix 6A of this CMIP, while actual
completed forms will be inserted in Appendix 4A.
Smokejumper Base Ram-Air Readiness Assessment – An on-site assessment of a smokejumper base to
determine its readiness to implement ram-air parachute operations. A checklist will be created to
facilitate and document this assessment. A blank copy of the checklist will be inserted in Appendix 6B of
this CMIP, while actual completed forms will be inserted in Appendix 4B.
Smokejumper Parachute Injury Landing Data System – Missoula Technology Development Center
(MTDC) database for documenting smokejumper injuries since 1992. Commonly referred to as the
“Smokejumper Injury Database.”
SMS – Safety Management System
Terms of Reference – A statement of the operational background and organizational intent in deciding
composition of the Change Management Action Team and its activities and interactions within the
Change Management Plan.
TMT – Transition Monitoring Team
Transition – Transition is the result of incorporating change into the system which then impacts the
people within a particular program.
Transition Management – A detailed process that addresses change from a personal level for the
33
GLOSSARY
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
workforce with a plan that will orient the change implementation by selecting, designing and scheduling
events, actions and projects that move people through the three transition phases.
Transition Monitoring Team (TMT) – A team selected to closely track the implementation of change to
provide independent assurance that the change is successful.
Transition Phases – There are three transition phases: (1) the Ending, (2) the Neutral Zone, and (3) the
New Beginning. These phases are how people move through a significant change on a personal level.
34
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
GLOSSARY
This page intentionally left blank.
35
REFERENCES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
References
Bridges, W., Bridges, S. 2009. Managing Transitions: Making the Most of Change. Third edition.
Perseus Books Group, Philadelphia, PA. 192 pgs.
Bureau of Land Management. 2010. Ram-Air Parachute Training Manual. Boise, ID. 232 pgs.
Bureau of Land Management. 2012. Letter regarding possible collaboration on ram-air parachute
systems. Fairbanks, AK and Boise, ID. (Authors Bill Cramer and Hector Madrid). 2 pgs.
Poynter, Dan. Undated. The Parachute Manual: A Technical Treatise on Aerodynamic Decelerators,
Volume 1. Third edition. Para Publishing, Santa Barbara, CA. 592 pgs.
Poynter, Dan. 1991. The Parachute Manual: A Technical Treatise on Aerodynamic Decelerators,
Volume 2. Fourth edition. Para Publishing, Santa Barbara, CA. 416 pgs.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 2005. Parachute Rigger Handbook.
344 pgs.
U.S. Forest Service. Undated. MOU between R-1 and the BLM regarding the ram-air parachute.
Northern Region, Missoula, MT.
U.S. Forest Service. Undated. Second MOU between R-1 and the BLM regarding the ram-air parachute.
Northern Region, Missoula, MT.
U.S. Forest Service. 2008. National Smokejumper Training Guide. Washington Office, Washington, DC.
125 pgs.
U.S. Forest Service. 2010. Four Hazard and Mitigation Measure Tables, Northern Region, Missoula, MT.
(Author Ron Hanks and Gary Morgan) 4 pgs.
U.S. Forest Service. 2011. Change Management and Implementation Guide. Washington Office,
Washington D.C. First edition. 34 pgs.
U.S. Forest Service. 2011. Interagency Smokejumper Operations Guide – U.S. Forest Service version.
Washington Office, Washington, DC. 92 pgs.
U.S. Forest Service. 2012. Briefing Paper – Evaluation of possible change in U.S. Forest Service
smokejumper parachute delivery system. Washington Office, Washington D.C. (Author Tim DeHaas). 2
pgs.
U.S. Forest Service. 2013. Briefing Paper – Enhancing smokejumper ability to meet U.S. Forest Service
roles and mission. Washington Office, Washington D.C. (Author Tim DeHaas.) 4 pgs.
U.S. Forest Service. 2013. Memo from Deputy Chief Hubbard approving use of ram-air parachutes in all
Regions. Washington Office, Washington D.C. (Author unknown).
U.S. Forest Service. 2013. Minutes of USFS Smokejumper Base Managers meeting. Washington Office,
Washington D.C. (Author Tim DeHaas).
36
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
REFERENCES
U.S. Forest Service. 2013. Safety Impact Analysis for Smokejumper Operations and Smokejumper
Aircraft Operations. Boise Interagency Fire Center. Boise, Idaho. 350 pgs.
U.S. Forest Service. 2013. Smokejumper Ram-Air Decision and Implementation Timeline draft.
Washington Office, Washington D.C. (Tim DeHaas). 1 pg.
U.S. Forest Service. 2014. Programmatic Risk Assessment and Safety Assurance Report for
Smokejumper Operations and Smokejumper Aircraft Operations, Washington Office Implementation
Plan. Draft version 2.2, December 16, 2014. 68 pgs.
U.S. Forest Service. 2014. Region 1, Ram-Air Loft Guidelines. Northern Region, Missoula, MT. (Author
unknown). 1 pg.
U.S. Forest Service. 2014. Smokejumper Evaluation of a Potential Transition to Ram-Air Parachute
Delivery System. Washington Office, Washington D.C. (Multiple authors) 19 pgs.
U.S. Forest Service. 2014. U.S. Forest Service November 2014 Update. 2010 Region 1 Risk Assessment
of BLM Parachute System in U.S. Forest Service Operations and U.S. Forest Service Operations in Two
Systems. December 7, 2014. Draft. 13 pgs.
U.S. Forest Service. 2015. USDA Forest Service Communication Product. Topic: U.S. Forest Service (FS)
Smokejumper Program Transitioning to Ram-Air Parachutes. March 24, 2015. Draft.
U.S. Forest Service. Smokejumper Parachute Landing Injury Data System. Missoula Technology
Development Center, Missoula, MT.
37
APPENDICES
Appendices
38
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
39
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 1A - Change Management Action Team Charter
To be developed.
40
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
41
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 1B -- Change Management Action Team Members
Members of the Ram-Air Change Management Action Team (RACMAT) as of May 2015 are listed below. Several
other employees previously served on the RACMAT during the development of the Change Management
Implementation Plan (CMIP).
42
Daren Belsby
Smokejumper Base Manager, North Cascades
Joe Brinkley
Smokejumper Base Manager, McCall
Tony Johnson (Acting)
National Smokejumper Program Manager
Joe Duran
Forest Service Council (FSC) Union Representative, Chair NFFE Fire
and Aviation Committee, Wilderness Trail Manager, Los Padres
National Forest
Mike Fritsen
Smokejumper Base Manager, Missoula
Jennifer Jones
Public Affairs Specialist, National Headquarters
John Kovalicky
MTDC Smokejumper Equipment Specialist
Pete Lannan
Smokejumper Base Manager, West Yellowstone
Josh Mathiesen
Smokejumper Base Manager, Redding
Kurt Rohrbach
Missoula Smokejumper, Union Representative
Bill Selby
Smokejumper Base Manager, Redmond
Chris Young
Acting Smokejumper Base Manager, Grangeville
Vacant
Line Officer Representative
Vacant
Regional Aviation Officer
Vacant
Regional Aviation Safety Manager
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
43
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 1C -- Delegation of Authority to Project Leader
To be developed.
44
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
45
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 1D – Project Organization Roles and Responsibilities
This appendix describes the roles and responsibilities of the U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute System
Project Leader, Project Training Lead, SMS Specialist, and MTDC Ram-Air Parachute System Specialist positions.
1. Project Leader
Roles and responsibilities for the Project Leader are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Facilitate all aspects of the Change Management Implementation Plan (CMIP) for the project.
Coordinate with the Ram-Air Change Management Action Team (RACMAT).
Act as representative to Albuquerque Service Center (ASC) on human resource issues.
Be the point of contact for the Washington Office for all issues.
Lead implementation of the Communication Plan.
Be the point of contact between the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
Administer the interagency agreement with BLM.
Manage the project with the National smokejumper community.
Administer all documents and data.
Lead efforts for all direction changes needed.
Coordinate with Missoula Technology Development Center (MTDC).
Provide oversight of the Transition Monitoring Team (TMT).
Manage project budget.
Manage project timelines.
Ensure quality assurance mechanisms are in place for execution of the CMIP.
Assemble and lead project staff.
Define and coordinate work of all subcommittees.
2. Project Training Lead
Roles and responsibilities for the Project Training Lead are as follows:
1. Duties will be defined in the Operations Plan.
3. SMS Specialist (Safety, Quality and Safety Assurance, Data Management)
Roles and responsibilities for the Safety Management System (SMS) Specialist are as follows:
1. Duties will be defined in the Operations Plan, with input from RASM(s) to support the SMS Specialist
position.
2. Manage safety, quality and safety assurance, and all project data.
4. MTDC Ram-Air Parachute System Specialist
Roles and responsibilities for the Missoula Technology Development Center (MTDC) Ram-Air Parachute System
Specialist are as follows:
1. Provide support for the U.S. Forest Service ram-air parachute system at MTDC
46
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
APPENDICES
Establish Forest Service research and development for ram-air parachute systems.
Obtain drawings for ram-air parachute system from the Bureau of Land Management.
Provide direction on standardization and maintenance of equipment.
Explore developing contractor support to manufacture equipment.
Develop modifications to existing directive documents.
Coordinate all duties with other aspects of the MTDC smokejumper support project.
Provide technical support and consistent interpretations to the smokejumper base managers.
Integrate this effort with MTDC support for currently used parachute systems.
Coordinate the manufacturing and inspection processes in procurement.
5. Subgroups Designated to Support the Implementation
Parachute Loft
1.
2.
3.
4.
Seven members (one per base, including a chairperson).
Loft managers (or designee) from each smokejumper base to be a member.
Provide guidance regarding documentation, manufacturing, scheduling, etc.
Loft Chairperson is to be an established position at MTDC.
Training
1.
2.
3.
4.
Seven members (one per base, including a chairperson).
Training Manager (or designee) from each smokejumper base to be a member.
Ram-air experienced trainers, as needed.
Consider a “Not-to-Exceed” (NTE) position or detail working for the Ram-Air Project Leader.
Operations
Safety
1. Safety Officer (smokejumper).
2. Regional Aviation Safety Managers (RASMs).
3. RASM and Safety Officer would investigate the ability to have a smokejumper safety specialist from each
base.
Communication/Public Relations
1. Internal communications.
2. Monitoring.
47
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 2A – Smokejumper Questionnaire Regarding Potential Transition
The text of the questionnaire was as follows:
“Fire and Aviation Management Union Partnership Ram-Air Parachute Transition
Hello, Forest Service Fire and Aviation Management (FAM) and NFFE National are collaborating to get your
input regarding the potential transition in parachute systems. Union representatives (Forest Service Council)
and FAM are providing this survey to all CURRENT Forest Service Smokejumpers so that your input can be
factored into the decision­making process affecting the future USFS Smokejumper program. This process is
part of Pre­Decisional Involvement (PDI) and it is the Union’s role to negotiate implementation of any
changes that affect the Bargaining Unit.
The intended respondents for this survey are ALL current Forest Service smokejumpers, including temporary
employees. (Participation cannot be accepted from retired or ex­smokejumpers, as they no longer represent
the current workforce, nor from BLM smokejumpers.) ALTHOUGH SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE RECENTLY
COMPLETED A SIMILAR SURVEY, WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS
AGAIN AS THE SURVEY HAS BEEN MODIFIED. THIS SURVEY WILL BE THE "OFFICIAL SURVEY" that will be
recognized as input from the current USFS Smokejumper Community.
Your response is confidential and anonymous. It is not possible to attach any identity to any response.
Responses to the survey will be analyzed and then shared with FAM. It is important that you take this
opportunity to provide your professional input and concerns.
For clarification, the decision being considered is for USFS to completely adopt the BLM Drogue
Deployed Ram-Air Delivery System, and ending use of the Static Line Deployed Round Parachutes within
the next 10 years.
This survey will be open until Monday, September 30, 2013 at 12:00 noon.
1. How many years have you been an operational smokejumper?
Less than 2
2 to 5
5 to 10
More than 10
Please review the data in the table below regarding smokejumper injuries by location for 2001-2012. After
reviewing, please scroll down to the next question and provide your comments concerning the injury
information, as it relates to the possibility of transitioning all Forest Service bases from the static line deployed
round parachutes to the drogue deployed ram-air parachutes.
Total Injuries for FS uses round parachutes. Total injuries for BLM uses ram-air parachutes.
48
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
2. Please provide your comments concerning the injury statistics.
3. What other comments or concerns, beyond landing injuries, do you have about staying with the current FS
system?
4. What comments or concerns, beyond landing injuries, do you have about transitioning to the Drogue
Deployed Ram-Air parachutes?
5. On a scale of 1-to-5, with 1 being “strongly support,” and 5 being “strongly oppose,” rate your support for a
full FS transition from the static line deployed round parachutes to the drogue deployed ram-air parachutes.”
49
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 2B – Data Summary of Smokejumper Responses to a Potential Parachute
Transition
Evaluating a Potential Parachute
Transition
Data Summary of Smokejumper Responses
Missoula Technology and Development Center
Information about the Study
During late summer and fall of 2013, the National Federation of Federal Employees Forest Service Council
administered an on-line questionnaire to 301 active Forest Service smokejumpers to ask their opinions regarding
a potential full transition from the round parachute delivery system to the BLM Ram-air parachute delivery
system.
Response Rate
There were 189 respondents out of the 301 on-line questionnaires administered. This represents a 63%
response rate.
Limitations
Respondents to this questionnaire represent a convenience sample of smokejumpers from seven national
smokejumper bases. The bases sampled included: Grangeville (GAC), Missoula (MSO), McCall (MYL), North
Cascades (NCSB), Redmond (RAC), Redding (RDD), and West Yellowstone (WYS). No attempt was made to obtain
a systematic random sample of all smokejumpers. This fact, combined with the small sample size, indicates that
the results presented here should not be taken as representative of a larger population of all smokejumpers.
Rather, the responses summarized here are a portrayal of the opinions of the respondents from the seven jump
bases who chose to fill out the on-line questionnaire.
Information about the Respondents
Respondents were categorized by their jump base and by their years of experience as an operational smokejumper
(figures 1 and 2 respectively). It is important to note that the categories used in the questionnaire for years of
experience make it difficult to draw conclusions about the level of experience from 2 to 10 years. This is because the
categories that were used overlapped “2 to 5” and “5 to 10” years of experience.
50
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Respondent's Jump Base
60
49
Number of Respondents
50
40
30
33
22
21
20
20
23
21
RDD
WYS
10
0
GAC
MSO
MYL
NCSB
RAC
Figure 1. Number of respondents from each of seven national jump bases.
Figure 2. Years of operational smokejumper experience.
Overall Evaluation of a Potential Transition to the Ram-Air Parachute
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support or opposition to a full Forest Service transition to the
RAM-air parachute. Five response categories were offered and respondents were instructed to select the
category that best describes their level of support or opposition. The categories were: “strongly support the
51
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
transition,” “can offer some support,” “feel neutral about it,” “have some opposition,” and “strongly oppose the
transition.”
the first two categories were combined into “support”, the last two categories were combined into
“oppose”. The resulting three categories are used in the following figures to summarize the respondent’s
level of support, opposition, or neutrality for the transition. Two analyses were performed. One
examined the level of support or opposition for a full Forest Service transition to the RAM-Air by jump
base and another by years of experience (figures 3 and 4 respectively).
Percent of Respondents Supporting, Opposing, or Neutral about a Full
Forest
70%
60%
60%
50%
50%
52%
49%
42%
40%
30%
35%
Neutral
Neutral
27%
Oppose
Oppose
20%
20%
13%
13%
9%
10%
0%
Support
Support
30%
<2
2 to 5
5 to 10
>10
Respondent's Years of Experience
Pearson Chi-Square = .107 (2 cells, or 16.7%, have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 2.05).
Figure 4. Level of support or opposition to a full Forest Service transition to the RAM-Air parachute by respondent’s years of operational
smokejumper experience.
Although variations in levels of support can be observed in both figures, conclusions based on this analysis
should be approached with caution. Even with the combination of responses into three categories (support,
oppose, and neutral) the small sample size of the study did not allow for sufficient observations to make it
possible to say that these observed differences were statistically significant. Also, the categories used for years
of experience make it difficult to draw conclusions about the level of experience from 2 to 10 years.
Summary of Respondent’s Comments Regarding a Potential Transition to the BLM Ram-air Parachute Delivery
System
Respondents to the questionnaire were given the opportunity to provide written responses to open-ended
52
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
questions about a potential parachute transition. These responses were then analyzed using qualitative
research methods. Qualitative research is a method of scientific inquiry designed to obtain a rich contextual
understanding of the subject’s perspective of an issue (Morse, 2014; Creswell, 2007). Data is collected in a way
that allows respondents to share their own thoughts, insights, and experiences. The researcher analyzes the
data in order to understand what information participants are providing and to identify prevalent themes or
ideas (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).
Figure 5 summarizes the major themes that emerged from this qualitative analysis and the number of comments
that were identified with each theme.
Figure 5. Number of comments within each identified response theme concerning a full Forest Service transition to the RAM-air parachute.
As another way of understanding the respondent’s perspective on a potential parachute transition, the
comments were classified based on the overall sentiments of support, opposition or neutrality expressed by the
respondent. Figure 6 summarizes the number of comments classified by their level of support for the parachute
transition.
53
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Comment Categories:
Level of Support for Parachute
Number of Comments
400
356
350
300
250
200
204
190
Neutral
Support
150
100
50
0
Oppose
Figure 6. Number of comments classified as opposing, supporting, or neutral about a full Forest Service
transition to the RAM-air parachute.
Representative Quotes for the Top Ten Comment Areas
Rounds are a safe proven system (frequency = 75)
“I believe the current Forest Service round parachute (FS-14) is extremely reliable and well tested in the regions
where Forest service land is located. There are good reasons why it has been utilized for over 75 years in the
Forest Service. The equipment is inexpensive in comparison to ram-air equipment, it has a dramatically lower
malfunction rate, and is easier to train new jumpers, and maintain currency on. It is also safer. The only concerns
I have with the current FS system is that the technology is maxed out and further improvements in the system
are unlikely. This may not matter because it serves our mission well as it is.”
“The current FS system (round, static line deployed) is well suited for the terrain typically jumped by all FS
jumpers, not just R-1. The current system is very simple and has proven itself to be effective and safe with a
malfunction rate (requiring deployment of a reserve parachute) of zero. In addition to being jumped by the FS,
the US military uses an identical deployment system with identical canopies for some special forces soldiers,
which gives us the added benefit of having a very large sample size of active jumpers to identify trends in
equipment issues.”
“While jumping is in our job description, it is a small portion of what we do as fire management. While I feel
innovation is a large part of our organization, the overall hype about switching canopies is a waste of effort. We
54
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
already have a system that seems to work fairly well. I would rather not jump a drogue deployed parachute.”
Regional differences -- different parachutes work best depending on location (frequency = 64)
“Some regions a better suited for one type than the other and it should be considered like that rather than just
one system.”
“It is too bad the Forest Service will not allow both systems to be jumped. There is a time and place for each
chute, having that option would make us more effective.”
“Will it have to be a complete program wide transition? Could some regions/bases choose to maintain the
current system? Could a base be split between two different deployment systems?”
“I believe that each Region in the U.S should a have the choice to convert or not. I believe that each canopy is
suited for different terrain. Take NCSB for example. They have historically been jumping on rounds since the
1930’s.
Transition will cause problems of retention and training (frequency = 59)
“There already exists a skilled, experienced workforce of smokejumpers who are proficient with the FS-14. By
adding a new system, you will lose the existing parachuting proficiency and possibly a number of experienced
veterans who will not be able to effectively learn a new parachute system.”
“Training Smokejumpers on the ram-air system is more complex than training them on rounds. This means
more trainers, a longer training sequence, more practice jumps, more wear and tear on gear, more risk
exposure, and more aircraft usage. All these things increase risk and cost, and lower Smokejumpers availability
for work assignments due to training needs.”
“Training- Not only do you have to factor in re-training everyone on a new system, you have to consider the
number of jumps it takes to stay proficient on the ram-air system. Time- When we could be working on being
better firefighters and leaders, we are concerned with the time and effort it takes to build components, set up
schedules, and put everyone through the new training.
“Being pressured to go on the ram-air system is another concern. If we do transition and some of us decide not
to jump it due to legit safety concerns what will come of us? We will be harassed and coaxed to convert to the
ram-air, if we don’t I’m quite certain it will have an adverse effect on our careers as smokejumpers.”
“What happens to those jumpers who aren’t capable of safely making a transition to the ram-air?”
Transition will divert scarce resources away from more important needs (frequency = 58)
“As a Forest Service Smokejumper our primary goal is to provide as efficient and effective a product to our users
as possible, whether that user is the American taxpayer or the district FMO that ordered us. Currently jump
bases are having a difficult time staffing at the levels that management have deemed necessary. I feel that if a
55
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
transition was made to the ram-air parachute system that the balance of the program may be tipped to the
point where we no longer provide a viable product to our users. If a transition were to occur, it would require an
enormous budget that could be utilized in a variety of other capacities among the smokejumper organization. It
seems that money could be better spent filling each bases organizational chart and providing permanent
positions to more of the temporary employees. As the saying goes, there isn’t any point in buying a fancy saddle
if you don’t buy feed for your horse first.”
“While much emphasis has been placed on whether square parachutes are safer than rounds, I think there are
a variety of other more pressing issues that should be dealt with before throwing a significant amount of
money into changing a program that is already proven and works. The smokejumper program has a rich and
impressive history. I ask you as the program managers, that whichever parachute system you decide is the
best option, to make that decision with the best interest for the future of the smokejumper program in mind.
“It will be a long and expensive transition. Not only will there be political ramifications, but create inefficiencies
both operationally and in training. It took Alaska 10 years in the 80’s to transition from rounds to ram-airs. In
this day and age we’ll be lucky to get yearly funding.
Squares have more/more severe injuries (frequency = 51)
“I believe statistics show increasing injuries as ram-air systems have moved into timber jumps. High speed
canopies in timber jump spots seem to contribute to a higher rate of injury. I will jump the ram-air if the
transition occurs, however why change something that is working well?”
“I think that the forces and the mechanism of injury associated with square parachute accidents are such that
serious injuries, i.e., femur and pelvis, back, paralysis and even fatalities, can be expected while injuries on
rounds tend to be knees, ankles, and stable compression fractures.”
“It has been well documented that injury rates are significantly higher for ram-air jumpers, particularly on Forest
Service ground. Due to the drive characteristics of the ram-air system, catastrophic injuries are occurring with
higher frequencies than on rounds. This is partially due to the timbered and steep jump country common to
Forest Service country, and explains why rounds have long been used in the Northern Rockies and why BLM
jumpers have higher injury rates there.”
Injury statistics presented in questionnaire are suspect (frequency = 48)
“The statistics themselves are highly suspect. I would be curious to know what kinds of injuries are happening
and what their severities are. I also believe that some injuries go unreported, or are misrepresented as injuries
that happened on the fire line rather than during jump ops. On the whole, I can’t say that these numbers reflect
accurately what is happening on the ground.”
“What about the FS on ram-air? Where are they counted? It’s not the “likelihood” of injury, it’s just the
“percentage” of injuries that have occurred in that area over time. NO relation to the likelihood of injury per
jump. Not a very good question based on data. Is this all inclusive from a broken fingernail to broken body?
What about the “CAUSE OF DEATH”, percentages if you’re going to go this route ... get someone who has
56
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
knowledge of statistics and analysis to help you.”
“These injury rate statistics are ambiguous at best. There is no designation of type or severity of injuries. Nor is
there data as to where the injured jumpers were trained or experience level (years of service). It is also worth
note that the data used for this “Injury Information” derived from 2001 and forward. In 2000, there was a
fatality on the drogue deployed ram-air in Alaska...We remember Mr. Liston. In 1991 Billy Martin, was killed
while jumping a ram-air in Region 1. These facts are not included on this data table. Both FS and BLM
smokejumper programs have been tracking detailed injury statistics since long before 2001.”
“This table is so ambiguous that your question and my answers are not useful. What consists of an injury? Filing a CA1 for a sore back or actually breaking a bone, say a femur. What is a round parachute? Is an FS-10 without AIN
weighted equally above as an FS-14? This data indicates that round parachutes are the safest system for Alaska.”
Squares offer more potential for improvements than rounds (frequency = 40)
“My support for the ram-air program is based on the potential for future improvements. Since both injury rates
are very low, I see the most potential for improvements in operational effectiveness and safety in a ram-air
system.”
“The round canopy has all but been abandoned in other areas where parachutes are used. No advancements
are being made for rounds and all the time, money and intellect in canopy engineering is going towards the
ram-air.”
“I think we should move to the new technology of parachutes, which is squares. There are square canopy
designs, not being used by BLM, that would meet the smokejumper need better. The squares keep getting better
and I feel we should keep up with the technology.”
I want to make the transition (frequency = 36)
“I believe the round has served us very well but it has been improved to its limit. the next logical step is to start
working on a better all-around smokejumper canopy which I believe is a square.”
“Transition to a drogue deployed ram-air system would increase the overall capabilities of the FS jump program.
For every jump you couldn’t make into a Tiny Jump Spot in low winds, you would be able to staff a fire in high
winds. There is usually a larger spot nearby, but you can’t change the wind conditions. Many of the System
safety issues have been mitigated (cut-away main canopy, AAD Reserve, vertical separation) have been
mitigated. Through quality training Jumpers will be able to land soft more often than they did on the FS system.”
“The Forest Service should transition to ram-air as soon as possible. It will increase interoperability and
efficiency, decrease long run costs, decrease injury, and promote a forward facing approach to airborne
firefighting.”
Need research to understand best parachute system (frequency = 32)
“I think it would be helpful to look at the injury rates of the new ram-air group in the areas they have jumped so
57
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
far. I think it would be a good idea to train a group in each region to get a better idea of how the square
parachute performs in our specific areas.”
“While I am a big supporter of technology and I think that our evaluation of the square parachute is a valid
one; at this time I don’t think that we are anywhere near confident enough as a program to say, “This is the
parachute system. This is what will take our program to the next level!” Instead I see a system that is
expensive, dangerous, unproven and ultimately brings few advantages to the table.”
“There is no question that ram-air canopies are higher in performance than round canopies. There is also no question
that there are better canopies out there more suited for smokejumper operations other than theDC-7, Eiff, and RC360.
There are BASE canopies that employ vent and valves on the bottom skin of ram-air canopies that allow them to
remain totally stable in steep, deep brake descents and still have toggle to pull in order to flair. R&D needs to continue
within the smokejumper community and we need to be advancing whenever we can, barring funding.”
Squares offer more control (frequency = 32)
“The round parachute is like driving a car without power steering. It doesn’t have the drive that the square has.
The round has a smaller window of success to get into a spot. The landings on a ram-air system just take time to
learn, just like anything else. I have been jumping a ram-air for three seasons. I do not have any more hard
landings.
“Give me the most tools available to perform my job. The ram-air has a faster forward speed. Which means I
am able to staff a fire with higher winds that I may not have been able to on the round. I would have the ability
to gain vertical and horizontal separation from my jump partner on a Square. And most of all, in the event of a
malfunctioning round canopy I would have confidence that I would be able to walk away form a reserve
landing, not just survive.”
“The ram-air canopy allows the jumper to have better accuracy and the ability to jump increased winds.
References
Creswell, J.W. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Morse, W.C., D.R. Lowery, and T. Steury. 2014. Exploring saturation of themes and spatial locations in qualitative
public participation geographic information systems research. Society and Natural Resources, 27:557-571.
Strauss, A., and J. Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
58
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
59
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 2C -- Smokejumper Evaluation of a Potential Transition to Ram-Air
Parachute System
Executive Summary
During late summer and fall of 2013, the National Federation of Federal Employees Forest Service Council
conducted a survey of 301 active Forest Service smokejumpers to ask their opinions regarding potential full
transition from the round parachute delivery system to the BLM Ram-air parachute delivery system. There
were 189 respondents, representing 63% of those asked who provided responses.
Of respondents 73% had 5 or more years of experience. Of the five positions, “Strongly Support Transition” was
selected by the highest number of jumpers (57). When selections for “Strongly” and “Some Support for
transition” were combined there were 74 jumpers compared to the 68 jumpers when “Strong” and “Some
opposition for transition” were combined. There is greatest opposition from respondents with 2-5 years of
experience (50%), followed by those with 10+ years (41.6%), those with 5-10 years (35.2%) and little opposition
from those with < 2years (13.3%). There is an even clearer separation in the levels of support by base location,
with the greatest combined opposition coming from North Cascades (70.7%), Grangeville (55%) and Redding
(47.6%). When the two support categories were combined, West Yellowstone had most (75%) support, McCall
had second most (66.6%), and Missoula had third most (50%) support.
This report uses quotes from responses to support common findings, and also provides bulleted statements
extracted from the survey results of open ended questions.
In general, most respondents acknowledge that each delivery system has its advantages and disadvantages
and neither is superior in all terrain and environmental conditions.
Many respondents had not yet tried the Ram-air system and were unable to provide input on what it might
mean. Still, they expressed some fear of increased injury from an unfamiliar system. (There are about three
years of higher injury rates on both systems --as jumpers new to each system progress up the “learning curve.”)
Many jumpers feel that the parachuting aspect of the job is getting too much of the program funding and
attention at the neglect of basics like full or increased staffing and facilities maintenance.
Many respondents question the budget priorities and financial sustainability of this transition and wonder if
this transition will lead to higher costs and less jumpers.
There is a lot of frustration with a perceived lack of data gathering and sharing during Ram-air exploration
period in R1, particularly regarding safety and operations.
Some respondents expressed frustration that, prior to getting this input, a decision appears to have already been
made to go forward with the transition. To these respondents this situation contradicts the safety messaging
that parachute delivery systems are a “life support system.”
Analysis and report compilation was conducted by the following participants:
Keith Stockmann, Ph.D., Economist, Ecosystem Assessment and Planning, Northern Region
60
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Cynthia Manning, Regional Social Scientist, Ecosystem Assessment and Planning, Northern Region
Seth Hansen, Union Representative, National Federation of Federal Employees, Forest Service Council
Matthew Mahe, Union Representative, National Federation of Federal Employees, Forest Service Council
John Kovalicky, Smokejumper Equipment Specialist, Missoula Technology Development Center
Tony Selznick, Smokejumper Pilot, Northern Region
Knute Olsen, Smokejumper, West Yellowstone, Northern Region
About the Study and the Respondents
Background
The National Federation of Federal Employees Forest Service Council responded to preliminary
announcements from Fire, Air and Aviation Management that the Forest Service smokejumper program would
transition to the Ram-air Parachute Delivery System by surveying active smokejumpers to solicit their
feedback. This report summarizes the results of that survey.
Definitions and Explanations
Several technical terms are used throughout this report. This section briefly defines and explains these terms to
facilitate an understanding of the decision support briefing for readers unfamiliar with this terminology.
Parachute delivery systems are the complete systems that parachutists use to travel from the aviation
platform, typically a moving airplane, to the ground with a parachute. There are round delivery systems and
square delivery systems (called Ram-air). These systems each have many components including a deployment
method for a main canopy and a reserve canopy. Systems include:
Free-fall: the parachutist deploys the parachute / reserve.
Drogue: the parachutist relies on a small static line deployed drogue parachute to create drag sufficient to
stabilize the jumper and deploy the main parachute when the jumper pulls the drogue release handle (BLM Ramair system). Approximately 15% of existing USFS smokejumpers are using the ram-air delivery system.
Static Line: the parachutist relies on a tether to the aircraft to deploy the main parachute (USFS round system,
also referred to as troop-type). Approximately 85% of existing USFS smokejumpers are using the FS round
delivery system.
Some delivery systems offer redundancy or multiple deployment methods, to ensure the parachutist will be
slowed sufficiently to allow landing in a safe speed and controlled manner. Parachutes of various shapes are
used as part of parachute delivery systems.
These parachutes are also called canopies. Canopies can be replaced when they are damaged, and can be
61
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
substituted with similar shapes but slight changes in aerodynamic capabilities, such as different sizes, different
venting patterns, and drive line placement. The most commonly used shapes include round and square
parachutes. Round parachutes preceded square parachutes, they are drag decelerators, known for their
stability and typically have steeper descent angles. Square parachutes are wings that create lift and move the
parachutists horizontally as well as vertically, with flatter glide angles. For this reason, sport jumping has
focused on square parachutes since their development.
USFS smokejumpers currently use several parachute models. The Northern Region ram-air jumpers are using
three square parachutes. For round systems all smokejumpers are currently using either the FS-14 or FS14+,
which were developed by the USFS in conjunction with a parachute designer. For square systems, most ram-air
smokejumpers use the DC7 parachute, however about a third of the smokejumpers use the CR-360.
Evaluation of additional ram-air parachutes included jumping with the Eiff Classic and Eiff Pro. Smokejumpers
use jumps on these systems to evaluate differences in capabilities such as vertical and horizontal speed,
maneuverability, etc. constantly striving for the most capable parachute delivery system with the lowest
malfunction rates.
Malfunction is defined by the Interagency Smokejumper Operations Guide as “Any parachute system
abnormality that requires reserve parachute activation.” Malfunction rates and types differ between systems.
Malfunctions are classified by the smokejumping community as partial or full. A partial malfunction occurs
when a chute does not deploy perfectly as designed, which is more common than a full malfunction. A full
malfunction occurs when a parachute completely fails to deploy, which is very rare. Round delivery systems
generally have lower rates of main canopy malfunction, but higher rates of reserve canopy malfunction than
ram-air systems.
BLM parachute evaluation and adoption is conducted systematically using a four phase process. These phases
are in place for base loft managers to track performance and malfunction, and can result in stoppage of use,
redesign and renewed testing. The Missoula Technology Development Center (MTDC) hosts the USFS
parachute development project and maintains a smokejumper equipment specialist who works closely with all
base managers to continually explore potential innovation which can lead to safer and more operationally
effective smokejumping. The BLM also has a website that shares the development of the ram-air system for
their agency:
http://fire.ak.blm.gov/content/akjumpers/Loft/History/Early%20BLM%20ram%20air%20History%20A.pdf.
Study Methods
Emails covering the survey were sent directly to all active smokejumpers, in collector groups for each of seven
bases between August and September 2013. Survey results are dated August 21, 2013 through October 2,
2013. The survey was available to approximately 301 smokejumpers. There were 189 total respondents. This
is a total response rate of approximately 62.7%. Response rates ranged from 47.8% to 71.0% across the seven
bases, with the three highest response rates at bases that currently host some Ram-air smokejumpers.
Respondents were not asked to indicate their current parachute delivery system. It is worth remembering
that this survey was designed to provide feedback about a potential decision to shift from round to square
parachute delivery systems and therefore may not reflect a completely representative sample of all jumpers,
as those passionate about this topic and the proposed decision may have been more inclined to participate.
62
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Respondent’s Level of Experience
Respondents were asked to indicate their years of experience as an operational smokejumper. The largest
number of respondents said that they had more than 10 years of experience (Figure 1).
Figure 1. Experience levels for 189 active smokejumper survey respondents.
Analytics for Support for a Full Transition to Ram-air Parachute Delivery System
Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for a full transition to a ram-air parachute. Overall,
32.4% (57) of respondents indicated “Strongly support transition,” followed by 19.9% (35) that “Have some
opposition,” 18.8% (33) that “Strongly oppose transition,” 15.3% (27) who “Can offer some support,” and
13.6% (24), the smallest number, who “Feel neutral about it” (Figure 2).
63
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Figure 2. Levels of support across 176 active smokejumper survey respondents.
This overall picture can be further broken down by smokejumper experience and jump base location. Table
1 shows how this support varies by experience. Note most jumpers have more than 5 years of experience,
so percentages can be misleading. As a result, both the percentage and the number of respondents are
shown here. The largest percentage who strongly support transition have <2 years of experience 40% (6),
followed closely by jumpers with 5-10 years 37% (20), and those with 10+ years 33.8% (26). Only 16.7% (5)
of those with 2-5 years show strong support. The percentage that can offer some support range from 13.3%
(4) for those with 2-5 years, 15.6 % (12) with 10+ years to 20% (3) for those with <2 years. Those who “Feel
neutral about transition” ranged from 9.1% (7) with the 10+ years to 26.7% (4) with <2 years. The largest
percentage of jumpers who “Have some opposition to transition” had 2-5 years 36.7% (11), followed by
those with 5-10 years 18.5% (10), those with 10+ years 15.6% (12) and jumpers with <2 years 13.3% (2). The
group with the largest amount of experience, 10+ years, also has the largest percentage (26% (20) who
“Strongly oppose transition.” The percentages in this category decline with experience, with 16.7% (9) of
those with the 5- 10 years, 13.3% (4) of those with 2-5 years and none of those with < 2 years indicating
strong opposition. When the two opposition categories are combined, there is greatest opposition from
jumpers with 2-5 years of experience (50%), followed by those with 10+ years (41.6%), those with 5-10 years
(35.2%) and little opposition from those with < 2years (13.3%).
64
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Table 1. Percent of respondents indicating their level of support for a full Forest Service transition from
the static line deployed round parachutes to the drogue deployed ram-air parachutes, by years of
experience as an operational smokejumper.
Strongly
Support
Transition
Can Offer Some
Support
Feel Neutral
about
Transition
Have Some
Opposition to
Transition
Strongly
Oppose
Transition
<2 years
40%
(6)
2-5 years
16.7%
(5)
5-10 years
37%
(20)
10+ years
33.8%
(26)
Total
32.4%
(57)
20%
(3)
26.7%
(4)
13.3%
(4)
20%
(6)
14.8%
(8)
13%
(7)
15.6%
(12)
9.1%
(7)
15.3%
(27)
13.6%
(24)
13.3%
(2)
36.7%
(11)
18.5%
(10)
15.6%
(12)
19.9%
(35)
0%
(0)
13.3%
(4)
16.7%
(9)
26%
(20)
18.8%
(33)
Table 2 shows how support varies by jump base location. Note that both size and response rate vary
considerable between jump bases. As a result, both the percentage and the number of respondents are
shown here. West Yellowstone 55% (11) and McCall 53.3% (16) had the highest percentages of “Strongly
support transition,” and Missoula had the largest number of respondents 37% (17), while Redding 14.3% (3)
and North Cascade 4.8% (1) had the lowest percentages. The range that “Can offer some support” was from
5.6% (1) to 20% (4) across all bases. The range that “Feel neutral about transition” was from 4.8% (1) at
North Cascade, 5.0% (1) at Grangeville, 10.9% (5) at Missoula, 15% (3) at Redmond and 19% (4) at Redding.
North Cascade 42.9% (9) is also where the most jumpers “Have some opposition to transition,” whereas
West Yellowstone had only 5.0% (1) select that option. Grangeville had 35% (7) of respondents “Strongly
oppose transition, followed by North Cascade 28.6% (6), Redmond 22.2% (4) and Missoula 21% (10). When
the two opposition categories were combined the greatest combined opposition came from North Cascades
(70.7%), Grangeville (55%) and Redding (47.6%). When the two support categories were combined West
Yellowstone had most (75%) support, McCall had second most (66.6%) and Missoula had third most (50%)
support.
65
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Table 2. Percent of respondents indicating their level of support for a full Forest Service transition from the
static line deployed round parachutes to the drogue deployed ram-air parachutes, by respondent’s jump
base.
GAC*
20%
(4)
MSO*
37%
(17)
WYS*
55%
(11)
MYL
53.3%
(16)
RDD
14.3%
(3)
Strongly
Support
Transition
Can Offer Some
20%
13%
20%
13.3%
19%
Support
(4)
(6)
(4)
(4)
(4)
Feel Neutral
5%
10.9%
15%
13.3%
19%
about
(1)
(5)
(3)
(4)
(4)
Transition
Have Some
20%
17.4%
5%
13.3%
33.3%
(4)
(8)
(1)
(4)
(7)
Opposition to
Transition
Strongly
35%
21.7%
5%
6.7%
14.3%
(7)
(10)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Oppose
Transition
* Indicates a base that currently hosts some existing Ram-air jumpers
NCSB
4.8%
(1)
RAC
27.8%
(5)
19%
(4)
4.8%
(1)
5.6%
(1)
33.3%
(6)
42.9%
(9)
11.1%
(2)
28.6%
(6)
22.2%
(4)
Comment Categories Most Mentioned by the Respondents
Financial Concerns
Respondents commented on their perception of the costs associated with the transition to the Ram-air
parachutes. Specifically, they offered concerns regarding the cost of starting the program and then the costs
associated with maintaining the system into the future. Starting and maintaining this transition to the Ram-air
parachutes in the context of tight budgets was seen as having consequences for the smokejumper program as a
whole.
Increased cost of the new system may make fewer jumpers available in the future because the budget is
dedicated to the new parachutes rather than existing or new positions.
“The opposition I have is not towards the canopy, but in my mind the amount it would cost to
transition to the ram-air canopy could be better spent elsewhere. Like permanent jobs, more spike
bases, a helmet that can be used as both a jump helmet and a fire helmet, or a system to replace the
streamers so we can have faster jump operations.”
“Forest budgets skimming”
“Unfilled positions, fancy saddle without feeding the horses”
Costs associated with training jumpers on the new parachutes also have implications for safety.
“Lack of money for constant training i.e. practice jumps and other training. Small learning curve heavy
consequences. Hosting forests skimming off a large percentage of our budget thus directly resulting
in reduced training moneys and causing safety concerns and risking my life. Safety First is not in that
66
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
equation.”
Lack of Clear Justification for the Transition to the Ram-air Parachute
Respondents expressed concern that they have not been presented with a clear and compelling justification
for why the transition is needed. They also expressed a desire that, if there are clear reasons, that they be
shared with smokejumpers.
“All we hear are theories, propaganda, and rhetoric regarding why this system is superior, without any
facts or data to back it up. We have seen no statistical analysis or any other official documents
suggesting this program is better for our safety and the program as a whole.”
“While much emphasis has been placed on whether square parachutes are safer than rounds, I think
there are a variety of other more pressing issues that should be dealt with before throwing a
significant amount of money into changing a program that is already proven and works. The
smokejumper program has a rich and impressive history. I ask you as the program managers, that
whichever parachute system you decide is the best option, to make that decision with the best
interest for the future of the smokejumper program in mind.”
Concerns about Injury and Safety
Many of the safety and injury comments were focused on the severity of injuries when using the Ram-air
parachute as well as the increased need for training and experience using the new system. Also, there were
several comments about the injury reporting system and the injury data presented in the questionnaire.
“Above all else, I am a firefighter. It makes no difference to me whether I walk, drive, or fly to a fire.
What matters is that I arrive safely and can effectively provide the service the users are seeking. It is
my job to appropriately manage and fight wild-land fires. At this point, I do not feel that the square
system will allow me to do my job in the safest, most efficient, and cost effective manner.”
“I’d rather get a different job. I’m out. I’ll be driving to fires in the future” “I am not willing to
take more risk in this profession.”
“At this time, I do not support a full transition to the square system because I do not believe it meets
our goals concerning safety, cost effectiveness, and efficiency. At this time, the square canopy system
shows to be under-performing in all of these areas. When it comes to the safety aspect, the statistical
analysis suggests that, proportionally speaking, the majority of smokejumper related injuries have
occurred on the square system. This indicates an increased injury risk for that system. As to the cost,
the square system is more expensive with regards to equipment and extra training. Finally, the extra
training required, coupled with the limited terrain in which the squares are utilized, makes the square
system less efficient than the round system … Evidence suggests that the square canopies are less safe
than the round. Apart from the 2 square rookie injuries, there have been additional injuries on the
square canopies. In the last month, there have been three major injuries on square canopies.”
“2013 was a good season to see the functionality of the system: at least 3 major injuries requiring
hospitalization and 1 fatality.”
67
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
“25% of New Man RAM-Air report some kind of injury (true?)”
“In R-1 it’s getting hard to identify jumpers who HAVE NOT been hurt on RAM-Air”
“A full transition will injure and possibly cripple smokejumpers for life”
“To date my hardest RAM-Air landing has been about the same pain level as my average round landing”
Need for On-Going Monitoring for Any Future Transition
Respondents commented on the need to clarify and share data about the systems along with how the data was
collected. These respondents are calling for a concerted and transparent process of monitoring and information
sharing.
“If the FS is to continue looking at ram-air parachutes, it should be on a very limited basis and much
more carefully monitored by those outside the bases doing the operational work.”
“I am not against the FS going to ram-air, but the way we have gone about it has been wrong. We
needed to have a more concerted effort in studying the system and its pluses and minuses throughout
the FS landscape. What is it truly buying us and what are we giving up by going to the BLM system.”
“The ram-air is more expensive, more difficult to learn, more costly to train on, exponentially more
likely to malfunction, has higher consequences for making mistakes, has a higher injury rate in
mountainous terrain, and is more limited in the spots it can be flown into. I cannot see, at this time, a
full transition being a responsible decision.”
Comments on the Pace of transition
Respondents offered comments about their perspectives on how any transition to the Ram-air could be
carried out effectively.
“To transition to Ram-air is good for most jump bases. The transition will make us a stronger
organization. I do not want to see jumpers being forced to transition to the Ram-air. Jumping mixed
loads is not a problem. We need to find a manufacturer for the equipment.”
“I think a mandated transition FS wide will result in some backlash and opposition, but bases willing to
try should be allowed. A timeline of ten years on complete transition is unnecessary and unrealistic let
the bases/regions work at their own pace.”
“If RAM-Air was taken away I would transfer to BLM”
Appropriate Parachute Design Tied to Needs of the Regions
This category of comments was centered on questions regarding the ability to use certain systems in certain
areas and if one type of system was best for a particular location.
“None have elected to go back to round.”
“It would be like telling every firefighter you can only use a Pulaski.”
68
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
“I think the summary under the statistics say a lot. The square system works best in BLM country and
the round system works best in USFS country. I was on the North Fork Lick Creek fire where there was
50 yards of drift into a tight hole in timber. 16 USFS round canopies made it in with no problem. Out of
8 square BLM jumpers, one broke his femur, one hurt his back, one received another small injury and
one almost smashed into a rock. The above table also fails to mention the severity of these injuries.
Does one system lead to more severe injuries than the other?”
“There is usually a larger spot nearby but you can’t change the wind conditions.”
“Looks to me like the injury rate can vary in different places; however, I don’t believe that it was
necessarily the delivery system that was the contributing factor to the injury. Just because someone
got hurt/injured on a square or a round parachute does not mean that they would not have been
hurt/injured on the opposite system…I am sorry but I really do not feel that we in Region 5 need to go
to the ram-air parachute. I feel that I will gladly give up the forward speed for the ability to come
down into small spots with large trees. I really hope that the Forest Service reconsiders making the
change in some regions where they feel it would be more beneficial, but I also hope that they consider
those of us that would not benefit. I would love to jump a ram-air parachute, however I do not feel
that the mountains of California are the place that I want to do it.”
“RAM-Air has not proven any better for customers or jumpers” “I believe each
region should have the choice to convert or not.”
“We should be allowed to use the system we feel most comfortable with and have the most
information.”
Concerns about Training for the Ram-air
Training concerns offered by the respondents focused on costs and on the efficiency and trust in the training
system.
“The ram-air system puts much more control in the hands of the jumper. This, unfortunately,
dramatically increases the possibility of human error. The consequences of a bad decision carry a much
higher risk than for a round canopy.… If a full transition is imminent, then I would propose much stricter
requirements on all jumpers, including ongoing physical training and psychological assessments. This
would ensure that the people who use this system would have to maintain a higher level of physical and
mental fitness throughout their careers. Jumpers have passed rookie training that are not good at
critical decision making and many jumpers do not maintain the degree of physical fitness appropriate
for the job description, which can be a direct cause of injury in itself. While it would likely result in some
current jumpers being unable to continue in their roles, it would be best for the jump program as a
whole. Greater risk and responsibility necessitates higher standards and performance.”
“I am concerned about the cost and training time that will be required of the ram-air parachute. In a
declining budget, the ram-air has a high cost associated with it and has the potential to consume a
large portion of our budget. The smaller bases could have a very difficult time with this cost.
Additionally, the ram-air canopy takes up a lot of training time which takes away from project work
and could have a negative effect on many of our forest users.”
“Forestry tech time?”
69
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
“Greater risk and responsibility necessitates higher standards and performance”
Discussion – A Synthesis of Respondent’s Comments
The following is a summary of respondent’s comments that have been organized to address particular
questions in the consideration of a transition to the Ram-air parachute system.
What Kind of Support or Resistance is there for the Transition?
According to the quantitative information (Table 2 above) support for the transition shows some differences
depending on the jump base of the respondent. This difference may reflect some of the comments regarding
the need to have different approaches based on the particular needs of the Regions.
Some respondents offered concerns and comments about potential improvements that alternative canopies
could provide and the eventual safety improvements that would need to be realized in order to make the
switch. Other respondents expressed doubts that any advantages would outweigh costs and other implications
associated with the transition.
Some support for the Ram-air system was offered based on the opportunity for more pilot control, and
vertical separation. With the new system, some respondents maintain, there is more of a focus on self than
others and that this will lead to safer landings.
Respondents that resist the transition were mainly troubled by the prospect of dropping into tight spots,
deployment at increased distance from fire, increased response time, dry runs, increased training challenges,
and increased injury exposure in training and new systems. Higher forward speeds and the challenges of using
the Ram-air in timbered terrain also were factors that led some respondents to resist the transition.
Some respondents cited institutional concerns regarding a transition to the Ram-air parachute. In particular
there was a perception of potential retribution for not supporting Ram-air. Also there was a perception that
employees would be less likely to be promoted if they were not qualified on Ram-air.
Do Certain Regions Seem to Support the Transition Over Other Bases?
Regions 5 and 6 (NCSB) are clearly concerned about the loss of capability, increases in injury rates, and
competition with rappel program. Region 1 seems split, but several jumpers cite the tension between
jumpers on the two systems as a major personnel problem.
The safety chart offered in the questionnaire seemed to lead jumpers to recommend rounds in Regions
1,3,4,5, 6, and 10. Use of the Ram-air was suggested in Region 2, Great Basin. This geographical difference is
consistent in part with the fact that many respondents suggested the efficiency in having both systems (either
both in USFS or both in USFS/BLM combination).
Have People Identified Any Efficiency in the Transition?
Several respondents mention that the potential for innovation and continued technological improvements are
mainly limited to squares.
Comments on efficiency were offered for training. A few respondents mentioned that standardization within
70
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Forest Service, and across other agencies, could reduce training complexity. Many respondents suggested
that injury rates would be reduced in the long run with a transition to the Ram-air parachutes. This
improvement in injury rates would logically mean, although rarely mentioned, higher successful staffing rates.
Other respondents suggested just the opposite. Namely that more personnel would be needed for training
(square assistant foreman, square loft specialist, etc.) and this would mean lower staffing.
Other potential efficiencies with the Ram-air parachutes identified by the respondents included the ability to
do four person sticks with less time over scene. Also, having two systems and mixed loads would give more
options on scene as well as in the event of one system being taken off line if found deficient.
Common Comments with Rounds
Most jumpers asserted that the round is better in tight spots, tall timber, and knife edge ridges. The following
list characterizes the common respondent comments about rounds:
•
Many jumpers cite the lack of vertical separation with rounds and problems with mid-air collisions;
•
Many jumpers describe the lack of parachute control with rounds and their vulnerability to misspotting or changing winds;
•
Many jumpers reported hard vertical landings with rounds, and long-term wear and tear on
jumpers;
•
Several jumpers describe problems when you can’t cut away the main and have two chutes open;
•
Many jumpers admit there is little technological improvement potential for rounds;
•
Some jumpers describe advantages with the rounds that includes simpler gear, simpler training, and
ease of pack out;
•
Respondents also noted problems with reserve functionality at low speed.
Common Comments Regarding Ram-airs
Many jumpers think Ram-air is more dangerous. This perception, along with concerns over training, and
institutional considerations of security and advancement, characterized much of the comments about the
Ram-air, including:
•
For a new jumper a transition to the Ram-air didn’t seem to make sense during the safety journey;
•
Most jumpers acknowledged Ram-air can be flown in higher winds;
•
•
Some jumpers pointed out that low ceilings are a problem for higher Ram-air jumps;
Many jumpers pointed out that more time is needed to drop streamers and climb and descend
for cargo drops for mixed loads;
•
Most jumpers thought Ram-air injuries are more serious than FS14 injuries;
•
Most jumpers cited higher malfunction rates with Ram-air;
•
Most jumpers thought that the Ram-air is more likely to lead to career ending injuries and
fatalities;
71
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
•
Program cost, transition impacts to already strained workforce were common concerns;
•
Increases in cost per smokejumper compared to other aerial systems was a common concern;
•
Respondents noted that advantage in response time were eroded because of more distant Ramair spots;
•
Training complexity was cited in possible increases in injuries, washed out rookies and
veterans;
•
Training strategies would need to change – would want to have BLM or other professional
trainers, and this training would require more and larger cadres (training by 2nd and 3rd year
Ram-air is not ideal);
•
Most jumpers thought that the Ram-air is more capable of making corrections due to changing
winds, but also admit it is more dramatic consequences to operator error;
•
Numerous concerns related to Human Resources issues surrounding transition, including ascertaining
true readiness and potentially prioritizing jumpers who make the transition;
•
Loss of veterans who are not comfortable or capable on the Ram-air would reduce ranks, and
logically it would reduce the force multiplier and leadership available in sticks and program in
general;
•
Jumpers acknowledged the potential for innovation with Ram-air and an improved ability to
hit smaller spots with steeper glide angle;
•
Several jumpers noted current Ram-air parachute selection seems less than ideal and changing
canopies is not helpful;
•
Several jumpers suggested more stringent qualifications and physical training conditioning would be
needed to accommodate longer hikes from Ram-air spots to fire locations.
Unique Comments Regarding Ram-air
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
72
With over 50 trained in RAM-Air none have elected to go back to rounds
Ram-air spots are large enough to land helicopters
FMO’s expect initial attack when they order jumpers, this may not happen or may take longer
leading to less ordering in the future
Other canopies could alleviate downsides of squares cited by many
The extra training time required may reduce or eliminate forestry-tech time in the shoulder
season, decreasing services to forests
Potentially make Alaska jumping a required part of RAM-Air training to start with forgiving ground
Older jumpers have been able to extend careers with the softer landings on RAM-Air
I would like to see experienced Ram-Air smokejumpers detailed to NCSB, RAC and RDD for the
2014 and 2015 season to get a better idea if this is suited to respective jump country offered by
these bases.
Putting more people out there on fires during high, erratic winds events is just going to get more
firefighters killed
Priority is given to RAM-Air jumpers to continue “training” by jumping in Alaska, jumping up the
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
APPENDICES
roster
Canadian boosting would be eliminated
Lawsuits if forced to transition
Several jumpers mention FS14 hangs up in trees in a safer way
Putting your life in AAD batteries, with RAM-Air, which comes with high maintenance costs
Depth perception and incorporating an additional 1500” into toggle inputs
Potential need to recruit paramedics to the jumpers to deal with higher speed RAM-Air accidents
Spotting will need to evolve with new system
Would eliminate the jumper detail program, with too much investment in training required on
Ram-air
The rookie/veteran dynamic and mentoring would be diminished with a forced transition
Mixed loads are problematic when RAM-Air decline to jump and shuffle to the back of the line-up
in the airplane
Evolution from backcountry to emerging fires in front country support the transition
The rubber band on the drogue release, (really!)
The static line extender clip is being used without a pin, which is not the way it was intended to be
used
Unique Concerns Regarding Round System
•
Round parts from DOD will not be available in the future
Email Announcing the NFFE-FSC Survey
Subject:
Transition Survey
Body:
“Hello, Forest Service Fire and Aviation Management (FAM) and NFFE National are collaborating to get your
input regarding the potential transition in parachute systems. Union representatives (Forest Service Council)
and FAM are providing this survey to all CURRENT Forest Service Smokejumpers so that your input can be
factored into the decision-making process affecting the future USFS Smokejumper program. This process is
part of Pre-Decisional Involvement (PDI) and it is the Union’s role to negotiate implementation of any changes
that affect the Bargaining Unit.
The intended respondents for this survey are ALL current Forest Service smokejumpers, including temporary
employees. (Participation cannot be accepted from retired or ex-smokejumpers, as they no longer represent
the current workforce, nor from BLM smokejumpers.) ALTHOUGH SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE RECENTLY
COMPLETED A SIMILAR SURVEY, WE ASK THAT YOU PLEASE TAKE THE TIME TO PROVIDE YOUR COMMENTS
AGAIN AS THE SURVEY HAS BEEN MODIFIED. THIS SURVEY WILL BE THE "OFFICIAL SURVEY" that will be
recognized as input from the current USFS Smokejumper Community.
Your response is confidential and anonymous. It is not possible to attach any identity to any response.
Responses to the survey will be analyzed and then shared with FAM. It is important that you take this
73
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
opportunity to provide your professional input and concerns.
For clarification, the decision being considered is for USFS to completely adopt the BLM drogue deployed
ram-air delivery system, and ending use of the static line deployed round parachutes within the next 10
years.
This survey will be open until Monday, September 30, 2013 at 12:00 noon.
DO NOT OPEN THE LINK UNLESS YOU ARE READY TO COMPLETE THE SURVEY!! YOU WILL ONLY
BE ABLE TO OPEN THE LINK ONCE!!
Take survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx Opt out here:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/optout.aspx”
74
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
75
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 2D -- Transition Monitoring Team Charter
A Transition Monitoring Team (TMT) Charter will be developed in the Operations Plan.
76
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
77
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 3A -- Decision Memo
The Decision Memo for the Ram-Air Parachute Implementation Project is in draft form at this time and is not
available for inclusion in the CMIP.
78
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
79
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 3B -- Human Factors and Human Resource Considerations
A. Initial Human Factor Considerations
This is an initial list of human factor considerations. Many are within the scope of smokejumper base managers
with support from their supervisors. We will strive for consistency in addressing human factors. Human
resource considerations requiring input from the Albuquerque Service Center (ASC) are identified at the end of
this section.
1. Maintaining crew morale during transition.
a. Good communication tool and openness.
b. Maintain team cohesion.
c. Maintain Fire Work Environment processes.
d. Optimize as best as possible the ratio of time at home and away from home.
e. Recognize family impacts and react accordingly.
f.
Provide consistent support to employees regardless of parachute system (i.e., equipment,
leadership, safety oversight, career advancement, training, assignments).
2. Perception of higher injury rates with ram-air.
a. Publish documented injury rates.
3. Political impact.
4. Experienced personnel moving to a new system with which they have no experience.
5. Risk aversion of customers.
6. Strive for consistency between bases in human resource considerations.
7. Standardize employment tours.
8. BLM relationships.
9. Cultural competition between bases.
10. A response to impacts from a grievance.
11. Creation of other opportunities.
12. Project work effects on the users of smokejumper services.
13. Check for any requirements that would affect an employee or the agency in transitioning an individual.
14. Performance-based standards need to be addressed.
15. During the 10-year transition period, assist individuals who cannot or choose not to transition to the
ram-air parachute system in finding other positions.
B. Items for ASC, Human Resources Division, and NFFE Advice and Support
1. Options for individuals who cannot transition to the ram-air parachute system.
80
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
a. Individuals who cannot transition to the ram-air parachute system should be given the option of
being placed back into operational status with the round parachute.
2. Options for individuals who desire not to participate in ram-air transition training.
3. Are there time limits for transition by individuals or the agency?
81
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 3Ca -- Missoula Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan
1. Goals and Vision
Support the agency’s goal to transition to a ram-air delivery system. Work closely with the Bureau of Land
Management and the Missoula Technology Development Center to ensure that the goal does not preclude
further development of improved equipment, and training practices. Improve on the way.
2. Loft
Continue to develop qualified ram-air parachute riggers. Continue to develop qualified ram-air rigging
supervisors and the capacity to manufacture system components. Develop best practices for quality control of
and procurement of system components.
3. Training
Continue training exchanges with BLM. Continue to expand current training cadre and capabilities. Continue to
develop qualified ram-air training cadre and develop training alternatives to support agency goals during the
transition for the Forest Service. Training options are an academy style, Forest Service centered with BLM
exchange, and a consideration for utilizing retirees to assist in training.
4. Operations
Increase coordination with functional areas to continue to support customers in conjunction with the transition.
5. Loadmaster
Explore training and para-cargo exchange with ram-air training cadre.
6. Facilities
Build or replace rigging tables as needed.
7. Communication Plan
Refer to the Communication Plan for the CMIP (Appendix 7A).
8. Barriers
Funding -- Sideboards for funding needs to be expanded. As it stands now, most of the components for the BLM
ram-air system must be manufactured in-house. Some can be procured, but working knowledge of component
manufacturing needs to be further developed to facilitate contracting support.
A substantial workload is placed on loft and training during the spring when training is being conducted at the
base, and out-of-region assignment requests and prescribed fire operations are increasing.
82
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
83
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 3Cb -- West Yellowstone Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan
1. Goals and Vision
Provide leadership in Loft and Training while creating and sustaining momentum in the transition to a ram-air
parachute system.
2. Loft
Current situation: Seven qualified Rigging Supervisors and 10 smokejumpers with extensive experience
manufacturing ram-air components.
Train and maintain a total of ten Rigging Supervisors and continue to train additional smokejumpers in the
manufacturing of ram-air components. Support other bases as they transition to ram-air by training and
assisting in the rigging and manufacturing of all ram-air components. Maintain all capabilities of the round
parachute system.
3. Training
Current situation: five experienced ram-air trainers, one of whom is a 2015 ram-air rookie trainer for Region 1.
Continue to identify and train new trainers and develop and refine the training skills of current trainers. Lead a
ram-air Rookie Training in 2015 in conjunction with Missoula and Grangeville. Assist with training of other bases
and the training of their trainers. Seek out existing new “Train the Trainer” opportunities.
Train remaining veteran round smokejumpers on the ram-air system as the highest capacity possible.
Training Alternatives:
•
•
•
Continue using the current training model.
Provide trainers for a centralized or module approach to training.
Explore contractor led training.
4. Operations
Manage to ensure jumpers on both systems are available to jump and are current. Support local, Regional, and
National needs for smokejumpers. Provide logistical support as needed.
5. Loadmaster
Maintain fire readiness and procure equipment to support smokejumper operations at West Yellowstone.
6. Facilities
Ideally loft will be remodeled (winterization and addition) to accommodate year round activities including
manufacturing. Install more lawn for checking and rigging parachutes. Build malfunction television for
training/equipment check. Address existing facilities issues and general maintenance.
84
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
7. Communication Plan
Maintain open lines of communication within the base. Involve and educate all jumpers on both systems and
encourage cross-training where appropriate. Inform users of transition activities, availability, and capabilities as
they change.
8. Barriers
Budget shortfalls and short permanent seasonal tours make it difficult to guarantee winter work (primarily
manufacturing) and get commitments from smokejumpers. Additionally, personnel with expertise in loft are
often those with experience in training. Extensive travel, extended hours, and transitioning from loft work
directly to training could lead to burnout. Funding for outside tour wages, travel expenses, and overtime would
help alleviate some of these issues.
85
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 3Cc -- Grangeville Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan
1. Goals and Vision
Establish a safe and positive workforce utilizing the best parachute system to successfully and safely complete
our job as per the following:
2. Loft
Develop qualified ram-air parachute riggers. Develop qualified ram-air rigging supervisors. Coordinate the
manufacturing of ram-air components for Region 1 smokejumper bases with Missoula and West Yellowstone.
This will require additional sewing machines for manufacturing and repair of equipment.
3. Training
Continue ram-air training in conjunction with Missoula and West Yellowstone. Train four to six smokejumpers
per year over a four year time frame. Develop qualified ram-air trainers.
Training Alternatives:
•
Contract Concept: Two week training sessions that focus on learning to jump ram-air parachutes. A
positive aspect to this alternative includes year-round training opportunities (Arizona), and the ability to
run 10-15 people through every two weeks. Delivery and training curriculum needs to come from Forest
Service and BLM cadre. Facilities and training grounds are at the contractor’s site. Once completed,
smokejumpers return to their home unit and learn the mountain flying portion of their job with training
cadre from the Forest Service and BLM ram-air instructors.
•
Centralized Forest Service Training: Similar to the contract concept but all training is performed by
Forest Service or BLM Smokejumper trainers. Creates standardization amongst all Forest Service
smokejumper bases.
4. Operations
No foreseen changes.
5. Loadmaster
No foreseen changes.
6. Facilities
Modify parachute tower to accommodate the ram-air parachute. Build or modify rigging tables in Loft to
accommodate rigging of ram-air parachutes.
86
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
7. Communication Plan
Refer to the Communication Plan for the CMIP (Appendix 7A). Select a base smokejumper liaison for questions
and concerns.
8. Barriers
Funding barriers:
•
WO funding flow to be distributed directly to smokejumper program.
•
Wages to support off tour employees for manufacturing of equipment.
•
Wages to support employees for on and off tour training.
•
Equipment costs.
•
Travel costs.
Non-funding barriers:
•
Facilities will be challenged due to limited physical space.
•
Extensive travel for manufacturing.
•
The possibility of training burnout.
•
Personnel who do not wish to transition to ram-air.
•
Personnel who are not successful when training on the ram-air system.
•
Concerns regarding local jump country not being suitable for ram-air parachutes.
•
Smokejumper injuries and accidents weighing heavy on the minds of smokejumpers and smokejumper
users.
•
Adequate personnel to perform duties of training, managing and supporting ram-air program.
•
Adequate personnel to perform duties of training, managing and supporting FS-14 program during the
transition years.
87
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 3Cd -- McCall Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan
1. Goals and Vision
When a Decision Memorandum is signed by the Chief, the McCall Smokejumpers would like to take an
aggressive approach and transition to ram-air canopies as quickly and safely as possible. It is important to note
that the McCall Smokejumper Base sees a benefit in ram-air technology to better staff high risk, high
consequence incidents which ultimately leads to better service for our customers.
2. Loft
McCall anticipated six to eight smokejumpers employed in the loft for the first five to seven years with up to four
indefinitely after the transition. The initial effort will be to separate the manufacturing and rigging activities.
McCall will need to qualify a rigging supervisor to allow for rigging ram-air parachutes at the base.
Loft facilities are adequate for ram-air parachute system.
3. Training
Alternative 1
(Year 1)
Where and how many: In-house training with Region 1, Boise, or Alaska? Need to ask, what is the maximum
number we are willing to train to maintain quality and safety? Potentially 10-30 smokejumpers trained in year
one. Those that complete the training should only be a jumper on the list (not a spotter, overhead, etc). Their
focus should be to gain as much experience jumping the canopy as the season allows. No rookie FS-14 class.
(Year 2)
Evaluate 10-30 through new ram-air refresher in McCall. If not McCall then Forest Service Region 1, BLM-Boise
and BLM-Alaska.
New ram –air training: 10-15 trained in R1, Boise or Alaska. No rookie FS-14 class.
(Year 3)
20-45 through new ram-air refresher in McCall.
Evaluate facilitating 10-15 new ram-air training in McCall (misc. overhead and GS-6’s).
Evaluate having a rookie class.
(Year 4)
30-60 through new ram-air refresher in McCall.
10-15 through new ram-air training in McCall (misc. overhead and GS-6’s).
Facilitate a rookie class in McCall.
(Year 5)
40-65 through new ram-air refresher in McCall.
10-15 through new ram-air training in McCall (GS-6’s).
Rookies in McCall.
88
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
(Year 6)
50-65 through new ram-air refresher in McCall.
Rookies in McCall.
Alternative 2
(Year 1)
Send 10-12 U.S. Forest Service ram-air trainees somewhere for training.
No rookie class.
(Year 2)
Scenario 1
Ram-air refresher in McCall for all previous year jumpers along with another Forest Service ram-air group in a
different location - 10 people.
Scenario 2
In second year possibly have a Forest Service rookie group train early in the southwest consisting mainly of
overhead personnel and spotter types - 12 people.
Concerns: trainer burnout, equipment shortage, one round refresher in spring. No rookie class.
(Year 3)
Ram-air refresher for 32 smokejumpers in the spring.
Have 12 Forest Service ram-air rookies in May.
(Year 4)
Conduct a ram-air refresher for 44 smokejumpers in the spring.
Conduct a first ram-air rookie class in McCall of 12 rookies.
Finish training remaining Forest Service ram-air rookies - 12 people.
At the end of FY 2018 the base will have 68 ram-air qualified jumpers not taking into account “transfers” or
attrition rates.
(Year 5):
Conduct a 68 person smokejumper refresher group in McCall
Ram-air rookie class in McCall with numbers depending on how many folks it will take to fill a 70 person roster.
Alternative 3 (Academy)
Forest Service bases are inherently centralized when it comes to training and equipment. Centralized training
can be done by individual bases at their home units. A train-the-trainer program would allow the entire training
cadre from each base to get on the same page and bring that knowledge back home.
Alternative 4 (Contractor Lead Concept)
Two week sessions that focuses on learning to jump ram-air parachutes. Positive aspect includes training year
round (Arizona) and could run 10-15 people through every two weeks. Delivery and training curriculum needs to
come from Forest Service and BLM cadre. Facilities and training grounds would be at a common location. Once
89
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
completed, smokejumpers return to their home unit and learn mountain flying portion of the job with training
cadre from the Forest Service and BLM.
4. Operations
No unforeseen changes.
5. Loadmaster
No unforeseen changes.
6. Facilities
A Readiness Assessment needs to be completed.
7. Communication Plan
Refer to Communication Plan for the CMIP (Appendix 7A).
8. Barriers
Funding is a barrier. Specifically, McCall is only able to “balance” its budget by anticipating about 70 days of fire
savings per smokejumper. Being able to fund smokejumpers outside of their tours to accomplish training and
loft activities is important. A significant barrier is to identify personnel to do the current job of training,
managing and supporting the existing FS-14 qualified smokejumpers while supporting others in transitioning to a
ram-air parachute system. This will become significant as 20 to 30 smokejumpers may be in a training class for a
ram-air parachute system and unavailable for other duties.
90
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
91
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 3Ce -- Redmond Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan
1. Goals and Vision
To have a safe and effective transition to a ram-air parachute system while still providing the same high quality
support to our users locally, Regionally, and Nationally. Our ultimate goal is to gain the expertise necessary to
have the capability to safely conduct standardized operations and training independently at Redmond while
gaining innovation and additional capabilities.
We anticipate this happening through a staged process. The timeline will likely be driven by the method of
training, capability and support within the agency to train new personnel on the ram-air system, and level of
cooperation by the BLM Smokejumpers. Priorities would be placed on updating facilities, gaining experience
within the loft, training functional areas, and communicating how this will affect our users. Training 6 to 10
jumpers the first year would be optimal. Within that group of 6 to 10 jumpers would be the first generation of
trainers for our base. Those trainers could provide feedback to current and future smokejumpers operating in
our local terrain. The increase of new personnel on the ram-air system would most likely be driven by our
capability to train, equip, and financially support the training of new ram-air jumpers.
2. Loft
Prior to first year of new personnel ram-air training:
1. Send personnel to Region 1 to participate in construction of ram-air equipment.
2. Conduct on-site inspection from current ram-air loft management to determine Redmond Air Center
(RAC) loft capabilities.
3. Construct two ram-air rigging tables.
4. Update sewing room with additional sewing machines and ventilation for “hot knife” cut-out area.
5. Begin acquiring supplies for future equipment construction.
6. Create secure storage area for certified materials.
7. Update and standardize a system of documentation for certified gear and materials.
First year of training:
1. All new ram-air smokejumpers complete rigger training.
2. Support construction of equipment at Region 1 loft and at RAC under supervision of current qualified
ram-air loft personnel.
3. Update facilities and build inventories of gear, equipment, and supplies as needed to support both ramair and round systems.
Second year of training:
1. Strive to qualify a minimum of two field rigging supervisors.
92
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
2. Construct equipment at Redmond Air Center with any needed supervision and MTDC inspection.
3. Continue to build inventory of gear, equipment, and supplies to support both ram-air and round
systems.
Subsequent Years:
1. Continually increase number of field rigging supervisors.
2. Continue rigger training for new ram-air smokejumpers.
3. Continue construction of equipment at Redmond Air Center until desired inventory is reached.
4. Re-evaluate facility needs as number of ram-air smokejumpers increase.
5. Continue to build inventory of gear, equipment, and supplies to support both ram-air and round
systems.
3. Training
Prior to first new personnel ram-air training:
1. Send personnel to observe new person ram-air training.
2. Update exit and let-down towers to accommodate ram-air parachute system.
3. Acquire training aids, such as a malfunction video tower.
First year of training:
1. Prioritize training personnel in first year of ram-air training.
Second year of training:
1. Involve four to six trainees from the previous year in current new personnel ram-air training with an
emphasis on “train the trainer.”
2. Include more training personnel with commitment to become future trainers.
Subsequent years:
1. Continue to draw new trainers from the previous year’s new personnel ram-air class.
2. Involve first and second year trainees in current new personnel ram-air training.
3. Continue emphasis on “train the trainer” approach and creating lead ram-air trainers.
4. Have lead trainers participate in “rookie” ram-air class with goal of becoming “lead rookie” ram-air
trainers.
5. Gain the capability to independently train rookie and new personnel on ram-air system.
93
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
4. Operations
Prior to first new personnel ram-air training:
1. Use Communication Plan to contact regional customers.
2. Solicit interest in Transition Monitoring Team (spokesman and sub-group).
3. Create data monitoring and documentation plans.
5. Loadmaster
Loadmaster duties are under the Operations function at Redmond Air Center and are not anticipated to be
largely affected by a transition to a ram-air parachute system. Construct spotter harnesses compatible with
ram-air reserve parachutes.
6. Facilities
The first two years of anticipated facility changes are addressed under the Loft subheading. Additional changes
to the current rigging room would be needed to accommodate a higher number of ram-air systems as the ratio
of ram-air to round parachute systems changes.
7. Communication Plan
Refer to the Communication Plan for the CMIP (Appendix 7A).
8. Barriers
1. Limited capacity of current ram-air trainers to train new person ram-air classes and possibility of overtasking current trainers in the future.
2. The willingness of current ram-air base overhead to support their trainers training jumpers from bases
other than their own.
3. It takes several years to become a qualified ram-air parachute rigging supervisor. Not having a rigging
supervisor within the program limits the ability to sustain parachute rigging beyond the initial training
period.
4. The future level of commitment of BLM smokejumpers to train and/or provide oversight of U.S. Forest
Service smokejumpers.
5. Ability to construct equipment in the time frame it is needed. Can some equipment be built by contract
and still allow the agency adequate knowledge of construction?
6. Adequate funding will be essential during all phases of the transition.
7. Current number and length of employee appointments may not be sufficient to meet the need for gear
construction and added training time.
94
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
95
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 3Cf -- North Cascades Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan
1. Goals and Vision
The number one goal at North Cascades Smokejumper Base (NCSB) is to remain viable as a year-round,
permanent base. If Washington Office direction mandates that all Forest Service bases switch to a ram-air
parachute system, then NCSB will continue to demonstrate operational effectiveness.
2. Loft
The loft at NCSB is functional. However, the building is not heated, insulated, air conditioned, or plumbed. The
loft was determined to be within the obstacle free zone at the Methow Valley State Airport. NCSB also has a
large warehouse that can be converted to square or round loft operations. Ideally, a new loft and office would
be constructed at NCSB.
3. Training
NCSB is an excellent location for jump training. NCSB has a jump tower, letdown stations, bunkhouse, and
kitchen facilities located on 20 acres owned by the U.S. Forest Service. NCSB has a 60-foot diameter pea gravel
accuracy pit 200 yards from the loft and a twenty-acre open field 400 yards from the loft. More than a dozen
varied terrain jump spots are within a 5 minute flight from the airport. No other base can conduct training
jumps as cost effectively as NCSB.
4. Operations
Use Communication Plan to inform Regional customers.
5. Loadmaster
NCSB does not have a loadmaster position. The duties of loadmaster are performed by Operations.
6. Facilities
All facilities at NCSB are functional. The loft, office, and saw shack are all within the Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)
and should be considered for replacement.
7. Communication Plan
Transition to a ram-air parachute system will be communicated up the chain of command to the Regional office.
The systematic transition will also be shared with base employees.
8. Barriers
Facilities are functional, but should be considered for replacement. Knowledgeable personnel have commented
that the geography and terrain initial attacked from NCSB will likely prove to be the most challenging jump
country to the operational capabilities of a ram-air parachute system.
96
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
97
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 3Cg -- Redding Smokejumper Base -- Initial Base Plan
1. Goals and Vision
Redding currently has 40 smokejumpers. Twenty-three of these smokejumpers are permanent, full-time
employees. This large, year-round workforce should be instrumental in ram-air component and equipment
building. With good weather and year-round access to smokejumper aircraft, Redding could host National level
ram-air training efforts. If a contracted approach for training is practical, Redding would pursue that opportunity
with its permanent, full-time workforce during the winter months. The idea would be to expedite basic ram-air
flight control and rigging, and then return to Redding to incorporate the rough terrain aspect of the training.
Depending on the approach to training, it is conceivable that Redding could have its entire permanent workforce
trained on a ram-air parachute system within two years. The temporary workforce would be trained after that,
which may take an additional two years. The first rookie class to be on the ram-air system would be in Year Five
of the transition.
There are many caveats to this progression, but it is conceivable that Redding could be fully converted by May
2019.
2. Loft
Redding has a Loft Foreman with ram-air experience. There are no other current smokejumpers with ram-air
experience at the Redding smokejumper base. The focus should be on our Loft Technicians’ expertise in
manufacturing ram-air equipment, and knowledge and duties of the Rigging Supervisor. The Rigging Supervisor
is a top priority because it will help maintain some self-sufficiency in the program. Until this occurs, we will have
to rely on boosters or detailers to fill the void.
Current loft facilities are adequate for a ram-air parachute system.
3. Training
In the first year, all of the training and loft staff will attend ram-air transition training. Until a core group of
trainers is developed, Redding will need to rely 100% on outside trainers.
4. Operations
There are no foreseen barriers for operations.
5. Loadmaster
There are no foreseen barriers for loadmaster.
6. Facilities
There are no foreseen barriers for facilities.
98
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
7. Communication Plan
Ideally, the customer will never know what type of parachute a smokejumper is using. However, it is important
to make sure that our customers are aware of this transition, because there will be some growing pains
associated with the transition which may affect the customer. It is unknown to what degree the customer will
be affected, and in some cases, service may even improve. Redding smokejumpers will rely heavily on the
Washington Office Communication Plan and deliver those talking points within Region 5.
8. Barriers
There are many unknowns in regard to how the ram-air parachute will perform in Region 5. There may be a
period of time where smokejumpers need to be dropped further away from the fire due to jump spot suitability
and experience with the canopy. Smokejumper injuries and accidents have left lingering memories in the minds
of some smokejumper users. Proceeding mindfully in fully exploring any inherent limitations in the ram-air
parachute system with Redding smokejumpers should help in this regard.
As with any change, there can be unintended consequences. Because of the intense focus needed to make this
transition successful, traditional smokejumper work outside of the operational season will be affected (fuels
management, prescribed fire, cadre instruction, information and education contacts, etc). This will affect our
ability to grow relationships with our customers.
99
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 4A – Smokejumper Base Ram-Air Readiness Assessment (results)
A Smokejumper Base Ram-Air Readiness Assessment Checklist will be developed to facilitate reviews performed
at smokejumper bases to assess what is needed at the bases to implement ram-air operations. Completed
checklists will stored in the central data management location identified in Chapter 4 of the CMIP, while a blank
copy of the checklist will be inserted in Appendix 6A.
100
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
101
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 4B -- Smokejumper Base Preparedness Review Checklist (results)
A Smokejumper Base Preparedness Review Checklist will be developed to facilitate a preseason general
preparedness review of smokejumper bases. Completed checklists will be stored in the central data
management location identified in Chapter 4 of the CMIP, while a blank copy of the checklist will be inserted in
Appendix 6B.
102
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
103
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 4C – Smokejumper Program Gap Analysis of Directives and Programmatic
Policy (results)
This gap analysis will review all guiding documents to assure they properly cover implementation of a ram-air
parachute system.
104
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
105
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 4D -- Detailed Description of Smokejumper Programmatic Documentation
To be developed, including After Action Reviews, field verification of change risk assessments, and hazards and
trends documentation.
106
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
107
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 4E – Process to Document Changes in Equipment and Procedures
A process will be developed to document how the U.S. Forest Service smokejumper program changes equipment
and procedures. How development occurred and how and why changes were made will be recorded to serve as
a reference for future changes and to provide information to interested managers or others who want to know
how the program arrived at incorporating a new piece of equipment or a change in procedure.
108
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
This page intentionally left blank.
109
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Appendix 5A – Ram-Air Risk Assessment (November 2014)
Background
In 2010, U.S. Forest Service Subject Matter Experts developed a Risk Assessment of parachute operations in
Region 1, including the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) parachute system and U.S. Forest Service (FS)
operations in two parachute systems. Development of the Risk Assessment was facilitated by Ron Hanks, the
National Aviation Safety and Risk Manager at the time, and Gary Morgan, Executive Officer, Aviation Safety
Systems Enterprise Team. The group also developed two Risk Assessments on U.S. Forest Service smokejumper
aircraft operations.
The format and rating matrix used in developing the 2010 Risk Assessments were based on the U.S. Forest
Service 2008 Systems Safety Aviation Guide and 2009 Aviation Risk Management Workbook.
Findings from all four Risk Assessments were considered in the National Smokejumper Operations and
Smokejumper Aircraft Operations Safety Impact Analysis completed on March 5, 2013.
In November 2014, Subject Matter Experts were asked to revisit the 2010 Risk Assessments related to parachute
operations. They updated these Risk Assessments, taking into account the Northern Region’s experience with
both the BLM parachute system and Forest Service operations in two systems. This update was facilitated by On
Course Safety, LLC.
Subject Matter Experts
The Subject Matter Experts involved in the 2014 update included:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Mike Fritsen
Tory Kendrick
John Kovalicky
Jesse Myers
Shane Ralston
Bobby Sutton
Keith Wolferman
Base Manager, Missoula
Operations Supervisor, Missoula
Smokejumper Equipment Specialist, MTDC
Smokejumper, Missoula
Smokejumper Spotter, Grangeville
Loft Supervisor, West Yellowstone
Loft Supervisor, Missoula
Risk Assessment Rating Process
The “Risk Assessment Instructions and Matrix” (August 2011) was used in completing this update. The 2010 Risk
Assessment was reformatted to reflect changes in the rating matrix.
The following tables are from the “Risk Assessment Instructions and Matrix” (August 2011). They display the
Risk Assessment Matrix, color coding, and Severity and Likelihood rating definitions that were used in the 2014
update of the 2010 Risk Assessments.
110
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Risk Assessment Matrix
Likelihood
Frequent
A
Probable
B
Occasional
C
Remote
D
Improbable
E
Negligible
IV
Marginal
III
Severity
Critical
II
Catastrophic
I
High 4
Serious 3
Low 1
Severity Scale Definitions
Results in fatalities and/or
Catastrophic
loss of the system.
Severe injury and/or major
Critical
system damage.
Minor injury and/or minor
Marginal
system damage.
Less than minor injury
Negligible
and/or less than minor
system damage.
Medium 2
Frequent
Probable
Occasional
Remote
Improbable
Likelihood Scale Definitions
Individual Likely to occur often.
Fleet
Continuously experienced.
Individual Will occur several times.
Fleet
Will occur often.
Individual Likely to occur sometime.
Fleet
Will occur several times.
Individual Unlikely to occur, but possible.
Fleet
Unlikely, but can reasonably be expected to
occur.
Individual So unlikely, it can be assumed it will not
Fleet
occur.
Unlikely to occur, but possible.
Findings of the 2014 Update
BLM Parachute System
The 2010 Risk Assessment identified 17 hazards associated with the BLM parachute system. In the update, four
additional hazards were identified, for a total of 21 hazards. Several hazards were edited, and several mitigation
measures were modified. The mitigation measures reduced the hazards to a residual risk level of moderate or
lower.
U.S. Forest Service Operations in Two Systems
The 2010 Risk Assessment identified 22 hazards associated with the U.S. Forest Service operating in two
different parachute systems. In the update, four additional hazards were identified, for a total of 26 hazards.
Several hazards were edited, and several mitigation measures were modified. The mitigation measures reduced
the hazards to a residual risk level of moderate or lower, except for four that remained serious, post mitigation.
Risk Assessment
111
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
The following tables display the Risk Assessment updates for the BLM parachute system in U.S. Forest Service
operations and U.S. Forest Service operations in two systems.
112
BLM Parachute System in U.S. Forest Service Operations – November 2014
Sub-System
Modifi
ed
Y/N
Drogue
Deployment
System
N
Drogue
Deployment
System
Y/N
Drogue
Deployment
System
Drogue
Deployment
System
APPENDICES
113
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
BLM Parachute System in U.S. Forest Service Operations
Drogue
Deployment
System
Hazard
Poor exit results in
horseshoe drogue.
Y
Y
N
Failure of the drogue
to release. Drogue in
tow malfunction.
No pull, low pull
jumper error.
Bag lock results in no
canopy.
Pre-mitigation
Likelihood
Improbable
Remote
Remote
Improbable
Severity
Critical
Critical
Catastrophic
Critical
Outcome
ID
Mitigation
M1
Serious
Medium
Comments
Likelihood
Severity
Outcome
Training for proper exit,
emergency procedure
training.
Improbable
Critical
Medium
M2
Ensure jumpers exit
aircraft with a clean
equipment profile.
Improbable
Critical
Medium
R-1 has addressed the
equipment profile to
reduce the hazard.
M1
Training, malfunction
procedures, emergency
procedures, Automatic
Activation Device
(AAD), proper
inspection and donning
of equipment.
Improbable
Critical
Medium
Added inspection and
donning to the
mitigation.
Two AAD for rookies is
not happening. AAD
on the main canopy
equipment is no longer
being produced and
there are some
mechanical reliability
concerns.
Discontinued for now.
Currently seeking a
reliable AAD on the
main canopy for
rookies' first five
jumps.
Medium
Medium
Post-mitigation
M1
Training/reserve AADs
will be used on all
intentional jumps.
Improbable
Negligible
Low
M1
Training, malfunction
procedures, emergency
procedures; AADs will
be used on all
intentional jumps,
proper rigging
procedures.
Improbable
Negligible
Low
Sub-System
Modified
Y/N
Drogue
Deployment
System
Y
Drogue
Deployment
System
New
Drogue
Deployment
System
Drogue
Deployment
System
New
New
Movement in aircraft
could cause
functional handles to
become dislodged.
Y
APPENDICES
Inadvertent pull of
reserve handle
instead of drogue
release handle.
Reserve Static Line
(RSL) not hooked up
prior to exit in
conjunction with a
malfunction.
RSL prematurely
disconnected by
jumper in
combination with an
undiagnosed
malfunction.
Drogue
Deployment
System
Drogue
Deployment
System
Hazard
Static line weak link
breaks cut static line,
failure to hook-up
resulting in total
malfunction,
misrouted static line.
Aircraft anchor
failure, static line clip
coming undone on
exit.
Pre-mitigation
ID
Mitigation
Low
M1
Medium
Likelihood
Severity
Outcome
Improbable
Negligible
Improbable
Critical
Remote
Remote
Remote
Critical
Critical
Catastrophic
Medium
Medium
Post-mitigation
Comments
Likelihood
Severity
Outcome
Training for proper
sequence of handle pull
procedures.
Improbable
Negligible
Low
M1
Proper four point check
and proper equipment
check.
Improbable
Negligible
Low
M1
Follow canopy check
SOPs and RSL
procedures as per RamAir Training Manual.
Properly follow
malfunction and
emergency procedures.
Improbable
Negligible
Low
M1
Proper four point check
and then follow proper
aircraft procedures.
Ensure spotter and
jumper situational
awareness.
Improbable
Negligible
Low
M1
Training, spotter
briefing/check, final
check, emergency
procedure, automatic
reserve AAD will be
used on all intentional
jumps, smokejumper
aircraft accessory
inspections.
Improbable
Negligible
Low
Added aircraft anchor
failure to the hazard.
Low
Added 'Static Line clip
coming undone' to
hazard. This actually
happened and this is
the new mitigation
since the 2010 Risk
Assessment.
Serious
M2
Utilize static line safety
pin.
Improbable
Negligible
Clarified mitigation
language.
114
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
BLM Parachute System in U.S. Forest Service Operations – November 2014
115
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
BLM Parachute System in U.S. Forest Service Operations -- November 2014
Sub-System
Modified
Y/N
Hazard
Pre-mitigation
Likelihood
Severity
Outcome
ID
Mitigation
Post-mitigation
Comments
Likelihood
Severity
Outcome
Remote
Negligible
Low
Modified wording on
hazard.
Canopy
Malfunction
(DC-7)
Y
Broken control lines.
Remote
Marginal
Medium
M1
Training, malfunction
procedures, emergency
procedures, proper
inspection of
equipment and rigging
procedures.
Canopy
Malfunction
(DC-7)
Y
Spinning: riser
release, tension knot,
broken lines.
Remote
Critical
Medium
M1
Training, malfunction
procedures, emergency
procedures, equipment
checks.
Remote
Marginal
Medium
Clarified language in
mitigation.
Y
Streamer canopy:
caused by tangled
line, line over rips
and tears.
M1
Training, malfunction
procedures, emergency
procedures, equipment
and rigging procedures.
Improbable
Marginal
Medium
Clarified language in
mitigation.
N
Mid-air collision
(jumpers).
M1
Training and pre-jump
communications,
collision avoidance
maneuvers/procedures,
situation awareness.
Improbable
Critical
Medium
M1
Limit wind for jumps to
jump spot conditions,
drop streamers to
estimate wind, spotter
training, jumper
training.
Occasional
Marginal
Medium
Clarified language in
hazard and mitigation.
R-1 has mitigated this
hazard by increasing
institutional
knowledge in ram-air
parachute
manipulation.
Occasional
Marginal
Medium
Clarified language in
mitigation.
Occasional
Marginal
Medium
Adjusted postmitigation ratings.
Canopy
Malfunction
(DC-7)
Canopy
Performance
(DC-7)
Canopy
Performance
(DC-7)
Remote
Occasional
Critical
Critical
Medium
Serious
Y
Missing jump spot,
jumper error or
spotter error.
Canopy
Performance
(DC-7)
N
Unanticipated high
winds result in
missed spot.
Occasional
Critical
Serious
M1
Training for alternate
spot selection, spotters
must be situationally
aware of changing
conditions.
Canopy
Performance
(DC-7)
N
Jumper error results
in hard landing.
Occasional
Critical
Serious
M1
Good parachute
landing fall, training,
PPE.
Probable
Critical
High
Sub-System
Canopy
Performance
(DC-7)
Emergency
System
Modified
Y/N
Hazard
Pre-mitigation
Likelihood
Severity
Outcome
ID
Mitigation
Post-mitigation
Likelihood
Severity
Outcome
Occasional
Marginal
Medium
Y
Hard landing due to
environmental
condition or forward
speed.
Occasional
Critical
Serious
M1
Good parachute
landing fall, training,
PPE, spotters must be
situationally aware of
conditions.
N
Dual canopy
deployment caused
by the AAD.
Improbable
Critical
Medium
M1
Training, AAD
maintenance,
emergency procedures
Improbable
Negligible
Low
Improbable
Critical
Medium
Remote
Critical
Medium
M1
Training and
performance
assessment, assure
handle location by
proper harness fit,
proper location of
handles, ergonomic
equipment design.
Total system failure.
Improbable
Catastrophic
Medium
M1
Training, parachute
rigging, manufacturing,
maintenance
procedures
Improbable
Catastrophic
Medium
Inadvertent pull of
main release during
riser turns.
Remote
Marginal
Medium
M1
Training and jumper
awareness of handle
location.
Improbable
Marginal
Medium
Emergency
System
Y
Out of sequence
emergency
procedure.
Emergency
System
N
Emergency
System
New
Comments
Clarified language in
hazard and mitigation.
Clarified language in
mitigation.
116
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
BLM Parachute System in U.S. Forest Service Operations – November 2014
U.S. Forest Service Operations in Two Systems – November 2014
Sub-System
Training and
Performance
Assessment
Training and
Performance
Assessment
Training and
Performance
Assessment
Modified
Y/N
Training and
Performance
Assessment
Hazard
Pre-mitigation
Likelihood
Severity
Outcome
ID
Y
Procedural
deviations from the
RATM by Forest
Service trainers
leading to
substandard
performance.
N
Operational errors
due to lack of
experience and
proficiency in the
BLM system.
Probable
Critical
High
M1
Y
Errors due to
limited access to
qualified,
experienced Forest
Service ram-air
trainers.
Frequent
Critical
High
M1
Y
Errors induced by
decreased
proficiency from
inadequate span of
control of Forest
Service trainers for
both systems.
Training and
Performance
Assessment
APPENDICES
117
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
U.S. Forest Service Operations in Two Systems
Remote
Marginal
Medium
M1
M1
Probable
Critical
High
M2
Mitigation
Use the existing
RATM for ram-air
training.
Post-mitigation
Likelihood
Remote
Severity
Negligible
Outcome
Comments
Low
Modified and clarified language
of the hazard and mitigation.
RATM updates are ongoing with
BLM and FS cadre. Encourage
continuation with collaboration
of RATM updates with the BLM
as per current MOU.
Training and
performance
assessment,
simulation exercises,
procedure drills,
planning timeline.
FS and BLM trainers
provide oversight,
train the trainer, and
provide sufficient
BLM manuals of
instruction for
reference.
Increase qualified FS
trainers. Include BLM
trainers as short
term solution.
Continue instructor
exchange.
Remote
Marginal
Medium
R-1 has found this to be a valid
hazard. As the program gains
proficiency it reduces this
hazard.
Remote
Negligible
Low
Modified mitigation language.
Remote
Marginal
Medium
Modified mitigation language.
The pool of trainers is much
greater now due to Region 1's
experience and development of
the program.
Distribute round
parachute training to
other bases when
needed.
Remote
Marginal
Medium
R-1 has distributed round
parachute rookie class to other
bases with success.
Sub-System
Training and
Performance
Assessment
New Canopy
Assessment
APPENDICES
Operations
Modified
Y/N
Y
Y
Y
Hazard
(CONTINUED FROM
PREVIOUS PAGE.)
Errors induced by
decreased
proficiency from
inadequate span of
control of Forest
Service trainers for
both systems.
Error induced by
jumper's
unfamiliarity with
performance
characteristics of
different
parachutes.
Improper spotting
and jumping
procedures due to
mixed loads.
Pre-mitigation
Likelihood
Probable
Probable
Remote
Severity
Critical
Critical
Negligible
Outcome
High
ID
Post-mitigation
Likelihood
Severity
Outcome
Remote
Negligible
Low
M3
Retain span of
control to both
systems. Follow the
Interagency
Smokejumper
Operations Guide,
the Forest Service
Smokejumper
Training Guide and
the RATM.
M1
Perform initial
evaluation jumps
with BLM advisors;
adhere to MOU and
BLM Canopy
Evaluation Plan
procedures.
Occasional
Critical
Serious
M2
Develop a ram-air
equipment
evaluation program
with MTDC and BLM
that meets FS needs.
Remote
Critical
Medium
M1
Follow mixed load
jump procedures as
outlined in the
Interagency
Smokejumper
Operations Guide
(Appendix - Spotter
Training and
Familiarization
Syllabus).
High
Low
Mitigation
Improbable
Negligible
Low
Comments
Clarified language in hazard.
Modified pre-mitigation
likelihood rating. The FS will
seek a more comprehensive
canopy evaluation plan in the
future. Previous FS ram-air
canopy evaluations have used
a conservative evaluation plan.
The FS will seek a more
comprehensive canopy
evaluation plan in the future.
Previous FS ram-air canopy
evaluations have used a
conservative evaluation plan.
Modified language in hazard.
Spotters with experience in
both systems helps mitigate
this hazard, hazard less likely to
occur.
118
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
U.S. Forest Service Operations in Two Systems – November 2014
119
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
U.S. Forest Service Operations in Two Systems – November 2014
SubSystem
Operations
Y/N
Y
Operations
New
Operations
Loft
Loft
APPENDICES
Modified
Hazard
Deviations from BLM
system established
procedure.
Increased workload
managing two
systems can create
duties and
expectation that are
beyond the span of
control.
Y
Equipment-induced
malfunctions from
lack of experience
and familiarity with
ram-air equipment or
improperly
constructed
equipment.
N
Rigging error from
lack of experience
rigging ram-air
parachute
contributing to
malfunction.
Pre-mitigation
Likelihood
Occasional
Remote
Remote
Occasional
Severity
Catastrophic
Catastrophic
Marginal
Marginal
Outcome
High
Mitigation
M1
FS ram-air jumpers
and spotters will
follow all BLM system
ram-air rigging and
spotting procedures.
Remote
Marginal
Medium
M1
Plan and
communicate
expectations as early
and clearly as
possible. Prepare for
the increased
workload. Maintain
span of control.
Remote
Critical
Medium
M2
Create a mentor
program and actively
develop employees to
fulfill operational and
program needs.
Remote
Critical
Medium
M1
Train FS personnel in
all equipment
maintenance,
manufacture and QC
procedures,
implement
progression plan, and
provide adequate
oversight.
Improbable
Negligible
Low
Serious
Medium
Medium
Post-mitigation
ID
M1
Train FS personnel in
correct SOP for
rigging.
Likelihood
Remote
Severity
Marginal
Outcome
Medium
Comments
Focused the hazard to a
primary concern and added
two more hazards that
address the mission creep
and innovation concerns.
Rigging supervisors,
manufacturing project
leaders and lead trainers
are critical to maintaining
the span of control.
Modified language in
hazard and mitigation.
R-1 has had overall success
in the previous seven years
implementing the current
rigging protocols. Impact to
program has been
minimized with the
development of a pool of
rigging supervisors.
Sub-System
Personnel
(Human
Factors)
Personnel
(Human
Factors)
Personnel
(Human
Factors)
APPENDICES
Personnel
(Human
Factors)
Personnel
(Human
Factors)
Modified
Y/N
N
Hazard
Muscle memory or
primacy, reverting to
round system
procedures
incorrectly.
N
Errors caused by FS
jumpers using both
systems.
New
Increased workload
implementing and
managing two
systems causing
burn-out possibly
leading to apathy,
loss of focus, and
frustration.
New
Varying canopy
capabilities create
pressure to execute
jumps that are closer
to the maximum
capability of the
canopy and skill of
the jumper.
New
Competition
between the two
canopy systems
promotes rogue
behavior among
spotters and/or
jumpers.
Pre-mitigation
Likelihood
Occasional
Occasional
Probable
Probable
Probable
Severity
Catastrophic
Critical
Marginal
Critical
Critical
Outcome
High
Serious
Serious
High
High
ID
Mitigation
M1
Training and
performance
assessment,
simulation exercises,
procedure drills.
Post-mitigation
Likelihood
Improbable
Severity
Negligible
Outcome
Low
Hazard is still a factor, but
it is not apparent in the
system due to measures
that are in place keeping it
from being a problem.
Low
There have been instances
where jumpers have
switched from one system
to the other during the
middle of an operational
season. This is not
desirable and could have
negative impacts.
Apprehension can be put
to rest with a nationwide
decision on the
implementation of the
ram-air parachute system
and associated funding.
M1
FS jumpers using
BLM systems will
only jump that
system.
M1
Clear goals and
expectations and
planning as far in
advance for
personnel to
prepare for
upcoming workload
that accompanies
managing two
systems.
Occasional
Marginal
Medium
M1
Educate, train, and
communicate
canopy capabilities
nationally. Promote
dialog between
spotters and
jumpers.
Occasional
Critical
Serious
M1
Educate, train, and
communicate
expectations that
program integrity
will be maintained
regardless of canopy
type.
Occasional
Critical
Serious
Improbable
Negligible
Comments
120
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
U.S. Forest Service Operations in Two Systems – November 2014
Sub-System
Modified
Y/N
Program
Management
Y
Program
Management
Program
Management
Aircraft
Operations
APPENDICES
121
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
U.S. Forest Service Operations in Two Systems – November 2014
N
N
Hazard
Inconsistencies and
degradation of
standards due to
logistical and
operational support
requirements of
operating in two
parachute systems
(i.e. loft, training,
operations
supervisors).
Deviations from BLM
policies, manuals and
guides relevant to
the ram-air systems
due to lack of
equipment or
oversight to operate
or support the ramair system.
Midair collision from
airspace conflict
created by SMJ
aircraft altitude
changes in congested
airspace.
Pre-mitigation
Likelihood
Severity
Outcome
ID
M1
Probable
Critical
High
M2
Remote
Remote
Marginal
Catastrophic
Medium
Serious
Mitigation
FS establish a
program hierarchy
and structure for
oversight to achieve
progression plan for
ram-air system.
Ensure all
participatory bases
understand the
standards and that
the standards are
clear.
Continue to
maintain hierarchy
and structure for
the round system
for adherence to
the current
standards.
M1
BLM and FS will
provide oversight
and logistical
support of ram-air
equipment per the
progression plan.
M1
Notification of entry
of SMJ aircraft into
FTA,
communications of
intentions and
coordination with
other aircraft to
ensure clear
airspace prior to
altitude change.
Post-mitigation
Likelihood
Remote
Remote
Improbable
Improbable
Severity
Critical
Marginal
Negligible
Catastrophic
Outcome
Comments
Medium
Missoula is the single point of
contact during the R-1 program.
Even with implementation of the
mitigation, the R-1 smokejumper
program still experiences pressure
to modify or relax standards to
accommodate needs.
Medium
More depth of skills and people in
this long established program.
There will be a point where
drawing from other bases will be
necessary to fill oversight of the
round parachute program.
Low
Thus far in the evaluation of the
program, R-1 has been able to
rigidly follow the guidelines. There
is a tendency to be highly
conservative in decisions.
Medium
Current trends indicate that Air
Attacks are becoming increasingly
aware for the need to change
altitudes when dropping mixed
loads. Continue to communicate
this information to all Air Attacks
in the system.
Sub-System
Research and
Development
Modified
Y/N
New
Hazard
Research and
Development doesn't
have adequate
review process or
risk assessment
resulting in excessive
exposure to risk for
the smokejumper or
R & D participants.
Pre-mitigation
Likelihood
Occasional
Severity
Catastrophic
Outcome
High
ID
Mitigation
M1
Develop a Research
and Development
process that would
include: (1) formal risk
assessment and
review, (2) formalized
step that assesses the
need for industry
consultation when
performing high
complexity test
operations, (3)
assessment of the
need for a
nonparticipatory test
director.
Post-mitigation
Likelihood
Severity
Outcome
Remote
Catastrophic
Serious
Comments
122
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
U.S. Forest Service Operations in Two Systems – November 2014
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Appendix 5B -- Safety Impact Analysis for Smokejumper Operations and
Smokejumper Aircraft Operations
See the following document which can be obtained through the National Smokejumper Program Manager’s
office:
U.S. Forest Service. 2013. Safety Impact Analysis for Smokejumper Operations and Smokejumper Aircraft
Operations. Washington Office, Washington D.C. 350 pgs.
123
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
This page intentionally left blank.
124
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Appendix 5C – Programmatic Risk Assessment and Safety Assurance Report for
Smokejumper Operations and Smokejumper Aircraft Operations
See the following document which can be obtained through the National Smokejumper Program Manager’s
office:
Programmatic Risk Assessment and Safety Assurance Report for Smokejumper Operations and Smokejumper
Aircraft Operations, Washington Office Implementation Plan, Washington, D.C., December 16, 2014. 68 pgs.
Draft as of this writing.
125
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
This page intentionally left blank.
126
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Appendix 5D – U.S. Forest Service Ram-Air Parachute Change Implementation Risk
Assessment
To be developed by the Ram-Air Change Management Action Team (RACMAT), Safety Management System
(SMS) Specialist, and a Regional Aviation Safety Manager (RASM).
127
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
This page intentionally left blank.
128
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Appendix 6A -- Smokejumper Base Ram-Air Readiness Assessment (blank form)
A Smokejumper Base Ram-Air Readiness Assessment Checklist will be developed to facilitate reviews
performed at smokejumper bases to assess what is needed at the bases to implement ram-air operations.
After it is developed, a blank copy of the checklist will be inserted in Appendix 6A of the CMIP.
129
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
This page intentionally left blank.
130
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Appendix 6B -- Smokejumper Base Preparedness Review Checklist (blank form)
A Smokejumper Preparedness Review Checklist will be developed to facilitate a preseason general
preparedness review of smokejumper bases. After it is developed, a blank copy of the checklist will be
inserted in Appendix 6B of the CMIP.
131
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
This page intentionally left blank.
132
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Appendix 6C – Smokejumper Program Gap Analysis of Directives and Programmatic
Policy (blank form)
This gap analysis will review all guiding documents to assure they properly cover implementation of a ramair parachute system.
133
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
This page intentionally left blank.
134
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Appendix 7A -- Communication Plan
A draft Communication Plan has been developed (U.S. Forest Service Communication Product, Topic: U.S.
Forest Service Smokejumper Program Transitioning to Ram-Air Parachutes). It will be updated when a
Decision Memorandum is signed. A final version was not available at the time of this document. It is
incorporated into the CMIP by reference.
135
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
This page intentionally left blank.
136
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
APPENDICES
Appendix 7B -- Revised Forest Service Smokejumper Training Guide
The revised Forest Service Smokejumper Training Guide is a separate document and included here by
reference.
137
APPENDICES
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
This page intentionally left blank.
138
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
ACTION TRACKER
Action Tracker
The Action Tracker provides the status of each action item in the Change Management Implementation Plan
(CMIP). The Action Tracker is one measurement of progress for the change. It is a “living” document and
can be continually updated via an electronic version.
CURRENT
OR
ARCHIVE
ID #
ACTION ITEM /
DECISION
MEETING
ASSIGNED
TO
DUE
STATUS
COORDINATION /
REMARKS
National Office Fire and Aviation Management
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
WO1
WO2
WO3
WO4
WO5
WO7
WO8
WO10
Brief Chief on Forest
Service transition to
Ram-Air parachute
system.
Director FAM
TBD
Ongoing
Ram-Air Decision
Memorandum
signed by the
National Director,
FAM.
Brief Deputy Chief
on transition to RamAir parachute
system.
Inform FAM Regional
Directors of the
approved decision to
transition to Ram-Air
parachute system.
Director FAM
TBD
Ongoing
Director FAM
TBD
Ongoing
Notify Union and
National
Smokejumper
Association of the
decision to transition
to ram-air parachute
system.
National Director,
FAM, to be the guest
speaker at
Interagency
Smokejumper
Managers Meeting.
Ensure information
is passed to Regional
FAM Staff.
Director FAM
and National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager
Pre-decisional
discussion with NFFE
on decision and
overall
Implementation
Plan.
Director FAM
Transition will align
Forest Service with
BLM as well as
provide a parachute
system with greater
potential for
innovation.
When the
decision
memo is
approved
TBD
When the
decision
memo is
approved
Director, FAM
Accomplished
National Director,
FAM. Audience
includes all 9 (FS /
BLM) Smokejumper
Base Managers.
National
Director, FAM;
Assistant
Director FAM,
Aviation
Ongoing
Director, FAM, will
brief Regional
Foresters and Fire
Directors.
National
Aviation
Operations
Officer,
National
Smokejumper
Ongoing
Union participation
at CMIP
development.
December
2014
139
ACTION TRACKER
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Program Mgr
CURRENT
OR
ARCHIVE
ID #
ACTION ITEM /
DECISION
MEETING
ASSIGNED
TO
DUE
STATUS
COORDINATION /
REMARKS
National Office Fire and Aviation Management
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
Current
WO11
WO12
WO14
WO15
WO18
WO19
WO20
WO21
Inform Regional
Aviation Officers of
the decision to
transition to Ram-Air
parachute system.
Assistant
Director,
Aviation,
National
Aviation
Operations
Officer,
Smokejumper
Program
Manager
National PIO;
Aviation Ops
Branch Chief
When
the
decision
memo is
approved
Ongoing
Brief RAOs during
RAO monthly
telephone
conference call.
When
the
decision
memo is
approved
Ongoing
Brief NIAC during
monthly meeting.
National PIO
When
the
decision
memo is
approved
Ongoing
Oversee budget for
Ram-Air
implementation
Smokejumper
Program
Manager
After the
decision
memo is
approved
Ongoing
Request annual
funding.
Develop Forest
Service Ram-Air
Implementation Plan
using the Change
Management and
Implementation
Guide.
Brief BLM
Smokejumper Base
Managers on the
Ram-Air decision.
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager
Estimate
completion
by 17 June
2015.
CMIP Version 3
complete by 17 June
2015.
Inform the National
Interagency Aviation
Council (NIAC) of the
approved decision to
transition to the
Ram-Air parachute
System.
Work with FAM
Leadership on
Congressional or
other inquiries.
Brief the National
Smokejumper
Association on the
Ram-Air decision.
Work with ABQHuman Resources
on any issues caused
by the transition.
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager;
Ram-Air
Project Leader
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager;
Ram-Air
Project Leader
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager
When
the
decision
memo is
approved
Part of the
Communication Plan.
When
the
decision
memo is
approved
Part of the
Communication Plan.
When
the
decision
memo is
approved
Ongoing
Human resource
issues identified and
added to CMIP.
140
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CURRENT
OR
ARCHIVE
ID #
ACTION ITEM /
DECISION
MEETING
ASSIGNED
TO
ACTION TRACKER
DUE
STATUS
COORDINATION /
REMARKS
National Office Fire and Aviation Management
Current
WO22
Develop an MOU with
the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to
support ram-air
implementation at all
U.S. Forest Service
smokejumper bases.
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager; RamAir Project
Leader
Fall 2015
Chapter 1 - Actions for the Change Management and Implementation Plan
Implement Ram-Air
Parachute System
Service Wide.
Current
Current
Current
Current
1.001
1.002
1.003
1.004
Develop and approve
a charter for the
project
Formally confirm RamAir Change
Management Action
Team (RACMAT)
members and the
terms of their
participation.
Obtain Line Officer for
RACMAT.
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager, RamAir Parachute
System
Implementatio
n Project
Leader,
RACMAT,
Smokejumper
Base
Managers, All
U.S. Forest
Service
Smokejumpers
Paul Linse
After
Director,
FAM
decision
10 year
implemen
tation
Summer
2015
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager
Art Hinaman
Ongoing
2-212014
Ongoing
None.
To be signed by the
Director, FAM. Need
to get an updated
Charter signed by Tom
Harbour. Tim will get
this to Paul Linse for
formatting.
Prepare a letter for
Branch Chief, Aviation
Operations on terms
of participation. NFFE
letter of designation is
completed.
Develop request to
NLOT for an assigned
LOT to the RACMAT
(Art Hinaman).
141
ACTION TRACKER
CURRENT
OR
ARCHIVE
ID #
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
ACTION ITEM /
DECISION
MEETIN
G
ASSIGNED
TO
DUE
STATUS
COORDINATION /
REMARKS
Chapter 1 - Actions for the Change Management and Implementation Plan
Current
Current
Current
Current
Identify a Project
Leader.
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager
Ongoing
Delegate authority
and responsibility to
Project Leader.
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager
After
approval
of the
decision
memo
Formalize the role of
MTDC in support of
this project.
Ram-Air
Parachute
System
Implementation
Project Leader,
John Kovalicky
After
approval
of the
decision
memo
Add an additional
Ram-Air support
position at MTDC.
Ram-Air
Parachute
System
Implementation
Project Leader,
John Kovalicky
After
approval
of the
decision
memo
1.005
1.005a
1.009
1.009a
See 1.006 and 1.007.
Implement when the
decision memo is
signed. NTE position,
must be on an
organizational chart.
WO organization chart
or within the
framework of the SMJ
program? Decide
where position resides
on organization chart.
Fund NTE? Approval
authority is Deputy
Director, FAM.
Approval of delegation
is by Director, FAM.
When Decision Memo
signed, WO FAM
needs to work with
Engineering to define
expectations. Need to
define Program of
Work. Two separate
parachute systems will
need to be fully
supported. MTDC
Forest Service Ram-Air
position is going to be
filled until the
transition is complete
and the agency is back
to one parachute
system.
FAM need to fund
position. Will be an
NTE. MTDC Forest
Service Ram-Air
position is going to be
needed until the
transition is complete
and the agency is back
to one parachute.
142
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CURRENT
OR
ARCHIVE
ID #
ACTION ITEM /
DECISION
MEETING
ASSIGNED
TO
ACTION TRACKER
DUE
STATU
S
COORDINATION /
REMARKS
Chapter 1 - Actions for the Change Management and Implementation Plan
Current
Current
Current
Current
Establish
Smokejumper Safety
Group (one
representative per
base).
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager,
National
Aviation Safety
Manager, RASM
Council
Determine need for a
Smokejumper
Communications
Group.
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager, RamAir Parachute
System
Implementation
Project Leader,
John Kovalicky
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager, RamAir Parachute
System
Implementation
Project Leader
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager, RamAir Parachute
System
Implementation
Project Leader
1.010
1.011
1.012
1.013
Determine the need
for and role of the
following positions:
(1) Safety Specialist,
(2) Aviation
Management
Specialist, (3) Training
Specialist.
Confirm the Project
Leader as the Human
Resources Point of
Contact.
Ongoing
Ongoing
Consult Branch Chief,
Aviation Safety and
Risk Assessment and
Branch Chief, Aviation
Operations. Coalition
of 4 RASMs and Base
Managers. Way to
communicate ram-air
safety issues during
the transition. Pete
Lannan to write up
proposal to Gary
Sterling to move this
forward.
Consider the use of a
survey as a tool. Base
managers to use
Communication Plan
to determine need for
group.
After
approval
of the
decision
memo
None
After
approval
of the
decision
memo
Need to communicate
this role to Regional
FAM Directors and
Smokejumper Base
Managers. Include in
the Delegation of
Authority to the
Project Leader.
143
ACTION TRACKER
CURRENT
OR
ARCHIVE
ID #
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
ACTION ITEM /
DECISION
MEETING
ASSIGNED
TO
DUE
STATU
S
COORDINATION
/ REMARKS
Chapter 2 - Actions for the Change Management and Implementation Plan
Current
2.001
Development of the
Transition Monitoring
Team (TMT).
Ram-Air
Parachute
System
Implementation
Project Leader,
RACMAT
During
development
of Operations
Plan
Invite
representative
from NFFE.
Chapter 3 - Actions for the Change Management and Implementation Plan
Current
Current
Current
Current
Develop Operations
Plan.
RACMAT
When
decision
memo is
approved
Address identified
Human Factors
considerations.
RACMAT
Ongoing
Contact Loft
Supervisors regarding
their participation in
Missoula's Rigging
Supervisor Refresher
Training.
Keith
Wolferman
Ongoing
Ongoing
Contact Training
Supervisors regarding
their participation at
Missoula's Training.
Mitch Kearns
Ongoing
Ongoing
3.004
3.005
3.006
3.007
Will consult
Human Factors
experts for
assistance. Josh
Mathieson
supplied contact
info for Human
Factors specialist:
Alexis Waldron
Ph.D.
None. Invitation by
Region 1 to get
other bases
involved in the
training.
None. Invitation by
Region 1 to get
other bases
involved in the
training.
Chapter 4 - Actions for the Change Management and Implementation Plan
Current
Current
4.002a
4.003
Develop
smokejumper
intranet website.
Update: 1) Loft
Procedures, 2)
Interagency
Smokejumper
Operations Guide
(ISMOG), 3) National
canopy evaluation
procedures.
Ram-Air
Parachute
System
Implementation
Project Leader,
John Kovalicky,
Shane Ralston
Loft Group Chair
MTDC Project
Leader
Fall 2015
Ongoing
When
decision
memo is
approved
Ongoing
None
144
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
CURREN
T
OR
ARCHIVE
ID #
ACTION ITEM /
DECISION
MEETING
ASSIGNED
TO
ACTION TRACKER
DUE
STATU
S
COORDINATION
/ REMARKS
Chapter 4 - Actions for the Change Management and Implementation Plan
Current
Current
Training Group
Chair
4.004
Update: 1) Training
Procedures, 2)
Changes in ISMOG,
and 3) Training
Guide.
When
decision
memo is
approved
4.007
Identify contingency
plans and associated
trigger points for
circumstances and
events which could
lead to a pause or a
cessation of the
change.
Ram-Air
Parachute
System
Implementation
Project Leader,
RACMAT
When
decision
memo is
approved
Ongoing
None
Gap analysis of
where the
program is and
what the end state
looks like.
Operations Plan
item.
Chapter 5 - Actions for the Change Management and Implementation Plan
Current
Current
5.002
5.003
Conduct a
programmatic Risk
Assessment and
Safety Impact
Analysis of the
change from the FS14 to the Ram-Air
Parachute System.
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager;
Branch Chief,
Aviation Safety
Fall 2015
Develop an
Implementation Plan
for the March 2013,
Smokejumper and
Smokejumper
Aircraft Safety
Impact Analysis.
Branch Chief,
Aviation
Operations;
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager;
Branch Chief,
Aviation Safety
Fall 2015
Ongoing
Art Hinaman will
coordinate with
Larry Sutton on
this task. Gary
Sterling to
coordinate with
RASM council for
assignment of risk
assessment.
Proposed
implementation
plan has been
completed and
forwarded on for
approval.
Chapter 6 - Actions for the Change Management and Implementation Plan
Current
Current
Current
6.002
6.003
6.004
Develop a gap
analysis for affected
functional areas.
Revisit and
streamline base
review checklist and
create an internal
readiness review
checklist.
Ensure mitigation
measures from the
change risk
assessment are
implemented.
RACMAT
Fall 2015
Include in
Operations Plan.
RACMAT
Fall 2015
Include in
Operations Plan.
Base Managers
Council. Tier to
ISMOG.
RACMAT
Spring 2016
Risk assessment
must be
completed before
this action item
can be achieved.
See Action Tracker
145
ACTION TRACKER
Ram-Air Parachute System Implementation Project CMIP, June 2015
Item 5.002.
CURRENT
OR
ARCHIVE
ID #
ACTION ITEM /
DECISION
MEETING
ASSIGNED
TO
DUE
STATUS
COORDINATION /
REMARKS
Chapter 6 - Actions for the Change Management and Implementation Plan
Current
6.005
Develop a
Smokejumper Base
Ram-Air Readiness
Assessment.
Region 1
Ram-Air
Management
June
2015
A one-time
assessment to review
base readiness for
ram-air parachute
transition.
Chapter 7 - Actions for the Change Management and Implementation Plan
Current
Current
Current
Develop the
Communication Plan.
National PIO
Update
as
needed
Update the
Interagency
Smokejumper
Operations Guide
(ISMOG).
Ram-Air
Project Leader
When
decision
memo is
approved
Formally
communicate the
RACMAT Charter,
appointment of the
Project Leader, and
designated Change
Management Action
Team members to
interested parties.
National
Smokejumper
Program
Manager; RamAir Project
Leader;
National PIO
When
the
decision
memo is
approved
7.001
7.002
7.003
Ongoing
Not covered in other
tracking items. It is
currently updated
with the structure of
the existing program.
When the decision is
signed, it will need to
be updated for
pertinent information
in preparation for the
Ram-air program.
Part of the
Communication Plan.
146