DC-10 'Fire-Tanker' hits trees
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: California U.S.
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DC-10 'Fire-Tanker' hits trees
A DC-10 firetanker making a water-drop on a southern California (U.S.) forest fire -- hit some treetops... but then safely made an emergency landing at 'Southern California Logistics Airport', its home base {formerly USAF George AFB}.
The wide-body jet is the 'first of its kind' built to fight fires and the only one in operation. It has a 12,000-gallon water-drop capacity.
Reports indicate the aircraft encountered severe turbulence in the mountain terrain, causing descent into the trees and damage to the aircraft flaps. There were no injuries. The aircraft is grounded pending a complete structural inspection and investigation of this incident.
The aircraft is a privately owned airliner-conversion. California state government officials recently hired the tanker exclusively for the next 3 years, at about $5 million per year — 122 days per year from June to October.
Federal officials (U.S. Forest Service) have not yet certified the DC-10 firetanker, so it is not authorized for fire fighting on federally owned property.
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/fir...ker_plane.html
______________
...is it a wise concept to randomly maneuver large, heavily-loaded jet aircraft at low altitudes in mountainous terrain ??
The wide-body jet is the 'first of its kind' built to fight fires and the only one in operation. It has a 12,000-gallon water-drop capacity.
Reports indicate the aircraft encountered severe turbulence in the mountain terrain, causing descent into the trees and damage to the aircraft flaps. There were no injuries. The aircraft is grounded pending a complete structural inspection and investigation of this incident.
The aircraft is a privately owned airliner-conversion. California state government officials recently hired the tanker exclusively for the next 3 years, at about $5 million per year — 122 days per year from June to October.
Federal officials (U.S. Forest Service) have not yet certified the DC-10 firetanker, so it is not authorized for fire fighting on federally owned property.
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/fir...ker_plane.html
______________
...is it a wise concept to randomly maneuver large, heavily-loaded jet aircraft at low altitudes in mountainous terrain ??
One very lucky escape
Another 40' or so lower and it would have been rocks instead of trees
Time to amend the minimum drop height in mountainous terrain (the usual location of forest fires), methinks
Time to amend the minimum drop height in mountainous terrain (the usual location of forest fires), methinks
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never put an A-10 Jockey behind the wheel of a DC-10.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
surplus A-10s
Washington Watch: The A-10 fleet—all of it—will get a major upgrade over the next five years, stretching its service life and sharply reducing the need for the Air Force to buy any F-35B short takeoff and vertical landing Joint Strike Fighters.....
The entire fleet of 356 A-10s will get further structural improvements and all will get the “precision engagement” upgrade. This will allow all A-10s to carry and use advanced targeting pods, laser- and satellite-guided bombs, and new networking gear. The improvements will allow the A-10 to attack targets from much higher altitude—well above many modern surface-to-air threats. It also adds some new cockpit displays and digital equipment.
Two years ago, the Air Force considered retiring 75 of its A-10s and using the operating and maintenance savings to pay for the precision update. However, an ACC official said that “several independent analyses” have determined that keeping the whole fleet of 356 aircraft is “very important to force structure plans ... in terms of rounding out [the Air Force’s] capability needed for the long term.”.....
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CJ said...
" Many thanks, ORAC !
Good news for the Air Force, but it does put an end to the idea of using some as fire-tankers."
Aviate1138 muses.....
At least the A-10s will now be able to hit the target they are aiming at and more importantly,
aim at the target they are supposed to be hitting!
Aviate1138
" Many thanks, ORAC !
Good news for the Air Force, but it does put an end to the idea of using some as fire-tankers."
Aviate1138 muses.....
At least the A-10s will now be able to hit the target they are aiming at and more importantly,
aim at the target they are supposed to be hitting!
Aviate1138
Air tankers have a long history of occasionally hitting treetops and getting away with it so it should be no surprise that the DC-10 has done this. There are a number of photographs around of old DC-4s and similar coming home to tanker base with a wingtip sheared off.
12,000 gallons doesn't seem a lot ?
Imperial Gallons that'd be 53 imperial tons ? about 3 roadgoing tankers ? It'd need that much fuel to get any reasonable distance.
Would you refill it by flying low over a lake with a scoop down ? - not me mate
Surely you'd have to go to a big airport with a very high capacity filler upper (like the old steam trains used to have).
Must make it a lot less versatile that an amphibian ?
DGG
Imperial Gallons that'd be 53 imperial tons ? about 3 roadgoing tankers ? It'd need that much fuel to get any reasonable distance.
Would you refill it by flying low over a lake with a scoop down ? - not me mate
Surely you'd have to go to a big airport with a very high capacity filler upper (like the old steam trains used to have).
Must make it a lot less versatile that an amphibian ?
DGG
The large tankers contracted in recent years have not been amphibians, they have been things like old DC6s or Hercules. There is the odd Martin Mars or Catalina around but they are now rare.
I know the opening shot in "Always" looks fun, but is not how tanker operations have been for a while now.
I know the opening shot in "Always" looks fun, but is not how tanker operations have been for a while now.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave Gittins,
It's U.S. news, so it would be U.S. gallons. That's about 46 metric tons, and spread out properly it can be quite effective.....
WHBM,
I suppose that's because most of the fires occur too far from a large open surface of water.
Here in France, and in Greece as well, most of the fires are within minutes flying from the sea, so the Canadair is still a popular fire tanker around here.
No A-10s
but they've bought a few AgCats. Slow and lumbering biplanes, but they can dump a ton of retardant exactly in the right spot, so they seem to be quite useful for "first attack".
12,000 gallons doesn't seem a lot ?
WHBM,
The large tankers contracted in recent years have not been amphibians...
Here in France, and in Greece as well, most of the fires are within minutes flying from the sea, so the Canadair is still a popular fire tanker around here.
No A-10s
but they've bought a few AgCats. Slow and lumbering biplanes, but they can dump a ton of retardant exactly in the right spot, so they seem to be quite useful for "first attack".
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Went camping in south of france one year and got trapped on the beach by forrest fire. Two seaplanes flew low over the sea to scatter the small boats then skimmed the surface to pick up water before flying overhead to dump it half a mile from us. Amazing sight to watch. As far as I know no swimmers got a free ride.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Either somewhere in the 3rd world, the land of cheese and wine, or possibly very occasionally, at home.
Age: 59
Posts: 488
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here in Cyprus, they've got 2 kamov Ka32(?)s on permanent standby for the summer for waterbombing duties.
They're the only way to get to a lot of the areas.
saw them in action a couple of weeks ago- very impressive.
Apologies for the standard of pic- this was their last drop and were just leaving as I got there!
They're the only way to get to a lot of the areas.
saw them in action a couple of weeks ago- very impressive.
Apologies for the standard of pic- this was their last drop and were just leaving as I got there!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cwatters,
The Canadairs (CL-215 and CL-415) are not "seaplanes", but true amphibians, in the sense, that they also have a landing gear.
That means they can land at an airfield at the end of the day, rather than having to land on water, and be dragged ashore with "beaching gear".
Down here in the South we have a great respect for these guys, flying in very difficult circumstances... forest and brush fires here are often associated with 50+ kts winds. And the fires are more often than not of criminal origin....
The Canadairs (CL-215 and CL-415) are not "seaplanes", but true amphibians, in the sense, that they also have a landing gear.
That means they can land at an airfield at the end of the day, rather than having to land on water, and be dragged ashore with "beaching gear".
Down here in the South we have a great respect for these guys, flying in very difficult circumstances... forest and brush fires here are often associated with 50+ kts winds. And the fires are more often than not of criminal origin....
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: CY??
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12,000 gallons doesn't seem a lot ?
Imperial Gallons that'd be 53 imperial tons ? about 3 roadgoing tankers ? It'd need that much fuel to get any reasonable distance.
Would you refill it by flying low over a lake with a scoop down ? - not me mate
Surely you'd have to go to a big airport with a very high capacity filler upper (like the old steam trains used to have).
Must make it a lot less versatile that an amphibian ?
DGG
Imperial Gallons that'd be 53 imperial tons ? about 3 roadgoing tankers ? It'd need that much fuel to get any reasonable distance.
Would you refill it by flying low over a lake with a scoop down ? - not me mate
Surely you'd have to go to a big airport with a very high capacity filler upper (like the old steam trains used to have).
Must make it a lot less versatile that an amphibian ?
DGG
)In terms of versatility, it depends how close you are to a reloading station: if you are right next to a lake, then a pair of skimmers will win, hands down...if not, then all bets are off. That being said, I think that they might have gone a little large with the -10. I'm not sure that I'd like to wrestle it around down in a valley with poor vis and turbulence around a fire...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Canadairs are more than just amphibians - they are all certified by the USDA for water tanking like a land 'plane & have the hose inlets as standard.
The current number of aircraft in the US per Bombardier's website is:
"The size of the Superscooper family in the U.S. consists of six CL-215 currently operating across the United States, particularly in the northern region and in Alaska. Two of them were purchased by the Sate of Minnesota and one, by the State of North Carolina. Aero Flite, a private operator based in Kingman, Arizona, purchased three CL-215 in 2003. On the lease front, there is a long-term agreement between the Los Angeles Fire department and the government of Quebec, Canada for the services of two Bombardier 415."
The current number of aircraft in the US per Bombardier's website is:
"The size of the Superscooper family in the U.S. consists of six CL-215 currently operating across the United States, particularly in the northern region and in Alaska. Two of them were purchased by the Sate of Minnesota and one, by the State of North Carolina. Aero Flite, a private operator based in Kingman, Arizona, purchased three CL-215 in 2003. On the lease front, there is a long-term agreement between the Los Angeles Fire department and the government of Quebec, Canada for the services of two Bombardier 415."
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: U.S.
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C 130 tanker
The C 130 is not well suited for fire fighting. It cannot take the G forces required. Read the NTSB report on a C 130 that crashed several years ago when the wings fell off.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...02GA201&akey=1
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...02GA201&akey=1
Join Date: May 2000
Location: US
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Later model C-130s are very well suited as air tankers. The aircraft that broke apart in flight was very old with many cycles in/out of unimproved fields in Southeast Asia.
http://www.afrc.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=335
http://www.afrc.af.mil/photos/index.asp?galleryID=335