Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DC-10 Water Bomber In Use In CA Fires  
User currently offlineNbgskygod From United States of America, joined May 2004, 832 posts, RR: 1
Posted (8 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5391 times:

I was just watching Fox News and they were showing the water bombing DC-10 flying around the fires in Southern California. Anyone know if the Evergreen 747 is being used as well?


"I use multi-billion dollar military satellite systems to find tupperware in the woods."
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently onlineTan Flyr From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 1919 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (8 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5376 times:

I thought I saw an article inj the press recently about the inability to to get the 747 from evergreen certifed by the USDA (they run the forest service) for aerial fire fighting. Not sure why.

User currently offlinePanAm747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4242 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (8 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5348 times:

There was a thread on the DC-10 and the 747 firefighting planes just recently.

The planes are illegal to use on federal lands as they are not certified. Because two planes crashed while fighting fires several years ago, the federal government has said that Boeing must prove both planes will NOT lose their wings when they drop their load of firefighting material.

In my opinion, trying to prove that something WON'T happen is impossible.

However, the state of California has not required the same thing, and this is now the second time the planes have been used. The "Day" fire north of L.A. a month ago had the DC-10 used on state land, and proved itself quite useful.

That same DC-10 had to carefully avoid federal land...but the fire on state land was quickly extinguished. Like a fire respects man-made boundaries.

It appears that most, if not all, of this horrible fire is on state land. If so, both planes could be used without any red tape.



Pan Am:The World's Most Experienced Airline - P(oor) S(ailor's) A(irline): San Diego's Hometown Airline-Catch Our Smile!
User currently offlineSATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 7
Reply 3, posted (8 years 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5328 times:

Once again CA proves that despite their incredibly bad rap they're still smarter than the Feds.


Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5288 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (8 years 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 5277 times:

Glad to hear that they brought in the DC10. Too bad they didn't bring it in when the fire was merely a couple of thousand acres.

Somehow the DC10 managed to get certified before the Evergreen Supertanker, at least by the California folks. The Fire-O-Crats on the federal side, who just lost 4 and probably soon 5 USFS firefighters in the Esperanza fire, are still dragging their Federal feet on Tanker 910, it seems.

As to the Evergreen Supertanker, here's what Evergreen's web site says:

"The Evergreen Supertanker team is completing final modifications on the aircraft for its entry into service to fight wildfires worldwide. We are now in the final stages of obtaining our FAA STC (Supplemental Type Certificate) approval. FAA test flights and certification are expected in early October.

"With our certification in hand, the Evergreen Supertanker will be immediately available to perform aerial fire fighting services for fire agencies across the United States. We share the concern of those threatened by wildfire activity and look forward to having the Evergreen B747 Supertanker play a pivotal role in containing wildfires."

http://www.evergreen-eagle.com/supertanker/index.html


User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 5204 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 4):
Glad to hear that they brought in the DC10. Too bad they didn't bring it in when the fire was merely a couple of thousand acres.

I don't have all the facts but I think the fire started at night. CDF doesn't fly their aircraft at night for safety reasons. Also, when I was got off work that night (Thursday AM) the fire was 400 acres. On the 11AM news it was up to 4,000 acres and the 11PM news it was over 14,000 acres. As of the 5PM tonight, it was over 25,000 acres.

The Santa Ana winds are really strong and the drops yesterday were mostly ineffective. You can see on TV shots how the winds are dispersing the phos-check and water to mist. On the other side, through the Banning Pass, RIV had winds of 10-20 mph last night and winds at the fire scene today have been in excess of 30mph with gusts over 60mph. Normally fires die down a little at night as the winds slow....not with the present weather pattern.


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5288 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4945 times:

This is exactly the kind of media coverage that we need to see. It shows the lunacy of the bureaucrats' thinking. They've spent almost 3 million on the fire already, but $80K a day was too much for them to spend at the outset maybe to get the thing under control.

"As word spread about the fatalities and the fire's immense size, questions arose about why the nation's largest air tanker - a DC-10 jumbo jet with triple the fire retardant capacity of the largest conventional tankers -- has been sitting idle in nearby Victorville.

"They should have called the crew two days ago," said Tony Morris, of the Topanga-based Wildfire Research Network. "Every radio and TV station had it: Red Flag warnings were coming."

The privately owned jet is under contract to the CDF to fight fires on a call-when-needed basis.

But no fire managers requested it, said Chief Mike Padilla, head of aviation for the California Department of Forestry.

At just under $80,000 a day, the plane is too expensive to use on a regular basis, Padilla said. The CDF began using it on a limited basis this year. "

http://www.pe.com/localnews/inland/s...s_Local_D_esperanza27.3cd3c06.html


User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8971 posts, RR: 39
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4885 times:

Here's a pic:

http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/galeria/imagemdodia/

In the drop down menu where it says "Hoje" select 28/10, click OK and scroll down to the botton left side. Nice aircraft.

Edit: "Hoje" means "Today" so until it's the 29th in Brasil all you need to do is just scroll down.

[Edited 2006-10-29 02:23:06]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineDrexotica From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 176 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4804 times:

The footage that they've been showing on the local LA stations is quite impressive. This plane can drop a _lot_ of fire retardant or water... In keeping with the highest standards of broadcast journalism, they also played footage of the C-130 that augered in when its wing spar broke three or four years ago while fighting another fire.

California has it right - the Feds need to grow up in this regard.

Erik



N707PA - Best looking commercial aircraft ever.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21562 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4804 times:

Quoting SATX (Reply 3):
Once again CA proves that despite their incredibly bad rap they're still smarter than the Feds.

Let's not exaggerate there. In this case, they are weighing the value of fighting fires vs. the danger of a potential crash.

But in many other things that happen in my stupid state, CA is back assward.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAeroWeanie From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 1610 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 4792 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PanAm747 (Reply 2):
The planes are illegal to use on federal lands as they are not certified.

Breaking news:
The Evergreen 747 SuperTanker received its STC late last week.


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5288 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (8 years 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4749 times:

Quoting AeroWeanie (Reply 10):
Breaking news:
The Evergreen 747 SuperTanker received its STC late last week.

Too bad they didn't bother to put this up on their web site yet....

Does it still have to pass the Tanker Board at USFS? Is California likely to try it out as well prior to the Tanker Board approval?


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5288 posts, RR: 23
Reply 12, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4510 times:

Looks like the 747 is certified and available, but unused.

http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/daily/local/30782.php


User currently offlineONTFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 380 posts, RR: 3
Reply 13, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4290 times:

Quoting Echster (Reply 5):
I don't have all the facts but I think the fire started
at night.

That's correct. 0100 hours.

Quoting Echster (Reply 5):
CDF doesn't fly their aircraft at night for safety reasons.

Also correct. But neither does LA County, LA City, Ventura Co. or any other dept. with helos/tankers here in Southern California.

Quoting Echster (Reply 5):
Normally fires die down a little at night as the winds slow

Usually, however this particular fire and the circumstances surrounding it are being called the "perfect storm" within our firefighting community. The area was ripe for a blaze, Santa Ana winds along with the usual gusty winds in the area, and unusual hot and dry weather for October. But at the same time, September and October are the times that are most likely to fuel a large brush fire around here.

Quoting Echster (Reply 5):
it was over 25,000 acres

41,200 at the present moment. 70% containment.

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 4):
Glad to hear that they brought in the DC10. Too bad they didn't bring it in when the fire was merely a couple of thousand acres.

You have no idea what a sight and sound of relief that was flying over my unit's heads. Unfortunately, like I mentioned before this fire has the "perfect storm" scenario surrounding it and it went from ignition to 2000 acres before help could even arrive for our CDF Fire colleagues.

On a related note. For those of you here in So. Cal and the surrounding areas, please keep your eyes and ears open regarding the arson suspect who started this blaze. If you know anything please call authorities and bring this mother f*cker to justice. Please excuse my language. But this guy needs to go down!

RIP to my brothers and please keep the 5th firefighter (a colleague I happen to know personally) who's still in extremely critical condition in your thoughts and prayers. I appreciate it guys. Thank you.

ONTFlyer



Doin' just fine thanks...
User currently offlineMohavewolfpup From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 4274 times:

I may sound stupid for this, but if night time is a concern to bringing in the heavy firepower of a DC10 or a 747 to dump retardant, how come the planes wouldn't have big spotlights bolted on to illuminate the area it flies in?

Is bright spotlights a stupid idea due to weight, take off, etc, or a good idea? Or is this to help with seeing a giant canyon looming up in your windshield so it can be avoided easier in daylight?

it sounds simple in theory, but maybe there is a reason why and I am curious to hear it  Smile


User currently offlineONTFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 380 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 4158 times:

Quoting Mohavewolfpup (Reply 14):
I may sound stupid for this, but if night time is a concern to bringing in the heavy firepower of a DC10 or a 747 to dump retardant, how come the planes wouldn't have big spotlights bolted on to illuminate the area it flies in?

While I don't have the specific answer to your question, this week has been the 10th large brush fire that I have fought here in So. Cal. and my best guess would be simply that there wouldn't be a light big enough. A spotlight. no matter how big can only shine upon one small conentrated area and that's not going to do a whole of good when you are talking about flying just a few feet from the ground in mountainous terrain. You'd need a light to cover an area of several square miles and I just don't think mounting one on a plane is going work all that well because that would be one hell of a big light! Like I said, I don't have the specific answer but that's one of the things command always talks about, getting the birds back in for the night.

One answer I do know for sure reagarding night drops is that it's not limited to just the OmniTanker DC-10 or the Evergreen 747. All aircraft are grounded once darkness falls. Two main reasons. Mountains and power lines.

ONT



Doin' just fine thanks...
User currently offlineLikesplanes From Canada, joined Jun 2001, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4042 times:

The article in the link posted by Wjcandee indicated that the 742 can drop 20,000 lbs of water in a single pass; does anyone know what the drop capacity of the DC-10 is?
Thanks.

[Edited 2006-10-30 17:17:17]

User currently offlineMD11Fanatic From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (8 years 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 3972 times:

I don't think it's pounds, but gallons. As far as I know the DC-10 can drop 12,000 gallons of water.

I live very close to Victorville airport and I was honored enough to see this DC-10 sitting on the tarmac in plane view. It was several months ago that I saw it and I had no idea what the conversion was that they did to it. Now I know!


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5288 posts, RR: 23
Reply 18, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3803 times:

Quoting Likesplanes (Reply 16):
the link posted by Wjcandee indicated that the 742 can drop 20,000 lbs of water in a single pass

The FAQ section of their web site says 24,000 gallons of retardant. That's about 120,000 to 144,000 pounds, I believe.
http://www.evergreen-eagle.com/supertanker/faq.html

The 910 Tanker carries about 12,000 gallons in its external tanks.
http://www.vvdailypress.com/2005/111814992470497.html


User currently offlineJerald01 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 161 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (8 years 3 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 3740 times:

In reference to the question concerning putting giant spotlights on airdrop tankers: I would imagain there would be moments when forward visibility in a forest fire area would be almost nil due to smoke, even in daylight. Consider what it would be like at night if a large spotlight were being reflected off the smoke and back into the pilot's eyes!


"There may be old pilots, and there may be bold pilots, but there are darn few green cows"
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Evergreen 747 Water Bomber In HKG.... Why? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 00:39:30 by N754PR
Are There Any DC-10 Still Serving In JAL? posted Thu Aug 21 2003 13:28:47 by Lf278
NW DC-10-40 Back In Pax Service posted Thu Nov 7 2002 01:12:07 by PSU.DTW.SCE
Iberia DC-10 In Lima! What Is It? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 11:45:43 by RootsAir
8 Abreast In Y On DC-10 posted Wed Oct 4 2006 17:15:35 by Coyoteguy
Biman Bangladesh DC-10-30 In YUL posted Sun May 14 2006 04:03:26 by Aircanada333
Northwest DC-10 Arriving In MKE posted Sat Apr 22 2006 19:44:49 by CO777-200ER
Any Interior Pics Of AA 767/DC-10 In 1980's? posted Sun Jan 15 2006 01:47:33 by CalAir
CO DC-10 And AF Concorde In One Pic posted Fri Dec 9 2005 11:15:22 by Airforum
NW DC-10 In PHL posted Mon Nov 28 2005 01:14:37 by UAL Bagsmasher