CAL FIRE DC-10 Fire Tanker - OOPs

[Dave Fish]

Not exactly a Warbird topic, but thought you pilots out there might be interested.


Emergency Landing For Firefighting DC-10
June 26, 2007

California - A DC-10 fire tanker that was fighting the White Fire near Tehachapi hit the tree line and recovered from severe turbulence, then made an emergency landing at its home base of Southern California Logistics Airport on Monday evening. The wide-body jet, the first of its kind built to fight fires and the only one in operation, performed two drops where it did an "awesome job" on the fire, which was 9,100 acres Monday night, said Sean Dakin, fire information officer for state agency CAL FIRE.

With a 12,000-gallon capacity, it carries 10 times the amount of water or fire retardant as a standard S2T firefighting prop plane and has performed effectively on large-scale wild land fires, CAL FIRE officials have said.

On Monday, after helping out the 800 firefighters on the ground, the tanker started to have trouble near Bison Peak, south of Tehachapi, said Janet Upton of CAL FIRE.

"It encountered severe turbulence, which caused the aircraft to descend and strike several trees," she said. "The flight crew was able to apply power and fly out of the turbulence, and they safely returned to their base at Victorville."

Fire officials were standing by after the plane landed safely at SCLA at about 5:45 p.m. There were no injuries to the crew or anyone on the ground, Upton said. The incident is under investigation, she added, which will include a complete structural examination of the aircraft.

A CAL FIRE team will be arriving today to look at the tanker, and the plane will be grounded until the investigation is completed, she said.

Rick Hatton, a partner with the plane's co-developer, San Carlos based Cargo Conversions LLC, told the Daily Press earlier in the day about the tanker's activities on the White Fire. After the emergency landing, Hatton did not want to comment. "I have no information at this time," he said. The terrain at the White Fire is highly difficult to access, Dakin said. "It's a tough place to be, very steep," he said. About 50 structures were threatened, Dakin added, with some damaged but no information yet available. A team will be going in today to assess damage.

CAL FIRE recently hired the tanker exclusively for the next three years, at about $5 million per year -- making the plane available for 122 days from June to October.

It has not yet been certified by the U.S. Forest Service, so on Forest Service lands, such as the site of the Angora Fire at Lake Tahoe, it is not authorized to fight fires.

Written by Daily Press



These pictures would surely seem to prove that. This will give you an idea
of how close this airplane came to crashing. Pretty unbelievable.

[K5DH]

DANG!

That flight crew had an angel or two or three riding along with them. . .


.

[Aircraft Mech Paul]

Hi Guys,

You'd be surprised at how well the DC-10 is built. From the photo's of the damage that I see, the major hits were taken up by one or two slats, and the inboard and outboard flap assemblies and the L/H aileron. Also, from what I can see of the #1 engine cowl, there is no immediately seen damage, unless it sucked up a branch or two and the first stage fan got mangled. The one thing I always hated about the DC-10, aside from it's riding like a CADILLAC, which it does and I used to love to fly on them, is the fact that they have way too much in cable driven items, where Boeing relies on Hydraulics. Meaning that all along the front spar and rear spars are all the cable clusters for actuator control. But, from what I can tell is mainly that the pilot(s) got too low for the terrain and clipped some trees. So, it is my opinion, having worked on DC-10's and mostly 747's that the damage looks worse than it is.

But....the powers that bee need to investigate......so I guess that they need to do their job to find out, as Paul Harvey would say..."The REST of the story".

Just my two cents,

Paul

[Ztex]

I think these guys dodged a big bullet.
and
Finally some pictures...

Thanks.

[wendovertom]

wasn't there a post here about evergreen aviation doing a 747 tanker? seems like someone had videos of as well. We could use that monster here in Utah - there is a 200,000+ acre fire burning currently.

Tom P.

[wendovertom]

found it - http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/

that would be a sight to see!!

Tom P.

[Dave Fish]

wasn't there a post here about evergreen aviation doing a 747 tanker? seems like someone had videos of as well. We could use that monster here in Utah - there is a 200,000+ acre fire burning currently.

Tom P.

Just wait, Southern California and the other Western States have yet to begin to burn. We will need ALL the help we can find. Glad I live near the Pacific Coast and in the "flatlands!"

These guys did dodge the bullet...but isn't that what great pilots do in flying these dangerous missions!?

[K5DH]

Re: The Evergreen 747 airtainker...

The feds (in their infinite wisdom) cut off all funding for the 747 tanker, saying that "...the aircraft is too old..."

Your tax dollars at work...

Cheers,

[Aircraft Mech Paul]

found it - http://www.evergreenaviation.com/supertanker/

that would be a sight to see!!

Tom P.

Yep,

It really would be a very good thing for the 747 Supertanker to be a viable way to put out forest fires. But I read something, not too long ago where the National Parks Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior that the Government put the skids to that project. It seems to me that they (the Governmental Agencies) had issues with a plane as the 747 doing the job being SO big and flying low enough to do the job, along with some issues as to the "age" issue of the airframes Evergreen had proposed to use and convert into Supertankers. For the most part Evergreen was going to convert over as many as 8 or more 747-200 models into the Supertanker to as they put it "cover the country". The trouble with that idea is, is that most of the airframes available have used up their "normal" lifespan of 20,000 cycles.

And, I can speak from experience, unless the airframes in question are in the 10,000 to 12,000 cycle range (or if you find any with less cycle time on them), and have been maintained exquisitely well there is a whole PLETHORA of nifty little AD Notes, Service Bulletin's, and MAJOR STRUCTURAL modifications, that need to be done to ensure that the applicable airframe is structurally sound enough to take the rigors of being an Aerial Tanker. And all this is BEFORE you consider the engines and their requirements as well. In other words....major money to ensure that the safety of the flight crews, aircraft, and public and in no way compromised.

Plus...again speaking from experience, Boeing makes serious use of 7000 series aluminum (7075 and 7079 come to mind) in their airframes. That makes them strong, BUT, the trade off is airframe life due to corrosion and cracking. Whereas the former McDonnell Douglas made serious use of the 2000 series of aluminums (2024 and 2014 come to mind), which gives better corrosion resistance and longer airframe lifespan.

So in a certain respect I can understand why the Government chose the DC10 as a compromise aircraft for the Supertanker. Plenty of available aiframes, a proven design with long lifespans and plenty of parts available due to the phasing out of the DC10 from passenger service. Believe me, I am no fan of the DC10 from a maintenance standpoint, but it was a Caddy in the sky when you flew on one.

Just my two cents.....

Paul

[bdk]

From AvWeb:

A DC-10 air tanker will return to service next week after wing repairs. The aircraft clipped trees after hitting a downdraft while working a fire in California on June 25…

[chico]

Am I the only one who thinks passenger jet conversion tankers would be an F.O.D. nightmare? It just seems like those turbofan engines would act like giant hoover vacuums, sucking in debris. I'm sure this is a concern with prop planes as well, but they still seemed better suited to the role than a 747. Or am I way off base here?

Last edited by chico on Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[Ztex]

Personally, I think the C-130 with the MAFFS insert thingy is a great idea.

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/aviation/fixed_wing/maffs_II/index.html

I also think they should use the AT-10 Firehog or think about using the S-3 platform...both would be effective and much more maneuverable than an Heavy...

or how about the Il-76?

http://www.vadscorner.com/pr1.html

[mike furline]

Isn't speed an issue when dropping fire retardant? I don't believe you get a good spray pattern when dumping at higher airspeeds that some of the heavies require??? Any experts out there?

Regards,
Mike

Last edited by mike furline on Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

[bdk]

How about a C-17 guided by GPS as an air tanker?

[Dave Fish]

Personally, I think the C-130 with the MAFFS insert thingy is a great idea.

http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/aviation/fixed_wing/maffs_II/index.html

I also think they should use the AT-10 Firehog or think about using the S-3 platform...both would be effective and much more maneuverable than an Heavy...

or how about the Il-76?

http://www.vadscorner.com/pr1.html

I'm not sure that I have "all my ducks lined up," but I understand from local media that the California Air National Guard C-130s at Pt Mugu are being "retired" and replaced(?)...their C-130s will not be available for California's "Fire Fighting Season" this summer. I do not know any information on or about the MAFFS system.

It remains to be seen if the DC-10 will help in keeping Southern California from burning to the ground.