DC-10 air tanker fails test in Australia

The state of Victoria brought the DC-10 Very Large Air Tanker to Australia during their summer for the 2009-2010 fire season to test the effectiveness of the 12,000-gallon aircraft on down-under bushfires. The ship is operated by 10 Tanker Air Carrier in California and has been previously tested and approved by the Interagency Air Tanker Board for use on fires in the United States.

The Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre tested the DC-10 on one wildfire and five planned missions, identifying serious deficiencies which led to the decision by the Victorian government that:

…the aircraft would be less effective in suppressing Victorian bushfires and would not be suitable for use around the urban interface where the forest meets communities of relatively high populations.

Some of the issues pointed out in the 91-page report that led to that decision included:

Billowing. The drop cloud released by the DC-10 is not uniform. It has thick and thin sections which leave areas on the ground with insufficient coverage.

DC-10 retardant billowing
Bushfire CDC

The tests by the U.S. Forest Service’s San Dimas Technology Development Center led to the same conclusion, as shown in this graphic from their evaluation in 2006. The red areas designate insufficient coverage.


Damage. During one planned test in Victoria the retardant impacted a Eucalyptus forest with such force that it broke off a number of trees with diameters of 4 to 10 inches. While the researchers did not have adequate equipment to accurately determine the drop height, it is thought that the aircraft was at less than the 150-foot height that was requested, which meant that the retardant was still moving forward, rather than straight down, when it impacted the forest. Most air tankers drop at a slower speed than the DC-10’s 150 knots, resulting in less chance for impact damage from the retardant. If the drop had been made at 150 feet, there would have been less damage, but apparently the Aussies do not have confidence that the DC-10 pilots can be depended upon to always drop above the minimum specified height. The government’s concern is:

…the potential to cause serious injury should the load fall on a person. There was also the potential for the aircraft to destroy the property it was attempting to protect.

Some other jet-powered air tankers drop at slower speeds. The BAe 146-200, if it ever appears over a fire, is expected to drop at 115-150 knots. The Russian Be-200 drops at 107 knots while the 747 Super Tanker drops at 140 knots. Multi-engine propeller-driven air tankers typically drop at 100-130 knots, while single engine propeller-driven air tankers drop at 104 knots.

Accuracy. In one planned test, the DC-10 pilots completely missed the fire area. A live fire was set in an area that had been prepared with black line, with burned buffers on the perimeter. Their drop, which was accurately designated by a preceeding lead plane’s smoke, was supposed be across the head of the fire but fell totally outside of the fire area, having no effect. Other drops were more accurate, except for a tendency to sometimes begin or end drops a little too early or too late.

Cost: A report by Deloitte found that the cost of the DC-10 was significantly higher than other aircraft.

Base: There is only one airfield in Victoria where the aircraft could land and take off. Smaller air tankers have multiple options.


From a Victorian government press release :

Two new faster and more flexible large fire bombing planes will be trialled as part of Victoria’s firefighting arsenal which will also be boosted by the use of night vision helicopter goggles and infrared imaging technology.

Environment and Climate Change Minister Gavin Jennings today announced that the Victorian Government would invest $12 million for two new Convair 580 fire bomber planes, a new Erikson Aircrane and four extra fixed-wing aircraft for the upcoming fire season.

The new aircraft will join Erikson Aircranes Elvis and Elsie and bring Victoria’s aerial firefighting arsenal to 48 with a further 170 aircraft on standby if required.

Thanks Chuck

Typos, let us know HERE, and specify which article. Please read the commenting rules before you post a comment.

Author: Bill Gabbert

After working full time in wildland fire for 33 years, he continues to learn, and strives to be a Student of Fire.

7 thoughts on “DC-10 air tanker fails test in Australia”

  1. Mr. Nemechek has made quite an international nuisance of himself with his constant, misinformed SPAM about supertankers. Let it be known that he has zero background and training in wildfire management.

  2. Johnny,

    By chance, are you friends with Ed Nemechek of Apple Valley, CA (also Landers, CA, also Victorville, CA… etc.. etc.. etc..) who regularly spams “letters to the editor” across the U.S., and jumps into forums and blogs to advocate for VLATS?

    You seem to have the same talking points and no references to the info you attempt to provide, and when challenged, fail to provide source info or references.

    I agree with Emmett, “Kinda sounds like don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind.”

  3. Of course there are gaps in coverage. It’s a gravity drop of 12000 gal. But these are gaps of 100 to 150 ft. in a 2000 ft. attack run. It is easy to see in the San Dimas tests that the proper dispersal sections still add up to almost 3 consecutive runs with the standard S-2 or Eriksson tankers used here in SoCal. This aircraft, and all VLAT’s for that matter, are not suitable for every instance, but when they are used, the impact on the line is substantial. As a mechanic with experience on this airplane and having watched it on many fires first-hand, and having a best friend who is a firefighter who has worked under this airplane in the wild, this is not a waste. It may not meet the needs of Australia’s fire program, but it has done an amazing job in the mountains of California. It is a specialized tool that needs to be used in the right circumstances, as is every air tanker. It’s the same reason Helitack and Fixed wing don’t run the same routes. Each has a place. VLAT’s aren’t always the best choice for a given mission, but definitely have a place in the arsenal, and you have to remember, are still an emerging technology. There are certainly improvements to be made, but 10 Tanker and Evergreen are pioneers in a brave endeavor.

  4. Sounds like the Australians simply confirmed what other studies have already pointed out. They might look impressive to news crews, politicians and other self appointed experts, but to any experienced wild land firefighter they are a waste of time, money and effort.

  5. This report is absolutely ridiculous! What are they smoking down-under? For the past three years the DC-10’s fire performance has been exceptional. Under the supervision of two air attack superviors (State/Federal) the DC-10’s fly in some of the most extreme weather i.e. Santa Anna winds and through second-to-non mountainous terrain like the Sierra Nevadas, San Gabriel Mountains and the California Coastal Range. The DC-10’s are immediate need air tankers having delivered millions of gallon of retardant on target at the correct coverage level. The cost based on gallons delivered on the fire line to the fire fighter per revenue flight hour makes the DC-10 one of the least expensive fixed-wing aircraft in the air program. I guess it was a slow fire season down-under? How many times did the DC-10 have an opportunity to “show” its capability? Check-out You Tube

    1. “million gallons of retardant on target at the correct coverage levels”??? Can you refer me to the source of your info, please? If San Dimas T&D ran the tests in June 2006, then those “millions of gallons” were dropped since then? And how come the SDTDC tests showed gaps in coverage? Kinda sounds like “don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind.”


Comments are closed.