Yesterday the National Interagency Fire Center activated two C-130 Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System-equipped (MAFFS) aircraft and support personnel from the 187th Airlift Squadron, 153rd Airlift Wing, Wyoming Air National Guard, out of Cheyenne, Wyoming. They will be based in Boise to fight fires in Nevada, Utah, and Idaho.
This was done because there are only 11 large air tankers left in the United States that are on exclusive use contracts, contrasted with the 44 we had in 2002. Aero Union has closed its doors and shut down their P3 air tankers due to inspection, safety, and contract issues, and the U. S. Forest Service is not interested in awarding exclusive use contracts for Very Large Air Tankers (VLAT) like Evergreen’s 747 or 10 Tanker Air Carrier’s DC-10s. CAL FIRE cancelled their exclusive use contract on June 30 for one of the DC-10s due to the state’s budget crisis, even though they were very happy with the effectiveness of the aircraft on fires.
Both Evergreen and 10 Tanker were only offered Call When Needed (CWN) contracts by the USFS this year for their VLATs. The proposed contracts did not even have a minimum number of days that they would be used on each activation, such as the 5 days that are stipulated in CAL FIRE’s current DC-10 CWN contract. Evergreen told the agency that they could not maintain their 747 in response-ready condition, with crews, without any guaranteed income. 10 Tanker reluctantly signed the CWN contract.
Within the last few weeks the USFS temporarily brought on six CWN air tankers — three Convair 580s and three CL-215 scooper aircraft.
10 Tanker has two DC-10 air tankers, but at this time they only have one DC-10 air tanker crew, so they can only operate one aircraft at a time. When mandatory days off are required, they have to shut the aircraft down rather than bring in a relief crew. With no guaranteed contract, they can barely keep one crew available for CWN use.
One of the stated reasons for the USFS’s reluctance to use the VLATs is cost. But the MAFFS, with their large support crews, are not inexpensive. And the issue of using government air tankers instead of privately owned aircraft can’t be easily swept under the carpet.
Since dozens of air tankers were permanently grounded after two very old military surplus air tankers fell apart in mid-air in 2002, three studies have been commissioned to develop recommendations on how to reconstitute the large air tanker fleet. The last one was due in January, 2011, but it may not see the light of day until next year. But in the 9 years following those tragedies, nothing meaningful has been accomplished, and we’re down from 44 to 11 large air tankers. And no one has been fired.
One of the DC-10’s, the only one with a crew available, has been hired by the state of Texas for their current fire bust. At 12:40 p.m. MT they were reloading the aircraft with retardant for the third time today.
One of the biggest limitations (although minimal) for the use of VLATS at many bases is the thickness of the asphalt/ concrete on the runways, taxiways, ramps, and parking areas.
Additionally, they need to be capable of sustained high volume pumping and loading of retardant (both an equipment and supply challenge).
Just because an airport has “long runways”, it might be able to serve the VLATs.
Before Cal Fire accepted the DC-10 (s) as an air resource that would benefit the fire fighter on the ground and taxpayer they (Cal Fire) sent out very experienced “old timers” on fires to evaluate the drop effectiveness of the 10’s. These men had grown up with the air program. (early 1960’s) On fires (first use of the DC-10) they reported their findings back to the branch director who then passed this info to the incident commander. To discuss the adaptability of the DC-10 as an air tanker is useless. Economy of scale, nearing four million gallons of retardant delivered, on hundreds of fires, in all types of weather and terrain. Performance constantly being evaluated by State and/or Federal air attack officers. YOU TUBE.
Man, those old timers were EXTREMELY thorough! I’m not complaining, just saying they did a really good job!
Ok Idealy its 150 agl drop height for a large air tanker. And as for misinformation your right if they were on for twelve days straight they do get two off thats why I stated ” I assumed”. As for flying around in the mountains again I stated they are in there “ideal enviroment” FLAT texas. Ask those guys how much of thier airplane was left on the side of a mt thirty miles north of the tehachapi Mts.the pic were not pretty I believe they needed a new In Board flap. As for the Base issue I’d like to here all the bases that are existing right now that they could possibly land at a moments notice and get retardent, not mobile reload bases. I can only think of four. Hey I like that airplane and the crews, there good people but again they have a uphill battle.
If you are referring to the tree trimming incident that happened FIVE YEARS AGO, they have adjusted their approach and it hasn’t happened since. And just off of the top of my head- the bases that they can fly into without calling in a portable… 3 in CA, 2 in OR, 1 in WA, 1 in ID, 1 in UT, 1 in AZ, 2 in MT, 2 in CO, 2 in New Mexico! And that’s without doing research. I’m sure there are more. BUT if you take into account thay they can fly 400 miles any direction to a fire… Youtube is FULL of video showing these down in valleys with hills on both sides.
Well call it what you want but when something is attached firmly to the ground like a tree I consider that a extention of the ground, and to call it a trimming the trees incident is foolish, they hit the ground period. The adjustments you talk about are a higher drop height which can leave gaps, and avoid steep tight situations were large tankers do not have issues. As for the base issue again, example san bradu can and will accept the 10, so why did they go back and forth from sac to the fire in tehachapi, which is most likely 400 miles extra round trip, at 12000$ a hour as a tax payer i’m pissed but if thats the closest airport it can load and return out of then thats that, all of those airports you mentioned sure they can land there but they need the most important ingreedient retardent. Those bases with the exception of a few cant handle the wieght and size on the bases ramp, and taxi ways they where set up for the largest being a c130 and p3. You Tube come on i’ve seen it from the air, and you dont have to look to hard this website has a great shot of a drop with a likely candidate for a gap. Im guessing it was a coverage level 10 with a coverage 4 gap in it. Again I like that airplane it has its uses, I hope they dont throw it away but it has faults also just like any thing else out there, its not the answer to the problem.
the adjustment was going in with wings flat…nothing more. I get my info from a ten tanker crew member, which I double check before I post. Where do u get your info from, a comic book? I’m done with this back and forth with you. EVERYTHING I have posted is true and accurate and I stand by it.
The USFS IA card that I get every year.
Your Question: (paraphrase) – Why did the DC-10 fly back to Sacramento for reload on the fires in Tehachapi?
Answer: They didn’t. They reloaded at San Bernardino Air Tanker Base throughout the day and returned to McClellan to RON..
You might be confusing the Hill Fire (BDF/BDU) where Tanker 910 had to return to McClellan for reload because they FORGOT the hose needed to reload at SBD. (By the way, that problem has been mitigated.)
I stand corrected, a hose, I think I would of left that part out.
It’s a uphill battle for those guys, and I hope they get a contract. Met one crew earlier this year and have seen them work in the past, and thought they did ok, cool people. But when you get down to the nuts and bolts of it, its just to big, earlier comments on its patterns are correct very seldom are there gaps in there lines. That has a lot to do with the way the plane is flown, the 10 has a slightly higher required drop height than other tankers, and terrain can produce gaps. The largest problem they have was just revealed a few days ago. My understanding is they showed up in texas on the 6, didn’t get to work until the 9.? I’m assuming the mobile reload base was not set up yet or ready for them to take retardant. Unfortunately there limited to only a few fed and calfire bases, and for IA that wont due. But they are in there ideal environment right now FLAT terrain with twelve thousand gallons in a gravity constant flow tank, I bet there kicking ass out there! I hope the best for those guys.
Also John Travolta? That is the last thing anybody needs, is that side show act showing up. No Actors there worse than politicians. We need pros.
Are you saying that smaller planes drop lower than 300 feet? They flew in the evening of the 6th- no one can fly after dark. Then they had to take the FAA mandated 2 days of crew rest because they were flying in Oregon and near Tehachapi on fires before they got here. (remember, they are down to one crew) IF they had a real contract, the second crew would have flown the plane!
And there is that MISINFORMATION AGAIN! Tehachapi is very mountainous They DO NOT need flat ground to fight fires. Check out some of the clips on youtube. AND there are more bases than you let on that can handle a DC-10
Please call your congressman or senator from your home state and tell them to look into the US Forest Service policies. Let use try these VATS for a year in the long run we will save money. Look around your house right now, then think of losing all that?What is 1000 homes worth? I will pay $10 more in taxes to not have some one go though that.
The Fed’s say it cost too much for the DC-10. WRONG AGAIN! Outstanding economy of scale (cost per gallon delivered) plus the suppression factor ( one application of length) to suppress a section of fire line in one sortie makes the DC-10 the LEAST expensive fixed wing on most fires. Cal Fire has several reports that confirm these findings. The DC-10 coverage levels do not require retreatment of a previous drop. (MAFF has a problem with this, low coverage levels) The issue with dropping water in dry windy conditions, i.e. Texas, is that you must have ground personnel (risk factor) where the drop will be made to take advantage of the waters effectiveness.
The USFS has been given these numbers. They know that the DC-10 costs less than the MAFFs and yet they still drag their feet…
But it’s still expensive. Just because it might cause less than a p2 or p3 doesn’t make it free.
These tanker crews, especially in an aircraft such as a DC-10, require very specialized training. These aircraft are designed to fly high and fast. In firefighting missions, they are flown low and slow and heavy. Visibility can drop to zero in an instant in the smoke, and here you are, a few knots above stall, 200 feet off the ground that you can’t see. Get the picture. Not just anybody can do this. It would kinda be like asking a carpenter to perform open heart surgery.
Thank you Gary. Well said.
Why can’t John Travolta lone them his crew, or do they need special training for the tankers. John has several planes of his own and pilots them.
It takes special training to fly one of those beasts 300 feet off the ground without hitting trees and such
well im glad there was at least one left, we really needed the help in texas. all of the firefighters do a great job on the ground but without all of the aircraft support i would most likely not have a home to go back to. the fire was just to big. thank you again and i hope y’all get alot more contracts in the future.
Great article!! I hope you don’t mind but I linked to it on the Waller County Fire Info Facebook Page. We have been using the DC-10 for the last two days here, and it has truly been a lifesaver!!
Thanks for the information on the DC-10 has just one crew? Only the crew 3 is left? That is all? What happened to the other crews? I hoped that they would go to work for Omni Air the sister CO to ten tanker? The crews were laid off? how do they replace a crew like that in sort notice? Is tanker 911 able to fly if they had a crew? Are the inspections done?
Where do we stand with the Evergreen 747? Is that aircraft not available this year? Did they shut down the program again?
Thanks for the time, and the information.
The other plane is flight ready but has nobody to fly it. Yes, they have all been laid off.
The current crew is flying with a 20% pay cut and will be laid off on Nov. 15th if no contract is signed. Then there will be NO flight crew!