Skip to content

Video of DC-10 air tanker drop

The video shows one of the DC-10 very large air tankers making a drop on the San Miguelito Fire south of Lompoc, California. More information about the fire can be found at webpronews. The DC-10 carries 11, 600 gallons of retardant.

UPDATE: in response to some of the comments, below is a video of the DC-10 making a drop on what is definitely not a long, flat flank.

And another, suggested by “R”:

And, by Steve:

This next video is from the Falls Fire on the west side of Lake Elsinore in southern California, August 5, 2013. Photos taken at the fire, including one from overhead as the DC-10 made the drop, are at Wildfire Today.

Comments

37 Comments

  1. Not a very effective drop……….

    • David, you came to that conclusion by looking at the video that was filmed about a half mile away, or were you on scene and got a chance to personally analyze the drop up close? What led you to your opinion?

      • Effectiveness can only be gauged by those on the ground, in real time. The drop did look a little high, but following it down it didn’t look bad. It’s very difficult to say until the retardant is on the ground, and then only when the fire starts bumping it will anyone know if it was effective.

        I can say, having made runs down the fire line behind the DC10 in the past year, that they can and do leave a fairly long, heavy retardant trail that in my experience gives good coverage, a wide swath, and has certainly seemed effective. I’ve done drops ahead of and behind the DC10, and have been on a number of fires with the DC10; they’ve proven to be a valuable resource on the fire and member of the fire team.

        • I agree with Doug. Criticizing an aircraft or a pilot based on a video that was shot from a distant location is ridiculous. We have a policy about similar criticisms based on a photo or a video. If Mr. Gagliardi had been on the ground in the drop area, and if he knew what the air attack strategy was, it would be a different story.

          Something to keep in mind, sometimes folks will make disparaging comments about their competitors, for example a former S2 or Convair 580 driver discussing a very large air tanker. We do what we can to discourage that.

    • Better than nothing, at the start a single S-2 and single P-2 tanker had come and gone without much effect, the fire had moved fast to about 500 yards from town when the DC-10 showed up. It is based only 30 miles away in Santa Maria so why not use it when nothing else is available?

  2. Great Job Guys on the drop over the Migelito Fire! As always, the “10” looked magnificent doing its job!

  3. I made my comment based on the video. Note how long the drop takes to settle and how it visibly thins out before it touched the ground. It also appears to be a long way from the fire edge. Sometimes quality works better than quantity. In this case wilth rolling terrain a smaller more nimble aircraft could contour the terrain closer to the fire edge with a series of smaller drops. I am not being critical of the DC 10 as it is the machine to use on a long fire flank in flat terrain. I guess the bottom line is the more tools in the toolbox, the better the results you get and so I would suggest that this airplane was not the best tool for this job. On the other hand you got to dance with what gets put on your card.

    • Maybe the drop was placed at the mouth of the terrain where the crews could corral it. The coverage level and corresponding drop height may have been acceptable given the fuels. In the video it looks like the retardant has a pretty good vertical descent.

      • That’s exactly what that is. A long flank in easy terrain.

        • Negative.

    • I live in Lompoc and hike those hills, this is rolling terrain and the 10 tanker came over a ridge on the left then descended during the drop, height varied from 200 to 400 feet because of the rolling terrain.

  4. I have to agree with David on this one. That drop was at least 400′ AGL. I do not know what coverage level was requested, but the bottom of that canyon got at least a few coverage levels less than what was needed. I DO agree that the DC-10 is a valuable tool in the toolbox, but unfortunately it’s gotten way to much media attention and people think that it is “The Savior”. If my tax dollars are going toward a public relations campaign, I’m cool with that as long as it’s effective.

    • This is not a canyon, it’s the side of a ridge.

  5. David is correct. Was on the fire and watched the drop. Looks impressive but you cannot argue the fact that it is impossible to drop that high and have the coverage level on the ground that the aerial supervision requested. Would have been interesting to see the comparison of lower altitude lower quantity drops compared to the 10 drop should the fire have actually reached the retardant line. Thankfully it did not but have seen the comparisons many times in many places. Lots of critic and criticism on this page. Interesting to see what is ok and what is not. Tools in the tool box is fine, a time and place for everything. But if we are gonna call a spade as spade ???

  6. And to follow up on my previous “public relations” statement, I just watched a live briefing on the fires around SD County. There were at least 3 questions by reporters as to why the DC-10 wasn’t available today. If I’m correct, the DC-10 made one drop yesterday which made every newscast for miles yet was only 11,400 gals. What about the 8 S-2s, 1 C-130, 1 BAe, 1 P2V and numerous helicopters that were involved in the fight? Without knowing exactly how many trips were made between each tanker, I can bet at least 100,000 gals were dropped yesterday and in a more effective way. Just saying…….The DC-10 is a needed asset that we have, but it’s not the be all, end all!

  7. Boing Boing just posted a different video of a Tanker 10 dropping on top of a TV reporter. If you are near a fire and the lead plane flies directly overhead …

    • Bill, thanks for linking my video of the Dc-10 on the Goff Fire! In all fairness, that is defenitely not a flat flank, but the overall effectiveness of the 2 drops the DC-10 did that day are still debated by the guys on the district. Quite a few think it was pretty much a waste, and at the time, I thought it probably was too. Then our crew worked with 5 other 20 man crews to tie in line through the retardant in that saddle and well, the fire absolutely slowded down in the retardant line. Was it because it was burning downhill in a damp draw? Was is becasue we went direct with 5 hotshot crews and one type 2IA crew? Was it because of the all the type 1 helicopter support we had? I doubt there is any way tyo prove which part was the most critical or if they were all equally important. At the end of the day it was part of an impressive air show that day and the fire was held along the line of drops made that day by the Dc-10 and a MAFS C-130.

    • No it was not a long flat flank, you are correct. And the drop was completely ineffective. When the retardant hangs in the air for that long, it atomizes and breaks apart effectively reducing the coverage level. In that fuel model (10) retardant needs to be highly concentrated. I.E. High coverage level, at the appropriate altitude (150 ft) and at a manageable airspeed, so the forward momentum stops at the moment the retardant impacts the top of the vegetation to insure that there is retardant penetration through the canopy to the understory. If you do not have the concentration and the resultant penetration you have nothing. At best it reduces isolated torching and crown runs. The fire will burn underneath and be off to the races. All the neat Youtube footage of the big airplane will not change that. The 10 has its place for sure. However, to be truly effective and efficient as aerial firefighters we must be realistic about the capabilities of all resources available and make sure we are using them to their strengths. I truly believe that if we had 30-35 2-3000 gallon aircraft available, the cost and effectiveness of the DC-10 would be called into question and be highly debilitating. The beauty of having the appropriate numbers of aircraft allows fire managers more flexibility in the IA role. Preposition of aircraft that do not need a leadplane to areas with predicted fire weather, or fuel conditions for rapid response to keep said fires from attaining long flanks necessitating an aircraft like the DC-10. Just my .2 cents.

  9. Looks like pretty good coverage level to this old hotshot….

    • Don’t know what coverage level was set in the
      AC. but looking at the reporters car, it was about a 2 on the ground. Fire would go through that like a hot knife thru butter.
      The fuel’s on the ground required at least a coverage level of 6 or more.

      • It appeared that the drop was just beginning at that point when it hit the car, which would explain a lower coverage level.

  10. Hopefully someone is doing some kind of analysis on the effectiveness of these drops. The drops DO appear to be released high and the retardant does appear to be turning into a mist far before it is reaching he ground, especially in the second video. During the certification, was the DC-10 drop test conducted at 400 feet to actually measure the coverage into the cups? Each drop is frightfully expensive and there must be some follow up to assure it is worthwhile.

    • Joseph … write your congressman and senators.

      Here’s the federal answer:

      GAO report to Congress on
      Wildfire Management, Aug 2013

      …”However, agency efforts to identify their firefighting aircraft needs have not included information on the performance and effectiveness of using aircraft to suppress wildfires primarily because neither the Forest Service nor Interior has collected data on these aspects of firefighting aircraft. Specifically, the agencies have not established data collection mechanisms to track the specific tactical uses of firefighting aircraft—for example, where retardant or water is dropped in relation to a fire as well as the objective of a drop, such as protecting a structure or preventing a fire from moving in a specific direction—or measure their performance and effectiveness in those uses.”

      As far as the individual states go, I haven’t seen anything published that indicates they are “keeping score” either.

      • I’d guess some of that data exists in the form of GIS data generated by incident management teams.

  11. People really need to get over the notion that the DC10 flights are exceptionally expensive. When compared to the other next gen contract aircraft they are right in line, and with the retardant load and speed, when used properly sometimes are a bargain in this expensive firefighting era . If you want to debate effectiveness in some fuel types and topography, fair enough. Retardant is designed to be dropped high enough to “rain down” on the fuels and give coverage on both sides. Yes the DC10 has to be higher that most other airtankers witch could compromise some of it’s effectiveness in some circumstances. On some fires it will be obvious the the terrain is not the best for the larger airtankers, other times (most times I’ll bet) it will be a difficult call for the IC/ATGS to make and take the responsibility of turning down the availability of one of these aircraft when valuable resources, property and peoples safety are at stake.
    Retardant lines are meant to slow fire spread, and give crews time to get there. Some times I think people think the fire should stop and go out when it hits a retardant line, I have seen some fire fought that way when the terrain is to difficult or there are not enough resources to get enough forces to a section of line. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. In Socal with it’s volatile brush types and Santa Ana winds, all bets are off, even when ground resources are available
    Anyway, this is a healthy debate, as we get in the world of larger, faster airtankers.
    I personally love the idea of more C-130s coming on line. That is an aircraft that will be able to haul 3000 gallons all day long and get into places safely that will prove more challenging to the Jets.
    S-2’s and SEAT’s are great too, but not enough of them around to make up for the lack of gallons carried.

    • I have come to respect what the DC 10 is capable of. Two points. If smaller droplet actually arrive where intended they cover more surface area geometrically, as they shrink the surface area covered is the square of the difference. Crop dusting 101. Less penetration and more drift is the issue. 2. It is my understanding that the fuel costs do no show up in the cost reported because the Forest Service pays for the fuel directly. I would like to know if that is true. It would paint a different picture.

  12. Easier to keep score when the IATB is conducting coverage levels on nearly flat desert terrain and getting the theoretical and hypothetical data in that environment.

    Now try setting all those cups up in the real fire environment and see what you get…..

    Bet the arguments will go on forever about ” perfect drops and coverage levels.”

    Maybe everyone needs to settle down or become a DC10 pilot and see how easy this all is….

    Then the stories may have a different tune about “perfection!”

  14. Let’s just all agree, if we can, that the DC-10 is a very valuable tool in our toolbox. I’m just questioning the proverbial hype around the thing. It does some things well and others not so well. Use it where it would be most effective. Don’t waste my tax dollars on a media event please. People are in awe of the thing because of its size, kind of like when the 747 was first introduced in the 60s. People forgot all about the other workhorses out there like the 727 and 737 because the 747 was a engineering wonder and people fell in love with its size and beauty. BUT, you weren’t going to fly on one from Orange County to San Jose, because of runway size and items that relegated the smaller forgotten 727s and 737s to do the unglamorous work. Hmmm, reminds me of the other guys in our business (SEATS, Scoopers, LATS, Helos) that get completely overlooked because a big tanker makes for a good shot!

    • There is no hype about the DC-10 in the fire community…

  16. At this point, a DC-10 in the air is worth how many tankers on the runway?

    Or to quote McManus, “Never kiss a gift fish”.

  17. It must be something to drive those big suckers the way those pilots do. Pretty impressive. I am just barely in control of the old tail dragger I fly! Good vids.

  18. You are right ff zero

    After flying a few Cessna tri gear …I moved to Cubs and CubCrafters….taildraggers are different kind of flying

    So when one is swinging a DC10 with 300K to under 500K in weight (depending) and running it in flight profiles…..it is a little different than maneuvering a 3.5 to 5 pound Pulaski Axe and feeling comfortable about the terrain one is delivering the mud to…….

  19. As explained by the above authors and even I addressed these very issues months ago………

    The USFS and other LMA’s did not think this one out when they were touting “Next Gen.”

    Whether they like it or not, the USFS needs to adopt Part 121 styles of thinking when it comes to contracting, maintenance, training costs, etc

    They days or daze of 1950 thru 1970’s contracting are nearly over and with the gentlemen above educating whatever fire world folks that want to pay attention……

    “Next Gen ” will demand a new way of thinking as well as their new prized “Dream Ships” the C130’s that the USCG donated.

Comments are closed for this article!

More in Fire Aviation News

North Australia and Rangelands Fire Information - NAFI, current fires at 10 November 2026.
November 10, 2026 / 1 minute

New federal support for Australian bushfire preparation

Drone Hovering Over a Burning Forest
September 20, 2026 / 4 minutes

How drones can better integrate with total incident response

September 10, 2026 / 2 minutes

Avincis boosts its European fleet with five 214ST helicopters