Air Tanker 137, a Boeing 737-300 at the Ramona, CA airport, June 19, 2021. Photo by Ryan Grothe.Somehow we missed it last year, but for at least a day or two a 737 air tanker worked out of the Ramona airport in San Diego County. It was Tanker 137, a 737-300 operated by Coulson.
Ryan Grothe shot these photos June 19, 2021. He told Fire Aviation, “I Never thought I’d see a 737 landing and tanking off out of Ramona.”
Air Tanker 137, a Boeing 737-300 at the Ramona, CA airport, June 19, 2021. Photo by Ryan Grothe.It can get hot at Ramona, presenting a density altitude challenge, but it is not very high at 1,400 feet above sea level. The relatively short length of the 5,000-foot runway is a limiting factor that makes it impossible for most large air tankers to work out of the tanker base. The C-130 is one of the few. In August of 2019 one of Coulson’s C-130s under contract to CAL FIRE was spotted at Ramona. And when the Coast Guard C-130s are finally transferred to CAL FIRE, one of them is expected to be based there. Last week CAL FIRE brought one of the C-130s that does not have a retardant tank installed, Tanker 118, to the airport for crew training.
When these photos were shot a number of fires were burning in the western United States — Roberson Draw and Deep Creek in Montana, Telegraph in Arizona, and the Willow in California.
Air Tanker 137, a Boeing 737-300 at the Ramona, CA airport, June 19, 2021. Photo by Ryan Grothe.The Ramona Flight Training Center shot a video of the 737 taking off that weekend.
15 Comments
???? Did it do a barrel roll or something while it was there? An inverted 4g negative dive?
Ramona Great apple pie!
It’s not, “impossible for large airtankers to work out of”, Bill.
The USFS, in their infinite wisdom, doesn’t allow the planes to work out of Ramona because the runway is short.
If the performance calculation says the plane will work there, then it can. End of story.
So, a B737, C130, P3, and a Bae 146 have all worked out of Ramona, just fine.
Give us a break, w arm chair QBacking. The FS does enough of that, with folks that don’t know squat.
I mean, an airtanker program manger that ran a tanker base? Great! The person can read and execute a contract! Wow!!
You misquoted what I wrote.
You’re right.
Bit you’re still wrong
“It is essential to every pilot to understand that there is a hypothetical chance that the calculated performance will not be achieved. With regard to this, aviation authorities always use a set of special regulations and requirements to provide additional safety margins to all performance data.”….IVAO
Safety margins are the key words here. The question then follows. Is 5000 feet enough runway length for 737, or other LAT at Ramona?
Where I reside and in regard to disaster planning, we were considering outside help coming in via C-130 at the local municipal airport with a 5000 foot runway. IF necessary, a C-130 could take off in 3000 feet if all four powerplants were maxed out before the brakes were released. But that did not allow too much of a safety margin if something went wrong and the take off was refused/aborted.
While the start and stop capabilities of a C 130 are very impressive as a tactical airlifter, I am not so sure a 737 would do so well on a 5000 runway if something goes south on take off roll.
I am with Bill here. A 5000 foot runway is a limiting factor for LAT ops.
What’s not made clear is the departure weight. Much like the recurring helicopter bucket capacity vs what it can actually carry at a given fuel load, almost any large airplane can get out of 5000ft if light enough just like some would never(from a certified performance perspective) get of the ground with 10,000 ft at certain WAT conditions. But nobody ever wants to talk about actual loads in this business where don’t ask don’t tell rules the day.
Good thought, Andy
Like Forestry….Aviation is a SCIENCE
But what TD brings up, is also very true
We need some Coulson 737 driver(s) on this thread to describe 1400 ‘ elevation and DA and temps going to 90-105 and what loads they would expect at around 9.5 lbs of retardant mix for departure in and under 5000 feet
Let THEM tell the tanker base what the load will be and if it isn’t good enough…..off to another tanker base
I am sure these driver have this in mind already…………..
Aren’t their contract requirements for how much retardant has to be carried? So they can’t necessarily tell a base manager how much less retardant they want to fly with…the question is could the 737 continue a takeoff in the worst case scenario (engine failure) past the V1 decision speed, climb out and return to the airport or divert to another one.
Maybe its in a series of flights they ll be able to tell us if Ramona is a viable ATB..wonder if they are flyin it empty first to assess ….could that even be…we pilots, even us low time ilk, can read the POH/AFM for our aircraft and read a contract at the same time. But I do know one thing….pilots aren’t (that I know of ) aren’t Mon AM Quarterbackin the ground firefighter and how many licks and chains a twenty person handcrew can accomplish
The pilot in command ALWAYS retains the right (and responsibility) to determine how much retardant is carried. There is no exception, and there is no authority that exceeds that of the pilot in command in making this determination.
I once called for retardant to be shut off at Missoula, and it was, but the moment I turned my back, it began flowing again. That happened three times, until I slammed the valve, and blew the seals out of the retardant pump. As I prepared to crank the number 3 engine, the loader approached on that side, through the prop arc, from under the wing, and shouted that I hadn’t taken my contract load. I had. 1,800 gallons.
A P-2V takes 2,400 gallons, he demanded.
This is a PB4Y, I responded. Count the damn engines. He stormed off to file a complaint.
I returned from the Sly Fox cafe at Lancaster, from lunch, for a fire cal, to find the C-130 nearly on its tail. The loader decided he’d fill the airplane in absence of the crew, flooded the rear tanks, and nearly sat the airplane on its tail.
Point is, those who feel they know better, don’t. I had a load crew at Reno-Stead want to determine how much retardant to put in the airplane. I was in a SEAT. Standard signal for the retardant load is an arm drop. I told the loader I’d signal when I wanted it cut off. He wanted to put “the contract load” aboard. The load varies with density altitude, runway length, and even surrounding terrain.
As for 5000′ in a 737, it’s short. Tankers have the unique advantage of a disposable load, but one does not plan to take on retardant and simply jettison it from a perfectly functioning tanker, if it doesn’t look good. That’s irresponsible. It’s part of the reason that the PHX tanker base relocated to IWA; loads dropped on homes, businesses, and. cars. Far better to plan the retardant load, instead of fill it up and see what happens. The 737 is a transport category airplane with performance charts to determine exactly what runway is needed for takeoff, for a rejected takeoff, and for climb after an engine failure. In that event, what lies beyond the runway becomes a factor in a tanker; where is that dropped load going to go? Can the load be jettisoned?
In the 737, a reject using RTO brakes (rejected takeoff, autobrakes) initiates brake application as the thrust levers are brought to idle above 80 knots, with max autobraking. For rejected takeoff (RTO) performance, reverse thrust can’t be considered. During a rejected takeoff, particularly with an engine failure, only asymmetric reverse is available, and performance calculations under Part 25 are performed on brakes only. In normal autobrake operations with active antiskid, reverse thrust reduces brake temperature, but doesn’t decrease stopping distance, and with RTO maximum braking, reverse thrust is uncalculated, but additive to stopping distance (decreases distance).
Even light winds make a significant difference in distance. When a runway is limited in takeoff direction due to surrounding terrain or climb requirements after takeoff, it also means that the aircraft must accept the prevailing wind, even if a tailwind component exists, up to a given value (10 knots). That will impact takeoff, rejected takeoff, and balanced field length, all of which also affect what payload can be carried. It is neither correct, nor responsible to ask whether the airplane can fly from a 5000′ airfield (obviously it can); because one is asking the wrong question. It’s not specific enough. That 5,000′ field is different on a 100 degree day. It’s different with a 10 knot tailwind. It’s different when wet.
So far as comparisons with a C-130, P-3, or other aircraft, the 737 isn’t one. Making a comparison with a dissimilar aircraft is ridiculous.
The 737 is not a STOL (short takeoff and landing) aircraft. It is swept wing. It has different aerodynamic properties. It also doesn’t have airflow over the wing as a function of prop wash.
Yes, the USFS moved operations to San Bernardino, rather than Hemet and Ramona. SBD has much longer runways, instrument approaches, and is literally a few minutes flight time by tanker further than Hemet or Ramona. Parking is available. By jet, Lancaster isn’t that much further; only a few more minutes
An operator contracts with the government for services, and while the contract load is specified, it is subject to field conditions. The final decision on a load, airfield, runway conditions, etc, rests with the pilot(s), not with the operator, and not with the government.
Riddle me this Batmen?
With a full retardant load and 4.5 hours of fuel we are so far under max gross weight. The statement is closely based on a quote from Britt Coulson.
Give me ambiguity or give me something else.
How much does 4000 gallons of retardant weight?
How much does 4.5 hours of fuel weight?
How far is the max take off roll at MTOW for the 737-300? (2637 meters perchance?) Landing? (1396?)
How far under max gross weight does the max gross weight change to from manufacturer’s specs?
Once we have all those numbers, our riddle will be solved. (G)
What is the “maximum takeoff roll” at MTOW for what elevation? For what temperature? For what wind condition?
What exactly is a “maximum takeoff roll?”
Do you mean accelerate-stop? Accelerate-go? Balanced field?
The weight of retardant depends on retardant type and specific gravity, but generally 8.9 to 9.5 lbs/gallon is a good number for mixed retardant. I have had retardant delivered at too high a specific gravity, much heavier; the weight of liquid concentrate is about 12.3 lbs/gallon.
Because retardant is mixed, specific gravity is measured with each load, by refractometer; using that, the density and therefore weight of the retardant can be determined on that day, at that base, for that load.
Comments are closed for this article!