One of the recommendations from the first report on the Yarnell Hill Fire that killed 19 members of the Granite Mountain Hotshots on June 30, 2013, was:
The Team recommends that the State of Arizona request the WFLC/NWCG to develop a brief technical tip for fire supervisors/agency administrators on the effective use of
[Very Large Air Tankers] VLATs. These are new, emerging fire suppression tools that the ground-based fire supervisors may be utilizing regularly in the future.
Before that report was made public, the state of Arizona released information on July 16, 2013 about the resources deployed on the Yarnell Hill Fire, saying in part, that a DC-10 Very Large Air Tanker (VLAT) was in Albuquerque and available on June 29 (the day before the fatalities), but was not ordered then due to Air Attack’s concern about its effectiveness in steep terrain and inability to deliver retardant before cut-off time. Dispatch offered the VLAT, a DC-10, to air attack at 5:43 p.m. Few people with knowledge of the terrain on the fire and the capabilities of the DC-10 VLAT would conclude that the terrain was too steep for the DC-10. In fact the next day both DC-10s were used on the fire, making 8 sorties and dropping over 88,000 gallons.
Albuquerque is 308 nautical miles away from the fire, and sunset that day was at 7:47 p.m. The DC-10 cruises at around 370 knots (TAS), so it seems likely that the VLAT could have easily made one drop, 11,600 gallons, before cutoff time of 8:17 p.m., 30 minutes after sunset. The Yarnell fire was not doing too much that day, so a VLAT load of retardant might have made a difference. At 5:30 p.m., before a slopover occurred, there were 13 firefighters working on the fire and only six acres had burned. The fire was not staffed that night, so taking advantage of the drop by ground personnel may have been problematic.
In response to the suggestion in the report about “a brief technical tip” for the use of VLATs, the U.S. Forest Service and the National Wildfire Coordinating Group distributed the below information to the Geographic Area Coordinating Groups on March 27, 2014. One interesting fact that the USFS developed — for a 100 nm dispatch it costs more than twice as much per gallon (the “user cost”) for four P2V air tankers to deliver 8,320 gallons of retardant than it does for a DC-10 to deliver 11,600 gallons.
****
“US Forest Service
Fire & Aviation Management
DC-10 Briefing Paper
Updated May 1, 2014
Topic: Follow up – DC-10 Very Large Airtanker (VLAT) Operational Considerations
Issue: The DC-10 has unique operational considerations including low level supervision, terrain, facilities, and cost.
Background: 10 Tanker Air Carrier was awarded a line item for a DC-10 on the Next Generation Large Airtanker Exclusive Use contract and a line item on the Very Large Airtanker (VLAT) Call When Needed contract. These aircraft remain a VLAT in category and require special considerations for use.
Key Points:
Low Level Supervision: Aerial supervision is required for this aircraft while dispensing.
- The 10 Tanker flight crews will not be issued an initial attack (IA) approval card, so a Leadplane or Aerial Supervision Module must be on scene to direct the resource to the intended dispensing locations.
- The cruising speed of the DC-10 is around 370 knots (TAS) which is greater than Large Airtankers (LATs) and leadplanes. Users/ dispatchers need to insure that a LP/ASM will arrive in time to provide aerial supervision.
- Trainee Leadplane Pilots (LP) under the supervision of an onboard Leadplane Pilot Instructors (LPI) may conduct VLAT operations. All LPIs are now qualified for VLAT operations and will supervise the trainee during these missions.
Terrain: VLATs are less maneuverable than LATs and should be used in less challenging terrain that affords better maneuverability for dispensing.
- The DC-10 is relatively agile for its size; however the momentum is greater and requires planning by the supervising aircraft to provide a stabilized path for delivery.
- The VLATs minimum drop height is 200 feet above the top of the vegetation with a target height of 250 feet.
Facilities: The DC-10 weighs between 340,000 and 400,000 lbs. in contract configuration. It has a Dual Tandem wheel configuration.
- Tanker Base and parking ramps must have a weight bearing capacity sufficient to support the DC-10. Local bases need to insure both the airport and agency engineering have information indicating ramp capacity. Letters documentation and drawings of the ramp structure must be on file at the airtanker base.
- Congestion at a base may preclude operations due to conflicts with other aircraft types.
- Air stairs are needed for the crew to enter/exit the aircraft. 10 Tanker is responsible for the payment of the stairs and airtanker personnel are not to operate the equipment.
- Loading the aircraft will take anywhere from 12-15 minutes with a three pump/hose configuration or 25 minutes with a one pump/hose setup.
- Simultaneous Loading and Fueling and/or Hot Retardant Loading (HRL) is acceptable only after approval of the corresponding Regional Aviation Officer and the local line officer and being added to the base operations plan. The local airtanker base manager (ATBM) is delegated the decision authority once this is in the base plan.
- Facilities that accept the DC-10 will need to provide offload capacity of at least 10,000 gallons.
Cost: The FS funds the availability of $27,285 per day. The rate is on par with Next Gen LATs awarded under this contract.
- The dry flight rate is $12,750/hour when the aircraft is fully loaded with retardant to 11,600 gallons. When the aircraft is carrying 5500 gallons or less the rate drops to $4598/hour. After 150 hours of use, a further price adjustment occurs.
- The DC-10 has an hourly fuel consumption of 2275 gallons when carrying 5500 gallons or less and 2550 gallons per hour when fully loaded. The Forest Service utilizes the Aviation Into-plane Reimbursement (AIR) cards sponsored by the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) for purchasing fuel. This provides the government a cost savings of about $1.50 per gallon from the retail rate.
Contact: Scott Fisher, WO-FAM National Airtanker Program Manager (208) 387-5968.”
19 Comments
I find it interesting that DC-7 are used as a comparison.Its been about a decade since The USFS has had DC-7s on contract.Why not use the 146 or the c-130 or convairs.Where is the cost breakdown on the MAFFS? Those folks bring a LOT of support crew.what about an accurate fuel burn comparison,jet vs turboprop vs recip.Like most any statistics,the answers one arrives at are determined by the questions ask.
I agree, it makes no sense comparing old with new tankers, and the DC7 is basically out of service. Use the newer 146 or C130 data which they have current information. These are the tankers of the future. The government doesn’t deal in reality, only information that’s gives them the answer it wants, not realistic at all!
The report says 4 P2V drops yet in the little pic it shows 5 and they don’t even equal one drop from the DC10, nor does the $$$. Does it really matter, considering these are the only tankers around. The DC10 has proven itself a productive weapon, so use it. It comes down to, you either user the tankers available, or you have a burned out country.
Bottom line, the country is more in debt then it was yesterday, which seems to be normal operations now days! I think if they would quit all the reports – fire half the upper management that really don’t show or do anything and let the people that are productive do their job! You’d save more then what any tanker operation costs.
For being out of service, they sure have seem to have flown quite a bit this year.
Curious that the daily availability of the Dc-10 is shown ($27,285) but the rate for the P2V is not, and neither is included in the user cost. The numbers might look closer if is was.
Folks forget that the DC 10 has been operating since 2008 with Cal Fire. There appeared that too many Fed. studies, personal prejudges and ego’s got in the way of the real operational capability of the DC 10. The Federal air program appears to have adopt the findings of Cal Fire. Interesting point, if you reduce the DC 10 retardant load to half (5500 gallons) WHY, you save 275 gallons/ hr in fuel, brilliant thinking. Does the DC 10 have to drop its entire load or can it bring back and land with what wasn’t needed on the incident.? Or after dropping its 5500 gallons a new incident in the area occurs, now you have an airborne available tanker with 0 retardant.
Good point, Johnny
The ’10 has been around awhile even after its first attempt at making toothpicks with its leading edge in 2007
Comparing a DC7 with a ’10? Especially when the USFS found it so handy to knock of contract 10+ years ago is pretty lame considering these venerable older aircraft were doing the lions share of suppression work BITD.
Pretty soon the USFS is going to resurrect the Concorde and the Boeing SST project, strap on some gravity fed tanking and then start comparing those ships to.the DC10
Aviation studies and analysis in the USFS is quite an interesting “science.”
It will be interesting to see if they got a study to make the ’10 even cheaper in rateswhich I am sure is on many minds……..how to make this aerial program…..cheeeeeeeeeper!!!!
Whew! Such criticism! Keep in mind, the objective of this little report was not to be a comprehensive evaluation and comparison of all air tankers. The U.S. Forest Service was asked in the Yarnell Hill Fire report to provide some information about the DC-10 so that, in my opinion, fewer mistakes will be made in the future about how or when to use it. If you are asking for a comprehensive comparison of all air tankers, you will have to wait for the next USFS-funded study.
Bill, what I think I am seeing is acceptance of the DC-10 among your readers, and an effort to defend what people interpret as an unfair comparison.
I would make a couple of points, but they are criticisms of their graphic. I am not in a position to be ordering an aircraft, but in my interpretation, it still says the DC-10 is a comparably efficient way to put mud on the ground.
I see your point, Gordie.
I don’t know about “an effort to defend”, but recently we have become disappointed with some of the frequent hyper-critical comments on a variety of issues here, often from the same cast of characters. It is extremely easy to throw stones at the efforts of others, while sitting comfortably in a glass house, maybe a thousand miles away, hiding behind a fake name.
I am not saying no one should ever criticize (I certainly do my share when it is deserved), but some people LIVE to disparage the efforts of others. We need to keep the powers that be honest, while still being open minded and offering constructive criticism.
“To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.”
― Aristotle
“It’s easy to attack and destroy an act of creation. It’s a lot more difficult to perform one.”
― Chuck Palahniuk
“How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.”
― Benjamin Disraeli
Yep Bill
Aviation folks are an equally tough group of people as firefighters…..
Only with more riding on each and every flight to include the maintenance folks
I would imagine we will get a comprehensive study on this in the future whether we like it or not and surely as interesting as the OTHER studies that have SoOooo critically have contributed to the mess the LAT industry is in
The ’10 is an expensive ship….just ask Mr Hatton and myself, with only one year on the ship…..before going back to helos….
Like everyone over analyzing costs…….I will have to re introduce a quote told to me by a pilot BITD….
Don’t let the high costs of aviation overshadow years of equally high costs of postponing proper forest management to today’s degree
Lots going on here! Factor in fuel, flight time, and retardant and you are looking at $50k for a load. Ya its 11,600 gal but that is a pretty steep bill especially for a state organization. Not hard to see why they hesitate on small fires.
Air speed at 370kts but still limited to 250kts below 10,000 ft like everyone else.
Not many bases have three pumps to load one A/C; its going to take 30 min to load and another 20 to start up, taxi and takeoff.
The state of OR still contracts for a couple DC-7’s.
No exactly accurate. 250+ kts above10K. Loading retardant and fueling times recently at Mesa were consistently 25-26 mins.from block in to block out. Everyone has to taxi. That was utilizing two hoses for loading. Just posting to keep it in prospective.
I am concerned at the suggestion that any air resources, especially VLATs be relied upon for any component of a ground crews LCES. Aerial supervision and air support in it’s many forms can be great tools, but should never dictate the actions of firefighters. Even with the best aircrews and aircraft, when they are needed the most, they will fail you for a variety of reasons.
The British Columbia forest service should read this before they get rid off everything that is capable off even putting out a fire.
Of course, since planes don’t really put out fires…
Eh, nevermind.
Since the Mars is ancient, I suspect the safety of the crews may be an issue?
Agree the comparisons are probably a bit out there but still somewhat relevant. It would be very interesting to see the numbers calculated all the way from an 802 to the 10. And, what are “the numbers”? Cost per gallon is always thrown out there, but it there another metric that quantifies effectiveness? When the bill is $50,000+ per load is it a deterent for certain entities? Would an 802 on IA take care of the problem much quicker and prevent further costs? It is nearly impossible to measure I know. And, as others stated, statistics are a product of the questions asked.
Not knocking the 10 at all, I think they are shortchanged a bit in this little recommendation if anything. They are a phenominal, PROVEN tool that is available NOW. They do a great job. It’s nice to have a good supply and different types of tools available.
Eric, those are the very questions that the GAO raised about the USFS LAT program. I would guess that there will be an effort to answer those questions.
I agree that the DC-10 is undervalued in the graphic. I know I have seen it stated that it can drop on multiple fires. It has a fantastic loiter time, if it is planned and density altitude at the base allows. In truth, the only real issue we should have with the -10s is capability. In My personal Opinion, the manuverability vs terrain issue means it can’t do EVERY job well, but right now, sometimes you have to accept a less than perfect tool. Of course, I am not an aviation professional, so my opinion could easily be flawed.
Gordie, I think your opinion is correct.
I’ve interacted with fire staff who were initially against use of the DC-10 until they saw data which contradicted perceptions of it’s operational costs. For those caught up in the cost debate of the DC-10 here’s some info from the 10 Tanker website that I haven’t seen mentioned:
http://www.10tanker.com/comparative-costs.html
Simply put, if I request retardant, I hope I get the closest, quickest available. If I get a SEAT and I need a lot more, I’ll request more, I can start an anchor point. If I get the VLAT and I need it in a canyon, I’ll figure it out. Right now, it sounds like I may be asked if I want the VLAT, and I can make that decision based on tactics and if anything else is close and available. In the meantime, send me more helicopters!
Comments are closed for this article!