Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Editorial:(CA) Firefighting Opportunities Lost(Thanks to government bureaucrats)
orange county register ^ | October 23, 2007 | staff

Posted on 10/24/2007 7:58:35 AM PDT by kellynla

The television reporters covering the fires have been effusive about the capacities of the converted DC-10 airliner that has been dropping fire retardant on the fires in the vicinity of Lake Arrowhead, and the enthusiasm is warranted. Sometimes called the Tanker 910, and sometimes the 10 Tanker Air Carrier, the plane can carry 12,000 gallons of fire retardant or water in tanks attached under its belly. That's 10 times as much liquid as the other available California air tankers, and four times the capacity of the largest-available tankers operated by the federal government. It can create a fire line three-quarters of a mile long – or drop water over a mile-long 300-feet wide swath – in eight seconds. It can be refilled in eight minutes.

As Rick Hatton, managing partner for 10 Tanker Air Carrier, the jet's owner, which operates out of the Southern California Logistics Airport (formerly George AFB) in Victorville, has put it, such a firefighting weapon "can be a game-changer."

It would be nice to have more such planes available, don't you think? If the federal government had had its way, even this one almost certainly wouldn't be flying this week . Gov. Schwarzenegger cut through some red tape a few months ago to get this one lined up.

And, as useful as the Tanker 910 has shown itself to be, the U.S. Forest Service still hasn't certified this plane for use on federal lands. That's because back in 2002 there were two accidents involving planes, contracted by the Forest Service, in which the wings literally fell off. That prompted stricter certification requirements for older planes converted from civilian use (this DC-10 was built in 1974) to firefighting use. The bureaucrats are still reviewing the paperwork.

(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; US: California
KEYWORDS: bureaucrats; california; enviromentalism; fires; gramsci; negligence; subterfuge; wildfire; wildfires
Well I'm off again today to volunteer in the firefighting.
1 posted on 10/24/2007 7:58:36 AM PDT by kellynla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; Ernest_at_the_Beach

ping


2 posted on 10/24/2007 7:58:57 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Good luck to ya kelly....godspeed


3 posted on 10/24/2007 8:00:56 AM PDT by joe fonebone (When in danger, when in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

good luck on the fight

I seem to remember Shep Smith on FNC lastyear going off about junker planes, he was cussing them all


4 posted on 10/24/2007 8:04:01 AM PDT by sure_fine ( " not one to over kill the thought process " )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Well, if we weren’t in Iraq, we could have enough of these planes to kill any fire. Oh, and have health care for the children too.


5 posted on 10/24/2007 8:05:02 AM PDT by umgud (Axis of Propaganda; lib academia, lib media, lib entertainment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
Why don't they have a fleet of these?????


6 posted on 10/24/2007 8:32:46 AM PDT by rednesss (Fred Thompson - 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rednesss
The point of the article is that the DC-10 would have much higher capacity than that plane (I'm guessing between 4 and 10 times). The downside is that it would need to land at an airport rather than a nearby lake

The DC-10 would likely have higher maintenance costs per flight hour, and higher fuel costs, but if they don't use them every day, then that cost would not be as significant as the savings from being able to kill a fire while the fire is still small

7 posted on 10/24/2007 8:39:58 AM PDT by PapaBear3625
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rednesss

Well, first off it’s made in Canada. Actually, that’s the only reason. It’s proven, reliable and relatively cheap, but...


8 posted on 10/24/2007 8:40:32 AM PDT by Don W (I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: rednesss
1,621 gallons versus 12,000 gallons.
Retardant (or water) instead of water alone: there aren't many Foscheck (sp?) ponds anywhere.

(see at http://www.bombardier.com/index.jsp?id=3_0&lang=en&file=/en/3_0/3_3/3_3_0.html)

Also, the -10 appears much more stable,, I don't know the altitude they let it operate at but with 12000 gallons accuracy might not be utterly necessary.

IIRC, those fire bombers that fell apart a few years ago were, I believe, C130's and likely much older than the DC10 in use today only on waivers. USAF has been flying the KC-10 hot and heavy for decades - that's also a modified ex-commercial aircraft and I'm not aware of any serious structural issues.

9 posted on 10/24/2007 8:46:31 AM PDT by norton (Go ahead, vote for Hunter, you know you want to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

True, that little plane carries a smaller load, but it refills itself in 40 seconds while skimming the surface of any body of water long (a couple of miles) and wide(100feet) enough, and it only needs to land for fuel and crew changes.

That means FAR less time flying to and from the fire, landing, loading, flying back etc. I’d lay odds that given there’s a rather large body of water close by, one of those little planes could put more water on the fire in 4 hours than that great bloody DC-10 could dream of.


10 posted on 10/24/2007 8:47:33 AM PDT by Don W (I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Another BIG one...

Russian Ilyushin IL-TD

The world's largest and fastest waterbomber can reach a fire anywhere in the world within 12 hours. Carrying 42,000 litres (11,000 gal. US) of water and fire retardants, it can, in one run, dump enough water to cover 6 double-wide football fields, or an area 1.1km (0.7 miles) in length.

11 posted on 10/24/2007 9:02:12 AM PDT by Rio (Don't make me come over there....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kellynla; A CA Guy; Brad's Gramma; bd476; lainie; BurbankKarl; pollywog; KylaStarr; ...

Thanks...pinging my little list.


12 posted on 10/24/2007 9:15:12 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rednesss

Not enough lakes....we got a desert out here.


13 posted on 10/24/2007 9:15:50 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (No Burkas for my Grandaughters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

Thank you for volunteering, kellynla.

Duncan Hunter has been behind the scenes working to correct this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1915663/posts?page=1


14 posted on 10/24/2007 9:15:59 AM PDT by AuntB (" It takes more than walking across the border to be an American." Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Plenty of water up near the LAKE Arrowhead fires....


15 posted on 10/24/2007 9:23:30 AM PDT by Osage Orange (MOLON LABE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Don W
"True, that little plane carries a smaller load, but it refills itself in 40 seconds while skimming the surface of any body of water long (a couple of miles) and wide(100feet) enough, and it only needs to land for fuel and crew changes.

That means FAR less time flying to and from the fire, landing, loading, flying back etc. I’d lay odds that given there’s a rather large body of water close by, one of those little planes could put more water on the fire in 4 hours than that great bloody DC-10 could dream of."

Yes, exactly my point. That DC10 has to take off, fly to the fire some miles away, drop it's 12,000 gallons of water/retardant, fly back to the airport some miles away, land, taxi, refill, taxi, wait for clearance, take off and repeat.

The Bombardier 415, or Superscooper, just needs a body of water long enough to allow it to swoop in, refill in like 40 seconds, and climb back to altitude, it's a total touch and go, they hardly slow down. That's also why I said "fleet", you get 10 of these things in a row and you could dump massive amounts of water on a fire.

They are also built like a tank and are specifically engineered for firefighting, unlike a retrofitted civilian airliner. Hence the turboprop design. You won't see the wings of these things twist off like that C-130.

16 posted on 10/24/2007 9:35:59 AM PDT by rednesss (Fred Thompson - 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: norton; rednesss

The Canadair product has the edge for fighting fires near large bodies of water, because they can get more water to the fire over a day than a land-based tanker. There is another plane on the scene that has the advantages of both- it’s a flying boat that carries foam concentrate and fills up by skimming.


17 posted on 10/24/2007 10:04:12 AM PDT by Squawk 8888 (Is human activity causing the warming trend on Mars?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: rednesss

The plane has quite a history- it’s essentially an updated version of the piston-engined Canadair CL-215. The 215 was developed using lessons learned from converting the navy’s WWII Canso bombers to firefighting aircraft, the first serious effort at using aircraft to fight fires. The 415 is pretty much the gold standard for forest firefighting wherever there is a large body of fresh water nearby (IIRC they’re not designed to carry seawater).


18 posted on 10/24/2007 10:11:08 AM PDT by Squawk 8888 (Is human activity causing the warming trend on Mars?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: norton
USAF has been flying the KC-10 hot and heavy for decades - that's also a modified ex-commercial aircraft and I'm not aware of any serious structural issues.

I'd call the KC-10 a derivative of the DC-10. None of the KC-10 airframes were previously airlines. They were built and sold directly to the USAF as airiel refulers. The article makes it sound like these fire tankers are old airliners.

19 posted on 10/24/2007 10:19:15 AM PDT by TankerKC (You don't have to believe everything you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
There are also 747 conversion tankers out there by Evergreen. The basic problem is that they are VERY wind / thermal sensitive.

They can’t get as close to a fire as the smaller craft due to the wind sear and thermals from the fire.

These can literally rip the wings off the larger craft which are not designed for the air loads seen.

That’s why a lot of fire fighting aircraft are old bombers, helicopters, or purpose built aircraft; they can take the stress.

It’s not as simple as it looks folks.

20 posted on 10/24/2007 11:04:26 AM PDT by Freeport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freeport; Ernest_at_the_Beach; calcowgirl

“After the 2003 fires ravaged Southern California the governor appointed a commission to find ways to address shortages that led to widespread devastation. The panel made 49 recommendations to correct the problems.

But four years later, those problems still exist”
http://www.ocregister.com/news/state-fire-firefighters-1902899-kehoe-california#

Bottom line, we have a muscle-headed incompetent Liberal governor and an incompetent Liberal legislature.

The incompetent bureaucrats & politicians are on FNC now patting each other on the back.


21 posted on 10/24/2007 11:26:12 AM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

The problems start far closer than Sacramento. Perhaps Orange County should actually take care of its own people for once. Laguna Hills all over again?

I’m sure San Diego, Malibu, and Arrowhead have a lot of pity right now.


22 posted on 10/24/2007 11:36:43 AM PDT by Azeem (Only thing worse than war is peace at all costs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: TankerKC
Both users and Boeing call it a modified DC10 freighter.

Modifications were done in production, apparently not to already completed aircraft, but it's still about 90% a DC10 freighter. (There have been suggestions about pulling some retired DC's out of mothballs and doing it over again)

"Derivitave" certainly but we're parsing.

23 posted on 10/24/2007 11:59:31 AM PDT by norton (Go ahead, vote for Hunter, you know you want to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: kellynla
"I don't know of any budget request that's come forward since that time that we haven't funded," said Sen. Denise Ducheny, D-San Diego, who leads the state Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Reviews.

Statewide firefighters union officials sounded the same note.

"The Schwarzenegger administration has been reasonably prudent when it comes to disaster response," said Terry McHale, a public policy director for the California State Firefighters Association.

Both state senators and firefighters union officials said the state's long-term drought, global warming and new housing developments closer to forests are the larger problems that need to be tackled.

Give me a break! If they would tackle REAL problems, we might have a chance.

Since they won't, here's a thought:

• Eliminate all federal lands
• Eliminate all state lands
• Put the land in the hands of private citizens, within designated cities/counties
• Cities and counties establish resources to defend themselves (and work with other areas for cross-city/cross-state surge capabilities in the event of catastrophic events)
In other words, eliminate tier-after-tier of bureaucrats and they could get it done.
24 posted on 10/24/2007 12:02:06 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Azeem

Another out-of-stater who doesn’t know what they’re talking about...
Hey, Indana, try MYOB!


25 posted on 10/24/2007 12:02:17 PM PDT by kellynla (Freedom of speech makes it easier to spot the idiots! Semper Fi!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

It’s about making you live in the big cities and ride mass transit. Hush up and get in line!


26 posted on 10/24/2007 12:10:03 PM PDT by SW6906 (6 things you can't have too much of: sex, money, firewood, horsepower, guns and ammunition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SW6906
It’s about making you live in the big cities and ride mass transit.

Exactly!

Hush up and get in line!

NEVER! :-)

27 posted on 10/24/2007 12:32:16 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SW6906; Czar; SierraWasp; Carry_Okie; Brad's Gramma; tubebender

But they will just keep creating “conservancies” because they are so “romantic.” GRRRRR!!!!!

http://www.irvineranchlandreserve.org/reserve/santiago.asp

Irvine Ranch Conservancy

Santiago Canyon

Santiago Canyon embodies the romance and lore of Orange County’s colorful history: The canyon’s past is punctuated by coal-mining operations, grizzly bear hunts, manhunts and homesteaders. The canyon was a major thoroughfare for early settlers who settled in its scenic side canyons-Baker, Black Star, Silverado and Modjeska.

Traces of Orange County’s earliest residents were discovered at nearby Black Star Canyon. Arrowheads and rocks pockmarked with grinder holes-signs that the Indians ground acorns to produce an edible gruel-have been found on the plateau high above the canyon, where a large Indian village once existed.

Black Star Canyon got its name in the 1870’s, when Black Star Mining Company began mining for coal that recently had been discovered there. The mining operation was short-lived, though, because the quality of the coal was so poor.
Santiago Creek flows into Irvine Lake, which was formed in 1931 when a dam was built across lower Santiago Canyon.

For programs in Black Star Canyon call the Irvine Ranch Conservancy at (714) 508-4757.


28 posted on 10/24/2007 12:41:40 PM PDT by calcowgirl ("Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink." P. J. O'Rourke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: norton
"Derivative" certainly but we're parsing.

I'm not trying to parse or be argumentative at all. Just making the point that the are tankers based on the DC-10 design, but were built for the USAF. They weren't old, used DC-10 that were converted to tankers. Call that a modified DC-10 if you like.

All info based a little personal experience....

29 posted on 10/24/2007 1:07:36 PM PDT by TankerKC (You don't have to believe everything you think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Arnold Schwartzenlandgrabber to CONservancy resenting calcowgirl:

"I beg yer pardon... I never promised yew a rosegarden! So sit down... shuddup and get collective minded behind the tyranny of the majority!!!

30 posted on 10/24/2007 1:36:27 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Stop the gutless forclosing on righteous Reaganesque conservatives in the GOP!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl

Oops! Left my quotation marks hangin wide open!!! (you weren’t lookin at ‘em, were ya?)(blush!)


31 posted on 10/24/2007 1:44:20 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Stop the gutless forclosing on righteous Reaganesque conservatives in the GOP!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: norton
The DC-10 had a structural issue in that it originally used a cheap metal for closing a rear cargo door. The metal would flex enough not to lock the door, but signal the cockpit that it was locked.

As a passenger jet, when the inadequately latched door blew open, the sudden loss of pressure in the cargo hold collapsed the passenger floor above.

Alas, the fixes to the cargo door, and the addition of large vents in the passenger deck to allow for non-catastrophic equalization (just in case), came too late to save the DC-10 from being relegated to hauling cargo.

32 posted on 10/24/2007 2:05:33 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Calvin Locke

was it a 10 that blew the door off lifting refugees or troops out of RVN way back then?


33 posted on 10/24/2007 2:19:04 PM PDT by norton (Go ahead, vote for Hunter, you know you want to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: norton
I do not know.

I did meet a guy that was an airman on a cargo plane in Vietnam that would move villages around.

The villagers would wrap their "droppings" in paper, and shove them out of the way among the hydraulic lines.

The guy said they always feared that one, one of the times, would not be doo-doo, and they'd be in deep doo-doo.

34 posted on 10/24/2007 2:27:45 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kellynla

bookmark


35 posted on 10/24/2007 3:11:27 PM PDT by traviskicks (http://www.neoperspectives.com/Ron_Paul_2008.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rednesss
Just FYI, one of the last two of these was due in Cali this evening. The Martin Mars. They live about 150 miles from where I'm sitting. Amazing to watch. How something that big can fly so slow is beyond my understanding.

www.martinmars.com

36 posted on 10/24/2007 10:21:13 PM PDT by Don W (I wondered why the baseball was getting bigger. Then it hit me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Berosus; Convert from ECUSA; dervish; Ernest_at_the_Beach; Fred Nerks; KlueLass; ...
This op-ed is pretty childish.
the U.S. Forest Service still hasn't certified this plane for use on federal lands. That's because back in 2002 there were two accidents involving planes, contracted by the Forest Service, in which the wings literally fell off. That prompted stricter certification requirements for older planes converted from civilian use (this DC-10 was built in 1974) to firefighting use.

37 posted on 10/25/2007 11:51:32 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Monday, October 22, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl; SierraWasp; Carry_Okie; Brad's Gramma; tubebender
But they will just keep creating “conservancies” because they are so “romantic.”

I look at it as kind of an eminent domain as practiced by the environmental wackos and other associated do-gooders...i.e., nanny government hidden behind the cloak of preserving open spaces, parks and recreation areas "for future generations".

38 posted on 10/25/2007 4:02:55 PM PDT by Czar ( StillFedUptotheTeeth@Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Czar; calcowgirl; ElkGroveDan; Carry_Okie

Yes! In the tradition of collectivism, “for the good of all” to create “the tradegy of the commons!” That’s why I call it Commonism, instead of Communism. (largely the same with one little hardly noticable, minor difference)


39 posted on 10/25/2007 10:11:49 PM PDT by SierraWasp (Stop the gutless forclosing on righteous Reaganesque conservatives in the GOP!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SierraWasp

Not very ladylike of you!!! :D

j/k


40 posted on 10/28/2007 1:35:39 PM PDT by Shimmer (Purrrrrr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson