Supertanker grounded

Riverside Press-Enterprise (Subscription) ^ | 09:35 AM PDT on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 | John Asbury

[granite]

A firefighting supertanker jumbo jet has been grounded at its Victorville hub while fire officials investigate what caused the plane to make an emergency landing Monday night.

The DC-10 airtanker used by the state firefighting agency, Cal Fire, was forced to return to Victorville about 5:20 p.m. Monday after it struck the top of several trees while fighting the White forest fire in Kern County, according to a statement by Cal Fire.

The plane, which carries 12,000 gallons of water or fire retardant, struck severe turbulence near Bison Peak south of Tehachapi, but was able to apply power and fly to the Victorville airport.

AP

A modified DC-10 prepares to drop fire retardant on a wildfire near Idyllwild in 2006. The airtanker has been grounded after it struck the top of several trees while fighting the White forest fire Monday in Kern County, according to a statement by Cal Fire.

An investigation crew will conduct a complete structural overview of the plane this morning in Victorville as part of the incident investigation, according to the statement. The plane will remain grounded and out of service until the investigation is complete.

- John Asbury

jasbury@PE.com

[granite]

That didn't last long.

[tubebender]

Ping to grounding of fire fighting DC10

[GoldCountryRedneck]

A supertanker.. grounded at its Victorville hub while fire officials investigate what caused the plane to make an emergency landing..after it struck the top of several trees

Duh!!! Ya' think there might be an obvious cause and effect there??

Gotta change the flight profile folks. A DC-10 just doesn't handle ridge turbulance quite as well as an S-2 Tracker...

p.s. Where do I send my aviation consulting bill???

[patton]

Can you imagine the pucker factor?

Yikes.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Imagine what it would have been like on the ground as the jumbo clipped the trees!

[Colorado Doug]

while fire officials investigate what caused the plane to make an emergency landing

I would think that the Pilot would have caused the plane to make an emergency landing.

[Calvin Locke]

Well, at least there was a good reason.

Didn't Gray Davis ground tankers until enough damage was done to get US Taxpayer $$$?

[RightWhale]

Since this was already the topic of another thread I thought this might be something new, perhaps about another Exxon Valdez.

[gathersnomoss]

Just reading this has caused my Naugahyde chair to become firmly attached.

[patton]

LOL. I understand.

[Aeronaut]

[Argus]

We should have at least half a dozen of these babies at every major airport in the state, standing by to fight the inevitable wildfires. That should be government priority number one. If we had responsible government, it would be.

[Tallguy]

I would think that the Pilot would have caused the plane to make an emergency landing.

... for a change of underwear, at least...

[Tallguy]

If their going to insist on nap-of-the-earth bombing profiles, why not convert a few of those mothballed B-1B’s? Here you have a low-level bomber with a tremendous payload capacity, rather than a converted C-10 airliner (or is it a KC-10 tanker varient?). Put those B1’s on the flightline & you’ll have pilots lining up to fly them.

[Carry_Okie]

Opinion: World's Best Fire-Fighting Plane Ignored

[bill1952]

We should have at least half a dozen of these babies at every major airport in the state, standing by to fight the inevitable wildfires. That should be government priority number one. If we had responsible government, it would be.

No sarcasm intended, WTF are you talking about, firefighting AC being the government's number one priority?

[Cheburashka]

Imagine what it would have been like on the ground as the jumbo clipped the trees!

---

Bambi had to change underwear.

[Clam Digger]

That should be government priority number one.

Really? I didn't read about federal government firefighting by air anywhere in the Constitution.

[DesScorp]

“Gotta change the flight profile folks. A DC-10 just doesn’t handle ridge turbulance quite as well as an S-2 Tracker...”

Jet passenger airliners don’t handle low level turbulence well at all. Which is why I’m so dissapointed at the Navy choosing a Boeing jetliner to replace the P-3 in the anti-sub role, which is almost all low level, all the time.

[GoldCountryRedneck]

Which is why I’m so dissapointed at the Navy choosing a Boeing jetliner to replace the P-3 in the anti-sub role

The rational I've heard from ASW folks is that there aren't airframes being built that could be modified that would fit the load/range/weapons - the C130H being the exception.

The cost of a mission-specific all-new design would have been prohibative, so the 737 was it.

The choice that frosted me years ago was the USCG having the swept-wing Falcon jets pushed down their throats.

My brother was a 'Coastie' Commander at the time and said it was all politics and it took quite awhile and $$$ to even try to integrate them. It just wasn't a mission 'fit'.