I beg to differ, the crew all were extremely experienced DC-10 pilots.
Irrelevant. They were not experienced fire pilots and had no business being there. That they hit the ground is proof enough.
The chase plane they were following ventured too close to the terrain and the crew did not realize what was happening until it happened.
Rubbish.
It's not a "chase plane." It's a leadplane, and high or low, the position or the lead is irrelevant. If the lead flew into the hillside, would they do so too?
The lead isn't there to teach them how to fly. They're supposed to be competent enough to do that all by their lonesome. The lead is there to investigate the route into the drop and out, to investigate the air (downdraft, turbulence, etc), give input on the proper drop, fire behavior, and coordinate with the air attack and incident commander or his representive, and then to give a guided run to help identify drift and the proper approach line and drop point.
The lead is NOT there to prevent an aircraft that he can't see, from flying into the ground.
Chalk it up to learning how to fly a big plane close to the ground where there are fires.
Chalk it up to an unqualified, inexperienced crew not being where they should have been and flying their airplane into the ground.
No matter what one's assignment in the air, we all operate under one basic tenet which is universal; don't fly into the ground. They did that.
Trying to pawn it off on the leadplane pilot or anybody else just doesn't cut it. Their excuse? They hit a "downdraft."
Also, the fed govt refused to contract the DC-10 is because the other fire fighter tanker pilots were whining about how they would lose their jobs, it had nothing to do with the tree strike.
No. The DC-10's failure to obtain a federal firefighting contract had nothing to do with other pilots. Clearly you know nothing about contracting, but rest assured that "pilots whining" has no place, nor consideration in the contracting process...nor has it ever had any influence in obtaining or denial of a fire contract.
The DC-10 was overpriced. They lowered their price enough that CDF grudgingly brought them on, and is trying very hard to justify their use presently.
The DC-10 can't use other lead aircraft; it has a dedicated lead, which function alone restricts it from most fire operations, and it can't drop unless it's dedicated lead is present. It's inability to use most tanker bases, it's long reload times and turnaround times, and it's inability to operate in most of the US for firefighting operations also killed it's viability for federal fires. It's been used on federal fires within California...but it's too expensive to fly far to drop a load, and can't go anywhere else to reload...there are few places that can accomodate it.
Furthermore, attempting to use it tactically on fires is futile. It's a broad brush for long firelines. It's chief value is putting down retardant to cool a fire...but retardant isn't used to cool fires; it's used to build precise lines to direct and control fire behavior, for structural protection, etc. It's often used in close direct support of ground troops, reinforcing dozer lines, protecting landing zones, etc...all things not suited to the DC10. Additionally, whereas many tanker operations require radican maneuvering, steep descents, and operations not above terrain but among terrain in canyons, etc...the DC10 (and the 747) is NOT suited for those operations.
Furthermore, many fires have significant debris above the fire which can break windscreens, FOD engines, etc...big open fans don't tolerate that well. The aircraft presents considerably higher maintenance expenses (which factor into not only the operational contract, but off season expenses to the government), etc.
One of the primary values of a tanker is the ability to move it to a fire area where it can have short turnarounds and make frequent visits to the fire, or can catch a fire early. With the amount of time required to mobilize the DC10 or B747, it's not much of a tactical response tool, and is therefore limited further in it's utility.
These fieldings are certainly viable tools in the firefighting toolbox, but limited ones...and their advantages are not the ones you think.
