747 tanker

[avbug]

Experience; yes the Omni/Tanker 10 LLC crew is very experienced in the DC-10. To obtain an Inter Agency Initial Attack Card, one most go through extensive training in the fire environment. As well as 100+hrs low level/mountainous terrain, supervised drops, lead plane join ups, all of which takes at least two season to obtain. All of wich the DC-10 crew did not posess, and it showed.

DC4boy is being exceptionally generous to the DC10 crew, in a tactful manner. While it's possible, technically, to obtain a card within those times...typically one is over fires for ten years before being able to act as PIC in a tanker.

Being qualified to fly a stable instrument approach on breezy day to a nice, long instrument runway is not the same as flying a drop in the mountains in high winds, severe turbulence, low visibility, with high traffic density, when others are counting on you and the taxpayer is footing the bill. Simply because one is qualified to fly the airplane does NOT mean one is qualified to fight fire with it.

Flying the airplane is just a small part of using it to fight fires.

 

[DC4boy]

Yep, just finished my 8th consecutive fire season. 1500+hrs in the fire environment, scratch free, and still not the Capt. of an airtanker. Still lots to learn!

I guess those Omni guy's are just better than me..

 

[stupidpilot]

I spoke to the guys that actually flew the drop and the lead plane flew through some turb that slid them into the trees. Again, the lead may have been very experienced, but not with a DC-10. Different aircraft, different techniques. So I still say it was not entirely the Dc-10 crew's fault. It does sound like there could have been quite a bit more learning that had to be done prior to utilizing the aircraft on an actual fire.

 

[propsarebest]

The 747 is available NOW,if any agency wants it. We just got an new STC signed off for a different pressure system. The tanks are now installed in the aircraft, not just on pallets like the first one was.

No customers yet, however.

 

[DC4boy]

I spoke to the guys that actually flew the drop and the lead plane flew through some turb that slid them into the trees. Again, the lead may have been very experienced, but not with a DC-10. Different aircraft, different techniques. So I still say it was not entirely the Dc-10 crew's fault. It does sound like there could have been quite a bit more learning that had to be done prior to utilizing the aircraft on an actual fire.

B.S.

The profile flown by the lead for the Dc-10 was flown between 300-500' AGL, mandatory. Four airtankers' flew that same line <150' AGL just minutes before, all uneventful.

I was there, I've seen the video. Classic rookie mistakes. They're lucky to be alive.

Move on

 

[avbug]

I spoke to the guys that actually flew the drop and the lead plane flew through some turb that slid them into the trees. Again, the lead may have been very experienced, but not with a DC-10. Different aircraft, different techniques. So I still say it was not entirely the Dc-10 crew's fault. It does sound like there could have been quite a bit more learning that had to be done prior to utilizing the aircraft on an actual fire.

Stupidpilot, you certainly picked an apt screen name.

You assert that the small lower powered leadplane handled the turbulence, but the DC10 didn't, and it's the leads fault...you spoke to the idiot that flew into the hillside...but not to the lead pilot...and make your assertion based on having exactly 0 firefighting experience, not having been there, and without a leg to stand upon. Brilliant.

Whether a lead has flown ahead of a DC-10 before is irrelevant. Leads do dissimiliar flight with numerous other types of aircraft ranging from large four engine military equipment to helicopters to single engine air tankers. The lead doesn't tell the tanker how to fly. The tanker can never blame their poor, and in this case stupid, performance on the lead. This was all on the DC10 pilots. You think the lead flew them through a downdraft and it's the leads fault? Got news for you. Fly a proper line in and there's no issue with a "downdraft." That they hit the hillside is bad enough. That they tried to excuse themselves by blaming it on a downdraft is pathetic.

That they have tried to assert it had anything to do with the leadplane pilot is unforgivable. What more can be said about them than that they're idiots, other than they had the unprofessional gall to attempt to blame their own failing upon someone who didn't and couldn't have let them down. Funny that the lead made it through that run, that the other tankers made it through the run, but they didn't.

A little more to learn? Nothing that ten more years as a copilot on fires wouldn't fix...for them. I don't care if they're a 25,000 hour pilot...if it's their first hour over the fire, then they're a 1 hour pilot over a fire. Period.

Different aircraft, different techniques, you say? No. Do you have any concept what a leadplane pilot does? No.

As for you, based on your ability to jump to conclusions regarding subjects about which you know nothing...it's doubtful that 25,000 hours over a fire would teach you much.

Dandy that the 747 is up and ready to go. Is a fire-qualified and experienced crew ready to go to fly it?

 

[stupidpilot]

Relax. You're getting way too defensive and wrapped around the axle about all this. You assume I have no firefighting experience, well you would be wrong. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on some aspects of the incident.

 

[DC4boy]

Relax. You're getting way too defensive and wrapped around the axle about all this. You assume I have no firefighting experience, well you would be wrong. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on some aspects of the incident.

Enlighten us, please.

There's nothing to disagree on.

I'll mention this to the CalFire AMU officials, and the lead driver, and see what their reaction is.

 

[mushroom]

I never even heard about this accident. Is there a link to the NTSB narrative?

 

[414Flyer]

I spoke to the guys that actually flew the drop and the lead plane flew through some turb that slid them into the trees.

Thats just a normal part of aerial firefighting, and mountainous terrain flying. Combine the two, and you have to expect that kind of turbulence. You cant blame the turbulence for it, since an crew experienced in that kind of environment knows to expect those kind of winds as a possibility, and knows what to do if they encounter it.

When you said that they were experienced, its not that it was in a DC-10 that counts more than fire. There are all kinds of people with lots of big iron experience, but it means little over a fire, as evidenced by this incident. Its fire experience that counts much more. The fact that they are trying to pass it off on the lead plane and or the weather, just speaks volumes to anyone who has fire experience.

With enough bananas, you could train monkeys to crew a DC-10. Not so with aerial firefighting.

I would much rather fly with someone experienced in fire but their first year in that kind of plane, than someone experienced in that plane, but first year on a fire.