Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NorCalFire] DC 10 Air Tanker Grounded, News Story

Expand Messages
  • kimnoyes@charter.net
    Nitrobear, No, not the AHS Alumni group, but SoCalFire on Yahoogroups,. There has been some debates there during the recent Day Fire about this supertanker
    Message 1 of 26 , Oct 14, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Nitrobear,
      No, not the AHS Alumni group, but SoCalFire on Yahoogroups,.
      There has been some debates there during the recent Day Fire about this "supertanker" usefulness issue...they're a tool in the toolbox....certainly useful in certain situations but not all situations.
      Have you watched Tanker 910 (the DC-10) in action?
      What did you think?
      It's not what I expected.

      Kim Noyes
      Atascadero

      --
      http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
      http://www.atascaderoalumni.org
      http://www.mattlogic.com (Scanner 22)
      http://www.ttb.org

      ---- nitrobear@... wrote:
      > Kim,
      > You mean the Atascadero High School Reunion thingie? The DC10 debaucle didn't load for me. The DC10 won't fly over federal forest property from what I"ve read. Now, I gotta hear the explanation for that one beyond the design service life of the original air frame. First tanker that I ever worked with was a B17 from Aero Union here in Chico. Those bad boys flew in a WAR, dropped bombs on the Germans and other bad folks and, for some reason, still were servicable after some work, to save a bunch of firefighters butts and start a serious revolution in how we attack wildfires.. Why does it seem that everytime someone raises the bar on the airtanker equipment that a political solution takes it out of the equation?
      > The "10" and the "74" could be a quantum leap in the suppression efforts on big and nasty fires probably an order of magnitude greater than the ones we have in the air today.
      > Since we are in an election year, I wonder who is leading the decision to not let these birds work the western fires?
      > Ok kim, I'll start a "polite" thread. Banning those big birds just sucks until we have some data on their effectiveness me thinks.
      >
      >
      >
      > --
      > Nitrobear
      >
      > -------------- Original message --------------
      > From: <kimnoyes@...>
      > I dare you to post this article on SoCalFire and watch the ensuring debate. ;-p
      >
      > --
      > http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
      > http://www.atascaderoalumni.org
      > http://www.mattlogic.com (Scanner 22)
      > http://www.ttb.org
      >
      > ---- hosgs1@... wrote:
      > > our govt. at its best.
      > >
      > > -Ron
      > >
      > > ======================================
      > >
      > > Firefighting tanker won't see much air
      > >
      > > Rules prohibit DC-10 from flight over federal land
      > >
      > > By Jeremiah Marquez, Associated Press
      > > October 13, 2006
      > >
      > > LOS ANGELES — Federal rules are preventing the takeoff of a major
      > > advance in firefighting — a jetliner modified to unleash enough flame
      > > retardant to coat a three-quarter-mile-long stretch of ground in a
      > > single pass.
      > >
      > > The DC-10 jumbo jet first flew this fire season. Streaking several
      > > hundred feet overhead, the jet's belly opens and a torrent of pink
      > > liquid cascades earthward, creating a 100-foot-wide fire line. Those
      > > spectacular drops helped halt fires threatening state land in California
      > > and Washington.
      > >
      > > But its virtual prohibition from federal land, including the national
      > > forests, means it cannot be dispatched over vast swaths of the West —
      > > 33 million acres in California alone, an area the size of Arkansas.
      > >
      > > The reason for that no-fly zone: The plane hasn't passed a U.S. Forest
      > > Service safety check. The plane was designed to fly 60,000 hours, and
      > > the DC-10 in question has 67,000 to 68,000 hours of flight time logged,
      > > said Dan Jiron, Forest Service spokesman in Washington, D.C.
      > >
      > > "That's the fundamental problem with the '10,'" he said.
      > >
      > > Mark Rey, undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment at the
      > > U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service, is
      > > set to speak about the DC-10 today, Jiron said Thursday afternoon.
      > >
      > > Meanwhile, politicians were sounding off about the monster air tanker.
      > >
      > > "What a horror story to see fires burning out of control and knowing
      > > that the aircraft aren't available," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,
      > > R-Huntington Beach, who has criticized the Forest Service for not using
      > > larger air tankers.
      > >
      > > The plane, which drops 10 times more retardant — 12,000 gallons in
      > > three external tanks — than the typical air tanker, is certainly
      > > popular with people whose property has been threatened by wildfire.
      > > Tankers usually seen in the skies over the north state include the S-2T,
      > > which can hold 1,200 gallons of water or retardant, and the P-3, which
      > > carries 2,500 gallons.
      > >
      > > Although the DC-10 didn't drop on any north state fires, it did join the
      > > fight against the Day Fire in Southern California last month.
      > >
      > > The Day Fire, the fifth largest in modern California history at 162,702
      > > acres, was threatening the popular tourist town of Ojai. The California
      > > Department of Forestry and Fire Protection brought in the DC-10, and
      > > officials credited the huge plane with knocking back the edge of the
      > > fire creeping toward the artists' enclave.
      > >
      > > Steven Scott Smalley worried flames would damage ancient Chumash Indian
      > > spiritual sites near his Pine Mountain Club home. So he traveled 100
      > > miles to the DC-10's base of operations in the desert east of Los
      > > Angeles and offered the plane's owner $80,000 of his own money to get it
      > > airborne.
      > >
      > > "These sites are priceless," Smalley said. "I would have paid $1 million
      > > to save those lands."
      > >
      > > The company declined, citing protocols and noting that the fire at the
      > > time was on federally protected land. By contrast, the state forestry
      > > department has a "call-when-needed" agreement with the company at a rate
      > > of $26,500 an hour, said Mike Padilla, the agency's aviation chief.
      > >
      > > The Forest Service would allow exceptions if there's a "very serious
      > > life and death situation," said Rose Davis, a forest agency spokeswoman.
      > >
      > > According to Davis, the federal restrictions derive from a 2004 National
      > > Transportation Safety Board report issued two years after the wings
      > > snapped off a pair of air tankers under contract with the Forest
      > > Service, killing five people in California and Colorado. Poor
      > > maintenance on older planes was blamed in those crashes.
      > >
      > > "We're financially responsible and clearly morally responsible," Davis
      > > said. "Those crashes in 2002 were devastating."
      > >
      > > The safety board's key finding: The Forest Service must ensure a plane's
      > > airworthiness, not the contractor that owns the plane.
      > >
      > > Since then, the Forest Service has developed guidelines to do just that.
      > > One of them is an engineering analysis that looks at how many hours any
      > > aircraft can be flown safely. But the Forest Service has yet to complete
      > > that "operational service life" study for the DC-10.
      > >
      > > Davis said the company that owns and operates the DC-10 — 10 Tanker
      > > Air Carrier, based in Victorville — has not provided all the necessary
      > > data. The company responds that it's working hard to comply.
      > > That's not easy because the study comes on top of Federal Aviation
      > > Administration requirements, which the company has already met, said
      > > general manager Brad Tuttle.
      > >
      > > Unlike the Forest Service, the state forestry department relies on FAA
      > > and industry standards and does not require an operational service life
      > > study, according to company officials.
      > >
      > > "It's not a small task," Tuttle said of the Forest Service requirements,
      > > which he said the company was in the early stages of meeting. "It's
      > > frustrating, but it's an item that they're requiring."
      > >
      > > The Record Searchlight contributed to this report.
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
      >
      >
      > Northern California Fire Season 2006!
      > http://www.norcalscan.org/fire/
      >
      > Get ready for Fire Season 2006!
      >
      > Moderator questions/problems?
      > mail directly at norcalfire-owner@yahoogroups.com
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
    • john Beatty
      Just a thought, while I agree that not using a resource like the DC10 is a grave error. I understand the higher level of regulation and testing due to the
      Message 2 of 26 , Oct 15, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Just a thought, while I agree that not using a resource like the DC10
        is a grave error. I understand the higher level of regulation and testing
        due to the increased strain inherently caused by airborne firefighting.
        But to exclude use over a single area due to whom has control of that
        area does not seem to make sense.
        J.B.




        Credo Quia Absurdum Est
        Credo Ut Intelligam

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mike Meadows
        Agreed Kim..I got shots of it dropping on the Day Fire and wondered, why . Why is this thing, at 26,000 grand an hour dropping in an inaccessable area. The
        Message 3 of 26 , Oct 15, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          Agreed Kim..I got shots of it dropping on the Day Fire and wondered, "why". Why is this thing, at 26,000 grand an hour dropping in an inaccessable area. The purpose of retardant drops is to slow the fire so ground troops and dozars can reinforce the line. It was dropping where nothing could get in to reinforce the drop line.....As I said, it was a great photo op.....
          It's my opinion "only" that this aircraft and the 747 (if it gets certified) should be used only when structures and, or lifes are in danger. That wasn't the case here.
          OK, not going to address this anymore here......

          kimnoyes@... wrote: Nitrobear,
          No, not the AHS Alumni group, but SoCalFire on Yahoogroups,.
          There has been some debates there during the recent Day Fire about this "supertanker" usefulness issue...they're a tool in the toolbox....certainly useful in certain situations but not all situations.
          Have you watched Tanker 910 (the DC-10) in action?
          What did you think?
          It's not what I expected.

          Kim Noyes
          Atascadero

          --
          http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
          http://www.atascaderoalumni.org
          http://www.mattlogic.com (Scanner 22)
          http://www.ttb.org

          ---- nitrobear@... wrote:
          > Kim,
          > You mean the Atascadero High School Reunion thingie? The DC10 debaucle didn't load for me. The DC10 won't fly over federal forest property from what I"ve read. Now, I gotta hear the explanation for that one beyond the design service life of the original air frame. First tanker that I ever worked with was a B17 from Aero Union here in Chico. Those bad boys flew in a WAR, dropped bombs on the Germans and other bad folks and, for some reason, still were servicable after some work, to save a bunch of firefighters butts and start a serious revolution in how we attack wildfires.. Why does it seem that everytime someone raises the bar on the airtanker equipment that a political solution takes it out of the equation?
          > The "10" and the "74" could be a quantum leap in the suppression efforts on big and nasty fires probably an order of magnitude greater than the ones we have in the air today.
          > Since we are in an election year, I wonder who is leading the decision to not let these birds work the western fires?
          > Ok kim, I'll start a "polite" thread. Banning those big birds just sucks until we have some data on their effectiveness me thinks.
          >
          >
          >
          > --
          > Nitrobear
          >
          > -------------- Original message --------------
          > From: <kimnoyes@...>
          > I dare you to post this article on SoCalFire and watch the ensuring debate. ;-p
          >
          > --
          > http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
          > http://www.atascaderoalumni.org
          > http://www.mattlogic.com (Scanner 22)
          > http://www.ttb.org
          >
          > ---- hosgs1@... wrote:
          > > our govt. at its best.
          > >
          > > -Ron
          > >
          > > ======================================
          > >
          > > Firefighting tanker won't see much air
          > >
          > > Rules prohibit DC-10 from flight over federal land
          > >
          > > By Jeremiah Marquez, Associated Press
          > > October 13, 2006
          > >
          > > LOS ANGELES — Federal rules are preventing the takeoff of a major
          > > advance in firefighting — a jetliner modified to unleash enough flame
          > > retardant to coat a three-quarter-mile-long stretch of ground in a
          > > single pass.
          > >
          > > The DC-10 jumbo jet first flew this fire season. Streaking several
          > > hundred feet overhead, the jet's belly opens and a torrent of pink
          > > liquid cascades earthward, creating a 100-foot-wide fire line. Those
          > > spectacular drops helped halt fires threatening state land in California
          > > and Washington.
          > >
          > > But its virtual prohibition from federal land, including the national
          > > forests, means it cannot be dispatched over vast swaths of the West —
          > > 33 million acres in California alone, an area the size of Arkansas.
          > >
          > > The reason for that no-fly zone: The plane hasn't passed a U.S. Forest
          > > Service safety check. The plane was designed to fly 60,000 hours, and
          > > the DC-10 in question has 67,000 to 68,000 hours of flight time logged,
          > > said Dan Jiron, Forest Service spokesman in Washington, D.C.
          > >
          > > "That's the fundamental problem with the '10,'" he said.
          > >
          > > Mark Rey, undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment at the
          > > U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service, is
          > > set to speak about the DC-10 today, Jiron said Thursday afternoon.
          > >
          > > Meanwhile, politicians were sounding off about the monster air tanker.
          > >
          > > "What a horror story to see fires burning out of control and knowing
          > > that the aircraft aren't available," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,
          > > R-Huntington Beach, who has criticized the Forest Service for not using
          > > larger air tankers.
          > >
          > > The plane, which drops 10 times more retardant — 12,000 gallons in
          > > three external tanks — than the typical air tanker, is certainly
          > > popular with people whose property has been threatened by wildfire.
          > > Tankers usually seen in the skies over the north state include the S-2T,
          > > which can hold 1,200 gallons of water or retardant, and the P-3, which
          > > carries 2,500 gallons.
          > >
          > > Although the DC-10 didn't drop on any north state fires, it did join the
          > > fight against the Day Fire in Southern California last month.
          > >
          > > The Day Fire, the fifth largest in modern California history at 162,702
          > > acres, was threatening the popular tourist town of Ojai. The California
          > > Department of Forestry and Fire Protection brought in the DC-10, and
          > > officials credited the huge plane with knocking back the edge of the
          > > fire creeping toward the artists' enclave.
          > >
          > > Steven Scott Smalley worried flames would damage ancient Chumash Indian
          > > spiritual sites near his Pine Mountain Club home. So he traveled 100
          > > miles to the DC-10's base of operations in the desert east of Los
          > > Angeles and offered the plane's owner $80,000 of his own money to get it
          > > airborne.
          > >
          > > "These sites are priceless," Smalley said. "I would have paid $1 million
          > > to save those lands."
          > >
          > > The company declined, citing protocols and noting that the fire at the
          > > time was on federally protected land. By contrast, the state forestry
          > > department has a "call-when-needed" agreement with the company at a rate
          > > of $26,500 an hour, said Mike Padilla, the agency's aviation chief.
          > >
          > > The Forest Service would allow exceptions if there's a "very serious
          > > life and death situation," said Rose Davis, a forest agency spokeswoman.
          > >
          > > According to Davis, the federal restrictions derive from a 2004 National
          > > Transportation Safety Board report issued two years after the wings
          > > snapped off a pair of air tankers under contract with the Forest
          > > Service, killing five people in California and Colorado. Poor
          > > maintenance on older planes was blamed in those crashes.
          > >
          > > "We're financially responsible and clearly morally responsible," Davis
          > > said. "Those crashes in 2002 were devastating."
          > >
          > > The safety board's key finding: The Forest Service must ensure a plane's
          > > airworthiness, not the contractor that owns the plane.
          > >
          > > Since then, the Forest Service has developed guidelines to do just that.
          > > One of them is an engineering analysis that looks at how many hours any
          > > aircraft can be flown safely. But the Forest Service has yet to complete
          > > that "operational service life" study for the DC-10.
          > >
          > > Davis said the company that owns and operates the DC-10 — 10 Tanker
          > > Air Carrier, based in Victorville — has not provided all the necessary
          > > data. The company responds that it's working hard to comply.
          > > That's not easy because the study comes on top of Federal Aviation
          > > Administration requirements, which the company has already met, said
          > > general manager Brad Tuttle.
          > >
          > > Unlike the Forest Service, the state forestry department relies on FAA
          > > and industry standards and does not require an operational service life
          > > study, according to company officials.
          > >
          > > "It's not a small task," Tuttle said of the Forest Service requirements,
          > > which he said the company was in the early stages of meeting. "It's
          > > frustrating, but it's an item that they're requiring."
          > >
          > > The Record Searchlight contributed to this report.
          > >
          > >
          >
          >
          >
          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          >
          >
          >
          > Northern California Fire Season 2006!
          > http://www.norcalscan.org/fire/
          >
          > Get ready for Fire Season 2006!
          >
          > Moderator questions/problems?
          > mail directly at norcalfire-owner@yahoogroups.com
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >





          ---------------------------------
          Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Jake H
          I m stating this up front which is rare for this list. Since it is quiet right now continue with the DC10 discussion, but please keep replies, comments,
          Message 4 of 26 , Oct 15, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            I'm stating this up front which is rare for this list. Since it is
            "quiet" right now continue with the DC10 discussion, but please keep
            replies, comments, suggestions, etc. to a mature, educated conversation.
            This is a very sensitive topic with some people. If it gets out of hand
            the moderators will kill it immediately. Zero tolerance for personal
            attacks etc.

            Thanks!!
            Jake
          • nitrobear@comcast.net
            Interesting points Mike. I think your view of the application makes sense considering the price. I have no idea why they would showcase it in a remote area
            Message 5 of 26 , Oct 16, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Interesting points Mike. I think your view of the application makes sense considering the price. I have no idea why they would showcase it in a "remote" area that could not be backed up with ground troops but I would like to know that I guess. Could the decision makers maybe been doing a little marketing to show the DC-10 capabilities?
              The video I have seen was a little less than I expected to see. It looked like a very high elevation drop and you couldn't really see the fire activity below the DC-10 when it was dropping.
              I'm sure we will hear some more from the experts on it.


              --
              Nitrobear

              -------------- Original message --------------
              From: Mike Meadows <fotoguy425@...>
              Agreed Kim..I got shots of it dropping on the Day Fire and wondered, "why". Why is this thing, at 26,000 grand an hour dropping in an inaccessable area. The purpose of retardant drops is to slow the fire so ground troops and dozars can reinforce the line. It was dropping where nothing could get in to reinforce the drop line.....As I said, it was a great photo op.....
              It's my opinion "only" that this aircraft and the 747 (if it gets certified) should be used only when structures and, or lifes are in danger. That wasn't the case here.
              OK, not going to address this anymore here......

              kimnoyes@... wrote: Nitrobear,
              No, not the AHS Alumni group, but SoCalFire on Yahoogroups,.
              There has been some debates there during the recent Day Fire about this "supertanker" usefulness issue...they're a tool in the toolbox....certainly useful in certain situations but not all situations.
              Have you watched Tanker 910 (the DC-10) in action?
              What did you think?
              It's not what I expected.

              Kim Noyes
              Atascadero

              --
              http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
              http://www.atascaderoalumni.org
              http://www.mattlogic.com (Scanner 22)
              http://www.ttb.org

              ---- nitrobear@... wrote:
              > Kim,
              > You mean the Atascadero High School Reunion thingie? The DC10 debaucle didn't load for me. The DC10 won't fly over federal forest property from what I"ve read. Now, I gotta hear the explanation for that one beyond the design service life of the original air frame. First tanker that I ever worked with was a B17 from Aero Union here in Chico. Those bad boys flew in a WAR, dropped bombs on the Germans and other bad folks and, for some reason, still were servicable after some work, to save a bunch of firefighters butts and start a serious revolution in how we attack wildfires.. Why does it seem that everytime someone raises the bar on the airtanker equipment that a political solution takes it out of the equation?
              > The "10" and the "74" could be a quantum leap in the suppression efforts on big and nasty fires probably an order of magnitude greater than the ones we have in the air today.
              > Since we are in an election year, I wonder who is leading the decision to not let these birds work the western fires?
              > Ok kim, I'll start a "polite" thread. Banning those big birds just sucks until we have some data on their effectiveness me thinks.
              >
              >
              >
              > --
              > Nitrobear
              >
              > -------------- Original message --------------
              > From: <kimnoyes@...>
              > I dare you to post this article on SoCalFire and watch the ensuring debate. ;-p
              >
              > --
              > http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
              > http://www.atascaderoalumni.org
              > http://www.mattlogic.com (Scanner 22)
              > http://www.ttb.org
              >
              > ---- hosgs1@... wrote:
              > > our govt. at its best.
              > >
              > > -Ron
              > >
              > > ======================================
              > >
              > > Firefighting tanker won't see much air
              > >
              > > Rules prohibit DC-10 from flight over federal land
              > >
              > > By Jeremiah Marquez, Associated Press
              > > October 13, 2006
              > >
              > > LOS ANGELES �� Federal rules are preventing the takeoff of a major
              > > advance in firefighting �� a jetliner modified to unleash enough flame
              > > retardant to coat a three-quarter-mile-long stretch of ground in a
              > > single pass.
              > >
              > > The DC-10 jumbo jet first flew this fire season. Streaking several
              > > hundred feet overhead, the jet's belly opens and a torrent of pink
              > > liquid cascades earthward, creating a 100-foot-wide fire line. Those
              > > spectacular drops helped halt fires threatening state land in California
              > > and Washington.
              > >
              > > But its virtual prohibition from federal land, including the national
              > > forests, means it cannot be dispatched over vast swaths of the West ��
              > > 33 million acres in California alone, an area the size of Arkansas.
              > >
              > > The reason for that no-fly zone: The plane hasn't passed a U.S. Forest
              > > Service safety check. The plane was designed to fly 60,000 hours, and
              > > the DC-10 in question has 67,000 to 68,000 hours of flight time logged,
              > > said Dan Jiron, Forest Service spokesman in Washington, D.C.
              > >
              > > "That's the fundamental problem with the '10,'" he said.
              > >
              > > Mark Rey, undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment at the
              > > U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service, is
              > > set to speak about the DC-10 today, Jiron said Thursday afternoon.
              > >
              > > Meanwhile, politicians were sounding off about the monster air tanker.
              > >
              > > "What a horror story to see fires burning out of control and knowing
              > > that the aircraft aren't available," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,
              > > R-Huntington Beach, who has criticized the Forest Service for not using
              > > larger air tankers.
              > >
              > > The plane, which drops 10 times more retardant �� 12,000 gallons in
              > > three external tanks �� than the typical air tanker, is certainly
              > > popular with people whose property has been threatened by wildfire.
              > > Tankers usually seen in the skies over the north state include the S-2T,
              > > which can hold 1,200 gallons of water or retardant, and the P-3, which
              > > carries 2,500 gallons.
              > >
              > > Although the DC-10 didn't drop on any north state fires, it did join the
              > > fight against the Day Fire in Southern California last month.
              > >
              > > The Day Fire, the fifth largest in modern California history at 162,702
              > > acres, was threatening the popular tourist town of Ojai. The California
              > > Department of Forestry and Fire Protection brought in the DC-10, and
              > > officials credited the huge plane with knocking back the edge of the
              > > fire creeping toward the artists' enclave.
              > >
              > > Steven Scott Smalley worried flames would damage ancient Chumash Indian
              > > spiritual sites near his Pine Mountain Club home. So he traveled 100
              > > miles to the DC-10's base of operations in the desert east of Los
              > > Angeles and offered the plane's owner $80,000 of his own money to get it
              > > airborne.
              > >
              > > "These sites are priceless," Smalley said. "I would have paid $1 million
              > > to save those lands."
              > >
              > > The company declined, citing protocols and noting that the fire at the
              > > time was on federally protected land. By contrast, the state forestry
              > > department has a "call-when-needed" agreement with the company at a rate
              > > of $26,500 an hour, said Mike Padilla, the agency's aviation chief.
              > >
              > > The Forest Service would allow exceptions if there's a "very serious
              > > life and death situation," said Rose Davis, a forest agency spokeswoman.
              > >
              > > According to Davis, the federal restrictions derive from a 2004 National
              > > Transportation Safety Board report issued two years after the wings
              > > snapped off a pair of air tankers under contract with the Forest
              > > Service, killing five people in California and Colorado. Poor
              > > maintenance on older planes was blamed in those crashes.
              > >
              > > "We're financially responsible and clearly morally responsible," Davis
              > > said. "Those crashes in 2002 were devastating."
              > >
              > > The safety board's key finding: The Forest Service must ensure a plane's
              > > airworthiness, not the contractor that owns the plane.
              > >
              > > Since then, the Forest Service has developed guidelines to do just that.
              > > One of them is an engineering analysis that looks at how many hours any
              > > aircraft can be flown safely. But the Forest Service has yet to complete
              > > that "operational service life" study for the DC-10.
              > >
              > > Davis said the company that owns and operates the DC-10 �� 10 Tanker
              > > Air Carrier, based in Victorville �� has not provided all the necessary
              > > data. The company responds that it's working hard to comply.
              > > That's not easy because the study comes on top of Federal Aviation
              > > Administration requirements, which the company has already met, said
              > > general manager Brad Tuttle.
              > >
              > > Unlike the Forest Service, the state forestry department relies on FAA
              > > and industry standards and does not require an operational service life
              > > study, according to company officials.
              > >
              > > "It's not a small task," Tuttle said of the Forest Service requirements,
              > > which he said the company was in the early stages of meeting. "It's
              > > frustrating, but it's an item that they're requiring."
              > >
              > > The Record Searchlight contributed to this report.
              > >
              > >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
              >
              >
              > Northern California Fire Season 2006!
              > http://www.norcalscan.org/fire/
              >
              > Get ready for Fire Season 2006!
              >
              > Moderator questions/problems?
              > mail directly at norcalfire-owner@yahoogroups.com
              > Yahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >





              ---------------------------------
              Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2�/min or less.

              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Mike Meadows
              Oh, absolutely it was a marketing thing Nitreo. That plane should not have been out there. You know though, it did paint a very respectable line along the
              Message 6 of 26 , Oct 17, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                Oh, absolutely it was a marketing thing Nitreo. That plane should not have been out there. You know though, it did paint a very respectable line along the ridge. I'd say the elevation was probably 200 feet over the ground but, again, why in hell was it out there.......All the news stations did show it dropping so I guess the marketing promo did pay off......usually the air tankers are not supposed to make direct suppression efforts unless the fire is on a structure.
                Just lay a line down and back it up with dozers and ground troops of possible....Oh well, who am I to critisize, i got a shot of it also...lol

                nitrobear@... wrote: Interesting points Mike. I think your view of the application makes sense considering the price. I have no idea why they would showcase it in a "remote" area that could not be backed up with ground troops but I would like to know that I guess. Could the decision makers maybe been doing a little marketing to show the DC-10 capabilities?
                The video I have seen was a little less than I expected to see. It looked like a very high elevation drop and you couldn't really see the fire activity below the DC-10 when it was dropping.
                I'm sure we will hear some more from the experts on it.


                --
                Nitrobear

                -------------- Original message --------------
                From: Mike Meadows
                Agreed Kim..I got shots of it dropping on the Day Fire and wondered, "why". Why is this thing, at 26,000 grand an hour dropping in an inaccessable area. The purpose of retardant drops is to slow the fire so ground troops and dozars can reinforce the line. It was dropping where nothing could get in to reinforce the drop line.....As I said, it was a great photo op.....
                It's my opinion "only" that this aircraft and the 747 (if it gets certified) should be used only when structures and, or lifes are in danger. That wasn't the case here.
                OK, not going to address this anymore here......

                kimnoyes@... wrote: Nitrobear,
                No, not the AHS Alumni group, but SoCalFire on Yahoogroups,.
                There has been some debates there during the recent Day Fire about this "supertanker" usefulness issue...they're a tool in the toolbox....certainly useful in certain situations but not all situations.
                Have you watched Tanker 910 (the DC-10) in action?
                What did you think?
                It's not what I expected.

                Kim Noyes
                Atascadero

                --
                http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
                http://www.atascaderoalumni.org
                http://www.mattlogic.com (Scanner 22)
                http://www.ttb.org

                ---- nitrobear@... wrote:
                > Kim,
                > You mean the Atascadero High School Reunion thingie? The DC10 debaucle didn't load for me. The DC10 won't fly over federal forest property from what I"ve read. Now, I gotta hear the explanation for that one beyond the design service life of the original air frame. First tanker that I ever worked with was a B17 from Aero Union here in Chico. Those bad boys flew in a WAR, dropped bombs on the Germans and other bad folks and, for some reason, still were servicable after some work, to save a bunch of firefighters butts and start a serious revolution in how we attack wildfires.. Why does it seem that everytime someone raises the bar on the airtanker equipment that a political solution takes it out of the equation?
                > The "10" and the "74" could be a quantum leap in the suppression efforts on big and nasty fires probably an order of magnitude greater than the ones we have in the air today.
                > Since we are in an election year, I wonder who is leading the decision to not let these birds work the western fires?
                > Ok kim, I'll start a "polite" thread. Banning those big birds just sucks until we have some data on their effectiveness me thinks.
                >
                >
                >
                > --
                > Nitrobear
                >
                > -------------- Original message --------------
                > From:
                > I dare you to post this article on SoCalFire and watch the ensuring debate. ;-p
                >
                > --
                > http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
                > http://www.atascaderoalumni.org
                > http://www.mattlogic.com (Scanner 22)
                > http://www.ttb.org
                >
                > ---- hosgs1@... wrote:
                > > our govt. at its best.
                > >
                > > -Ron
                > >
                > > ======================================
                > >
                > > Firefighting tanker won't see much air
                > >
                > > Rules prohibit DC-10 from flight over federal land
                > >
                > > By Jeremiah Marquez, Associated Press
                > > October 13, 2006
                > >
                > > LOS ANGELES — Federal rules are preventing the takeoff of a major
                > > advance in firefighting — a jetliner modified to unleash enough flame
                > > retardant to coat a three-quarter-mile-long stretch of ground in a
                > > single pass.
                > >
                > > The DC-10 jumbo jet first flew this fire season. Streaking several
                > > hundred feet overhead, the jet's belly opens and a torrent of pink
                > > liquid cascades earthward, creating a 100-foot-wide fire line. Those
                > > spectacular drops helped halt fires threatening state land in California
                > > and Washington.
                > >
                > > But its virtual prohibition from federal land, including the national
                > > forests, means it cannot be dispatched over vast swaths of the West —
                > > 33 million acres in California alone, an area the size of Arkansas.
                > >
                > > The reason for that no-fly zone: The plane hasn't passed a U.S. Forest
                > > Service safety check. The plane was designed to fly 60,000 hours, and
                > > the DC-10 in question has 67,000 to 68,000 hours of flight time logged,
                > > said Dan Jiron, Forest Service spokesman in Washington, D.C.
                > >
                > > "That's the fundamental problem with the '10,'" he said.
                > >
                > > Mark Rey, undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment at the
                > > U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service, is
                > > set to speak about the DC-10 today, Jiron said Thursday afternoon.
                > >
                > > Meanwhile, politicians were sounding off about the monster air tanker.
                > >
                > > "What a horror story to see fires burning out of control and knowing
                > > that the aircraft aren't available," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,
                > > R-Huntington Beach, who has criticized the Forest Service for not using
                > > larger air tankers.
                > >
                > > The plane, which drops 10 times more retardant — 12,000 gallons in
                > > three external tanks — than the typical air tanker, is certainly
                > > popular with people whose property has been threatened by wildfire.
                > > Tankers usually seen in the skies over the north state include the S-2T,
                > > which can hold 1,200 gallons of water or retardant, and the P-3, which
                > > carries 2,500 gallons.
                > >
                > > Although the DC-10 didn't drop on any north state fires, it did join the
                > > fight against the Day Fire in Southern California last month.
                > >
                > > The Day Fire, the fifth largest in modern California history at 162,702
                > > acres, was threatening the popular tourist town of Ojai. The California
                > > Department of Forestry and Fire Protection brought in the DC-10, and
                > > officials credited the huge plane with knocking back the edge of the
                > > fire creeping toward the artists' enclave.
                > >
                > > Steven Scott Smalley worried flames would damage ancient Chumash Indian
                > > spiritual sites near his Pine Mountain Club home. So he traveled 100
                > > miles to the DC-10's base of operations in the desert east of Los
                > > Angeles and offered the plane's owner $80,000 of his own money to get it
                > > airborne.
                > >
                > > "These sites are priceless," Smalley said. "I would have paid $1 million
                > > to save those lands."
                > >
                > > The company declined, citing protocols and noting that the fire at the
                > > time was on federally protected land. By contrast, the state forestry
                > > department has a "call-when-needed" agreement with the company at a rate
                > > of $26,500 an hour, said Mike Padilla, the agency's aviation chief.
                > >
                > > The Forest Service would allow exceptions if there's a "very serious
                > > life and death situation," said Rose Davis, a forest agency spokeswoman.
                > >
                > > According to Davis, the federal restrictions derive from a 2004 National
                > > Transportation Safety Board report issued two years after the wings
                > > snapped off a pair of air tankers under contract with the Forest
                > > Service, killing five people in California and Colorado. Poor
                > > maintenance on older planes was blamed in those crashes.
                > >
                > > "We're financially responsible and clearly morally responsible," Davis
                > > said. "Those crashes in 2002 were devastating."
                > >
                > > The safety board's key finding: The Forest Service must ensure a plane's
                > > airworthiness, not the contractor that owns the plane.
                > >
                > > Since then, the Forest Service has developed guidelines to do just that.
                > > One of them is an engineering analysis that looks at how many hours any
                > > aircraft can be flown safely. But the Forest Service has yet to complete
                > > that "operational service life" study for the DC-10.
                > >
                > > Davis said the company that owns and operates the DC-10 — 10 Tanker
                > > Air Carrier, based in Victorville — has not provided all the necessary
                > > data. The company responds that it's working hard to comply.
                > > That's not easy because the study comes on top of Federal Aviation
                > > Administration requirements, which the company has already met, said
                > > general manager Brad Tuttle.
                > >
                > > Unlike the Forest Service, the state forestry department relies on FAA
                > > and industry standards and does not require an operational service life
                > > study, according to company officials.
                > >
                > > "It's not a small task," Tuttle said of the Forest Service requirements,
                > > which he said the company was in the early stages of meeting. "It's
                > > frustrating, but it's an item that they're requiring."
                > >
                > > The Record Searchlight contributed to this report.
                > >
                > >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
                >
                >
                > Northern California Fire Season 2006!
                > http://www.norcalscan.org/fire/
                >
                > Get ready for Fire Season 2006!
                >
                > Moderator questions/problems?
                > mail directly at norcalfire-owner@yahoogroups.com
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >





                ---------------------------------
                Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



                Northern California Fire Season 2006!
                http://www.norcalscan.org/fire/

                Get ready for Fire Season 2006!

                Moderator questions/problems?
                mail directly at norcalfire-owner@yahoogroups.com
                Yahoo! Groups Links







                ---------------------------------
                Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Pamela Alley
                Something to consider...with the amount of solid line that the DC10 can paint, is it possible that the scope of retardant drops could be expanding to include
                Message 7 of 26 , Oct 17, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Something to consider...with the amount of solid line that the DC10 can
                  paint, is it possible that the scope of retardant drops could be expanding
                  to include direct suppression or redirection of the fire?

                  Mind you, I know NOTHING of firefighting beyond what I've learned here, but
                  it seems that with the sheer amount of retardant available with the DC10,
                  perhaps things may change?

                  PA
                • Mike Meadows
                  Pam, it s been my experience that a smaller aircraft, like the P-3 or an S-2 can effect a more direct suppression attack then the DC-10 simply because they
                  Message 8 of 26 , Oct 17, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Pam, it's been my experience that a smaller aircraft, like the P-3 or an S-2 can effect a more direct suppression attack then the DC-10 simply because they can get closer to the flames or a structure whereas the DC-10 has to drop from a higher altitude. I have seen an S-2 make a direct attack on flames impinging on a house. As for redirection of the fire, again, The DC-10 , because it has to drop from a higher altitude, would be ineffective in that because by the time it's drop reached the ground it would have thined out too much to actually redirect the flames. The S-2 and P-3 or any other smaller aircraft would have a better chance of redirecting the fire making a lower and more concentrated drop...Just my opinion. Mike

                    Pamela Alley <rnrq@...> wrote: Something to consider...with the amount of solid line that the DC10 can
                    paint, is it possible that the scope of retardant drops could be expanding
                    to include direct suppression or redirection of the fire?

                    Mind you, I know NOTHING of firefighting beyond what I've learned here, but
                    it seems that with the sheer amount of retardant available with the DC10,
                    perhaps things may change?

                    PA






                    ---------------------------------
                    Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.

                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • K Broadbent
                    According to an article in this months Wildland Firefighter magazine. Air Tanker 910 was able to lay a line in 50 feet wide a mile long and was able to hold a
                    Message 9 of 26 , Oct 17, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      According to an article in this months Wildland
                      Firefighter magazine. Air Tanker 910 was able to lay a
                      line in 50 feet wide a mile long and was able to hold
                      a flank on the Rico fire... That same thing would of
                      used at least a dozen s2t's.. Sounds like a tool for
                      the future and should be used where applicable. They
                      only have one base for it certified to operate out
                      of.. Trying to certify McClellan and Castle Airfields
                      to continue using Air Tanker 910.. Rock on..

                      --- Mike Meadows <fotoguy425@...> wrote:

                      > Pam, it's been my experience that a smaller
                      > aircraft, like the P-3 or an S-2 can effect a more
                      > direct suppression attack then the DC-10 simply
                      > because they can get closer to the flames or a
                      > structure whereas the DC-10 has to drop from a
                      > higher altitude. I have seen an S-2 make a direct
                      > attack on flames impinging on a house. As for
                      > redirection of the fire, again, The DC-10 , because
                      > it has to drop from a higher altitude, would be
                      > ineffective in that because by the time it's drop
                      > reached the ground it would have thined out too much
                      > to actually redirect the flames. The S-2 and P-3 or
                      > any other smaller aircraft would have a better
                      > chance of redirecting the fire making a lower and
                      > more concentrated drop...Just my opinion. Mike
                      >
                      > Pamela Alley <rnrq@...> wrote:
                      > Something to consider...with the
                      > amount of solid line that the DC10 can
                      > paint, is it possible that the scope of retardant
                      > drops could be expanding
                      > to include direct suppression or redirection of the
                      > fire?
                      >
                      > Mind you, I know NOTHING of firefighting beyond
                      > what I've learned here, but
                      > it seems that with the sheer amount of retardant
                      > available with the DC10,
                      > perhaps things may change?
                      >
                      > PA
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > ---------------------------------
                      > Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr.
                      > We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                      > removed]
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Northern California Fire Season 2006!
                      > http://www.norcalscan.org/fire/
                      >
                      > Get ready for Fire Season 2006!
                      >
                      > Moderator questions/problems?
                      > mail directly at norcalfire-owner@yahoogroups.com
                      > Yahoo! Groups Links
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                      http://mail.yahoo.com
                    • nitrobear@comcast.net
                      Good thoughts indeed Mike! I agree that these LARGE tools have a real place, especially in California. What other tool could paint a 50 wide, 5,280 long
                      Message 10 of 26 , Oct 17, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Good thoughts indeed Mike! I agree that these LARGE tools have a real place, especially in California. What other tool could paint a 50' wide, 5,280' long retardant line in one bloody pass?
                        Limited? Sure it is and it has to be carefully managed and applied and man, does it have to be flown right. Effective? Gezz oh dear man...nothing can compare to these gorilla tankers if they are applied, flown and managed properly.
                        "Rock on"! Learn how to use them I say!
                        Good thread and comments list members...
                        --
                        Nitrobear

                        -------------- Original message --------------
                        From: K Broadbent <go2evryfyr@...>
                        According to an article in this months Wildland
                        Firefighter magazine. Air Tanker 910 was able to lay a
                        line in 50 feet wide a mile long and was able to hold
                        a flank on the Rico fire... That same thing would of
                        used at least a dozen s2t's.. Sounds like a tool for
                        the future and should be used where applicable. They
                        only have one base for it certified to operate out
                        of.. Trying to certify McClellan and Castle Airfields
                        to continue using Air Tanker 910.. Rock on..

                        --- Mike Meadows <fotoguy425@...> wrote:

                        > Pam, it's been my experience that a smaller
                        > aircraft, like the P-3 or an S-2 can effect a more
                        > direct suppression attack then the DC-10 simply
                        > because they can get closer to the flames or a
                        > structure whereas the DC-10 has to drop from a
                        > higher altitude. I have seen an S-2 make a direct
                        > attack on flames impinging on a house. As for
                        > redirection of the fire, again, The DC-10 , because
                        > it has to drop from a higher altitude, would be
                        > ineffective in that because by the time it's drop
                        > reached the ground it would have thined out too much
                        > to actually redirect the flames. The S-2 and P-3 or
                        > any other smaller aircraft would have a better
                        > chance of redirecting the fire making a lower and
                        > more concentrated drop...Just my opinion. Mike
                        >
                        > Pamela Alley <rnrq@...> wrote:
                        > Something to consider...with the
                        > amount of solid line that the DC10 can
                        > paint, is it possible that the scope of retardant
                        > drops could be expanding
                        > to include direct suppression or redirection of the
                        > fire?
                        >
                        > Mind you, I know NOTHING of firefighting beyond
                        > what I've learned here, but
                        > it seems that with the sheer amount of retardant
                        > available with the DC10,
                        > perhaps things may change?
                        >
                        > PA
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ---------------------------------
                        > Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr.
                        > We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                        > removed]
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > Northern California Fire Season 2006!
                        > http://www.norcalscan.org/fire/
                        >
                        > Get ready for Fire Season 2006!
                        >
                        > Moderator questions/problems?
                        > mail directly at norcalfire-owner@yahoogroups.com
                        > Yahoo! Groups Links
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >

                        __________________________________________________
                        Do You Yahoo!?
                        Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                        http://mail.yahoo.com



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • nitrobear@comcast.net
                        Hey Mike, I guess the Marketing effort can be understood, depending on who was paying the bill to fly her. :-) One of the problems with seeing revolutionary
                        Message 11 of 26 , Oct 17, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Hey Mike,
                          I guess the Marketing effort can be understood, depending on who was paying the bill to fly her. :-)
                          One of the problems with seeing revolutionary engineering or technical "stuff" via the media is that you can never be sure of the political orientation and how it's spun to we mortal viewers. It's an impressive machine that has to have some potential in the effort to stop devastating fires. I guess it really boils down to how it's used, paid for and managed at the end of the day.
                          I suspect it was "out there" to make some sort of a statement maybe? Wasn't it about a year ago that the 747 from Evergreen was doing the same sort of thing?

                          I have seen and heard of direct suppression efforts by air tankers in remote areas in the north state that really did make a difference on the impact the fire had. It has always been impossible to hit every start with effective ground resources and air tankers really make a huge difference when they are the only initial attack resource that can hit the fire early and cool it down until the troops can get on scene to back up the retardant lines.
                          The single biggest difference I have seen in wildfire suppression in the 42 years I have been either directly involved or carefully monitoring wild land fires in the west, great people and training of human assets notwithstanding, is, clearly, the Air asset of all types! So far, "bigger has been better" for the most part. I don't see how we can loose by learning how to use these monster tankers.
                          In a bad year as we have had in the recent past, I can't help but wonder what a difference they might have made in the efforts?
                          I think the biggest challange is finding airports that can support them that are close enough to the incidents for the super tankers to be really effective. They are faster of course but there is a cost associated with that if they have a long hike to and from the fire.


                          --
                          Nitrobear

                          -------------- Original message --------------
                          From: Mike Meadows <fotoguy425@...>
                          Oh, absolutely it was a marketing thing Nitreo. That plane should not have been out there. You know though, it did paint a very respectable line along the ridge. I'd say the elevation was probably 200 feet over the ground but, again, why in hell was it out there.......All the news stations did show it dropping so I guess the marketing promo did pay off......usually the air tankers are not supposed to make direct suppression efforts unless the fire is on a structure.
                          Just lay a line down and back it up with dozers and ground troops of possible....Oh well, who am I to critisize, i got a shot of it also...lol

                          nitrobear@... wrote: Interesting points Mike. I think your view of the application makes sense considering the price. I have no idea why they would showcase it in a "remote" area that could not be backed up with ground troops but I would like to know that I guess. Could the decision makers maybe been doing a little marketing to show the DC-10 capabilities?
                          The video I have seen was a little less than I expected to see. It looked like a very high elevation drop and you couldn't really see the fire activity below the DC-10 when it was dropping.
                          I'm sure we will hear some more from the experts on it.

                          --
                          Nitrobear

                          -------------- Original message --------------
                          From: Mike Meadows
                          Agreed Kim..I got shots of it dropping on the Day Fire and wondered, "why". Why is this thing, at 26,000 grand an hour dropping in an inaccessable area. The purpose of retardant drops is to slow the fire so ground troops and dozars can reinforce the line. It was dropping where nothing could get in to reinforce the drop line.....As I said, it was a great photo op.....
                          It's my opinion "only" that this aircraft and the 747 (if it gets certified) should be used only when structures and, or lifes are in danger. That wasn't the case here.
                          OK, not going to address this anymore here......

                          kimnoyes@... wrote: Nitrobear,
                          No, not the AHS Alumni group, but SoCalFire on Yahoogroups,.
                          There has been some debates there during the recent Day Fire about this "supertanker" usefulness issue...they're a tool in the toolbox....certainly useful in certain situations but not all situations.
                          Have you watched Tanker 910 (the DC-10) in action?
                          What did you think?
                          It's not what I expected.

                          Kim Noyes
                          Atascadero

                          --
                          http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
                          http://www.atascaderoalumni.org
                          http://www.mattlogic.com (Scanner 22)
                          http://www.ttb.org

                          ---- nitrobear@... wrote:
                          > Kim,
                          > You mean the Atascadero High School Reunion thingie? The DC10 debaucle didn't load for me. The DC10 won't fly over federal forest property from what I"ve read. Now, I gotta hear the explanation for that one beyond the design service life of the original air frame. First tanker that I ever worked with was a B17 from Aero Union here in Chico. Those bad boys flew in a WAR, dropped bombs on the Germans and other bad folks and, for some reason, still were servicable after some work, to save a bunch of firefighters butts and start a serious revolution in how we attack wildfires.. Why does it seem that everytime someone raises the bar on the airtanker equipment that a political solution takes it out of the equation?
                          > The "10" and the "74" could be a quantum leap in the suppression efforts on big and nasty fires probably an order of magnitude greater than the ones we have in the air today.
                          > Since we are in an election year, I wonder who is leading the decision to not let these birds work the western fires?
                          > Ok kim, I'll start a "polite" thread. Banning those big birds just sucks until we have some data on their effectiveness me thinks.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --
                          > Nitrobear
                          >
                          > -------------- Original message --------------
                          > From:
                          > I dare you to post this article on SoCalFire and watch the ensuring debate. ;-p
                          >
                          > --
                          > http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
                          > http://www.atascaderoalumni.org
                          > http://www.mattlogic.com (Scanner 22)
                          > http://www.ttb.org
                          >
                          > ---- hosgs1@... wrote:
                          > > our govt. at its best.
                          > >
                          > > -Ron
                          > >
                          > > ======================================
                          > >
                          > > Firefighting tanker won't see much air
                          > >
                          > > Rules prohibit DC-10 from flight over federal land
                          > >
                          > > By Jeremiah Marquez, Associated Press
                          > > October 13, 2006
                          > >
                          > > LOS ANGELES �� Federal rules are preventing the takeoff of a major
                          > > advance in firefighting �� a jetliner modified to unleash enough flame
                          > > retardant to coat a three-quarter-mile-long stretch of ground in a
                          > > single pass.
                          > >
                          > > The DC-10 jumbo jet first flew this fire season. Streaking several
                          > > hundred feet overhead, the jet's belly opens and a torrent of pink
                          > > liquid cascades earthward, creating a 100-foot-wide fire line. Those
                          > > spectacular drops helped halt fires threatening state land in California
                          > > and Washington.
                          > >
                          > > But its virtual prohibition from federal land, including the national
                          > > forests, means it cannot be dispatched over vast swaths of the West ��
                          > > 33 million acres in California alone, an area the size of Arkansas.
                          > >
                          > > The reason for that no-fly zone: The plane hasn't passed a U.S. Forest
                          > > Service safety check. The plane was designed to fly 60,000 hours, and
                          > > the DC-10 in question has 67,000 to 68,000 hours of flight time logged,
                          > > said Dan Jiron, Forest Service spokesman in Washington, D.C.
                          > >
                          > > "That's the fundamental problem with the '10,'" he said.
                          > >
                          > > Mark Rey, undersecretary for Natural Resources and Environment at the
                          > > U.S. Department of Agriculture, which oversees the Forest Service, is
                          > > set to speak about the DC-10 today, Jiron said Thursday afternoon.
                          > >
                          > > Meanwhile, politicians were sounding off about the monster air tanker.
                          > >
                          > > "What a horror story to see fires burning out of control and knowing
                          > > that the aircraft aren't available," said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher,
                          > > R-Huntington Beach, who has criticized the Forest Service for not using
                          > > larger air tankers.
                          > >
                          > > The plane, which drops 10 times more retardant �� 12,000 gallons in
                          > > three external tanks �� than the typical air tanker, is certainly
                          > > popular with people whose property has been threatened by wildfire.
                          > > Tankers usually seen in the skies over the north state include the S-2T,
                          > > which can hold 1,200 gallons of water or retardant, and the P-3, which
                          > > carries 2,500 gallons.
                          > >
                          > > Although the DC-10 didn't drop on any north state fires, it did join the
                          > > fight against the Day Fire in Southern California last month.
                          > >
                          > > The Day Fire, the fifth largest in modern California history at 162,702
                          > > acres, was threatening the popular tourist town of Ojai. The California
                          > > Department of Forestry and Fire Protection brought in the DC-10, and
                          > > officials credited the huge plane with knocking back the edge of the
                          > > fire creeping toward the artists' enclave.
                          > >
                          > > Steven Scott Smalley worried flames would damage ancient Chumash Indian
                          > > spiritual sites near his Pine Mountain Club home. So he traveled 100
                          > > miles to the DC-10's base of operations in the desert east of Los
                          > > Angeles and offered the plane's owner $80,000 of his own money to get it
                          > > airborne.
                          > >
                          > > "These sites are priceless," Smalley said. "I would have paid $1 million
                          > > to save those lands."
                          > >
                          > > The company declined, citing protocols and noting that the fire at the
                          > > time was on federally protected land. By contrast, the state forestry
                          > > department has a "call-when-needed" agreement with the company at a rate
                          > > of $26,500 an hour, said Mike Padilla, the agency's aviation chief.
                          > >
                          > > The Forest Service would allow exceptions if there's a "very serious
                          > > life and death situation," said Rose Davis, a forest agency spokeswoman.
                          > >
                          > > According to Davis, the federal restrictions derive from a 2004 National
                          > > Transportation Safety Board report issued two years after the wings
                          > > snapped off a pair of air tankers under contract with the Forest
                          > > Service, killing five people in California and Colorado. Poor
                          > > maintenance on older planes was blamed in those crashes.
                          > >
                          > > "We're financially responsible and clearly morally responsible," Davis
                          > > said. "Those crashes in 2002 were devastating."
                          > >
                          > > The safety board's key finding: The Forest Service must ensure a plane's
                          > > airworthiness, not the contractor that owns the plane.
                          > >
                          > > Since then, the Forest Service has developed guidelines to do just that.
                          > > One of them is an engineering analysis that looks at how many hours any
                          > > aircraft can be flown safely. But the Forest Service has yet to complete
                          > > that "operational service life" study for the DC-10.
                          > >
                          > > Davis said the company that owns and operates the DC-10 �� 10 Tanker
                          > > Air Carrier, based in Victorville �� has not provided all the necessary
                          > > data. The company responds that it's working hard to comply.
                          > > That's not easy because the study comes on top of Federal Aviation
                          > > Administration requirements, which the company has already met, said
                          > > general manager Brad Tuttle.
                          > >
                          > > Unlike the Forest Service, the state forestry department relies on FAA
                          > > and industry standards and does not require an operational service life
                          > > study, according to company officials.
                          > >
                          > > "It's not a small task," Tuttle said of the Forest Service requirements,
                          > > which he said the company was in the early stages of meeting. "It's
                          > > frustrating, but it's an item that they're requiring."
                          > >
                          > > The Record Searchlight contributed to this report.
                          > >
                          > >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > Northern California Fire Season 2006!
                          > http://www.norcalscan.org/fire/
                          >
                          > Get ready for Fire Season 2006!
                          >
                          > Moderator questions/problems?
                          > mail directly at norcalfire-owner@yahoogroups.com
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >

                          ---------------------------------
                          Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2�/min or less.

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

                          Northern California Fire Season 2006!
                          http://www.norcalscan.org/fire/

                          Get ready for Fire Season 2006!

                          Moderator questions/problems?
                          mail directly at norcalfire-owner@yahoogroups.com
                          Yahoo! Groups Links


                          ---------------------------------
                          Stay in the know. Pulse on the new Yahoo.com. Check it out.

                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • kimnoyes@charter.net
                          I was just up in Southern Monterey County a several hours ago checking out the burn area for the Rico Fire this afternoon for the first time since it happened
                          Message 12 of 26 , Oct 17, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            I was just up in Southern Monterey County a several hours ago checking out the burn area for the Rico Fire this afternoon for the first time since it happened and it was very interesting, much more than I anticipated.
                            The fire burned all around the old Slacks Canyon CDF station across Pancho Rico Creek from Peach Tree Valley Road.
                            I ended up the day at the Parkfield Cafe http://www.parkfield.com/cafe.htm and had the awesome grilled chicken sandwich with ortega chile and jack cheese with their killer fries and lemonade. If you've never been there you must make the Haj to the Parkfield Cafe. They have sign up inside the main dining hall that says, "If it begins to shake or quake, get under the table and eat your steak."
                            Anywho, I watched the approach and start of Tanker 910's first drop on that fire before it passed behind the smoke column as I stood on the shoulder of Indian Valley Road.
                            Didn't have an adequate opportunity for a good shot, unfortunately.

                            Kim Noyes
                            Atascadero

                            --
                            http://www.myspace.com/kimusinteruptus
                            http://www.atascaderoalumni.org
                            http://www.mattlogic.com (Scanner 22)
                            http://www.ttb.org

                            ---- K Broadbent <go2evryfyr@...> wrote:
                            > According to an article in this months Wildland
                            > Firefighter magazine. Air Tanker 910 was able to lay a
                            > line in 50 feet wide a mile long and was able to hold
                            > a flank on the Rico fire... That same thing would of
                            > used at least a dozen s2t's.. Sounds like a tool for
                            > the future and should be used where applicable. They
                            > only have one base for it certified to operate out
                            > of.. Trying to certify McClellan and Castle Airfields
                            > to continue using Air Tanker 910.. Rock on..
                            >
                            > --- Mike Meadows <fotoguy425@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > > Pam, it's been my experience that a smaller
                            > > aircraft, like the P-3 or an S-2 can effect a more
                            > > direct suppression attack then the DC-10 simply
                            > > because they can get closer to the flames or a
                            > > structure whereas the DC-10 has to drop from a
                            > > higher altitude. I have seen an S-2 make a direct
                            > > attack on flames impinging on a house. As for
                            > > redirection of the fire, again, The DC-10 , because
                            > > it has to drop from a higher altitude, would be
                            > > ineffective in that because by the time it's drop
                            > > reached the ground it would have thined out too much
                            > > to actually redirect the flames. The S-2 and P-3 or
                            > > any other smaller aircraft would have a better
                            > > chance of redirecting the fire making a lower and
                            > > more concentrated drop...Just my opinion. Mike
                            > >
                            > > Pamela Alley <rnrq@...> wrote:
                            > > Something to consider...with the
                            > > amount of solid line that the DC10 can
                            > > paint, is it possible that the scope of retardant
                            > > drops could be expanding
                            > > to include direct suppression or redirection of the
                            > > fire?
                            > >
                            > > Mind you, I know NOTHING of firefighting beyond
                            > > what I've learned here, but
                            > > it seems that with the sheer amount of retardant
                            > > available with the DC10,
                            > > perhaps things may change?
                            > >
                            > > PA
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > ---------------------------------
                            > > Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr.
                            > > We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
                            > >
                            > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                            > > removed]
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > Northern California Fire Season 2006!
                            > > http://www.norcalscan.org/fire/
                            > >
                            > > Get ready for Fire Season 2006!
                            > >
                            > > Moderator questions/problems?
                            > > mail directly at norcalfire-owner@yahoogroups.com
                            > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            >
                            >
                            > __________________________________________________
                            > Do You Yahoo!?
                            > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                            > http://mail.yahoo.com
                          • Mike Meadows
                            Ya Nitro, it s one thing to have an S-2 drop down into a canyon and quite another to manhandel a huge DC-10. The plane does have it s place out here but, as
                            Message 13 of 26 , Oct 18, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ya Nitro, it's one thing to have an S-2 drop down into a canyon and quite another to manhandel a huge DC-10. The plane does have it's place out here but, as Kim says, who's gonna foot the bill. The Feds? And if it is going to be ordered on a fire, you better get the bang for your buck.
                              Again though, in a Santa Ana driven fire, no amount of air resorces in the world can't stop it. Not even the DC-10 or 5 DC-10 wouldn't be able to hold the head of a Santa Ana fire when it's spotting a mile in front of itself. One more note, if the winds are too strong, the plane won't fly....Mike

                              nitrobear@... wrote: Good thoughts indeed Mike! I agree that these LARGE tools have a real place, especially in California. What other tool could paint a 50' wide, 5,280' long retardant line in one bloody pass?
                              Limited? Sure it is and it has to be carefully managed and applied and man, does it have to be flown right. Effective? Gezz oh dear man...nothing can compare to these gorilla tankers if they are applied, flown and managed properly.
                              "Rock on"! Learn how to use them I say!
                              Good thread and comments list members...
                              --
                              Nitrobear

                              -------------- Original message --------------
                              From: K Broadbent <go2evryfyr@...>
                              According to an article in this months Wildland
                              Firefighter magazine. Air Tanker 910 was able to lay a
                              line in 50 feet wide a mile long and was able to hold
                              a flank on the Rico fire... That same thing would of
                              used at least a dozen s2t's.. Sounds like a tool for
                              the future and should be used where applicable. They
                              only have one base for it certified to operate out
                              of.. Trying to certify McClellan and Castle Airfields
                              to continue using Air Tanker 910.. Rock on..

                              --- Mike Meadows <fotoguy425@...> wrote:

                              > Pam, it's been my experience that a smaller
                              > aircraft, like the P-3 or an S-2 can effect a more
                              > direct suppression attack then the DC-10 simply
                              > because they can get closer to the flames or a
                              > structure whereas the DC-10 has to drop from a
                              > higher altitude. I have seen an S-2 make a direct
                              > attack on flames impinging on a house. As for
                              > redirection of the fire, again, The DC-10 , because
                              > it has to drop from a higher altitude, would be
                              > ineffective in that because by the time it's drop
                              > reached the ground it would have thined out too much
                              > to actually redirect the flames. The S-2 and P-3 or
                              > any other smaller aircraft would have a better
                              > chance of redirecting the fire making a lower and
                              > more concentrated drop...Just my opinion. Mike
                              >
                              > Pamela Alley <rnrq@...> wrote:
                              > Something to consider...with the
                              > amount of solid line that the DC10 can
                              > paint, is it possible that the scope of retardant
                              > drops could be expanding
                              > to include direct suppression or redirection of the
                              > fire?
                              >
                              > Mind you, I know NOTHING of firefighting beyond
                              > what I've learned here, but
                              > it seems that with the sheer amount of retardant
                              > available with the DC10,
                              > perhaps things may change?
                              >
                              > PA
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > ---------------------------------
                              > Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr.
                              > We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
                              >
                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                              > removed]
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Northern California Fire Season 2006!
                              > http://www.norcalscan.org/fire/
                              >
                              > Get ready for Fire Season 2006!
                              >
                              > Moderator questions/problems?
                              > mail directly at norcalfire-owner@yahoogroups.com
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >

                              __________________________________________________
                              Do You Yahoo!?
                              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                              http://mail.yahoo.com

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






                              ---------------------------------
                              Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com

                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • Kim Noyes
                              Nitrobear, K Broadbent, et al, Here s my non-firefighting view: the thing has four times the capacity of the older standard heavies like P-3 Orions and
                              Message 14 of 26 , Oct 18, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Nitrobear, K Broadbent, et al,
                                Here's my non-firefighting view: the thing has four times the capacity
                                of the older standard "heavies" like P-3 Orions and DC-3's, but,
                                unfortunately, in my view anyway, it seems to provide the same basic
                                coverage per unit area of ground covered as the older planes with
                                simply more area covered per drop.
                                In other words, the one massive uber slug of retardant that could
                                really knock out the head of a fire (or part of it anyway) that I had
                                invisioned does not exist and from reading the literature for the
                                converted Boeing 747 they will have twice the capacity as Tanker 910
                                meaning a line or retardant twice as long as long as Tanker 910's but
                                no monster 24,000 gallon uber slug of retardant that could really
                                knock a piece of fire out.
                                Having 12,000 gallons of retardant hit all at once obviously is a
                                different kind of drop than strung out in a long line as happens to be
                                the case with Tanker 910.
                                As it stands now Tanker 910 dropping is the equivalent of four
                                standard "heavies" dropping in rapid succession extending the previous
                                tanker's drop which is nice but it lacks the "knockdown" ability of a
                                single slug or a couple of big ones at perhaps 6,000 gallons each.
                                Haven't we all seen a tanker knock out a part of a grassfire?
                                The Supertankers don't do that to brush and forest fires like I
                                thought they would.
                                Now I realize there are structural issues that dropping that much
                                retardant would create that perhaps such aircraft simply cannot endure
                                without coming apart. I mean, for a DC-10 to suddenly lose the weight
                                of 12,000 gallons of retardant might be too much for it to endure so
                                perhaps what I had envisioned is not physically possible with the
                                aircraft we now use. If I'm wrong then somebody please cordially
                                straighten me out as one of the reasons I'm here is to learn.

                                Kim Noyes
                                Atascadero

                                P.S. Mike Meadows here has seen Tanker 910 in action in person far
                                more than I have and from much better positions than I ever had so he
                                would be more of an authority on this than I or most folks here.
                                I only partially saw it drop on the Rico Fire in Southern Monterey
                                County last summer and then I've seen all the video and photographs
                                out there by others.

                                --- In norcalfire@yahoogroups.com, Mike Meadows <fotoguy425@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Ya Nitro, it's one thing to have an S-2 drop down into a canyon and
                                quite another to manhandel a huge DC-10. The plane does have it's
                                place out here but, as Kim says, who's gonna foot the bill. The Feds?
                                And if it is going to be ordered on a fire, you better get the bang
                                for your buck.
                                > Again though, in a Santa Ana driven fire, no amount of air
                                resorces in the world can't stop it. Not even the DC-10 or 5 DC-10
                                wouldn't be able to hold the head of a Santa Ana fire when it's
                                spotting a mile in front of itself. One more note, if the winds are
                                too strong, the plane won't fly....Mike
                                >
                                > nitrobear@... wrote: Good thoughts
                                indeed Mike! I agree that these LARGE tools have a real place,
                                especially in California. What other tool could paint a 50' wide,
                                5,280' long retardant line in one bloody pass?
                                > Limited? Sure it is and it has to be carefully managed and applied
                                and man, does it have to be flown right. Effective? Gezz oh dear
                                man...nothing can compare to these gorilla tankers if they are
                                applied, flown and managed properly.
                                > "Rock on"! Learn how to use them I say!
                                > Good thread and comments list members...
                                > --
                                > Nitrobear
                                >
                                > -------------- Original message --------------
                                > From: K Broadbent <go2evryfyr@...>
                                > According to an article in this months Wildland
                                > Firefighter magazine. Air Tanker 910 was able to lay a
                                > line in 50 feet wide a mile long and was able to hold
                                > a flank on the Rico fire... That same thing would of
                                > used at least a dozen s2t's.. Sounds like a tool for
                                > the future and should be used where applicable. They
                                > only have one base for it certified to operate out
                                > of.. Trying to certify McClellan and Castle Airfields
                                > to continue using Air Tanker 910.. Rock on..
                                >
                                > --- Mike Meadows <fotoguy425@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > > Pam, it's been my experience that a smaller
                                > > aircraft, like the P-3 or an S-2 can effect a more
                                > > direct suppression attack then the DC-10 simply
                                > > because they can get closer to the flames or a
                                > > structure whereas the DC-10 has to drop from a
                                > > higher altitude. I have seen an S-2 make a direct
                                > > attack on flames impinging on a house. As for
                                > > redirection of the fire, again, The DC-10 , because
                                > > it has to drop from a higher altitude, would be
                                > > ineffective in that because by the time it's drop
                                > > reached the ground it would have thined out too much
                                > > to actually redirect the flames. The S-2 and P-3 or
                                > > any other smaller aircraft would have a better
                                > > chance of redirecting the fire making a lower and
                                > > more concentrated drop...Just my opinion. Mike
                                > >
                                > > Pamela Alley <rnrq@...> wrote:
                                > > Something to consider...with the
                                > > amount of solid line that the DC10 can
                                > > paint, is it possible that the scope of retardant
                                > > drops could be expanding
                                > > to include direct suppression or redirection of the
                                > > fire?
                                > >
                                > > Mind you, I know NOTHING of firefighting beyond
                                > > what I've learned here, but
                                > > it seems that with the sheer amount of retardant
                                > > available with the DC10,
                                > > perhaps things may change?
                                > >
                                > > PA
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > ---------------------------------
                                > > Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr.
                                > > We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.
                                > >
                                > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                                > > removed]
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > Northern California Fire Season 2006!
                                > > http://www.norcalscan.org/fire/
                                > >
                                > > Get ready for Fire Season 2006!
                                > >
                                > > Moderator questions/problems?
                                > > mail directly at norcalfire-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                > > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                >
                                > __________________________________________________
                                > Do You Yahoo!?
                                > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                > http://mail.yahoo.com
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                > ---------------------------------
                                > Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
                                >
                                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                >
                              • Jake H
                                Good column of smoke going up and wind blowing it south. From Red Bluff, about 100 degrees on the horizon and nothing really for me to get a bearing on.
                                Message 15 of 26 , Oct 18, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Good column of smoke going up and wind blowing it south. From Red Bluff,
                                  about 100 degrees on the horizon and nothing really for me to get a
                                  bearing on. Appears to be between Hwy 32 and Hwy 89 near Lake Almanor-ish.

                                  Jake
                                • cywildfire
                                  Nothing on the 209 as of yet. Could be just a burn there doing? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  Message 16 of 26 , Oct 18, 2006
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Nothing on the 209 as of yet. Could be just a burn there doing?

                                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                  • Pamela Alley
                                    Haven t heard anything on this end....wonder what it is? PA
                                    Message 17 of 26 , Oct 18, 2006
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Haven't heard anything on this end....wonder what it is?

                                      PA
                                    • Todd
                                      ... From: Jake H
                                      Message 18 of 26 , Oct 19, 2006
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        From: "Jake H" <

                                        > Good column of smoke going up and wind blowing it south. From Red Bluff,
                                        > about 100 degrees on the horizon and nothing really for me to get a
                                        > bearing on. Appears to be between Hwy 32 and Hwy 89 near Lake Almanor-ish.
                                        >

                                        Listened off and on most of the day and haven't
                                        heard of anything going on.

                                        Did hear Tuesday what I thought was reference to
                                        lightening strikes on the PNF. I was coming back
                                        from Pacificon, coming up over Donner I80 and
                                        got into a freak storm up there. Snow and lightening.
                                        Had a couple of cars up ahead of us spin out...
                                        Got back down into Plumas county and was dry.

                                        Really weird...

                                        Later,
                                        Todd...
                                      • Jake H
                                        It could be very northern Plumas Forest. I always forget how far north Plumas sneaks up in there. Still nothing on 209 s so who knows. Awful hot fire it seemed
                                        Message 19 of 26 , Oct 19, 2006
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          It could be very northern Plumas Forest. I always forget how far north
                                          Plumas sneaks up in there. Still nothing on 209's so who knows. Awful
                                          hot fire it seemed for a controlled burn, but Shasta/Trinity is lifting
                                          their burn ban. There was a significant storm over the area Monday
                                          evening with heavy rain, unknown lightning.

                                          Thanks guys!
                                          Jake

                                          Todd wrote:
                                          > ----- Original Message -----
                                          > From: "Jake H" <
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >> Good column of smoke going up and wind blowing it south. From Red Bluff,
                                          >> about 100 degrees on the horizon and nothing really for me to get a
                                          >> bearing on. Appears to be between Hwy 32 and Hwy 89 near Lake Almanor-ish.
                                          >>
                                          >>
                                          >
                                          > Listened off and on most of the day and haven't
                                          > heard of anything going on.
                                          >
                                          > Did hear Tuesday what I thought was reference to
                                          > lightening strikes on the PNF. I was coming back
                                          > from Pacificon, coming up over Donner I80 and
                                          > got into a freak storm up there. Snow and lightening.
                                          > Had a couple of cars up ahead of us spin out...
                                          > Got back down into Plumas county and was dry.
                                          >
                                          > Really weird...
                                          >
                                          > Later,
                                          > Todd...
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • Larish, Michael
                                          There was lightning south and east of Chico Monday night. Last evening, when I left work, there was a nice, distinctive, long smoke trail coming into Butte
                                          Message 20 of 26 , Oct 19, 2006
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            There was lightning south and east of Chico Monday night. Last evening, when I left work, there was a nice, distinctive, long smoke trail coming into Butte County with the source looking like it was up towards Transfer Point or the Highway 32/36 T. Hard to tell from the valley but it was quite a ways up there.

                                            Mike


                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: norcalfire@yahoogroups.com [mailto:norcalfire@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Jake H
                                            Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:58 AM
                                            To: norcalfire@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: Re: [NorCalFire] What's burning deep in Lassen USFS?



                                            It could be very northern Plumas Forest. I always forget how far north
                                            Plumas sneaks up in there. Still nothing on 209's so who knows. Awful
                                            hot fire it seemed for a controlled burn, but Shasta/Trinity is lifting
                                            their burn ban. There was a significant storm over the area Monday
                                            evening with heavy rain, unknown lightning.

                                            Thanks guys!
                                            Jake

                                            Todd wrote:
                                            > ----- Original Message -----
                                            > From: "Jake H" <
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >> Good column of smoke going up and wind blowing it south. From Red Bluff,
                                            >> about 100 degrees on the horizon and nothing really for me to get a
                                            >> bearing on. Appears to be between Hwy 32 and Hwy 89 near Lake Almanor-ish.
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            >
                                            > Listened off and on most of the day and haven't
                                            > heard of anything going on.
                                            >
                                            > Did hear Tuesday what I thought was reference to
                                            > lightening strikes on the PNF. I was coming back
                                            > from Pacificon, coming up over Donner I80 and
                                            > got into a freak storm up there. Snow and lightening.
                                            > Had a couple of cars up ahead of us spin out...
                                            > Got back down into Plumas county and was dry.
                                            >
                                            > Really weird...
                                            >
                                            > Later,
                                            > Todd...
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >
                                            >






                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          • Steve Jackson
                                            Its a control burn. Reach 43 asked Red Bluff (CDF) about it and Red Bluff responded that it was a control burn on the Lassen. Steve ...
                                            Message 21 of 26 , Oct 19, 2006
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              Its a control burn. Reach 43 asked Red Bluff (CDF) about it and Red Bluff
                                              responded that it was a control burn on the Lassen.

                                              Steve

                                              --- "Larish, Michael" <mlarish@...> wrote:

                                              > There was lightning south and east of Chico Monday night. Last evening, when
                                              > I left work, there was a nice, distinctive, long smoke trail coming into
                                              > Butte County with the source looking like it was up towards Transfer Point or
                                              > the Highway 32/36 T. Hard to tell from the valley but it was quite a ways up
                                              > there.
                                              >
                                              > Mike
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > -----Original Message-----
                                              > From: norcalfire@yahoogroups.com [mailto:norcalfire@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
                                              > Of Jake H
                                              > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:58 AM
                                              > To: norcalfire@yahoogroups.com
                                              > Subject: Re: [NorCalFire] What's burning deep in Lassen USFS?
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > It could be very northern Plumas Forest. I always forget how far north
                                              > Plumas sneaks up in there. Still nothing on 209's so who knows. Awful
                                              > hot fire it seemed for a controlled burn, but Shasta/Trinity is lifting
                                              > their burn ban. There was a significant storm over the area Monday
                                              > evening with heavy rain, unknown lightning.
                                              >
                                              > Thanks guys!
                                              > Jake
                                              >
                                              > Todd wrote:
                                              > > ----- Original Message -----
                                              > > From: "Jake H" <
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >> Good column of smoke going up and wind blowing it south. From Red Bluff,
                                              > >> about 100 degrees on the horizon and nothing really for me to get a
                                              > >> bearing on. Appears to be between Hwy 32 and Hwy 89 near Lake Almanor-ish.
                                              > >>
                                              > >>
                                              > >
                                              > > Listened off and on most of the day and haven't
                                              > > heard of anything going on.
                                              > >
                                              > > Did hear Tuesday what I thought was reference to
                                              > > lightening strikes on the PNF. I was coming back
                                              > > from Pacificon, coming up over Donner I80 and
                                              > > got into a freak storm up there. Snow and lightening.
                                              > > Had a couple of cars up ahead of us spin out...
                                              > > Got back down into Plumas county and was dry.
                                              > >
                                              > > Really weird...
                                              > >
                                              > > Later,
                                              > > Todd...
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              > >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              >
                                              >


                                              __________________________________________________
                                              Do You Yahoo!?
                                              Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
                                              http://mail.yahoo.com
                                            • tuscanbutte@peoplepc.com
                                              I went through there on Monday and saw nothing except for the prescribed fire signs. Came back through there yesterday and saw the column but heard nothing on
                                              Message 22 of 26 , Oct 19, 2006
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                I went through there on Monday and saw nothing except for the prescribed fire signs. Came back through there yesterday and saw the column but heard nothing on the radio. saw no station activity anywhere so I figured it was a control thing.
                                                ----- Original Message -----
                                                From: Jake H
                                                To: norcalfire@yahoogroups.com
                                                Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:58 AM
                                                Subject: Re: [NorCalFire] What's burning deep in Lassen USFS?


                                                It could be very northern Plumas Forest. I always forget how far north
                                                Plumas sneaks up in there. Still nothing on 209's so who knows. Awful
                                                hot fire it seemed for a controlled burn, but Shasta/Trinity is lifting
                                                their burn ban. There was a significant storm over the area Monday
                                                evening with heavy rain, unknown lightning.

                                                Thanks guys!
                                                Jake

                                                Todd wrote:
                                                > ----- Original Message -----
                                                > From: "Jake H" <
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >> Good column of smoke going up and wind blowing it south. From Red Bluff,
                                                >> about 100 degrees on the horizon and nothing really for me to get a
                                                >> bearing on. Appears to be between Hwy 32 and Hwy 89 near Lake Almanor-ish.
                                                >>
                                                >>
                                                >
                                                > Listened off and on most of the day and haven't
                                                > heard of anything going on.
                                                >
                                                > Did hear Tuesday what I thought was reference to
                                                > lightening strikes on the PNF. I was coming back
                                                > from Pacificon, coming up over Donner I80 and
                                                > got into a freak storm up there. Snow and lightening.
                                                > Had a couple of cars up ahead of us spin out...
                                                > Got back down into Plumas county and was dry.
                                                >
                                                > Really weird...
                                                >
                                                > Later,
                                                > Todd...
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >
                                                >




                                                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                              • Jake H
                                                Hey Tuscan, long time no hear. How s it going? Were the prescribed fire signs on the Ponderosa? I think they re having a controlled burn on Upper Middle Ridge
                                                Message 23 of 26 , Oct 20, 2006
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Hey Tuscan, long time no hear. How's it going?
                                                  Were the prescribed fire signs on the Ponderosa? I think they're having
                                                  a controlled burn on Upper Middle Ridge in Tehama County pretty soon.
                                                  That will definitely be something seen from Red Bluff.

                                                  Jake

                                                  tuscanbutte@... wrote:
                                                  > I went through there on Monday and saw nothing except for the prescribed fire signs. Came back through there yesterday and saw the column but heard nothing on the radio. saw no station activity anywhere so I figured it was a control thing.
                                                  > ----- Original Message -----
                                                  > From: Jake H
                                                  > To: norcalfire@yahoogroups.com
                                                  > Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 7:58 AM
                                                  > Subject: Re: [NorCalFire] What's burning deep in Lassen USFS?
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > It could be very northern Plumas Forest. I always forget how far north
                                                  > Plumas sneaks up in there. Still nothing on 209's so who knows. Awful
                                                  > hot fire it seemed for a controlled burn, but Shasta/Trinity is lifting
                                                  > their burn ban. There was a significant storm over the area Monday
                                                  > evening with heavy rain, unknown lightning.
                                                  >
                                                  > Thanks guys!
                                                  > Jake
                                                  >
                                                  > Todd wrote:
                                                  > > ----- Original Message -----
                                                  > > From: "Jake H" <
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >> Good column of smoke going up and wind blowing it south. From Red Bluff,
                                                  > >> about 100 degrees on the horizon and nothing really for me to get a
                                                  > >> bearing on. Appears to be between Hwy 32 and Hwy 89 near Lake Almanor-ish.
                                                  > >>
                                                  > >>
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Listened off and on most of the day and haven't
                                                  > > heard of anything going on.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Did hear Tuesday what I thought was reference to
                                                  > > lightening strikes on the PNF. I was coming back
                                                  > > from Pacificon, coming up over Donner I80 and
                                                  > > got into a freak storm up there. Snow and lightening.
                                                  > > Had a couple of cars up ahead of us spin out...
                                                  > > Got back down into Plumas county and was dry.
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Really weird...
                                                  > >
                                                  > > Later,
                                                  > > Todd...
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  > >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                  >
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.