Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A DC-10 Passenger Plane Is Perfect At Fighting Wildfires

Posted by Soulskill on from the do-a-barrel-roll dept.

Daniel_Stuckey writes: Friday night in Southern California's Silverado Valley, relief flew in on an old airliner. In this summer of drought and fire, the DC-10, an airplane phased out of passenger service in February, has been spotted from Idaho to Arizona delivering up to 12,000 gallons of fire retardant in a single acrobatic swoop.

The three-engine DC-10 entered service in 1970 as a passenger jet, and the last airplane working in that capacity, operated by Biman Bangladesh Airlines, made its final flight on February 24. But some designs defy obsolescence. The DC-10 had already been converted to function as a mid-air refueling airplane for the Air Force, and in 2006, the first fire-fighting DC-10 was unleashed on the Sawtooth fire in San Bernardino County, California.

23 of 112 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm .... by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Informative

    The three-engine DC-10 entered service in 1970 as a passenger jet, and the last airplane working in that capacity, operated by Biman Bangladesh Airlines, made its final flight on February 24.

    There's a reason why the DC-10 isn't used anymore.

    Explosive Decompression sucks in an airplane:

    The DC-10 was designed with cargo doors that opened outward instead of conventional inward-opening "plug-type" doors. Using outward-opening doors allowed the DC-10's cargo area to be completely filled since the door was not occupying usable space. To secure the door against the outward force from the pressurization of the fuselage at high altitudes, outward-opening doors must use heavy locking mechanisms. In the event of a door lock malfunction, there is great potential for explosive decompression.

    Now, when you're using it as a water bomber, you're never going to pressurize the cabin, and you've likely made some other major changes.

    I'm glad they've managed to take these old DC-10's and make them do something useful .. they're a pretty cool plane and a piece of aviation history, but that unfortunate defect in the cargo doors made them not really safe to fly in.

    But it sounds like it's getting a new lease on life. I wonder just how many of them they'll be able to cobble together .. it's not like they make spare parts for them.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Hmmm .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      one incident occured because it was possible to close the door and make it appear fully seated and locked without it actually being so. after it was redesigned it was no longer possible to do so. they also added vents between the cargo and passenger holds, to allow the air pressure to equalize (you see them on almost all airliners now). they fixed that problem. engineering wise, the problem was fixed and it was deemed safe*. what they couldnt fix was ground personel. who would ignore the safety indicator indicating that the door wasnt fully seated and properly locked. i know we talk about idiot proofing, but ground personel are responsible for several things that can crash a bird if done improperly. we trust them everyday.

      but generally, once it was fixed, the DC-10 was considered safe and airworthy, even if the public perception wasnt so trusting of it.

      and if you really want to feel safe, dont think about how they work long high tempo hours outdoors for an average of 9 bucks an hour (typical low wage physical labor job).

      __
      (*if you really want to get into it, explosive decompression is generally not even a concern on aircraft, partly because of the DC-10 (if it hadnt beent eh DC-10, another plane would have eventually taught engineers the same lessons), being more of a hollywood thing (people getting sucked out windows, planes dinintergrating, etc.....).

      I dont know when air vents between the two halves of the pressure vessel became common (they are now though, because of this...), but at the time the DC-10 did not have them. so if one half decompressed, and the other is still airtight, but the floor/ceiling seperating them isnt designed to contain the prssure...it buckles. because of how the DC-10 was structurally designed, what would happen is, if the cargo hold decompresses it was possible for the floor seperating the hold from the passenger cabin to buckle, because the floor acted as an air tight membrane. this buckling would cause damage to the control system running the length of the fuseleage, because of where the control system component were located as they traveled the length of the plane. the end result was a loss of control, that would cause the crash. this problem was a potential problem on many aircraft, if they ever experienced decompression in either half of the pressure vessel.

      any of several things could have improved this: relocate the control components, improve/redesign the floor structural supports, and so on. Those options are really expensive, add weight, reduce capacity, etc.

      So on a large plane that needs two usable cargo holds to be profitable......air vents.
      Air vents allow the pressure to equalize between the two halves, so that if either half should lose pressure (for any reason...not just a door malfunction), the pressure can equalize, the floor doesnt buckle, the control system isnt impaired, and the plane remains flyable.)

    2. Re:Hmmm .... by Alioth · · Score: 3, Informative

      That problem was fixed and is not the reason why the DC-10 isn't used any more. The DC-10 (and MD-11 followon, which is still in service) went on to fly millions of safe, reliable hours once the issue with the overcentre locks were fixed with the cargo doors.

      The DC-10 is out of (passenger) service now just because it's old and burns too much fuel. (It remains in cargo service, where it will be pressurized).

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    3. Re:Hmmm .... by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did you read the rest of that wikipedia article.

      Explosive decompression does suck but losing cargo space to inward opening doors also sucks. Afaict outward opening cargo doors are the norm on airliners*. Yes the DC-10 initially had a flawed locking design on the cargo doors and also had inadequate protection from hydralic failure of it's flight control systems and yes a couple of planeloads of people had to die before these issues were taken seriously but the overall safety record of the plane has been pretty normal compared to other planes of it's age.

      The 747 also had a cargo door failure incident, fortunately it only killed a handful of people.

      Afaict the main reason for retiring old airliners is not safety but economics, more modern planes tend to use less fuel per ton-mile and are also queiter (when airports are under noise restrictions quieter planes means more flights fit within the noise quota) and are easier to get spare parts for.

      * At least doing a google image search for various common airliners shows outward opening doors.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    4. Re:Hmmm .... by devman · · Score: 3, Informative

      The guardian pod defends against shoulder launched rockets (MANPADS), they are usually guided by infrared targeting and pods defense mechanism jams this guidance system. The system is mainly designed to protect the plain during take-off and landing when the plane is most vulnerable to easily obtainable shoulder launched missiles. The missile that allegedly shot down MH17 was from a mobile SAM truck and would have been radar guided. A guardian pod would not have saved them.

    5. Re:Hmmm .... by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 4, Informative

      There's a reason why the DC-10 isn't used anymore.

      Explosive Decompression

      Incorrect. DC-10s were perfectly safe aircraft that flew millions of miles. They weren't explosively decompressing left right and center.

      DC-10s aren't flying passengers any more because they don't have the efficiency of modern airliners like the 787. They're heavier, have more drag, and burn more fuel - Particularly due to the their three engines.

      FedEx still operates a whack of 'em hauling cargo.

    6. Re:Hmmm .... by tlhIngan · · Score: 2

      and if you really want to feel safe, dont think about how they work long high tempo hours outdoors for an average of 9 bucks an hour (typical low wage physical labor job).

      Pilots don't have it much better either - starting wages are only around $20K or so after graduating and spending easily twice that learning to fly. The "sweet life" is getting the six figure salary and left seat on heavy metal on routes that are convenient for you, but it can take 10-20 years to get that far, while for the most part, when you start out it's shit routes at shit times for basically shit pay. And don't talk about airline mergers - when your pay is related to number of years AT THE COMPANY (and not experience), there's generally huge fights as to how people are ranked in seniority. And yes, it could easily mean pay cuts.

      Hell, until recent FAA rule changes (that have yet to be rolled out in other countries), your "duty day" doesn't start until you basically start prepping for a flight. It doesn't matter that to get to your flight you had to ride standby and commute 4+ hours waking up at 3AM for a 1PM flight and having your day end at 1AM the next day because you had a few layover hours.

      A few air disasters later traceable to pilot fatigue has caused the FAA to change the rules on duty day calculations.

      So your flight might still be "legal" with respect to duty day requirements for that airline, but the pilot could easily be pushing 20 hours awake.

  2. The DC-10 was killed by poor management. by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 3, Informative
    Fundamental problem with DC-10 was the poor management. They made a stupid decision to make the cargo door open outward. Designed a complex locking arrangment using pins to be done by the cargo handlers. If not properly locked, the door flies off. The passenger door floor buckled when that happened. Very first time it happened the engineering team gave a very clean way to fix the issue. Pressure relief holes between passenger and cargo compartment, better locking pins.

    But the management persuaded FAA not to issue a "must fix it" notice to avoid bad publicity. Gentleman's agreement between McDonnel-Douglas chief and chief of FAA. Never followed through. Happened again, law suits followed, all the dirty laundry got aired and they never recovered from that.

    Added to that the airlines were using some home grown procedure to dismount and remount engines. Recommended process called for removing some 198 bolts. Airliners detached three loading pins on the pylon. In the process damaged the pylon. They had the engine on a fork lift truck while someone shouted directions trying to slide in the loading pin. The mistake was by the airlines. DC-10 paid the price for it. It got a reputation for being a badly designed unsafe aircraft. Only third world airlines like Biman Bangladesh would even touch them.

    Good plane, killed by the same stupid management that killed US Auto industry too. At least in the case of US auto they were actively aided and abetted by the unions. But McDonnel-Douglas was just self inflicted wounds. The third player Lockheed (L-1011 tristar) survived on military cargo plane contracts.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:The DC-10 was killed by poor management. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2

      Yeah, designing for safety also means designing against lazy behaviors by end users that compromise security. If the approved way is to remove 198 bolts, and the stupid, wrong, but seemingly possible way to do it is to remove three pins, well people will do it the stupid way.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    2. Re:The DC-10 was killed by poor management. by Kagato · · Score: 2

      Huh? Northwest Airlines flew them until 2007. What killed the plane for commercial service is the same thing that killed every other tri-jet. Third Engine meant higher costs both in terms of fuel and maintenance. On the other hand cargo airlines love the tri and quad jets because of the high MOTW and ALR ratings, plus they can buy them for a song in the secondary market.

    3. Re:The DC-10 was killed by poor management. by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Good plane, killed by the same stupid management that killed US Auto industry too. At least in the case of US auto they were actively aided and abetted by the unions. But McDonnel-Douglas was just self inflicted wounds. The third player Lockheed (L-1011 tristar) survived on military cargo plane contracts.

      I had a brief internship at Lockheed where I worked under one of the managers who worked on the L-1011 project. According to him, both the DC-10 and L-1011 were good planes (though of course the L-1011 was better). The problem was that when both companies had decided to build the planes, they'd done their market analysis based on the assumption that their plane was the only one servicing the widebody-but-smaller-than-747 market. i.e. $x profit per plane * number of planes sold > design costs.

      When both planes rolled out almost simultaneously, they split the market in half. Both manufacturer ended up selling about half as many planes as expected, and neither made much if any money. That's why Lockheed abandoned the commercial aircraft industry after a long and storied history - a decision by upper management that military contracts which were guaranteed to pay were safer than a commercial venture which went south not because of anything under their control, but because a competitor rolled out an almost-identical plane at the same time.

  3. Hmmm .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I see at least 50 a night here in Memphis. DC-10s and their big brother MD-11s are one of the backbones of FedEx.

  4. Re:Cheap and available by rasmusbr · · Score: 2

    I think these planes have used up their allowed number of pressurization cycles anyway, before they are converted.

    At some point in the future someone will probably make good money converting old airliners into drones, which will make them cheaper to fly and solve the problem of pilots dying if the airframe gives in during flight.

  5. Re:strongly doubting it by Deadstick · · Score: 2

    ...and the DC-10 can deliver as much water as five of the largest water scoopers.

    Also bear in mind that a water scooper has to "land and refill" too...it just does that on a body of water instead of an airport. That could be closer than the nearest airport, or it could be farther.

  6. Re:However by cvdwl · · Score: 2

    I live on the west coast of Italy; they do ocean refilling all the time here, as there are very few lakes. Remember that these are seaplanes; some corrosion resistance is built into the design. Also, they don't really land so much as just skim the surface for a kilometer or so, still holding a pretty good speed. I believe some also carry tanks of concentrated retardant to mix with the water.

    --
    ... grumble, grumble, grumble, mutter, mutter, Millenium... Hand... Shrimp, I tol' 'em, I tol' 'em.
  7. Re:strongly doubting it by rwise2112 · · Score: 4, Informative

    ...and the DC-10 can deliver as much water as five of the largest water scoopers.

    Also bear in mind that a water scooper has to "land and refill" too...it just does that on a body of water instead of an airport. That could be closer than the nearest airport, or it could be farther.

    I looked them up: the scooper scoops 6,137 litres of water during a 12-second 410 metres (1,350 ft) long run on the water at 70 knots. 12 seconds to refill sounds pretty amazing, but apparently the DC-10 can be filled (45000 L) in 15-20 minutes, which is not too bad.

    --

    "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
  8. Re:strongly doubting it by JeffOwl · · Score: 2

    It is more of a touch and go as opposed to the full stop landing the standard aircraft have to make and the loading of water happens much quicker. The downside is that when they do that they don't get retardant, just water.

  9. Re:However by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

    But In Idaho, Colorado, Montana, Wyoming, and even parts of Washington, Oregon, and California lakes and the sea can be a good distance from the fires or rare.
    Also in the western parts of the US salt in the soil is a real issue.
    Like I said, they can scoop on the sea but they prefer to use lakes. They have to spend a lot of time and fresh water to wash down after they scoop from a salt water source.
    Of course in the Med you also tend to have calmer sea states than the west coast of the US.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  10. It's just simple economics by wired_parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But some designs defy obsolescence

    This isn't about obsolescence or a design that stands the test of time. This is about simple economics. The main reason airliners phase out old airplanes is that their operating costs are too high - their older engines are too fuel consuming compared to newer designs, and may not meet newer noise regulations for most commercial airports. Maintenance also becomes difficult to source with no new spare parts being produced.

    Fire fighting aircraft fly under a different set of economics. They fly short flights, and only seasonally, so their fuel expenses are a smaller proportion of their expenses. They don't have to worry about noise regulations, because they don't fly out of commercial airports. And an older model that was produced in large volumes like the DC-10 means there is a large source of cheap junkyard parts to maintain these aircraft.

    This isn't about the DC-10 being a good or bad design - it's just simple economics. What's expensive for a commercial airliner can be economical for a fire-fighting operation.

  11. Re:as good as a pair of pliers to drive in a nail by stevew · · Score: 2

    How well is that going to work in CA where the big problem is just finding water at the moment? We won't talk about all of the incidence recently where millions of gallons were released like at UCLA (Uggh!).

    Actually having been to a couple of wild-land fires with what was then called CDF in an auxiliary capacity I do have some knowledge of the process. The reality is that just plain H2O is used as often as retardant, and that all kinds of aircraft are put in to service for air-drops.

    The big thing about the DC-10 is carries a lot of H2O! It is also going to be limited as to what areas it can drop in. CA is a hilly place and there are some terrain features where it wouldn't be safe to take such a large aircraft. We also have copters and smaller fixed wing aircraft in use. They all play a part.

    Steve

    --
    Have you compiled your kernel today??
  12. Re:Perfect? by Talderas · · Score: 2

    The Martin Mars can drop 600 gallons compared to the 12,000 gallons of the DC-10. It can do in one run what it would take a Martin Mars twenty runs to do. The article says the plane can travel from where it's based to most of it area it could respond to in just 45 minutes. Give another 45 minutes to return to its home base and say 5 minutes for the dump itself and you're look at 95 minutes RTT. If they can refill it in just 15 minutes that puts it at 110 minutes total time. Ignoring travel time to the site for the Martin Mars, it would need to make a water drop every 5.5 minutes in order to keep up with the DC-10. The one area that the Martin Mars has an advantage in is that since the dump is done all at once, the Martin Mars can more effectively respond over a wider area unless the DC-10 is configured in a way that lets it do a partial dump but considering these are typically used to help break the progress of the fire I don't think that's a huge advantage.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  13. Also great for skydiving. by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 2

    They're also great for jumping out of. The outward opening rear ramp is a lot of fun.

    Sadly, the Perris Valley Skydiving DC10 is currently out of service...

    --
    VLC Remote for iPhone and Android
  14. Re:However by markana · · Score: 2

    Yeah, but the intakes on the scooper planes keep getting plugged up with scuba divers... :-)