Thursday, July 28, 2016

Flying waaaaay too close to the edge


While fighting the Sage fire in California earlier this month, a DC-10 tanker aircraft made a low pass that almost turned deadly. Watch in full-screen mode for best results.





He can't have been more than twenty to thirty feet above that last ridgeline . . .




Peter

11 comments:

SiGraybeard said...

I remember reading someone arguing that for really getting down in those canyons that you don't want a DC-10, you want an A-10. Warthog. Much better climb power, much more maneuverable, although at the expense of carrying capacity of the fire retardant.

I was left thinking some guys really wanted to get their hands on some Warthogs for some fun flying, but maybe they were onto something.

Unknown said...

When I flew in New Hampshire, we were instructed to watch out for the most deadly weather of all, cumulo granite. Apparently this guy didn't receive the same instructions.

Trimegistus said...

Used DC-10: $20 million
100,000 gallons of firefighting chemicals: $25,000.00
Watching your copilot duck into the locker room to change his pants after the flight: PRICELESS

Mkrt said...

Use extreme caution when approaching edges of the atmosphere.

Gorges Smythe said...

Sometimes, the only difference between bravery and stupidity is whether you live to tell about it.

Will said...

I'm thinking that that's a pilot who at the end of the day says: "and they PAY me to fly like this. Hell, I'd pay THEM if I had to! Yee-Haw!"

Inconsiderate Bastard said...

I'm going with "he meant to do that." I'll also assume he's a local stick and is well aware of the terrain features and capability of the aircraft to deal with them. That said, I doubt another 100-200 feet would have made any difference in the effectiveness of the drop, but given the randomness of wind around peaks a couple hundred feet ain't much more of a cushion.

Which leads me to ask: AFAIK all the fire bombers are re-purposed aircraft (with the possible exception of China's latest seaplane effort); why isn't someone bulding a purpose-specific fire bomber? Lots of low-loaded wing for slow speeds, lots and LOTS of power to carry large loads and get out of trouble, lots of load carrying capacity for large amounts of water.

I'm quite sure it would be hideously expensive, but given that forest and brush fires are probably going to be around as long as the planet (and civilizations to worry about them) exists, it would seem a reasonable endeavor to create a "standardized" solution.

Anonymous said...

Canadair CL-415 (and its predecessor 215) are purpose designed and built as water bombers..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_415

watched them scooping off the croatian coast (from a sailboat) and then dumping a few minutes later on the mountains ..

Ragin' Dave said...

He either meant to do that, or they had to unscrew him from his seat when he landed. Holy moly.

jon spencer said...

There is also this firefighting airplane.
http://www.airtractor.com/aircraft/802f-fire-boss

Anonymous said...

Awesome to see them in person. Living near the foothills of So-Cal you see them every year. These guys flying are beyond amazing/crazy. Fires create crazy turbulence, and as seen in the video the margins are non existent. One of these actually hit trees during a fire, but the pilot managed to save it and land. Amazing.