Last year, there was a report that an ANA 744D (JA8955, I think) was destroyed in a hangar accident at BKK; the circumstances, as I understand them, was that there was a small fire, but the cause of the write off (if that is indeed what happened?) was that those fighting the fire used a massive dose of flame retardant, which could not be removed from the aircraft and consequently, there was no option but to declare it a write-off.

Does anyone have more info on this incident?

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20080803-0&lang=fr

Found that.

From PPrune:

"Apparently airplane was in for 'C' check maintenance when a fire broke out during solvent cleaning of the forward cargo bay. No reports of what sparked it. Locals used ABC dry chemical fire extinguishers to put out the fire. Apparently, they used about 10 million pounds of ABC to make SURE the fire was out. Unfortunately, all access hatches and panels were open for the maintenance; the dry chemical migrated everywhere (EE bay, flight deck, passenger cabin). Very abrasive and corrosive stuff - no way to 100% clean it all off. Enough so that the airframe was written off."

From the report (FCKC's link):

"An inflammable cleaning agent was being used, which led to a fire in the forward cargo hold."

If it's "inflammable" (i.e., not flammable), how could it catch on fire? Obviously an error.

Inflammable means combustible, Heavy.

When I was a child, I also thought matter was either flammable, or inflammable. It was very confusing. But now I know that inflammable and flammable are one and the same.

The opposite is fire-resistant, or fireproof.

Quoting OB1783P (Reply 4): Inflammable means combustible, Heavy. When I was a child, I also thought matter was either flammable, or inflammable. It was very confusing. But now I know that inflammable and flammable are one and the same. The opposite is fire-resistant, or fireproof.

Yes, those two words are synonyms but are often confused. I have always avoided using "inflammable" for that reason."Flammable" is much less ambiguous. Dictionary excerpt below :

Inflammable and flammable both mean “combustible.” Inflammable is the older by about 200 years. Flammable now has certain technical uses, particularly as a warning on vehicles carrying combustible materials, because of a belief that some might interpret the intensive prefix in- of inflammable as a negative prefix and thus think the word means “noncombustible.” Inflammable is the word more usually used in nontechnical and figurative contexts: The speaker ignited the inflammable emotions of the crowd.

Quoting Acabgd (Reply 2): 10 million pounds of ABC

Overkill or typo?

Quoting Spudsmac (Reply 6): Overkill or typo?

Weight of material in imperial or value of material in brit-currency?

Quoting OB1783P (Reply 4): Inflammable means combustible, Heavy.

Yup. If you ever have trouble with it, just remember: inflammable = able to be inflamed.

Quoting Acabgd (Reply 2): Apparently, they used about 10 million pounds of ABC to make SURE the fire was out.

10 Million pounds? Do maintenance hangars have tanks that hold that much retardant?
Probably migrated all over the city of Bangkok too, thats a lot of retardant.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 7): Quoting Spudsmac (Reply 6): Overkill or typo? Weight of material in imperial or value of material in brit-currency?

I would think a typo.

I have seen some reasonably large dry chemical installations with 3000lb of suppressant material, I am having difficulty imagining a hanger in BKK having systems with (or access to) 3000 times that amount.

Cheers

The Ammonium Phosphate used in the ABC fire extinguishers actually eats away the Alluminum. For this reason most airports have either Halon, Foam, or PKP (purple potassium powder) for their fire extinguishers. I recommend that anyone in Aviation take a close look at the fire extinguishers around aircraft and make sure none are of the ABC type. It's a real shame that a good aircraft is destroyrd by the people trying to save it.

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 7): Quoting Acabgd (Reply 2): 10 million pounds of ABC Overkill or typo?

10 million ponds = about 5 million kg = 5 thousand tons (about 225 truck loads)

Considering a density of less than 1 ton / cubic meter this quantity would be enough to fill the whole hangar with powder.

How different is ABC from BCF fire extinguishers?

AAMDanny From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2008, 128 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted Wed Apr 29 2009 09:46:21 your local time (1 hour 49 minutes 6 secs ago) and read 1176 times:


How different is ABC from BCF fire extinguishers?



ABC is for the type of fire. A= Ordinary Combustibles B= Flammable Liquids C= Electrical Fires. I really don't know what a BCF fire extinguisher is, but I'm guessing that it is something like Halon.

BCF = Bromochlorodiflouromethane, some sort of halon, very bad for the ozone layer

Quoting DODCFR (Reply 14): How different is ABC from BCF fire extinguishers?

ABC is Ammonium Phosphate is a corrosive powder. In the fire it is melting an starts building a fluid film that keeps the oxygen away from the fire. It kills the fire but it leaves huge damages.

BCF is an inert gas, that keeps the oxygen away from the fire or removes the heat from the fire. After use it does not leave any residues.

Beside the form there is also a difference in the price and in many parts of the world halon is banned.

Quoting Spudsmac (Reply 6): Quoting Acabgd (Reply 2): 10 million pounds of ABC Overkill or typo?

I just copied the original text, but I would say it's not a typo, just an exaggeration in order to imply that an enormous amount of fire extinguisher was used.

I work for the fire service and I'm not suprised that the bird had to be written off - the fire-fighters love dry powder as it is "awsome" at putting out fires but it's only used as a last resort as it wrecks everything especially electrical connectors and wiring.

Quoting Acabgd (Reply 17): I just copied the original text, but I would say it's not a typo, just an exaggeration in order to imply that an enormous amount of fire extinguisher was used.

Quite the exaggeration.

Quoting UA76Heavy (Reply 3): If it's "inflammable" (i.e., not flammable), how could it catch on fire? Obviously an error.

That's what Dr. Nick Riviera thought right before he blew up his office...