Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3117 posts, RR: 11 Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1772 times:
Some of the reasons for not using foam that have been mentioned in other threads on here.
1) It reduces friction on the runway, requiring more distance and limiting directional control.
2) It impairs rescue ops.
3) The runway is rendered out of service until you can clean up an even bigger mess from the foam.
4) Emergency landings happen quite often and I think emergency officials have found that it's really not needed. Most large airports have large and very well equipped fire and rescue crews. They've refined their procedures and with today's technology and the infrequent nature of situations where the passengers don't walk away.
In my opinion the usage of foam adds more variables to an already precarious situation. JetBlue is a prime example of this. I would have wanted a dry runway that was as abrasvie as possible so I could stop as fast as possible (especially considering they had to already land long and not use reverse thrust). The fire crews were ready and would have quickly started working on any fire that occured. If that runway had been foamed, and one wheel had better traction than the other it would have started sliding, ending up backwards or cartwheeling through the grass next to the runway and in this case it would have made the situation much worse.
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31457 posts, RR: 57 Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 1687 times:
Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 2): If that runway had been foamed, and one wheel had better traction than the other it would have started sliding, ending up backwards or cartwheeling through the grass next to the runway and in this case it would have made the situation much worse.
I read somewhere that the Aft End of the Runway was foamed.Can Anyone Confirm/Deny.
Pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3117 posts, RR: 11 Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
A follow up on this. I talked to some firefighters here at STL about the foam issue. They never foam a runway for many of the reasons I stated above. Another thing they mentioned was that it does nothing for the parts of the aircraft that aren't submerged in the foam. It would be burning above the foam. They've found that it's better to hit the aircraft from the top and knock the flames down.
SlamClick From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 10062 posts, RR: 69 Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1298 times:
Last time I saw a runway foamed was at SAN back in the mid-70s. I twin Beech could not get his gear down, so they laid down about a thousand feet of foam on runway 31, which is closed now.
The pilot feathered both engines on very short final and the plane got so clean it almost glided past the foam before touching down. It did land in the foam, though, and slid to a stop near the end of the foam strip. There was no fire which was a good thing because the foam truck was almost empty from covering a runway which was not on fire. Even at the time it seemed like not an ideal use of the stuff.
It was a mess. That stuff, I'm told, was made from animal blood. It is very corrosive and stunk like hell.
Happiness is not seeing another trite Ste. Maarten photo all week long.