AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2021 times:
Years ago, I recall seeing what seems to me to be FAA test footage of the flammability of aircraft interiors. Doubtless, much progress has been made concerning the use of fire retardant in interior fixtures and so forth.
Query -- why don't the latest aircraft incorporate fire suppression systems, such as foam dispensers or inert gas, etc.? Or are such systems already in existence? (I don't seem to ever recall seeing any references in standard passenger safety instructions suggesting that any such systems exist, at least in passenger compartment.)
I realize that with passenger compartments, there might be issues as to breathability, but surely that can be handled, since oxygen masks are already provided. Perhaps such suppression systems can be installed in cargo holds, at least, assuming that they aren't already. Is it an economics issue?
Maybe this could be a safety measure that could be considered in future airliner designs. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
DeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2013 times:
I'd think the only thing you'll want to spray people with is water- which does nothing for an electrical or fuel fire, which is precisely what you'd normally have on a plane...unless someone lit their inflight mag on fire
Anything else, like foam, would be downright messy...imagine sitting in the cabin and being doused with it to the point where you couldn't walk..yes, you'd be uncharred, but I'm sure someone would find a liability for it. Halon, no thanks, unless you want everyone onboard dead.
The fire supression systems in the cargo bins are fairley good, as long as the smoke detectors are in fair order. I think maybe the biggest obstacle to foam, etc, would be the weight of these said systems- just a shot though.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2006 times:
^^Good point about the possible "sticky situation" with foam.
I suppose that whoever invents an effective substitute suppression agent that doesn't have any of the negative features of foam -- for example, dissolves quickly into a nontoxic gas -- would be quite the multi-millionaire. Such an agent wouldn't just be limited to use on aircraft; imagine having such a system in buildings, etc., which could render water-based suppression systems -- and attendant water damage -- a thing of the past.
PhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1971 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter): but surely that can be handled, since oxygen masks are already provided.
Not quite true. Granted there are oxygen masks that will deploy, but you don't want them deployed in a fire due to the effects of oxygen will have on the flame source.
Secondly, while O2 is supplied, it's not like it is in the cockpit. What you get in the cabin is a diluter system, not a pressure system. You will have ambient cabin air mixed in the mask system. So any additives to the cabin will be inhaled by the passengers.
FutureUApilot From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1365 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1947 times:
This isn't inside the aircraft, but it's still not a good situation...
You were supposed to Simulate the fire surpression test!!!
Grbld From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, RR: 3 Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1910 times:
Hmm, I suppose those are the pics of the Hawkers in the hangar?
There are also portable Halon bottles in the cabin, to be used on anything from toilet fires to electrical fires (where you can't use water) or spills with dangerous goods (where using water might make things worse). Halon is extremely effective in putting out the fire, but it's also not very healthy and as such, the aviation industry is the only place now where Halon may be used.
The tradeoff with Halon between some potential breathing problems and putting out the fire quickly is evident. A small cabin fire can turn in to a flashover in a matter of only a few minutes, where the fire suddenly rapidly engulfs the cabin. That is why a real cabin fire is one of the most urgent emergencies that exist, much more so than an engine fire or failure.
There was a situation with a Saudia aircraft (I think it was a Tristar) that had a cabin fire but the flight crew didn't fully realize the danger and as they slowly taxied off the runway, most people in the back burned to death after a flashover had occurred.
All materials in the cabin (except for the passengers and their stuff) have been certified according to certain fire resistant criteria.
Woodreau From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 890 posts, RR: 7 Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 1877 times:
Quoting Grbld (Reply 5): the aviation industry is the only place now where Halon may be used.
It is also used in the maritime industry where Halon is considered the only effective means of putting out an engine room fire. (other than the ship sinking.)
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from surviving bad judgement.
Starlionblue From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, RR: 66 Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1840 times:
Quoting Woodreau (Reply 7): Quoting Grbld (Reply 5):
the aviation industry is the only place now where Halon may be used.
It is also used in the maritime industry where Halon is considered the only effective means of putting out an engine room fire. (other than the ship sinking.)
Halon is also used in some computer rooms.
The British Airtours 737 accident in 1985, with 55 fatalities on the ground, was a wake up call of sorts for the industry. The fatalities were mostly from inhalation of toxic fumes given off by the interior fittings. Fire safety standards for interior fittings were completely revised. Nowadays, the stuff inside a plane is very hard to set alight.
Grbld From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1811 times:
Quoting Woodreau (Reply 7): It is also used in the maritime industry where Halon is considered the only effective means of putting out an engine room fire. (other than the ship sinking.)
JarheadK5 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 216 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 1796 times:
Quoting AerospaceFan (Thread starter): Perhaps such suppression systems can be installed in cargo holds, at least, assuming that they aren't already. Is it an economics issue?
FAR 125 states all aircraft over 20pax capacity or max cargo capacity of 6k lbs. or more must have some sort of fire detection & extinguishing systems in the cargo hold(s). Depending on the compartment's classification and accessibility, this can be as simple as a crewmember and a hand-held fire bottle, or as complicated as a multi-sensor smoke & fire detector network and a built-in crew-activated extinguisher system.
Lotsamiles From United States of America, joined May 2005, 323 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1776 times:
There are currently some efforts in the industry to develop a fire suppression system for the main deck of a freighter. However, the volume is very large and thus to fill it with foam or anything else means that you have to carry around a lot of weight for all the bottles and agent. This is mainly envisioned for long over water flights where you can't get on the ground quickly.
On a freighter with a class E compartment fire suppression is provided by the crew members with hand held extinguishers! However, in practical application no crew members want to be exposed to an in-flight fire. Thus freighters are designed so that the crew can depressurize the main cargo compartment and starve the fire, landing as soon as possible. The air distribution system has to be designed to keep any smoke out of the cockpit so that the crew can avoid any contact with potentially toxic smoke. Of course, this only works on a freighter where you have no passengers (or passengers with personal oxygen supplies that last far longer than pax PSU's).
The lower lobes still typically have class C compartments with full detection and halon suppression.
HAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, RR: 58 Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1745 times:
Quoting Lotsamiles (Reply 11): On a freighter with a class E compartment fire suppression is provided by the crew members with hand held extinguishers! However, in practical application no crew members want to be exposed to an in-flight fire
Any data on an Class E Fire being extinguished on board.
regds
MEL
Whiskeyflyer From Ireland, joined May 2002, 224 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 22 hours ago) and read 1698 times:
the great news is the replacement for Halon has been approved by the FAA (currently sole supplier is the manuafacturer of the Eclipse aircraft)
Its called PhostrEx and uses enviromentally friendly gases as it does not deplete the ozone layer (Halon is banned for all excpet aviation, but with this new stuff, the regs may change)
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2005, 353 posts, 
From India, joined Jan 2001, 31201 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Feb 2004, 15872 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2002, 224 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
