Back to Squawk list
  • 31

(Video) Hangar Fire Foam Suppression System Test

Übermittelt
 
The 138th Fighter Wing conducts a test of a newly installed fire foam suppression system at Tulsa ANG Base. (youtu.be) Mehr...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


preacher1
preacher1 2
Leave it to the gumint to figure out the hardest way to clean it up. I guess it's a good deal but if you had, say 6 planes in there, and one caught fire. You filled the whole hangar with foam and ruin the other 5 if one caught on fire. Looks like a lot better system would be from the top down to shower 1 AC. Just sayin'.
ToddBaldwin3
ToddBaldwin3 1
I can remember back at E-Systems, when they built a new paint hangar, all the bells and whistles, including a state of the art foam system, they forgot to take into account the action of the waste treatment system pumps, both at the lift station and at the treatment plant into account. It took us several days to get all that thru the treatment plant.
tpclark
Thomas Clark 0
It's simple chemistry prech. flood the hanger space with foam or water, equals no
oxygen. It takes fuel,ignition,and oxygen, for fire.........DAH.

Sometimes it's better to be thought a "DUH" then to speak up and remove all doubt!!!!!!!!!
preacher1
preacher1 0
I'm really not knowing whether to take offense at this or laugh with it.
tpclark
Thomas Clark 0
Don't know what field of expertise your in, what is certain it's not chemistry
or fire suppression...............DAH Ha Ha Ha
preacher1
preacher1 1
I don't think anybody on here except you were DUH enough to even think about the chemistry end of it. Most have been around aviation or interested in aviation to know what foam does on a fire. My comment was on the mess it made flooding the whole hangar, ruining every other plane in there besides the one on fire. Typical of something the government would buy. Personally, I would like to put a smart aleck remark in here about you but my spiritual side says no, so I won't, other than I will say go back and watch the video and look at the comment before you pop off again.
kbreither
kbreither 1
According to the article (from the link from Charles Agro), there is no damage done to the aircraft:

"It's a cool thing to see and it's really good to see how effective and how much volume is put out so quickly," said Will Kavanagh, Black Hawk pilot.

The chemicals aren't harmful to the environment, he said, and had another benefit: crews have to wash the aircraft every 30 days, so now they are good for another month.

Kavanagh said mechanics checked them all over Tuesday and they're all back on flight status. He said it turned out to be exactly like a big bath for the choppers.

Kavanagh said the contractor, SimplexGrinnell, cleaned up the foam from the hangar and the ramp.
tpclark
Thomas Clark -1
You can't see the forest for the trees, basically you can't start a fire without three elements
FUEL, OXYGEN, HEAT. The Triangle. So if you were going to suppress a fire in a hanger, there are several means to do so. Water deluge, oxygen depletion foam, or fire retardant foam gun applied.
All of the above will remove one element from the fire triangle "oxygen"so NO FIRE. There is nothing
messy about a aircraft fire in a hanger it's a disaster. So it's very prudent to test the fire suppression protection you have in your hanger.
As far as I'm concerned someone who critiques aircraft, and aircraft procedures should at least
know how to spell HANGER HANGER NOT HANGAR DUH!!!!!
preacher1
preacher1 1
If you would read the comment, I did not say one thing about foam, just that it was a sloppy system flooding the entire hangar rather than just drowning one aircraft. If, as most were, they are sealed, this flood won't bother them but if they are in some stage of repair, it could. Don't know what got you off on this fire tangent but I am off of it and you can just think as you wish. BTW, before I go I will ask where I misspelled hangar at, because I can't find it. DUH
preacher1
preacher1 1
HANGAR is proper spelling for an aircraft residence. HANGER denotes something to hang on
tpclark
Thomas Clark -1
YOU ARE CORRECT MY OH SCHITT.
preacher1
preacher1 1
LOL, goodnite, I got grandkids coming.
ToddBaldwin3
ToddBaldwin3 1
Actually, it's been changed to the fire quadrangle, the fourth component being "chain reaction". Break the chemical reaction and you can extinguish the fire. This is what made halons so effective, they scavenged the free radicals that sustained the combustion process.
sirelliott
sirelliott 1
Firefighting foam works on multiple levels, not just by excluding oxygen. This is why it can be such an effective agent as opposed to other agents and methods.
http://www.sthamer.com/englisch/f20_foam.html

Given the cost of the aircraft, the volatility of fuels and solvents in the area, and the difficulty in getting that much foam generated, that quickly, This is a very effective system.

It certainly beats trying to get firefighting crews in position and producing that volume of foam ON the area as opposed to fighting from the edges. You probably could not generate that much foam in an hour with a big firefighting force, with lots of people. Certainly not fast enough to stop a flammable liquid fire of any size.

The cost to install this system would be way below equipping and staffing a full time suppression force over time. That force would never be able to stop a flammable liquid fire fast enough to save aircraft.

The worst case scenario is a large fuel fire spreading across the floor. The foam can be deployed without fire as a protective cover in case of a large fuel spill. This does not appear to be an AFFF foam which makes sense in this setting. High expansion foams can not be propelled more than a few feet horizontally, making ceiling dropped foam, the best method to gently spread foam without breakdown.

The foam does not damage the aircraft. Fire does. While there appears to be a lot of foam, there is actually a relatively small amount of concentrate and water. The options are not good, Dry powder, oxygen displacing agents are going to far more difficult for such a huge volume, that isn't well sealed.

All modern firefighting foam breaks down over time and is normally environmentally friendly. Given the risk and cost of a fire and loss of aircraft vs. the cost of protection, this is a no brainer.

Maybe DARPA will have some success in the future with low frequency sound waves from swarming robotic devices http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2015/apr/02/dousing-flames-with-low-frequency-sound-waves
chckwgon
charles Agro 1
I remember driving by the base seeing this after it happned. The youtube video isn't from the inside the hangar this happened in. Copy and paste this link, you can see the foam pouring out on one of the helo's:
http://www.newson6.com/story/26372082/tulsas-army-national-guard-base-covered-in-fire-suppression-foam
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
Glad I didn't have to do that cleanup.
nasdisco
Chris B 1
Anyone inside the hanger needs a life jacket to swim through that!
abibe
Abibe Ferreira 1
It's a good ideia, but need to study more deeply. I agree with preacher1 because the fire extinguisher system like this should be applicable only in the parking positions inside hangars.
Locket3
Tom Lull 1
I remember a story about a similar test done at one of the blimp hangers at Moffett Field back in the 60's. Supposedly, the senior design engineer was walking through the chest-high foam, tripped and was knocked out. Before people could find him, he suffocated.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Sad part is that this wasn't a test. They actually have this system. They were testing it just to see how it worked but to me it is stupid to flood the whole hangar.
Locket3
Tom Lull 1
So it was more than just a rumor.
preacher1
preacher1 1
yep. More government overkill and waste.
mickndot53
Well it it doesn't look as tough as I initially thought it would be. I imagine that a lot of research went into the damage it could cause in itself.
Bernie20910
Bernie20910 1
I think I'd have just opened the doors and flushed it out with fire hoses and fog nozzles.
imtxsmoke
Jeffrey Bue 1
What sux is when this system goes off accidentally. What a mess!

Anmelden

Haben Sie kein Konto? Jetzt (kostenlos) registrieren für kundenspezifische Funktionen, Flugbenachrichtigungen und vieles mehr!
Diese Website verwendet Cookies. Mit der Weiternutzung der Website drücken Sie Ihr Einverständnis mit dem Einsatz von Cookies aus.
Schließen
Wussten Sie schon, dass die Flugverfolgung auf FlightAware durch Werbung finanziert wird?
Sie können uns dabei helfen, FlightAware weiterhin kostenlos anzubieten, indem Sie Werbung auf FlightAware.com zulassen. Wir engagieren uns dafür, dass unsere Werbung auch in Zukunft zweckmäßig und unaufdringlich ist und Sie beim Surfen nicht stört. Das Erstellen einer Positivliste für Anzeigen auf FlightAware geht schnell und unkompliziert. Alternativ können Sie sich auch für eines unserer Premium-Benutzerkonten entscheiden..
Schließen