Why No Foam on Runway for JetBlue Landing

[Lead Sled]

Gotcha, all makes sense. Now who makes this call on the foam?? Im assuming PIC can trump anyones call for foaming the runway?

FWIW, I remember reading a few years ago that the charge (back then) to foam a runway was $50,000. (Who knows what it would cost now?) Someone gets to pay the bill and it's normally not the insurance company. If "they" elect to foam the runway then "they" get to pay the bill. If you ask to have the runway foamed then the bill is your problem.

Knowing that there are many light aircraft accidental gear-up landings each year and that there is relatively little airframe damage, I would be personally inclined (with the concurrence of my banker) to forego the foam. Now if I was back 60 years ago, flying a shot-up warbird, with fuel leaking out of a bunch of bullet holes then I'd probably ask for the foam.

'Sled

 

[cforst513]

so this is a stupid question, but once a runway is foamed, do they just hose it off the runway with water later? does it eventually break down due to the sun/rain, or do they send bulldozers/snow plows out to push it off? i've never dealt with it before.

 

[Dangerkitty]

so this is a stupid question, but once a runway is foamed, do they just hose it off the runway with water later? does it eventually break down due to the sun/rain, or do they send bulldozers/snow plows out to push it off? i've never dealt with it before.

Look at some of the earlier posts in this thread. Foam is no longer used.

However, back when they did use foam I would have no idea how they would de-contaminate the runway.

 

[cforst513]

yes, i do suppose that actually reading the thread would prevent me from looking this dumb. lesson learned!

 

[atrdriver]

I heard on TV that the crew did an autolanding, that's why it looked so good.

For Gods sake, how many forums are you going to say that in???

 

[Flyin Tony]

I seen a nose gear fail (would not come down) on the piper lance at VCV and they foam the runway for him

 

[English]

Hey pilotyip, if you're out there, this is the kind of thing they teach you when you get an aviation degree.

 

[mrtoy2]

Ok, say you were going to foam the runway (not that I would), It's a 10k+ foot long runway. Which part of the runway would you foam? A small airplane can land and stop in less than 1000 feet (usually). This type airplane usually needs 4000+ feet to stop (normally). Being that this isn't a normal landing and that they probably were going to use most if not all the runway, the fire department wouldn't know where to put the foam to be most effective. I've heard that you only get around 1000 feet of effective foam to play with. This is why, along with some others mentioned as well, that foaming is a thing of the past in these cases.

 

[English]

I think 25L is 12,000 feet long.

 

[mar]

Hindsight being 20/20

If that pilot ever has to do the same thing and it was up to me what part of the runway to foam I'd probably just lay down a nice thin strip right down the centerline.

No need for full width.

Dang that was some fancy footwork. I was pretty sure they were gonna go off-roadin'.

 

[Dizel8]

Exactly right. They don't foam the runway anymore.


It was proven to be useless.

Edit: Hey pilotyip, if you're out there, this is the kind of thing they teach you when you get an aviation degree.

Clearly humility is not one of the things they teach

 

[filejw]

The reason they don't foam the R/W any more is supply.They want to have it for using on the A/C if needed.

 

[avbug]

Foaming a runway in advance of a landing has proven to be less than effective. AFFF and Silvex, and other agents used for foaming, do little to prevent flashes and fires, and spilled fuel tends to float over the foam and still burn.

The biggest immediate concern from a firefighting perspective was the class D fire that developed from the wheel assy burning. This is hot, and if the burning material isn't consumed (usually magnesium or a mag alloy), it's difficult if not impossible to put out.

Laying down foam in advance of arrival creates a number of problems that other posters have already identified. Among them are traction issues, but not just for the aircraft. The fireground is made slippery and more dangerous for rescue vehicles, and fire personnel on foot. Foam is soap; it's slippery. You don't want to put down or use any more than you must. It's hazmat, it's an irritant, and certain types can be corrosive. It's used where it's needed. Additionally, as some posters have noted, with a limited supply of foam on board, putting the foam on the most effective part of the runway becomes an issue...keep it in the truck until the aircraft comes to a rest...that's where the foam is most needed.

I watched the events unfold on TV, and thought it was handled beautifully. I watched it on MSNBC, and thought Al Haynes did a great job with the commentary, as did the reporters handling the coverage. Kudos to the crew; nice job.

 

[mayday1]

I watched the events unfold on TV, and thought it was handled beautifully. I watched it on MSNBC, and thought Al Haynes did a great job with the commentary, as did the reporters handling the coverage. Kudos to the crew; nice job.

Contrary to what most on this board are saying, I though the reporters did a good job... sure they made some mistakes, but for god sakes, they're REPORTERS.. called in at a moments notice to commentate for hours about a given situation. They're not experts, they don't pretend to be, they're just trying to do their job... give 'em a break. They're expected to commentate on topics that range from hurricanes, to aviation accidents, to politics, the war in Iraq, economic issues, etc. They can't be experts on everything.

 

[Capn Mike]

I heard on TV that the crew did an autolanding, that's why it looked so good.

That would be a big negative. No autoland on that landing. It was smooth. The autoland in the A-320 would have a "firm" touchdown and would not have kept the nose up to bleed off the speed after touching down.

Mike