Why No Foam on Runway for JetBlue Landing

[Icelandair]

At least they didn't stop foaming due to pressure from environmentalist wackos.

Did you know that if you blow the fire squibs that contain halon you get fined by the EPA? "I'm glad your engine fire is out but you are a dirty polluter and shouldn't have used that stuff..."

 

[Dangerkitty]

At least they didn't stop foaming due to pressure from environmentalist wackos.

Did you know that if you blow the fire squibs that contain halon you get fined by the EPA? "I'm glad your engine fire is out but you are a dirty polluter and shouldn't have used that stuff..."

The EPA has been trying to make Halon illegal for years if not decades. Nevermind that it is by far the best fire suppresent on the market. Let's just outlaw it because it might make a hole in the ozone layer. What a bunch of BS.

 

[avbug]

Did you know that if you blow the fire squibs that contain halon you get fined by the EPA?

I surely didn't know that. In fact, I'm not aware of a single case of a legitimate use of any type of extinguishing agent in which the EPA fined someone.

Certainly the application of certain agents creates a hazardous material situation...in some cases the water runoff from a structure fire must be dammed and contained as it's considered hazmat.

Can you cite a case in which someone was fined for discharging a fire bottle?

 

[ToiletDuck]

I saw a demo tape once where instead of foam that put a "crushable" type of concrete at the end that looked almost like drywall and it not only stopped the plane really fast but it also helped lower the risk of fire by making is a soft impact and something to do with the dust i think.

 

[avbug]

It wasn't dust, it was an experiment in frangible cement covered foam blocks that were used to dissipate the energy of the aircraft. At the same time, considerable effort was being expended in finding fuel that wouldn't explode, and in finding methods of building or designing fuel tanks to reduce misting and vaporization, and the explosion hazards associated with it.

Dust won't stop or prevent the fire...a lot of dust is actually more likely to contribute to it, or result in an explosion.

Over the years, a lot of aspects of firefighting have changed, from the use of self contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) to firefighters not riding on the back of trucks any more. Thermal imaging devices are used to locate victims, various devices are used for determining the gasses in a fire, the it's toxicity. New agents are used to contain fires, and compressed air foam is the norm for many fire applications. Newer, more effective personal protective gear (PPE) is in use, with greater durability, greater survivability. Better training, better fire science, and always, more and more experience is available.

These changes also include the tactics and resources used to effect fire rescue on the airport, or prevent a fire from starting.

The fact remains that aircraft are chock full of hazardous materials and flammable resources, ignition sources, etc. If an aircraft is going to crash, there's always a good chance for a fire. Much of the metal onboard is flammable. Much of the interior is flammable. The fuel is flammable and explosive. Hydraulic fluid and other fluids on board are toxic and flammable. Even Halon, and it's various derivitives, are hazardous--halon turns to phosgene gas when exposed to flame...itself a very toxic and dangerous compound.

The gasses and smoke byproducts of the fires found around an aircraft tend to form hydrochloric acid in contact with water and mucus membranes, causing burning and damage to various exposed tissues. In most cases, the immediate threat isn't the fire, but the smoke and combustion byproducts...people are often dead long before the fire ever gets to them.

Rather than be concerned about frangible runway surfaces, it's a wonder more travelers and more airlines don't offer or use smoke hoods and products such as the EVAC-U8's (http://www.aeromedix.com/?_siteid=aeromedix&action=sku&sku=evac1&OVRAW=evac-u8&OVKEY=evac%20u8&OVMTC=standard) on board. These alone would probably save more lives than most other innovations or efforts combined.

 

[Flightjock30]

The Captains name was Scott Burke and he clearly manually landed that airplane and kept the weight on the mains before letting it settle. Good job Scott!

 

[Thedude]

Anyone know who the F/O and the F/As were?

 

[wxman13]

On the reporting thing, check out this bit from the LA Times:

He [Scott Burke] even had a moment to consider the public-relations repercussions before he made his landing, saying over the radio: "Do we have someone here who is media savvy? I want to keep the media wolves off my back. I've got nothing to say to them."

That is one smart man and an awesome pilot. I'm guessing the reporters were smart enough to have a tranceiver in hand and knew about airnav or something to get the right freqs...who knows.

The complete article is here.

Peter

 

[pilotmiketx]

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

Douche

 

[9GClub]

Wasn't Al Haynes flying United 232 back in '89?

 

[Dangerkitty]

The Captains name was Scott Burke and he clearly manually landed that airplane and kept the weight on the mains before letting it settle. Good job Scott!

What if the F/O was the one flying the airplane?

 

[Dangerkitty]

Wasn't Al Haynes flying United 232 back in '89?

Yes. However, a DC-10 Checkairman was working the throttles during the crash landing. Engine thrust was all they had to control the aircraft with.

Met Al Haynes in EWR a few years back. What a guy.
His use of CRM and task delegation saved many a life that day.

 

[avbug]

Wasn't Al Haynes flying United 232 back in '89?

Yes, Al Haynes was Captain on UAL 232 when it went in at Sioux City, IA.



--posted at the same time, apparently.

 

[Blue Dude]

What if the F/O was the one flying the airplane?

Even if it was the FO's leg, an abnormal landing is not the time for the captain to be "generous" with the landing. The captain would land the plane.

 

[Dangerkitty]

Even if it was the FO's leg, an abnormal landing is not the time for the captain to be "generous" with the landing. The captain would land the plane.

I dont agree. When I was a brand new ATR Captain I was flying with FO's that had thousands more hours in the aircraft than I did. (I upgraded from another aircraft and had never flown the ATR from the right seat)

With my limited experience in the aircraft if such an incident happened similar to what happened with JetBlue I would be more than happy to have the F/O land the plane. At that time they had more experience than me in the aircraft. The only reason that I was the Captain and they weren't was that I was hired before they were.

With one common fleet type (at least for the time being) I realize that this is not the case with JetBlue. Just because someone is the Captain doesn't make them a better pilot. It also doesn't mean they have more experience in the aircraft.