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.

 

[Blue Dude]

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.

Point taken. In fact, not long after I upgraded in the A320, I was flying with an experienced FO who had just been hired from another A320 operator. The weather conditions were bad one day and I swapped legs so that he would have the more challenging landings. Good decision I thought at the time, and still do.

The captain in question is very senior, with many thousand hours on the airplane. Barring some other factor such as incapacitation, there would be no good reason to let the FO land even if it was his leg, no matter how experienced he might be.

Once you get to a certain point, relative experience becomes pretty academic. With, say, 5000 hrs in type, as the captain you'll land it even if the other guy has 10000 hrs in type. The buck stops in the left seat, so very likely the outcome will be directly determined there. Sorry but that's how I see it.

 

[r1830]

Another reason why they don't foam runways anymore has to do with how foam is most effective fighting a fire. As most people know, it is the vapors that burn during a fire. Foam is applied on top of spilled fuel to create a barrier between the oxygen and the fuel vapors. This prevents the fuel vapors and oxygen from mixing and snuffs out the fire. They found that an aircraft skidding through the foam applied on the runway prior to landing disperses the foam and allows air underneath. With heat, a fuel source and oxygen combustion can take place. Not to mention the foam is now spread all over the runway and aircraft making evacuation more hazardous.

Also a airport firefighter told me it costs $50 dollars for every 5 gallons of foam. It is extremely expensive. If you are going to use it, might as well use it wisely.

The best way to disperse foam is to shoot it high above the fire/fuel spill and let it rain down to form a blanket over the area.

 

[surplus1]

Some very valid points from avbug and a few others. Add these considerations to your thinking.

As avbug pointed out, foam is a hazardous material in more ways than one. You don't want people evacuating through it or firefighters trying to wade through it to access the fire. Apart from that, it's an extinguishing agent or suppressant as far as I know. It doesn't prevent fires, it puts them out. Therefore there is no advantage to putting it on the runway surface before there's a crash/fire.

As some mentioned it is pretty expensive but that's not why you don't put it on the runway. I think the primary reason we gave up on the idea of "foaming" runways was a very practical one, apart from those things already mentioned. The supply availabale at any given airport is limited. It doesn't make much sense to put it all over the runway where there is no fire and then wind up with little or none of it left over to fight the fire if there is one. I think (could be wrong) that's the primary reason it is no longer put on runways before there is any fire.

If you do have a fire, you don't want to wind up with all the foam on the ruway behind the airplane and none or very little in the truck to fight the fire.

Another thought, unrelated to foam, about this incident -- why did the captain choose LAX for the landing instead of some other airport in the vicinity? Most probably 2 reasons -- 1) the rescue and fire fighting facilites at LAX were superior to those available elsewhere, 2) the length of the runway was adequate.

Why mention that when it is so obvious? Only to point out that in time of emergency the rule book says we should land at the nearest suitable airport. The key word is "suitable". That is not always the closest airport to your position at the time of the event. A very long runway is a nice thing to have, but if there is limited rescue capability and fire-fighting facilities, a long runway by itself is not worth very much.

Being a good "stick man" is nice but using good judgement is better. In this incident we had both and the outcome was flawless.

Avbug - what's your opinion?

 

[Dangerkitty]

Point taken. In fact, not long after I upgraded in the A320, I was flying with an experienced FO who had just been hired from another A320 operator. The weather conditions were bad one day and I swapped legs so that he would have the more challenging landings. Good decision I thought at the time, and still do.

The captain in question is very senior, with many thousand hours on the airplane. Barring some other factor such as incapacitation, there would be no good reason to let the FO land even if it was his leg, no matter how experienced he might be.

Once you get to a certain point, relative experience becomes pretty academic. With, say, 5000 hrs in type, as the captain you'll land it even if the other guy has 10000 hrs in type. The buck stops in the left seat, so very likely the outcome will be directly determined there. Sorry but that's how I see it.

I agree. I know that this particular Jetblue incident is a bad example of the point I am trying to get across but just thought I would throw it out anyway. If nothing else it brings up a good discussion of CRM.

I agree 100% with where the buck stops. I just get annoyed at everyone praising the Captain (which he rightly deserves) but not singng any praises for the F/O or the F/A's who worked just as hard to bring out a successful outcome. That was my main point.