Why No Foam on Runway for JetBlue Landing

[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

 

[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?