I’ve never seen a fire hydrant airside, so from that I assume the ARFF are not equipped with enough fluid to extinguish a large fire. I figure they are only trying to slow it down enough for everyone to escape, after that they let her burn.
JAL A350 collision & fire
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
Re: JAL A350 collision & fire
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1252
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:44 am
Re: JAL A350 collision & fire
That makes sense - no point in risking lives once everyone is off the aircraft. There is still a risk of a fuel tank explosion.
The smoke/fumes are probably toxic as well.
Hopefully the final report will provide clarity.
Always fly a stable approach - it's the only stability you'll find in this business
Re: JAL A350 collision & fire
Perhaps they conserve foam/water in case there is another separate accident. If they get low enough on firefighting capability, airport restrictions can come into effect depending on the firefighting category.Eric Janson wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 12:36 amThat makes sense - no point in risking lives once everyone is off the aircraft. There is still a risk of a fuel tank explosion.
The smoke/fumes are probably toxic as well.
Hopefully the final report will provide clarity.
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1187
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm
Re: JAL A350 collision & fire
If they are fighting a fire on the runway, airport is already closed so that wont matter.
Re: JAL A350 collision & fire
True, but I don't know how long it takes to get back up to proper levels of foam. The airport would likely open as soon as possible(such as the next day). It would be interesting to hear from an airport firefighter about replenishment times for firefighting capability or what the policy is for firefighting when the aircraft has been completely evacuated.goldeneagle wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 9:33 amIf they are fighting a fire on the runway, airport is already closed so that wont matter.
In addition, the airport could continue to allow aircraft to taxi to the gate or be towed. Accidents do happen with ground ops such as the recent fire on an AC 777 in Montreal with a baggage loader and ground collisions. It might look rather silly if the whole terminal burnt down or a cargo area building because all foam was discharged. In other words, a closed airport is not an airport without activity where a fire could happen.
Fire while taxiing:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /74808356/
Fire while loading:
https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2023 ... in-flames/
Fire while refueling:
https://twitter.com/OnDisasters/status/ ... 0150135808
APU fire:
https://reports.aviation-safety.net/201 ... UR-CAG.pdf
Fire in the Terminal:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=airport+ ... dy6hxP9iAM
Re: JAL A350 collision & fire
All airports I've been to are always backed up by city firefighters, and there is always a staion close by. It's never just left to the airport ARFFpelmet wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 11:03 amTrue, but I don't know how long it takes to get back up to proper levels of foam. The airport would likely open as soon as possible(such as the next day). It would be interesting to hear from an airport firefighter about replenishment times for firefighting capability or what the policy is for firefighting when the aircraft has been completely evacuated.goldeneagle wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 9:33 amIf they are fighting a fire on the runway, airport is already closed so that wont matter.
In addition, the airport could continue to allow aircraft to taxi to the gate or be towed. Accidents do happen with ground ops such as the recent fire on an AC 777 in Montreal with a baggage loader and ground collisions. It might look rather silly if the whole terminal burnt down or a cargo area building because all foam was discharged. In other words, a closed airport is not an airport without activity where a fire could happen.
Fire while taxiing:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /74808356/
Fire while loading:
https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2023 ... in-flames/
Fire while refueling:
https://twitter.com/OnDisasters/status/ ... 0150135808
APU fire:
https://reports.aviation-safety.net/201 ... UR-CAG.pdf
Fire in the Terminal:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=airport+ ... dy6hxP9iAM
Re: JAL A350 collision & fire
Thanks,boeingboy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 2:51 pmAll airports I've been to are always backed up by city firefighters, and there is always a staion close by. It's never just left to the airport ARFFpelmet wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 11:03 amTrue, but I don't know how long it takes to get back up to proper levels of foam. The airport would likely open as soon as possible(such as the next day). It would be interesting to hear from an airport firefighter about replenishment times for firefighting capability or what the policy is for firefighting when the aircraft has been completely evacuated.goldeneagle wrote: ↑Sat Jan 06, 2024 9:33 am
If they are fighting a fire on the runway, airport is already closed so that wont matter.
In addition, the airport could continue to allow aircraft to taxi to the gate or be towed. Accidents do happen with ground ops such as the recent fire on an AC 777 in Montreal with a baggage loader and ground collisions. It might look rather silly if the whole terminal burnt down or a cargo area building because all foam was discharged. In other words, a closed airport is not an airport without activity where a fire could happen.
Fire while taxiing:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nat ... /74808356/
Fire while loading:
https://www.paddleyourownkanoo.com/2023 ... in-flames/
Fire while refueling:
https://twitter.com/OnDisasters/status/ ... 0150135808
APU fire:
https://reports.aviation-safety.net/201 ... UR-CAG.pdf
Fire in the Terminal:
https://www.google.ca/search?q=airport+ ... dy6hxP9iAM
That makes sense. But I suspect that an airport can't get back into operation with only city fire trucks.
If anybody knows an airport firefighter, perhaps they could find out what the details are about all this.