Bulletin - IAFPAaaa.iafpa.org.uk/bulletin/17.pdf · IAFPA BULLETIN, JANUARY 2008 PAGE IAFPA NEWS IAFPA BULLETIN, JANUARY 2008 PAGE Another step on the ladder options, including hydraulic

IAFPA BULLETIN, JANUARY 2008PAGE �

IAFPABulletin January 2008

Agent delivery on a budget

State of the art ARFF technology

IAFPA’s Asia Conference

Phuket aircrash report

Aerobic fitness for firefighters

IAFPA BULLETIN, JANUARY 2008PAGE 2

IAFPABulletin January 2008

Welcome from IAFPA’s Chairman

EditorEmily Hough: [email protected]

Assistant EditorAnya Hastwell: [email protected]

ChairmanJohn Trew: [email protected]

Web enquiriesColin Simpson: [email protected]

Association SecretaryGillies Crichton: [email protected]

IAFPA Journal is published quarterly formembers of the association by

Cava Media Ltd

© IAFPA 2008Cover:

The Thai air crash , photo courtesy Crisis Response Journal

3

16

12

International newsA round-up of aviation news and incidents from around the world, including an update on changes in the aviation industry, the launch of the A380, an airbus incident in Toulouse, France, and an accident at Heathrow airport

Phuket Air CrashIn a report first published in the Crisis Response Journal, Gareth Marshall looks at the latest disaster to strike Thailand – the crash of flight OG269, which left 90 people dead, and gave the local authorities a chance to assess their latest emergency response techniquesprocedures

Aerobic fitness for firefightersKevin Sykes, Professor of Occupational Health & Fitness of the University of Chester, explores aerobic fitness and its crucial importance to the effective working of firefighters

Agent delivery on a budgetEffective delivery of agents and agent management are two of the most critical aspects of aircraft fire fighting, according to Doug Mangels of the Denver International Airport (DIA) ARFF Training Academy

State of the Art ARFF technologyDallas Forth Worth Airport Public Safety maintains a complement of eight Oshkosh Striker 4500’s, two of which are equipped with the 65’ Snozzle, writes Alan Black, Head of Public Protection

IAFPA’s Asia conferenceThe Singapore (Asia) Conference was held at the Marina Mandarin Hotel and Conference suite during 16th–18th October 2007, with delegates com-ing from all parts of the globe, writes IAFPA’s Colin Simpson

6

10

15

I would like to take this opportunity to wish you a happy and successful 2008. October 2007 saw the entry into service of the Airbus A380 with Singapore Airlines. This size of aircraft is currently presenting many challenges to our industry. The increased use of Man Made Mineral Fibres (MMMF) and emergency evacuation of aircraft containing 555 (potentially 900) people are just a few many challenges for the ARFF Community. I hope to bring regular updates on the progress of this generation of aircraft, so we can learn from each others’ experiences in this and many other ARFF areas of interest. Details of the IAFPA Abu Dhabi, Middle Eastern Aviation Workshop during March 2008 are in this edition of the IAFPA Bulletin and will be updated on the IAFPA website at www.iafpa.org.uk.

John Trew


IAFPA NEWS


Another step on the ladder

options, including hydraulic stairs, the group concluded that whatever vehicle was purchased, it would need to have the capability of overcoming an obvious obstacle - the evacuation slides themselves.

Experience gained over a number of years at Heathrow and at other locations in dealing with full scale emergency evacuations on wide-bodied aircraft, meant that members of the working group were well aware of the difficulties encountered when trying to gain access to the interior cabin of an aircraft when the escape slides were deployed and fully inflated.

An order for a Bronto F42 RLER Combined Telescopic Aerial Ladder Platform was placed through Angloco in March 2006.

The vehicle is built on a four axle Scannia chassis and weigh approximately 32 tons has had extensive lockerage and bodywork carried out by Angloco.

The Emergency Services at all airports intending to operate New Larger Generation Aircraft (NLGA) such as the A380 are required by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) to carry out a risk assessment with consideration needing to be given to gaining access to the upper deck in an emergency. On average, every 11 days somewhere in the world a passenger-carrying aircraft will carry out an emergency evacuation involving the deployment of escape slides/chutes. Although these emergencies rarely involve fire, ICAO recognise that with an aircraft that may have over 300 passengers on a single deck (the A380 is certified to carry up to 873 passengers and crew) there is a strong possibility that some passengers, especially the old, infirm or handicapped, may become injured during the evacuation process and as a result be unable to self-evacuate and need assistance from Rescue Crews to do so.

In order to determine the most suitable type of appliance that would enable fire crews at Heathrow to meet this requirement, a working group comprising members of each watch and led by a Watch Manager was formed in May 2005. A number of visits were made to various airports on the continent where Aerial Appliances were already in use.

After evaluating several different

Heathrow Airport Fire Service BAA plc has recently taken delivery of a purpose built 42 metre RLER Bronto Skylift Aerial Ladder Platform in anticipation of the entry in to service of the new Airbus A380, says John Callaghan

It is envisaged that when operational at Heathrow, each of the four watches will have two certified instructors and up to six qualified Driver/Operators, the manning requirement being met from within current riding strength.

While its primary purpose is to meet the A380 requirement, it will also respond as required to other emergency calls on the airport.With a working height of 42 metres, the cage will be capable of reaching the roof of the new £4.2 billion Terminal 5 from an airside apron surface level.

The purchase of this appliance at a cost of £500,000 represents a portion of the £450 million already spent at Heathrow on improvements to Taxiways, Aprons and infrastructure to accommodate the airbus A380.

London Heathrow has obtained a new 42M aerial ladder platform in preparation for the Airbus A380


IAFPA NEWS


First A380 Passenger FlightThe first Airbus 380 (A380) passenger flight took off from Singapore Changi Airport in October 2007. Singapore Airlines flight SQ 380 departed from Changi Airport’s Terminal 2 at 08:00 hours for Sydney, Australia.

Communications shutdown at MemphisAt about 11:30 hours on Tuesday September 25, 2007, the loss of all communications at Memphis airport shut down all inbound and outbound flights, while all other flights were redirected from Memphis airspace. Although communication was restored and flights began taking off from the Memphis airport again just after 14:00 hours, the delay caused untold headaches for passengers. Memphis-Shelby County Airport Authority Executive Vice President Scott Brockman said the outage, while frustrating, didn’t present any significant safety problems. “In my mind, there was no safety concern for any of the aircraft in the air. It has definitely been more of a frustration than anything.”

The A380’s return flight from Sydney arrived at Changi Airport at 22:15 hours on October 26, 2007.“The A380’s commencement of passenger flights marks a new milestone in aviation history,” said Mr Lim Kim Choon, Director-General and Chief Executive Officer, Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS). Mr Lim added: “Changi Airport is excited and proud to be the first airport in the world from which the A380 experience begins.

New Ryanair routesRyanair, which plans to double its fleet by 2012, has announced 50 new routes from Edinburgh, Birmingham, Liverpool, Stansted, Manchester and Newquay to destinations in Spain, France, Germany, Italy and Romania. Lufthansa has bought a 19 per cent stake in US low-cost carrier JetBlue from £148million.

First eco-fuel flightThe US Air Force, the world’s leader in jet-fuel consumption, has completed the first flight across the continental US in an aircraft powered by a synthetic fuel mixture. The synthetic fuel, which can be produced from almost any carbon-based biomass such as coal or wood, is more environmentally friendly because it emits less carbon dioxide than traditional jet fuel.

IAFPA NEWS


Two airliners were involved in a collision while taxiing at Heathrow airport in west London on Monday October 15, 2007. One was a British Airways Boeing 747 departing for Singapore and the other was a Sri Lankan Airlines Airbus A340. Heathrow’s operator, BAA, confirmed there had been an incident at around 22:20hrs and that there were no reported injuries. BA said there had been a “minor collision” involving flight BA011 and that an investigation has started. According to a BAA spokesman:“Heathrow airport can confirm that two aircraft were involved in an incident earlier this evening on the ground. There are no reported injuries.” A spokeswoman for Sri Lankan Airlines said the “minor incident” involved flight UL502 to Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka, via the Maldives, which had 286 passengers and crew on board. According to a member of London Ambulance Service: “We were called to the airport at about 22:20 BST, but we were stood down around 10 minutes later as there were no injuries.” Heathrow Airport, Europe’s busiest, handles more than 67 million passengers a year.

Collision at Heathrow Stansted incident On 16 October 2007, a Boeing 737-800 TC-JGR was cleared to depart from Runway 05 at London Stansted Airport, Essex, on a ‘Dover Five Sierra’ Standard Instrument Departure for Istanbul Ataturk Airport, Turkey. Soon after takeoff the aircraft was observed in a ‘steep’ nose-down attitude. It then flew level for approximately six nautical miles before being instructed to climb immediately to 5,000 ft. Having been given further climb clearances, the aircraft subsequently reached its cruising level and later landed at Istanbul Ataturk Airport without further incident.

Airbus CrashFRANCE: An accident involving an A340-600 airbus, MSN 856, occurred at 17:00hrs local time on November 15 2007, when engine run-ups and checks were being carried out at the Saint-Martin airbus site in Toulouse, France. The Airbus was due to be delivered to Etihad in the coming days. There were nine persons on board, five of them sustaining injuries. There were no fatalities. An investigation into the crash is still underway says Airbus and staff are working closely with the emergency services and local authorities.


Phuket air crash report

Phuket, the largest island in Thailand and one of the most popular tourist destinations in South East Asia, has been visited by disaster and setbacks since the millennium, with bird flu, SARS, potential threats from Muslim extremists and, of course, the Asian tsunami. These incidents gave the authorities opportunities to establish disaster plans, developed through experience, and ready to implement when required. But on September 16 2007, at 15:40hrs, local budget airline One-Two-Go’s flight OG269 once again put them to the test. Phuket International Airport is set in the north of the island, with the runway sitting at a right angle to Mai Khao beach on the Andaman Sea. As the aircraft,

carrying 130 people, descended over the sea during very heavy monsoon rain and strong winds, the pilot decided landing was too dangerous, attempted to pull the plane up intending to go around. A sudden increase in wind speed, ie wind shear, made this manoeuvre impossible and the aircraft skidded off the runway, over a small ditch and into an embankment on the north of the airport, causing the aircraft to break apart. Paisal Suksonghong, Director of the rescue and fire fighting division at Phuket International Airport, had one duty officer and ten fire and rescue staff on duty that day. Responding to a call from the tower, rather than the pilot, they were on the scene in one minute and 50 seconds, using

three fire fighting vehicles, two Oshkosh T-2500 and one Oshkosh T-3000 response vehicles, and a command post car. When they arrived at the crash site, the right wing of the plane was on fire, so the crews set to work on distinguishing it using AFFF foam from a turret truck. They began to cover the fire as some passengers found their way out of the craft, but oweing to the incessant heavy rain, the mix of three per cent foam and 97 per cent water proved to be ineffective, and the fire would restart as the foam would lose its effectiveness. By this time, the on-call support staff had begun to arrive 15 minutes after the crash occurred. These staff lived in airport accommodation in the

Gareth Marshall looks at the latest disaster to strike Thailand – the crash of flight OG269, which left 90 people dead, and gave the local authorities a chance to assess their latest emergency procedures


vicinity of the airport.As the fire continued on the

right wing, passengers made their way out of the wreckage on the left side emergency doors, while two fire and rescue members cut an opening near the rear of the plane.

In total, 30 passengers got out of the plane unassisted, while ten were taken out of the aircraft with the assistance of the rescue service.

Three passengers had been thrown from the plane and were lying, conscious, in the small ditch that the aircraft had crossed after leaving the runway. There were 42 survivors. The death toll numbered 90, of which 36 were Thai and 54 foreigners.

Suksonghong said: “It seems the passengers at the rear of the plane were thrown to the front of the plane on impact. We found that more passengers died because of the impact rather than the fire.”

The first medical team to respond was the airport’s own, and they were on the scene within ten minutes of the incident occurring. A tent was set up at the scene to determine the seriousness of each passenger’s injury. Minor injuries were initially treated at the airport’s own medical centre before injured passengers were moved to local hospitals.Ambulances from Thalang

Hospital, 15km from the airport, were the first to arrive at the scene around 20 minutes after the plane crashed.

The major hospitals on the island, Vachira Phuket Hospital, a Thai government hospital, and private hospitals Bangkok Hospital Phuket and Phuket International Hospital, are all situated in Phuket Town, around 32km from the airport. It took 30 minutes for support vehicles to get from Phuket Town to the crash site.

Peter Davidson from Phuket International Hospital said that two vehicles were dispatched from the hospital with around ten personnel. “The 30-minute response time was a little long but we were not the primary response unit and this was a standard response time,” he added. From the hospital’s point of view, Davidson said he felt its emergency plan worked well.

Of the survivors, 30 were sent to Bangkok Phuket Hospital, ten to Phuket International Hospital and two to Vachira Phuket Hospital.Suksonghong also felt his staff followed the emergency plan well, and there was good co-operation between the different agencies involved. By the evening of the crash, a temporary mortuary had been set up at Phuket Airport Hall, a multipurpose building

to the south of the main airport. Identification of the deceased began the following day. Relatives of the victims were asked to contact the airport and send dental, DNA or finger print records, and provide as many forms of identification as possible. By September 27, all bodies had been identified and repatriated. Royal Thai Police region eight Commander Lt Gen Thani Thavitsri told reporters: “Police working here have completed identifying all of the bodies. We are happy with the work done by Phuket police, Thailand Disaster Victim Identification (TDVI) and local dental doctors. We have benefited from working with people who had experience with the tsunami, and we must thank those people.”

The airport re-opened at 17:00hrs on September 17 with a flight from Bangkok that carried Thai Prime Minister Gen Surayud Chulanont. The rescue operation had been aided by a mock exercise held on September 6, which took place as part of the standard operating procedures at all airports in Thailand. During the drill, a Thai Airways International Airbus A300-600 simulated engine trouble and was guided in to land. A fake fire on the plane was quickly extinguished by fire


trucks and firefighters on the ground. Able-bodied passengers were evacuated from the plane using the emergency chutes, while those simulating injuries were carried by rescue workers to medical staff waiting under tents set up on the apron. Meanwhile, rescue helicopters arrived to airlift ‘victims’ to hospital. A total of 14 agencies took part in the operation, including the airport fire and emergency rescue team; airport security; air traffic control, and medical personnel from Thalang Hospital and Bangkok Hospital Phuket.

Initially, the drill was labelled a success. However, on October 18, Phuket Airport Director Sq Ldr Pornchai Eua-aree said: “We need to look at the emergency plan and reconsider and re-evaluate it. We need to look at the number of rescue staff we have available, and also our communication with the local medical services.

“At the moment we contact them individually, but we would like to amend this so we have a central centre that contacts all medical services. Also, we must re-evaluate from the drill exercise and look at the weather. The emergency plan showed we should set up tents at the incident for the injured and bodies, but due to heavy rain on the day, this was impossible.”

About the Author: Gareth Marshall is a senior journalist at Kinnaree Media, based in Phuket, Thailand

This article was first published in Crisis Response Journal, the international publication read by emergency responders, government departments, emergency planners, academics and all those with a responsibility for emergency and crisis planning. www.crisis-response.comPhone +44 (0) 1306 876 856 for more information

Aerobic fitness for firefighters


Aerobic fitness is the ability to perform dynamic exercise involving large muscle groups for prolonged periods, and is crucially important to the effective working of firefighters, writes Kevin Sykes, Professor of Occupational Health & Fitness of the University of Chester

In terms of general health and wellbeing, a good level of aerobic fitness is strongly associated with low risk of many chronic diseases, such as heart disease, diabetes, and stroke. Conversely, those with a low level of aerobic fitness tend to have more time off work owing to illness and a higher risk of premature morbidity and mortality. For firefighters, good aerobic fitness is an essential safeguard against the rigours of the job, whether it is responding quickly to an alarm, physically demanding operational work, returning from an incident or making a speedy recovery. In full turn-out gear, firefighters carry around three stones (20kgs) of extra weight, which can, in itself, increase heart rate and energy expenditure by some 30 per cent. Firefighters therefore need to be aerobically fit both to carry this essential protective equipment, and to work physically hard in a hostile environment. You’ve got to be in good shape to handle these high heart rates without undue distress and increased risk to health and wellbeing.

Assessing aerobic fitnessMaximal oxygen uptake (VO2max), commonly referred to as ‘aerobic capacity’, is a measure of aerobic (cardiorespiratory) fitness and has been consistently shown to be the best predictor of

performance in simulated firefighting tasks. VO2Max (or Aerobic Capacity) is the criterion measure for aerobic fitness.MaxVO2 is most accurately measured using gas analysis equipment, normally on a treadmill with the subject exercising to exhaustion.

While this is normally conducted in a Human Performance Laboratory, some UK Brigades have purchased metabolic analysis equipment and employ the physiologists’ and technicians’ expertise to conduct such tests as routine practice. However, conducting a VO2Max test needs specialist tester skills, an appropriate test protocol to be followed and very careful pre-test screening to ensure there are no medical contradications to all-out exhaustive exercise.

The test is well suited to younger and fitter individuals who are used to running on a treadmill – but not particularly well suited to older and less fit individuals. Also, the ability of the tester to maintain a high level of safety depends on knowing when NOT to perform a VO2Max test. Nevertheless, a directly measured VO2Max is considered to be the ‘gold standard’ method of measurement of aerobic fitness.

Bleep TestMost scenarios, whether

occupational, community or sporting settings, do not have access to such sophisticated and expensive facilities. However, VO2Max can be estimated from a shuttle run test, more commonly

IAFPA BULLETIN, JANUARY 2008PAGE �0

known as the Bleep Test.The test requires the subject

to run between cones spaced 20 metres apart in time to a metronome beat on a pre-recorded CD. The speed increases at regular intervals and the test ceases when the individual can no longer keep up with the pace. Aerobic capacity can then be predicted from a table. This test is widely used in the UK Fire Services, being easy to administer to large groups and if a standard has been set, then it is straightforward to determine who has passed and who has failed the test.

However, the test is maximal, better suited to younger and fitter individuals and has a slight gender bias towards males. It is also essential that there are no medical complications regarding exhaustive exercise.

Maximal exercise testing is considered to be more accurate than sub-maximal methods. However, maximal tests are a higher risk to participant’s health and safety – and care must be taken in test administration to ensure

more standardised approach.CST may be conducted using

different step heights depending on the setting and the subject’s capabilities. However, in the UK Fire Service, the step height is standardised at 30cm (12”). CST is well suited to both males and females and has no gender or height bias. It is highly portable and inexpensive. However, it is not as accurate as the Bleep Test having a variability of around 10 per cent, hence is not well suited to situations where a specific target has to be met (e.g. 45mls/O2/kg/min). Maintaining a good level of aerobic fitness is a vitally important factor, not just in terms of being fit for firefighting but also to help ensure optimal health and wellbeing.

the individual is capable of undertaking such a test.Sub-maximal exercise testing overcomes many of the difficulties associated with maximal exercise testing and although it is not as precise as maximal testing, sub-maximal protocols provide a reasonably accurate reflection of an individual’s fitness at considerably lower risk.

Chester Step Test (CST) is a progressive, sub-maximal test designed to predict aerobic capacity. It is widely used in occupational and community health and fitness settings.

The test requires the subject to step on to and off a step at a rate set by an audio CD, sufficient to elicit a heart rate of 80 per cent of maximum and a moderately vigorous level of physical exertion. Heart rate is taken every two minutes according to the CD instructions and plotted on a graphical datasheet from which aerobic capacity (VO2 max) can be predicted. Alternatively, results can be obtained using CST software, which will enable a

About the Author: Kevin Sykes is Professor of Occupational Health & Fitness of the University of Chester

Good aerobic fitness also enhances adaptation of the body’s thermoregulation mechanisms, thereby improving efficiency for work in extreme temperatures

IAFPA BULLETIN, JANUARY 2008PAGE ��

Agent delivery on a budget Effective delivery of agents and agent management are two of the most critical aspects of air-craft fire fighting, yet one of the least practiced skills, says Doug Mangels of the Denver Interna-tional Airport (DIA) ARFF Training Academy

We all pull the rigs out on the apron of the firehouse and discharge a little water, maybe shoot at a cone on the ground now and then, and once a year in the US we get to do our FAR 139 recertification training. But how often do we actually go out and discharge a tank or more at a time at obstacles that will make us proficient at discharging our agent, and make us proficient at managing our agent? An FAA mandated requirement,

Title 14 Part 139.319 (i)(2)(vi), states we must be proficient in agent delivery, but there are obstacles to overcome if we are to be compliant, and more importantly proficient, at this skill. Our biggest hurdle is the cost however. Foam is expensive, but training foam is available from different manufacturers and is far less expensive. We use Chemguard training foam. It is very effective for training, and has been approved for use through our

environmental people. Another obstacle we face is the problem of location. A fairly large area is necessary to set up an agent delivery course; a de-icing area or little used parking lot will work. This issue requires some reconnaissance work.

You must make a determination of which skills need to be perfected. Is it the zero angle delivery for those of you that are using a drop-down turret, or even an articulating boom? Or perhaps maybe the roll-on method of agent delivery is appropriate, or do we need to work on pump and roll, or is it accuracy? Maybe we need to work on changing the stream pattern from straight stream to a modified fog pattern as we approach the objective.

Perhaps we need the operators and firefighters to have the opportunity to see the limitations of the turrets for complete extinguishment. When the determination is made of what skills need to be practised, you need to develop props or obstacles that will allow operators to deliver their agent which will afford them the best opportunity to see the results of their techniques.While I cannot identify the strengths and weaknesses of your operators, I can tell you that on my airfield I have operators who vary from being seasoned experienced operators to very new operators who are just learning the nuances. Developing a course that was challenging to everyone but not too intimidating to the inexperienced was a challenge to say the least.

The course we established is

The paddle spin target prop is a homemade design built by Denver ARFF


composed of eight props. Six of these props require agent discharge using training foam, and utilise a variety of application techniques. The operators can see the results of their efforts and determine where improvement is needed. The other two props are simulated fuel spill incidents to give the operator a sense of size and need for foam coverage.

The spill props are two different size fuel containers with black paint spilled around them in the approximate quantity proportionate to the container. This gives the operator the ability to check for environmental concerns or the need for damming ie storm drains and soil. They will also need to make an assessment of size to determine the need for foam coverage in the event that the cleanup is delayed. The operator is asked a series of questions to discover what his thought process is for determining what actions should be taken. The questions asked are regarding matters like outside temperatures in relation to surface temperature, identification of product spilled, ignition sources, exposures, mitigation options. The cost of one of these props is approximately $50.00 US.

The shallow pool prop is constructed out of used steel beams sized four by six feet that were donated from our local metal scrap yard and heavy gauge plastic. We built a pool to the desired size (ours is 20’x20’), by wrapping the plastic several times around the beams and filled it with water, and then added red dye to the water. We painted a four foot white border around the outside of the square to see if they are splashing too much. This prop thus simulates a fuel spill. When the operator discharges agent on this prop the operator

should be able to determine if they are applying agent properly. If they are too close or using the wrong stream pattern, the foam will pick up the colour of the dye and the operator can see how far outside the pool the splash zone or plunging effect could spread the fuel or fire. The cost of this prop is approximately $150.00 US.

For the simulated fuselage prop we use an old mobile home. Another idea might be an old tanker truck. This prop gives the operator the opportunity to apply agent from the proper angle and use the correct stream pattern when applying agent to

an aircraft during a pump and roll application. Often operators are focused on applying agent using a straight stream to coat the fuselage. This method works well when application is done from the one to 11 o’clock or the five to seven o’clock positions.

If a straight stream is used from the eight to 10 o’clock or two to four o’clock position on a commercial aircraft, you run the risk of knocking out the windows. We found that the most effective delivery method is to adjust your stream pattern to a modified fog about the same size as the fuselage you are attempting to coat and cool, driving parallel to your objective discharging agent, at no more than 30 to 45 degrees

off the nose of your apparatus.The cost of this prop can vary.

We were able to acquire a salvage mobile home for free including towing charge.

The wreckage prop is designed to show the operator that turrets are a great tool and have awesome initial knock-down ability but cannot completely extinguish a fire within wreckage and debris.

Pulling a hand line and doing overhaul is a must to check for fire extension and complete extinguishment. This can be accomplished through the use of several wrecked vehicles. Stack them or line them up and light one on fire and have the operator attempt to extinguish using their turrets.

Wrecked vehicles, which are destined for the crusher, can generally be acquired through your local police impound lots for little or no charge, usually just incurring minor towing fees. The serpentine prop in our course is very simple in design but proves to be one of the hardest to complete with proficiency. The barrel serpentine is a series of three empty foam barrels filled a quarter full of water, and placed on top of each barrel is a used five gallon bucket filled a quarter full of concrete. The barrels are then positioned two hundred feet apart in a line. The object is to have the operator drive a serpentine through barrels attempting to discharge as much agent as possible into the buckets without knocking the bucket off the barrel or the barrel over. This teaches the operator about the reach and effectiveness of the turret stream patterns. The operator may need to adjust the stream pattern as they approach the objective and when the range of the stream becomes ineffective.

Once the course is completed,

The 360 degree prop is simply a 20 to 30 foot diameter circle made out of 36 inch tin flashing or a children’s swimming pool filled half to a quarter full of water.

“

”


doing this training on a windy day to really make it challenging.

The entire course should be accomplished with one tank full, including foam. This gives the operator the ability to see if they are using proper agent management techniques as well as turret technique.

The total cost for all the props is under US $1,500.00. But the value of the training received - is priceless.

the operator should be afforded the opportunity to go and inspect the buckets to see just how much or little agent actually made it into the bucket. The 360 degree prop is simply a 20 to 30 foot diameter circle made out of 36 inch tin flashing or a children’s swimming pool filled half to a quarter full of water.

The operator is instructed to navigate the apparatus 360 degrees around the prop, effectively discharging agent into the objective without collapsing the side of the objective.

This exercise is designed to teach the operator the proper scrub area for the turrets. This prop teaches the operator that once you start discharging agent off the side of your apparatus at anything beyond 90 degrees off centre from the ‘nose’ of the apparatus, you loose the effectiveness of the stream causing poor agent management.

For better utilisation of time and effective agent delivery,

drive around the prop in a clover leaf pattern, only discharging agent at the objective when it is in the proper scrub area or in front of the rig.

The paddle spin target prop is a homemade design built by Denver ARFF. The objective of this is to teach the operator accuracy with the turrets and to show the operator the inertia difference between foam and water. The operator should direct the stream at the target paddle and slowly advance until the target is pushed parallel to the ground while using water, and then stop. Now change the agent selected to foam and watch what happens to the target. The results should show the operator a dramatic difference between the foam and water. Foam is a much lighter product and you tend to loose the energy, reach, and penetration that you have with water. Wind will affect the foam stream far more than a water stream and I would recommend

About the Author: Doug Mangels serves as the ARFF WG Section 6 Board Member. He is the Safety and Training Coordinator for the Denver International Airport (DIA) ARFF Training Academy. He is a 26-year veteran of the Denver Fire Department. This article is published courtesy of ARFF News.

You need to devise obstacles that will allow operators to deliver their agent and which will afford them the best opportunity to see the results of their techniques


State of the Art ARFF technologyDFW Airport Public Safety maintains a complement of eight Oshkosh Striker 4500’s, two of which are equipped with the 65’ Snozzle, writes Alan Black, Head of Public Protection at Dallas Fort Worth

The Striker 4500 is the largest of the Oshkosh ARFF Apparatus providing DFW with state of the art ARFF response around the clock. The apparatus measures 11’4” to the top of the handrail and 45’3” from front to back. The drive engine delivers 950 BHP at 2100 RPM with over 2400 Ft. lbs of torque. What that means to the operator is that each day, every day, with clockwork precision, the Striker with its Caterpillar C-18, four Stroke, six cylinder engine will deliver a 116,000 pound load at speeds up to 65 mph, with an acceleration rate of 0 - 50 in just under 35 seconds. There isn’t anything subtle about driving the Striker either. This truck is designed to handle all kinds of terrain from flat highways to rolling hills and rough surfaces. The Off-Road High Mobility design is all-wheel independent and can handle just about anything nature can dish out. The apparatus are required by the FAA to manoeuvre a 30 degree approach angle, 30 degree departure angle and a 30 degree side angle. The transmission can also manage some very difficult conditions if the weather becomes uncooperative. Using an interlock system, the truck has the ability to ‘walk’ its way out of mud that is virtually up to the frame. Driver mobility is significantly enhanced through the use of Forward Looking Infrared Vision System (FLIR). The operator has the ability to navigate in almost any situation by using a FLIR which has been hooked up to a monitor inside the cab of the truck. That same tool is also useful in full daylight operations to locate potential hotspots onboard Alert

aircraft thus speeding response time and reducing inconvenience to passengers. All ARFF must have an array of extinguishing agents. The Strikers carry a complement of 4500 gallons of water, 530 gallons of AFFF, and 480lbs of dry chemical. Each agent can be delivered through a combination of roof, hand-line or the primary low-attack turret discharging an entire load of agent in less than four minutes. The primary turret is a front bumper mounted turret, which can be adjusted to deliver 600 to 1200 gallons per minute (gpm) across an infinite range of settings and a sweep of 170 degrees.

What makes this low attack turret unique is the ability to be lowered close to the ground and the agent stream directed upwards, giving the operator high-flow access under a wing or fuselage from the protection of the vehicle. The roof turret can flow up to 750 gpms, while the hand lines are set to a manageable 100 gpm rate. The truck is also equipped with five under-truck nozzles which are designed primarily for protection of the apparatus. Purple-K is the second agent carried on this truck and it weighs in at 480 pounds. The low attack nozzle and the 150’ dual-agent hand-line can both flow foam

and Purple-K at the same time. The truck is also equipped with two 1 ½”, 150’ structural hand-lines. The two newest Oshkosh Strikers are equipped with a 65’ Snozzle. The Snozzle is a high-reach extendable turret, capable of several tasks including penetration of the aircraft skin to apply fire suppression agent inside the cabin. Operated from inside the cab, the Snozzle and its components can be utilised to discharge agent, penetrate the aircraft enhancing interior firefighting, and /or monitor through thermal imaging and visual equipment. The tools available to the operator include a base nozzle with discharge range of settings and flow capacity of 600 to 1200 gpm. Then there is a tip nozzle with a fixed pattern and a 500 gpm flow rate. The penetrating nozzle consists of a titanium-tipped rod that can puncture the skin of any aircraft and deliver 250 gpm over a 40’ diameter area. One additional feature of the Snozzle is the Tip Camera. This camera can be used as a thermal image sensor in colour or black and white and as a plain digital video camera. The images can be downloaded into the onboard computer for retrieval and review at a later date. The ARFF Fleet at DFW Airport provides the airport and its community with a high level of service through a combined 36,000 gallons of water, 4,240 gallons of AFFF, and 3,840 lbs of dry chemical.

About the Author: Alan Black is the Head of Public Protection at Dallas Fort Worth, US


IAFPA’s Asia conferenceThe Singapore (Asia) Conference was held at the Marina Mandarin Hotel and Conference suite during the 16th – 18th October 2007 with delegates coming from all parts of the globe, writes IAFPA’s Colin Simpson

This successful conference and exhibition was co-ordinated very professionally by a team from the CAAS, which made sure the event went as smoothly as possible for both the delegates and the speakers. The event started as usual by hosting the G7 and Regulators forum on the 15th which was held at the Singapore Aviation Academy on the 15th October and as at previous events

the outline of these forums was fed back to the conference. The pre-conference meeting was held in the Marina Mandarin Hotel which was sponsored by Bob Houchin. The main conference was started by the key speakers and IAFPA Chairman John Trew. As a brief resume of the conference, the following speakers attended and their papers can be found at the IAFPA web site - which can be found at www.iafpa.org.uk.

The Key Speakers

•Mr Lim Kim Choon Director-General & CEO Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore

•Mr Gary Moorshead Chief Fire Officer BAA Airport Fire Service

•Dr Mark Leong Senior Consultant Department of Emergency Medicine Singapore General Hospital

Evidence Based Trauma Care – Improving Medical Response After an Aircraft Crash• Dr Tony Cash Fire Engineer London Underground

Highs and Lows of Fire Safety Engineering• Mr Colin Wood MBE BAA, Airside Business Leader London Heathrow

Time to change•Mr Alan Stray Deputy Director Information and Investigations Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Equipped? Trained? When is Near Enough Good Enough?•Mr Paul Bryant CEO, Kingfell PLC

The New British Standard for Fire Strategies – PAS 911• Mr Owen Healey Senior RFFS Inspector UK CAA

Airport Fire Service Safety Management Systems•Mr Addison Low Deputy Commander (Civil) Airport Emergency Service

Harnessing IT for Enhancement of AES Operations•Mr Marco van Wijngaarden President ETC Simulation


Use of Simulation for ARFF Crash Truck Driving and Operations•Mr Bernard Valois Transport Canada Chairman, ICAO RFFWG

Report on International Standards• Mr Dave Cook Chief Fire Officer, Boeing• Mr Randy Krause Deputy Chief Fire Officer, Boeing

B787 – Challenges Posed by Composite Materials to Firefighters• Mr Alex Ng Divisional Officer Hong Kong Fire Service Dept

Airport Operation Readiness for A380•Mr Ian Rosser and Ms Melanie Bailey London Metropolitan Police Aviation Counter Terrorism Branch

Review of the London Bombings and Current Aviation Terrorist Threats• Mr Gillies Crichton Head of Safety, Health and Environmental Compliance Glasgow Airport, BAA

IAFPA’s Asia conference

Glasgow Airport Attack – 30 Jun 2007• Dr Angelina Chan Consultant Psychiatrist Changi General Hospital

Understanding the Psychologi- cal Impact of Major Incidents• Prof Helen Muir OBE Director of Cranfield Institute for Safety, Risk and Reliability Professor of Aerospace Psychology Cranfield University

‘Passenger Assistance Systems’ for Deployment Following an Emergency Evacuation•ARFF Firefighting Tactical Oper ations and Considerations Mr Douglas Mangels Denver ARFF Training Academy

The Exhibition was held alongside the conference with a number of exhibitors and key sponsors having stalls and displays present.

As in previous IAFPA conferences, we had the ‘Official Conference Dinner’ on the evening of the 1st day and this was a very well attend-ed event and a superb venue within the Marina Mandarin Hotel. A professional evening’s entertain-ment was laid on with the supervi-sion of the CAAS Team. The last day of the conference was held at the SAA and prior to the speakers’ presentations, a short tour of the establishment and its facilities took place, which included a simulation of a water rescue. Although not a scheduled part of the conference, the CAAS team managed to obtain a visit to the new A380 which was passing through on its maiden flight to Australia.

Links: www.iafpa.org.uk/Singa-porePresentations

Forthcoming EventsThe IAFPA Abu Dhabi Workshop 12-13 March 2008The IAFPA An-nual Conference (Poland) 2008

Further details will be made available on the IAFPA website at www.iafpa.org.uk


Landing on your feetAnthony Lorenti describes a formula that a flight crew might use to determine which airport to choose for landing in an emergency or other abnormal situation

In this article, I will discuss how Runway Condition and Cloud Cover / Visibility (the next two) could factor into the airport selection process. But first of all, here’s a review.

The equationSuitable Airport = The ground + Runway length + Runway Conditions + Cloud Cover and Visibility + Winds + Navigational Aids + NOTAMS + Crash Fire and Rescue + Maintenance Facilities + Passenger Facilities

Runway conditionsRunway condition is very

important to the operation of an aircraft. Its contamination (as rain, snow or ice is often called) plays a big role in aircraft performance. Specifically, such runway contaminants are a detriment to aircraft performance and may cause problems in terms of maintaining directional control, ability to stop and even ability to accelerate (takeoff). In some cases, such as an emergency or during an abnormal situation, a pilot may select an uncontaminated ‘short’ runway as opposed to a contaminated ‘long’ runway. This choice may even be made under normal conditions. Said another way, pilots want friction!

The above hindrances to aircraft performance make an abnormal situation relating to aircraft stopping ability (brakes, reverse thrust, flaps, speed brakes, or general hydraulic problem) or steering (hydraulic or mechanical) worse. But we need to realise however that the aforementioned

(ILS or VOR) in order to find the runway, even in an emergency.

Cloud cover and visibilityWhile important, the height of clouds above a runway is not what restricts or permits an airplane to make a takeoff or landing. It is visibility. In flyer’s parlance we say visibility is ‘controlling.’ Today’s modern airliner is able to shoot an approach down to a 200 feet decision height (DH) with a minimum visibility of 2,400 feet. In the final stages of landing (DH) the pilot flying has to see the runway environment or do a go around, period. That is why it’s called decision height. Sometimes this decision height can be as low as 100 feet above the ground with a required visibility of only 1,200 feet. The ERJ that I fly is certified to this Category II Instrument Landing procedure. In fact, we conduct these instrument landing approaches with the autopilot engaged until 50 feet above the ground. Talk about auto land!

Why is all that important?My reason for discussing

landing minimums was meant to leave an impression on you. If one day when you’re minding the ARFF station and someone appears out of murk that nobody else has been able to land in previously, then something might be up. They may be landing below required landing minimums because they have a very urgent situation occurring.

Normally it is not legal to conduct an instrument approach unless the reported visibility is

system failures alone do not necessarily imply an emergency. It is their combination with factors such as runway condition that could necessitate an emergency or mandate an ARFF response with no emergency declared.

For example, a failure of wing spoilers when landing on a dry runway is a relative non-event (all things considered). Now compare that to making a landing on a runway that is covered with snow or ice, together with the same failure. This same system failure can be handled different ways under different conditions.

Aircraft emergencies or abnormalities are rarely black or white. Think of them as shades of red!

Give the flight crew an onboard smoke condition, a flight control problem or a catastrophic engine failure (severe vibration or uncontained failure) and a contaminated runway may start to look very inviting. In these circumstances, the flight crew ‘simply’ calculates the risk of remaining in the air in order to pick a runway that’s bare and dry as compared to letting down on a runway with two inches of snow on it. The more urgent the problem, the less picky the flight crew will be. No magic there!It is important to realise however that the longest runway may not be the runway of choice in an emergency. Why? The longest runway might not be equipped for an instrument approach. And as you know, sometimes we need to make an instrument approach


at or above authorised visibility minimums. So if someone is ‘busting minimums’ they just might have a cabin filled with smoke or some other calamitous situation occurring. Namely, they have good reasoning for taking such calculated risk.Please Note: I am not insinuating that you make sure everyone landing at the airport is legal to conduct the procedure. What I am advocating is that you have the tower frequency always tuned at your station. Then, when you hear lots of pilots going “missed approach” - be ready for the one that does make it in… they either have an urgent problem OR the weather just got better! Just keep your guard up in this case and hope it‘s the latter situation.If I happen to be over an airport that is socked in below minimums and I get an engine fire with smoke billowing in the cabin, guess who’s not waiting for the visibility to come up? Regulation permits a PIC (pilot in charge) to do whatever is necessary to meet the extent of the emergency. So in this case, the PIC (me) has determined that landing at

an airport that is below landing minimums is the calculated best choice. I now have the authority to ‘break’ the rules. (See FAR 91.3)

As PIC, I have two choices in this case: fly a plane rapidly filling with smoke for another 15 minutes to an airport with good visibility, or land at the one directly below in five minutes despite possibly zero visibility. Neither is a great option. Which would you want me to try? In the business of flying, a decision must be made. Lollygagging

must not be in any pilot’s vocabulary…except at the coffee stand of course!

Another situation which might force a pilot to land below minimums is low fuel (never mind how the PIC got into the situation, that’s for the FAA!). In a fuel emergency, we need to realise that landing on a runway that does not have the required visibility is a whole lot better than ‘dead sticking’ an airliner through the clouds to an off airport landing. There’s that calculated risk again! Just as firefighters do, we need to take calculated risks.

As ARFF, you should know that flight crews are permitted to declare fuel emergencies in addition to the traditional kind of emergency. Also, we can declare minimum fuel. Each is very different. A declaration of minimum fuel is NOT an emergency. Such is an advisory to ATC that the flight cannot accept undue delay. Minimum fuel does not afford the flight priority handling. Emergency fuel does! That’s the difference. Do you have a response plan for emergency fuel? Does it involve having fire departments nearby your airport going on standby? Thus far, we have discussed four of the variables in the ‘Pilot’s Equation.’ Variable is a good term when describing the decision making process of a pilot, during normal situations and abnormal ones. As I write this piece, just as when I fly the line, I am reminded of the eclectic and dynamic nature of decision making and how the same situation played over and over can be handled differently every time. It is important that ARFF personnel share and become familiar with this concept. Our safety and yours depends heavily on such knowledge. The end result is effective flight and ARFF crew interface.

About the Author: Anthony C. Lorenti is a Captain for ExpressJet Airlines, DBA Continental Express from Newark Liberty International Airport. Anthony is an FAA Flight and Ground Instructor, and a volunteer Firefighter II as well as an EMT-B.This article first appeared in ARFF news


Organized by IAFPA (International Aviation Fire Protection Association)

Abu Dhabi Airports Company (ADAC) and International Aviation Fire Protection Association (IAFPA) will be organising the First Middle East Aviation Fire Protection Conference 2008 with a theme

“Towards a Safer Airport Environment”

This conference will be held at Hilton Hotel Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. It will showcase for the first time speakers from UK, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Middle East and will cover aviation safety topics on:

Airport Emergency Planning;Airport Fire Protection Levels;Medical Emergencies;New Generation Aircraft;Crisis Management and Business continuity;ICAO Standards;Aircraft Disaster Recovery Plans.

Hosted by

International Aviation Fire Protection AssociationOur Aim is to facilitate & promote the sharing of information and learning to

enhance fire safety & security for the international aviation community

IAFPA AVIATION FIRE PROTECTION( MIDDLE EAST) CONFERENCE

24 – 26 MARCH 2008


Brain teaser number 16These exercises, written by Les Omans, can be completed on an individual basis or as a group problem-solving table-top exercise. We encourage you to use the group format.

If possible, prior to the group exercise, conduct a familiarisation walkthrough of the aircraft involved and the area where you might have the type of incident featured in the scenario.

Before the table-top exercise, review with the group the applicable parts of the airport emergency plan, mutual aid plans, mass casualty plan, standard operating procedures, incident command system and any other pertinent information. Break into groups of six to eight, with representatives from all the key agencies on each group. Forty-five minutes is a good time frame for the group problem-solving phase, but allow more time if necessary. Participants must have sufficient time to discuss and complete all the assignments.

During the first five minutes, ask each group to elect an incident commander. This person is responsible for approving all plans and ensuring all the necessary assignments are completed. If this isn’t done, it is probable that nobody will take charge and the groups will waste time.

An exercise moderator might be useful when there are several groups.

After the problem-solving phase is completed, ask each group to explain how they handled the incident and allow time for questions and discussion.

Save the results and a record of who took part - they could be useful when being evaluated.

AIRCRAFT - Gulfstream Aerospace Tiger

Length: 22 feetWing Span: 32 feetHeight: 8 feetOccupancy: Four (4)Fuel Capacity: 52 gallons (348 pounds) of Aviation GasolinePowerplant: One (1) Lycoming 180 HPEngine Shutdown: Retard throttle and fuel mixture, lower centre of dash panel, turn fuel selector (located below) to off positionElectrical Shutoff: Key and rocker switch located at lower left area of dash panelBattery Location: Co-pilot’s side in engine compartmentWindow Type: PlexiglassEmergency Access: Canopy - Forward top of canopy, turn handle and slide canopy aft

THE INCIDENT SITUATION (fill in the blanks with your own air-port information)

This aircraft starts its takeoff roll on Runway _______. There are two persons on board and a full load of fuel. A student pilot is flying the aircraft with a flight instructor sitting second seat. The engine is running rough. Shortly after lift-off the engine looses power, several pops are heard, and the engine quits. The aircraft is unable to return to the runway and attempts to make an emergency landing. It impacts level and skids into a chain link fence located at ___________________.

The fencing acts like a net, catches, and quickly slows the aircraft to a stop. The chain link is pulled off of seven fence posts. The aircraft comes to a stop with the chain link wrapped over and around the cabin area. One of the steel posts has penetrated the bottom of the aircraft, speared the flight instructor in the left shoulder, pinning her to the ceiling of the aircraft. The top of the post is protruding from the top of the aircraft cabin. The instructor is unconscious, and bleeding from her wound. The student pilot is uninjured, but trapped in the aircraft by the fencing. Fuel is leaking from the damaged right wing.

IAFPA BULLETIN, JANUARY 2008PAGE 2�

Les Omans spent 30 years with the San Jose Fire Department (USA) and retired at the rank of Captain. He was an ARFF Shift Commander at San Jose International Airport. He was a shipboard and flight deck fire instructor with the US Navy and an ARFF Crew Chief with the Air Force Reserve. He has been involved with many ARFF and airport related organisations, projects, and programmes for over 20 years

YOUR ASSIGNMENT

1. List the actions, tasks and tactics necessary to manage and control this incident.2. List the apparatus, equipment, agencies, organisations, personnel and other resources that would be involved and utilised during the emergency.3. Using the ‘Incident Command System’, draw an organisational chart indicating the command structure that would be utilised, functions and responsibilities assigned, and to whom. 4. Indicate on a map of your airport where apparatus, equipment, activities, ICS facilities, and functions would be positioned or conducted.

Documents

Bulletin - IAFPAaaa.iafpa.org.uk/bulletin/17.pdf · IAFPA BULLETIN, JANUARY 2008 PAGE IAFPA NEWS IAFPA BULLETIN, JANUARY 2008 PAGE Another step on the ladder options, including hydraulic