fire cover - do we really need it?

[juggernaut]

It seems we are now the only place in Europe where it is a legal requirement to have a licenced airfield and fire cover for flight training. This means that a lot of flying clubs have to provide it at their own expense which in turn is passed on to the student and other customers. The microlight and gliding fraternity are completely exempt from this requirement - one then has to ask why the CAA insist on it, bearing in mind that FIC, IMC, IR / multi and PPL checkouts and private flying do not require it. Is it not about time that it was reviewed (they have been talking about it for years).
I note that the chief fire officer of Bristol Airport retired after 40 years having never attended a fire!
Whats the general view on this?

[WestWind1950]

In Germany ALL airfields are required to have fire protection equipment, even the smallest field. The minimum: two 6 kg extinguishers, two 12 kg extinguishers, fire axe, fire blankets and gloves, various cutting equipment, etc. etc. Plus someone always being present who has attended a first aid class (another reason for someone always needing to be present when there is flying activity). These regulations go back to the 1960's, so nothing new over here.
The equipment is supposed to be on a 4-wheel drive vehicle, but a small trailer attached to a car is usually accepted.

ALL airfields are certified in some form or another... and of course training only allowed on those fields certified for that type of aircraft, etc. Some glider fields are certified for TMG's but only for members of the local club, not for everyone.

I think the requirment actually quite sensible ... and it has even saved people's lives over the years.

Westy

[juggernaut]

Hey Westy, I totally agree with having some small trailer and a few fire extinguishers on airfield. At our airfield we have 4 full time fire crew and a socking big fire engine which is OTT for our small operation. Sadly when they knock off at 5pm or occasionally when a fireman is ill we have to cease operating. We are also about to have the cover removed at weekends unless we pay for the priviledge. I still believe that the requirement for fire cover should be for Public Transport operations only and it is about time the rules were changed.

[zzzz]

There is a certain amount of hypocrisy in the present rules.
I was lookig at a broucher for a 3 axis microlight with a cruise of 160mph. As it is a microlight, you can train on it from unlicenced airfields, but it is basically a light aircraft. In fact it out performs many club trainers, which need fire cover at there fields of operation for training.

Is airfield fire cover really going to save lives (or has it really ever done so in the past?) Here I am talking about Special Cat or Cat 1 airfields NOT bigger airports. The fire crews, with the minimum of training, are probably putting themselves at great risk with out much possibility of making much difference in a real fire.

The amount of firefighting media required by law at a Cat 1 airfield would be barely enough, as a first attack, on a small fire (that is if they can get that old knackered Land Rover fire engine started in the first place!).

Most light aircraft accidents are either minor (i.e. heavy landing) or far more rarely, high speed and instantly fatal. Neither involving fire.

But then again fire cover is there for the 'what ifs'...and in the unlikely event we did have a fire most of us would rather be where there was something there!

Then again how many small airfields do take there obligation to provide fire cover seriously...?

[Tinstaafl]

Oz allows training from any airfield, airstrip or paddock that meets the a/c's performance requirements, licenced or not. Oz also publishes an advisory publication that gives recommended dimensions including approach & departure gradients for unlicenced airstrips.

As far as I've been able to determine, the safety rate for training in the UK is no better than in Oz and, I believe, comparable to the US which has far worse weather & terrain than the UK. That begs the question: What justification is there for the UK additional requirements?

[homeguard]

Is their a need for Licencing? No!

Should training facility standards be regulated? Yes!

[BlueLine]

In 1995 the CAA Aerodrome Standards department sent approximately 2500 letters to individuals in the GA industry asking exactly this question.

Of the 125 who bothered to reply about 75 wanted to retain the status quo.

presumably the other 2425 individuals either agreed with them or had no interest!

[homeguard]

At a joint meeting some years ago hosted by Oxford and organised by AOPA and GAMTA at which the CAA was represented by Ron Elder ( who was very instrumental in developing the NPPL ) a straw vote was taken on the very subject.

The vote was overwhelmingly in favour of retaining the status quo.

The majority of the Flying Schools/clubs attending were those based at the larger outer London GA aerodromes and at airports throughout the country. There appeared to be a split between these people and those from smaller club ran aerodromes. I came away with the impression that those based at the large aerodromes and airports may well have been afraid that the smaller club airfields could easily undercut in costs and they were afraid of that. The CAA should review the situation with more pragmatism.

[FJJP]

So who's going to extracate you from your mangled C172 when you badly screw a landing and you are trapped in your not burning heap of wreckage? Ask the ME109 pilot when he ended up trapped upside down after crashing at Duxford...

[RVR800]

I think the training for PPLs and all this licenced airfied stuff
if OK to a point.

However, once getting the PPL one can start to operate from short fields with obstacles and fields where nobody is around..

Some PPLs go from this highly protected environment to no protection in a single day..!:confused:

Fire trucks and all that stuff are used to justify the add-on costs that come with the 'licenced' airfied tag - they are there for a feelgood factor - very very very rarely used.

Of course the types of flying the types of aircraft and the no of movements a day will determine the levels of risk involved. At Duxford we have old types, aerobatics, periodic high movements-
all that would suggest a need for fire cover but at Sleepy Hollow flying school with a solitary C150 its seemes an overkill

Why not place a fire truck every two miles on the M11? - Its the same thing - now they WOULD be used... :E

[zzzz]

So who's going to extracate you from your mangled C172 when you... are trapped

Urm... well your small aerodrome volunteer fire crew aren't, with their one rusty axe and a crow bar, because that is all the cutting equipment they have got.

Duxford is a Cat 3 airport with a professional crew and a lot more specialist equipment than the majority of Special Cat and Cat 1 airfields.

Chalk and cheese.

[pipertommy]

I have worked as aviation fire fighter for 11 yrs,both military and now civil.I have attended MANY calls of a various nature.The Bristol claim was more of a media call!I find impossilbe to have not attended one fire!!!!! As stated before,don`t` you feel safer knowing that a group of,yes highly trained and motivated people are there to help YOU when things go badly wrong?I know for a fact Bristol airport do attend shouts :O Thank you

[Shawn Coyle]

The best way to approach this would be to do a survey of training accidents and determine what the percentage / frequency / etc. of those accidents happened within the airfield boundary where the fire cover could usefully do something useful.

What percentage / frequency etc happened outside the airfield or were of sufficient severity / or relatively harmless?
Then you have to add up the cost of providing the cover and figure out if you are interested in paying the cost for the benefit.

How do you teach someone to land on a narrow grass runway that might be close by but unattended?

Remember those who are interested in maintaining the status quo may have that interest because it protects their interests, not necessarily because it is a good thing. If they have the facilities then only they can do the training....

Do we require dedicated fire cover within 5 minutes of all elementary schools as a comparison???
(I used to live in the UK, so I understand the situation and have never thought it much use to mandate fire cover for flying training )

[juggernaut]

I think if the figures were looked at regarding incidents and accidents within the aerodrome boundary we all know what the findings would be. Very few involving instructors and students and also thankfully no fires. I am all for minimal self fire cover and safety but baulk at paying for a full time crew which in turn costs the customer, restricts operations and adds to the cost of flying. I still find it irrational that FIC, I/R, multi engine training and flight tests require no fire cover. Also 3 axis fibreglass microlights which cruise at 100 knots and operate at my training field and are also exempt. 80% of my instructional flying is outside gliding range of a fire engine and it does not make me nervous. 1994 is a long time ago and I think its about time there was another survey amongst instructors and operators. Its time the playing field was levelled and either we all have cover or we all do not. Nuff said I think!

[Zlin526]

When I'm hanging in my straps waiting for the thing to burn, I dont particularly care where the Fire Brigade comes from, just that they are there pretty damn quick.

At my local aerodrome, which is Cat R, they can be off the mark in no time..The local Fire Station is retained and as a C & D risk area, legislation says (or used to) that they dont have to be in attendance for 20 mins....Local full time station is 20 mins drive away...

So I'll elect to keep the aerodrome fire service, even if they have old equipment and my old firegear....at least they'll be there in a flash:ok:

[zzzz]

Zlin 526,

You are rather naive about the abilities of the firefighting at a special cat or cat one airfield.

The easiest comparison is between how the local authority fire service would deal with a car fire, which would be of similar scale to a light aircraft being on fire.

The local fire service would send one appliance carrying about 1800 litres of water and a crew of four. It would probably take them about 5 minutes to bring the fire under control, assuming it was well alight, and 10 to extinguish it.

Now take the equivalent, a light aircraft well alight at your local small airfield. Out goes the Cat 1 airfield Landrover. The CAA stipulate it need only be carrying approx. 200 litres of water and 2 crew, who have had 2 days training many moons ago. Due to the materials used in aircraft and the flammability of avgas, the plane will burn quicker. It is unlikely the crew will be able to control this fire let alone put it out.

Any small fire in an aircraft, or indeed a car could be put out by a couple of DP extinguishers, does this need a licenced field? Probably not. Anything bigger, well unless you have the facilities of a larger airport...no chance!

So we should all operate from big airfields? No, it would be too restrictive. But lets not pretend the provision at a CAT 1 airfield would be much use either.

[Zlin526]

zzzz,

I think you've been watching too many American disaster movies. Statistically speaking, light aircraft accidents do not always end in an inferno! Of course, some do, but in my extensive experience dealing with transport accidents generally over a 15 year period, they dont. I was actually involved in the consultation a few years ago to reduce the level of fire cover for flight training....

My point was that without the local guys on an airfield, a 20 min wait trapped upside down in an aircraft, one that may ignite, but equally might not, was an awfully long time..

I'd rather have several keen individuals with some aviation related crash & rescue training to at least attempt to rescue me than wait for the butcher and baker from the local village to turn up in their shiny fire engine..

Of course, this is strictly my own opinion and I'm sticking to it:ok:

[WestWind1950]

This is what happens when the fire brigade responds too late.


http://www.skytanz.de/images/mainz1x.jpg

There was fire equipment available, but the fire truck wouldn't start. By the time someone took some extinquishers in his private car to the scene (at the far end of a 900 m long runway), it was already too late. The fire started at the brakes and ignited the fuel tanks somehow. All the passengers escaped in time. The pilot had aborted take-off after noticing smoke. Now, imagine he had crashed it and the doors couldn't get open :uhoh: no, better not think of that.

I've also seen photos of a burnt out banner-tow plane after crashing while picking up the banner, which didn't work.... the pilot burnt in the plane. It is NOT unusual for GA aircraft to catch fire!

Westy :(

[zzzz]

Two excellent post by Zlin and Westwind:ok:

Zlin, further to what you have said, would you still not advocate having another look at just how small training airfields are licenced, rather than remaining with the status quo?

Wouldn't a relaxation of the licencing requirements be acceptable if there was at least 2 members of staff present at all times, with a limited amount of firefighting media and tools? Rather than requiring a suitable fire engine (which are hard to source and very expensive...and often crap), have instead a 4x4 pick up (cheap load carrier, a reliable second hand one will be more affordable).

Westwind,


There was fire equipment available, but the fire truck wouldn't start.

Can I assume the airfield was licenced?
And therefore, in this case the licencing system has failed?

There might be an argument here for a tougher licencing regime,
or as I propose (& I think Westy and juggernaut agree with) a more relaxed one that is more achievable and affective.

Finally, Zlin, do you think twice about flying into unlicenced strips with no fire cover at all?

[Tinstaafl]

If the fire cover makes no measurable difference to safety rates compared to places that don't have it how do you justify keeping it?

[WestWind1950]

Tinstaafl,

it COULD make the difference between life or death! Every village has their fire brigades JUST IN CASE a fire breaks out, but thank God they don't!

In the case above, it WAS a licenced field and you can believe there were a lot of questions to answer afterwards. They were lucky no body got hurt.... or worse! This case is often used in seminars for field owners and helpers as an example of what should not happen!

I really don't understand why anybody should be against it. Do you think that doing away with them would reduce the landing fees? And training flights are much more at risk.

Westy

[Tinstaafl]

Lets look at your assumptions:

1. 'It *could* make a difference...' etc etc

Except the demonstrated risk ie what has actually happened, shows no additional safety benefit. Ergo, it's effort & cost that is irrelevent.

2. 'Training flights are much more at risk.'

Again the demonstrated risk shows training as one of the safer aspects of GA flight, not riskier.

These are both arguments against the necessity for a fire service.

For all the arguments about 'could', 'might', 'conceivably', 'remotely' and so on down the likelyhood scale, aviation safety is, and has always been, a matter of proportional response to the level of risk and type of operation, not absolute safety.

Even the safest of aviation activities - jet airline operations - has probability applied, not absolutes, to determine acceptable safety rates as a result of design, planning & procedural interventions.

[WestWind1950]

Tinstaafl,

there will NEVER be absolute safety in anything! But why not provide at least a minimum if it can make a difference? I'm sure many firefighters here in pprune would agree that they would rather sit around and do nothing then to not be there when needed!
Training IS more risky... the instructor cannot always recover the mistakes the student may do, and the student isn't practised enough. And excercises are performed in training that are not a part of everyday flying and COULD go wrong (like aborting take-off, etc.).

The cost isn't that much... the personel do not necessarily have to be "professional" firefighters... it's enough to have the field regulars trained in using the equipment! At some of the fields in Germany the club members get together once a year with the local fire department for a simulated training event. Or you can have the local department at least demonstrate to all the pilots that are stationed at the field and ground personel in the use of extinquishers! That doesn't cost anything! But at least they know how to handle them in case of an emergency!
And once the equipment is purchased, the only cost is having fuel in the vehicle and the extinquishers checked every 2 years. The vehicle itself can be an old fire truck that some professional department can't use anymore due to old age.... at a small local air field it's perfectly ok!

I don't see where the problem is really. I know that even having all the equipment on the field may not save the day, but it MAY just make the difference.

I rest my case ;)

Westy

[Tinstaafl]

No, training is *NOT* more risky. That's supported by the in-service accident rate, and not just a perception of things. That's the problem with a large part of your contention. Your presuming a case that is contradicted by in-service, demonstrated experience.

As for '...it MAY just make the difference.'......or in fact, as is borne out by demonstrated safety rates and not just supposition, it makes no, or negligable, difference.

You're arguing that just because something *MIGHT* make a difference then it should be done - nevermind that it's been shown to make little or no difference. To follow this logic, then we shouldn't be using these aircraft at all. They have no ability to continue flight if an engine fails (care to consider light twin certification?), no redundant load path requirement, parts retirement based on some buffer against the population failure rate average, etc etc ad nauseum. Changing these and many more factors in the design & operating philosphy might make a difference too. Shall we scrap these 'unsafe' contraptions? It MIGHT make a difference (in fact, it's arguable that only operating FAR25 or equiv, under public transport type rules, using airline transport pilots would make a difference. The cost, however, has never been acceptable).

The problem is that you're insisting on services that are largely irrelevent to typical GA operations, that impose restrictions on operations (what if they're not there when you need, or wish, to fly?), add cost (who pays for the equipment, maintenance & training? What about when some can't attend on that day/weekend?) yet make negligable difference to safety rates.

Whilst I have no problem with a voluntary scheme - if someone feels they like to do such a thing then good luck to them. But to insist on it based on supposition & fallacious argument is not acceptable. IF you can show a significant change in safety rates AND the resources wouldn't be better used elsewhere AND any restrictions as a result are not unnaceptable THEN youy have a point.