CAA proposal to reduce fire cover..

[Sir George Cayley]

..I think :hmm:
Have a gander at this consultation http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1570

As far as I can tell it seem to spell the end of some of the Trumpton Airport Fire Brigade.

Be interested in an informed opinion, especially from Capt Flack, The Pugh Brothers, Mr and Mrs McGrew's son Barney et al inc Grub.

Sir George Cayley

[wsmempson]

Just out of curiousity, has anyone ever been saved from an aircraft fire (resulting from the scenario painted in the consultation document where "a Cessna 152 lands and hits a Piper PA38") by airport firecrew?

[twelveoclockhigh]

it won't see the end of the special category fire cover but it will change the way that it is regulated - in reality most of the special category airfields will probably continue as they are - the CAA have made them jump through the hoops already.

[xrayalpha]

It looks to me - as the operator of an unlicenced airfield used for microlight aircraft training - that it is "licenced airfield for training" in all but name.

In other words, a list of CAA requirements to be checked by a CAA audit, at the airfield operator's cost.

All change for the same?

[VFE]

Just out of curiousity, has anyone ever been saved from an aircraft fire (resulting from the scenario painted in the consultation document where "a Cessna 152 lands and hits a Piper PA38") by airport firecrew?

Think it's one person in 40 years?

VFE.

[twelveoclockhigh]

The most likely things to happen on an airfield are heavy landings, ground loops etc which hardly require fire cover.

As for rescuing people from a burning aircraft - within a few seconds there's not really much left - so either the occupants are able to get out unaided or they're not.

[Johnm]

I wonder if we could have the document in English:confused:

[scooter boy]

"The most likely things to happen on an airfield are heavy landings, ground loops etc which hardly require fire cover.

As for rescuing people from a burning aircraft - within a few seconds there's not really much left - so either the occupants are able to get out unaided or they're not."

Quite probably correct.

No disrespect intended here but...The firemen at my base airfield spend most of the day polishing their helmets :ooh:- in truth they do get involved in other duties such as jogging, cutting the grass, cleaning the fire engine, moving the fire engine (which is parked in the hangar and always obstructing the egress of my aircraft) and working out in the gym.

I am joking here :E(before the righteous aviation fireperson's spokesperson descends on me) and they do much of the commercial ground crew type stuff at the airport.

It would appear that a civvy fireman's lot would involve far more frequent fire (of admittedly lower intensity).

SB

['Chuffer' Dandridge]

"The most likely things to happen on an airfield are heavy landings, ground loops etc which hardly require fire cover.

I disagree. Earlier in the years, I had the misfortune to be standing next to an aircraft incident which did require the RFFS at Headcorn. A DHC-2 crashed into a parked museum aircraft and the pilot was trapped, and later died from his injuries. The airfield fire section were on scene within seconds and provided a superb service until the full time local Fire Brigade arrived and could back them up.

yes, an awful lot of time is spent hanging around, but when you need them, you definitely need them. Dont forget that an airfield fire service doesn't just deal with a fire situation.......

It would appear that a civvy fireman's lot would involve far more frequent fire (of admittedly lower intensity).

Maybe up until the late 1980s, but when i was a fireman (until 1999), we dealt with more RTAs, floodings, lifts stuck, cats up trees etc than a decent sized fire.

[Russell Gulch]

when you need them, you definitely need them. so why is this not a mandatory requirement at microlight training fields?

[Slopey]

Fire personnel are (presumably) invaluable in cutting people out of wrecked aircraft - it does'nt need to be actually on fire for fire crews to be needed.

[Mixed Up]

We think it's OK not to have fire services at every 1'000 metres of motorways, so why do we think it's necessary at every runway. Isn't the local fire service sufficient? Light aircraft accidents tend to be no worse that car accidents.

[IO540]

Just out of curiousity, has anyone ever been saved from an aircraft fire (resulting from the scenario painted in the consultation document where "a Cessna 152 lands and hits a Piper PA38") by airport firecrew?

According to a presentation (which I attended) by a Govt Minister from the DfT, in London in November 2006, the DfT did research on this and found the answer to be zero. Specifically, no lives were actually saved by airport fire crew.

I don't recall the time period over which the data was collected but from vague recollection and the general context it was several decades.

I am not for or against airport fire crew; just reporting the above.

What I am against is mandatory ATC for any public instrument approach. This keeps GA utility value in the Middle Ages by making GPS approaches all but useless even if we had them. Currently, nearly every airport that has ATC also has an IAP.

[formationfoto]

Not quite the reduction in requirements hoped for by small airfields which train only one or two days a week and find that the cost of satisfying the current requirements far outweighs the additional safety margin created.

15 months between CAA visits becomes 24 months. Slight change in role for the firefighter.

[stevfire2]

"Isn't the local fire service sufficient? Light aircraft accidents tend to be no worse that car accidents."

Airport fire service must make response time of 3 mins maximum to a fixed wing incident, 2 mins for rotary. "Time" is crash alarm to foam production. Local authority cannot match this and fully admit to minimal specialised knowledge about aircraft, they will assist but choose to stay clear. They don't have any brief about undercarriages, ejector seats, ballistic parachutes etc. They will be the first to admit that they are not the experts.

Please bear in mind that at the majority of GA airfields the fire crew are already on site as engineers, ops , maintainence etc. ie multi- tasked. Just cos a list of lives saved FROM FIRE can't be produced does not mean to say that the actions of the RFFS has not saved anybody. Prompt application of qualified first aid, making safe of wreckage, dealing with fuel spills, preparedness for worst case scenarios and preservation of evidence for AAIB inquiry purposes have all assisted at aircraft accidents and are all elements of the Airport Fire Service role.

"I wouldn't dream of telling you how to be a pilot, don't tell me how to save your ass."

[BlueRobin]

I had a share in a Jodel, which caught fire at an airfield without fire cover. The local brigade took 8 minutes to get there. Relying on you local brigade therefore is not ideal, unless the airfield is near a full-time station.

[Kaptain Kremen]

i know at our small airfield, special cat, we will continue with the CAA. devil you know kind of thing for us, and also as far as i know, whilst under the CAA you don't have health and safety exec. They would be a whole lot worse. Besides, we still have a duty of care to our customers / members anyway - at least under the CAA standards you stand a chance in court.
KK