Remember the MiG Fairford show crash some years ago, as the aircrew from both aircraft had ejected the fire masters would not allow anyone to approach the aircraft, until he had ascertained that there was no carbon present. As the crash site wasn't endangering anyone I think they let it burn out.

Regards

Air pig.

I was a crash site guard at that incident, in a field next to a campsite. I know no-one went near it as we were stood there for about 10 hours maintaining as large a cordon as possible around the outside of the field. The only person who tried to go near was the landowner and his dog who insisted that they have a look as it was his land!!

Yet to be found out! But it is odd that my earlier post here about that very subject, including mention of the carbon-fibre rich 787 has been removed! Whatever for? :rolleyes:

It's amazing, PPRUNe is the home of complaining about armchair experts and yet:

Most of the bodywork has been removed. The chassis would have been stripped down for transport shortly after arriving back from crashing out.

No CF fibers in the air, can any of the armchair experts say why? (The Harrier crash is a clue)

I thought the removal of your FAA post is odd MrBernoulli, especially as it highlights the dangers to those still in the Services who may not be aware of the dangers, and may one day trigger a memory that ensures those near a future incident are protected from the effects.

WillDAQ - beg pardon for daring to voice an opinion that turned out to be incorrect Sir. I shall PM you for permission before I dare do this again.

The hazards of MMF have been quite exaggerated over the years and are nowhere near the levels of danger as previously thought.

That said I wouldn't go eating it for lunch.

whats the actual problem with the composite residues?
The fibre dust from the broken structure? Or decomposition chemicals from the fire?

When a Cottesmore Harrier crashed the other year (the last Harrier crash in the UK?) at the end of the runway, the area was full of locals having a nosy. That day, just to be safe, I commuted home via Cornwall.

The farmers round ere are well ard though. ;)

some good reminders to everyone about the dangers faced when fighting fires. I know a man that suffers very poor health due to breathing in toxic fumes whilst fighting a fire. Not the first thing you think of when you see flames is it !

When I did my training in respect to dealing with the aftermath of accidents the hazard was after impact the structure could break up into microscopic particles which could enter the body by inhalation or through unprotected skin. The respirators required to work safely were very high spec as was the suit.
Once in the body, they could not be removed as they were so small and numerous.

The other danger was any wind could contaminate large areas downwind.

I admit when I was trained I was very sceptical but the trainers were pretty convincing about the hazards.

These issues are covered in the document I linked to, in post #6 ;)

It looked like it could have been a liquid fuel fire.

The guys operating powder extinguishers deployed from the front couldn't get close enough to the source. Given the low ceiling and confined space, they needed a (very) long lance (something for Bernie to consider).

In oz, fire brigades quarantine a firemen's turnout kit if it has been in a smoke plume of house fire with suspected asbestos materials.

One thinks of indy car and other races where fire and rescue crews must occasionally be contaminated? And the car carried past the adoring public?


Mickjoebill