Halon Fire Extinguishers
Thread Starter
Halon Fire Extinguishers
All,
Just been told by my maintenance company that my 3 helis all need to have their dry powder extinguishers replaced by Halon ones ( EASA ruling). Now forgive me for being stupid but halon was banned in 2002 for being an ozone killer and when let off in an enclosed space it will kill you as it removes O2 from the atmosphere. I think we can all call a cockpit an enclosed space !!
Digging futher into it and I find dry powder has been removed as the powder will corrode aircraft skins and panels!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. So EASA is more interested in not corroding ac than pax safety. Yes I know halon is very good at putting out fires but whats the point when the gas is so toxic that it will kill you !!!!!
I have asked UK CAA for some advice, havent even had the courtsey of a reply.
Anyone got any thoughts on this or a way round the problem, as The Company Risk Assessments are having a problem.
Just been told by my maintenance company that my 3 helis all need to have their dry powder extinguishers replaced by Halon ones ( EASA ruling). Now forgive me for being stupid but halon was banned in 2002 for being an ozone killer and when let off in an enclosed space it will kill you as it removes O2 from the atmosphere. I think we can all call a cockpit an enclosed space !!
Digging futher into it and I find dry powder has been removed as the powder will corrode aircraft skins and panels!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. So EASA is more interested in not corroding ac than pax safety. Yes I know halon is very good at putting out fires but whats the point when the gas is so toxic that it will kill you !!!!!
I have asked UK CAA for some advice, havent even had the courtsey of a reply.
Anyone got any thoughts on this or a way round the problem, as The Company Risk Assessments are having a problem.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Close to the hangar, UK.
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given a choice I'd go for Halon any day. The powder goes everywhere and sticks to everything. Not good.
However, if I had smoke in the cockpit my first action would be to get the aircraft on the ground, not to start fannying around with extinguishers to fight a fire that is probably in an area I can't get to whilst flying.
However, if I had smoke in the cockpit my first action would be to get the aircraft on the ground, not to start fannying around with extinguishers to fight a fire that is probably in an area I can't get to whilst flying.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Florida
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire extinguishers
500.
If you have ever been in the the locker room and anyone uses phoo phoo you will know how difficult it is to breathe in a confined cockpit when you let off a powder extinguisher and you will be unable to see. You will go to sleep very quickly. Similarly with a CO2 agent.
Halon is the only cockpit approved extinguishing agent(see JAR-OPS 3.790). It can be used to put out the fire but you MUST ventilate quickly afterwards.
No agent is really human friendly so we have to settle for the least nasty.
If you have ever been in the the locker room and anyone uses phoo phoo you will know how difficult it is to breathe in a confined cockpit when you let off a powder extinguisher and you will be unable to see. You will go to sleep very quickly. Similarly with a CO2 agent.
Halon is the only cockpit approved extinguishing agent(see JAR-OPS 3.790). It can be used to put out the fire but you MUST ventilate quickly afterwards.
No agent is really human friendly so we have to settle for the least nasty.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
H500, I can't imagine who told you that Halon is so toxic it will kill you if you use it in a confined space. Phooey. Utter hokum.
CO2 might displace breatheable air if you use enough of it in a closed box, but no cockpit is that enclosed or airtight, and I doubt very much that the extinguisher is anywhere close to holding enough of the stuff either. And as said above, you will choke on the dust from a dry powder.
Halon is there for a reason. It is BY FAR the most effective extinguishant around, by orders of magnitude. Be thankful it works - the alternatives (there are none that work well) don't bear thinking about.
CO2 might displace breatheable air if you use enough of it in a closed box, but no cockpit is that enclosed or airtight, and I doubt very much that the extinguisher is anywhere close to holding enough of the stuff either. And as said above, you will choke on the dust from a dry powder.
Halon is there for a reason. It is BY FAR the most effective extinguishant around, by orders of magnitude. Be thankful it works - the alternatives (there are none that work well) don't bear thinking about.
Here is the proposed requirement from the draft EASA regulations - Subpart GEN is applicable to all specified aircraft:
Commercial Air Transport inherits the requirement from Subpart GEN and so remains silent. There is no guidance on the General Requirement (so it is not clear what is required) but there is this method of compliance for Commercial Air Transport:
Although these regulations are out for comment, it is unlikely that they will be incorporated until, at the earliest, 2012 and not come into force until several years after that.
Up to that time, the NAA (in your case the CAA) will provide the requirement (and the method of compliance). If your helicopter is operating in Commercial Air Transport, the requirement is exactly that specified above i.e. JAR-OPS 3.790(b):
You do of course have time to comment as the 'comment period' does not expire until the end of July. However, it would appear that the requirement remains as it was under the ANO and JAR-OPS 3.
This might not be an operational requirement but, if that is the case, then you might wish to ask your maintenance company where the requirement stems from.
Jim
OPS.GEN.405 Equipment for all aircraft
AEROPLANES AND HELICOPTERS
(a) Aeroplanes and helicopters shall be equipped with:
(1) except in the case of aerobatic flights, at least one hand fire extinguisher:
(i) in the cockpit; and
(ii) in each passenger compartment which is separate from the cockpit;
AMC OPS.CAT.405 Hand fire extinguishers – Motor-powered aircraft
HAND FIRE EXTINGUISHERS – NUMBER, LOCATION AND TYPE
1. The number and location of hand fire extinguishers should be such as to provide adequate availability for use, account being taken of the number and size of the passenger compartments, the need to minimise the hazard of toxic gas concentrations and the location of toilets, galleys etc. These considerations may result in the number of fire extinguishers being greater than the minimum prescribed.
2. There should be at least one fire extinguisher suitable for both flammable fluid and electrical equipment fires installed in the cockpit. Additional extinguishers may be required for the protection of other compartments accessible to the crew in flight. Dry chemical fire extinguishers should not be used in the cockpit, or in any compartment not separated by a partition from the cockpit, because of the adverse effect on vision during discharge and, if conductive, interference with electrical contacts by the chemical residues.
3. Where only one hand fire extinguisher is required in the passenger compartments it should be located near the cabin crew member’s station, where provided.
4. Where two or more hand fire extinguishers are required in the passenger compartments and their location is not otherwise dictated by consideration of paragraph OPS.CAT.405(a), an extinguisher should be located near each end of the cabin with the remainder distributed throughout the cabin as evenly as is practicable.
5. Unless an extinguisher is clearly visible, its location should be indicated by a placard or sign. Appropriate symbols may also be used to supplement such a placard or sign.
6. The fire extinguishers located in the cockpit should contain Halon 1211 (bromochlorodifluoro-methane, CBrCIF2) or an equivalent extinguishing agent.
7. For aeroplanes with a maximum approved passenger seating configuration between 31 and 60, one of the required fire extinguishers located in the passenger compartment should contain Halon 1211 (bromochlorodi-fluoromethane, CBrCIF2) or an equivalent extinguishing agent.
8. For aeroplanes with a maximum approved passenger seating configuration of more than 61, at least two of the fire extinguishers located in the passenger compartment should contain Halon 1211 (bromochlorodi-fluoromethane, CBrCIF2) or an equivalent extinguishing agent.
Although these regulations are out for comment, it is unlikely that they will be incorporated until, at the earliest, 2012 and not come into force until several years after that.
Up to that time, the NAA (in your case the CAA) will provide the requirement (and the method of compliance). If your helicopter is operating in Commercial Air Transport, the requirement is exactly that specified above i.e. JAR-OPS 3.790(b):
(b) At least one hand fire extinguisher, containing Halon 1211 (bromochlorodifluoro-methane, CBrClF2), or equivalent as the extinguishing agent, must be conveniently located in the cockpit for use by the flight crew;
If your aircraft is not operating in Commercial Air Transport, it is still required to have a fire extinguisher in the cockpit (Schedule 4 Scale A(5)) but it is not clear what the contents should be.You do of course have time to comment as the 'comment period' does not expire until the end of July. However, it would appear that the requirement remains as it was under the ANO and JAR-OPS 3.
This might not be an operational requirement but, if that is the case, then you might wish to ask your maintenance company where the requirement stems from.
Jim
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Sydney, Oz.
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interestingly there is a thread up in Rumour and News about a proposal to remove of Halon fire extinguishers from aeroplanes..
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...exemption.html
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/3...exemption.html
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Health & Safety Advice
http://erd.dli.mt.gov/safetyhealth/brochures/halon.pdf
At least in a helicopter, in the event of a cabin fire, you can be on the ground and evacuating very quickly.
http://erd.dli.mt.gov/safetyhealth/brochures/halon.pdf
At least in a helicopter, in the event of a cabin fire, you can be on the ground and evacuating very quickly.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Larkspur, CA
Age: 60
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Halon Fire Extinguishers
Dear Hughes500,
Your chagrin is understandable given the misinformation in the industry regarding Halon.
My company is a major supplier of aviation fire extinguishers, and I had the opportunity to attend a meeting with the FAA at their Atlantic City fire test facility. Also attending were representatives from major airlines, aircraft manufacturers, the US military and international regulatory bodies, including EASA.
While there, a Halon fire extinguisher was tested and compared to a similarly rated sodium bicarbonate dry chemical fire extinguisher to determine whether a dry chem. extinguisher could be safely used in place of a Halon extinguisher. A key test was the "hidden fire test," which tests the ability of an extinguishing agent to extinguish hard to get at fires behind panels, etc. The Halon extinguisher performed phenomenally, the dry chem. extinguisher failed.
I understand that your argument concerns toxicity. In the nearly 30 years that Halon has been used in aviation, there has not been a single confirmed case of a pilot or passenger being incapacitated by Halon. To fight the perception that "Halon will kill you," the FAA, following a recommendation by the NTSB, in 2004 published AC120-80 on In-flight fires. The FAA also just released a video on the same topic. The message: Don't hesitate to use a Halon fire extinguisher on aircraft - the combustion products of the fire are much more toxic. Both the AC and video can be found on the FAA's website - www.faa.gov.
As for discharging a dry chemical fire extinguisher in a confined space, it is not advisable. At the FAA test, we discharged a dry chemical extinguisher in the interior of a 737. The cloud of blinding, choking powder would be have been debilitating in the much smaller confines of a helicopter.
The consensus of the group after these tests was that purely from a safety standpoint, dry chemical fire extinguishers should not be used on aircraft. Many also voiced concern that the corrosive nature of dry chemical extinguishers is another very good reason to avoid their use.
Regards,
Chris Dieter
H3R Aviation, Inc.
Your chagrin is understandable given the misinformation in the industry regarding Halon.
My company is a major supplier of aviation fire extinguishers, and I had the opportunity to attend a meeting with the FAA at their Atlantic City fire test facility. Also attending were representatives from major airlines, aircraft manufacturers, the US military and international regulatory bodies, including EASA.
While there, a Halon fire extinguisher was tested and compared to a similarly rated sodium bicarbonate dry chemical fire extinguisher to determine whether a dry chem. extinguisher could be safely used in place of a Halon extinguisher. A key test was the "hidden fire test," which tests the ability of an extinguishing agent to extinguish hard to get at fires behind panels, etc. The Halon extinguisher performed phenomenally, the dry chem. extinguisher failed.
I understand that your argument concerns toxicity. In the nearly 30 years that Halon has been used in aviation, there has not been a single confirmed case of a pilot or passenger being incapacitated by Halon. To fight the perception that "Halon will kill you," the FAA, following a recommendation by the NTSB, in 2004 published AC120-80 on In-flight fires. The FAA also just released a video on the same topic. The message: Don't hesitate to use a Halon fire extinguisher on aircraft - the combustion products of the fire are much more toxic. Both the AC and video can be found on the FAA's website - www.faa.gov.
As for discharging a dry chemical fire extinguisher in a confined space, it is not advisable. At the FAA test, we discharged a dry chemical extinguisher in the interior of a 737. The cloud of blinding, choking powder would be have been debilitating in the much smaller confines of a helicopter.
The consensus of the group after these tests was that purely from a safety standpoint, dry chemical fire extinguishers should not be used on aircraft. Many also voiced concern that the corrosive nature of dry chemical extinguishers is another very good reason to avoid their use.
Regards,
Chris Dieter
H3R Aviation, Inc.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: melbourne
Age: 48
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fire
wow i cant believe you had dry chem in your aircraft, you blust that and its instant white out your now IFR in your cockpit, plus your gagging on the powder.
Halon was banned but is still available for aviation but soon will be no good as well, there is a replacement and its called Halotron, expensive buggers to.
BCF was Banned they brought in Halon now halon is banned and they bring in Halotron, Its all due to the environment, they banned BCF cause of its Hydrocarbins. ohhh got to protect the ozone layer by far the best extinguisher ever.
Halon was banned but is still available for aviation but soon will be no good as well, there is a replacement and its called Halotron, expensive buggers to.
BCF was Banned they brought in Halon now halon is banned and they bring in Halotron, Its all due to the environment, they banned BCF cause of its Hydrocarbins. ohhh got to protect the ozone layer by far the best extinguisher ever.
I've never had to use a fire extinguisher in a helicopter but a friend of mine had a dry chemical fire extinguisher discharge in a helicopter once. It was in an AS350 and it was discharged accidentally by a patient for only a brief period. The dry chemical agent proved to cause a very large distraction to the pilot as it was discharged but his situation worsened once it started sticking to the windscreen. He was forced to use the small sliding window on his door as his primary reference in poor weather in the mountains. Everything worked out fine but it doesn't sound like a situation I'd like to repeat.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,154
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Hmm, the environment - 'sfunny how something that only makes up .03-5% of the atmosphere (i.e. CO2) can have so much influence, isn't it? 
Phil
Phil
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: not home
Age: 23
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My understanding is although Halogen kills ozone it is so good on all types of fires that Aviation has a dispensation to use it.
If you were going to use any form of extinguisher in a cockpit wouldn't it be because of fire and wouldn't you have smoke in the cockpit and therefore would you not have to vent the area by say opening a door.
Seems to me getting sick from halogen may be less likely than burning, and lets face it how many times has the average chopper had a fire in the cabin
If you were going to use any form of extinguisher in a cockpit wouldn't it be because of fire and wouldn't you have smoke in the cockpit and therefore would you not have to vent the area by say opening a door.
Seems to me getting sick from halogen may be less likely than burning, and lets face it how many times has the average chopper had a fire in the cabin
Gentlemen
There is indeed a worldwide ban on the production of Halon under the Montreal Protocol due to the release of CFC's which make a big hole in the ozone layer. However, although production has ceased and Halon 1211 (BCF) extinguishers should have been disposed of through the proper channels years ago there are a few industries that are exempt and aviation is one of them at least until the remaining stocks run out.
In the world of aviation RFFS we can use it operationally but cannot train with it! We have to watch old training videos instead.
Until an alternative vapourising liquid agent comes on scene with the same or better extinguishing qualities of BCF we are stuck with Dry Powders or CO2.
Where CO2 is concerned though we have to carry twice the amount than what is required for Halon or Dry Powder. We can use CO2 and DP all day long. Where as only 1.5kg of Halon was used last year in the whole of the UK by the RFFS.
Er' what gas is supposed to be the reason for global warming????????
FC1
There is indeed a worldwide ban on the production of Halon under the Montreal Protocol due to the release of CFC's which make a big hole in the ozone layer. However, although production has ceased and Halon 1211 (BCF) extinguishers should have been disposed of through the proper channels years ago there are a few industries that are exempt and aviation is one of them at least until the remaining stocks run out.
In the world of aviation RFFS we can use it operationally but cannot train with it! We have to watch old training videos instead.
Until an alternative vapourising liquid agent comes on scene with the same or better extinguishing qualities of BCF we are stuck with Dry Powders or CO2.
Where CO2 is concerned though we have to carry twice the amount than what is required for Halon or Dry Powder. We can use CO2 and DP all day long. Where as only 1.5kg of Halon was used last year in the whole of the UK by the RFFS.
Er' what gas is supposed to be the reason for global warming????????
FC1
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Er' what gas is supposed to be the reason for global warming????????
Anyway, whatever's happened to the dreadful "ozone hole" that was going to kill us all shortly a few years ago?
It has disappeared, hasn't it, and no-ones heard of it for a decade or more!
I find it hard to credit that some people feel OK to trade lives for some imaginary "ecological" benefit that was forgotten about 10 yrs ago because it has disappeared...
missed one or two
There is at present AFFF, &FX G-TEC used in motor sport, Dry powder is a real corrosion machine
http://www.lifeline-fire.co.uk/downl...ec%20sheet.pdf
F-E-V....... From Formula 1 to Motor cruisers to the Household kitchen come to the Fire Extinguisher
Also 3M product
3M™ Novec™ 1230 Fire Protection Fluid is useful in a variety of oil and gas industry applications, such as control rooms and communications centres, where maintaining continuity of operations is a vital concern. The product is a highly-effective Class B fuel fire suppression as well as a Class B gas (ie: methane, propane) inerting extinguishant application, designed to knock down fires quickly, before they have a chance to spread to Class B hazards.
Its low acute toxicity, combined with high extinguishing efficiency, give 3M™ Novec™ 1230 Fire Protection Fluid a significant margin of safety, even at relatively high extinguishing concentrations. This makes Novec 1230 fluid ideal for occupied spaces including engine and pump rooms, paint lockers and communication and control centres.
3M™ Novec™ 1230 Fire Protection Fluid is a highly efficient fire extinguishant designed especially for "special hazards." These are defined as spaces - such as telecommunication switch rooms, computer and electronic control rooms - where maintaining continuous operation of high-value equipment is critical.
Du-Pont FE36 is another.
Portable Fire Extinguishers
DuPont™ FE-36™ is the most widely used zero ozone depleting replacement for Halon 1211 in portable fire extinguishers and is approved for use on Class-A, -B, and -C fires. Compared to Halon 1211, DuPont™ FE-36™ has lower toxicity and is exceptional for use in relatively small enclosures. Portable fire extinguishers containing DuPont™ FE-36™ and certified by UL and EN3 are commercially available from several manufacturers. The UL Listed units carry a 2-B:C, 5-B:C, 1-A:10-B:C, and 2-A:10-B:C rating. The EN3 Listed units carry a 34-B:C
and 5A-70-B:C rating. Portable fire extinguishers containing DuPont™ FE-36™ are the most suitable option to protect high-value assets such as computer rooms, telecommunications facilities, process control rooms, museums, archives, marine, hospitals, banks, laboratories, and aeroplanes.
http://www.lifeline-fire.co.uk/downl...ec%20sheet.pdf
F-E-V....... From Formula 1 to Motor cruisers to the Household kitchen come to the Fire Extinguisher
Also 3M product
3M™ Novec™ 1230 Fire Protection Fluid is useful in a variety of oil and gas industry applications, such as control rooms and communications centres, where maintaining continuity of operations is a vital concern. The product is a highly-effective Class B fuel fire suppression as well as a Class B gas (ie: methane, propane) inerting extinguishant application, designed to knock down fires quickly, before they have a chance to spread to Class B hazards.
Its low acute toxicity, combined with high extinguishing efficiency, give 3M™ Novec™ 1230 Fire Protection Fluid a significant margin of safety, even at relatively high extinguishing concentrations. This makes Novec 1230 fluid ideal for occupied spaces including engine and pump rooms, paint lockers and communication and control centres.
3M™ Novec™ 1230 Fire Protection Fluid is a highly efficient fire extinguishant designed especially for "special hazards." These are defined as spaces - such as telecommunication switch rooms, computer and electronic control rooms - where maintaining continuous operation of high-value equipment is critical.
Du-Pont FE36 is another.
Portable Fire Extinguishers
DuPont™ FE-36™ is the most widely used zero ozone depleting replacement for Halon 1211 in portable fire extinguishers and is approved for use on Class-A, -B, and -C fires. Compared to Halon 1211, DuPont™ FE-36™ has lower toxicity and is exceptional for use in relatively small enclosures. Portable fire extinguishers containing DuPont™ FE-36™ and certified by UL and EN3 are commercially available from several manufacturers. The UL Listed units carry a 2-B:C, 5-B:C, 1-A:10-B:C, and 2-A:10-B:C rating. The EN3 Listed units carry a 34-B:C
and 5A-70-B:C rating. Portable fire extinguishers containing DuPont™ FE-36™ are the most suitable option to protect high-value assets such as computer rooms, telecommunications facilities, process control rooms, museums, archives, marine, hospitals, banks, laboratories, and aeroplanes.
Last edited by 500e; 7th Jun 2010 at 20:37.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North of Antartica
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Halon/BCF
Halon 1301 (usually used for flood systems) is more 'toxic' than 1211, However both are only 'toxic' with prolonged exposure and in extremely confined spaces. (greater than 20% volume)
1211 is the product found in cockpits/cabins. Interestingly for all the hand-ringing eco-facists out there, still worried about ozone depletion, when discharged onto a fire source the flouride components (which depletes ozone) is transformed and made inert in the chemical reaction which is responsible for the awesome fire extinguishing properties of BCF/Halon.
In my car I use an AFFF (aquious film forming foam) extinguisher (because I have too!!).
In my Helicopters I use only BCF/Halon.
I wont let Powder extinguishers in the offices/hangar let alone in my aircraft.
Basically Powder extinguishers work by bonding to any hot surface and also displacing oxygen. Its much finer than talcom powder and chokes like hell. It blocks your nose and throat with 'instant' white boogey's and it does a wonderful job of sticking to the wet part of your eyes!!!!
Let one of these off in a cabin and you can imagine what its like.
The original poster should thank his engineers for prompting this question and get those nasty Powder extinguishers away from your aircraft ASAP!!
Any hint that BCF/Halon should be removed from Aircraft - RESIST STRONGLY.
1211 is the product found in cockpits/cabins. Interestingly for all the hand-ringing eco-facists out there, still worried about ozone depletion, when discharged onto a fire source the flouride components (which depletes ozone) is transformed and made inert in the chemical reaction which is responsible for the awesome fire extinguishing properties of BCF/Halon.
In my car I use an AFFF (aquious film forming foam) extinguisher (because I have too!!).
In my Helicopters I use only BCF/Halon.
I wont let Powder extinguishers in the offices/hangar let alone in my aircraft.
Basically Powder extinguishers work by bonding to any hot surface and also displacing oxygen. Its much finer than talcom powder and chokes like hell. It blocks your nose and throat with 'instant' white boogey's and it does a wonderful job of sticking to the wet part of your eyes!!!!
Let one of these off in a cabin and you can imagine what its like.
The original poster should thank his engineers for prompting this question and get those nasty Powder extinguishers away from your aircraft ASAP!!
Any hint that BCF/Halon should be removed from Aircraft - RESIST STRONGLY.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has disappeared, hasn't it, and no-ones heard of it for a decade or more!
https://secure.nature.com/subscribe/nature
For anyone stupid enough to discharge a powder extinguisher in a cockpit, one first hand account:
http://www.casa.gov.au/fsa/2006/jun/20-22.pdf
Chubb's summary of the implementation of the Montreal Protocol:
Chubb Fire Halon Decommissioning
What the rest of the non-exempt world uses:
DuPont? FM-200® waterless fire suppression systems