Halon - Commission to propose remove aviation's critical use exemption
 

The European Commission (DG Environment) has issued proposals to remove the critical use exemption for certain halon based aviation safety applications. This will affect all halon based aviation safety applications for handheld fire extinguisers, APU/ engine nacelle and cargo compartments. Both military and civil aeroplanes would be affected.

EU deadlines, outside the ICAO framework, are proposed by DG-Environment for new production aeroplanes as well as for retrofitting all existing aeroplanes.

The EU Member States (at the level of Ministries of Environment represented in the Regulation 2037/2000 ‘comitology’ Committee) have been asked submit their written comments to the European Commission (DG Environment) by 31st May 2009 r. Based on those comments, the European Commission plans to make a new proposals to be voted through comitlogy in October 2009.

DG Environment has ignored the concerns of the entire aviation industry in relation to our safety concerns (all existing alternatives to Halon are less effective in fire fighting capabilities), huge cost impact and questionable environmental benefits (increased weight and Co2 emissions) if aviation would be forced to face out halon based safety applications before viable and safe alternatives are available.

In particular the Commision does not recognize the fact that no viable alternatives available for handheld extinguisher in aircraft (the Commission proposes a 2011 mandate for new production aeroplanes with retrofit of in-service aeroplanes proposed by 2020). All existing alternatives are less effective in fire fighting capability (=safety concern) and have additional weight (and as a consequence extra fuel burn and Co2 emissions which means that the environment justification is also questionable in respect of EU anti-climate change objectives). Therefore no dates should be decided (even not for new production aeroplanes) before safe and viable alternatives are available and the focus should be on further research. Retrofit by 2020 is even more questionable since retrofit probably would mean a complete retrofit of aircraft cabins (due to different size of the bottles etc). ICAO is not discussing any retrofit in this context so why should EU airlines alone be burdened?


In conclusion it seems DG-Environment is willing to comprise aviation safety, does not care about cost impact on the aviation industry and indeed is even willing to comprise its own anti-climate change objectives for a purely political agenda on halon replacement ref ozon layer protection (even although halon based aviation safety applications are only used in real safety emergency cases which means they impact on the ozon layer of their use by civil aviation is negligible). We therefore need to make sure that the EU Member States reject those proposals.

If ever there was a case for ignoring an EU ruling. This is it. Once an equal alternate is found fine. But for now I don't want to be sitting up the pointy end with a fire somewhere that we're not able to control effectively. All the while some well fed EU chap sits behind his desk sucking on pencils, tuttering to the smoking hole on the TV. No thanks.

The current discussions on FTL (EASA/Moebus report) are not safety related, they are related to working conditions. Off course the airlines, like any normal business, are concerned about cost. This does not need to go in contradiction with safety. The simple fact is that if you think that safety is expensive, just try an accident.

This is a thread about Halon & Fire Extinguishers. if you want to open another discussion about FTL, I suggest you open another thread.

I've seen what Halon extinguishers do in a fire, both enclosed and open, as have most of us who've been around long enough. I've also seen what the "next best alternative does" too.

If they ban Halon in aircraft, I might just hang up my wings...I don't EVER want to be in an aircraft aloft without it.

This is a far more serious issue than I've encountered in a long time. Any one have any EU commissioners' phone or Email adresses?

This policy has already been imposed in the offshore oil and gas world where gas turbine enclosures are now "protected" by the "next best alternative" CO2 or water mist. Both of these alternatives are unsuitable for aircraft and this ruling should be opposed. Are the alternatives as good as Halon? No!
As Halon is only used on an aircraft when there is a fire and is consumed in the ensuing reaction I cannot see how this is an environmental threat. Offshore we had so many false alarms and discharges that a large proportion of the halon inventory diid end up in the sky and the concerns of the environmentalist were understood. But aircraft are completely different. If they are expecting CC to don BA sets and enter holds with dry powder then these EU folk are on another planet.
You will find your MEP's e-mail address on the EU website. Google MEP EU.

I am not an expert on the pros and cons of Halon, beyond knowing what most people - and I - believe, that it is the only effective means of fighting certain airborne fires and that taking it out of use without an alternative would reduce safety.

But I do know that the body responsible for the safety of EU aircraft operators is EASA, and that if the Commission is proposing something dangerous, EASA's role is to stop it.

The UK is represented within EASA by the CAA, and of course the SRG will be pro-actively and energetically making sure that safety, in the UK at least, is not comp.......

Ah, well, yes, I do see the problem.

PS After writing that, I did what I should have done first, ie a bit of research. After discovering that CAA stands for Clean Air Act, I drilled down to this interesting document on the SRG's website. Mind you, I don't think some ppruners will be too happy about it.

[email protected] (acting head of unit)

[email protected] (deals with the dossier in the unit of the above)

[email protected] (acting director)

Halon is to be discontinued because it affects the ozone layer around the Earth? If that is so then maybe someone can contradict the following remarks or let the EU/Politicians allow the aviation industry to use Halon [nothing really works as an alternative ] as it isn't being used all day, every day.

"There isn't now, nor has there ever been a so-called 'hole' in the ozone layer.
It's just thinner in some places than in others at times.
It is the sun which creates the ozone layer, and over the poles is where this thinning occurs on an annual basis. It is at a minimum level in early spring and rapidly increases in the next few months, then begins to decline as the winter approaches. The minimums occur in September/October over the Antarctic and in March/ April over the Arctic.
This makes perfect sense to me since these are the periods of time when each pole is coming out of their winter period with minimal solar activity or solar exposure.
If the so-called 'hole' is larger this year than last year also makes sense since we are currently at the bottom of the 11 year cycle of solar sunspot activity which will also have an impact on ozone production.

This anomaly was first documented in the late 1950's but could not be explained at the time, and now that we have satellite data and more accurate and sophisticated equipment to measure the atmosphere, the evidence should point out what should be obvious, but science abuse still continues."

Anyone care to disprove the above statement?

There is absolutely no doubt that halogenated hydrocarbons such as Halon have a destructive effect on the ozone layer, that is basic chemistry.

However the amount released by aircraft extinguishing systems is so miniscule and so rarely released that I cannot see how it would have any real effect.

Also I'm sure a crashed aircraft due to an uncontained fire due to no Halon suppressant system would have a fair more detrimental effect on the environment than the alternative.......

An average EU airline emits around 1kg of Halon per year. This is not really a suprise since halon is only used in real emergency cases.

Apart from safety and cost, there are also environmental arguments against most halon replacements. Most replacements are heavier... as we know even a few kilo's extra weight on an aircraft means 1000s of kg of extra fuel burn and co2 emissions per year.

The folks from DG-environment even do not want to understand that their plans on halon replacement are even countra productive for the EU climate change objectives....

It is a typical example of EU regulation for the sake of regulation. unfortunately with decreased aviation safety margins as a consequence...

All should ask their Member States and MEPs to protest and to block those ill-conceived proposals.

Regretably environment ministries are in charge and are only supposed to 'consult' their Ministries of Transport and CAAs...

As regard EASA, they have been rather silent on this issue apart from supporting the 'political' will to replace halon rather than identifying safety concerns with some of the (heavier) alternatives

As I read it, does this mean that after 2011, if I wanted to order some Boeings for a hypothetical EU based transatlantic airline they would have to have non-Halon extinguishers?

Would my (hypothetical) non EU competitors be burdened with the same regulations?



S78

My name is Darren Boyle. I am a journalist with the Irish Sunday Mirror newspaper.
Now I know that you gentlemen and ladies dislike members of the media because "the pilot wrestled with the controls narrowly avoiding a convent" stories.
But this story screams "barmy Eurocrats risk jet smash horror in hair-brained environment scheme" "ace pilots threaten to quit as planes faces fire hell"

I don't suppose they could be invited to a suitable airfield with a practice fuselage and invited to control a fire from inside the aircraft (simulating problems at altitude), first with a halon system, and then with the proposed alternative? Either they'd get the hint or we'd have to vote in a new lot having toasted the current lot. I bet the new lot wouldn't make the same mistake.

where is the currently installed Halon supposed to go?

Easy to dispose of the Halon in a non-environmentally damaging manner.

The bigger question is, what on Earth do you replace the Halon with ?????

The concept of an oxygen/fuel fed engine is that there are extremely high temperatures created in the combustion chamber to produce the necessary energy that ultimately provides the thrust necessary for flight. On the rare occasion, fuel and ignition occur outside of the combustion chamber. In simple words, an engine fire results.

In even simpler terms, once an engine fire occurs, the basic survival of the aircraft depends entirely on extinguishing the fire. The engine fire procedures call for the pilots to shut off the fuel, the hydraulics and the electrics supply to/from the affected engine.

Once the above actions have been carried out, the pilots then activate the main fire extinguisher bottle to the affected engine. If after 30 seconds, the engine fire has not being extinguished, then the pilots will activate the back-up extinguisher bottle.

If the fire continues, the aircraft and its occupants are doomed unless the pilots can land the aircraft in a matter of a few minutes before the fire will cause structural failure and the aircraft will plummet to earth in a fiery smoky trail.

The best extinguisher known to man for aviation application at this stage in history, is Halon. Every other extinguisher agent comes a very poor second best. If aircraft manufacturers and airlines are forced to use the inferior agents by the EU or any other governing body, many fatalities will result as a direct result.

As aviators and passengers, we should all lobby for an open hunting season on "greenies", "tree-huggers" and inane politicians to try to tip the balance to bring some commonsense back into the equation of the importance human life and its continued co-existence on and the long term maintenance of this planet.

There are several Halon replacements currently in use in non aviation applications (Computer rooms ) etc

HFC 125 Pentafluoroethane

HFC-227 or HFC-227ea
The above two examples have a huge greenhouse gas penalty eg 3000 to 12000 more than CO2


Novec 1230, C6F12O, (3m Novec 1230) fluid is an environmentally friendly Halon replacement for use as a gaseous fire suppression agent.

31 DECEMBER 2002
The last day that existing Halon systems may be recharged with recycled or reclaimed Halon. After this date, if a Halon suppression system discharges it is effectively useless.

31 DECEMBER 2003
By this date all existing Halon systems must have been decommissioned and the Halon itself must have been disposed of by an approved contractor. Halon portable extinguishers must also be taken out of service by this date. Halon therefore now has a negative value, requiring certified disposal.

The above two dates are for non aviation uses
IIRC In the EU the cut off date for any production is dec 31 2025 HTSH

Isn't it about time that organisations like IFALPA, BALPA, any other associations and federations, you name it.... took the EU organisation involved to court, on charges of "wilfully endangering human life" and "misuse of public funds" (for having started the study in the first place, doing the usual empire building, and lining their pockets)?

Other issues such as "gross incompetence" and "wilfully misleading the public" unfortunately are not actionable quite as easily in court.

As a sop to the "greenies", it can then also be pointed out in court, that the "carbon footprint" of any alternative to Halon will be far greater than the effect of the minute amount of Halon released into the atmosphere each year.

CJ

Excuse the interjection from an non-pilot, non-firefighting, environmentally-conscious but non-litigious desk jockey who's extinguished many fires over the years with water, power and CO2 but never Halon.

While I've no doubts of the considerable safety advantages of using Halon in a confined space, could anyone point me to a study comparing the efficacy of Halon over CO2?

tia

I don't think that's the answer...

This issue is far more serious.

Apart from the court action I mentioned, I'm all with Mr Scoop....
A major effort in the media: "Eurocrats condemn airline passengers to burn to death to 'protect' the environment", maybe?

llondel suggested "...they could be invited to a suitable airfield with a practice fuselage and invited to control a fire from inside the aircraft (simulating problems at altitude), first with a halon system, and then with the proposed alternative."
All for it, it would make great TV.

Then make sure that the actual court case, as the first manifestation of "common sense against euro-mania" gets full publicity as well.

And what about a little flyer in each safety instruction booklet in the aircraft?
"This aircraft is protected by Halon fire extinguishing systems. Unless YOU act, Eurocrats will soon be removing that protection".
Follows a brief description, and a protest to fill out. Make it easy to fold, and make it Freepost.

CJ

CeeDee,
Try this; in addition CO2 discharges can creat a static discharge which can re-ignite a fire. Not very helpful when your last extinguisher is almost empty! In a confined space like a pax compartment in an A/C a large CO2 discharge will suffocate many of the pax.
As for water, not a goer as water and electrical cables/switch gear don't mix. Understand the Halon environmental case but still required in an A/C, find it difficult to understand why the EU have taken this line of action, no Engineers or Pilots amongst them!. Obviously none of them have had to put a fire out in a confined space. They want to attend some of the Fire Schools up here in Scotland, it would put the fear of God into them. In the offshore world all folk have fire fighting skills checked out every 4 years until they retire. No pass? No job!
Halon and its replacements(Larry Lippman, Mike Weihman, Urban Fredriksson)

Oilmandgasman,
Thanks for the link, filled a couple of gaps.
CJ

ceedee,

I've seen a very good demo of CO2 vs. Halon. It was a large grid of briquets, arranged so air could circulate freely. Once lit, it REALLY didn't want to go out. Water had no effect but create loads of steam. CO2 appeared to put the fire out, but it re-ignited almost instantly the CO2 blast stopped. Blasting with CO2 from a large cylinder for about 3 minutes, then dousing with water to help cool, which would have dealt with most fires, made it steam for about 10 seconds before it ignited again.

After this, the smug demonstrator, walked up with a smallish HALON extinuisher and gave it a 10 second blast.......then calmly walked away.

Job done.

HALON will travel down a confined space, when squirted at one end of a tunnel, it will put out the fire at the other. It reacts chemically with the fire somehow and in my view is PFM. I wouldn't sit in an aircraft without it!

As stated above, lets get the Commissioners to go see a demo at an Airport Fire Training unit. It would certainly open their eyes and wake them up some.

Many years ago I attended a really basic fire fighting course ( how to use various types of extinguisher in office type environments)
Standard aircraft seats were set alight and a pair of attendees used CO2 to extinguish it.
The seats were relit, next pair used CO2 etc.
The fire was progressively more difficult to deal with as the heat was building up.
I used a quick squirt of HALON and out went the fire. I was very very impressed.
The instructor did impress on us that the job was not complete until the heat was also removed from the seats.

I immediately went and bought a HALON extinguisher.

Having each year during the SEP refresher seen the effectiveness of Halon I was disappointed when British Waterways removed Halon (BCF, bromodicholinefluridemethane??) from the waterways.

All our BCF's (having been replaced with dry powder) were then brought home where (illegally I am told) they sit in the kitchen etc as the very best extinguisher when (and if) that fire breaks out.

So far so good, no fires, no effect on the Ozone layer, but if.....

PS what about the channel tunnel, will they be replacing all their Halon extinguishers?

Halon 1301's weight is what makes it effective and safe, it weighs about twice that of C02. It is all about smothering while keeping the likelyhood of it suffocating all the pax to a minimum.

Halon Fire Extinguishers
 

It's right up to a point to refer to the high density of halogenated hydrocarbons as an important factor in their efficiency as fire extinguishers but it's not the whole picture. They don't just work by blanketing and excluding the O2, they also work by scavenging the free radicals inherent in any flame stopping the chain reactions inherent there and it's that that gives them their measurable performance edge.

However and by definition, their ability to generate halogen atom competitor free radicals is what also causes them to damage (ie reduce the concentration of) ozone in the atmosphere.

To me it's a simple risk/benefit analysis, I have a Halon extinguisher in the kitchen.......yes I keep weighing it.

The problem is that the people coming up with these actively dangerous suggestions are "critical thinkers" unencumbered by the burden of an inconvenient data base of experimental results.

Put more simply, they don't know enough.

CW

Radical (chemistry) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Perhaps our green regulators should take their initial cues from Mr. FlexibleResponse's fine reply.

They should then consider weighing the damaging effects to the ozone layer from 2 bottles of halon being released as compared to the effect the ignition and incomplete combustion of 50 plus odd tons of kerosene along with plastics and various and sundry other materials would have on that 'precious' layer of our atmosphere.

To make the comparison more realistic, the bureaucrats should also be encouraged to include things like their wife's favorite perfume and child's preferred stuffy fluffy bear in the fiery mix.

Maybe someone has shown the EU commisioners this: http://www.eclipseaviation.com/files...hite_Paper.pdf
A fire extinguishing agent that is more effective than Halon with zero environmental impact is hard not to justify!!:ok:

It was interesting reading the paper at the link provided by bizjetjock, they do seem to have done their homework re extinguishing engine fires, but I didnt see any mention of its use anywhere else on the aircraft, or did I miss something? I'm not sure it would read across all areas, of course it might, but feel free to correct me.

Interesting article, although I am intrigued into the substance they are using, PBr3 . Bit of a nasty chemical that will hydrolyse to phosphorus acid which will then thermally decompose to PH3 which is highly explosive in air !!!

Same thoughts here.
So far it sounds like a path worth pursuing, rather than the panacea they make it out to be...

CJ

Ref recent Boeing Service Letter (15th april 2008) recommending not to use Dry Chemical Extinguishers (Not only in-flight but also in aircraft maintenance hangars and at airports).

Apart from poorer fire fighting capability, there seem to be signifcant risk of corrossion and damage to airplanes/equipment quote 'All of these dry chemical agents are corrosive and abrasive, and may cause moderate to severe damage to aluminium alloys abd electrical/electronical equipment'

It then goes on to read quote 'The use of dry chemical extinguishers can potentially cause more damage to airplanes and airplane electrical/electronic systems than an actual fire'

Many thanks for the links to all the documents. It made fascinating reading.
And to this layman, there seems absolutely no doubt that Halon is better suited for aircraft.
I'll live in hope that a passing journo will pick up on this...

Halons
 

Inhibitory factors for halons are in low percentages, trouble is CBM was less than 4 percent in air but very poisonous. Older guys will remember CTC! Better ones only need 5.2% in air whereas CO2 may require 30 to 70 percent depending on risk and needs a warning above 4 percent concentartion to avoid suffocation. I hope they will see their deluded thinking will potentially be a greater risk than any to the ozone layer. We should protest very strongly by all means possible. ( I may be a bit behind the times now as a lowly CPL but was in UK fire service for 20+ years and in terms of an operational and dynamic risk assessment I could only recommend Halon for aircrew - I stand by to be educated!)

PBr3 v Halons
 

http://www.eclipseaviation.com/files...hite_Paper.pdf

Good to read this, it really is trying to address the issue of the generation of politically correct Br atoms/free radicals in situ.

But ......PBr3 truly is a nasty and a real issue in terms of long term storage et al, its hydrolysis products eat metals and yes I know its redox really.

It's almost worth considering using liquid elemental bromine instead, properly toxic of course but not as prone to reacting with water if it leaks - just reacting with metals and people I know. My Pat Pending please.

Halons are pussy cats by comparison and far more reliable over time; my Halon extinguisher is still in the kitchen .............

CW

Quote from the note sent by the Commission (DG Environment) to the EU Member States which is nothing else thant a blund lie about the challenges to replace Halon portable extinguishers in aircraft. It seems that the Commission does not care about reduced aviation safety margins (due to less effective fire fighting capabilities), does not care about the increased weight (and associated fuel and co2 emissions - this for a negligable benefit for the ozon layer taking into account low amount of halon emissions by aviation) and off course does not care about the cost for the airline industry.

quote'

With few exceptions, new civil aircraft are still being designed and built with halon critical use systems and portable extinguishers on board. However, two fluorocarbon alternatives (HFC-227ea and HFC-236fa) which meet sector-agreed minimum performance standards are currently available for crew compartment and cabin portable extinguishers (4.2) and lavatory waste receptacle fixed systems (4.5). No technical or economic barriers exist to replacing the halon lavatory waste receptacle systems in new aircraft. Some additional costs would be incurred in replacing halon cabin portable extinguishers. The commercially-available alternative portable extinguishers that utilise these two substances are larger and heavier than the halon equivalent, and their adoption would likely require additional training for cabin crew. However, they are considered to be feasible options for this application. Other substances may also prove suitable if submitted for minimum performance standard testing.

Based on this note the Commisison proposes to ban Halon for portable extinguisher in new production aeroplanes from 2011 and propsoes retrofit by 2020....

Brussels ignores Halon ban safety fears!
 

DATE:06/05/09
SOURCE:Flight International

Brussels ignores halon ban safety fears

By Aimée Turner

European nations are being urged to reject official proposals from Brussels to ban halon fire extinguishers on board aircraft because they dangerously downplay safety concerns.

Industry says Brussels is determined to override international safety standards and ignore crucial concerns over replacing halon in aircraft extinguishers with a carbon dioxide alternative, which it believes to be inferior.

The European Commission's environment directorate recently launched a formal process asking European Union environment ministers to help review current rules on substances that deplete the Earth's ozone layer including halon-based extinguishers that are exempted.

"The official proposals that were sent to the member states in late April for comments with additional background seem to confirm that the environment directorate is trying to downplay the cost impact and safety concerns," says the Association of European Airlines, which has led industry lobbying on this issue.

Included in the proposals are the retrofit of portable fire extinguishers by 2021, of waste tanks by 2017 and all other halon-based systems such as cargo, engine nacelles, auxiliary power units and fuel tank inerting by 2031. Halon would also be banned in all portable fire extinguishers, waste tanks, fuel tank inerting, engine nacelles, APUs in new aircraft by 2012 and cargo compartments by 2017.

The AEA says Brussels is ignoring the well-founded concerns of the entire civil aviation industry, which insists there is still no halon alternative in APU, engine and cargo fire-suppressant systems while hand-held fire extinguishers that can use alternatives are significantly less effective, require more firefighter training and are considerably larger and heavier, increasing fuel burn and requiring costly redesigns.

"It seems Brussels is willing to comprise on aviation safety, does not care about the cost impact and is even willing to comprise its own anti-climate change objectives for a purely political agenda on halon replacement. We therefore need to make sure that EU member states reject those proposals.

"No dates should be decided - not even for new production aircraft - before safe and viable alternatives are available and the focus should be on further research," says the AEA.

Member states will submit their comments by 31 May. A vote is planned for October.

Alternatives in use in Fire & Security Industry
 

More Alternatives...