Foam engulfs hangar
 

Fire retardant foam engulfs California airport hangar - BBC News

How is so much outside, should it not be inside??

Expansion.

Need to make that a guarded toggle.

The users of the hangar I used to work in at Toronto International Airport were strictly warned to never allow an open flame to be visible to the fire detection optical sensors, lest we cause such an event. If the foam is anything like we use in the fire department, that would be smelly!

Thirty years ago watched Braniff II tow a 727 into a hanger with the APU running. It generated enough heat to set off the fire suppression system. Couldn't see 10 feet into the hanger when the foam started falling.

Not the first time. JetStar did it to a pair of A320's in Newcastle a year or two ago as well.

http://i.imgur.com/8Vy82sh.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ijo3Nq9.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/9x7jZQs.jpg

Happens all the time in the U.S. military :eek::

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...g-by-accident/

Now you know what it looks like at YYZ after a major snowstorm.

CVG about 1980s:

Big party/dinner/dance was planned in the DL hangar. Scrubbed and waxed, tables & chairs, orchestra in place for the event. DL even had a special fire manager to keep the system from inadvertently discharging until the fire brigade was positioned and the foam disabled.

It all went to hell in a handbasket. $250k damages, mostly to the symphony's instruments. :ugh:

Some years ago, our engineers brought all the aircraft in to the hangar because there was a thunderstorm warning.

During the thunderstorm, the hangar was struck by lightning and guess what happened! :D

The FBO got lucky. If that thing was filled with heavy corporate iron their insurance company would be facing millions in damages. Being in aviation claims, I've seem 100x more damage done by inadvertent foam discharge than actual fires.

An alarm does not always mean there's a fire. Two things are intolerable in a fire detection system. False alarms or a failure to operate in an actual fire. A detection system designed so that a single point of failure can cause an alarm must not be allowed to automatically activate an extinguishing system. At least not where the consequences of inadvertent fire extinguishing agent release are so severe.

IR and UV detectors are notoriously prone to false activation. The way forward in fire detection systems would seem to be a multi-sensor system consisting of different types of detectors that must "agree" before generating an alarm that would automatically activate an extinguishing system.

I guess after being sued for the damages related to false fire extinguishing agent deployment enough times, the manufacturers of such hangar protection systems will spend a little money on designing a more discriminating system. Until then it must be an "acceptable loss".

While NO AV mishap is funny, these hangar foam events come VERY close.