Code Amendment Proposal Application

STAFF USE ONLY Code Amendment Proposal Application Application no.: Department of Consumer & Business Services Building Codes Division 19 OSSC - 19 1535 Edgewater NW, Salem, Oregon Mailing address: P.O. Box 14470, Salem, OR 97309-0404 Phone: 503-378-4133, Fax: 503-378-2322 Web: oregon.gov/ bcd

Instructions: Fill in all the following information, attach any supplementary information you relied on, and mail to the address listed above. For more information, please refer to the Building Codes Division website, oregon.gov/ bcd.

APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Aron Faegre, AIA, PE Date: 1-12-2017 Representing: Oregon Avation Industries Inc. (ORAVI)

PROPOSED CODE LANGUAGE This proposed code amendment (check one): Amends (code, edition, section): 412.4.6 Exception 2 Adopts a new section (code, edition): Repeals (code, edition, section):

You must provide language for review by the code review committee and advisory board. Failure to provide language will invalidate the application. Please use the following format to show additions and deletions from the code — strike through deleted text, underline and bold new text. Use arrow keys to advance to the next text box. Proposed language:

Exception 2. Aircraft hangars that have an aircraft access door height less than 28 feet and do not have provisions for housing aircraft with a tail height over 28 feet, are exempt from foam requirements, provided the building complies with all of the following criteria: 2.1 The building is provided with an automatic sprinkler system throughout with an Extra Hazard Group I NFPA 13 fire sprinkler (typically 0.25 gallons per minute). 2.2. Hangar construction must be Type I or II. 2.3. No hazardous operations are permitted within the hangar, where those are defined as: 2.3.1. Doping. 2.3.2. Hot work including, but not limited to, welding, torch cutting and torch soldering. 2.3.3. Fuel transfer. 2.3.4. Fuel tank repair or maintenance not including defueled tanks, inerted tanks or tanks that have never been fueled. 2.3.5. Spray finishing operations. 2.4. Provide 33 gallon foam cart in each of the four corners of the hangar.

Questions below are answered by attachments.

Continued 440-2652 (1/17/COM/WEB) APPLICATION CRITERIA Attach to this application written responses to the following questions. If needed, include in the response an explanation why a question does not apply to your proposed code amendment. The code review committee may reject an incomplete application. You must provide a thorough and complete response to all questions, or your application may be considered incomplete. Questions: 1. What does this code proposal do? 2. What problem in the code does this proposal intend to address? 3. Is the problem a fire or life safety matter? If so, explain. 4. Does the problem cause delays in the cost of construction or inconsistency in application of the code? If so, how? 5. How does this proposal solve the problem? 6. Are there other alternatives to this proposal that solve the problem? If so, why is this proposal the best solution? 7. Does this proposal require a change in statute or administrative rule? 8. What fiscal impact does this proposal have? Explain. 9. If there is a fiscal impact, who is affected? 10. Does this proposal enhance statewide consistency and predictability? If so, how? 11. Does this proposal reduce or streamline regulation under the code? If yes, explain how. 12. Has this been proposed at the national model code level? If not, why not? If so, what happened and why was it not adopted there? 13. Does this proposal add to the cost of construction? If so, explain how the added cost contributes to the health and safety of occupants, or is necessary to conserve scarce resources. 14. If this proposal will affect the cost of development of a detached single-family dwelling, please indicate the cost. For the purposes of illustrating the change on the cost, please use a 6,000-square-foot parcel and the construction of a 1,200-square- foot detached single-family dwelling on that parcel. The information on the cost must be sufficient to assist the division in preparing a housing cost impact statement. 15. What assumptions affect the projected costs or savings associated with this proposal? 16. It is important that proposals be shared with people and organizations that will be impacted by them. Was this proposal developed with people or organizations likely to be affected by it? Has it been reviewed or shared with people or organizations likely to be affected by it? If so, who? If not, why not? APPLICANT SIGNATURE

1-12-2017 Signature: Date: Copyright notice: By signing this proposed code amendment application, I understand and acknowledge that the work contained in this application is original, or if not original, I have the right to copy the work. By signing this work, I understand that any rights I may have in this work, including any form of derivative works and compilations, are assigned to the Department of Consumer and Business Services. I also understand that I do not retain or acquire any rights once this work is used in a Department of Consumer and Business Services publication. APPLICATION PROCESSING The code review committee screens proposed amendments to determine whether they meet the requirements of Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 918-008-0060. The committee will return proposed code amendments that do not substantially meet the requirements of OAR 918-008-0060, with specific reasons included in the returned application If you submit completed proposed code amendments to the committee before the end of the timetable established under OAR 918- 008-0020, the committee will forward them to the appropriate advisory board for review. The committee will not forward proposed code amendments that are not completed before the end of the timetable. If you complete proposed code amendments but do not submit them before the end of the timetable, you may submit them as completed applications for consideration during the next opportunity given to make amendments to the state building code. Note: The committee is not obligated to examine a proposed code amendment submitted after the end of the timetable.

440-2652 (1/17/COM/WEB) OSSC 2014, 412.4.6

1-9-2017

Proposed code, edition, and section *

OSSC 2014, 412.4.6

Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. (ORAVI) Aron Faegre 520 SW Yamhill Street PH1 Portland, Oregon 97204 503-880-1469 [email protected]

Proposed language and/or explanation of proposed language *

Propose revising Exception 2 to read:

Application criteria

Enter a response for each of the following questions. If needed, include in the response an explanation why a question does not apply to your proposed code amendment. The code review committee may reject an incomplete OSSC 2014, 412.4.6 application. You must provide a thorough and complete response to all questions, or your application may be considered incomplete. Questions:

What does this code proposal do? *

Essentially return this code section back to the language for what was allowed in the 2007 and 2010 OSSC codes, with clarification that using this exception prohibits hazardous maintenance type operations (which was the prior intent as well). The 2007 version was fully vetted by the State Building Codes review at that time, but was not in the 2014 version.

What problem in the code does this proposal intend to address? *

There is no history in Oregon of fires in modern non-combustible fire sprinklered aircraft hangars. In particular there have been no pool fires which are what the foam systems are designed to extinguish. Modern large hangars are exceptionally clean and sterile environments to protect the aircraft that are valued at many tens of millions of dollars. Even a drop of brake fluid on the floor is considered unacceptable, as it means the brake system needs attention. Modern aircraft design and operations are the model industry, in developing methods and procedures for planning and maintaining the highest level of safety.

Per NFPA publications the foam systems are intended to protect the hangar, not the humans inside the hangar. However, the history of foam systems in hangars is that they are accidentally triggered by human error and system error quite often. The triggering system is an IR eye which is simply looking for a hot spot in the hangar, and is subject to error. Once the foam system is triggered if fills the entire hangar. Then, due to FAA and/or aircraft manufacturer high safety standards and requirements, the aircraft that have been bathed in (and filled inside since aircraft doors are typically open while the aircraft is in the hangar) with foam must be largely disassembled to ensure they are safe for future operation. Since the aircraft within a large business aviation hangar may have a value of $150 million or more, the damage from the foam to the aircraft can far exceed the value of the hangar by many fold.

A look at the public record finds that in addition, at several of the nation's military bases, the foam from tests and accidental triggering has been found to create groundwater pollution problems for surrounding communities potable water. Finally, the accidental foam triggered has caused human harm and even death from suffocation by the foam. OSSC 2014, 412.4.6

In traveling around the country to inspect other aircraft maintenance hangars for design input on new Oregon hangars, this applicant observed that only some had foam systems, and of those that did, some of the hangar operators admitted that they had turned off the foam systems to avoid accidental foaming. In meeting with a supplier of hangar foam systems two months ago, this applicant was told by a manufacturer's representative that when inspecting US Coast Guard hangars he found that 50% of them had turned off the foam systems to avoid accidental foaming. This applicant does not condone turning off fire protection systems, and mentions this only to provide anecdotal evidence that the code requirement for foam in all large hangars is highly problematic and has unintended consequences.

This applicant believes that NFPA 409 largely reflects the needs of military hangars which have unique military operations procedures, when compared to civilian hangars. Those military operations include active use of large amounts of munitions, bombs, and missiles which all add much greater risk than occur in civilian hangars. In addition, military hangars allow fueling in their hangars, which are not allowed in civilian hangars. Modern general aviation and corporate Oregon aviation hangars do not allow these hazards and should not be held to military standards.

A major disadvantage of hangar foam systems is that they are a shotgun approach to fire control. Heat sensors in the hangar ceiling watch for a hot spot, and if they see one, the entire foam system is triggered in all parts of the hangar. Everything is foamed, and therefore everything is at risk for corrosive damage, and human life safety is at risk everywhere. Water sprinklers are a rifle approach, targeting only the areas affected by fire. A water sprinkler system can put out even a small fire before it has risk of turning into a large fire. Thus, for civilian hangars, we believe water sprinkler systems are the appropriate fire protection system.

See the following attachments for documentation of these problems:

A. State Fire Marshal Caul prepared a study of hangar fires and it confirms that as long as a hangar is fire sprinklered and non-combustible, there is not a history of significant hangar fire damage.

B. A Google search by this applicant for hangar fires, which examined virtually all public sources of information, confirms that as long as a hangar is fire sprinklered and of non-combustible construction, there is not a history of significant hangar fire damage. It found instead that the accidental foamings are common, have killed personnel by suffocation, and are now found to be creating ground water problems for local communities. OSSC 2014, 412.4.6

C. Additional documentation concerning the problems of hangar accidental foamings.

D. Additional information.

Is the problem a fire or life safety matter? If so, explain. *

Yes, it is both a fire and life safety matter as described above.

Does the problem cause delays in the cost of construction or inconsistency in application of the code? If so, how? *

The addition of foam adds approximately 20% to the cost of a hangar, but more importantly, accidental triggering of foam systems causes substantial repair costs for the aircraft stored in the hangar.

How does this proposal solve the problem? *

The fire sprinkler density is increased to Extra Hazard Group I (typically 0.25 gpm) from the 0.17 gpm called out in NFPA 409, which results in a quicker extinguishing of any fire before it spreads. It is noted that this is the same recommendation of sprinkler code NFPA 13, A5.4.1 for aircraft hangars not utilizing NFPA 409 foam. This recommendation brings these two codes into conformity.

Are there other alternatives to this proposal that solve the problem? If so, why is this proposal the best solution? *

The IBC is a stand-alone code that already has established comprehensive fire and life safety requirements for S-1 occupancies, of which aircraft hangars are just one of thirty-one allowed uses. Thus, the IBC already has a procedure for meeting life safety for those occupancies based on building use, occupancy, construction type, area, height, yards, fire areas, fire alarms, sprinklers, and required means of egress. Thus, we believe that for general aviation and corporate hangars with hangar doors less than 28 feet high, that have no hazardous operations, the IBC already provides 100% fire and life safety without the need for foam. We note that the IBC has no requirements OSSC 2014, 412.4.6 for foam in any other use - including all of the hazardous H occupancies (which presumably are much more hazardous than aircraft hangars).

There could be alternative with added more restrictive requirements of fire walls, or more limitations on fire areas. But if these are to be established as more restrictive values than are already in the IBC, they should be based on a rational analysis for why the existing construction type and use related IBC standards are inadequate. We have searched fire records and history for a rationale for more restrictive standards for S-1 hangars, but have not been able to find one.

Does this proposal require a change in statute or administrative rule? *

No.

What fiscal impact does this proposal have? Explain. *

It avoids increasing the cost of large aircraft hangars by approximately 20%, through reverting to the same approach of denser water sprinklers in lieu of foam as was allowed in the previous well studied OSSC 2007 and 2010 codes. It eliminates the risk of damage to stored aircraft by accidental foaming, which has major cost impacts when it occurs.

If there is a fiscal impact, who is affected? *

Both the private and public sectors are impacted as they are the ones building hangars. Ultimately rural Oregon is particularly impacted as the addition of foam to large hangars becomes extremely difficult due to lack of availability of the very large water flows needed for foam which must immediately fill the entire hangar, in comparison to water sprinklers which are zoned based on area of fire.

Does this proposal enhance statewide consistency and predictability? If so, how? *

The requirement for foam makes the construction of new large corporate or general aviation hangars at most of Oregon's rural airports impossible. This is because Oregon's rural airports, generally do not have the infrastructure of urban areas and thus OSSC 2014, 412.4.6 have very limited water supplies. Basic water sprinkler systems, which commonly requires a 4 inch or 6 inch line, are difficult enough to accomplish. A foam system requires much higher water flows, typically a 12 inch water line with very large flows. This is because when the foam system triggers, it fills the entire hangar all at once. This is different from a water fire sprinkler where heads go off only where the fire exists, thus requiring much less water.

For most rural areas of Oregon it is the local airport that allows their community the potential for gaining major corporate and industrial businesses. This is because air transportation is today a must for a major business to function nationally and/or globally. Thus, the foam requirement limits the economic viability for building new hangars for new companies at rural airports. At some airports there are existing older large hangars (often without foam or water sprinklers) - but the code affects the ability in those locations for new businesses to build new hangars.

Does this proposal reduce or streamline regulation under the code? If yes, explain how.

This proposal reduces regulation because it relies primarily on the IBC in lieu of adding the NFPA's code special requirement for foam in large hangars.

Has this been proposed at the national model code level? If not, why not? If so, what happened and why was it not adopted there? *

Oregon Aviation Industries Inc. solely promotes aviation related businesses in Oregon, for the good of the economy of the State of Oregon. We don't feel it is our job to tell other states how they should regulate aviation hangars for their businesses.

Does this proposal add to the cost of construction? If so, explain how the added cost contributes to the health and safety of occupants, or is necessary to conserve scarce resources. *

This proposal reduces the cost of large aircraft hangars by approximately 20%, through reverting to a similar approach as was allowed in the OSSC 2007 and 2010 codes.

OSSC 2014, 412.4.6

If this proposal will affect the cost of development of a detached single- family dwelling, please indicate the cost. For the purposes of illustrating the change on the cost, please use a 6,000-square-foot parcel and the construction of a 1,200-squarefoot detached single-family dwelling on that parcel. The information on the cost must be sufficient to assist the division in preparing a housing cost impact statement. *

This proposal has no affect on single family dwellings.

What assumptions affect the projected costs or savings associated with this proposal?

The addition of foam to a hangar adds approximately $20 per square foot to the cost of a large hangar. This impact is based on a recent cost proposal received for a project which is threatened to be terminated by the requirement of foam. In addition, a water service of approximately 12 inch diameter with very high flow capability is required, which likely adds even more cost over that of water supplies for water fire sprinklers.

It is important that proposals be shared with people and organizations that will be impacted. Was this proposal developed with people or organizations likely to be affected by it? Has it been reviewed or shared with people or organizations likely to be affected by it? If so, who? If not, why not? *

This proposal has been prepared by Oregon Aviation Industries www.ORAVI.org which represents approximately 100 of Oregon's major aviation companies. Our members range from FBO's to major avionics companies to aircraft manufacturers. ORAVI is the State of Oregon's private sector partner for the state's economic development strategy of supporting "clusters" of businesses. The aviation cluster is one of Oregon's important economic development clusters.

Send all supplementary information and materials to the division using one of the following methods: Email: [email protected]

ORAVI

March 24, 2018

Laura Burns State Building Codes

RE: REQUESTED CODE CHANGES FOR AIRCRAFT HANGARS

Dear Laura:

Per your request of March 20, 2018 this letter provides additional information concerning:

(j) Any adverse fiscal impact or cost savings passed on to the general public, the construction industry, local and state governments, and small businesses. If applicable, an interested person must describe the added or reduced cost of a proposed code amendment, describe the adverse fiscal impact or cost savings in relation to the current Oregon specialty code and include any standards of measure used to arrive at the result given.

In responding we are assuming that you have assigned Proposal numbers in the same order as the attachment you provided in the email to us.

Proposal no. 19 OSSC-16 / OSSC 2014, 412.4.1

This proposal eliminates the requirement for an additional 2 hour fire wall, where none would be required by any other provision of the IBC or OSSC or NFPA 409. On a corporate sized hangar of 200 ft x 160 ft, this would likely require a hangar near a road or property line to require an additional fire wall of approximately 200 ft x 34 ft size, with an approximate added cost of $5/sf to the wall based on similar cost to Centrex Construction on such added fire walls when installed on metal building girts, which are more difficult to accomplish than for metal stud walls. In this example it would add $34,000 to the project, or $1 per sf of floor area to the cost of the hangar, or 1% to the cost of a bare bones $100/sf hangar.

Proposal no. 19 OSSC-17 / OSSC 2014, 412.4.3

This proposal captures and holds contaminants on the floor and eliminates a floor drain which in turn would be required to drain to an oil-water separator and then a sanitary sewer system. Based on typical construction costs of many hangars done by Centrex Construction at PDX, Pendleton Airport, and at Aurora Airport, the actual cost of installing such an oil-water separator (such as a Schier OS-35 with clean sweep coalescing media) is in the range of $5,000 to $7,500. The additional cost of piping to get to a sanitary drain system is commonly an additional $2,000 to $15,000, depending Oregon Aviation Industries 520 SW Yamhill Street PH1 Portland Oregon 97204 Oregon's Cluster of 450 Aviation-related Industries Additional Code Change Information concerning Aircraft Hangars March 24, 2018 Page 2

on whether a sanitary drain system is already required in the hangar due to presence of toilets, with the higher number representing a completely new sewer connection. Thus the total cost to a hangar would likely be between $7,000 to $22,500 independent of hangar size.

However, we should note that under the recent findings of the Transportation Research Board, ACRP Research Report 173, sponsored by FAA (which can be found at the link https://www.nap.edu/login.php?action=guest&record_id=24800), if a foam system were required to be installed in a hangar then the drainage design would also require the creation of holding tanks of sufficient size to receive all of the foam discharged from the hangar to prevent it from contaminating local ground water and natural habitats in the downstream areas around the airport. In a corporate hangar of 200 ft x 160 ft size this would likely require a minimum of approximately 128,000 cf or approximately one million gallons of storage capacity. The cost of that foam storage, based on reasonable engineering judgement of Centrex Construction, is likely to be in the range of $250,000 to $500,000, or $8 to $15 per square foot of hangar, or 8 to 15% additional to a $100/sf bare bones hangar.

Proposal no. 19 OSSC-18 / OSSC 2014, 412.4.4

This proposal adopts NFPA 409 language for heating equipment which does not require 2-hour fire barriers in as many cases as OSSC does. Reasonable engineering judgement of costs by Centrex Construction estimates that this would represent a construction saving of $1,000 to $5,000.

Proposal no. 19 OSSC-19 / OSSC 2014, 412.4.6

This proposal turns the hangar foam requirement back to what was in prior OSSC versions, to eliminate foam in most corporate type hangars. The cost of foam in hangars based on bids received by Centrex Construction for projects at PDX and Aurora Airport as in the range of $20 to $25 per sf of hangar, which for a bare bones $100/sf hangar represents a 20 to 25% add. Given the more recent concerns for the hazardous nature of the foam, and the requirement to contain it when it goes off (see above discussion for Proposal no. 19 OSSC-17 / OSSC 2014, 412.4.3) there is then a further cost savings as related in that discussion of an additional 3 to 8% of hangar costs.

Please let me know if you need any additional information.

Respectfully,

Aron Faegre, AIA, PE

2 ORAVI

January 22, 2018 19 OSSC-19 Updated language Jim Walker, State Fire Marshal Oregon Office of State Fire Marshal 3565 Trelstad Ave. SE Salem, Or 97317

RE: AIRCRAFT HANGAR FOAM PROBLEMS

Dear Fire Marshal Walker:

Thank you for participating in the meeting on November 20th, called by Karmen Fore in the Governor’s office, to consider our concerns about the requirements for placing foam in aircraft hangars. I explained the numerous reasons we try to avoid having foam systems in hangars, which include:

• Both the old and new industry foams are considered by many scientists, including specialists in this field at Oregon State University, to be very dangerous polluters of ground water and injurious to humans as well as wildlife habitats;

• Ground water remediation projects are now being required at hangars all around the United States, - including at Portland International Airport -, where foam was installed in aircraft hangars;

• The foams commonly fill hangars due to accidental discharge, and then damage the aircraft when they get into engines, avionics, and other critical safety elements of the airplane, then requiring major disassembly, testing, and repair;

• There is no history of an Oregon hangar fire being prevented by a hangar foam system (in fact we can’t find a record of foam putting out a fuel pool fire in any modern hangar anywhere in the United States); and

• Most of our rural airports do not have adequate water systems to support a foam system, so the foam requirement is a killer of corporate type aviation-related economic development in our rural areas.

Were you able to find any feedback for us to consider, or code alternatives to foam for aircraft hangars, for us to consider?

Would you be willing to accept two added clarifications proposed below, to the Oregon Fire Code 914.8.2 Exception 2 (same as Oregon Structural Specialty Code 412.4.6 Exception 2), as a resolution of this issue? We can live with the existing code language if the following clarifications can be established:

Oregon Aviation Industries 520 SW Yamhill Street PH1 Portland Oregon 97204 Oregon's Cluster of 450 Aviation-related Industries Aircraft Hangar Foam January 22, 2018 Page 2

a. Maximum building areas can be separated according to the standards of NFPA 409-16 (Standard on Aircraft Hangars) Section 5.3 Clear Space Distance Requirements Around Hangars.

This would allow the maximum areas established in Exception 2 to have less than 60-foot separations from other buildings as long as they use three-hour or two-hour walls per the details specified in the paragraphs of NFPA 409. NFPA’s standards for fire walls between hangars are reasonable standards to use for this purpose. This is needed for our airports where there is limited land available for hangars – which includes many of our airports.

b. No more than 7,500 gallons of fuel may be contained within a hangar fire area at any time.

This would allow the fuel requirement to be based on actual total fuel in the hangar instead of the cumulative size of aircraft fuel tanks which may or may not have any fuel in them (some aircraft in hangars have no fuel, most aircraft maintain minimum fuel prior to fueling for departure). We note that Oregon Fire Code Section 914.9.2.1 (same as Oregon Structural Specialty Code Section 412.4.6.1) already allows an aircraft with up to 7,500 gallons of fuel to be in a Type III hangar that has no foam system. Oregon’s hangar operators are prepared to maintain, and have available for fire marshal inspection, up-to-date data on actual fuel in the hangar as a condition of this requirement.

Having the gallon requirement based on fuel tank sizes pretty much makes the larger hangars allowed by this exception of no use for corporate aircraft. The previous version of this exception (used for the prior eight years to construct numerous corporate hangars in Oregon) did not have this requirement. Since the expressed concern of the fire staff is about the quantity of fuel in a hangar, isn’t it reasonable to make the requirement be about limiting the actual amount of fuel in a hangar? In addition, I am getting calls from existing corporate hangar owners that local fire marshals are coming to their existing corporate hangars and threatening to find them in violation of the gallon requirement, if they don’t upgrade to current foam requirements, which should not apply to prior approved hangars.

The change in the code that now requires foam has stopped many corporate hangar construction projects in Oregon, that were planned under the prior code, and now are not viable. If you could accept the two clarifications above, those projects can go forward.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Oregon Aviation Industries

Aron Faegre, Founding President cc: Karmen Fore, Senator Betsy Johnson

Data collected by State Fire Marshal John Caul which shows that non-combustible hangars with fire sprinklers do not have a history

of significant fire and life safety problems.

Selected Published Incidents Involving Aircraft Hangars

One-Stop Data Shop Fire Analysis and Research Division National Fire Protection Association

October 2008

National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471 www.nfpa.org This report includes articles from NFPA publications about fires involving aircraft hangars. Included are short articles from the “Firewatch” or “Bi-monthly” columns in NFPA Journal or it predecessor Fire Journal and incidents from either the large-loss fires report or catastrophic fires report. If available, investigation reports or NFPA Alert Bulletins are included and provide detailed information about the fires.

It is important to remember that this is anecdotal information. Anecdotes show what can happen; they are not a source to learn about what typically occurs.

NFPA’s Fire Incident Data Organization (FIDO) identifies significant fires through a clipping service, the Internet and other sources. Additional information is obtained from the fire service and federal and state agencies. FIDO is the source for articles published in the “Firewatch” column of the NFPA Journal and many of the articles in this report.

For more information about the National Fire Protection Association, visit www.nfpa.org or call 617-770-3000. To learn more about the One-Stop Data Shop go to www.nfpa.org/osds or call 617-984-7443.

Copies of this analysis are available from:

National Fire Protection Association One-Stop Data Shop 1 Batterymarch Park Quincy, MA 02169-7471 www.nfpa.org e-mail: [email protected] phone: 617-984-7443

Fire Destroys Aircraft Hangar, California

A metal aircraft hangar containing a fixed-wing plane and a glide destroyed when heat from a fire caused it to collapse. The fire may have been burning for some time when a passerby

no discovered it, since the building had fire-detecv tion or –suppression systems. Built on a slab foundation, the single steel-frame hangar had metal walls, a metal roof, and partition walls that divided the building into several sections that could be sublet. However, the walls didn’t extend to the ceiling.

Responding to a 911 call at 7:10 p.m., fire crews arrived seven minutes later to find the building well involved in fire, its metal walls glowing red from the heat and flames venting through the roof. The incident commander called several other fire departments to help extinguish the fire, but the hangar and its contents were destroyed. Investigators determined that the fire started under a wood-frame mezzanine in the hangar, but they were unable to locate the ignition source. Losses were estimated at $400,000 for the building and $500,000 for its contents. There were no injuries.

Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2004, Online exclusive, “Firewatch”, NFPA Journal, January/February.

Cutting Torch Ignites Airplane Hangar, Nebraska

Work crews using a cutting torch to remove an old overhead door track from an airplane hangar started a fire that smoldered for nearly five hours before it was detected. By that time, the fire had spread into concealed roof spaces. A 30-mile-per-hour (48-kilometer-per-hour) wind and a limited water supply hampered extinguishment efforts, and the fire eventually destroyed the structure and its contents.

The unsprinklered hangar, which was 180 feet (55 meters) long, 120 feet (37 meters) wide, and 40 feet (12 meters) high, was constructed mainly of wooden bowstring trusses with concrete buttresses. Metal covered the roof and walls, and there was no fire detection equipment. At the time of the fire, the structure housed two planes, hazardous materials, and fuel.

The fire department received a 911 call from a passerby and responded at 6:52 p.m. with an engine, a ladder truck, and an ambulance. The initial attack using two 2 1/2-inch hose lines was quickly withdrawn to defensive positions, as the fire spread through an 8-foot (2-meter) void near the roof. Fire crews set up unmanned portable monitors just inside the door, and played deck guns and hose lines into the burning building.

The extinguishment effort was complicated by a limited water supply. An 8-inch (20-centimeter) main fed the hydrants, and the amount of water needed to supply the large-diameter nozzles far outweighed the supply in the system. Additional resources were called, and all companies laid 5- inch feeder lines from hydrants some distance from the hangar

The hangar roof collapsed at 7:18 p.m., only 26 minutes after the 911 call.

Occupants told investigators that they originally smelled wood burning about 4:30 p.m., but thought a coffeepot had overheated. An hour later, the odor was still present, but no one could locate its source. The contractors working on the overhead doors remained on site with a water bucket and hand sprayer until about 5:00 p.m. without detecting the fire.

Evidently, the wooden framing near the repair site ignited during the cutting operation and the fire smoldered until it burst into flame, spreading up into the concealed attic space. Open doors allowed wind to fan the flames, and the delay in alarm gave the fire a head start. The building, valued at $700,000, and its contents, valued at $8.3 million, were total losses. There were no injuries.

Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2003, “Firewatch”, NFPA Journal, May/June, 18+20.

Incendiary Fire Destroys Aircraft Hangar California

A fire intentionally set using aviation fuel heavily damaged an airplane repair and storage facility. Haines quickly consumed the building, and firefighters had to forgo an offensive attack due to the size of the fire.

The steel-frame, single-story building had metal siding and a metal roof. It measured 100 feet by 100 feet (30 meters by 30 meters) and contained a 15-by-15-foot (4.5-by-4.5-meter) wooden office. It had no fire detection or sprinkler system. The building was closed for the night when the fire broke out.

A passerby called 911 at 4:54a.m., and firefighters arrived within five minutes to set up a defensive attack in an effort to protect exposures.

Investigators believe an arsonist broke into the building and poured 15 gallons (57 liters) of aviation fuel inside the office. The arsonist then ignited the fuel with some sort of open-flame device, and the resulting fire quickly engulfed the building.

The hangar, valued at $300,000, was a total loss. Damage to the $1.8 million contents, which included nine aircraft, was estimated at $1.7 million. There were no injuries.

Kenneth J. Tremblay, 2002, “Firewatch”, NFPA Journal, May/June, 34.

Blaze Damages Aircraft Hangar, California

An aircraft hangar and several private aircraft were damaged in a fire that’s believed to have started in a travel trailer stored inside the hangar.

The hangar, which was 20 feet high and had an unprotected steel and metal roof and walls, was bisected by a metal wall. The building contained 14 units, each measuring 44 by 39 feet, and had no fire detection or suppression equipment. A 20-foot travel trailer connected to the building’s sewer and electrical lines was stored in one of the units.

The hangar was closed for the night when airport firefighters responded to a 10:30 p.m. call from a passerby reporting smoke coming from the structure. City firefighters arrived soon after to support airport crews, and they entered the structure from opposite sides, forcing open doors where they saw smoke coming from the eaves. They found fires in units near both points of entry. In one, flames were consuming cardboard boxes and other combustibles; in the other, flames had involved an aircraft and a travel trailer parked in the corner.

Firefighters controlled the blaze, but not before it damaged five planes and four units. Investigators believe that the fire began when a refrigerator in the travel trailer malfunctioned.

Damage to the building, valued at $1 million, and its contents, valued at $2 million, was estimated at $100,000 and $650,000 respectively. No one was injured.

Kenneth J. Tremblay, 1999, “Firewatch”, NFPA Journal, March/April, 35.

Man Dies in Aircraft Hangar Fire, California

A blaze in an aircraft hangar spread quickly before firefighters could control it, killing a man who was working in the building.

The unprotected, metal-frame building, which was covered by a metal shell and measured 100 by 100 feet, contained the main hangar, offices, workshops, and storage areas, which were located on the ground floor and in the attic. The fire separations among these areas were inadequate, and there were no sprinkler or detection systems.

The hangar was in limited operation before business hours when an occupant noticed a fire in an aircraft that was being repaired. After delaying for 5 minutes, the man called the fire department at 6:37 a.m. Firefighters arrived 7 minutes later and stretched attack lines and a master stream through two exterior doors. Fearing that the building would collapse because flames were venting through the roof, firefighters operated outside a collapse zone. The absence of a detection system and a heavy fuel load in the attic apparently allowed the fire, once established in the attic, to burn undetected until it vented through the roof.

When the blaze was brought under control at 8:00 a.m., firefighters found a 48-year-old man dead in the hangar. He had died from smoke and soot inhalation, but he also sustained burns that may have hampered his escape. Damage was estimated at $1.75 million. The fire's cause was undetermined.

Kenneth J. Tremblay, 1995, “Firewatch”, NFPA Journal” September/October, 36.

Type Occupancy: Aircraft hangar State: Kansas Month: July Time: 9:09 pm Dollar Loss: $27,891,000

Property Characteristics and Operating Status: This single-story aircraft hangar was of heavy timber construction. It had a ground-floor area of at least 100,000 square feet. The hangar was not occupied at the time of the fire.

Fire Protection Systems: There was no automatic fire protection equipment present in the hangar.

Fire Development: Workers using a torch to seal roofing tar paper accidentally ignited wooden roof members. The fire spread throughout the hangar, destroying the entire structure and the 27 aircraft stored inside it.

Contributing Factors and Other Details: None were reported.

Michael J. Sullivan, 1994, “Property Loss Rises in Large-Loss Fires,” NFPA Journal, November/December, 96.

Improper Clean-Up Leads to Fire Hours Later; Arizona

As a commuter flight was taking to the air, the pilot spotted smoke issuing from an unoccupied hangar at this Arizona airport. He radioed his corporate office, which telephoned the fire department at 6:45 am.

The all-steel hangar, which measured 216 by 58 feet and was one, two, and three stories high, had an executive office on a third-floor observation deck. Associated offices, aircraft storage, a machine shop, parts storage, and a repair facility were on the remaining floors. The building had no fixed fire protection systems; it was built before 1987, when a local ordinance mandating sprinklers in such facilities was adopted.

Firefighters worked for several hours before they were able to control and extinguish the stubborn blaze. They were hampered by an inadequate water supply from the nearest hydrant some 1,400 feet away. In addition, the hangar's large overhead doors were electrically operated and could not be opened manually for either access or ventilation. Hours of delay before the fire was discovered and intense heat from the flammable liquids involved in the blaze also hindered firefighting.

Investigators believed that the fire began when a pile of soiled rags ignited spontaneously. Between 3:00 and 4:00 pm on the day before the fire, workmen had used the rags to clean the sticks with which they stirred a base paint after a catalyst hardener had been added to it. These and other rags saturated with paint thinner were then left on a wooden workbench. Investigators theorized that the rags smoldered and eventually ignited and that flames from the burning rags spread along the workbench to other combustibles. The workbench was pushed up against a steel-panel wall that separated the work area from an office on the other side, and heat conducted through it ignited the wood studs of a framed wall in the office. From there, the fire spread unchecked.

The blaze caused an estimated $1.25 million in damages to the building and the seven airplanes stored inside.

Neil Courtney, 1990, “Fire Record”, Fire Journal, January/February, 16.

Type Occupancy: Aircraft hangar and airport complex State: California Month: September Time: 10:19 am Dollar Loss: $41.5 million, $40 million to aircraft and $1.5 million to structures and other vehicles Deaths and Injuries: 1 death; 7 civilian injuries, 21 firefighter injuries

Property Characteristics and Operating Status: Normal operation.

Fire Protection Systems: None.

Fire Development: An F-14 fighter jet on a training mission experienced hydraulic failure while returning to its base and plummeted into a nearby airport. It is not known if the jet was on fire before the crash. Numerous hangars, aircraft, and support buildings were damaged.

Contributing Factors and Other Details: None noted.

Kenneth T. Taylor and Kenneth Tremblay, 1989, “Large-Loss Fires in the United States During 1988,” Fire Journal November/December, 68 Investigators discovered that the fire ~tarted on the floor of the market between the cash registers mad a refrig- ~'ration unit near the wall that scparated the supermarket and automobile shop. They determined that a malfunction in the electrical wiring taused the fire, which heavily dam- ~tged the supermarket, the church, and the automobile shop. Smoke and heat damaged all the other occupancies to some extent. Damage to the building and its contents was estimated at $500,000 mid $606,000, respectively. Three firefight- ors suffered stress-related injuries.

,~TORAGE High winds helped spread this fire at a college dormitory in North Carolina No one was injured Fire destroys in the blaze, which originated in a recycling bin adjacent to the two-story dormitory. aircraft hangar CALIFORNIA--A metal aircraft hangar containing a fixed-wing plane mineral oil as a coolant. A heat-detection market approximately 15 minutes after and a glider was destroyed when heat system and an open-nozzle, pre-action the owner locked up for the evening from a fire caused it to collapse. The deluge water system moifitored by the heavily damaged the market and several fire may have been burning for some main control room protected the facility. other businesses in a strip mall. time when a passerby discovered it, The plant was operating at full capacity The single-story, metal-frame mall since the building had no fire-detection when the fire occurred. building contained 10 stores of various or -suppression systems. The heat-detection system activated sizes and types in an area of 24,000 Built on a slab foundation, the single- at 8:10 p.m., and the control room square feet (2,230 square meters). The story, steel-frame hangar had metal alerted the plant fire brigade and the structure, built on a concrete slab, had walls, a metal roof, and partition walls local fire department. Using foam, the wood mid fight metal walls and a flat, that divided the building into several fire brigade brought the blaze under steel-truss roof covered with rolled sections that could be sublet. However, control in about 35 minutes. The local roofing. There were no smoke detec- the walls didn't extend to the ceiling. fire department also responded but tors or fire sprinklers. Responding to a 911 call at 7:10 didn't participate in the firefighting. A driver for a pizza store, the only p.m., fire crews arrived seven minutes The plant activated its emergency mall business still operating that 1fight, later to ihad the building well involved plan, notifying the necessary authori- discovered a small fire along the wall in fire, its metal walls glowing red ties that the transformer's safety of the store as he returned from a run from the heat and flames venting features had functioned as designed and called 911 to report it. The super- through the roof. The incident com- and automatically shut down the tur- market's owner had just closed the mander called several other fire bine and reactor. store, turned off the exterior lights and departments to help extinguish the Property damage was estimated at some interior breakers, and set the fire, but the hangar and its contents $4 million. A 30-year-old security burglar alarm before leaving at were destroyed. guard was injured when he fell, and approximately 8:50 p.m. havestigators determined that the he suffered from smoke in_halation. Firefighters found the supermarket fire started under a wood-frame mez- heavily involved in fire, which was zmfine in the hangar, but they were spreading to an automobile customiz- unable to locate the ignition source. MERCANTILE ing shop, a church, a barbershop, a Losses were estimated at $400,000 for Fire damages mall restaurant, the pizza shop, a beauty the building and $500,000 for its con- TEXAS---A fire that started in a super- salon, and two vacant stores. tents. There were no injuries.

WWW.NFPAJOURNAL.ORG NFPA JOURNAL JANUARY/FEBRUARY2004 17 hangar fire foam - Google Search

hangar fire foam Search Sign in

All Shopping Images Videos News More Search tools

All news Recent Sorted by relevance A global Google search was made

Firefighting foam under fire for link to water contamination, by the applicant with the terms Environmental injuries "hangar fire foam" to try to find an contamination MyDaytonDailyNews - Sep 12, 2016 problem WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE — A fire suppressant example of where a foam system foam ... Aqueous Film-Forming Foam, or AFFF, at a hangar at Mountain Home ... activated and put out a fuel pool fire. None could be found. Environmental Water Contamination Meeting in Newburgh Erupts as Instead it brought up many many contamination Residents ... accidental foam activations, at problem The Epoch Times - Sep 21, 2016 The foam is a base that needs water and a concentrate of PFOS least one of which killed a person. added to it. The hangar fires led to a direct release of the concentrate. In addition it shows that the foam systems are precipitating ground Hill Air Force Base tests 'foam dump' fire suppression Test (no fire) water contamination issues near system in F-35 ... Standard-Examiner - Apr 5, 2016 military bases, where accidental A new F-35 jet parked in a hangar Oct. 29, 2015, at Hill Air Force Base, Utah. It's expected that 75 F-35 jets will be housed at Hill foam activations have occurred. AFB. (Photo ... This is the full, unedited information that came from the New Facility In Rockford Will Repair, Maintain World's search. In the pdf version of this Description Largest ... (no fire) WNIJ and WNIU - Sep 12, 2016 document one can click on any The 200,000-square-foot facility comprises two hangars separated in the center ... Polsean says these connect to the fire-suppression item to see the full report if that is system. ... kick on, they trip these valves, and they send the water up to the foam generator. desired.

Colorado Springs-based massive air tanker one step closer Aircraft to ... description Colorado Springs Gazette - Sep 12, 2016 (no fire) The approval comes near the end of a fire season that has been ... of water, fire retardant, foam or gel and make a single drop two- miles long or eight ... U.S. Global SuperTanker also leased a vacant hangar earlier this year to ...

Environmental AF awards replacement firefighting foam contract contamination Air Force Link - Aug 15, 2016 The Air Force is replacing the foam to reduce the potential risk of ... Unlike mobile problem fire trucks, the AFFF in hangars is contained to a stationary ...

Fire tender [AAD16D3] IHS Jane's 360 - Sep 15, 2016 Foam Locally based Marcé (Hangar 6, Stand W10) is the largest ... equipment foam, the 6x6 up to 13,000 litres of water plus 1,560 litres of foam (no fire) and the 8x8 up ...

Nationwide Foam systems designed to protect military aircraft keep problem of activating by ... accidental Washington Post - Jun 16, 2015 Fire suppression systems used to protect military aircraft have been foaming; ... A hangar was overwhelmed by foam, and it spilled out onto the accidental flight line. human death in foam; no fire Marine arrested for filling Japan Air Force hangar with foam Highly Cited - Marine Corps Times - Jun 16, 2015

https://www.google.com/...ENN_enUS528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3685...... 0.Lw_mA35VfsI#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws[10/1/2016 9:27:52 AM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

View all

Fire suppression system at SFO's largest hangar needs $4 million in ... Foam system failing (no fire) San Francisco Examiner - Apr 18, 2016 The Superbay Hangar at SFO, which is one of four hangars in the U.S. ... the system unable to pump the foam necessary to extinguish a fire.

Foam test clears Rockford's jet repair hub for takeoff Test (no fire) Rockford Register Star - Jul 15, 2016 The chemical agent cools the flames and prevents fire from spreading, while not causing harm to any equipment inside the hangar. Within 24 ...

Stay up to date on results for hangar fire foam. Create alert

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next

The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News.

Help Send feedback Privacy Terms

https://www.google.com/...ENN_enUS528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3685...... 0.Lw_mA35VfsI#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws[10/1/2016 9:27:52 AM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

hangar fire foam Search Sign in

All Shopping Images Videos News More Search tools

Page 2 of about 774 results (0.25 seconds)

Protecting Aircraft in Hangars: Six Keys to Successful Test (no fire) Fire Detection ... AviationPros.com - Aug 26, 2016 When hangar fire suppression includes deluge or high-expansion foam systems, rejecting false alarms from friendly fire is a critical function of a ...

Ensuring the reliability of NFPA 11 systems in aircraft hangars Problem of Consulting-Specifying Engineer - Jul 28, 2016 false activation Group IV aircraft hangars having a fire area larger than 12,000 sq ft, housing fueled (no fire) aircraft, must have foam systems installed to this standard, ...

Drunk Marine releases fire suppression system in Kadena hangar Accidental Stars and Stripes - Jun 11, 2015 activation Fire suppression foam engulfs a maintenance hangar as part of (no fire) a test of high expansion foam discharge in the repair aircraft maintenance ...

Not a fuel fire, Airport Hangar Fire Results in Minimal Loss smoke alarm Prescott eNews - May 9, 2016 Upon arrival the crew found a hangar filled with smoke and brought truck requested ... Foam 73, the airport Crash Fire Rescue truck, along before fire with Prescott Fire ... sprinkler even set off (no foam involved) Contractor Accidentally Fills Hangar Full Of Black Hawk Helicopters ... Accidental Daily Caller - Aug 28, 2014 activation (no A fire security contractor accidentally set off a new fire suppression system ... The force of the foam was strong enough to force open fire) the hangar ...

TheBlaze.com Accidental Tulsa's Army National Guard Base Accidentally Covered In Foam activation (no Highly Cited - News On 6 - Aug 26, 2014 fire) View all

Patrick AFB hangar fire suppression system activated False SpaceFlight Insider - Sep 16, 2015 activation (no An example of the high-expansion foam like the kind activated fire) today at Patrick AFB. Seen here is a hangar at Moody Air Force Base.

Not a hangar Spontaneous combustion could be to blame for Hagersville fire - industrial fire Simcoe Reformer - Sep 13, 2016 tires burning, Fire destroyed a storage facility at Clear Blue Sorbents west of ... foam trucks As well, a foam truck from the Imperial Oil refinery at Nanticoke used came to assist. ... was stored in “super-sacks” inside and outside a former hangar, Hill said.

Fire foam overflows inside aircraft hangar at Pearson Airport False CP24 Toronto's Breaking News - Sep 12, 2015 activation (no A cavernous aircraft hangar at Pearson International Airport was fire) almost filled completely with fire-suppressing foam Saturday

https://www.google.com/...S528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3685...... 0.Lw_mA35VfsI#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=10[10/1/2016 9:51:40 AM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

morning. False Pearson hangar filled with foam after malfunction activation International - CBC.ca - Sep 12, 2015 (no fire) View all

Black Hawk Drowned: Machine Fills Hangar With Foam In 2 Minutes Test (no fire) Forces TV - Nov 9, 2015 The Oklahoma Air National Guard has tested a new fire foam suppression system that was installed in three of their aircraft maintenance ...

False Special Report: Toxic Firefighting Foam Has Contaminated activation U.S. ... The Intercept - Dec 16, 2015 (no fire), A small sea of fire retardant foam was unintentionally released in creates an aircraft hangar, temporarily covering a small portion of the flight drinking water line at ... problems

Stay up to date on results for hangar fire foam. Create alert

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next

The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News.

Help Send feedback Privacy Terms

https://www.google.com/...S528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3685...... 0.Lw_mA35VfsI#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=10[10/1/2016 9:51:40 AM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

hangar fire foam Search Sign in

All Shopping Images Videos News More Search tools

Page 3 of about 773 results (0.40 seconds)

Fire-response system tested as F-35 hangar nears Test (no fire) completion Hilltop Times - Apr 6, 2016 Fire-response system tested as F-35 hangar nears completion ... The Corps recently performed a foam dump test, pumping nearly 1,000 ...

Fort Drum Helicopters Covered In Fire Suppression Foam Malfunction WWNY TV 7 - Aug 4, 2015 (no fire) Fort Drum Helicopters Covered In Fire Suppression Foam ... the foam is non- corrosive and did not damage the aircraft housed in the hangar.

Anatomy of an MRO: Rockford's jet repair hub is a high- tech marvel Description Rockford Register Star - Jul 14, 2016 (no fire) From a distance, the twin 9½-story jet hangars, each spanning 90,000 ... A custom foam fire suppression system is one of the MRO's many ...

AAR Hangars pass final inspections Test (no fire) WIFR - Dec 9, 2015 In just a matter of 45-seconds, fire suppressant foam had workers shoulder-deep and AAR says it can fill the nearly ten story, $40 million facility in less than 12 ...

Ceiling Carrier's claim of faulty hangar design ruled out of time insulation Lexology (registration) - Jul 7, 2016 problem (not The hangar required a fire protection system. Aveiro originally proposed a 'foam foam fire) deluge system' specifically designed for high hazard areas, ...

Fire-fighting tool fills huge hangar with foam in seconds

Test (no fire) KRMG - Apr 6, 2014 The fire suppression systems can fill the largest maintenance hangar in about two and half minutes, which would allow the foam to engulf an ...

Air Force Accidentally Fills Entire Hangar with Foam Accidental (no fire) Gizmodo - May 15, 2012 ... fine, we'll throw another foam party, and the jets are doused in fire ... you see that the foam spilled out of the hangar and try to wrap your head ...

PHOTO: What happens when you set a fire suppression Accidental system off ... (no fire) NewsOK.com - Aug 4, 2015 The photo purports to be of an Oklahoma National Guard hangar and shows fire suppressant foam nearly covering several helicopters. Col.

Search for different Fire Systems: Water Mist Systems: the Future of Fire system than foam (no Protection ... FireEngineering.com - Mar 21, 2016 fire), water mist can be Can water mist systems take over the fire protection industry? ... as effective as foam

https://www.google.com/...528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3685...... 0.Lw_mA35VfsI#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=20[10/1/2016 10:12:11 AM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

These foam systems are common in aircraft hangars and fuel farms where ...

Fire-suppression miscue douses Drum helicopters in foam Accidental ArmyTimes.com - Aug 6, 2015 (no fire) The system designed to protect aircraft housed in a Wheeler-Sack Army Airfield hangar went off Tuesday around 8:45 a.m. when it "was being ... Foam Mistake Caused Hangar Mess, Military "Plagued" With System ... accidents WWNY TV 7 - Aug 5, 2015 plague military View all (no fires), workers killed Create alert in foam Stay up to date on results for hangar fire foam.

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next

The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News.

Help Send feedback Privacy Terms

https://www.google.com/...528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3685...... 0.Lw_mA35VfsI#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=20[10/1/2016 10:12:11 AM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

hangar fire foam Search Sign in

All Shopping Images Videos News More Search tools

Page 4 of about 867 results (0.35 seconds)

Foam, foam on the range: Abilene airport hangar Accidental accidentally filled ... discharge ReporterNews.com - Aug 7, 2014 (no fire) Nellie Doneva/Reporter-News Foam creates a wintry landscape at a break area behind an Eagle Aviation Services Inc. hangar after a fire ...

Joint base: Purchase orders must be destroyed after two Foam causes years Burlington County Times - Jul 13, 2016 groundwater This photo shows a hangar at Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. contamination ... firefighting foam from fire-suppression systems in the base's problems (no hangars have ... hangar fire) Air Force investigating potential contamination at Joint Base ... Foam causes Burlington County Times - May 1, 2016 groundwater When firefighting foam is used to put out fuel fires on Joint Base contamination ... was also released by fire suppression systems in the base's problems (no aircraft hangars ... hangar fire) Construction projects at McConnell on track for KC-46A arrival Description Wichita Eagle - Feb 28, 2016 (no fire) The hangar redesign shortens distances between fire exits in the hangar and changes how quickly foam and water are distributed in an ...

'We've been betrayed:' Veterans blame Air Force base Foam causes water for ... MLive.com - Jun 29, 2016 chronic human ... PFC-laden fire suppression tool called Aqueous Film Forming diseases from Foam (AFFF), .... foam that was unintentionally released in an accidental aircraft hangar at ... release (no Michigan Radio hangar fire) Fire crews dampening down after blaze in hangar at Hangar roof norwich airport fire, fire trucks Daily Mail - Mar 20, 2016 Crews spent much of Sunday taking apart the roof of the hangar use foam, and using jets and foam to douse the flames after the blaze spread internal foam to the ... no use. Investigation continues today into cause of Norwich Airport fire Norfolk Eastern Daily Press - Mar 21, 2016 View all

Air Force announces multimillion-dollar deal to help with ... Foam contamination Colorado Springs Gazette - Jul 5, 2016 At Peterson Air Force Base, firefighters used the foam during of groundwater training ... aircraft hangar fire suppression systems for residual (no fire) chemicals.

Colorado Springs… Foam causing Elevated cancer rates found south of Colorado Springs where water ... cencer (no fire) In-Depth - The Denver Post - Jul 5, 2016 View all

https://www.google.com/...528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3685...... 0.Lw_mA35VfsI#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=30[10/1/2016 10:28:56 AM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

Accidental DEC focuses on Stewart Air Base site in Newburgh water ... discharge causing Times Herald-Record - Jun 21, 2016 ... firefighting foam and its use to extinguish an airplane fire at groundwater Stewart Air ... is the airplane fire and instances from 1990 when contamination hangar-based fire ... (no fire)

1st Daytona trampoline park to open Friday Trampoline Daytona Beach News-Journal - Aug 25, 2016 park "jumping" ... Hangar 15 notes that "Jumping on trampolines, jumping into foam pits .... power lines, according to Edgewater Fire Chief foam - not fire Stephen Cousins. related

GE to leave Stewart Airport Times Herald-Record - Jul 19, 2016 Description n 50-foot tall and 282-foot wide hangar door. n 5-ton overhead (no fire) crane, overhead fall protection system, fire foam and sprinkler systems.

Stay up to date on results for hangar fire foam. Create alert

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next

The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News.

Help Send feedback Privacy Terms

https://www.google.com/...528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3685...... 0.Lw_mA35VfsI#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=30[10/1/2016 10:28:56 AM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

hangar fire foam Search Sign in

All Shopping Images Videos News More Search tools

Page 5 of about 867 results (0.35 seconds)

Two Jetstar A320s damaged after fire extinguishers trigger Malfunction (no inside ... fire), aircraft Australian Aviation - Apr 27, 2015 A photograph of the scene posted on the Sydney Airport message severely board showing foam spilling out of the hangar with one Jetstar damaged aircraft visible ...

Accidental Schumer calls for expedited probe of contaminated discharge Newburgh water ... causes Times Herald-Record - Jul 19, 2016 ... state officials said their probe into the contamination included groundwater looking at accidental discharges of foam from hangar-based fire contamination suppression ... (no fire)

World's largest supertanker moves into its base at Colorado Springs ... Firefighter Colorado Springs Gazette - May 3, 2016 tanker (no The Boeing 747-400, outfitted for firefighting, can carry 19,400 gallons of water, fire hangar fire) retardant, foam or gel and make a single drop two-miles ...

At ease! Oklahoma National Guard photo is old news Tulsa World - Aug 4, 2015 Accidental Black Hawk helicopters inside a hangar at the Oklahoma Army discharge National Guard base in Tulsa were covered in fire-suppression (no fire) foam after the ...

10 American Black Hawk Helicopters Were Accidentally Accidental Blanketed ... Business Insider - Aug 28, 2014 discharge The fire suppression system filled a hangar holding UH-60 Black (no fire) ... The foam quickly spilled out from the hangar onto the nearby flight line.

Lightening can Niche sensors and devices Electronics EETimes (registration) - Aug 16, 2016 cause foam I once developed the controls for a sprinkler system in an aircraft hangar. Because malfunction the fire-quenching foam is corrosive, the customer didn't ... (no fire) Fire-Suppression System Failure Causes Winter Wonderland in ... Malfunction TravelPulse - Sep 15, 2015 (no fire) Canadians are no strangers to snow, but a hangar at Pearson International Airport saw winter arrive a bit early in the form of a foam blizzard on ...

VP-30 upgrades hangar bay for P-8A Poseidon Description Florida Times-Union - Jan 20, 2016 The hangar doors were later taken down and disassembled for ... (no fire) the AFFF (Aqueous Film Forming Foam) fire suppression system for both ...

Groundwater tests for PFOS, PFOA started at Joint Base Foam contamination of McGuire ... groundwater (no fire) Burlington County Times - Aug 22, 2016

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4LENN_enUS528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=40[10/1/2016 10:50:05 AM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

Foam contamination Airmen and Marines battle a fire near the rear of a mock aircraft of groundwater June 10, ... compound contamination at sites where firefighting (no fire) foam was used.

Firefighting Foam Fills Long Beach Airport Hangar Accidental NBC Los Angeles - Dec 11, 2008 Firefighting foam filled up and spilled out of a mammoth hangar discharge Thursday ... The high expansion foam, which deprives fire of (no fire) oxygen, reached ...

Stay up to date on results for hangar fire foam. Create alert

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next

The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News.

Help Send feedback Privacy Terms

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4LENN_enUS528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=40[10/1/2016 10:50:05 AM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

hangar fire foam Search Sign in

All Shopping Images Videos News More Search tools

Page 6 of about 773 results (0.34 seconds)

A rare breed: The H-43 Huskie Vertical Magazine (press release) - Apr 11, 2016 Forest fire The rotors could also be used to direct the fire away from ground equipment (no personnel. ... system could be used to help suppress flames and hangar fire) spread the foam over the fire. ... and some of his helicopters rotate through the display hangar.

Tainted: How Navy bases contaminated Pa. drinking water Groundwater contamination Philly.com - Jun 18, 2016 They would watch Navy firefighters shoot a dense white foam from problems hoses, ... Hangar 175 at Willow Grove once sheltered four planes (no fire) at a time but now ... Some contamination occurred when fire suppression systems went off, ...

WI: Chippewa Valley Regional Airport Holds Disaster Firefighting Training AviationPros.com - Aug 26, 2016 equipment "There isn't fire inside, but there is smoke inside. ... The airport has (no hangar fire) its own fire and rescue truck, which carries foam spray for putting out an ...

Leader-Telegram

Small plane crash injures pilot Aircraft Mesabi Daily News - Aug 31, 2016 accident (no He said he has an hangar at RRA and was flying solo at the time. hangar fire) ... ARFF fire truck responded and applied a blanket of foam to keep the fuels ...

Northland's News… Aircraft Pilot injured after small plane crashes at Range Regional Airport accident (no Northland's NewsCenter - Aug 31, 2016 hangar fire) View all

One Person Dies in Mishap at King Hanger at Eglin AFB Person dies in accidental WJHG-TV - Jan 8, 2014 foam discharge ... with inhalation injuries after an incident at King Hangar today (no fire) when the fire suppression system dispensed an unknown amount of foam.

West Mifflin native to oversee major project at Allegheny County ... Equipment description Tribune-Review - Jun 5, 2015 Voyager Jet Center is building an 18,000-square-foot hangar with other ... for natural (no fire) lighting, LEDs and advanced fire foam suppression.

Opinion: The Challenge Of Heating An Aircraft Hangar Not about foam Aviation Week - Jan 11, 2016 (no fire) Hangar design depends on the type and size of aircraft it is intended to ... complies with the prevailing authority's mandatory fire regulations.

WATCH: Kelowna airport hangar knee deep in soapy Test (no fire) foam Globalnews.ca - Dec 5, 2014 KELOWNA – The test run of a $750,000 fire suppression system Friday at the Kelowna airport created quite the spectacle. The entire

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4LENN_enUS528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=50[10/1/2016 11:37:56 AM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

Test (no fire)

28,000 ...

Plane wheel catches fire during takeoff attempt in Tampa Airfield (no UPI.com - Jun 1, 2016 hangar fire) ... on the tarmac and spray the flaming wheel with fire-retardant foam. ... the plane was taken to a hangar to be examined by airline technicians.

Plane Fire Damages Santa Maria Airport Hangar Fire truck foam KEYT - Oct 28, 2014 used to put out The ARV is capable of carrying 3,000 gallons of water, along with a fire in an old other fire retardant chemicals and foam. The machine is able to wood hangar move quickly ... with no fire sprinkler Stay up to date on results for hangar fire foam. Create alert

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next

The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News.

Help Send feedback Privacy Terms

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4LENN_enUS528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=50[10/1/2016 11:37:56 AM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

hangar fire foam Search Sign in

All Shopping Images Videos News More Search tools

Page 7 of about 773 results (0.35 seconds)

Kearny Mesa Warehouse Gutted, Evacuated by Smoky Industrial fire, Fire not aviation Times of San Diego - Mar 23, 2016 A two-alarm fire ripped through a packaging-foam business at a related Kearny Mesa industrial park Wednesday, causing an estimated $775,000 ...

Air Tanker Damaged at Refueling Stop Aircraft (no Firehouse.com (press release) (registration) (blog) - Jul 13, 2016 fire) Plans to send a DC-10 air tanker to help fight the Cold Springs fire near ... The left wing of the giant aircraft clipped a hangar as it was taxiing to ...

CA Sand Fire Threatens Thousands of Homes: 'These are Wildlands fire Not ... not aviation Patch.com - Jul 25, 2016 As the Sand Fire ravages 33,000 acres and displaces 22,000 related fire people, authorities are begging residents to heed evacuation orders.

Documents indicate chemical leaks at U.S. base have Foam polluted ... The Japan Times - Feb 9, 2016 contamination ... least 21,000 liters of fire extinguishing agents — some of them of groundwater toxic. ... a hangar with more than 1,500 liters of JET-X 2.75 percent — a foam ...

KC-46A tankers' arrival at McConnell delayed until 2017 Accidental foam activation Wichita Eagle - Feb 19, 2016 The final hangar will be completed in March 2017, as part of $267 (no fire) million ... when the fire-suppression foam system was inadvertently activated.

Kadena used restricted chemical found in local waterways, Polution by say ... Stripes Okinawa - Feb 22, 2016 foam (no fire) The purchase of fire extinguishing foam containing PFOS was banned in both the U.S. and Japan as of 2014, according to Okinawan officials ...

USS Carl Vinson Returns to San Diego After Sea Trials Test (no fire) Times of San Diego - May 1, 2016 Sailors test the aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) nozzle on a P- 25 mobile fire fighting vehicle (MFFV) in the hangar bay. Photo via U.S. Navy ...

Aircraft Jetstar planes out for another two weeks following Newcastle bubble ... damage from accidental Sydney Morning Herald - May 1, 2015 Jetstar expects two of its A320s doused in fire-retardant foam at its maintenance foam discharge hangar at Newcastle Airport late last month to return to service ... (no fire)

Jet repair hub a marquee project for Rockford's Scandroli Construction Rockford Register Star - Jul 16, 2016

https://www.google.com/...S528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3262...... 0.4X-eAeiniDk#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=60[10/1/2016 12:12:27 PM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

System description Scandroli Construction Company oversaw the yearlong jet hangar (no fire) ... issue because of the unique foam-generating fire suppression system and ...

119th Wing in early stages of groundwater contamination Concern about investigation Valley News Live - Mar 18, 2016 foam ... sites that have used Aqueous Film Forming Foam in training contamination exercises. ... fires that may flare up as a result of a plane crash or of groundwater hangar fire. (no fire)

Stay up to date on results for hangar fire foam. Create alert

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next

The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News.

Help Send feedback Privacy Terms

https://www.google.com/...S528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3262...... 0.4X-eAeiniDk#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=60[10/1/2016 12:12:27 PM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

hangar fire foam Search Sign in

All Shopping Images Videos News More Search tools

Page 8 of about 867 results (0.34 seconds)

Accidental Boeing KC-46A refueling tankers to arrive later than foam discharge planned at ... causes AirForceTimes.com - Feb 20, 2016 personel death Delays also have occurred for hangars to hold the tankers. ... and delay in Base in 2014 when the fire-suppression foam system was operations (no inadvertently activated. fire) Florida Frontiers: The Lynching of James Clark Florida Today - Aug 29, 2016 Not aviation There were more cases of lynching per capita in Florida, between related (no fire) 1900 and 1930, than in any other state. Alabama and Mississippi had more ...

Air Force 'waiting for things to break' in lieu of preventative ... Accidental FederalNewsRadio.com - Jan 14, 2016 foam discharge At Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, a huge hangar's fire (no fire) suppression ... burying its interior under 17 feet of foam, damaging five aircraft and ...

Tropical wave gives us plenty to talk about Florida Today - Aug 28, 2016 Not aviation As you no doubt know by now, Invest 99L didn't appreciably impact related (no fire) Brevard. In fact, as of this writing, it hasn't impacted much of anyone too ...

United Airlines tire blows on takeoff, causes tire to catch fire at ... Fire on runway FOX 13 News, Tampa Bay - May 30, 2016 (no hangar fire) ... were there within one minute, and doused the wheels with foam. ... The plane has been towed to a hangar on site to be examined and ...

United Airlines passenger films moment plane caught fire ON TAKE ... Daily Mail - May 31, 2016 View all

Toronto Airport Hosts Accidental Foam Party Accidental Yahoo Travel - Sep 14, 2015 On Saturday, a malfunctioning fire suppression machine at Toronto foam (no fire) ... Foam billowed out of a hangar, onto the airport grounds, and out into the ...

Want to buy a hangar? Deep pockets required Description of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - Apr 21, 2014 Bob Dufek is trying to sell two large, empty jet aircraft hangars at systems (no ... The hangars have sprinkler systems that include fire- fire) suppression foam.

As Key Transportation Hub, Vineyard Airport Sets New Description of Flight Path ARFF equipment The Vineyard Gazette - Martha's Vineyard News - Aug 4, 2016 (no fire)

https://www.google.com/...S528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3262...... 0.4X-eAeiniDk#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=70[10/1/2016 12:20:35 PM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

Description of equipment (no The new leadership has thrown water on the fire, airport employes fire) and ... the foaming concentrate, known as aqueous film-forming foam.

Malfunction of Eglin Air Force Base Officials Announced the Results of Its foam system ... due to cold WJHG-TV - Feb 19, 2014 weather ... of their investigation into the January 8th incident involving this foam fire-suppression system inside of the 90,000 square foot causes King Hangar. personnel death (no fire) Home Grill Fires National Fire Protection Association - Apr 18, 2016 Not aviation This report examines causes and circumstances of home grill fires related (no that were reported to local fire departments in the U.S., including hangar fire) structure ...

Stay up to date on results for hangar fire foam. Create alert

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next

The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News.

Help Send feedback Privacy Terms

https://www.google.com/...S528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3262...... 0.4X-eAeiniDk#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=70[10/1/2016 12:20:35 PM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

hangar fire foam Search Sign in

All Shopping Images Videos News More Search tools

Page 9 of about 867 results (0.36 seconds)

Air India Inks Pact With Spicejet For Maintenance Facility At Description of Mihan NDTV - Aug 10, 2016 system (no Mr Jagannath said the hangars are of international standard, fully fire) equipped to fight fire with foam (deluge/sprinkler) and also equipped with ...

FDOT to start sidewalk project in Cocoa Beach Not aviation Florida Today - Aug 31, 2016 COCOA BEACH — Continuous sidewalks on both sides of Atlantic related (no fire) and Orlando avenues and beyond, from just north of Fourth Street North all ...

USS George H.W. Bush heads to sea after more than a Shipboard year in the ... aviation wtkr.com - Jul 25, 2016 systems (no Also included in the testing: high-speed turns, anchor drop testing fire) and foam tests on the flight deck and hangar bays. “The ship itself is an ...

Bus fire clogs Mass Pike near I-495 Worcester Telegram - Mar 2, 2016 Not aviation Westboro firefighters make their way through a bus that caught fire related (no ... Firefighters from Southboro, Westboro and Hopkinton used foam hangar fire) to ...

The 66000-pound fuel tank of a space shuttle, the last of its kind, is ... Not hangar Los Angeles Times - Mar 3, 2016 related (no fire) The tanks were covered with spray-on foam to prevent ice from forming ... Endeavour, now displayed horizontally in a temporary hangar, and ...

Electronic cigarette explosions and fires Not aviation National Fire Protection Association - Apr 18, 2016 related (no fire) Electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) are battery-operated devices that deliver nicotine in a vapor form by heating a solution commonly comprised of propylene ...

Navy to begin testing well water near NALF Fentress after ... Foam polution wtkr.com - Feb 2, 2016 of groundwater Chesapeake, Va. – A public information meeting took place on Tuesday night to discuss concerns about drinking water around (no fire) Naval Auxiliary ...

IN: Single-Engine Plane Crashes Into House Fire AviationPros.com - Aug 26, 2016 department "That's why you saw the fire department using foam to kind of blanket the area to prevent any type of fire because aircraft fuel is use of foam very flammable. (no hangar fire)

ABC News

Japan: New Docs Link Polluted Drinking Water Supply to

https://www.google.com/...S528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3262...... 0.4X-eAeiniDk#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=80[10/1/2016 12:38:42 PM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

Accidental Massive ... foam pollutes Center for Research on Globalization - Feb 10, 2016 groundwater ... a three-day period in 2001 when 17,000 liters of fire extinguishing agents were ... It filled a hangar with more than (no fire) 1,500 liters of JET-X 2.75 percent—a foam ... That foam made its way to local waterways, but the base did not ...

HAFB unveils new F-22 maintenance hangar StandardNet - Jan 12, 2012 Description of “It wouldn't go all the way to the ceiling,” Day said of foam that system (no would be dispensed from nozzles near the ceiling, installed in case fire) of a fire.

Stay up to date on results for hangar fire foam. Create alert

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next

The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News.

Help Send feedback Privacy Terms

https://www.google.com/...S528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3262...... 0.4X-eAeiniDk#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=80[10/1/2016 12:38:42 PM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

hangar fire foam Search Sign in

All Shopping Images Videos News More Search tools

Page 10 of about 867 results (0.33 seconds)

'No funny hats': Cruz takes pass on Cheesehead Not aviation Appleton Post Crescent - Apr 4, 2016 related (no fire) But he declined to wear a foam wedge, the preferred headgear of Green ... a rally crowd gathered in an open airplane hangar in frigid Superior ...

Jet Airways 737 suffers landing gear collapse in Mumbai Runway Flightglobal - Mar 4, 2016 accident (not ... CFM56 engine resting on the tarmac, surrounded by fire- hangar fire) retardant foam. ... The aircraft has been moved to the carrier's Mumbai hangar.

Hangar full of Black Hawks gets foamed (VIDEO) Guns.com - Sep 6, 2014 Accidental ... last week when something set off the hangar's fire suppression foam (no fire) system. ... After the hangar filled to its limit the foam spilled out onto the ramp ...

Cuyahoga County Airport's shortcomings could hamper Airport fire responses ... fighting The Plain Dealer - cleveland.com - Oct 7, 2014 equipment Cuyahoga County officials say they are addressing safety issues, discussion (no raised by local fire chiefs and companies that lease private fire) hangars in the ...

Mark Blazis: Beware of yellow jackets Worcester Telegram - Aug 15, 2016 Not aviation My flashlight revealed dozens of the wasps crawling out of drunkenly related (no fire) into the lethal foam. I haven't forgotten them. I've been a bit itchy, swollen ...

Jensen Hughes - Fire Protection and Life Safety Services for Airports ... Consultant Airport Technology - Feb 28, 2015 services (no The company's consultants are up to date with hangar fire fire) protection design ... aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) containment, and special hazard designs.

5 Times Service Members Made The News For Doing Accidental Something ... Task & Purpose - Sep 3, 2015 foam (no fire) At about 1:45 a.m on May 23, 2015, a Marine drunkenly triggered the foam-based fire suppression system at an Air Force hangar on Kadena ...

James Bond's Spectre Stunts: The Guy Who Makes 007 Go Movie set (no Boom actual fire) GQ Magazine - Nov 7, 2015 Inside the airplane hangar-sized space is a full-size replica of the northern half of the famous four-lane bridge, ... "All cameras rolling; you all know where the fire exits are." .... What I'm standing on isn't foam and facade.

https://www.google.com/...S528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3262...... 0.4X-eAeiniDk#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=90[10/1/2016 12:48:32 PM] hangar fire foam - Google Search

10 Things You Never Knew About 'Band Of Brothers' Task & Purpose - Jul 6, 2016 Not aviation One of the sets was a man-made forest inside of an airplane related (no fire) hangar. ... special effects department made from fiberglass, hemp, latex and foam.

New year brings new faces into Holding Court Not aviation Statesman Journal - Jan 12, 2016 Hoerauf was using the foam-cored but brightly decorated models to related (no fire) ... We even have signs out on Thursdays directing folks to the hangar," Scott said. ... Zion Church, which was destroyed by an explosive arson fire in 1976.

Stay up to date on results for hangar fire foam. Create alert

Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next

The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to or updated in Google News.

Help Send feedback Privacy Terms

https://www.google.com/...S528US542&q=hangar+fire+foam&gs_l=hp...0j0i22i30l2.0.0.0.3262...... 0.4X-eAeiniDk#q=hangar+fire+foam&tbm=nws&start=90[10/1/2016 12:48:32 PM] Appendix C: Additional data showing the problems with foam in large aircraft hangars.

Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CEMP-RT Washington, DC 20314-1000 ETL 1110-3-481

Technical Letter No. 1110-3-481 23 May 1997

Construction CONTRACTOR SUBMITTAL PROCEDURES

Distribution Restriction Statement

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY ETL 1110-3-481 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CEMP-ET Washington, D.C. 20314-1000

Technical Letter No. 1110-3-481 31 March 1997 Engineering and Design CONTAINMENT AND DISPOSAL OF AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAM SOLUTION 1. Purpose. This letter provides design guidance for containment and disposal of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) discharges from AFFF fire extinguishing systems. 2. Applicability. This letter applies to all HQUSACE elements and USACE commands having military construction and design responsibility. This ETL has been coordinated with the Air Force. 3. Background. a. AFFF fire suppression systems are typically provided in aircraft hangars. AFFF systems have superior fire extinguishing capability and can effectively control a flammable or combustible liquid fire. This type of protection is necessary to protect valuable, mission-essential aircraft and hangar facilities. b. A concern of AFFF systems is the discharge of AFFF foam solution. In large volumes, AFFF foam can be harmful to the environment. AFFF solution should not be allowed to flow untreated into the ecosystem, or into the sewage systems in large quantities. The primary concern is discharge from unwanted activations and from periodic testing. c. Except for this technical letter, there is little information on this subject and no specific design guidance that provide a reasonable approach to handling AFFF discharges. 4. Guidance. a. Containment systems will be provided for all fixed AFFF fire extinguishing systems. Containment systems will be designed to contain the most probable worst case AFFF discharge. The most probable worse case AFFF discharge is defined as the maximum discharge likely to occur in a non-catastrophic event. The most probable worst case is different for open fire extinguishing systems and for closed fire extinguishing systems. b. AFFF discharges associated with major fires are not considered the most probable worst case for two reasons. First, a major fire would be considered a catastrophic event. Second, an occurrence of a major fire in a well protected hangar is not 3 M WITHDRAWS AFFF FOAM FROM MARKET

FOAM WITHDRAW RAISES QUESTIONS

A recent announcement by 3M has raised a number of questions about the health safety of AFFF foam concentrates. This page is an attempt to communicate on the issues raised and to begin to shed light on the results.

Foam concentrates are an unusual fire protection measure since the foam is not approved by UL, only the device or system in which it will be used is tested and listed. While foam manufacturers and fire fighters have always known that foam concentrates of the same type can be mixed in an emergency, the same is not true for foam concentrates in fire trucks, foam concentrate tanks and systems. Claims for expanded markets by foam manufacturers first released after the 3M announcement are not accurate since many devices are not cross listed for other concentrates by UL. A delay is expected in getting all equipment tested and listed by UL which will certainly heat up the foam industry for the next few years.

The subject is addressed in the following articles:

3 M WITHDRAWS AFFF FOAM FROM MARKET

OPINION COMMENTARY by Jim Devonshire

THE ANNOUNCEMENT BY 3M by Jim Devonshire

3 M WITHDRAWS AFFF FOAM FROM MARKET

Excerpted from Business Week article, authored by Joseph Weber.

Business Week in the June 5, 2000 edition contains a major article about the recent announcement by 3 M to stop the production of a stain repellant Scotchgard. There is a direct relationship between this decision and the withdrawal of Aqueous Film Forming Foam manufactured by the 3M Company. The withdrawal is due to the voluntary action taken by 3M to remove products from the market that contain perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).

PFOS is evidently starting to appear in minute amounts in the blood drawn from people living all across the country. The company, according to Business Week, does not feel that there is any evidence that the chemical and products containing related chemicals are a danger to humans. On May 16, 2000 the company decided to phase out PFOS and products containing related chemicals.

PFOS is not on the list of environmentalists' list of the most toxic chemicals, but 3M has decided not to wait for additional scientific evidence that the chemicals are toxic. The chemicals are used for coating of paper and textiles for goods that Business Week reports are used for pet-food bags, candy wrappers, carpeting and 3M brand Light Water, an AFFF. The first signs of trouble began in 1976 when a study determined that organic fluorides, known as POSF, were showing up in tiny quantities in human blood. Since the study was focused on the effects of water fluoridation and POSF was not the result of water treatment chemicals, the investigator Dr. Donald Taves from the University of Rochester was unable to determine how it got into the blood stream as well as it effects.

Business Week reports that the indication of the chemicals in the blood stream was taken seriously at 3 M which quickly launched programs to test employees at plants in Minn, Alabama, and Belgium to see if fluorine exposure were high. The found that workers blood was registering higher than the general population, medical evidence suggested that the higher levels posed no problem. The same results were found in the deaths of former employees or living workers.

POES a 3 M product used in AFFF fire-fighting foam is also produced in animals and humans, when certain precursor chemicals get into the cells. The precursors are part of the chemical makeup of Scotchgard fabric protector and are

http://users.erols.com/lcainc/foam.htm[9/21/2011 2:05:13 PM] 3 M WITHDRAWS AFFF FOAM FROM MARKET

valued precisely for their hardiness. The repel water and oil like nothing else, making them potent stain-resisters.

During the 1980's, testing continued and grew more sophisticated in the early 1990's. Indications were that all test results were showing the chemicals clear of any problems. In 1997 the introduction of new detection techniques changed everything. New tests showed these chemicals in levels as low as 0.5 parts per million. This level is equated by 3 M scientists as being like 50 seconds in 32 years.

New tests of samples of blood from 18 blood banks along with samples from Europe and Asia were conducted. Stored, old samples of blood from Korean War veterans found that only the Korean War veterans' blood was free of contamination since it predated the Scotchgard material.

Kept up to date by 3 M EPA officials were particularly concerned by the persistence of PFOS. This chemical is so hardy it is not known if will break down and it accumulates in the tissue of humans and animals.

3M was reluctant to conclude to withdraw these chemicals which are valued for their ability to repel water or oil. All data on health pointed toward no health effect, William E. Coyne, senior vice-president for Research and Development states in the Business Week article. A further study on rats, monkey and other animals found that PFOS was detected in samples of animal tissue from all parts of the world. The chemical was found in numerous locations including in flesh-eating birds in the Pacific Ocean and the Baltic regions.

Further results of tests of animals found that heavy doses of PFOS (10,000 to 100,000 times likely human exposure) resulted in heavy rat offspring mortality, often in days after birth. Monkeys that were heavily doses also died. When reported to EPA, the seriousness of the results resulted in intensive review by EPA. While EPA has yet to ban the chemicals, the writing was on the wall according to one EPA official.

While the discontinuance of PFOS chemicals is targeted for year end, continuance of fire fighting foam may take longer.

Return to top

Another view and comment is provided by an industry insider, Jim Devonshire in the following article proposed for publication in Europe later this year---

Editors note: the following commentary and opinion is offered here for discussion and informational purposes. The following is the personal opinion of Mr. Devonshire and is reprinted for purposes of providing information to our web-site readers.

OPINION COMMENTARY

by Jim Devonshire

We are confident that we already have the new replacement generation of fire fighting foam concentrates to replace the 3M foam concentrates that will be withdrawn shortly. We are producing a new very powerful fire fighting foam concentrate that is glycol-ether free and thus considered "Earth-Friendly". Even though we have only been producing foam concentrates for a short time, we have already realized tremendous success in municipal and industrial fire departments, both in the U.S. and overseas with a number of written testimonials from people who have used our products on "real" fires.

Our manufacturing capacity at the Buckeye plant in Kings Mountain, NC plant exceeds 20,000 gallons (75,000litres) every 3 – 4 hours. There is no doubt in my mind that we can meet any and I mean any requirement for synthetic foam

http://users.erols.com/lcainc/foam.htm[9/21/2011 2:05:13 PM] 3 M WITHDRAWS AFFF FOAM FROM MARKET

concentrates placed upon us. We likely have more manufacturing capacity than the industry really needs, but in setting up a new plant, our president decided to build the infrastructure to properly go after the business, even before 3M made this announcement.

We have had brief discussions with 3M concerning the potential replacement of their products in the event of, for example a foam system discharge and will be looking very seriously into providing their customers a U.L. (Underwriters Laboratories) cross listing for their current hardware and the Buckeye Foam Concentrates.

Being new to the foam business, we do not carry any adverse baggage. 3M has always taken a position, sometimes in writing, that their products are not compatible in storage with products of other manufacturers. Fortunately for Buckeye, we were not included in this list. We are confident that the new range of Buckeye Foam Products, once tested in accordance with, for example the U.L. protocol will be a drop-in replacement for the 3M foam concentrates.

Buckeye Fire Equipment Company intends to be a major participant in the foam business worldwide. We have the resources and backing to support a major thrust in this direction, we intend to be a market leader in short order.

Return to Top

THE ANNOUNCEMENT BY 3M

by Jim Devonshire

I never thought that, in my lifetime, I would hear these words;

"3M makes a planned exit from the A.F.F.F. market place".

The announcement by 3M to discontinue a $330MM Scotchgard™ business came as a surprise to everybody. Even as I prepare this article, I do not believe that the effect of this decision has been fully realized.

Furthermore, after the initial announcement, additional communication from 3M has been minimal, perhaps because they do not know what direction they should pursue, or perhaps one could speculate that they have not really finished with the foam business? Indeed 3M are still offering their Class "A" S.F.F.F. (Structural Fire Fighting Foam). It is perhaps not well known, but 3M had been working on a new fire fighting foam concentrate line, just before the announcement about Scotchgard™ was made. As you might expect, this position affects a great number of people employed at 3M and 3M customers who have come to rely on these products in their day-to-day existence. People have asked, why don’t they (3M) reformulate their products. Well, it is not that easy, understand that the A.F.F.F. product line uses excess raw materials, or by-products produced from another process, so reformulating would mean a completely new product line, which defeats the purpose of using this excess capacity already available within 3M.

There are some reports that 3M developed the A.F.F.F. concentrates and the AR-A.F.F.F. concentrates and revolutionized the foam business. What they actually did, was to take a good product, developed by a number of different organizations or companies to market. Keep the following facts in mind:

1). The original concept for A.F.F.F. concentrate dates back to 1962 at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in Washington, D.C. The actual development of the product is credited to a number of people who worked at the N.R.L. including R. L. Tuve, H. B. Peterson, R. R. Neil and the "Father" of the A.F.F.F. concentrates E. J. Jablonski who is also credited with the term "Light Water™". There is an N.R.L Report, " A New Vapor-Securing Agent for Flammable Liquid Fire Extinguishing" dated March 13, 1964 that is worth reading. I "lucked out" a number of years ago and met Mr. Jablonski, who was a very unassuming individual and a credit to the profession.

[ Editors note- Your editor was lucky enough to be present during some of the early tests of

http://users.erols.com/lcainc/foam.htm[9/21/2011 2:05:13 PM] 3 M WITHDRAWS AFFF FOAM FROM MARKET

"Light Water" at NRL in the early 60's and was acquainted with Dr. Tuve and Jake Jablonski who was a revolutionary fire protection researcher - what has been done since? Most documents of the time credit Dr. Tuve as the inventor of AFFF and the developer of the concept of Twin Agent attack using AFFF twined with potassium dry chemical common to air craft fire fighting. See Principles of Fire Protection Chemistry by R. L. Tuve, 1976, NFPA for further details.]

2). 3M has also been credited with developing the alcohol resistant A.F.F.F. concentrates, (AR-A.F.F.F.), or the alcohol type concentrate (ATC). In fact, National Foam first developed the AR-A.F.F.F. concentrate for commercial use and sold the rights to other manufacturers, as it turns out for a song, in comparison to their use today. 3M should be credited for taking a tremendous concept and using the 3M marketing machine to get this product into the hands of the real users. In effect, 3M changed a "world-wide" protein-based foam market into a synthetic foam market place, almost single-handedly, after all, that’s all they made.

So, credit, where credits are due.

Back to the problem, after all of this, why did 3M take the decision to pull out of this business? This article will concentrate only on the foam business developed by 3M, which represents less than 10% of the value placed on the Scotchgard™ product line. In effect, 3M announced that it would voluntarily phase out a product line, (Scotchgard™), that contains a persistent bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT) pollutant. That they would find a more environmentally preferable substitute for the perfluorooctanyl sulfonate (PFOS) chemistry used for the manufacture of this product line, which includes the A.F.F.F. concentrates used for fire fighting. The data provided by 3M indicates that these chemicals are very persistent in the environment and have a tendency to accumulate in human and animal tissue to where a potential risk to human health exists over the long term. Initial reports indicated that this phase out would occur by the end of 2000, but more recent indications are that production may continue into 2002.

As early as 1986 it was discovered that people had "fluorocarbons" (perfluorinated organic sulfur) in their bloodstreams. Initially the results of the tests were confusing, early reports or theories were that perhaps toothpaste or fluorinated water was the source. However, the characteristics of the fluorocarbon found in the bloodstreams of these people was slightly different to those of toothpaste & water. Although early suspicions were that the source was in fact a 3M material, the test apparatus back then was perhaps not sophisticated enough to differentiate the potential sources. However, in the late ‘90’s further testing confirmed that in fact the 3M fluorochemicals were present in almost 100% of the world’s population, (that’s you and me). The fact that it is present does not necessarily mean it is harmful. Testing of 3M employees working at the plant manufacturing level showed measurements of fluorocarbons at about 100 times higher than that of the average person. Again, there appears to be no ill effects when the fluorochemicals are retained in the bloodstream.

The fact that 3M has decided, at least as of this writing, not to recall all of the foam concentrates currently deployed in the field, probably indicates that there are no immediate health concerns.

Does the problem of persistent chemicals in the bloodstream affect other manufacturers of A.F.F.F. concentrates? The answer as best as we can tell from the raw material suppliers, such as Elf ATO-Chem and Ciba Geigy, at this time, is NO!

It would appear that it is the method of manufacturing the 3M fluorochemical that differentiates it from other fluorochemicals. There are two different processes involved; 3M uses an electrofluorination process, which uses an organic sulfur as the raw material, while the other manufacturers use a telomerisation process, which involves a procedure using tetrafluoroethylene (TFE) as the raw material. It would appear that while the 3M fluorochemical is retained in the bloodstream, other manufacturers fluorochemicals are expelled through the tissue walls and out of the lungs, through the normal breathing process.

Over the past few weeks, many people have asked me many questions about the 3M position. My observations are that it is important to read the press release and note the actual content; this is a planned exit by a business group from an established business over the next 1 – 2 years. This is not an immediate exit from the business and other A.F.F.F. http://users.erols.com/lcainc/foam.htm[9/21/2011 2:05:13 PM] 3 M WITHDRAWS AFFF FOAM FROM MARKET

concentrate manufacturers will likely not see an immediate and massive gain in market dollars. In other words, 3M have indicated that they will continue to provide A.F.F.F. concentrates, in particular the 3%/6% AR-A.F.F.F. concentrates and the MIL-SPEC A.F.F.F. concentrates, through 2002. If you were to call 3M today, I am fairly certain that they could deliver any amount of A.F.F.F. concentrate that you may need!

The interesting thing about this whole process is that asking one question leads to another and the tentacles spread. For example, the withdrawal of 3M from this business is "blamed" on the fact that a fluorocarbon is found in the bloodstreams of employees. Did you know that there is a synthetic blood, based on fluorocarbons that is used for example by diabetics as an aid in regulating blood sugar levels. So in fact, the medical community is injecting fluorocarbons into people, deliberately!

Then we hear that testing of the 3M fluorochemicals resulted in a 100% mortality rate in laboratory test animals, which were rats. Left with this statement, everybody imagines the worst of horrors, particularly as many years ago, 3M filed a substantial risk notice of teratogens, which involves a material associated with birth defects. However, back to the mortality rate mentioned above; young rats are born with a certain amount of fat in their bodies, which they use as nourishment during the initial growth cycle. The introduction of the fluorochemical to the rat prohibits the fat from building up and the offspring die. The human body does not behave in the same manner and subsequently this is not a risk to people. This information can be taken out of context and another scare develops.

While this decision by 3M presents opportunities for the other A.F.F.F. manufacturers, it is not likely to be a major opportunity for any one manufacturer, is it likely to "triple" the sales of any one manufacturer. Without much thought, one can come up with at least a dozen A.F.F.F. manufacturers across the world, all of which have an opportunity to get some of this business. The available dollars will likely be split, perhaps evenly between the remaining suppliers. However, based on the information available and the reasons offered by 3M for their decision, it should make the users of these products more aware of the environmental concerns about using these products. Some years ago, DGBE (diethylene glycol butyl ether), a product used in the manufacture of most A.F.F.F. concentrates was placed on the Federal Register of hazardous air pollutants, which initiated some manufacturers to eliminate glycol ether from their formulations. Interestingly enough, not all manufacturers took this approach and it is easy to understand why, particularly when a reformulation would mean considerable development expense and then the tremendous costs for re- compliance with U.L. Listings. One of these manufacturers (those that did not remove the glycol ether) was subject to a report in November of 1999, when 4,500 gallons of A.F.F.F. spilled into the Des Plaines River as a result of an aircraft hangar foam system discharge. The Illinois EPA filed a notice of violation against the airline after the spill. Though initially the airline was told the material was non-toxic, the foam was found to contain glycol ether (DGBE), which is considered hazardous if consumed. Subsequently, I would suggest that users of foam concentrates support those manufacturers who took the time and trouble to reformulate and produce what is in essence an "Earth Friendly" foam concentrate.

There are some, particularly those in what might be called the "protein camp" who are saying, "see, we told you that stuff (A.F.F.F.) is bad for your health". What they fail to elaborate on is the fact that most of the protein foam concentrates contain heavy metals, which can also be harmful!

It is stated that the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) mandated this move by 3M, but I tend to believe that this is a voluntary move by 3M for a number of other reasons we are not privy to at this time. Certainly the EPA has a say in instances where "hazardous" materials are involved, but this appears to be simply a business decision by 3M, based on what certain people at director level thought was best for 3M at this time. We must not loose sight of the fact that the foam business is relatively small, when compared not only to the specialty chemical division, but the overall 3M business of $16.0 billion. Checking the EPA web-site today showed ten (10) pages of announcements concerning environmental issues over pollution prevention. The 3M issue is just one very small part of a large subject matter.

The 3M Light Water™ (the premium A.F.F.F. line), trade name has been the subject of discussion and various people saying that they intend to buy the name and formulation. It should be pretty obvious that the formulation would have little value and could not used, if the raw materials to manufacture the product are being phased out. I would also be very surprised if 3M would even consider selling the Light Water™ name. I believe that it should be retired with full honors and deservedly so, since it has no doubt saved many lives over the past 40 years.

http://users.erols.com/lcainc/foam.htm[9/21/2011 2:05:13 PM] 3 M WITHDRAWS AFFF FOAM FROM MARKET

So, where are we? We have a decision by 3M to discontinue a product line that was perhaps at the end of its useful life span, particularly if one evaluates the 3M-business philosophy. We have issues concerning the products manufactured by 3M and their effects on the environment. With this in mind, we have the possibility that 3M having been exposed to this phase out, would like to see other A.F.F.F. manufacturers put under the microscope and be taken to task over this issue. In other words, put "reasonable doubt" in the EPA’s mind, or in the mind of some users to where they question the continued use of the A.F.F.F. product line, if we (3M) can’t have it, nobody else can!

We hear that other countries have already started to question the use of the fluorochemicals for fire fighting purposes, so watch this space for further developments.

Editors note: LCAI will continue to monitor the problems associated with change in foam concentrates and the impact on listings of devices, etc. Should any readers have any horror or tall tales to tell in this area please forward them for our consideration in this portion of the web-site.

Return to top

Return to LCAI Home Page

http://users.erols.com/lcainc/foam.htm[9/21/2011 2:05:13 PM] Patrick AFB hangar fire suppression system activated - SpaceFlight Insider Page 1 of 5

LAUNCH MISSION HOME ARCHIVE GALLERY CALENDAR MONITOR

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/space-centers/ccafs/patrick-afb-hangar-fire-suppressio... 11/19/2016 Patrick AFB hangar fire suppression system activated - SpaceFlight Insider Page 2 of 5

BBREAKING:REAKING: PILLAR OF LIGHT: SOYUZ NEXTNEXT LAUNCH MS-03 CREW EN ROUTE TO SPACE STATIONSTATIONSTATION PPATRICKATRICK AFB HANGAR FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM ACTIVATED SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2015 by BRITT RAWCLIFFE Next LaunchGOES-R Mission GOES-R LSP Vehicle Atlas V 541 Time 19 Nov 17:42:00 EST (UTC-5) Window 1 hr Location Cape Canaveral AFS SLC-41

Day

Min CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla — At 10 a.m. EDT (14:00 GMT) this morning, Wednesday, Sept. 16, the fire Sec suppression system activated in one of the maintenance hangars belonging to the 920th Rescue HOL D Wing at Patrick Air Force Base in Florida. All personnel were evacuated immediately and it was confirmed that no one was injured during the incident.

Part of the facility’s fire suppression system is high- expansion foam, set to disperse quickly throughout the hangar when activated. With properties much like dishwashing liquid or detergent, it is composed of 97 percent water and 3 percent fire suppression material. The hangar was rapidly filled with the foamy material.

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/space-centers/ccafs/patrick-afb-hangar-fire-suppressio... 11/19/2016 Patrick AFB hangar fire suppression system activated - SpaceFlight Insider Page 3 of 5

This substance is environmentally and ecologically friendly, as the elements will gradually break the material down over a period of time. The low concentrations of foam are not viewed as a threat to human health either. However, those involved with the discharge of this material were told that if they had sensitive skin that they would be well advised to wash their skin thoroughly with warm water if they come in contact with the foam.

At the time of the incident, two HH-60G Pavehawk helicopters were inside the hangar and it is unconfirmed whether or not they had sustained any damage due to the release of the foam. The Pave Hawk, which is a heavily-modified version of the Army’s well- known Black Hawk helicopter, aids in the recovery of military personnel in hostile war zones as well as civilian rescue operations. It is one of the two aircraft used by the 920th Rescue Wing in addition to the HC- 130 Hercules transport aircraft.

Residing in Cocoa Beach, just south of Cape Canaveral, the 920th Rescue Wing provides support to NASA on search and rescue operations as well as Eastern Range monitoring for launches operations. Also, a resident of Patrick Air Force Base is the 45th Space Wing, which manages both manned and unmanned launches out of Cape Canaveral.

The sudden activation of the system is currently under investigation as well as the damages to the helicopters and other equipment inside at the time.

Although inconvenient, this is not the first time that an incident of this nature has taken place. In 2011, a Earn Your MBA Online and Launch Your similar accident took place. Similarly to this incident, Career Pavehawk helicopters also received a healthy dose of foam.

During the Space Shuttle Program, the 920th Rescue Wing would have served to recover astronauts escaping from one of NASA’s orbiters should the need have arisen. The Wing’s role in recovering downed crews can be traced all the way back to the first flight of the U.S. Space Agency’s Mercury Program in 1961.

TAGGED: 45TH SPACE WING 920TH RESCUE WING LEAD STORIES PATRICK AIR FORCE BASE

BRITT RAWCLIFFE Britt Rawcliffe is a professional freelance aerospace and aviation photographer based out of Pennsylvania with over six years of professional photographic experience. Her creative imagery has spanned into all areas relating to space, including launches, photojournalism, architecture, and portraiture. Britt’s passion for history has been a common thread in much of her

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/space-centers/ccafs/patrick-afb-hangar-fire-suppressio... 11/19/2016 Patrick AFB hangar fire suppression system activated - SpaceFlight Insider Page 4 of 5

work, including having photographed many Moonwalkers such as Buzz Aldrin and Gene Cernan.