Report of the Committee on

Aircraft Rescue ad Fire Fighting

Brian Boucher, Chair Air Canada Pilots Assn., NY [L]

Robert J. Donahue, Secretary Massport, MA [U]

John Cedric Black, BAA plc - Headlrow Airport Ltd, England [U] Booker T. Burley, Hartsfield Atlanta Int'l Airport, GA [U] Ralph Cole** John Rnsso Industrial Inc, CA [M] Robert L. Darwin, U.S. Dept. of fine Navy, VA [U] Kenneth IL Gilliam, Federal Aviation Administration, DC [E] Fred B. Goodnight, Amerex Corp., AL [M]

Rep. Fire Equipment Mfrs. Assn. B. V. Hewes, Airport Safety Services, GA [SE] D. Steve Kiernan, Nat'l Foam, Inc., PA [M] L. M. Krasner, Factory Mutual Research Corp., MA [I] Dave Lenz, Oshkosh Truck Corp., WI [M] Don Minnis, Air Transport Assn., DC [U] John J. O'Sullivan, British Airways, England [C] Davis 17,. Parsons, Los Angeles City Fire Dept., CA [U] Gaetan Perron, Nat'l Defense Headquarters (CFFM-2), ON,

Canada [U] Thomas Phillips, Airline Pilots Assn., VA [L] Hugh A. Pike, U.S. Air Force Fire Protection, FL [U] Lee W. Prazer, Akron Brass Co., OH [M] Richard M. Radford, Seeb Int'l Airport, Sultanate of Oman [E] Robert G. Relyea, ARFF Working Group, TX [M] John F. Rooney, Tucson, AZ [SE] Bertrand F. Ruggles, Ruggles Enterprises, Ltd, MD [SE] Joseph L. Scheffey, Hughes Assoc., Inc., MD [SE] Frank H. Schneck, Jr., Emergency One, Inc., FL [M] JBOhn M. Schuster, 3M Co., MN [M]

ernard Valois, Transport Canada, ON, Canada [E] Pare Walden-Phillips, The Port Aufilority of NY & NJ, NY [U]

Rep. American Assn. of Airport Executives Nigel Wheeler-Osman, United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority,

England [E] Ronald O. Wikander,. Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems, GA [M] Larry E. Williams, Rural/Metro Corp., AZ [SE] Bonnie Wilson, Airports Council Int'l Norfil/Mnerica, DC [U] Joseph A. Wright, Federal Aviation Administration Tech Cir., NJ [RT]

Alternates

Ali Zaid Mohamed AI Balushi, Directorate General of Civil Aviation & Meteorology, Sultanate of Oman [E]

(Alt. to R. M. Radford) Charlie L. Duncan, Atl~mta Fire Dept., Atlanta Airport, GA [U]

(Alt. to B. T. Burley) Christopher Farnaby.. LInited Kingdom Civil Aviation Aufilority,

England [E] (Air. to N. Wheeler-Osman)

Denis Girouard, Dept. of Nat'l Defence, ON, Canada [U] (Air. to G. Perron)

James HoteU, U.S. Air Force, FL [U] (Alt. to H. A. Pike)

Frank M. E. Hughes, British Airways, England [C] (Alt. to J .J . O'Sulli~m)

Paul J. Lindsay, Trartsport Canada, ON, Canada [E] (Ait. to B. Valois)

Richard B. Mills, Akron Brass Co., OH [M] (Alt. to L. W. Prazer)

Richard E. Ottman, 3M, MN [M] (Alt. toJ. M Schuster)

Michael D. Reagan, Los Angeles City Fire Dept., CA [U] (Alt. to D. R. Parsons)

Paul R. Robinson, K~nnesaw, GA [L] (Ait. to T. Phillips)

Gary T. Schott, Omaha Airport Aufilority, NE [M] (Air. to R. G. Reylea)

Robert L. Shaub, Emergency One, Inc., FL [M] (Alt. to F. H. Schneck)

Nonvoting

Mark Day, Carmichael Int'l Ltd, England Gary Hammack, U.S. Nat'l Transportation Safety Board (TE-10),

DC (Air. to L. D. Roman)

Paul O. Huston, Paul Huston & Assoc., AL Thomas J. Lett, Albuquerque Fire & Safety Assoc., NM [SE]

(Member Emeritus) John E. Lodge, Lodge Fire Protection Consultancy Ltd, England

(Member Emeritus) James F. O'Regan, Westboro, MA [SE]

(Member Emeritus) Lawrence D. Roman, U.S. Nat'l Transportation Safety Board, DC David P. Short, Charlton Kings, Cheltenham, England

Staff Liaison: Mark T. Conroy

This list represents the membership at the time the Committee was balloted on the text of this edition. Since that time, changes in the membership may have occurred. A key to classifications is found at the back of this document.

Committee Scope: This Committee shall have primary responsibility for documents on aircraft rescue and fire-fighting services and equipment, for procedures for handling aircraft fire emergencies, and for specialized vehicles used to perform filese functions at airports, with particular emphasis on saving lives and reducing injuries coincident wifil aircraft fires following impact or aircraft ground fires. This Committee also shall have responsibility for documents on aircraft hand fire extinguishers andaccident prevention and fi~e saving of lives in future aircraft accidents involving fire.

The Report of file Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting is presented for adoption in 2 parts.

Part I of fitis Report was prepared by fine Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting, and proposes for adoption amendments to NFPA 403-1993, Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Services at Airports. NFPA 403-1993 is published in Volume 6 of the 1997 National Fire Codes and in separate pamphlet form.

Part I of tiffs Report has been submitted to letter ballot of die Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire F'Lghting which consists of 33 voting members in 2 Segments.

Segment No. 1 consists of Proposals 403-1 (Log #5) through 403- 9 (Log #6), and 403-11 (Log #7).

On Segment No. 1, 27 voted affirmatively, 2 negatively after circulation of negative ballots (Ms. Walden-Phillips and Ms. Wilson), 2 abstained (Messrs. Minnis and Wheeler-Osman), and 2 ballots were not returned (Messrs. Colet and Radford).

Ms. Walden-Phillips voted negatively stating: "I agree on file release of Proposals 403-1 through 40%8 and 403-

11. However, on 403-9 1 must object to since it removes flexibility of operation from the airport operator."

Ms. Wilson voted negatively stating: "This proposal removes file flexibility of airport operators to

supply water for tile average filerefore most likely needs. There are discrepancies regarding tile Air Force proposal."

Mr. Minnis abstained stating: "I only became a member ,as of April 4, 1997 and I don ' t know

tile issues."

Mr. Wheeler-Osman abstained stating: "I am happy with all in Segment 1 except 403-9 (Log #6). I

agree that the Tables 3-3.1(a) and (b) could state the maximum gall/liters instead of die medium but this would be in conflict with tile ICAO requirements which I contribute to as part of die Rescue and Fire Fighting Study Group. ICAO are currently considering adding a note to the appropriate Table in Annex 14 stating that file tables are based on the medium sized aircraft in any Group and aerodromes accepting larger aircraft need to take this into account-"

53

N F P A 4 0 3 1 A 9 8 R O P

Segmen t No. 2 consists of 403-10 (Log #CPI) .

On Segmen t No. 2, 21 voted affirmatively, 7 negatively after circulation of negative ballots (Messrs. Black, Darwin, Krasner, Ruggles, Scheffey, Ms. Walden-Phill ips ,and Ms. Wilson), 3 abs ta ined (Messrs. Minnis, Valois, a n d Whee le r -Osman) , a n d 2 ballots were not r e t u rned (Messrs. Colet a n d Patdford).

Mr. Black voted negatively stating: "I suppor t the c o m m e n t s m a d e by Larry Krasner a n d a belief

that an inclusion for file U.S. military draws tile s t andard away f rom an in ternat ional image which I u n d e r s t o o d die Association was most anxious to engender . "

Mr. Darwin voted negatively stating: "This r e c o m m e n d a t i o n is in essence a submit ta l f rom the U.&

Air Force. This r e c o m m e n d a t i o n in general , a n d specifically Tables 3-3.1(c) and 4-1•1(a), have no t received concu r r ence f rom tile o ther military services (Army, Navy, a n d Marine Corps). Since these tables are in conflict wifll the cu r ren t DOD directive on CFR requ i remen t s (DOD Instruct ion 6055.6 of December 15, 1994), this issne shou ld be resolved within DOD prior to any involvement of the NFPA a n d / o r the public.

Once the re is concur rence a m o n g the military services on quanti tat ive requ i rements and if senior officials at file DOD level agree on the appropr ia teness of inc luding DOD s tandards wiflfin 403 - t hen dfis proposal can be revisited. I feel it would be p rema tu re and inappropr ia te for tile commit tee to take any action at this t ime.

Also, daere has been a concer ted effort over tile years to impar t an in ternat ional flavor to the 403 s tandard (for example, we have inc luded fire f ight ing agents c o m m o n to certain European countr ies and lmve provided metr ic-equivalent tables). To sudden ly include U.S. military r equ i rements would deviate f rom the internat ional na ture of tile s tandard."

Mr. Krasn er voted negatively stating: "Tile proposal conta ins r equ i r emen t s which are inconsis tent

witll file s t andard ' s purpose a n d long establ ished teclmical methodology. Insufficient technical just if icat ion has been provided for die p roposed changes."

Mr. Ruggles voted negatively stating: "My reason for tile change is that I concur with the reasons

presen ted by Messrs. Darwin, Krasner, a n d Scheffy in dleir original negative vote."

Mr. Scheffey voted negatively stating: • Section 1-2.1 of NFPA states dmt tile pr imary purpose of die

s tandard is life safety. T he implicat ion in Substant ia t ion #1 and 2[) of tile proposal is tlmt asset value is also an impor tan t factor. This represents a dramat ic shif t in emphas is in the s tandard which, at the least, would require commi t tee action to modify tile purpose .

2. No teclmical link is made between tile cited LFA test and e~tluat ion references a n d the 3.5X factor p roposed for CAT 1-4. The LFA references never men t i on applicability to smaller aircraft.

3. Substant ia t ion 9B conce rn ing die inability of AFFF to control 3-D fires contradicts dae proposal to increase AFFF agen t for CAT 1-4. NFPA 403 provides secondary agen t to combat 3-D fires.

4. I agree with Commi t tee M e m b e r T o m Lett 's technical review of tile LFA references. This shou ld be made par t of file public record of tile commi t tee act ion a n d c o m m e n t and die proposer should re spond to the technical issues raised in this review.

5. T h e proposer indicated in the Commit tee Meet ing that the new Military Tables are for peace t ime operations. This is no t inc luded in file p roposed t ex t / l anguage . Wha t happens u n d e r non-peace t ime condit ions?"

Ms. Walden-Phill ips voted negatively stating: "I mus t object to tile release of Proposal 403-10 since some of

tile teclmical substant ia t ions rely on fine LFA reports f rom Tyndall AFB which conta in discrepancies ."

Ms. Wilson voted negatively stating: "This proposal removed file flexibility of airport operators to

supply water for die average therefore most likely needs• There are discrepencies regard ing tile Air Force proposal."

Mr. Minnis abs ta ined stating: "I only became a m e m b e r as of April 4, 1997 a n d I d o n ' t know

tile issn es."

Mr. Valois abs ta ined stating: "I f igured fltis would be Appendix material."

Mr. Wilee ler -Osman absta ined stating: "I abstain because I have insuff icient knowledge regarding

military aricraft. However, some of die substant ia t ion is emotive and inaccurate."

Part II of this Repor t was p repared by tile Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting and proposes for adopt ion a m e n d m e n t s to NFPA 412-1993, S tandard for Evaluating Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Foam Equipment. NFPA 412-1993 is publ i shed in Volume 6 of file 1997 National Fire Codes an d in separate p a m p h l e t form.

Part II of dais Repor t has been submi t t ed to letter ballot of die Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting, which consists of 33 vot ing members ; of whom 99 voted affirmatively, 1 negatively after circulation of negative ballots (Ms. Wilson), 1 abs ta ined (Mr. Minnis) , and 2 ballots were no t r e t u r n e d (Messrs. Colet a n d Radford.)

Ms. Wilson voted negatively stating: "This proposal removed the flexibility of airport operators to

supply water for file average tl lerefore most likely needs. There are discrepencies r egard ing die Air Force proposal."

Mr. Minnis absta ined stating: "I only became a m e m b e r as of April 4, 1997 and I d o n ' t know

tile issues."

54

N F P A 403 - - A 9 8 R O P

PART I

(Log #5) 403. 1 - (1-1): Reject SUBMITrER: George Freeman, Dallas, TX, Fire Dept. RECOMMENDATION: Insert the following text in between sentence one and two of Section 1-1, Scope:

"This includes initial triage and medical treatment of aircraft accident victims until such duties can be turned over to the local emergency medical services (EMS) provider? SUBSTANTIATION: The Scope of responsibilities and requirements of airport fire fighters at an aircraft accident scene were not complete. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: E.M.S. not covered in Chapters 2-7.

(Log #8) 403- 2- (1-2.$): Reject SUBMITTER: George Freeman, Dallas, TX, Fire Dept. RECOMMENDATION: Delete entire Paragraph 1-2.3 and replace with:

"The most important factors bearing on effective rescue and survivablility of victims of an aircraft accident are:. the speed of arrival to the crash scene of ARFF fire fighting and rescue units, the amount of water available for extinguishing the complete exterior and intcrior aircraft fires and the number of additional fire fighters available for interior fire attack, rescue and medical treatment of severely injured victims in the first two minutes of the crash incident. Factors bearing on the effectiveness of fwe fighters, rescue and medical staffing immediately available and the use of modern, well maintained fire and medical equipment in close proximity to the crash scene? SUBSTANTIATION: The old paragraph did not fully describe the complete role of fire fighting, rescue and medical treatment responsibilities of ARFF responders. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Complete extinguisiwnent may not be the priority for saving lives. Time frame of two minutes for medical treatment may not be achievable,

(Log #10) 403- 3 - (1-3, 2-2, 6-2): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: John Rooney, Tucson, AZ RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follow~

2-2 Emergency preparedness 2-2.1 Reword to read: "Airports shall prepare and maintain in current status an

airport/community emergency plan. The plan shall assign specific duties and responsibilities and indude all airport and community resources necessary to cope with a major aircraft emergency*.

2-2.2 Reword to read: "Airport/community plans shall be tested at least every two years

in the form of a full scale exercise as described in NFPA 424, "Guide For Airport/Community Emergency PlanningS/

2-2.3 (new) "Management level airport and resource personnel shall

participate in annual table top training exercises that encompasses their duties and responsibilities depicted in the emergency plan'.

1-3 Definitions Critical Rescue and Fire Fighting Access Area (CRFFAA) I. Definition should be reworded to match the one shown in

NFPA 402-1966 as follows: "The rectangular area surrounding any runway within wi~ich

most aircraft ~ can be expectedto occur on airports. Its width extends 500 ft (150 m) from each side of the runway centerline and its length is 3300 ft (1000 m) beyond each runway end."

2. The acronym (CRFFAA) should follow the definition as it does in die text and appendix.

3. (See Figure 1-A-3) should follow the definition paragraph. 4. Add acronyms (P.RA) and (CRFFAA) to Figure l-A-3. 6-2 Protective Clothing (Change to read: Protective Clothing

and eauiomenO 6-2.1 "Reword to read: "A complete set of approved personal protective ciothiog, and

equipment shall be provided, maintained and readily avadable for use by each personrequired to perform duties in the immediate area of an aircraft accident".

6-2.2 Reword to read: "Personal protective clothing and equipment shall meet the

requirements of the following NFPAStandardE (a) NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained

Breathing Apparatus For Fire Ftghters. (b) NFPA 1975, Standard on Station/Work Uniforms For Fire

Fighters. (c) (List other current applicable Standards for clothing,

helmets, hoods, gloves, etc.) ~ 6-2.3 (new) "All personnel engaged in operations within the immediate

emergency area of an aircraft accident shall wear complete personal protective dothing and equipment and shall not remove any portion of such clothing and equipment until in a declared safe area or directed to do so by the Incident Commander or their representative'. SUBSTANTIATION: 1-5 - Standardization of definitions and aP2Pllcadon of same in documents.

-2 - Changes reflect text in NFPA 424-1996. 6-2 - Section needs updating and clarification (6-2.2 needs more

current data). COMMITTRE ALWION: Accept in Principle.

Revise text as follows: 2-2 Emergency preparedness 2-2.1 Reword to read: "Airports shall prepare and maintain in current status an

airport/community emergency plan. The plan shall assign specific duties andresponsibllities and include all airport and community resources necessary to cope with a major aircraft emergency*.

2-2.2 Reword to read: "Airport/community emergency plans shall be tested at least

every two years in the form of a full scale exercise. A-2-2.2 information on Airport/community emergency plans and full scale exercises is provided in NFPA 424, "Guide For Airport~Community Emergency Planning'.

2-2.3 (new) "Airport management and resource agencies shall participate in

annual table top training exercises that encompasses their duties and responsibihttes depicted in the emergency plan".

1-3 Definitions Critical Rescue and Fire Fighting Access Area (CRFFAA) 1. Definition should be reworded to match the one shown in

NFPA 402-1966 as follows; "The rectangular area surrounding any runway within which

most aircraft ~ can be expected to occur on airport~ Its width extends 500 ft (15Ore) from each side of the runway centerline and its length is $300 ft (1000m) beyond each runway end."

2. The acronym (CRFFAA) should follow the definition as it does in the text and appendix.

5. (See Figure l-A-3) should follow the definition paragraph. 4. Add acronyms (RRA) and (CRFFAA) to Figure-l-A--3. 6-2. Protective Clothing. Change to read: Chapter 6 ARFF

personnel, protective clothing, and equipment. 6-2.1 Reword to read: "A complete set of approved personal protective dothing and

equipment shall be provided, maintained and readily available for use by each person required to perform duties in the immediate area of an aircraft accident".

A-6-2.1 Reword to read: "Personal protective clothing and equipment should meet the

requirements of tile following NFPAStandard~ (a) NFPA 1981, Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained

Breathing Apparatus For Fire Fighters. (b) N1~A 1"975, Standard on gtation/Work Uniforms For Fire

Fi~chters- ) NFPA 1976, Standard on Protective Glothing For Proximity

Fire Fighting (d) (List other current applicable Standards for clothing

helmets, hoods, gloves, etc.)" Canadian references for Personal Protective Equipment: FF protective dothing standard is : CAN/CGSB-155-1 FF protective boots standard is CAN/BNQ1923-410 U.K. Standard for foam: PREN 1568 part 5, Def 42-40 Issue 1.

ICAO U.K. Personal Protective Equipment (a) Helmets CE95 0194 HISLFS00CR/BSEN 166 1996 eoA (b) Visor CE96 HISL F40416 2A9. (c) Tunic/overtrousers (turnout gear) EN46g (d) Gloves EN469-5543 (e) Boots EN2863 GN697 6-2.2 (new) (Replaces existing 6-2.2, 6-2.5 and 6-2.4)

55

N F P A 403 E A 9 8 R O P

"All personnel engaged in operations widlin the immediate emergency area of an aircraft accident shall wear approved personal protective clothing and equipment commensurate with their levelof involvement and shall not remove any portion of such clothing and equipment until in a declared safe area or directed to do so by the Incident Commander or his representative". COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Made editorial changes and added references for clothing standards outside U.S.

(Log #3) 403- 4 - (1-3 ARFF Personnel): Reject SUBMYFrER: George Freeman, Dallas, TX, Fire Dept. RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph definition of ARFF Personnel and replace with:

"ARFF Personnel. Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) personnel responsible for providing fire fighting, and rescue services to aircraft accident sites at airports. They are also responsible for providing emergency medical t reatment to the survivors of aircraft accidents until such responsibilities can be turned over to local emergency medical responders." SUBSTANTIATION: The previous aircraft accident scene responsibilities of ARFF fire fighters were incomplete in the old definition. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The responsibility for EMS should be addressed in the airport emergency plan and may not necessarily be the responsibility of the ARFF personnel. Additionally, it is outside the scope of this document.

(Log #4) 403- 5 - (1-3 EMS and LFPE (New)): Reject SUBMITTER: George Freeman, Dallas, TX, Fire Dept. RECOMMENDATION: Add definitions:

EMS. The local Emergency Medical Services (EMS) provider on or near the airport that would be the primary group responsible for providing emergency medical t reatment and transportation to hospitals for the survivors of an aircraft accident.

LFPE. Tbe Local Fire Protection Entity (LFPE) is the group

~ dmarily responsible for providing ARFF services to an airport. UBSTANTIATION: Additional definitions needed.

COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: E.M.S. not covered in Chapters 2-7.

(Log #9) 403- 6- (2-1.1): Reject SUBMITTER: George Freeman, Dallas, TX, Fire Dept. RECOMMENDATION: Delete paragraph 2-1.1 and replace with:

2-1.1.1 The local fire protection entity (LEPE) having jurisdiction over ARFF services at the airport shall be responsible for the administration, training and operational control of airport fire fighters, rescue units, EMS providers, and their equipment. The LEPE shall be responsible for meeting the provisions of dais and other standards.

2-1.1.2 The airport management shall be responsible for supporting ~ services of the local fire protection entity with sufficient funding and administration support to assure meeting the provisions of this standard and protecting the safety of aircraft crash victims. SUBSTANTIATION: It is a major mistake to place fire department emergency services responsibilities with an airport manager who's future salary increases and bonuses are based on how much money they carl save, which often comes from providing insufficient support to ARFF services at airports. Airport managers have historically shown very little understanding o f the urgency and complexity of emergency service responsibilities. Airport managers are often willing to take the chance of providing insufficient level of support to ARFF programs because the inadequacies do not usually show up until a major crash occurs at their airport, which may or may not be Y~Oars from now.

MMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The new 2-2.1 of Proposal 463-3 (Log #10) provides further details for resources. The concerns addressed in the submitter's substantiation appear to be local funding issues that cannot be addressed in the standard.

(Log #1) 403- 7 - (Table 2-3.1 and $-3.1(a) and ( b ) ) : Reject SUBMITrER: B. Vic Hewes, AgSI RECOMMENDATION: Revise as follows:

Table 2-3.1: Revise aircraft lengths as follows:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 25 35 55 75 95 125 155 185 235 285

SUBSTANTIATION: Justification for PGA as quoted in nsdix and in ICAO report of RFFP2 is incorrect based on

report used by RFFP2. As a result of the recent report "Large Frame Aircraft Fire

Fighting Validation of TGA/PGA Methodology Evaluation" conducted by the USAF at Tyndal, it is proposed that the 403 Committee consider revising the formula to compute the agent quantities required in 3-3.1(a) and (b).

In 1972 the ICAO panel reduced the Theoretical Critical Area by 1/3 for economic and i~olitical reasons to be known as the "Practical Critical Area. The agent quantities produced by using the TC, A were considered too large to be accepted by the Air Navigation Commission and third world countries. The panel had to find some way to justify dais reduction. The USA Gage Babcock report recommended a one third TCA reduction but this was based on using a larger area, fuselage length X wing span for the critical area. The British ESAMS report covered 106 listed aircraft fire reports, but, dais document was misquoted in the panel report and in the present NFPA 403 appendix.

F_,SAMS 3.15.1 page 13 states: Although information has been limited, there has been sufficient

information from 106 reports to show that the amount of water for foam required to meet the DTI categories was insufficient to extinguish 30percen t of the aircraft fires. The Appendix shows that many of the fires that could be contained were wheel, brake and engine fires.

Table 3-3.1: Agent quantities based on TCA only. Efiminate PCA and Q3.

Airport Category

Max.. A/C F K"

Factor

Fuselage Gain Width K+W X L= QI=TCA % of QI Press. Qtys or

(W) TCA X R (.13) for Q~ Q2 Q=_QI+ Q~ NFPA 403 Loss

1 25 40 4 ft 1100 143 0 0 143 60 83 2 35 56 4 ft 6 in. 2118 275 27 75 350 185 165 3 55 60 5 ft 6 in. 3603 468 30 140 608 615 (7) 4 75 80 8 ft 9 in. 6668 867 58 503 1370 1200 170 5 95 100 11 ft 10545 1371 75 1028 2399 2700 (301) 6 125 100 12 ft 14000 1820 100 1820 3640 3450 190 7 155 100 13 ft 17515 2277 129 2937 5214 4550 664 8 185 100 19ft 22015 2862 152 4350 7212 7300 (88) 9 235 120 22ft 33370 4338 170 7375 11713 9000 2713 10 285 120 24ft 41040 5335 190 10137 15472 12200 3272

56

N F P A 4 0 3 - - A 9 8 R O P

NFPA 403-10, FAA AC 5210-6C and the ICAO report of RFFP 2 all state "out of 106 accidents for which information was available, in 99 cases or 93 percent the amounts recommended were in excess of those required by the actual aircraft accident." No such statement can 1?e found anywhere in the ESAMS retort .

Based on the large quantifies of agent, used in recent crash fires, simplification of the formula can be justified. The PCA should be eliminated and Q1 computations should be based on the TCA only.

For further simplification, it is recommended that the aircraft length criteria Table 2-3.1 be revised in units of 10. With aircraft lengths being constandy changed even for the same model aircraft, having to constandy rearrange categories cannot be justified.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 25 35 55 75 95 125 155 185 235 285

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle. 1. Add the following at the beginning of A-3-1.2.1: "Aqueous film forming foam agents meeting all of the criteria of

the Military Specification MIL-F-24385 appear on the Qualified Products List (QPL-24385-28).

Other Standards organization have fire test criteria comparable t o the U.S. MIL-F-24385.

The authority having jurisdiction should obtain from their foam I manufacturer, certification documentation on the foam fire !performance equivalency."

2. 3-1.2 Delete "approved or". COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Products listed on the QPL qualify as meeting the rail spec requirement, but paragraph 3-1.2.1 requires that the AFFF only pass the applicable fire extinguishment and burnback performance requirements of the 50 ft 2 fire test. Therefore the QPL material is only appropriate as Appendix material.

It is further reconmmnded that the K factor for category 10 should be increased to 120 for ultra-large and double deck aircraft due to the radiant heat effect on the long slides. COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject. COMMITTEE STATEMENT: Insufficient technical information provided to support the recommendation.

(Log #2) 403- 8 - (3-1.2.1): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: Richard E. Ottman, 3M RECOMMENDATION: Revise text as follows:

"Aqueous film forrrdng foam agents shall meet the Military Specification MIL-F-24385 and be listed on the Qualified Products List (QPL-24385-28)." SUBSTANTIATION: The current wordingis designed to provide AFFF agents that are formulated to the high standards of the mil- spec. If that is, in fact, the intent of the Committee, why not eliminate ,possible confusion in product selection and require that AFFF usea in ARFF vehicles meet the complete requirements of MIL-F-24385.

(Log #6) 403- 9 - (Table 3-3.1(a) and (b)): Accept in Principle SUBMITTER: George Freeman, Dallas, TX, Fire Dept. RECOMMENDATION: Change Table 3-3.1 under "(minimum extinguishing agent) water in U.S. Gallons" to reflect the maximum number of gallons needed instead of the average gallons needed in each aircraft category. This same problem is reflected in most columns of this table. SUBSTANTIATION: Table 3-3.1 is very misleading in the water quantities required instead of maximum water required for each aircraft group. This difference can be significant, especially in smaller aircraft groups. These tables should reflect the largest quantity of water needed in each category.

Note: Supporting material is available for review at the NFPA headquarters. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept in Principle.

] Change Tables 3-3.1(a) and (h) as shown below:

Table 3-3.1 (a) Minimum Extinguishing Agent Quantities and Discharge Rates

Fluoroprotein or Film Forming

AFFF Fluoroprotein Foam Water Discharge Water Discharge

Airport U.S. Rate U.S. Rate Category Gallons gpm Gallons gpm

1 118 60 163 75 2 195 130 270 180 3 670 230 812 310 4 1335 390 1618 530 5 2762 825 3344 1135 6 3744 1100 4704 1480 7 4877 1440 6272 1970 8 7778 1900 9808 2600 9 9570 2400 12289 3300

10 11764 3100 15326 4100

Potassium Protein Foam Bicarbonate Halon 1211

Water Discharge Discharge Discharge U.S. Rate Rate Rate

Gallons , g p m Pounds lbs/sec Pounds lb/sec 181 85 100 5 100 5 300 195 200 5 200 5 869 335 300 5 300 5

1731 575 300 5 300 5 3575 1230 450 5 450 5 5087 1620 450 5 450 5 6830 2150 450 5 450 5

10620 2845 900 10 900 10 13377 3480 900 10 900 10 16752 4600 900 10 900 10

Table 3-3.1(b) Minimum Extinguishing Agent Quantities and Discharge Rates Fluoroprotein or Film

Airport Category

'Water Liters

AFFF

Discharge Liters/rain

Forming Fluoroprotein Foam Protein Foam

Water Discharge Water Discharge Liters Liters/rain Liters Liters/rain

1 446.63 225 616.96 290 685.085 330 2 738.08 500 1021.95 680 1135.50 925 3 .'!535.95 800 3073.42 1165 3289.17 2900 4 5052.97 1500 6124.13 2000 6551.84 5700 5 10454.17 3 0 0 0 12657.04 4 3 0 0 13531.38 13000 6 1,1171.04 4 0 0 0 17804.64 5 6 0 0 19254.30 17200 7 18459.45 5 5 0 0 23739.52 7450 25851.55 23300 8 29439.73 7 0 0 0 37123.28 9 8 5 0 40196.70 31600 9 36222.45 9 0 0 0 46513.87 12500 50631.95 46200

10 4~526.74 1 1 7 0 0 58008.91 15500 63406.32 69300

Potassium Bicarbonate Halon 1211

Discharge Discharge Rate Rate

kg kg/min !~ kg/sec 45 2.25 45 2.25 9O 2.25 9O 2.25

135 2.25 135 2.25 135 2.25 135 2.25 205 2.25 205 2.25 205 2.25 205 2.25 205 2.25 205 2.25 410 4.5 410 4.5 410 4.5 410 4.5 410 4.5 410 4.5

57

N F P A 4 0 3 m A 9 8 R O P

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The revised tables reflect the intent of the submitter's recommendation.

The figures used for calculating Table 3-3.1 (a) are as follows:

CAT L(FT) W(FT) 1 29.9 6.5 2 38.9 6.5 3 58.9 9.7 4 77.8 12.9 5 89.9 12.9 6 125.9 16.3 7 159.9 16.3 8 199.9 22.9 9 249.9 2Z9 10 299.9 24.9

(Log #CP1) 403- I0 - (Table ~-3.1 (c) and Table 4-1.1(a)): Accept SUBMI~ER: Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire

~l~ hting COMMENDATION: Add the following tables shown at the

bottom of this page: SUBSTANTIATION: 1. NFPA criteria for minimum extinguishing agent quantities and discharge rates (Table 3-3.1) call enough agent to extinguish 90 percent of the fire in one minute. Their emphasis is on the protection of passengers, primarily because the assets are insured. An additional 1.7 minutes of agent if for fire extinguishment, if possible, for a total agent application time of 2.7 minutes.

Table $-~.1 ~ ~uantitles DOD FAA ICAO NFPA AFFF DISCHARGE

CAT INDEX CAT CAT WATER US. GALLONS RATE GPM

1 GA-1 1 1 qa+q2/S.5Xq1)+q3=850 60

2 GA-2 2 2 ql+q~3.5xq1)+q3=1100 130

3 GA-3 3 3 Q1 +q2 (3.5XQ1) +Q3=1650 230

4 A 4 4 O1 +Q,2 ~3.5XO~1) +O3=2600 390

5 A 5 5 2700 825

6 B 6 6 3450 1100

7 C 7 7 4550 1440

8 D 8 8 7300 1900

9 E 9 9 9000 2400

10 10 12200 3100

NOTE: This table pertains only to military aircraft operating from military installations.

of Defense Facilities Potassium Halon 1211

Bicarbonate Pounds Discharge Pounds Discharge

Rate Rate lbs/sec lbs/sec

100 5 100 5

200 5 200 5

300 5 300 5

300 5 300 5

450 5 450 5

450 5 450 5

450 5 450 5

900 10 900 10

900 10 900 l0

900 10 900 10

Table 4-1.1 (a) DOD CAT

Minimum Number of ARFF Vehicles for De

8

9

10

FAA INDEX

ICAO CAT

GA-2 3

A 4

A 5

B 6

D 8

E 9

~artment of Defense (DOD) Facilities NFPA NUMBER CAT OF VEHICLES

1 2

2 2

3 2

4 2

5 2

6 2

7 3

8 3

9 4

10 4

NOTE: This table pertains only to military aircraft operating from military installations.

58

N F ~ A 4 0 3 ~ A 9 8 R O P

2. DOD criteria is essentially the same but fire fighting agent amounts and times must be extended in sets one through four for DOD aircraft to ensure sufficient fire fighting agent is available to successfully perform fire control/extinguishment and perform rescue operations. The type aircraft that requires aircraft included in Airport categories 1-4 present major fire fighting characterics not associated with the smaller civilian aircraft. Following are some examples:

?~ Fuel Capaci~ As shown in supporting material, (DOD Fighter A/C us Civilian A/C comparison) the fuel capacity ranges from 2.8X to as much as 4.3 X the amount of fuel carried on the fighter aircraft than the civilian A/C of file same set. The amount o f fuel on board the aircraft has a direct impact on the ability to apply agent of the fire at tile recommended application rate (.13 gpm/sq ft) to achieve tile 90 percent fire control within file first minute upon arrival. This was a major consideration in tile DOD requirement for additional agent.

Note: Supporting material is available for review at the NFPA headquarters.

B. Hazardous Material~ Many of the A/C mehxls, metal alloys and composite materials used in tile fighter A/C create unique fire conditions that must be dealt with during fire fighting operations. Experience has shown that pool fires can be successfully extinguished however, tile running fuel or tbree- deminsional fires cannot be effectively extinguished with a two dimensional agent such as AFFF.

C. W ~ p o n Systems: Fighter A/C carry various types and amounts of conventional and nuclear armauent ranging in weight from 14,000 to 17,000 pounds. These munitions range from 20 MM cannon, missiles, flares, general purpose bomb (250-20001b) etc. The A/C are also equipped with canopy and ejection seat pyrotechnics. Additionai agent is required to cool weapons if they have been exposed to fire which is not taken into consideration in the NFPA c,'dculatlons.

D. Aircraft Cost: Fighter A/C cost range from $25.0M (F-18) to $42.6M (Fl17) without weapon involvement in comparison to tile civilian range of $4.59M (Learjet 31A) to $11.4M (ATR 42). Aithough A/C cost is not a major factor in determining gallonage in NFPA 403 file government is self insured and have considerably more at risk than the our civilian counterpart.

3. In determining wbat tile minimum agent requirements for Airport Category 1-4, we relied on past fire incident reports and two recent technical reports by Wright Laboratory Fiight Dynamics Directorate, Tyndall AFB FL. Tile two technical reports used were Large Frame Aircraft (LFA) Fire Fighting Validation and Large Frame Aircraft TCA/PGA Methodology Evaluation. In these reports it indicated that file amount of fire fighting agent actually used in fire fighting incidents was approximately 4.9 times file amount of agent authorized in NFPA 403 for the particular set the A/C happened to belong in. However, that number appeared to be high which could have been driven by one military aircraft incident flint used extremely large amounts of agent. That incident involved more than one A/C which is not a typical incident that a department would expect to respond to. Tile majority of these incidents used in the data analysis were large frame A/C that fall into Airport Category 6-0. We therefore took a more conservative and realistic value to determine what would acceptable for A/G that fall into Airport Categories 1-4.

Military Type Length

U-I 0 31'

T-28 32' 31.5 m F-18 49' 4 ~ 2.5 m F-18 56'

MH-53[ 73'4"

F-14 02'8 ~ 35 m F-15* 63'9" 42.6 m F-117" 65' 11 ~

Fuel Capacity

146.5

4. In determining what formula to use we decided to modify the existing formula used in NFPA 403. Therefore to determine what the DOD requirements would be for Airport Categories 1-4 we would use die following formula:

QI= Water requirement for control of PGA Q2= Water requirement to maintain control or extinguish the

remaining fire or both Q$= Water requirement for interior ftre fighting Tile method for calculating the values for each component are

provided below: Q1 = PCA x RXT

PCA ffi (0.67) × TeA, TeA = L X (K+W), and L = length of A/C R - Application rate of selected agent T - Time of application (1 minute), and K = Values shown below FEET K = 59 w h e r e L = less than 39 ft = 46 where L = 39 up to but not including 59 = 56 where L = 59 up to but not including 79

= 98 where L = 79 and over tile value of Q2 as 3.5X the amount of Q1 (used only for DOD

Category 1-4, otherwise use existing percent of Q1 as identified in NFPA 403)

The values of Q3 are based on accepted water flow requirement for the type of fire fighting operations to be experienced when combating an interior aircraft fire. Airport Category were changed to include Q3 at 300 gal. This additional amount of water is required to provide sufficient amount of agent on initial response plus fighting of 3-dimensional fires, protecting against running fuel or protecting munitions etc.

Q3 ,. 2~0 gal for DoD Category 1-3 Q3 = 600 gal for DoD Category 4

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #7) 403- 11 - (Table 4-1.1): Reject SUBMrFrER: George Freeman, Dallas, TX, Fire Dept. RECOMMENDATION: Revise category 6 ARFF vehicle requirement to be three vehicles instead to two. SUBSTANTIATION: Document 97 C:

4. Given the very large quantities of water that has been required at aircraft accidents in this category and the very large portion of commercial aviation these aircraft groups represent, there is a need to upgrade this requirement to three vehides. This also allows increased fire fighters effectiveness at crash sites by allowing a broader based, multi-angle approach of ARFF vehicles to extinguish tile fuel fire more quickly. This also reflects a previous recommendation by the Airline Pilots Association (ALPA). COMMITTEE ACTION: Reject.

Aircraft F'~ref'tghter Vehicle Support

~ t ~ o ~

2

178.6 2

2109 3

~0~ 1838 $

3706 4

Commercial Type

~.9 m Beech King Air C90B

1.6m Starkraft SK-700

4.505 m Cessna 550 Citation

4.59 m Lea~,'et 31A

Beech ~ n ~[ Air 350 7.5 'nil

Embraer EMB-120 711.0 m ATR 42

35'6"

Fuel Capacity Disparity

384 None

$6' 325 None

47' 2.5"

4 8 ' 8 n

46'8"

747

640 380

882 65' 7.5" 7

74'4.5" 3076 4 1506

2812 4 Fairchild Metro 23 59' 4.25" 648

2.8x 4.2x

4.8x

3.5x

2.4x

4.3x

*Aircraft Carries 14K to 17K of weapons, flare and craft dispensers, canopy and ejection seat pyrotechnics, exotic fuels and various dangerous composites.

59

N F P A 4 0 3 ~ A 9 8 R O P

COMMITTEE STATEMENT: The quantity of agent in Table 3-3.1 (a) can be met with one vehicle but tile committee felt that two are needed f rom a tactical s tandpoint and therefore requires this in Table 4-1.1. The standard does not prohibit the use of three vehicles to satisfy tile requi rement but is not convinced by die submitted rationale tllat dtis should be tile min imum criterim

60

N F P A 4 1 2 - - A 9 8 R O P

PART II

(Log #CP3) 412- 1 - (2-1 through 2-3.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire

~]~c~)n~iENDATION: Revise Chapter 2 to read as follows: Chapter 2 Rescue and Fire Fighting Vehicle Foam Production Performance Testing 9-1 Foam and Foam System Tests. 2-1.1 The expansion and 25 percent drainage time are the foam

characteristics that shall be determined. Additionally, the foam concentration shall be determined, both as a test of the vehicle proportioning s~tem, and to establish the legitimacy of the expansion and drainage data obtained. Foam distribution patterns shall be determined for use in calculating the area of fire that the vehicle is capable of controlling.

2-2 Turret Nozzles, (;round Sweep Nozzles, and Hand Hose Line Nozzles.

2-2.1 The foam distribution patterns shall meet the requirements of NFPA 414, Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Vehicles, when tested as specified in Section 4-4 or 4-5of this standard.

2-2.2 Foam samples shall be obtained by the methods given in 4-3.1.3 of this standard.

2-2.3 Foam sampl~ shall be analyzed for expansion and drainage time using the criteria specified in Section 3-1 of this standard.

2-2.4 Foam samples shall be analyzed for concentration as specified in Section 3-2 of this standard.

2-3 Undertrnck Nozzles. 2-3.1 The foam distribution pattern shall provide protection for

the area beneath the vehicle. 2-3.2 Foam samples shall be collected and analyzed for

concentration as specified in Section 3-2 of this standard. SUBSTANTIATION: Revised to track the recent revision of NFPA 414; consolidate requirement for turrets, ground sweep nozzles and handline nozzles. [Also, see Committee Proposal 412-2 (Log #CPt) for newparaga'aph numbers.] COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CP6) 412- 2 - (Chapter 4): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting

I RECOMMENDATION: Revise the order of Chapter 4 as follows: SUBSTANTIATION: This represents a more logical order in which the tests should be conducted. COMMI3q'EE ACTION: Accept.

New Subject

Old Paragraph #

4-1 Preparation for Testing. The following general preparations shall be made prior to conducting concentration, expansion/drainage, and pattern testing:

(a) The vehicle water and foam systems shall be verified to be operational;

(b) The pressure and flow characteristics of each vehicle oudet shall be verified to be in accordance with NFPA 414, Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Vehicles;

(c) Before conducting tests, the piping systems shall be flushed;

(d)* A sample of foam concentrate from the vehicle concentrate tank shall be obtained to form the baseline for concentration determinations and to determine if the agent concentrate in the vehiclehas not been contaimnated. This sample shall be compared with a virgin sample of the same concentrate from a new foam container from the same manufacturer. Any difference in concentration measurement between the tank and virgin samples indicates possible water contamination of the tank concentrate. A-4-1 (d) To ensure that the foam concentrate from vehicle tank(s) has not been contaminated, a foam concentrate sample from the foam tank(s) should be compared to a new virgin sample fo the same type and brand. Any significant difference indicates possible water contamination of the foam concentrate in the vehicle. The methods used for concentrate comparison should be as described in 4-4.

4-2 4-3 Expansion & Drainage

Concentration 44

4-4 Ground Sweep/Hand Hosh Line 4-5 Turrett 4-6 Report

(New)

4-3.1 Tide: "General Requirement s for Expansion and Drainage Methods" 4-2 4-1 4-5

(Log #CP 412- 3 - (4-3.2 through 4-3.2.2.4): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting RECOMMENDATION: Reinstate test method "A" from the 1987 edition of NFPA 412 as follows:

4-3.2 Test Method A. 4-3.2.1 Foam Sampling Apparatus. 4-3.2.1.1 The foam sample collector shall be constructed as

specified in Figure 4-3.2.1.

61

N F P A 4 1 2 - - A 9 8 R O P

Figure 4-3.2.1 Aqueous film forming foam sample collector.

4-3.2.1.2 The foam sample shall be collected in a standard 1000- ml capacity graduated cyhnder. The cylinder shall be cut off at the 1000-ml mark to ensure a fixed volume of foam as a sample. The cylinder shall be marked in 10-ml graduations below the 100-ml mark.

4-3.2.2 Test Procedure. 4-3.2.2.1 The empty weight of the foam sample container shall be

recorded to the nearest gram on a balance having a maximum capacity sufficient to weigh the foam sample container and the foam sample. The foam sample collector shall then be located in the center of the discharge pattern determined in Section 4-5. the foam sample container shallbe positioned at the bottom of the foam collector so that the foam hitting the collector flow into the container. The foam nozzle shall be aimed off the side of the foam collector, adjusted to its normal operating pressure, and then moved so as to discharge foam onto the foam sample collector. As soon as the foam sample container has been completely filled with foam, the discharge nozzle shall be shut off and the timing of the 25 percent drainage started.

4-3.2.2.2 The foam sample container shall be removed from the base of foam collector, excess foam struck off the top of the foam container using a straight edge, and any. remaining foam. wiped from the outside surface of the contmner. The container shall then be placed on the balance. The total weight of the foam sample and container shall be determined to the nearest gram. The weight of the foam sample in the container shall be determined by subtracting the weight of the empty container from die weight of the container filled with the foam. The weight of die foam sample in grams shall be divided by four to obtain the equivalent 25 percent drainage volume in milliliters.

4-3.2.2.3* The foam sample container shall be placed on a level surface at a convenient height. At 30-second intervals, die level of accumulated solution in the bottom of the cylinder shall be noted and recorded. The drainage time versus the volume relationship shall be recorded until the 25 percent volume has been exceeded. The 25 percent drainage time shall then be interpolated from die data.

A-4-3.2.2.3 The following is an example calculation of drainage time. The net weight of the foam sample in the foam container is assumed to be 200 grams. Since one gram of foam solution occupies approximately one milliliter (ml), the total volume of foam soluuon contained in the given foam sample is 200 ml.

Volume of Solution 200 ml 25% Drainage Volume . . . . 50 ml

4 4

The time versus solution volume data is recorded as follows:

Assumed Drained Time Solution Volume

Min:sec in Milliliters 0:00 0 0:30 10 1:00 20 1:30 30 2:00 40 2:30 50 3:00 60

It is seen that the 25 percent volume of 50 ml lies within the 2- to ~-min period. The increment to be added to the lower value of 2 min is found by interpolation of the data:

50 ml (25% V o l u m e - 40 ml (2 rain Volume) =--=10 0.5

60 ml (3 min Volume) - 40 ml (2 min Volume) 20

Therefore, the 25 percent drainage time is found by adding 0.5 rain to 2.0 min, giving a final value of 2.5 min or 2 rain 30 sec.

4-3.2.2.4 Foam samples of the foam shall be weighed to tile nearest gram. The expansion of the foam shall be calculated by the following equation:

Expansion - 1000 ml

full weight minus empty weight in gram:

Renumber existing 4-3.2 accordingly and retltle as test method B Replace Table 3-1 with the following:

Table 3-1 Foam Quality Re guirements Minimum Solution

25% Drainage Time in Minutes

Foam Agents

AFFF or FFFP Air-Aspirated 5:1 AFFF or FFFP 3:1 Non- Air-Aspirated Protein 8:1 Fluoroprotiein 6:1

Minimum F~!~an.slon Test Test

Katio MethodA Method B

3 2.25 1 0.75

N/A 10 N/A 10

SUBSTANTIATION: Problems with the apparatus of the one method in the 1993 edition of NFPA 412 and accurately determining results indicates a need to reinstate the simpler method "A" from the 1987 edition as an alternative method. Method "A" is also in general field use. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

62

N F P A 4 1 2 ~ A 9 8 R O P

(Log #CP5) 412- 4 - (4-3.2.1.2): Accept SUBMITTER: T e c h n i c a l C o m m i t t e e on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fight ing R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Replace the existing Figure 4-3.2.1.2 with

d i e following:

~-- 3.9-in. (100-mm) --~ diameter

7.9 in. (200 mm)

I, ram) inside diameter

FIGURE 4-3.2.1.2 1600-ml Foam sample container,

SUBSTANTIATION: T h e 1/16 in. inside d iameter d imens ion was eroneously omi t ted f rom the 1993 edition. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CPI) 412- 5 - (4-4.1and 4-4.3): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Commi t tee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fi h t ing ~ C O M M E N D A T I O N : Replace existing Sections 4-4.1 and 4-4.3 with tile following:

4-4.2* Fomn solut ion concent ra t ion shall be de t e rmi ned us ing one of the following me t hods as descr ibed in 4-4.3 or 4-4.4. When test ing foam concent ra t ion f rom vehicles, tile lowest flow rate out let shall be tested first. One hand-he ld refractometer , or one band-he ld conductivity mete r suRable for file foam concent ra te being tested shall be used. M e t hod B shall be used only when us ing a refractometer . Refractive index readings shall be taken by placing a few drops of solut ion on the ref rac tometer prism, closing die cover plate, and observing the scale reading at the dark field intersection. Or, if us ing conductivity, the probe shall be d ipped into the sample and the digit,'d scale read.

4-4.3 Metl lod A (Refractometer or Conductivity Meter) - A calibration curve shall be p repared us ing the following appara tus a n d procedure .

4-4.3.1 Appara tus - In prepar ing tile calibration curve, file following appara tus s h a l l b e used:

(a) th ree 100-mL graduates (b) one measur ing pipette (10-mL capacity) (c) orie lO0-mL beaker (d) one 500-mL beaker 4-4.3.2 Procedure - Using water and foam concent ra te f rom the

tanks of fl~e vehicle to be tested, three s tandard solutions shall be made up by pipe fit t ing into flwee lOO-mL gradua ted cylinders, volumes of foam concent ra te in milliliters equal to:

(a) the nomina l concent ra t ion of the foam concent ra te (b) 1 /3 more than the nomina l concent ra t ion (c) 1 /3 less than the nomina l concent ra t ion .

The g radua ted cylinders shall t hen be filled to the 1O0-mL mark with the water. After thorough ly mixing, a refractive index readin I shall be taken o f each s tandard. A p l o t shall be mad e on g raph paper of the scale reading against the known foam solution concentra tes and sh.'fll serve as a calibration curve for dais part icular series of foam tests.

4-4-3.3* Test Sample Concent ra t ion - Port ions o f solution dra ined out du r ing the previously descr ibed dra inage test shall be used as a source of test sample for the concent ra t ion de terminat ion . Refractive index or conductivity readings of the te: sample shall be compared to t he calibration curve an d the cor respond ing foam solut ion concent ra t ion read f rom die graph.

4-4.4 Medlod B (Refractometer only) - A calculation s h a l l b e made us ing the following appara tus a n d p rocedure :

44.4.1 Appara tus - The concent ra t ion de te rmina t ion shall be made us ing tile following apparatus:

(a) three clean plastic or glass conta iners (b) one d roppe r or pipette 4-4.4.2 Procedure - Using water a n d foam concentra te f rom the

tanks of the vehicle to be tested, sample concent ra t ions shall be d e t e r m i n e d as follows:

: (a) Obtain a foam concent ra te sample in a clean conta iner a n d !label "foam concentra te ."

(b) Obtain a water sample f rom the t ruck water tank or p u m p water d ischarge in a second clean conta iner and label "water."

(c) Allow foam solution to discharge f rom a hosel ine or turre t for at least 30 seconds. Obtain a foam solut ion sample f rom dae discharge device in a third clean conta iner and l a b e l " fo am solution." The por t ions of d ra ined solut ion obta ined du r ing die previously descr ibed dra inage test may be used for the "foam solut ion" sample.

(d) A refractive index reading shall be taken for the water sample. Record the reading as R w.

(e) Clean the ins t rument . (0 Repeat step (d) with foam concentrate . Record the reading

as R c. I ~ Clean the ins t rument .

Repeat step (d) with foam solution. Record the reading as R s.

4-4.4.3 Test Sample Concent ra t ion - De te rmine the foam concent ra t ion of the foam solution sample by calculating die following fo rmula us ing die readings obta ined in steps (d), (f), and (h) above.

% foam solut ion concentra t ion Rs - R w = x 100 Rc - R w

S U B S T A N T I A T I O N : This proposal would add an alternative m e t h o d for establishing foam solut ion concent ra t ion . Th e refractive index of foam solution follow a l inear relat ionship consis tent with the fo rmula y=mx+b. T h e proposed new alternativ, m e t h o d reduces the need to create a calibration curve. The new m e t h o d for de t e rmin ing concent ra t ion has been used successfully for nearly 15 years by the US Navy. The p roof of this relat ionship shown in the a t tached documen ta t ion , a long with the US Navy s tandard procedure .

The proposal retains dae old calibration curve m e t h o d as an opt ion for refractive index; this m e t h o d is appropr ia te for the conductivity m e t h o d since conductivity is no t l inear over file entir, 0-10O percen t concent ra t ion range. The existing text has been edited to avoid r edundancy in descr ibing the ref rac tometer a n d conductivity procedures .

You Have Two Retrac tometer Readings: Pure Concent ra te (AFFF % = 100%) Water (AFFF % = 0%) From these, you can easily calculate the pe rcen t concent ra t ion o

any foam sample by reading the refractive index of the foam samp ,and us ing the following:

AFFF % = Ri Foam Samole - Ri Water x 100 (of Foam Sample) R i Pure Conc - R i Water

63

N F P A 4 1 2 - A 9 8 R O P

Pure cone

R i Foam sample

Water i i I I

X 100

AFFF %

Since the triangles are similar:

X = Z 100 Z

x = _Y x 100 Z

x = Ri Fnam Sample - Ri Water x 100 R i Pure C o n c - R i Water

Note: Could also derive from definition of straight line "s lope/ in tercept" formula:

Y = m x + b

COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CP7) 412- 6 - (Figure A-4-3.2): Accept SUBMITrER: Technical Commit tee on Aircraft Rescue ,and Fire

~ hting COMMENDATION: Delete the existing graph and add the

following appendix material:

I A-4-3.2 Method A procedures are used to provide reference a lil on wltich the reading of the solution tested is plot ted to determin, it's exact concentrat ion. Figure A-4-K2 shows a typical graph usin 6 percent AFFF solution. SUBSTANTIATION: Added explanation and sample for using test results. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

(Log #CP 412- 7 - (A-4-4.2(e)): Accept SUBMITTER: Technical Commit tee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire 15gbting

I I ~ C O M M E N D A T I O N : Revise A-4-4.2(e) to read as follows: I "The equ ipmen t used to de te rmine concentrat ion shall enable tl I user to accurately measure if the foam solution produced by I propor t ioning equipment is within the tolerance specified in 3-').2 [ and 34-2.3. Examples include: one hand-held refractometer - [ American Optical co. Model No. 10430 or equivalent; or one ban I held conductivity meter - Omega Model CDFI-70 or equivalent. I ATAGO Co. Ltd. Model No. N10, AO Model No. 10441, or

equivalent showing 0-10 on the brix scale is r e c o m m e n d e d to enable low readings given by AFFF solutions to be read easily."

However, low range refractometers (e.g., 0-10 Brix) may not be able to provide a 100 percent concentrat ion reading of the foam concentrate when using Method B. This is particularly true when using 1 percen t and 3 percent foam concentrates. SUBSTANTIATION: It's inappropriate to put manufacturer model numbers in the body of the s tandard .

(Note: The body paragraph was change by anodler proposal. The above paragraph designation should be changed accordingly. COMMITTEE ACTION: Accept.

3.(

2.(

1.0 3% sample

1 2 3

FIGURE A-4-3.2

9% s a m p l e ~ -

/ 6% sample ~ , r

I / ~.....4 i I J

Acceptable range from turret or ground _ sweep samples

I i I 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

% Concentration Typical ~raph usln¢ AFFF (6%1

64