hangar fire extinguisher

[[email protected]]

I see a neighbor's hangar has two conventional fire extinguishers on
the wall. Not a bad idea, I'm sure. But for potential hangar fires are
halon still the best or are the conventional extinguishers just fine?

[JerryK]

I would rather have a convential fire extinguisher. That would much better
if a pile of rags or paper or plabe caught on fire. Plus you can get a huge
convetional fire extinguisher for the cost of a tiny halon (or whatever the
replacement stuff is called) unit.


> wrote in message
...
> I see a neighbor's hangar has two conventional fire extinguishers on
> the wall. Not a bad idea, I'm sure. But for potential hangar fires are
> halon still the best or are the conventional extinguishers just fine?

[Dave S]

I may be out of the loop but I thought Halon was on the EPA's ****list..

From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, plain old dry chem ABC will work
fine for most of what you will come across. If you have anything that
involves magnesium, you might want a class D (metal) fire extinguishing
agent.

Dry chem can be corrosive if left sitting on a surface and it TASTES
like crap to get a mouthful of it (personal experience here) but if you
clean it off after things cool down, collateral damage in most
hydrocarbon fires can be minimized. If you have a fire in your radio
stack, the stack is likely toast anyways, but any use of Dry chem will
guarantee it.

Dave PPSEL

wrote:

> I see a neighbor's hangar has two conventional fire extinguishers on
> the wall. Not a bad idea, I'm sure. But for potential hangar fires are
> halon still the best or are the conventional extinguishers just fine?
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave S wrote:
>
> I may be out of the loop but I thought Halon was on the EPA's ****list..

It is. Nobody's making it anymore, but there are outfits that salvage Halon
from old extinguishers and other equipment and fill new containers with it.
That, of course, makes Halon extinguishers pretty expensive these days.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

[G.R. Patterson III]

wrote:
>
> I see a neighbor's hangar has two conventional fire extinguishers on
> the wall. Not a bad idea, I'm sure. But for potential hangar fires are
> halon still the best or are the conventional extinguishers just fine?

I've been told that it is extremely expensive to repair the damage if a
dry chemical extinguisher is used on a running engine. Even if nothing's
running, cleanup can be a big job. If the fire doesn't involve the plane,
a big dry chemical unit is far cheaper and easier to find than a Halon
unit. Even if it does involve the plane, dry chem is far better than no
extinguisher at all.

I keep a Halon unit in my aircraft. If I had a hangar, I would have a
fair sized dry chemical unit in the middle of each side wall.

George Patterson
They say that nothing's certain except death and taxes. The thing is,
death doesn't get worse every time Congress goes into session.
Will Rogers

[Craig]

Dave S > wrote in message >...
> I may be out of the loop but I thought Halon was on the EPA's ****list..

It is and for most instances you can't get the bottles serviced
anymore, but it can be found.


>
> From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, plain old dry chem ABC will work
> fine for most of what you will come across. If you have anything that
> involves magnesium, you might want a class D (metal) fire extinguishing
> agent.

Also helps to have a decent CO2 unit around. I've been at a friend's
hangar when there have been two engine start fires over the years.
The dry chemical unit made a hell of a mess and the user was able to
only put about 10% of it in the area of the fire because of a breeze
blowing. With the CO2, we could get right up on it and snuff it quick
enough that nothing even got scorched.

Clean-up with the dry chem was several hours and required pulling the
engine off and opening it up to make sure there was no internal
damage ( powder went up the intake and the air/oil separator).

Craig C.

[Tom S.]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dave S wrote:
> >
> > I may be out of the loop but I thought Halon was on the EPA's ****list..
>
> It is. Nobody's making it anymore, but there are outfits that salvage
Halon
> from old extinguishers and other equipment and fill new containers with
it.
> That, of course, makes Halon extinguishers pretty expensive these days.

The Citation jets use Halon 1211 pressurized to 600psi for their engine fire
extinguishing systems. I suspect other use the same chemical, but the EPA
will make it cost six times as much to recharge the systems. But, alas,
they're from the government and here to _help_ you.

Tom
--
The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They
have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of
government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their
principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine
for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times
out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by
looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage,
and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods.
- H. L. Mencken