Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 02:02:33 -0500
From: Glenn Murray <GMURRAY@compuserve.com>
Subject: COZY: Fire Extinguisher

Which would be the most suitable fire-extinguisher to carry in the Cozy?

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 08:11:11 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Fire Extinguisher

I have a Halon extinguisher in a bracket forward of the instrument panel next to the lower longeron 
on left side. I could reach it in flight if necessary. Halon leaves no residue, though the gas in 
flight might be an issue. Dry powder would be worst plus leaves a corrosive residue.

Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 17:10:48 -0800
From: michael amick <mkamick@wans.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fire Extinguisher

> From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
> 
> I have a Halon extinguisher in a bracket forward of the instrument panel
> next to the lower longeron
> on left side. I could reach it in flight if necessary. Halon leaves no
> residue, though the gas in
> flight might be an issue. Dry powder would be worst plus leaves a
> corrosive residue.
> 

sdbish@juno.com wrote:

> Agree with  the above.    Don't believe the Halon gas is harmful to
> individuals,  although it does displace oxygen.   However,  I would
> invision there would be sufficient exchange of air during flight,   and
> the duration would be short enough,  that this is not an overbearing
> issue,   just something to be aware of.
> 
> Marv Bishop
> 


Are Halom fire extinghers still availa ble?  I thought they were banned.
I have had some of the real small ones around my house, shop & cars for
several years but would like to replace them.  Anybody have a web or
other address?

Date: Tue, 05 Jan 1999 18:34:03 -0800
From: Eric Westland <ewestland@altavista.net>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fire Extinguisher



michael amick wrote:

>
> Are Halom fire extinghers still availa ble?  I thought they were banned.
> I have had some of the real small ones around my house, shop & cars for
> several years but would like to replace them.  Anybody have a web or
> other address?

Actually, they are still available for "aviation use" and can be ordered from
Aircraft Spruce to name one.  The one I just got said on it that it is good
for 20 years.

Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 16:43:09 -0500
From: bil kleb <w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fire Extinguisher

Glenn Murray wrote:
> 
> Which would be the most suitable fire-extinguisher to carry in the Cozy?

depending on how you feel about advice from the faa, you might have
a look at their advisory circular 20-42c, "Hand Fire Extinguishers
for use in Aircraft".  most ac's are available online from the aopa
(http://www.aopa.org/members/files/ac/) if you are a member...
 
-- 
bil <mailto:w.l.kleb@larc.nasa.gov>

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:57:04 -0600 (CST)
Subject: re: COZY: Fire Extinguisher

Desosa asked <I thought that Halon extinguishers were no longer being 
produced.  >
The Halon is a gas that is felt to affect the Ozone layer, along with R-12 
freon, and others. There has not been found a suitable replacement, so in 
very limited useage it is permitted. I have been involved in replacement of 
Halon systems with water sprinklers systems in large computer rooms. The EPA 
required, and was much push - pull over what is right, and I won't get in the 
middle of that one. 

Date: Thu, 07 Jan 1999 11:09 -0600 (CST)
From: Michael Pollock <Michael.Pollock@mci.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Fire Extinguisher

Bill Kleb wrote:

> most ac's are available online from the aopa
>(http://www.aopa.org/members/files/ac/) if you are a member...

If you are not a member, you can also obtain a copy of AC20-42C at the following URL if interested:

http://www.faa.gov/so/fs/fsdo15/files/advcir/ac20-42c.asc

 

Date: Wed, 06 Jan 1999 08:59:49 +0200
From: Rego Burger <BurgerR@telkom.co.za>
Subject: COZY: Fire Extinguishers

Our Fire chief suggests Dry Powder with Bicarb as the base element for
both electrical and oil fires as far as portable extinguishers go.This
is our worst nightmare but good to consider in our planing of things.The
Bicarb is an ant-acid and should not be corrosive nor too harmful in the
cabin for occupants, it would help for indigestion too! ( the
bicarb.)He, the Fire Chief, recons that the best way to kill a fire is
using CO2...this is not "user-friendly" in the cabin but very good on
oil or fuel fires.....BUT do not come in portable containers under 4kg
+/- 8lbs and are tall +/- 2 ft.
   I don't think we have too many choices here but to take every care to
avoid fire hazards...correct electrical installations, wire and
protection (CB's or fuses) for the cabin.Good fire protection firewall -
aft ( pushers ) to contain the fire... to give us time to land and leave
the fire control to ground staff if all go's well. If you do have an
engine fire the one advantage of a pusher is the smoke does not get in
your face while trying a landing. I saw what was left of a C210 that
caught fire on the ground after a crash..... not a pretty sight...
mainly steel bits were all that could be recongnised. The guy had turned
back after an engine failure and failed to shut off the gas tap. Engine
Fire Drill.... FUEL-OFF and dive ( if high enough). Air has CO2 in it
you must just get enough of it into the area of the fire. One big candle
to blow out!  A 747 pilot flying for a neighbouring country to us had a
fire on one engine after an explosion...the engine "cowling" was so
badly dammaged that the fire extinguisher had NO effect. He dived to
kill the flames...nice ride hey! Forced Landing...if the engine is dead,
does not mean a fire can't start on impact so FUEL -OFF on finals to
crash site. (Easy when you not under tress)

Rego.








                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                        
                                                                     

From: "Jim White" <jimwhi@televar.com>
Subject: COZY: Re: Fire Extinguishers
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1999 19:16:10 -0800

<x-html>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>Here's my thoughts.<BR>For fighting fires extinguishers outside the 
cockpit, I vote for dry<BR>chemical.&nbsp; A halon fire extingisher is not going 
to cut it on a hot open<BR>fire (such as a tire catching on fire, which has 
happened on a Cozy in the<BR>past). An engine/oil fire will re-ignite if the 
parts are still hot by the<BR>time the halon blows away in an engine 
compartment.<BR>Regarding halon, I may be wrong, but I thought it was still 
available and would be for<BR>some time until it gets fazed out with out with 
other less ozone damaging<BR>freon/halogen refrigerants.&nbsp; My suggestion 
would be to keep a dry chemical<BR>extinguisher for exterior fires and a small 
halon for small in cockpit<BR>fires.&nbsp; You can breath in a halon charged 
environment.&nbsp; It disrupts<BR>combustion mainly due to it's large molecular 
size rather than by displacing<BR>oxygen.&nbsp; Breathing in halon lowers your 
voice similarly to the way breathing in<BR>helium causes your voice to go 
higher.&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2>Jim White </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#000000 size=2></FONT><FONT size=2>N44QT</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>.__</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>..\ \</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>...\&nbsp; 
\&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>.....\&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
\&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; l l</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>&nbsp;&nbsp; l_l ......\__ l l_</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>&lt;&nbsp; _&nbsp; ..... ___ )_&nbsp; &gt;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>
<DIV><FONT size=2>...l&nbsp; l&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
/&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; l l</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT>...../&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; 
/&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; l l</FONT>&nbsp;</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>..../&nbsp; /</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>._/_/</FONT></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>
From ???@??? Wed Jan 06 21:02:33 1999
Return-Path: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Received: from twc2.betaweb.com (majordomo@betaweb.com [206.43.209.18]) by acestes-fe0.ultra.net (8.8.8/ult/n20340/mtc.v2) with ESMTP id SAA08238 for <marcz@burnside.ma.ultranet.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:55:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) id SAA12516
	for cozy_builders-list; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:55:40 -0500
X-Authentication-Warning: twc2.betaweb.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com using -f
Received: from dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.15])
	by twc2.betaweb.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA12511
	for <cozy_builders@canard.com>; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 18:55:33 -0500
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Received: (from smap@localhost)
          by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4)
	  id RAA07867; Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:52:06 -0600 (CST)
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1999 17:52:06 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ely-oh1-26.ix.netcom.com(205.186.80.58) by dfw-ix15.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3)
	id rma007783; Wed Jan  6 17:51:03 1999
To: jimwhi@televar.com
To: cozy_builders@canard.com
Message-Id: <19991618453046334@ix.netcom.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Fire Extinguishers
X-Mailer: Netcomplete v4.0, from NETCOM On-Line Communications, Inc.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: owner-cozy_builders@betaweb.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
X-UIDL: e4d3c78b68d1e31c0ca7e69d2971d108

There is a point of balance to be achieved here and related risk factors with. 
1: The weight and size of an extinguisher carried on board, is for first reponse to small fires 
within seconds of ignition. A fuel, oil or wiring fire just started might be stopped with very 
little damage. To be used (not likely) in flight or distance from hangar. I don't think its 
practical to be prepared for ALL possiblities.

2: A good sized appropriately rated (for type of fire [A, B, or C]) must (NOT OPTIONAL) be on the 
fuel truck, fuel dispenser, near at the hanger for quick access and use. The National Fire Code 
requires these, and they MUST have current service/inspection tags on them. If not quietly tip the 
local fire chief, and it WILL be corrected. Here at home I have a dry chemical extinguisher 15.25 
lbs. weight, 20" high, rated for all fires, located in the garage next to the door to the house. It 
is less than 10 steps to the kitchen stove. Everyone in the house has been trained to use it. 
Several years ago, I dripped oil on the hot engine of my Ford Bronco. The instant flame was 4" high. 
It was seconds to take 3 steps and grab the extinguisher. The fire was out with no damage other than 
cleaning up the dry powder mess. If I would have had to go further for an extinguisher, the main 
wiring harness would have been scrap. This is the type of first response I talk of where the on 
board unit is useful. When doing hazardous operations, like transferring fuel, park the extinguisher 
close by, away from the possible source.

3: There is no substitute for good safe practices of construction, maintenance, and operations to 
eliminate any possible unsafe situations.


From: "Doug Shepherd" <DougSheph@home.com>
Subject: COZY: Halon
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 11:49:17 -0800

I thought the best feature of halon was that it was 'people friendly'.  It
prevents combustion but doesn't prevent people from breathing, although it
can be somewhat toxic in high concentrations.  Is this correct?

I would think it would be fairly safe in the cabin, but I'm wondering if
your engine would shut down if it got a lungful of the stuff.

Doug Shepherd

From: "Doug Shepherd" <DougSheph@home.com>
Subject: COZY: Halon
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 13:41:09 -0800

Carl,

You missed the point entirely.  Halon doesn't work by binding up the
available oxygen, but by preventing the FUEL from oxidizing.  It is toxic in
high concentrations, so you shouldn't stick around in your lab if you can
avoid it, but it's generally pretty benign to humans.  Check out this
website for more info: http://www.h3r.com/faq9804.htm

Doug Shepherd

From: Roy Grossinger <roy.grossinger@PACCAR.com>
Subject: RE: COZY: Halon
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:09:08 -0800

I've lit off a PKP (powder chemical) fire extinguisher in an enclosed space
before.  While on watch on the USS Lafayette (SSBN-616) I had a fire in my
watch space, AMR2LL (aux. machinery space 2 lower level).  I used the
closest fire extinguisher, a PKP fire extinguisher.  It put out the fire
real quick but I couldn't breath and had to don an EAB (emergency air
breathing) apparatus to keep from gagging on the powder.  I can't imagine
how one could fly an airplane with the amount of powder that is discharged
by one of these, not to mention that you CAN'T breath.  
I don't know that answer here, but I know what not to use....
Roy

-----Original Message-----
From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com [mailto:cdenk@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 1:05 PM
To: DougSheph@home.com; cozy_builders@canard.com
Subject: Re: COZY: Halon


On 11/21/99 11:49:17 you wrote:
>
>I thought the best feature of halon was that it was 'people friendly'. 

NO! Anytime you decrease the oxygen to the human body, you have a problem,
whether it be 
carbon monoxide, halon, or methane that is diluting the oxygen percentage.
At work the 
computer room is protected by halon, and there are warning signs on the door
- GET OUT!. I 
think one could be asphixiated (sp) from the gas, but if a short period of
time, MIGHT 
recover, maybe quick enough to regain use of the controls, and then again
maybe not. But the 
dry powder, I'm thinking the lungs are a moist environment, the dry powder
would stick and 
plug all those little passages, and then no oxygen absorbed, and we know
what happens then. 
Possibly some bodily defense mechanisms would kick in like coughing, but if
unable to get to 
clear air, still the same outcome. 
 
>I'm wondering if your engine would shut down if it got a lungful of the
stuff. 

Same as the human, its the correct percentage of fuel and oxygen. For the
engine it doesn't 
take much change in the fuel mixture to not have combustion. BUT, most
likely it would be a 
short period of time for the Halon to get out of the mixture, and the engine
should restart, 
if the plugs aren't fouled or wet from fuel or oil, I think for a healthy
engine these 
wouldn't be an issue. Maybe someone has better info. 


From: Lee810@aol.com
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:28:46 EST
Subject: Re: COZY: Halon

In a message dated 11/22/99 8:15:08 AM Mountain Standard Time, 
roy.grossinger@PACCAR.com writes:

> I can't imagine
>  how one could fly an airplane with the amount of powder that is discharged
>  by one of these, not to mention that you CAN'T breath.  
>  I don't know that answer here, but I know what not to use....

I once used a powder extinguisher to put out a fire at a restaurant.  After I 
had done it, I concluded that the fire would have caused less damage had I 
allowed it to continue.   It took the rest of the shift to clean up the mess 
that was made in about 1/4 of a second.

I have to wonder if it is even possible to extinguish an in-flight fire with 
*any* type of fire extinguisher.  My fear is a fire in the engine compartment 
which goes undetected.  Now that would be very hard to put out. The only 
recourse would be to shut off the fuel supply, unless you had the misfortune 
of a valve installed on the firewall, presumably to enhance safety by 
'keeping the fuel lines out of the cockpit'.  :-(

Lee Devlin
Greeley, CO

From: sdbish@juno.com
Subject: COZY: Halon
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:06:58 EST


From: "Doug Shepherd" 

Carl,

You missed the point entirely.  Halon doesn't work by binding up the
available oxygen, but by preventing the FUEL from oxidizing.  It is toxic
in
high concentrations, so you shouldn't stick around in your lab if you can
avoid it, but it's generally pretty benign to humans.  Check out this
website for more info: http://www.h3r.com/faq9804.htm

Doug Shepherd

--------- End forwarded message ----------

Agree with this analysis.    I also worked in a room full of computers
which had Halon availble for fire supression.   As I recall,  we were
told to evacuate if the Halon was released,  but to not panic.   My
memory says it displaces oxygen,  but otherwise is not harmful to humans.
  I would think the normal air flow through the cockpit,   or if
necessary,  open up more airflow,   would clear out the Halon
sufficiently rapidly.  How long can you hold your breath?

Marv Bishop

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

From: ArlenBell@aol.com
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:16:34 EST
Subject: Re: COZY: Halon

Good reference to the Halon FAQ page --

Let me try and clear up a couple of items here.
My opinion -- Dry powder/chem has NO PLACE in a plane FOR USE IN FLIGHT.
If you have a refueling fire on the ground, they are OK as a last resort (I'd 
prefer CO2 to reduce damage to the aircraft).
If you have ever used dry chem, you know what a mess they make (yea, I hear 
your argument -- compared to burning ....)
But keep this in mind -- what type of  fire condition are you going to be 
dealing with?
If it's "minor" wiring and you dump a dry chem, your are in big trouble. I 
doubt that you are going to be able to see anything much less breathe. Even 
trying to vent the canopy in flight is going to be extremely dangerous -- and 
you will still have powder blowing around like a blinding dust storm. And 
after all that -- did you get the fire extinguised?

If it's an engine fire, (depending upon cause) it may or may not be 
extinguished by the dry chem. If it is, it [the fire] may restart. Depending 
upon air intakes dry chem may or may not enter the internals. If it does, I 
seriously doubt the engine is going to like it. [FYI - there are two common 
dry chem agents -- BC extinguishers (for burning liquids and around 
electrical) usually contain sodium bicarbonate -- not very toxic, leaves only 
a messy powder to clean out of EVERYTHING -- "dusty" as heck and not 
enjoyable to breathe. However, ABC (good for any type of fire except burning 
metals) extinguishers contain monoammonium phosphate -- irritating, but not 
highly toxic in "normal environments -- I don't think a closed cockpit is 
considered "normal" -- BUT it is a real mess to clean up as it forms a sticky 
goo on hot surfaces). Claning this off and out of an engine is a difficult 
job. If either hits the engine air intake, I would anticipate an engine shut 
down with little likelihood of restart.
The above should be enough to dissuade anyone from the idea of using dry chem 
inside and in-flight aircraft.

CO2 has been covered -- because of it's asphyxiating characteristics it is 
too dangerous to use in a confined space (and I wouldn't want to be on pure 
oxygen while fighting a fire!) 

Halon is a great extinguishing agent, but certain characteristics need to be 
kept in mind. Halon's wide use in computer, electronic and other high value 
locations comes from it's ability to "stop" a fire in the early stages, using 
a very low concentration of a clean agent. It works well in places where it 
can be held at a 5-8% concentration long enough to penetrate all fire areas. 
This is the key to Halon. It is used in carefully engineered environments 
(with the exception of small handheld units) where the volumes are known. 
When used in computer rooms for example, the extinguishing systems are 
designed to shut down ventilation systems, close exhaust ducts, etc. before 
the Halon is released. This enables the Halon to reach and be maintained at 
the designed level (5-8%). At this level, the short-term health effects are 
minimal (the most I've encountered are headaches). However, when Halon is 
exposed to a fire source (including electrical arcing) it decomposes into 
toxic materials (not to mention the toxic products of combustion of whatever 
is burning). Breathing this environment for even a few seconds can be lethal.
If you plan on avoiding this by maintaining a flow of air into the cockpit, 
you likely defeat Halon's ability to extinguish the fire. If you use enough 
Halon to totally flood the area at high concentrations, you have the same 
conditions as if you had used CO2. If you think you can hold your breath, 
think again. If you breath a seriously oxygen depleted atmosphere (not 
talking toxics here  -- just too little O2), you'll lose consciousness in as 
little as 6 seconds -- no symptoms -- just black out!

Now what about the engine compartment fire? How are you going to control 
Halon concentration with all that air blowing through? I suspect it you dump 
enough Halon into the area (weight penalty here!), you may be able to "blow" 
the flame out, but if you have leaking fuel, glowing wiring (from shorts), 
hot metal, you are going to get an immediate re-ignition.

Not a good choice here (anyone flying on a seatchute?)

Believe, me no one is more safety conscious (paranoid?) that I am. However, 
all things considered, I think time and effort are better spent on ensuring 
good construction methods and careful periodic inspections of wiring and 
fittings (front and back).

If anyone wants more indepth information, e:mail me directly and I'll respond 
without tying up this forum. I have worked with and around all sorts of fire 
safety systems for 25+ years and have access to fire protection engineers to 
just love this stuff!

I'd love to hear responses to the above.
-- Arlen Bell  

Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 20:45:18 -0800
From: "J. D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: Re:  Open cell foam

Hi Wendell,

> The halon system is probably going to be pricy. You might be able to buidl one
> if the FAA allows it, you just need some sort of fire detection system that
> detects tempatures around 700 degrees and will produce a visual and/or audio
> warning in the cockpit. You can then get a regular halon bottle, mount it in
> the engine bay, rig a cable around the handles that is routed to the cockpit.
> Check it for operation so that one quick jerk will activate it. You'll
> probably want to make provisions for disarming the system on the ground
> (insert the pin back in the bottle).  Just some info and some ideas,

    I have a simple system designed where the Halon bottle is "T'd" into fore
and aft lines with a valve in the front seat from where the pilot can direct the
Halon to the engine, the instrument panel, or easily remove the bottle if need
be for elsewhere use.  But if there's a fire under the cowling AND the panel,
you may not have enough Halon (not your day).
    At the fire wall, the lines spread out over and around the engine, same
behind the panel.  But Halon takes air away - may be a concern.  But so does a
fire.  Having had an in-flight fire at night in a rented PTC-210 when the
instrument panel brightness switch shorted out and the fire from the melted
wires dropped on my uniform pant legs catching my legs on  fire was not fun.
    The sensor may be the expensive part.  To be temperature and IR governed is
the way to go so no false alarms.  Have talked to fire fighting experts about
this design.
    Call any time if you wish to discuss any other details.


Infinity's Forever,

            JD

From: "Wendell Best" <wbest@zianet.com>
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Open cell foam
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 20:19:29 -0700

I was kind of thinking the same thing after my post, but didn't think about
it obscuring the windsheild and being a choking hazard.
I would have to say cockpit fires are rare and are easily prevented if you
watch what your doing with your wiring. AC 43.13-1A is a good book for
acceptable methods, techniques and practices and includes a chapter on
electrical wiring.

Wendell Best
217 Fireball Dr.
Clovis, NM 88101
(505)769-9001
wbest@ZiaNet.com
http://www.zianet.com/wbest

----- Original Message -----
From: <cdenk@ix.netcom.com>
To: <wbest@zianet.com>; <infaero@flash.net>; <cozy_builders@canard.com>
Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 10:25 AM
Subject: Re: COZY: Re: Open cell foam


> I wouldn't trigger a dry chemical extinguisher in the close confines of a
small aircraft. The particlate (dust) would be huge,
> and probably would coat the inside of the lungs creating an incapacitating
situation, also that dust sticks to everything
> including the windshield, obscuring everything. I would prefer Halon, and
could open the canopy to the emergency latch for
> ventilation. The Ez's are so tight, I don't think the extinguisher could
be pointed in the right direction for many fires. Has
> anyone heard of an inflight fire in an EZ? They are exceeding rare.
Excellent maintenance practice is much more important. The
> most likely situation is a ground fire, probably from fueling, or an
induction fire.
>
>

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:51:09 -0800
From: Howard Rogers <hrogers@slac.stanford.edu>
Subject: COZY: Re: Halon, cockpit fires

>The only 
>recourse would be to shut off the fuel supply, unless you had the misfortune 
>of a valve installed on the firewall, presumably to enhance safety by 
>'keeping the fuel lines out of the cockpit'.  :-(
>
>Lee Devlin
>Greeley, CO


I hear you, Lee!  Believe me, I thought of this, and many who were in on that
discussion seemed to miss an important point.  My valve is FORWARD of the
firewall.  It is in the space below the passenger seat-back commonly referred
to (on the Long EZ) as the "hell hole".  My firewall is a lot more substantial
than the two I have visited recently (aluminum airplanes).  Mine is Fiberfrax
under stainless, and it will be painted with the ablative paint, as will be the
wing-root areas, and the whole inside of the "hell hole".

Many years ago, I read an excellent article (Kitplanes, I think) about fighting
inflight fires.  It is really difficult, on the typical LyCont engine
installation, to put out an engine fire, because of the hurricane of air that
blows through.  As for fires in the cockpit, the most likely culprit is an
electrical fire behind the panel.  They recommended plumbing the fire
extinquisher directly to one or two special nozzles that direct the halon to
where it is needed.  You can also easily grab the extinquisher and pull it free
from its mount and the rubber tube that connects it to your plumbing.  So the
procedure would be to kill the power, squirt the halon, and open the
ventilation.  Sounds good to me, and I plan to carry halon anyway.  

Ever since a friend (Bob Beard) drowned in his Vari Eze while upside down in
the duck pond, just short of Palo Alto's runway*, I have considered installing
a couple of "Spare Airs" in the cockpit.  I am a SCUBA diver, and I already own
three of them anyway.  Some military chopper pilots have them as standard
equipment, according to the manufacturer.  Spare Air is a very small,
self-contained breathing apparatus that will give you about 5 minutes of air
(highly variable, depending on the conditions and circumstances, of course). 
For a flip-over in water, or smoke in the cockpit, it could make a difference
while you struggle out of your harness and break out of a canopy or while you
deal with a fire emergency.  It's a no-brainer.  Just stick it in your mouth
and breath (not through your nose).  Check it out:
http://www.spareair.com/
Let me know what you think.

--Howard Rogers



*Spare air would not have helped Bob.  He slipped through his shoulder harness
(no sternum strap) and was knocked unconcious on impact when he hit the
instrument panel.  Make sure YOUR harness has a sternum strap!  -HR  








Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:15:47 -0800
From: "J. D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: Re: Open cell foam

Hi Wendell,

> I would like to hear about how you ran the lines around your engine.

    Weeelll, that depends on what type of engine cooling inlet you are going to
use:  traditional NACA, NACA and arm pit, upper and lower arm pit, down draft,
others.
    The lines from the fire wall strategically spread around the engine.  I'm
using the NACA type inlet (that can close off), so the lines come in around the
bottom of the engine like a sprinkler system aimed up so the NACA inlet airflow
would carry the Halon up and around the engine, and out the exit.  I haven't
tried/tested this plane yet (I will), but this is how the fire experts said to
do it.

> I am going with a auto engine power plant since the aircraft engines are way
> too expensive for a guy on a budget like me.

    I've mentioned this before, Subaru's where designed for aircraft in the late
70's / early 80's (heard this from Subaru), that's one of the many reasons why
I'm using the 3.3 ltr Subaru.  And Bruce Crower of Indy fame, and Engine Tech
Councilor for our EAA Chapter, says this engine is "Indy Quality" right out of
the car as is - works for me, and it *really* is a beautiful engine.


Infinity's Forever,

        JD

From: sdbish@juno.com
Subject: COZY: Halon
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:01:11 EST

Arlen Bell wrote:
> (and I wouldn't want to be on pure oxygen while fighting a fire!) 
>

Agee that pure oxygen would feed a fire if it got to it.    However, 
several years of flying with the Air Force,   we were always taught  in
case of fire or smoke in the cockpit,  to go immedieately to 100% oxygen.
   That is better to breath than smoke or other hazardous gases which may
be the byproduct of combustion.

Marv Bishop

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:35:11 -0800
From: "J. D. Newman" <infaero@flash.net>
Subject: COZY: Re:  Halon

Hi Marv,

> Agree with this analysis. I also worked in a room full of computers which had
Halon availble for fire supression. As I recall, we were told to evacuate if the
Halon was released, but to not panic. My memory says it displaces oxygen, but
otherwise is not harmful to humans. I would think the normal air flow through
the cockpit, or if necessary, open up more airflow, would clear out the Halon
sufficiently rapidly. How long can you hold your breath?

    Many already fly with oxygen.  Maybe a good argument for having available a
oxygen face mask over the cannula (Oxymixer), or a face mask "T'd" into the
cannula system out of the road but still handy where turning a valve ports the
air from the cannula (which seems to be handier than the civilian mask) to the
mask.


Infinity's Forever,

        JD

From: cdenk@ix.netcom.com
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:33:06 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: COZY: Re:  Halon

Was said <Maybe a good argument for having available a oxygen face mask over the cannula 
(Oxymixer), or a face mask "T'd" into the cannula system>

I have the SkyOx system, with the bottle mounted vertical behind  the front seat right side. I 
am able to reach over between the headrests and turn on/off, plug in or out cannulas or mask, 
and adjust pressure (flow). We always have available a mask that can be quickly be plugged in 
and used. Since our heavy bird when fully loaded won't climb much higher than 19,000', and most 
of our oxygen use has been at 15,000' or less, I think thats a reasonable operations situation. 
Skyox instructions say to always have the mask available.