FIRE IN AIRCRAFT HANGARS

INTRODUCTION 1. Aircraft hangars are buildings or structures where aircraft are housed. undergo servicing, repairs or alterations. Aircraft may

2. With the various operations taking place, different hazard are exposed. A fire involving any of these could jeopardize the hangar and its contents. OBJECTIVES 3. It is the aim of this lesson to present to the students the various hazards, restriction of movement, and need for evacuation, structural vulnerability and various other factors to be considered when dealing with such fires. THE EFFECTS OF ENCLOSURE 4. The enclosed environment makes a fire in aircraft hangar a very different situation from an aircraft fire in the open. Heat and Smoke 5. The build-up of heat and smoke inside a hangar is likely to be very rapid. Intense heat and large volumes of dense smoke are characteristic of aircraft fires but: a. In a hangar, these large volumes of smoke cannot escape freely so they accumulate. b. The radiant heat experienced at a crash fire is only a proportion of the heat generated, most of which (over 70%) is borne away as super-heated oxides in the smoke column. When these products of combustion are not free to escape, their heat is diffused into the surroundings. Additionally, radiant heat is reflected within the building. Risk to Other Aircraft 6. Aircraft in a hangar are normally closer together than anywhere else, and the risk of fire spreading from one aircraft to another is obvious. Other Exposure Hazards 7. Apart from other aircraft, a hangar usually contains much equipment which would contribute to the development of fire on a larger scale (e.g. kerosene cleansing tanks containers of various inflammable liquids, and oil spillages or oil-contaminated surfaces). Restriction of Movement 8. Each aircraft may be surrounded by other aircraft, by components on servicing rings, and by trolleys, jacks, servicing platforms, etc; and these are often distributed over the hangar floor to an extent which impedes firefighting action. (The presence of servicing platforms around an 1

aircraft affected by fire may be an advantage but even then ground equipment around other aircraft and near entrances may be obstructive). 9. The total effect of these environmental conditions may be to produce a situation in which heat, smoke, and a congested floor-space inhibit the attack on a fire in surroundings which contain may inflammable materials, and much valuable equipment exposed to damage or destruction. THE EFFECTS OF OPENING/CLOSING HANGAR DOORS: CONSTANT FACTORS 10. A vital decision which must be made at the outset is whether the main doors of the hangar should be opened or closed. Briefly it can be said that: a. Opening the doors reduces the effects of the environmental conditions described above. b. Heat 11. If the doors are open, the air supply enables combustion to proceed more rapidly and the mean flame length is increased. Despite this, temperatures are reduced in the surroundings of the fire because: a. A substantial proportion of the superheated gases rising from the fire is able to escape from the hangar before their heat has been diffused. b. The heated stream escaping from the hangar is replaced by cool air entering the hangar. Closing the doors therefore results in a more rapid rise in the internal temperature through retention of heat and re-circulation of heated air. Smoke 12. If the doors are open, much of the smoke can escape, and dense smoke is unlikely to accumulate below the top of the doors. If the doors are closed, flaming diminishes but not the generation of vapours and gases. In fact, diminution of flame through restriction of the airflow is usually by an accompanied by an increase in the smoke given off; and of course the smoke is largely retained in the hangar. Exposure Hazards 13. Opening the doors has the effect of creating upwind and downwind conditions around the fire, influencing the fire to spread more quickly in one direction but reducing the immediate threat in other directions. Working conditions in the upwind area are likely to be reasonably good, and other aircraft are relatively safe in that area; but conditions in the downwind area are likely to be as bad as if the doors were closed. Obstructions 14. Closing the doors restricts access to the fire and limits the space available for movement the hangar. Closing the doors reinforces these effects.

Evacuation of Aircraft and Equipment. 15. If the doors are opened, evacuation of the hangar is likely to remain feasible for sometime. Closing the doors means abandoning any effort to evacuate aircraft and equipment, and relying on extinguishing the fire to minimize damage. In this connection, it is noted that: a. The aircraft and equipment in a hangar often represent a greater value than the structure of the hangar itself. b. The majority of the usual contents of a hangar, from trolleys to aircraft, are on wheels, and this makes large-scale evacuation a feasible proposition. OPENING/CLOSING THE HANGAR DOORS: VARIABLE FACTORS 16. The foregoing paragraphs suggest that the disadvantages of closed hangar doors outweigh the advantages. There are, however, other points which must influence the decision. For example: a. The strength of the attendance from the fire service is not always the same: it varies from the full-watch of the Airport Fire & Rescue Service when the airfield is open to perhaps two firemen and the fire piquet when the airfield is closed. b. The number of personnel in the hangar also varies. Moreover, this number is likely to be high during the same periods as the response from the fire service is strong, and low (if there are any at all) when the response from the fire service is weak. The availability of tractors may vary similarly. Accepting Limited Action 17. It is apparent therefore that there might be occasions when evacuation of the hangar could not be attempted through lack of manpower, etc, and when the first attendance from the fire service would be capable of only limited action. Then it might be more expedient to keep the hangar doors closed until substantial reinforcements have arrived, and meanwhile endeavor to contain the fire with perhaps a single jet at work. Establishing the Conditions for Extensive Action. 18. When the fire service arrives promptly in strength, and there is adequate manpower to undertake evacuation, the advantages of open doors are considerable, and this strength would be of much less value in conditions of restricted access and movement. In other words, the strength of the response is no real advantage in itself unless conditions are maintained in which it can be fully utilized. Generally this would mean open doors so that: a. The atmosphere in the hangar remains tolerable to men without breathing apparatus. It is noted that: (1) Most stations have only two breathing apparatus sets available.

(2) The dimensions of most hangars are such that there is little likelihood of effective coverage if branches are positioned only at the entrances.

b. c.

The visibility remains good enough for organized working. Aircraft and equipment can be evacuated in oder to: (1) (2) (3) Clear the floor space for movement of hose. Limit the potential spread of fire. Reduce the potential total fire damage.

6OTHER FACTORS 19. It is still an over-simplification to say that, if only limited action is possible, the doors should be closed but, if operations can be conducted on a large scale, they should be opened. Other relevant factors are: a. Immobilized Aircraft Aircraft which are partly dismantled and on jacks are obviously more difficult to evacuate (if, for example, the undercarriage has been removed, rapid evacuation is impossible). Aircraft in this condition may block the movement of other aircraft. b. The Location of the Fire in Relation to the Wind. As open doors tend to divide the hangar into upwind and downwind areas, it should be noted that: (1) If the location of the fire is at the upwind end of the hangar, open doors would mean that most of the hangar space would be in the hazardous downwind area. (2) If the location of the fire is at the downwind end of the hangar open doors would establish relatively safe conditions in most of the hangar space. c. Alternative Access The alternative means of access available for firefighting if the main doors are closed differ considerably between hangars. Picket doors set in the main doors are a common feature but the following typical examples illustrate the differences: (1) A permanent brick hangar built in the 1930s often has annexes built outside the main walls, and the higher level windows which light the hangar often are wired glass, but there are fire doors which give direct access to the central area of the hangar.

(2) A temporary metal hangar built during the 1940s usually has no windows at all, and any side doors are small, rarely central, and sometimes give direct access only to bays constructed inside the hangar. 20. This question of opening or closing the hangar doors has been discussed at some length in order to give a reasonably full presentation of the factors involved, and because it should be understood that restriction of the air supply by closing the doors may diminish flaming to some extent but it does not stop the spread of fire and it is achieved at the cost of worsening conditions and enforced tactical limitations. As an illustration, it is noted that a 25 square foot fire could fill a hangar with smoke in about 5 minutes but it would not suffer from a deficiency of oxygen until about 20 minutes had passed ( by which time it is probable that it would have developed considerably, perhaps causing enough structural damage to admit air more freely ) . 21. It is not possible to state categorically whether the doors should be opened or closed. Although the constant factors discussed in paragraphs 4.2 to 4.6 above indicate that the doors should be open, it is unlikely that all 5 of the variable factors discussed in paragraphs 5.2 to 6.1 would also do so (i.e., a strong fire service attendance, many personnel available, no aircraft on jack, fire at the downwind end of the hangar, and poor alternative access). It is equally unlikely that all of them would indicate that the doors should be closed ( i.e., weak attendance from the fire service, no personnel available, all the aircraft on jack, fire at the upwind end of the hangar, and good alternative access). It is more likely that these variables would conflict to some extent, and a decision could be made only at the scene. 22. There is a third option: one set of doors opened and one closed: but this is an unsatisfactory compromise: a. The effect of closing the downwind doors would be similar to closing both sets of doors. b. If the upwind doors are closed, it means that: (1) All the work of evacuation is exposed to bad conditions by going downward. Firefighters and evacuators must cross each others paths.

(2)

(3) If the fire is at the upwind end of the hangar, the fire service may be denied the best vantage points. PRIORITY FOR EVACUATION 23. When evacuation of the hangar is in progress, it should be given precedence over firefighting action, i.e. the fire service should try to avoid obstructing the evacuation. It should be recognized that, as long as working conditions remain tolerable, evacuation is comparatively straightforward and it leads to complete safety whereas it cannot be guaranteed that firefighting will control the fire before other aircraft and equipment have been damaged. 5

TACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS: GENERAL 24. Fighting an aircraft fire in a hangar involves action which resembles that described for aircraft on the ground, rather than crashed aircraft, in that: a. b. A rescue task is unlikely. Escaped fuel is less likely to be widespread all around the aircraft.

c. The fire is not likely to be exposed to direct attack, and it may be necessary to find a means of access to the fire before firefighting can begin. d. The fire may be burning well above ground level.

25. An important difference, however, is that it is impossible to make any appraisal of the situation during the approach. The location and extent of the fire, and other features of the situation, remain unknown until the hangar has been entered and the scene surveyed. The crash/fire trucks cannot be positioned on arrival, and instructions about positioning cannot be given until the situation has been examined. MANNING AND POSITIONING DELIVERY LINES 26. At a hangar fire, the building itself presents an additional access problem. One aspect of this is that it may not be possible to bring BCF or dry powder into action because these are delivered through lines of fixed length, and therefore it may be necessary to use foam in situations where heavy delivery lines are a disadvantage. 27. In this event, it is probably inadequate to run single coupled length of hose from delivery locker and work from wherever it happens to reach. The branches must be made to reach effective working positions. This may involve running hose through obstructive surroundings, extending the line, and possibly climbing to an elevated position, so that the jet can be directed into an airframe as well as covering ground fire. Single branchmen cannot be expected to achieve this; and it is better to put two firemen to a branch than to over-stretch the capabilities of the crew by running out more lines. 28. Long-throwing jets are suitable only for covering widespread areas of exposed fire. Their forcefulness is a disadvantage when the jet has be directed through a small aperture into an airframe. Moreover, when branches are taken into a hangar: a. The pump operator is not likely to be able to watch the branchmen.

b. The branchmen may have to work on a comparatively insecure footing in order to direct the jet where it can be really effective. 29. The desirable procedure therefore is to make the hose reach as far as possible, and to operate the pump (s) at pressures below normal. Long jet throws should be unnecessary unless 6

the branchmen are unable to take positions well inside the hangar. USEFULNESS OF CENTRAL FIRE DOORS 30. Where a hangar has central fire doors they enable the fire service to enter and outwards from the centre of the hangar, which means that: work

a. If the fire area is towards either end of the hangar, branches are between the fire and the remainder of the hangar. b. If the fire area is central, it can be surrounded without long hose runs.

c. Firefighting efforts are not likely to obstruct any evacuation which may be in progress. It is not suggested that the fire service should work only through the central doors. The point is that use of the central doors and the doors at the end nearest to the fire has considerable advantages over using the doors at both ends of the hangar. CONTAINING THE FIRE 31. To attack from upwind only, at as aircraft fires in the open, may not be adequate at a fire in a hangar because such a fire threatens its surroundings, especially in the downwind areas. As the whole surroundings are exposed to fire, the branches should be well-spaced around the fire rather than grouped on the upwind side. 32. Nevertheless it is emphasized that the branches must be positioned to suppress the fire, not merely to surround it. The convection stream of hot gases passing overhead through the hangar causes heat damage (and eventually further outbreaks of fire) by radiating heat downwards. This effect is most unusual and, makes branches spaced around the fire unable to contain its spread for any length of time if the fire is not subdued. However the branches are distributed, therefore, it is important that their positions should be closed enough for an accurate attack on the fire itself; and it is unrealistic to think in terms of additional branches to shield surrounding aircraft, equipment and structures (see also paragraphs 15.2 and 15.3). VULNERABILITY OF THE HANGAR ROOF 33. It is true that the convection stream would affect the roof of a hangar, which is the part of the structure most vulnerable to heat because most hangar roofs are supported on light streel trusses which lose their structural strength when heated. A serious fire in a hangar involves the possibility of a partial roof collapse at an early stage. 34. While it would be desirable to cool the roof structure to counteract the possibility of collapse, this is another example of the ways in which operations can be over-extended. There are several practical difficulties: a. It is the trusses which need cooling but these present very little surfaces area to a jet or spray; and there is nothing to contain water around them. 7

b.

The trusses most affected by heat would be concealed in smoke.

c. The trusses are out of reach of a diffuser nozzle at ground level; and a jet would be very inefficient for cooling such a skeletal. 35. It might be that one jet could perform two cooling task: directed among the critical trusses, and falling as broken water over stream. It is, however, always necessary to consider the availability of manpower and water supplies for this operation in addition to the jets engaged indirect firefighting: and again it is probable that a concentrated effort to stop the convection stream (by suppressing the fire) would be more likely to achieve success than dispersal of effort in an attempt to copse with its effects. 36. There is less danger of a roof collapse in some modern hangars where Perspex panels represent a large proportion of the roof area. The Perspex will melt before the under-roof temperature reaches a level at steel is seriously weakened. The resulting openings will allow hot gases to escape comparatively freely, and any further rise in the temperature around the trusses will be very slow. The same principle applies when automatic roof ventilators are installed in a hangar. OPERATING TRUCKS INSIDE THE HANGAR 37. Undoubtedly some of the difficulties would ease if crash fire trucks were driven into an operated inside the hangar. In particular, this would permit shorter delivery lines, and the fixed length lines of the secondary agents would be brought within range. It must be appreciated, however; that such a maneuver is not always feasible and, or desirable because: a. It could not be an immediate operation because the situation in the hangar is not apparent during the approach, and decisions about whether to enter, and which end to enter, could not be made until after an examination of the scene. b. The floor space may be too fully occupied with aircraft and equipment for trucks to reach favorable positions. c. The presence of the trucks in the hangar ( as a potential evacuation problem if the firefighting is not quickly successful ) would be an additional distraction for the leader. d. The presence of the trucks in the hangar (as a potential evacuation problem if the fire fighting is not quickly successful) would be an additional distraction for the leader. 38. Operation of a truck or trucks inside the hangar therefore should be regarded as a maneuver to be made only if the opportunity is seen to exist, and the advantage of it is clear. For example, the ability to use a secondary agent, perhaps by sending in the RIV, is an advantage only if it outweighs the fact that it leaves fewer men to handle foam branches.

MINOR INCIDENTS 39. It is possible of course that a hangar fire would be found to be a minor occurrence which can be dealt with by hand extinguishers or secondary agent delivery systems ( if the trucks can enter ). This chapter, however, has been concerned with more serious situations because generally the hangar personnel, with the scale of fire extinguishers provided in a hangar, should be able to control a lesser outbreak before the arrival of the fire service. If, for example, the 120 lb CO2 trolleys are unable to control the fire at the time of discovery, it is probable that the fire service will have to use major equipment when they arrive. 40. A fire discovered in a closed hangar is an exception in the sense that: a. It is not likely to have been attacked, successfully or otherwise, with any concerted effort before the fire service arrives. b. Discovery after the hangar has been closed implies a fire which has developed comparatively slowly from a concealed origin. CONCLUSION 41. You will realize that it is not possible to include all factors in an aircraft hangar fire but this lesson has considered the main possible factors that need to be weighed before any fire fighting action is formulated. 42. REFERENCES a. b. Manual of Firemanship (Book 4) Hangar Protection National Fire Protection Association (409)