Fire Extinguisher?

ebykowsky

ebykowsky

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Dec 12, 2012
Messages
1,405
Display Name
Display name:
goalstop
Are they required in the cockpit? The plane I will take my check ride in tomorrow does not have one. Is this an issue?
 
Not an issue. Unless you get a cabin fire. You should be able to look up the required equipment.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Not an issue. Unless you get a cabin fire. You should be able to look up the required equipment.
Click to expand...
To expand on Aunt Peggy's comment, in some aircraft, the equipment list shows the fire extinguisher as a required item installed at the factory. In that case, the aircraft is not legally airworthy without it.

However, for the vast majority of light aircraft, any fire extinguisher you find is either optional equipment installed at the factory or after-market equipment installed later. If, in such an aircraft, the aircraft records show it as installed, it must be there unless a logbook entry is made to show its removal. Of course, if it is not required equipment, it's no big deal to do that, but if the equipment in the aircraft doesn't match the records, it's a technical discrepancy.

And as Peggy said, if a fire does happen, you'll wish it was there. Just stick with a Halon unit such as pure 1301 or a 1211/1301 mix (no CO2, water, dry chemical, HFC, or the like -- and that means no "Halotron" which is not repeat not Halon and isn't nearly as safe), and you'll have "the right one, baby."

And knock 'em dead on the ride. Search this site for "Captain Levy's Checkride Advice" for more on how to do that.
 
Step 1 - if the aircraft was certified to 23.851 it is required and the airplane is unaurworthy without it. Find out by looking up the certification basis on your airplane's type certificate data sheet (on FAA website). If not certificated to 23.851 go to the next step.

Step 2 - Look at the airplane's equipment list and see if there is supposed to be one installed per that document. If there is one supposed to be installed and its missing, the removal of it wasn't documented correctly, and now the weight and balance may not be correct either. Look for any log entry that may show it being removed.

If its not required by the TCDS and is properly documented removed or one was never installed, you are good to go under part 91.
 
Does the FAA hold that 'If you have it, it has to be right.'? As in even though the fire extinguisher is optional, if you have it it has to be full and within date?
 
bnt83 said:
Step 1 - if the aircraft was certified to 23.851 it is required and the airplane is unaurworthy without it. Find out by looking up the certification basis on your airplane's type certificate data sheet (on FAA website). If not certificated to 23.851 go to the next step.
Click to expand...
You won't find that exact language. What you will find is something like "Certification Basis FAR 23 effective February 1, 1965, and Amendments 23-1 through 23-45" (or an amendment later than 23-45), with no specific reference to 14 CFR 23.851. This is because the cockpit fire extinguisher requirement of the previous version of 23.851 only applied to Communter Category Part 23-certified aircraft before Amendment 23-45 was adopted as a Final Rule in 1993, in which fire extinguisher requirement was expanded to include all Part 23 aircraft. Propsal 65 of that Final Rule made that modification to section 23.851, which did not exist before the original version of 23.851 was made final in 1987. See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...d9b03117bc05edd9862569030062b2b0!OpenDocument

That said, regardless of certification basis, any aircraft built after 1978 will have a POH which includes a list of the required equipment, and in that case, you need only check the required equipment list in the POH/AFM. Before that, the requirement did not exist under Part 23.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You won't find that exact language. What you will find is something like "Certification Basis FAR 23 effective February 1, 1965, and Amendments 23-1 through 23-45" (or an amendment later than 23-45), with no specific reference to 14 CFR 23.851. This is because the cockpit fire extinguisher requirement of the previous version of 23.851 only applied to Communter Category Part 23-certified aircraft before Amendment 23-45 was adopted as a Final Rule in 1993, in which fire extinguisher requirement was expanded to include all Part 23 aircraft. Propsal 65 of that Final Rule made that modification to section 23.851, which did not exist before the original version of 23.851 was made final in 1987. See http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...d9b03117bc05edd9862569030062b2b0!OpenDocument

That said, regardless of certification basis, any aircraft built after 1978 will have a POH which includes a list of the required equipment, and in that case, you need only check the required equipment list in the POH/AFM. Before that, the requirement did not exist under Part 23.
Click to expand...


Your right. Learning how to research the historical regulations is key, because OEM required and FAA required are not the same thing.
 
Henning said:
Does the FAA hold that 'If you have it, it has to be right.'? As in even though the fire extinguisher is optional, if you have it it has to be full and within date?
Click to expand...

As far as I could tell from my short stint of googling, they're not very picky on this matter: They don't have a list of approved devices, and only say it must be UL approved. Also, there's no preferred type, and i don't even think that it has to be charged... Don't take my word for that.

The aircraft is a '65, so I don't think it necessarily required; the CFI sounded surprised when I asked about it and said, "I dunno. I don't think we have it... or it might be in the luggage compartment." Lotta good it does there! I'd have to either unbuckle my seatbelt or do a 0G pushover and float it up into the cockpit just to reach it. :yikes:
 
Henning said:
Does the FAA hold that 'If you have it, it has to be right.'? As in even though the fire extinguisher is optional, if you have it it has to be full and within date?
Click to expand...

The DOT regulates pressurized containers. That's where the hydro testing requirements originated. The OEM typically just follows those rules and adds those requirements to the aircraft maintenance manual. That includes fire extinguishers. So even if your maintenance manual does not have a fire extinguisher inspection requirement, you could violate DOT rules if you don't give it the attention it deserves.

If the fire extinguisher is required by the TCDS or part 135 or 121 rules, the airplane should not pass annual inspection without one. If the Equipment List or W&B is all messed up, again, it shouldn't pass annual.
 
Ron Levy said:
Just stick with a Halon unit such as pure 1301 or a 1211/1301 mix (no CO2, water, dry chemical, HFC, or the like -- and that means no "Halotron" which is not repeat not Halon and isn't nearly as safe), and you'll have "the right one, baby."
Click to expand...
Why not CO2?
 
Morne said:
Didn't think halon was healthy to suck on, either...
Click to expand...

Maybe not long term, but short term you're ok. When Halon first came out they had a demo at trade shows, a plexi box the guy would get in, he'd light a smoke with a Zippo leaving it burn, then they hit it with Halon. The smoke and lighter would go out but the guy would remain standing.
 
Morne said:
Didn't think halon was healthy to suck on, either...
Click to expand...
Halon 1301 is nontoxic, although 1211 is somewhat. However, the issue is the effective concentration for firefighting versus the concentration which creates hazards to human life. Brominated Halons kill the fire by chemical interaction with the kinetics of the combustion process, and are effective at very low concentrations. Halon 1301 can be a suffocant at about 60% concentration, so there is that potential hazard, too, but it is an effective firefighting agent at less than one-tenth that concentration, so you don't have to use that much of it to put out the fire. Even with 1211, it takes three times the effective firefighting concentration to create a hazard. OTOH, with CO2, which is simply an oxygen-displacement agent, the same concentration which is needed to kill a fire also kills people by the same mechanism -- reducing the oxygen concentration in the atmosphere. That's why we use brominated Halons in aircraft cabins, not CO2.
 
Henning said:
Maybe not long term, but short term you're ok.
Click to expand...
Depends on which halon you're talking about. Halon 1301 (bromotrifluoromethane) is nontoxic, and lethal only at about 60% concentration due to oxygen displacement. However, other brominated Halons are toxic. 1211 (bromochlorodifluoromethane) can be toxic at concentrations only about three times the effective firefighting concentration, which is why it has the minimum room size label. 2402 (dibromotetrafluoroethane), which we never used as a firefighting agent but the Soviets did, is lethal at extremely low concentrations, and you would not survive in a cabin where it was discharged. Only place we ever used 2402 was in unmanned space vehicles.

When Halon first came out they had a demo at trade shows, a plexi box the guy would get in, he'd light a smoke with a Zippo leaving it burn, then they hit it with Halon. The smoke and lighter would go out but the guy would remain standing.
Click to expand...
You can do that with 1301. Don't try that with 1211 or 2402.
 
Last edited:
Toxicity Page 18 ---> http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC 20-42D.pdf


FE_zps136324fb.jpg
 
Problem with the HCFC and HFC agents is they don't work very well. Without bromine or iodine in the molecule, it just doesn't interfere with the combustion process very well at all, and becomes essentially a physical agent, working primarily by sucking the heat out of the process. As a result, vastly greater quantities are needed. When you do that, the concentration of pyrolization products goes through the roof, and now you're breathing a ton of hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids -- and those are really bad juju.

So, while the neat (unpyrolized) HCFC/HFC agents may be less worrisome, if you actually have to use them to fight a fire in a small, enclosed light plane cockpit/cabin, the post-fire environment may destroy your lungs before you can ventilate adequately. That's why the FAA still recommends the brominated Halons for cabin use.

Stick with the brominated Halons (1211 and 1301).
 
Last edited:
It seems the argument against dry chemical is that the post fire residue is corrosive. Like I care! If I have to fight an onboard fire I am not worrying about future corrosion, the insurance company just bought my hull!

I have dry chemical behind the left seat.
 
Don't leave the ground lately without one Halon plus two additional units of more modern mixes. If I need it and they kill me before cockpit fire, I'll count myself the luckier....
 
EdFred said:
How long do you stay conscious when inhaling CO2?
Click to expand...

I've done it once for about 90 seconds at ground level (not intentionally :D). Realistically, you're going to be limited to whatever oxygen supply you've already got in your lungs and blood stream. Effective conciousness is going to be short without fresh air - but most of our non-pressurized aircraft are quite "leaky" and will exchange that high-percentage CO2 environment pretty quickly. Short acute exposure to a high-CO2 environment won't do much more than cause increased breathing rate and heart rate, 2 minutes or better and it's night-night.

(I was in a 10'x15' room with a 300-pound liquid CO2 tank that blew a 1" line and dumped itself quite rapidly, grabbed a kid that was in there with me, went to the floor and pushed/crawled out the door to outdoors)
 
Last edited:
Morne said:
It seems the argument against dry chemical is that the post fire residue is corrosive. Like I care! If I have to fight an onboard fire I am not worrying about future corrosion, the insurance company just bought my hull!

I have dry chemical behind the left seat.
Click to expand...
There is also the argument that it can make you "IFR in the cockpit" and cause coughing and choking as well as serious lung damage if discharged in an enclosed space. Please replace your dry chem with Halon as recommended by the FAA and every aviation fire safey expert in the country.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Don't leave the ground lately without one Halon plus two additional units of more modern mixes. If I need it and they kill me before cockpit fire, I'll count myself the luckier....
Click to expand...
How about additional units of Halon instead? Really -- those new mixes aren't nearly as effective and create a much more lethal post-fire environment.
 
airguy said:
I've done it once for about 90 seconds at ground level (not intentionally :D). Realistically, you're going to be limited to whatever oxygen supply you've already got in your lungs and blood stream. Effective conciousness is going to be short without fresh air - but most of our non-pressurized aircraft are quite "leaky" and will exchange that high-percentage CO2 environment pretty quickly. Short acute exposure to a high-CO2 environment won't do much more than cause increased breathing rate and heart rate, 2 minutes or better and it's night-night.

(I was in a 10'x15' room with a 300-pound liquid CO2 tank that blew a 1" line and dumped itself quite rapidly, grabbed a kid that was in there with me, went to the floor and pushed/crawled out the door to outdoors)
Click to expand...


We used to get coolers of material in with dry ice in them. The coolers were 4' x 3' x 3'. As it sublimated it displaced the O2 in the cooler. Reaching in to get some of the last product of of the cooler I started to feel myself lose consciousness. Luckily I was able to get my head out of there and not pass out in the cooler.
 
Morne said:
It seems the argument against dry chemical is that the post fire residue is corrosive. Like I care! If I have to fight an onboard fire I am not worrying about future corrosion, the insurance company just bought my hull!

I have dry chemical behind the left seat.
Click to expand...

Blowing ammonium phosphate into evetyones eyes sounds like a great way increase misery before death.
 
Morne said:
It seems the argument against dry chemical is that the post fire residue is corrosive. Like I care! If I have to fight an onboard fire I am not worrying about future corrosion, the insurance company just bought my hull!

I have dry chemical behind the left seat.
Click to expand...

Well, there's also trying to breath in a fog of Purple K and trying to see through it. I'll take Halon.
 
airguy said:
(I was in a 10'x15' room with a 300-pound liquid CO2 tank that blew a 1" line and dumped itself quite rapidly, grabbed a kid that was in there with me, went to the floor and pushed/crawled out the door to outdoors)
Click to expand...

You survived - that's a good thing. Going to the floor wasn't such a good thing. CO2 is heavier than O2 so you put yourself into higher CO2 concentration.
 
Henning said:
Maybe not long term, but short term you're ok. When Halon first came out they had a demo at trade shows, a plexi box the guy would get in, he'd light a smoke with a Zippo leaving it burn, then they hit it with Halon. The smoke and lighter would go out but the guy would remain standing.
Click to expand...

I saw a similar demo in the late 1970s when I worked for the Navy. Impressive. We kept waiting for the long play salesman to go out, but he kept talking. :D
 
Ron Levy said:
How about additional units of Halon instead? Really -- those new mixes aren't nearly as effective and create a much more lethal post-fire environment.
Click to expand...

I rechecked and turns out I did a better job initially outfitting than I remembered, all 3 units are halogen. Some of the other units in the hangar are non-halogen mixes though.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
I rechecked and turns out I did a better job initially outfitting than I remembered, all 3 units are halogen. Some of the other units in the hangar are non-halogen mixes though.
Click to expand...
"Halogen" is not the same as "Halon." There are HFC and HCFC agents called "Halotron" and other things, and they contain halogens (fluorine and chlorine). However, they are not "Halon", do not contain bromine (the big gun in that inventory, also a halogen), and are substantially less effective than brominated agents like Halons 1301 and 1211. The negative issues I discussed regarding speed of extinguishment and post-fire environment in an enclosed area like a cockpit apply to those agents which are halogenated but not brominated. For cockpit use, make sure it's HALON (either 1301, 1211, or a combination of the two), not some similar but different name.
 
As Ron points out Halon is a different beast. You won't find Halon extinguishers these days outside of certain confined space units like airplane use. My hangar has an automatic suppression system that's a combo of dry chemical and halogenated agents. It is not Halon (nor would it be legal or practical to use it).

Back before people got concerned over the ozone, Halon was standard in computer center fire suppression. After it was discovered that we had none in our computer center at APG, they outfitted the whole room with large Halon hand extinguishers. Then they took all us engineers and computer geeks out back and the post fire department set large pans of diesel fuel on fire and had us practice extinguishing it with the big halon hand extinguisher. It was fun, but I can't imagine how much that cost. It was particularly fun watching one of our 4'8" female engineers lugging that giant extinguisher up to the fire and blasting away with it.
 
I have an '84 Warrior with an extinguisher installed in the center console. Other than checking that it's green, I never thought to check what type it is. I guess the next time through I will be looking.
Thanks Ron. As usual, very good info.
 
Ron Levy said:
"Halogen" is not the same as "Halon." There are HFC and HCFC agents called "Halotron" and other things, and they contain halogens (fluorine and chlorine). However, they are not "Halon", do not contain bromine (the big gun in that inventory, also a halogen), and are substantially less effective than brominated agents like Halons 1301 and 1211. The negative issues I discussed regarding speed of extinguishment and post-fire environment in an enclosed area like a cockpit apply to those agents which are halogenated but not brominated. For cockpit use, make sure it's HALON (either 1301, 1211, or a combination of the two), not some similar but different name.
Click to expand...

They're Halon, typo by me, thanks. I knew it didn't sound quite right.
 
Last edited:
EdFred said:
We used to get coolers of material in with dry ice in them. The coolers were 4' x 3' x 3'. As it sublimated it displaced the O2 in the cooler. Reaching in to get some of the last product of of the cooler I started to feel myself lose consciousness. Luckily I was able to get my head out of there and not pass out in the cooler.
Click to expand...


When I was flying boxes between Seattle and Oakland every night there would be the occasional shipment of flowers packed in dry ice. I wore oxygen on those trips.

Bob Gardner
 
BTW, iodine is also a halogen, and is even more effective than bromine in interfering with the kinetics of a fire. Thus, CF3I (Halon 13001) is even more effective than CF3Br (Halon 1301). Also, unlike CF3Br is not significantly ozone depleting. Only problem is that CF3I is also a pretty potent cardiac sensitizing compound, and can trigger a heart attack in anyone with preexisting heart problems, which made it DOA as a 1301 replacement. :sigh: It's always bloody something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top