october 23 rd th, 2012 san antonio, tx i. welcome – chair

Meeting Agenda Technical Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting

October 23rd and 24th, 2012 San Antonio, TX

I. Welcome – Chair Duane Kann II. Introductions- members and guests

III. Review and accept minutes from the January 31st to February 2nd ,

2012 meeting (see attached)

IV. NFPA update – Ken Holland, Staff Liaison

V. Review of cycle for NFPA 403, NFPA 412, and discussion

VI. Public comments for NFPA 403 (see attached)

VII. Committee comments for NFPA 403

VIII. Public comments for NFPA 412 (see attached)

IX. Committee comments for NFPA 412

X. Other Business a. Task group report from Danny Pierce

XI. Next Meeting- First Draft Meeting for 405, 408, and 422 a. New process b. Dates and location

MEETING MINUTES

Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting AIR-AAA

31 January-2 February 2012

Radisson Hotel

Irvine, CA

1

31 January

The full committee meeting was opened by Acting Chair Marc Tonnacliff at 08:15 on 31

January with the introduction of members and guests followed by opening remarks by the

Chair.

The minutes of the tele-meeting on 14 September were amended and approved as

amended.

Ken Holland, staff liaison, briefed the committee on Bob Lindstrom’s status and the

procedure that will be followed to select a new permanent chair, should the need arise.

Ken reviewed the ROP process, code fund project status, doc info pages status,

reengineering process and the new advisory process.

Ken reviewed the possible timelines for publishing of 412.

The Chair appointed task group chairs to work on 412 as follows:

Ken Petit, chapter 6 (and associated annex items) and associated public comments

Jason Shively, Annex B

Robert Mattis, chapters 4&5 (and associated annex items)

Task groups are to report back to the full committee at 11:00.

Public comment logs and committee proposals on chapters 4 & 5 were processed by the

committee.

The committee broke for lunch at 12:15.

Work resumed at 13:30 with the committee processing comments for chapter 6 and

Annex B and 1 item concerning the scope of the document.

The task groups established for work on 412 were dissolved.

MEETING MINUTES



Radisson Hotel

Irvine, CA

2

The Chair appointed task group chairs to work on 403 as follows:

Jason Shively, Chapters 1-3

Keith Bagot, Chapters 4-5

Paul Meyer, Chapters 6-7

Danny Pierce, Chapters 8-9

Nicholas Subbotin, Annex B&C

RJ Jones, Annex D&E

The chair informed the committee that 2 presentations pertaining to 403 will be given.

The time for the presentations is limited to 1 hour each.

Additional reference material was distributed concerning 1% agent. The proposal to add

section 5.2.4 about 1% agent to 412 will be processed first thing on Wednesday morning.

Following a 15 minute break, a presentation concerning ACRP arguments was given by

Danny Pierce.

The Chair thanked Danny for his presentation.

Joe Scheffey gave a presentation on a review of methodologies for calculating agent

quantities to combat aircraft crash fires.

The Chair thanked Joe for his presentation.

After a brief review of tomorrow’s activities, The Chair adjourned the meeting at 16:45.

1 February

The Chair called the meeting to order at 08:03.

The comment concerning 1% agent was processed.

Ken discussed the idea of reengineering the committee’s documents.

The task groups assigned to 403 assembled to begin work on the document.

The committee reassembled at 11:00 and began processing public comments and

committee proposals for chapters 1-3.

The committee broke for lunch at 12:00.

MEETING MINUTES



Radisson Hotel

Irvine, CA

3

Work resumed at 13:30 with the committee processing committee proposals for chapters

4-9.1.3

Task groups that were established for 403 were dissolved once their tasks were met.

After a brief review of tomorrow’s activities, The Chair adjourned the meeting at 17:40.

2 February

Full committee met to work on and continue to develop text on 403.

The committee addressed all public proposals for NFPA 412 and 403 and developed

several committee proposals for each document that will be balloted by the entire

technical committee.

A task group was established, to be chaired by Danny Pierce, to look at re-engineering

the existing cadre of documents the committee is responsible for. The task group

members will be submitted for formal recognition by the next meeting.

The committee also began to look at its existing committee scope to see if it needs

refining or modification based on current ARFF technologies and practices. This will be

addressed at the next meeting.

The committee discussed dates and locations for the next meeting, which was decided,

would need to be a physical one due to the changes that were proposed to 403 as well as

to continue to work on the re-engineering of the committee and its documents.

The dates were the week of October 22nd

, 2012 with the possible locations of San

Antonio, Denver, or Kansas City.

The committee is also reminded that anyone interested for consideration for the position

of chair is to submit an email expressing their desire to be chair to me by no later than

May 11, 2012 for Standards Council consideration.

Meeting adjourned by the Chair at 11:30.

Report on Comments – June 2013 NFPA 403_______________________________________________________________________________________________403- Log #2

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Simon Webb, UK Civil Aviation Authority

403-12Foams should be classified by their performance and not by their composition names. For example

foams meeting performance standard XX …. Rather than AFFF or fluorine free.To use current chemical based names for foams hinders future developments. The key criteria is that

they should do the job, so use that as the criteria and not their composition.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________403- Log #1

_______________________________________________________________________________________________John F. Bender, UL LLC

403-13Revise text as follows:

– Fluorine-Free Synthetic Foams shall meet the performance requirements of EN1568, Part 3

or UL 162

Add reference to UL 162 which also includes the testing and listing of synthetic foams.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________403- Log #4

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Bernard Valois, Autopyro

403-13Revise text to read as follows:

– Fluorine-Free Synthetic Foams shall be tested to meet the appropriate level of performance requirements ofthe most recent version of ICAO Airport Services Manual DOC 9137 chapter 8 or, the EN1568, Part 3

are required to be listed as conforming to the US MIL specification-F24325 or themost recent version of ICAO Airport Services Manual DOC 9137 chapter 8 level C requirements and tested at anapplication rate of .04 US gal per square foot

.are required to be listed as conforming to the most recent version of ICAOAirport Services Manual DOC 9137 chapter 8 Level B requirements or the EN1568, Part 3

06 US gal per square footare required to be listed as conforming to the most recent version of ICAO Airport

Services Manual DOC 9137 chapter 8 Level A requirements1.0 US gal per square foot

Appendix in A 5.1.2 currently mentions that other international test methods may be acceptable to theAHJ. Aviation safety is of international scope and the original NFPA numbers were derived from the ICAO; consequentlythe ICAO and other international standards need to be mentioned.

1Printed on 9/20/2012


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Graeme Day, BAA

403-13Add new text to read as follows:

– Fluorine-Free Synthetic Foams shall meet the performance requirements of EN1568, Part 3

The committee added this requirement as International aviation regulators are now requiring that thiscategory foam to be used on aerodromes and this insertion will reflect the International status of NFPA 403.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________403- Log #11

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Graeme Day, BAA

403-30Delete text to read as follows:

All ARFF vehicles responding shall carry either one or both of the following categories of complementary agents:Potassium based bicarbonate or potassium bicarbonate dry chemicalHalogenated agent

In line with the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the production ofhalon 1301, 1211 and 2402 has been banned since 1994.The USA Environmental Protection Agency has evaluated substitutes for the ozone-depleting chemicals that are being

phased out as part of its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP).Halons should not therefore, be discussed in this document but comment should be made stating that they may still be

found in some aircraft fixed installations.This deletion will reflect recent changes to the ICAO Airport Services Manual Part 1 Rescue and Fire Fighting.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________Bernard Valois, Autopyro

403-15, 403-16AFFF (column, for High performance foam concentrate),

(Fluoroprotein and FFFP ,Fluorine Free Synthetic (column 2, for Medium performance foam concentrate) and ProteinFoams (column 3 with General use foam concentrate)

New headers and numbers for the three columns based on the revised numbers published by the ICAO and the EASAand the performance of the current US Mil specification. Below I am providing the numbers for the new first column inmetric and I am prepared to produce the equivalent table in US if the proposal is retained. First columnNote: New numbers based on ICAO level C and MIL spec testing application rates

Second column

Third column

The current table 5.3.1 Q1 and Q2 numbers of the first column are based on lesser (mediumperformance level) application rates ICAO level B of 5.5 LPM per M2. The numbers have never been adjusted followingthe evolution of agents to higher performance requirements such as ICAO level C and Mil F and appropriate testapplication densities.Safety considerations:The safety factor margins have been retained in the ICAO numbers to a level equivalent to what it was in the 3 existinglevels. As an example the test application rate of the ICAO level C is of 1.75 LPM per M2 for a calculated operationalrequirement of 3.75 LPM per M2.

Trade issues in support of identifying concentrates by performance levels:Applying a type of agent such as an AFFF or FFFP to a column just by name may constitute a trade restriction. As ahypothetical example, a newly developed super protein foam could outperform some of the lesser performing AFFF.


NFPA 403 Log #3 Rec A2013 ROC

Category High performance concentrate Litres

1

Q1 315 Q2 0 Q3 0 Total 315

2

Q1 420 Q2 113 Q3 0 Total 533

3

Q1 765 Q2 230 Q3 1100 Total 2095

4

Q1 1261 Q2 731 Q3 2250 Total 4242

5

Q1 2381 Q2 1786 Q3 4750 Total 8917

6

Q1 3414 Q2 3414 Q3 4750 Total 11578

7

Q1 4290 Q2 5534 Q3 4750 Total 14574

8

Q1 5645 Q2 8581 Q3 9450 Total 23676

9

Q1 7034 Q2 11957 Q3 9450 Total 28441

10

Q1 8554 Q2 16253 Q3 18900 Total 43707


_______________________________________________________________________________________________Ross A. Davidson, US Department of the Navy

403-19Category 7 lists number of required vehicles as three. The Proposal suggests a change to two. I

recommend leaving at the original requirement of three vehicles.Reducing the number of vehicles is a risk. If a vehicle breaks down or is unable to make it to the

scene, the agent flow is drastically reduced. There is also a tactical advantage of 3 vehicles over two which would belost by reducing the number of vehicles.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________403- Log #6



The demonstrated response time of the first responding ARFF vehicle to reach any point on the operational runwayand begin agent application shall be within three two minutes of the time of the alarm. The demonstrated response timeof the first responding ARFF vehicle to reach any point remaining within the on-airport portion of the Rapid ResponseArea with improved surface conditions shall be within four 21/2 minutes from the line of the alarm.All demonstrated response times shall be in optimum conditions of visibility and surface conditions.Additional ARFF vehicles necessary to achieve the agent discharge rate shall arrive in accordance with the times

specified in Table 5.3.1(a) or Table 5.3.1(b).I concur with the proposed wording and format changes, however, the proposed increased times were

made arbitrarily without any analysis to determine the effect on burn through of aircraft and the result on life safety. Isuggest leaving the current response time requirements that were previously established by this committee.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________403- Log #8

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Joseph L. Scheffey, Hughes Associates, Inc.

403-27Delete proposed changed text and revert back to the 2009 original text which was deleted with the

change.See substantiation for my negative vote on this proposal. The technical report cited does not support a

change to 3 minute response time. A technical report recently published and made available to the technical committee,“A Technical Review of Methodologies for Calculating Firefighting Agent Quantities Needed to Combat Aircraft CrashFires,” DOT/FAA/(AR)-11/29, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, April 2012 indicatedthat NFPA agent quantities were generally adequate assuming a 2 minute response time, the current criteria.





The demonstrated response time to reach an incident/accident involving any aircraft with passengers in theaircraft movement area beyond or outside the runway and rapid response area shall be 3 minutes or less, both inoptimum conditions of visibility and surface conditions to meet the requirements in Table 5.3.1(a) or Table 5.3.1(b).

Airport ARFF services shall develop/implement a plan for responding to an incident/accident involving anyaircraft with passengers within the aircraft movement area beyond or outside the runway and RRA.

The plan shall include expectations regarding number of minutes to respond to both optimum conditions ofvisibility and surface conditions.

I concur with the proposed format changes, however, the proposed elimination of a target responsetime completely eliminated the "STANDARD" in this standard. It no longer serves any purpose and weakens the integrityof this document. I suggest leaving the current response time requirements that were previously established by thiscommittee.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________Graeme Day, BAA

403-30Halogenated extinguishing agents are hydrocarbons in which one or more hydrogen

atoms have been replaced by atoms from the halogen series—fluorine, chlorine, bromine, or iodine. This substitutionconfers not only non flammability but flame extinguishment properties to many of the resulting compounds. Halogenatedagents are used both in portable fire extinguishers and in extinguishing systems. The three halogen elements commonlyfound in extinguishing agents are fluorine (F), chlorine (Cl), and bromine (Br). The extinguishing mechanism of thehalogenated agents is not clearly understood. However, there is undoubtedly a chemical reaction that interferes with thecombustion processes. Halogenated agents act by chemically interrupting the continuing combination of the fuel radicalswith oxygen in the flame chain reactions. This process is known as Extinguishing mechanisms vary forhalogenated extinguishing agents. The primary extinguishing mechanism for Halon 1211 acted by chemicallyinterrupting the continuing combination of the fuel radicals with oxygen in the flame chain reactions. This process isknown as . Halogenated agents that have replaced Halon 1211 primarily act by increasing the heatcapacity of the air within the fire zone. This results in a cooling of the fire by removing heat that the reaction needs tosustain the flame. The discharge of Halon 1211 halogenated agents can create hazards to personnel such as dizziness,impaired coordination, reduced visibility, and exposure to toxic decomposition products. In any proposed use of Halon1211 halogenated agents where there is a possibility that people might be trapped in or enter into atmospheres madehazardous, suitable safeguards should be provided to ensure prompt evacuation of, and to prevent entry into, suchatmospheres and also to provide means for prompt rescue of any trapped personnel. Breathing apparatus should beworn. Halon 1211 is a liquefied gas discharged as an 85 percent liquid stream that forms a vapor cloud when in contactwith the fire, which permits penetration of obstructed and inaccessible areas. Halon 1211 Halogenated agents leaves noagent residue and areis the preferred agent for aircraft tire fires, engine fires, interior aircraft fires, electrical componentfires, and flight line vehicle or equipment engine fires. Halon agent is, however, included in the Montreal Protocol onSubstances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, signed September 16, 1987. The protocol permitted continued availability ofhalogenated fire extinguishing agents at reduced production levels until the year 1994. Halon use should be limited toextinguishment of unwanted fire and should not be used for routine training of personnel. Due to its ozone depletingproperties, production of new Halon 1211 stopped in 1994 and discharge of agent for training was no longer allowed. InJune 1995, the FAA certified HCFC Blend B as an acceptable alternate agent to Halon 1211 for ARFF, FAA Cert-Alert95-03. Like Halon 1211, HCFC Blend B is a clean extinguishing agent effective on Class A, B, and C hazards. It doesnot leave a residue after application, and therefore minimal or no collateral damage occurs from the agent itself toequipment and other assets in the area where it is employed.

In line with the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, the production ofhalon 1301, 1211 and 2402 has been banned since 1994.The USA Environmental Protection Agency has evaluated substitutes for the ozone-depleting chemicals that are beingphased out as part of its Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP).Halons should not therefore, be discussed in this document but comment should be made stating that they may still be

found in some aircraft fixed installations.This deletion will reflect recent changes to the ICAO Airport Services Manual Part 1 Rescue and Fire Fighting.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________Joseph L. Scheffey, Hughes Associates, Inc.

403-33Add new Section B.7.

A recent pair of studies performed by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) demonstrated that the PCA/TCAconcept is still valid. The reports are: "A Technical Review of Methodologies for Calculating Firefighting Agent QuantitiesNeeded to Combat Aircraft Crash Fires," DOT/FAA/(AR)-11/29, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal AviationAdministration, April 2012; and, "Analysis of Suppression Effects on Aviation Fuel Fires Around an Aircraft, FinalReport," DOT/FAA/(AR)-11/27, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, November 2011.These analyses addressed various factors in assessing current ARFF agent requirements. These factors included thehistorical development of the existing methods and the recent fire-related loss history. The recent loss history includesthe effectiveness of the ARFF response. A fire hazard analysis was performed for threats to occupants in an aircraft andthose who have escaped the aircraft. The NFPA 403 methodology was found to be acceptable and appropriate forestablishing agent quantities.

These new analyses were just being published as the committee met in early 2012. As part of theAnnex update, the methodology validation should be included in annex B along with the report citations, to continue thedocumentation of the historical basis of the methodology and associated agent quantities and response time.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________Kaare Holm, NoFoam Systems


Foam solution concentration shall be determined using one of the following methods as described in 6.2.2 or6.2.3 or 6.2.4.

When testing foam concentration from vehicles, the lowest flow rate outlet shall be tested first.One handheld refractometer or one handheld conductivity meter suitable for the foam concentrate being tested

shall be used for the methods described in 6.2.2 or 6.2.3.Method B (in 6.2.3) shall be used only when using a refractometer.Refractive index readings shall be taken by placing a few drops of solution on the refractometer prism, closing

the cover plate, and observing the scale reading at the dark field intersection.Or, if using conductivity, the probe shall be dipped into the sample and the digital scale read.Particularly in locations where environmental concerns call for minimizing the amount of dispensed foam during

testing, input based testing (method C) may be used as a substitute for the methods A or B, only for the purpose ofdetermining the foam solution concentrate.

A determination of the flow rates shall be made possible using the followingprocedure and apparatus.

A real-time flow meter connected to a digital flow rate read-out panel shall be used to determine theflow rate for the concentrate or the concentrate substitute. A test sheet with vehicle-specific water flow rates for eachstation, and the corresponding operational settings for the vehicle, as needed in order to provide a known water flowrate from the water pump during each test. Suitable concentrate substitute with similar viscosity may be used instead ofactual concentrate.

The foam concentration tank shall be closed off, and an alternative access to the concentrate supply pipesshall be opened and connected to the concentrate substitute supply in such a manner that the flow rates for theconcentrate substitute can be read in real-time during testing.

Using the vehicle’s operational settings for producing foam, the operator shall test each station for about 30seconds, or until the flow rates have stabilized at a stable value.

The flow rates for each station shall then be noted down, together with any operational readings that mayimpact the water flow rates (e.g. rpm of the engine or water pressure).

After completing the testing, the concentrate supply pipes shall be drained for any concentrate substitute inorder to prevent dilution of the concentrate in the concentrate tank, once the concentrate tank is opened up again.

The foam solution concentrate shall be determined using this formula:Concentrate (or substitute) flow rate x 100----------------------------------------------------___ = % foam solution concentrationConcentrate flow rate + Water flow rate

(added definitions:)Testing the foam solution by measuring the flow rate of concentrate, or suitable substitute

for concentrate, used during a specific time of the test, and comparing this flow rate to the flow rate of water used duringthe same time, then using those two numbers to calculate the proportions of concentrate and water in the foam solution.

Testing the foam solution by collecting a sample of the solution after aerating anddispensing it, and using instruments and calculations to determine the sample’s proportions of concentrate and water inthe foam solution.

This proposed method of testing the foam solution concentration will allow for a more environmentallyresponsible approach, when using plain or colored water as a substitute for AFFF concentrate during testing.Furthermore, by being able to test the proportioner and other key mechanical functions with water, there is an increasedincentive to test more frequently – most stations currently perform the NFPA 412 test annually, but with the proposedmethod it is observed that vehicles typically will get tested either quarterly or monthly, leading to better equipmentreadiness and higher operator confidence.Currently, under FAA rules, the airport fire chiefs are not required to follow NFPA 412, and local environmentalregulations have already led many chiefs to test their vehicles using the proposed method, rather than following the


Report on Comments – June 2013 NFPA 412methods currently required by the standard.The proposed method is currently being used in numerous DoD airports in the US, Australia (all Australian Defenseairports), Asia and 8 countries in Europe. It has now been in use for over 10 years, and the number of locations using itis growing by around 30% per year. This revision is a chance to bring the standard up to speed with what is alreadygoing on in the marketplace, and to allow the fire chiefs a way to follow the standard AND be in compliance with localenvironmental regulations.The proposed method is ONLY directed at the method for determining the foam solution concentration, it does not affectany other tests within the standard, and it is furthermore only suggested as an alternative for fire stations located whereenvironmental concerns call for reducing the amount of AFFF dispensed during testing.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________412- Log #1

_______________________________________________________________________________________________John F. Bender, UL LLC

412-33Revise text as follows:

Standard UL 162,U.S. Military Specification MIL-F-24385

Add most recent edition and revision date to UL 162.


october 23 rd th, 2012 san antonio, tx i. welcome – chair

Documents