Aircraft rescue firefighting
Published: 01 October, 2005
With the deregulation of the airline industry, outsourcing of aircraft maintenance and an aging aircraft fleet, there are very real concerns about international aviation safety, especially in less developed countries.
Since September 11th much of the US funding for public safety has been funnelled away from fire services and towards counter-terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction preparedness and planning.
However, the recent hurricane which struck New Orleans and the US Gulf coast illustrates that even the best governmental emergency plans for catastrophic disaster management may not be worth the paper they are written on - unless they are realistic and able to be executed seamlessly.
The same is true for emergency planning and response for on and off-airport aircraft accidents, albeit they are usually more localised incidents that may only require a local, regional or statewide response. However, as the events in New Orleans clearly illustrated, even the local and state disaster management plans failed miserably during the critical first days after the disaster struck.
The need to co-ordinate
When a major aircraft accident occurs there are no second chances to save lives. Pandemonium must be prevented through proper planning and training. Remember this adage, “Failing to plan is planning to fail.”
No single emergency response agency can effectively co-ordinate all aspects of a major air crash disaster. A unified effort is required. Conversely, all responding agencies must be ‘singing from the same hymn book’ - meaning that they must all understand and implement the Incident Command System (ICS). If not, communications will quickly break down resulting in a lack of co-ordination and confusion.
It’s the wheel thing
Rescue and firefighting equipment for aircraft rescue firefighting (ARFF), especially airport fire vehicles, have evolved tremendously over the years. While there are many ARFF vehicle manufacturers across the world, the leaders in the industry - Oshkosh Trucks Inc. and Rosenbauer (Austria) - have been producing innovative airport crash rescue vehicles.
Oshkosh Truck Corporation’s new ‘STRIKER’ series vehicles are now seen at many airports across the United States. The Austria-based Rosenbauer AG U.S. subsidiary, Rosenbauer America, has been making strides into the American ARFF vehicle marketplace with brisk sales of its ‘PANTHER’ 4X4 and 6X6 series vehicles.
At INTERSCHUTZ ‘05 Rosenbauer AG recently introduced its new generation ‘PANTHER MA-5’ crash truck designed to offer a more spacious user-friendly operator cab and sleek new chassis design. In addition, its new prototype RM45AR high-capacity foam/water bumper turret offers a simple design configuration and offers more versatility than other similar bumper turret systems.
There is however, a unique US-based ARFF vehicle manufacturer, Colet SVD (Newark, California) whose motto could well be, ‘Quality, not quantity’. While the company does not market or produce ARFF vehicles ‘en-masse,’ the airport fire trucks it builds are designed to high tech specifications: they represent the fastest and the most manoeuvrable ARFF vehicles on the market today.
Colet recently delivered a K-30R ‘JAGUAR’ 3000 gallon 6x6 ARFF vehicle to the U.S. Military Plant 42, and a civilian K-15S ‘JAGUAR’ 1500 gallon 4x4 to Milwaukee International Airport. A firefighter from Los Angeles International Airport who drove the K-30R JAGUAR 6X6 vehicle commented:
“This truck drives in a precise and solid way. The steering is so precise. It drives like the suspension and chassis belonged to a finely tuned sports sedan. I can also tell you that it outperforms any 8x8 (ARFF Vehicle) out there”.
A 21-year veteran firefighter from Milwaukee International Airport also commented on the new K-15S: “The K-15 drives like a car. It’s quick, fast and manoeuvrable. The tight turning radius is outstanding. The low centre of gravity gives it a steady feel.” Colet SVD now has a few other ‘high profile’ contracts underway that will certainly stir interest from other prospective international ARFF vehicle purchasers.
Turning to tools
Aircraft extrication equipment is vital to rescue survivors and recover the dead. The rescue cutting / spreading tools now on the market are designed to be lighter, stronger and portable. Almost all of them can be used to in aircraft extrication in some capacity.
Firefighters and rescuers must be aware of and recognise the hazards of aircraft construction, aircraft systems, and how to perform correct aircraft extrication techniques before any operations are conducted. Haphazard extrication operations on an aircraft can lead to serious injuries to victims and rescuers alike.
The new ultra-large, multi-level Airbus A380 aircraft has highlighted another long-standing problem - being able to rapidly access the aircraft for interior aircraft firefighting.
While there are a few airports in Europe that operate specialised vehicles designed for this purpose, most international airports do not. There is an ongoing committee study being conducted by a well-known fire protection standards organisation in regards to specifying a design criteria for an firefighting vehicle specifically for this purpose.
While it is a valid concept and need, many countries, including the United States and Canada, do not require interior aircraft ‘rescue’ of trapped aircraft passengers in their ARFF response requirements. Another more critical fact is that many airports have only the minimum mandated required firefighting personnel available, sometimes only one firefighter per vehicle. The cost versus the limited practical use of such a specialised vehicle is another consideration that may preclude mandating this as a requirement.
Many of those in the international airport regulatory community seem to forget that aircraft fire safety begins on the ground. On the ground, passive runway accident protection is needed to prevent accidents from occurring in the first place.
To illustrate these points one only has to look at the recent crash in Toronto, Canada where of an Air France Airbus A340 overshot the runway and came to rest in a small ravine 200 meters past the end of the runway. This is the same ravine that Air Canada Flight 189 slid into in 1978, resulting in two deaths.
Maybe if there had been an aircraft arrestor bed required at the end of the runway this recent crash possibly may have been prevented? Even after this low-impact crash occurred, many of the aircraft’s emergency evacuation slides failed or deployed improperly, leading to several injuries to passengers who had to jump from the exits. What would have happened if this had occurred on the upper level of an A380 or B747 aircraft?
In the Toronto crash, even though airport fire-rescue services reportedly had arrived on the accident scene within 52 seconds, the aircraft soon became enveloped in fire that spread from a rather small fire located on the exterior under the aircraft’s wing root, and subsequently burned through the aircraft skin to the interior.
The airport fire vehicles were well-equipped, including elevating and penetrating nozzles, however the ensuing fire soon overwhelmed firefighters and it quickly became a surround-and-drown operation.
Miraculously, with credit to the aircraft’s flight crew, all of the over 300 passengers miraculously escaped the ensuing inferno, although 42 passengers were injured sliding down escape chutes or jumping to the ground from the exits. But what would have happened had there been trapped or overcome passengers in this aircraft? The end result may have been quite different.
In conclusion
The recent off-airport crashes of a Boeing 737 in a rural area in Greece, the Airbus 330 crash in downtown Medan, Indonesia and the Boeing 737 crash in a swamp in the jungles of Peru once again demonstrate that major aircraft accidents DO occur outside the airport environs.
