do we really have a fire problem
if there is a reluctance to share information?
i am wondering
what grudges lay in the minds of curmedgeons?
some know more details than i
and begrudge sharing
to spite my glaring
low-flying tactics
or disrespectful habits.
but here is where
the designer
can be superior
to the engineer:
offer a solution that
caters to a diverse situation.
scenario: air traffic control tower manned
by 5 - 10 personnel
objectives: not clear, but it is obvious
that a lack of willingness
to share information,
or lack of hutzpah to even
ask the questions has
left the designer with
little other choice than
to cater to
an unknown audience.
but it is obvious we have:
1. at times, thousands of lives in the air
most of whom can be rerouted in a manner of minutes to
other airspace,
however, I am not convinced that these ATC folk will
leave their posts
even if a fire is burning in their face... i believe
they will stay
until they know their bird is safely away.
2. expensive electronic gear whose function needs to be
preserved
so that the birds can be nested safely.
question is, what will standard spray water sprinklers
do to
the monitoring stations, or the computers serving the
monitors
if water flows down from the conning/observation tower
and into the server rooms?
yes, there is a complete backup site mirrored remotely
at the airport. just hope that entire operation
seamlessly
transfers to the remote location on the day it is
needed to work that way.
3. the lives of highly trained air traffic control personnel
with pretty much, only one way down, some of whom
are going to stay in their positions until
their birds are down on ground or have found another
port to land on.
design solution options:
do we put in standard spray sprinklers and risk ruining
the monitoring equipment
and bet that the entire operation transfers seamlessly to a
remote facility, and surely save the lives of the ATC personnel?
there is no doubt the ATC folk can outrun a fire in their
observation tower, but they won't just run. they won't leave
their landings undone.
we can always dry equipment out, but we can't unburn it.
sprinklers will save more than they ruin, but can we afford
to ruin much (if anything) in this situation
where sprinkler water may be mixing
with bad weather, nighttime landing conditions?
or do we put in a one-shot suppression agent (Novec, Inergen
system, etc) with a quick detection VESDA system and hope the
ATC folks can stay in the situation long
enough to redirect traffic down or around...this
sounds like a viable option, especially if an inordinately
large fire extinguisher charge were made available, as a
tertiary system.
or do we put in a quasi-tested system such as mist sprinklers
and maintain tenability while struggling to assure we
get suppression and control of fire in cables under tables?
or do we put in a pre-action sprinkler system, because we are afraid
of water damage, and hope the pre-action really does work
if there is a fire, and hope you don't have to replace the
the pipework overhead during working hours (which are 24/7)
when years later the pre-action pipes need to be retired...
any other suggestions or combinations you care to mention?
scot deal
excelsior fire engineering
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected]
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
