Someone asked about 15 years ago..
a). how many hangars have we?
b). what is a catastrophic / unacceptable hangar fire? $1M, $10M, $25M
in losses (including BI)
c). what is the frequency of catastrophic hangar fires / hangar type /
year over last 50 years ?
d). bin-sort these hangar fires: by $ damage, hangar type, dates.
Then, publish the above: openly, honestly and simply.
DoD arguably has the largest data set.
As life safety professionals, we are paid to ask the question " are the
benefits worth the cost of protection? "
Someone need numerically answer "is the likelihood of catastrophic loss to
hangar fire tolerable? "
With numberical answers to questions a). - c). we can f-N graph**** &
answer the last question in 10 minutes.
As life safety professionals, we should be asking the questions,
"What is the estimated present-value cost of unwanted activations with
fluorinated C6 on our environment?"
"What is our guess on the present-value cost of fire protection PFOA/PFOS
releases over the years?
There comes a number (i.e. likelihood of occurrence) whereby--hangar fires
are so infrequent, aircraft damage
is so low, and environmental damage so large, that
we save massive amounts of energy, materials, time and clean
environment,
by NOT installing fixed foam systems in hangars.
Find a safety professional who will put numerical answers to these
questions. Open, honest, simple
answers could save millions of dollars, months of time, and a lot of still
good drinking water.
Bonus questions:
"Is fluorinated C6 fire fighting foam really a winner for the environment,
or is it simply regulatory capture? "
"Are 33% (-5% / +45%) of automatic foam hangar-FP systems unable to
extinguish design fire in < 10+ years?"
"Has the FP industry fleeced the deep-money pockets of the air-equipment
industry ?"
The unwritten rule is... ' insiders never talk bad about other insiders."
Break these rules and be cast out of the party.
Probably that rule is a rule because most insiders don't want it revealed
that while at the party, they are overpaid.
At too many parties...'loyalty trumps accuracy.'
My guess is: fire protection has wasted energy, material and time of
air-equipment owners, for financial comfort.
My guess is: almost all industries would waste customers money by taking
more money than was necessary, if
these other industries also had regulatory capture (i.e. a Building Code
prescribing the purchase of their systems).
But loyalty and these 'party rules' survived because we tolerated wastage
of excess resources.
Tolerance for wasting clean water, materials and energy is waning as fast
as these resources are.
Even first-year engineering students are taught about limits to materials
and energy,
a class that the savvy 'grow-the-economy' financialists and politicians
missed
a class that engineers conviently forgot.
The question ' can we tolerate eliminating a safety system?' needs asking,
whether that safety system is poisoning
the public drinking water, or that system in 10-years has a 40% - 75%
chance of not working***.
If an industry is profiting from destroying the commons (unwittingly or
not) or excessively fleecing
the customer, then these questions need asking, and answering, with
open, honest and simple guesses by ALL* stakeholders as to numerical
likelihoods of catastrophe
all stakeholders** giving their numerical frequency at which
catastrophe is tolerated.
* All stakeholders should include the normal externalities (i.e. those
drinking water around hangar foam systems).
** in particular, the alpha-managers of construction whom usually are
silent, while commanding their subordinate-engineers to justify design
strategies that lack open, honest and simple numerical likelihood of
catastrophe.
*** not working is defined as not extinguishing its design fire in time
alloted.
**** f-N graph was developed by Farmer for NASA in 1969. The Dutch largely
popularized it, it justified spending limited money on systems built to
protect thousands of lives from flooding.
The party rules need bending because materials & energy that excessively
stocked the punch bowls are waning.
'The measure of intelligence is the ability to change." a einstein
Scot Deal
Excelsior Risk Engineering
gms: +420 606 872 129
On Wed, Feb 9, 2022 at 4:16 PM Prahl, <
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org> wrote on Group III Aircraft hanger
>
> All that NFPA 409 states is that a fixed fire protection system shall be
> installed where required by and in accordance with locally adopted building
> codes.
>
> Bobby Welch | Sprinkler Systems Designer
> KOORSEN FIRE & SECURITY
> 3577 Concorde Rd, Vandalia, OH 45377
> P 937.641.8403 | Ext. 0318 | M 937.594.8457
> bobby.we...@koorsen.com<mailto:bobby.we...@koorsen.com> | www.koorsen.com<
> https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.koorsen.com__;!!B5cixuoO7ltTeg!Ql0_2PfKSzQQRjsCNPJ_9rT_1E0fgJfpDSDOpHGu07YN07jhWfK4FDCCBrWE1mTiTg$
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
