futr_alaskaflyer wrote: Personally I would really hate to have to deploy purple K in an aircraft cockpit while moving!
I agree! I have never heard from anyone who has discharged dry chem in a plane while flying but I would guess it would be very hard to continue safely while trying to find a landing spot. Having used dry chem in many practice sessions outside, the plume from them is very dense restricting visibility and you would be breathing/choking on that same powder.
Reeve Airmotive at Merrill Field in Anchorage has several reasonably priced Halon hand-held extenguishers in various sizes. That is what I use and recommend to anyone. I have been in Halon discharges in several oil facilities up north and can say from personal experience Halon does not cause any problems other than lowering your voice a couple of octaves due to being denser than air.
Richard Pulley
2014-2016 TIC170A Past President
1951 170A, N1715D, s/n 20158, O-300D
2023 Best Original 170A at Sault Ste. Marie
Owned from 1973 to 1984.
Bought again in 2006 after 22 years.
It's not for sale!
hilltop170 wrote:...Halon does not cause any problems other than lowering your voice a couple of octaves due to being denser than air.
Perhaps this might help Ol'Gar when he tries to sing bass? (or when he wears his high-water pants.)
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
futr_alaskaflyer wrote:...While I respect George's viewpoint on Halon vs. dry chemical in enclosed cabins, many would disagree with it including - apparently - the FAA. ...
I appreciate your polite response, but I am confused by this statement. What have I said that the FAA disagrees with in those AC's? I cannot find any disagreement. (Have I left some unintended impression?)
(I will add that typical "dry chemical" extinguishers that use ammonium phosphate can be very difficult to clean up due to it's forming a "crust" that can be corrosive, but it is very effective at saving life/equipment otherwise.)
Sorry. Didn't mean to sound anything close to rude. I think I was reacting to the comments about the danger of Halon deployed in a confined space on an aircraft. The FAA has pointed out (if I read correctly) that in the typical aircraft with the proper size extinguisher that is not an issue. Lots of good reading about the two common types of Halon in extinguishers and their relative merits and dangers to humans.
While the most likely place to have to use my extinguisher would be on the ground at the fuel pump or at the tie down, I like the idea of having one that does not shoot out a substance that would be instantly blinding if I experienced the extreme misfortune of a fire in the air that was not resolved by shutting off electrical power
There is also a Halon substitute that is much more environmentally friendly, but is less efficient than Halon during a fire, called "Halatron."
Richard
N3477C
'55 B model (Franklin 6A-165-B3 powered, any others out there?)
Yes, however the FAA AC points out that subsequent "ventilation" is important, as I mentioned. No offense taken at all. I just wanted to make certain I didn't give out bad info. Thanks.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
gahorn wrote:Yes, however the FAA AC points out that subsequent "ventilation" is important, as I mentioned. No offense taken at all. I just wanted to make certain I didn't give out bad info. Thanks.
In my aircraft, ventilation in the cabin has never been an issue
Richard
N3477C
'55 B model (Franklin 6A-165-B3 powered, any others out there?)
Cessna® is a registered trademark of Textron Aviation, Inc. The International Cessna® 170 Association is an independent owners/operators association dedicated to C170 aircraft and early O-300-powered C172s. We are not affiliated with Cessna® or Textron Aviation, Inc. in any way.
