gizzard
-
Posts
862 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Gallery
Downloads
Calendar
C-130 Hercules News
Posts posted by gizzard
-
-
Gizzard,
Thanks for taking the time to research this issue; however, maybe I'll keep the results to myself, after all I don't want to remove all hope!
Ron
Oh, I don't blame you a bit, Ron. I reckon in such a situation ANYTHING is worth a try. I just hope you are NEVER in that situation to begin with.
Giz
-
Gizzard,
We have always carried either a Purple K fire extinguisher on the aircraft for munitions fires (AC-130) because we were told that Purple K was very effective with munitions. Do you agree with this or would dry chemical be a better choice?
Ron
Ron, i did some research and contact queires and got this........ Purple K on ammunition fires is about the same as boiling water when someone is havin' a baby.....It gives you something to do until the shit hits the fan. They tell me that unless the ammunitin is involved in a petroleum or hydrocarbon fire, there is no benefit to using Purple K. Now I'll bet that some old heads will say "Oh that's wrong." But when i was teaching fire schools, I used to to tell my students to make a bullshit file, and to put all the old wive's tales about techniques, equipment, and situations in it that I would debunk. This one probably would go in that!
-
Giz, I bought a couple extinguishers I came across at Costo. They're the size of spray paint cans. No shelf life. Just pop the top and spray. Seem to be convenient and easily handled by anyone. You ever seen anything like that or are aware of their reliability?
Yes, I have seen some like that. I guess what I would suggest is this" To be sure you have a good extinguisher, look for the following on the label. could be all or just one... the familiar UL for underwriter's laboratory, a diamond shape symbol with an FM inside, for factory mutual, or an anchor, for the coast guard. These indicate the agent, the container and the discharge system meet standards for effectiveness, safety, and reliability. If the ones you have have these, they are okay.. As for rating, Class A is ordinary flammables, like paper, wood, etc, Class B is flammable liquids, gases and greases, Class C involves or is near ENERGIZED electrical equipment.....
-
Yeah, Hollywood takes liberties, mostly to do it on the cheap. If they would show some of the stuff we actually did with the old girl, nobody would believe it!!!!!!!!! And yes I'm the same way watchin' aviation movies or documentaries. Especially the crap the History, Discovery and such channels......................
-
Can't really say, Ron. We were always taught not to fight ammo or explosive fires, they are losers.Kind of hard to run away from them on an airplane though. Purple K is a form of dry chemical agent, just as the sodium bicarb and ammonium phosphate based dry chems are. Like I posted earlier, for my purposes and training, Purple K was the cat's meow for Class B fires, which are flammable liquids, gases and greases. It interferes with the chemical chain reaction of combustion very very well, so I would not doubt that it would be effective on ammo fires. Since i was a civilian firefighter, our situations were different than the military. All that bein' said, let me see what I can find out. I have a couple contacts in the " go boom" industry and I'll see what they can tell me. I would bet they probably made some of the stuff you used.
-
No doubt, Dave, most of those agents are horrible to people. Sometimes. the effects are immediate, sometimes way down the road. sound like another compound we all know about???
-
Purple K is a potassium based (hence the K) dry chemical agent particularly effective against hydro-carbon/petroleum type fires. It has/had a Class B rating, and was discharged from a pressurized extinguisher. Somehow, the idea got spread that it was for flammable metals, Class D fires. Nope, didn't work!!!!!!!! There was a similar agent, called Monex that did the same thing, but was extremely expensive when it came out. We cared them on the rigs I rode, and I do believe a person would have been fired had they used it. I remember one had something like a 1961 date of manufacture, and that was in '83 or so. And yep, these things were very corrosive. I don't know if the animal protein you mention is the old foam solutions or not. They were made of blood, fish guts, and who knows what else, and stunk like a SOB. Plus they only had about a seven year shelf life, and then just became a five gallon bucket of blood clots. AFFF and it's successors pretty much ended that crap. Tomorrow we will discuss Class A, C, D, and K fire classifications!!!!!! LMAO!!! Seriously, hope all you guys have an ABC dry chemical extinguisher and working smoke detectors in your house. You would not believe the injury, death and property damage that I have seen that these things could have reduced or prevented.....
-
Just got a letter from the damn POS's in Baltimore, tellin' me that they are workin' on my claim, but "They are EXTREMELY busy" so just be patient. If the incompetent sons of bitches had done their job right to begin with, there would not be an issue for them to deal with. Just plain bullshit..................glad I am not in a dire situation. Into 27 months now,
-
Ya know what's scary about this????????????????? It ain't, given everything I see goin' on, that far-fetched!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
My hat off to you and all your brother firefighters.!!
Steve
Thanks, Steve, I appreciate that very much. Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. I am one lucky SOB, too, because I have TWO sets of brothers, either set puts others before themselves, and forms a wall of protection for society against forces that want to destroy it..........
giz
-
Yep, very true. A veteran is, also, someone who stepped foreward when everyone else just stood there or stepped back..... I have a question along this line.........Back in your day, whenever it was, do you think you would have ever felt you would be as proud to be called a vet, as you are now???????
-
Giz, you knew I would have to comment to your tater sacks full of doorknobs statement! You may see some that meet the requirements, but probably not the same ones you saw 40 years ago!!
Oh, I knew you would comment on that!!!!!!!! Yeah, probably won't see the same ones, but then again, there WAS that time in Hyde Park!!!!!!!!! OOOOPS! Forgot the wife is goin' too.......................
-
I wonder if we would even get through fondle and feel????????
-
Shall we wear our "Remove Before Flight" shirts????????
-
I'd like to get back to the Bird in Hand for a lime and lager, but doubt if we can make it...........Can't believe that, after 42 years, I'm goin' back to London....... Might recognize some tater sacks full of doorknobs........
-
Hey, that ain't funny at all!!!! Especially with me and the wife leavin' next Saturday for London!!!!!! Shame on you!!!!!!!!!!!
Giz
-
Okay, ya wanna hear "SAFETY" run amok????? Goofy ass OSHA has a standard 1910.134, that covers respiratory protection of all kinds, and somehow, they got into the black world of fire suppression. amongst all the totally ridiculous bullshit is this requirement..paraphrased, of course..........Before interior firefighting activities can take place, adequate personnel must be on scene so that there are two members whose only assignment is to provide back-up for the two-person attack crew. these members cannot have any other assignment such as pump operator, incident commander, ventilation, etc. This can only be circumvented in the case of a KNOWN rescue situation. We asked a sissified little OSHA talkin' head if that meant if we did not know for certain a rescue situation existed, and we did our primary search to search for victims, like we have been trained to do, would we be in violation if we did that with the first in engine company or whatever with only two or three guys. This stupid bastard said 'ABSOLUTELY, you would be in violation." One grizzled old truckie in the group said 'Well, Sonny boy, I hope to hell if it comes to that, it ain't your family that's involved.""" And don't even get me started on the changes in breathing apparatus, all of which try to protect stupid people, poorly trained ones, and cover the asses of equipment manufacturers
-
I wonder how many injuries and deaths have occurred as a result of the plethora of stupid ass safety regs. I know that a lot have occurred in the fire service due to the excessive weight and heat retention of turn out gear, for instance. I can remember when firefighting was dangerous, but sex was safe............... my how the world turns!!!!!!!!!!
-
I guess this safety bullshit is just out of control anywhere. In the mission statement of OSHA it says ( paraphased) NO employee will be exposed to lack of visibility, excessive heat, possible collapse or explosion conditions, entrapment, or other work conditions not conducive to a safe work environment." Uh, I guess my entire career I was in violation, huh???? I once worked for a construction company whose local manager referred to OSHA regs as " A complex collection of red tape, split hairs, and bullshit randomly applied with a shotgun." In civilian or military life, most of these standards come about because somebody did something STUPID, and the reg was written by somebody who had no idea of what the job requirements were .
-
Yep, Steve, that phogene gas is what comes off that stuff, carbon tet, also. If the general public had any idea of what is in the smoke from a house or vehicle, they would not believe it. These gases are all products of combustion and terribly dangerous. I often thought about the exposures guys had gotten from fighting aircraft fires, both on the ground, and in-flight with some of these agents. Bet quite a few of them had their lives shortened or made very miserable as a result.
-
Those shiney brass fire ex. were of the ethlene family, chobromomethlene or the triethelene both were designed to put you out rather than the fire.
Steve
You're right on both counts, Steve. I had a brainfart and mixed up the extinguishing agents. Non-aircraft types, often labelled as "Pyrene" had, usually, the carbon tet. Back in the 50's through the late 60's, early 70's, many brother firefighters got exposed to the crap released when this stuff contacted hot metal, and developed all kinds of disabling and fatal diseases. Of course, back in that time period, and even up into the early '80's, breathing apparatus wasn't mandatory. Miners used canaries to detect bad atmospheres, we firefighters used EACH OTHER!!!!!
-
Was halon the ingredients in those little brass fire extinguisher bottles that were on my planes in the late 60's and early 70's? I remember on Jan 1st. 1968 in Katum I stood by with one of those little farts while we started the GTC right on top of a lake of JP-4. I was thinking "yeh right" . No fire got started and I didn't have to use the extinguisher. Would it have done any good? I know I was planning on doing what NATOPS1 said!!!!
I'll never forget the good old days,
Those brass hand pumps contained carbon tetrachloride, which was an early halon agent. Same stuff was in those glass "fire grenades' that you occasionally see, that those dipshits on either Pickers or Pawn Stars said was water....This stuff was hateful, but very effective. It was widely used by the fire service until it became known that it was a hell of a carcinogen and a neurotoxin. It also was widely used as a cleaning agent in dry cleaning shops. And yes it would have been very effective to put out the initial fire, but like dry chemical agents, and CO2, it did not give protection against flashback, so there was the very real chance of the fuel, especially a flammable liquid ( where would that come from?) would reignite.
Sorry you asked?????????
load clear
Giz, former truckie and fire instructor
-
Guys, one of our own, Sparks, is experiencing some really serious medical issues with his son. Without a lot of details, let me say the whole family is in for quite a difficult stretch. I met him, and spent four days with him at the 316th reunion last June, and he is a top drawer guy........Let's all do whatever we find appropriate to give support and comfort. I know he would do the same for us.
Sparks, you ain't alone!!!!!!!!!!
load clear
Giz
-
Halon was still bing used into the mid to late '90's.Don't know about after that.I retired in '95
>
That was just about the time they were being phased out in civilian usage. The big advantage of Halons, which were compounds made up of various combinations of Carbon, Chlorine, Bromine, and Flourine, if my memory serves, they extinguished by blocking the chemical chain reaction in the combustion process, but did not leave any residue, like dry chemical agents do, but they can be toxic by inhalation, and can exclude oxygen in enclosed areas. okay, Fire 101 is over for today....................
Giz
halon fire extinguisher
in C-130 Technical
Posted
Looks like you have a good product there........I see the pictographs on it for its use on the front. It meets UL 711, and seems to be much cleaner to sue than the typical household dry chemical. Would I have it in my house??? Yes, I think so. the agent is one of the new compounds developed to take the place of the old stuff us dinosaur smoke-eaters used. One tip, aim the spray at the base of the fire, the flames above are just exhaust........... Thanks for providing a good level of protection to your family and property. Now are your smoke detectors workin' and less than ten years old????????
on downwind, turnin' final
Giz