My Engine Fire!!

"Marty" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Good stuff snipped....

Most aircraft have Halon extinguishers which work well
on such fires.


CJ,
Is there a special exclusion for the use of Halon in planes?
I thought Halon was outlawed or common use and now required special
permitting.
Great stuff tho.

Halon is not outlawed. You cannot produce it, but there are sufficient
stockpiles of the stuff to make fire extinguishers for years.

It is a great example of the idiocy of environmental laws. Bureaucrats would
rather you burn alive than suffer a miniscule risk of getting cancer 20
years down the road.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

"Marty" wrote in message
...

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...

Good stuff snipped....

Most aircraft have Halon extinguishers which work well
on such fires.


CJ,
Is there a special exclusion for the use of Halon in planes?
I thought Halon was outlawed or common use and now required special
permitting.
Great stuff tho.

Halon is not outlawed. You cannot produce it, but there are sufficient
stockpiles of the stuff to make fire extinguishers for years.

It is a great example of the idiocy of environmental laws. Bureaucrats
would
rather you burn alive than suffer a miniscule risk of getting cancer 20
years down the road.


Guess I need not worry too much about the 20lb bottle I have then ;-)

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
It is a great example of the idiocy of environmental laws. Bureaucrats
would
rather you burn alive than suffer a miniscule risk of getting cancer 20
years down the road.

Actually, it was banned as a ozone-depleter, if I recall correctly. I
suppose that could lead to skin cancer, but most people consider that to be
the least of the concerns with respect to the ozone layer disappearing.

In any case, there are other fire extinguishing agents that work just as
well. Yes, they aren't necessarily as friendly to your airplane, but having
to spend more money after a fire isn't the same kind of thing as making you
"burn alive".

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
It is a great example of the idiocy of environmental laws. Bureaucrats
would
rather you burn alive than suffer a miniscule risk of getting cancer 20
years down the road.

Actually, it was banned as a ozone-depleter, if I recall correctly. I
suppose that could lead to skin cancer, but most people consider that to
be
the least of the concerns with respect to the ozone layer disappearing.

In any case, there are other fire extinguishing agents that work just as
well. Yes, they aren't necessarily as friendly to your airplane, but
having
to spend more money after a fire isn't the same kind of thing as making
you
"burn alive".

Are you seriously suggesting that the tiny quantities of halon discharged in
airplane fires will have any appreciable effect on the ozone? What makes you
think the other agents do not have the same or worse environmental effects?

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Are you seriously suggesting that the tiny quantities of halon discharged
in
airplane fires will have any appreciable effect on the ozone?

No. It's not the individual fires for which an individual canister of halon
is discharged that's the problem. It's the total leakage that happens over
the entire production, distribution, and storage lifetime of halon products.

That said, one aspect of halon and similar agents is that a very small
amount goes a very long way, in terms of depleting ozone. Because they act
to encourage chemical reactions that get rid of ozone without actually being
consumed in those reactions themselves (things that behave this way are
known as catalysts), once ANY halon or other depleting agent gets into the
upper atmosphere, it stays there for a very long time doing harm.

What makes you
think the other agents do not have the same or worse environmental
effects?

Um, because they don't. Your question is like asking what makes me think I
can't use water as fuel for my airplane. The chemical agents used in fire
extinguishers now are very different from halon, in that they are not
catalysts for ozone-reducing reactions.

In any case, I'm not here to debate the merits of halon bans with you. I
was simply explaining WHY the ban exists, and the error in your assumption
that a) you have to burn alive without halon and b) that cancer is the
concern. You should feel free to contest the ban as much as you like, but
if you don't get your facts straight everyone will just think you're an
idiot.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Are you seriously suggesting that the tiny quantities of halon
discharged
in
airplane fires will have any appreciable effect on the ozone?

No. It's not the individual fires for which an individual canister of
halon
is discharged that's the problem. It's the total leakage that happens
over
the entire production, distribution, and storage lifetime of halon
products.

That said, one aspect of halon and similar agents is that a very small
amount goes a very long way, in terms of depleting ozone. Because they
act
to encourage chemical reactions that get rid of ozone without actually
being
consumed in those reactions themselves (things that behave this way are
known as catalysts), once ANY halon or other depleting agent gets into the
upper atmosphere, it stays there for a very long time doing harm.

What makes you
think the other agents do not have the same or worse environmental
effects?

Um, because they don't. Your question is like asking what makes me think
I
can't use water as fuel for my airplane. The chemical agents used in fire
extinguishers now are very different from halon, in that they are not
catalysts for ozone-reducing reactions.

In any case, I'm not here to debate the merits of halon bans with you. I
was simply explaining WHY the ban exists, and the error in your assumption
that a) you have to burn alive without halon and b) that cancer is the
concern. You should feel free to contest the ban as much as you like, but
if you don't get your facts straight everyone will just think you're an
idiot.


You are quite right. I am just an idiot who asks dumb questions. Questions
like, "Halon has been banned for ten years now. Is the ozone layer coming
back?"

But we will let it rest. Suffice it to say that there is considerable
dispute as to whether chlorofluorocarbons have had any effect on the ozone
layer at all. There is certainly no hard scientific data supporting the
theory.

So we will re-state my assertion as, "Bureaucrats would rather that you burn
alive than risk any damage to their pet environmental religious theories."

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
You are quite right. I am just an idiot who asks dumb questions. Questions
like, "Halon has been banned for ten years now. Is the ozone layer coming
back?"

Obviously the meaning of the word "catalyst" has escaped you.

But we will let it rest. Suffice it to say that there is considerable
dispute as to whether chlorofluorocarbons have had any effect on the ozone
layer at all. There is certainly no hard scientific data supporting the
theory.

I guess that depends on your definition of "hard". There is at least as
much evidence in favor of the CFC ozone-depletion theory as there is in
favor of the theory of evolution. You probably don't believe in that theory
either, is my guess, so there's not really any point in trying to discuss it
with you.

So we will re-state my assertion as, "Bureaucrats would rather that you
burn
alive than risk any damage to their pet environmental religious theories."

Your assertion is still false. It assumes that halon is the only way to put
a fire out in an airplane, which is simply not the case.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
You are quite right. I am just an idiot who asks dumb questions.
Questions
like, "Halon has been banned for ten years now. Is the ozone layer
coming
back?"

Obviously the meaning of the word "catalyst" has escaped you.

But we will let it rest. Suffice it to say that there is considerable
dispute as to whether chlorofluorocarbons have had any effect on the
ozone
layer at all. There is certainly no hard scientific data supporting the
theory.

I guess that depends on your definition of "hard". There is at least as
much evidence in favor of the CFC ozone-depletion theory as there is in
favor of the theory of evolution. You probably don't believe in that
theory
either, is my guess, so there's not really any point in trying to discuss
it
with you.


If you mean by the theory of evolution such concepts as DNA inheritance,
natural selection, and genetic drift, then your assumptions about what I
believe are entirely unfounded.

To elevate a peripheral theory about ozone depletion to the level of the
foundation of all biological science is silly beyond belief.