My Engine Fire!!

"Marty" wrote in message
...
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.

AFAIK, halon *production* is banned. However, there's a considerable
stockpile of halon left, and you can still purchase halon extinguishers. No
permits required to buy.

Pete

wrote in message ...
It's 10pm. It's 6 degrees outside. I decide to go flying. I fly an Cessna
150.

The engine has a Tanis preheater. During the pre-flight I notice that the
engine block feel reasonably warm. Everything else looks good.

I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. No joy. I let it crank for a
reasonable time to clear any flooding and repeat.

I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. No joy. I let it crank for a
reasonable time to clear any flooding and repeat.

I prime 3 or 5 shots and crank the engine. Backfire. I pause and wonder
"what the heck, it's never done that before." Then I notice a glow
from
under the engine cowling. And smoke. How weird, that's never happen before.
About two nanoseconds later I realize the engine is on FIRE!!!!!

I begin to bail out of the plane. But I cannot get my seatbelt undone. I
say
out loud "calm down", get my seat belt undone, and leave the plane.

About 30 seconds later, watching a bit of glow and smoke come from under my
cowling, I realize that the plane is not going to immediatly explode. I go
back to the plane and look for a fire extinguisher. There is none, but I do
grab my flight bag and run to the car. No fire extiguisher there either.

By now about a minute has gone by. The glow is gone, but the smoke
continues.
I sit and wait. I'd like to open the oil-access door, but I have no idea if
the fire is out and don't want to add any extra oxygen.

Finally, after 5 minutes, I walk to the plane. The cowling is cool to the
touch. I open the oil access door. Everything looks fine. Great! Now I
can go flying.

Er, not. I decide that people who fly after engine compartment fires are
those people who end up on the "How Stupid Was He" columns in my
favorite
flying magazine. I push the plane back in the hanger.

The mechanic says it might be that I over-primed the engine. It also might
be
an accumuation of oil from an oil leak. Everything important seems to be OK
except my pride.

Conclusions:

1) I forgive myself the panic two seconds with the seat belt. Next time I'll
be calmer but it was my first engine fire and I was un-calm for only two
seconds.

2) One should remember the fuel shut-off valve. It's quite out-of-sight, but
this would have been the only time in my whole flying career that it would
have actually been useful.

3) I'm gonna have to reread the "cold weather starting procedure"
section of
the manual.

4) The inside of the cowl is rather hard to see. How the heck is one suppose
to know if there is oil accumulating? Especially since there were no
significant oil drippings onto the hanger floor and the engine was not
consuming oil unreasonably.

5) Fire extinguishers. For this fire it would have made things worse. For a
different fire, it might have made things better. Hmmmmmm.

6) Insurance. The plane is insured, and I can clearly afford the deductable.

That makes many things OK.



----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email








I think one prime is all that is allowed. I finally decided to always
preheat on 31 degree fareineheit days for my carburated engine. It
seems not necessesary, except one prime always works!!

Fuel injection engines are another matter. Preheating helps
vaporization so a good easy start is also assured. And a loud backfire
is never to be encountered due to a slow start.

Marty wrote:

I thought Halon was outlawed or common use and now required special
permitting.

Halon is banned in Europe. Recycling Halon is still allowed in America.

George Patterson
Treason is ne'er successful, Sir; what then be the reason? Why, if treason
be successful, Sir, then none dare call it treason.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Marty wrote:

I thought Halon was outlawed or common use and now required special
permitting.

Halon is banned in Europe. Recycling Halon is still allowed in America.

Recycling? Not _use_?

"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."