This is very interesting. It makes sense.
Here's an airplane lithium battery fire article that partially backs up your observation that the halon itself doesn't prevent the toxic fumes from killing us.
Hmmmmmm... isn't that the *opposite* of how Halon works in a fire?
I tried to find an airplane cabin fire article that backed you up.
For example, this was the first hit:
But, all that article said was that the carbon monoxide from the aircraft cabin fire would displace the oxygen.
And, specifically, it said that halon does *not* "displace the oxygen" which is how carbon dioxide extinguishers work.
Here's what the article said, verbatim (in part) about the benefits:
--------------------------------- Halon is an effective agent on Class B and C fires, the ones you're most likely to see in an aircraft.
It works in gas form, so it will not obscure your vision like the powder emitted from dry chemical extinguishers. Basically, it's invisible.
As a gas, it's capable of getting into hard-to-reach places like the inner workings of your instrument panel.
It's a non-corrosive clean agent, which means it won't damage items it comes into contact with.
It won't shock-cool your avionics.
It's lighter and more efficient than CO2. Halons are low-toxicity, chemically stable compounds.
Sounds perfect, right? Well, there are a few drawbacks.
We said that Halon has low toxicity. But it's not benign or entirely non-toxic, and you wouldn't want to introduce it to your respiratory system given the choice. "But everyone, including the FAA, recognizes that it's better to put out the fire effectively than to worry about breathing the Halon,"
Thank you Stormin' Mormon, for explaining that the proposed supposition that halon displaced oxygen was not supported in the literature.
I found a similar explanation to yours in this FAA book on aircraft Fire Protection Systems:
It's pretty troubling that some people believe stuff that has absolutely zero references in the literature that backs up their claims.
I'm glad you're not one of them!
So, why do they take away our water bottles?
This is where the confusion starts. Micky was responding to your posts where you made assumptions, based on something simply not being in a short handout type guide. I responded too. I gave you the specific example:
"What's interesting is that the entire article doesn't discuss any dangers of breathing smoke particulates, so, why it bothers to mention a dry cloth is perplexing since we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is merely a convenience, and not a safety issue. "
That was the issue. Now you're off on something else. And whatever it is, IDK because here you're talking about some "alternate view" in a thread that's 50 posts, from many posters. I have no idea what alternate view you're even talking about.
But if you think you're "safe assumption" is how basic logic works, then I'm not sure we'll ever convince you.
The only view I've put forth is that your "safe assumption" logic in the example I cited is totally bogus. Micky obviously agrees. I've also provided references from Fire Engineering and NFPA that say that smoke particle inhalation is a factor in death and injury. IDK what more you want.
That's because you are assuming things that we aren't. I've given you the specific example. You're "safely assuming" that because some short guide to get people to use a wet towel doesn't say anything about particles, that therefore they are just an "inconvenience". Good grief.
Again we have a failure to communicate. The thread is 50 posts, many posters. How could we even know what "alternate view", you're talking about?
What alternate view? What facts? Good grief.
It's not a defensive mode, it's that it simply totally defies basic logic and how one reaches conclusions.
Remove that and
Again, no idea what that means. You expect us to insert something from here into something from 30 posts ago? Even if we tried to do that, I'm 99% sure it wouldn't make any sense. If you have a new position, then simply state the whole thing.
The basic problem is you make conclusions based on the *absence* of something in a simple, basic guide about using a wet rag. It doesn't say that particles can contribute to injury and death and from that you make the totally illogical conclusion that it means that particles are just an "inconvenience".
It's more confusing than ever.
Again, I provided you with links to Fire Engineering and NFPA yesterday that say particles can cause injury and death. Look and read.
To repeat, I posted the links yesterday.
been there, done that, yesterday, from NFPA and Fire Engineering. Find it and read it.
Yep. As I mentioned I was trying to go with 30 year old memories. That, and I never did inspections....
I understood exactly what you are saying. That does not in anyway change the basis for my comment, nor the 'value' of my comment [value to me, anyway].
Given that it is not possible to conduct experiments yourself, what else can be relied upon? except the results of others, possibly purported, experiments. Good idea to go find as much 'literature' on the subject as possible. Kudoes to you.
Though, I was surprised to find that you found a lack of literature/evidence supporting hot gases searing the lungs causing mortal injuries. Growing up, I had always been warned about that potential hazard from house fire, and especially 'body' fire. Giving the warning of mortal damage to your lungs to justify becoming prone. - as in, keep low to exit, or roll to put out your body fire. But ALWAYS do not position your head high up or above 'fire'. Instead you seemed to find evidence that the body cools those hot gases so fast that it is not worth considering them as a source of risk.
My thought processes regarding safety around aircraft fire warnings kind of stopped paying attention to information after what seemed to me to be the completely asinine instructions of 'take off your shoes in preparation for a crash' and 'ok, now run through molten aluminum' types of instructions. Why are you asked to remove your shoes? What basis is that? After aircraft fuel sprays everywhere and igniting doesn't strike me as a potential win-win situation. Rather, keeping the strategy of 'move your bloomin' arse' seems the appropriate attitude to maintain. And of course, pause/check yourself out, be ready to roll on the ground at a distance, because you may not even know/realize you're on fire.
From personal experience, 'pain' is one of the FIRST sensations to disappear [also hearing], especially during duress. Thus, keep in mind to be 'self aware and self-careful' You may be burning, or missing extremities/limbs which you might try to rely upon to be functioning for an emergency egress, so act accordingly. [I don't have the literature reference to support this, but was always told] This sounds gross, but don't pull injured people unless absolutely necessary, you might pull them apart, instead try to coerce them into moving themselves. The human body has a tendency to not hurt itself and moving under self volition is the preferred manner of moving an injured person.
And please don't come back suggesting to wake up an unconscious injured person by 'slapping them silly' just to coerce them into moving themselves.
that should have read, "....please, people, don't..."
not pointed towards the OP.
As long as you buy the water from their concessionaires, they don't take it away.
No he's not.
I don't think you are as naive or as confused as you want us to think you are. For example, you just took what Micky said and used it out of context. And there you go again, using "all our conclusions" At this point, who even knows who and what exactly you're referring to.
Let's review.
You claimed that because nothing was stated about inhaling soot/ particles in a fire in that very short FAA handout, that not inhaling smoke particles is just a convenience thing:
"we can safely assume that filtering out particulates is merely a convenience, and not a safety issue.
I told you that it's a faulty conclusion, and even from a basic logic standpoint, it's totally bogus. Because something isn't stated, doesn't prove anything, especially when from all that we know, it doesn't make sense. Again, I gave you references to NFPA and Fire Engineering that specifically state otherwise. But here you are pretending you haven't seen it. If that's true, it's because you won't look.
So, Micky told you:
"What do I care if it's not immediately dangerous if it's dangerous later. I inhale smoke and I don't die in 5 minutes, but I'm sick 20 minutes later, or 2 days later, and I die 3 days later, or I'm sickly for the rest of my life These are all bad. "
So, you leave all that out, which directly applies to the situation and instead respond to only the following part where he talks about his aunt getting cancer from long term exposure. As Micky said, you could die 3 days after a fire from smoke inhalation, which is due to the combined effects of heat, gases and particle inhalation. I told you the same thing yesterday. The particle inhalation is probably not as serious as gases inhaled, but that doesn't make it just a convenience factor to not inhale them. When you have damaged lungs from gases, possibly heat, you think it's going to be just as likely for you to survive as it is if you also have lungs full of toxic particles inhaled from the fire? Not in my world. And not in the world of the two references I provided either, that specifically address particle inhalation injury.
The basis of that is that there have been instances where shoes have punctured the slides, especially high heels. Although I do have to admit, that may be left over from earlier experience.
Seems to me, an emergency kit for an airplane, could include a wash cloth of a size sufficient to cover both your nose and mouth, in a plastic bag.
The use model would be that you go through airport security with the wash cloth dry.
Then, when you get to the gate, you soak it from a nearby water fountain or bathroom wash sink.
What else would you put in the cabin-fire emergency kit that makes sense (note that a smoke hood doesn't really make economic sense, as outlined in the papers reported).
Thanks for checking up on whether the alcohol makes the HCN gas less reactive.
I didn't realize that a vodka drink could catch fire.
That makes sense, if it can.
That's my understanding of the issue too. IDK if any slides have actually been punctured, but it's at least the possibility that it could happen. Robert has a good point about what happens next though. I'd wondered about that too. Depending what condition the plane is in, there could be debris, metal shards, God knows what waiting when you hit the ground. I guess you can take you shoes with you to put back on.-
At least that part of my memory works.
As I remember from my fire protection courses, that (not displacing oxygen) was one of the advantages of halon. Of course, the government found it to be ozone toxic and outlawed it.
Put that on the list of "if it works, outlaw it" along with DDT and machine guns.
Given a choice, I'd be the last man out. And I'd be throwing shoes out of the plane, for people to put on. Yes, I'm that kind of guy. Next, I throw my own shoes out. Of course, I'd have to beat the stewardess into unconscious, they are trained like ambulance guys to be a real pest when you aren't doing what they want.
Might be best advice I've heard. Perhaps article of clothing, which has plausible deniability. Pair of new socks?
I'd try stuff my shoes in my shirt. I suspect the stews would not permit that. Yes, I'd expect debris all over the place.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.