Technical Committee Docum, entation · Sectional Committee on Aircraft Hangars and Airport Facilities Appointment of Chairman Pending F. P. DeGiovanni, Vice-Chairman, Senior Facilities

T e c h n i c a l C o m m i t t e e D o c u m , e n t a t i o n

A Compilation of the Documented Action on Comments Received by the Technical Committees Whose Reports Have Been Published

Prior to Consideration at the NFPA Fall Meeting

Hilton Hotel Pittsburgh, PA

November 17-20, 1975

1OM-9-75-FP-SM

Copyright © 1975 All Rights Reserved

National Fire Protection Association 470 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02210

Printed in U.S.A.

\ i

Supplementary

Report of the

Correlating Committee on Aviation

and the

Sectional Committee on Aircraft Fuel Servicing

Sectional Committee on Aircraft Hangars and Airport Facilities

Sectional Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting

Correlating Committee on Aviation

James J. Brenneman, Chairman*

Oscar W. Bush, Vice-Chairman, NFPA Sectional Committee on Aircraft Fuel Servicing

F. P. DeGiovanni, Vice-Chairman, NFPA Sectional Committee on Aircraft Hangars and Airport Facilities

*Also Chairman, NFPA Sectional Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting.

B. V. Hewes, Vice-Chairman, NFPA Sectional Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting

J. A. O'Donnell, Chairman, NFPA Sectional Committee on Aircraft Fuel Servicing

Kenneth A. Zuber, Chairman, NFPA Sectional Committee on Aircraft Maintenance and Servicing

Sectional Committee on Aircraft Fuel Servicing

J. A. O'Donnell, Chairman, 4879 Clairemont Mesa Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92117

James J. Brenneman, United Air Lines Gerald T. Murray, American Airlines

Oscar W. Bush, Eastern Air Lines Harold Pike, British Airways

Richard L. Cisco, Parker-Hannifin (rep. Society of Automotive Engineers)

James L. Duncan, Trans World Airlines

Stanley D. Granberg, The Boeing Company

Eugene Schafran, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (rep. Airport Operators Council International)

Murray M. White, Murray M. White, Inc. (rep. National Pilots Association)

Ross L. Jackson, Exxon Corp. (rep. American Petroleum Institute)

Alternates

G. Maas, Airport Operators Council International (Alternate to Eugene Schafran)

M. LeRoy Stoner, Society of Automotive Engineers (Alternate to Richard L. Cisco)

Richard Southers, American Petroleum Institute (Alternate to Ross L. Jackson)

Nonvoting Members

William Clayton, Gates Rubber Co. (rep. Rubber Manufacturers Association)

John M. Mobley, Federal Aviation Administration, U. S. Department of Transportation

Jerome Lederer, Consultant Edward J. McCarthy, Rubber Manufacturers Association (Alternate to William Clayton)

Sectional Committee on Aircraft Hangars and Airport Facilities

Appointment of Chairman Pending

F. P. DeGiovanni, Vice-Chairman, Senior Facilities Engineer, American Airlines, 633 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017

H. T. Anderson, U. S. Department of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Ross L. Jackson, Exxon Company, U.S.A. (rep. American Petroleum Institute)

Donald S. Armstrong, Air Canada

Charles F. Averill, Grinnell Fire Protection Systems Co., Inc. (rep. National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Association)

Gene E. Benzenberg, Alison Control Inc.

Thomas J. Lett, U. S. Department of the Air Force ( ~ s c )

Fred Linde, National Foam System, Inc.

J. F. McLean, Kemper Insurance Companies (rep. American Mutual Insurance Alliance)

James J. Brenneman, United Air Lines, Inc. A. J. Mercurlo, Factory Insurance Association

R. G. Canning, Canadian Forces Headquarters Harold Pike, British Airways

Donald A. Diehl, Pyrotronics, Inc. (rep. National Electrical Manufacturers Association)

Eugene Schafran, The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (rep. Airport Operators Council International)

Stanley D. Granberg, The Boeing Company Calvin E. Smith, Pan American World Airways

Stuart C. Hand, J. S. Frelinghuysen Corp.

Harvey L. Hansberry, Consultant

D. C. Hanson, Trans World Airlines

Eugene Stauffer, The Ansul Company (rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc.)

R. C. Worthington, Star Sprinkler Corp. (rep. National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Association)

E. B. Hoge, Eastern Air Lines

Alternates

L. H. Bradley, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Association (Alternate to R. C. Worthington)

K. J. Brewer, Canadian Forces Headquarters (Alternate to R. G. Canning)

J. M. Dewey, American Mutual Insurance Alliance (Alternate to J. F. McLean)

Roger B. Jones, National Electrical Manufacturers Association (Alternate to Donald A. Diehl)

Donald Maddock, Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association (Alternate to Eugene Stauffer)

Joseph H. Priest, National Automatic Sprinkler & Fire Control Association (Alternate to Charles F. Averill)

V. G. Pyrpyris, Airport Operators Council International (Alternate to Eugene Schafran)

William F. Schacht, Factory Insurance Association (Alternate to A. J. Mercurio)

Richard Southers, American Petroleum Institute (Alternate to Ross L. Jackson)

Nonvoting Members

Mace H. Bell, American Institute of Steel Construction Jerome Lederer, Consultant

James M. Hammack, Consultant

Sectional Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting

James J. Brenneman, Chairman Fire Protection Engineer, United Air Lines, San Francisco International Airport,

San Francisco, CA 94128

B. V. Hewes, Vice-Chairman Air Line Pilots Association, 3581 North Main Street, College Park, GA 30337

H. J. Badger, The Boeing Co. Philip J. Landl, Helicopter Association of America

Chief Harry V. Burbridge, Seattle-Tacoma International Airport

John J. Byrne, Battalion Chief, Los Angeles City Fire Department

Robert C. Byrus, Consultant

Martin P. Casey, U. S. Department of the Air Force, AFSC

George R. Cooper, Jr., Walter Motor Trucks of Canada, Ltd.

Emmett T. Cox, International Association of Fire Fighters

Dan DeCoursin, Fire Apparatus Manufacturing Division, Truck, Body and Equipment Association

D. G. Dumper, American Airlines

Frederick H. Flagg, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (rep. Airport Operators Council International)

i

Stanley D. Granberg, The Boeing Company

N. C. Gray, John F. Kenneth Space Center, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Gil Haas, Lee County (Florida) Division of Protective Services

Harvey L.'Hansberry, Consultant

R. A. Harley, Department of Transport (Canada)

G. H. Hawes, Jr., Lockheed-Georgla Co.

D. H. Haynes, ~rans World Airlines

D. A. Heine, Air Line Pilots Association

F. Don Huber, Naval Facilities Engineering Command

Franklyn P. Kellogg, Chief, Fire Department, Burke Lakefront Airport (Cleveland)

Chief Paul Kowall, Firemen's Training Center (Nassau County, New York)

L. M. Krasner, Factory Mutual Research Corp.

William L. Collier, International Federation of Air Line Pilots Associations (Alternate to B. V. Hewes)

T. L. Cowlck, Department of Transport (Alternate to R. A. Harley)

R. A. Hayward, Civil Aviation Authority (Alternate to John E. Lodge)

Ray Alexander, Flextrac Nodwell

Robert R. Burford, 3M Company

John J. Carroll, Flight Safety Foundation, Inc.

Thomas S. Lett, U. S. Department of the Air Force AFOre (AFSC)

John E. Lodge, Civil Aviation Authority (United Kingdom)

MaJ. W. G. MacDonald, Canadian Department of National Defence

Capt. Ron Macdonald, Canadian Air Line Pilots Association

Carl E. McCoy, Illinois Fire Commission, International Fire Service Training Association

William J. McNamara, U. S. Army Mobile Equipment Research & Development Center

Isaac Opare-Addo, Ghana Ministry of Internal Affairs

Capt. Dale W. Osbaugh, Denver Fire Department

H. B. Peterson, U. S. Naval Research Laboratory

Harold Pike, British Airways

S. Harry Robertson, Arizona State University

W. D. Robertson, Seattle-Tacoma Airport

Robert R. Rogers, Long Island MacArthur Airport

Capt. William T. Schmldt, Consultant

Chief Arthur G. Scott, Metropolitan Transportation Authority

L. A. Simms, Consultant

John T. Stephan, Mercer County Airport (rep. American Association of Airport Executives)

H. R. Wesson, University Engineers, Inc.

Murray M. White, Jr., Murray M. White, Inc. (rep. National Pilots Association)

E. T. Williams, British Airports Authority

E. D. Zeratsky, The Ansul Co. (rep. Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association)

Alternates

Herb Leppke, Air Line Pilots Association (Alternate to D. A. Heine)

Fred W. Newman, Fire Equipment Manufacturers Association (Alternate to E. D. Zeratsky)

Thomas A. Raffety, American Association of Airport Executives (Alternate to John T. Stephan)

Nonvoting Members

C. Hayden LeRoy, National Transportation Safety Board

H. W. Marryatt, Australian Fire Protection Association

7

Louis R. DiMaio, National Foam System, Inc.

J. P. Dunne, O'Hare International Airport

Nicholas J. Gabriel, Civil Aviation Safety Centre

George B. Geyer, Federal Aviation Administration, NAFEC

Philip R. Haught, Fire Control Engineering Co.

Earl W. Keegan, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Services (Alternate to John M. Mobley)

Alfred W. Latham, Rockwood Systems Corp.

Jerome Lederer, Retired

J. H. Mathlson, Australian High Commission, Malaysia

John M. Mobley, Federal Aviation Administration, Airport Services

James F. O'Regan, Feecon Corporation

K. R. Pollard, Laurentian Concentrates, Limited

L. E. Rivkind, Mearl Corporation

Jose L. Santamaria, International Civil Aviation Organization

Marvin C. Tyler, Wrlght-Patterson Air Force Base

William J. Wenzel, Walter Motor Truck Company

H. V. Williamson, Cardox, Division of Chemetron Corp.

J. H. Yankie, Fire-X Corp.

Part I. On Part I of the Supplementary Report concerning NFPA No. 407, of the ii current voting members of the Sectional Committee on Aircraft Fuel Servicing, i0 have voted affirmatively for the Sectional Committee's actions on Items 001, 002 and on the Editorial Correction, none negatively, and 1 ballot has not been returned (Mr. Brenneman). On Item 003, 9 have voted affirmatively for the Sectional Committee's action, none negatively, and 2 ballots not returned (Mr. Brenneman and Mr. Granberg). Mr. Granberg's missing ballot is occasioned by a ballot collating error. Two members of the Sectional Committee have, unfortunately, resigned since the original ballot on the Sectional Committee's report (Messrs. J. C. Abbott and ~ M. Fitzgerald). The Sectional Committee is saddened to advise that Mr. Duncan of Trans World Airlines passed asway in April due to a heart attack; his ballot was completed by Mr. L. B. Jolley, Manager of Ground Equipment Engineering on behalf of TWA. (Mr. Jolley was a former member of the Sectional Committee.) From the Correlating Committee on Aviation, of the 6 voting members, 5 have voted affirmatively for the Sectional Committee's actions, none negatively, and i ballot has not been returned (Mr. Brenneman). Note: Mr. Brenneman was on vacation during the voting period; if his ballots are received, they will be reported at the Meeting. Mr. Granberg has been sent a copy of Item 003 for ballot and if received will be reported at the Meeting. Since the original ballot, the previous Aviation Committee as listed on Page 4 of the TCR has been replaced by the Correlating Committee on Aviation as listed herein.

Part II. On Part II of the Supplementary Report concerning NFPA No. 417, of the 23 current voting members of the Sectional Committee on Aircraft Hangars and Airport Facilities, 16 have voted affirmatively for the Sectional Committee's actions on Items 001 through 006, none negative, and 7 ballots have not been returned at date of publication (Messrs. Armstrong, Brennemsn, Canning, Hanson, Hoge, Jackson, and McLean). From the Correlating Committee on Aviation, of the 6 voting members, 4 have voted affirmatively for the Sectional Committee's actions, none negatively, and 2 ballots have not been returned (Messrs. Brenneman and Hewes). Since the original ballot, Messrs. Fitzgerald and Abbott have, unfortunately, resigned from the Committee, Mr. J. F. McLean has replaced Mr. J. C. Fulton representing the American Mutual Insurance Alliance, and Mr. R. C. Worthington has been added to the Committee as an additional representative from the NASFCA. Mr. McLean has as an Alternate Mr. J. M. Dewey, and Mr. Worthington has as an Alternate Mr. L. H. Bradley. Non-voting member Thomas G. Williamson has resigned. Many of those who have not returned ballots as yet were on vacation during the voting period; missing ballots received will be reported at the Meeting. Since the original ballot, the previous Aviation Committee as listed on Page 4 of the TCR has been replaced by the Correlating Committee on Aviation as listed herein.

Part III. On Part III of the Supplementary Report concerning NFPA No. 423, of the 23 current voting members of the Sectional Committee on Aircraft Hangars and Airport Facilities, 16 have voted affirmatively for the Sectional Committee's actions on Items 001 through 004 and the corrections to Paragraphs 3-2.2.6, 3-3.4 and A-3-5.1, none negatively, and 7 ballots have not been returned at date of publication (Messrs. Armstrong, Brenneman, Canning, Hanson, Hoge, Jackson, and McLean). From the Correlating Committee on Aviation of the 6 voting members, 5 have voted affirmatively, none negatively, and i ballot has not been returned (Mr. Brenneman). See remarks under Part II regarding changes in personnel on the Sectional Committee, the reason for all ballots not being in hand, the plan to give a report on the missing ballots, and the reorganization of the Aviation Committee.

Part IV. On Part IV of the Supplementary Report concerning NFPA No. 414, of the 47 voting members of the Sectional Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting, 41 have voted affirmatively, I negatively (Mr. Granberg), 3 wish to be recorded as not voing (Messrs. Casey, Flagg, and Huber), and 2 ballots have not been returned (Mr. Dumper and Mr. Landi). Mr. Dumper has recently recommended a replacement for himself on the Sectional Co~mLittee. From the Correlating Committee on Aviation, of the 6 voting members, 5 have voted affirmatively and none negatively. One member (Mr. Bush) has been appointed to the Correlating Committee after this ballot was taken. Since this ballot was actually conducted prior to the disbandment by the NFPA Standards Council of the previous Aviation Committee, the ballot from that Committee showed that of the ii voting members who do not serve on the Sectional Committee, 9 voted affirmatively, none negatively, and 2 ballots were not returned (Messrs. Fitzgerald and Robinson). Mr. Toyne's ballot was completed by Mr. L. B. Jolley due to Mr. Toyne having a terminal illness. The Committee advises, with regret, that Mr. Toyne passed away in late July from cancer.

001 Submit ter :

C. V. Lovett, Webster, New York

PART I

Paragraph 2-3.1. The present last sentence of 2-3.2.4 adds to the confusion on this matter and is relatively meaningless. The Committee thus recommends the last sentence be deleted.

Statement of Problem:

Paragraph 2-3.2.4. The last sentence in this paragraph is very general and vague.

Recommendation:

...resistance to ground as possible shall be secured but no greater than i0,000 ohms.

Supporting Comment:

The present statement makes no maximum or upper limit. Also, Refer to A-2-3.2.4.

002 Submit ter :



The alligator type clamp is not very effective in making an electrical bond after a period of usage. The spring weakens, the teeth do not make good contact, etc.

Committee Action:

Delete present; last sentence of Paragraph 2-3.2.4.

Committee Comment:

As stated in the Appendix, although a resistance as high as i0,000 ohms is acceptable for static grounding purposes, it is usually possible at most airports to obtain a much lower resistance. The Committee feels that including the maximum acceptable figure in the body of the Standard does not serve a useful purpose. A minimum figure is not considered advisable either. In practice almost any "ground" will be found satisfactory for static dissipation purposes~ and the exceptions to requiring grounds (e.g. where operations are conducted on ice, sandy or desert terrains) are covered in

Recommendation:

Show a clamp specifically designed/made for grounding. Heavy duty spring and harden tips to make a good bond.

Note: Mr. Lovett also submitted a picture of the recommended type clamps.

Supporting Comment:

Observing actual conditions of usage in the field.

Committee Action:

None.

Committee Comment:

Paragraph 2-3.1.(d).2. describes the type of clamp in performance terms and 2-3.2.3 and 2-3.2.4 contain related requirements. As far as the Committee knows, alligator clamps have performed adequately. They are mostly used when plug and jack facilities are not available or where the static bonding and grounding is other- wise accomplished (as in underwing fueling operations). Heavy clamps with tight springs and hardened points (as sometimes used for grounding in industrial plants) are potentially damaging to aircraft structural components.

003 Submitter:



Since considerable attention is given to static electricity and grounding plus it is a known hazard, why is this paragraph (A-2-3.2.3) in the appendix and only a "should" statement?

Recommendation:

Move this paragraph up into the made body of the standard and change "should" to "shall". Also, add something on checking the condition of the I terminal ends (eg, spring clamp, plug and jack) i should be added.

Supporting Comment:

Since great reliability is being made on the bonding cable it should be a mandatory requirement

to provide proper maintenance and on a frequent basis.

Committee Action:

None.

Committee Comment:

Each use will determine, in actuality, the condition of the bonding cables. The text of 2-3.2.3 calls for the bonding system (cables and connections) to be tested for electrical resistance when initially installed and also calls for an inspection for continuity and integrity at least annually. It is not thought that we should mandate a monthly electrical continuity check as being an unnecessary burden when applied nationally. Usage conditions vary greatly depending on the frequency of fueling operations. The "recommended" bonding cable electrical continuity check in A-2-3.2.3 is thus thought adequate. The electrical continuity of bonding cables should not change except from breakage or severe corrosion which would be noted in usage.

In addition to the public comments received, the ComsLittee has also made the following revision:

An editorial error was made in the printed version of the Proposed 1975 Edition of the Standard for Fuel Servicing on Page 67 of the TCR, Paragraph A-2-10. The fourth sentence should read: "Sound travels about i/5th of a mile per second" instead of "Sound travels about 5 miles a minute." The Committee requests permission to make this correction in the final printing.

001

Submitter:

Richard G. Gewain, American Iron and Steel Institute, Washington, D.C.


The i0 minute rating in this paragraph is inconsistent with the 5 minute rating elsewhere. The paragraph requires load applied to the test specimen whereas existing column furnaces are not able to test under appliance load.

PART

i0

Recommendation:

Revise the test period to 5 minutes in the last line of Paragraph 5-8. Insert temperature

limitations for materials where the assembly cannot be tested under load.

Supporting Comment:

Paragraphs 5-10.3.1, 5-11.2.1 specify a fire endurance test for a minimum period of 5 minutes yet the wording of Paragraph 5-8 indicates that the test is not over until i0 minutes. This is confusing and should be clarified to indicate that although the 5 minute minimum period is required, that the exposure of the specimen continue for a period of 10 minutes. I would think that if the only reason for continuing the

test for i0 minutes is to collect additional data, then this should be made clear.

The one point which is not covered in #417 deals with the vertical supports. The standard is silent on this matter and yet there is no exemption for such vertical members and it is not possible to include them under any other section because the testing furnaces in the U. S. cannot, at this time, test vertical supports such as columns under design loads. Therefore the alternate test specifies maxim,~n temperature for the vertical support material. This is the basis for all fire resistance ratings used in building codes and NFPA standards. To my knowledge the only material which has been assigned the temperature limit on the basis of technical data is steel. I know of no compressive or column tests on aluminum members which would provide equivalent information as to when alumlnumwould fail. But I suspect it would be about 500°F.

Committee Action:

Add the following new text in the Appendix to clarify the intent of the Committee in calling for the i0 minute fire endurance test period:

A5-8. The i0 minute fire endurance test period specified is to give those conducting the tests a better opportunity to discriminate between different test samples.

Committee Comments:

The addition of the above Paragraph in the Appendix should answer the Submitter's first objection. Regarding the comments made that the Standard does not cover vertical supports independently, Paragraph 5-2.1 indicates that we are testing assemblies of units as used in loading walkways. It is the assembly (including walls, columns, beams, slabs and/or composite slab and beam assemblies) with which we are concerned-- not to test the components separately.

document. There are, however, a number of insulations which when properly tested in NFPA 255 will provide some specific information on the smoke production of insulatlonmaterlals. "Under fire exposure conditions" is a nebulous statement in that a full scale hydrocarbon pool fire under "actual" conditions would have to be reproduced in order to provide some indication of the smoke conditions which might prevail. On the other hand, if you wish to have smoke conditions measured under the floor and wall tests, then I suggest this be made clear that smoke measurements are to be taken during tests recommended in Chapter 5. If that is the case, it will also be necessary to determine how the smoke will be measured. One other item in NFPA 251 and ASTM 119, the furnace chamber, is under a slight negative pressure which would assist those smoky materials in producing less smoke on the unexposed surface area of the test specimen.

Committee Action:

None.

Committee Comment:

The Conm/ttee feels that the statement in the present Appendix Paragraph that "Existing technology does not permit establishment of performance criteria for acceptable levels of smoke density" reflects the current situation. Paragraph 4-4 of the text was seen as the only practical approach--that is the concept of adding thermal barriers to retard heat transfer to materials which may produce products of decomposition and/or dense smoke. The philosophy is to eliminate heat (ignition) to minimize smoke development rather than try to develop smoke development criteria for the short test period involved.

003 Submitter:

002

Submitter:




Paragraph A-4-4. The last sentence indicates a meaningless guide for smoke by using the word "minimal".

Recommendation:

"The insulation material when tested in accordance with NFPA 255 should have a smoke developed rating of 0 to 50.

Supporting Comment:

The present wording of this recommendation in NFPA 417 provides no guidance for the user of this

Ii


Paragraph A-5-10.1. An attempt has been made to apply restraining section in NFPA 251 to aircraft loading walkways.

Recommendation:

Delete this entire section.

Supporting Comment:

It is not possible for walkway construction to be related with the building construction designs specifically under consideration in NFPA 251. The design of restraint being considered for building constructions in NFPA 251 would involve a reaction of possibly 3 million ibs. to the expansion of the steel and reinforced concrete floor systems. If this is what the Walkways

Committee is considering as to the restraint developed in the light steel frame of the walkways, then you should leave the chapter in. However, in reviewing walkway designs, I did not see anywhere where restraint would be a factor in the structural performance of the walkway construction.

Committee Action:

None.

Committee Comment:

The data given is only advisory and is intended to provide guidance for determining conditions of restraint as an aid in applying the restraint called for in 5-10.1 for the test sample. There are walkway installations where restraint must be considered.

004 Submitter:



Table 5-3-1. Different time temperature curves for walls and floors for the same exposing fire.

Recommendation:

Agree on one set of time temperature gradients.

Supporting Comment:

The fire exposure in 251 is the same for all constructions whether they be floors, walls, beams or columns. There is no Justification for a different fire exposure but there is justification for different conditions of acceptance. The fire condition which you are evaluating is one which completely envelopes the walkway. Under such conditions, the fire does not have three different exposures, for walls, another for floors and another for vertical supports. It would seem that this basic aspect of this test condition is discriminative and cannot be justified under the basis of any rational conditions.

Committee Action:

None.

Committee Comments:

The Committee feels that the tests we are calling for are a "pioneer effort" to simulate a flammable liquid fire in a furnace. We are not dealing with hours (as is true in the Standard cited by Mr. Gewain) but only minutes. While the objective has substance for conventional tests under NFPA No. 251, this is a special application where the fire condition being evaluated impinges on the exposed floor assembly much more intensely

in the short time period than it does on the exposed wall sections.

005 Submitter:



Chapter 5. This chapter is incomplete. There is no requirements for the support (columns), criteria for floors does not apply to the vertical floor supports.

Recommendation:

None.

Supporting Comment:

None.

Committee Action:

None.

Committee Comment:

See comment under 001.

OOG Submitter:

Herman F. Blumel, Jr., Jetway Equipment Corporation, Ogden, Utah


Paragraph 2-2 Application. Final (second) sentence not clear as to "Grandfather" intent.

Recommendation:

Add sentence "Minor design changes for product improvement which do not adversely affect structural integrity or original fire resistance characteristics, and which occur after Jan. i, 1976 will not void approval based on alternate test data.

12

Supporting Comment:

Changes are made in design for product improvement and aesthetic reasons which would not

affect structural integrity and fire resistance. However, a strict interpretation of presently proposed wording could mean any change made after Jan i, 1976, would require retestlng the walkway in compliance with Chapter 5.

Committee Action:

None.

Committee Comment:

The Committee feels that the present "grandfather clause" (first sentence of 2-2) is adequate to cover the intent of Mr. Blumel's concern. Speaking of "minor design changes" could be subject to even more interpretations.

001

Submitter:

Patrick E. Phillips, U. S. ERDA, Las Vegas, Nevada


Section 4-2, Paragraph 4-2.1. This paragraph is not consistent with Para. 4-1.2.3 and is not consistent with practices in NFPA 12A-13. The paragraph should be reworded to cover the relationship of sprinklers, halon and manual extinguishing.

Recommendation:

Replace 4-2.1" with: In order to limit damage from fire to engine and test cell and control room equipment, detection of fire must be rapid enough to prevent an unacceptable degree of damage. The speed will depend on the level of damage control required and the capability of providing that control thru manual or automatic means (extinguishers, halon systems or sprinkler systems). For control by hand extinguishers, detection must be very rapid. For control by limited supply suppression systems (halon, etc.) actuation must be prompter than sprinkler actuation and, in addition, must be capable of being released manually. (See NFPA 12A & B - Paraas. 1420 and 1421). For sprinkler systems, additional detection is recommended to permit early manual extinguisher use. Deluge sprinklers shall be designed to actuate as a limited supply system. For guidance of detectors, see NFPA Standard for Automatic Fire Detectors. (NFPA 72E-1974)

Supporting Comment:

If sprinklers are acceptable for more hazardous (combustible) locations in Para. 4-1.2.3(a), it is not reasonable to require hypersensitive detection for less effective limited supply suppression systems that are permissible for less hazardous (limited combustible) locations as shown in Para. 4-1.2.3 (B).

As written, the proposed rewording would cover both the test cell and control room.

PART III

Committee Action:

None.

Committee Comment:

The Committee does not completely understand what the Submltter is driving at by his proposed revision. The various automatic extinguishing systems and associated operational features are covered in Sections 4-1.3 (carbon dioxide), 4-1.4 (halons), 4-1.5 (foam), and 4-1.6 (water spray and sprinkler systems). In each case the system's Standards are referenced. The Paragraph in question covers where detection systems are used to alert occupants to a fire or smoke condition to manually operate any available extinguishing system provided in the protected spaces. The Submltter's comments will he reviewed in detail at the next meeting of the Sectional Committee.

002 Submitter:

Patrick E. Phillips, U. S. ERDA, Las Vegas, Nevada

13


Paragraph A-4-2.1. The paragraph is not consistent with Halon Standards or with NFPA 72E in that it does not cover the relationship of sprinklers vs Halon vs Manual Suppression. (See comments on Para. 4-2.1).

Recommendation:

Reword as follows: A-4-2.1 to allow for manual hand extinguishment of small fires, it is recommended that detection be designed to be sensitive. This normally will mean a system of smoke detectors (ionization and/or optical) spaced to provide the earliest detection within the room environs is needed. For limited supply suppression systems, it is necessary to be able to detect the fire somewhat earlier than a sprinkler system, in order to allow the limited supply a

better chance of extinguishing the fire, heat detectors, at their maximum spacing, are slightly more sensitive than sprinklers. If the spacing of heat detectors is reduced to 50% or less of their maximum spacing, good sensitivity and reliability can be obtained.

For guidance on location of detection, see NFPA Standard for Automatic Fire Detectors (NFPA No. 72E-1974).

Supporting Comment:

See comments with Para. 4-2.1.

Committee Action:

None.

Committee Comment:

See comments under 001 and 003.

003 Submitter:



Section 4-2. Fire Detection Systems are discussed but no reference is made to NFPA 72E.

Recommendation:

Fire detection systems shall be listed, designed and installed in accordance with the general principles set forth in the "Standard Automatic Fire Detectors" (NFPA No. 72E).

Supporting Comment:

None.

Committee Action:

None.

Committee Comment:

Reference is made to NFPA No. 72E in Paragraph A-4-2.1 which the Committee felt at the time this text was prepared was the appropriate location. Since this new Standard was under development during the period that NFPA 72E was likewise in preparation (first edition officially adopted 1974), it was hard to completely correlate the two texts. There are members of the Sectional Committee on Detection Devices, responsible for 72E, who also serve on the Sectional Committee on Aircraft Hangars and Airport Facilities (Messrs.

14

Anderson and Diehl) and a strengthening of the intercommlttee relationships are in progress. The Committee will further consider this recommendation along with those of Mr. Phillips (Chairman of the Sectional Committee on Detection Devices) at their next meeting.

004 Submitter:

H. J. Perrault, East Hartford, Connecticut


Portable extinguisher requirements are excessive and too restrictive.

Recommendation:

Delete Paragraphs 4-3.2, 4-3.3, 4-3.4 and 4-3.5.

Supporting Comment:

I. NFPA #i0 contains adequate guidance for application of portable extinguishers to extra hazard occupancies therefore the existing paragraph 4-3.1 is sufficient.

2. The proposed NFPA #423 recommends sufficient fixed fire protection so that portable extinguishers may be used for their intended purpose, namely, incipient fires.

3. Section 4-4 of the proposed Standard provides for hand hose lines, if desired, for larger than incipient fires.

4. The 80B:C requirement restricts the extinguisher to a dry chemical agent since there is no listed carbon dioxide extinguisher, portable or wheeled, rated over 40 B:C. Some aircraft engines, especially military engines, cannot tolerate ingestion of dry chemical agents. The minimum of i00 pounds of agent requirement is also excessive as an 80 B:C rating can be achieved with as little as 20 pounds of dry chemical agent where that agent can be tolerated.

Committee Action:

Revise the first sentence of Paragraph 4-3.4 to read:

"In each engine test cell, at least one wheeled- type extinguisher with a minimum capacity of i00 pounds of agent shall be provided within the test cell or located not more than i00 feet from a door opening into the cell on the same level as the test cell floor." (Balance of the text unchanged.)

Revise the first sentence of Paragraph 4-3.5 to read:

"Each test stand and engine run-up enclosure shall be provided with at least two wheeled-type extinguishers each having a minimum capacity of 100 pounds of agent." (Balance of text unchanged.)

Committee Comment:

Objection "(4)" above parallels other objections raised during the last meeting of the Sectional Committee held January 23-24, 1975. The Sectional Committee authorized the rewording of the first sentence of 4-3.4 and overlooked a similar rewording of the first sentence of 4-3.5. Unfortunately, the authorized change in 4-3.4 was not accomplished as intended in preparing 4-3.4 for the Technical Committee Reports. These changes would appear to take care of the obvious conflict between the "rating" requirement of 80 B:C and the minimum specified amount of agent (i00 pounds) although the objector apparently feels that i00 pounds of agent is "excessive". The Sectional Committee as a whole feels that i00 pounds of agent should be the minimum amount of agent (carbon dioxide or, where tolerated, dry chemical) to provide an adequate discharge time from such devices in engine test cells and at test stands and engine run-up enclosures as the spaces are large, the air flows normally are a problem, and the height above the floor of a potential fire restricts effective application in some fire situations. Fire record data indicates clearly that a high percentage of the fires experienced to date in test cells have been controlled with portables and regardless of other forms of fire protection, extinguishers should be specified to catch incipient fire occurrences. The Sectional Committee's decision to specify sizing and placement of extinguishers in control rooms, support rooms, engine test cells, test stands and run-up enclosures instead of merely referencing NFPA No. i0 was in recognition that the guidance in the latter seemed too generalized to assure the desired results for these particular "occupancies". The hand hose lines covered in 4-4.1 are an alternate to the provisions of

portable fire extinguishers as noted in the text of 4-4. i.

In addition to the public comments officially received within the allocated time for same, the Committee wishes to make the following revisions based on qualified comments received on the text:

a. ParaKraph 3-2.2.6. Insert the words "or other suitable provisions made" in llne 5 between the words "separator" and "to allow" in the second sentence, the revised sentence to read:

"In aircraft engine test facilities protected by a fire protection system utilizing water, a bypass shall be provided around the separator or other suitable provisions made to allow for emergency direct dlsposal of water and flammable liquids."

b. Paragraph 3-3.4. Change the word "prevent" to the word "minimize" in the third line, the revised text to read:

3-3.4 Support of Wiring. All wiring not enclosed in raceways (such as harness wires connecting to the engine, etc.) shall be adequately supported, laced or banded to minimize wear from air velocity and vibration.

c. Paragraph A-3-5.1. Correct typesetting error in this text, the revised text to read:

I A-3-5.1 Forced air ventilation at the rate of one cubic foot per minute of fresh air per square foot of floor area should be provided in engine test areas when engines are not running.

PART IV

While no public comments were received on the 1975 Proposed Revisions to the Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Vehicles (NFPA No. 414-1970; ANSI B128.1-1970), the Sectional Committee did the additional work indicated in Item 95 of its report and offers the following additional Proposed Revisions to the 1970 text of NFPA No. 414. Please note that revisions are also proposed to Paragraphs 4622, 4623, 4624, 4625 and 4626 as well as to the Paragraphs specifically mentioned in Item 95. This has been done to correlate the guidance for light rescue vehicles with that being offered for major fire fighting vehicles and combined agent vehicles as regards mobility, tires, and rims. The new Appendix material and additions to old Parts F and G are necessary to complete the needed revisions in this subject area. A letter ballot has been completed on this material. Of the ll voting members of the Aviation Committee* who do not serve on the Sectional Committee on Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting, 9 have voted affirmatively and 2 have not returned their ballots (Messrs. Fitzgerald and Robinson). Of the 47 members + of the Sectional Committee, 39 have voted affirmatively, i negatively (Mr. Granberg), 3

15

have asked to be recorded as not voting (Messrs. Casey, Flagg, and Huber), and 4 ballots have not been returned (Messrs. Dumper, Haas, Landi, and

Wesson).

*The NFPA Standards Council at its meeting on June 4, 1975 voted to disband the Aviation Committee and established the new Correlating Com~nittee on Aviation as shown in this Supplementary Report. Because the original Report was balloted upon by the previous Aviation Committee, the Supplementary Report was also submitted to that Committee.

+One member has retired since the origfnal ballot was taken.

A-I. Section 264. Revise the title to this Section (only) to read:

264. Mobility, Tires, and Rims.

A-2. Paragraph 2642. Revise to read:

2642. Tires and inflation pressures shall be selected to provide effective performance on the terrain encountered for the intended airport service. The inflation pressures shall be the lowest possible consistent with the tire manufacturer's recommendations for the specific loading and service speeds of the tires selected.

A-3. Paragraph 2643. Delete old 2643 and change old Paragraph 2645 to read as follows as new 2643:

2643. An aggressive tire tread of the traction type is recommended for general service. The tire manufacturer shall be consulted for tread design to meet special terrain and soll conditions.

configurations and fully loaded vehicle weights for airport service are shown in the following Table:

Table 2646 Loaded Weight Axle

Class (Pounds) Tire Sizes Configurations VCI

i 21 500 14:00X20 4X4 28.3 2 25 000 14:00X20 4X4 32.0 2 32 030 18:00X22.5 4X4 36.9 3 36 500 17:5 X25 4X4 43.1 3 46 600 18:00X22.5 6X6 36.4 4 ...... No Data Available ..... 5 56 500 23:5 X 25 4X5 65.2 6 61 000 23:5 X25 4X4 76.9 7 82 000 18:00X25 6X6 80.1

Note: The preceding examples are intended for guidance only. It is the bidder's responsibility to ensure that the vehicles offered comply with the VCI requirements of Section 2645.


A-7. Section 462. Revise the title to this Section (only) to read:

2644. Rim contours and sizes shall conform to the recommendations of the tire manufacturer.


A-5. Paragraph 2645. Old 2645 is revised as new 2643 (see Item A-3) and the following new text inserted:

2645. In order to achieve the required mobility, each Class vehicle (see Paragraph 212) shall have a Vehicle Cone Index (VCI) not exceeding the following:



Table 2645

Class Vehicle Weight Ranges (Pounds) VCI

i 16 000 - 24 999 30 2 25 000 - 31 999 40 3 32 000 - 46 999 50 4 39 000 - 57 999 60 5 52 000 - 64 999 70 6 58 000 - 74 999 80 7 75 000 and over 90

Note i. The VCI is an emperical value for predicting vehicle mobility performance. While a VCI exceeding that specified for each Class vehicle is unacceptable for the intended airport service, the relative magnitude of VCI's below those specified herein for each Class vehicle in Table 2645 does not necessarily reflect the relative mobility of vehicles in all terrain and soll conditions. As provided for in Section 133, the bidder shall furnish with the bid the data required in the Questionnaire (Part F), including the computation of the VCI for the vehicle offered.

Note 2. See Appendix A for a further description of VCI procedures.


2646. The VCI's for typical vehicle


4623. An aggressive tire tread of the traction type is recommended for general service. The tire manufacturer shall be consulted for tread design to meet special terrain and soil conditions.

A-10. Paragraph 4624. Delete old 4624 and change old 4626 to read as follows as new 4624:


A-If. Paragraph 4625. Old 4625 is revised as new 4623 (see Item A-9) and the following new text inserted:

4625. In order to achieve the required mobility, the vehicle shall have a Vehicle Cone Index (VCI) not exceeding 30.

Note i: The VCI is an emperical value for predicting vehicle mobility performance. While a VCI exceeding 30 is unacceptable for the intended airport service, the relative magnitude of VCI below that specified does not necessarily reflect the relative mobility of vehicles in all terrain and soil conditions. As provided for in Section 133, the bidder shall furnish with the

16

bid the data required in the Questionnaire (see Part F), including the computation of the VCI for the vehicle offered.

Note 2: See Appendix A for a further description of VCI procedures.


4626. The VCI for a typical vehicle configuration and fully loaded vehicle weight for airport service is shown in the following Table:

Table 4626 Loaded Weight Axle

Class (Pounds) Tire Size Configuration VCI

LRV 8,000 9:00X16 4X4 21.6

Note: The preceding example is intended for guidance only. It is the bidder's responsibility to ensure that the vehicles offered comply with the VCI requirements of Section 4625.

A-13. Section 862. Revise the title to this Section (only) to read:



VCI exceeding 30 is unacceptable for the intended airport service, the relative magnitude of VCI below that specified does not necessarily reflect the relative mobility of vehicles in all terrain and soll conditions. As provided for in Section 133, the bidder shall furnish with the bid the data required in the Questionnaire (see Part F), including the computation of the VCI for the vehicle offered.

Note 2: See Appendix A for a further description of VCI procedures.

A-18. Paragraph 8626. Old 8626 is revised as now 8624 (see Item A-16) and the following new text is inserted:

8626. The VCI for a typical vehicle configuration and fully loaded vehicle weight for airport service is shown in the following Table:

Table 8626

Loaded Weight Axle

Class (Pounds) Tire Size Configuration VCI

Combined Agent 15,375 15:00X22.5 4X4 21.5

Note: The preceding example is intended for guidance only. It is the bidder's responsibility to ensure that the vehicles offered comply with the VCI requirements of Section 8625.



8623. An aggressive tire tread of the traction type is recommended for general service. The tire Manufacturer shall be consulted for tread design to meet special terrain and soil conditions.



A-17. Paragraph 8625. Old 8625 is revised as new 8623 (see Item A-15) and the following new text is inserted:

A-19. Appendix A (New). Add the following new Appendix material to be designated as "Appendix A":

Appendix A

Procedure for Determining Vehicle Mobility With the Aid of the Cone Penetrometer

Note: This procedure was developed by the U. S. Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, at the Waterways Experiment Station in Vicksburg, Mississippi. The procedure is detailed in Chapter 9 of TM5-330, "Planning and Design of Roads, Bridges, and Heliports in the Theater of Operations". The Technical Manual is available from the U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. It is a method for predicting vehicle mobility performance in relation to soil types.

A-I. Vehicle mobility for this type service (which includes off-paved surfaces) can be predicted by using the following "Mobility Index Equation". The Mobility Index (MI) derived can be converted to a Vehicle Cone Index (VCI) from the curve shown in Figure A-I.

8625. In order to achieve the required mobility, the combined-agent vehicle described herein shall have a Vehicle Conde Index (VCI) not exceeding 30.

Note i: The VCI is an emperical value for predicting vehicle mobility performance. While a

17

Mobility Index Equation

ressure X Weight k! Wheel Engine Transmission . . . . Clearance X Factor X Mobility Index* = Factor Factor • Tire Grouser Load Factor Factor actor X Factor Factor

*The Mobility Index (MI) is converted to Vehicle Cone Index (VCI) by using the curve shown in Figure A-I.

Where" Gross Vehicle Weight (Pounds)

(a) Contact ~ a l Outside Number Pressure= Tire X Diameter X T of Factor Width of Tire ires

(Inches) (Inches) 2

(b) Weight For the Following Gross Weight The Weight Factor Factor: Range(s) in Pounds Equations (~) Are

Less than 2 000 . . . . . . . Y : 0,553X 2 000 to 13 500 ........ Y = 0,033X+ 1.050

13 501 to 20 000 ........ Y = 0,142X- 0.420 More than 20 000 ........ Y = 0,278X- 3,115

Where the Gross Weight in Founds is the Gross Weight of the Vehicle in Pounds divided by the number of axles; where "Y" is the Weight Factor Equation, and where "X" is the Gross Weight (divided by 1,0OO) and by the number of wheels times 2 with Duals counted as i.

i0 + Tire Width (Nominal) in Inches (c) Tire Factor' - 100

(d) Grouser Factors: With chains = 1.05 Without chains = 1,00

(e) Wheel Load Factor: Gross Weight + ii00 ~ No. of wheels X 2

(Duals as i)

(f) Clearance Factor: Clearance <Inches) I0

(g) Engine Factor Less than i0 hp/ton : 1.00 More than 10/hp/ton = 1.05

(h) Transmission Factor: Hydraulic ± i. O0 Manual = 1.05

Figure A-I

Relation of Mobility Index (MI} to Vehicle Cone Index (VCI) for Self-Propelled Wheeled Vehicles

400

360

32O

280

240

"~ ZOO

160

120

8O

40

0

M _

/

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Vehicle Cone Index (VCl)

Equation to Calculate VCI - Wheeled Vehicles

VCI = ii'48 + 0"2 X MI- I MI ~39"2)574

A-20. Part F (to be redesignated Part E). Insert in proper alphebetical sequence the following three new definitions:

Cone Penetrometer Cone Penetrometer is a device used in evaluating trafficability of soils. It consists of a 36-inch long metal shaft with a 30 ° right circular cone of 0.5 square inch base area mounted on one end of the shaft.

Cone Index (el) Cone Index (CI) is a dimensionless value read from the dlal gage of the Cone Penetrometer. The CI is considered an Index of the shear resistance of the soil.

Vehicle Cone Index (VCl) Vehicle Cone Index (VCI) is the minimum CI of a soil in the critical layer which will permit a specific vehicle to negotiate the defined soil condition without immobilization. It can be determined by first computing a Mobility Index (MI) from the emperical formula given in Appendix A and referring to Figure A-I.

A-21. Part G (to be redesignated Part F). Insert the following new Item 16 in the Questionnaire redesignating present Items 16-33 as Items 17-34:

16. MOBILITY

Vehicle -- Weight Drive Axles

Tire Description Section Width Tire 0 . D .

(a) Contact Gross Weight (Pounds) Pressure = Tire width X Tire O.D.<In.) X No. of = Factor (Inehes-Nom.) 2 Tires

(b) Weight Gross Factor - Weight Ranges (Founds) W eiKht Factor Equations

Less than 2 000 .... Y - 0.553X 2 000 to 13 500 .... Y = 0,033X + 1.050

13 501 to 20 000 .... Y 0.142X - 0.420 More than 20 000 .... V = 0.278X - 3,115 =

*Gross Weight in ibs. divided Where by number of axles. ~ is the Weight Factor

Equation and

Gross Wei~h~+l~000 X = No. of Wheels X 2

(Duals counted as i)

(c) Tire = i0 + Tire Width (Nominal) in Inches Factor 100

(d) Grouser Factor Without Chains = 1.00

(e) Wheel Gross Weisht.'--lO~O~00 Load = No. of Wheels X 2 Factor (Duals as one)

(f) Clearance = Clearance (Inches) = Factor 10

(g) Engine = Less than I0 hp/ton = 1.00 Factor More than i0 hp/ton = 1.05

(h) Transmissio. = Hydraulic = 1.00 Factor M~ual = 1.05

Mobility (a) X (b) +r(e> - (,~ x rE) x (h)

Index (c) X (d) k.

Vehicle _ f 39.2 )

Cone = 11.48 + 0.2 x MI ~MI + 3.74 Index

18

Documents

Technical Committee Docum, entation · Sectional Committee on Aircraft Hangars and Airport Facilities Appointment of Chairman Pending F. P. DeGiovanni, Vice-Chairman, Senior Facilities