Low Cat Training

[yellowjacket]

Has anyone got pictures of some low category training rigs? I'm looking for ideas for a design and can find loads of pictures airliners and other commercial stuff on google, but very little in the way of small single piston aeroplanes or helicopters. What do you use - makeshift oil trays & barrels etc or full scale mockups?

[Benfire]

http://www.simulation.uk.com/trans.htm

[yellowjacket]

That's a very impressive looking simulator, almost seems like a pity to be setting fire to it.

Unfortunately, I doubt that it would be in the price range to suit the flying club I'm with, we're thinking more along the lines of something we can weld up in-house. It'd have to be set up to ensure realistic fire scenarios though, which is why I'd like to see what other people have come up with - I've heard of using oil drums to simulate engine fires, for example, but not seen it in practice.

[stevfire2]

get hold of a hot air baloon burner, mounted onto a metal frame, a long hose and a cylinder of propane. inject it into a confined space for an escalating under carriage or engine fire, vertically and shielded for a rotor head fire, etc. really gets the guys confident in their equipments capabilities. costs very little, but achieves a lot.

[yellowjacket]

That's exactly the sort of idea I was hoping to get, many thanks, time to start trying to locate a burner....

I reckon an awful lot of small RFFS crews have faced similar problems with setting up realistic training, so the more suggestions I can get the better.

Do many crews use derilict airframes - how do these stand up to the training?

[stevfire2]

check out "airport rescue firefighting services" on facebook , plenty of pics of our training ground, also our home made pressure rig in use
                                                       steve

[Chunty]

We have used derelict airframes and as you would expect they do not stand up well to an adjacent pool of flaming AVGAS. Despite the fact it virtually cripples the frame for future use, in itself it is a priceless lesson to the crews that it doesn't take long for such an incident to break through and destroy an aircraft. At the training session in question the first responding appliance deployed a single side-line one length long at a time the fire was affecting but not penetrating the airframe, they decided that they needed to extend a length and by the time that was complete the starboard side of the frame had been reduced to nothing and the two dummies sat in the P1 and P2 seats were themselves alight.

That was quite some lesson made more poignant by the fact that a mere 15 litres of AVGAS had been the fuel loading.

Additionally we use an old BN Islander frame with mainplane and to the port side we have created a very basic engine fire simulator that involves a small amount of AVGAS in a 45 gallon drum at engine height on its side (with the filler port uppermost). Beneath that we light a Jet A1 fire in a half barrel or bund and this heats the AVGAS, maximises vapour production until a point where you get the sudden blowtorch effect and then a sustained flaming. But if you are tempted to try this be warned; that 45 gallon drum needs to be firmly in position and in good condition (not rusted or otherwise damaged) or the sudden pressure of the blow torch effect could move it or blow it apart, even one of our brand new ones ended up with a large warp in its back end. Also brief the guys on exactly what the potential and hazard is, for on a day with little or no wind you can end up creating a very sudden blow-torch up to eight feet long, although this isn't sustained it's long enough to cause serious harm to anyone in its path. We did lots of walk through talk through training with this thing and all the guys before we ever used it in a scenario, and even then I am very particular about when we use it with regard to the overall exercise objectives and met conditions.

Other fires are created in the Islander but the fire itself is always contained within a steel container to prevent damage to the airframe. One of my guys is a dab hand with a welder and we are now in the process of sourcing sufficient irons to create a small towable unit similar to the little 'Budgie' that IFTC have created for low-cat training at Teesside. That will enable us to create a multitude of scenarios at various locations.

Watch this space.

[yellowjacket]

Hi, the "budgie" idea is part of what I have in mind at present, used in conjuction with the the various fire simulations mentioned and I've CADed up a frame with similar shape and dimensions to a C150. Are there any features posters would see as desirable on such a mockup? It would be handy to hear these ideas before I start welding it up.

A few more questions:

Has anyone got a PDF of CAP605 available? I'm aware it's been superceded, but have been told it had good guidance.(I'm located in Ireland so the CAP 699 framework isn't directly applicable.)
 
Do your airfields use a crash alarm? If so, what form does it take?

Are there any items of equipment you find worth carrying that are not mentioned on the ICAO equipment list? (I can't figure out what function some of that gear is expected to fulfill in an emergency).

[Chunty]

In response to your last post yellowjacket;

Our plans for our 'budgie' are to include an engine fire rig (in the wing to simulate a BN Islander to meet one of critical training needs for our MoD contracts), another engine rig in the nose for single engine simulations, and possibly an under-carriage although we haven't sussed out the mechanics of this yet and sturdy enough to set internal fires without wrecking the rig. And then of course plenty of large steel trays! All of which needs to be on wheels so we can tow it around.

To the best of my knowledge the old CAP605 was never available as a pdf. I'm sure we have an old paper copy knocking around somewhere but to be honest it's very old hat and if you are already working in this part of the industry it's not going to teach you anything of practical value that you shouldn't already know. The last time we had the SRG auditors at our aerodrome the RFFS inspector showed me a draft pdf version of a new CAP605 which he told me would be published imminently, but that was well over a year ago and still nothing has emerged from the CAA publications website. What I saw on his laptop was an altogether greatly improved and modernised piece of work and if I remember correctly it featured colour photography instead of the old line drawings and it was Shoreham Airport RFFS who acted out the roles required for the photos.

Crash alarm; yes we still use an old-fashioned klaxon but this works in tandem with personal alerters which can be used as pagers for contacting personnel but are set to ring in two-tones and vibrate in the event of an emergency call-out.

I know what you mean about the ICAO equipment list; screwdrivers etc, most peculiar! I can't imagine ever saving someone's life with a short handled crosshead but I guess some sort of analysis was used to identify these needs. We have added to ours with the correct Felco cutter for destruction of the activation cable on a BRS, we looked in to cutting gear and opted against the weighty and laborious hydraulic jaws in favour of a battery pack powered reciprocating saw because that suits our level or operation and the particulars of some of our functions, it may not suit every application but it was a highly cost-effective powered rescue tool. Once we introduced breathing apparatus we also installed a Microvent system capable of oxygen delivery for CPR and oxygen therapy (concurrently if required) and I would cite this as one of the most useful pieces of first aid equipment but be warned, don't use one on a member of the public unless you hold a valid Medical Gases Certificate as oxygen administration is covered by the Prescriptive Medicines regulations. All our guys are refreshed by an external assessment centre on oxygen administration annually although the certificate is valid for three years.

All extra bits we have bought have been the result of a logical analysis of the role and of this probably the most successful and simple buy and something that I keep nagging our local brigade about (where I serve as RDS), is the issuing of personal torches for attaching to tunics so that absolutely no-one has a reason not to be able to see where they are walking and what they are doing, that relatively cheap investment has proved its worth on several occasions. Conversely in my local brigade I can think of a dozen or so accidents where the cited cause has been lack of lighting, I was determined that would never happen to any of my guys.

Going back to the 605 issue, don't be scared to develop your own training notes as you know the job you are expected to do better than anyone. We do all of ours and each is written by the designated instructor and signed off by myself, in that respect as a low cat unit I guess we are lucky because the DAFO and myself are BAI's and FBTI's, the AFO is EFAD instructor and we all have GI certificates and assessor awards, but a good source of under-pinning knowledge including technical information is freely available at IFTC's website and can be downloaded and printed off in pdf format. To be honest what they provide there is far greater than what the old 605 ever offered. Need any further assistance don't hesitate to ask.

[yellowjacket]

What level of training do you use for BA?

One of the issues my club (one club, small grass field, no other users) faces is that it has no permanent fire crew, rather in the event of an incident, club members who are present on the airfield become the first responders as an RFFS crew. This requires that a large number of members are trained to ensure a miminum of 2 responders at all times. Many members "join to fly, not to be firemen" as I've heard it put, so aren't very motivated about RFFS training (on the other hand some other members take it very seriously). I presume other clubs have faced this dilemma, and I'd be interested to hear ideas on how to get the less interested members to take it more seriously.

[Chunty]

To be fair our BA training is not so much attached to our role as a low cat aerodrome although it could be deployed if necessary under Rapid Deployment Procedures. The provision is attached to a more demanding role in respect of government contract obligations which includes a response to the buildings as much as to one of their aircraft.

For this purpose all personnel attend an initial BA course and engage in annual refresher courses in addition to using BA at full scale DISOP exercises (domestic incident standard operational procedures) and over the past eighteen months we have enhanced that capability and indeed the ability of the crews to respond safely to compartment fires by introducing FBT (fire behaviour training) to the program using our own dedicated facility, something that even our local brigade don't have.

[yellowjacket]

Fair enough, I was wondering how you could justify the training purely for a low cat requirement.

What level of respiratory protection do non-BA equipped crews use for aircraft firefighting?

[Chunty]

That's an interesting question; I guess they just remain upwind and hope for the best!

As far as justification goes, to be honest as far as Health & Safety legislation is concerned I can't imagine how any firefighter could be expected to enter a risk area involving fire and it's by-products, even after extinguishment, without respiratory protection? The CAA used to specify in CAP168 that BA is not required at low cat aerodromes, this has now been amended and it's down to the individual aerodrome to risk assess and do what they think is best, of course most just hang on the time honoured belief that because the CAA don't insist on it they don't need it.

Then at low cat there are deployment issues and these are attached to Tb 1/97, but this shouldn't really be a reason for not having the gear because aerodromes are not compelled to apply TB 1/97 at all, its an accepted safe system of work and that is all, if you can satisfy yourself that BA can be used without the precise control procedures in TB1/97 then who can tell you that you're wrong?

The sensible and cost efficient management of the risk might be to deploy a small crew with the objective of extinguishment from an upwind position and then don filtered facemasks before entering the risk area. That's what I'd do if I didn't have the BA to fall back on.

[FC1]

Low cat aerodromes will more often than not only operate with a 2 to 3 crew and having to meet the laid down responce times means that deploying crew in BA is currently not a logistical option despite the respiratory risks to the crew.  We deploy just as Chunty has described in his last post - respond, fight the fire from an upwind position wherever possible, then don full face P3 filtered face masks before entering the risk area.  No its not ideal by any means, but with good dynamic risk management its the best that we can do at the moment under the current requirements.

My particular role involves working with the helicopter industry, often in the field where any back up from local authority is likely to be a long time coming due to the location of the LS.  Our responce time in optimum conditions is no more than two minutes from the call to delivering media!

[Chunty]

Just out of interest FC1, what exactly comprises a P3 filtered face mask, what does it filter? Just particulate or vapours or both? I've never used such devices and are wondering if they may have some useful applications with some of the work we engage in, any technical help would be appreciated. Thanks.