There is no excuse for this; the alternatives do a better job anyway!

[Chimo]

The foam spill at the Bne Airport highlights the use of toxic material that is not even as good for fire suppression as the alternatives.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-14/chemical-spill-brisbane-airport-kill-small-fish/8443782?WT.ac=localnews_brisbane

Its time to change.

Look at the alternative. http://www.pyrocooltech.com/faqs/ and explain why its not being used.

Cheers
Chimo

[Feral]

This is just bulldust, hope the EPA hand them a huge fine. No excuses, even with a leak, their bunding should have taken care of it and stopped anythign entering the waterways.

[Chimo]

They don't need to worry about bunding if they switch to pyrocool type foam which is not toxic or carcinogenic like what they are now using.

[tunaticer]

You will probably the find the CAA has not accredited and authorised the use of anything else.......
My dad was a firey at the bris airport fopr a very long time couldn't have a crap without permission.

[SatNav]

Regardless of what is accredited or authorized or much else, two (2) pertinent questions

1. Why did it take the authorities (that being the Qld Gov) four (4) days to notify the general public

2. What was the Qld Gov trying to hide or achieve (or avoid ....) by doing this?

[Chimo]

This is about using non toxic foam that extinguishes fires better and without side affects.

Qld has banned the use of the stuff that is used on Federal controlled sites like the airport.

[SatNav]

1. So it has happened, can not turn the clock back, substitution then elimination will always be the most effective means but doesn't change the questions after the event , Why and What?

[tunaticer]

Look at the alternative. http://www.pyrocooltech.com/faqs/ and explain why its not being used.

Cheers
Chimo

Has the question been asked whether this fire retardant is safe to use on magnesium fires?
It could well be why the CAA have not approved it.

[Chimo]

Yes I believe it to be suitable for that use.

This is on pg 8 NB Magnesium details
http://www.pyrocooltech.com/pdf/TDFull-rev1.pdf

Video

(http://www.pyrocooltech.com/pdf/TDFull-rev1.pdf)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKjSEd6cL3Q

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKjSEd6cL3Q)

[GBC]

The arff (airport firies) switched to the environmentally friendly foam years ago. This was a foam deluge system in a hangar owned by Qantas. If only 20 fish were killed it would have been tilapia in the drain filled with literally hundreds of them so that gives you some idea of the extent of the spill.
The prawns are on out the front and I can assure you the cast netters haven't slowed down.
Bottom line, the arff trained with the bad foam for years out there. The whole airport is affected by that. I am not sure of the recharge conditions on private deluge systems but I'd say there will be pressure on them now to change over.

[TheRealAndy]

My understanding from talking to someone in the industry is that its dictated by insurance companies rather that government departments.

[GBC]

The arff (airport firies) switched to the environmentally friendly foam years ago. This was a foam deluge system in a hangar owned by Qantas. If only 20 fish were killed it would have been tilapia in the drain filled with literally hundreds of them so that gives you some idea of the extent of the spill.
The prawns are on out the front and I can assure you the cast netters haven't slowed down.
Bottom line, the arff trained with the bad foam for years out there. The whole airport is affected by that. I am not sure of the recharge conditions on private deluge systems but I'd say there will be pressure on them now to change over.

It was bigger than initial reports by a long shot......
There has been pumps and excavators going flat chat and there is a mass of reclamation going on from drains and sewers. Too little too late I'd say.

[tunaticer]

Regardless of what is accredited or authorized or much else, two (2) pertinent questions

1. Why did it take the authorities (that being the Qld Gov) four (4) days to notify the general public

2. What was the Qld Gov trying to hide or achieve (or avoid ....) by doing this?

1.The site is under federal govt control, not state control. State govt will have to handle the fallout outside of the airport grounds though.

2. Unsure when the authorities were notified.......it could well have been undetected for 24 hours before being found.

[chris69]

Its just no good from everyone involved State and Federal,white spot and now toxic foam,someone is responsible for everything here,the checkers aren't checking and need to be flogged for it and then jailed.

All policies and procedures have failed and all the fines too who ever can not fix it now.

[SatNav]

1. Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) acquired Brisbane airport from the Federal Government under a 50 year lease in 1997. BAC is a private non-listed Queensland company and has full responsibility for the operations at BNE so lets drop this thinking the federal gov controls Brisbane airport.

2. The question still remains why it took more than 4 days to notify the general public and from all accounts why commercial prawning operations were not notified until a week after the event which meant during this period (especially being Easter) commercial operations caught and sold hundreds of kg of prawns to the general public

3. What was the Gov trying to achieve or hide by sitting on their behinds on this one

4. The Qld EHP/EPA appear to have no credibility when it comes to the job they are supposed to be doing under a minister that appears to have absolutely no idea

[TheRealAndy]

And this is not the first time its happened either. Qantas is not the only offender. Have you ever heard of it happening in the past?

[Scalem]

It worries me when those responsible for withholding information being released to the public are slow to do so. The term used is "duty of care" and in this case, the lack of it. Our track record for looking after our waterways is sinking badly, is it too grim reaper to becoming catch and release only? My confidence in consuming uncontaminated seafood is fading real fast.

Sent from my HTC_0P6B6 using Ausfish mobile app (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=91595)

[GBC]

1. Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) acquired Brisbane airport from the Federal Government under a 50 year lease in 1997. BAC is a private non-listed Queensland company and has full responsibility for the operations at BNE so lets drop this thinking the federal gov controls Brisbane airport.

2. The question still remains why it took more than 4 days to notify the general public and from all accounts why commercial prawning operations were not notified until a week after the event which meant during this period (especially being Easter) commercial operations caught and sold hundreds of kg of prawns to the general public

3. What was the Gov trying to achieve or hide by sitting on their behinds on this one

4. The Qld EHP/EPA appear to have no credibility when it comes to the job they are supposed to be doing under a minister that appears to have absolutely no idea

Bac are the lesees and manage the place.
They have a master plan for expansion etc.
Authority for assessing anything code or standards related or works done under a building approval rests with the Airport Building Controller which are appointed Australia wide by the federal government, in this case Philip Chun and associates.
If the system was code/standards compliant at the time it was built I don't think either will be hit too hard with the naughty stick as I don't know that anyone was under any duress to change anything.

Sad, yes, and a disgrace, yes. I hope it forces retrospective change but that will be of a magnitude that will break many smaller companies. Not even the state government did that.

[Mike Delisser]

1. Brisbane Airport Corporation (BAC) acquired Brisbane airport from the Federal Government under a 50 year lease in 1997. BAC is a private non-listed Queensland company and has full responsibility for the operations at BNE so lets drop this thinking the federal gov controls Brisbane airport.

For some reason you seem desperate to exonerate the Federal Gov SatNav but you are barking up the wrong tree here. It is most certainly Federally controlled and administered land.

[SatNav]

For some reason you seem desperate to exonerate the Federal Gov SatNav but you are barking up the wrong tree here. It is most certainly Federally controlled and administered land.

1. No simply pointing out the actual parties responsible in this debacle, that being BAC and the Qld government.

2. Brisbane airport was privatized in 1997 and acquired from FAC by BAC and it is BAC who have ultimate responsibility for Brisbane airport.

3. I am not sure why some keeping trying to put this back to the feds when it has absolutely nothing to do with the feds responsibility or otherwise I would be pointing the finger at the feds. The feds have nothing to do with this so lets point the finger in the right direction shall we!.

[Feral]

Regardless of what is accredited or authorized or much else, two (2) pertinent questions

1. Why did it take the authorities (that being the Qld Gov) four (4) days to notify the general public

2. What was the Qld Gov trying to hide or achieve (or avoid ....) by doing this?

Federal land and federal rules.
But would be interesting to know when the Feds told the Qld Govt, and where the delay was in the public finding out. 4 days is a disgrace. Many people fish boggy creek, it is a very popular flathead spot, and even quite a few bank fisherman. Would have been a lot of fish gone home in the gap period.

[SatNav]

1. The only thing Federal about the BNE airport is they do own the land but BAC have a 50 year lease with an option for another 40 years. It is the BAC that has absolute control of BNE, BAC don't run back to the Feds when somebody leaks in the hangar, it is BAC's responsibility. BAC failed big time as did EHP in this case

[GBC]

A couple of articles which are relevant.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-21/toxic-foam-spill-fed-government-consider-phasing-out-chemical/8460276

This one shows the timeline of events and public notification.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/government-notified-of-toxic-foam-spill-three-days-before-public-20170415-gvlgga.html

Like I said, qantas has had a good dig at cleaning up a product which isn't against the law to use and all the boxes were ticked. There won't be much more than a slap on the wrist unless there is a civil suit filed for not containing the part which made it into the stormwater which should not have happened, . Most hangars have environmental separators and emergency valves. I don't know about that one though.

Bac are a rent collecting figurehead who park cars and planes in their spare time. They go to great lengths to distance themselves from being any sort of authority. The land the hangars are on is long term leaseheld by qantas who built their own structures in accordance with federal standards. Bac collects the rent and don't need to know what goes on inside the boundary because that is the smart way the leases are set up. When the lease expires, qantas will need to demolish the hangars and services and hand back the same grassy paddock they started with.

The airport is so removed from state control that even the fire systems are different. If a state fire truck tried to help at a fire out there they would need a separate hydrant to the ARFF trucks and hope nobody has nicked the British adapter so their lines will fit.
The qld police are 'invited' by the AFP to carry out speeding ops out there.
The only thing that has any resemblance to not being federal is the potable water system which follows the brisbane city council guidelines because it runs off their mains.
I'll shut up now.

[SatNav]

1. Buck passing at its best, so many parties,so convenient to pass the buck, even the Prime Minister's office gets a mention, so much mumbo jumbo but what is absolutely clear and what is the real issue here is the total incompetence of the minister (and EHP) in withholding this from the public until the Friday (Easter Friday) morning, this is the key here and there are no excuses for this outside of incompetence. And how that Jeanette Young keeps her job is beyond many.

2. Now if Airservices have no control over what airlines use then who the hell does?

[GBC]

Bottom line, as is often the case, the 'bad' gear is the best for the job. There is no better alcohol resistant foam.

Totally agree that unless you collar all three equally they'll pass the buck all day long.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheRealAndy]

1. Buck passing at its best, so many parties,so convenient to pass the buck, even the Prime Minister's office gets a mention, so much mumbo jumbo but what is absolutely clear and what is the real issue here is the total incompetence of the minister (and EHP) in withholding this from the public until the Friday (Easter Friday) morning, this is the key here and there are no excuses for this outside of incompetence. And how that Jeanette Young keeps her job is beyond many.

2. Now if Airservices have no control over what airlines use then who the hell does?

Not sure how Airservices ended up in the mix here, all they do is manage aircraft movement and anything associated with aircraft movement. Once the plane is in the hangar its no longer their responsibility. They have nothing to do with Brisbane airport nor the management of airport facilities or incidents.

[SatNav]

1. Yes aircraft movements and Airservices handle all fire fighting and rescue services

[TheRealAndy]

1. Yes aircraft movements and Airservices handle all fire fightingraft and rescue services

The firefighting and rescue part is for aircraft movement areas, not maintenance facilities.

[GBC]

Sort of right both ways. The arff will assess fire systems against code and operational suitability (safety in design etc), and will inspect and sign off during the certification process once the system is built.
All that means in this context is that the system was compliant when it was built or modified enough to require a building approval. The arff as far as I know only assess against standards, but cannot change them. Changing the code in this context would be a politically driven decision.
This is the third major spill I have heard of from that hangar over the years. The foam is extremely expensive so rest assured the client qantas would be unhappy about losing it down a drain. I'd assume it would have been a servicing mistake by a third party but that is just a guess based on past events.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[banksmister]

Environment Department investigates second toxic foam leak near Brisbane
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/second-toxic-foam-leak-near-brisbane-20170429-gvvijm.html

[Chimo]

As intimated at the start of this thread there is at least one non toxic alternative foam that can be used to quickly extinguish fire; all be it by cooling rather than smothering fire.

Because post fire cleanup is much reduced the cost of using the alternative is actually likely to be less than the material in use at present.

Why is the toxic and more expensive (fire suppression and cleanup combined) foam still being used?

[GBC]

I don't have a direct answer, and as a builder, composition of foam is something I haven't taken an interest in until now, but fef foam isn't even mentioned in state or federal standards, and I'm not seeing many compliance as/nzs numbers on any of the advertising links you have put up.
I am happy to be corrected, but unless it jumps through official hoops it isn't going to appear too soon. As I said previously though, the arff changed to another sort of friendly/er class b foam some time back.
As to the why's all I know is that bad foam is poisonous, acidic, eats steel lines, smells vomitous, has nothing going for it apart from killing avgas/a1 fires, so there must be a strong argument to have kept it this long.

[Chimo]

Thanks GBC

Still cannot get my head around the fact that if it was good enough for the FDNY to use at the world trade centre on 9/11 its not good enough for Australia.
The oil tanker fire that Lloyds estimated would take 10 days to extinguish to 12.5 minutes with this stuff.

If I'm on or near a burning plane or anything else I know what I want used around me.

Have you ever walked though AFFF and then checked the soles of your boots afterwards?

Maybe we will join the rest of the world one day?

https://www.epa.gov/greenchemistry/presidential-green-chemistry-challenge-1998-small-business-award
http://www.pyrocooltech.com/about-us/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm9ucBc8G7g (http://www.pyrocooltech.com/about-us/)

[GBC]

This is the air Nauru (was gam aviation) hangar at bne. It is a different foam system so there are alternatives.
https://youtu.be/ym5mwgf99LI

[Chimo]

There you go, there is more than one way to skin a cat / protect a hanger!

Thanks GBC

[GBC]

As an update, rumour has it that the poison has made it through the sewers to luggage point where it has killed all the bacteria used to treat sewerage.
All the sewers in the area are being dug up or treated and they are still flooding them and pumping them dry 24/7.
Cause apparently was a corroded line letting go.
It is getting bigger all the time.