JFK Airport ARFF Truck Takes a Licking and Needs Rescuing of its Own

[x635 4,066]

In what may be a $750,000 mistake for Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ), one of their airport rescue trucks at JFK became severly damaged while driving around the airport’s taxiways.

The apparent path to the wrecked vehicle indicates that the truck was driving near the beginning of runway 13R, exited the pavement at the end of a taxiway, possibly bouncing hard into the dirt, causing the axles for both front and aft wheel bases to snap.

http://www.nycaviation.com/2013/11/photo-port-authority-airport-rescue-truck-takes-licking/#.UpPT73Ao600

[nydude2473 79]

That might be the straw to break the camel's back...more reason for a separate FD to be established.

[JackEMT 77]

that looks like a lot of damage. They are made to take a bit of abuse and off-road terrain, but that must have been one hell of a ride.

[PEMO3 523]

That's an ARFF not the General Lee in the Dukes of Hazard. Looks like someone was cooking and went airborne into that "ditch"

[RWC130 594]

Engine 626 can contract with Port Authority of NY/NJ

https://www.facebook.com/Engine626

[velcroMedic1987 330]

That might be the straw to break the camel's back...more reason for a separate FD to be established.

Don't see the correlation. If there was a separate FD, it wouldn't have changed the outcome in this incident.

The vehicle is supposed to be able to go off-road, right? Maybe this is simply a mechanical failure and not operator error. Who knows?

[RES24CUE 168]

Are they volunteer?

[HubEng21 14]

That might be the straw to break the camel's back...more reason for a separate FD to be established.

What?

[nydude2473 79]

Don't see the correlation. If there was a separate FD, it wouldn't have changed the outcome in this incident.

The vehicle is supposed to be able to go off-road, right? Maybe this is simply a mechanical failure and not operator error. Who knows?

Well yes, anybody can make mistakes but the Port Authority already has enough heat on them from the FAA for having a Police-Ran Airport Fire Department. This could come off to the FAA as them not being properly trained on their equipment and that there equipment is not up to par with the National standards. I'm not saying that an FD wouldn't make the same mistake, but with already them paying penalties and this, it doesn't look good in their favor. What I was trying to say is that this incident could make the FAA make the Port authority push even faster to start up a new fire department.

Are they volunteer?

No, they are paid Port Authority Police Officers who specialized in ARFF

[nydude2473 79]

What?

The Port Authority is being penalized by the FAA for not having a separate entity to deal with ARFF and that they are using Police Officers instead. The FAA told them that they need to create a separate department ASAP or that they will be penalized until one is formed. What I was trying to say is that this incident doesn't really help the PAPD's case. I'm not saying that these guys don't have the training because they do, it's just that with an incident like this it makes the FAA think that these guys aren't adequate enough to do the role of ARFF and that the need for a separate FD is obvious.

[velcroMedic1987 330]

Is the FAA going to go after the Westchester County Airport too? They don't have a fire department, they use airport ops people and managers who pull double duty as the airport fire "brigade".

Why target the Port Authority and not other airports?

[nycmedic 65]

Politics

[STAT213 332]

I would think that airport size and activity determines the FAA's mandate for size and capability of the FD.

By the reasoning above, every airport would need a fully staffed crash rescue department and we know that's just not true. There's plenty of airports that have nothing in the way of fire protection.

[velcroMedic1987 330]

I would think that airport size and activity determines the FAA's mandate for size and capability of the FD.

By the reasoning above, every airport would need a fully staffed crash rescue department and we know that's just not true. There's plenty of airports that have nothing in the way of fire protection.

Not with commercial aircraft operations. That's specified in federal law, isn't it?

[RES24CUE 168]

Are they volunteer?

Well yes, anybody can make mistakes but the Port Authority already has enough heat on them from the FAA for having a Police-Ran Airport Fire Department. This could come off to the FAA as them not being properly trained on their equipment and that there equipment is not up to par with the National standards. I'm not saying that an FD wouldn't make the same mistake, but with already them paying penalties and this, it doesn't look good in their favor. What I was trying to say is that this incident could make the FAA make the Port authority push even faster to start up a new fire department.

No, they are paid Port Authority Police Officers who specialized in ARFF

I was being sarcastic. I know that they are not volunteer. Wow...

[STAT213 332]

Thus the statement about the FAA Mandate. If what you were saying was true, EVERY airport receiving commercial flights would have to have the same level of fire protection. Again, look around. Westchester is not staffed anything like JFK. A small airport up near me has two commercial flights a day. They have an F550 crash truck that the local FD has access to.

[velcroMedic1987 330]

§139.315 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Index determination.

(a) An index is required by paragraph © of this section for each certificate holder. The Index is determined by a combination of—

(1) The length of air carrier aircraft and

(2) Average daily departures of air carrier aircraft.

( For the purpose of Index determination, air carrier aircraft lengths are grouped as follows:

(1) Index A includes aircraft less than 90 feet in length.

(2) Index B includes aircraft at least 90 feet but less than 126 feet in length.

(3) Index C includes aircraft at least 126 feet but less than 159 feet in length.

(4) Index D includes aircraft at least 159 feet but less than 200 feet in length.

(5) Index E includes aircraft at least 200 feet in length.

© Except as provided in §139.319©, if there are five or more average daily departures of air carrier aircraft in a single Index group serving that airport, the longest aircraft with an average of five or more daily departures determines the Index required for the airport. When there are fewer than five average daily departures of the longest air carrier aircraft serving the airport, the Index required for the airport will be the next lower Index group than the Index group prescribed for the longest aircraft.

(d) The minimum designated index shall be Index A.

(e) A holder of a Class III Airport Operating Certificate may comply with this section by providing a level of safety comparable to Index A that is approved by the Administrator. Such alternate compliance must be described in the ACM and must include:

(1) Pre-arranged firefighting and emergency medical response procedures, including agreements with responding services.

(2) Means for alerting firefighting and emergency medical response personnel.

(3) Type of rescue and firefighting equipment to be provided.

(4) Training of responding firefighting and emergency medical personnel on airport familiarization and communications.

[Doc. No. FAA-2000-7479, 69 FR 6424, Feb. 10, 2004; Amdt. 139-26, 69 FR 31522, June 4, 2004]

[velcroMedic1987 330]

§139.317 Aircraft rescue and firefighting: Equipment and agents.

Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, the following rescue and firefighting equipment and agents are the minimum required for the Indexes referred to in §139.315:

(a) Index A. One vehicle carrying at least—

(1) 500 pounds of sodium-based dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean agent; or

(2) 450 pounds of potassium-based dry chemical and water with a commensurate quantity of AFFF to total 100 gallons for simultaneous dry chemical and AFFF application.

(Index B. Either of the following:

(1) One vehicle carrying at least 500 pounds of sodium-based dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean agent and 1,500 gallons of water and the commensurate quantity of AFFF for foam production.

(2) Two vehicles—

(i) One vehicle carrying the extinguishing agents as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section; and

(ii) One vehicle carrying an amount of water and the commensurate quantity of AFFF so the total quantity of water for foam production carried by both vehicles is at least 1,500 gallons.

© Index C. Either of the following:

(1) Three vehicles—

(i) One vehicle carrying the extinguishing agents as specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section; and

(ii) Two vehicles carrying an amount of water and the commensurate quantity of AFFF so the total quantity of water for foam production carried by all three vehicles is at least 3,000 gallons.

(2) Two vehicles—

(i) One vehicle carrying the extinguishing agents as specified in paragraph ((1) of this section; and

(ii) One vehicle carrying water and the commensurate quantity of AFFF so the total quantity of water for foam production carried by both vehicles is at least 3,000 gallons.

(d) Index D. Three vehicles—

(1) One vehicle carrying the extinguishing agents as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section; and

(2) Two vehicles carrying an amount of water and the commensurate quantity of AFFF so the total quantity of water for foam production carried by all three vehicles is at least 4,000 gallons.

(e) Index E. Three vehicles—

(1) One vehicle carrying the extinguishing agents as specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section; and

(2) Two vehicles carrying an amount of water and the commensurate quantity of AFFF so the total quantity of water for foam production carried by all three vehicles is at least 6,000 gallons.

(f) Foam discharge capacity. Each aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle used to comply with Index B, C, D, or E requirements with a capacity of at least 500 gallons of water for foam production must be equipped with a turret. Vehicle turret discharge capacity must be as follows:

(1) Each vehicle with a minimum-rated vehicle water tank capacity of at least 500 gallons, but less than 2,000 gallons, must have a turret discharge rate of at least 500 gallons per minute, but not more than 1,000 gallons per minute.

(2) Each vehicle with a minimum-rated vehicle water tank capacity of at least 2,000 gallons must have a turret discharge rate of at least 600 gallons per minute, but not more than 1,200 gallons per minute.

(g) Agent discharge capacity. Each aircraft rescue and firefighting vehicle that is required to carry dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean agent for compliance with the Index requirements of this section must meet one of the following minimum discharge rates for the equipment installed:

(1) Dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean agent through a hand line—5 pounds per second.

(2) Dry chemical, halon 1211, or clean agent through a turret—16 pounds per second.

(h) Extinguishing agent substitutions. Other extinguishing agent substitutions authorized by the Administrator may be made in amounts that provide equivalent firefighting capability.

(i) AFFF quantity requirements. In addition to the quantity of water required, each vehicle required to carry AFFF must carry AFFF in an appropriate amount to mix with twice the water required to be carried by the vehicle.

(j) Methods and procedures. FAA Advisory Circulars contain methods and procedures for ARFF equipment and extinguishing agents that are acceptable to the Administrator.

(k) Implementation. Each holder of a Class II, III, or IV Airport Operating Certificate must implement the requirements of this section no later than 36 consecutive calendar months after June 9, 2004.

[Doc. No. FAA-2000-7479, 69 FR 6424, Feb. 10, 2004; Amdt. 139-26, 69 FR 31523, June 4, 2004]

[STAT213 332]

And there you have it.

[nydude2473 79]

I was being sarcastic. I know that they are not volunteer. Wow...

I'm sorry about that sir, I wasn't sure but I didn't mean to doubt what you know, I thought you were being serious.

[nydude2473 79]

Westchester County Airport has a few battalions come in from around the county if an incident were to occur. I'm not trying to say what the PAPD does now is a bad job. They have been doing a great job since they took on the role many years ago. The guys who are on the job now are trained and have been doing it for a while but all I was saying is that with what the PAPD is going through right now it might be a bit of a bruise on the situation. I'm not saying they shouldn't be firemen or that they need another department. All I was saying is that it might not look good for them with the situation they are in.

[NJMedic 96]

The PA had a position of ARFF chief posted a few moths ago. They now have a posting for captains.

https://pastaff.panynj.gov/psc/applicant/EMPLOYEE/HRMS/c/HRS_HRAM.HRS_CE.GBL

[velcroMedic1987 330]

Westchester County Airport has a few battalions come in from around the county if an incident were to occur. I'm not trying to say what the PAPD does now is a bad job. They have been doing a great job since they took on the role many years ago. The guys who are on the job now are trained and have been doing it for a while but all I was saying is that with what the PAPD is going through right now it might be a bit of a bruise on the situation. I'm not saying they shouldn't be firemen or that they need another department. All I was saying is that it might not look good for them with the situation they are in.

A few battalions of what? Marines?

Having participated in a few airport disaster drills over the years, I can tell you that the response to the airport is way inadequate. Not nearly enough resources and if it were the real thing they would never be able to manage it effectively.

[newsbuff 286]

A few battalions of what? Marines?

Having participated in a few airport disaster drills over the years, I can tell you that the response to the airport is way inadequate. Not nearly enough resources and if it were the real thing they would never be able to manage it effectively.

Again, reinforcing my point that everyone wants to fight fires, but nobody ever wants to put in the effort to train.