Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #53893
From: Joe Trepicone <aviation@trepicone.com>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Firewall
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 02:36:31 -0500
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
One last thought about Brad's firewall experience. If the areas as he discribes showed signs of exposure severe heat and quite possibly to open flame that means the composite firewall was all the kept smoke and fire from entering the cabin.  How long does it take to burn through e-glass or carbon?  When similar produces are used in the architecture and construction industry at fire rated asseblies building codes and UL are very detailed as to how all penetrations are done. Sleves with specific UL numbers must be submitted and approved  They usually require steel straping as well as fire caulking at overlaps to avoid fire or smoke getting behind.  And when a comustible material is within 3" of a rated assembly the rated assebly must also be rated "zero inches to combustible". Don't know if this is applicable to aviation but - as Brads experirence suggests- maybe it should be.     

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 18, 2009, at 10:18 AM, "Steve Colwell" <mcmess1919@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

Years ago Van’s tested several factory built RV’s for smoke penetration of the firewall.  I remember they were amazed how much smoke they got thru what they thought were pretty tight electrical, cable and misc. fittings in a ground simulation.  They tightened up the obvious holes and used High Temp Silicone and still had an unacceptable volume of smoke coming in. 

 

Fire or even an oil leak might have smoke that could prevent breathing long enough or obscure vision or be enough of a distraction (pick one or more) to set up a fatal scenario.  This could have been a factor in the Watsonville crash.

 

Steve Colwell  Legacy

 

 

Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster