HANGAR FIRE SUPPRESSION
Fire Protection Interpretation Committee Meeting
September 13, 2006 -- Larry Ryerson, Falcon Field Tenants & Users Assoc.
Today I attended a meeting with folks from Scottsdale, Glendale, Phoenix and Mesa. The meeting was hosted by Hal Key, Fire Protection Engineer for the City of Mesa. In attendance was Dwight Havens, Fire Protection Engineer for the City of Phoenix, Casey Denny, Deputy Director Gateway Airport, Jeff Tripp, Project Supervisor Falcon Field, Bruce Carpenter of Aero Sprinkler Services, Fred Himovitz, Hangar Builder/Developer, myself and the assistant Scottsdale Airport Director and a couple of other fellows from Phoenix & Glendale who arrived late.
The purpose of this committee is to reach a consensus regarding the interpretation of the International Building Code (IBC) and the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 409 standards for ‘Aircraft Hangars’ and any City amendments to those codes & standards. I can tell you that this is an extremely complex issue and I expect some strong discussions because of the makeup of the committee. We have a sprinkler salesman, a hangar developer, Airport Managers, a pilot & tenant and the city fire protection officials, an awful lot of different opinions and agendas. Hal Key and Dwight Havens are both professionals and keep the conversations directed.
One of the first issues to be settled will probably be the ‘covered parking/tie-down’ requirements. There appears to be some agreement there. The sprinkler and foam suppression requirements for hangars, while somewhat clear in both the IBC code and NFPA 409, really get confused and unclear when we try to interpret the many definitions and levels of maintenance. This committee will sort out what will be used in the major cities of Arizona.
During the meeting it occurred to me that future problems at Falcon Field should be prevented and the private developers will gain from this work. Many of the items of concern regarding maintenance in hangars are addressed by the ‘new’ Falcon Field Aircraft Storage Agreement. The committee will use the FARS Part 43, appendix A as a guideline for starters. Like I said….this is complex.
Each committee member was given a task to complete and bring back to the next meeting October 17, 2006. All of this committee’s decisions will be sent to the various City Councils for adoption. Many of the committee decisions may be presented to IBC and NFPA for approval and adoption.
I am happy to be assisting in any little way. This is really important. Enough for now….I have a research project to complete.
Larry Ryerson
FFTUA Board Member
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Letter: (posted 8/14/2006)
Rex:
There has been a lot of talk about the requirements for foam suppression systems in new hangars. To try and clarify the issue, I contacted the State Fire Marshall’s office and spoke with a Mr. Rodriguez. He referred me to the same NFPA specification that Mesa has been referring to, NFPA 409. The specification is long and subject to much interpretation. After reviewing the specification with Mr. Rodriguez, he agreed that the type of hangars proposed to be built, do not require foam suppression systems according to NFPA 409. The type of hangars proposed is as follows:
According to NFPA 409 sec. 4.1.2 the hangar would have a door height of less than 28 ft. and be built in accordance with sec. 5.1.1 and table 4.1.2 (less than 40,000 sq. ft.) making this a type 2 construction.
The hangar would meet the requirements of a group 2 hangar. (no welding, open torches, painting or refueling)
According to NFPA 409 sec. 7.1.1 which states: “The protection of aircraft storage and servicing areas for group 2 aircraft hangars other than those housing un-fueled aircraft shall be in accordance with any one of the following:” Section 7.2 provides the option of “Closed-head water sprinkler system for aircraft storage and servicing areas”.
With the State Fire Marshall’s office in agreement, a foam suppression system is not required in a Group 2, Type 2 constructed hangar to be in compliance with NFPA 409. If Mesa requires a foam suppression system, it exceeds the requirements of NFPA 409. If someone from Mesa would work with the people trying to build and expand on the airport, I believe we could eliminate a lot of confusion. I think we have been chasing specifications that do not apply. Please have someone review this and let me know if they are in concurrence.
Also, in regards to the covered parking. NFPA 409 does not cover this. All of their specifications are for indoor storage or servicing of aircraft. Therefore, the sprinkler requirement, requiring no more than 5,000 sq. ft. being built without sprinklers must come from some other specification. Could you please let me know what that specification is so that we may research and be sure that we are in compliance with it.
Steve Head
President
Falcon Field Tenants and Users Association
PH: 480-854-1498