Originally Posted by
notEnuf
You learned that from an after action report. Watch the vids. At no time was the fire under control and parts were departing the airplane. Magnesium and hot metal could have pierced the tanks at any moment. When foam and water are introduced to that situation it flares up and metallic parts quickly contract, that causes shrapnel. They were lucky. If you choose to hold that as the standard, I question your judgement. Ask one of the AARF guys if they would be willing to sit for 3 minutes in their mock up as they simulate a simple brake fire with a fuel load onboard. No fire suits and no knowledge of the wing or engine condition other than it’s burning enough that flames are seen from the tower. And then ask them to volunteer their loved ones and 100+ others.
You keep trying to appeal on emotion rather than logic. I'll ask again, do you have any case studies where a brake fire engulfed aircraft, breaching the fuel tanks within 3 minutes?
Do you not think Airbus or Boeing built these planes to withstand 3 minutes of flames emitting from the brakes?
Also in one post you stated you would of ignored ARFF's recommendation to not evacuate in SLC but now you want me to ask an ARFF if they'd sit on a plane for 3 minutes with a brake fire? You do know it took 15 minutes to put out the fire in SLC right? It was determined the pax were safer inboard vs evacuating. That's called accessing the situation and expanding the team aka CRM