Committee on NFPA 418FROM: Jeanne Moreau-Correia DATE: July 20, 2009 SUBJECT: NFPA 418 ROP Letter...

Committee on NFPA 418

M E M O R A N D U M

TO: NFPA Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities

FROM: Jeanne Moreau-Correia

DATE: July 20, 2009

SUBJECT: NFPA 418 ROP Letter Ballot

The ROP letter ballot for NFPA 418 is attached. The ballot is for formally voting on

whether or not you concur with the committee’s actions on the proposals. Reasons must

accompany all negative and abstention ballots.

Please do not vote negatively because of editorial errors. However, please bring such

errors to my attention for action.

Please complete and return your ballot as soon as possible but no later than Monday,

August 3, 2009. As noted on the ballot form, please return the ballot to Jeanne Moreau-

Correia either via e-mail to [email protected] or via fax to 617-984-7110.

The return of ballots is required by the Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

Attachment: Ballot

Proposals

mailto:[email protected]

Due Date: 8/3/2009Contact: Jeanne Moreau-CorreiaE-Mail: [email protected]: 617-984-7110Mail: One Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169

Proposal No

PROPOSAL BALLOT DUE BY: Monday, August 3, 2009

NFPA 418 HHH-AAAStandard for Heliports

Technical Committee on Helicopter FacilitiesStaff Liaison: Timothy A. Hawthorne

DATE:___________________ NAME: _______________________________________________(Your printed name above acts as your signature)

Committee Action Key:A = AcceptR= RejectAPA = Accept in PartAPR = Accept in PrincipleAPP = Accept in Principle in PartH = Hold

CommitteeActionLog No Section

Select the appropriate box belowAffirmative with Comment* = Aff w-C

Negative* = NegAbstain* = Abs

With respect to the Committee Actions on the Proposals which accompaniedthe ballot, please record me as voting: (check one)

Affirmative On All Items. I agree with all committee meeting actions without comment.

Affirmative With Exception(s)*:I agree with all committee meeting actions Except for the Affirmative with comment,Negative and /or Abstention checked below.

*Reasons must accompany these votes.

Please return this Ballot Page only to NFPA.

AEntire Document418-1 CP1 NegAff w/C Abs

Enter your reason for vote below11:21:12 AM______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A1.3418-2 CP7 NegAff w/C Abs


1

Proposal NoCommitteeActionLog No. Section

Vote

A2.3.1418-3 11 NegAff w/C Abs


RChapter 3 and Chapter X (New)418-4 1 NegAff w/C Abs


A3.3.2 Critical Area418-5 CP5 NegAff w/C Abs


A3.3.2 Critical Area418-6 CP6 NegAff w/C Abs


A3.3.5 Helicopter Storage and418-7 CP4 NegAff w/C Abs


A3.3.9 Practical Critical Fire Area418-8 CP3 NegAff w/C Abs


R3.3.11 Rooftop Landing Pad418-9 CP2 NegAff w/C Abs


2


Vote

A4.1.1418-10 CP13 NegAff w/C Abs




APR4.4.1418-12 3 NegAff w/C Abs


APR4.5418-13 4 NegAff w/C Abs




APR4.7.4 (New)418-15 12 NegAff w/C Abs


APR4.8 (New)418-16 13 NegAff w/C Abs


3


Vote

APR5.3.3 (New)418-17 7 NegAff w/C Abs






APR5.5.1 and 5.5.2418-20 2 NegAff w/C Abs




R5.5.4418-22 17 NegAff w/C Abs




4


Vote

APR5.7.1.4418-24 10 NegAff w/C Abs




APP5.7.2.1 through 5.7.2.1.2 (New)418-26 9 NegAff w/C Abs






APR5.7.4.1418-29 8 NegAff w/C Abs




5


Vote





R6.6.1.1 (New)418-33 19 NegAff w/C Abs








A9.1.2418-37 23 NegAff w/C Abs


6


Vote

AChapter 10418-38 CP15 NegAff w/C Abs


RA.5.7.4.1 (New)418-39 24 NegAff w/C Abs


AAnnex B418-40 CP16 NegAff w/C Abs


7

Report on Proposals – November 2010 NFPA 418_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-1 Log #CP1

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Technical Committee on Helicopter Facilities,

Review entire document to: 1) Update any extracted material by preparing separate proposals todo so, and 2) review and update references to other organizations documents, by preparing proposal(s) as required.

To conform to the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-2 Log #CP7


Add new section as follows:1.3 New Technology.1.3.1 Nothing in this standard shall be intended to restrict new technologies or alternate arrangements, provided the

level of safety prescribed by this standard is not lowered.1.3.2 Materials or devices not specifically designated by this standard shall be utilized in complete accord with all

conditions, requirements, and limitations of their listings.

This will permit new technologies or alternate arrangements where the components, systems, ormethods are listed and installed in accordance with their listings. it will bring consistency with other NFPA Standardsand Codes, which have this clause.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-3 Log #11

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Steve C. Dryden, Poole Fire Protection, Inc.

Revise text to read as follows:"...FAA A/C 150/5390-2B, January 20, 1994 September, 30 2004.

The newer, more current reference would be referenced by those using NFPA 418.

1Printed on 7/20/2009

Report on Proposals – November 2010 NFPA 418_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-4 Log #1

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Donald Shinnamon, Sr., City of Holly Hill Public Safety

Add new text as follows:

Temporary landing sites and emergency evacuation facilities are outside the scope of thisstandard.

A designated and clear area at rooftop or groundlevel intended exclusively foremergency/rescue operations by helicopters.


Report on Proposals – November 2010 NFPA 418

Introduction.The September 11, 2001 attack on America prompted renewed debate on how to deal with urban disasters. High on

the priority list in that debate were emergencies in high-rise structures. High-rise emergencies can be the result of fire,natural disasters, crime, medical emergency and terrorism. Because helicopters have always played a vital role inassisting emergency response personnel during high-rise incidents, a study group of the Helicopter AssociationInternational (HAI) has determined that incorporating an Emergency Helicopter Landing Facility, or EHLF, atop high-risebuildings which exceed a predetermined height, could facilitate the safe and orderly utilization of helicopters, and wouldsave both lives and property.This was not the first time that the incorporation of EHLFs on high-rise buildings has been studied. In 1993, the FAA

completed a study, "Rooftop Emergency Heliports," which was intended to be used by planners and engineers who areresponsible for city, urban, aviation, and emergency response planning, and for those who participate in disaster relief.However, after September 11th, the EHLF concept was readdressed because of the increased probability of high-risefires and other emergencies as a result of terrorism.The FAA project began with an in-depth analysis of high-rise fires in which helicopters were used. Project members

examined fires at the Andraus Building in Sao Paulo, Brazil, the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas, the Dupont PlazaHotel in San Juan, and high-rise fires in Los Angeles and Philadelphia. Following this effort, they studied building codesthat were applicable to the construction of heliports on roofs of high-rise buildings. After appraising this information, theFAA's "Heliport Design" Advisory Circular (AC 150/5390-2) was reviewed to ascertain if it fully addressed therequirements of emergency rooftop heliports. As a result, the following was incorporated into the AC:"To facilitate fire fighting or emergency evacuation operations, local building codes may require structures over a

specified height to provide a clear area on the roof capable of accommodating a helicopter. Since the cleared area is notintended to function as a heliport, there is no requirement to submit an FAA Form 7480-1. As in the case of medicalemergency sites, proponents of emergency evacuation facilities should advise the local ATC of the facility. The landingsurface should be developed to the local fire department requirements based on the size and weight of the helicopter(s)expected to engage in fire or rescue operations."Why Have an Emergency Landing Facility on High-Rise Buildings?There are a number of reasons. The first is that helicopters are excellent tools for assisting authorities during high-rise

emergencies. For example, fire equipment, due to ladder limitations, may only extend to a maximum of eighty feet.Further, some catastrophes can preclude surface vehicles from accessing an impacted area or structure, leaving victimstrapped until support arrives by air. Also, firefighters frequently need to gain access to the roof of a structure in order togenerate interior smoke relief. Helicopters may allow the occasional evacuation of victims during emergencies whereground evacuation is not possible. Helicopters may also safely insert and extract fire fighting personnel and equipmentonto a structure to fight the fire from above.There are other operational reasons to consider the construction of EHLFs on high rise buildings. For example, in

many previous disasters, during which helicopters were used for support, it was necessary for pilots to operate frommakeshift rooftop landing zones. This scenario often resulted in a risky situation for victims, pilots, and emergencypersonnel alike. Planned emergency landing areas could have resulted in safer and more effective air-supportoperations.As a result, a number of cities, including Los Angeles, San Diego, and Pasadena have determined that prudent city

planning requires the incorporation of EHLFs during the design phase of all new high-rise buildings. Their experiencehas proven that, on occasion, there is a clear and present need to have the capability to provide safe, immediate, andeffective helicopter support during high-rise emergencies.However, few buildings have such landing areas and few city planners and architects consider this option during a

building's design stage. They generally fear that rooftop heliports would encourage occupants who are above the firefloor to go "up" rather than "down" when trying to evacuate the building, particularly if they know that an EHLF exists. Itis important to note, however, that during the catastrophic attacks on New York's World Trade Center, it was impossibleto go "down" past the fire floor. Had the buildings not collapsed so quickly, rooftop evacuations may have been possible.


Report on Proposals – November 2010 NFPA 418Unfortunately, in New York, as the result of a political decision, the fire exits to the roof were locked and ultimately wouldhave prevented police helicopters, hovering above the buildings, from affecting any rooftop rescues.Why Have EHLF Standards?The HAI Board of Directors agreed with the recommendations of the HAI Heliport Committee to develop standards for

governments recommending the incorporation of EHLFs in local high-rise building codes. The Board of Directorsbelieves that EHLFs allow for safer operating environments by providing pre-planned landing sites for helicopters thatare assisting ground personnel during high-rise emergencies. Even though the EHLF would incorporate basic rooftopheliport design considerations into high-rise building codes, the facility would NOT qualify as a heliport. It would,however, allow for a pre-planned safe facility if needed during times of emergency.Note: Supporting material is available for review at NFPA Headquarters.

Emergency operations are outside the scope of this document. The Committee feels thathaving occupants climb a building to the roof top emergency evacuation for evacuation poses a life safety risk thatwould require a revision to fundamental life safety codes. Emergency operations will typically be governed by theemergency response agency. Emergency response plans should incorporate plans for roof top evacuation.The proposed language is exceeding the intent of NFPA 418 which is intended to provide fire suppression for roof top

heliports.Based on the submitter's substantiation, the committee is seeking comments from emergency preparation and

helicopter emergency operation's organizations regarding more appropriate safeguards for emergency evacuation fromhigh rise buildings using helicopters.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-5 Log #CP5


Delete the following text:3.3.2 Critical Area. See 3.3.1.1.

Delete the reference to Section 3.3.1.1 it is redundant and not needed.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-6 Log #CP6


Delete text as follows:3.3.2 Critical Area. See 3.3.1.1.

Delete the reference to Section 3.3.1.1 it is redundant and not needed.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-7 Log #CP4


Delete the following text:3.3.5 Helicopter Storage and Servicing Area. See 3.3.1.2.

Delete the reference to Section 3.3.5 it is redundant and not needed.




Delete text as follows:3.3.9 Practical Critical Fire Area (PCA). See 3.3.1.3.

Delete the reference to Section 3.3.9 it is redundant and not needed.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-9 Log #CP2


Revise text to read as follows:3.3.11 Rooftop Landing Pad. The entire load-bearing surface intended for the landing, takeoff, and parking of

helicopters. [5000;2009]This definition is the preferred definition from the NFPA Glossary of Terms. Changing the secondary

definition to the preferred definition complies with the Glossary of Terms Project.

Request reassignment of responsibility of this term to the 418 TC.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-10 Log #CP13


Add new section as follows4.1.1* Listing.This chapter shall provide requirements for the correct use of foam system components.4.1.1.1 All components shall be listed for their intended use.4.1.1,2 Where listings for components do not exist, components shall be approved.A.4.1.1 A foam system consists of a water supply, a foam concentrate supply, proportioning equipment, a piping

system, foam makers, and discharge devices designed to distribute foam effectively over the hazard. Some systemsinclude detection devices.

Components should be listed, however if they are not available, the components need to be approved.




Change section 4.2 as follows:4.2 Plans.4.2.1 The design drawings for the construction and protection of the heliport shall be approved by the authority having

jurisdiction.4.2.2 The design of the heliport including all the aeronautical components shall be in accordance with FAA A/C

150/5390-2B, Heliport Design Advisory Circular.4.2.3 The FATO, approach, departure, and TLOF shall be designated on the design drawings.

Change reflects the intent of the committee that the plans need to include specific requirements for theAHJ to be able to review and approve the construction, and layout of a landing pad.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-12 Log #3

_______________________________________________________________________________________________James Everitt, Western Regional Fire Code Development Committee

Revise to read: 4.4.1 The heliport shall have at least one two access point for fire-fighting/rescuepersonnel, and, where practical, the a second access point shall be available and located remotely from the first.

Where practical does not comply with the manual of style. The minimum number should be two and iftwo cannot be accomplished due to a specific circumstance than the equivalency provisions of most codes permit theahj to approve other protection.

Revise text to read as follows:4.4.1* The heliport shall have at least two access points for firefighting/rescue personnel. The access points shall be

located at least 90 degrees from each other as measured from the center of the landing pad (TLOF).A.4.4.1 add a figure here to demonstrate the remoteness of access points using the 90 degree method addressed.

(Staff will develop this for the ballot).Change provides better guidance to the user to better explain remoteness of the access

points. Annex material will provide a visual representation of this process.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-13 Log #4


Revise to read: 4.5 Landing Pad Pitch. The heliport landing pad pitch shall comply with 5.3. Theheliport shall be pitched or sloped so that drainage flows away from access points and passenger holding areas.

Correlated the pitch provisions between the two sections. Currently the two sections are inconsistentand there is no need for two sets of requirements for the same thing.

Change title of Section 4.54.5 Fuel Spill Control. The heliport shall be pitched or sloped so that drainage flows away from access points and

passenger holding areas.This will eliminate having two sections titled the same with different requirements, while

maintaining the intent of the sections. According to Section 5.1, chapter 4 also applies to rooftop landing pads.



_______________________________________________________________________________________________Bernard Valois, Transport Canada Civil Aviation

Revise text to read as follows:The heliport shall be pitched or sloped designed so that drainage flows away from

access points and passenger holding areas.Grading is not the only method to meet the safety requirement.

Revise text to read as follows:The landing pad shall be designed so that fuel spills are directed away from access/egress

points and passenger holding areas.Changed wording provides further clarification that the ground based helicopter landing pad

needs to be designed to prevent fuel spillage from hindering operations and endangering passengers.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-15 Log #12


Add new text to read as follows:Fueling equipment shall be located at least 50 ft (15.2 m) from the edge of the final approach and takeoff (FATO)

area as defined in FAA A/C 150/5390-2B,

Adequate space should be provided between the FATO and fueling equipment. This space wouldremove obstacles from flight operations.

Revise text to read as follows:4.3 Tank and Equipment Locations.4.3.1 Storage, handling, and use of flammable and combustible liquids shall be in accordance with NFPA 30,

Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code.4.3.2 Oxygen and other medical gases shall be stored and used in accordance with Section 9.4 of NFPA 99, Standard

for Health Care Facilities.4.3.3 Aboveground flammable liquid storage tanks, compressed gas storage tanks, fuel servicing equipment, and

liquefied gas storage tanks shall be laterally located at least 50 ft (15.2 m) from the edge of the final approach andtakeoff (FATO) area as defined in FAA A/C 150/5390-2B, Heliport Design Advisory Circular.4.7 Fueling System.Fueling systems shall be designed in accordance with NFPA 407, Standard for Aircraft Fuel Servicing.4.7.1 Fueling equipment shall not hinder or obstruct access to exits or firefighting equipment.4.7.2 Fueling equipment shall be located 25 ft (7.6 m) from hangars and fixed fire protection equipment.

Changes help the user understand that the FATO area of helicopter landing pads need to bekept free of obstructions. Fueling equipment, while generally covered under NFPA 407, may have more restrictiverequirements for dealing with rooftop helicopter fueling operations. Two sentences were removed from Section 4.7because they were adequately covered in NFPA 407.




Add new text to read as follows:At least two means of egress shall be provided that lead directly from the landing pad to a public

way. The means of egress shall be separated by one half the diagonal of the landing pad.Specifications for means of egress should not only be addressed for "Rooftop Landing Facilities", but

for "Land-Based Facilities" as well. The means of egress should be separated by one half the diagonal of the landingpad to provide remote egress paths In the event one of the paths is blocked by an emergency.

Add new text to read as follows:

A.4.8. The two means of egress can also be used for access to the landing pad for firefighting and/or rescueoperations.4.8.1 At least two means of egress shall be provided from the landing pad that leads to a public way.4.8.2 The egress points shall be located at least 90 degrees from each other as measured from the center of the

landing pad (TLOF).

Changes to the proposal were made to clarify that two means of egress from the landing padare required. Also incorporates the remoteness addressed under 418-12 (Log #3).

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-17 Log #7


Revise text to read as follows:New 5.3.3 Pitch of the pad shall not be required where the pad consist of a passive fire protection grid surface

designed for fuel catchment and containment.Helidecks with passive fire protection gridded surface are designed to channel liquids under the deck

surface.

Revise text to read as follows:5.3.3 Pitch of the pad shall not be required where the pad consist of a passive fire protection grid surface designed and

listed for fuel catchment and containment.Permits use of passive fire protection systems where they are listed and installed in

accordance with their listing requirements. See Committee Action on 418-2 (Log #CP7).




Revise text to read as follows:At least two approved means of egress from the rooftop landing pad edge to the roof shall be provided and shall be

remotely located from each other separated by one half the diagonal of the landing pad.The means of egress should be separated by one half the diagonal of the landing pad to provide

adequate space between those leaving the helipad and the operations taking place on the helipad. This space will helpin maintaining the safety of those leaving the helipad.

Revise text to read as follows:5.5* Means of EgressA.5.5 Means of egress from a roof top landing pad might involve comparing requirements from several different Code

requirements. Rooftop landing pads bring with them an inherent risk. The means of egress must be provided for safetyto human life. Strict compliance with a code’s requirement for rated stairways off the landing pad is not the intent of thisstandard. The intent of this standard is to provide a minimum safeguard to provide a reasonable degree of safety to allof the occupants on the roof. The building’s egress system is dictated by the adopted building code. Once the peopleenter the building’s egress system, they are away from the FATO area.5.5.1 At least two means of egress from the rooftop landing pad edge to the roof shall be provided and shall be located

at least 90 degrees from each other as measured from the center of the landing pad (TLOF).5.5.2 Two means of egress from the roof to the building’s egress system shall be provided and shall be remotely

located from each other, not less than 30 ft (9.1 m) apart.5.5.3* Means of egress from the landing pad shall not obstruct flight operations.A.5.5.3 When considering the means of egress from the landing pad and/or the roof top, obstructions to the FATO

need to be avoided since they can create unsafe flight conditions which have been shown to cause aircraft accidents.Exterior, open stairways leading to the building’s egress system can be acceptable, provided the handrail does notencroach into the FATO.

Change wording to section dealing with remote location of egress in accordance with 418-16(Log #13), and provided annex material to clarify the intent of egress off the landing pad and roof top.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-19 Log #15


Revise text to read as follows:For heliports occupied by 50 or more people, two Two approved means of egress from the roof shall be provided

and shall be remotely located form each other, not less than 30 ft (9.1 m) apart.The requirement for two means of egress should not only be required for heliports occupied by 50 or

more people, but for all heliports. If an incident were to occur at a heliport occupied by 49 people or less, there shouldbe at least two means of egress for those people to evacuate. This offers a margin of safety in the occurrence that oneof the means of egress is not usable.

See Committee Action on 418-18 (Log #14).See Committee Statement on 418-18 (Log #14).



_______________________________________________________________________________________________Jon Nisja, Northcentral Regional Fire Code Development Committee

Revise text to read as follows:For heliports designed to be occupied by 50 or more people, two approved means of egress from the roof shall

be provided and shall be remotely located from each other, not less than 30 ft (9.1 m) apart.For heliports designed to be occupied by fewer than 50 people, one approved means of egress from the roof

shall be provided.Means of egress from the rooftop landing pad and roof shall not obstruct flight operations.

For helicopter rooftop landing pads the number of exits or egresses should be based on the design ofthe occupant load rather than how many people can be on the landing pad at any one time.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-21 Log #16


Delete text to read as follows:For heliports occupied by fewer than 50 people, one approved means of egress from the roof should be

provided.The requirement for two means of egress should not only be required for heliports occupied by 50 or

more people, but for all heliports. If an incident were to occur at a heliport occupied by 49 people or less, there shouldbe at least two means of egress for those people to evacuate. This offers a margin of safety in the occurrence that oneof the means of egress is not usable.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-22 Log #17


Add new text to read as follows:5.5.4 All means of egress from the landing pad shall be in accordance with NFPA 101,

The means of egress should not only be required to be in accordance with NFPA 101 for "RooftopHangers", but for "Rooftop Landing Facilities" as well. They are both located in similar environments and should bothreference the same standard.

Hangars are structures and therefore egress in accordance with Life Safety Code is correct.However, the landing pad is not covered under NFPA 101 and egressing from outside the structure into the structure isnot addressed in NFPA 101.




Revise to read: 5.6.1 The helicopter rooftop landing pad shall have at least two remote accesspoints for fire-fighting purposes.

The proposed wording clarifies that the access points should be remote from each other thus ensuringthat at least on will be usable in the event of an emergency.

Delete sections as follows:5.6.15.6.25.6.3Relocate Annex material for 5.6.3 to section 4.8 as follows:A.4.8 Where doors accessing the interior of the building are locked, an approved means should be provided for entry

of emergency responders. The two means of egress can also be used for access to the landing pad for firefightingand/or rescue operations.

See Committee Action on 418-12 (Log #3) and 418-16 (Log #13).Section is redundant after changes that were made to section 4.8.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-24 Log #10

_______________________________________________________________________________________________Joseph L. Scheffey, Hughes Associates, Inc.

Revise text to read as follows:A fixed nozzle discharge outlet system shall be either fixed stationary nozzles around the perimeter or two one or more

oscillating monitor/nozzle(s).Rooftop helipads are subjected to varying wind conditions. A minimum of two nozzles are needed to

provide adequate protection to account for varying wind conditions.

Revise text to read as follows:5.7.4.1 A fixed nozzle discharge outlet system shall be either fixed stationary nozzles around the perimeter or two or

more oscillating monitor/nozzles.Renumbered proposal, since 5.7.1.4 is probably the wrong section since there is no 5.7.1.1,

5.7.1.2 or 5.7.1.3.




Change current wording, and delete Table 5.7.2.5.7.2* The foam discharge rate for the fire-extinguishing system shall be 0.10 gpm/ft^2 (4.1 L/minxm^2) for Aqueous

Film Forming Foam (AFFF).A.5.7.2 Currently the qualified products list for MIL-F-24385H does not contain any Fluoroprotein or Protein foam

products.

Currently the qualified products list for MIL-F-24385H does not contain any Fluoroprotein or Proteinfoam products.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-26 Log #9


New text to read as follows:5.7.2.1 Fire protection system activation5.7.2.1.1 During helicopter operations, fixed fire protection systems shall be activated by trained personnel with:

Remote Activation (Emergency Push Button at appropriate location) and/or by back up manually operated valves.5.7.2.1.2 For heliports operated without full time trained personnel, fixed fire protection systems shall be activated

automatically by UV/IR Detector(s) approved by the authority having jurisdiction.5.7.2.1.2 The fire protection system shall be activated in less than 10 seconds from the recognition of flames either by

trained personnel or automatically by the use of detectors.The document doesn’t provide standards for activation of the fix system.

Add new text to read as follows:5.8 Activation of Systems5.8.1 The fixed discharge outlet system shall be activated manually.A.5.8.1 Training on the operation of fire protection system should be in accordance with Annex B.5.8.2* The activation shall be by manual pull stations located at each egress point from the roof. An additional manual

pull station shall be located at an approved location inside the building from which the rooftop landing pad can beviewed.A.5.8.2 It is acceptable for the rooftop landing pad to be viewed using video or other acceptable means.5.8.3 Where buildings are provided with a fire alarm system, the activation of the system shall be monitored by the

building fire alarm system in accordance with NFPA 72.

Suppression systems should not be activated automatically due to the risk involved to flightoperations.




Revise text to read as follows:5.7.3 Fixed Systems.5.7.3.1* The area of application of foam discharge for the fixed discharge outlet systems shall be the entire rooftop

landing pad.A.5.7.3.1 Consideration should be given to the environmental conditions of the rooftop landing pad in the design of the

system including wind, exhaust fans, and other factors that affect the distribution of the foam to the rooftop landing pad.5.7.3.2 The duration of foam discharge for the fixed discharge outlet system shall be 5 minutes.5.7.3.2.1 The supply calculation method shall be performed in accordance with NFPA 409, Chapter 6.

Clarifies the committee's intent of providing at least 5 minutes of foam concentrate supply.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-28 Log #CP12


Revise text to read as follows:5.7.4 Manual Fire Fighting Equipment5.7.4.1 The area of application of foam discharge for hose line systems shall be the practical critical fire area for the

category of the helicopter landing facility in accordance with Table 5.7.4.5.7.4.2 The duration of foam discharge for the hose line systems shall be 2 minutes.5.7.4.3 The supply calculation method shall be performed in accordance with NFPA 409, Chapter 6.

Clarifies the committee's intent of providing at least 2 minutes of foam concentrate supply for manualfire fighting operations.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-29 Log #8


Revise text to read as follows:5.7.4.1 Revise text to include “Pop Up” nozzles within the perimeter suggested wording follows“A fixed discharge outlet system shall be either fixed stationary nozzles around the perimeter, one or more oscillating

monitor/nozzles, or pop-up nozzles within the perimeter of the deck.”Pop Up nozzles are very efficient when located within the entire surface to ensure the uniform

application of foam to any part of the landing area.

Revise text to read as follows:5.7.4.1 A fixed discharge outlet system shall be either fixed stationary nozzles around the perimeter, one or more

oscillating monitor/nozzles, or in-deck nozzles within the perimeter of the deck.Pop up nozzles are proprietary, therefore the committee changed the term to "in-deck"

nozzles.




Add a new Section as follows:5.7.9 The foam concentrate for the fixed system or manual fire fighting equipment shall be listed in accordance with UL

162 and shall be on the qualified products list for MIL-F-24385H, or equivalent.This provides consistency with NFPA 403 for foam concentrate quality.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-31 Log #CP14


Add new text as shown:5.9 Testing.5.9.1 Acceptance Testing.5.9.1.1 The fixed foam discharge outlet system shall be tested with foam to determine the coverage of the rooftop

landing pad. The system shall cover 95 percent of the rooftop landing pad during the test. The access points for firefighting and for egress shall be covered.5.9.1.2 the hose hand-lines shall be flow tested to demonstrate the design objectives are met.5.9.2 Inspection, Testing and Maintenance. All water-based fire protection systems shall be inspected, tested, and

maintained in accordance with NFPA 25.No testing requirements and tolerances for systems currently exist within the standard. also, the

committee wanted to clarify that all systems are required to be maintained in accordance with the appropriatemaintenance standard.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-32 Log #18


Revise text to read as follows:Helicopter storage and servicing areas shall be protected by an AFFF foam water sprinkler system designed, installed,

and tested in accordance with NFPA 16,Chapter 7 of NFPA 409

Most "Rooftop Hangers" are closely related to the hanger type listed in Chapter 7 of NFPA 409.Chapter 7 lists more acceptable means of sprinkler protection than just from an AFFF foam water sprinkler system. Toavoid confusion concerning acceptable means of sprinkler protection, this requirement should be added to NFPA 418.

Revise text to read as follows:6.6.1 Helicopter storage and servicing areas shall be protected in accordance with Chapter 7 of NFPA 409

Submitted language did not read grammatically correct. the intent of the committee is thathangars on roof tops should not be classified solely on the area. The occupancy of the building the hangar is locatedon top of adds to the hazard significantly and the hangar should be classified as a group 2 hangar to protect theadjacent areas as well as the hangar itself.




Add new text to read as follows:The AFFF foam water sprinkler system shall be designed to 0.16 gmp/ft2 over the entire hanger.

This is a requirement of NFPA 409 Section 6.2.2.13, which NFPA 418 references. To avoid confusionconcerning sprinkler design density, this requirement should be added to NFPA 418.

This is already addressed under Chapter 7 of NFPA 409.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-34 Log #20


Add new text to read as follows:The maximum protected floor area under an individual sprinkler system shall not exceed 1394 m2 (15,000 ft2).

This is a requirement of NFPA 409 Section 6.2.2.2, which NFPA 418 references. To avoid confusionconcerning the area a single sprinkler system can protect, this requirement should be added to NFPA 418.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-35 Log #21


Add new text to read as follows:The water supply for the foam-water sprinkler system shall have a minimum duration of 30 minutes at the rate

specified in 6.6.1.1.This is a requirement of NFPA 409 Section 7.8.2(1), which NFPA 418 references. Most "Rooftop

Hangers" are closely related to the hanger type listed in chapter 7 of NFPA 409. To avoid confusion concerning watersupply for a foam-water system protecting a "Rooftop Hanger", this requirement should be added to NFPA 418.





Delete text to read as follows:At least one portable fire extinguisher as specified in Table 9.1.1 shall be provided for each takeoff and landing area,

parking area, and fuel storage area. ,unless otherwise permitted by 9.1.2.The requirements of 9.1.1 should apply to ground-level heliports whether they are attended or not.

This way the heliport will have the proper fire extinguisher protection for use by the helicopter occupants.

Delete text to read as follows:9.1.1* At least one portable fire extinguisher as specified in Table 9.1.1 Shall be provided for each takeoff and landing

area, parking area, and fuel storage area.A.9.1.1 Where the portable extinguisher cannot be maintained, and safeguarded against damage, theft, or tampering,

the extinguisher can be removed with the approval of the AHJ.9.1.1.1 A portable extinguisher shall be located within 50 ft of an unattended landing pad during all take off and landing

operations.

Committee wants a portable fire extinguisher at all landing pads during take off and landingoperations. Attended facilities should have extinguishers installed at all times, while an unattended landing pad,meaning one that does not have anyone who can respond to an emergency, is not required to have a portableextinguisher installed due to the lack of security and potential vandalism. However, the extinguisher is required duringtake off and landing operations.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-37 Log #23


Delete text to read as follows:The requirement of 9.1.1 shall not apply to unattended ground level heliports.

The requirements of 9.1.1 should apply to ground-level heliports whether they are attended or not Thisway the heliport will have the proper fire extinguisher protection for use by the helicopter occupants.


_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-38 Log #CP15


Add new Chapter 10 as follows:Chapter 10 Emergency Operations.10.1 An emergency response plan shall be developed for each heliport.10.2 Annual training for the emergency response plan shall be conducted for facility personnel involved with heliport

emergency operations. Annex B provides guidance on training of facility personnel.

New section provides clarification that annual training is required for those personnel involved inheliport operations. Also requires an emergency response plan to be developed.




Add new text to read as follows:Consideration should be given to the placement of fire protection equipment and the air operations. The

equipment should not be located in the FATO.This explanation will help those using this standard with the placement of their fire protection

equipment. The equipment should not be placed in the FATO. The equipment could not only interfere with theoperations taking place in the FATO, but the environment in the FATO may not be safe for people.

This is already addressed under Section 5.7.6.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________418-40 Log #CP16


Add the following Sections to Annex B:B.1.1(5) Operation of the Fire protection SystemsB.1.4.3(5) Fire fighting Access Points and System(6) Egress System of the Heliports.

Modifications to the standard require additional training requirements.Recent fire data indicated that fire fighter access points and egress system were not known.


CLEAR: SUBMIT: SAVE AS: PRINT: Affirmative On All Items I agree with all committee meeting actions without comment: OffAffirmative With Exceptions: OffDATE: NAME: Aff wC: OffNeg: OffAbs: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1: Aff wC_2: OffNeg_2: OffAbs_2: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_2: Aff wC_3: OffNeg_3: OffAbs_3: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_3: Aff wC_4: OffNeg_4: OffAbs_4: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_4: Aff wC_5: OffNeg_5: OffAbs_5: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_5: Aff wC_6: OffNeg_6: OffAbs_6: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_6: Aff wC_7: OffNeg_7: OffAbs_7: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_7: Aff wC_8: OffNeg_8: OffAbs_8: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_8: Aff wC_9: OffNeg_9: OffAbs_9: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_9: Aff wC_10: OffNeg_10: OffAbs_10: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_10: Aff wC_11: OffNeg_11: OffAbs_11: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_11: Aff wC_12: OffNeg_12: OffAbs_12: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_12: Aff wC_13: OffNeg_13: OffAbs_13: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_13: Aff wC_14: OffNeg_14: OffAbs_14: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_14: Aff wC_15: OffNeg_15: OffAbs_15: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_15: Aff wC_16: OffNeg_16: OffAbs_16: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_16: Aff wC_17: OffNeg_17: OffAbs_17: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_17: Aff wC_18: OffNeg_18: OffAbs_18: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_18: Aff wC_19: OffNeg_19: OffAbs_19: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_19: Aff wC_20: OffNeg_20: OffAbs_20: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_20: Aff wC_21: OffNeg_21: OffAbs_21: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_21: Aff wC_22: OffNeg_22: OffAbs_22: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_22: Aff wC_23: OffNeg_23: OffAbs_23: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_23: Aff wC_24: OffNeg_24: OffAbs_24: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_24: Aff wC_25: OffNeg_25: OffAbs_25: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_25: Aff wC_26: OffNeg_26: OffAbs_26: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_26: Aff wC_27: OffNeg_27: OffAbs_27: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_27: Aff wC_28: OffNeg_28: OffAbs_28: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_28: Aff wC_29: OffNeg_29: OffAbs_29: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_29: Aff wC_30: OffNeg_30: OffAbs_30: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_30: Aff wC_31: OffNeg_31: OffAbs_31: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_31: Aff wC_32: OffNeg_32: OffAbs_32: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_32: Aff wC_33: OffNeg_33: OffAbs_33: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_33: Aff wC_34: OffNeg_34: OffAbs_34: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_34: Aff wC_35: OffNeg_35: OffAbs_35: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_35: Aff wC_36: OffNeg_36: OffAbs_36: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_36: Aff wC_37: OffNeg_37: OffAbs_37: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_37: Aff wC_38: OffNeg_38: OffAbs_38: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_38: Aff wC_39: OffNeg_39: OffAbs_39: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_39: Aff wC_40: OffNeg_40: OffAbs_40: OffEnter your reason for vote below112112 AMRow1_40:

Committee on NFPA 418FROM: Jeanne Moreau-Correia DATE: July 20, 2009 SUBJECT: NFPA 418 ROP Letter...

Documents

Transcript of Committee on NFPA 418FROM: Jeanne Moreau-Correia DATE: July 20, 2009 SUBJECT: NFPA 418 ROP Letter...