Mon, Feb 24, 2003
An early Friday morning fire at aircraft covering
manufacturer Poly-Fiber, Inc., has dented the company's
operations... but not nearly as badly as one might first assume.
Poly-Fiber's Jon Goldenbaum assures ANN that "...we'll be up and
operating in a matter of days and since our distributors are fully
stocked, we see little reason to think that orders will be delayed
much, if at all."
The fire destroyed one of Poly-Fiber's buildings, housing some
warehouse space, fabric stock, and office facilities. Most effected
was a stock of aircraft fabric, but orders have already been placed
with vendors and PF expects to be fully restocked shortly.
Goldenbaum was the first on the scene and was
surprised to find that the damage would not affect them all that
badly, "it'll be pretty much business as normal within a few days
and the long-term effects are not likely to be noticeable. We're
insured for the rest."
The fire, said to be electrical in nature, was allowed to burn
down by the local fire department because of concerns over the
nature of the materials in the building. Located on the fringes of
the FlaBob airport, Poly-Fiber is a major force in sport and
general aviation covering technologies (Poly-Fiber, Stits and
Ceconite technologies, among others) and responsible for the
"skins" applied to most of the fabric covered aircraft in the
world. The fire did not impinge on their actual manufacturing
operations, and the 15 person workforce was not endangered since
the fire occurred before they showed up to work that day.
Local
fire officials estimated that the loss of the 6300 square foot
building and its contents at about 2 million dollars. The fire
reportedly started at 0700 local time. Fire crews arriving on the
scene found "large black plumes of smoke billowing into the air."
The decision to let the fire burn out was made in order to avoid
the "danger of forcing dangerous chemicals into a nearby flood
control channel," according to Becky Luther, fire prevention
specialist for the Riverside County Fire Department. "Putting water
on the chemically-induced fire would have caused a toxic runoff
into the channel located behind the business... We allowed the fire
to burn because it was less hazardous than if we had been putting
water on it and (engaging) in active fire fighting."
The fire was said to be contained at 0945 and threatened no
other structures in the area.
More News
Airplane Veered Left Of The Runway And Struck Trees Before It Came To Rest In A Grass Area Analysis: The student pilot was conducting a solo flight when he was unable to keep the a>[...]
Navigable Airspace Airspace at and above the minimum flight altitudes prescribed in the CFRs including airspace needed for safe takeoff and landing.>[...]
Aero Linx: Great Alaska Aviation Gathering At the Alaska Airmen's Association, we're more than just a community; we're a vibrant, passion-driven movement dedicated to safeguarding,>[...]
Dave Juwel's Aviation Marketing Stories ITBOA BNITBOB ... what does that mean? It's not gibberish, it's a lengthy acronym for "In The Business Of Aviation ... But Not In The Busine>[...]
Also: $7B Embraer Buy, Tariff Pause, Air Tour Safety Committee, 1st CA SkyCourier Embry Riddle Aeronautical University recently announced that its flight team, the Golden Eagles, w>[...]