So, Why Aren't We Using CAFS?

[x635 4,066]

I personally have many oppurtunities throughout the year to see many new engines.

Many new deliveries come nowadays with Class A Foam, CAFS (Compressed Air Foam System)

I'm curious to know why the northeast is so resistant to this technology, when it has many more benefits then drawbacks? I am 100% positive that CAFS will a "standard feature" on all pumpers one day, just like SCBA's and other items that were initially resisted are.

The CAFS systems nowadays are simple to use, compared with the first generation of CAFS systems. CAFS found it's start with brush fires, but many major departments are now embracing and succesfully using the technology for everyday structural and routine fire use. Many newer systems just require a flip of the switch for the pump operator.

Some of the benefits of CAFS:

1. Use less water. Great for areas without hyrdrants, and areas with poor hydrant pressure or no hydrants at all, such as highways. The use of less water also reduces water damage, especially in mutli level OMD's.

2. Lighter handline weight. The newer systems, even with kinks, can still flow the proper water/foam mixture at the proper pressure. This makes manuvering a hoseline a lot easier, reducing firefighter stress and fatigue.

3. All you need is a smooth bore or straight stream automatic nozzle. No eductor, no foam tip, no foam nozzle. Most CAFS systems can provide foam from any discharge.

4. Can easily knock down a small dwelling fire without having to make entry, and worry about the traditional "pushing" of the fire more into the structure.

5. It reduces surface tension, and allows the water to penetrate the over much more area and deeper in the fuel then water alone.

6. It knocks down the fire, and the tempature, much quicker than water alone, and also produces less steam.

7. Very low maintainence, many apparatus and pump manufacturers, including Pierce and Waterous, make systems that intergrate with pumps and devices that make it simple for the pump operator.

8. The newer systems make the "air filled" hoselines virtually a thing of the past.

9. Exposure protection. Exposures can be "pre-treated" to protect them from fire.

10. The "we need a 750 gallon tank for car fires" would be a thing of the past.......

11. Water conservation in the event of a drought.

12. Brush fires. Where CAFS originally entered the US Fire service. Makes extinguishing a brush fire 100 times easier and faster, and with less water. Why do you think it's almost a standard feature on all brush trucks nowadays?

With all these benefits, why aren't more departments spec'ing CAFS? I strongly believe that CAFS should be the major focus when spec'ing new suppresion apparatus. It really, really improves suppresion in so many ways, how can departments not spec it? Some complain about the cost, but don't take the whole picture into account, like life safety and property loss reduction. Also, maybe if some departments trimmed back on the chrome and other uneccasary features that are hardly used on an engine, there would be enough for a CAFS system.

[ny10570 745]

I've never used CAFS, but here are the knocks I hear... Reduced stream reach, big problem with kinks (yes the system can operate with a few kinks, but it still kinks very easily and frequently), extended overhaul, and an ability to be overwhelmed by fire (extremely high heat like in a flashed room or wind driven fire the cafs becomes ineffective).

The decreased surface tension argument always gets me. Outside of large smoldering fires that you'd find in certain industrial or commercial settings water penetration into material is a garbage statistic. Fire the combustion in the presence of oxygen. Cool the surface and you put out the fire. Light water, rapid water, class A foam, CAFS, and good ol' H20 still all require extensive and thorough overhaul.

An aggressive interior attack does not push fire. Thats a well documented myth. Exterior attack into a room that is not enclosed however does push fire.

CAFS is a great tool, but its just that, a tool. Its more expensive to install, to train with, and to use. Unless you have some mitigating factor like poor water supply or significant wildland fire it doesn't make sense.

[x635 4,066]

I've never used CAFS, but here are the knocks I hear... Reduced stream reach, big problem with kinks (yes the system can operate with a few kinks, but it still kinks very easily and frequently), extended overhaul, and an ability to be overwhelmed by fire (extremely high heat like in a flashed room or wind driven fire the cafs becomes ineffective).

CAFS has been proved to RAPIDLY REDUCE tempature and steam, and prevent flashovers. Also, with the current CAFS sytems out there, you can change from water to foam and back again almost instantly, with air from the line being bled at the pump side. Additonally techniques with CAFS can be used in backdraft situations.

The decreased surface tension argument always gets me. Outside of large smoldering fires that you'd find in certain industrial or commercial settings water penetration into material is a garbage statistic. Fire the combustion in the presence of oxygen. Cool the surface and you put out the fire. Light water, rapid water, class A foam, CAFS, and good ol' H20 still all require extensive and thorough overhaul.

Class A foam breaks down surface tension, allowing it to soak into items, especially carbon based items such as wood.

If you've used laundry or dish soap, you're using that to allow the water to penetrate whatever your washing. Here's an experiment. Get a piece of charred wood. Place a drop of water on it, and see how much it soaks in. Probaly will just pool on top of the wood. Then, add a drop of Class A foam, and watch how fast the water penetrates into and spreads into the charred wood.

CAFS is a great tool, but its just that, a tool. Its more expensive to install, to train with, and to use. Unless you have some mitigating factor like poor water supply or significant wildland fire it doesn't make sense.

You can say that about SCBA's, Jaws, Haz-Mat decon equipment, power saws, AED's etc etc.

I've had the oppurtunity to use CAFS at some controlled burns, including one nationally reconized study. I find many of the naysayer's have never used or witnessed the proper use of CAFS in everyday scenarios. I've personally witnessed firefighters come to these burns with negative impressions of CAFS, only to have it sell itself after they use it in live burn conditions.

Here's a GREAT page to learn more about CAFS: http://www.cafsinfo.com/compressed_air_foam_systems.htm

[Bnechis 3,961]

An aggressive interior attack does not push fire. Thats a well documented myth. Exterior attack into a room that is not enclosed however does push fire.

Care to explain this?

You can push fire from outside, but if you are inside it can't be pushed?

[eckyphats 0]

this difference between east and west is more aggressiveness.. theres no reason for foam for 1 or 2 room fires, it will cause a bigger mess

[x635 4,066]

this difference between east and west is more aggressiveness.. theres no reason for foam for 1 or 2 room fires, it will cause a bigger mess

You use MUCH less water, and it's going to cause a bigger mess? Have you had a fire on the fourth or fifth floor of an OMD, in 1 or 2 rooms? What happens to all that water you use?

The difference between east and west is not aggresiveness, one embraces and is held back by tradition, one embraces technology that will save more lives and save more property.

[xfirefighter484x 234]

this difference between east and west is more aggressiveness.. theres no reason for foam for 1 or 2 room fires, it will cause a bigger mess

Whereas some people might consider it to be a "mess", think about all the smoke and water damage you are preventing by using it, and using LESS water in turn, to knock down a fire so much faster!

Using less water and a greater punch for the effort, it also helps to preserve evidence, since you are using less water, and not washing away the evidence. It is great to preserve that for the FIU. That which is preserved might make or break an investigation.

[Bnechis 3,961]

The difference between east and west is not aggresiveness, one embraces and is held back by tradition, one embraces technology that will save more lives and save more property.

Very true...the east stopped allowing roofing with a "D" flame spread and the west still allows old technology (combustible shingles) that has risked hundreds of lives and cost how much property loss?

When was the last time we had a major confligration on the east coast?

Baltimore 100 years ago?

I'm not saying the east or west is better or worst...but I had to go after this line

[rbuchjr 0]

Does anyone have any experience pumping with CAFS? Does it complicate things at the panel?

[ny10570 745]

CAFS has been proved to RAPIDLY REDUCE tempature and steam, and prevent flashovers. Also, with the current CAFS sytems out there, you can change from water to foam and back again almost instantly, with air from the line being bled at the pump side. Additonally techniques with CAFS can be used in backdraft situations.

Class A foam breaks down surface tension, allowing it to soak into items, especially carbon based items such as wood.

You can say that about SCBA's, Jaws, Haz-Mat decon equipment, power saws, AED's etc etc.

I did not say that CAFS can't rapidly reduce the ambient temperature. I said that it can be overwhelmed. At a high enough temperature CAFS becomes ineffective. So until you hit this celing CAFS may indeed be superior at removing heat from the environment. But at this alleged temperature CAFS ceases to be effective.

I also did not say that any of these products do not help waters ability to penetrate material. My point is that outside of a few industrial settings fires burn on the surface and not within a material. Thats why water additives that only speed penetration never caught on. They don't help in you average structure fire.

Any you're absolutely right, that can be said about many things. Thats why careful attention has to be payed to the area you protect, the resources at your disposal, and mutual aid available to you. Should every dept have full hazmat technician capabilities, a heavy rescue, dive team, wildland unit, aircraft, and whatever else out there that could be used?

bnechris, I was lacking in terminology before. An improperly applied indirect attack can rapidly spread fire to uninvolved portions of the structure. A direct attack does not push fire. An underflowed line may allow fire to spread, but it does not push the fire.

[Bnechis 3,961]

I did not say that CAFS can't rapidly reduce the ambient temperature. I said that it can be overwhelmed. At a high enough temperature CAFS becomes ineffective. So until you hit this celing CAFS may indeed be superior at removing heat from the environment. But at this alleged temperature CAFS ceases to be effective.

Agreed. The problem with being overwhelmed is what has chased a few 2 1/2" lines out of the halls during wind driven fires. This is a concern that has killed a number of FDNY members over the past few years.

bnechris, I was lacking in terminology before. An improperly applied indirect attack can rapidly spread fire to uninvolved portions of the structure. A direct attack does not push fire. An underflowed line may allow fire to spread, but it does not push the fire.

If a direct attack does not push "fire" then why do we teach that good tactics dictate venting infront (so the fire can be pushed)?

[HFD23 37]

less fire flow maybe with regards to traditional knock down time and GPM how ever if it takes 2 min of flow with CAFS to knock down a fire the standard taught is to continue to flow the CAFS for an additional 2 minutes ( for example it takes 4 min to knock down u must continue to flow an additional 4 min for a total of 8...

so maybe the total gpm is now alot closer to that of traditional water we can operate a line in a room and contents job and have it in a short flow time and then can mop up accordingly, there is no need to blanket or smother....

guess some one would have to get some flow meters out and count the total gpm of both methods...

[mfc2257 464]

Does anyone have any experience pumping with CAFS? Does it complicate things at the panel?

I've got plenty of experience pumping and on the knob with CAFS. Millwood had/has the first (and maybe to this day the only) CAFS pumper in Westchester (E-247)

I'll post more tomorrow about pumping details...

[HFD23 37]

Fairview E-174 has it although its my understanding they often use only foam and water and dont turn on the air compresser...

Hartsdale's new Engine will also have it

[Guest]

simple...the fire service, mainly in the northeast, is all about traditions and egos. I believe until we really see how easy and effective foam is first hand that we will look right past it...or until NFPA says we WILL have Class A Foam on our rigs

[Bnechis 3,961]

simple...the fire service, mainly in the northeast, is all about traditions and egos. I believe until we really see how easy and effective foam is first hand that we will look right past it...or until NFPA says we WILL have Class A Foam on our rigs

And what is so bad about tradition?

You imply its only in the northeast. Have you ever seen how it operates anwhere else?

Its interestiing to see how advanced the fire service is in Europe. They are atleast a decade ahead of us, and have been that far ahead for the last 20+ years. They have just as much tradition and ego, but it does not slow them down. They also dont use CAFS except in the interface

Interesting that outside of Interface areas, the places that are buying CAFS have almost no structure fires.

USFA did a study in Boston on CAFS to see how effective it was in a NE urban setting. They said it was useful, but not enough so to justify paying for it.

NFPA can mandate it, but do you think that will make Boston, NY, Phili, Baltimore, DC, Chcago, Detroit, etc. buy it?

Edited April 6, 2008 by Bnechis

[eckyphats 0]

Whereas some people might consider it to be a "mess", think about all the smoke and water damage you are preventing by using it, and using LESS water in turn, to knock down a fire so much faster!

Using less water and a greater punch for the effort, it also helps to preserve evidence, since you are using less water, and not washing away the evidence. It is great to preserve that for the FIU. That which is preserved might make or break an investigation.

you put out alot of fire in a single family dwelling with 100 gallons of water or less.. if you an experienced nozzleman on the line

[eckyphats 0]

You use MUCH less water, and it's going to cause a bigger mess? Have you had a fire on the fourth or fifth floor of an OMD, in 1 or 2 rooms? What happens to all that water you use?

The difference between east and west is not aggresiveness, one embraces and is held back by tradition, one embraces technology that will save more lives and save more property.

yes ive been to a few.. again it comes down to nozzleman experience

[antiquefirelt 994]

We looked at CAFs very hard on our recent Rescue Pumper project and while many of us are convinced this maybe a valuable tool to have, the price tag was between $40 and $50K above the traditional water only pumper, with more systems (air compressor, foam injection, electronic flow meters throughout. More systems equals more potential problems and of the people we talked to that ran CAFs most had experienced issues that took them out of service. I think it's probably the way we'll be going in the future, but they need to become more reliable and less expensive.

Not to mention the significant learning curve associated. When we were still seriously considering it, I spoke to Capt Robertson out in Ft. Worth about their CAFs trucks. He's a true believer but also noted it takes a true dept. shift to accept and adopt the change in tactics. He impressed on me that you cannot have different shifts or stations not buy into the concept.

In the end, for us the money was the biggest issue and we've yet to fight a fire water wouldn't work on, evfen if it's not as effective.

[firemoose827 324]

I did not say that CAFS can't rapidly reduce the ambient temperature. I said that it can be overwhelmed. At a high enough temperature CAFS becomes ineffective. So until you hit this celing CAFS may indeed be superior at removing heat from the environment. But at this alleged temperature CAFS ceases to be effective.

The same can be said for any handline you use to attack fire. If the temerature is too high than the stream will not handle the BTU's and be overtaken and therefore ineffective. True, high heat will break down the foam quicker but you do still have water in the line too, and if applied correctly it can still do the job.

I also did not say that any of these products do not help waters ability to penetrate material. My point is that outside of a few industrial settings fires burn on the surface and not within a material. Thats why water additives that only speed penetration never caught on. They don't help in you average structure fire.

I have to disagree with you there brother. Foam also helps by sticking to structural members and smothering the flames, whereas water hits and drips off or gets turned to steam. I used to think like you, but I watched several tests in aquired structures during control burns and I have a new respect for CAFS now. They had a room fire, working good, and they opened up a CAFS line from outside, played in in the room for a few minutes working it in circles, and the room was knocked down in 2 minutes allowing the crews, when they arrived, to enter and overhaul.

They then lit up 2-3 rooms and did the same thing and within 5 minutes it was knocked down...both tests were run off the same 500 gallon tank without refilling...TWO working fires with less than 500 gallons and one man on the nozzle from the exterior of the building. Now, for those of us who experience manpower issues and have large areas void of hydrants, these CAFS systems seem to be effective.

Any you're absolutely right, that can be said about many things. Thats why careful attention has to be payed to the area you protect, the resources at your disposal, and mutual aid available to you. Should every dept have full hazmat technician capabilities, a heavy rescue, dive team, wildland unit, aircraft, and whatever else out there that could be used?

I do however agree with you on this topic. Before anyone looks into purchasing any equipment you should realy look at your response area, what types of fuels are prevalent, what type of emergency does your dept handle on a regular basis, would this equipment serve its purpose and be used, or is it just to fill an ego. Bragging rights at the next parade should be the least of your problems...purchasing equipment your dept AND the county you serve would benefit from should be priority.

I also agree with you on not duplicating resources and using County Wide resources more effectively. Good Point ny10570!

[Guest alsfirefighter]

What's wrong with tradition? Nothing as long as it doesn't always drive or dictate your tactics long after their shelf life. For many departments tradition is good for 1 thing....reminding you where you are and stopping you from getting where you either need to be or should be.

Why don't we use CAFS?

Why don't we use incident command to its full potential?

Why isn't rehab established appropriately or properly?

Why is Positive Pressure Ventilation often still treated as a villain?

As far as the CAFS being "overwhelmed" I've never seen this in any demo's I've attended where its been a problem and if delivered into the upper atmosphere of the room where its hottest as it is overwhelmed it will also asborb heat along with the water, which water just as well be overwhelmed with the wrong hoseline selection with inadequate GPM delivery for BTU's present, more application will continue to reduce the heat.

I was at one demo back in 1996 where they took 2 old "white elephant" wooden barracks at Fort Belvoir, VA (Fairfax County) and lit them up with fire blowing out of every window. They used a 1 3/4" line to walk down the line of windows with the CAFS and it extinguished the fire in an impressive amount of time and twice if not 3 (I can't remember the exact time numbers in minutes anymore) times quicker then a 2 1/2 with plain water.

With that, the issue I had and I have not gotten to try out the new system, was the older systems that would have issues with the foam/water mixture. One minute it would be fine...next minute I would lose pressure and have foam oozing out and then the next nearly pure water. I have been explained by a rep and a very trusted colleague who isn't afraid of change that this is not an issue any longer.

You can push fire with inappropriate tactics. Not enough GPM for energy absorption and you will push fire. Watch anyone operating a master stream device into one area and watch the fire come out of others and the overpressurization of the steam expansion and air pushed into the building with MSFOG devices pushing the smoke and other combustible material out as well.

[mfc2257 464]

Ok a few notes on working with CAFS:

First, if you'd like to see how well it works, set up a drill in your district and invite everyone from the neighboring districts and have the boys from Millwood bring E-247 over. I know for a fact that they'd love to help debunk some of the CAFS myths for everyone.

Through all of the bickering there have been a few good points. The best one is that CAFS is just another tool. If used correctly, it can create a positive outcome faster than the traditional materials (water) that it was designed to augment.

From the pump operators standpoint the most important items to remember:

1) For many systems the compressor MUST be engaged before you spin the throttle up otherwise it will not engage.

2) You must be alert to any situation that can create a rapid change in your CAFS mixture. While operating at full CAFS you are essentially pushing shaving cream through the line. It is very light and the line is very easy for the guy on the knob to work with even though you've got the throttle spun to the same pressure that you would using water (at least on most CAFS systems). If for some reason the mixture goes to 100% water because the compressor accidentally gets shut down or you run out of foam, etc.... the guys that are holding the line are going to get knocked on their butts and will most likely lose control of the line.

3) As with any foam system it must be flushed with much diligence.

From the OIC's standpoint a few items of note:

1) If your first due engine is a CAFS rig and everything behind it is not, make sure that you're not following the CAFS lines with regular water to hit any hot spots. You will wash down the CAFS coating which in the end is what will most likely keep you from having to return for the rekindle.

2) If you extinguished the fire using water, after you've done your overhaul and are getting ready to pack up, have the CAFS rig pull up and coat everything with it. I've had several large fires where I'm nearly positive we would have been back for a rekindle but the CAFS coating after overhaul kept it from flaring up.

3) Positive pressure ventilation during your operations may be necessary to help clear the rooms that have been extinguished of smoke because CAFS does not allow the guys on the line to hydraulically ventilate the room via an exterior window.

From the line man's standpoint:

1) No matter what anyone says about CAFS being able to rapidly absorb heat, you have also just extinguished a fire in a rapid amount of time. Thus, a rocking room and content fire that you just put out using a dropper full of water is NOT a safe place to stand up or to begin removing equipment. Traditional safety procedures are important to remember here. Keep your equipment on, make sure the room is vented and cleared of smoke/heat etc before you or the truck crew stand up and start pulling walls and lids.

2) Just as important for the crew on the knob as it is for the MPO, you've got to expect that at any time, for any reason, the line that you are throwing around like a inflatable toy could turn into a monster if the solution goes from CAFS to water quickly. For this reason, it is still important for there to be a backup man on the hose line during CAFS operations. If you feel the nozzle starting to react.... secure the line. The last thing you want is to be like a turtle on its shell (your air pack) with the hose line flying backwards down the stairs behind you while the fire begins to advance towards you as you are struggling to get up.

A final note... I've seen some stupid crews attempt to use CAFS to extinguish petroleum fires as well as a magnesium engine block fire. Needless to say they didn't understand the physics of how CAFS works and what it really is. CAFS is not intended to extinguish petroleum based, distillate based, alcohol based, or electrical fires.

There is nothing different about using CAFS compared to any other new piece of equipment. So long as everyone understands the nuts and bolts of how it works from pump to nozzle and then trains on it regularly then it will be a great addition to the department.

[x635 4,066]

Excellent synopsis, Ed!!

Personally, I feel that any apparatus operator who can't operate one of the very user friendly foam systems, CAFS or otherwise, has no business being behinf the pump panel. Also, if the pump or foam system is too complicated or laid out poorly and doesn't fit with the department's needs, then you have also have an apparatus comittee who has no business being such.

CAFS and foam systems have come a LONG way in the past couple of years. With the upcoming trade show season, I encourage everyone to take a look at how different manufacturers and agencies set up CAFS and foam systems on new apparatus. I think you'll be impressed.....

you put out alot of fire in a single family dwelling with 100 gallons of water or less.. if you an experienced nozzleman on the line

yes ive been to a few.. again it comes down to nozzleman experience

That's not my point.If you put out a R&C fire with 100 gallons on the 3rd floor of a wood frame OMD, where is the majority of that 100 gallons going? What if you could put out the same fire with 25 gallons plus CAFS? What would the difference in property loss be?

And what is so bad about tradition?

You imply its only in the northeast. Have you ever seen how it operates anwhere else?

Its interestiing to see how advanced the fire service is in Europe. They are atleast a decade ahead of us, and have been that far ahead for the last 20+ years. They have just as much tradition and ego, but it does not slow them down. They also dont use CAFS except in the interface

Southern California, Florida, and Texas are WAY, WAY ahead of the northeast.

Also, in Europe, they have a very limited water supply, and consequently, in many cities water runoff from a fire scene is seen as a failure. They use steam to help extinguish a lot of the fire, but a system similar to CAFS is rapidly becoming popular for urban fires.

[M' Ave 1,466]

Southern California, Florida, and Texas are WAY, WAY ahead of the northeast.

This is a skewed statement and I don't completly agree with it. What qualifies as so called "ahead"? Having the latest and greatest new piece of equiptment or the implementing the newest tactic in the book? Fire dept's in the North East, along with some of the other larger OLDER cities like San Francisco, Chicago ect. ect. have many more years of experiance collectivly; and due to building age and polpulation density, pre capita, fight more fire. It's a tough thing to determine: is it a lack of being progressive, or is it using time tested methods.

Simple is our best friend.

[Future Fireman 4]

Simple is our best friend.

It's been proven. Simple plans are usually the most efficient ones.

Mike

[Bnechis 3,961]

Personally, I feel that any apparatus operator who can't operate one of the very user friendly foam systems, CAFS or otherwise, has no business being behinf the pump panel. Also, if the pump or foam system is too complicated or laid out poorly and doesn't fit with the department's needs, then you have also have an apparatus comittee who has no business being such.

I hear from many instructors that when overseeing live burns they ask MPO's what presure they pump at and the common answer is 125psi. When asked why, the answer is because thats what we always pump. I agree, the MPO needs to know what he is doing, the question is does he?

The majority of apparatus comittee members have no busniess being such. I looked at 2 recent deliveries (1 that was featured in a fire mag, talking about how wonderful it was). I tried to get up to the hosebed (units inside, clean & dry with great lighting) and I could not safely do it. & I was not in turnouts, on the side of the road at night in the rain. My 1st thought was they built a climbing wall.

Southern California, Florida, and Texas are WAY, WAY ahead of the northeast.

Can you back up your beliefs?

USFA Fire Fatalities per million:

Tx - 10.7

NY - 10.3

Fl - 10

Ct - 9.7

NJ - 8.4

CA - 7.1

Looks like this is almost equal. NY better than Tx, CT & NJ better than Fl.

The one thing I see being way way ahead is FL & CA both run much more regional departments and they believe in onduty minimum manning far and away more than the NE.

Also, in Europe, they have a very limited water supply, and consequently, in many cities water runoff from a fire scene is seen as a failure. They use steam to help extinguish a lot of the fire, but a system similar to CAFS is rapidly becoming popular for urban fires.

Where in Europe do they have a limited water supply?

I've ridden in Hamburg, Bramen & Hanover (GER), Paris, London, Perth & Edinburgh (both in Scotland). Also went to Morton-on-Marsh The Fire Collage of GB. and I thought they generally had better water supply systems. In Paris, for example they have below grade hydrant conections (hydrants are carried on pumps) every 100' on bothe side of the street alternating so every 50' your have a hydrant. Was amazed to see a pump pull up and only use 15m (45 feet) of hose everytime to get water.

Never heard that water run-off was a failure, did hear that having a fire was considered a failure (on the part of the occupant). They generally use less water because they do not build using combustible material. most buildings are stone or concrete. They use indirect attack more...thus the steam.

Edited April 10, 2008 by Bnechis

[x635 4,066]

Can you back up your beliefs?

The comment regarding Southern California, Florida, and Texas being far ahead of the Northeast was related to CAFS. These departments are embracing CAFS now for "everyday" structural use, after being proven in these state's extensive wildfire and interface situations. These departments are also succesfully using it for car fires, dumpster fires, etc.

Los Angeles County did a breakthrough, extensive study regarding CAFS, which was done scientifically and involved live burns of 3 houses.

Texas was THE first state in the nation to use CAFS.

As far as Europe CAFS goes, you obviously have more knowledge from experience....I'm just going by what I was told by friends who work in London and someone I met from the UK who was riding with a busy US department to see CAFS in action.

[Bnechis 3,961]

The comment regarding Southern California, Florida, and Texas being far ahead of the Northeast was related to CAFS. These departments are embracing CAFS now for "everyday" structural use, after being proven in these state's extensive wildfire and interface situations. These departments are also succesfully using it for car fires, dumpster fires, etc.

Los Angeles County did a breakthrough, extensive study regarding CAFS, which was done scientifically and involved live burns of 3 houses.

Texas was THE first state in the nation to use CAFS.

As far as Europe CAFS goes, you obviously have more knowledge from experience....I'm just going by what I was told by friends who work in London and someone I met from the UK who was riding with a busy US department to see CAFS in action.

I'll give you that. they are way ahead on CAFS, but they need to be due to interface issues. They can also afford it since they mostly have regional serices. If we got rid of 1/2 the rigs we could pay the $40-50 K for this.