Water vs. CAFS

[cbfire25 9]

Quick question for the CAFs users: I took a course on foam not too long ago and the instructor mentioned that introducing air into the handline made the line more susceptable to kinking and being choked off if something were to fall on it or a door were to close on it. I have never used a CAFs line myself so I was just wondering if this is a reasonable worry. Granted, even employing the best hoseline management techniques issues will happen, but I am curious to know if this has come into play for any of you and whether there is actually any difference between a regularly charged handline...Thanks in advance!

[Danger 160]

Does anyone remember that passage from Engine Co. 82 about the light water and how they dropped men from the engine because of it?

[FiftyOnePride 100]

Quick question for the CAFs users: I took a course on foam not too long ago and the instructor mentioned that introducing air into the handline made the line more susceptable to kinking and being choked off if something were to fall on it or a door were to close on it. I have never used a CAFs line myself so I was just wondering if this is a reasonable worry. Granted, even employing the best hoseline management techniques issues will happen, but I am curious to know if this has come into play for any of you and whether there is actually any difference between a regularly charged handline...Thanks in advance!

There is a better chance for a kink, but utilizing the same thoroughness for dropping and advancing a hose line, and the use of a back-up or third man will take care of those issues. I personally have never had it be that much of a problem, although it can be.

[Atv300 69]

Dan and Ryan have you been to any calls other then the one in Amenia where CAFS was used? I know Millerton has had several calls where they used CAFS, the one that comes to mind was the Smith fire just off Route 22 where they used the CAFS and it made a huge difference, I drove by the house the next day and could not even tell the place had a fire. I have personally been at two structure fire where I have been on the CAFS line and it made a significant difference on the knock down with alot less water and alot more flexibilty in operating the line and less fatigue on the line guys. As with anything, it isn't full proof, training and using it will only make it's use that much more effective.

Let's be honest here Ryan and Dan you guys will probably never use it (unless on a mutual aide call) nor purchase it and no matter how many times it is shown that it is can make a difference there are some departments because of tradition that won't even consider it and the one time (Amenia's fire which by the way had a void left open during renovations that allowed the fire to travel to the attic) where it isn't effective the nah sayers will rise up and say I told you so. We can argue back and forth on the merits of it to the cows come home, fire will go out without water and without any training or tactics.

Ryan how many times can we talk about the tools in the box, how many guys can't or don't even don their issued turnout gear (which is as basic tool as a flat screw driver) or an SCBA at a structure fire, let alone be pro-active enough to use and train with a new tool. Heck how many times have you been at a call where a ground ladder can't even be raised or placed properly, another basic tool. So let's be careful and not look through rose colored glasses when we are talking about the good ole tool box when even the basic tools aren't even taken out of the box routinely, you have seen and so haven't I, call after call.

Dan I said our zone not area, several departments North of Dover love it, train with it and use it so it is proven to them, maybe not you, Ryan or I but to those departments that use it, it has been proven to them and that's all that matters to them. As I said in the thread about our engine, I wasn't sold on it totally either and still have some limited doubts (because of my lack of using it) but after many discussions with our officers, putting my hands on a CAFS line and talking with the Battalion 4 Chiefs we added to our specifications and it was because we wanted to be proactive and add another feature that will aid us and our neighbors for many years to come.

Ryan the PPV training is a sore subject with me, remind me when I see you next time about a PPV on attack story.

Hey Fiftyone Pride where are you on this discussion, I know you chimed in earlier but please add some real world experience you have had using CAFS and why you now have two CAFS engines!!!!

Mark I am not basshing CAFS in fact i love the concept of it but simple fact is untill it becomes as easy as water for everyone to use I wont be compleatly sold. And from what I have seen it is becoming eiser every time a new engien is specd things get better but like was said in a post earlier where is the training at a state level how do you get this to the masses. Your 100% right about the tool box thats why I put cafs in there people unless they do it everytime, trainig and the real deal do not use everything to its fullest, partially due to the fact its hard to fully retrain on a new system in a short amount of time all of the members in a department heck ill go as far as the nighbors department too. As I said the times I have seen CAFS used or the after effect of using it whatever the problem may have been it didnt do the job everone praised it to do. Saying that, I am sure I can find easily as many great outcomes for CAFS as anything I know it works when its implemented properly you mention the PPV and how you had a bad experince the same concept as me with CAFS it is not good untill you and your department all of it fully understand and use it the right way everytime. Personally I wouldn't use PPV when attacking a fire due to the lack of training and knowledge that many smaller rural departments have with it. Remember the area around here many times departments end up with mutual aid manpower sometimes using other departments equipment with that it can't be guaranteed that everyone is going to know how to use/pump the CAFS or any tool for that mater. Although i must give praise to the northern Battalion departments in there proactive cross training you guys do an amazing job of working together and sharing ideas but even in a single zone can you guarantee that every pump operator and ff knows how to use it to its fullest I would venture to guess the numbers for the water side is alot closer. Water is universal a FF can go and grab a hand line any where from FDNY to San Fransisco and any where in between and the water coming out of it will do the same job on either end of the coast.

Please don't take my post as being against it I am for it just when it is proven meaning any ff/operator can pick it up and do the job not saying the fire service shouldn't be embracing it and using it. I am kind of playing devils advocate with this I agree it can and dose work in areas that use it like the northern end. I would love to see this used more around the area and also better more available training to everyone.

[Atv300 69]

This board is not the place to convert jakes into foam lovers, I can rehash many fires that I was personally involved in its mitigation, and the effective use of CAFS, and many others where I was not present and it made all the difference. I can even recall a few fires where it did not work as intended. Bottom line is real-life time on the nozzle of a CAFS line or at a fire where it is used is the way to really understand this tool.

I also think that CAFS as an excuse to reduce manpower and staffing for the purposes of the overall bottom line is a bastardization of the whole concept. Yes a line charged with foam is much lighter and takes a man or two less to maneuver around. But bottom line is it is the men and women who put these tools to use to mitigate any hazard, not a concept such as foam, or the fit-5. I dislike that.

The video posted where the fire seemingly increases in velocity at the initial burst, the foam appears to be extremely dry, more so then it should be, and yes, they hit really low. I don't know the % they used or the story around it, I literally fast forwarded to the 5 minute mark to watch what you posted.

Either way, I like how some have summed things up. This is a tool that my department and many others in our immediately mutual aid area use. Other departments nearby love Fit-5's. Some live big water and the ladders that push them. Every department has a culture and set of tactics that have worked effectively for them. I choose not to worry about what any other department does unless they are operating at my incident. We are going to keep using our foam because it has proven to us time and time again the property it can save and rapid deceleration it can bring to almost any fire.

I agree that its all about the manpower using the tool but everything is a concept until it is used and implemented by the end user. CAFS is still a concept to some departments where as its a tool for you guys because you have been using it for awhile now it has become second nature to the majority thats where it is proven and effective when it is used for so long.

Also excellent statement about it being pushed for the wrong reasons manpower numbers should not be a factor because we are losing them as it is lets not get complacent that we should do something just because we can. The tool should be pushed for its real merits surface tension, effectiveness of water.

[wraftery 1,275]

Does anyone remember that passage from Engine Co. 82 about the light water and how they dropped men from the engine because of it?

Yes. I went to college with those guys. That's who I learned the trade from. Even the Bronx doesn't have the fires it used to.

And Seth, When you leave the job, you leave a lot behind. If they left it in a closet or dropped it in the dumpster, so be it. If they use what I left and built upon it, even better. Balls 'n' brains...not necessarily in that order.

[markmets415 524]

Mark I am not basshing CAFS in fact i love the concept of it but simple fact is untill it becomes as easy as water for everyone to use I wont be compleatly sold. And from what I have seen it is becoming eiser every time a new engien is specd things get better but like was said in a post earlier where is the training at a state level how do you get this to the masses. Your 100% right about the tool box thats why I put cafs in there people unless they do it everytime, trainig and the real deal do not use everything to its fullest, partially due to the fact its hard to fully retrain on a new system in a short amount of time all of the members in a department heck ill go as far as the nighbors department too. As I said the times I have seen CAFS used or the after effect of using it whatever the problem may have been it didnt do the job everone praised it to do. Saying that, I am sure I can find easily as many great outcomes for CAFS as anything I know it works when its implemented properly you mention the PPV and how you had a bad experince the same concept as me with CAFS it is not good untill you and your department all of it fully understand and use it the right way everytime. Personally I wouldn't use PPV when attacking a fire due to the lack of training and knowledge that many smaller rural departments have with it. Remember the area around here many times departments end up with mutual aid manpower sometimes using other departments equipment with that it can't be guaranteed that everyone is going to know how to use/pump the CAFS or any tool for that mater. Although i must give praise to the northern Battalion departments in there proactive cross training you guys do an amazing job of working together and sharing ideas but even in a single zone can you guarantee that every pump operator and ff knows how to use it to its fullest I would venture to guess the numbers for the water side is alot closer. Water is universal a FF can go and grab a hand line any where from FDNY to San Fransisco and any where in between and the water coming out of it will do the same job on either end of the coast.

Please don't take my post as being against it I am for it just when it is proven meaning any ff/operator can pick it up and do the job not saying the fire service shouldn't be embracing it and using it. I am kind of playing devils advocate with this I agree it can and dose work in areas that use it like the northern end. I would love to see this used more around the area and also better more available training to everyone.

Great response Ryan and I not for a moment did I think you were bashing it.

You are one of more proactive younger firefighters I know and I never said you were against it, we have had that conversation many times, agreed on the concepts and the training aspects of the CAFS, unless we have used anything first hand , it's human nature to have doubts about something new, you are like me, SHOW ME!

As far as water, yes it is the uniform extinguishment agent we use and it's free, again how many times have you been to a fire and seen it applied incorrectly and the tactics used with it be totally wrong.

I am totally with you TRAIN TRAIN and TRAIN some more, whether we use water, foam, the Fit5 or whatever the choice may be.

On a side note: it's great to see some of the Dutchess posters back here!!!!

[markmets415 524]

Don't get me wrong. Remember I said it works, but water is cheaper and better if you have a good water supply. That being said...

Try this at home:

Take a clean coffee cup and fill it with water.

Sprinkle black pepper over the top of the water. (The coffee cup is just to give you a white background so you can see the pepper)

Now take the tip of your index finger and just touch it to a little dish detergent.

Take that finger and barely touch the surface of the water in the coffee cup and watch what happens to the pepper.

You just broke the surface tension of the water.

No magic potions, just soap. Go ahead and try the penetration thing when overhauling and see how you make out. Betcha still want to pick apart the hidden spces and look.

PS Look at the rig covered with CAFoam in one of the replies above. I bet that engine and everything on it will give off suds for a month of washes. I believe the CAFS manufacturers strongly tell you that all the product must be thoroughly cleaned from both CAFS systems and other equipment. OK Where's the Proby? I've got a job for him.

Excellent post Chief, anyone that doesn't open areas up during overhaul are just kidding themselves and will most likely we back for a rekindle, whatever is used to extinguish the fire, it doesn't eliminate the overhaul stage of the incident.

[antiquefirelt 994]

Excellent post Chief, anyone that doesn't open areas up during overhaul are just kidding themselves and will most likely we back for a rekindle, whatever is used to extinguish the fire, it doesn't eliminate the overhaul stage of the incident.

Correct me if I'm wrong and I certainly agree about proper overhaul, but don't the users of CAFS use the foam/air injection to increase the surface tension? This is how they can reduce water damage. Fire control with CAFS, coupled proper "surgical" overhaul with a TIC, might be an excellent way to reduce any "damage" created by the FD. Though I still think they have a ways to go to make CAFS mainstream: prove equipment reliability, reduce costs and validate better training programs. Edited August 7, 2011 by antiquefirelt

[markmets415 524]

Correct me if I'm wrong and I certainly agree about proper overhaul, but don't the users of CAFS use the foam/air injection to increase the surface tension? This is how they can reduce water damage. Fire control with CAFS, coupled proper "surgical" overhaul with a TIC, might be an excellent way to reduce any "damage" created by the FD. Though I still think they have a ways to go to make CAFS mainstream: prove equipment reliability, reduce costs and validate better training programs.

CAFS reduces the surface tension of the water by means of the foam concentrate used. Less water is needed to put out the fire. CAFS systems can vary the consistency of the bubbles created, it can be used in different ways. A foam with less water (dry foam) can have the consistency of shaving cream and be used as an insulating blanket, to stop fire spreading to adjoining structures. A foam with more water will penetrate combustibles better (I.e. soaking into thick layers of grass or brush, garbage or silage). A Compressed Air Foam System can generate a foam blanket that will isolate fire or potential fuel from oxygen, thus putting the fire out.

here is an excellent article worth reading

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4760/is_200910/ai_n42039877/

[Bnechis 3,961]

There is a better chance for a kink, but utilizing the same thoroughness for dropping and advancing a hose line, and the use of a back-up or third man will take care of those issues. I personally have never had it be that much of a problem, although it can be.

Great, the ICMA thinks you can drop costs by adding this and then you can get rid of the back-up & 3rd man. And you state we need them just as much if not more.

One needs to look very carefully at this.

[antiquefirelt 994]

CAFS reduces the surface tension of the water by means of the foam concentrate used. Less water is needed to put out the fire. CAFS systems can vary the consistency of the bubbles created, it can be used in different ways. A foam with less water (dry foam) can have the consistency of shaving cream and be used as an insulating blanket, to stop fire spreading to adjoining structures. A foam with more water will penetrate combustibles better (I.e. soaking into thick layers of grass or brush, garbage or silage). A Compressed Air Foam System can generate a foam blanket that will isolate fire or potential fuel from oxygen, thus putting the fire out.

here is an excellent article worth reading

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb4760/is_200910/ai_n42039877/

Thanks, I can see now my terminology is part of the problem. Rather than say it increases the waters surface tension, I should have said that it that by making bubbles it increases the waters ability to fight gravity by clinging to the surface. While the foam solution may be acting as an actual surface tension reducer, the thickness of the finished foam created by adding compressed air allows it to remain on the surface and release as the heat breaks down the bubbles, this lets the water convert to vapor more efficiently than when it's absorbed into the material. This is still sort of the opposite of how many of us use class A foam for it's penetration properties in outdoor settings. At low concentration .1-.3% the A foam solution quickly is absorbed and nearly any sign of a foam blanket is non-existent. Bump up the concentration level and/or add more air and make a thicker finished foam that you can make cling to the vertical surfaces as a protective blanket.

[xfirefighter484x 234]

Thanks, I can see now my terminology is part of the problem. Rather than say it increases the waters surface tension, I should have said that it that by making bubbles it increases the waters ability to fight gravity by clinging to the surface. While the foam solution may be acting as an actual surface tension reducer, the thickness of the finished foam created by adding compressed air allows it to remain on the surface and release as the heat breaks down the bubbles, this lets the water convert to vapor more efficiently than when it's absorbed into the material. This is still sort of the opposite of how many of us use class A foam for it's penetration properties in outdoor settings. At low concentration .1-.3% the A foam solution quickly is absorbed and nearly any sign of a foam blanket is non-existent. Bump up the concentration level and/or add more air and make a thicker finished foam that you can make cling to the vertical surfaces as a protective blanket.

Maybe you were referring to it increasing the surface area with bubbles, because the surface tension is reduced?

[antiquefirelt 994]

Great, the ICMA thinks you can drop costs by adding this and then you can get rid of the back-up & 3rd man. And you state we need them just as much if not more.

One needs to look very carefully at this.

I think one thing often overlooked by some when arguing over how many firefighters it takes to make a stretch is that after the hose makes two 90 degree corners, regardless of the weight, it's most often anchored tight there. It takes having enough personnel spread out properly on the line to facilitate an efficient stretch. While CAFS may reduce the weight of the line and even allow some places to stretch an 1.75" (more effective use of water?) when many of us would take the big line, the number of doorways, corners and stairwells will not change, thus our manpower needs are not reduced, and should not be compromised as a result of using a more efficient suppression agent.

Edited August 7, 2011 by antiquefirelt

[antiquefirelt 994]

Maybe you were referring to it increasing the surface area with bubbles, because the surface tension is reduced?

Something like that. Is it not counter intuitive that when you make the water sit on top of the surface longer, it's still using the foam as a surface tension reducer? In the wildland application we make the water absorb faster, thus the surface tension reducing qualities are readily apparent.

[xfirefighter484x 234]

Something like that. Is it not counter intuitive that when you make the water sit on top of the surface longer, it's still using the foam as a surface tension reducer? In the wildland application we make the water absorb faster, thus the surface tension reducing qualities are readily apparent.

Well the amount of the 'foam blanket"/bubbles also depends on the amount of aeration incorporated into the final foam product!

[commonsensejake 6]

FACT: Science beats tradition when it comes to extinguishment.

http://firechief.com/suppression/foam/benefits-class-a-foam-200907/

http://firechief.com/suppression/foam/firefighting_bubbles_beat_water/

Boston showed great results, however they had retrofitted older rigs and had major maintenance issues. As long as there is a failure of the large metropolitan fire agency located on the East Coast (serving 5 boros) to recognize the benefits of this method of extinguishment it will continue to flounder in regard to acceptance. Once a member of that agency sees the light and does a program on it at FDIC or another big venue it will look like the second coming of the savior.

[FiftyOnePride 100]

FACT: Science beats tradition when it comes to extinguishment.

http://firechief.com...-a-foam-200907/

http://firechief.com...les_beat_water/

Boston showed great results, however they had retrofitted older rigs and had major maintenance issues. As long as there is a failure of the large metropolitan fire agency located on the East Coast (serving 5 boros) to recognize the benefits of this method of extinguishment it will continue to flounder in regard to acceptance. Once a member of that agency sees the light and does a program on it at FDIC or another big venue it will look like the second coming of the savior.

Exactly. Well said!

[xfirefighter484x 234]

FACT: Science beats tradition when it comes to extinguishment.

http://firechief.com/suppression/foam/benefits-class-a-foam-200907/

http://firechief.com/suppression/foam/firefighting_bubbles_beat_water/

Boston showed great results, however they had retrofitted older rigs and had major maintenance issues. As long as there is a failure of the large metropolitan fire agency located on the East Coast (serving 5 boros) to recognize the benefits of this method of extinguishment it will continue to flounder in regard to acceptance. Once a member of that agency sees the light and does a program on it at FDIC or another big venue it will look like the second coming of the savior.

Exactly. Well said!

And I just wanted to clarify that my "tradition" comment was a generic one. I think it is sad that is how the fire service is, because I DO AGREE with the use of Foam/AFFF/CAFS!!!

[x635 4,066]

Well put, commonsensejake. +1

[Bnechis 3,961]

The International City/County Management Assocication (ICMA) recently completed a study on the Sandusky, OH Fire Department.

The study refers to CAFS and FIT-5 Fire inturrupters as options to reduce staffing or equipment on the road, and essentially says that this equipment can compensate for inadequate management or failure to properly fund public safety operations by politicians. We know what it takes to battle a fire, and we know what kind of resources we require, however, we have to always look at what the other side is thinking, is this what we would want for OUR Fire Service?

Great, the ICMA thinks you can drop costs by adding this and then you can get rid of the back-up & 3rd man. And you state we need them just as much if not more. One needs to look very carefully at this.

Ok I just finished reviewing the ICMA report and the holes in it are so large that you can drive a tower ladder thru it. This is not surprising as I find the ICMA reports often ignor the ICMA's recomendations.

Without going into a 50 page rebutal, the 3 biggest problems include:

1) Conduct Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) fire department self-assessment as means toward overall organizational improvements.

The ICMA report was written 3-4 years after the CFAI was incorporated into the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE). Since the ICMA is an original partner in the CFAI and one would think they would have known that it no longer exists under that name.

2)Conduct a community fire risk analysis using the CFAI’s Risk, Hazard, and Value Evaluation (RHAVE) model.

Both CFAI and the USFA stopped using, supplying and supporting RHAVE 2 years before the report was written.

and

3) Utilize a mid-size pumper equipped with a compressed air foam system (CAFS) or FIT tool, and staffed by one firefighter, at fire station 3 and fire station 7.

The Mid-size pumper the are suggesting is:

Not quite a mid size, but they claim that 1 man with this rig and CAFS and or FIT can replace a class A pumper with 3 FF's. Since they are suggesting that 2 of the 3 engine companies go to this they are completely ignoring everything that an engine company does beyond initial attack (assuming a 1 man unit can do initial attack with these tools). Who searches? Who forces entry? who does the 1,00 of other things that are done on not just fire calls but EMS, rescue Hazmat, etc.?

It is quite clear that they have no idea what a fire dept does, but they are the experts many communities are using to determine what they need.

[wraftery 1,275]

Ok I just finished reviewing the ICMA report and the holes in it are so large that you can drive a tower ladder thru it. This is not surprising as I find the ICMA reports often ignor the ICMA's recomendations.

Without going into a 50 page rebutal, the 3 biggest problems include:

1) Conduct Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) fire department self-assessment as means toward overall organizational improvements.

The ICMA report was written 3-4 years after the CFAI was incorporated into the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE). Since the ICMA is an original partner in the CFAI and one would think they would have known that it no longer exists under that name.

2)Conduct a community fire risk analysis using the CFAI’s Risk, Hazard, and Value Evaluation (RHAVE) model.

Both CFAI and the USFA stopped using, supplying and supporting RHAVE 2 years before the report was written.

3) Utilize a mid-size pumper equipped with a compressed air foam system (CAFS) or FIT tool, and staffed by one firefighter, at fire station 3 and fire station 7.

The Mid-size pumper the are suggesting is:

Not quite a mid size, but they claim that 1 man with this rig and CAFS and or FIT can replace a class A pumper with 3 FF's. Since they are suggesting that 2 of the 3 engine companies go to this they are completely ignoring everything that an engine company does beyond initial attack (assuming a 1 man unit can do initial attack with these tools). Who searches? Who forces entry? who does the 1,00 of other things that are done on not just fire calls but EMS, rescue Hazmat, etc.?

It is quite clear that they have no idea what a fire dept does, but they are the experts many communities are using to determine what they need.

and.........

Thank you Cap, did you ever wonder how many of these dog and pony show people that claim to be the be-all, know-alls have actually spent time putting out fires? Or is it "Let's form a committee and we can claim it all as a business expense"? Sometimes it's like a cult: The self-appointed "reverend" yells "Safety!" or "Progress," and half the fire service drinks the KoolAid.

Remember the old saying: A jackass is a racehorse developed by a committee.

[x129K 1,393]

Now before someone gets their panties in a bunch and calls my Chief, let me say, as I have said before - I do NOT fault any department for using it or praising it. If it works for YOU - AWESOME. We are all different and use different tactics...bottom line.

Sorry for the delay in clarifying this comment - I have rotated into weekends off so that time was spent with my kids and Wife.

My semi-tounge in cheek comment about someone calling my Chief stems from some trouble a local career fireman tried to start by calling my BOSS over a debate here over a year ago...that was QUICKLY squashed, but not forgotton. I am smart enough to not call out a fire department online, it just breeds animosity between companies and is unproffesional...for every person that posts here, 100 more read. No comment goes un-noticed. It's good, as it holds the poster acountable for their words, and those who know me, know what I type, is what I say, and have no problem engaging into debate in person. Debate, not arguing. I RESPECT so many of the local fire officers and firefighters and love working with them. Hopefully they feel the same. I don't hide behind a screen name.

Again - I am not against any department choosing to use CAFS, or any other tactic/technique/system, it is their choice, usually backed up by research and experience. Good on them for trying something new and being progressive.

My thoughts were completely related to MY experiences on MY firegrounds. I do not think CAFS is FOR MY company. Not now at least.

The biggest advantage I see with it personally is in the wildland scenario - I mean - check out the pictures Mark posted of the SNOWFALL he applied to the trees and shrubbery! Absolutely coated. THAT kicks a**..I can see Wassaic plowing to the top of the mountian in the BRAT, and coating the whole damn thing...BOOYAH - fire out! HOWEVER, since the DEC implemented the new rules in regards to open burning, OUR brush fire runs have dropped DRAMATICALLY. Gone are the days of the all day, mountain burning, "Y'all come!" fires...and good riddance to that bull..

For structural fires, I am still a firm beleiver that RAPID WATER applied to the fire in adequate amounts, COUPLED WITH AGGRESSIVE truck work and ventilation, save LIVES and buildings. That means a quick response, a fast deployment, and firefighters who know their job.

BUT...keep me in mind when B4 does a CAFS drill please.