What your Mayors and Governors are reading

[joetnymedic 43]

While I'd say some of the views here are interesting and the writers are entitled to their opinions, I don't believe the fire department or any branch of public safety for that fact is just there to keep people employed.. While I think foam and sprinklers are good things I hardly think all the foam or sprinklers in the world are gonna stop every fire from happening. SMH

Take a read at the sprinkler and foam articles in the current edition. BTW - This is what your mayors and probably some Governors are reading and people wonder why things are so screwed up -

http://webapps.icma.org/pm/9307/

Stay safe out there Guys (and ladies)

Joe

[antiquefirelt 994]

While I'd say some of the views here are interesting and the writers are entitled to their opinions, I don't believe the fire department or any branch of public safety for that fact is just there to keep people employed.. While I think foam and sprinklers are good things I hardly think all the foam or sprinklers in the world are gonna stop every fire from happening. SMH

Take a read at the sprinkler and foam articles in the current edition. BTW - This is what your mayors and probably some Governors are reading and people wonder why things are so screwed up -

http://webapps.icma.org/pm/9307/

Stay safe out there Guys (and ladies)

Joe

Interesting, I think I remember the CAFS article from Fire Chief. Of course like any article targeting a specific group, it fails to address some of the concerns with wholesale changes to CAFS.

1. Expense: Maybe the "powers that be" might need to know the increase cost in outfitting each engine with CAFS, training personnel, and maintaining the stock of foam. Water is plentiful and cheap in comparison in a significant portion of where the US population lives.

2. Manpower reductions is cited as a reason the FS may not be embracing CAFS. This may be true in part as some FD's and Chief's fail to properly articulate the true manpower needs of any fireground. Our tasks do not change with CAFS. At best the time to complete the confinement, extinguishment and overhaul is reduced, but forcible entry, rescue, search, ventilation, RIT and everything else still remain relatively unchanged as far as manpower needs. Not to mention that just because the hoseline is lighter, does not mean it takes less personnel to make an effective stretch. Stretching to eh front door is the easy part, it's the constant fighting of corners, stairs and obstacles that require firefighters to keep the line advancing. No amount of magic bubbles is going to change how may of us it takes to get the nozzle to an effective position to apply any suppression agent.

3. The technology may not be "there yet". We still hear far too many issues with CAFS systems being finicky, problematic, overly electronic reliant, and far more complex than a typical pump with or without a straight foam system. A "one button" system is great when it all works well, but it's because there's some electronic control device that's doing 15 other things for you, if you don['t know how to override them or make them work you destined for a mishap. Sure some large FD's are using CAFS successfully, but for all of them, there's many other who aren't. I'm sure there's plenty who think they're doing great but are not, just as we see with the rest of the water extinguishment FD's.

Hopefully ICMA will allow a rebuttal or at least an article written that describes some of the realities of CAFS, given they're currently just reading what they want to hear, less cost.

[Bnechis 3,961]

Of course like any article targeting a specific group, it fails to address some of the concerns with wholesale changes to CAFS.

And this specific group has routinly taken the position the manpower can be lowered, except if you read their fire administration handbook, which is where NFPA got the manning numbers for #1710 (funny that ICMA says that the NFPA got there #'s out of thin air).

1. Expense: Maybe the "powers that be" might need to know the increase cost in outfitting each engine with CAFS, training personnel, and maintaining the stock of foam. Water is plentiful and cheap in comparison in a significant portion of where the US population lives.

In anticipation of being asked by our Manager (as suggested to him in the article) today I contacted a couple of our apparatus venders. I was told that the cost for the system on a new class A pumper ranged from $48,000 to $80,000. More importantly the cost to retrofit apparatus (according to them) is much higher because of re-plumbing, assuming that there was enough space in the pump compartment to accomedate the upgrade. We were advised that at least 3 of our engines would require a longer frame to accomedate the compressor, so from a fleet perspective we would need at least a 1/2 million $ and realistically we would to replace 3-4 engines (in addition).

2. Manpower reductions is cited as a reason the FS may not be embracing CAFS. This may be true in part as some FD's and Chief's fail to properly articulate the true manpower needs of any fireground. Our tasks do not change with CAFS. At best the time to complete the confinement, extinguishment and overhaul is reduced, but forcible entry, rescue, search, ventilation, RIT and everything else still remain relatively unchanged as far as manpower needs. Not to mention that just because the hoseline is lighter, does not mean it takes less personnel to make an effective stretch. Stretching to eh front door is the easy part, it's the constant fighting of corners, stairs and obstacles that require firefighters to keep the line advancing. No amount of magic bubbles is going to change how may of us it takes to get the nozzle to an effective position to apply any suppression agent.

You are right on the money on the firefighting manpower needs.

On a different note, can those magic bubbles perform CPR, carry the "Jaws", set up hazmat booms, perform station maintenance or inspect properties?

Hopefully ICMA will allow a rebuttal or at least an article written that describes some of the realities of CAFS, given they're currently just reading what they want to hear, less cost.

Highly unlikely, they never have in the past