The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Training With CAFS.
Training With CAFS.Posted by Asst. 29 on January 9, 2009 at 12:32pm in Training Ideas
In Berks County PA we have a fairly new burn building at our county training center. Overall it is a good facility. We can train on any thing at the facility with the exception of CAFS which is what we utilize to fight fire. While structural burns at the facility are top notch and they allow my guys to get the idea it is different when using CAFS compared to straight water.
I am a firm believer that you play like you practice and unfortunately we don't get to train as often with our own methods as much as I think we should. What I am looking for is some advice or ideas on how to remedy this training deficiency. Does anyone know of any training facilities that allow the use of CAFS in their burn building in the southeastern PA area?
In Berks County PA we have a fairly new burn building at our county training center. Overall it is a good facility. We can train on any thing at the facility with the exception of CAFS which is what we utilize to fight fire. While structural burns at the facility are top notch and they allow my guys to get the idea it is different when using CAFS compared to straight water.
I am a firm believer that you play like you practice and unfortunately we don't get to train as often with our own methods as much as I think we should. What I am looking for is some advice or ideas on how to remedy this training deficiency. Does anyone know of any training facilities that allow the use of CAFS in their burn building in the southeastern PA area?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Montpetit on
-
Hmmm...why can't you use CAFS....? the foam is only highly concentrated detergent...the only thing that should occur is that the place will get cleaned......Let me look into this....will try and post back....We use CAFS and love it...as water is a critical element and we have to haul our own...we have found using it has cut out water usage drastically.....BUT...rest assurred not all fires get the foam...if you have a total loss a surround and drown approach is still best....Stay safe keep the faith......Paul
-
Permalink Reply by Chief 29 on
-
All run off and or water from the burn building goes to the drafting pit and also the petroleum fire pits and of course any foam solution in the petroleum pits will obviously interfere with the scenarios were those pits are used.
-
Permalink Reply by Wayne DePew on
-
You use CAFS and love it. I'm not real sure what that means. Do you have a water shortage? Is your $30,000 CAFS system maintained regularly? The last I knew, water is free and will also put out the fire if you apply it correctly and at the correct rate. The problem most departments have is that they only apply water at a rate slightly above a booster line rate (30-40 gpm) because of a lack of training on the handling of nozzles. CAFS does NOT change application rates. If a given fire requires 300 gpm then you must apply the water, with or without foam at the SAME rate. The only thing CAFS may due for you is help with rekindle. Again, more free water will do the same!
-
-
Wayne...We are in an area that we have to haul all our water....No...It isn't "unlimited" nor is it "cheap"...Use of CAFS does the same as water in some cases and requires less about 80% less of the wet stuff to get the job done....And for your information the only rekindle we have had that I know of was at a barn fire where some 700 lb round bales were inside.....I don't care how much water you have....you aren't going to put out burning bales.....It should go without saying that some fires simple are not approprriate to use foam....if it is that far gone then its time to surround and drown....Don't criticize until you have some knowledge of what the discussion is about.......we use it and in my opinion use it well......Stay safe and always remember to keep the faith......Paul
-
-
Thanks Paul! Unfortunately we must continue to preach to those who have not given CAFS a try or just don't understand it. I'm sure it wouldn't work for everyone but I can't believe how few people on this site utilize it or at least have tried it before they condemn it.
-
-
By the way, I have used CAFS. Still cannot justify the expense. I have fought numerous fires in bales of hay. What did you used to do with hay before CAFS? Simply watch it for a week until it went out? Come on. You are simply attempting to justify the expense to you taxpayers.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark Klaene on
-
I do not use CAFS but use foam - alot . it is a necessity around here , amazing how much better it performs in absorbing heat, reducing water damage and penetrating tough fuels. CAFS must be trained with especially if you use it inside a structure. It is dangerous to use CAFS inside confined space fire w/o proper training to say nothing of the benefits go away. Because CAFS will change the thermal balance differently that straight water, and depending on the complications of the system it can push teh fire if too much air and not enough water/foam, it won't absorb the heat like water or foam will , the straight stream nozzle has different properties and lastly re-ignition is more likely with CFAS In other words training with CAFS is a necessity if you plan to use it.
As far as the runoff is concerned remember with foam and with CAFS there will be substantially less run off. In tests I ran in our burn building, foam use created nearly zero runoff if the nozzle is cut back when fire is knocked down. With CFAS this should be even less (in our test it was more the first time and less the second due to complications of getting the settings right)
Could you block teh drain that feeds the pit when using foam and wash down the foam ?
I haven't tried it but would a de-foaming solution in the drain so that it would not effect pit operations?
Have you actually tried the pits after a foam use? Class A foam may not affect the fuel pits since it doesn't form a film like class B foam
just some ideas !!
-
-
Good ideas. I agree that using Class A foam is definately beneficial for penetration etc. CAFS is Class A foam on steriods. In addition to adding tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of your apparatus, the overall benefit of the expense of compressed air is questionable.
The straignt stream, exterior fire attack of CAFS lines do not provide any protection at all for interior firefighters should they face backdraft or flashover conditions. CAFS on initial attack should be an exterior attack. Interior attack should be water with Class A foam added if possible. You will maintain your protection factor without giving up the benefits of foam.
CAFS requires major pump operator training and a constant awareness of what the nozzle folks are doing. Water, even with Class A foam added only requires the pump operator to charge the line, at the proper pre-set pressure which is at least 200 psi at the panel for 1 3/4" hose line with an automatic nozzle.
Even if you tank water as your supply, the application rate on a 50% involved 1500 sq. ft. structure will be 250 gpm for 60 seconds using the NFA rate-of-flow formula. Using CAFS does NOT change this fact and uses 250 gallons of water if applied properly and at the required rate. Most attack engines and tankers will have at least 4 times this water on board, 1000 gallons.
I think with the hype of CAFS we need to really go back to basics and look at application rates that are required. It is about time that we properly man our hoselines, use appropriate application rates and nozzle flows. We can no longer believe that 50 gpm handlines will do the job. We need to train our firefighters to properly handle high volume attacks for limited timeframes.
-
-
I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you over whether or not you can justify the added cost to your taxpayers. We have CAFS obviously on our engine. See my profile for pics because I have checked out yours. I respect you for your time in service and from that and you posts alone I can probably be safe to say that you are pretty much set in your ways and not open to other ways of doing things. I could bash your way of fighting fire because of your waste of fresh water, you obviously don't care about your ecological foot print. Your taxpayers as well as their insurance carriers would be pleased to see less water damage when they do have a fire. I could keep going but I won't.
This discussion was started to try and find/get ways to allow My company to train more and become even more effective than we are now. It was not started for you to plead your case on the fact that CAFS is a waste of money. Like everything else in the fire service training is a necessity and if you don't train in your particular methods you will fail without question no matter how you fight fire. We do train frequently with CAFS. I want to train more as well as my guys to become better. What seems to be your problem in that? We have already investigated the pros and cons of CAFS when we bought our engine and found it to be a better way to fight fires more effectively in our area. We are not pushing it on any surrounding companies. Some call upon us to use it some don't,it's not a big deal. Oh I forgot one thing with our engine that you proclaim we wasted money on we can and have fought fire traditionally with just water and even just a foam solution (no compressed air). In my opinion that makes it a pretty versatile piece.
Your first comment asked if we maintain the unit and the answer is YES. Would you spend 30-50 thousand on a personal vehicle and not change the oil and just drive it until it won't go anymore. Come on pal, I am as well as my company a bit more intelligent than you are giving us credit for.
While you go back to the basics and figure out your application rates. We will continue to save water by less usage which equals less contamination and save the taxpayers and insurance company's money.
-
-
Unfortunately you completely miss the point. It is not a pissing match as you presume. It is simple fact. If you are not using application rates to fight your fires you are making a huge mistake in tactics. Application rate puts out fire, not CAFS or anything else.
You need to review your basic pump operations. CAFS does not change application rate as stated before. Check it out.
Your fire departement should not be in the business of saving insurance companies money. Does CAFS lower your ISO rating? Lowering your ISO rating is a real method of saving your taxpayers money. I do not believe CAFS will do it. My department as a ISO Class 4 fire department. Whats yours? Does your insurance companies kickback money to your department for using less water? I don't think so.
Water is a free renewable source of firefighting product, it should not be the basis of determining your method of fire attack. We have one job as a fire department, put out the fire by any means available, as quick as possible.
While you contiue to waste taxpayer funds by specing $40,000 CAFS systems, how long will that take to pay back in savings?, we will contiue to put out fire with water at no charge. I'm sure your taxpayers insurance companies have a nice plaque for you also.
-
Permalink Reply by Paul Young on
-
Call me old fashioned, but introducing compressed air into a heavily charged atmosphere just seems overly dangerous. You are correct, I don't have the training on CAFS. I do know it was introduced for overhaul and prevention in wildland / urban interface. I am not sure when it was tried as an interior attack tool. I have seen a fully charged room flash after a "power cone" was sprayed inside, That sold me on the smooth bore or a solid stream from a Vindicator nozzle. As far as the environmental footprint, we have certain responsibilities to the planet, but the safety of our firefighters must be put first. Until the UL does the studies on CAFS, we will not use it on aggressive interior attacks.
As far as the ISO is concerned, ISO is a complete joke IMHO. It proves absolutely nothing about a department's ability to extinguish fires and protect lives and property.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
