Why big tankers??

[Ledebuhr1]

Whats with these departments buying 3-4,000gal tankers? Wouldent it be better to just have a pumper with CAFS? 1000gal and CAFS can put out A LOT of fire. Anyone think that thoes big tankers are going to be obslete.

[chiefengineer11]

Could be, but not in my lifetime. Maybe not yours, either.

Stay safe out there, everyone goes home!

[Res343cue]

It might just be me, but I wouldn't want to put all my eggs in a basket relying 100% on CAF. What happens if it breaks, or a CAFS unit isn't available? Big tankers and "big water" are important to the rural guys, including my department.

I also remember a quote from one of the big CAFS innovators.. Something along the line "CAF is only effective when combined with the same amount of water you would flow for big fire". Essentially, don't rely on the added performance of CAF and cut back GPM... Keep your GPM at the normal level and add the CAF. You'll still reep the benefits of having a CAF line, the fire will go out quicker, requiring less water...even though you're applying water faster... In theory this works... But we all know what puts out fires.

[skipatrol8]

hydrants

where I live, there are no hydrants and very few drafting sources. The town has told the department since 1985 that we will not have hydrants. None of our departments (exlcuding brush and ladder) have less than 1000 gallons of a water. If theres a house fire, we need alot of water. running a 1500 gallon tanker shuttle isnt effective. a 4000 gallon one, especially with 1500gpm can make big strides in a shuttle. 4000 gallons does a lot. It can also go straight to the scene and knock down the fire, before giving way to engines and begin its shuttle. we will be getting cafs, but we still need water.

[Chauffeur6]

Like 343 said, relying solely on CAFS is foolish. Also, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy a big tanker than it is buying a truck with a CAFS system on it. A tanker also has fewer parts to maintain, which reduces cost. Foam isn't cheap either, but water is free. Some depts are lucky they can afford the FUEL for these trucks.

[lenny91]

At a large grass fire we park the tankers and the grass trucks come fill out of them. When it is 15-20 miles back to a hydrant it seems to work better. As far as structure fires, the 5000 gal we carry with us is enough to destroy about any house we were trying to save.

[SBrooks]

Seems to me that the answer would be a combination of CAFS, Tankers, and Hose Wagons.

Or just CAFS Engine-Tankers and LONG LDH Hose Wagons with BIG pumps.

Hell, while I disagree with almost everything A. Brunacini has to say about the fire service, I think CAFS should be standard on every new wagon. If a sprinklered fire is only $1500 cheaper than an unsprinklered fire, changing to CAFS would probably reduce the water damage to the point that that argument would be moot. Then, instead of paying $300 a year for a sprinkler system and $300 a year for a fire department, a family could just pay $300 a year for a fire department.

[Res343cue]

If a sprinklered fire is only $1500 cheaper than an unsprinklered fire, changing to CAFS would probably reduce the water damage to the point that that argument would be moot. Then, instead of paying $300 a year for a sprinkler system and $300 a year for a fire department, a family could just pay $300 a year for a fire department.

Woah... I don't like the sounds of that. A properly installed, maintained, and monitored sprinkler system can confine and hold a fire in the early stages until the Fire Department arrives 99% of the time. Not to mention, how many fires are extinguished and we just do overhaul once we cap the head or heads? In that 1%, CAF isn't going to make a world of difference, unless you're going to be coating an exposure. A sprinkler system could prevent the fire from getting out of the room of origin (or even extinguish it) before we arrive, why would we want to tell the community that "We have CAFS now on our Pumps and Wagons, you don't need sprinklers in ANY building". If it can apply to residences, then the commercial occupancies are going to fight for it too.

Just my .02.....

[Chauffeur6]

Agreed. There is absolutely no way sprinklers would ever be made any less effective by any equipment a fire dept has. Unless you can somehow miraculously guarantee for every property you cover to discover the fire at the very exact moment it starts, get the call a second or two later, be on scene 10 seconds after that and have the fire extinguished 10 seconds after that for a grand total of maybe 30 seconds or so. Then again, if that were the case we wouldn't even need TRUCKS, much less CAFS. A guy with a can could put it out.

[SBrooks]

These stats are from my code buddy:
The average kitchen fire in a sprinklered house does ~$3500 worth of damage.
The average kitchen fire in a non-sprinklered house does ~$5000 worth of damage, mostly due to smoke & water damage.
CAFS puts out fire with a small fraction of the water of a standard hose line. Aggressive property conservation, including the use of CAFS, could reduce the average kitchen fire in a non-sprinklered house to $3500.

CAFS on engines does not reduce the effectiveness of sprinkler systems, rather in reduces the *relative* effectiveness of sprinkler systems vs. non-sprinklered buildings.

Sprinklering a house costs ~$6000, converting that to annual costs, and adding maintenance costs, results in about $300 / yr in additional costs. The average household is 2.5 people, so a residential sprinkler law costs the population about $120 a year. Most fire departments cost about $120/person/year, and this includes EMS, HazMat, outside fires, Technical Rescue, and Prevention. They're just not a good deal economically. The choice to use them should be up to the builder / buyer / renter of the house.

$120 a person per year is a lot of money. The Risk / Benefit of using it for sprinklerinng a house should be made by the person most affected by it.

[Chauffeur6]

That's all fine and well, but I don't fight fires in a book of stats, I fight them in the real world.

I understand your point if you go ONLY by the stats you quote, but I just can't. Everything I know and have seen tells me that sprinklers are a hell of a lot more effective than that book or those numbers lead you to believe. What it doesn't show is how a sprinkler system can just about stop a fire dead in its tracks that breaks out at 2am while your whole family is sleeping and the volunteer fire dept 5 miles away has a minimum 10 minute response time on a good night. Does your book of stats also put a price or cost savings on your family's safety?

[Res343cue]

SB,

What about the decrease in insurance premiums? I know that locally atleast, if a new house is put up with sprinklers in it the people get a pretty nice insurance break. One family I know of got a 25% break for the duration of their policy!

CAFS puts out fire with a small fraction of the water of a standard hose line. Aggressive property conservation, including the use of CAFS, could reduce the average kitchen fire in a non-sprinklered house to $3500.

It COULD reduce the cost. But is that looking at JUST the kitchen? Fire multiplies exponentially as time continues, what's to say without early intervention (IE Sprinklers) the fire is going to stay in just the kitchen? When you take into consideration the gap in time between the fire starting, and 911 being called, the 2-3 minutes it takes (MINIMUM!) to get through 911, the time for tones and station alerting, and the time for the guys to be up and on the trucks, then to your door, you could easily have 8-10 minute gap. ALOT of fire can build in that time....

CAFS on engines does not reduce the effectiveness of sprinkler systems, rather in reduces the *relative* effectiveness of sprinkler systems vs. non-sprinklered buildings.

In your previous post though, you say having CAFS will essentially make having sprinklers unneeded. How can that be? The CAFS Engine will still take time to arrive. The fire is still growing, and without any intervention!

Sprinklering a house costs ~$6000, converting that to annual costs, and adding maintenance costs, results in about $300 / yr in additional costs. The average household is 2.5 people, so a residential sprinkler law costs the population about $120 a year. Most fire departments cost about $120/person/year, and this includes EMS, HazMat, outside fires, Technical Rescue, and Prevention. They're just not a good deal economically. The choice to use them should be up to the builder / buyer / renter of the house.

And with that 300$ per year, you're going to have near instant fire protection as soon as the sprinklers kick in. If that wasn't the case, why is all new construction in PG County sprinklered? HWoods, where are ya?

[SBrooks]

I'd never talk someone out of putting sprinklers in their own home, I just don't think it's the government's place to tell me what to do with my own money, when my decision affects me and my family.

Chauffer - I'm glad you don't fight fires in a book of stats. You must be one hell of a fireman.

The statistics I have, as far as I know, refer to national averages. If you have a delayed response due to your location or local fire department inadequacies, I'm sure the equation comes down more in favor of the sprinkler system. In fact, for piece of mind, I would beleive that MOST homeowners, builders, etc. would choose to sprinkler their house regardless of legislation. THat should be their choice, and their choice would be even easier to make if the insurance company gave them a 25% break in their insurance.

As a firefighter, I'd rather fight a fire in a well built ordinary construction dwellng than in a well built lightweight but sprinklered constructed dwelling.

I recognize that this is more of a political debate than a firefighting debate, and you're free to come down on whichever side you wish. I tend to believe that governments that govern least, govern best.

[pvfdtraining923]

Thank GOD for BIG WATER!~

I must agree with 343. We are very rural... with CAFS... and that is used quiet frequently per SOP for structures, but the BIG WATER seems to be FREE! And that is something we can't do without. We have a 3500 gal. tanker, not to mention a frontline pumper and 2nd due that both carry 2500 each. We would never make it 15-20 miles back to "civilization" if you will, for a hydrant hook rolling up with just tank water and CAFS. There is always plan B before plan A begins.
Just my opinion!~ Stay Safe and Take Care!

[Ledebuhr1]

For thoes of you that use CAFS, how often do you run out of tank water? and need to set up a port-a-tank and shuttle in water?