Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why big tankers??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by SBrooks
    The Risk / Benefit of using it for sprinklerinng a house should be made by the person most affected by it.
    The problem with this is that the same can be said of any codes. So why bother with smoke detectors if you don't want them? The list goes on endlessly: seatbelts? Motorcycle helmets?
    Children do not have the ability to choose where their parents live. How about if I let my daughter spend the night? Is there a reasonable expectation that she will be safe from fire, at least minimally? Nevermind future owners, like those who bought up apartment buildings 10 years ago and now are having to retrofit them with sprinklers or install second sets of stairs.
    Originally posted by SBrooks
    In fact, for piece of mind, I would beleive that MOST homeowners, builders, etc. would choose to sprinkler their house regardless of legislation.
    Sadly I disagree, given the number of residential sprinklers out there in the areas where their not required. In our state the architects are against sprinklers because it will increase the cost of a home 1% cuasing a hardship. They claim their clients would rather have marble counter tops than sprinklers which they never intend to use.

    The statisitics are in: sprinklers work better than anything else. Combined with smoke detections the reduction in fire deaths is like 90% or greater!

    CAFS might take a little sting out of the sprinkler gpm vs. fire attack gpm when it comes to water damage, but its still apples and oranges at the end of the incident.

    I do have to agree with your statement about less government, but hypocritically this is not an area I see people making the right choices on their own.
    RFDACM02
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 09-21-2006, 06:13 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      CAFs is another tool is the tool box. Some love it, some hate it, some are indifferent to it. It is not however the end all, be all, do all answer to every situation.

      We just received a new rescue engine and no we did not get CAFs. We got a Class A foam system. Why? Because in order to pay for the CAFs system we would have had to give up too many other things that were deemed by us as requirements for this new engine. For many the idea of CAFs while good in theory is simply out of reach due to cost.

      Tankers are here to stay. Read Firehouse and look at the tire fire in Wisconsin....Tankers were the water supply for that and lots of them.

      FyredUp
      Crazy, but that's how it goes
      Millions of people living as foes
      Maybe it's not too late
      To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by SBrooks
        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.
        I don't even know where to begin with this. You're claiming that a switch to CAFS equipped engines is comparable to having a virtually instant suppression device located where the fire will occur, which will alarm shortly after water flows unless a smoke or heat detector has already activated, calling in the calvary and pumping a whopping 15 gallons per minute out of what will likely be a single activated residential head.

        So even if the department arrived 15 minutes after the initial call, that 225 gallons of water in my living room will cost a lot less to clean up than all the heat and smoke damage of that unchecked fire, let alone the water unleashed by the attack line brought in by the fire department.

        I'm not saying CAFS isn't a valid concept that we should be looking to for our next fire apparatus, but to imply that it would be on par with a sprinkler system for preserving property and eliminating water damage (not to mention saving lives) is absurd.

        I'm not flaming you, just stating an opinion.

        We can't get folks to put battery powered smoke detectors up, do you really think they'd chose to put in a residential sprinkler system? Personally, with the sh*t way homes are built now, I'm all for residential systems, mandated or not. I'm proud of the jurisdictions with the cajones to push the codes through requiring mandatory sprinkler systems.
        npfd801
        MembersZone Subscriber
        Last edited by npfd801; 09-21-2006, 06:40 PM.
        "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

        Comment


        • #19
          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.[/QUOTE]

          I think he fell down and hit his head.

          Don

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by don120
            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.
            I think he fell down and hit his head.

            Don[/QUOTE]

            No, my head is fine. I'm not saying any sort of fire department operation will outperform a sprinkler system. I'm saying that, not only is a sprinkler ordinance an infringement on personal property rights, it also doesn't make financial sense in an area protected by a fire department. This is why you rarely see an insurance reduction for having a residential sprinkler system, at least around here.

            Mandating sprinklers is another way of spending Other People's Money, as well as an example of 'Nanny State' Government. If it's such a good idea, people would do it anyway.

            Comment


            • #21
              Ldh

              if you combine this with tankers (we have a 5000' truck next town over) you can deal without hydrants. Its easier to draft, and you might be within a mile of water.

              Comment


              • #22
                I don't care whether or not you have a CAFS on your rig. Big fire=big water. No two ways about it.

                In the rural, if you get banged out for a fire in a hay loft, a couple of engines with 1,000 gallons of water and CAFS isn't going to put the fire out. It's going to take big water. In order to get that big water, you are going to need those 3-4,000 gallon tenders.
                -Bozz

                Air Force Medic

                Comment


                • #23
                  Unless I missed it, I'm a bit supprised the west coast guys haven't been bustin our balls about saying "tankers". I think if I wanted a plane here in Illinois I would have to ask for a crop duster. LOL

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I think that residential sprinkler systems will save many lives (just like wearing seatbelts and having air bags in MVAs). Politics or no politics, this is what our job is all about. End of story!!!!
                    THEFIRENUT
                    Forum Member
                    Last edited by THEFIRENUT; 09-22-2006, 03:06 AM.
                    Just someone trying to help! (And by the way....Thanks for YOUR help!)

                    Aggressive does not have to equal stupid.

                    ** "The comments made here are this person's views and possibly that of the organizations to which I am affiliated" **

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by SBrooks
                      Mandating sprinklers is another way of spending Other People's Money, as well as an example of 'Nanny State' Government. If it's such a good idea, people would do it anyway.
                      Sorry, I gotta throw out the bull$hit flag on this one. Why? Because in the community where I work as a career fire inspector under the Fire Marshal's office, we follow the smoke detector mandate as prescribed by the International Fire and Residential Code. ALL private dwellings- whether a single family dwelling or a multiple dwelling, all "sleeping areas" as well as common areas must be protected by either a hard-wired interconnected SD or a single station battery operated SD. This goes for owner-occupied units as well as rental units. Additionally, we have an ordinance that mandates inspections every other year for rental units.

                      Whats the cost of a 9 volt battery? $1.50 at the most? Whats the cost of a single-station battery operated SD? I have seen them for $10. Cheap, right? Well, come on up here sometime and spend a day with me when I have to inspect private dwellings. You should see the number of non-working SD's (dead, disconnected, old, what have you....) or ones missing batteries, batteries there but disconnected, painted over, the list goes on and on....Good idea that people will do, right? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH! You should hear the cries I get from both landlords AND tenants about being told they have to buy BATTERIES! A FRIGGEN DOLLAR SEVENTY FIVE BATTERY FOR CRYING OUT LOUD! They fight! They Scream! They moan and ****! They whine like little girly-girls! If I didnt tell them they could either do it or face a citation, they WOULDNT!

                      Good idea that people will do huh? Here's another quick story- Myself and the missus were house shopping back in late 2003. We considered new construction. Upon inquiring at two different developments (in areas where there are no sprinkler mandates) about having residential sprinklers installed in my new home, they all but flat out refused. EVEN AFTER I INDICATED I WOULD PAY ALL COSTS INCLUDING FOR THE FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER AND INSTALLATION! Said they could not do it, because it "could set a precidence."

                      Good idea people will do huh?

                      Just remember one thing: In 17 years as a firefighter, both career and volunteer, I have never, not once, dragged a dead body out of a sprinklered building.
                      "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by FWDbuff
                        Just remember one thing: In 17 years as a firefighter, both career and volunteer, I have never, not once, dragged a dead body out of a sprinklered building.
                        Amen.


                        Originally posted by SBrooks
                        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.
                        That's part of the problem, you're thinking of it one dimensionally, from OUR perspective. You're making it seem as if it's a perfect world where we arrive on scene in mere seconds and can stop any fire in its incipient stage. It's almost as if you're not taking into consideration how quickly a sprinkler system can protect the OCCUPANTS and contents of the structure PRIOR to our arrival. Again, as I said previously, if we could guarantee arriving within 30 seconds with all the equipment we needed, as well as CAFS or whatever other magic bullet you want with you, that would be a different story entirely. But also like I said, if we WERE that fast we wouldn't need much more than a water can, would we? The point is, with a residential sprinkler system in place and operating, the construction of the structure becomes much less of an factor because the fire has little or no real chance of growing larger to begin with!

                        Originally posted by SBrooks
                        I'm saying that, not only is a sprinkler ordinance an infringement on personal property rights, it also doesn't make financial sense in an area protected by a fire department.
                        I won't even touch the apparent violation of your Constitutional rights part (although, as previously pointed out, most government regulations designed to PROTECT you could be seen as such). You have only provided one set of statistics from your holy bible of stats, related to kitchen fires. What about other fires in a residential structure, in areas like the living room or bedrooms? The more I'm thinking about it, the more I'm feeling that kitchen fires might not be the best yardstick for measuring the effectiveness of a sprinkler system. First of all, many fires occurring in the kitchen are Class B or C type fires, which water is either not very effective on or actually exasperates them. Also, kitchen fires are quite often contained to the oven or the cookware itself, which may account for the relatively low overall damage dollar amount in the stat you quote.

                        In any case, you're certainly entitled to your opinion or steadfast belief in statistics or that the government has no right to protect its citizens, but I have to disagree as I have from the start of this thread. I'm going by what I've seen firsthand, not read out of a book. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Agreed then, Chauffer.

                          I'm not a fan of a government that wants to protect me from myself.

                          And while I understand statistics, I've seen enough firsthand to know what of I speak. I've a couple friends who fell the through the floor, into the basement, of a new, lightweight, sprinklered building that was on fire. (Alabama Ave, DC, if you must know). If we have to have government mandates, i'd rather see them mandate good construction, an non-combustible exteriors for closely spaced buildings.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Never thought I would see a FF argue against sprinklers. Guess there is always a first.
                            "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              As a firefighter, I've no problem with them per se.

                              As a citizen, I've a problem with requiring them when the money spent on them could possibly be better used elsewhere.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by SBrooks
                                Agreed then, Chauffer.

                                I'm not a fan of a government that wants to protect me from myself.

                                And while I understand statistics, I've seen enough firsthand to know what of I speak. I've a couple friends who fell the through the floor, into the basement, of a new, lightweight, sprinklered building that was on fire. (Alabama Ave, DC, if you must know). If we have to have government mandates, i'd rather see them mandate good construction, an non-combustible exteriors for closely spaced buildings.
                                You're apparently living in 1930.

                                "Lightweight" construction is the way structures are going to be built, it is the new "Ordinary". Trusses are not going away. Plywood/chipboard are not going away. The biggest change that may happen near term is wider use of lightweight steel (including trusses).

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X