Why big tankers??

[SBrooks]

neiowa

Perhaps, instead of legislating a $6000 expense per unit for builders for sprinklering a lightweight building, we legislate a $6000 expense for builders to use SIPs, ICFs, CMUs, or any of a number of non-lightweight alternatives. At least then owners would benefit from a quieter structure and a lack of settling.

The comparisons for spkr vs non-spkr aren't completely reasonable. The likelihood of dying in a non-sprinklered home is miniscule. The likelihood of dying in a sprinklered home is 20% of miniscule, which is miniscule.

The property conservation aspect of it also small, you'll spend as much or more for sprinklers than you'll save in property loss reduction, so long as your home is protected by a half decent FD. I'd like to see what insurers offer an insurance reduciton for a residential sprinkler system, and I'd like to know it the reduction more than offsets the cost of the sprinkler system.

I don't expect many to agree with me, but I refuse to believe the dogma that sprinklers are ALWAYS a good thing - certainly they reduce fire loss, but do they reduce fire loss cost effectively, given other sunk costs (i.e. fire department, mechanical needs of the building system, etc.)

[bkmcse]

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

Yea yea yea, Tenders... I think to some they will always be Tankers. Tender is how I like my steak....

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

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.

This is a bullscat arguement if I ever heard one.

$120 a year is a lot of money? I drop amount on average going out to dinner a couple of times over a weekend.. and there are 52 of those in a year!


PS: CAFS isn't the be-all and end all to putting out fires. In a rural setting, with 1000 gallons of water and CAFS.. if there is a problem with the air compressor or air lines... it's "screw the pooch" time! Some VFD's can barely affords to put fuel in the rigs, let alone buy CAFS and foams supplies.

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

Posted by FCADM02

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.

What about the potential fire damage to the expensive cherry cabinets those marble countertops lay upon?

Posted by SBrooks

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.

A mandate is a mandate is a mandate..whether it be a community requiring new home construction to have residential sprinklers or certain types of building materials to be used in construction.

[SBrooks]

A mandate is a mandate is a mandate..whether it be a community requiring new home construction to haveresidential sprinklers or certain types of building materials to be used in construction.

Absolutely correct. I tend to oppose those construction codes as well - a topic for another day, though. One thing I can point out though, is that, if our buildings are close enough together, the construction of yours can put mine at risk, justifying the public law. In such cases a variety of means should be allowable for reducing that risk: blank masonry walls, sprinklers, etc.

But, I'm of the opinion, that, if I'm out the hinterlands, and want to build myself a home of sticks and straw, and bits of belly-button lint, you've no right to stop me. Of course I probably won't be able to get insurance, or a loan, nor will I be able to sell it to anyone. But it should be my choice.

[Rescue101]

The trick is with a PROPERLY engineered sprinkler system(residential or commercial) they keep the fire in check(or put it out)until the arrival of the FD be it well equipped or not.And this they do very well.I'm only guessing here that those FF's who fell into the basement ACTUALLY had a basement fire which was probably(since it was residential) in an unengineered,unprotected area by the existing sprinkler system.And I could raise a couple points of interest beyond that but I won't. I'm NO fan of governmental interference but I AM a supporter of sprinkler systems in ANY building.Like Bruno said,"Some buildings were designed to BURN,others have sprinklers." Seems like a fair statement to me. And tankers(or tenders for the left coast)are big and numerous around here.The waterpipe doesn't seem to reach the outskirts of the village so the BTU reducer has to come on wheels.Works for us,your plan may differ. T.C.

[FWDbuff]

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.

I'd like to see the NIOSH report on that incident......And the NFPA one since it was a sprinklered Bldg with FF Injuries.....can you please give the exact street address and/or DCFD Box Number, as well as the date of fire??

[pvfdtraining923]

Sprinklers? Tenders / Tankers? CAFS>?

Like most reviewed threads on here.... where in the hell did sprinklers have to do with this individuals question???? CAFS or TANKERS.... he musta' left the part about Sprinklers! Miss something everyday!~ Take Care!

[Rescue101]

That's easy.Got more sprinklers,need less Cafs,foam or tankers.A drift now and again doesn't hurt anything and sometimes fosters a spinoff. T.C.

[Battalion356]

Big Tankers/Big dump tanks

In my limited experience as a firefighter for 21 years, our BIG tanker (3500 gallons) usually sits at the fire and is the drop tank for the smaller and quicker tankers. We have 3 stations and have 1 1500 gallon pumper/tanker, a 2100 gallon tanker, and a 2500 gallon tanker. I have seen the 3500 gallon tanker always sit and be used as a drop tank at most fires, including mutual aid fires. While I would not debate that does not have it's usefullness, especially now since we have a new ladder truck, I will always believe the smaller and quicker tankers are better in water shuttles. They are more manuverable and have less turn around when filling at the hydrant. That being said, you may need more tankers, but we very rarely call for additional mutual aid tankers either, of course that will probably change now with a ladder truck. I really do not know why, but for some unknown reason our department never uses foam much. We even had a "foam" pumper and I can't recall ever seeing it used as anything but a water pumper! Things that make you go hmmm, or DOH.

[mcaldwell]

Diggin up the old stuff eh?



I agree that big tankers have a lot of drawbacks, from licensing of drivers, to mobility, to speed of turnaround, and bridge/terrain limitations. A pair of smaller units can do more work for you if you have the manpower to operate them.


As for the CAFS arguement, apples to oranges.

CAFS cannot boost a sprinkler system, it cannot be used effectively in conjunction with conventional pumper streams, and it is limited by the amount of foam concentrate you carry.

While we are ordering a new engine with it right now, and it is standard on almost all new engines in our region, until the fleets are all swapped out, and the mobile and fixed systems are integrated fully, you still need big water for many applications.

[carolinablue]

In the rural areas around here if you have a large mutual aid structure or brush fire and you don't have several tankers with 2000+ gallons of water in route you are quickly going to run out of water. Certain areas have few water points in the form of small ponds spread throughout the district and hydrants are 15-20+ miles away and water shuttling could take several minutes and be covering a distance of several miles between the water point back to the fire. This isn't to much of a problem in my district but one of our mutual aid departments rely totally on small farmer's ponds for water points and at this moment the area is in severe drought and all the non-spring fed ponds have partially or totally dried up so this has greatly reduced the number of available water points and has caused the tankers to go further and further away to the nearest water point at some fires. Thanks to the larger size tankers more of the desperately needed water is brought to the fire at one time. Around here we call the large forest service plane "the bomber" so there is no confusion between the air plane and a ground tanker.

[kuntrykid]

.................

[neiowa]

..... I have seen the 3500 gallon tanker always sit and be used as a drop tank at most fires, including mutual aid fires. ...... but for some unknown reason our department never uses foam much. We even had a "foam" pumper and I can't recall ever seeing it used as anything but a water pumper! ....

Sounds to me like serious leader planning, supervision, and control problems.

[LCFD1L101]

Why OH Why

If you dont have use for a large TENDER (3500 and up) good for you. Out here in the west we do. CAFS sure that would be nice, if this district had the money but we don't so we do without. TANKER drops are rather expensive so if you call for one you had better need it and more importantly have approval. Just my two cents from eastern wa

Safety Never takes a Holiday.