Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why big tankers??

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

  • fdmhbozz
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • skipatrol8
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • SBrooks
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • don120
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • npfd801
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by npfd801; 09-21-2006, 05:40 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • RFDACM02
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 09-21-2006, 05:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ledebuhr1
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • pvfdtraining923
    replied
    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!

    Leave a comment:


  • SBrooks
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Res343cue
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chauffeur6
    Guest replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • SBrooks
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chauffeur6
    Guest replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Res343cue
    replied
    Originally posted by SBrooks
    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.....

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X