Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

DSPA: Dry Sprinkler Powder Aerosol, FIT: Fire Intervention Tool

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

  • FyredUp
    replied
    Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    Wow. That's the best summary I've seen yet. Kudos, Chief!
    Yepper, golly gizmo? You mean like when Thermal Imaging Cameras first hit the fire service? Or how about Class A foam? Or let's go back even further to those wonderous first days of SCBA? Weren't those for pussies?

    It seems to me the smart firefighters look at new ideas and try them to see if they have value before dismissing them out of hand without ever having seen the device work, or used it themselves, in a demo.

    I honestly expected that some here would automatically still be opposed to any thought of this device. I knew some people here would totally ignore what I saw and how I described it working. All that despite the fact that I have been here since 1999, my experience and knowledge level is known by many here, and it is clear I am not some fall for every new thing that comes on the market type.


    I believe Doctor Suess said it best in his book Green Eggs and Ham..."You do not like them so you say, try them, try them, and you may." Blind refusal to try a new tool is every bit as ridiculous as blind faith in the way you have always done something depsite glaring evidence there may be a better way.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeputyMarshal
    replied
    Originally posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    Gizmo is what this is. Having reqd all the stuff from ARA, some of their "deployment instructions" make the movie Backdraft seem real.
    Wow. That's the best summary I've seen yet. Kudos, Chief!

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    Originally posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    Don.. we can have a difference of opinion on "das gizmo".

    Of course we can have adifference of opinion on this device. And admittedly based on just their advertising, and some of the staunch supporters of it here on FH.com, I too was beyond skeptical. But I have seen it work with my own 2 eyes and believe it does have practical applications in the fire service.

    I'm a Ford Mustang guy, the other Deputy I share my office with likes "bowties made by Owens-Corning..." but we agree on many other things...

    I am a Mustang man myself having a 1965 Mustang convertible in my pole barn awaiting my retirement for it to be restored to its original glory. Now I drive a Dodge Ram 4x4 and sing the Chevy song "See the USA in your Chevrolet from the back of my Dodge towtruck today!!"

    Personally, the cost of the device and it's less than stellar record of activation, along with the lack of Underwriter's Laboratories or Factory Mutual certification makes me a skeptic.

    I agree the cost is a major issue to its widespread adoption by the FD's that could use it the most, small ultra rural ones. The triggering device is an admitted design flaw and they have changed that on the newer devices. The salesman that did our demo admitted that he used old stock with the old tiggering device for the demo.

    There are many pieces of equipment that get used every day in the fire service without a UL label or a FM label or even an NFPA approval, the fire service would be hard pressed to do our job if they were all removed from service tomorrow. I am curious as to why they haven't gotten a UL approval for this device but not enough so to let it deter me from looking at the application of this device to certain fire ground situations.
    My advice to you is to find a local distributor and set up a demo. Because until you see it for yourself you really are just shooting from the hip.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeputyChiefGonzo
    replied
    Don.. we can have a difference of opinion on "das gizmo".

    I'm a Ford Mustang guy, the other Deputy I share my office with likes "bowties made by Owens-Corning..." but we agree on many other things...

    Personally, the cost of the device and it's less than stellar record of activation, along with the lack of Underwriter's Laboratories or Factory Mutual certification makes me a skeptic.
    Last edited by DeputyChiefGonzo; 08-17-2010, 02:27 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    Originally posted by DeputyChiefGonzo View Post
    Gizmo is what this is. Having reqd all the stuff from ARA, some of their "deployment instructions" make the movie Backdraft seem real.
    Chief,

    I have the utmost in respect for you, and have agreed with you more times than not here on these forums, and admittedly was every bit as skeptical as you are about this device, but what I am saying here is garnered from MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS. It isn't from a video on the manufacturer's website, or from their advertisement copy, or from hearsay from others, it is from what I saw with my own 2 eyes.

    Do I believe it is the answer to every situation? Nope. Do I believe it should be used at every fire? Nope. Do I believe in circumstances where the engine is delayed or the response is long that it could be a valuable tool to buy time with? In certain circumstances YES, I do.

    The fact that the salespeople were willing to come out and do a demo under conditions WE set, on short notice, was very impressive to me. The willingness to do a demo in my home area if we have a practice burn in a structure was surprising to me. Admitting, in front of the crowd of students and instructors, that the first one failed to operate and that they have changed the triggering device on new models to correct the problem was a breath of fresh air. No excuses, we have a problem and we have fixed it on new models.

    I am not 100% sold on this for everyone, but I do believe it has applications for rural and suburban firefighters.

    And just to make it perfectly clear I am not in anyways affiliated with the company that demoed it for us or the manufacturer. I have no stake in this other than to pass on my personal observations of the device and how it worked.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 08-17-2010, 02:24 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeputyChiefGonzo
    replied
    Originally posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    A great example of that same concept would be flour.

    Flour is about as non-toxic as you can get, but a lung full of non-toxic flour is never very good for your health.

    Again much thanks to you and Chenzo for giving us a true firefighter account of this gizmo.
    Gizmo is what this is. Having reqd all the stuff from ARA, some of their "deployment instructions" make the movie Backdraft seem real.

    Leave a comment:


  • RFDACM02
    replied
    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post

    Fourthly, I agree that I wonder if worrying about re-ignition is worth it. Because even if it does re-ignite the time you bought is still an advantage and may buy enough time to make a rescue or to an engine company to get set up and get water on the fire.
    I completely agree, my thought about not worrying so much about re-ignition was thinking that it may be used by some as a contraindication to deployment. I cannot see how buying time or slowing the fires progress could ever be seen in a negative light.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarcusKspn
    replied
    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post
    Thirdly, I suppose you would have to determine if conditions in the fire room were survivable before you deployed the device. The sales info on the site of the fire equipment company that demoed it for us says the agent is non-toxic to victims and first responders. My assumption is that is just the extinguishing agent itself, not after being deployed.
    A great example of that same concept would be flour.

    Flour is about as non-toxic as you can get, but a lung full of non-toxic flour is never very good for your health.

    Again much thanks to you and Chenzo for giving us a true firefighter account of this gizmo.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    First of all let me say this, I am NOT advocating replacing a hoseline with the DPSA-FIT.

    Secondly, I see it as a tool to be used when an officer, or first arriving firefighter, arrives on scene and an engine company has not arrived yet.

    Thirdly, I suppose you would have to determine if conditions in the fire room were survivable before you deployed the device. The sales info on the site of the fire equipment company that demoed it for us says the agent is non-toxic to victims and first responders. My assumption is that is just the extinguishing agent itself, not after being deployed.

    Fourthly, I agree that I wonder if worrying about re-ignition is worth it. Because even if it does re-ignite the time you bought is still an advantage and may buy enough time to make a rescue or to an engine company to get set up and get water on the fire.

    All I am saying is my previously closed mind is more open to the possibilities of this device in certain circumstance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chenzo
    replied
    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    I also wonder if it's worth being hung up on the re-ignition problems. Unless this is very rapid in most cases, then I can't help but think that stopping the forward progress for any amount of time is likely to at least be in the plus column. After all we attack using tank water with the potential of running out, though I'd admit that water at least cools the area and fuel likely further slowing any re-ignition.
    You raise a very valid point, that I guess I just chose to overlook.
    With the engine right around the corners, I foresee this being a valuable tool, IF it works as it's supposed to. What I fear I guess, is a rural department, where the chief responds POV, tosses this in, and expects it to hold back the fire for anywhere from a 10-20 minute response time from an engine. I think that yes, it would help, but if he only had one, and only deployed one, would knocking the fire back for maybe 5 minutes do any good when an engine is still 5-15 minutes out after re-ignition?

    I know alot of this is rambling, but I'm also trying to spark concerns and questions that can be brought up if/when we get the oppurtunity to see this in action again.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chenzo
    replied
    Originally posted by MarcusKspn View Post
    That would be one of my other questions as well. Just based on the mechanism of action of the FIT, how much would it's effectiveness be impaired if it deploys behind a couch, or underneath a bed or table?

    I am very glad we are getting a non-sales-person account of it. Thanks FyredUp
    That's also where I run into an issue. What if you throw it in a room, and it happens to slide under the couch, because you can't see where it went? How effective would it be in that situation? In our situation, it was thrown just to the side of the pile of hay and pallets, so it had a nice open environment to deploy in.

    Many unanswered questions, I'm hoping we can get a house burn going, and try it again, and get some of these questions answered.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarcusKspn
    replied
    Originally posted by Chenzo View Post
    I would be curious to see how it would handle a typical bedroom, or living room, with furniture/clothing/dresser/cabinets etc as well. If we get the oppurtunity to use it again, I hope we can set up a more realistic bedroom.
    That would be one of my other questions as well. Just based on the mechanism of action of the FIT, how much would it's effectiveness be impaired if it deploys behind a couch, or underneath a bed or table?

    I am very glad we are getting a non-sales-person account of it. Thanks FyredUp

    Leave a comment:


  • RFDACM02
    replied
    Originally posted by tree68 View Post
    Based on our previous discussions, I'd have to say that until proven otherwise, if there's a hoseline available, the FIT will stay in its usual resting place.
    Oh I'd definitely agree there, but my point is if you suspect victims in the fire area deploying the extinguishing agent, be it FIT or water, will likely have negative effects on their lives.

    My comments are based on the question of what would you do if you were unsure of potential victims. It seems the adverse effects of the dry chem might be limited to the deployment area, thus possible victims outside this area are likely no worse off. Your options are very limited if you believe the victim is in the fire area. Enter an near certain peril, deploy the FIT5 and hope they don't inhale (like Clinton) or maybe try to effect some ventilation to allow for some heat release, while praying the engine is just around the corner. If we had a hoseline and suspected or saw a victim in the fire room/area we'd go in for the grab trying not to flow water in the compartment for fear of steaming them.

    I also wonder if it's worth being hung up on the re-ignition problems. Unless this is very rapid in most cases, then I can't help but think that stopping the forward progress for any amount of time is likely to at least be in the plus column. After all we attack using tank water with the potential of running out, though I'd admit that water at least cools the area and fuel likely further slowing any re-ignition.

    I'm in no way suggesting adjusting tactics to allow this device any role where proper equipment is on scene, but it's hard to believe that anything is not better than something in lieu of a charged line being present.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 08-16-2010, 08:21 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ChiefKN
    replied
    Originally posted by FyredUp View Post
    All this is my OPINION based on MY OBSERVATION of this device in action. I do not claim to be an expert of any sort regarding this device. I guess I just see its potential in the right circumstances to save property and perhaps lives.
    Your opinion is one that I would value. I'm just struggling with my own doubts and concerns about this product.

    I do appreciate your candor and your thoughts on this.

    Leave a comment:


  • tree68
    replied
    Originally posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    My question is if comparing apples to apples, what do you do if you're unsure of victims and you'e armed with a hoseline? Steam to the lungs likely will kill as fast as dry chemical.

    Interesting thread Fyred, nice to hear from a firefighter with no stake in the company.
    Based on our previous discussions, I'd have to say that until proven otherwise, if there's a hoseline available, the FIT will stay in its usual resting place.

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X