markmets415

Sorry for the delay in clarifying this comment - I have rotated into weekends off so that time was spent with my kids and Wife.
My semi-tounge in cheek comment about someone calling my Chief stems from some trouble a local career fireman tried to start by calling my BOSS over a debate here over a year ago...that was QUICKLY squashed, but not forgotton. I am smart enough to not call out a fire department online, it just breeds animosity between companies and is unproffesional...for every person that posts here, 100 more read. No comment goes un-noticed. It's good, as it holds the poster acountable for their words, and those who know me, know what I type, is what I say, and have no problem engaging into debate in person. Debate, not arguing. I RESPECT so many of the local fire officers and firefighters and love working with them. Hopefully they feel the same. I don't hide behind a screen name.
Again - I am not against any department choosing to use CAFS, or any other tactic/technique/system, it is their choice, usually backed up by research and experience. Good on them for trying something new and being progressive.
My thoughts were completely related to MY experiences on MY firegrounds. I do not think CAFS is FOR MY company. Not now at least.
The biggest advantage I see with it personally is in the wildland scenario - I mean - check out the pictures Mark posted of the SNOWFALL he applied to the trees and shrubbery! Absolutely coated. THAT kicks a**..I can see Wassaic plowing to the top of the mountian in the BRAT, and coating the whole damn thing...BOOYAH - fire out! HOWEVER, since the DEC implemented the new rules in regards to open burning, OUR brush fire runs have dropped DRAMATICALLY. Gone are the days of the all day, mountain burning, "Y'all come!" fires...and good riddance to that bull..
For structural fires, I am still a firm beleiver that RAPID WATER applied to the fire in adequate amounts, COUPLED WITH AGGRESSIVE truck work and ventilation, save LIVES and buildings. That means a quick response, a fast deployment, and firefighters who know their job.
BUT...keep me in mind when B4 does a CAFS drill please.

Ok I just finished reviewing the ICMA report and the holes in it are so large that you can drive a tower ladder thru it. This is not surprising as I find the ICMA reports often ignor the ICMA's recomendations.
Without going into a 50 page rebutal, the 3 biggest problems include:
1) Conduct Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) fire department self-assessment as means toward overall organizational improvements.
The ICMA report was written 3-4 years after the CFAI was incorporated into the Center for Public Safety Excellence (CPSE). Since the ICMA is an original partner in the CFAI and one would think they would have known that it no longer exists under that name.
2)Conduct a community fire risk analysis using the CFAI’s Risk, Hazard, and Value Evaluation (RHAVE) model.
Both CFAI and the USFA stopped using, supplying and supporting RHAVE 2 years before the report was written.
and
3) Utilize a mid-size pumper equipped with a compressed air foam system (CAFS) or FIT tool, and staffed by one firefighter, at fire station 3 and fire station 7.
The Mid-size pumper the are suggesting is:

Not quite a mid size, but they claim that 1 man with this rig and CAFS and or FIT can replace a class A pumper with 3 FF's. Since they are suggesting that 2 of the 3 engine companies go to this they are completely ignoring everything that an engine company does beyond initial attack (assuming a 1 man unit can do initial attack with these tools). Who searches? Who forces entry? who does the 1,00 of other things that are done on not just fire calls but EMS, rescue Hazmat, etc.?
It is quite clear that they have no idea what a fire dept does, but they are the experts many communities are using to determine what they need.

Dan and Ryan have you been to any calls other then the one in Amenia where CAFS was used? I know Millerton has had several calls where they used CAFS, the one that comes to mind was the Smith fire just off Route 22 where they used the CAFS and it made a huge difference, I drove by the house the next day and could not even tell the place had a fire. I have personally been at two structure fire where I have been on the CAFS line and it made a significant difference on the knock down with alot less water and alot more flexibilty in operating the line and less fatigue on the line guys. As with anything, it isn't full proof, training and using it will only make it's use that much more effective.
Let's be honest here Ryan and Dan you guys will probably never use it (unless on a mutual aide call) nor purchase it and no matter how many times it is shown that it is can make a difference there are some departments because of tradition that won't even consider it and the one time (Amenia's fire which by the way had a void left open during renovations that allowed the fire to travel to the attic) where it isn't effective the nah sayers will rise up and say I told you so. We can argue back and forth on the merits of it to the cows come home, fire will go out without water and without any training or tactics.
Ryan how many times can we talk about the tools in the box, how many guys can't or don't even don their issued turnout gear (which is as basic tool as a flat screw driver) or an SCBA at a structure fire, let alone be pro-active enough to use and train with a new tool. Heck how many times have you been at a call where a ground ladder can't even be raised or placed properly, another basic tool. So let's be careful and not look through rose colored glasses when we are talking about the good ole tool box when even the basic tools aren't even taken out of the box routinely, you have seen and so haven't I, call after call.
Dan I said our zone not area, several departments North of Dover love it, train with it and use it so it is proven to them, maybe not you, Ryan or I but to those departments that use it, it has been proven to them and that's all that matters to them. As I said in the thread about our engine, I wasn't sold on it totally either and still have some limited doubts (because of my lack of using it) but after many discussions with our officers, putting my hands on a CAFS line and talking with the Battalion 4 Chiefs we added to our specifications and it was because we wanted to be proactive and add another feature that will aid us and our neighbors for many years to come.
Ryan the PPV training is a sore subject with me, remind me when I see you next time about a PPV on attack story.
Hey Fiftyone Pride where are you on this discussion, I know you chimed in earlier but please add some real world experience you have had using CAFS and why you now have two CAFS engines!!!!

Agreed but the begging here in the rural area without hydrants and paid personnel just isn't working so it's time to try and find something else that works and the other departments in our zone have proven that CAFS does work!

FACT: Science beats tradition when it comes to extinguishment.
http://firechief.com/suppression/foam/benefits-class-a-foam-200907/
http://firechief.com/suppression/foam/firefighting_bubbles_beat_water/
Boston showed great results, however they had retrofitted older rigs and had major maintenance issues. As long as there is a failure of the large metropolitan fire agency located on the East Coast (serving 5 boros) to recognize the benefits of this method of extinguishment it will continue to flounder in regard to acceptance. Once a member of that agency sees the light and does a program on it at FDIC or another big venue it will look like the second coming of the savior.

Great response Ryan and I not for a moment did I think you were bashing it.
You are one of more proactive younger firefighters I know and I never said you were against it, we have had that conversation many times, agreed on the concepts and the training aspects of the CAFS, unless we have used anything first hand , it's human nature to have doubts about something new, you are like me, SHOW ME!
As far as water, yes it is the uniform extinguishment agent we use and it's free, again how many times have you been to a fire and seen it applied incorrectly and the tactics used with it be totally wrong.
I am totally with you TRAIN TRAIN and TRAIN some more, whether we use water, foam, the Fit5 or whatever the choice may be.
On a side note: it's great to see some of the Dutchess posters back here!!!!

There is a better chance for a kink, but utilizing the same thoroughness for dropping and advancing a hose line, and the use of a back-up or third man will take care of those issues. I personally have never had it be that much of a problem, although it can be.

I agree that its all about the manpower using the tool but everything is a concept until it is used and implemented by the end user. CAFS is still a concept to some departments where as its a tool for you guys because you have been using it for awhile now it has become second nature to the majority thats where it is proven and effective when it is used for so long.
Also excellent statement about it being pushed for the wrong reasons manpower numbers should not be a factor because we are losing them as it is lets not get complacent that we should do something just because we can. The tool should be pushed for its real merits surface tension, effectiveness of water.

Mark I am not basshing CAFS in fact i love the concept of it but simple fact is untill it becomes as easy as water for everyone to use I wont be compleatly sold. And from what I have seen it is becoming eiser every time a new engien is specd things get better but like was said in a post earlier where is the training at a state level how do you get this to the masses. Your 100% right about the tool box thats why I put cafs in there people unless they do it everytime, trainig and the real deal do not use everything to its fullest, partially due to the fact its hard to fully retrain on a new system in a short amount of time all of the members in a department heck ill go as far as the nighbors department too. As I said the times I have seen CAFS used or the after effect of using it whatever the problem may have been it didnt do the job everone praised it to do. Saying that, I am sure I can find easily as many great outcomes for CAFS as anything I know it works when its implemented properly you mention the PPV and how you had a bad experince the same concept as me with CAFS it is not good untill you and your department all of it fully understand and use it the right way everytime. Personally I wouldn't use PPV when attacking a fire due to the lack of training and knowledge that many smaller rural departments have with it. Remember the area around here many times departments end up with mutual aid manpower sometimes using other departments equipment with that it can't be guaranteed that everyone is going to know how to use/pump the CAFS or any tool for that mater. Although i must give praise to the northern Battalion departments in there proactive cross training you guys do an amazing job of working together and sharing ideas but even in a single zone can you guarantee that every pump operator and ff knows how to use it to its fullest I would venture to guess the numbers for the water side is alot closer. Water is universal a FF can go and grab a hand line any where from FDNY to San Fransisco and any where in between and the water coming out of it will do the same job on either end of the coast.
Please don't take my post as being against it I am for it just when it is proven meaning any ff/operator can pick it up and do the job not saying the fire service shouldn't be embracing it and using it. I am kind of playing devils advocate with this I agree it can and dose work in areas that use it like the northern end. I would love to see this used more around the area and also better more available training to everyone.

Yes. I went to college with those guys. That's who I learned the trade from. Even the Bronx doesn't have the fires it used to.
And Seth, When you leave the job, you leave a lot behind. If they left it in a closet or dropped it in the dumpster, so be it. If they use what I left and built upon it, even better. Balls 'n' brains...not necessarily in that order.

Thanks Chief, excellent post and well said.

This isn't a "high expansion foam". It's more viscous. And you don't always need the compressed air to gain the benefits of Class A foam. The compressed air enhances it's performance by making it more "bubbly".
CAFS was developed here in Texas for brush fires in 1977, where it still works quite effectively. It is basically standard in all new brush trucks, including the State issued ones. Even firefighters in the most rural areas can make it work.
How much does a solid steam actually penetrate? 10, 15%? The rest is just runoff.If you reduce surface tension, you increase the amount of water the combustible material (meaning wood, etc) can absorb. It basically makes water wetter. Same concept as doing laundry. The cling of the foam holds the water in.
Class A foams are attracted to charred material, and will form a cooling foam
blanket, reducing heat inside the structure, improving conditions for firefighters and victims.
And as far as the manpower issue, that is a VERY selfish way to look at it. Sure, manpower puts the fire out. But last I was taught, you save lives, then property. If something can put out a fire faster and more effectively, therefore reducing property loss and water damage, then why would we be resistant to it?
And, since water is best, why do we carry extinguishers with specialized agents to extinguish diffent types of fires? Why do we use whatever the current generation is of Halon?
This is very similar to the debate about which kind of nozzle is best.
Partial Source: http://www.swfirefightingfoam.com/pdfs/explanation_of_class_a%20foams_and_CAFS.pdf

Now before someone gets their panties in a bunch and calls my Chief, let me say, as I have said before - I do NOT fault any department for using it or praising it. If it works for YOU - AWESOME. We are all different and use different tactics...bottom line.

This board is not the place to convert jakes into foam lovers, I can rehash many fires that I was personally involved in its mitigation, and the effective use of CAFS, and many others where I was not present and it made all the difference. I can even recall a few fires where it did not work as intended. Bottom line is real-life time on the nozzle of a CAFS line or at a fire where it is used is the way to really understand this tool.
I also think that CAFS as an excuse to reduce manpower and staffing for the purposes of the overall bottom line is a bastardization of the whole concept. Yes a line charged with foam is much lighter and takes a man or two less to maneuver around. But bottom line is it is the men and women who put these tools to use to mitigate any hazard, not a concept such as foam, or the fit-5. I dislike that.
The video posted where the fire seemingly increases in velocity at the initial burst, the foam appears to be extremely dry, more so then it should be, and yes, they hit really low. I don't know the % they used or the story around it, I literally fast forwarded to the 5 minute mark to watch what you posted.
Either way, I like how some have summed things up. This is a tool that my department and many others in our immediately mutual aid area use. Other departments nearby love Fit-5's. Some live big water and the ladders that push them. Every department has a culture and set of tactics that have worked effectively for them. I choose not to worry about what any other department does unless they are operating at my incident. We are going to keep using our foam because it has proven to us time and time again the property it can save and rapid deceleration it can bring to almost any fire.

Dan and Ryan have you been to any calls other then the one in Amenia where CAFS was used? I know Millerton has had several calls where they used CAFS, the one that comes to mind was the Smith fire just off Route 22 where they used the CAFS and it made a huge difference, I drove by the house the next day and could not even tell the place had a fire. I have personally been at two structure fire where I have been on the CAFS line and it made a significant difference on the knock down with alot less water and alot more flexibilty in operating the line and less fatigue on the line guys. As with anything, it isn't full proof, training and using it will only make it's use that much more effective.
Let's be honest here Ryan and Dan you guys will probably never use it (unless on a mutual aide call) nor purchase it and no matter how many times it is shown that it is can make a difference there are some departments because of tradition that won't even consider it and the one time (Amenia's fire which by the way had a void left open during renovations that allowed the fire to travel to the attic) where it isn't effective the nah sayers will rise up and say I told you so. We can argue back and forth on the merits of it to the cows come home, fire will go out without water and without any training or tactics.
Ryan how many times can we talk about the tools in the box, how many guys can't or don't even don their issued turnout gear (which is as basic tool as a flat screw driver) or an SCBA at a structure fire, let alone be pro-active enough to use and train with a new tool. Heck how many times have you been at a call where a ground ladder can't even be raised or placed properly, another basic tool. So let's be careful and not look through rose colored glasses when we are talking about the good ole tool box when even the basic tools aren't even taken out of the box routinely, you have seen and so haven't I, call after call.
Dan I said our zone not area, several departments North of Dover love it, train with it and use it so it is proven to them, maybe not you, Ryan or I but to those departments that use it, it has been proven to them and that's all that matters to them. As I said in the thread about our engine, I wasn't sold on it totally either and still have some limited doubts (because of my lack of using it) but after many discussions with our officers, putting my hands on a CAFS line and talking with the Battalion 4 Chiefs we added to our specifications and it was because we wanted to be proactive and add another feature that will aid us and our neighbors for many years to come.
Ryan the PPV training is a sore subject with me, remind me when I see you next time about a PPV on attack story.
Hey Fiftyone Pride where are you on this discussion, I know you chimed in earlier but please add some real world experience you have had using CAFS and why you now have two CAFS engines!!!!

Dan and Ryan have you been to any calls other then the one in Amenia where CAFS was used? I know Millerton has had several calls where they used CAFS, the one that comes to mind was the Smith fire just off Route 22 where they used the CAFS and it made a huge difference, I drove by the house the next day and could not even tell the place had a fire. I have personally been at two structure fire where I have been on the CAFS line and it made a significant difference on the knock down with alot less water and alot more flexibilty in operating the line and less fatigue on the line guys. As with anything, it isn't full proof, training and using it will only make it's use that much more effective.
Let's be honest here Ryan and Dan you guys will probably never use it (unless on a mutual aide call) nor purchase it and no matter how many times it is shown that it is can make a difference there are some departments because of tradition that won't even consider it and the one time (Amenia's fire which by the way had a void left open during renovations that allowed the fire to travel to the attic) where it isn't effective the nah sayers will rise up and say I told you so. We can argue back and forth on the merits of it to the cows come home, fire will go out without water and without any training or tactics.
Ryan how many times can we talk about the tools in the box, how many guys can't or don't even don their issued turnout gear (which is as basic tool as a flat screw driver) or an SCBA at a structure fire, let alone be pro-active enough to use and train with a new tool. Heck how many times have you been at a call where a ground ladder can't even be raised or placed properly, another basic tool. So let's be careful and not look through rose colored glasses when we are talking about the good ole tool box when even the basic tools aren't even taken out of the box routinely, you have seen and so haven't I, call after call.
Dan I said our zone not area, several departments North of Dover love it, train with it and use it so it is proven to them, maybe not you, Ryan or I but to those departments that use it, it has been proven to them and that's all that matters to them. As I said in the thread about our engine, I wasn't sold on it totally either and still have some limited doubts (because of my lack of using it) but after many discussions with our officers, putting my hands on a CAFS line and talking with the Battalion 4 Chiefs we added to our specifications and it was because we wanted to be proactive and add another feature that will aid us and our neighbors for many years to come.
Ryan the PPV training is a sore subject with me, remind me when I see you next time about a PPV on attack story.
Hey Fiftyone Pride where are you on this discussion, I know you chimed in earlier but please add some real world experience you have had using CAFS and why you now have two CAFS engines!!!!

here are a few of a house fire which was dispatched with occupants trapped in Amenia at a really remote part of their district at I believe was around 3am where they used a CAFS line to knock down the fire in only a few minutes, the images are kind of blurry, sorry, this is one of my own experiences of being on a CAFS line. First one is shortly after arrival, second is with the CAFS line in operation., third one is upon arrival at the rear.

Dan and Ryan have you been to any calls other then the one in Amenia where CAFS was used? I know Millerton has had several calls where they used CAFS, the one that comes to mind was the Smith fire just off Route 22 where they used the CAFS and it made a huge difference, I drove by the house the next day and could not even tell the place had a fire. I have personally been at two structure fire where I have been on the CAFS line and it made a significant difference on the knock down with alot less water and alot more flexibilty in operating the line and less fatigue on the line guys. As with anything, it isn't full proof, training and using it will only make it's use that much more effective.
Let's be honest here Ryan and Dan you guys will probably never use it (unless on a mutual aide call) nor purchase it and no matter how many times it is shown that it is can make a difference there are some departments because of tradition that won't even consider it and the one time (Amenia's fire which by the way had a void left open during renovations that allowed the fire to travel to the attic) where it isn't effective the nah sayers will rise up and say I told you so. We can argue back and forth on the merits of it to the cows come home, fire will go out without water and without any training or tactics.
Ryan how many times can we talk about the tools in the box, how many guys can't or don't even don their issued turnout gear (which is as basic tool as a flat screw driver) or an SCBA at a structure fire, let alone be pro-active enough to use and train with a new tool. Heck how many times have you been at a call where a ground ladder can't even be raised or placed properly, another basic tool. So let's be careful and not look through rose colored glasses when we are talking about the good ole tool box when even the basic tools aren't even taken out of the box routinely, you have seen and so haven't I, call after call.
Dan I said our zone not area, several departments North of Dover love it, train with it and use it so it is proven to them, maybe not you, Ryan or I but to those departments that use it, it has been proven to them and that's all that matters to them. As I said in the thread about our engine, I wasn't sold on it totally either and still have some limited doubts (because of my lack of using it) but after many discussions with our officers, putting my hands on a CAFS line and talking with the Battalion 4 Chiefs we added to our specifications and it was because we wanted to be proactive and add another feature that will aid us and our neighbors for many years to come.
Ryan the PPV training is a sore subject with me, remind me when I see you next time about a PPV on attack story.
Hey Fiftyone Pride where are you on this discussion, I know you chimed in earlier but please add some real world experience you have had using CAFS and why you now have two CAFS engines!!!!

That you did about CAFS working in the rural setting, I was just reinforcing the point about whether you have manpower or not, CAFS is the way to go for us departments without a municpal water supply.

Love this shot of Beacon's Ladder

PECO, is Protection Engine COmpany, the Village of Fishkill.
Their truck is special because it isnt even a truck..it is numbered as an engine! If I recall, the ladder is 65 or 68 feet, which is too short to meet the County criteria of a ladder truck (75 feet I think?)...HOWEVER, the members of PECO have done more with that truck than alot of other departments with true ladders..Look through fdphotunit's galleries of fires down south (Dutchess) and you will see PECO, usually the first due ladder, witht the stick up. Not knocking ANY other departments, just giving credit, where credit is due.

Apparatus shots working the fire

Here is what I started wearing after getting out as a Chief officer in January.

My department has been using foam for quite a few years now, one of the original in the area from what I told (Mid-90's). Our brand new 51-11 which came to us last year has a very modern CAFS system. We by our own tradition are huge CAFS fans, it has great potential when proportioned and used properly. There are many instances when foam may not be the best choice right out of the gate or at all, but the majority of incidents can be mitigated faster and more efficiently using foam.
An example of both..
Our last barn fire on route 22, big fire, loss of roof early in the incident (2-3 minutes after IC and first-in units arrived), the old adage proved true for that fire: "Big fire, big water." CAFS does not have the same capability to be launched as far as straight water can.
My first structure fire, chimney fire with extension, heavy fire in the attic. A CAFS line to the attic access quickly knocked down all fire that had extended from the chimney in the matter of a minute or two.
Like anything else, CAFS is another tool in your bag. While it has a multitude of applications, it is not always perfect for every situation. The same can be said for water in hazardous materials fires, etc. Everything has its limitations. CAFS just gets a really bad rap in my mind because it is an affront to the very core of the actionable end of the fire service, water!