1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    56

    Default ARFF and Aspirating Nozzles

    We use an Oshkosh T-3000 and a Stryker with 1000 GPM roof nozzles, both TFT non-aspirating automatic versions. Our ARFF instructor recommends an indirect application of foam solution (water+foam) instead of the "rain-down" method. This makes sense to me, as the indirect method both agitates the solution to make a thicker blanket, and also prevents evaporation of the stream as it tries to penetrate a flammable liquid fire.

    However, leading ARFF texts recommend the rain-down method.

    Just looking for some opinions out there, maybe something I had not considered.

  2. #2
    Worldwide Menace
    DFurtman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Wandering the World
    Posts
    541

    Default

    If you're using the indirect method against the wing or fuselage of an aircraft, you're also cooling that area, slowing ignition of vapors or protecting the skin from flame impingement.

    -Damien

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,171

    Default

    If you are using AFFF you don't need aeration for the foam solution to be effective in extinguishment. The polymer blanket doesn't really on a sudsy foam blanket to work. All the sudsy foam blanket does is slow the runoff of the foam solution.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Dickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,111

    Default

    I agree with both my brothers in their reply.

    It is the foam that makes the protective blanket so it really doesn't matter if it has lots of suds or not, in fact no suds or smaller bubbles is slightly better.

    Both will work but the indirect method will also cool the area down better and quicker. If it is a windy day a rain down method might not be as effective either. The rain down method also takes a bit more time to see the same effects as the indirect method too.

    To each his own I guess, depending on the situation. Some of those ARFF manuals haven't been updated in 10 years with the new nozzles, new foam formulas, and new equipment applications either. Keep that in mind.
    Jason Knecht
    Assistant Chief
    Altoona Fire Dept.
    Altoona, WI

    IACOJ - Director of Cheese and Whine
    http://www.cheddarvision.tv/
    EAT CHEESE OR DIE!!

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,433

    Default

    I'm a believer in running the stream along the fuselage and letting the agent run down the sides. Agree with the previous posters here.

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    240

    Default

    from personal experience, the bank down method seems to work way better than the rain down method. c'mon, you don't honestly follow everything from the books as the "best way" do you?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Arff
    By berlinfire in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-16-2006, 10:31 PM
  2. Solid Stream Smootbore Nozzles vs. Fog Nozzles
    By SeavilleFire in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 12-13-2006, 11:49 AM
  3. Selectable Gallonage Nozzles or Automatic Nozzles?
    By westexmex5429 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-07-2006, 10:24 AM
  4. Air Aspirating Foam Nozzles
    By HFRH28 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-04-2005, 11:05 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register