Thread: "Pumper with CAFS"
12-18-2009, 01:12 PM #1
"Pumper with CAFS"
Has anyone been successful this year or last applying under the category of "CAFS Pumper" or "Pumper with CAFS?"
I understand DHS takes the position that CAFS is not worthwhile, and I have been working for two years to replace a 1964 Engine for a never awarded department. There seems to be no reason to me that it doesn't hit.
Both times, I have applied under those categories and I am curious if that's been the fatal error.
12-18-2009, 01:31 PM #2
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Long time no Sea
I never knew that. That doesn't seem possible. You gotta be freakin' kidding me! I thought the CAFS was the stuff.
12-18-2009, 01:41 PM #3
A neighboring dept scored for one a few years ago. 06 I believe. They used the argument of no municipal water system and very few dry hydrant water sources causing them to get behind the curve on scene at structure fires until mutual aid tankers arrived and got a steady water shuttle established.
That first 15 minutes into the attack when you use up the water you brought with you and have to pull attack crews out while waiting for more water.
a matter of FF safety and ability to go aggressively in interior attack versus standing outside and watching things burn with no water. CAFS doubles or triple your ability when used properly with a limited amount of first in water. All engines in this area carry 1000 gallons.
12-18-2009, 01:56 PM #4
I'm not here to argue CAFS vs. no CAFS and I know that in the past they've been awarded. I'm curious if these drop down selections are what's causing my problem. Would selecting "Pumper" done me any better? (It seems silly, but you never know what the computer gods programmed!)
12-18-2009, 02:24 PM #5
12-18-2009, 02:35 PM #6
Thanks...I'm not even sure if 2006 would compare to a 2008 or 2009 application. So much has changed since then, but I'm just baffled as to the issue with this application. (Just trying to blame someone other than myself )
12-18-2009, 03:11 PM #7
I decided to take a break from banging my head against the desk, as I wait for an 1199, surely I could not have screwed up 3 applications....
I checked two applications for CAFS pumpers, both funded, and both used the drop down with CAFS Pumper selected.
12-18-2009, 03:12 PM #8
12-18-2009, 03:17 PM #9
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Upstate (Albany area), NY
Always debated in Peer Review, both around the table, and at the bar.... Those not in-the-know, or actually those that THINK they know-it-all, consider a CAFS engine a "Foam Truck, which is a Priority 3. Those firefighters at peer who actually still take the time to study and understand new technology consider it to be an engine, only an engine with 21st century technology instead of one with only 20th century technology....
But then again, I've been known to be a little biased towards CAFS...."If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
George S. Patton
12-18-2009, 03:20 PM #10
Well hopefully those smart peer reviewers caught on. I clarified quite well in the narrative the reasoning (need foam for the one of the Nation's largest military helicopter manufacturing facilities in the first due, and lack of hydrants in 80% of the territory), but I was more worried about computer scoring. Got to final denial last year. Was hoping it would pop early this year. (Early meaning TUESDAY!)
LV -- Thanks. Glimmer of hope.
12-19-2009, 04:25 PM #11
- Join Date
- Dec 2004
- Johnstown , Pa
We got our CAFS pumper in 2006. Don't know if they changed anything.
12-19-2009, 06:58 PM #12
We were awarded in 2007 for at CAFS pumper to the tune of 265K. I remember the "CAFS Pumper" option and went that route. Have an app in for another this year, fingers are crossed.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)