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

[nameless]

I'm still skeptical because I've yet to hear of more than a few deployments in real world conditions. Its usually a training burn with a pile of hay and pallets with maybe the door or some hay going. Also, what of their performance in newer style homes with open floor plans and high ceilings? You're typical old houses are very compartmentalized. These new houses aren't.

[FyredUp]

I'm still skeptical because I've yet to hear of more than a few deployments in real world conditions. Its usually a training burn with a pile of hay and pallets with maybe the door or some hay going. Also, what of their performance in newer style homes with open floor plans and high ceilings? You're typical old houses are very compartmentalized. These new houses aren't.

I spoke to a firefighter at the school who had used one of these at a fully involved basement fire. He said they tossed it in, let it do its thing, and then they entered and used about 50 gallons of water to overhaul with.

The advertisement they had out says this device will work in 3500 cubic feet of area. That is a pretty darn large area.

Like I have said, I have no iron in this fire other than to say "Hey! I have seen this thing work and maybe people should give it a serious look instead of just off handedly saying NO WAY!" I was impressed but want to see more. Other's mileage may vary.

[DeputyChiefGonzo]

Posted by FyredUp

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.

Sweet!

Do you belong to a Mustang club? I am a amember of the Mustang Club of New England, member #380 and the Silver Mustang Registry, member # 870.

[FyredUp]

Posted by FyredUp



Sweet!

Do you belong to a Mustang club? I am a amember of the Mustanf Clunb of New England, member #380 and the Silver Mustang Registry, member # 870.

No, I am not a member of a club. When I was younger I owned a 67 coupe, a friend of mine owned a 68 coupe, another owned a 65 coupe and another owned a 70 Boss 302.

Now the three survivors own a 68 390 coupe, the Boss 302, and me with the 65 rag top waiting restoration.

At least of the 3, Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang the Mustang still has the classic lines, the Challenger is close to their roots, and in my eyes the new camaro is one of the ugliest cars ever built. In fact I would put it right up there with the AMC Pacer.

[neiowa]

I'm still skeptical because I've yet to hear of more than a few deployments in real world conditions. Its usually a training burn with a pile of hay and pallets with maybe the door or some hay going. Also, what of their performance in newer style homes with open floor plans and high ceilings? You're typical old houses are very compartmentalized. These new houses aren't.

http://www.arasafety.com/ara-interac...nt-stories.htm

I bet I can find a phone # for any of the FD listed within 60seconds on goggle. There's you homework. Call some and give us a report.

I got a email in last few day from one of our suppliers that said closeout on old units (with a Pelican case) for sale price as new units with triggering system now out.

Not in our budget as too many other high priority projects (such as narrowband radios) that need $ but maybe some day. Or if found a restricted grant that would work for one I'd do that.

[RFDACM02]

Having given some more thought to this thread and some other reports of the FIT5, I have a concern with the number of "duds' they've put out there. It seems in many cases the first FIT5 has failed to arm. While at first glance this may appear to not be a big deal, short of the $995 investment, which we can assume they'll replace, it could very well be a major issue. First, more likely than not, the chief's buggy will have only one of these devices, due to cost. Second, we must assume most deployments will be via an outside window, rather than through an interior door. So the question is, how does one control the broken window once you toss this red metal anchor in? The opening is now allowing the fire to self-vent, adding oxygen and potentially speeding fire growth, when the deployment fails. This of course would be a concern even with a successfully deployment if your timing wasn't considered and the re-ignition and growth occurs before an engine arrives or can get a line stretched.

On the other side, I'm still not convinced the victim in the deployment area is a valid concern? Viability is the issue here. If the fire indicated deployment of the device, is it not likely that victims are not viable? We're not thinking of tossing these on wastepaper basket fires are we? We're talking about deploying them into the fire room/area, not just into a smoky door or window. Heavy fire, black fire, heavy smoke under pressure, high heat? Not wispy lazy light smoke. I'd hope the people carrying these devices had a little knowledge about fire behavior and could reasonably evaluate the factors to determine if deployment is necessary or not. We'd be concerned steaming viable victims in the same area, we're talking about deploying these.

[nameless]

http://www.arasafety.com/ara-interac...nt-stories.htm

I bet I can find a phone # for any of the FD listed within 60seconds on goggle. There's you homework. Call some and give us a report.

I got a email in last few day from one of our suppliers that said closeout on old units (with a Pelican case) for sale price as new units with triggering system now out.

Not in our budget as too many other high priority projects (such as narrowband radios) that need $ but maybe some day. Or if found a restricted grant that would work for one I'd do that.

Ok you said you can find the phone numbers, do it and report back with your findings.

[Chenzo]

Having given some more thought to this thread and some other reports of the FIT5, I have a concern with the number of "duds' they've put out there. It seems in many cases the first FIT5 has failed to arm. While at first glance this may appear to not be a big deal, short of the $995 investment, which we can assume they'll replace, it could very well be a major issue. First, more likely than not, the chief's buggy will have only one of these devices, due to cost. Second, we must assume most deployments will be via an outside window, rather than through an interior door. So the question is, how does one control the broken window once you toss this red metal anchor in? The opening is now allowing the fire to self-vent, adding oxygen and potentially speeding fire growth, when the deployment fails. This of course would be a concern even with a successfully deployment if your timing wasn't considered and the re-ignition and growth occurs before an engine arrives or can get a line stretched.

The dud issue has supposedly been resolved on the newer models with a different style of firing pin, more similar to a grenade/handgun. You pull the pin, and a firing pin strikes. I was told the old style is comparable to having a match head on the end of a string, and running it through "sandpaper". You can see why there would be issues.

I also see what you're saying about controlling the window, self-venting, and allowing the fire to potentially grow. Again, like a majority of things, it's risk vs. benefit, in my opinion. Do you throw it, and hope it works? Or just stand by and watch the place burn to the ground before an engine company arrives?

On the other side, I'm still not convinced the victim in the deployment area is a valid concern? Viability is the issue here. If the fire indicated deployment of the device, is it not likely that victims are not viable?

That was one of my concerns as well. At first, with the warning about not throwing it in a fire where there are viable victims, I thought that it would be pointless. But then talking to the salesman, and watching at which point in the fires growth that he tossed it in, that viable victims aren't really a concern at that stage of the fire.


We're not thinking of tossing these on wastepaper basket fires are we? We're talking about deploying them into the fire room/area, not just into a smoky door or window. Heavy fire, black fire, heavy smoke under pressure, high heat? Not wispy lazy light smoke.

IMO, correct. This would not be a thing to deploy on a wastebasket fire, or when all you see is a smoky doorway, or wispy lazy smoke. It would be a thing to deploy when the room was fully/almost full involved, to delay the spread of the fire to another room in the house. But, that being said, how do you know it hasn't already spread? I guess you don't, but it would be a judgment call of the arriving officer on when to throw it. If he rolls up, and the whole house is on fire, there's no way it should be thrown. If he shows up and you've got fire and smoke blowing out of more than one window, do you throw it? Do you throw two of them? Or do you wait for the engine company to arrive?

I'd hope the people carrying these devices had a little knowledge about fire behavior and could reasonably evaluate the factors to determine if deployment is necessary or not. We'd be concerned steaming viable victims in the same area, we're talking about deploying these.

Agree, 100%

I definitely want to see it in use again, set up in a couple different scenarios.
1. Actual furniture. (dresser, bed, couch, entertainment center etc, something other than hay and pallets.)
2. In a room with bigger area, just to see how much space this thing is actually effective in
3. I want to put it up against a 20 pound dry chem, in similarly set up rooms. Toss this thing in, see how effective it is. Empty a 20 pound dry chem in the window, see how effective that is.

[Jasper 45]

FyredUp, Chenzo, if the opportunity arises for you to be able to test this device again, let me know. I would love to make the short drive to see it first hand.
I think part of what makes some resistive is the original "advocates" for the device.
I think it would be interesting to see, especially with the scenario that Chenzo was looking at.

Keep it safe out there.

[Chenzo]

FyredUp, Chenzo, if the opportunity arises for you to be able to test this device again, let me know. I would love to make the short drive to see it first hand.
I think part of what makes some resistive is the original "advocates" for the device.
I think it would be interesting to see, especially with the scenario that Chenzo was looking at.

Keep it safe out there.

I agree with your thought on the original advocates for the device. And I will definitely let you know if we get an oppurtunity to test it out again.

[FyredUp]

Well, Chenzo stole most of my thunder here but let me add a few things.

Having given some more thought to this thread and some other reports of the FIT5, I have a concern with the number of "duds' they've put out there. It seems in many cases the first FIT5 has failed to arm. While at first glance this may appear to not be a big deal, short of the $995 investment, which we can assume they'll replace, it could very well be a major issue. First, more likely than not, the chief's buggy will have only one of these devices, due to cost. Supposedly fixed with an entirely new triggering device. I would like to see a new one in the next demo, not old stock. Second, we must assume most deployments will be via an outside window, rather than through an interior door. So the question is, how does one control the broken window once you toss this red metal anchor in? The opening is now allowing the fire to self-vent, adding oxygen and potentially speeding fire growth, when the deployment fails. This of course would be a concern even with a successfully deployment if your timing wasn't considered and the re-ignition and growth occurs before an engine arrives or can get a line stretched. I think if you limited the size of the opening by breaking out only the upper or lower portion of the window that it would still effectively knock down the fire. Remember in the demo we did the bedroom door was missing so there was a 30 by 80 opening and the fire was still knocked down.



On the other side, I'm still not convinced the victim in the deployment area is a valid concern? Viability is the issue here. If the fire indicated deployment of the device, is it not likely that victims are not viable? I agree. If the room is fully involved, or post flashover, the odds of a viable victim are zero anyways. At least in the fire room. Using the device may buy enough time to effect rescue of others still in the home. We're not thinking of tossing these on wastepaper basket fires are we? We're talking about deploying them into the fire room/area, not just into a smoky door or window. Heavy fire, black fire, heavy smoke under pressure, high heat? Not wispy lazy light smoke. I'd hope the people carrying these devices had a little knowledge about fire behavior and could reasonably evaluate the factors to determine if deployment is necessary or not. We'd be concerned steaming viable victims in the same area, we're talking about deploying these. My thought process says that this would be deployed ONLY on actual fire and not a wastebasket fire.

Again, I don't see it replacing a hoseline if one is available. Well, perhaps initially in a basement fire if it works as well as I have been told by a fire fightrer whose FD deployed one on a basement fire.

It is just another tool, if you want to try it and see if it is for you then you will. If your mind is completely closed to any possibility of this device, then you won't.

Stay safe either way.

[FyredUp]

FyredUp, Chenzo, if the opportunity arises for you to be able to test this device again, let me know. I would love to make the short drive to see it first hand.
I think part of what makes some resistive is the original "advocates" for the device.
I think it would be interesting to see, especially with the scenario that Chenzo was looking at.

Keep it safe out there.

Hey Brother! I would love to have you out here in the sticks if we get a chance to demo one of these. Culture shock baby!!

[RFDACM02]

My only thought on breaking out a small section of window is that while it makes absolute sense, it's likely not that simple. Windows in conditions we're likely to deploy a device probably will have already been superheated to near failure, so what we could normally keep small may not work out for us. In the end the real issue was the rate of failure to arm, which it sounds like has been changed to a much more reliable system.

As I noted from the beginning, while I'm skeptical, it appears that the idea is with some merit and many of the supposed issues are cases of people trying to find reasons not to use the device by elevating concerns that actually are either true for any extinguishing agent/system or not really as big a deal as they're purported. The biggest concern to me is overselling the potential of the product and using it as a stop gap to staffing problems or in place of proper tactics.

I think that having skeptical firefighters try these and make their own conclusions helps validate some of the concerns as well as alleviate some. Thanks for sharing, we can be confident that your views are unbiased.