OUR DEPT IS NOW THINKING OF USING A PRECONNECTED LINE FOR FOAM ON CAR FIRES. JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF ANY OTHER DEPTS ARE DOING THE SAME,AND FOR WHAT REASON, OR WHAT YOU THINK WORKS BETTER WATER OR FOAM.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15
Thread: Car fires water or foam
05-08-2000, 04:47 PM #1AFD23Firehouse.com Guest
Car fires water or foam
05-09-2000, 05:40 PM #2rocky367Firehouse.com Guest
Not that I'm an expert at this but working car fires at the race track I work for, and having seen water and foam used on the same fire, I will say that foam in my opinion is the way to go.
05-12-2000, 04:39 PM #3dtjFirehouse.com Guest
Class B foam is definitely the way to go when the gas tank is involved/impinged. It's a waste of foam and money if you don't need it for extinguishment or personnel protection. AFFF is also good for creating a vapor barrier to prevent ignition if there is a fuel spill. Otherwise, water works good.
[This message has been edited by dtj (edited May 12, 2000).]
05-12-2000, 06:23 PM #4e33Firehouse.com Guest
Can you use Class A foam...I have heard it works well on auto fires. Figuring most car fires involve plastic, cloth and other combustibles class A sounds A-OK to me. Ive even heard of class A being used to combat fuel tanker fires and having great success. Any thoughts?
The opinions and views expressed herin are solely mine and not on the behalf of any department or organization I belong to.
All of the information in my postings is a combination of skills and knowledge from classes, conferences, seminars, practical application, books and articles, my experience and trial and error. I don't profess to be an expert in anything. You can never stop learning.
05-12-2000, 08:57 PM #5mtnfireguyFirehouse.com Guest
Yes, you can use Class A foam. It works well for the initial knockdown especially when the interior is involved. It does not give you the vapor suppression that AFFF does, but if you do not have fuel spilled its not an issue. It also takes less of it.
As for attacking a tanker fire with it... I'm sure I'd do that
05-15-2000, 02:38 PM #6FD111Firehouse.com Guest
We use Class A Foam on all car fires. The foam makes for a quicker knock down of the fire, and it also makes for less overhaul of the vehicle once you've knocked it down. Class A foam is definitely the way to go on just about any fire, except of course the obvious.
05-16-2000, 10:25 AM #7chiefjay4Firehouse.com Guest
I think class A works better on car fires than on structure fires! Mainly because of those hard to reach places
05-16-2000, 12:19 PM #8Bob SnyderFirehouse.com Guest
Except, of course, for those rare occasions that call for Class B foam (fuel spill fires, etc.), we've found that plain old water properly applied through a navy nozzle works fabulously. No mess, no fuss, no extra cost of foam.
05-16-2000, 06:48 PM #9Aerial 131Firehouse.com Guest
We use preconnect 1.75 attack lines w/ 3% Class B foam (70 gallon tank) and a flow minder which you can set what % you want. We leave Flow minder at the 3% level to have a consistant point of start for the PO.
05-17-2000, 06:10 PM #10Mike DeVuonoFirehouse.com Guest
You all must be made of money to be wasting foam on car fires. I mean really, the things gone right??
Anyway, I was wondering how you guys that do use foam go about popping the hood if the engine compartment is on fire. Everything I've ever seen, breaking the seal in the foam could lead to potential flare up. Jus twondering how you all do it.
Warminster Fire Dept.
Engine Co. 91
"There are few atheists inside a burning building."
05-17-2000, 11:40 PM #11DDFirehouse.com Guest
Water costs us nothing. The Engine has a 2000 gallon tanker following it. If the booster tank & tanker can't handle it with water, then it can burn out.
05-18-2000, 04:39 PM #12AFD23Firehouse.com Guest
WOW! A LOT OF PROS AND CONS ABOUT THIS SUJECT I MYSELF WOULD LIKE TO USE FOAM, SIMPLY DUE TO THE FACT THAT MY DEPT. COVERS ALMOST 22 MILES OF THE TURNPIKE AND 11 MILES OF STATE ROUTES,THE ON ENGINE WE USE FOR CAR FIRES HAS 750 GALLONS OF WATER THE ONLY PROBLEM WE HAVE IS THE INFORMATION WE RECIEVE FOR, FIRES IN NEVER ENOUGH TO LET US KNOW WHAT IS BURNING(CAR,SEMI,BUS,TRAILER) AND 750 GALLONS OF WATER ONLY WOULD NOT GIVE US ENOUGH TO PUT OUT THE FIRE, BUT FOR NOW THE CHOICE IS OURS, THE AFFF FOAM IS SET TO FLOW ITS LEFT UP TO THE OIC.
05-18-2000, 08:40 PM #13Dalmatian90Firehouse.com Guest
Yes, we use Class A foam for faster extingushment.
Foam's not being used to seal flammable liquids, so popping the hood or working in it is not an issue.
It is being used to trap fire gases, reduce the off-gassing of heated materials, and soak into any class A combustibles.
Wasting money? I don't know. At 0.1% use and $50 per 5 gallon pail, well that's about a nickel for each gallon of water used. Say it cuts down extingushment from 750 to 250 gallons -- that frees us up sooner, takes less time to refill the truck (can do it off the domestic system instead of hitting a hydrant), and costs us oh, 12 or 13 dollars? Yeah, we're volunteers, but it if it saves 5 or 10 minutes getting 10 or 15 guys who responded back home or to work is $12 that much?
05-20-2000, 12:03 AM #14dtjFirehouse.com Guest
Hey! Who remembers good ole' protein foam? Ever use it in your garden? Not only did it work on Class B fires, but it made an excellent fertilizer. It was cheap, too.
[This message has been edited by dtj (edited May 20, 2000).]
05-21-2000, 04:34 PM #15BurlFirehouse.com Guest
Does wonders for your lawn DT, its the smell that sucks. As for 750 gallons on a car fire. If you use 750 gallons of water to put out a car you need to look for a new line of work.
[This message has been edited by Burl (edited May 21, 2000).]
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)