Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 65
  1. #1
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,847

    Default Class A foam....when to use it?

    My FD got a new rescue engine with a Class A foam system on it. It is piped to our 2-200 foot two inch bumper crosslays, our 2-300 foot above the pump crosslays, and our 2 rear 2 1/2 inch discharges. The foam tank is 30 gallons and the system is a Hale Fpam Logix 3.3.

    Here is the question we are working on: When to use the foam? One camp says every time we go interior on a structure fire we should be using foam. Others say only during overhaul. Others say at the officer's discretion.

    Honestly I see trouble with all of the above. For me the best choice seems to be any time you go interior for a fire attack the foam should be used. Of course officer's discretion may say not this time if it turns out to be a nothing fire. But to me the effectiveness of the foam begins during suppression.

    I think all of us realize that the fully involved structure is a situation where the foam stays turned off. We are mostly hydranted so water is not a major issue for us in most cases.

    Let me know what you think.

    Thanks,

    FyredUp


  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Penn Valley, Ca
    Posts
    571

    Default

    The only reason I can see not to use foam is if it is contaminating something or if the goal is not supression but some other purpose (cooling a propane tank comes to mind). Foam is definitely not just for overhaul, it makes the water more effective.

    Birken

  3. #3
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    1,154

    Default

    Flow foam by default.

    Officer In Charge can determine when it's use may be discontinued.

    For instance, a fully involved structure when any water will be evaporated before it could roll away.

    (Ok, this is odd...my post should be below McCaldwell's...Firehouse's clock system must be messed up...)
    Last edited by Dalmatian190; 07-19-2006 at 06:54 PM.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    75

    Default

    We use foam on everything, especially fully involved structure fires. It's used for it's heat absorbing qualities and it's ability to make water less dense therefore increasing it's surface area and absorbtion.
    Last edited by CpaceEng1; 07-19-2006 at 08:08 PM.

  5. #5
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Virginia Beach Virginia
    Posts
    125

    Default

    In 1995 we had Husky Foam systems placaed on our new rigs Class A & B. Our policy was to use Class A on structural fires at .5%. I will tell you from expierence .5% was a lot of foam, did I notice a differents in knock down vrs using water, not really, did it work well for exposure protection, yes it did. I will also tell you at .5% we were having early ceiling failure with sheet rock ceilings because the foam being a surfactant it absorbed into the sheet rock rather quickly and down it came. It works great in the overhaul stage especially in the attic for your blown in type of insulation.

    We also had problems with our radio mics not working while trying to transmit. We then backed it down to .2% with somewhat better results, but still had some early ceiling failures. The system was great for vehicle fires using Class A for interior knock down, and Class B for fuel related fires. As a result of the problems I just listed we no longer have the Husky foam systems on our new rigs, we are back to the 5 gallon buckets and proportioners. I'm one for having them, I liked the fact that the operator at the turn of a knob, and activating the system on the officers call you had foam.

    As for the use of foam it's a call the officer should make and your department should adopt a policy for all to work with. If you need more info on our policy give me your E-mail and I will give you a number you can call at the station. STAY SAFE
    Last edited by fdsq10; 07-19-2006 at 10:08 PM.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber mcaldwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Panorama, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    3,022

    Default

    .5% is a lot of class A foam for normal interior work (read: expensive). I find our engine make nice wet stuff at .1% or .2%, and we generally use it for any interior op.

    And the obvious note that does sometimes need repeating is not to mix the two if you are running higher percentages. That is just pouring money onto the fire and washing it off again.
    Never argue with an Idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience!

    IACOJ

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    oxford,wi,usa
    Posts
    262

    Default

    How is it going, I need to see that truck,, Have the switch in the on postion, so if it fails it fails on. Let the officer decide if it should not be used, I think you will find out you will like it for just about everything.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    124

    Default

    We use class A on just about all structure fires. We have had good success with the use on round hay bail fires with the class A as well. Our first real experience was a house with heavy fire to the outside walls and porches. We used a 1-3/4" hand line and a 2-1/2" line attached to a blitz-fire monitor. Both lines were flowing foam. Extremely fast knockdown. We have had numerous successes since. When you talk about the expense of the foam, we have to haul much of the water we use for fire suppression. The price of foam compared to fuel makes the foam more attractive to our department.

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber Dickey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    5,111

    Default

    We have one of Darley's first Class A compressed foam systems on our newest engine. We got it 10 years ago right when Darley was getting into the business of selling CAFS.

    We ran tests and this is what we found.

    1. CAFS does not have the knock down power of plain water. The steam conversion isn't like water simply because there is less of it.

    2. It works great with overhaul and exposure protection. Nothing beats it.

    Moral of the story is we use plain water for initial knockdown, then switch to foam.
    Jason Knecht
    Assistant Chief
    Altoona Fire Dept.
    Altoona, WI

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

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    The North East
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Just to clarify: CAFS and using class A foam is completely different. At .2% there is nearly as much water as without so the knockdown power is as efficient.
    Quite interesting, yours may be the first I've heard that didn't see success with CAFS on intial attack.

  11. #11
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,847

    Default

    sklump...

    Give me a call I would love for you to come down and look at our new engine.

    I would value your opinion.

    FyredUp

  12. #12
    Forum Member fireman4949's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Tallahassee, Florida
    Posts
    2,323

    Default

    We use class A foam on most everything we put water on...Vehicles, dumpsters, trash, etc. We use it on structures as well. 0.2% - 0.5% on initial interior attack, and at times as much as 1.0% during overhaul. It does tend to get a little sudsy, but it puts out a lot of fire too.

    Yes, it will cause sheetrock to saturate faster, but sometimes that is not always a bad thing.

    The benefits we see with its use far outweigh the cost of the foam, or using just plain water.




    Kevin
    Fire Lieutenant/E.M.T.
    IAFF Local 2339
    K of C 4th Degree
    "LEATHER FOREVER"
    Member I.A.C.O.J.
    http://www.tfdfire.com/
    "Fir na tine"

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    481

    Default

    Our experience with CAFS has all been positive. It's dry around here (no surface water), and the distances are long (we have over 1,000 sq. miles of initial response), so CAFS is a life/building saver.

    Phoenix FD is ordering CAFS on all their new equipment, why not give them a call and see how they use it?

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber dday05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,330

    Default

    We have a CAFS truck and it works great. We use foam on pretty much everything. Myself and a few of my ff's took a foam class a few months ago and the instructor said his fd sold their tanker do to the reason of being such big foam believers.You never know when things will go wrong so I don't think we'll be selling our tankers any time soon. Thats sorta crazy! BE SAFE

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber voyager9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Southern NJ
    Posts
    2,007

    Default

    regarding the cost argument against foam, can the FD bill the insurance company for the foam used?

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber dday05's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    1,330

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9
    regarding the cost argument against foam, can the FD bill the insurance company for the foam used?
    I would say yes. We use to get alot of oilwell fires and would bill the insurance company for our foam. So I don't see why you cant for using it on a house or what not. BE SAFE

  17. #17
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nf, Canada
    Posts
    117

    Wink

    We use it every time. .5% default on the hale foam pro. If the officer deems it not effective or necessary he can make the call.

    Is the Truck in operation yet?

  18. #18
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    481

    Default

    We just bill $200/hr/truck out of district. Or, they can subscribe for $100/yr.

  19. #19
    Forum Member Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by voyager9
    regarding the cost argument against foam, can the FD bill the insurance company for the foam used?
    YES! Been doing it here for years.
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  20. #20
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,847

    Default

    GPM123....

    More training next week on the pump. Hopefully all equipment mounted this next week and in service by the first of August.

    We did try the rear suction and before we pulled a whirlpool because the suction wasn't in deep enough we were flowing 1190 gpm. We were told by some skeptics we would be lucky to get 700 gpm.

    For the rest of you:

    We did not go CAFS. Honestly saw no need for it. We are in a 95% hydranted area so water is for the most part not a problem. We went with a simple Class A system.

    As for the guy who said they got rid of their tanker because they have CAFs...I am sorry to be so blunt but that is foolish beyond belief. Unless you assume every fire will be put out with that engines tank water. A very dangerous assumption in my opinion.

    I feel we will go for a preset default around .1-.3% for all initial fire attacks.

    FyredUp

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Use of FF'ing Foam in Certain Farm/Ag Scenarios?
    By EJR in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-10-2005, 08:36 PM
  2. Cars fires: do you use class A foam?
    By toddman in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 07-03-2004, 04:56 PM
  3. Class A Foam -- Thumbs up or down?
    By 3Swings in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-13-2004, 04:58 PM
  4. Class A foam & standpipe/sprinkler ops
    By raricciuti in forum The Engineer
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-12-2003, 09:53 PM
  5. vindicator with class A foam
    By cfdLt22 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-23-2002, 12:51 AM

Posting Permissions

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