Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 52
  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    498

    Default Why big tankers??

    Whats with these departments buying 3-4,000gal tankers? Wouldent it be better to just have a pumper with CAFS? 1000gal and CAFS can put out A LOT of fire. Anyone think that thoes big tankers are going to be obslete.


  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Bryn Athyn, Pa.
    Posts
    1,616

    Default

    Could be, but not in my lifetime. Maybe not yours, either.

    Stay safe out there, everyone goes home!

  3. #3
    Forum Member Res343cue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Your 1st due.
    Posts
    1,651

    Default

    It might just be me, but I wouldn't want to put all my eggs in a basket relying 100% on CAF. What happens if it breaks, or a CAFS unit isn't available? Big tankers and "big water" are important to the rural guys, including my department.

    I also remember a quote from one of the big CAFS innovators.. Something along the line "CAF is only effective when combined with the same amount of water you would flow for big fire". Essentially, don't rely on the added performance of CAF and cut back GPM... Keep your GPM at the normal level and add the CAF. You'll still reep the benefits of having a CAF line, the fire will go out quicker, requiring less water...even though you're applying water faster... In theory this works... But we all know what puts out fires.
    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleMan
    Why? Because we are firemen. We are decent human beings. We would be compelled by the overwhelming impulse to save an innocent child from a tragic, painful death because in the end, we are MEN.

    I A C O J
    FTM-PTB


    Honorary Disclaimer: While I am a manufacturer representative, I am not here to sell my product. Any advice or knowledge shared is for informational purposes only. I do not use Firehouse.Com for promotional purposes.

  4. #4
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    492

    Default hydrants

    where I live, there are no hydrants and very few drafting sources. The town has told the department since 1985 that we will not have hydrants. None of our departments (exlcuding brush and ladder) have less than 1000 gallons of a water. If theres a house fire, we need alot of water. running a 1500 gallon tanker shuttle isnt effective. a 4000 gallon one, especially with 1500gpm can make big strides in a shuttle. 4000 gallons does a lot. It can also go straight to the scene and knock down the fire, before giving way to engines and begin its shuttle. we will be getting cafs, but we still need water.

  5. #5
    Forum Member Chauffeur6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Metro NY
    Posts
    613

    Default

    Like 343 said, relying solely on CAFS is foolish. Also, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy a big tanker than it is buying a truck with a CAFS system on it. A tanker also has fewer parts to maintain, which reduces cost. Foam isn't cheap either, but water is free. Some depts are lucky they can afford the FUEL for these trucks.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber lenny91's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Laurel, NE
    Posts
    86

    Default

    At a large grass fire we park the tankers and the grass trucks come fill out of them. When it is 15-20 miles back to a hydrant it seems to work better. As far as structure fires, the 5000 gal we carry with us is enough to destroy about any house we were trying to save.
    Jeremy Quist
    Chief
    LVFD
    Laurel, NE

    Not the end of the earth, but you can see clods falling off from here.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Berwyn Heights, MD, USA
    Posts
    124

    Default

    Seems to me that the answer would be a combination of CAFS, Tankers, and Hose Wagons.

    Or just CAFS Engine-Tankers and LONG LDH Hose Wagons with BIG pumps.

    Hell, while I disagree with almost everything A. Brunacini has to say about the fire service, I think CAFS should be standard on every new wagon. If a sprinklered fire is only $1500 cheaper than an unsprinklered fire, changing to CAFS would probably reduce the water damage to the point that that argument would be moot. Then, instead of paying $300 a year for a sprinkler system and $300 a year for a fire department, a family could just pay $300 a year for a fire department.

  8. #8
    Forum Member Res343cue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Your 1st due.
    Posts
    1,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBrooks
    If a sprinklered fire is only $1500 cheaper than an unsprinklered fire, changing to CAFS would probably reduce the water damage to the point that that argument would be moot. Then, instead of paying $300 a year for a sprinkler system and $300 a year for a fire department, a family could just pay $300 a year for a fire department.
    Woah... I don't like the sounds of that. A properly installed, maintained, and monitored sprinkler system can confine and hold a fire in the early stages until the Fire Department arrives 99% of the time. Not to mention, how many fires are extinguished and we just do overhaul once we cap the head or heads? In that 1%, CAF isn't going to make a world of difference, unless you're going to be coating an exposure. A sprinkler system could prevent the fire from getting out of the room of origin (or even extinguish it) before we arrive, why would we want to tell the community that "We have CAFS now on our Pumps and Wagons, you don't need sprinklers in ANY building". If it can apply to residences, then the commercial occupancies are going to fight for it too.

    Just my .02.....
    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleMan
    Why? Because we are firemen. We are decent human beings. We would be compelled by the overwhelming impulse to save an innocent child from a tragic, painful death because in the end, we are MEN.

    I A C O J
    FTM-PTB


    Honorary Disclaimer: While I am a manufacturer representative, I am not here to sell my product. Any advice or knowledge shared is for informational purposes only. I do not use Firehouse.Com for promotional purposes.

  9. #9
    Forum Member Chauffeur6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Metro NY
    Posts
    613

    Default

    Agreed. There is absolutely no way sprinklers would ever be made any less effective by any equipment a fire dept has. Unless you can somehow miraculously guarantee for every property you cover to discover the fire at the very exact moment it starts, get the call a second or two later, be on scene 10 seconds after that and have the fire extinguished 10 seconds after that for a grand total of maybe 30 seconds or so. Then again, if that were the case we wouldn't even need TRUCKS, much less CAFS. A guy with a can could put it out.

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Berwyn Heights, MD, USA
    Posts
    124

    Default

    These stats are from my code buddy:
    The average kitchen fire in a sprinklered house does ~$3500 worth of damage.
    The average kitchen fire in a non-sprinklered house does ~$5000 worth of damage, mostly due to smoke & water damage.
    CAFS puts out fire with a small fraction of the water of a standard hose line. Aggressive property conservation, including the use of CAFS, could reduce the average kitchen fire in a non-sprinklered house to $3500.

    CAFS on engines does not reduce the effectiveness of sprinkler systems, rather in reduces the *relative* effectiveness of sprinkler systems vs. non-sprinklered buildings.

    Sprinklering a house costs ~$6000, converting that to annual costs, and adding maintenance costs, results in about $300 / yr in additional costs. The average household is 2.5 people, so a residential sprinkler law costs the population about $120 a year. Most fire departments cost about $120/person/year, and this includes EMS, HazMat, outside fires, Technical Rescue, and Prevention. They're just not a good deal economically. The choice to use them should be up to the builder / buyer / renter of the house.

    $120 a person per year is a lot of money. The Risk / Benefit of using it for sprinklerinng a house should be made by the person most affected by it.

  11. #11
    Forum Member Chauffeur6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Metro NY
    Posts
    613

    Default

    That's all fine and well, but I don't fight fires in a book of stats, I fight them in the real world.

    I understand your point if you go ONLY by the stats you quote, but I just can't. Everything I know and have seen tells me that sprinklers are a hell of a lot more effective than that book or those numbers lead you to believe. What it doesn't show is how a sprinkler system can just about stop a fire dead in its tracks that breaks out at 2am while your whole family is sleeping and the volunteer fire dept 5 miles away has a minimum 10 minute response time on a good night. Does your book of stats also put a price or cost savings on your family's safety?

  12. #12
    Forum Member Res343cue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Your 1st due.
    Posts
    1,651

    Default

    SB,

    What about the decrease in insurance premiums? I know that locally atleast, if a new house is put up with sprinklers in it the people get a pretty nice insurance break. One family I know of got a 25% break for the duration of their policy!

    CAFS puts out fire with a small fraction of the water of a standard hose line. Aggressive property conservation, including the use of CAFS, could reduce the average kitchen fire in a non-sprinklered house to $3500.
    It COULD reduce the cost. But is that looking at JUST the kitchen? Fire multiplies exponentially as time continues, what's to say without early intervention (IE Sprinklers) the fire is going to stay in just the kitchen? When you take into consideration the gap in time between the fire starting, and 911 being called, the 2-3 minutes it takes (MINIMUM!) to get through 911, the time for tones and station alerting, and the time for the guys to be up and on the trucks, then to your door, you could easily have 8-10 minute gap. ALOT of fire can build in that time....

    CAFS on engines does not reduce the effectiveness of sprinkler systems, rather in reduces the *relative* effectiveness of sprinkler systems vs. non-sprinklered buildings.
    In your previous post though, you say having CAFS will essentially make having sprinklers unneeded. How can that be? The CAFS Engine will still take time to arrive. The fire is still growing, and without any intervention!

    Sprinklering a house costs ~$6000, converting that to annual costs, and adding maintenance costs, results in about $300 / yr in additional costs. The average household is 2.5 people, so a residential sprinkler law costs the population about $120 a year. Most fire departments cost about $120/person/year, and this includes EMS, HazMat, outside fires, Technical Rescue, and Prevention. They're just not a good deal economically. The choice to use them should be up to the builder / buyer / renter of the house.
    And with that 300$ per year, you're going to have near instant fire protection as soon as the sprinklers kick in. If that wasn't the case, why is all new construction in PG County sprinklered? HWoods, where are ya?
    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleMan
    Why? Because we are firemen. We are decent human beings. We would be compelled by the overwhelming impulse to save an innocent child from a tragic, painful death because in the end, we are MEN.

    I A C O J
    FTM-PTB


    Honorary Disclaimer: While I am a manufacturer representative, I am not here to sell my product. Any advice or knowledge shared is for informational purposes only. I do not use Firehouse.Com for promotional purposes.

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Berwyn Heights, MD, USA
    Posts
    124

    Default

    I'd never talk someone out of putting sprinklers in their own home, I just don't think it's the government's place to tell me what to do with my own money, when my decision affects me and my family.

    Chauffer - I'm glad you don't fight fires in a book of stats. You must be one hell of a fireman.

    The statistics I have, as far as I know, refer to national averages. If you have a delayed response due to your location or local fire department inadequacies, I'm sure the equation comes down more in favor of the sprinkler system. In fact, for piece of mind, I would beleive that MOST homeowners, builders, etc. would choose to sprinkler their house regardless of legislation. THat should be their choice, and their choice would be even easier to make if the insurance company gave them a 25% break in their insurance.

    As a firefighter, I'd rather fight a fire in a well built ordinary construction dwellng than in a well built lightweight but sprinklered constructed dwelling.

    I recognize that this is more of a political debate than a firefighting debate, and you're free to come down on whichever side you wish. I tend to believe that governments that govern least, govern best.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    5

    Thumbs up Thank GOD for BIG WATER!~

    I must agree with 343. We are very rural... with CAFS... and that is used quiet frequently per SOP for structures, but the BIG WATER seems to be FREE! And that is something we can't do without. We have a 3500 gal. tanker, not to mention a frontline pumper and 2nd due that both carry 2500 each. We would never make it 15-20 miles back to "civilization" if you will, for a hydrant hook rolling up with just tank water and CAFS. There is always plan B before plan A begins.
    Just my opinion!~ Stay Safe and Take Care!

  15. #15
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    498

    Default

    For thoes of you that use CAFS, how often do you run out of tank water? and need to set up a port-a-tank and shuttle in water?

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,812

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBrooks
    The Risk / Benefit of using it for sprinklerinng a house should be made by the person most affected by it.
    The problem with this is that the same can be said of any codes. So why bother with smoke detectors if you don't want them? The list goes on endlessly: seatbelts? Motorcycle helmets?
    Children do not have the ability to choose where their parents live. How about if I let my daughter spend the night? Is there a reasonable expectation that she will be safe from fire, at least minimally? Nevermind future owners, like those who bought up apartment buildings 10 years ago and now are having to retrofit them with sprinklers or install second sets of stairs.
    Quote Originally Posted by SBrooks
    In fact, for piece of mind, I would beleive that MOST homeowners, builders, etc. would choose to sprinkler their house regardless of legislation.
    Sadly I disagree, given the number of residential sprinklers out there in the areas where their not required. In our state the architects are against sprinklers because it will increase the cost of a home 1% cuasing a hardship. They claim their clients would rather have marble counter tops than sprinklers which they never intend to use.

    The statisitics are in: sprinklers work better than anything else. Combined with smoke detections the reduction in fire deaths is like 90% or greater!

    CAFS might take a little sting out of the sprinkler gpm vs. fire attack gpm when it comes to water damage, but its still apples and oranges at the end of the incident.

    I do have to agree with your statement about less government, but hypocritically this is not an area I see people making the right choices on their own.
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 09-21-2006 at 05:13 PM.

  17. #17
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,897

    Default

    CAFs is another tool is the tool box. Some love it, some hate it, some are indifferent to it. It is not however the end all, be all, do all answer to every situation.

    We just received a new rescue engine and no we did not get CAFs. We got a Class A foam system. Why? Because in order to pay for the CAFs system we would have had to give up too many other things that were deemed by us as requirements for this new engine. For many the idea of CAFs while good in theory is simply out of reach due to cost.

    Tankers are here to stay. Read Firehouse and look at the tire fire in Wisconsin....Tankers were the water supply for that and lots of them.

    FyredUp

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SBrooks
    CAFS puts out fire with a small fraction of the water of a standard hose line. Aggressive property conservation, including the use of CAFS, could reduce the average kitchen fire in a non-sprinklered house to $3500.

    CAFS on engines does not reduce the effectiveness of sprinkler systems, rather in reduces the *relative* effectiveness of sprinkler systems vs. non-sprinklered buildings.

    Sprinklering a house costs ~$6000, converting that to annual costs, and adding maintenance costs, results in about $300 / yr in additional costs. The average household is 2.5 people, so a residential sprinkler law costs the population about $120 a year. Most fire departments cost about $120/person/year, and this includes EMS, HazMat, outside fires, Technical Rescue, and Prevention. They're just not a good deal economically. The choice to use them should be up to the builder / buyer / renter of the house.

    $120 a person per year is a lot of money. The Risk / Benefit of using it for sprinklerinng a house should be made by the person most affected by it.
    I don't even know where to begin with this. You're claiming that a switch to CAFS equipped engines is comparable to having a virtually instant suppression device located where the fire will occur, which will alarm shortly after water flows unless a smoke or heat detector has already activated, calling in the calvary and pumping a whopping 15 gallons per minute out of what will likely be a single activated residential head.

    So even if the department arrived 15 minutes after the initial call, that 225 gallons of water in my living room will cost a lot less to clean up than all the heat and smoke damage of that unchecked fire, let alone the water unleashed by the attack line brought in by the fire department.

    I'm not saying CAFS isn't a valid concept that we should be looking to for our next fire apparatus, but to imply that it would be on par with a sprinkler system for preserving property and eliminating water damage (not to mention saving lives) is absurd.

    I'm not flaming you, just stating an opinion.

    We can't get folks to put battery powered smoke detectors up, do you really think they'd chose to put in a residential sprinkler system? Personally, with the sh*t way homes are built now, I'm all for residential systems, mandated or not. I'm proud of the jurisdictions with the cajones to push the codes through requiring mandatory sprinkler systems.
    Last edited by npfd801; 09-21-2006 at 05:40 PM.

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Hell, while I disagree with almost everything A. Brunacini has to say about the fire service, I think CAFS should be standard on every new wagon. If a sprinklered fire is only $1500 cheaper than an unsprinklered fire, changing to CAFS would probably reduce the water damage to the point that that argument would be moot. Then, instead of paying $300 a year for a sprinkler system and $300 a year for a fire department, a family could just pay $300 a year for a fire department.[/QUOTE]

    I think he fell down and hit his head.

    Don

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Berwyn Heights, MD, USA
    Posts
    124

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by don120
    Hell, while I disagree with almost everything A. Brunacini has to say about the fire service, I think CAFS should be standard on every new wagon. If a sprinklered fire is only $1500 cheaper than an unsprinklered fire, changing to CAFS would probably reduce the water damage to the point that that argument would be moot. Then, instead of paying $300 a year for a sprinkler system and $300 a year for a fire department, a family could just pay $300 a year for a fire department.
    I think he fell down and hit his head.

    Don[/QUOTE]

    No, my head is fine. I'm not saying any sort of fire department operation will outperform a sprinkler system. I'm saying that, not only is a sprinkler ordinance an infringement on personal property rights, it also doesn't make financial sense in an area protected by a fire department. This is why you rarely see an insurance reduction for having a residential sprinkler system, at least around here.

    Mandating sprinklers is another way of spending Other People's Money, as well as an example of 'Nanny State' Government. If it's such a good idea, people would do it anyway.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Pelican BIG ED Flashlight????
    By NUMBY in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07-17-2007, 09:15 PM
  2. 2 BIG RIG RESCUE Courses offered
    By BigRig in forum Vermont
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2006, 08:30 AM
  3. Cuttin the Big Rigs
    By BIGRIGRESCUE in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-08-2003, 06:49 PM
  4. Are you prepared for the big one?
    By BIG PAULIE in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-13-2001, 11:15 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