By Alan M. Petrillo

Ccompressed air foam systems (CAFS) are not the right choice for every fire department, but for those departments using them, they become major elements in their standard operating procedures (SOPs) for extinguishing fires.

1 W.S. Darley & Co. makes the LDMBC AutoCAFS system with up to a 1,750-gpm pump and 220-cfm air compressor.

Troy Carothers, AutoCAFS product manger for W.S. Darley & Co., says Darley has been building CAFS since 1993, while its Odin Foam division has been building them for wildland firefighting since the early 1980s. “The LDMBC with up to a 1,750-gpm pump and 220-cubic-feet-per-minute (cfm) air compressor is our flagship CAFS model,” Carothers says. “If a department needs a bigger pump, we make the EMBC, which will handle 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm) in volume and provide 600-pounds-per-square-inch (psi) capacity in pressure.”

2 W.S. Darley & Co.’s Odin Foam division makes the Mongoose CAFS model in both diesel- (shown) and gasoline-powered versions.

A popular CAFS model that Darley makes for quick-attack vehicles is its midship PSMC pump, a split-shaft pump commonly mounted on a Ford chassis and capable of up to 1,500 gpm. “It’s rather compact, features a 120-cfm compressor, up to four CAFS discharges, and comes rated in 1,000-, 1,250-, and 1,500-gpm versions,” Carothers says.

Jerry Halpin, vice president of sales and marketing for CET Fire Pumps, says that CET’s CAFS models were originally designed to augment urban interface, wildland and forestry firefighting, as well as suburban structural firefighting on quick-attack units. “Where CAFS seems to be heading now is in the 40-cfm and 60-cfm units,” Halpin points out. “Our 40-cfm CAFS is a one-line unit, while the 60-cfm will handle two handlines. We also make models that are mounted on Type 1 pumpers and aerials going up to 2,000-gpm.”

3 The EMBC CAFS model made by W.S. Darley & Co. will handle 2,000 gpm in volume and provide 600 psi in pressure. (Photos 1-3 courtesy of W.S. Darley & Co.)

The CET 40- and 60-cfm models are CET’s most popular, Halpin says, and are predominantly gasoline-driven, using Honda, Kohler, Vanguard, and Briggs & Stratton engines. For departments choosing a diesel-powered CAFS, CET makes the 40-cfm and 60-cfm versions powered by a Kubota diesel.

Alan Smith, foam and CAFS product manager for IDEX Fire Suppression Group (maker of Hale, Godiva, and Class 1 brands), says he has seen an increase in CAFS sales during this past year, likely because Hale/Class 1 came out with a new controller that makes CAFS much easier for the operator. “CAFS has been traditionally a fairly complex system to operate, but our SmartCAFS takes the complexity out of the system,” Smith says. “You don’t have

By Alan M. Petrillo

Ccompressed air foam systems (CAFS) are not the right choice for every fire department, but for those departments using them, they become major elements in their standard operating procedures (SOPs) for extinguishing fires.

1 W.S. Darley & Co. makes the LDMBC AutoCAFS system with up to a 1,750-gpm pump and 220-cfm air compressor.

Troy Carothers, AutoCAFS product manger for W.S. Darley & Co., says Darley has been building CAFS since 1993, while its Odin Foam division has been building them for wildland firefighting since the early 1980s. “The LDMBC with up to a 1,750-gpm pump and 220-cubic-feet-per-minute (cfm) air compressor is our flagship CAFS model,” Carothers says. “If a department needs a bigger pump, we make the EMBC, which will handle 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm) in volume and provide 600-pounds-per-square-inch (psi) capacity in pressure.”

2 W.S. Darley & Co.’s Odin Foam division makes the Mongoose CAFS model in both diesel- (shown) and gasoline-powered versions.

A popular CAFS model that Darley makes for quick-attack vehicles is its midship PSMC pump, a split-shaft pump commonly mounted on a Ford chassis and capable of up to 1,500 gpm. “It’s rather compact, features a 120-cfm compressor, up to four CAFS discharges, and comes rated in 1,000-, 1,250-, and 1,500-gpm versions,” Carothers says.

Jerry Halpin, vice president of sales and marketing for CET Fire Pumps, says that CET’s CAFS models were originally designed to augment urban interface, wildland and forestry firefighting, as well as suburban structural firefighting on quick-attack units. “Where CAFS seems to be heading now is in the 40-cfm and 60-cfm units,” Halpin points out. “Our 40-cfm CAFS is a one-line unit, while the 60-cfm will handle two handlines. We also make models that are mounted on Type 1 pumpers and aerials going up to 2,000-gpm.”

3 The EMBC CAFS model made by W.S. Darley & Co. will handle 2,000 gpm in volume and provide 600 psi in pressure. (Photos 1-3 courtesy of W.S. Darley & Co.)

The CET 40- and 60-cfm models are CET’s most popular, Halpin says, and are predominantly gasoline-driven, using Honda, Kohler, Vanguard, and Briggs & Stratton engines. For departments choosing a diesel-powered CAFS, CET makes the 40-cfm and 60-cfm versions powered by a Kubota diesel.

Alan Smith, foam and CAFS product manager for IDEX Fire Suppression Group (maker of Hale, Godiva, and Class 1 brands), says he has seen an increase in CAFS sales during this past year, likely because Hale/Class 1 came out with a new controller that makes CAFS much easier for the operator. “CAFS has been traditionally a fairly complex system to operate, but our SmartCAFS takes the complexity out of the system,” Smith says. “You don’t have

By Alan M. Petrillo

Ccompressed air foam systems (CAFS) are not the right choice for every fire department, but for those departments using them, they become major elements in their standard operating procedures (SOPs) for extinguishing fires.

1 W.S. Darley & Co. makes the LDMBC AutoCAFS system with up to a 1,750-gpm pump and 220-cfm air compressor.

Troy Carothers, AutoCAFS product manger for W.S. Darley & Co., says Darley has been building CAFS since 1993, while its Odin Foam division has been building them for wildland firefighting since the early 1980s. “The LDMBC with up to a 1,750-gpm pump and 220-cubic-feet-per-minute (cfm) air compressor is our flagship CAFS model,” Carothers says. “If a department needs a bigger pump, we make the EMBC, which will handle 2,000 gallons per minute (gpm) in volume and provide 600-pounds-per-square-inch (psi) capacity in pressure.”

2 W.S. Darley & Co.’s Odin Foam division makes the Mongoose CAFS model in both diesel- (shown) and gasoline-powered versions.

A popular CAFS model that Darley makes for quick-attack vehicles is its midship PSMC pump, a split-shaft pump commonly mounted on a Ford chassis and capable of up to 1,500 gpm. “It’s rather compact, features a 120-cfm compressor, up to four CAFS discharges, and comes rated in 1,000-, 1,250-, and 1,500-gpm versions,” Carothers says.

Jerry Halpin, vice president of sales and marketing for CET Fire Pumps, says that CET’s CAFS models were originally designed to augment urban interface, wildland and forestry firefighting, as well as suburban structural firefighting on quick-attack units. “Where CAFS seems to be heading now is in the 40-cfm and 60-cfm units,” Halpin points out. “Our 40-cfm CAFS is a one-line unit, while the 60-cfm will handle two handlines. We also make models that are mounted on Type 1 pumpers and aerials going up to 2,000-gpm.”

3 The EMBC CAFS model made by W.S. Darley & Co. will handle 2,000 gpm in volume and provide 600 psi in pressure. (Photos 1-3 courtesy of W.S. Darley & Co.)

The CET 40- and 60-cfm models are CET’s most popular, Halpin says, and are predominantly gasoline-driven, using Honda, Kohler, Vanguard, and Briggs & Stratton engines. For departments choosing a diesel-powered CAFS, CET makes the 40-cfm and 60-cfm versions powered by a Kubota diesel.

Alan Smith, foam and CAFS product manager for IDEX Fire Suppression Group (maker of Hale, Godiva, and Class 1 brands), says he has seen an increase in CAFS sales during this past year, likely because Hale/Class 1 came out with a new controller that makes CAFS much easier for the operator. “CAFS has been traditionally a fairly complex system to operate, but our SmartCAFS takes the complexity out of the system,” Smith says. “You don’t have

Editor’s Note: One of the most prevailing trends in fire apparatus design in the past decade has been departments spec’ing rescue-pumpers. Along with rescue-pumpers, quints have become common. There are numerous reasons for departments taking two rigs and combining them into one and myriad opinions. We asked Editorial Advisory Board members Bill Adams and Ricky Riley to give their perspectives on multipurpose apparatus.

For a large portion of my career, I was a staunch advocate of engines doing engine work, trucks doing truck work, and rescue companies who cut people out of cars and performed support operations on firegrounds. I lived it and breathed it in the organizations I was fortunate to be a part of, and it worked rather well with our apparatus and staffing models.

As I became a chief officer, we were able to place extrication tools on our front line engine company in my volunteer organization. These tools were just there for the quick door pop and to assist the rescue company on its arrival. Being a busy department, we responded to a large number of extrications in our response area and the surrounding areas. This mainly was because we were positioned to run a number of high-speed roads and limited access highways in our area. We made sure we documented these calls in the company journal and had a narrative added to each call so we could keep track of equipment and tools used on these incidents. This data collection started to steer the department in a direction of providing these services on a larger scale to our citizens. During this time, the rescue-engine concept had started up in the Washington, D.C., metro area with a number of departments trying to accomplish two functions with one rig. Also, manufacturers were starting to construct units that were specifically designed for the demands that this apparatus type was going to have to endure to perform these dual responsibilities.

Our department wanted to ensure that we were not adding just a function without supporting the core function of putting water on a fire. With staffing a concern for any department, we did not want to be out on the road coming back from a call or out performing community service in a single-function unit and have to go back to the firehouse to get the unit that flows water to respond to a structure fire. Having the standalone function units is great when the department has staffing for each one and it can respond quickly to calls for service without delaying the response time by having to go back and get the right unit for the call dispatched. By limiting these scenarios, we saw a chance to replace an aging unit with a hybrid unit that could enhance rescue capabilities for our community without sacrificing our ability to provide the engine function in a quick and timely fashion.

This hybrid concept did not come easy for the department, as we all had the mindset of a single function for each unit. Plus, a large number of the apparatus trying to fill these hybrid roles at that time were really not designed or constructed to do either one of the functions very well. They did not carry enough or the correct rescue equipment to properly handle the extrications, unique rescues, or technical incidents. Or, they could not function as an engine very well because of hosebeds that were built way too high or attack lines that required a ladder to reach and pull them. When we went and talked to the apparatus builders, we expressed our concerns about a number of issues:

• Hosebeds that were too high.
• Attack lines that were out of reach.
• The ability to carry a large tool and equipment complement.
• Compartment floor ratings to handle the heavy rescue equipment.
• Read more
  • 265
  • 0
  • Article rating: No rating