If the chief administrative officer of a local government was presented with the opportunity to improve the performance of the grass-cutting activities of the public works department by nearly 80%, with little increase in cost, he certainly would explore that opportunity.

If key functions of a county finance department could be improved at similar rates, a county executive would be failing in his responsibilities should he not seize that opportunity.
If a city water department had the option of changing tactics so that, if a water line broke, the damage to nearby homeowners' properties would be reduced significantly, a responsible city manager would insist on his utility department adopting those procedures.

And if changes in procedures, equipment or tactics could improve police-officer safety, virtually all municipal leaders would embrace those changes.

A Lost Opportunity

Yet, when it comes to one of a local government's most important (and most expensive) responsibilities — fire suppression — most have failed to acquire and adopt as standard operating guidelines, the equipment and fireground tactics that can produce outcomes and safety improvements that are similar to those described above — compressed-air-foam systems.

Such systems add a foam-producing agent and air to water in order to create a far more effective tool to fight fires. Equipment is available to retrofit most existing fire engines. It is well-documented that the use of CAFS in fire-suppression activities reduces fire knockdown time by up to 78% compared to using only water. This means that when using CAFS, firefighters are exposed to dangerous operating conditions for shorter periods of time and at safer distances.

Sidebar: What Chiefs Need to Know About CAFS

CAFS requires about 15 gallons of water to achieve the same knockdown that 70 gallons of water achieves. This means that considerably less water is required to achieve the same results. This reduction in water translates into far less structural, smoke and water damage — typically the main damage sustained in a structure fire. Because there is less damage, more evidence is preserved for fire investigation. In addition, the use of CAFS reduces overhaul and cleanup operations. For many city managers and mayors, the discussion of CAFS may be completely new — they may have never considered that there are alternatives to "putting the wet stuff on the red stuff." But the use of foam hardly is a new tactic; indeed, the use of such systems dates back decades. But while the fire service has been aware of the unique capabilities of CAFS, its superiority in fighting structural fires wasn't demonstrated scientifically until 2001, when the Los Angeles County Fire Department conducted what is referred to as the Palmdale Test. In this exercise, the LACFD rigorously documented where compressed-air foam is superior to either water or Class A foam for interior fire attacks.

These tests, on actual wood-frame homes, showed that compressed-air foam, in addition to its knockdown capabilities, reduced the average interior temperatures of the fire significantly faster than water. The numbers are astonishing, even for a non-fire professional — compressed-air foam reduced the average interior temperature from 600°F to 200°F in 1:28, while plain water took 6:03. Clearly, firefighter safety was enhanced dramatically, as faster knockdown results in fewer products of combustion in the air. Just as important, CAFS can propel foam a distance that is 33% greater than the distance water can be propelled, which means that firefighters could initiate an interior attack from a greater standoff distance by directing a stream through a door or window.

The technical reasons that a CAF system produces these improved outcomes are well documented and best left to fire science experts to explain. What a city manager or mayor needs to know is that these alternatives to traditional firefighting techniques exist and offer significant benefits to the community and to the firefighters who protect it.

Why Are We Not Using This?

When I speak with city managers and mayors about CAFS, the first question I generally am asked is "why hasn't the fire service embraced the concept," and "why isn't my fire chief demanding that we immediately obtain the necessary equipment to use this technology?" Frankly, it is difficult to answer these questions, but several possibilities come to mind.

Tradition. The first is that the fire service, perhaps more than any other aspect of local government, is tradition bound. The adage "100 years of tradition unimpeded by progress" regularly has been regularly by progressive fire managers in many issues of FIRE CHIEF. The reality is that there is inertia in most local government operations and a general aversion to the risks borne of trying new approaches to old problems.

I recall when portable radios were introduced in the police service. At the time, there was a strong resistance on the part of some police agencies to embrace the new communications systems. The same was (and still is) true for automatic vehicle location technology, although each advance made the work of patrol officers safer. The introduction of body armor also was strongly resisted and many police departments still do not have mandatory wear policies.

Manpower issues. Certainly there exists a fear on the part of some chiefs that the introduction of certain technologies will reduce manpower needs. While it is true that CAFS does help extinguish fires in half the time of water alone, whether this ultimately translates into a reduction in manpower needs requires a local analysis — there is no simple, general answer to that question. But what if it did? The role of the fire service is not to be an employment agency — especially when local government budgets are as challenged as they are today, and will be for the foreseeable future. The role of the fire manager is to provide the best service to the community that the department serves, while ensuring the safety of the firefighters.

Lack of knowledge. Clearly there is a lack of understanding and knowledge about CAFS by both fire managers and the suppression crews. I recently attended a town hall meeting where the city managers were discussing the introduction of CAFS into the department. A firefighter from a neighboring jurisdiction stood up and rattled off a list of CAFS inadequacies — none of which were true. He ended with the admonition that "it's a dangerous tool," but offered absolutely no data to support this statement. Hopefully this is a case of a sole line firefighter sharing only his erroneous understanding of the technology. Of greater concern is the number of command firefighters and chiefs with whom I speak who are not aware that compressed-air foam is a significant firefighting tool.

Bad experiences. Part of the problem is that many older members of the fire service may have had bad experiences with CAFS in its early uses. The early use of CAFS revolved around manual equipment (proportioning systems) that at times were difficult to use and maintain. Additionally, in the early stages of implementation, the design of nozzles that would be appropriate for a CAFS still was evolving. Now, foam systems are accurate and easy to run, and fire engineers have identified better designs for nozzles.

What Managers Should Do

Each local government manager should have a serious discussion with their fire managers about the use of CAFS in their jurisdiction. If the department is not using CAFS, insist on a full, well-documented explanation as to why that is the case. Before meeting however, take the time to personally familiarize yourself with CAFS by reviewing applicable literature. Start with FIRE CHIEF, which has done a great job in producing supplements and articles that focus on this topic. An Internet search will produce volumes of additional information. Be prepared to respond to old stereotypes and misconceptions, and focus the discussion on the future of the fire service.

Sidebar: A Real-Life Scenario

This is an excellent time to begin discussions concerning the development of a strategic plan for creating the fire service of tomorrow, which would include an emphasis on increased effectiveness — which the use of CAFS will help to achieve. This technology has the potential to fundamentally change the manner in which fires are fought. It is a technology that makes firefighters safer, reduces fire losses and results in a more environmentally sound approach to fire suppression. Local government managers have an obligation to become knowledgeable about this technology and insist that the fire services under their direction implement it for the good of their communities, and the firefighters that serve them.

Thomas Wieczorek is the director of the International City/County Management Association's Center for Public Safety Management, while Leonard Matarese is the center's director of research and project development. Both have extensive experience as public-safety directors and city managers.