(In Response to "My Other Hat," Oct. 30, 2003, Command Post)

Dear Ms. Wilmoth,

I just read your editorial regarding the recent Chicago office building fire and your comments about CAFS possibly being effective in high-rise operations. A while back I posed a similar question to the forum on Firehouse.com regarding using Class A foam in hi-rise buildings, but got very few replies.

While I have no experience with CAFS, my department utilizes Class A foam extensively. Our first-run engines all utilize Class A foam, and we have had excellent experiences in all types of fire attack. American Heat used footage of a vehicle fire we attacked with Class A foam in comparison to another department fighting a similar fire without foam to underscore it's effectiveness.

My thought was by introducing water with Class A foam into building standpipes and/or sprinkler systems (via the siamese) to improve knockdown. While you would be unable to be certain that the percentage of foam you were feeding into the siamese would remain unchanged (not diluted) by the time it reached the sprinkler head or standpipe outlet, the percentage of the Class A foam solution is not critical to achieve improved suppression, unlike Class B foam which must be proportioned at an exact rate to be effective.

The bigger question is what effect residual water containing Class A foam would have on the standpipe or sprinkler system post-incident. Several models of sprinkler heads have been identified over the past few years which have failed to operate due to sticking o-ring seals. Would the Class A foam exacerbate this problem? Would it have an effect on the seals used to join the sections of Victualic pipe used in standpipe systems? Would corrosion be an issue?

These questions beg to be answered. With your wide readership, your publication may be a good platform to spur some research into this area.

Rodger Ricciuti, Firefighter
Mt. Lebanon Fire Department
Pittsburgh, PA
www.mtlfd.org
rricciuti@mtlebanon.org