The U.S. military is undergoing a significant change in its approach to ground warfare, as it embraces the concept of a lighter, more nimble war-fighting capability. This is in response to changes the types of combat situations that the modern military is encountering today, which in turn has necessitated several significant training, operations and equipment changes.

Consequently, after 40 years, the U.S. Army is changing its physical training program for basic recruits. It’s because they recognize that a 5-mile run every day does not develop core body strength that soldiers need to fight in urban combat. Today’s soldiers are putting on 70 pounds of equipment — not unlike firefighters — and are being asked to make short dashes — across the street, from doorway to doorway —a nd be able to turn and twist quickly. That requires more strength than a daily 5-mile run will give you.

Lightening the load and increasing the effectiveness of equipment need to be top priorities. Firefighters, like soldiers and Marines in combat, go into emergency operations carrying loads approaching 100 pounds. Every piece of equipment, every PPE, every operational concept needs to reflect the need for increased effectiveness in emergency operations, in which speed counts.

The Army is moving away from its previous decades-old emphasis on heavy armor, which could be equated to our largest Type-1 fire apparatus — the big engines — and moving toward lighter equipment. It’s a very significant change in the Army’s concept of warfighting operations, and the parallels of this change to the fire service should be obvious.

Unfortunately the fire service, given its current structure, is unable to quickly translate and take advantage of the military’s experiences or the huge amount of research it conducts. When the Army changes a 40-year-plus practice, such as how it physically trains its recruits, we certainly should take notice and ensure that we don’t summarily dismiss the potential significance and value of such changes to the fire service.

No Longer an Afterthought
Seeking and implementing new operational concepts and procuring the supportive equipment must be integral to the fire service. The so-called “new” approaches of compressed-air and Class A foam, which actually have been around for more than 30 years, can help our firefighters, as they bring with them lighter and more effective equipment. The use of foam will spark changes in firefighting operations, training and command — including many sought by firefighters today and some not yet known.

If we encounter a technological change that provides our personnel with a significant advantage in firefighting, then we have a responsibility to give it to them. Such is the power of Class A foam and CAFS. The big thing to realize is that these are not supplements to current operations and tactics. CAFS and Class A foam, if the work and studies of the past 30 years have any creditability, are essential tools to integrate into every firefighting operation.

Class A foam and CAFS need to be in the NFPA 1901 standard, and their use has to be written into basic firefighting training materials, as well as all of the IFSTA manuals. They also have to be included in officer and command training. If we don’t do that, then we will have denied our firefighters the use of a proven force multiplier, and we will have allowed this valuable resource to be just another option to choose. That’s a really archaic way to look at something as significant as CAFS and Class A foam.

When fire departments elect to move to Class A foam and CAFS, they are not just investing in products. Rather, they are investing in an operational concept for the department — and that’s the big difference. Manufacturers keep trying to sell product, but what needs to be sold is a totally new way of thinking about firefighting. CAFS and Class A foam bring a new level of effectiveness to the fireground and, as such, need to be integrated into every firefighting operation — from car fires to wildfires to structure fires to terrorist events.

There is no compelling reason for not using foam in any particular fire situation. This isn’t an add-on that we bolt on to an engine and bring it out only when the specific situation that we bought it for dictates it use. For example, if we bought it for a wildfire application, we often feel that we can’t use it on anything else — and we certainly don’t feel we can use it on a single room and contents. That’s the basic fallacy of the past approach.

Foam is not an accessory. But many departments view foam as something extra, something that is optional, and something that you do not have to have. In today’s environment, with the unfortunate decline of fire-department staffing — driven by the budget pressures felt by many municipalities — and the resulting decline in fireground operational experience, we need to give our firefighters every opportunity and every tool they need to be successful. When we deny them the use of CAFS or Class A foam, we are denying them a significant weapon and increasing the risk to firefighter safety.

If we were to compile a list of the Top 10 essential pieces of equipment a fire department has to have, the first would be water — got to have it. Second would be an engine — got to have it, too. Then, bunker gear, SCBAs and thermal-imaging cameras. Now it’s time to add Class A Foam and CAFS to our list of essentials. This is no longer an option to deny our firefighters; it is a fundamental element in how we fight fires.

We must ask the hard questions about the value of current equipment and operational concepts compared with new approaches. For instance, would Class A foam/CAFS-enhanced operations allow for the use of lighter attack lines, such as the re-introduction of 1½-inch line? Would this in turn result in improved operational effectiveness and safety?

This discussion is not unlike those we’ve had about thermal-imaging cameras. What department would say, “Our firefighters don’t need to be able to see in the darkness of the most hazardous operational environment? We want them stumbling around unable to see.” Yet most career, combination and volunteer fire departments are still without thermal-imaging cameras. Why? It’s too simplistic to frame that discussion only in financial terms. Rather, the discussion needs to be about our commitment to firefighter and civilian safety — and how that commitment relates to our priorities as reflected in our budgets.

Make Things Simpler
CAFS and Class A foam are not complicated in either concept or operations, but they are thought of as complicated partly because of the way the equipment has been built. Is there a compelling reason that we cannot find the 80% solution and stick with that? What is the “good-enough” solution that can work for the vast majority of fire situations? What is driving the complexity of the foam proportioners on the apparatus? Are we trying too hard to meet each and every potential situation with a unique piece of equipment?

Put the pump in gear and when the water flows, the foam flows. You can’t get one without the other. If the situation involves firefighting, we need to use CAFS or Class A foam. What’s the primary difference between Class A foam and CAFS? It is the introduction of pressurized air. Why can’t pump panels be designed with just three simple selections — plain water, Class A foam, and then CAFS?

What is the answer to this question: If I wanted to have a Class A foam and CAFS system that meets 80-90% of all my normal needs, what would the proportioner and nozzles look like? What manufacturer will answer this question by simplifying and reducing the cost of CAFS and Class A foam systems?

It is time that Class A foam and CAFS is fully integrated into all applicable standards, including apparatus standards (NFPA 1901), and all firefighter and fire officer NFPA training standards. Then all training manuals from all publishers need to reflect this new operational concept.

Equipment manufacturers and suppliers often take new, and often very innovative, products to the fire-service market, but without an understanding of the impact the new product has on fire-service culture. (For example, the failure of the French fire helmet and of the German ultra-high-pressure backpack). Additionally, a new product has long-term impact on existing doctrines concerning training, operations and command.

In some jurisdictions, the argument has been put forward that the introduction of Class A foam and CAFS could be used as justification for the reduction of personnel. When we allow non-fire service personnel to frame the case concerning Class A foam and CAFS, such an outcome may be a possibility in some fire departments. But a much stronger case can be made for firefighter safety, reduced stress and injuries, increased effectiveness of current staffing and better customer service.

There is a concept for tomorrow’s firefighting operations where we:

• Focus on firefighter safety.
• Emphasize increased effectiveness while respecting tradition.
• Lighten our personal protective equipment.  
• Use titanium ground ladders.
• Design apparatus and equipment to maximize gallons per minute per firefighter.
• Fully integrate thermal imagers.
• Fully integrate Class A foam and CAFS into all firefighting operations.

We have the finest firefighters in the world. They are well equipped and arguably have excellent training. No one fights fire better. We have an ongoing mission to search out even better equipment, tactics, apparatus and operational concepts in order to provide our firefighters with the best possible. This effort is vital, as it constitutes an even larger, more essential piece of the puzzle in terms of safe and effective firefighting.

Enough talk, enough delay — the time for Class A foam and CAFS has arrived. 

Garry Briese is cofounder of the Center for Resiliency in Media and is the former executive director of the International Association of Fire Chiefs.

Benefits of Class A & Compressed-Air Foams

Increased speed of knockdown = Reduced overall physical stress on firefighters
Less exposure to heat and toxic gases = A safer working environment for firefighters
Hoses are lighter = Less physical stress on firefighters
Less kinking of hose lines = Less risk to firefighters
Less time in overhaul = Less physical stress on firefighters
Increases reach of hose streams and penetration into structures = Less risk to firefighters
Effective exposure protection = Less risk to firefighters
Reduced fire and water damage = Better customer service