Rethinking attitudes towards fire suppression

[C420sailor]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Perhaps you already know this, but in case others don't...

A kitchen fire that is being fueled by oil or grease is going to be made WORSE by spraying it with water.

Depends how advanced it is and how much water you’re flowing. But in the incipient stages, 100%.

[Jammer]

[ crossposted with C420sailor ]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Perhaps you already know this, but in case others don't...

A kitchen fire that is being fueled by oil or grease is going to be made WORSE by spraying it with water.

Not necessarily. It depends on the amount of water, the amount of oil involved, and whether you can maintain a safe distance. If you are using a teakettle or watering can then yes you'll make the problem worse and get burned in the process. If you have a deep fryer full of overheated flaming oil, water will make the problem worse.


But in the relatively more common situation where there is a frypan with shallow oil or grease and other foods, if you have a hose and can maintain your distance, you can put it out.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by rslifkin

Ideally, for engine rooms and spaces with electrical equipment, a boat would have a system similar to airplane cargo fire supression. Auto and manual dump, clean agent, 2 tanks. If the system dumps, all ventilation is shut down, the first tank dumps immediately. Then the second tank slowly releases over the next 15 - 20 minutes to keep extinguishing agent concentration high enough while things cool down to avoid a reflash.

These systems are available from Fireboy-Xintex among others. The regulatory situation for clean agent extinguishing systems is a constant dance especially for boats that travel internationally as possession of some of the safest and most effective agents (notably Halon 1211) are outlawed entirely in some jurisdictions due to their contribution to global warming upon release. FM-200 (HFC-227ea) currently appears to be accepted worldwide.


I agree that these systems are suitable when there is enough space and budget.

[requiem]

This may just be the Baader-Meinhof effect, but this is the third unrelated fire-suppression topic that I've noticed in the past few days. (And that's without counting the background fires in California!) For an upcoming trip I noticed the skipper is bringing along his own fire blanket, and somewhere else I recently saw mention of the Element E50 extinguishing sticks.

When I took the CERT class at work we practiced with extinguishers and the guidance was that any fire larger than a small wastepaper bin was too much to take on. With the speed a fire can grow, I understand the thinking. Staying to fight should only be done if someone has the resources and a clear escape path, and that's without going into the case of toxic fumes.

My own experience has fortunately been limited to incipient stages, where simple actions are most effective. In a microwave or toaster oven, I've been able to simply switch off or unplug the machine. On a stove my first instinct would be to simply put a lid on the pot.

I dread having to use an extinguisher; the description of it turning the cabin into an instant snow-globe still sticks in my mind.

[C420sailor]

The ‘wastepaper bin’ is what we teach to everyday civilians on land. Bigger than that? Evacuate and call the fire department.

That’s because they’re leaving a potential IDLH environment for a safe environment. They can walk outside and instantly be 100% safe. There are quite literally zero life hazards involved with leaving. Things can only get better and safer.

At sea, you are trading one potential IDLH environment for another. It’s apples and oranges.

Same thing in the Navy. Ashore? Leave and call the FD. Afloat? Fight, fight, fight. Granted, we had much better firefighting equipment, but the fires and conditions were also far more severe.

[chasmains]

I raced cars in SCCA for years before getting too old. All the auto racing organizations require varying fire suppression. SCCA’s Spec Miata classes only require a 5# extinguisher in the cockpit in reach of the driver. This method relies on the relatively stock body to separate the driver from flame sources. Other more advanced cars are required to have mounted systems with nozzles in the engine compartment and in the cockpit. These have a plunger that the driver pushes to actuate. These more advanced systems expect the car to be less sealed from fire sources. Of course, drivers wear fire suits and fireproof helmets. And the timing of these systems is to give the driver enough time to stop the car and get out of the car.
But both of these extinguisher approaches should be considered in their context for boats, too. Installed systems for engine compartments and fuel tanks, and hand-helds for cook tops and living spaces. And the time element has to be calculated into the whole plan. As discussed above, the problem with boats is that you can’t just bail out instead of fighting the fire. So, well planned, adequate, installed equipment is essential.

[jpstevens]

i addition to the mandated fire extinguishers, I have an automatic Halotron extinguisher in engine, battery and electrical compartments (and fused every DC power cable). Am I wrong in thinking that I've covered the most likely sources of fire after the propane range?

[steve77]

Originally Posted by C420sailor

The ‘wastepaper bin’ is what we teach to everyday civilians on land. Bigger than that? Evacuate and call the fire department.

That’s because they’re leaving a potential IDLH environment for a safe environment. They can walk outside and instantly be 100% safe. There are quite literally zero life hazards involved with leaving. Things can only get better and safer.

At sea, you are trading one potential IDLH environment for another. It’s apples and oranges.

Same thing in the Navy. Ashore? Leave and call the FD. Afloat? Fight, fight, fight. Granted, we had much better firefighting equipment, but the fires and conditions were also far more severe.

Can you please tell me what "IDLH" stands for?

Steve

[Jammer]

Jim,


I would add:
1) portable lithium batteries e.g. for power tools, radios, phones, tablets
2) flexible solar panels if present
3) shore power connection4) liquid fuel heating equipment if installed
5) any high-power electrical equipment, whether ac or dc, windlass, electric winch, inverter, battery charger, thruster
6) any diesel handling equipment, filters, pumps etc outside the engine compartment
7) other fuel and solvent, e.g. portable stove fuel, dinghy gas, painting supplies
8) separate generator if fitted

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by steve77

Can you please tell me what "IDLH" stands for?

Steve

immediate danger to life and health


Typically used to describe an environment that is dangerous enough to overcome an individual attempting to escape, or to cause lasting harm. Originally used to describe an atmosphere with acutely toxic levels of chemical contaminants, or insufficient oxygen to sustain life -- but has been generalized to other hazards

[jpstevens]

Thanks Jammer, for a valuable post.

[Phyrcooler]

A lot of mixed information here, not all of it accurate. I thought I should add a few of my thoughts. First - my qualifications beyond sailor and internet keyboard jockey: 35 years of progressively responsible operational and administrative experience with one of the largest fire departments in the US. Retired at an executive level just a few years ago. The current director of the US Fire Administration is a former coworker from my agency. But enough of that.

I applaud the OP’s desire to encourage people to train *and properly equip themselves* to be able to handle fire emergencies. And to fight with everything you’ve got in the event of the unthinkable.

While the OP has done some interesting research, I’m not aware of any collective effort to teach “evacuate rather than fight” as a mitigation philosophy. The greatest impact on saving lives is the alerting to a fire situation (smoke detectors and alarms), the requirement for AND MAINTENANCE of proper exits, and yes, the training of children and adults to evacuate. The idea of civilians fighting fire as a “first aid” via the use of extinguishers has always been and is still embraced by the fire service. However, because many (most) people are too lazy to seek training to properly use a fire extinguisher, safe evacuation would ‘appear’ as a priority.

Likewise, there has been for decades a national support for fire sprinkler installations in residential occupancies. I strongly disagree with your statement that this has been undermined by fire departments. My first hand experience from nation-wide committees, and providing testimony before both state and local level legislative officials, is that the building industry is our NUMBER ONE source of pushback against fire sprinkler ordinances. Capitalism is still alive and well in the US. Profits over safety. My wife is a Fire Marshal and daily backs up her staff and meets with developers trying their best to weasel around regulations and find exemptions to some very basic life safety codes. It borders on appalling. Off my soapbox.

So… my thoughts for sailors. First - yes, we are surrounded by water. Water is a great extinguishing agent. In the right situation! However, your advice to use water instead of a dry chem extinguisher, or even a simple smothering effect with a lid or fire blanket on a stove or flammable liquid fire is frankly wrong. Water hits burning flammable liquids and immediately can expand to steam. Often explosively. Water when it turns to steam expands 1700 times its volume. This often results in the spreading of the burning fat or petroleum product outside of its original container or area - spreading the fire. Knowing how and trying to teach the nuances of water use in a flammable liquid situation creates a scenario that most civilians will get wrong. I strongly recommend against it. Especially when dry chemical extinguishers are fast and highly effective. (And no, I do not have ANY financial interests in same)

Dry Chem Fire extinguishers are fast and effective and should be your immediate go to if you can’t immediately smother a fire. Worrying about cleanup is pretty silly in the face of fire and its damage potential. Running around setting up, and activating a pump takes precious time. Properly placed multipurpose extinguishers can be put into service in seconds. A fire can or may have already taken out your electrical circuit to your pump!

Pressurized water extinguishers (PW’s or “Cans) are very bulky, too heavy for some people, inappropriate for electrical fires, and not effective on most flammable liquid fires. I am curious as to your reference to a “mist nozzle” on a PW - as I’ve never actually seen one so equipped. AFFF/Foam extinguishers do have a special nozzle - but it definitely is not a mist. But, I freely admit I haven’t seen everything! I respectfully believe this is a poor recommendation for the size of boats most users have. Especially when Dry Chem ABC’s are so effective and easy for anyone to use.

Yes - Purple K is an excellent extinguishing agent… FOR CLASS B FIRES. However, the monoammonium phosphate in an “ABC” extinguisher can fight ALL fire types, and is still highly effective on Class B fires. Remember, not every fire on a boat is going to be a Class B/flammable liquid fire. You have just as much of a chance of a short circuit/arc catching fire to ordinary combustibles such as bedding, cabinetry, stored items, etc. I fully agree and recommend over-sizing your extinguishers and carrying more than the minimum - but use “ABC” type - not just the required “BC” type. I recommend that every boat with a motor carry a minimum of 2 - 2A/10BC extinguishers. Preferable would be one 2A/10BC and one 3A/40BC. (Or more if you’re blessed with a substantially large vessel!)

I’ve witnessed civilians doing some pretty amazing firefighting with ABC extinguishers over the years. Again, I applaud the OP’s intentions, and strongly recommend that every boater have, and know how to use their fire extinguisher. Fight like your life depended on it. Especially if you are offshore. If you have the room, and want to supplement your dry chem extinguishers with a PW or a pump or other extinguisher… Absolutely go ahead. But the fastest, most effective tool is almost always a decent ABC Dry Chemical extinguisher.

You’ve got only a VERY small window of time to stop a fire. If you were unable to stop with a dry chem extinguisher and it becomes seated, it will grow. FAST. The wind can push it, and make whole areas of the boat inaccessible. I’ve seen too many reports and have first hand stories of rescuers finding people in the water, and their life jackets, ditch bags and life rafts were burned aboard. My personal belief is that rather than running around and trying to get a pump activated, at that point your priority needs to be to make sure your ditch bag is obtained and it, as well as your life raft are away from the fire area and ready to go. Once this is ensured, fight or flight is your choice. The chances of you fighting a well seated boat fire border on NONE.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by Phyrcooler

A lot of mixed information here, not all of it accurate. I thought I should add a few of my thoughts. First - my qualifications beyond sailor and internet keyboard jockey: 35 years of progressively responsible operational and administrative experience with one of the largest fire departments in the US. Retired at an executive level just a few years ago. The current director of the US Fire Administration is a former coworker from my agency. But enough of that.

Thank you for your informed post.

Likewise, there has been for decades a national support for fire sprinkler installations in residential occupancies. I strongly disagree with your statement that this has been undermined by fire departments.

I agree that there has been support at the national level. Support at the state/local level has been mixed although that is starting to change as the evidence builds in favor of sprinkers. Nothing new or surprising there, really, there have always been some departments that are behind the times.

My first hand experience from nation-wide committees, and providing testimony before both state and local level legislative officials, is that the building industry is our NUMBER ONE source of pushback against fire sprinkler ordinances. Capitalism is still alive and well in the US. Profits over safety. My wife is a Fire Marshal and daily backs up her staff and meets with developers trying their best to weasel around regulations and find exemptions to some very basic life safety codes. It borders on appalling. Off my soapbox.

We're in vehement agreement on all that.

Fire extinguishers are fast and effective and should be your immediate go to if you can’t immediately smother a fire. Worrying about cleanup is pretty silly in the face of fire and its damage potential. Running around setting up, and activating a pump takes precious time. Properly placed multipurpose extinguishers can be put into service in seconds. A fire can or may have already taken out your electrical circuit to your pump!

I do understand this line of reasoning and have run into it before. My fire extinguisher guy feels the same way. I believe that some of this orthodoxy is based on the idea (supported, I believe, by some research) that most people with little or no training will grab whatever fire extinguisher is at hand. If they're going to do that, best that it be an ABC one.


Using an ABC extinguisher in an enclosed area makes a mess that has to be seen to be believed. I've cleaned up after them. In an area with electronics, upholstery, etc. a discharge can cause thousands of dollars of damage. In smaller areas like the cabin of a boat the dust cloud will make the area inaccessible for minutes while the dust settles. So you get one chance, don't miss. And in an engine area on a boat an ABC extinguisher used at sea is going to damage the engine, fwiw, which may create its own set of hazards.

I am curious as to your reference to a “mist nozzle” on a PW - as I’ve never actually seen one so equipped. AFFF/Foam extinguishers do have a special nozzle - but it definitely is not a mist. But, I freely admit I haven’t seen everything! I respectfully believe this is a poor recommendation for the size of boats most users have. Especially when Dry Chem ABC’s are so effective and easy for anyone to use.

Here is a link to the Amerex web site's product page for their mist extinguishers:


https://www.amerex-fire.com/products/water-mist/


Here is a link to a retailer selling a Buckeye 2A:C extinguisher:


https://www.webstaurantstore.com/buc...orial_supplies

Yes - Purple K is an excellent extinguishing agent… FOR CLASS B FIRES. However, the monoammonium phosphate in an “ABC” extinguisher can fight ALL fire types, and is still highly effective on Class B fires.

I think it makes more sense to use Purple K on burning liquids and water on class A (whether you use a pump and hose or a pressurized can or mist or foam or whatever). You don't have to be a rocket scientist to grab the right extinguisher.

The chances of you fighting a well seated boat fire border on NONE.

There is much that we agree on.

[Bill Seal]

If you have a fire in seat cushions, USE A BUCKET OF WATER! 12 volts won't electrocute you, and sea water won't "short out" a battery. Once watched an idiot get his Sumari get stuck and submerged in the mud flats of San Felipe BC. Watched his hazard lights glowing through the ocean all night long.

[hodgmo]

Originally Posted by Jammer

...FM-200 (HFC-227ea) currently appears to be accepted worldwide...

The Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol is aimed at reducing the amount of HFCs released into the atmosphere; HFCs like 227ea are potent greenhouse gases with high global warming potentials (GWPs). The US essentially adopted the Kigali phase-down schedule by passing the American Innovation and Manufacturing (AIM) Act of 2020.

"The AIM Act directs EPA to address HFCs by providing new authorities in three main areas: to phase down the production and consumption of listed HFCs, manage these HFCs and their substitutes, and facilitate the transition to next-generation technologies."
https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-reduction/aim-act

Bottom line: expect HFC-227ea to become more expensive and probably more difficult to find.