Either they have no class B foam, or???? Neat trick I picked up from FDNY, take your from bucket and pour out a quart or so of the concentrate up stream from the fuel, then hit it with the hand line. Foams right up. Not as well as a regular foam line, but close enough.
They used foam extinguishers from what I could tell, it was helping but the fire would start right back up since there was probably a flame source deeper into the gas tank or elsewhere that wasn't getting extinguished, so as it would continue to leak out from the gas line or tank, it kept lighting back up or picking up flames. I'm not sure if the engines on scene were carrying foam, but I saw them roll up engine 31 later on which may have been carrying foam. Again I'm just speaking from a spectators point of view.
@@The411TH-cam They were using dry chem extinguishers, not foam. While dry chem has a faster knock down, it doesn't seal in the vapors. Thus the fast re-ignition.
Someone else commented mentioning the ban on AFFF or class A/B foam use in CA, and I remember reading they were going to ban it due to the toxic chemicals. Upon searching I see that as of Jan 1, 2024 its been banned so probably the reason its not in use anymore. But I believe airports still can use them due to the federal law.
I think they did use the foam extinguishers but there was a leaking gas line or tank with a flame somewhere that wasn't being reached to extinguish which would keep flaring it back up.
Either they have no class B foam, or???? Neat trick I picked up from FDNY, take your from bucket and pour out a quart or so of the concentrate up stream from the fuel, then hit it with the hand line. Foams right up. Not as well as a regular foam line, but close enough.
They used foam extinguishers from what I could tell, it was helping but the fire would start right back up since there was probably a flame source deeper into the gas tank or elsewhere that wasn't getting extinguished, so as it would continue to leak out from the gas line or tank, it kept lighting back up or picking up flames. I'm not sure if the engines on scene were carrying foam, but I saw them roll up engine 31 later on which may have been carrying foam. Again I'm just speaking from a spectators point of view.
@@The411TH-cam They were using dry chem extinguishers, not foam. While dry chem has a faster knock down, it doesn't seal in the vapors. Thus the fast re-ignition.
@@benv5812 Oh I see. Yeah I'm not too familiar with it or too much of Pasadena's equipment.
Someone else commented mentioning the ban on AFFF or class A/B foam use in CA, and I remember reading they were going to ban it due to the toxic chemicals. Upon searching I see that as of Jan 1, 2024 its been banned so probably the reason its not in use anymore. But I believe airports still can use them due to the federal law.
What a nightmare.
happy new year
Thanks Happy New Year!
AFFF is probably illegal in CA.
Class A.foam is not Totally helpful on liquid fires. It cools but does not suffocate by oxygen removal
Yeah you're right. I remember reading they were banning the use of it but didn't know when but upon searching it is already in effect.
FFS where’s the foam extinguisher’s
I think they did use the foam extinguishers but there was a leaking gas line or tank with a flame somewhere that wasn't being reached to extinguish which would keep flaring it back up.
Class a form. Load up the wagon come on.
It's banned in CA now due to the toxic chemicals.