Lyons firefighters were called to Forest View Terminal Drive and Harlem Avenue Sunday morning (4/21/19) for a crash between a car and a gasoline tanker. The car was wedged underneath the tanker and the driver was trapped. A Foam Task Force was requested from O’Hare Airport to assist local companies at the scene.
Tim Olk photo
Tim Olk photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
Gordon J. Nord, Jr. photo
#1 by tim on April 26, 2019 - 9:13 PM
Thanks for the info Bill
#2 by Bill Post on April 26, 2019 - 8:25 PM
Tim that was a very good question. The only people who can accurately answer it are those involved in the request and the dispatch of the ARFF apparatus. The would probably be the chief on duty for Midway and O’Hare, and the person in charge of the 911 center.
On my part it would be purely speculative. There are different possible scenarios for the dispatch of the ARFF from Midway of which I can list some probabilities. Yes there are only two ARFF units normally assigned to Midway which are 651 and 652 and there is also 637.
O’Hare has eight ARFFs; 653, 654, 655, 656, 657, 658, 659, and 6510.
The first thing that comes to mind was the urgency of the situation on the Stevenson Expressway since it was nearby. I am sure that at least one of the ARFF units had to remain at Midway. I don’t know whether only one on the field met the minimum FAA standards, however I wonder if the 911 center had an ARFF change quarters from O’Hare?. Keep in mind this is only speculation.
#3 by tim on April 26, 2019 - 3:54 PM
Bill maybe you can answer this. I thought under FAA rules the ARFFs are not allowed to leave Midway because there’s only a few of them. So they send the task force from ohare to Lyons. They sent them to Bedford Park a few years back…when Midway is next door. But they did send a crash truck out of Midway to a bad crash on the Stevenson Expressway. So my question is why was the crash truck allowed to leave Midway that time and not the other runs?
#4 by Bill Post on April 25, 2019 - 10:56 AM
Mike the Foam Task Force from O’Hare has been around for a while. It includes an ARFF, one of the O’Hare dual rear axle foam pumpers (Engines 9 or 10) and Squad 7. When the Foam Task Force was first created, Squad 7 had the Pierce heavy duty rescue plus the foam and dry chemical equipped Humvee mini-pumper Squad 7A. I understand that Squad 7’s Snorkel Squad was dispatched to the incident in Lyons but was returned. I don’t know if one of O’Hare’s pumpers was also dispatched.
Sebastian, from what I understand the the 2012, 2011, and 2010 Spartan/Crimson engines have 30-gallon foam tanks. I also understand that at least several of the current E-One engines have 30-gallon foam tanks.
I am assuming these engines carry Class B foam which is used to extinguish volatile flammable liquids as opposed to Class A foam which is for Class A fires and is more common in rural/urban interface areas where there are more wooded areas that may also have water supply problems. Class A foam can make water go a little further.
#5 by Mike on April 25, 2019 - 6:56 AM
So is anything included in a “Foam Task Force” other than an ARFF unit from the airport?
#6 by sebastian on April 25, 2019 - 3:08 AM
Gentlemen, correct me if i am wrong. aren’t engines 14, 35, and 69 foam equipped engins??
#7 by Bill Post on April 25, 2019 - 12:42 AM
Yes Danny I recall that Engines 34 and 106 did have reserve/on call ARFF units in the 90’s. Engine 80 on the far south side also ran with a retrofitted 1967 Ford/Ward LaFrance foam pumper which was originally assigned to Engine 118 (before being taken out of service at Midway Airport) then Engine 32. Eventually it was converted to a foam pumper. It also was assigned as Chemical Unit 638 at Engine 127’s house on Central at 64th before moving to Engine 80s house. The CFD also had E-ONE rebuild six of seven, 1970 Ward LaFrance 2000-GPM pumpers with Ranger cabs. These included large deck guns and were retrofitted with 140-gallon foam tanks. The privately owned Engine 17 known from the movie Backdraft is one of them. Unfortunately those engines didn’t last too long.
Marty I also heard that the old ARFF units didn’t drive well which is why I brought up the idea of using a Foam Tender or a custom built foam pumper like most of those other cities. In New York City there is a foam tender with a 3000-gallon foam tank. They also run with five smaller foam tankers with have 1,500-gallon foam tanks. Here is a link to a photo of a LAFD foam tender. http://www.usfirepolice.net/ca_los_angeles_city/ca_los_angeles_foam_17-1.jpg
#8 by danny on April 24, 2019 - 10:02 AM
i know they had a ARFF unit at engine 34 for a while i believe it was 6-6-12 LAST SEEN AROUND 06/1996
AND SUPPOSEDLY 6-5-11 @ ENGINE 106 SAME TIME FRAME
6-5-12 WAS A 1973 OSHKOSH M-1000 DELIVERED RED IN 1973 REPAINT FAA YELLOW IN 1987
6-5-11 AND 6-5-10 WERE 1972 OSHKOSH M-1000 DELIVERED IN 1972 AND REPAINTED FAA YELLOW IN 1987
6-5-10 WAS LAST SEEN AS A SPARE AT OHARE IN 07/1997
6-5-10 G-302 6-5-6 (crash 6)
6-5-11 G-303 6-5-7 (crash 7)
6-5-12 G-320 6-5-1 (crash 1)
#9 by Marty Coyne on April 24, 2019 - 5:01 AM
Given the infrequency of use and proximity of O’Hare to the highways why spend the money to add more ARFF units in the city? I think they had a couple of retired units from the airports for a while years ago. They don’t drive well in the city and were an unneeded expense IIRC
#10 by Bill Post on April 24, 2019 - 3:45 AM
It is interesting that Midway Airport is much closer to the incident yet they sent a Foam Task Force from O’Hare. Yes I know the reason is because O’Hare has more ARFFs to spare since there are at least eight and Midway only has two. Chicago really needs a foam tender or two located in the city that can be used for such incidents. The Los Angeles City Fire Department had four foam tenders previously and New York had one in Brooklyn. There are several other large departments that have foam pumpers or tenders that I can think of including Phoenix and Houston. I am sure others have them as well.
#11 by Mike L on April 22, 2019 - 4:51 PM
Not necessary. The foam used today by civilian agencies does not contain PFA’S. The military is slowly phasing out PAT’s in their stockpile. Those sites that have recorded high levels, I.E. military bases and large training areas, have higher levels based on repeated exposure from older foam flowed many years ago. Chemgard and others no longer manufacture foam with PFA’S. A single application such as this poses no short or long term hazard and there is no need to classify it as its own hazmat incident.
#12 by brad creacey on April 22, 2019 - 4:13 PM
did they treat the foam as a hazmat incident afterward? all that AFFF is going into the ground and water supply…
any exposure records being kept for responders?