NRL/6180/MR—2023/1

Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application

Techniques and Firefighting Tactics
JOHN P. FARLEY, PA
STANLEY KARWOSKI

Shipboard and Field Operations Section

Chemistry Division

GERARD G. BACK
ROBERT DARWIN

Jensen Hughes
Baltimore, MD

ERIC S. SIEVERT
JASON L. LINT

NAWS - China Lake

Ridgecrest, CA

May 18, 2023

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway,
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of
information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY) 2. REPORT TYPE 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)
18-05-2023 NRL Memorandum Report 3/1/2022 – 4/26/2023
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics 5b. GRANT NUMBER

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER

John P. Farley, PA, Stanley Karwoski, Gerard G. Back*, Robert Darwin*, Eric S. Sievert**, 5e. TASK NUMBER
and Jason L. Lint**
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
1S19
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
NUMBER

Naval Research Laboratory Jensen Hughes NAWS - China Lake

4555 Overlook Avenue, SW 3610 Commerce Drive, Suite 817 1 Administrative Circle NRL/6180/MR--2023/1
Washington, DC 20375-5320 Baltimore, MD 21227 Ridgecrest, CA 93555

9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSOR / MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S)

Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program and SERDP/ESTCP

Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
4800 Mark Center Drive, Suite 16F16, 11. SPONSOR / MONITOR’S REPORT
Alexandria, VA 22350-3605 NUMBER(S)

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

*Jensen Hughes 3610 Commerce Drive, Suite 817, Baltimore, MD 21227
**NAWS - China Lake 1 Administrative Circle, Ridgecrest, CA 93555
14. ABSTRACT

This report provides a high-level summary of the lessons learned during large-scale fire extinction validation tests conducted at the Naval
Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) – China Lake (CL) of five leading fluorine-free foam (F3) candidates for replacement of
aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF.) The report provides a detailed description of how to effectively fight fire in Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting
(ARFF) type scenarios using the new F3 products.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION 18. NUMBER 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
OF ABSTRACT OF PAGES John Farley
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area
U 36 code)
U U U
(202) 404-8459
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
i Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39.18
This page intentionally left blank.

ii
 CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1

2.0 OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 2
3.0 VALIDATION TESTING OVERVIEW ............................................................................... 2
3.1 Test Facility ............................................................................................................. 3
3.2 Fire Scenarios .......................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Foam Concentrates ................................................................................................. 4
3.4 Firefighting Equipment ........................................................................................... 5
3.4.1 Hose Line Description ................................................................................. 5
3.4.2 Hose Line Nozzles (Standard Water Type Nozzles) .................................... 5
3.4.3 Hose Line Hybrid Nozzle ............................................................................. 6
3.4.4 Foam Tubes ................................................................................................. 6
3.4.5 Complementary Agents .............................................................................. 7
3.4.6 P-25A Shipboard Fire Truck ........................................................................ 7
3.5 High-Level Summary ............................................................................................... 9
4.0 LESSONS LEARNED.................................................................................................... 10
4.1 Foam Differences/Types ....................................................................................... 10
4.2 F3 Foam Blanket Discussion.................................................................................. 11
4.3 Hardware .............................................................................................................. 13
4.4 Pattern Selection................................................................................................... 15
4.5 Foam Application Techniques for Combatting Spill Fires ..................................... 16
4.6 Foam Application Techniques for Combatting Running Fuel Fires....................... 20
4.7 Why Does it Take F3s 1.5-2 Times Longer to Extinguish Fires than AFFF?........... 23
4.8 Learning From Inexperienced Firefighters............................................................ 24
4.9 AFFF Versus F3 Tactics .......................................................................................... 26
4.10 Hose Team Manning and Responsibilities ............................................................ 27
5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................ 28
6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................. 29

iii
 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

3-D Three Dimensional

AFFF Aqueous Film-Forming Foam
ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting
C Celsius
DoD Department of Defense
ESTCP Environmental Security Technology Certification Program
F Fahrenheit
F3 Fluorine-Free Foam
FESWG Fire and Emergency Services Working Group
ft feet
ft2 square feet
FY Fiscal Year
gpm gallon per minute
gpm/ft2 gallon per minute per square foot
in inch
lbs pounds
lbs/sec pounds per second
LCDR Lieutenant Commander
NAVSEA Naval Sea Systems Command
NDAA National Defense Authorization Act
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NRL Naval Research Laboratory
NSWCWD-CL Naval Surface Warfare Center, Weapons Division – China Lake
PFAS Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
PKP Purple-K Potassium Bicarbonate
psi pounds per square inch
QPL Qualified Products List
SERDP Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program
TFT Task Force Tips

iv
Executive Summary

This report provides a high-level summary of the lessons learned during the large-scale
validation tests of fluorine-free foams (F3) conducted at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons
Division (NAWCWD) – China Lake (CL) and a detailed description of how to effectively fight fire
in Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting (ARFF) type scenarios using the new F3 agents. In general,
the tests demonstrated that the same techniques work well for both AFFF and F3s, however the
finesse aspect of applying the foam to the fuel surface must be emphasized during training and
real life application of F3 agents. The hardware, tactics and techniques that optimize the
capabilities of the F3s also tend to increase AFFF performance (but to a lesser degree). Even
with the use of the optimized techniques, the leading F3s typically took about 1.5-2 times
longer than AFFF to extinguish the fires in most scenarios. The bottom-line differences between
AFFF and F3 agents are summarized as follows:

• F3s are less forgiving than AFFF due to the absence of the film-forming component and the
sole reliance on the bubble blanket to smother the fire.
• F3s generally work better when aspirated but aspirated foam is hard to throw far
distances and doesn’t flow well around obstructions.
• F3s require better application techniques and some level of finesse to optimize
performance and prevent plunging into the fuel and disruption of the foam blanket.
• F3s are effective in ARFF type applications with the proper application techniques but
typically take multiple application passes to control and extinguish the fire versus one for
AFFF.

E-1
This page intentionally left blank.

E-2
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for fiscal year 2020, section 322 “Replacement
of Fluorinated Aqueous Film-Forming Foaming Foam with Fluorine-Free Fire-Fighting Agent”,
established the requirement to develop and publish a new military specification for fluorine-
free firefighting agents for use at all military installations no later than January 31, 2023 [1]. As
a result of this Congressional mandate, the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) Code 6186
submitted a statement of work to the Department of Defense’s (DoD’s) Environmental Security
and Technology Certification Program (ESTCP) office that resulted in the establishment of
multiple projects to support DoD’s need to develop and/or identify an environmentally
acceptable, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) free, alternative to existing Aqueous
Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) agents.

Five SERDP/ESTCP programs [2-6] were conducted over the past four years to develop the
firefighting performance metrics for use in the new land-based military specification (MIL-PRF-
32725) [7]. During the initial program, a detailed literature search was conducted to identify
commercially available products. Over sixty products were identified being marketed as
“environmentally friendly” AFFF alternatives. Twenty-five of them were selected and tested
against approval scale fires (i.e., 28ft2 pan fires conducted with gasoline and Jet A). During these
screening tests, five fluorine-free foams (F3s) demonstrated superior firefighting capabilities and
were selected for inclusion in the four follow-on ESTCP-funded test programs. All five products
were Type III foam concentrates (i.e., proportioned/mixed at ratios of 97% water and 3% foam
concentrate). During the follow-on efforts, these products were tested to the requirements for
chemical and physical properties, and fire performance in the AFFF military specification (MIL-
PRF-24385F) [8]. In addition to the MIL-PRF-24385F tests, many of the tests were repeated with
modified parameters (such as fuel type and increased foam discharge rates) to better understand
the capabilities of these commercially available F3 products. Although not as good as AFFFs, the
F3s performed very well, supporting the need for large-scale validation tests. The validation tests
were conducted over a two-year period using the facilities and fire scenarios that were the basis
for the development of AFFF over 40 years ago.
The results of the validation tests are published in two separate reports [9-10]. This report
provides a high-level summary of the lessons learned during the large-scale validation tests
conducted at the Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division (NAWCWD) – China Lake (CL) and
a detailed description of how to effectively fight fire in Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting (ARFF)
type scenarios using the new F3s.

_____________
Manuscript approved May 16, 2023.

1
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

2.0 OBJECTIVES

The ultimate objective of the five SERDP/ESTCP programs was to support the DoD in meeting the
FY20 NDAA requirements. Specifically, data needed to be collected to develop and publish the
new land-based F3 MILSPEC (MIL-PRF-32725) [7]. In addition, information needed to be collected
on the capabilities of these products and how to use them effectively to combat fires, in order to
assist in a smooth transition away from AFFF to the new F3s at DoD military installations.
The intent of this report is to provide a high-level description on how to effectively use new F3
products by answering the following questions:

• What are the differences between AFFF and F3s?

• How does foam quality play into the fire extinguishing performance?
• What are the best nozzles to use?
• What is the best spray pattern?
• What are the best application techniques?
• What are the best tactics?
• Why does it take 1.5-2 times longer to put out fires with F3s as compared to AFFF?

3.0 VALIDATION TESTING OVERVIEW

The final validation testing of the leading F3s was conducted under two SERDP Programs (WP21-
3461 and WP21-3465) against large-scale ARFF type fire scenarios. These fire scenarios included
both three-dimensional running fuel fires (with a growing spill fire component) and large
uncontained fuel spill fires.
The final validation testing was conducted in four phases. The Phase I fire scenarios were fought
using a standard fire hose equipped with a 125 gpm vari-nozzle as well as other discharge devices.
The Phase II fire scenarios were fought using a 250 gpm turret nozzle installed on a small ARFF
vehicle. During Phase II, the fire sizes were scaled up by a factor of two to maintain a similar
foam application rate (i.e., 0.05 gpm/ft2) between the two phases. The Phase III tests
investigated various methods and hardware for improving the firefighting performance of these
F3s by developing better application techniques and firefighting tactics/doctrine, as well as the
development of novel nozzle designs specifically suited to discharge F3s (i.e., variable aspiration).
During the Phase IV tests/demonstrations, the DoD Fire and Emergency Services Working Group
(FESWG) was invited to witness and participate in the development and the refinement of
training materials required to effectively field these new F3s throughout the various DoD
facilities. The goal of Phase IV was to share the knowledge and lessons learned throughout this
program with the FESWG as a first step in implementing F3s in DoD applications.
A description of the test setup(s), fire scenarios, firefighting equipment and a high-level
discussion of the results is provided in the following sections. During each of the four phases of
this program, the capabilities of the new F3s were baselined against a Type III AFFF currently on
the Qualified Products List (QPL) [11].

2
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

3.1 Test Facility

The tests were conducted on the “Mini Deck” at Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division
(NAWCWD) in China Lake CA. The Mini Deck is an 80ft-by-80ft concrete pad. The deck is
equipped with an effluent drainage and collection system for waste disposal. The Mini Deck is
surrounded by a concrete apron that is used to stage equipment such as the fire pump(s) and
fuel truck. The deck is constructed of high temperature concrete, which allowed the fuel to be
dumped or flowed directly onto the concrete surface representative of an actual aviation crash-
type scenario. Photographs of the Mini Deck are provided as Figure 3.1-1.

Fig. 3.1-1 – Mini Deck

3.2 Fire Scenarios

The fire scenarios included large uncontained fuel spill fires and three-dimensional running fuel
fires (with a growing spill fire component). All fires were produced using F-24, which is a
kerosene-based aviation fuel that has a minimum flashpoint of 100oF (38oC). F-24 is the military
variant of Jet A (including additional corrosion inhibitors). The details of each fire scenario are
shown in Figure 3.2-1.

3
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

Spill Fire Scenario (hose line) Debris Pile Fire Scenario (hose line)
400 gallons F-24 (Jet A) Steel enclosure, fuel cascade, cinder blocks
2400-2800 ft2 / 125 gpm/ 0.05 gpm/ft2 45 gpm F-24 (Jet A)

Spill Fire Scenario (turret) Running Fuel Fire Scenario (hose line and turret)
1000 gallons F-24 (Jet A) Pipe manifold, slit wing configuration
5500-6000 ft2 / 250 gpm/ 0.05 gpm/ft2 45 gpm F-24 (Jet A)

Fig. 3.2-1 – Fire Scenario Descriptions

With respect to timing/procedures, the attack on the spill fires began about 10-15 seconds after
the fire reached full involvement, as witnessed by the entire fuel surface being ignited. For the
running fuel fire scenarios, the fuel was allowed to flow for one minute at ~45 gpm prior to
ignition. Once ignited, the fire was then allowed to burn for an additional minute prior to
initiating the attack on the fire. By the time the attack on the fire began, the spill fire was usually
about 400-600 ft2 as shown in the two photographs on the right side of Figure 3.2-1. The fuel
flowed continuously from the start of the test until the fire had been extinguished.

3.3 Foam Concentrates

The top five commercially available F3s identified during the WP19-5324 program were included
in Phase I, II and III of this validation test program. Three of the F3s were Newtonian concentrates
(low viscosity that flowed like water) and the other two were non-Newtonian concentrates (high

4
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

viscosity with a consistency of molasses). Since the non-Newtonian concentrates were not
expected to meet the viscosity requirements of the draft land-based MILSPEC (MIL-PRF-XX727)
only the three Newtonian F3s were included in Phase IV and were the focus of the tactic’s
development.
3.4 Firefighting Equipment

The names of the products used during this assessment are provided for information purposes
only. They are not meant as an endorsement and/or a condemnation of the product in any way.

The test fires were combatted using either a 125 gpm nozzle on a 1.75 inch firefighting hand line
or a 250 gpm turret nozzle installed on the P-25A (depending on the test). During a limited
number of running fuel fire tests, the fires were combated using a dual agent attack. During the
dual agent attack, the initial attack on the fire was made using a 125 gpm hose line nozzle
(referred to in NPFA 403 as the primary agent [12]) and after the fire had been controlled and
contained near the fuel source, a portable extinguisher containing either a potassium-based dry
chemical (Purple-K Potassium Bicarbonate (PKP)) or a halogenated agent (Halotron –
hydrochlorofluorocarbon)) was discharge toward the 3-D component. These products are
referred to as complimentary agents in NFPA 403 [12].

3.4.1 Hose Line Description

The hose line setup used to combat the test fires consisted of a pre-mixed solution storage tank
(2500 gallons), a fire pump (1500 gpm) and a 1.75 inch fire hose equipped with a 125 gpm vari-
nozzle (sometimes referred to as a combination nozzle). All of these components were located
in the east side of the Mini Deck.

3.4.2 Hose Line Nozzles (Standard Water Type Nozzles)

The hose line was equipped with a 125 gpm, 1.5 inch constant flow nozzle manufactured by
either Akron Brass (referred to as the “Navy Nozzle”) or Task Force Tips (TFT). The nozzles are
designed to flow 125 gpm at 100 psi (K factor 12.5 gpm/psi1/2). The nozzles have a 1.5 inch
hose connection, an integral pistol grip handle and bale control as shown in Figure 3.4-1.
Akron Brass Co. Task Force Tips, Metro 1

Fig. 3.4-1 – 125 gpm Vari-nozzles

5
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

3.4.3 Hose Line Hybrid Nozzle

A hybrid TFT Quadracup Nozzle Model # FQS125BCP was included in Phases III & IV to assess new
nozzle designs that have the capability of providing higher aspirated foam solutions. The nozzle
can be switched to higher aspirating mode by sliding a sleeve on the outside of the barrel forward,
which allows the entrainment of air at the back side of the sleeve. The nozzle has the same flow
characteristics as the standard nozzles mentioned previously (i.e., constant flow rate K factor
12.5 gpm/psi1/2). A photograph of the TFT Quadracup Nozzle is provided as Figure 3.4-2.

Fig. 3.4-2 – TFT Quadracup Aspirating Nozzle (Hybrid)

3.4.4 Foam Tubes

Two foam tube adapters for the TFT Metro 1 were also assessed during validation test program.
Images of the foam tubes are provided as Figure 3.4-3. The long foam tube had significant reach
(~ 90 ft) with a straight bore design and produced aspirated foam with an expansion ratio on the
order of 10:1. The short foam tube produced foam with an expansion ratio on the order of 20:1
but had limited reach (~ 45 ft).

Task Force Tips Model # FJ-LX-HM Task Force Tips model # FJ-MX-HM
Low Expansions (up to 10:1) Medium Expansions (up to 20:1)

Fig. 3.4-3 – Foam Tubes

6
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

3.4.5 Complementary Agents

The complementary agents used during a limited number of running fuel fire tests included
portable extinguishers containing either PKP dry chemical or Halotron and are shown in Figure
3.4-4.
The dry chemical extinguisher consisted of an Ansul Model MIL-RP-K-20. The extinguisher is
designed in accordance with MIL-E-24091 and contains 18 lbs of dry chemical (Purple K –
potassium bicarbonate) propelled by approximately 5 ounces of CO2. The dry chemical was
discharged through a small hose at a rate of approximately 1 lb/sec equating to an 18 second
discharge time. The extinguisher has a UL rating of 80B:C.
The Halotron extinguisher consisted of an Amerex Model #398. The extinguisher contains 14.5
lbs of Halotron and has a UL rating of 2A:10B:C. The Halotron was discharged through a small
hose at a rate just over 1 lb/sec equating to a 14 second discharge time.

18 lb. Dry Chemical Portable Fire Extinguisher 14.5 lb. Halotron Portable Fire Extinguisher

Fig. 3.4-4 – Complementary Agents/ Portable Extinguishers

3.4.6 P-25A Shipboard Fire Truck

The P-25A shipboard fire truck was used as the ARFF vehicle during these validation tests [13].
The P-25A holds 750 gallons of water and 60 gallons of foam concentrate. The fire truck comes
equipped with a 500-gpm turret and a 1.5 inch, 100-foot-long hard hose reel with a 95-gpm vari-
nozzle. During these tests, the 500 gpm turret nozzle was replaced with a 250 gpm nozzle and
the water tank was be filled with 750 gallons of premixed foam solution and the discharge system
set for a “water only” discharge. Premixing was selected to ensure accurate foam solution

7
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

concentrations during the test. An illustration of the P-25A is provided as Figure 3.4-5 and
photograph is provided as Figure 3.4-6.

Fig. 3.4-5 – P-25A Shipboard Fire Truck (Illustration)

Fig. 3.4-6 – P-25A Shipboard Fire Truck (Photograph)

The standard 500 gpm turret nozzle was replaced with a TFT Master Stream 1000, Model # M-
RS1000-NJ as shown in Figure 3.4-7. The TFT nozzle has selectable flow rates (250, 350, 500, 750,

8
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

and 1000 gpm) at 100 psi. During these tests, the selector ring was placed at 250 gpm position,
making it perform as a constant flowrate, 250 gpm nozzle. The nozzle is designed to accept the
Task Force Tips FJ-H low expansion foam tube attachment, also shown in Figure 3.4-7. The low
expansion foam tube produced foam solutions with expansion ratios on the order of 10:1.

TFT Stream Master 1000 Turret Nozzle TFT Foam Jet FJ-H

Fig. 3.4-7 – Task Force Tips Constant Flow Turret Nozzle and Foam Tube Adapter

3.5 High-Level Summary

Approximately 150 validation tests and demonstrations were conducted during the four phases
of this program (i.e., 107 hose line tests and 43 turret tests).
It was concluded during all four phases of this study that the leading F3s typically took about 1.5-
2 times longer than AFFF to extinguish the fires in most scenarios. Specifically, the spill fire
extinguishment times for AFFF were between 30-45 seconds (i.e., 30 seconds using the hose line
and 45 seconds using the turret) while the F3 extinguishment times were between 45-60 seconds
for the hose line and 60-90 seconds using the turret. The running fuel fires were typically
extinguished using AFFF in less than 60 seconds and in about 90-120 seconds using the F3s. The
five F3s all demonstrated similar extinguishment capabilities and times.
The burnback capabilities of the F3s were also assessed during the spill fire scenarios.
Immediately after the spill fires were extinguished, a small hole was created in the foam blanket
and ignited using a propane brush burner torch. The burnback time was defined as the time from
ignition until the fire had grown to 100 ft2. In general, all the foams tested during this program
demonstrated good burnback capabilities against the F-24 spill fire scenarios. The burnback time
for AFFF was about three minutes when discharged through the standard nozzle and about four
minutes when discharged through the foam tube(s). The addition of the foam tube typically
increased the burnback times by about a minute for almost all the foams. When comparing the
F3s to AFFF, the burnback times were typically about 30-seconds shorter (i.e., the fire burned
back slightly faster) for the Newtonian F3s.

9
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

Additional details of the lessons learned during these validation tests are provided in the
following section. The actual test results are published in two separate reports [9,10].

4.0 LESSONS LEARNED

The following sections provide a detailed description of the lessons learned on how to fight liquid
fuel fires in ARFF-type scenarios (i.e., large fuel spill and running fuel fires) using these new F3s.
The tactics and techniques discussed in the following sections pertain to both hose lines and
turrets since the application techniques and the approach for combatting the fires are basically
the same for both sets of hardware. The tactics and techniques were developed for non-air-
aspirating water type nozzles when used against aviation fuels (i.e., kerosene-based fuels with
minimum flashpoints of 100oF (38oC)). Combatting fires produced with lower flashpoint fuels
may require different tactics and techniques.
With this said, the tests used to develop these tactics and techniques were developed under
controlled circumstances and in many respects provide ideal conditions to combat these fires.
Specifically, the test area was flat, accessible (i.e., relatively unobstructed) and the weather
conditions were within a prescribed set of parameters. The firefighters were also well trained
and intimately familiar with combating liquid fuel fires using AFFF. The weather conditions (i.e.,
precipitation), wind speed and direction, terrain/topography, ground conditions and accessibility
need to be considered and compensated for during an actual event. In other words, these
general tactics and techniques serve as a starting point but may need to be modified depending
on the conditions at hand.
4.1 Foam Differences/Types

Foam firefighting agents extinguish liquid fuel fires by providing a physical barrier between the
fuel and the surrounding air. The barrier prevents the fuel vapors from mixing and
reacting/combusting with the air, which is where the burning occurs. Depending on the nature
of the fuel (i.e., flashpoint and boiling point), the cooling aspects of the foam solution may also
contribute to the extinguishment process.

For AFFF, the barrier between the fuel and the surrounding air consists of two components: an
aspirated foam/bubble blanket and a fluorinated surfactant film that forms and floats on the fuel
surface as the liquid from the bubble blanket drains into solution. The degree of contribution for
the two mechanisms varies with the fire conditions. Under most situations, both mechanisms
provide major contributions in extinguishing the fire but in some instances, the film component
may be an adequate barrier. As a point worth noting, the film component is a liquid and flows
more easily across the fuel surface and around obstructions than the aspirated foam/bubble
blanket. In addition, the film component can encapsulate fuel and fuel vapors trapped in the
foam blanket preventing them from igniting and contributing to the fire.

The current F3s do not contain fluorinated surfactants and/or chemicals that can form a film on
the fuel surface. As a result, F3s rely solely on the aspirated foam/bubble blanket to provide a
physical barrier between the fuel and the surrounding air. The lack of the film component
reduces the firefighting capabilities of the F3s when compared to AFFF but can be compensated

10
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

for, to some degree, by producing better aspirated foam. However, there are some issues with
aspirated foam. Specifically, aspirated foam does not flow as well as a liquid, limiting its’ ability
to flow around debris to extinguish obstructed fires. In addition, it is difficult to throw aspirated
foam long distances especially in windy conditions. In any case, foam aspiration will be a key
variable for optimizing the use/effectiveness of F3s going forward.

As a final note, there are some F3 manufacturers that claim to form a film on a fuel surface. There
is limited data to support their claims and if they do form a film, it is likely inadequate to
contribute to the extinguishment process.

4.2 F3 Foam Blanket Discussion

When comparing the capabilities of AFFF and F3s against the fuel spill fire scenario, a couple of
observations were noted. First, when the F3s were applied forcefully to the fuel surface, there
appeared to be significant fuel pickup in the foam blanket allowing the fire to continue to burn
on top of the blanket. This is shown in Figure 4.2-1. This low intensity, ghosting type flames are
difficult to see through typical tinted firefighting face pieces, especially in situations where they
are not the nozzleman’s direct line of sight. The F3 hose stream also tended to punch holes in
the foam blanket at the impact location making the fire somewhat more persistent at that
location than observed with AFFF. As a result, a “gentle” foam application of F3 works more
effectively than a forceful application.

Fig. 4.2-1 – Fuel Pickup in an F3 Foam Blanket

11
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

In addition, under some circumstances, gusty winds would open small holes in the F3 aspirated
foam blanket allowing the fuel to reignite at that location. When this occurred, the hose team
had to circle back and extinguish the fire, slowing their advancement into/through the spill and
lengthening the overall extinguishment time. A series of photographs showing this phenomenon
is provided as Figure 4.2-2. These small burning pockets were not observed when using AFFF due
to the film formation provided by the AFFF. Based on these observations, it is recommended
that the hose line handler, 3rd man on the handline, slide back about 10-15 feet behind the
nozzleman and backup firefighter to allow better surveillance of the previously extinguished
area when advancing through the spill. This distance also allows for reasonable communication
between the hand-line team while still providing adequate hose handling if the nozzleman
needed to make quick adjustments to respond to re-ignition of fires behind them.

Fig. 4.2-2 – Openings in F3 Aspirated Foam Blanket

12
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

Lastly, there were several instances where the F3 foam blanket degraded quickly making it look
milky as opposed to aspirated foam. The milky nature of the foam blanket reduced the
extinguishment capabilities and burnback protection and was attributed to a combination of the
following variables: poor initial application/aspiration, plunging into the fuel, and elevated fuel
and deck temperatures. Under some circumstances, the fire would burn through the milky foam
blanket as shown in Figure 4.2-3. As a point worth noting, the AFFF experienced similar foam
blanket degradation, but the film formation prevented the fire from reigniting.

Fig. 4.2-3 – Milky F3 Foam Blanket Shortly after Reignition

In closing, it needs to be restated that these tests were conducted with kerosene-based fuels
(i.e., F-24 is a combustible liquid with a minimum flashpoint of 100oF), which reduces the
consequence of fuel pickup in the foam blanket (i.e., higher flashpoint fuels have lower vapor
pressures that can be reduced by cooling of the fuel). Conversely, these conditions could have
been significantly worse if the tests had been conducted with a flammable liquid like gasoline
that has a much lower flashpoint temperature and a much higher vapor pressure.
4.3 Hardware

There are two basic types of legacy manual firefighting nozzles that have been used by the fire
service; ones that were designed to discharge water (non-air-aspirating) and others that were
designed to aspirate foam. The water type nozzles have the greatest reach and adjustable spray
patterns that cover the range from straight stream to a wide fog. The nozzles designed to
aspirate foam were developed originally for the use of protein foam that relied solely on a thick
foam blanket to smother the fire. These aspirating nozzles have limited reach and spray pattern
characteristics but were necessary to optimize the effectiveness of protein foam solutions.

During the rollout of AFFF years ago, it was determined that the non-air-aspirating, water type
nozzles could still be used with AFFF for several reasons. First, the shearing produced by the
higher velocity liquid droplets as they flew through the lower velocity surrounding air tended to
provide some degree of air-aspiration. This limited aspiration combined with the film formation
of AFFF was adequate to combat most liquid fuel fire scenarios. In addition, foam application

13
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

techniques used for protein foams such as roll-on and banking were carried over for use with
AFFF (i.e., new application techniques intended specifically for AFFF were never pursued). These
application techniques produced a thicker, more aspirated foam blanket and increased the
capabilities of the AFFF using water type nozzles.

A variety of discharge devices were used during the validation test program. These included
standard water type nozzles (non-air-aspirating), foam tube adapters, and a hybrid nozzle that
could switch from non-air-aspirating to air-aspirating mode using a sliding mechanism on the
barrel. Examples of these nozzles/devices are shown in Figure 4.3-1.

Water Type Nozzle Foam Tube Task Force Tips Hybrid Nozzle TFT QuadCup
Task Force Tips, Metro 1 Model # FJ-LX-HM Aspirating Nozzle

Fig. 4.3-1 – Example Discharge Nozzles/Devices

Although the water type nozzles provided minimal foam aspiration, they were still able to
extinguish all of the fires conducted during this effort, but their effectiveness was highly
dependent on the application techniques used by the firefighter. The foam tubes provided
slightly faster control and extinguishment times but required the firefighting party to advance
further through the spill area due to the reduced reach of the foam stream. With the reduced
throw distance, it is important that the hose team works together while using foam tubes to
move laterally across the entire pool to ensure complete fire extinguishment prior to advancing
further. In general, the foam tubes significantly increased the expansion ratio/aspiration of the
foam solution and tended to discharge the foam more gently on the fuel surface. The biggest
disadvantage of the foam tube was the inability to adjust the spray pattern of the nozzle. The
hybrid nozzle also worked well if the firefighter was familiar with how the nozzle worked. In
short, to optimize the overall performance, the firefighter needed to focus on fighting the fire
while changing the nozzle settings without looking down at the nozzle. In some instances,
adjusting the nozzle tended to distract the firefighter, slowing the extinguishment process.

With that as the background, all the nozzles/devices were made to work well with F3s with
notable advantages and disadvantages. With the proper techniques and training, the water type

14
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

nozzles should be adequate for using F3s. Some of the optimization techniques are discussed in
the following sections. The foam tubes are more forgiving but require time to install, are
cumbersome to use, and were found inadequate for combating some running fuel 3-D debris pile
fire scenarios. Foam tubes do not have the ability to be adjusted to a wide-angle fog for radiant
heat protection but make well aspirated foam. Foam tubes are optimal for covering unignited
fuel spills to prevent ignition and/or for applying a thick foam blanket over hot fuel that was
recently extinguished. The hybrid nozzle may be the way of the future with the proper training
and familiarization of the nozzle by the firefighter.

4.4 Pattern Selection

Pattern selection was shown to be a key variable in optimizing the performance of F3s discharged
from non-air-aspirating water type nozzles. During testing, a narrow angle spray pattern proved
to be optimal from both a stream reach and foam aspiration standpoint. Specifically, the
optimal pattern tended to produce foam with expansion ratios in the 6-8 range with only about
a 10% reduction in stream reach. A photograph of the optimal pattern is provided in Figure 4.4-
1.

Fig. 4.4-1 – Optimal Spray Pattern (narrow angle)

A technique developed by the firefighters to set the optimal spray pattern was to place one hand
on opposite sides of the nozzle barrel with the hands parallel to the stream and increase the
pattern until the stream touches their fingers as shown in Figure 4.4-2.

REST OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

15
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

Fig. 4.4-2 – Finger Width Pattern Selection/Setting

The firefighters would widen the pattern slightly as needed to apply foam to closer-in areas (i.e.,
trying to minimize the forceful application of the foam onto the fuel surface). A photograph
showing them widening the spray pattern is provided as Figure 4.4-3. The application of foam to
the fuel surface using spray patterns wider than 15 degrees had minimal effect on the fire but
could be used as a radiant shield when advancing on the fire.

Fig. 4.4-3 – Slightly Wider Spray Pattern Used for Close-in Application

As a final note on spray patterns, straight stream is effective in cutting paths through the fuel
spill to establish egress paths or to cool ordnance but tends to push the fuel and move the fire(s)
to other locations (i.e., does not necessarily extinguish the fire).

4.5 Foam Application Techniques for Combatting Spill Fires

The following is a list of observations and suggested foam application techniques that produced
the fastest control and extinguishment times against the spill fire scenarios. These techniques
were developed for use with non-air-aspirated discharge nozzles and kerosene-based fuels (i.e.,

16
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

F-24 with a minimum flashpoint of 100oF (38oC)). Lower flashpoint fuels may require different
techniques and discharge devices.

The application technique that worked best for spill fires is referred to as a horizontal sweep.
Using the narrow angle, finger width spray pattern described in the previous section, sweep the
foam parallel to the ground about waist height above the front edge of the fuel surface during
the initial approach to the fire. This tends to “lob” aspirated foam onto the burning fuel (i.e., a
gentle application from a low elevation) during the initial approach on the fire (i.e., 50-75 ft
away). This application technique worked well for both hose lines and turrets as shown in Figure
4.5-1.

Fig. 4.5-1 – Horizontal Sweep Foam Application

While advancing on the fire, sweep the stream horizontally across the entire width of the leading
edge of spill/fire with the objective of extinguishing horizontal strips during the approach. This
is shown in Figure 4.5-2. The optimal speed of the sweeping motion is scenario specific and will
need to be determined based on the effectiveness of application (i.e., sweeping too fast may not
apply enough foam to a given location to be effective). The nozzleman/turret operator in some
scenarios may have to apply additional foam to areas adversely affected by the wind and areas
where the heat is causing the foam blanket to breakdown quickly.

When applying the foam with a hose line, once the firefighters have reached the spill area, a
hybrid approach for applying the foam to the fire appeared to work best (especially if the
firefighters decide to advance into the spill area). From here, the center of the nozzle spray
pattern should be trained at the leading edge of the fire. Using this technique, the top half of the
spray pattern is basically lobbed onto the burning surface while the bottom half tends to provide
more of a “roll-on” effect. Once the fire has been controlled, some localized targeting may be
required to completely extinguish some of the small residual fires and areas that have reflashed
due to foam break-down.

17
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

During the tests conducted at NSWCWD-CL, the ARFF vehicle was not allowed to progress into
the spill area, so the operators typically fought the fire using the horizontal sweeping technique
for the duration of the test. However, some localized targeting was required to completely
extinguish some of the small residual fires.

Some precautions should be taken when using the horizontal sweeping technique. First, applying
the foam at higher elevations (i.e., higher than waist height) or angled slightly upward may cause
the foam to be entrained into the fire/smoke plume preventing it from ever reaching the fuel
surface. In some application, such as discharge from an ARFF Truck’s roof turret, a slightly
downward angle may be preferred. In addition, the lower aspirated foam produced by the non-
air-aspirated nozzles (even with the optimal spray pattern) tends to breakdown quickly resulting
in a risk for reflash/burnback. This could be a significant concern when combatting lower
flashpoint fuels. A photograph showing rapid foam breakdown is provided as Figure 4.5-3.

18
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

Fig. 4.5-2 – Horizontal Sweep Suppression Sequence

Fig. 4.5-3 – Rapid Foam Breakdown Shortly After Application

To compensate for the rapid breakdown of the foam blanket, the hose team should continue to
apply foam to the fuel surface well after the fire has been extinguished. This is a good example
of where a hybrid nozzle would be beneficial and/or the installation of a foam tube on the nozzle.
Specifically, the ability to increase the aspiration of the foam provides better foam blanket
formation for vapor suppression and reflash protection.

The horizontal sweep appears to be the best technique with the following exception (and the
caveats associated with the flashpoint of the fuel). If rapid extinguishment is required near a
hazard (e.g., ordnance or egress path), straight stream would initially be the best choice to push
the fuel away from the area and cool the hazard (i.e., weapon or fuselage). After the fire has

19
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

been pushed away from the hazard, the “roll-on” method described below should be used to
develop a robust/thick blanket of foam to ensure any residual fuel does not re-ignite.

Many organizations have been teaching a “roll-on” or “bouncing/indirect” technique for applying
foam to a fuel surface independent of the foam type (i.e., even with AFFF). A roll-on technique
and/or a bouncing/indirect application technique where the foam is ricocheted off the ground
just before the leading of the fire or nearby object, produces higher aspirated foam through
agitation that can then be pushed with the hose stream onto the fire. During the China Lake
tests, the roll-on technique was used successfully to extinguish the spill fires, but the control
and extinguishment times were 30-40% longer than the horizontal sweep. The ricochet
technique does provide the most robust foam blanket but takes longer to produce and push it
toward the fire (as opposed to sweeping the hose stream across the leading the edge of the fuel).
In addition, the roll-on application can be problematic for inexperienced firefighters since it tends
to pick up fuel in the foam blanket if the foam is not applied properly. The roll-on technique also
has the potential to disturb the existing foam blanket potentially exposing the fuel to the fire. A
photograph of the roll-on technique is provided as Figure 4.5-4.

Fig. 4.5-4 – Roll-on Foam Application

In general, the use of the roll-on and/or bouncing/indirect technique can be considered a viable
tactic if the conditions warrant. As an example, if there is a dry deck area adjacent to the spill
that allows the ricochet of the foam onto the burning fuel, the roll-on or bouncing may be a viable
tactic. In addition, bouncing the foam off aircraft parts (e.g., fuselage, engine, or wings) or off
exposed ordnance can provide cooling during the development of the foam blanket. These types
of decisions will need to be made by the nozzleman or turret operator based on the conditions
at hand.

4.6 Foam Application Techniques for Combatting Running Fuel Fires

The following is a list of observations and suggested foam application techniques that produced
the fasted control and extinguishment times against the running fuel fire scenarios using hose

20
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

lines. These techniques were also developed for use with non-air-aspirated discharge nozzles
and kerosene-based fuels (i.e., F-24 with a minimum flashpoint of 100oF (38oC)). Air-aspirating
nozzles showed good capabilities against the flowing fuel/growing spill component but had
limited capabilities against the three-dimensional, running fuel component (i.e., from the fuel
source to the ground).

The flowing fuel fire scenario consisted of a manifold located about 7-8 ft above the ground that
contained a half inch slit ~ 2.5-3 ft long designed to simulate a damage airplane wing. The fuel
(F-24) flowed from the slit at a rate of 45-50 gpm and impacted an elevated steel plate directly
below the manifold and accumulated on the deck (i.e., a growing fuel spill fire). A photograph of
the flowing fuel fire is provided in Figure 4.6-1 below. As the fire continued to burn and the fuel
system began to heat up, the fire became established at the fuel source as well as on the fuel
spill surface.

Fig. 4.6-1 – Flowing/Running Fuel Fire Scenario

The foam application technique that worked best against the running fuel fire is somewhat
different than the stagnant spill fire suppression techniques mentioned previously. The horizon
sweep was adequate for controlling the spill but allowed the fuel to reignite once the stream was
directed toward the three-dimensional component. As a result, a thicker, more robust foam
blanket was required to provide the needed time to combat the three-dimensional, running fuel
component (i.e., from the fuel source to the ground).

21
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

The technique that worked the best against the flowing/running fuel fire was the legacy roll-
on application technique. Using the narrow angle, finger width spray pattern described in
Section 4.4, the hose nozzleman should direct the stream toward the ground about 10-15 ft in
front of them to accumulate a robust foam blanket at the leading edge of the fire. Once the foam
accumulation looks adequate, the hose team should quickly roll the foam banket toward the base
of the three-dimensional component. The intent is to cut a path through the spill and quickly
cool the area around the falling fuel to minimize the likelihood for reignition. The accumulated,
aspirated foam was more resilient and was less susceptible to being washed away by the flowing
fuel. The aspirated foam also tended to remain intact adjacent to heated objects/obstructions
and helped to prevent reignition of the fuel at these locations. The roll-on technique is shown in
Figure 4.6-2. During the approach, sweeping the stream upward toward the fuel source every
15-20 seconds also provided cooling of the fuel source and the surrounding materials.

Fig. 4.6-2 – Roll-on Foam Application Pushing Toward the Base of the Falling Fuel

Once the area at the base of the falling fuel is extinguished and a robust foam blanket has been
established in this area, the focus should shift to extinguishing the fuel source. This can be
achieved by directing the hose stream at the source with the intent of blowing the flame away
from the fuel or using a dual agent attack using a complementary agent like dry chemical. Both
techniques are shown in Figure 4.6-3. It should be noted that small fires located away from the
falling fuel can be extinguished later and should not burn back toward the falling fuel due to the
robust foam blanket that has been established at this location.

Pushing the flame away from the source Dual agent attack with dry chemical

Fig. 4.6-3 – Options for Extinguishing the Fuel Source

22
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

Once the fuel source has been extinguished and cooled, the focus should then shift to
extinguishing any remaining fires located around the edges of the spill using the horizontal
sweep and localized targeting to extinguish any residual fires. Although the roll-on technique
worked well up to this point, the horizontal sweep is less likely to disturb the existing foam
blank allowing the fire to spread back toward the fuel source.

The same tactics worked well against the debris pile fires conducted during Phases I & III. A
photograph of the initial approach on the debris pile is shown in Figure 4.6-4.

Fig. 4.6-4 – Roll-on Foam Application Pushing Toward the Debris Pile Fire

Since foam extinguishing agents have limited capabilities against three-dimensional, running
fuel fires, highly obstructed fires such as our debris pile and three-dimensional fires consisting
of lower flashpoint fuels will most likely require the use of a complementary agent such as dry
chemical.

4.7 Why Does it Take F3s 1.5-2 Times Longer to Extinguish Fires than AFFF?

As mentioned in Section 3.5, the leading F3s typically took about 1.5-2.0 times longer than AFFF
to extinguish the fires in most scenarios. The differences in the F3’s capabilities as compared to
AFFF’s are best described through the visual observations made during the tests. As the
firefighters approached and attacked the fire with AFFF, one sweep with either a hose line or a
turret tended to extinguish all the fire within the sweep area including behind small obstructions.
However, one sweep with the F3s tended to leave holes in the foam blanket and typically would
not extinguish the obstructed fires. Any plunging of the spray into the fuel with the F3s typically

23
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

resulted in fuel pickup in the foam blanket causing the foam blanket itself to burn but at a lower
intensity than the open spill area. Photographs of these conditions are provided in Figure 4.7-1.
The flowing fuel component of the running fuel fire also tended to wash-away the F3 foam
blanket requiring continued application of foam at that location. None of these conditions were
observed for AFFF during these scenarios and was attributed to the film-forming component of
AFFF. As a result, it typically took two passes with the F3 stream, and sometimes more to
completely extinguish all the fires within the sweep area as opposed to only one pass with AFFF.
Bottom line, the need for the two passes resulted in longer extinguishment times for the F3s as
compared to AFFF.

Fig. 4.7-1 – Single Stream Pass Resulting Conditions for F3s

4.8 Learning From Inexperienced Firefighters

During the Phase III effort, two trained but inexperienced firefighters were brought in to assist in
conducting the tests. As the series progressed, the inexperienced firefighters were given the
opportunity to extinguish the fires at the end of each burnback test. The lessons learned
watching them fight the fires provided valuable information on the need for hands-on training
during the deployment of F3s throughout DoD applications.

During their first few attempts, it was obvious that the firefighters were thinking more about the
techniques they had been taught as opposed to adjusting to situation at hand. Their approach
to the fire was robotic and awkward and they had no feel for how to apply the foam to the fire.

24
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

Specifically, they would set the nozzle on a wide-angle fog pattern, advance a few steps toward
the fire, and then apply foam to the fire using a straight stream or narrow angle spray pattern
(i.e., 30 degrees). This process was repeated numerous times as they slowly progressed toward
the fire. The process looked awkward, and the fire tended to grow during the process. During
the attack on the fire, the firefighters tended to punch holes in the foam blanket at the stream
impingement location. As a result of the slow/awkward advancement and the poor foam
application techniques, the fires always got worse (i.e., larger) before they got better.

The good news was that by the end of the week, the inexperienced firefighters had developed
their techniques and could rapidly control and extinguish the test fires. An analogy to spackling
or painting comes to mind where the concept is simple, but it takes time and hands-on
experience to develop a technique. A photograph showing one of the lead firefighters directing
the inexperience firefighters on F3 application techniques is provided as Figure 4.8-1.

Fig. 4.8-1 – Inexperience Firefighters being Taught to Apply F3 to the Fire

The inexperienced firefighters definitively showed that training will be key to effectively fielding
these F3s in DoD applications. In addition, the techniques for combatting these fires cannot be
taught using propane burners since they cannot be used to assess foam application techniques
(i.e., plunging and/or blanketing of the fuel surface with aspirated foam). Large burn pits with
deep water substrates are also problematic since the effect of plunging the stream into the fuel
and the resulting fuel pickup in the foam blanket is not representative of a fuel spill on a hard
surface. Lastly, the fire scenarios become much more challenging as the fuel and hard surfaces
increase in temperature. The higher temperatures cause the foam blanket to breakdown faster
and provide a greater potential for reflash. This also occurs with AFFF, but the film formation
tends to help contain the vapors. A photograph of steam being produced by hot fuels and hard
surfaces during these tests is provided as Figure 4.8-2.

25
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

Fig. 4.8-2 – Steam Produced by the Heated Fuel and Hard Surfaces
4.9 AFFF Versus F3 Tactics

The same application techniques work well for both AFFF and F3s products although, the finesse
aspect of applying the foam has never been a point of emphasis during training with AFFF. In
general, the hardware, tactics and techniques that optimize the capabilities of the F3s also tend
to increase AFFF performance, but to a lesser degree. Specially, AFFF is much more forgiving of
poor application techniques due to the film formation. As an example, the AFFF film minimizes
the effects of plunging the stream into the fuel, both from a fuel pickup and holing of the foam
blanket perspective.

The bottom-line differences are summarized as follows:

• F3s are less forgiving than AFFF due to the absence of the film formation.
• F3s generally work better when aspirated but aspirated foam is hard to throw far
distances and does not flow well around obstructions.
• F3s require better application techniques and some level of finesse to optimize
performance and prevent plunging into the fuel and disruption of the foam blanket.
• F3s are effective in ARFF type applications with the proper application techniques but
typically take multiple stream passes versus one pass for AFFF to control and extinguish
the fire.

The reduced capabilities and the need for proper application techniques emphasizes the
importance of proper hands-on training for application of F3s going forward. Over the past 20
years or so, techniques for training firefighters for combatting liquid fuel fires have been
demonstrated/taught using propane burners and water hose streams. These are inadequate for
training firefighters to effectively use and apply F3s to a burning fuel surface. In addition, the use
of legacy burn pits where the fuel is floated on top of a deep-water substrate are also problematic
since plunging the stream into the fuel will not have the same consequences as would occur in

26
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

an actual fuel spill scenario. Specifically, mixing the hot fuel with the cooler water substrate tends
to cool the fuel and aid in extinguishment and opposed to picking up the fuel in the foam blanket,
potentially causing it to ignite and burn.

4.10 Hose Team Manning and Responsibilities

In addition to the proper foam application techniques and tactics described previously, additional
emphasis also needs to be placed on hose team training. The lack of the film-forming
component and the rapid degradation of the F3 foam blanket requires increased situational
awareness for all hose team members when combatting the fire. Preplanning, knowing
individual responsibilities, and communications (both physical and verbal) will be key to
successfully using these products.

It is recommended that the 1.75 inch hose team consist of three personnel: a nozzleman (1st in
line), a backup firefighter (2nd in line) and hose handler (3rd in line). These positions are shown in
Figure 4.10-1. The nozzleman is the architect for the initial attack on the fire and is responsible
for applying the foam using the application techniques described in the previous sections. The
backup firefighter should be located within an arm’s reach of the nozzleman and is responsible
for surveying the entire scene and directing the nozzleman where to apply the foam. Proper
planning and good communication between the nozzleman and backup firefighter are considered
imperative to effectively advance on the fire. The hose handler (sometimes referred to as the
choke man) is located about 10-12 feet behind the backup firefighter and is responsible for
providing slack in the hose and preventing the hose from kinking as the team advances on the
fire. The hose handler watches the backup nozzleman provide direction to nozzleman on where
to apply the foam and anticipates the movement in that direction. Most importantly, the hose
handler is on reflash watch and provides continued surveillance of the previously extinguished
areas. Potential burning around the edges and holing/degradation of the foam blanket need to
be continuously monitored during the entire evolution.

Fig. 4.10-1 – Hose Line Manning

27
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

Communications will be key to coordinate the attack effectively and safely on the fire and the
advancement of the hose. During testing and in most instances, the nozzleman typically
communicated verbally or by exaggerated head movements to indicate the direction to advance
the hose. The backup firefighter typically used hand signals or taps on the shoulders or thighs of
the nozzleman to indicate the direction in which to aim the hose (i.e., what fires needed to be
extinguished). Since the hose handler is behind and out of sight of the nozzleman and backup
firefighter, verbal communication is the only option.

The ability to effectively function as a team will require significant training to combat the fire,
advance the hose, circle back to extinguish residual fires and reignition, and to provide final
confirmation that the fire has been extinguished.

5.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The tactics and techniques discussed in this report pertain to both hose lines and turrets since
the approach for combatting the fire and the application techniques are similar for both sets of
hardware.
With this said, the tests used to develop these tactics and techniques were developed under
controlled circumstances and in many respects provide ideal conditions to combat these fires.
Specifically, the test area was flat, accessible (i.e., generally unobstructed) and the weather
conditions were within a prescribed set of parameters. The firefighters were also generally well
trained and intimately familiar with combating liquid fuel fires using AFFF. The weather
conditions (i.e., precipitation), wind speed and direction, terrain/topography, ground conditions
and accessibility need to be considered and compensated for during an actual attack on a fire. In
other words, use the guidance provided in this report but make the needed adjustments as
required to increase the likelihood of success depending on the conditions at hand.
The intent of this document was to convey the information on how to effectively use F3s by
answering the following questions:

• What are the differences between AFFF and F3s?

• How does foam quality play into the fire extinguishing performance?
• What are the best nozzles to use?
• What is the best spray pattern?
• What is the best application technique?
• What are the best tactics?
• Why does it take F3s 1.5-2 times longer to put out fires than AFFF?

In general, the same techniques work well for both AFFF and F3s, however the finesse aspect of
applying the foam to the fuel surface must be emphasized during training and real life application
of F3 agents. The hardware, tactics and techniques that optimize the capabilities of the F3s also
tend to increase AFFF performance (but to a lesser degree). Even with the use of the optimized
techniques, the leading F3s typically took about 1.5-2 times longer than AFFF to extinguish the

28
 Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

fires in most scenarios. The bottom-line differences between AFFF and F3s are summarized as
follows:

• F3s are less forgiving than AFFF due to the absence of the film-forming component and
the sole reliance on the bubble blanket to smother the fire.
• F3s generally work better when aspirated but aspirated foam is hard to throw far
distances and doesn’t flow well around obstructions.
• F3s require better application techniques and some level of finesse to optimize
performance and prevent plunging into the fuel and disruption of the foam blanket.
• F3s are effective in ARFF type applications with the proper application techniques but
typically take multiple application passes to control and extinguish the fire versus one for
AFFF.

The reduced capabilities of the F3s compared to AFFF and the need for proper application
techniques emphasizes the importance of proper hands-on training with F3 agents going
forward. Over the past 20 years or so, techniques for training firefighters for combatting liquid
fuel fires have been demonstrated/taught using propane burners and water hose streams. These
are inadequate for training firefighters to effectively use F3s. In addition, the use of legacy burn
pits where the fuel is floated on top of a deep-water substrate are also problematic since plunging
the stream into the fuel will not have the same consequences as would occur in an actual fuel
spill scenario on a hard surface. Specifically, mixing the hot fuel with the cooler water substrate
will tend to cool the fuel and aid in extinguishment as opposed to picking up the fuel in the foam
blanket, potentially causing it to ignite and burn.

In addition to the proper foam application techniques and tactics described in the body of this
report, emphasis also needs to be placed on hose team training. The lack of the film-forming
component and the rapid degradation of the F3 foam blanket requires increased situational
awareness for all hose team members when combatting the fire. Preplanning, knowing individual
responsibilities, and communications (both physical and verbal) will be key to successfully using
these products. The ability to effectively function as a team will require significant training to
combat the fire, advance the hose, circle back to extinguish residual fires and reignition and to
provide final confirmation that the fire has been extinguished.

In closing, the tactics and techniques provided in this report were developed for non-air-
aspirating water type nozzles when used against aviation fuels (i.e., kerosene-based fuels with
minimum flashpoints of 100oF (38oC)). Combatting fires produced with lower flashpoint fuels
may require different tactics and techniques.

6.0 REFERENCES

1. National Defense Authorization Act, FY20 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-

congress/senate-bill/1790 , 2020

29
Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Application Techniques and Firefighting Tactics

2. WP19-5324, Capabilities Assessment of Commercially Available PFAS-Free Foams

and Agents – Final Report: https://serdp-estcp.org/projects/details/1bed98f7-dbe6-
4bdd-98d2-1f9cfeb5f3d9
3. WP20-5373, “Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Military Specification Development”,
https://serdp-estcp.org/projects/details/5352641b-65a4-4da6-8b68-468d3c9e1ccf,
Still in progress.
4. WP19-5374, Foam Quality Effects on the Firefighting Capabilities of PFAS-Free
Foams – Final Report: https://serdp-estcp.org/projects/details/1bed98f7-dbe6-
4bdd-98d2-1f9cfeb5f3d9
5. WP21-3461, “Validation Testing of the Leading Commercially Available PFAS-Free
Foams”: https://serdp-estcp.org/projects/details/9d56cde3-9959-4dcf-a373-
b3d79d611d53, program still in progress.
6. WP21-3465, “Validation Testing of the Leading Commercially Available PFAS-Free
Foams”: https://serdp-estcp.org/projects/details/1bed98f7-dbe6-4bdd-98d2-
1f9cfeb5f3d9, program
7. NAVSEA “Fire Extinguishing Agent, Fluorine-Free Foam (F3) Liquid Concentrate, for
Land-Based Fresh Water Applications”, MIL-PRF-32725, 06 January 2023.
8. MIL-PRF-24385F (SH) Amendment 3, “Fire Extinguishing Agent, Aqueous Film-
Forming Foam (AFFF), Liquid Concentrate, for Fresh and Sea Water,” Naval Sea
Systems Command, 07 May 2019.
9. “Validation Testing of the Leading Commercially Available PFAS-Free Foams – Phases
I & II Final Report”, NAWCWD-CL Report, March 2022.
10. “Validation Testing of the Leading Commercially Available PFAS-Free Foams – Phase
III & IV Final Report”, NAWCWD-CL Report, May 2023. (in preparation)
11. NAVSEA MIL-PRF-24385 Qualified Products List.
https://qpldocs.dla.mil/search/parts.aspx?qpl=1910&param=QPL-24385&type=256
12. NFPA 403/460, Standard for Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Services at Airports,
2018 edition
13. https://www.navair.navy.mil/node/21206

30