Expanding ARFF vehicle lists

    I'd love to see the in-game ARFF expansion have more vehicles, as opposed to a general ARFF.


    - Crash Tenders [both in 4x4 / 6x6 / 8x8 chasis that hold varying amounts of foam / chemical retardant]
    - Dragons [These are Tenders with an extended boom nozzle for fighting fires]
    - RIVs [first attack, rapid intervention vehicles]
    - Chemical Tanker


    In terms of mechanics, The FAA requires airports to have various numbers equipment standards based on the length of aircraft that the airport services. These include both chemical agents and foam agents. Both of these could have gallon requirements like the new forestry update has. This would add to the realism and make the game feel more interesting in this regard.


    Feel free to help refine this idea. I'm not a fire fighter, just a nerd :).

    My argument against this is the airfields already have to have enough foam to deal with an incident involving the largest aircraft that it’s certified to handle as an international standard. So I don’t see why you would need x amount of foam as LAX for example will already have enough. For the wildfires it works because you may need to call additional resources but you shouldn’t need to at an airfield.


    Different size crash trucks should just be done via a graphic and maybe a name change.


    HRET systems still are not common enough to have a requirement in my opinion. I know airfields that handle the largest of aircraft (Boeing 747’s and B-52’s) and they still don’t yet have a HRET.


    Rapid Intervention Vehicle isn’t necessarily a bad idea however at a lot of airfields they just have the domestic and then the crash trucks. RIV’s are a little outdated now. They were very popular in a time where the crash trucks were slow lumbering beasts but they are no longer like this.


    Chemical tanker. Again, my point comes back to them being not that widespread. Crash trucks have to have a certain amount of dry chemical per regs so they tend to already have that and you don’t then have an additional tanker.

    I’d also like to point out, that’s just my personal view on it, if the community would like to see those things then I’m sure we can work on it as I think airport is lacking but I just personally don’t think that’s it

    Now, I would like to make a statement against that. I think having a requirement for how much foam would be beneficial. Like wildland units, ARFF’s don’t get a constant water supply. They rely on onboard water/foam tanks. Airports do have different size ARFF’s and I think adding a foam capacity requirement would be good because it adds to that fact of realism. A different size plane crash would need more foam.


    The only downside to this would be, what is the point of having a small ARFF and a large one? This may be just harder to make than what it would give.












    Co-Admin for The Syndicate


    Check Out The Syndicate Here

    What im saying is a larger aircraft may require more foam but the airport will already have that covered in their responses. A crash alarm at a Cat 10 airport is a crash alarm and so a 737 will get the same response as a 747. The airfield must be able to handle an incident on the largest type and thats what they go off. Whether the aircraft is small or large doesnt make a difference in the response you get so the same amount of foam will be on scene for any aircraft incident large or small

    I have to agree with TACRfan, airports need a certain amount of "cover" to handle bigger aircraft and more runways.


    In the UK airport appliances have enough foam to fight a fire.


    The airport appliances at Manchester Airport (UK) has a storage capacity of water and foam amounting to these quantities.

    • 3,000-US-gallon (11,000 l) water tank
    • 420-US-gallon (1,600 l) foam tank


    The ration for the foam mix at the airport is 99 parts water 1 part foam.


    Meaning with these stats the water will run out first as to use all the foam you need over 160,000 litres of water to fully deplete the foam tank on the ARFF appliances. Now at Manchester we have 6 so in terms of running out of foam that is not a issue, as by the time the appliances run out of foam either something really really bad has gone wrong or the outside fire service (Cheshire or Manchester) will have sent foam carriers to help out.


    As I mentioned before the foam being the limiting factor is not the case. If anything the availability of water on the airfield is the problem due to the lack of wide spread hydrants near runways . So if you want to have a water/foam system I would go with a water system like the wildfires.

    Quote from TACRfan

    My argument against this is the airfields already have to have enough foam to deal with an incident involving the largest aircraft that it’s certified to handle as an international standard. So I don’t see why you would need x amount of foam as LAX for example will already have enough. For the wildfires it works because you may need to call additional resources but you shouldn’t need to at an airfield.

    The airfields store all of this stuff yes, but most (if not all airports) still require them to be transported to the scene of the accident, which is sometimes outside of the airfield. In addition, some rural airports are serviced by the local fire department and the vehicle and retardants will sometimes need to be taken to the scene of the accident.


    I guess part of this is I just want the requirements to be more in depth (for everything really) than send X vehicles. I love how SWAT counts personnel and the wildfires now have a water requirement and I'd love to see similar things added where it makes sense.



    Quote from TACRfan

    HRET systems still are not common enough to have a requirement in my opinion. I know airfields that handle the largest of aircraft (Boeing 747’s and B-52’s) and they still don’t yet have a HRET.

    For vehicles that not every place has, perhaps they just exist for people who want to role-play more, or are only required on massive missions? For example - the game is perfectly playable without using type 2,4-7 engines, but they are there as options for us.



    Quote from TACRfan

    Rapid Intervention Vehicle isn’t necessarily a bad idea however at a lot of airfields they just have the domestic and then the crash trucks. RIV’s are a little outdated now. They were very popular in a time where the crash trucks were slow lumbering beasts but they are no longer like this.

    I've still seen them in use here in the states. Maybe they are functioning more as command vehicles at this point?



    Quote from TACRfan

    Chemical tanker. Again, my point comes back to them being not that widespread. Crash trucks have to have a certain amount of dry chemical per regs so they tend to already have that and you don’t then have an additional tanker.

    They aren't widespread, but they certainly exist. The more apparatus, the better as far as I am concerned!

    Quote from WinWin

    The only downside to this would be, what is the point of having a small ARFF and a large one? This may be just harder to make than what it would give.

    Same issue with the Wildland update. What is the point of the type 7 engine other than to imitate real life? There really isn't one. This just adds the same variety to the airport stuff.

    As far as I am aware of, the only thing I would really like out of this is a small and large ARFF. As you can see anything else discussed may be a bit to complicated and would have many different takes. That’s what I think at least. I would just simplify it to that. We can add other vehicles besides ARFF’s not sure of what tho.






    Co-Admin for The Syndicate



    Check Out The Syndicate Here

    I figured I'd give my two cents on this since I spend quite a bit of time flying and so have been paying attention:


    (1) HRETs don't seem super common to me. I've only seen them in Palm Beach. That said they are super cool and I would totally see them be useful in real life. Perhaps these serve as a more efficient form of ARFF truck...


    (2) I think small and large ARFFs, as WinWin suggested is a better idea than having too many various kinds. I've mostly seen the 4,6, and 8 wheel chasis, but less is probably more here.


    (3) I don't know what RIVs would bring to the game. An airport specific BCU? The tech is so good now that most new ARFFs seem to be fast enough. Maybe someone with more fire experience than I could flesh this idea out if it is useful.


    (4) Chemical Tanker - I don't think I've ever seen them before. My understanding is they often carry reserve foam. Perhaps these are only used for missions that expand to something larger and cause the reserve foam to be required? This is likely better as a trailer; perhaps two sizes - a small size pulled by the utility truck and a large size pulled by a Cab (I know Boeing has a massive one at Boeing Field). Or it could be its own vehicle. To my understanding this should be called a FOAM TANKER.

    I have to say I only know of 1 airport in the UK who runs rescue stairs.


    This is because if there is a fire on the aircraft pax will evacuate via the rescue slides on the aircraft in theory and then the rescue crews will use ladders to get close and up into the aircraft.


    The rescue stairs seem to be a rare thing as not many airports in the US have them like TACRfan said. It more seems to be a european thing.


    I would also like to add that many airports that facilitate large aircraft such as the A380 or B747. Tend to have Aerial Appliances/Turntable Ladders. So rescue crews can also use these to get firefighters and pax upto and away from aircraft if needed.

    To be very honest, I did not know they existed until now. Never seen one before nor have I heard about them. Evacuation slides are for sure the dominant emergency escape on all aircraft. It’s required for aircraft so, because it seems so rare not really worth adding.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login