Author: Jeffrey Shapiro, P.E., FSFPE, Fire Protection Engineer, Lake Travis Fire Rescue
The fire service has experienced many advances in technology and tactics impacting how we do business since I started my career in the 1970s. Some of these innovations, like widespread use of self-contained breathing apparatus, have become foundational. Others, like the use of fog nozzles vs. smooth bore nozzles, remain unsettled. And still others, such as aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) have come and gone.
Firefighter air replenishment systems (FARS) currently fall in the middle category. While the concept has been around for over 30 years, it remains a fringe technology but has gained increased attention after references began showing up in model code appendices: first the Uniform Plumbing Code in 2006, then the International Fire Code (IFC) in 2015, and finally the NFPA Fire Code in 2018 (simply a pointer to the Uniform Plumbing Code Appendix). Importantly, all of these references are in code appendices, not the main body of the codes, signaling that FARS is only intended for jurisdictions that take explicit action to add the appendix to their fire code, presumably with a lifelong commitment to maintenance, enforcement inspections, and firefighter training to ensure that the systems do not endanger firefighters.
At first glance, the premise seems simple and appealing. The Firefighter Air Coalition (FAC), an industry supported nonprofit association that markets FARS, proclaims…firefighters need air, FARS is a standpipe for air just like we provide standpipes for water, “more air, more time,” and FARS reduces firefighter cancer and injuries. While those points sound compelling, but they are just simplistic marketing teasers. The issue is much more complex.
Why FARS Should Not Be in Model Codes – model codes establish minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of life safety and property protection, with the IFC going further by specifically mentioning safety to firefighters and emergency responders. What is or isn’t reasonable is determined by a consensus of individuals who participate in the process, including representatives of the fire service, typically weighing cost, benefit, and risk. Codes have a responsibility to reflect good public policy and spend resources wisely, essentially asking the questions, “Is there a real benefit and at what cost?” and “how much is enough” when layering additional safety features into buildings that are already considered by the code to be sufficiently safe.
On cost, the NFPA Research Foundation published “An Analysis of Firefighter Breathing Air Replenishment Systems” in April 2021. In that document the costs of new installations were evaluated, ranging from $218,000 for an 18-story building in Texas to $485,000 for two 8-story buildings in California. The estimated lifecycle cost over 45 years for the Texas building ballooned that figure to $474,657. Anecdotally, more recent projects in Texas have seen even higher costs, though documentation was not publicly available at the time of writing.
So, what’s the benefit? History tells me that it is absolutely zero. Despite a 30-plus year history with over 500 installations and claimed code adoptions in 26 states, there is a striking lack of evidence showing even a single FARS system contributing to a better outcome. While that may sound surprising, it aligns with the fact that most high-rise buildings, where FARS is typically installed, are already built to high safety standards.
Should FARS be mandated in high-rise or large-area buildings – In 2016, the FAC Executive Director claimed “Buildings keep getting taller, more complex, and far more dangerous for firefighters. Yet the safety systems we provide in these buildings remain stuck in the past. We need to do better.” That is simply not true. High-rise buildings constructed in accordance with current codes are among the safest buildings built today. While there is risk associated with building height, many redundant, overlapping, and effective safety features have been added to codes in the past 40 years and have proven effective, including mandatory:
- Fire sprinkler systems
- Fire detection, alarm, and voice evacuation systems
- Elevator lobbies that are smoke separated from the building or a pressurized elevator shaft
- Emergency Responder Communication Enhancement Systems (ERCES)
- Smokeproof interior stairway enclosures
- Smoke removal systems for salvage and overhaul
- At least two fire service access (hardened) elevators, which were specifically added to accommodate transport of personnel and equipment, including air cylinders, in buildings over 120 feet in height
If FARS is to be mandated, we must ask: where are the incidents that show these buildings failed firefighters due to a lack of FARS availability? None have been brought forward in model code discussions.
With respect to newly constructed large area buildings, the phrase “tilt up – fall down” construction applies. These buildings are fully sprinklered, but typically have no fire resistance for the roof or rack structures. They are not designed with firefighter safety or interior attack in mind, and if sprinklers do not control the fire, the risk of roof collapse increases. Beyond these concerns, there are no good answers to the practicality question of where FARS connections would be located or how firefighters would find them in unprotected areas of smoke logged building.
What about keeping FARS in the code as an installation standard – In the past, this argument leveraged getting FARS into the UPC and the IFC. However, the approach raises other concerns. The FARS market is and has been dominated by a single manufacturer with multiple patents to protect proprietary technology. That manufacturer, or supporting groups such as the FAC, could publish their own installation and maintenance standard without a model code endorsement. When a model code references a product or technology, even in an appendix, it grants a level of legitimacy, which in the case of FARS hasn’t been earned by evidence or demonstrated need.
The added legitimacy of being in model codes hasn’t been lost on the FARS industry or the FAC, which are investing heavily to promote FARS with sensational videos, donated training equipment, event scholarships, and personal visits by FAC code advocates, seemingly to win the favor of fire service members and organizations, keep FARS in model codes, and sell more systems. According to a public filing, FAC reported $720,000 in “member dues” in 2022, though no details were disclosed regarding membership composition or donation levels. This lack of transparency raises questions, especially when promotional efforts are tied to influencing code requirements.
Conclusion – It is a fact that the vast majority of fire departments do not use FARS and operate successfully without it. The idea that “FARS saves lives,” improves firefighter safety, or reduces cancer risk, is not supported or quantifiable by evidence or data. Trusting that a complex, rarely used system will be properly maintained by multiple building owners over decades is a major leap of faith, especially for equipment meant to be deployed by firefighters in life-or-death emergencies. In addition, it cannot be ignored that the consequence of model codes endorsing or mandating FARS is flowing money spent on these installations to a single manufacturer.
As model codes are now considering removal of FARS appendices, these are important considerations, and it is my personal view that FARS appendices should be deleted. In my experience, “out of air” incidents are most often related to firefighters becoming disoriented, lost, or trapped, as opposed to not having air available at a staging area that also allows for evaluation, hydration, and rehabilitation after using an air cylinder.
This is not a call to ban the technology, but to ensure that it is vetted thoughtfully and responsibly, with clear-eyed evaluation of both cost and benefit. Jurisdictions choosing to commit resources to ensuring lifelong inspection, testing, maintenance and firefighter training should remain free to require FARS if they choose—but model codes should not lead them there without compelling data and justification.
About the author: Jeffrey M. Shapiro, P.E., FSFPE is a licensed Fire Protection Engineer with almost 50 years of experience in fire protection, ranging from firefighter to AHJ and code consultant with no financial interest in the FARS issue. Mr. Shapiro currently serves as President of International Code Consultants, Executive Director of the Texas Fire Protection Association and works with Lake Travis (TX) Fire Rescue. He was previously chief executive of the International Fire Code Institute, publisher of the Uniform Fire Code.
A Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), Mr. Shapiro is also an Honorary Member of the International Code Council (ICC), and a Life Member of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration. His expertise and leadership have been recognized with numerous awards, including the ICC Fire Service Award, International Association of Fire Chiefs Excellence in Fire and Life Safety Award, SFPE President’s Award, NFPA Committee Service Award and the National Fire Sprinkler Association’s Russ Fleming Technical Services Award. Among his many contributions to development of codes and standards, Mr. Shapiro is most proud of leading the effort to for codes to require fire sprinklers in all residential occupancies, both multifamily and one- and two-family dwellings.
Note to Readers: The views and opinions expressed in this guest column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Daily Dispatch or its affiliates.
Home » Guest Columns » Firefighter Air Replenishment Systems (FARS) – Do They Belong in Model Codes
Firefighter Air Replenishment Systems (FARS) – Do They Belong in Model Codes
Author: Jeffrey Shapiro, P.E., FSFPE, Fire Protection Engineer, Lake Travis Fire Rescue
The fire service has experienced many advances in technology and tactics impacting how we do business since I started my career in the 1970s. Some of these innovations, like widespread use of self-contained breathing apparatus, have become foundational. Others, like the use of fog nozzles vs. smooth bore nozzles, remain unsettled. And still others, such as aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) have come and gone.
Firefighter air replenishment systems (FARS) currently fall in the middle category. While the concept has been around for over 30 years, it remains a fringe technology but has gained increased attention after references began showing up in model code appendices: first the Uniform Plumbing Code in 2006, then the International Fire Code (IFC) in 2015, and finally the NFPA Fire Code in 2018 (simply a pointer to the Uniform Plumbing Code Appendix). Importantly, all of these references are in code appendices, not the main body of the codes, signaling that FARS is only intended for jurisdictions that take explicit action to add the appendix to their fire code, presumably with a lifelong commitment to maintenance, enforcement inspections, and firefighter training to ensure that the systems do not endanger firefighters.
At first glance, the premise seems simple and appealing. The Firefighter Air Coalition (FAC), an industry supported nonprofit association that markets FARS, proclaims…firefighters need air, FARS is a standpipe for air just like we provide standpipes for water, “more air, more time,” and FARS reduces firefighter cancer and injuries. While those points sound compelling, but they are just simplistic marketing teasers. The issue is much more complex.
Why FARS Should Not Be in Model Codes – model codes establish minimum requirements to provide a reasonable level of life safety and property protection, with the IFC going further by specifically mentioning safety to firefighters and emergency responders. What is or isn’t reasonable is determined by a consensus of individuals who participate in the process, including representatives of the fire service, typically weighing cost, benefit, and risk. Codes have a responsibility to reflect good public policy and spend resources wisely, essentially asking the questions, “Is there a real benefit and at what cost?” and “how much is enough” when layering additional safety features into buildings that are already considered by the code to be sufficiently safe.
On cost, the NFPA Research Foundation published “An Analysis of Firefighter Breathing Air Replenishment Systems” in April 2021. In that document the costs of new installations were evaluated, ranging from $218,000 for an 18-story building in Texas to $485,000 for two 8-story buildings in California. The estimated lifecycle cost over 45 years for the Texas building ballooned that figure to $474,657. Anecdotally, more recent projects in Texas have seen even higher costs, though documentation was not publicly available at the time of writing.
So, what’s the benefit? History tells me that it is absolutely zero. Despite a 30-plus year history with over 500 installations and claimed code adoptions in 26 states, there is a striking lack of evidence showing even a single FARS system contributing to a better outcome. While that may sound surprising, it aligns with the fact that most high-rise buildings, where FARS is typically installed, are already built to high safety standards.
Should FARS be mandated in high-rise or large-area buildings – In 2016, the FAC Executive Director claimed “Buildings keep getting taller, more complex, and far more dangerous for firefighters. Yet the safety systems we provide in these buildings remain stuck in the past. We need to do better.” That is simply not true. High-rise buildings constructed in accordance with current codes are among the safest buildings built today. While there is risk associated with building height, many redundant, overlapping, and effective safety features have been added to codes in the past 40 years and have proven effective, including mandatory:
If FARS is to be mandated, we must ask: where are the incidents that show these buildings failed firefighters due to a lack of FARS availability? None have been brought forward in model code discussions.
With respect to newly constructed large area buildings, the phrase “tilt up – fall down” construction applies. These buildings are fully sprinklered, but typically have no fire resistance for the roof or rack structures. They are not designed with firefighter safety or interior attack in mind, and if sprinklers do not control the fire, the risk of roof collapse increases. Beyond these concerns, there are no good answers to the practicality question of where FARS connections would be located or how firefighters would find them in unprotected areas of smoke logged building.
What about keeping FARS in the code as an installation standard – In the past, this argument leveraged getting FARS into the UPC and the IFC. However, the approach raises other concerns. The FARS market is and has been dominated by a single manufacturer with multiple patents to protect proprietary technology. That manufacturer, or supporting groups such as the FAC, could publish their own installation and maintenance standard without a model code endorsement. When a model code references a product or technology, even in an appendix, it grants a level of legitimacy, which in the case of FARS hasn’t been earned by evidence or demonstrated need.
The added legitimacy of being in model codes hasn’t been lost on the FARS industry or the FAC, which are investing heavily to promote FARS with sensational videos, donated training equipment, event scholarships, and personal visits by FAC code advocates, seemingly to win the favor of fire service members and organizations, keep FARS in model codes, and sell more systems. According to a public filing, FAC reported $720,000 in “member dues” in 2022, though no details were disclosed regarding membership composition or donation levels. This lack of transparency raises questions, especially when promotional efforts are tied to influencing code requirements.
Conclusion – It is a fact that the vast majority of fire departments do not use FARS and operate successfully without it. The idea that “FARS saves lives,” improves firefighter safety, or reduces cancer risk, is not supported or quantifiable by evidence or data. Trusting that a complex, rarely used system will be properly maintained by multiple building owners over decades is a major leap of faith, especially for equipment meant to be deployed by firefighters in life-or-death emergencies. In addition, it cannot be ignored that the consequence of model codes endorsing or mandating FARS is flowing money spent on these installations to a single manufacturer.
As model codes are now considering removal of FARS appendices, these are important considerations, and it is my personal view that FARS appendices should be deleted. In my experience, “out of air” incidents are most often related to firefighters becoming disoriented, lost, or trapped, as opposed to not having air available at a staging area that also allows for evaluation, hydration, and rehabilitation after using an air cylinder.
This is not a call to ban the technology, but to ensure that it is vetted thoughtfully and responsibly, with clear-eyed evaluation of both cost and benefit. Jurisdictions choosing to commit resources to ensuring lifelong inspection, testing, maintenance and firefighter training should remain free to require FARS if they choose—but model codes should not lead them there without compelling data and justification.
About the author: Jeffrey M. Shapiro, P.E., FSFPE is a licensed Fire Protection Engineer with almost 50 years of experience in fire protection, ranging from firefighter to AHJ and code consultant with no financial interest in the FARS issue. Mr. Shapiro currently serves as President of International Code Consultants, Executive Director of the Texas Fire Protection Association and works with Lake Travis (TX) Fire Rescue. He was previously chief executive of the International Fire Code Institute, publisher of the Uniform Fire Code.
A Fellow of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers (SFPE), Mr. Shapiro is also an Honorary Member of the International Code Council (ICC), and a Life Member of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and the International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration. His expertise and leadership have been recognized with numerous awards, including the ICC Fire Service Award, International Association of Fire Chiefs Excellence in Fire and Life Safety Award, SFPE President’s Award, NFPA Committee Service Award and the National Fire Sprinkler Association’s Russ Fleming Technical Services Award. Among his many contributions to development of codes and standards, Mr. Shapiro is most proud of leading the effort to for codes to require fire sprinklers in all residential occupancies, both multifamily and one- and two-family dwellings.
Note to Readers: The views and opinions expressed in this guest column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Daily Dispatch or its affiliates.
FREE QUICK SUBSCRIBE
Sign up to subscribe to custom state
Daily Dispatch emails for free