Originally Posted by
irishguy28
Surely it wasn't the deploying of "foam and water" that led to reduced cover.
If a fire tender and its associated staff has been sent to a first potential incident, then they are out of place, and "occupied", even before they get to the point of deploying "foam and water" (if it ever turns out that is necessary).
If another incident occurs somewhere else on the airfield - the fact that they haven't started spraying on the first potential incident in no way allows them to magically (and simultaneously!) attend to a second potential incident!
Yes, it was and is. Until the point the trigger is pulled on the appliance, that
can be redeployed to another incident on the airport, under the control of fire chief. Provided there is a certain level of media able to respond to any part of the airfield within two minutes, then cover is there.
If it was merely the positioning of appliances on the airfield, then we'd have lost fire cover (and suffer the subsequent, effectual, closure of the airport) on average once a day for anywhere between 5 minutes and half an hour or more.