Class A vs. Gas-Fuelled Fire Training Systems

424

Class A vs. Gas-Fuelled Fire Training Systems

A Standards Expert’s Perspective on Realism, Risk, and Responsibility

To the untrained eye, a fire is a fire. But to those who train firefighters—particularly those involved in developing training programs and standards—it is clear that how we generate fire in training dramatically shapes the skills, safety, and long-term health of Fire Service personnel.

For decades, Class A live-fire training—burning wood, straw, or ordinary combustibles—has been the backbone of structural firefighting instruction. More recently, engineered gas-fuelled fire training systems have expanded across Europe and internationally, driven by environmental regulations, repeatability demands, and the rising scrutiny surrounding firefighter exposure to carcinogens.

As a member of the DIN standards committee working in close dialogue with Committees and Training Centres and other international bodies around the globe, I see both systems not as competitors, but as complementary tools whose effectiveness depends on understanding their strengths and limitations. Yet too often, the debate collapses into oversimplified claims: Class A is “more real,” gas systems are “safer.” Neither statement is entirely correct, and both miss the complexity that standards bodies wrestle with daily.

This editorial aims to provide a balanced, technically grounded comparison for training officers, decision makers, and policymakers evaluating the future of their live-fire programs.

Realism: What Are We Actually Trying to Reproduce?

Realism in fire training is not a single concept. It includes heat release, smoke production, visibility conditions, thermal layering, fire growth dynamics, and the psychological stress of entering a burning structure.

Class A fuels undeniably produce the rich, dark smoke and unpredictable thermal conditions that many instructors argue are essential for search, ventilation, and situational awareness training. The flame and smoke behave like the residential fuels we encounter in real incidents—because they are organic fuels.

Gas-fuelled systems, by contrast, offer controlled realism. Flames can be shaped, intensified, and repeated with the press of a button. Heat output is impressive—more than enough for meaningful nozzle and movement training—but smoke must be artificially generated if obscuration is desired. For tactical evolutions where repeatability and precise learning outcomes are critical, gas systems offer a level of consistency that is impossible with wood.

In short:

Both are “realistic”—but in different ways.

Preparation and Operational Workflow

This is where the differences become glaring, especially from a facility management perspective.

Class A burns require fuel staging, careful loading, moisture control, ignition procedures, cooling times between evolutions, and strict adherence to safety boundaries. A well-run Class A day demands staff, coordination, and time. Standards such as NFPA 1403 and DIN 14097 Part 3 possible harmonisations—exist precisely because mishandled Class A burns have historically led to preventable injuries and deaths.

Gas-fuelled systems flip the equation. Operators can ignite, shut down, reset, and repeat scenarios in minutes. This increases student throughput and reduces instructor fatigue—two often underestimated benefits. The system’s automation allows instructors to focus on coaching rather than fire handling.

However, this convenience comes with a trade-off: reliance on mechanical and electronic systems that require regular inspection, manufacturer servicing, and a consistent energy supply.

Health, Contamination, and the Long Shadow of PFAS and PAHs

The fire service has entered a new era of health responsibility. We can no longer ignore the cumulative exposure to soot, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and other carcinogens that arise most heavily from Class A combustion. Even with proper SCBA use, PPE becomes contaminated and must be cleaned rigorously—and repeatedly.

Gas-fuelled systems significantly reduce particulate and PAH exposure, thereby minimising PPE contamination. This not only lowers long-term health risks but also reduces wear, cleaning costs, and service life of modern turnout gear.

In my standards work, I can state unequivocally: reducing unnecessary exposure is a core priority in modern fire service guidance.

Yet, we must acknowledge that firefighters must learn to operate in contaminated, low-visibility, high-stress environments. Thus, Class A training remains essential—but should be used sparingly and purposefully.

Environmental Impact: A Growing Constraint

Environmental regulations in European member states and beyond increasingly limit the frequency and scale of Class A burning due to smoke emissions, ash and soot runoff, and groundwater contamination risks. Facilities require sophisticated drainage and filtration systems to remain compliant.

Gas systems, by contrast, produce a fraction of the pollutants and almost no contaminated runoff. Their environmental footprint aligns more comfortably with emerging municipal and federal requirements, making them the long-term viable choice for many urban training centres.

Cost, Lifetime, and Strategic Investment

From a capital expenditure standpoint, Class A systems are often cheaper to build but more expensive to operate over time because of:

Gas systems have a higher initial cost due to burners, control systems, gas infrastructure and monitoring, and software. But operational costs—especially for large training volumes—are substantially lower. Their mechanical components, if maintained, can serve reliably for decades.

A mature training centre often invests in both:

The Expert’s Conclusion: Balance, Not Replacement

The narrative that one system should “replace” the other is misguided. Fire services need a portfolio of training methods, each matched to specific learning objectives.

Choose Class A

When you need the most realistic smoke/fuel behaviour for interior firefighting tactics, search & rescue in heavy smoke, and when training objectives require interaction with soot/soiling and complex smoke behaviour — but plan for extra cleaning, health controls, and environmental management (and strict NFPA 1403 / DIN 14097 Part 3 compliance).

Class A live-fire training should remain the gold standard for teaching the unpredictable nature of real fire behaviour—but must be tightly controlled, limited in frequency, and integrated into a modern health-conscious training program.

Choose Gas-fuelled systems

When you need repeatability, quick turnaround, lower contamination, and better environmental control, or when you must run live-fire training near populated areas or have strict runoff/air quality constraints. These are common for large academies, urban training centres, and sites with environmental permitting concerns. (and strict NFPA 1402 / DIN 14097 Part 2 compliance).

Gas-fuelled systems should form the backbone of routine, high-volume training—safe, repeatable, efficient, and compliant with present and future environmental expectations.

From the perspective of standards development, the future lies in hybrid models: facilities that provide the realism of Class A burns, the precision of gas simulators, and the flexibility to adapt to evolving regulations, health knowledge, and training science.

Firefighters deserve both safety and realism. With thoughtful investment and adherence to standards, we can—and must—deliver exactly that.

Jörg Winkler, WinTecCon GmbH, Member DIN Standards Committee FNFW for Fire Service Structures

Jörg Winkler is an over 30 years veteran in the fire service industry and member at the FNFW DIN committee since 1995 and worked on most DIN 14092, DIN 14093 and DIN 14097 editions since then.

WinTecCon GmbH is known for design of fire station workshops and training facilities and is supporting fire services, architects and engineers all over the world.

Please visit WinTecCon.com for more information.