1. #26
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Whocares View Post
    Which set up is your standard leadout? Or do you have one? I agree with having both. It seems strange to me when people talk about only having preconnected lines. It seems like you could really get in a trickbag running like that.
    No such thing as a standard leadout for us. We generally end up at the fire building and the company officer makes the call of preconnect or deadlay. Although I guess I should clarify that...if possible preconnects are used simply because of speed. But with industrial, large merchantile, elderly housing complexes, and apartment buildings they simply do not always work so we have chosen, on both departments I am on, to become proficient in using both layouts.

  2. #27
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,296

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Easier said than done during a fire.

    True, but 98% of the time it's not an issue.
    It's rarely what you do 98% of the time that burns your butt when it comes to laying hose. It is the 2% you never thought of, envisioned, imagined, or practiced.

    Frankly, why have a dead load if it isn't set up for rapid use? With either a gated wye and some lengths of 1 3/4 attached or a 2 1/2 inch nozzle attached. Smooth bore of course.

    When is the last time you PRACTICED adding hose to your preconnects? If you don't practice it how do you get proficient?

  3. #28
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    That dead load is 3" and is actually used far more for truck-to-truck supply or short hydrant lays on small incidents where we don't need the flow of a 4".

    I have been here 6 years and we have used a 2.5" or 3" attack line once. So, obviously it's very rare that we use one. And unlikley we would use 2.

    District is primarily SF residential and the 200' loads get us where we need to go.

  4. #29
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,702

    Default

    We have flat loaded 1 3/4" & 2 1/2" crosslays and flat loaded 2 1/2" deadlays on the rear. We also carry 2 bundles (100' each) of 1 3/4". Crosslays are the standard, deadlay is for the rare calls. Majority of my residences are within 25' of the curb so the crosslays will work. We have a "rental" section of summer homes that are on the beach front that are up to 400' from the street...that is where our deadlays get used.

    Yes, we practice it. Yes, we use it.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  5. #30
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    We have a "rental" section of summer homes that are on the beach front that are up to 400' from the street...that is where our deadlays get used

    Simmiliar situation to my past department in VT that protected a lot of lakefront summer properties.

    We used 3" deadlays quite a bit.

    We carried (2) 200' 1.75" preconnects, and on our last 3 engines, we also installed 2 reels which carried 400' of 1.75" per reel. This gave us the flexability to pull an attack line longer than the "standard" 200' for those summer home or commercial structure situations.

    It also gave us the sufficient hose to flow 5-6 attack lines off of one engine and utilize the pump to it's full capabilities, rather than using multiple attack engines.

  6. #31
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    85

    Default

    Preconnected Crosslays:

    150 feet 1.75 hose w/ automatic nozzle flat loaded due to space restrictions
    200 feet 1.75 hose w/ automatic nozzle flat loaded " " ".

    Preconnected Hose bed:

    250 feet 3.0 hose w/ 2.5 automatic nozzle.
    this serves as double duty. as a preconnected "bomb line" or can be wyed off and the high rise pack connected to it for further reach.

    Hose bed:

    1200 feet 3.0 hose split in half, set up for 1 forward lay and 1 reverse lay of 600 feet each. hose ends are capped with double female/double male to ensure "duals" can be laid forward or reverse, or a single lay of 1200 feet. the male/female at the bottom of the bed are connected together.

    9 times out of 10 supply is made with 1, 3 inch hose in a forward lay.

  7. #32
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ffmedcbk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    781

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    [B]

    We carried (2) 200' 1.75" preconnects, and on our last 3 engines, we also installed 2 reels which carried 400' of 1.75" per reel. This gave us the flexability to pull an attack line longer than the "standard" 200' for those summer home or commercial structure situations.
    Reels would be a terrible way to load hose for quick deployment. Of course unless you have then nozzleman to never take the working length and there is enough guys to pick up weach coupling.

    Few issues with reels.
    1.) it requires more energy to pull agains the reel, even in the unlocked position
    2.) if it is not straight out from the reel, you will be required to keep people there to make the turn from the straight angle from the reel.
    3.) the nozzleman has to go bak and grab the initial working length
    4.) single side deployment for that reel

    I stretch hose often and would be awfully ****ed if someone came to me and gave me an engine with reels on it.... except a booster for washdowns and mulch fires
    Originally Posted by madden01
    "and everyone is encouraged to use Plain, Spelled Out English. I thought this was covered in NIMS training."

  8. #33
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    Actually, with training, it works well.

    Pump operator assisted with the pull.

    Had a reel for each side.

    I would often prefer to pull a 200' line from the reels rather than stretch the minuteman.

    What little extra time it took to take it off the reels was more than saved in reloading.

  9. #34
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I would often prefer to pull a 200' line from the reels rather than stretch the minuteman.

    What little extra time it took to take it off the reels was more than saved in reloading.
    Only you would choose to do something that takes longer DURING the actual fire only to save yourself time AFTER the fire.

    Complete fool.

  10. #35
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    Ya, that's me.

    That extra 20 seconds made one hell of a difference on vehicle, trash, debris and brush fires.

    And it actually didn't make a damn bit of difference on structure fires either.

  11. #36
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,702

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    ... we also installed 2 reels which carried 400' of 1.75" per reel. This gave us the flexability to pull an attack line longer than the "standard" 200' for those summer home or commercial structure situations...
    Personally, I would not want to see anyone ever pull a 400' 1.75" line into a commercial building. But that may just be me (and my Department)...

    Lakewood NJ, with it's 1 man engine company, uses a reel and it works absolutely fine for him. It's also a CAFS line. Yes, he operates alone.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  12. #37
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Ya, that's me.

    That extra 20 seconds made one hell of a difference on vehicle, trash, debris and brush fires.

    And it actually didn't make a damn bit of difference on structure fires either.
    YOU said that you trade the extra time in stretching it for the time saved in repacking it. Not ME.

    So there is no need for your further arrogance or backpedaling.

    Why give the people you protect the benefit of some time saving procedure when you can save the time saving procedures all for yourself after their emegency is over, right?

    At least your selfishness is consistent.

  13. #38
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Lusby, MD
    Posts
    1,035

    Default

    ... we also installed 2 reels which carried 400' of 1.75" per reel. This gave us the flexability to pull an attack line longer than the "standard" 200' for those summer home or commercial structure situations...
    Seems like a long piece of 1.75" to get much flow through. Hopefully you have a smoothbore to help out a little bit.

    I'm not sure I would like having to pull all 400'. Would prefer to run 3" to a gated wye and add the standpipe pack if I needed that much hose. Gives me the option to run a second line off of the 3" if needed.

  14. #39
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    Nope. All fog. We didn't even carry smoothbores for the 1.75" or the 2.5" lines.

    We would generally not pull a 400' 1.75". We would generally use a maximum of 300'. If it was longer than that we would use 3" w/ a wye.

    However the 800' on reels plus the (2) 200' rear preconnects gave us the enough hose to flow 5-6 attack lines off the attack engine.

    Our policy was to flow as much water of the primary engine as possible and limit the number of "attack" engines.

  15. #40
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    And jakes ..

    I admitted it did take a little longer.

    Very rarely did it matter.

  16. #41
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Our policy was to flow as much water of the primary engine as possible and limit the number of "attack" engines.
    I guess there has to be one dept out there doing stupid sh*t to prove that all the "rules" are there for a reason!

  17. #42
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    [B]Originally Posted by LaFireEducator
    Our policy was to flow as much water of the primary engine as possible and limit the number of "attack" engines.

    I guess there has to be one dept out there doing stupid sh*t to prove that all the "rules" are there for a reason![/B]

    So a centralized attack engine is stupid?

    This should be an interesting discussion.

    Let's talk about advantages to a single attack engine flowing all if not most of the attack lines -

    Fewer pump operators means more firefighters available.

    Fewer supply lines being laid means less time to get lines in service.

    Fewer apparatus in front of the structure means less congestion.

    Less hydrants tied up means less congestion around the scene.

    Using one or two strong hydrants to flow multiple lines off 1-2 apparatus rather than using multiple strong hydrants to flow 1-3 lines makes a lot more sense.

    Less wear and tear on the fleet overall as you limit the number of pumps operating at each incident.

    It seems to be only the urban departments that pull a line or two off multiple rigs and have each company find it's own water and lay it's own line. In my experience, most surburban and rural departments don't work that way. Too me that seems quite inefficient.

    Please explain the value to me of having multiple $250,000 engines each flowing 25-33% of their capacity and tying of multiple pump operators, some of which could be used in the operation?

  18. #43
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,702

    Default

    Please explain the value to me of having multiple $250,000 engines each flowing 25-33% of their capacity and tying of multiple pump operators, some of which could be used in the operation?
    Suburban Department here. Normally, 2 engines flowing. So, yes, we do lose 1 FF as that second operator, really a non-issue.

    However, having been at fires where the 1 engine flowing has had mechanical issues and being inside when all the lines stop at once....I will vote for 2 engines running.


    Extra wear and tear? Are you serious? Engines and pumps are built to run, not sit around. You could arguably be doing more damage to your pumps (and seals) by not using them.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  19. #44
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Lusby, MD
    Posts
    1,035

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    [B]Originally Posted by LaFireEducator
    Our policy was to flow as much water of the primary engine as possible and limit the number of "attack" engines.

    I guess there has to be one dept out there doing stupid sh*t to prove that all the "rules" are there for a reason![/B]

    So a centralized attack engine is stupid?

    This should be an interesting discussion.

    Let's talk about advantages to a single attack engine flowing all if not most of the attack lines -

    Fewer pump operators means more firefighters available.

    Fewer supply lines being laid means less time to get lines in service.

    Fewer apparatus in front of the structure means less congestion.

    Less hydrants tied up means less congestion around the scene.

    Using one or two strong hydrants to flow multiple lines off 1-2 apparatus rather than using multiple strong hydrants to flow 1-3 lines makes a lot more sense.

    Less wear and tear on the fleet overall as you limit the number of pumps operating at each incident.

    It seems to be only the urban departments that pull a line or two off multiple rigs and have each company find it's own water and lay it's own line. In my experience, most surburban and rural departments don't work that way. Too me that seems quite inefficient.

    Please explain the value to me of having multiple $250,000 engines each flowing 25-33% of their capacity and tying of multiple pump operators, some of which could be used in the operation?

    We do at times use only 1 attack engine. Mostly due to long driveways or narrow roads that we don't want to clog up with a bunch of apparatus. Normal operation though is to use at least 2 engines for attack. As bones mentions, if for some reason there is a water supply problem from 1 engine, the second can provide protection as needed until the problem is solved.

  20. #45
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    I'll give you the possibility of a mechanical issue.

    Other than that, I can see no other advantages.

  21. #46
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42 View Post
    Suburban Department here. Normally, 2 engines flowing. So, yes, we do lose 1 FF as that second operator, really a non-issue.

    However, having been at fires where the 1 engine flowing has had mechanical issues and being inside when all the lines stop at once....I will vote for 2 engines running.


    Extra wear and tear? Are you serious? Engines and pumps are built to run, not sit around. You could arguably be doing more damage to your pumps (and seals) by not using them.
    Absolutely correct. We have at least two engines and two sources of water.

  22. #47
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I'll give you the possibility of a mechanical issue.

    Other than that, I can see no other advantages.
    You seem to run everything on your department in a way that guarantees disaster if everything doesn't go just right. Don't search, there's probably no one in there. Use all preconnected hose, we probably won't need more. Just use one pump, there probably won't be an issue. Just grab one hydrant, it probably won't fail.

    I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I guess that you will probably end up killing a civilian or one of your own with your total disregard for safety and proper proceedure.

  23. #48
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,677

    Default

    Just use one pump, there probably won't be an issue

    My current department generally does run multiple attack engines, primarily because of the limited amount of attack line each carries.

    If we are running a tanker shuttle, we usually keep a standby tanker/pumper with the attack engine as a backup.

    In my former department, there were times that a second line was lad and charged to a second engine, as a backup, but it wasn't used unless we had a problem.

    In 17 years there, we never had a problem.

    there's probably no one in there. Use all preconnected hose, we probably won't need more

    What does that have to do with anything? Preconnects get us 98% of the places we need to go. If we need a longer stretch, we make it from the bed, but those are highly unusual situation. We train for them, but it makes no sense to set up your operation around 2% of your incidents.

    Don't search

    We search when there is a need or an indication of a need. it's that simple.

    I thought this thread was about pre-connected lines .... I guess I was wrong.

  24. #49
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So a centralized attack engine is stupid?

    This should be an interesting discussion.

    Let's talk about advantages to a single attack engine flowing all if not most of the attack lines -

    I thought this thread was about pre-connected lines .... I guess I was wrong.
    Uh huh....

  25. #50
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    So a centralized attack engine is stupid?

    This should be an interesting discussion.

    Let's talk about advantages to a single attack engine flowing all if not most of the attack lines -


    Please explain the value to me of having multiple $250,000 engines each flowing 25-33% of their capacity and tying of multiple pump operators, some of which could be used in the operation?
    As has already been stated, running multiple lines from one engine, one supply line sets you up for larger more serious failures if something happens. And it does, as there are numerous variable and systems at work.

    Running everything as you state, 6,7,8 lines? Is just plain stupid. You are truly endangering firefighters when you put that much reliance on one engine, one pump, one supply line, one hydrant, and even one pump operator. Of course you guys will see far less danger from a failure of you're all standing outside the collapse zone lobbing water into the wastepaper basket inside the window.

    We all have times when two or three lines must get stretched from one piece but in an offensive attack situation this should not be the norm! Unless it's a defensive operation our general rule is no more than two attack lines are stretched from any one engine. Preferably this is not the first and second line either.

    You don't even know how little you know. Proof that years of bad experience can be as bad or worse than none.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Preconnected Hose beds
    By fredstrucks in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-16-2008, 10:13 AM
  2. Hose Loads
    By skeeter6585 in forum The Engineer
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-19-2006, 03:38 PM
  3. Hose loads
    By smokeater81 in forum Emergency Vehicle Operations
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-31-2002, 10:52 AM
  4. Hose loads ???
    By Lt.Todd in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-15-2001, 09:57 AM
  5. New Hose Loads
    By e33 in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-24-1999, 11:51 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register