Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
Closed Thread
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 81
  1. #41
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,807

    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!


  2. #42
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,543

    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?

  3. #43
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,659

    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?

  4. #44
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Lusby, MD
    Posts
    1,033

    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.

  5. #45
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,543

    Default

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

    Other than that, I can see no other advantages.

  6. #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.

  7. #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.

  8. #48
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,543

    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.

  9. #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....

  10. #50
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,807

    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.

  11. #51
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,543

    Default

    I'll shoot an e-mail to the Chief of my last department with 15 years as a chief officer as to how stupid his operation was.

    While I'm at it, I send one to all of the other neighboring Chiefs who operated in the same reckless manner.

    As I said, we don't do it here because of the limited amount of attack hose (compared to past departments) we carry. Because of that, we are usually forced into using a seond engine if we require a 3rd line.

  12. #52
    Forum Member GTRider245's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Augusta,GA
    Posts
    3,056

    Default

    When you refer to a limited amount of hose, do you mean that you dont have enough on the truck, or you dont have enough in the department in general? Do you not carry extra/spare hose on the truck?
    Career Firefighter
    Volunteer Captain

    -Professional in Either Role-

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    I don't mind fire rolling over my head. I just don't like it rolling UNDER my a**.

  13. #53
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,543

    Default

    Each engine carries (2) 200' 1.75" pre-connects plus an extra 150' of 1.75" in a dead lay in the hose bed as spare to extend the pre-connects.

    We on occasion have used the dead load as a 3rd attack line.

    We have plenty of hose in the department. It's the chief's choice not to carry a lot of extra attack line, as he does not does not believe we need more than that on each engine.

  14. #54
    Forum Member GTRider245's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Augusta,GA
    Posts
    3,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Each engine carries (2) 200' 1.75" pre-connects plus an extra 150' of 1.75" in a dead lay in the hose bed as spare to extend the pre-connects.

    We on occasion have used the dead load as a 3rd attack line.

    We have plenty of hose in the department. It's the chief's choice not to carry a lot of extra attack line, as he does not does not believe we need more than that on each engine.
    So extending hose lines in your department is a foreign concept? What if a section busts? You have to break down another preconnect instead of just rolling out a spare section? No reloading of lines on scene with clean, dry hose instead of the dirty, wet line you just used?

    Call me crazy, but that is just plain dumb.
    Career Firefighter
    Volunteer Captain

    -Professional in Either Role-

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    I don't mind fire rolling over my head. I just don't like it rolling UNDER my a**.

  15. #55
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    66

    Default Preconnects

    At both of my FD's, all of our preconnects are loaded as a flat load with loops every 50 feet. We have 1 3/4 " and 2 1/2" preconnects. The flat load works best for us, because it is easy to load, easy to deploy, and and very fast for a quick attack. Most of our surrounding FD's use the flat load as well so it is pretty consistant for us. If I had to list any con to using the flat load, it would have to be that there are other loads that flake out easier(the triple load for example). But, with good "Enginemanship" this is not an issue and taking the time to flake out the line and clear the hose bed is good because it slows us down and gives us the 3 1/2 seconds needed to evaluate and size up our lay and the scene.

  16. #56
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,543

    Default

    Read.

    We have 2 1.75" 200' preconnects.

    We also have a spare 150' of 1.75" lime in the rear hose bed in a dead load to use to extend the preconnects or connect as a third line.

    We do practice extending line but it is a very rare event we need too. Our 200' preconnects get us where we need to go 98% of the time.

    This compares to 1200' of 1.75" line carried in preconnects and on 2 reels in my past department.

  17. #57
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    I'll shoot an e-mail to the Chief of my last department with 15 years as a chief officer as to how stupid his operation was.

    While I'm at it, I send one to all of the other neighboring Chiefs who operated in the same reckless manner.

    As I said, we don't do it here because of the limited amount of attack hose (compared to past departments) we carry. Because of that, we are usually forced into using a seond engine if we require a 3rd line.
    Some how I doubt you'll do this, but please by all means let the Chief come and defend these foolish things you learned from his FD. Your repeated stupidity that you keep blaming on past FD's has to make you a real popular guy with these Chief's. You've painted your past Chief's in a very poor light over the last year's worth of posts on numerous subjects. Either your being honest and they're truly idiots or your full of Sh*t. Frankly I really don't care if one, the other or both are true. Some one better than I should say a prayer for the citizens of these communities.

    You backpedal so much you must be getting younger by the day.

  18. #58
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,543

    Default

    Some how I doubt you'll do this, but please by all means let the Chief come and defend these foolish things you learned from his FD. Your repeated stupidity that you keep blaming on past FD's has to make you a real popular guy with these Chief's. You've painted your past Chief's in a very poor light over the last year's worth of posts on numerous subjects. Either your being honest and they're truly idiots or your full of Sh*t. Frankly I really don't care if one, the other or both are true. Some one better than I should say a prayer for the citizens of these communities.

    Hard to beleive but just about everywhere i have worked or volunteered pulling the vasy majority, if not all of the attack lines off a sinfle engine has been the rule.

    New York. Vermont. Louisiana.

    Rural departments. Moderate and dense surburban departments.

    It's in my experience been a very common practice.

    Maybe where you are it isn't, for whatever reason, but everywhere I have been it's been the standard procedure. There have been devations if we were working large fire where using different engines for operations in large structures where a separate attack engine for each sector made more sense, or the incident was spread over a wide area. But most of the time, fire attack was a single attack engine/single supply line operation.

    This is the tactics area. People have very different ways of doing things.

    To me laying multiple supply lines and pulling lines off multiple engines makes no sense. To you it makes perfect sense.

    To you sending one man to the roof or having an outside vent man work alone makes sense. To me it's dangerous.

    Amazing how only your way of utilizing engines is the right way.

  19. #59
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    Maybe where you are it isn't, for whatever reason, but everywhere I have been it's been the standard procedure.
    Sorry, it's not an area thing, it's common practice based on years of experience in many areas of the nation, documented in almost every book written on Engine Co. Ops. Putting all your eggs in one basket will yield scrambled eggs sooner or later. I guess since it didn't happen to you, you needn't worry about it. So much for preaching safety.

    Quote Originally Posted by LaFireEducator View Post
    To me laying multiple supply lines and pulling lines off multiple engines makes no sense. To you it makes perfect sense.

    To you sending one man to the roof or having an outside vent man work alone makes sense. To me it's dangerous.

    Amazing how only your way of utilizing engines is the right way.
    I'm getting dizzy. You said a few post back you understood the pump failure thing, now you just don't thinks it's a big enough issue? It sure as hell isn't "my way." I learned this from day one in a small VFD in a rural community. Was taught at every fire attack school I ever took regarding engine ops. Is in almost every text on tactics , engine ops and command. Stop your babbling, you have no clue about this job at all.

    And to me, having the OVM operate alone is far safer than not having the task completed. If you understood the position you'd understand.

  20. #60
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,543

    Default

    I said I understood a mechanical failure was always possibility.

    And yes, it could be a reason to consider using 2 engines.

    I didn't say it was necessarily a good enough reason to change operations.

    If you actually read my previous posts, we rarely pull more than 2 lines off a single engine here.

    And to me, having the OVM operate alone is far safer than not having the task completed. If you understood the position you'd understand


    I was trained, both internally and state fire instructors in VT and NY, that no task on the fireground, short of cold zone support functions, should ever be done solo.

    I understand the position but based on my training, I would perceive it as 2-man task for safety reasons.
    Last edited by LaFireEducator; 05-02-2009 at 10:18 PM.

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, 09:13 AM
  2. Hose Loads
    By skeeter6585 in forum The Engineer
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-19-2006, 02:38 PM
  3. Hose loads
    By smokeater81 in forum Emergency Vehicle Operations
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 08-31-2002, 09:52 AM
  4. Hose loads ???
    By Lt.Todd in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-15-2001, 08:57 AM
  5. New Hose Loads
    By e33 in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-24-1999, 10:51 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