Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
Closed Thread
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 143
  1. #61
    Forum Member sfd1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wa
    Posts
    402

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HooknCanman32 View Post
    As I stated no established water supply, no deck gun. If we had an ESTABLISHED water supply sure go ahead use it, perfectly fine with me. If thats what I pulled up on, thats what I would have done. You have your way, we have ours. But I guess since it's not the Memphis way it's wrong right?
    Wow....lighten up Francis.

    He never said you were wrong because you didn't do it his way... he's pointing out that the amount of water you put on it isn't what puts the fire out, but the rate. If you put 100GPM on a fire that requires 200GPM, you can dump your entire tank on the f--ker, and it ain't going out. If you use your deck gun, you're going to break it's back and still have water in the tank.


    It's GPM's vs. BTU's....not that tough.


  2. #62
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Our engines carry 250 less than Memphis, but a deck gun with a 500 gallon booster tank can do a lot of damage. If you have a lot of fire, and can hit it with the deck gun or something big do it. Pulling the 1.75 or something small because of no water supply is silly. If I'm using my booster tank on a fire, I'm going to use it as fast as I can. Better to have 1 minute of 500 gpm and wait 4 minutes (hopefully it doesnt take that long haha) for the hydrant guy to give me water than throw 100 gpm at it for 5 minutes while the hydrant is getting hooked up. I bet my fire will be smaller at the end of the 5 minutes.

    Personally I find it curious that guys love using "THE CAN" and get all happy in the pants over it, but balk at using a fire engine with at least 100X more water in the same manner. I guess engine work isn't as simple joke, takes some thinking.
    Last edited by nameless; 07-06-2009 at 05:39 PM.

  3. #63
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    478

    Default

    My department is a suburban style department, all hydrants no tenders. We get in discussions like this with our neighboring rural departments all the time.

    We tend to want to dump all the water we have on the fire as fast as we can and overpower it with GPM

    They want to conserve water and only use it as fast as they can shuttle it. They even use selective gallonage nozzles to limit the amount of water they are using.

    In their mind, they can't adopt our tactic because of the shuttles. What if they use all of their water and it doesn't work?

  4. #64
    Forum Member bum291's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    POHA, Finland
    Posts
    159

    Default They did put it out, good job.

    I don't know if I'd do much different here, I'd want to call for a big line (3" in our case) on the exposure but I guess they didn't have a sustainable water connection at first, the 3" line would then quickly empty the tank and leave the other line dry after that. They put out as much as they could from outside and only went inside to finish off, no criticism on that point. And I think the deck gun would do more harm than good to that tiny house. Stay clear of the wire, haven't gotten any hotsticks, wait for power company.

    For all who say, "it's gone", I say: We always put the fire out.

    On a side note: In Greece, the power company responded to scenes with yellow lights and sirens, they could often be on the site long before any sign of fire department.

  5. #65
    Forum Member BKDRAFT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,146

    Exclamation

    We are not trained to cut or move downed lines here. We tape off the area close to the downed line, announce it over the radio, and stage someone there for extra precaution until PG&E arrives to shut it down. This would be the job of one of our chiefs.

    Besides the downed line we would have streched a 1.75" to the door and made entry. Out here we protect life, property, and enviornment. We don't write off homes with heavy involvement just because their isn't a rescue.

  6. #66
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40 View Post
    Food for thought..... 1st yes a 2.5in handline on this fire is a good idea again once you have protected your exposures. A 2.5in handline flowing 325 gpm through a 1 1/4 tip can be handled by 2 FF's and moved by 3 FF's. To apply the same 325 gpm with a 1 3/4 in handline requires four people to hold and move two lines. And the 2.5 line adds better reach and striking power over the smaller lines.
    So yes an offense attack on this fire will happen, but the 1st due will not be getting the glory job here the 2nd due will and if staffed well with 4 FF's a 2.5in line is the best option. This would be considered an Defensive/Offensive attack. Again we are suject to staffing and response times. You can only do what you can do with what you have at that moment.
    Like Memphis, I'd still go with a smaller line on this fire. While your data is correct, it kind of shows a lack of understanding of residential building construction and firefighting with in such in my opinion.

    As I previously mentioned, most would attack a R&C fire with a small handline because it is maneuverable and adequate for the job. To a large extent, a well involved SFD is very much just a bunch of R&C fires in the same building. Generally, a R&C type fire doesn't require 325gpm in any single spot for extinguishment. With a single line, you can pretty much only extinguish fire in one room at a time anyway, so why drag the big line that really isn't needed?

    As for the "better reach and striking power" of the 2-1/2 goes........How much more reach do you need in (small) compartmentized construction? The extra striking power is not really attributable to the use of the 2-1/2, but rather the additional flow. It should be pretty obvious that 325gpm will have more extinguishing power than 180gpm.

    By the way, you can get a flow of 325gpm out of a single 1-3/4 line.

  7. #67
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Like Memphis, I'd still go with a smaller line on this fire. While your data is correct, it kind of shows a lack of understanding of residential building construction and firefighting with in such in my opinion.
    that's a pretty bold statement to make. Just because someone has a different opinion of what they'd do at a fire they saw a low quality youtube video of they lack an understanding of residential building construction and firefighter?


    I wish we'd give forumgoers the same understanding we give anonymous people in articles on fires or accidents.

  8. #68
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nameless View Post
    that's a pretty bold statement to make. Just because someone has a different opinion of what they'd do at a fire they saw a low quality youtube video of they lack an understanding of residential building construction and firefighter?


    I wish we'd give forumgoers the same understanding we give anonymous people in articles on fires or accidents.
    Call it bold if you want to, but you clearly missed the point I was making in regards to that statement and it had little to do with the video or a difference in opinion.

    The video was clear enough to tell that it was no more than an average sized SFD (single story if I recall correctly). I've been in a lot of SFDs throughout my Fire & EMS career and have seen very, very few that weren't comprised completely of relatively small compartmentized construction with the exception of attic and basement areas. I'm sure anybody who's spent anytime length of time in the fire service running calls has seen similiar.

    Given the size of the average room in a SFD, you really don't need much "reach" with your hoseline to shoot water from one side to the other. So if you have a 20' long room and the 1-3/4 line has 30' of reach and the 2-1/2 has 50' of reach, then in terms of "reach" does one line provide any benefit over the other? No, because both streams can only actually reach a max of 20' in that room so any capability beyond that provides little to no benefit for the situation at hand.

    I would expect that somebody with any significant experience with fighting fires in SFDs, would know that the 1-3/4 line (with a 160-180+gpm flow) is far better suited for fighting a fire room by room in that type of building.

    If he thinks he needs to use a 2-1/2 line for this fire because it has more gpm and more reach, I'm telling him that he doesn't need to because the smaller line will get the job done.

    If he thinks he wants to use a 2-1/2 line for this fire because it's what he thinks he would do, I'd say OK, but I'd still use the smaller line.

  9. #69
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfd1992 View Post
    Wow....lighten up Francis.

    He never said you were wrong because you didn't do it his way... he's pointing out that the amount of water you put on it isn't what puts the fire out, but the rate. If you put 100GPM on a fire that requires 200GPM, you can dump your entire tank on the f--ker, and it ain't going out. If you use your deck gun, you're going to break it's back and still have water in the tank.


    It's GPM's vs. BTU's....not that tough.

    Which is exactly what happened in this video. They sat there and dumped water on a fire that required a greater rate of water. No established water supply no deck gun for us (thats how we operate). Hence why we would lead off with the 2 1/2. Knock down the bulk, stretch the 1 3/4 finish up interior and be done with it. My 2 1/2 would remain outside, the 1 3/4 would be the line to take inside.

  10. #70
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kd7fds View Post
    My department is a suburban style department, all hydrants no tenders. We get in discussions like this with our neighboring rural departments all the time.

    We tend to want to dump all the water we have on the fire as fast as we can and overpower it with GPM
    This is also how we operate, hit it hard and fast. Nothing says you have to completely dump the tank and leave yourself with nothing and nothing says you have to constantly shoot water. Judicious use of water after knockdown can buy you much more time than underflowing lines until the supply is established.

    Quote Originally Posted by kd7fds View Post
    They want to conserve water and only use it as fast as they can shuttle it. They even use selective gallonage nozzles to limit the amount of water they are using.

    In their mind, they can't adopt our tactic because of the shuttles. What if they use all of their water and it doesn't work?
    This is also a very common thing around us. I always question this logic, as it seems they to think that just making it look good is better than running out of water. If the rate of application is less than the required amount, you're just killing time, wasting water and expending energy. Why not try and hit it hard in knock it down keeping a little in reserve to keep it in check while the supply is being developed? It shows many have a lack of understanding of the very basics of extinguishing fires. I suspect that many fires burn themselves down tot he rate of application being flowed at which time the FD then gains control (which they thought they had all along! )
    Last edited by RFDACM02; 07-07-2009 at 03:08 PM.

  11. #71
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    28

    Default

    This is going to be long, FireMedic, thank you for pointing out to me that you don't get what I am saying. Look at this video. This is not a small fire, you can see fire from sill to ridgepole & it has vented through windows, the eaves and partly through the roof. This is not a R&C fire or a bunch of R&C fires. This is a structure fire. A R&C fire suggests only the content in a room is on fire. Once the structural elements of a blding ignite, like the studs, joists, & sheathing it is no longer a R&C fire, but a structure fire. Collaspe become an over riding safty concern here. This is a fact in homes like this right out of Dunn's book. "Fire burning through or against a side wall is more likely to collapse a blding than fire burning through several fls or the roof".(remember at a house fire at least 2 of the 4 side walls are bearing), this video shows fire is probably attacking the exterior side wall from the inside.
    As for extingishment. There must be a source of water of sufficient VOLUME to suppress the number of BTU's. Agreed? When speaking of a R&C fire, most residental rooms have a fireload of 5lbs per/sqft. Each pound of ORDINARY conbustibles gives off 7,000-10,000 BTU's. Add plastics & synthetic & it can double. Each gallon of water absorbs about 9,275 BTU's when heated from 70 degrees to turning to steam. This is right out of Norman

    Stay with me!

    Theroy is 1 gallon will provide sufficient cooling to put out 5lbs of fuel at an average R&C fire. So in that case you are right 1-2 R&C fires, 1 3/4in good call! Tests performed by the NFPA & Factor Mutual have said that flows of 10gpm for each 100sqft of fire is sufficient to control light fireloads. So again you are right in saying a 1 3/4in could handle multipe R&C fires. Problem is this is not a R&C fire or a bunch of R&C fires like I said at the start.
    Now I think this is a fully involved structure all of the content in the home is on fire and a good majority of the structural elements that make up the home seem to be burning. So in addition to the content burning you have to factor in the building elements now, which changes the fireload from light to heavy. 1000sqft x 10gpm as stated by the fire gods(NFPA) equals 10,000 gpm. This is just the structural elements not including the content. NFPA numbers don't lie. This building is lost, sorry, & if you use a 1 3/4in on this fire before protecting your exposures you may lose another house.
    As for flowing 325gpm out of a 1 3/4 in. I don't believe it. Tell me where I can find this information cause it's not possible in my firefighting book of hydralics.

    Be safe.

  12. #72
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    itd be 100 gpm for 1000 sq ft, using the 10 gpm for 100 sq ft of fire.


    you COULD get 325 gpm out of an 1 3/4, but you'd be better served to get it from a 2 1/2

  13. #73
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40 View Post
    1000sqft x 10gpm as stated by the fire gods(NFPA) equals 10,000 gpm. This is just the structural elements not including the content. NFPA numbers don't lie.
    First as Nameless pointed out in few words, you need to divide the square footage by the 10 gpm to get the required flow. Hell at 10,000 gpm we'd never have saved a SFD!

    So either:
    a)NFPA does lie (and they do in a manner of speaking)
    b) your formula was the total gallons required to extinguish not the rate
    c) you made a small mathmatical error that you should have caught at the 10K gpm!

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40 View Post
    As for flowing 325gpm out of a 1 3/4 in. I don't believe it. Tell me where I can find this information cause it's not possible in my firefighting book of hydralics.
    Which text says it's not possible? Above standard pressures most charts stop listing flows. If 325 gpm can flow out a 1.25" tip why can't it come out of a 1.75" hose? Again, not common and not within normal operating ranges, but we just did this the other day. 375 gpm through 100 feet of 1.75" line at 300 psi (service tested at 400 psi). This was using a Vindicator nozzle. If you want to see text referring to these types of flows look for article by "Big Paulie" Shapiro from LVFD. By I'll certainly agree if you anticipate the need for this kind of flow pull a 2.5".

  14. #74
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,952

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40 View Post
    This is going to be long, FireMedic, thank you for pointing out to me that you don't get what I am saying.
    Maybe you did a poor job of explaining your point?

    Your statement that I challenged pretty much consisted of saying the 2-1/2 would be a "good idea" and explaining that the 2-1/2 would flow 325gpm and have more reach and striking power.

    None of what you just "explained" can be extrapolated from that prior post and I stand by my opinion that based on that explanation, the 2-1/2 isn't "needed" for this type of fire.

    Look at this video. This is not a small fire, you can see fire from sill to ridgepole & it has vented through windows, the eaves and partly through the roof. This is not a R&C fire or a bunch of R&C fires. This is a structure fire. A R&C fire suggests only the content in a room is on fire.
    I agree that this isn't a "small" fire, but I don't think it's the "big" fire you're making it out to be based on the limited view provided. There may be some additional "terminology" issues in play here to, because a "Room & Contents" fire in my experiences means the room (i.e. building components) and the contents (i.e. furniture, clothes, etc) are on fire and doesn't suggest that "only the content in a room is on fire". We call those ones "contents fires".

    Once the structural elements of a blding ignite, like the studs, joists, & sheathing it is no longer a R&C fire, but a structure fire. Collaspe become an over riding safty concern here. This is a fact in homes like this right out of Dunn's book. "Fire burning through or against a side wall is more likely to collapse a blding than fire burning through several fls or the roof".(remember at a house fire at least 2 of the 4 side walls are bearing), this video shows fire is probably attacking the exterior side wall from the inside.
    So are you trying to say we shouldn't attack this fire offensively? You already stated an offensive attack would be conducted and this bit of info provided sounds like justification for operating defensively instead.

    As for extingishment. There must be a source of water of sufficient VOLUME to suppress the number of BTU's. Agreed? When speaking of a R&C fire, most residental rooms have a fireload of 5lbs per/sqft. Each pound of ORDINARY conbustibles gives off 7,000-10,000 BTU's. Add plastics & synthetic & it can double. Each gallon of water absorbs about 9,275 BTU's when heated from 70 degrees to turning to steam. This is right out of Norman

    Stay with me!

    Theroy is 1 gallon will provide sufficient cooling to put out 5lbs of fuel at an average R&C fire. So in that case you are right 1-2 R&C fires, 1 3/4in good call! Tests performed by the NFPA & Factor Mutual have said that flows of 10gpm for each 100sqft of fire is sufficient to control light fireloads. So again you are right in saying a 1 3/4in could handle multipe R&C fires. Problem is this is not a R&C fire or a bunch of R&C fires like I said at the start.
    I understand what you're saying, but I think you still may not be getting some of my points.

    These fire formulas are fine, but for SFDs they seem to look at the fire situation as a whole. While the formula may say that you need 10,000gpm to put out this fire, you certainly aren't going to be able to flow that out of a single device.

    My "R&C theory" is a bit simplistic and probably not absolute, but the underlying principle is that you can only put out fire with a single line in a single room at one time. As such, using the numbers cited, a 150 sqft R&C fire needs 150gpm. Working from the inside out, you kind of need to put out the fire that's "in" the room before you can start working on the fire that's in the walls, ceiling, etc.





    Now I think this is a fully involved structure all of the content in the home is on fire and a good majority of the structural elements that make up the home seem to be burning. So in addition to the content burning you have to factor in the building elements now, which changes the fireload from light to heavy. 1000sqft x 10gpm as stated by the fire gods(NFPA) equals 10,000 gpm. This is just the structural elements not including the content. NFPA numbers don't lie.
    While it certainly looks "fully involved", I don't think the view is good enough to clearly make that conclusion.

    This building is lost, sorry, & if you use a 1 3/4in on this fire before protecting your exposures you may lose another house.
    Never mind the fact that my department (for one) has put this fire out numerous times with the smaller lines without losing exposures. So if the building is "lost", then does reaching the 10,000gpm mark even matter?

    I agree that exposure protection is important with this fire, but I also see a live wire on the ground that presents some issues for addressing exposure protection given the positioning of the first engine. From the limited view provided, it appears that the choices are to shoot water over the live wire onto the exposure or drag the line under the live wire and shoot water at the D side of the fire building and hope the line doesn't fall down. Neither is a particularly good choice in my book. So if you can't safely protect the exposure, then I guess the choice is to put the fire out.



    As for flowing 325gpm out of a 1 3/4 in. I don't believe it. Tell me where I can find this information cause it's not possible in my firefighting book of hydralics.

    Be safe.
    There's an article about flowing "big water" from "small lines" in FireRescue magazine if I'm remembering correctly. I think it was published a year or so ago and was about getting 2-1/2 flow out of small lines.

  15. #75
    Forum Member MemphisE34a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Memphis, TN - USA
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40 View Post
    As for extingishment. There must be a source of water of sufficient VOLUME to suppress the number of BTU's. Agreed?
    Wrong! The source and volume of water DO NOT matter as much as the rate at which you you apply it. What determines how fast the fire goes out depends more importantly on how fast you apply the water that you do have, not how much more water you can get.
    RK
    cell #901-494-9437

    Management is making sure things are done right. Leadership is doing the right thing. The fire service needs alot more leaders and a lot less managers.

    "Everyone goes home" is the mantra for the pussification of the modern, American fire service.


    Comments made are my own. They do not represent the official position or opinion of the Fire Department or the City for which I am employed. In fact, they are normally exactly the opposite.

  16. #76
    Forum Member johnny46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40 View Post
    This is going to be long, FireMedic, thank you for pointing out to me that you don't get what I am saying. Look at this video. This is not a small fire, you can see fire from sill to ridgepole & it has vented through windows, the eaves and partly through the roof. This is not a R&C fire or a bunch of R&C fires. This is a structure fire. A R&C fire suggests only the content in a room is on fire. Once the structural elements of a blding ignite, like the studs, joists, & sheathing it is no longer a R&C fire, but a structure fire. Collaspe become an over riding safty concern here. This is a fact in homes like this right out of Dunn's book. "Fire burning through or against a side wall is more likely to collapse a blding than fire burning through several fls or the roof".(remember at a house fire at least 2 of the 4 side walls are bearing), this video shows fire is probably attacking the exterior side wall from the inside.
    As for extingishment. There must be a source of water of sufficient VOLUME to suppress the number of BTU's. Agreed? When speaking of a R&C fire, most residental rooms have a fireload of 5lbs per/sqft. Each pound of ORDINARY conbustibles gives off 7,000-10,000 BTU's. Add plastics & synthetic & it can double. Each gallon of water absorbs about 9,275 BTU's when heated from 70 degrees to turning to steam. This is right out of Norman

    Stay with me!

    Theroy is 1 gallon will provide sufficient cooling to put out 5lbs of fuel at an average R&C fire. So in that case you are right 1-2 R&C fires, 1 3/4in good call! Tests performed by the NFPA & Factor Mutual have said that flows of 10gpm for each 100sqft of fire is sufficient to control light fireloads. So again you are right in saying a 1 3/4in could handle multipe R&C fires. Problem is this is not a R&C fire or a bunch of R&C fires like I said at the start.
    Now I think this is a fully involved structure all of the content in the home is on fire and a good majority of the structural elements that make up the home seem to be burning. So in addition to the content burning you have to factor in the building elements now, which changes the fireload from light to heavy. 1000sqft x 10gpm as stated by the fire gods(NFPA) equals 10,000 gpm. This is just the structural elements not including the content. NFPA numbers don't lie. This building is lost, sorry, & if you use a 1 3/4in on this fire before protecting your exposures you may lose another house.
    As for flowing 325gpm out of a 1 3/4 in. I don't believe it. Tell me where I can find this information cause it's not possible in my firefighting book of hydralics.

    Be safe.
    Now close your book and say that three times fast.
    Logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

  17. #77
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    34

    Default

    [QUOTE=MemphisE34a;1076978]Wrong! The source and volume of water DO NOT matter as much as the rate at which you you apply it. What determines how fast the fire goes out depends more importantly on how fast you apply the water that you do have, not how much more water you can get.[/QUOTE

    If this rate is not sufficient enough then what happens? The house still burns down! Exactly what happened in the video.

  18. #78
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    who even cares about the hoseline, lets get some powercall action on this rig

  19. #79
    Forum Member MemphisE34a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Memphis, TN - USA
    Posts
    2,522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HooknCanman32 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MemphisE34a View Post
    Wrong! The source and volume of water DO NOT matter as much as the rate at which you you apply it. What determines how fast the fire goes out depends more importantly on how fast you apply the water that you do have, not how much more water you can get.
    If this rate is not sufficient enough then what happens? The house still burns down! Exactly what happened in the video.
    Yahtzee, but thats not what he said.

    Here it is again:

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40
    As for extingishment. There must be a source of water of sufficient VOLUME to suppress the number of BTU's.
    That is wrong.
    RK
    cell #901-494-9437

    Management is making sure things are done right. Leadership is doing the right thing. The fire service needs alot more leaders and a lot less managers.

    "Everyone goes home" is the mantra for the pussification of the modern, American fire service.


    Comments made are my own. They do not represent the official position or opinion of the Fire Department or the City for which I am employed. In fact, they are normally exactly the opposite.

  20. #80
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Posts
    497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MemphisE34a View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40
    As for extingishment. There must be a source of water of sufficient VOLUME to suppress the number of BTU's.
    That is wrong.
    To a point, he is right. You have to have sufficient rate of water flow to overcome the btu production of the fire. You also still have to have sufficient water behind that rate of flow to actually put it out. Case in point, take a 5 gallon bucket of water as your source. I could apply that at 500gpm rate but its still just 5 gallons of water.

    You need both rate and volume.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Havana, FL---Single-family dwelling burns down
    By Firefighter1219 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-14-2003, 09:23 AM
  2. Single Family Dwelling Search Tactics?
    By FFFRED in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 09-26-2002, 02:01 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-06-2002, 09:33 AM
  4. LAFD Single Family Dwelling FIre
    By webteam in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-23-2000, 02:52 PM
  5. Single Family Dwelling
    By Captstanm in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-26-2000, 10:33 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