Closed Thread
Page 2 of 2 First 12
  1. #26
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,701

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChiefKN View Post
    ...We don't routinely flow test our nozzles. Is that really a common practice?
    We do it minimum of 1 time per year. Just got to be a habit when we are retesting pump operators. We throw the meter on and show them differences in hose/nozzles/pressures.
    "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?

  2. #27
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Itshotinhere View Post
    Yes, Thats very true. You can drop the discharge pressure down to about 60 on our nozzles and they will still clamp down and throw a "good" stream.

    It's hard to use nozzle reaction as a guide too, because 200 gpm doesn't really bother some of the guys here others can't hardly hold it and whine about the pressure being too high.

    You know the more we talk about it the more I see why alot of places use smoothbores, Just not as much crap too worry about..
    Ya but smoothbores were used years ago so they can't be as good as our modern nozzles. plus they are so cheap and simple and the big city uses them so they can't be good for our small dept.

  3. #28
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    You are correct on the maintenance schedule. I was given incorrect information by a TFT salesperson. I apologize for recommending you flow test and maintain your equipment more than once every 20 years.

    I still stand firm on the point that if you NEVER, in 20 years, flow tested those nozzles to check for proper operating pressure with an inline pressure gauge, or flow with a flow meter, you truly have not one clue what is happening at the end of that nozzle. The department where that TFT flowed at 70 psi unless you flushed it, didn't know it wasn't operating properly. I wouldn't have without the inline pressure gauge. Would you? The stream looked fine. There was no obvious indication that the pressure was wrong.

    The difference between single gallonage and automatic nozzles is the automatic nozzles all have more working parts internally including springs that can fail or not operate properly. Testing and doing maintenance when required is vital to the automatic functioning properly. You simply get no indication of what is going on in an automatic nozzle by operating the bail and pattern adjustment dry, and little true indication of flow, or pressure, without gauges when flowing water.

    Either way, stay safe and thanks for a lively discourse on this topic.
    Salesmen never lie.

    Look, it's all good. As for those 20 year old nozzles... Most are gone. We may have 1 or 2 in a compartment, so I can't really vouch for them (being honest here). I will say, they were the big ol' originals and they were built differently (better?) back then.

    However, I will recommend that we flow test the nozzles when we do the hose. Seems like a good idea.

    Discourse is always lively here. That's why I like it.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  4. #29
    Forum Member
    L-Webb's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by penman View Post
    Ya but smoothbores were used years ago so they can't be as good as our modern nozzles. plus they are so cheap and simple and the big city uses them so they can't be good for our small dept.
    That's right... and whats more the 10 to 20 fires we have a year makes us right.

    Right?

  5. #30
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    598

    Default Hitting Power - Solid Bore compared to Combination

    You might want to look at the experimental work done by TFT concerning the force generated by Solid Streams compared with similar nozzle pressures and volumes(GPM's) for Automatic combination nozzles. It seems that "Physics is Physics" and the laws don't change. Reaction force (kickback) is almost identical to hitting power, so the slightly higher reaction force that everyone is trying to achieve by going to smooth bore nozzles at lower nozzle pressure actually reduces the hitting power of the stream. Same GPM's at the same nozzle pressure results in the same hitting power. Physics is Physics and you can't change the relationship no matter how badly you want to skew the results. Personally, and I'm too old to drag a line in the building, I'd rather have fog to kill the hidden fire if its not through the roof. By the way, how many working fires do you get where there are victims trapped that you don't know about when you arrive? I've fought fire with fog when we used long rubber coats and 3/4 length boots. Had my ears nipped and my face reddened. Shoulders and arms steamed inside a wet coat. No, its not pleasant, but now we have bunkers that are designed to cover the errors of your ways and the hoods to protect your ears and neck. So what the "H" is the big deal?

  6. #31
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KuhShise View Post
    I've fought fire with fog when we used long rubber coats and 3/4 length boots. Had my ears nipped and my face reddened. Shoulders and arms steamed inside a wet coat. No, its not pleasant, but now we have bunkers that are designed to cover the errors of your ways and the hoods to protect your ears and neck. So what the "H" is the big deal?
    You can still get steam burned with the new gear, so I'm not sure I agree with your premise.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  7. #32
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KuhShise View Post
    You might want to look at the experimental work done by TFT concerning the force generated by Solid Streams compared with similar nozzle pressures and volumes(GPM's) for Automatic combination nozzles. It seems that "Physics is Physics" and the laws don't change. Reaction force (kickback) is almost identical to hitting power, so the slightly higher reaction force that everyone is trying to achieve by going to smooth bore nozzles at lower nozzle pressure actually reduces the hitting power of the stream. Same GPM's at the same nozzle pressure results in the same hitting power. Physics is Physics and you can't change the relationship no matter how badly you want to skew the results.
    I'm not sure when we speak of knockdown power we're talking about the actual force of the water when it contacts the material. This is nice sometimes when dislodging layers and penetrating piles of ash and debris, but not so great when in tight quarters.

    The knockdown power we desire is the ability for the stream to deliver as much of the water that leaves the nozzle to the burning material we are attacking. The larger the droplets of water, the further they will carry, as affected by air currents and evaporation. This is why a straight stream does not equal a smoothbore, though I'd concede that very often in a most dwellings the difference likely will not be measurable.

    Quote Originally Posted by KuhShise View Post
    , and I'm too old to drag a line in the building, I'd rather have fog to kill the hidden fire if its not through the roof.
    So are you saying an exterior fog attack (indirect) is your preferred method? While the majority of time there may be no one inside unaccounted for, the small percentage of time requires that we do make every effort to ensure the safety of even those whom shouldn't be in there. This might include someone's daughters boyfriend or homeless squatters.

  8. #33
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    179

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by Itshotinhere View Post
    That's right... and whats more the 10 to 20 fires we have a year makes us right.

    Right?
    And don't you forget it!

  9. #34
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    598

    Default

    RFDACMO2: I did not say anything about an exterior indirect attack. In 40+ years of doing this, the only times I remember applying exterior streams were when we applied heavy caliber streams because the integrity of the structure was in question. I'm talking about agressive interior attack using fog as close as possible to the seat of the fire. If it got too hot, you opened up and cooled it back down. Ventilated and sucked your head and neck down into your turn-outs. Stopped squeezing so tight on the hose line so the backs of your gloves weren't conducting the heat onto the back of your hands. If necessary opened up on the combustion products and cooled the entire room or rooms. Steam does wonderful things to fire in concealed spaces like balloon frame stud channels and hidden spaces where it follows the natural draft paths just like the fire spread did before you applied the water. When you did open-up because it was too hot you could expect an A** chewing from the White Hat because you caused an excessive amount of water damage when you didn't need to. We used to do our damndest to keep the water to a minimum and save what belongings we could from water damage.
    Exterior indirect attacks are rather difficult, since access points that are open are usually right near the main body of fire, and all a fog attack from that point does is push the fire through the building to the uninvolved parts. Co-ordinated water application and ventilation are absolutely necessary when doing interior indirect application to a confined fire situation. When ventilation isn't possible, you know you are going to see some pretty serious temperature rises when the line is opened up. Ya gotta' know your limitations, have a Bull Dog attitude, and absolute confidence in your crews.

  10. #35
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,281

    Default

    KuhShise,

    Sorry, I adamantly disagree with your tactics which sound like the standard old bastardization of Lloyd Layman's method. If you ever read anything of his he makes it 100% clear that if you use the indorect fog attack that the firefighters must be outside the compartment and able to control the openings. He also makes it clear that victims must also be out of the area before an indirect attack is used.

    When I started in the fire service we were trained to crawl into the fire room, open the nozzle on a wide fog and fill the room with steam. Not only wasn't it successful in extinguishing the fire in most cases, it also most often steam burned the crew, particularly before we wore hoods and bunker pants. Your suggestion that today's turn outs will protect you from steam burns is only partially right. It is entirely possible to get steam burns with this new gear and if you want proof come and examine my ears. I had a student that simply didn't listen and filled the burn room with steam and while I got the students out before they got hurt the extra few seconds I was in there was enough to second degree burn bith of my ears, through my Kevlar hood, and my helmets ear flaps.

    If you want to use a fog stream for extinguishing room fires I stongly suggest you are outside of the room, coordinated ventilation is accomplished, and that you don't use too much water and cause the steam to push out of the room over the top of you.

    There are times where a fog pattern can be useful. Hydrayulic ventilation with a fog stream can get you rapid relief from heat, steam and smoke conditions. Fog can be used in short bursts to cool the overhead. Fog is useful in overhaul for wetting down furniture cushions, mattresses, clothing and more. Indirect attack is obviously a viable tactic for fog streams as long as crews are out of the fire room.

    My career and volly FD's teach the use of straight streams from fog nozzles or smoothbores for interior fire attack. Use of reach of the stream, from the doorway of the room, from down the hall, from across the room. There is no need to go right into the fire and get steam burned.

    I don't care if you use a 100, 75 or 50 psi combo nozzle or a smoothbore as long as the proper stream for the situation, is properly applied, in the proper amount, to extinguish the fire.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  11. #36
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KuhShise View Post
    I've fought fire with fog when we used long rubber coats and 3/4 length boots. Had my ears nipped and my face reddened. Shoulders and arms steamed inside a wet coat. No, its not pleasant, but now we have bunkers that are designed to cover the errors of your ways and the hoods to protect your ears and neck. So what the "H" is the big deal?
    That's because the fires we fight are different from the ones you fought. Highter btus, tighter construction, etc. mean that you cannot be in the same compartment when "some pretty serious temperature rises" and apply a fog stream. It is unacceptable to get steam burned in this manner and an improper tactic. I agree there are some great applications for the fog stream, but not while I'm in the same compartment as high heat.

  12. #37
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,281

    Default

    I went back and reread some of the comments here and thought I would like to add my own 11 cents (marked up due to inflation).

    I know the comments were tongue and cheek, about smoothbores being old fashioned and not doing as the big city guys do. But here is my serious real world take on that. Don't do ANYTHING just because some big city FD does, or your neighbors do, or some whiz bang guru of the new generation fire service says you should. You should do what you do in your FD after seriously looking at your situation, looking at your area construction, looking at your equipment, looking at your budget, and then studying, experimenting, and then trying out equipment and tactics under real fire conditions.

    Am I saying that you should ALWAYS stay outside? Nope. Am I saying youn should ALWAYS go interior? Nope. I am saying you should use all of your education, all of your experience, and the knowledge of what is common accepted tactics throughout the fire service, to make your decision.

    I like the term aggressive firefighter. I like going in to kill the devil on the loose. I also like the idea of going home tomorrow at the end of my shift and having all of my parts still attached and functioning when I retire. Judgement, based on skill, knowledge, experience, training, and instinct is what keeps us alive. Bad things will happen on occasion. Why? Because no one ever calls to say "Hey, come on over, nothing bad is happening right now."
    Last edited by FyredUp; 05-10-2010 at 04:20 PM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  13. #38
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    598

    Default

    FyredUp: (Quote)
    "I am saying you should use all of your education, all of your experience, and the knowledge of what is common accepted tactics throughout the fire service, to make your decision."

    Precisely my point. If you have been trained and are experienced in a particular method of attack, with a good crew, then go after it like you were taught. Don't let some person who has been taught a different method, with little or no experience using your departments successful tactics, tell you that you don't know what you are doing.

  14. #39
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KuhShise View Post
    RFDACMO2: I did not say anything about an exterior indirect attack. In 40+ years of doing this, the only times I remember applying exterior streams were when we applied heavy caliber streams because the integrity of the structure was in question.
    Sorry, I mistook your statement I quoted too literally. I've never disagreed that fog patterns don't work, only that they may not be the most effective tactics in many cases. But like your FD, mine has had most of it's success with fog nozzles, so making changes is slow and difficult as we want to ensure personnel are confident in equipment their given.

  15. #40
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kuhshise View Post
    rfdacmo2: I did not say anything about an exterior indirect attack. In 40+ years of doing this, the only times i remember applying exterior streams were when we applied heavy caliber streams because the integrity of the structure was in question. I'm talking about agressive interior attack using fog as close as possible to the seat of the fire. If it got too hot, you opened up and cooled it back down. Ventilated and sucked your head and neck down into your turn-outs. Stopped squeezing so tight on the hose line so the backs of your gloves weren't conducting the heat onto the back of your hands. If necessary opened up on the combustion products and cooled the entire room or rooms. Steam does wonderful things to fire in concealed spaces like balloon frame stud channels and hidden spaces where it follows the natural draft paths just like the fire spread did before you applied the water. When you did open-up because it was too hot you could expect an a** chewing from the white hat because you caused an excessive amount of water damage when you didn't need to. We used to do our damndest to keep the water to a minimum and save what belongings we could from water damage.
    Exterior indirect attacks are rather difficult, since access points that are open are usually right near the main body of fire, and all a fog attack from that point does is push the fire through the building to the uninvolved parts. Co-ordinated water application and ventilation are absolutely necessary when doing interior indirect application to a confined fire situation. When ventilation isn't possible, you know you are going to see some pretty serious temperature rises when the line is opened up. Ya gotta' know your limitations, have a bull dog attitude, and absolute confidence in your crews.
    and.........open the damn building up!

  16. #41
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    That's because the fires we fight are different from the ones you fought. Highter btus, tighter construction, etc. mean that you cannot be in the same compartment when "some pretty serious temperature rises" and apply a fog stream. It is unacceptable to get steam burned in this manner and an improper tactic. I agree there are some great applications for the fog stream, but not while I'm in the same compartment as high heat.
    Hmmmn,EVER hear of a thing called a VENT? OPEN the room to the outside and push the fire out.WHICH you CAN do with a fog.OR you can go in and roll around with a straight stream.OR pencil if you wanna study fire behavior.WE'VE(for the most part)LOST the art of AGGRESSIVE venting. Got bigger lines,better nozzles,and better gear.So WHY do the Btu's matter? BECAUSE we ARE NOT giving the Btu's a WAY OUT. And YES you CAN use a fog stream in a "compartment" as long as you make a NICE HOLE for it to go out. Done it MANY times. T.C.
    Last edited by Rescue101; 05-11-2010 at 10:55 AM.

  17. #42
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Would you use that same stream if it wasnt vented?

  18. #43
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Would you use that same stream if it wasnt vented?
    Lessee,40+ years on the Job says I don't do a pile of Interior anymore.DOING it for half my career in 3/4's and rubber would probably say NO, I wouldn't fog a closed compartment unless I could shut the door quick. WHY would you NOT vent a WORKING FIRE? For SO many reasons. Much easier to put a piece of plywood over a hole than bake a crew. Plus visibility goes UP,TEMPS come DOWN,So many reasons to OPEN UP. Why wouldn't you take advantage of ALL of them? T.C.

  19. #44
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    Would you use that same stream if it wasnt vented?
    Well, that depends.

    1) If you are doing a true indirect attack then yes. From outside the room inject the fog stream into the overhead in the fire room to get steam being produced. CLOSE THE DOOR. This allows the steam to work to cool, and even more dramtically, to smother the fire.

    2) If I was in the fire room, and it was not vented, the answer is an emphatic NO! I have seen guys use a fog in an unvented room and have the steam forcefully push the by products of fire, as well as steam, down on the crew or even out the door onto the crew in the hall.

    To me the answer is clear. Other than short pulses into the overhead for cooling a fog should NOT be used in an unvented room with victims OR firefighters in the room.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  20. #45
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    NO, I wouldn't fog a closed compartment unless I could shut the door quick.
    Not sure how that's any different than what I said.

  21. #46
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spencer534 View Post
    That's because the fires we fight are different from the ones you fought. Highter btus, tighter construction, etc. mean that you cannot be in the same compartment when "some pretty serious temperature rises" and apply a fog stream. It is unacceptable to get steam burned in this manner and an improper tactic. I agree there are some great applications for the fog stream, but not while I'm in the same compartment as high heat.
    There's your QUOTE."NOT WHILE I'M IN THE COMPARTMENT". My SUGGESTION was: IF you VENT properly,it doesn't make a schit WHICH stream you use. If you Don't........Well,different story. THAT is the difference. To date,I've been able to "UNTIGHT" every type of construction besides solid concrete(Rare in this area)More prevalent in YOUR area. But I agree with Kuhshise,there are many ways to accomplish the same mission. And SOME of us have done SIGNIFICANT fires in thinner PPE than is worn today. AND,gasp,PUT THEM OUT. WITHOUT INJURY. Just another thought for the "Can't do it crowd". Yup,It's BEEN done. T.C.

  22. #47
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    West Point, VA
    Posts
    435

    Default

    No my quote was "not while I'm in the same compartment as high heat". This would probably be due to not enough ventilation.

    I'm not trying to argue against ventilation. That wasnt what the discussion was about. It turned into using a fog pattern in a compartment with high heat and accepting that you are going to get steam burned as just the way it is.

    Proper venting would solve this problem and I agree with you 100%. It's just that we were talking about something different.

    By the way, I have the utmost respect for you guys who have been around the block and I'm not trying to take anything away from that. I just hope people realize that fires are different now.

    Gotta be honest though: venting or no venting - I'm using a straight steam to knock down the fire if I'm in the same compartment.

  23. #48
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    179

    Default

    "I just hope people realize that fires are different now."
    Unfortunately many people, officers and chiefs included, don't realize that.

  24. #49
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,281

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101 View Post
    There's your QUOTE."NOT WHILE I'M IN THE COMPARTMENT". My SUGGESTION was: IF you VENT properly,it doesn't make a schit WHICH stream you use. If you Don't........Well,different story. THAT is the difference. To date,I've been able to "UNTIGHT" every type of construction besides solid concrete(Rare in this area)More prevalent in YOUR area. But I agree with Kuhshise,there are many ways to accomplish the same mission. And SOME of us have done SIGNIFICANT fires in thinner PPE than is worn today. AND,gasp,PUT THEM OUT. WITHOUT INJURY. Just another thought for the "Can't do it crowd". Yup,It's BEEN done. T.C.
    Yep, we sure did put fires out with thinner PPE than is worn today. Guys also suffered more steam burns, more compression burns from the SCBA straps, or from turning their body and the gear getting tight.

    I have been around 33 years and my first turnout coat was RUBBER, my first boots 3/4's, my first helmet an MSA melt away, and first gloves a pair of insulated work gloves. Did we put out fire dressed like that? Hell yes we did. Would I go back to that PPE or those tactics? Not a friggin chance.

    The simple fact is this, truck work is the first eliminated in budget cuts in smaller departments. Is it right? Not by any means, but it is true. One or two man trucks simply don't cut it when it comes to laddering, searching, venting, salvage, and overhaul. Ventilation has become in many places an afterthought. I am NOT defending that in the least. Just stating facts.

    I have long wondered why we teach guys to crawl into the fire room when a hose stream has a reach exceeding 50 feet or more. Stay at the doorway and knockdown the main body of fire. Advance to complete extinguishment. If you were lucky enough to have had venting completed it makes the job so much easier.

    The we used to do it this way and it worked argument is really not a valid one. Heck the fire service used to use hand and steam pumpers and they put fires out with those. Just because we used to do something doesn't make it right for today.

    I consider myself an aggressive interior firefighter. But that does not mean I feel the need to crawl on top of the fire to prove it or put out the fire.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  25. #50
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Spence,We're really NOT that far off. And I agree with the majority of your points. The ONLY SB's we have here are on the Dueces and two(2) Half and half Akrons on the Quint. My MAJOR bitch is youngsters telling me "You CAN'T"; When,IN FACT,I know otherwise.

    Fyred,I'd go back to my old gear style(with my LAST long coat,NOT rubber) in a heartbeat(with different gloves and my present helmet)PROVIDED: That I had the people with the skill sets we had then AND the quantity of people. Not a big fan of the new gear and NEVER will be. Yes,I know it's necessary and we will keep wearing it,myself included.In terms of how we do things today,yeah I have the same questions.

    Penman,I keep hearing about how fires are different today. As a pretty well read Chief,it isn't the plastics and synthetics that bother me,it's the unknown schit I can't see:like the labs,propane tanks IN the house and othe stupid stuff people do. We STILL aggressively ventilate(INCLUDING verticle when neccessary)and that plastic laden room goes out just like the old Farmhouses did. Of course we're packing Class A laden Hi flo-nozzles on 1.75 or bigger lines. Fire STILL goes verticle or looks for the nearest OUT so the BASIC rules of battle haven't changed all that much. WHAT IS A WORRY is all this LIGHTWEIGHT, FF killing junk they "Build" a house out of. DISPOSABLE and here,they are treated that way.Being a "small" community we are able to see what and where these are built which is an advantage in the event of a fire. In a few years it will be somebody elses headache anyway,what I set out to do here is nearly finished.It's time for the next Generation of "experts"to come in and show us all the stuff we did wrong. T.C.

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 2 First 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. World Of Fire Report: 10-15-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-18-2005, 08:43 AM
  2. World Of Fire Report: 09-24-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-30-2005, 08:29 AM
  3. World Of Fire Report: 07-17-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-19-2005, 12:30 AM
  4. World Of Fire Report: 06-28-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-03-2005, 02:08 PM
  5. World Of Fire Report: 01-10-04
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-13-2004, 12:12 AM

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