1. #26
    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 BlitzfireSolo View Post
    We're now using 100' of 2" (Ponn Conquest) to finish out our 2 1/2" line, which is 500' in a static bed (600' total). Nozzle is an Elkhart 1 1/8" tip over a 1 1/4" tip, and we also carry a 1" tip in case this line is used as a long residential line.

    We also upgraded all of our crosslays to break-apart shutoffs with built-in 1 1/8" slug tips, finished with either 15/16ths SBs or Elkhart Chief 150@50 tips. With a gradual upgrade to Conquest 1 3/4", we don't anticipate any problems getting 250gpm on our 200' and 300' pre-connects.
    I understand what you are doing, but to simplify things why not just go to 2 inch in your crosslays? You could go to a 1 1/4 slug and make EVERY line capable of a heavy hit.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 04-03-2011 at 08:03 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

  2. #27
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    My way is still better than yours

  3. #28
    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 MG3610 View Post
    My way is still better than yours
    In the world of conventionalism, I suppose your way is better.
    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

  4. #29
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    537

    Default

    Yea i am not a fan of the tft's either but that is what the city put on the rigs.

    This thread has got me thinking though.

    I wondder what kind of "big" flows we can get out of our new ponn 1 3/4 hose.

    I might just have to break out the flow meter and a 1 1/4 tip for the smooth bore

  5. #30
    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 MG3610 View Post
    2" Hose

    Conquest 50'

    Weight: 22LB Coupled
    FL@ 150 GPM 13/100' 1 3/4" is 19
    FL@ 200 GPM 21/100' 1 3/4" is 32
    FL@ 250 GPM 28/100' 1 3/4" is 47

    Standard Rubber Lined 2" (I Chose Snap Tite TPX)

    Weight: 22LB Coupled
    FL (Value of standard rubber lined hose)
    FL@ 150 GPM 18/100'
    FL@ 200 GPM 30/100'
    FL@ 250 GPM 50/100'

    I know there are other manufacturers of "miracle hose" out there as well.
    I will need to go look at our attack engine to see what the EP is for our preconnects. When we flow tested them to mark the gauges we used the discharge they would be attached to so our discharge pressure would be accurate for each discharge taking into account possible differences in piping.
    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

  6. #31
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    I will need to go look at our attack engine to see what the EP is for our preconnects. When we flow tested them to mark the gauges we used the discharge they would be attached to so our discharge pressure would be accurate for each discharge taking into account possible differences in piping.
    2" piping too?

  7. #32
    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 MG3610 View Post
    2" piping too?
    We don't spec piping size we spec performance. Specifications for our 2 inch pre-connects called for a minimum flow of 300 gpm at no more than 20 psi internal friction loss. Specifications for our rear 2 1/2 inch discharges called for a minimum of 600 gpm at no more than 20 psi internal friction loss.

    Specifying pipe size and not performance takes the monkey off the manufacturer's back because no matter what the final flow and friction loss are they can sat they met the spec. Specifying flow requirements makes the manufacturer do the engineering to ensure they meet that requirement and not just simply throw in pipe, with 37 elbows in it.
    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

  8. #33
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Penny Lane
    Posts
    390

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    I understand what you are doing, but to simplify things why not just go to 2 inch in your crosslays? You could go to a 1 1/4 slug and make EVERY line capable of a heavy hit.
    I thought about it, and I wasn't opposed to the idea. For the most part, though, that's actually what we're doing, given the actual working diameter of the Conquest 1 3/4" - it's more that we chose for 250gpm to be our "heavy hit" offensive flow. The 1 1/4" tip was included on the 2" line mostly for defensive use; we found that advancing at 325gpm with two firefighters was extremely difficult. I understand what you guys do with under-pumping the 1 1/4" for 300gpm and using a "pin and hit" type technique - we just happened to settle on 250gpm for most high-flow offensive work, yet the 1 1/4" is still an option on the 2".

    Essentially, we're operating pretty similarly, with a few differences in the details: Our 1 3/4" 200' and 300' crosslays are our equivalent to your 2" crosslays, just with a preference for 250gpm top flow instead of your 300gpm, and our "long line" is basically your "apartment line" except we didn't want a wye (less bulk while stretching, and no risk of it getting kicked or bumped closed) and we chose for the base hose to be 2 1/2" instead of 3" (a bit lighter for minimal staffing).

    One thing is for sure: I really can't see justification for flowing 250gpm offensively with anything larger than 2", with the exception of highrises.

  9. #34
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,281

    Default

    Okay I went and checked the pump discharge pressures on our attack engine.

    For our 200'-2 inch front bumper crosslays the pressures are:

    160 gpm: 75 psi PDP
    200 gpm: 125 psi PDP
    300 gpm: 150 psi PDP


    For our 300'-2 inch over the pump crosslays the pressures are:

    160 gpm: 95 psi PDP
    200 gpm: 145 psi PDP
    300 gpm: 190 psi PDP

    Keep in mind these are PUMP DISCHARGE PRESSURES, not simply friction loss figures.
    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

  10. #35
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    598

    Default

    FyredUp: The numbers pretty much agree with the flow tests and your PDP numbers except for the 300 gpm on the 300’ cross lay. I made the following assumptions….
    160 & 200 gpm were using a 15/16” slug tip and the 300 gpm was done with a 1 ¼” slug.
    15/16” tip at 160 gpm needs a NP of 37 psi.
    15/16” tip at 200 gpm needs a NP of 57.5 psi.
    1 ¼” tip at 300 gpm needs a NP of 41 psi.
    Bumper Line:
    160 GPM Np =37psi Hose Loss = 29psi Piping loss = 9 psi
    200 GPM Np = 57psi Hose Loss = 42psi Piping Loss = 14psi
    300 GPM Np = 41psi Hose Loss = 80psi Piping Loss = 31psi
    Piping losses calculate to an equivalent of 28 feet of 2” iron pipe.
    Cross Lays:
    160 GPM Np = 37psi Hose Loss = 44psi Piping Loss = 14psi
    200 GPM Np = 57psi Hose Loss = 63psi Piping Loss = 25psi
    300 GPM Np = 41psi Hose Loss = 135psi Piping Loss = 14psi *
    (*) – Suspect Reading - Based upon the previous two flows, this loss should be around 50 psi. Perhaps these flows were performed on different cross lays with different piping and elbows. Equivalent 2” pipe length for the first two is 50 feet. Equivalent length for last reading is only 12 feet of 2” pipe or 38 feet of 2 ½” pipe. (about 2 elbows and the swivel)
    To verify the final (300 gpm) use a pitot gauge on the 1 ¼” slug tip. Raise the PDP until you get 41psi on the pitot. This should be the required PDP for the 300 gpm setting. The darn piping makes a big difference when you are pushing flows that the plumbing wasn’t designed to do.

  11. #36
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,281

    Default

    KuhShise,

    The flow tests were performed using a calibrated flow meter. The nozzle used for the 160 and 200 gpm flows were the Elkhart Chief Model 4000-24 low pressure combination nozzle tip attached to an Elkhart B375GAT pistol grip shut off with a built in 1 1/4 inch slug. The water way through the ball shut off is 1 3/8 inch.

    To be honest we weren't too worried about the nozzle pressure just meeting a specific flow through the desired length of preconnect. The front bumper crosslay was tested by pulling one of the lines and flowing it. The over the pump crosslay beds were tested the same way, one line was pulled and flowed.

    I am going to have to borrow a flow meter again to test our second pumper so perhaps I will retest the attack pumper and this time attach a pressure gauge behind the nozzle to get abetter idea of nozzle pressure.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 04-05-2011 at 01:48 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

  12. #37
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Pa Wilds
    Posts
    598

    Default

    FyredUp: Through the years, I've been burned a couple of times using flow meters. A pitot and a properly tapered playpipe and nozzle with a calibrated gauge pitot is an exact way to confirm that the flow meter is properly calibrated. This is the reason that UL runs their annual calibration tests on apparatus flow meters. Also since the present day hose lines expand with internal pressure, they also change friction loss as the diameter changes. I only mentioned the possible problem with the 300 gpm flow on the cross lay because the piping losses seemed to be a little out of whack. We too are fighting operating pressure differences, but are using TFT's so as long as the Wide Open flow is reached, other application rates are controlled by the nozzleman. A gauge behind the nozzle (opening at right angle to flow) can be influenced by the venturi effect and turbulence in the line. Put a wye behind the nozzle and attach a gauge to the other outlet. This way the velocity head developed in the hose line can be "mostly" measured.
    Last edited by KuhShise; 04-05-2011 at 02:25 PM. Reason: Added gauge note

  13. #38
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    We don't spec piping size we spec performance. Specifications for our 2 inch pre-connects called for a minimum flow of 300 gpm at no more than 20 psi internal friction loss. Specifications for our rear 2 1/2 inch discharges called for a minimum of 600 gpm at no more than 20 psi internal friction loss.

    Specifying pipe size and not performance takes the monkey off the manufacturer's back because no matter what the final flow and friction loss are they can sat they met the spec. Specifying flow requirements makes the manufacturer do the engineering to ensure they meet that requirement and not just simply throw in pipe, with 37 elbows in it.
    It was a joke!

  14. #39
    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 MG3610 View Post
    It was a joke!
    Um, DOH! I guess you got me.
    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

  15. #40
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    N.W. Iowa
    Posts
    196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFD21C View Post
    Interesting thoughts in this thread

    Whats the weight per 50' section of 2'' versus 1 3/4'' versus 2 1/2''? Yes I could do the math and figure it out and i plan on it, but to lazy to do it right now. I'm on a v day so cut me some slack.

    Is the 2 inch hose that you all use now a true 2 inch hose or is it one of the "low friction loss" 2 inch. The reason why i ask is we just switched to ponn conquest 1 3/4 which if i recall correctly is 1.96 or something close to that when charged. So it is basically only .04 inches less then a true 2 inch hose close enough for government work.

    We have found through flow testing with a flow meter that our 150' preconnect with a tft dual force nozzle in the red setting flowing 150 gpm the pdp is only 90 psi. Very impressed so far with the results. Reaction force is pretty much non existant.

    Do anyone know how much of a difference the ponn is compared to 2" hose in terms of friction loss?
    There is a great article in the Feb. issue of Fire Rescue call Let The Pump do The Work. It compares 1 3/4, 2, 3, and 5 inch lines. It has all the numbers as far as weight of hose, gal. of water per ft of hose line etc.

  16. #41
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    I used 2" attack lines on two the departments early in my career back in the mid to late 80's, and I have mixed feelings on it. One used it for all of thier attack lines, and the second used it as a reel line for selected situations where a little more flow was required beyond the standard 1 3/4". On that department, it was discontinued shorly after I arrived and we switched over to all 1 3/4".

    While it does provide excellent flows, especially for commercial fires, I found it to be heavy and difficult to move around in a small residental space, such as a trailer or less than 100-1200 sf home with a heavy fire load.

    Certainly it is a very good choice for departments where that 3rd man on the hoseline is almost always available, but if you are consistantly operating with 2, I found it to be less than ideal for interior operations.

    From what I understand, my previous department (which was the one that got rid of the 2" shortly after I arrived) has switched to 2" as the primary attack line.
    Train to fight the fires you fight.

  17. #42
    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 LaFireEducator View Post
    I used 2" attack lines on two the departments early in my career back in the mid to late 80's, and I have mixed feelings on it. One used it for all of thier attack lines, and the second used it as a reel line for selected situations where a little more flow was required beyond the standard 1 3/4". On that department, it was discontinued shorly after I arrived and we switched over to all 1 3/4".

    While it does provide excellent flows, especially for commercial fires, I found it to be heavy and difficult to move around in a small residental space, such as a trailer or less than 100-1200 sf home with a heavy fire load.

    Certainly it is a very good choice for departments where that 3rd man on the hoseline is almost always available, but if you are consistantly operating with 2, I found it to be less than ideal for interior operations.

    From what I understand, my previous department (which was the one that got rid of the 2" shortly after I arrived) has switched to 2" as the primary attack line.
    I have to disagree with you on the weight and ease of movement. We are an only 2 inch for handlines FD and while having 3 on the line is nice we practice moving the line with 2 FFs. I can tell you on more than a few occasions I have been involved in moving the 2 inch line into a home with only one other firefighter on the line and had no difficulties doing it.

    For the circumstances that we bought it for it works perfectly for us and I don't figure that we will be changing anytime soon.
    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

  18. #43
    Forum Member
    CVFD9LT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    99

    Default

    My dept has been using 2in handlines since before i became a member 10 years ago....I honestly cant see doing it any other way...ive used 1.5" and 1.75" in training and so forth but actually hated it and couldnt wait to get back to the 2in we have no problem with advancing the line with 2 guys through even the worst cluttered residential structures or commercial structures. We've also changed from dry line to wet line advancement when we changed over to the nitrile rubber hose with smoothbore pistol grip nozzles

  19. #44
    Forum Member
    Bootstraps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Miami, Manitoba
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Might be a bad time to bring up Paul Grimwood but we have been decreasing line size and increasing training.

    Still using 2 inch and 2 1/2 but just another tool in the tool box.

    What is encouraging is that individual departments are taking the time to experiment with what they use and what they encounter.
    Last edited by Bootstraps; 05-06-2011 at 02:16 AM.

  20. #45
    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 Bootstraps View Post
    Might be a bad time to bring up Paul Grimwood but we have been decreasing line size and increasing training.

    Still using 2 inch and 2 1/2 but just another tool in the tool box.

    What is encouraging is that individual departments are taking the time to experiment with what they use and what they encounter.
    Okay, I'll ask.

    1) What is the relevance of the Paul Grimwood comment?

    2) Please explain what you mean by decreasing the line size and increasing training? Fire of a specific size takes a specific flow to cool and effect extinguishment. So unless you are meeting the needed flow all the training in the world won't help.
    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

  21. #46
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Hey Fyredup,

    I think I can maybe shed some light on that for ya. In Canada the "standard" methods of "attacking" a fire are somewhat "different" than in the States. UNFORTUNATELY, MOST Canadian FD's bought into the whole "little drops of water" concept decades ago...we generally canned all the straight bores, and pretty much uniformly opted for 1 1/2" attack lines.

    This is essentially Paul's Fog Attack and 3D attack type stuff. AS I view it, it works well in EUROPEAN structures, which are generally much heavier built, AND it can work well in the LARGE Canadian CITIES, where they have Full time FD's and can respond and be on scene with sufficient manpower to mount effective interior attacks on contents or single room fires.

    REALITY is in Canada, almost 95% of all FD's are Volunteer or Paid on Call.....many have HUGE coverage areas and are chronically short of volunteers..SO, are often responding to and arriving LONG past the point were it becomes a full involved structure fire, NOT just a room or contents fire, YET many still grab their little 1 1/2" lines with their little automatic fog nozzle and off they go...

    SO, in MOST cases this "thinking" is a falicy. Firstly, I can almost gaurentee that these FD's "BELIEVE" they are flowing LOTS OF WATER...cause the lines are hard to control and Nozzle reaction is high...so it must be flowing lots right?...lol...

    There ARE more and more Fire Chiefs and senior Officers that are seeing what is wrong...there are movements in effect to return to the tried and tested straight bore nozzles and 2" lines, myself included....

    All the Canadian Provinces have seperate levels of training established, some to FF1 and 2 levels, some to higher Provincial standards, regardless, the "fire Marshal's and Fire Colleges have been teaching this outdated Fog and 1 1/2 crap for sooo long, that is almost ingrained now...and is TOTALLY ineffective in tha vast majority of situations....

    I'm actually glad that you and others posted up on this thread what YOU all are using....let me do some investigating and looking up nozzles and hoses etc......so THANK you all for YOUR input...it is appreciated.

    Last edited by Northern Lights FF; 05-06-2011 at 06:01 PM.

  22. #47
    MembersZone Subscriber
    CKirk922's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Watching From The Sideline Now
    Posts
    260

    Default

    I'm guessing he is refering to Grimwood's push toward 3D firefighting which favors the European style of construction and fire loading.

    It revolves around smaller compartments, more natural or fire resistant materials, and smaller required GPMs applied in controlled fog and pencil streams.

    It works. Really, it works...under the right conditions.

    The opposite end of the spectrum is Ray MacCormack tactics which call for a big hit to get a big knockdown...Lots and lots of water applied in straight streams...

    It works. Really, it works...under the right conditions.

    I agree with the idea of bringing a big gun and using only as much ammo as needed. Once you are in there, if you drag a small line, you do not have the option to flow more if needed. Just sayin....

    As far as training, Grimwood pushes (rightly so) lots of compartment fire training to first understand fire behaviour, and second, recognize violent fire behaviour. The point behind the recognition is that knowing when to go is as important as knowing how to put it out.

    Understand that Grimwood himself has stated that one technique does not solve all fire conditions. The construction and fire loading may dictate what you will choose to do.

    I've got Grimwood's 3D Firefighting book. That and his articles on his website are where I got this info. I neither endorse nor nay say these theories. I just add them to the tool Box.

    Having said that, If I'm told I have one tool for most fires, I choose a medium size hitter (2" or oversize 1 3/4"). Just sayin.
    A coward stands by and watches wrongs committed without saying a word...Any opinions expressed are purely my own and not necessarily reflective of the views of my former departments

  23. #48
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    virginia
    Posts
    537

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fireeaterbob View Post
    I'm guessing he is refering to Grimwood's push toward 3D firefighting which favors the European style of construction and fire loading.

    It revolves around smaller compartments, more natural or fire resistant materials, and smaller required GPMs applied in controlled fog and pencil streams.

    It works. Really, it works...under the right conditions.

    The opposite end of the spectrum is Ray MacCormack tactics which call for a big hit to get a big knockdown...Lots and lots of water applied in straight streams...

    It works. Really, it works...under the right conditions.

    I agree with the idea of bringing a big gun and using only as much ammo as needed. Once you are in there, if you drag a small line, you do not have the option to flow more if needed. Just sayin....

    As far as training, Grimwood pushes (rightly so) lots of compartment fire training to first understand fire behaviour, and second, recognize violent fire behaviour. The point behind the recognition is that knowing when to go is as important as knowing how to put it out.

    Understand that Grimwood himself has stated that one technique does not solve all fire conditions. The construction and fire loading may dictate what you will choose to do.

    I've got Grimwood's 3D Firefighting book. That and his articles on his website are where I got this info. I neither endorse nor nay say these theories. I just add them to the tool Box.

    Having said that, If I'm told I have one tool for most fires, I choose a medium size hitter (2" or oversize 1 3/4"). Just sayin.
    First off let me say that I am of the Ray MacComack school of thought in regards to fire attack.

    With that being said I have read Paul Grimwood's book 3D firefighter as well as the air track management book that is along the same school of thought. Whilie i struggled to choke through the fire attack portions of the book. I did learn alot of good information on fire behavior and other related stuff. I recommend that people read it with an open mind and take what you can from it as it relates to your department's tactics and building construction.

  24. #49
    Forum Member
    Bootstraps's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Miami, Manitoba
    Posts
    19

    Default

    First off, I should not have mentioned Paul. In retrospect I do realize the controversy that that raises in the forums. My apologies.

    Oh and My Name is Bootstraps and I like to go to FIRES!

    I dont post here alot but I spend alot of time here. I am Canadian as-well.

    What made me post here was Fyredup's thread on how their department did alot of looking at flows and what that meant to them.

    I see too many departments, FT, POC and Vollie that do training in the same old way that they have done for the past 30 years without looking outside the box. That's why 6-7 years ago I got interested in what Paul was doing and promoting.

    The area that our department covers is a mix of concentrated urban, rural residential and rural industry. Three very distinct areas that have 3 very distinct response needs from our department. We can be on scene in 3 minutes, with a 900 square foot house to a 70,000 square foot warehouse/manufacturing floor in 15 minutes.

    As has been pointed out we do things abit different up in the Great White North, but we still carry 1 3/4, 2 and 2 1/2, fog, combination and smooth. Tools in a tool box.

    My comment of increased training and decreased size was directed at our approach to training on quick response, low square footage fires. This is where the 3-D method shines in my opinion.

    Again, I find it awesome that small and large size departments are experimenting through training to best meet what they are being face with.

  25. #50
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,281

    Default

    We did do a lot of testing, experimenting, and actual in service use testing, before we came to our decision of 2 inch hose, 200 gpm at 75 psi combo nozzle and the 1 1/4 inch slug. We know our area, our daytime staffing, and the reality that in our case the first line 9 times out of 10 make or break us in battling the fire. Because in the first few critical minutes we may not have adequte personnel to pull that second line.

    To me I couldn't care less what method of fire attack you use, 3-D, indirect, direct, combination of any of those, the simple fact that cannot be refuted is the application of water must be greater than the heat produced or you will fail at extinguishing the fire. Of course this can be accomplished one of 2 ways: 1) Overwhelm the fire with flow from nozzles, 2) Apply inadequate amounts of water, never extinguishing the fire until it burns down to the rate of flow you are applying. Both work. The first is generally far more satisfying to both the firefighters and the property owner.

    One of the FDNY guys said to several people on this forum a while back "Don't do what we do simply because we do it. What we do may not work where you are." That is the truth, no matter who you emulate, differing construction, differing staffing, differing equipment, and more all play into tactics and strategy. Evaluate YOUR area and all of the above and come to the right solution for you.
    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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. 3 INCH vs 5 INCH Hose for supply
    By BURNSEMS in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 01-31-2010, 09:24 PM
  2. ISO Company Personnel
    By FIRE549 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 05-16-2007, 07:15 PM
  3. Hydrant outlet Q
    By Firetacoma1 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: 06-16-2006, 06:46 PM
  4. 5 Inch Hose
    By Almavillefire15 in forum Volunteer Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-20-2006, 02:53 AM
  5. Hey Woody, Down Low or Low Down?????? Fairly New Part II
    By AVFR452 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 466
    Last Post: 03-10-2002, 09:22 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